What if 30 years ago Rush had collaborated with Paul Rogers?
They are still the greatest musical trio ever. You may find a better drummer than Peart, a better guitarist than Lifeson, but none play better together.

Geddy's vocals, while creating a unique niche, held them back from being a superband.
Rush 2011

Imagine a real vocalist with that instrumental talent.

Rush was my favorite band back in the day. I still remember hearing 2112 in someone's basement. I became a bass player and still play Geddy Lee lines, just yesterday in fact.

I can't imagine a different vocalist.

Geddy's voice probably held them back from being a little more "mainstream", but it was also his voice that made that band. I doubt you'll find a better percussionist than Peart, and Geddy is/was a premier Bassist. Lifeson was serviceable as guitarists go, there are plenty worse, and better.

As noted they play well together though, and I really can't imagine 3 guys putting together a more well rounded sound.

I've seen them 11 times total, including twice in Pensacola, and even worked sound(apprentice) at the Seattle Coliseum in June of 1981 (2 day show, packed house both days) for the Moving Pictures Tour.

Damn, that was a LONG time ago!!

I never cared for Rush very largely because of their vocalist. Paul Rodgers, on the other hand, is one of my favorite vocalists of any era of rock music. I think smithnsig could be on to something.

The vocals are painful to listen to live. He is often out of tune and pitchy. He would be booed off any karaoke stage. I get the uniqueness, but come on, they would have been big time had he not been the singer.

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
The vocals are painful to listen to live. He is often out of tune and pitchy. He would be booed off any karaoke stage. I get the uniqueness, but come on, they would have been big time had he not been the singer.

I get the uniqueness, but come on, they would have been big time had he not been the singer.

Yeah, they were/are bush league.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_%28band%29


According to the RIAA, Rush ranks 80th with sales of 25 million units in the U.S.[2] Although total worldwide album sales are not calculated by any single entity, several industry sources estimated Rush's total worldwide album sales at over 40 million units as of 2004. The group has been awarded 24 gold, 14 platinum, and 3 multi-platinum albums.[3]

It's fair to say they could have been more successful with a different lead singer, could have done worse too...

What a strange question - they would have gone nowhere ... they wouldn't have been the success that they are. While their appeal is narrow, it's super loyal. It's also nearly all guys - most chicks can't stand it.

I never got to hear Geddy live before he lost his voice, and it's so bad now that it's not worth it. But it remains a mainstay in my music repertoire.

I enjoy a lot of varied music from Classical, to Jazz (late 50's- to early 70s) to EDM and classic rock to Punk, New wave and even Pop.

But RUSH holds a special place.

His voice is/was unique, but also agree that it held them back. I'd love to like them better than I do, but the vocals are a negative.

The Holy Triumvirate is just fine as-is. They are a wildly successful band for being so roundly disparaged.

Might as well switch out Alex Lifeson, since there's so many people that think he's a mediocre guitarist. I can't imagine a single Rush song that would be improved by a different vocalist.

2112 without Geddy?? Please...

I don't disparage the group. The vocals do hold them back. Listen to "The Trees". Could be such an iconic song, but as it it is recorded the vocals are often obscured into the music.

I'm not saying you personally disparage them, I mean societal disparagement.

When I listen to "The Trees," I don't hear what you hear. I'm a MASSIVE rush fan, and part of what I love is Geddy's high-pitch. You can't have Rush without it.

quote:

Originally posted by Floyd D. Barber:

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
The vocals are painful to listen to live. He is often out of tune and pitchy. He would be booed off any karaoke stage. I get the uniqueness, but come on, they would have been big time had he not been the singer.

I get the uniqueness, but come on, they would have been big time had he not been the singer.

Yeah, they were/are bush league.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_%28band%29


According to the RIAA, Rush ranks 80th with sales of 25 million units in the U.S.[2] Although total worldwide album sales are not calculated by any single entity, several industry sources estimated Rush's total worldwide album sales at over 40 million units as of 2004. The group has been awarded 24 gold, 14 platinum, and 3 multi-platinum albums.[3]

I mean superband status. They are a cool talented band with a cult following. 80th? They could have been top ten. They have been doing this for what 40 years?

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:
It's also nearly all guys - most chicks can't stand it.

Not so with Canadian chicks. They're very loyal up there. Maybe because that's all they have. Well, them and Brian Adams and Loverboy.

Yeh, they might have been TOTO ... A supergroup. lmao

Seems like they did just fine… Most music artist would kill for the lifestyle they have now (personal tragedies aside).

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
What if 30 years ago Rush had collaborated with Paul Rogers?
They are still the greatest musical trio ever. You may find a better drummer than Peart, a better guitarist than Lifeson, but none play better together.

Geddy's vocals, while creating a unique niche, held them back from being a superband.
Rush 2011

Imagine a real vocalist with that instrumental talent.

"greatest musical trio ever"... Um, I think Cream could give them a run for their money. And The Jimi Hendrix Experience, and Traffic from the John Barleycorn era, and...

Rush is my favorite band, by a long shot. That being said, I do wonder how they would have sounded with a different vocalist. Speaking in terms of albums past, I don't think Geddy was a bad singer, I just think the quality of his voice, the actual sound, appeals to very very few people. As much as I love their music, to me it rarely if ever reached emotional places it could have with the right voice out front. Geddy could hit every note perfectly, do everything "right," but I still think he would always have been limited by the "hardware" he was given. He simply lakes an emotive sound.

As far as how he sounds in concert now, yeah, it's pretty bad. I only saw them live a couple of times, years ago, and I though he was fine those times, at least relative to other rock bands. Youtube has plenty examples of high-profile rock bands who's vocals sound as bad or worse than Geddy did/does. Plenty of rock vocalists struggle live, even when all they have to do is sing. Geddy spent decades singing all the while playing the most complex bass parts in rock, playing keyboards, AND playing pedals with his feet at the same time. On all but their most recent live albums Geddy's vocals were decently close to the studio versions.

All that being said, if they'd of added a vocalist, I think the odds go way up the band might have broken up/undergone lineup changes years ago just due to the increased odds of conflict in the group. From what I can tell, Geddy has always been the glue that held the band together, that brought the musical elements together molded them into complete songs, and he probably also did most of the work in terms of managing the band and keeping them generally happy and on the same page. So, all in all, I think it was for the best they didn't add a vocalist. There might have been some even better songs, but not nearly as many great songs over the decades, I suspect.

As far as "greatest trio," it's certainly a matter of personal preference as far as whose music appeals to you, but as far as longevity, body of work, and still attracting fans, I don't think anyone else comes close.

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:
I don't disparage the group. The vocals do hold them back. Listen to "The Trees". Could be such an iconic song, but as it it is recorded the vocals are often obscured into the music.

I heard the trees from a band with a female vocalist. She nailed it. It was fantastic.

quote:

Originally posted by amals:

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
What if 30 years ago Rush had collaborated with Paul Rogers?
They are still the greatest musical trio ever. You may find a better drummer than Peart, a better guitarist than Lifeson, but none play better together.

Geddy's vocals, while creating a unique niche, held them back from being a superband.
Rush 2011

Imagine a real vocalist with that instrumental talent.

"greatest musical trio ever"... Um, I think Cream could give them a run for their money. And The Jimi Hendrix Experience, and Traffic from the John Barleycorn era, and...

Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble, and ZZ Top, and...

I was never a Rush fan. That being said they are a great band.
I always.preferred Triumph. Triumph could have been a better band if not for the bassist.
Red Barchetta is a great song.