Bush Releasing New Album 'Man on the Run' in October

Produced by Nick Raskulinecz, "Man on the Run" is the follow-up to 2011's "The Sea of Memories," which was Bush's first release in 10 years.

Bush Releasing New Album 'Man on the Run' in October
13
Bush have announced an October 21st release date for their highly anticipated new album, "Man on the Run" on Zuma Rock Records/RAL. The band's 6th studio album will be introduced via lead single "The Only Way Out," which hits radio, iTunes, Amazon and all major retailers on September 9th, official website reports.

Bush recorded "Man on the Run" with Grammy-winning producer Nick Raskulinecz at Studio 606, the Northridge, CA-based studio owned by Foo Fighters frontman Dave Grohl.

"Man on the Run" is the follow-up to 2011's "The Sea of Memories," which was Bush's first release in 10 years. That album saw them return to the top of the charts, with lead single "The Sound of Winter" making rock radio history as the first self-released song ever to hit No. 1 at Alternative Rock radio.

2014 marks the 20th anniversary of Bush's debut album "Sixteen Stone," which was a post-grunge hit and included successful singles "Comedown," "Glycerine" and "Machinehead," as well as "Everything Zen" and "Little Things."

37 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    Magnumopus7001
    i used to think i didn't like bush, but then i realized every song of theirs that came on the radio i would be secretly singing along.
    Lersch
    I read that as "Rush releasing new album in october" and for a moment, I was happy. That's ok though
    Salvo416
    I love Bush... I just hope this new album will sound more like the Science of Things and will be a little heavier than their last one.
    MusicMan24
    I love Bush, man. Though I did get a little bored with them around The Science of Things and Golden State. The Sea of Memories I think was a really solid comeback album so hopefully the new one will be even better
    biff022
    One of the original 90's imitation bands… get it? Vapid tripe.
    DickHardwood
    Man, Bush are a solid band. They had a rougher sound than the other bands in england in the 90's so they got fished by an american label because they could fit in the grunge frenzy. Big deal, they still had some pretty sweet songs back in the day.
    HitmanJenkins
    Definitely, if they were an American band then the imitation thing would hold a bit more weight, but they were different from a vast majority of bands in the UK around the same time in the Indie/Alternative scene. Would people be crying "imitation" as much if a Britpop-esque band started up in the States?
    biff022
    Yea… the Monkees were a shitty imitation of the Beatles and were never to be taken seriously. Billy Squier is a joke with his blatant Zep copies. And Bush are unoriginal clowns aping Nirvana. There you go.
    HitmanJenkins
    The Monkees are a poor example, given how it was a TV show initially and then the actors decided to form a band around it, it's purposefully designed to be shitty because the show's premise was about this band that wanted to be rich and famous, but needed to hold down a bizarre plethora of jobs to make the rent. Led Zeppelin's music is heavily based on the Blues, which is quintessentially American anyway, plus they've been accused of plagiarism, so again, bad choice. What's next? Are you going to argue that Feeder are a bunch of shit Smashing Pumpkins rip offs because their earlier works bear similarities? By the way, I said Britpop, which specifically means Alt Rock bands from the same era (makes sense since we're comparing to Grunge), I doubt anyone can name an American band that sounds like Oasis, Blue, Pulp or Suede, or if there ever has been one, have been criticised for sounding like any of those bands to the same extent Bush has. So try again.
    HitmanJenkins
    Blur*
    biff022
    Again you are completely full of shit. Your logic dismissing my comparisons is bullshit citing objectivity in art borrowing from other art. There's no reason why we can't use the Monkees or Zep for comparison. Just because they ripped someone off doesn't mean that someone didn't rip them off. I guess Zep never had any originality at all, huh? The Monkees were supposed to be bad? Are you stoned? You're right. The Monkees (whoever was wrting the music, producers, whoever) were trying NOT to sell records. They wanted to LOSE money. Sure there were Brit-pop imitators in the late 90's… bands like Black Lab and whoever sang that shitty "Closing Time". There was a rash of them. They didn't have the staying power that Grunge ripoffs like Bush did because Britpop was a blip on the radar compared to the seattle stuff over here. This is what's wrong with the internet… you're just passing off your shitty half-assed opinion as fact. Again, I think Bush are terrible, but if you love them, good for you… just embrace the reality that they rode Nirvana's coattails and they most likely knowingly cashed in on that sound.
    HitmanJenkins
    There's nothing wrong with using Led Zep or The Monkees as an examples if they are relevant to the era, but they're not. I wanted American bands that imitated Britpop bands, because that was our equivalent to Grunge at the time and you've just proved my point. No one gave a shit about Britpop in the States, so no one really gave a shit about Britpop imitators, yet because Grunge is popular in both the States and the UK, Bush suddenly get a load of shit? What bollocks, I guess that means we can't have a large plethora of Stoner/Doom bands because the majority of them just sound like a heavier version of Sabbath, or we can't like a band such as Evile because they sound like Slayer. There's a pretty good video on the internet comparing old Blues records to Led Zeppelin tunes, the similarities are quite stunning and it's well documented that they've had legal action taken against them. The Monkees were supposed to be a shitty imitation of The Beatles, just like most Bubblegum Pop of the era it's manufactured, but it also makes sense given the context within the TV show and it just so happens that both the show and the band became very successful. You can say I'm full of shit all you want, but it seems more people here are agreeing with me moreso than you. It's fair enough if you don't like Bush, I'm not the biggest fan of them either, but the whole "They copied Nirvana" thing is beating a dead horse and quite frankly, it's awfully rich considering Nirvana's track record of bearing similarities to other bands. If Bush were really riding the coattails of Grunge, then they would've died out years ago, but as far as I can tell they're still going.
    rmack4341
    Ah the old imitation label again. Imitation of what exactly? Is it the tired Nirvana argument again? The argument where no one has ever even been able to point to one song and say "this sounds like this"? I'd say "influenced" would be a better term, and actually accurate. And every band is influenced by another in some way.
    Bollockser
    Theyre a good band but you can't deny 16 Stone blatantly rips off NIRVANA.
    rmack4341
    I can deny it all day. None of the songs sound alike. The production on Nevermind and In Utero was much more polished than Sixteen Stone as well. When I think of the term "rip off", I think of something that sounds exactly like something else. That includes melody. None of their melodies are the same. You can argue sound similarities, but Gavin didn't even use a jaguar or mustang, he was a jazzmaster guy. As far as effects, yeah big muff but again, that's sound. Many bands are similar in sound. Otherwise you'd have to produce custom guitars, amps, effects, etc... for every musician out there. Sick of the rip off crap already, it's been 20 years and I still have never heard a relevant, fact based argument with clear examples to support this stupid theory.
    Bollockser
    Little Things wants to be Smells Like Teen Spirit. Tell me I'm wrong.
    rmack4341
    Heard both for many years countless times and never noticed a similarity. Now that you say it I can sort of see why you would say that, but again it's not the same. It's not even close to close enough to call a ripoff. The tempo is different, the chords are completely different, the progression, the melody of his voice, do I need to go on?
    michaelaurand
    I actually love the production on "Sixteen Stone." It's raw, it's gritty, and it actually sounds like rock band playing together in a room. I wish more records were mixed that way, rather than sounding like a bunch of perfectly-placed pro-tools tracks stacked like bricks in a wall of hyper-compressed sound.
    biff022
    You've gotta be kidding right? They ****ing hired Steve Albini BECAUSE he did the Nirvana album. It's a direct linear cause and effect! Like the clowns that defend Metallica hiring Bob Rock claiming that it wasn't a sell out move… they wanted to sound more like Motley Crue. They hired their producer. They sound like Nirvana… they went after the same goddamn dynamic in the soft verse loud chorus… They formed after Nirvana went global, their debut came at the height of grunge. Like them all you want, that's fine… don't claim they didn't rip off the bands that came five years earlier. You just sound as dumb as a bush lyric.
    HitmanJenkins
    To be fair Nirvana didn't come up with quiet verses-loud choruses dynamic either, Pixies have been widely considered the pioneers of that and they took it to great extremes (listen to Gigantic). Even Kurt said that Smells Like Teen Spirit was an attempt to rip off that band, plus Come As You Are is widely seen as a rip of a Killing Joke song (even Kurt didn't want it to be a single because of the similarities), so I guess that makes Bush a rip off of a rip off? On the production side, that's why you hire a producer, you like the sounds they can create on someone else's album and Steve Albini has a distinct style (especially with drums), it doesn't matter if you're listening to Pixies and Nirvana, or Shellac and Slint, every release he's worked on has had some unifying features to them. Plus he is very relaxed in his approach and down to earth with his clients, so why wouldn't anyone want to work with him? I love Nirvana and can appreciate their cultural influence dude, but in some areas, people give them far too much credit.
    biff022
    I'm not giving them credit for anything culturally. You're reading that into what I said. I'm simply saying that Bush copied them. So you're telling me that Gavin Rossdale was over in merry ole, doing pretty much exactly what Nirvana was doing through the late 80's, and just happened to come along after Nirvana broke? Everything else you're just arguing semantics. Bush and a hundred other bands, saw what the Seattle scene was doing, saw the success, and decided to cash in. The Pixies and Killing Joke were basically unheard of in the mainstream until, the Seattle bands claimed them as influence. Cobain didn't rip off the Pixies to make money, he ripped them off to make music. Bush cashed in on the success of Nirvana. Unless you just think it was coincidence. Then I've got a couple used cars to sell you.
    HitmanJenkins
    From what I've heard Bush cite Pixies as more of an influence than Nirvana, Pixies had not one but two albums that predated the sound that Nirvana would go on to take influence from for Nevermind, plus both of those records were released on 4AD, which was a prominent label for Alt/Indie bands at the time, so chances are, Gavin was listening to Pixies during the 80's moreso than Nirvana. And if you're talking about 80's Nirvana, then the only album they commercially released in that time was Bleach, which sounded like more like Melvins if anything. You can argue that they wrote some songs that would later feature on Nevermind and In Utero around the same time (and it is documented), but the chances of anyone from Bush hearing them is slim at that moment in time. The only real similarity you can pin down, which I shall give credit for is the vocal style. Copying someone else musically holds no weight unless you're actually ripping off songs in the process, otherwise we would only have a handful of bands from each genre of music.
    biff022
    Bush was formed in 1992. In Utero was released in 93. Bush debut album 94. You're full of shit. Gavin Rossdale is full of shit.
    HitmanJenkins
    Maybe so, but Gavin & co. could've written some of Bush's material whilst in their prior bands, much like Nirvana written some of the Nevermind and In Utero material in the 80's, why is this so difficult to grasp?
    biff022
    No. Not "maybe so"… those dates are factual. Now you're just reaching. Like arguing with an 8th grader.
    HitmanJenkins
    I wasn't saying "maybe so" to the dates, I know the dates quite well thank you. I was saying that they could've written some of that stuff prior to In Utero dropping, or maybe even before Bush started (seeing as Nirvana wrote some of the later material in the 80's, as I've said quite a few times), so the dates wouldn't matter so much, but we'll never know if they did or not, so the ball's out of the court for that one.
    DickHardwood
    Man, Bush are a solid band. They had a rougher sound than the other bands in england in the 90's so they got fished by an american label because they could fit in the grunge frenzy. Big deal, they still had some pretty sweet songs back in the day.
    DMRIOT
    Jeez, heard that song by killing joke, the 80's or something like that. Now that is what you call ripping something off.
    ytrappin
    i hope their music videos consists of gwen stefani shaking her bananas