The tour Rush sounded the least good live....

[fraroc]

For me, I would say the Snake and Arrows tour. They slowed almost every song down to a snail's pace on this tour and there was just this general lack of energy on that tour in particular. That is why out of all the concert's I'll play on my R40 box set, Snakes and Arrows is the one I play the least often. Subdivisions and Between The Wheels were affected horribly by that slowdown. Thankfully from 2011 onward, they started playing at the right tempo and there was more energy on stage.

 

 

So anyway, which tour would you say that Rush sounded the least good on?

Edited July 8, 2017 by fraroc

[rocket ignites]

S&A tour was epic. Best setlist. Only tour I witnessed. It can't get much better for me than Digital Man, Entre Nous, Mission, Circumstances, Bangkok, and so much of the Snakes album in all it's plodding glory.

[That One Guy]

For me, I would say the Snake and Arrows tour. They slowed almost every song down to a snail's pace on this tour and there was just this general lack of energy on that tour in particular. That is why out of all the concert's I'll play on my R40 box set, Snakes and Arrows is the one I play the least often. Subdivisions and Between The Wheels were affected horribly by that slowdown. Thankfully from 2011 onward, they started playing at the right tempo and there was more energy on stage.

 

 

So anyway, which tour would you say that Rush sounded the least good on?

Ged's voice was in much better shape in 2008 than it was in 2013 or 2015.

 

I'd have to say the later tours, from a voice perspective.

[Digital Dad]

S&A tour was epic. Best setlist. Only tour I witnessed. It can't get much better for me than Digital Man, Entre Nous, Mission, Circumstances, Bangkok, and so much of the Snakes album in all it's plodding glory.

 

I think R40 and Snakes are equally brilliant.

[fraroc]

For me, I would say the Snake and Arrows tour. They slowed almost every song down to a snail's pace on this tour and there was just this general lack of energy on that tour in particular. That is why out of all the concert's I'll play on my R40 box set, Snakes and Arrows is the one I play the least often. Subdivisions and Between The Wheels were affected horribly by that slowdown. Thankfully from 2011 onward, they started playing at the right tempo and there was more energy on stage.

 

 

So anyway, which tour would you say that Rush sounded the least good on?

Ged's voice was in much better shape in 2008 than it was in 2013 or 2015.

 

I'd have to say the later tours, from a voice perspective.

 

I would say that Ged's voice is perfectly fine, the only issue was that unlike Snakes and Arrows live, they chose to release bad dates for Time Machine and Clockwork Angels. Geddy was clearly sick for TM live and for CA live, the entire band was tired as it was the end of the tour.

Edited July 8, 2017 by fraroc

[edhunter]

Time Machine sucked monkey balls. Mailed in setlist, Ged's worst vocals. Utterly lame.

[djflex]

I will say time machine tour

[jnoble]

TM is also my least favorite. Geddys voice is cracking and straining all over the place and Alex looked older grayer and fatter on that DVD than ever. Made me sad :-(

[JohnRogers]

Time Machine

[bluefox4000]

Time Machine, and CA tour.

 

Rush always played all right.

 

but ged's Voice after S & A was just shot.

 

you Crazy about that tour BTW. slower tempo's maybe but it had my fav set in a long time.

 

Mick

Edited July 8, 2017 by bluefox4000

[rocket ignites]

Time Machine is definitely the worst. I only listen to a few select tracks.

 

CA is decent...not great, but bearable.

 

S&A and R40 are tops for me if we're talking post R30 tour DVD/CD.

[Eel Yddeg]

Rush has never had a "bad" tour IMO but I feel their performances on the Presto Tour was uninspired. The only real surprises/deep cuts were the excerpt of "Xanadu", "Mission", and "Manhattan Project", and the band's performances seemed to lack inspiration and energy, it seemed like they were tired and going through the motions (In fact interviews revealed it was almost their last tour, which was why it was so short) the only upside is the good performances of "Subdivisions".

 

Vocally i'd say Geddy was at his worst on the Vapor Trails Tour, I really don't like the pinched, nasal tone he used during that tour, sounds like he was imitating his '70s voice but failed.

 

The SnA and TMT tours made up for the sometimes weak vocals with imaginative setlists, with SnA including "Digital Man", "Entre Nous", "Circumstances", "Mission", "Between The Wheels", "Secret Touch", "Natural Science", "Witch Hunt" and "A Passage To Bangkok" all either deep cuts or songs which hadn't been played in a while (Plus "Ghost Of A Chance" on the second leg) while TMT included "Presto", "Stick It Out", "The Camera Eye", "Witch Hunt", and "Vital Signs", as well the inclusion of "BU2B" and "Caravan" was a nice treat, as were the new arrangements of "Closer To The Heart" and "Working Man". Admittedly, both tours lasted too long, the SnA tour didn't need to last 120 gigs, and the TMT tour didn't need to last 80. I think the SnA tour should've ended after the first leg, since most of the venues on the second leg were places they played on the first leg. I also think the TMT Tour didn't need the second leg, sans the European shows.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Eel Yddeg

[bluefox4000]

Rush has never had a "bad" tour IMO but I feel their performances on the Presto Tour was uninspired. The only real surprises/deep cuts were the excerpt of "Xanadu", "Mission", and "Manhattan Project", and the band's performances seemed to lack inspiration and energy, it seemed like they were tired and going through the motions.

 

Vocally i'd say Geddy was at his worst on the Vapor Trails Tour, I really don't like the pinched, nasal tone he used during that tour, sounds like he was imitating his '70s voice but failed.

 

I actually didn't like the Presto or RTB tour

 

Counterparts tour and particularly the TFE tour were MUCH better

 

Mick

[Alien Girl]

I don't understand the strategy (from a sales and marketing standpoint) of releasing a live dvd that you know sounds bad (or horrible in some cases) in some way. Whether it's the mix, the vocals, or one of the guys was just off in some way that night. I know it's probably expensive to film a live concert to release to video...many factors involved so they have to choose a date. But why not choose to film a few throughout the tour (beginning, middle, end), or even individual songs here and there from different nights and release the one(s) that sounds best? Seems like it might be more lucrative in the long run. Why choose to go with a losing prospect just because it was billed as the 'We're filming this for the dvd'! and then end up with it being an off night? I don't get it.

[The K Man]

I don't understand the strategy (from a sales and marketing standpoint) of releasing a live dvd that you know sounds bad (or horrible in some cases) in some way. Whether it's the mix, the vocals, or one of the guys was just off in some way that night. I know it's probably expensive to film a live concert to release to video...many factors involved so they have to choose a date. But why not choose to film a few throughout the tour (beginning, middle, end), or even individual songs here and there from different nights and release the one(s) that sounds best? Seems like it might be more lucrative in the long run. Why choose to go with a losing prospect just because it was billed as the 'We're filming this for the dvd'! and then end up with it being an off night? I don't get it.

 

That was easier to do back in the day with live albums, but since live DVDs are the rave now, bouncing from show to show, where their clothes are going to be different, would make it look odd and not really like a live concert (more like a snapshot of the tour with performances spread out).

[Alien Girl]

I don't understand the strategy (from a sales and marketing standpoint) of releasing a live dvd that you know sounds bad (or horrible in some cases) in some way. Whether it's the mix, the vocals, or one of the guys was just off in some way that night. I know it's probably expensive to film a live concert to release to video...many factors involved so they have to choose a date. But why not choose to film a few throughout the tour (beginning, middle, end), or even individual songs here and there from different nights and release the one(s) that sounds best? Seems like it might be more lucrative in the long run. Why choose to go with a losing prospect just because it was billed as the 'We're filming this for the dvd'! and then end up with it being an off night? I don't get it.

 

That was easier to do back in the day with live albums, but since live DVDs are the rave now, bouncing from show to show, where their clothes are going to be different, would make it look odd and not really like a live concert (more like a snapshot of the tour with performances spread out).

Well, they could coordinate that if continuity was their goal...they often wear the same series of things (t-shirts n' such) throughout the tour. But you have a point. Still, it'd be another thing to factor in, that if they use different nights in the same dvd, they might draw more people into buying it since it's possible that 'their' night might be included in the collection of songs featured (particularly if they're labeled by location), instead of it all being from one venue. And with multiple nights to choose from they stand the chance of putting out a dvd with a higher level of sound (voice, mix production) quality. I mean, this is all water under the bridge now that they're retired. But you'd think, with so many live concert dvds released over the last 20 or so odd years, that different formats would've been considered. Just my opinion, of course. I am unlikely to get as excited over a concert filmed solely in Cleveland than, say, Seattle...not that that ever happened. Still, it would've been a nice option, if even just for one song.

[Lorraine]

I don't understand the strategy (from a sales and marketing standpoint) of releasing a live dvd that you know sounds bad (or horrible in some cases) in some way. Whether it's the mix, the vocals, or one of the guys was just off in some way that night. I know it's probably expensive to film a live concert to release to video...many factors involved so they have to choose a date. But why not choose to film a few throughout the tour (beginning, middle, end), or even individual songs here and there from different nights and release the one(s) that sounds best? Seems like it might be more lucrative in the long run. Why choose to go with a losing prospect just because it was billed as the 'We're filming this for the dvd'! and then end up with it being an off night? I don't get it.

Maybe he thinks he sounds great. These men (and women) have massive egos you know.

 

Edit: I suggested what you are suggesting too a while back, but I forgot what I was told why it wasn't feasible to do.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Lorraine

[prolix]

I have to disagree about your opinion on the S&A Tour. The setlist is my favorite of any live performance and I still feel like Ged's voice still sounds good unlike CA and R40.

[Blue Barchetta]

Fly By Night Tour, hands down. No Tom Sawyer, none of Hemispheres, PW, or AFTK. None of the synth period stuff. Uninspired set-list.

 

[Alien Girl]

I don't understand the strategy (from a sales and marketing standpoint) of releasing a live dvd that you know sounds bad (or horrible in some cases) in some way. Whether it's the mix, the vocals, or one of the guys was just off in some way that night. I know it's probably expensive to film a live concert to release to video...many factors involved so they have to choose a date. But why not choose to film a few throughout the tour (beginning, middle, end), or even individual songs here and there from different nights and release the one(s) that sounds best? Seems like it might be more lucrative in the long run. Why choose to go with a losing prospect just because it was billed as the 'We're filming this for the dvd'! and then end up with it being an off night? I don't get it.

Maybe he thinks he sounds great. These men (and women) have massive egos you know.

 

Edit: I suggested what you are suggesting too a while back, but I forgot what I was told why it wasn't feasible to do.

Well, find out, girl! You know...research! Archive! :poke:

 

(but yeah, probably cost)

[Lorraine]

I don't understand the strategy (from a sales and marketing standpoint) of releasing a live dvd that you know sounds bad (or horrible in some cases) in some way. Whether it's the mix, the vocals, or one of the guys was just off in some way that night. I know it's probably expensive to film a live concert to release to video...many factors involved so they have to choose a date. But why not choose to film a few throughout the tour (beginning, middle, end), or even individual songs here and there from different nights and release the one(s) that sounds best? Seems like it might be more lucrative in the long run. Why choose to go with a losing prospect just because it was billed as the 'We're filming this for the dvd'! and then end up with it being an off night? I don't get it.

Maybe he thinks he sounds great. These men (and women) have massive egos you know.

 

Edit: I suggested what you are suggesting too a while back, but I forgot what I was told why it wasn't feasible to do.

Well, find out, girl! You know...research! Archive! :poke:

 

(but yeah, probably cost)

 

 

I think it was cost and that not every venue would allow them to video a show.

 

But they had to have filmed the LA show. I'd be shocked :o if they didn't.

[Anthemic]

what they needed to do was use the video from only one night but record several and pick the best ones. it's easy to match music from several shows to video from one and then the visual continuity isn't an issue.

 

also, i don't think they sound all that great on the 1997 stuff on from the R40 box. I like all the shows this century way better than that.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Anthemic

[Blue Barchetta]

In all honesty, I think they always sounded great live. The production and sound on a couple of the DVDs sucked, but I've never seen them live and came out thinking, "They sounded like crap tonight!"

 

In fact, after R40 in Atlanta, I commented to my buddy that they'd never sounded better. That's a true comment. Sometimes, I guess, production hurts.

 

All the World's a Stage...perfect live album...minimal production. That album captures the spirit and musicianship of Rush to a T.

 

I'm gonna quit before I start rambling like RUSHHEAD666!

[Alien Girl]

what they needed to do was use the video from only one night but record several and pick the best ones. it's easy to match music from several shows to video from one and then the visual continuity isn't an issue.

 

Yeah, that'd work.

[78jazz]

IMO the RtB tour was the least enjoyable.