Jump to content

OH MY GOD!


GangsterOnBoats
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 02:59 PM)
Well at least there are not any bad edits.....unlike "We Hold ON"...at 1:20.....


I can't believe after 5 years that STILL stands out.....

??? Just listened and didn't hear anything bad edit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Gompers @ Apr 24 2012, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 02:59 PM)
Well at least there are not any bad edits.....unlike  "We Hold ON"...at 1:20.....


I can't believe after 5 years that STILL stands out.....

??? Just listened and didn't hear anything bad edit.

bass drum after fill just a hair late....its small but taken it context it drags a hair....never 'felt' right to me.....I remember others commented at the time about it.

 

 

Pro tools problem likely .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 24 2012, 01:39 PM)
In my experience with Rush, their music CAN grow on me, but usually after several listens to a song or album, if anything it's only going to go down in my estimation, not up, especially if it's a new release that I initially am enthralled with just because it's new.

That's my long way around of saying that Headlong Flight is maybe a 6.5 out of 10 for me, but I doubt it will go up higher than that. I've listened to it many times, but by now it seems kind of a chore to get through, and it shouldn't be that way.

Maybe it will make more sense in the context of the suite, but I also said that about Caravan and BU2B. After three songs, they kind of have to hold up on their own to a large extent, as magically adding in a few more songs and connecting them together thematically isn't going to produce a miracle... or at least I doubt it.

I'm just finding that newer Rush seems to be so highly structured without the room to breathe they once had - the instrumentation and playing is fantastic, within the structure, but overall it feels too tight and constricted - too straight ahead hard rock without the interesting more progressive changes and surprises they used to have. And it's a tad repetitive - would have been better at 4 minutes, 4 and a half at most - often their songs seem a little padded in recent albums with too many repeats of the chorus.

So, I'm still left with VERY GOOD, but not great, and I still hold out hope for a couple of songs as great as the first 3 tracks from S&A.

Did you actually buy the single, or is your review based on substandard youtube videos. Can you explain why 6.5 is considered "very good" on your scale? Do you take off 2 points just for not sounding like they use to? And what's a matter.. don't like some balls with your hard rock? laugh.gif tongue.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Apr 24 2012, 12:26 PM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 24 2012, 01:39 PM)
In my experience with Rush, their music CAN grow on me, but usually after several listens to a song or album, if anything it's only going to go down in my estimation, not up, especially if it's a new release that I initially am enthralled with just because it's new.

That's my long way around of saying that Headlong Flight is maybe a 6.5 out of 10 for me, but I doubt it will go up higher than that.  I've listened to it many times, but by now it seems kind of a chore to get through, and it shouldn't be that way. 

Maybe it will make more sense in the context of the suite, but I also said that about Caravan and BU2B.  After three songs, they kind of have to hold up on their own to a large extent, as magically adding in a few more songs and connecting them together thematically isn't going to produce a miracle... or at least I doubt it.

I'm just finding that newer Rush seems to be so highly structured without the room to breathe they once had - the instrumentation and playing is fantastic, within the structure, but overall it feels too tight and constricted - too straight ahead hard rock without the interesting more progressive changes and surprises they used to have.  And it's a tad repetitive - would have been better at 4 minutes, 4 and a half at most - often their songs seem a little padded in recent albums with too many repeats of the chorus.

So, I'm still left with VERY GOOD, but not great, and I still hold out hope for a couple of songs as great as the first 3 tracks from S&A.

Did you actually buy the single, or is your review based on substandard youtube videos. Can you explain why 6.5 is considered "very good" on your scale? Do you take off 2 points just for not sounding like they use to? And what's a matter.. don't like some balls with your hard rock? laugh.gif tongue.gif

6.5 by Rush standards would maybe be a 7.5 by regular standards - 6.5 because there are SO many better Rush songs that would fit the 7-10 range. I don't mind ballsy hard rock, but I'm just not loving this song - I like it a lot though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 24 2012, 01:39 PM)
. And it's a tad repetitive - would have been better at 4 minutes, 4 and a half at most - often their songs seem a little padded in recent albums with too many repeats of the chorus.

This.

 

The chorus kept the song from being great for me. Not because its bad, but because they unnecessarily belabored the song by repeating the chorus over and over.

They do that alot the last few albums. Its hard to figure why. If all you have left for the song is to extend it 2 1/2 minutes repeating the same chorus and lines, just end it.

 

Had they extended the freakin great solo section 30 seconds and went straight to the syncopated ending, no re-hashing of the earlier parts, the song would be a 10. Instead after the solo section is over, I'm just irritated and waiting for it to be over. But we have to live it all again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Pound of Obscure @ Apr 24 2012, 05:07 PM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 24 2012, 01:39 PM)
.  And it's a tad repetitive - would have been better at 4 minutes, 4 and a half at most - often their songs seem a little padded in recent albums with too many repeats of the chorus.

This.

 

The chorus kept the song from being great for me. Not because its bad, but because they unnecessarily belabored the song by repeating the chorus over and over.

They do that alot the last few albums. Its hard to figure why. If all you have left for the song is to extend it 2 1/2 minutes repeating the same chorus and lines, just end it.

 

Had they extended the freakin great solo section 30 seconds and went straight to the syncopated ending, no re-hashing of the earlier parts, the song would be a 10. Instead after the solo section is over, I'm just irritated and waiting for it to be over. But we have to live it all again.

laugh.gif

 

Very clever!

 

I agree - the song would have been much improved had they been able to nip it in the bud a little earlier. I noticed this phenomena as early as Power Windows - the songs just seemed to be a little longer than necessary. Then again, the material back then was so stellar that extending the song with an extra minute or an extra chorus was essentially harmless and the songs rarely outstayed their welcome.

 

Arguably, the songwriting and creativity isn't quite at the same level anymore now, and extending a song by 2 minutes and two or three extra choruses just doesn't always stand up as well as it once did. If you don't have any extra ideas to make the song continue to be interesting beyond the 4 minute mark or so, maybe it's time to end the song and move on to the next one. Sure, it would mean a 50 minute album instead of a 70 minute one, but I'm always one for quality over quantity.

 

Lakeside Park was 4:04, A Passage to Bangkok was 3:34. Hell, The Trees was only 4:46. If a song is a GREAT song, it simply doesn't need to be 7 minutes unless you're really doing something to make the song worthy of that length.

 

Take a song like Working Man - a song that is virtually the same length as Headlong Flight, but has long killer instrumental breaks and guitar solos up the ying yang that keeps the song moving along without merely repeating itself. Jacob's Ladder is also virtually the same length, but the song has a lot more room to breathe musically without just being verse/chorus X 5 repeat chorus X 3 and a short instrumental section.

 

This is all worth noting IMHO, but of course YMMV...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...