Jump to content


OH MY GOD!


  • Please log in to reply
1092 replies to this topic

#1081 snowdog2112

snowdog2112

    Rush Video Archiver

  • Members
  • 2985 posts
  • Location:Austin, Texas

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:44 PM

QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 01:32 PM)
QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Apr 24 2012, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 01:05 PM)
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 .....

That drove me crazy, too. One of the many reasons I'm glad I got the S&A MVI, that edit was fixed.

Ha...actually going back to it again...its early....Rushed as it were...but feels off for sure.

once you hear it....you can't hear that part the same again...

Right, it's definitely off on the CD but on the MVI it's fixed. It's very minor until you hear it and then you can't help but hear it everytime. For an obsessive-compulsive person like me it drives me nuts. Thank god for the other version.

Sponsored Post

#1082 rushgoober

rushgoober

    Vapor Troll

  • Members
  • 29999 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:04 PM

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!

#1083 Lerxster

Lerxster

    The Sphere

  • Members *
  • 8124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:is everything
  • Interests:Interesting.

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:14 PM

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 24 2012, 03:04 PM)
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!

Okay, but you didn't answer my first question, which was did you buy the single thereby giving you the best sound quality available, or are you basing your review on substandard youtube videos? If it's a chore to get through, I'm guessing your review is still based on shitty youtube streaming and therefore your problem is your cheapness in not spending .99 cents, not the song dazed025.gif

#1084 Union 5-3992

Union 5-3992

    A Pale Boy with only Half a Brain

  • Members *
  • 21087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The rich and sunny planet Ursa Minor Beta (or Buffalo NY)

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:28 PM

QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 03:32 PM)
QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Apr 24 2012, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 01:05 PM)
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 .....

That drove me crazy, too. One of the many reasons I'm glad I got the S&A MVI, that edit was fixed.

Ha...actually going back to it again...its early....Rushed as it were...but feels off for sure.

once you hear it....you can't hear that part the same again...

Like "Since I've Been Lovin' You" by Led Zeppelin. The bass pedal is squeaky throughout the song. No you all can hate me for this. You're welcome smile.gif

#1085 Rushman14

Rushman14

    Mr. Hollywood

  • Members *
  • 11065 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:39 PM

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Apr 24 2012, 12:26 PM)
And what's a matter.. don't like some balls with your hard rock? laugh.gif tongue.gif

I read that wrong at first.

#1086 rushgoober

rushgoober

    Vapor Troll

  • Members
  • 29999 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:15 PM

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Apr 24 2012, 01:14 PM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 24 2012, 03:04 PM)
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!

Okay, but you didn't answer my first question, which was did you buy the single thereby giving you the best sound quality available, or are you basing your review on substandard youtube videos? If it's a chore to get through, I'm guessing your review is still based on shitty youtube streaming and therefore your problem is your cheapness in not spending .99 cents, not the song dazed025.gif

um, yeah, not spending the 99 cents - i'll wait for the album - maybe it'll go up to a 6.75 tongue.gif

seriously, i'm sure it will sound much better, but i can't imagine it will make the song more spacious or melodic or anything.

actually, someone gave me a flac, but i'll be damned if i know how to open one of those... unsure.gif

#1087 Gompers

Gompers

    10,000 posts, and I got nothin'

  • Members *
  • 17108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right here!
  • Interests:Jaywalking. Not smoking meth. Selling my air guitars on eBay. Cooking Chinese and Italians. Giving blood so I can get drunk faster. Being a stickler for detale.

Posted 24 April 2012 - 06:40 PM

QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 03:05 PM)
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 .....

Just a hair late...you have got to be fuggan kidding me.

Seriously? A hair late?


#1088 Rushman14

Rushman14

    Mr. Hollywood

  • Members *
  • 11065 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 24 April 2012 - 06:51 PM

QUOTE (Gompers @ Apr 24 2012, 04:40 PM)
QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 03:05 PM)
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 .....

Just a hair late...you have got to be fuggan kidding me.

Seriously? A hair late?

its more than a hair, it's very noticable, though I think its early. right at the 1:20 mark. they fixed it on the MVI version.

Edited by Rushman14, 24 April 2012 - 06:53 PM.


#1089 Pound of Obscure

Pound of Obscure

    Rushaholic

  • Members
  • 1577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charleston, WV
  • Interests:Drums, basketball, P90X/Insanity

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:07 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.

#1090 Gilbertk

Gilbertk

    Superconductor

  • Members *
  • 1150 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grayson, GA
  • Interests:Making music, carpentry, travel

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:52 PM

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Apr 24 2012, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 01:32 PM)
QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Apr 24 2012, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 01:05 PM)
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 .....

That drove me crazy, too. One of the many reasons I'm glad I got the S&A MVI, that edit was fixed.

Ha...actually going back to it again...its early....Rushed as it were...but feels off for sure.

once you hear it....you can't hear that part the same again...

Right, it's definitely off on the CD but on the MVI it's fixed. It's very minor until you hear it and then you can't help but hear it everytime. For an obsessive-compulsive person like me it drives me nuts. Thank god for the other version.

My favorite song on the album. Thanks...

#1091 Gilbertk

Gilbertk

    Superconductor

  • Members *
  • 1150 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grayson, GA
  • Interests:Making music, carpentry, travel

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:56 PM

QUOTE (Union 5-3992 @ Apr 24 2012, 03:28 PM)
QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 03:32 PM)
QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Apr 24 2012, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (druid13 @ Apr 24 2012, 01:05 PM)
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 .....

That drove me crazy, too. One of the many reasons I'm glad I got the S&A MVI, that edit was fixed.

Ha...actually going back to it again...its early....Rushed as it were...but feels off for sure.

once you hear it....you can't hear that part the same again...

Like "Since I've Been Lovin' You" by Led Zeppelin. The bass pedal is squeaky throughout the song. No you all can hate me for this. You're welcome smile.gif

This actually me love the song more haha. It's imperfections like that that make classin music more interesting than the modern stuff.

#1092 Phantom

Phantom

    Prime Mover

  • Members *
  • 997 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:45 AM

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 24 2012, 04:15 PM)
QUOTE (Lerxster @ Apr 24 2012, 01:14 PM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 24 2012, 03:04 PM)
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!

Okay, but you didn't answer my first question, which was did you buy the single thereby giving you the best sound quality available, or are you basing your review on substandard youtube videos? If it's a chore to get through, I'm guessing your review is still based on shitty youtube streaming and therefore your problem is your cheapness in not spending .99 cents, not the song dazed025.gif

um, yeah, not spending the 99 cents - i'll wait for the album - maybe it'll go up to a 6.75 tongue.gif

seriously, i'm sure it will sound much better, but i can't imagine it will make the song more spacious or melodic or anything.

actually, someone gave me a flac, but i'll be damned if i know how to open one of those... unsure.gif

It's much tighter and crisper sounding on itunes than it was as streaming audio online. I heard so much more detail in their playing, that I was blown away.

The song is just plain amazing... For me, it's starting to feel like a classic.

#1093 rushgoober

rushgoober

    Vapor Troll

  • Members
  • 29999 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:59 AM

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...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users