Rush's ridiculous philosophy on setlist

[rushfanforever!]

I see that Gemini is back to his ole self again....complain, complain, complain!!

 

Can't just let us fans enjoy the current setlist??

 

:sigh:

[Dscrapre]

"damn was the show exciting and fresh. They didnt dwell too much on their new songs (which i think are crap, btw), sticking with the greats that put them where they are."

 

So your definition of "exciting and fresh" is "only the same 10-15 songs from 30 years ago that they always play"?

 

I'm sure that Rush is just dying for your approval.

[Tarkus406]

You basically want:

 

Finding My Way

Working Man

Anthem

Fly by Night

By-Tor and the Snow Dog

The Necromancer

The Fountain of Lamneth

2112

Xanadu

Cygnus X-1

Hemispheres

La Villa Strangiato

The Spirit of Radio

Freewill

Tom Sawyer

Limelight

YYZ

 

 

Will never happen. I invite you to....http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/stash-1-510326e83921d.gif

[mk2112]

I'm not a great fan of CA, but I do think there are too many tracks from it on the set list.

A couple less tracks from CA to make room for a couple of classic 'oldies' would be good,

but that's just me, and we all have a different opinion on the whole subject.

[sdhonda]

Frankly, if they are doing them in all in one block, they should just do the whole damn album instead of 9 or 10.

 

ALL OR NOTHING BABY!!!

[calirush]

Your view on Eruption by EVH is completely moot, since Rush also plays songs like YYZ and TSoR on every tour. You know why Van Halen plays all classic songs? Because they're with David Lee Roth. They only have seven albums with him as a frontman. Only one of those albums is after 1984 for crying out loud. As far as Aerosmith is concerned, their new material sucks and is completely half-assed. And while their shows are decent, they don't even come close to Rush's itinerary as far as touring is concerned.

 

Your comparisons are laughable. As someone who only got into Rush after Vapor Trails was released, I'm not crapping my pants like some people here about setlists. Why? Because I'm damn lucky I even get a chance to see them. It's the same thing with Iron Maiden post-reunion. They played a fairly "newer" setlist when The Final Frontier came out and everyone was whining, yet I loved it. Then, they redid their Maiden England tour and it's a huge hit, just like the Time Machine tour was. There are two sides to it, and great bands like Rush and Iron Maiden know how to cater to both kinds of fans at different times.

 

The bellyaching is really hideous sometimes. Whether you like Rush's new albums or not, expecting them to play mostly classics is just stupidity. They aren't time-stamped in 1982. You are right about one thing, though. Rush is doing what they want as far as setlists are concerned. But you know what? After almost forty years, they damn well have the right to do so. Stop acting like you're entitled to what you want.

 

Maiden is a good example. Although I wasn't too exited about the setlist I know a lot of people were or too drunk to care at the show I went to last summer.

[analog guy]

I think by touring on your current record, you feel more like a current act and less like a nostalgia act. I think Rush worries about this happening if they ignore the new material. I also think they play the new material because they believe in it.

 

I am a fan of CA.... not sure I want to hear *all* of it, but I think it is sufficiently good enough to warrant the stronger cuts being played. The disappointing set choices for me are in some of the A/B tunes earlier in the set.... there are tunes from "A" and tunes from "B" that I know will be skipped on the night I see them and they will be replaced by ones I don't want to hear all that much. Maybe I'll get lucky and they will mix and match just right.

[CygnusGal]

To pre, this is mostly a rant thread. So here it goes...

 

Despite Rush being my favorite group (since '79), lately I'm having hard time justifying seeing them in concert these days based on their setlist choices. I'm astounded they won't play their essential titles that got them where they are now. Far too many excuses are given for this.

 

Last summer I saw VH in LA, and Aerosmith here at Bristow Va. Im a fan of VH's very early material. Aerosmith, I always thought were just ok, but both bands put on spectacular concert, far exceeding my expectations. Sure, DLR made me feel like I was going to pass out, hoping he could get more than jist segments of each line out of his mouth, but damn was the show exciting and fresh. They didnt dwell too much on their new songs (which i think are crap, btw), sticking with the greats that put them where they are. Aerosmith did the same. Was surprised how fun and electrifying the atmosphere was. And btw, VH really had quite a spartanesque stage setup and they still managed to wow.

 

Which leads me to Rush's present concerts: New material forced on the audience. Older material defiantly cast to the past. "Oh, but Geddy's voice, blah blah blah". Neil: "Why arent people sick of hearing the SOS (aka, I am sick of playing the older material most fans love). If I were a fan I'd want to hear the new material", subliminal attempt, cough cough. Another issue is the stage show is so damned sterile...rarely any emotion showed at all other than the "we-are-the-consummate-professional" scowl or other facial expression associated with the performing of life-saving brain surgery (Alex is largely exempt from these characterizations) .

 

What bothers me is the fact that Rush is doing what THEY want, in concert, instead of giving what they know that most fans want to hear. Van Halen is able to. Aerosmith can. Does Rush think we're so blinded by their greatness that we'll enjoy hearing most of the new material over the old classics, like mindless clones? Its ok if Geddy hiccups a few times, or bypasses certain vocal points with older songs. Its nothing to be ashamed of. Are we going to be subjected to listen to whatever the new album happens to be? I just dont understand their philosophy in these waning years. Are they embarrassed to play the old stuff because its too beneath them at this point in their career? EVH has played "eruption" every show. Sure he's fuggin sick of playing it, but still does with great enthusiasm and a smile on his face. Seems like Rush are becoming more n more like beligerent, unyielding and excessively self-centered geezers. Just my.opinion here! Flame away....

I actually think you make a good point, GR79. I understand how someone who really enjoys the old material or a "greatest hits" type show would be disappointed. I don't think that represents the majority of people a Rush concert though.

 

For me, it is a question of branding. Many (most) "classic rock" acts play a handful (or fistful) of hits and cater to the casual concert goer. If I go to hear Aerosmith and VH, I want to hear Sweet Emotion and Eruption. If I go to Rush, I want to hear them play the deepest track possible. I want to hear them play a rarity. They have their "standards" too. You will never hear a Rush show without Tom Sawyer. For better or worse, it won't happen. Ever. TSOR is a reliable choice, as is Limelight, Closer to the Heart, YYZ, etc. You know, the Rush "staples".

 

It doesn't matter what other bands do, Rush always tries to put on a show that the hardcore fans will enjoy. That's been true since day one. We are the majority crowd in the audience. I think Rush does a great job of choosing and playing their sets - I've loved every one of their shows. When I think about all of the songs that I have seen played live over the years, the depth is astonishing. Some songs (like Tom Sawyer) I've heard all 19 times. Number 20 coming up three weeks tomorrow! :D Guaranteed they will play it.

 

I understand your complaint and I see your point though.

 

:cheers:

 

edit to clean up grammar

Edited April 1, 2013 by CygnusGal

[Blue J]

I'm one of those who is very happy that Rush is not a nostalgia act. And I'm not saying that that's what GR79 is arguing in favor of, necessarily, but here's the thing- over the course of the past few tours, there has been ample opportunity to hear more of the older favorites. But they've done those to death (and to CygnusGal's point, there are some that they may never discard).

 

I'm grateful for the fact that they still have new music in them, and that they continue to record and share it with us. I'm also grateful that they still feel like touring as much as they do, and that they consistently play about a three-hour show, every show of the tour.

 

Here's a thought- isn't it just blindingly awesome that in the whole history of humankind, that we've gotten to be a part of something that has lasted a mere 40 years?

 

I think Clockwork Angels is the strongest album they've made since Counterparts. It's only a matter of tangentially-related circumstances as to why I haven't been to a Rush show since the tour for Counterparts, in 1994. But I'll be breaking that drought this summer. And I'm looking so forward to it!

[ClassicB]

I like the CA album but I do think that one hour's plus worth of it at the begining of the second set is too much. Lose three songs and i am good with that.

 

The other thing i would like to see RUSH lose is all the stage props. Seriously, what happened to the CONCERT STAGE SETUP with Marshall stacks and Bass Amps?? Now RUSH looks like Disney On Stage!

 

BTW, I will be seeing RUSH on May 9th for my 63rd time in concert since 1982. I'm their biggest fan and biggest critic.

[eshine]

http://andstillipersist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/yawn-1.jpg

[Lerxster]

I like the CA album but I do think that one hour's plus worth of it at the begining of the second set is too much. Lose three songs and i am good with that.

 

The other thing i would like to see RUSH lose is all the stage props. Seriously, what happened to the CONCERT STAGE SETUP with Marshall stacks and Bass Amps?? Now RUSH looks like Disney On Stage!

 

BTW, I will be seeing RUSH on May 9th for my 63rd time in concert since 1982. I'm their biggest fan and biggest critic.

Biggest critic? You're not even top ten on this board.

[Wingmaster]

To pre, this is mostly a rant thread. So here it goes...

 

Despite Rush being my favorite group (since '79), lately I'm having hard time justifying seeing them in concert these days based on their setlist choices. I'm astounded they won't play their essential titles that got them where they are now. Far too many excuses are given for this.

 

Last summer I saw VH in LA, and Aerosmith here at Bristow Va. Im a fan of VH's very early material. Aerosmith, I always thought were just ok, but both bands put on spectacular concert, far exceeding my expectations. Sure, DLR made me feel like I was going to pass out, hoping he could get more than jist segments of each line out of his mouth, but damn was the show exciting and fresh. They didnt dwell too much on their new songs (which i think are crap, btw), sticking with the greats that put them where they are. Aerosmith did the same. Was surprised how fun and electrifying the atmosphere was. And btw, VH really had quite a spartanesque stage setup and they still managed to wow.

 

Which leads me to Rush's present concerts: New material forced on the audience. Older material defiantly cast to the past. "Oh, but Geddy's voice, blah blah blah". Neil: "Why arent people sick of hearing the SOS (aka, I am sick of playing the older material most fans love). If I were a fan I'd want to hear the new material", subliminal attempt, cough cough. Another issue is the stage show is so damned sterile...rarely any emotion showed at all other than the "we-are-the-consummate-professional" scowl or other facial expression associated with the performing of life-saving brain surgery (Alex is largely exempt from these characterizations) .

 

What bothers me is the fact that Rush is doing what THEY want, in concert, instead of giving what they know that most fans want to hear. Van Halen is able to. Aerosmith can. Does Rush think we're so blinded by their greatness that we'll enjoy hearing most of the new material over the old classics, like mindless clones? Its ok if Geddy hiccups a few times, or bypasses certain vocal points with older songs. Its nothing to be ashamed of. Are we going to be subjected to listen to whatever the new album happens to be? I just dont understand their philosophy in these waning years. Are they embarrassed to play the old stuff because its too beneath them at this point in their career? EVH has played "eruption" every show. Sure he's fuggin sick of playing it, but still does with great enthusiasm and a smile on his face. Seems like Rush are becoming more n more like beligerent, unyielding and excessively self-centered geezers. Just my.opinion here! Flame away....

 

Part of me is incredulous and doesn't even know what to say to this, so allow me to start with some facts. As well, I've not read any of the comments to your post prior to having written this.

 

For starters, Van Halen has half the material that Rush has so it's much easier to play their "favorites," eh.

 

In terms of charting singles, they have a fraction of what Rush has, so ditto there.

 

Thirdly, VH had only three or four great albums as albums go and their second best was w/ someone that isn't even in the band anymore and who they've shunned from any involvement, Sammy Hagar. IMO their best album was II, their next best 5150. Their best charting albums were Hagar's, period, not even close.

 

As to singles, any comps w/ Rush are laughable.

 

Aerosmith is similar but has more content and even less charting success.

 

Those are the facts altho you can go look at the details yourself.

 

On to this tour ...

 

Have you read the CA book? I highly recommend reading it as it makes the tour that much better. Either way, this album for them is very different in several ways. If you know Rush, then there is no explanation necessary.

 

It makes little sense to play only small portions of this album. But most fans come to see Rush for their talent, not necessarily for their set/song list. I would pay the same to watch them jam for 2-3 hours as would most it not all here. All three of them have achieved or are near the pinnacle in their careers at their respective instruments. Few would argue that there's a better R&R drummer than Peart and those that do have precious little ammo to the contrary.

 

Getting back to the point, it's tough keeping everyone happy when you have so much material to choose from but so little time for a show. Unfortunately for your analogy, VH and Aerosmith don't have that issue, particularly VH who can't do material from Hagar's albums properly. Le'ts face it, DLR is not Sammy Hagar, regardless of which you think is better. AHEM, SH.

 

IMO this is the best Rush show ever. And I call it a show, not a concert for a reason.

 

The inclusion of the guest string musicians was a major and unprecedented change of pace for Rush, another fact.

 

You can't find two Rush fans in this forum to agree on a manageable number of songs for a setlist, so how is what you're saying even possible? They simply have too much material.

 

Also, you talk about them going to their roots and "dancing w/ the gal that brung them," but in large measure they do that. Moving pictures was their best album according to many, and certainly by its popularity, and they always play a bunch of songs from that least of all not being Tom Sawyer, arguably one of the R&R world's core anthems, not merely one of Rush's core tunes.

 

The Time Machine tour was the entire MP album.

 

This album is highly popular for a reason, ... it's fantastic, in several ways. IMO it's very similar to Pink Floyd's The Wall in some ways, but a cleaner more literary version of it. The whole steampunk theme is unique and original.

 

Anyway, I'm just not sure that you've thought thru your opinion very well.

 

Moreover, Geddy's voice, not being the same as DLR's or ST's, simply would do injustice to many songs, say Fly By Night et al. What a disaster that song would be today.

 

Lastly, this perceived smugness that you see on their parts I viewed, independently, as something completely different. I view it as their A, just having a good time, and pardon them while they do as they sing and play to every last ounce of energy at their ages to try to make you happy and content, and B, that look that you refer to I interpret as them still somewhat incredulous themselves that they have this popularity and have achieved the level of success that they have as a result of it. I could be wrong, but so could you, but it's funny our diametric perspectives, eh.

 

Anyway, your opinion is your opinion, but there's a big difference in asking for a collection of Robert DeNiro's best movies in a 5-DVD set and one of Charlie Sheen's.

.

Honestly tho, if you think that it's that bad, then don't go. Problem solved. A whole bunch of people can then "move up a seat."

Edited April 1, 2013 by Wingmaster

[Wingmaster]

aerosmith focuses on old shit because they haven't had a good record since 1976 and they probably know it. van halen had a good album last year, but it was composed of songs written in the 70s, so really they havent done anything worth jack shit since 1984. they focus on old shit because they know they cant make good music anymore.

 

rush however, is better, smarter, and more talented, and unlike aerosmith and van halen, continued to make good music well after 1981. if you haven't enjoyed this band since the early 80s, maybe the rush forum isnt for you....

 

Amen to that. Both of those bands fizzled out back in the late '70s and mid '80s in VH's case, who didn't even start 'til what, '79. BTW, largely due in both cases to rampant and uncontrollable drug use by their two most prominent and relevant band members respectively.

 

Rush focused on their music and family and lo and behold left the others in the dust from a "how many songs to choose from for concerts" perspective.

 

If Rush played all the fans' faves, the show would be 10 hours long.

[Lost In Xanadu]

I have a good friend and neighbor who has seen Rush as many, if not more, than me. He said that aside from the Moving Pictures tour, the Time Machine tour was his absolute favorite. That was just 1 tour ago, so....

 

This year will be his big test. He hates the synth era, and seeing it is a main focus of this tour... should be interesting.

[Wingmaster]

Hey GR79,

 

You actually make some valid points.

 

Being a die-hard Rush fan, I am happy to hear them play anything they choose to play and am just happy to be seeing them perform live..

 

However, on the first leg of the Clockwork Angels Tour, I was to meet four friends (moderate Rush fans at best) after the show for a drink.

 

They texted me just after the 2nd. half of the show started and said that they were leaving, as they were bored and didn't know any of the music.

 

It must be a catch-22 for bands to want to play the new stuff, knowing that the majority of the people there came for the greatest hits.

 

I completely understand and appreciate both sides of this debate.

 

You hit on something very interesting here.

 

Most people go to concerts to hear their favorite songs. And bringing this into the context of the thread briefly, that's much easier to do for VH and Aerosmith and still, I dare say that fans will hear filler at their shows still if they play for as long as Rush does. I don't know I haven't been to either and don't ever care to see VH at this point as they've screwed too many people (Michael Anthony and Sammy Hagar) over.

 

But otherwise, as I see it, and correct me if I'm wrong, most Rush fans seem to be more enamored with the general level of talent and musical capabilities of the band than with an aging collection of songs from yesteryear.

 

But too, with every album that they put out new favorites are developed, and usually more than one per album, sometimes many more than one per album.

 

My 11-year old son loves Rush, his favorite band already by a long shot. But he thinks that CA is their best album. I cannot argue because as a complete album, it may very well be.

 

Either way, as I said, IMO Rush would fill an arena if they said simply, "hey, our tour this time will be a spontaneous jam along with some assorted songs as we feel like playing them."

 

Rush can do an hour of instrumentals, some made up on the spot, and be highly watchable. Neither VH nor Aerosmith can even approach that and other than for Joe Perry and EVH, no one's going to want to listen to any other solos and even those two aren't good for long alone. They don't have the support from one much less two other extraordinary musicians.

 

As well, I think it's pretty clear that Rush puts a whole lot more, from several angles, into creating their music than the others do.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Wingmaster

[Wingmaster]

It's got to be hard to try to please every Rush concert-goer.

 

Simply due to the volume of their hit material over the years, again, an issue that neither VH, Aerosmith, nor most other bands for that matter have. Even if Led Zeppelin sprung back to life, they're limited too, they simply didn't put out the volume, much less quality volume, of material.

 

Rush, in that way, can be compared to the Beatles.

[Wingmaster]

As far as on stage personality, I like the fact that Rush is made up of musicians, not a bunch of circus clowns, see David Lee Roth....

 

LMAO!!

 

Spot on!

 

Agreed w/ your entire post!

[Snaked]

This thread has reminded me that it's just about time to dust off one of my favorite sayings of all time...

 

Some people just aren't happy unless they're miserable.

[GeddysMullet]

I'm not convinced that Gemini even believes half the crap he says He just likes to get a reaction.

 

I still think his posts were funnier when they were about sex:

 

http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?/topic/35919-test-your-love-for-rush/#entry1185790

 

http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?/topic/37368-seemingly-strange-question/#entry1239430

[Wingmaster]

I have a good friend and neighbor who has seen Rush as many, if not more, than me. He said that aside from the Moving Pictures tour, the Time Machine tour was his absolute favorite. That was just 1 tour ago, so....

 

This year will be his big test. He hates the synth era, and seeing it is a main focus of this tour... should be interesting.

 

Strongly suggest that he go read the book before going to the concert. Believe me when I tell you that all my life I've struggled mightily to get thru any novel as I am a non-fiction reader, but I blew threw Clockwork Angels in a matter of hours. Easily best novel I've ever read or tried to read. I plan on reading it again, which is unprecedented for novels w/ me.

 

Anyway, I'm tellin' ya, and I'm sure those that have read it will agree, but reading the book before the show makes a world of difference!!

Edited April 1, 2013 by Wingmaster

[Wingmaster]

This thread has reminded me that it's just about time to dust off one of my favorite sayings of all time...

 

Some people just aren't happy unless they're miserable.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't even classify someone that goes to Rush shows to hear their top-10 favorite tunes by them a fan per se. I mean who doesn't like the most popular songs of most bands?

 

Rush hasn't become successful by catering to the pop masses and the mainstream. To the contrary.

 

So there's a huge degree of self-fulfilling prophecy in here.

[Lost In Xanadu]

I have a good friend and neighbor who has seen Rush as many, if not more, than me. He said that aside from the Moving Pictures tour, the Time Machine tour was his absolute favorite. That was just 1 tour ago, so....

 

This year will be his big test. He hates the synth era, and seeing it is a main focus of this tour... should be interesting.

 

Strongly suggest that he go read the book before going to the concert. Believe me when I tell you that all my life I've struggled mightily to get thru any novel as I am a non-fiction reader, but I blew threw Clockwork Angels in a matter of hours. Easily best novel I've ever read or tried to read. I plan on reading it again, which is unprecedented for novels w/ me.

 

Anyway, I'm tellin' ya, and I'm sure those that have read it will agree, but reading the book before the show makes a world of difference!!

 

I started reading it and found the writing to be pretty poor. I will try and finish it before the show in July, but I really didn't like the book much thru the first few chapters. He loves the new album though.

[Snaked]

I have a good friend and neighbor who has seen Rush as many, if not more, than me. He said that aside from the Moving Pictures tour, the Time Machine tour was his absolute favorite. That was just 1 tour ago, so....

 

This year will be his big test. He hates the synth era, and seeing it is a main focus of this tour... should be interesting.

 

Strongly suggest that he go read the book before going to the concert. Believe me when I tell you that all my life I've struggled mightily to get thru any novel as I am a non-fiction reader, but I blew threw Clockwork Angels in a matter of hours. Easily best novel I've ever read or tried to read. I plan on reading it again, which is unprecedented for novels w/ me.

 

Anyway, I'm tellin' ya, and I'm sure those that have read it will agree, but reading the book before the show makes a world of difference!!

 

I started reading it and found the writing to be pretty poor. I will try and finish it before the show in July, but I really didn't like the book much thru the first few chapters. He loves the new album though.

 

The writing is pretty pedestrian TBH but there is a payoff at the end that for me was worth it.

[ThinkingBig]

The OP is comparing apples to oranges.

 

Old rotten oranges at that.