savagegrace26 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 {Collecting[(Video Games)+(Cameras & Lenses)+(Books)]}>[Collecting(Rush stuff)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 stopped at page 3. savage is getting more defensive than I do... just be glad you're young enough to dig the shows still. if I was in my 50s, I'd probably agree that they should retire. JARG saw the f*ckin' hemispheres tour, AND he's like, some virtuoso dude or something (I'm pulling this out my ass based off how he always knows music terms and posts in the guitar section and shit). of course he's gonna think the new shows are sad. I give him shit for his opinions sometimes but do you really expect him to be part of the "clockwork angels live is just as good as ATWAS and don't you say otherwise!" crowd? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy's Soul Patch Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Anyone who listens to Snakes & Arrows - Live and thinks Geddy's voice is just fine, is seriously deluded, or blinded by their fanboyness that they have lost all objectivity regarding Rush, or maybe just doesn't hear well. As JARG said, either stick to just making albums, or give it up already. This might be the dumbest post I've seen since I joined... I've seen much dumber and most likely have posted some. There is alot of truth in that post. Just my opinion and you may have to be older to "really" understand it. I realize I am in the minority on this one and I am sure Fordgalaxy and JARG do too but just don't give a sh*t.... :codger: It just doesn't really seem fair to me to say that anyone who appreciates Geddy's voice on Snakes and Arrows Live is blinded by their love for the band. I get that it really sucks for the older fans, I'm sure I would feel the same way; but statements like "they SHOULD just retire already" are ignorant. They should do whatever the f**k they want, and they seem like they want to keep touring at least for a little bit. And as far as Ged's voice goes, he honestly sings pretty magnificently by old dude standards, better than any of his rock star peers 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 JARG saw the f*ckin' hemispheres tour, AND he's like, some virtuoso dude or something ...He's also a very talented musician. I can attest to that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) stopped at page 3. savage is getting more defensive than I do... just be glad you're young enough to dig the shows still. if I was in my 50s, I'd probably agree that they should retire. JARG saw the f*ckin' hemispheres tour, AND he's like, some virtuoso dude or something (I'm pulling this out my ass based off how he always knows music terms and posts in the guitar section and shit). of course he's gonna think the new shows are sad. I give him shit for his opinions sometimes but do you really expect him to be part of the "clockwork angels live is just as good as ATWAS and don't you say otherwise!" crowd? If he's some "virtuoso" then he should focus on his own musical career/path rather then suggest when other hugely successful musicians should hang it up. I don't think the new JARG album is being played in arenas yet. Or at the very least show respect toward the musicians who have influenced/inspired him by respecting their decisions and saying nothing, because if anything Rush set an example as to how to be respectful peronality-wise while having a hugely successful and influential career. Regardless, All the World's a Stage is probably the most overrated record around here. Very good even excellent document of who they were at the time but much better better was yet to come...even two or three albums later...they had yet to even reach their musical peak in 1976. Edited September 30, 2014 by savagegrace26 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) JARG saw the f*ckin' hemispheres tour, AND he's like, some virtuoso dude or something ...He's also a very talented musician. I can attest to that fact. Talented does not necessarily equate to becoming successfully talented. Everyone has their talents. When one uses their "talent" to put down others within the same field (especially ones that influenced them) then that is not heading on a path toward successful talent. If anything it's just pure egoism and arrogance. Edited September 30, 2014 by savagegrace26 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 JARG saw the f*ckin' hemispheres tour, AND he's like, some virtuoso dude or something ...He's also a very talented musician. I can attest to that fact. Talented does not necessarily equate to becoming successfully talented. Everyone has their talents. When one uses their "talent" to put down others within the same field (especially ones that influenced them) then that is not heading on a path toward successful talent. If anything it's just pure egoism and arrogance.The only thing that successfully talented means is that you were in the right place at the right time, or you knew someone who could make it all happen for you. Just because some band makes it big doesn't mean that they are more talented than a band that never had their "luck." As for putting others down, that is not what JARG was doing. He has a right to his opinion about Rush as much as you do. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) JARG saw the f*ckin' hemispheres tour, AND he's like, some virtuoso dude or something ...He's also a very talented musician. I can attest to that fact. Talented does not necessarily equate to becoming successfully talented. Everyone has their talents. When one uses their "talent" to put down others within the same field (especially ones that influenced them) then that is not heading on a path toward successful talent. If anything it's just pure egoism and arrogance.The only thing that successfully talented means is that you were in the right place at the right time, or you knew someone who could make it all happen for you. Just because some band makes it big doesn't mean that they are more talented than a band that never had their "luck." No, being "successfully talented" means honing and developing your talents in a positive way to personally enrich yourself and maybe others (although that's not a necessity) with humbleness, respect, and individuality without utilizing your talents to exploit, judge, or belittle others. It has absolutely nothing to do with monetary or popular success, hence I stressed "Rush set an example as to how to be respectful peronality-wise while having a hugely successful and influential career." Edited October 1, 2014 by savagegrace26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narps Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Anyone who listens to Snakes & Arrows - Live and thinks Geddy's voice is just fine, is seriously deluded, or blinded by their fanboyness that they have lost all objectivity regarding Rush, or maybe just doesn't hear well. As JARG said, either stick to just making albums, or give it up already. This might be the dumbest post I've seen since I joined... I've seen much dumber and most likely have posted some. There is alot of truth in that post. Just my opinion and you may have to be older to "really" understand it. I realize I am in the minority on this one and I am sure Fordgalaxy and JARG do too but just don't give a sh*t.... :codger: It just doesn't really seem fair to me to say that anyone who appreciates Geddy's voice on Snakes and Arrows Live is blinded by their love for the band. I get that it really sucks for the older fans, I'm sure I would feel the same way; but statements like "they SHOULD just retire already" are ignorant. They should do whatever the f**k they want, and they seem like they want to keep touring at least for a little bit. And as far as Ged's voice goes, he honestly sings pretty magnificently by old dude standards, better than any of his rock star peersIts all good..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadianice Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Dumbass question Award Winner, congrats :geddy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I'm a decent guitarist -- the number of players who can play circles around me is much larger than the number of players I can play circles around. Geddy used to be a better live singer than he is now. He's gotten so bad I think it's time for him to quit doing live shows. Is there a fine line between adulation and disrespect, or is there a gulf? I tend to think there's a gulf and that I'm probably somewhere in the middle of it with my opinion, but I suppose for others here, it's a fine line. I don't walk a fine line very well, I guess. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordgalaxy Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I think the older fans on the forum that were there at the beginning and have been there all along really understand this better than the younger people here. You can watch videos and listen to old recordings all you like but there is a real difference in actually having been there. Those of us that were there from the beginning feel the pain of the decline much more. It's heartbreaking to see his voice go downhill. The Best Post Award goes to....EagleMoon! :cheers: That's why "older" people tend to lack objectivity because they can't separate their personal experiences and distorted youthful memories from reality ;) Some think (including me) that his voice was much better during the 80's than the 70's. Sorry, but that screeching stuff can get old fast. I much prefer his voice from Permanent Waves forward. Some live vocals during their early period are almost a complete disaster, but the performances and energy make up for it....hmmm kind of like now... I too prefer his voice during that era which is why it's easy for me to hear how bad it sounds these days during certain songs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narps Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Although I have heard the talk and "question" many times here already, it is not a dumb question. Its sadly reality coming quickly.... :( 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 JARG saw the f*ckin' hemispheres tour, AND he's like, some virtuoso dude or something ...He's also a very talented musician. I can attest to that fact. Thanks Lorraine. Just for that you get a free copy of album #2 when it comes out in a month or so. ;) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 JARG saw the f*ckin' hemispheres tour, AND he's like, some virtuoso dude or something (I'm pulling this out my ass based off how he always knows music terms and posts in the guitar section and shit). Leave your ass alone! You can go to this thread and make your own determination: http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?/topic/88809-on-the-horizon/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Sure his voice isn't the same like in the 70's I'm grateful for that. Rush really became the band I love when he stopped screeching... Okay that seals it. Real fans like the high pitched screaming Geddy. I don't dislike it...I just prefer when he starting "modulating" his singing... I think his vocals on Anthem and parts of 2112 are awesome. But it doesn't work as well live for me. He always sounded more "chipmunky" live than in the studio. Cool on the studio recordings, not so much live... I just do not like how he sounds here. I prefer the studio vocals by far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtK-7w0PFG0 Edited October 1, 2014 by savagegrace26 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
len(songs) Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Sure his voice isn't the same like in the 70's I'm grateful for that. Rush really became the band I love when he stopped screeching... Okay that seals it. Real fans like the high pitched screaming Geddy. I don't dislike it...I just prefer when he starting "modulating" his singing... I think his vocals on Anthem and parts of 2112 are awesome. But it doesn't work as well live for me. He always sounded more "chipmunky" live than in the studio. Cool on the studio recordings, not so much live... I just do not like how he sounds here. I prefer the studio vocals by far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtK-7w0PFG0I like how he sounds on ATWAS, but a few of the 70's songs didn't gel urn out that well in the 80's. He was already losing a bit of power in that upper range, though of course he still had the range, unlike what started to happen from 1991 onwards... Edited October 1, 2014 by len(songs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Sure his voice isn't the same like in the 70's I'm grateful for that. Rush really became the band I love when he stopped screeching... Okay that seals it. Real fans like the high pitched screaming Geddy. I don't dislike it...I just prefer when he starting "modulating" his singing... I think his vocals on Anthem and parts of 2112 are awesome. But it doesn't work as well live for me. He always sounded more "chipmunky" live than in the studio. Cool on the studio recordings, not so much live... I just do not like how he sounds here. I prefer the studio vocals by far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtK-7w0PFG0 Studio vox are the gold standard, for sure, but I love how he's sounding here. Yeah, he's got some pitch issues on the first couple of verses and all the choruses, but his enunciation is excellent throughout and by the third verse his voice had warmed up considerably and he was able to stay on pitch much better. That said, I think his vox are too far forward in the mix and bone dry (except for the echo effect here and there). A touch of reverb and pulling his vox down into the mix a bit would likely have done wonders. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Sure his voice isn't the same like in the 70's I'm grateful for that. Rush really became the band I love when he stopped screeching... Okay that seals it. Real fans like the high pitched screaming Geddy. I don't dislike it...I just prefer when he starting "modulating" his singing... I think his vocals on Anthem and parts of 2112 are awesome. But it doesn't work as well live for me. He always sounded more "chipmunky" live than in the studio. Cool on the studio recordings, not so much live... I just do not like how he sounds here. I prefer the studio vocals by far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtK-7w0PFG0 Studio vox are the gold standard, for sure, but I love how he's sounding here. Yeah, he's got some pitch issues on the first couple of verses and all the choruses, but his enunciation is excellent throughout and by the third verse his voice had warmed up considerably and he was able to stay on pitch much better. That said, I think his vox are too far forward in the mix and bone dry (except for the echo effect here and there). A touch of reverb and pulling his vox down into the mix a bit would likely have done wonders. Yes, I think that's mostly it. I don't like when his vocals are too up front in the mix. The Black Forest bootleg is like that too, he's too upfront sounding. And so is Clockwork Angels Tour. He sounds much better when he's more subdued in the mix like on Different Stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordgalaxy Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Anyone who listens to Snakes & Arrows - Live and thinks Geddy's voice is just fine, is seriously deluded, or blinded by their fanboyness that they have lost all objectivity regarding Rush, or maybe just doesn't hear well. As JARG said, either stick to just making albums, or give it up already. This might be the dumbest post I've seen since I joined... I've seen much dumber and most likely have posted some. There is alot of truth in that post. Just my opinion and you may have to be older to "really" understand it. I realize I am in the minority on this one and I am sure Fordgalaxy and JARG do too but just don't give a sh*t.... :codger: It just doesn't really seem fair to me to say that anyone who appreciates Geddy's voice on Snakes and Arrows Live is blinded by their love for the band. I get that it really sucks for the older fans, I'm sure I would feel the same way; but statements like "they SHOULD just retire already" are ignorant. They should do whatever the f**k they want, and they seem like they want to keep touring at least for a little bit. And as far as Ged's voice goes, he honestly sings pretty magnificently by old dude standards, better than any of his rock star peers Life isn't fair and your last sentence is just silly. Just off the top of my head, Jagger (71) and Plant's (66), voices are still pretty damn good and way better than Geddy's (61), and I don't care for the Stones or Zeppelin that much so it isn't that. Clearly you have lost much of your objectivity regarding Rush. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy's Soul Patch Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Sure his voice isn't the same like in the 70's I'm grateful for that. Rush really became the band I love when he stopped screeching... Okay that seals it. Real fans like the high pitched screaming Geddy. I don't dislike it...I just prefer when he starting "modulating" his singing... I think his vocals on Anthem and parts of 2112 are awesome. But it doesn't work as well live for me. He always sounded more "chipmunky" live than in the studio. Cool on the studio recordings, not so much live... I just do not like how he sounds here. I prefer the studio vocals by far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtK-7w0PFG0I like how he sounds on ATWAS, but a few of the 70's songs didn't gel urn out that well in the 80's. He was already losing a bit of power in that upper range, though of course he still had the range, unlike what started to happen from 1991 onwards... I don't think his range has really declined all that much since about '87. The end of Marathon was at the top of his range then and it was on the Time Machine also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toymaker Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 It's hard to imagine that the thousands of people in loads of sold out shows think he should stop singing. I suppose I notice the odd wince-inducing moment; I wish that he wouldn't push the vocals so hard sometimes. Over all, I think he does fine. I root for him. I grin when he nails the note and I smile and shrug when he muffs it a bit. I'm impressed as hell with his talent and his determination. Two tours ago when I saw them in Hamilton Ontario he was getting over strep throat or something. He did a frickin' great job in spite of that. The man is an inspiration. If I can, I'll continue to check out the shows and buy the DVDs until they call it quits. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Sure his voice isn't the same like in the 70's I'm grateful for that. Rush really became the band I love when he stopped screeching... Okay that seals it. Real fans like the high pitched screaming Geddy. I don't dislike it...I just prefer when he starting "modulating" his singing... I think his vocals on Anthem and parts of 2112 are awesome. But it doesn't work as well live for me. He always sounded more "chipmunky" live than in the studio. Cool on the studio recordings, not so much live... I just do not like how he sounds here. I prefer the studio vocals by far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtK-7w0PFG0 Studio vox are the gold standard, for sure, but I love how he's sounding here. Yeah, he's got some pitch issues on the first couple of verses and all the choruses, but his enunciation is excellent throughout and by the third verse his voice had warmed up considerably and he was able to stay on pitch much better. That said, I think his vox are too far forward in the mix and bone dry (except for the echo effect here and there). A touch of reverb and pulling his vox down into the mix a bit would likely have done wonders. I was going to say that his vocals are way forward in this mix and the guitar sounds really compressed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snyder80 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Their shows sell and they put on a great show.Why should they retire? Because of your "standards"? I've never heard anyone complain about his vocals after a show or wanted a refund. Why stop something that's in demand and people enjoy? No need to panic. The odds of Geddy reading this thread and saying, "Well that seals the deal. I'm done with touring" is vanishingly close to zero. Their live dvd's are another story. We're specifically talking about live performance not the live releases. Does his vocal idiosyncrasies actually bother anyone while they're at the show? That's my thoughts almost exactly. I adore the shows and enjoy them immensely. The energy and excitement that comes with a live show is indescribable and most people who don't attend them can't even understand. The DVD's are never as good as actually being there. Just watch Rush in Rio. Personally that is my favorite recorded live show of theirs. Now can you imagine having been there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fridge Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 It's interesting that people have mentioned that they prefer his 80s voice to the 70s one when he "modulated" his singing. The very reason that he did this was because he was killing his voice...singing that high without falsetto causes enormous strain on an untrained singer. As a result he greatly extended his career as his throat would have been shot pretty quickly. So i wonder, why was my suggestion that they tune everything down a half step ignored?...it would be for pretty much exactly the same reasons of 1979! just saying....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now