ctbadger Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I've decided I hate the cover because every time I look at it, "Stayin' Alive" starts playing in my head. Every time I hear that song I think of the scene at the dive bar in Airplane! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexMike Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I've decided I hate the cover because every time I look at it, "Stayin' Alive" starts playing in my head. Keep that song in your head! You may need it one day. I was just reading about how to give adult CPR. In Step 4, it says to: straighten your arms and press down as hard as possible. Repeating at an interval of at least 100 times per minute, or "in time with the tune of the disco classic 'Stayin Alive.'" :) The song came in handy for something. Interesting. Who knew The Bee Gees were such uber genuises! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I've decided I hate the cover because every time I look at it, "Stayin' Alive" starts playing in my head. Keep that song in your head! You may need it one day. I was just reading about how to give adult CPR. In Step 4, it says to: straighten your arms and press down as hard as possible. Repeating at an interval of at least 100 times per minute, or "in time with the tune of the disco classic 'Stayin Alive.'" :) The song came in handy for something. Interesting. Who knew The Bee Gees were such uber genuises! They were always good at making comebacks. This must be their final one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexMike Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I've decided I hate the cover because every time I look at it, "Stayin' Alive" starts playing in my head. Every time I hear that song I think of the scene at the dive bar in Airplane! LOL. Me too! And that guy on the dance floor! That movie is a classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look to Sirius Posted October 10, 2015 Author Share Posted October 10, 2015 The only thing I know is that it's the best face Geddy has ever made on an album cover beforeI think this is post of the thread so far. :cheers: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look to Sirius Posted October 10, 2015 Author Share Posted October 10, 2015 Also Neil's arms are not missing. He was playing a part with both arms concealed by toms, and you can see his hand in the middle of the two front toms.Interesting observation. I thought that was the design on his t-shirt, like the S&A ouroboros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicHead Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 November 20 can't come soon enough! Pre-ordered this thru Amazon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catherine Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 That...can't possibly be Hugh. It's way, wayyyy too hideous to be Hugh. 90's font with a gradient color, amateur photoshop sky, and a disco ball? No, I can't allow myself to believe this is Hugh. I wish they would just re-purpose the r40 package that came out last year, and alter it a bit. That was much, muuuuch more aesthetically pleasing.Yes. This. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 That...can't possibly be Hugh. It's way, wayyyy too hideous to be Hugh. 90's font with a gradient color, amateur photoshop sky, and a disco ball? No, I can't allow myself to believe this is Hugh. I wish they would just re-purpose the r40 package that came out last year, and alter it a bit. That was much, muuuuch more aesthetically pleasing.Yes. This. Sometimes less is more, and it definitely is in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catherine Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 That...can't possibly be Hugh. It's way, wayyyy too hideous to be Hugh. 90's font with a gradient color, amateur photoshop sky, and a disco ball? No, I can't allow myself to believe this is Hugh. I wish they would just re-purpose the r40 package that came out last year, and alter it a bit. That was much, muuuuch more aesthetically pleasing.Yes. This. Sometimes less is more, and it definitely is in this case.I guess I don't REALLY care that much if the content is good but man, WTH were they thinking with this thing? Is it supposed to be gaudy on purpose? Is it an inside joke? WTH is Hugh? If his name is on the credit for this thing I am going to be totally disillusioned. I bought that $100 book and I find it impossible to believe he had anything to do with this. But hey, stranger things have happened I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexMike Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Here's a conspiracy theory. Were Neil's arms removed out of spite? You pull the plug on your band, we take your arms away. :PI've considered this. :(It's probably nothing nefarious really, but I do find it a little astonishing how minimized Neil is in that image. Alex and Geddy look like giants in full rock star pose. And in between, it looks like a Neil head was just pasted in above the drum kit. He looks almost child sized in comparison. Wonder if he's even seen this. Or maybe he has and his approval is another sign he doesn't give a **** anymore. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 That...can't possibly be Hugh. It's way, wayyyy too hideous to be Hugh. 90's font with a gradient color, amateur photoshop sky, and a disco ball? No, I can't allow myself to believe this is Hugh. I wish they would just re-purpose the r40 package that came out last year, and alter it a bit. That was much, muuuuch more aesthetically pleasing.Yes. This. Sometimes less is more, and it definitely is in this case.I guess I don't REALLY care that much if the content is good but man, WTH were they thinking with this thing? Is it supposed to be gaudy on purpose? Is it an inside joke? WTH is Hugh? If his name is on the credit for this thing I am going to be totally disillusioned. I bought that $100 book and I find it impossible to believe he had anything to do with this. But hey, stranger things have happened I guess. It doesn't at all look like his previous work. This looks like they just threw something together to get it over with. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 this cover as it is now reeks of......"just do whatever they'll buy our shit" Mick 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grasbo Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I just don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital Dad Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 this cover as it is now reeks of......"just do whatever they'll buy our shit" Mick Good to see you back man!! :) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalfwayToGone Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Here's a conspiracy theory. Were Neil's arms removed out of spite? You pull the plug on your band, we take your arms away. :PI've considered this. :(It's probably nothing nefarious really, but I do find it a little astonishing how minimized Neil is in that image. Alex and Geddy look like giants in full rock star pose. And in between, it looks like a Neil head was just pasted in above the drum kit. He looks almost child sized in comparison. Wonder if he's even seen this. Or maybe he has and his approval is another sign he doesn't give a **** anymore.Just stop it already. It's a Randy Johnson photo. It's not Hugh Syme. Neil's arms are obscured by rack toms. You can clearly see his hand in the middle. He's seated behind a very large kit, and he's farther back than Geddy and Alex, so of course he looks small. Geez. "Waaaah waaah! They used a photo instead of commissioning a major work of art for a live album!" Anyone remember the ATWAS cover? Anyone remember the Replay X 3 cover? It's not a new studio album. Get over it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. JD Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Being a photographer, I would have grabbed 10 shots of that moment with Geddy and Alex on the drum riser. I'm sure Randy Johnson did too. To bad this is the best shot out of that 10. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narps Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The disco ball saves the cover from being a complete flop. ;)Pretty sure this confirms they HAVE been spying on us Lorraine. This doesn't look that much different than ours... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look to Sirius Posted October 10, 2015 Author Share Posted October 10, 2015 Here's a conspiracy theory. Were Neil's arms removed out of spite? You pull the plug on your band, we take your arms away. :PI've considered this. :(It's probably nothing nefarious really, but I do find it a little astonishing how minimized Neil is in that image. Alex and Geddy look like giants in full rock star pose. And in between, it looks like a Neil head was just pasted in above the drum kit. He looks almost child sized in comparison. Wonder if he's even seen this. Or maybe he has and his approval is another sign he doesn't give a **** anymore.Ultimately I do not think it is anything nefarious either, but I did consider it for a minute. I agree with you - Neil's head looks pasted on. I do not see any arms at all. Look at photo #4 of 10 here (Randy Johnson photographs Rush). http://mlb.mlb.com/photos/gallery.jsp?content_id=125665406&c_id=mlb That photo seems to be the basis for Neil on the cover. You clearly see his one arm twirling a stick, and clearly see his other arm down by his side. My recent thought on this is, since they did not extend the tour, they knew they had to get this product out for the Christmas shopping season. There are a number of things one can speculate on, but if Hugh was not involved it is possible that it was a scheduling conflict due to the tight release schedule that prevented him from working on this cover. I admit I could be entirely wrong on this and Hugh did do the cover, but I just can't shake the feeling that this isn't his work. The main reason for that really is that I cannot see Neil's arms. I cannot see his hands. I do not see any drumsticks. As they say, something's wrong with this picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puffyshirt Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I know Rush has had a variety of design aesthetics over the years, but it's at least slightly weird that both of these designs are for the same bandhttp://www.rushbackstage.com/images/products/RU/R4/RUR4BLU40T000_000.jpg?preset=detailshttp://www.rushbackstage.com/images/products/RU/30/RU30DVDREG000_000.jpg?preset=details The more I think about CA Live starting the trend of the band being on the cover, the less I like it. It feels super tacky, like a Hard Rock Casino band 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Being a photographer, I would have grabbed 10 shots of that moment with Geddy and Alex on the drum riser. I'm sure Randy Johnson did too. To bad this is the best shot out of that 10. That was my thought. Surely this isn't the best picture from the tour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toymaker Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Maybe the aesthetic is just in keeping with the moment from their career re-imagined on stage at this time - a band playing high school dances under a disco ball, a band not making much money. In other words, maybe the tackiness is "on purpose." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narps Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Maybe the aesthetic is just in keeping with the moment from their career re-imagined on stage at this time - a band playing high school dances under a disco ball, a band not making much money. In other words, maybe the tackiness is "on purpose."Probably so and they hit the tack right on the head... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) Maybe the aesthetic is just in keeping with the moment from their career re-imagined on stage at this time - a band playing high school dances under a disco ball, a band not making much money. In other words, maybe the tackiness is "on purpose." They were on their down the tubes tour when disco saw the light of day, so I'm not sure it has anything to do with Rush at any point in their career. But I'm sure you are right in that there is a good reason for the picture they chose. We just don't know what that reason is. :) Edited October 10, 2015 by Lorraine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toymaker Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Maybe the aesthetic is just in keeping with the moment from their career re-imagined on stage at this time - a band playing high school dances under a disco ball, a band not making much money. In other words, maybe the tackiness is "on purpose." They were on their down the tubes tour when disco saw the light of day, so I'm not sure it has anything to do with Rush at any point in their career. But I'm sure you are right in that there is a good reason for the picture they chose. We just don't know what that reason is. :) It turns out that "disco balls" precede disco - apparently they were even hung in ballrooms in the late 19th century, and decorated dance halls in the 1920s. I guess most people call 'em disco balls because they're so associated with that time. 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