Do you think of Permanent Waves as a 70s album or an 80s album?

[toymaker]

Hellz yeah! Personally I don't care if people THINK it's a 1970 or 1980's album as long as they think it's a great album. :7up:

I won't rest till everyone agrees with me. It is why I wake up everyday. Not for ego but because I'm right, 70's album.

 

Rush...so much controversy. Permanent waves, Wal basses, Lee's voice, Peart's attitude to fans (etc., etc.), the mix of Clockwork Angels.... We can't agree on anything!

 

You guys rock!

Edited May 22, 2017 by toymaker

[Ged Lent's sis]

I actually think that Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures belong in their own "mini-era" of sorts. The songs include elements of the prog era, such as more complicated arrangements and longer songs, but also elements of the synth era such as prominent usage of Minimoogs and Mellotrons as well as some shorter songs.

 

I agree with this, in a sense, and on one hand. In this spirit, what follows is not an argument for one or another position in this poll, but should be read rather a rumination that underpins, on several hands, a plethora of positions posited by people throughout the pages on this thread, as well as the other thread(s) regarding this specific topic.

 

Obviously, the world and its material ingredients do not cater without fail to our silly whims. Time does not adhere permanently to the plans pencil'd in our calendars. Such plans do not always pan out. Nor should we assume that they remain retrospectively true to the patterns in our imaginations when viewed through the lenses of alternative subjectivity. I said I agree with the above expressed perspective by MDW. It also happened to instantaneously remind me of something:

 

All the World´s a Stage[/i] (1976) liner notes']This album to us, signifies the end of the beginning, a milestone to mark the close of chapter one, in the annals of Rush.

 

My intro to RUSH came by way of All the World's a Stage, bought brand spanking new, carted home on my bike, and opened in the living room to that new album smell. As it spun on the turntable of the Sears stereo cabinet console (great sound) I poured over the text in the gatefold sleeve. I recall vividly still that when I got to the above passage that concludes the liner notes I thought the word "annals" must have meant something like "a set of four albums" (I wasn't yet a teenager, after all). And yet, indeed, the 4-studio/1-live album trend would continue through Exit...Stage Left, A Show of Hands, and Different Stages — all the way to their initial, premature retirement. But to extrapolate my point from that early assessment, I took it as a given at that moment that theirs was a plan to do precisely what they did. It may not have been because they were as fastidious in their artistry as I in my imagination, but I was going on the assumption that each set of four albums was going to be bound to their respective era and tied into a neat little bow of history so that they could move on to their next newest wave.

 

To the main topic, the next step in this concept places the album in question in the following corresponding set: A Farewell to Kings, Hemispheres, Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures. Typing this out immediately brings to mind the notional sense put forth somewhere on this forum more than once that "the first 80's album" is Signals. Now, lest someone get their knickers in a twist, what's alluded to here is STRICTLY THE FASHION OF A TIME, i.e. its flavour, colour or style, the zeitgeist of what one thinks of when one thinks of a decade. This is, in fact, how it is parsed in the poll question, the literalistic pair of options therein notwithstanding.

 

That said, personally, I find Moving Pictures sets itself furthest apart from the pack that preceded it. Like I said, while how MDW put it resonates with me, I still find that Permanent Waves forever hugs Hemispheres such that it sharply separates it from Moving Pictures. I nevertheless still see how both of them belong cohesively to the second set of four albums, which is thereby followed up with another sharp departure in Signals, Grace Under Pressure, Power Windows, and Hold Your Fire.

 

So I imagine today, as I imagined in 1976, that the band (or maybe just Neil;) had the idea to use the 4-studio/1-live template to take a definitive step forward towards something yet unexplored, while allowing themselves the freedom to dig deeper within each four album period. (Naturally this'd be the pure folly of imagination but still.) I can further conceive that within the various sets, unplanned departures and setbacks and mini-melodramas occurred, for instance, when Moving Pictures turned out to be so tonally different from virtually everything they had done before, something worth exploring maybe — but, alas, it was time to record "Annal Number Two, Live" and move on.

 

Then, beginning with Signals — amidst their desperation to drastically change direction — there were rumblings about the disappearance of the guitar, as well as a feeling that the band had become stale creatively, which led to the subsequently expressed need to experiment with a new producer. The guitar came roaring back on Grace Under Pressure only to be submersed again on what Geddy regarded at the time as an improved mixture, splitting the difference between synth and guitar, on Power Windows. Hold Your Fire doubled down on that, which is archived live on A Show of Hands. Presto is without a doubt a departure from the previous set, which featured maybe the struggle within the band to move forward without losing their identity.

 

Let me not belabour the point. Briefly, we got a number of views, both literalist and sensual:

 

Literalist: Permanent Waves is the last 70's album because it was composed, recorded, mixed, packaged, & shipped in the 70s.

Literalist: Permanent Waves is the first 80's album because I couldn't buy it until then. And look at the release date!

Literalist: Because of the produced/released discrepancy, it belongs between 79 and 80.

Sensual: Permanent Waves belongs beneath, between, behind the decades.

Sensual: "It sounds/feels so 70s" versus "It sounds/feels so 80s."

Sensual: Rush didn't manage to get to the 80's until Moving Pictures (or Signals).

 

I agree with all of these views.

[Lorraine]

Hellz yeah! Personally I don't care if people THINK it's a 1970 or 1980's album as long as they think it's a great album. :7up:

I won't rest till everyone agrees with me. It is why I wake up everyday. Not for ego but because I'm right, 70's album.

 

Rush...so much controversy. Permanent waves, Wal basses, Lee's voice, Peart's attitude to fans (etc., etc.), the mix of Clockwork Angels.... We can't agree on anything!

 

You guys rock!

Don't forget Vapor Trails! :codger:

[toymaker]

- Edited May 22, 2017 by toymaker

[toymaker]

I actually think that Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures belong in their own "mini-era" of sorts. The songs include elements of the prog era, such as more complicated arrangements and longer songs, but also elements of the synth era such as prominent usage of Minimoogs and Mellotrons as well as some shorter songs.

 

I agree with this, in a sense, and on one hand. In this spirit, what follows is not an argument for one or another position in this poll, but should be read rather a rumination that underpins, on several hands, a plethora of positions posited by people throughout the pages on this thread, as well as the other thread(s) regarding this specific topic.

 

Obviously, the world and its material ingredients do not cater without fail to our silly whims. Time does not adhere permanently to the plans pencil'd in our calendars. Such plans do not always pan out. Nor should we assume that they remain retrospectively true to the patterns in our imaginations when viewed through the lenses of alternative subjectivity. I said I agree with the above expressed perspective by MDW. It also happened to instantaneously remind me of something:

 

All the World´s a Stage[/i] (1976) liner notes']This album to us, signifies the end of the beginning, a milestone to mark the close of chapter one, in the annals of Rush.

 

My intro to RUSH came by way of All the World's a Stage, bought brand spanking new, carted home on my bike, and opened in the living room to that new album smell. As it spun on the turntable of the Sears stereo cabinet console (great sound) I poured over the text in the gatefold sleeve. I recall vividly still that when I got to the above passage that concludes the liner notes I thought the word "annals" must have meant something like "a set of four albums" (I wasn't yet a teenager, after all). And yet, indeed, the 4-studio/1-live album trend would continue through Exit...Stage Left, A Show of Hands, and Different Stages — all the way to their initial, premature retirement. But to extrapolate my point from that early assessment, I took it as a given at that moment that theirs was a plan to do precisely what they did. It may not have been because they were as fastidious in their artistry as I in my imagination, but I was going on the assumption that each set of four albums was going to be bound to their respective era and tied into a neat little bow of history so that they could move on to their next newest wave.

 

To the main topic, the next step in this concept places the album in question in the following corresponding set: A Farewell to Kings, Hemispheres, Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures. Typing this out immediately brings to mind the notional sense put forth somewhere on this forum more than once that "the first 80's album" is Signals. Now, lest someone get their knickers in a twist, what's alluded to here is STRICTLY THE FASHION OF A TIME, i.e. its flavour, colour or style, the zeitgeist of what one thinks of when one thinks of a decade. This is, in fact, how it is parsed in the poll question, the literalistic pair of options therein notwithstanding.

 

That said, personally, I find Moving Pictures sets itself furthest apart from the pack that preceded it. Like I said, while how MDW put it resonates with me, I still find that Permanent Waves forever hugs Hemispheres such that it sharply separates it from Moving Pictures. I nevertheless still see how both of them belong cohesively to the second set of four albums, which is thereby followed up with another sharp departure in Signals, Grace Under Pressure, Power Windows, and Hold Your Fire.

 

So I imagine today, as I imagined in 1976, that the band (or maybe just Neil;) had the idea to use the 4-studio/1-live template to take a definitive step forward towards something yet unexplored, while allowing themselves the freedom to dig deeper within each four album period. (Naturally this'd be the pure folly of imagination but still.) I can further conceive that within the various sets, unplanned departures and setbacks and mini-melodramas occurred, for instance, when Moving Pictures turned out to be so tonally different from virtually everything they had done before, something worth exploring maybe — but, alas, it was time to record "Annal Number Two, Live" and move on.

 

Then, beginning with Signals — amidst their desperation to drastically change direction — there were rumblings about the disappearance of the guitar, as well as a feeling that the band had become stale creatively, which led to the subsequently expressed need to experiment with a new producer. The guitar came roaring back on Grace Under Pressure only to be submersed again on what Geddy regarded at the time as an improved mixture, splitting the difference between synth and guitar, on Power Windows. Hold Your Fire doubled down on that, which is archived live on A Show of Hands. Presto is without a doubt a departure from the previous set, which featured maybe the struggle within the band to move forward without losing their identity.

 

Let me not belabour the point. Briefly, we got a number of views, both literalist and sensual:

 

Literalist: Permanent Waves is the last 70's album because it was composed, recorded, mixed, packaged, & shipped in the 70s.

Literalist: Permanent Waves is the first 80's album because I couldn't buy it until then. And look at the release date!

Literalist: Because of the produced/released discrepancy, it belongs between 79 and 80.

Sensual: Permanent Waves belongs beneath, between, behind the decades.

Sensual: "It sounds/feels so 70s" versus "It sounds/feels so 80s."

Sensual: Rush didn't manage to get to the 80's until Moving Pictures (or Signals).

 

I agree with all of these views.

 

Nicely put - and I love the alliteration.

 

Still . . . 70s album.

[Lorraine]

-

 

Amen brother!!!

 

Preach it................

[toymaker]

-

 

Amen brother!!!

 

Preach it................

 

I quoted the wrong post...but yes, that's mostly what's in my brain these days.

[Lorraine]

-

 

Amen brother!!!

 

Preach it................

 

I quoted the wrong post...but yes, that's mostly what's in my brain these days.

Join the club.

[Rick N. Backer]

I once believed it was an 80's album. Then I was presented the FACTS and I was big enough to admit I was wrong.

 

Some people can't admit mistakes.

 

Like the synth era?

[JohnRogers]

I once believed it was an 80's album. Then I was presented the FACTS and I was big enough to admit I was wrong.

 

Some people can't admit mistakes.

 

Like the synth era?

I feel pity for you. So much great music that apparently you're incapable of enjoying. Chin up chum great advances in medicine happen all time!

[JohnnyBlaze]

Hellz yeah! Personally I don't care if people THINK it's a 1970 or 1980's album as long as they think it's a great album. :7up:

I won't rest till everyone agrees with me. It is why I wake up everyday. Not for ego but because I'm right, 70's album.

 

Rush...so much controversy. Permanent waves, Wal basses, Lee's voice, Peart's attitude to fans (etc., etc.), the mix of Clockwork Angels.... We can't agree on anything!

 

You guys rock!

 

I disagree!

 

We don't rock, we roll!

[Lorraine]

Did we ever get to the bottom of this?

 

[Fordgalaxy]

Did we ever get to the bottom of this?

 

 

Yes. Some people think it's an 80's album and the others are wrong. It matters not what you believe.

[Lorraine]

:sarcastic:

[laughedatbytime]

It's a 70s album that some people didn't hear till the 80s, 90s, 2000s, or 2010s.

[toymaker]

The artistically sensitive and creative types know that it's a 70s album because that's when it was written and recorded and mixed and mastered and artistically designed.

 

The release-date slaves take the unimaginative stance that it's an 80s album because it happened to be released in January of 1980. Thppt. I suspect they're trying to give the weaker 80s period some additional credibility.

 

There - does that ruffle any feathers?

[Lorraine]

It's a 70s album that some people didn't hear till the 80s, 90s, 2000s, or 2010s.

 

We have to do a poll where we can see who voted for what so we know which TRF members are wrong.

[Na na na]

1974 Rush

1975 Fly By Night

1975 Caress Of Steel

1976 2112

1977 A Farewell To Kings

1978 Hemispheres

1980 Permanent Waves

1981 Moving Pictures

1982 Signals

1984 Grace Under Pressure

1985 Power Windows

1987 Hold Your Fire

1989 Presto.........

[treeduck]

Why was this ever an issue? I've never cared about it, or heard about anyone caring about it, until I saw stuff about it on this forum.

[Fordgalaxy]

The artistically sensitive and creative types know that it's a 70s album because that's when it was written and recorded and mixed and mastered and artistically designed.

 

The release-date slaves take the unimaginative stance that it's an 80s album because it happened to be released in January of 1980. Thppt. I suspect they're trying to give the weaker 80s period some additional credibility.

 

There - does that ruffle any feathers?

 

It comes down to how the record identifies. Does it feel like the 80s record of it's birth, or a 70s album of it's formation?

[JohnRogers]

The artistically sensitive and creative types know that it's a 70s album because that's when it was written and recorded and mixed and mastered and artistically designed.

 

The release-date slaves take the unimaginative stance that it's an 80s album because it happened to be released in January of 1980. Thppt. I suspect they're trying to give the weaker 80s period some additional credibility.

 

There - does that ruffle any feathers?

:goodone:

[Lorraine]

I forgot how to do a poll. :(

[treeduck]

I forgot how to do a poll. :(

You swing on it.

[Lorraine]

I forgot how to do a poll. :(

You swing on it.

[chemistry1973]

1979 was one of the best years ever for music. PeW fits in pretty well with that year. So - a 70s record.

 

It was recorded,mixed and mastered in the 70s.