Jump to content

capoetc

Members
  • Posts

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by capoetc

  1. I bought the one with the t-shirt, and then later I also bought the Bluray. Makes sense because I have bought many Rush releases in multiple formats over the years (yes, I had the early 8-tracks too!).
  2. So, you're telling me $9,500 is a lot for a stick, two pieces of wire, and three cut signatures?
  3. For the record, I NEVER left a Rush show early. I always stayed until the last note stopped ringing in the venue, the house lights came up, and then I usually hung out and chatted with other fans for 20-30 minutes.
  4. Sounds like there is strong demand for this show, so maybe some more dates will be added (Dallas, por favor!).
  5. Little known fact: The entire album was written whilst sitting on a park bench.
  6. When the Feedback CD was released, I listened to it over and over for the next 6 months or so, and I still go back to it often. Great songs reinterpreted and Rush-ified. And R30 was my favorite concert setlist. I am so glad that when the Blu-ray for R30 was released it had the whole show since they cut out a bunch of songs in the DVD release. And Neil's drum solo on R30 is my fav as well, although admittedly -- I love 'em all!
  7. It is a little perplexing that (seemingly) every Signals 40th package offered centers on vinyl -- there is no option to just buy a CD and/or cd/DVD or CD/BluRay package. I listen to music now mostly via streaming, but there are some items I still buy hard copies of just because I like to have them and use them occasionally. I get the audiophile craze with vinyl now outselling CDs, but it seems odd that in order to support the band and buy the new items I might want I have to buy vinyl that I will definitely not use. Oh well..
  8. If there was a live show as part of the set, I would be in too. I am a little concerned that, if these sets don't sell well, they will stop making them with live material still sitting in the vault unreleased. But it is what it is, I have already bought multiple copies of every single Rush release, so I don't think I need another remix.
  9. For me, S&A is one of Rush's best albums -- I love it.
  10. I didn't see Phil Collins performing from a chair, but I did check it out on YouTube ... the voice is still there. And the fans seemed to love it. It works for Phil Collins, but not for Alex. Which is perfectly ok.
  11. FWIW, this was already linked in the MP 40th thread.
  12. The YYZ Fantoons video which will be included in the Super Deluxe MP 40th set. "No good dope smoking degenerates! I should have known as soon as I saw those kimonos ..." :D
  13. For what its worth, I have the "scaled down" packaging you referenced. The Blurays are the same, and I prefer it because it fits on my shelf with my other concert discs (as opposed to the original book packaging, which needs to be either in its own space or on your book shelf. Something to consider, but I understand wanting the original book it is packaged in.
  14. Well ... I saw the lyric pages available separately on Rush.com earlier today but they are no longer listed other than as part of the Super Deluxe package (or 1 of the 6 lyric sheets randomly inserted in the album version). So that makes my decision easier -- I will just order the 3-CD version from Amazon instead.
  15. I will definitely be buying this. I need to decide between the CD set and the super deluxe ... really, all I want in the super deluxe is the Bluray and the lyric sheets. It is hard to justify paying an extra $250 just to get the Bluray and lyric sheets, though. I am not a record collector, and most of my music these days is via streaming services. I don't own a record player. But ..... it is pretty cool ..... if I don't buy the super deluxe, I will likely buy the lyric sheets separately though.
  16. Not sure how I missed this one -- thanks for posting! (The one on top, not the Geddy Lee Christmas one ...)
  17. capoetc

    Rush and Rand

    Probably unwise for me to poke the outraged bear, but why should someone who says or performs something you do not like "shut the f*ck up"? Is there simply no room in today's society for people with differing viewpoints to simply agree to disagree? Are folks only allowed to produce art that you agree with? What other forms of speech would you be in favor of censoring? I do not agree with all aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her positions were arrived at through a life of experience. She summed up her philosophy as follows: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged Is there nothing in that statement that you can support? Is the expression of that philosophy something that no one should be allowed to consider and discuss? To be clear, this post is not meant to be an attack of any sort, nor is it a defense of Ayn Rand or her philosophy. My objection is to the suggestion that she, or Eric Clapton, or anyone else for that matter, should not be allowed to express their points of view. The harm is not in the existence of too many points of view, some of which some people find objectionable. The harm is in allowing too few points of view.
  18. Got my Cinema Strangiato tickets for my local theater. :chickendance:
  19. Non-Fan of Primus: "Man, this is weird!" Primus Fan: "Man, this is weird!"
  20. There's a clip of Les Claypool performing 'The Spirit of Radio' as part of RUSH's induction into the 2010 Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame here. If it can't be viewed by the above link, it's also below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taS06rvN8gk When Primus embarks on the upcoming RUSH tribute tour, here's a comment posted by someone on Les's 'The Spirit of Radio' clip that puts things into perspective. "Everyone saying this is a bad performance/cover/whatever; I think you're just not accustomed to hearing Les sing in a major key, or...any key, for that matter. Embrace the strangeness." This performance may have been the musical inspiration for the alternative polka band "Rash" ....
  21. Since we already have remastered versions of the studio albums, I would be fine with just releasing any live shows available (over time) with the entire show.
  22. capoetc

    August 6, 1945

    At the time, the options were as follows: 1. Give up, sue for peace, and allow a militaristic Japan to build up its military again and menace its neighbors while jeopardizing US interests in the Pacific. 2. Invade Japan, thereby extending the war an indeterminate amount of time. Keep in mind that the Japanese withheld a number of assets from being used in the Okinawa campaign -- Okinawa was considered important, but not vital, and the Japanese had a LOT of assets ready to defend the home islands to the death. 3. Detonate our only two atomic weapons offshore someplace to demonstrate how bad they are. If the Japanese are not sufficiently convinced, it will be another year or so before another weapon can be ready so .... back to option 1 or option 2. 4. Drop the nuclear weapons strategic targets that just might convince the Japanese leadership to surrender without having to invade. I'm running out of options now. How many Japanese military and civilian deaths and American deaths are you willing to sacrifice to avoid the number who were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It is really easy to sit in the cheap seats and throw stones at President Truman (who did not even know the Manhattan Project existed until after President Roosevelt died). Try really hard to put yourself in his place. His country is exhausted from four long years of war. Many soldiers who fought through Europe, from the Normandy invasion all the way to Berlin (in some cases, they were involved in North Africa and Italy as well), and their units would now be involved in the second wave of the invasion of Japan. I once spoke with a guy whose Dad fought in the Pacific. He was preparing to participate in the invasion of Japan when the war ended because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... instead, he came home to his family. This gentlemen said that, whenever someone tried to tell him that the US should not have dropped atomic weapons on Japan, he would point his finger in their chest and say, "F**k you! Your Dad was not the one who would have died invading Japan ..." Just imagine the anger and outrage if Truman had decided NOT to drop the bomb, and then the war ended a year or more later .... and it then became known that we had a weapon that could have possibly ended the war without an invasion. That alone is not reason enough to make the decision, but as a leader it must give you pause .... your first and foremost task as President is to protect the American people. Oh, well .... those who think we could have just been nice to the Japanese and they would have seen the error of their ways will never be convinced. The best I can hope for is that those who think the decision was flawed will at least consider the decision within the context of its time, and remember that a lot of people exist today in the USA because their Dad's were not killed invading Japan. And ... a lot of people exist in Japan today because their mothers and fathers were not killed in the invasion of Japan. The nightmare scenario would have been if Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the empty threat of the same thing happening to every major Japanese city) had not worked and we STILL had to invade Japan. That was the calculated risk ... fortunately, the risk paid off.
  23. capoetc

    August 6, 1945

    I have visited both. I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan. I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member. I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future. 1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction? Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone. The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace. Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely. Right - I’m not surprised nobody gave you a second look when you were at the Hiroshima Peace Museum. By chance, did you get any opportunity to speak with anyone who lived through either of the bombs? Or even just any civilian who lived in Japan during WW2? Those are some gut wrenching experiences if you did get the chance. It’s been good for me to have been been fortunate enough to hear my mom and grandfather’s WW2 experiences in the Philippines, Japanese civilians speaking of theirs here, and plenty of Americans (civilian and military) relaying their experiences too. These personal stories can’t help but influence my thoughts on the war and the choices made by leaders. I totally agree with your last paragraph - every decision is going to be a bad one due to the nature of war. But I just can’t help to think that there must have been another (less horrendous) decision to make other than the ones that actually were made on those two August dates. Well, we could have just sued for peace. What do you think the odds are that a "victorious" Japan that still retains firepower would quit menacing its neighbors? Sometimes the "do nothing" option is the most expensive one of all. And, on the issue of talking with survivors -- yes, I have spoken to several. Have you ever spoken to Pearl Harbor survivors? The ones who were at peace on the morning of Dec 7, 1941, up until the Japanese sneak attack that killed literally thousands of Americans? I have spoken to them too. And the end result of WWII, as terrible as it was, left Japan as a world economic powerhouse (thanks to the American decision to help our defeated enemies rather than punishing them further as ALL previous victors have done throughout history) and no threat whatsoever to their neighbors.
×
×
  • Create New...