toscanobarga

Many of us.

I don't do Crapple. I've seen what goes on behind the curtains.

Test For Echo, closely followed by Presto. Depending on my mood I could probably make a case for 4 out of the 5 albums released between Power Windows and VT

There are always exceptions to the "no illegal downlaod" rule. Having spent $25 on the vinyl my conscience is pristinely clean on getting the mp3 the alternative route, and as much as I hate mp3 it's the only way to put on my mp3 player for the gym/car.

I was just as naive, back in the day. I loved VT from the first listen, and I foolishly thought, "Wow, here's a record that will unite Rush fans! EVERYONE is going to love it!" Then I hit the message boards and saw all the thumbs-down votes, mostly because of the production. I'm no audiophile, but I eventually came to understand that the gripes were justified. This wasn't a matter of the album sounding INTENTIONALLY "raw" or "grungy," this was a butchering job in the mixing and mastering. Still, I loved the songs and was a fierce defender of the album. I can only agree and amplify this. From the start, I viewed VT as a unique and daring artistic statement. The guys really took a lot of chances on this album - all the guitar layering, the vocal layering, the absence of keyboards, the dearth of guitar solos - and the result is an album which sounds very different from anything else they've done, before or since. It manages to be as hard-rocking as their other albums, but is also very "artsy." It's really got a character all its own. And we hear now that it's also an "emotional" album. Vapor Trails is to Rush what The Unforgettable Fire is to U2. They could've played it safe and released something which sounded like its successful predecessors, but they were bold and gave us atmospheric ART instead. Love it or hate it or just "like" it, you have to give props to Rush for being artists, and not salesmen. Big U2 fan here. I look it as more like Pop. Pop was U2's last (only) ROCK record after the "electro" icing was stripped away, the last time the lyrics were decent and deeply personal, with the band in a dark space. Polarized many fans and to this day the band doesn't play much if any material from it. It also needs a remix badly, but ultimately it's strength, the deeply personal emotional SONGS are it's strength. Unlike U2 however, Rush has come back and not only made a great late career album (CA), they've also fixed the flaws in another late career great record.

One of my boys has seen them 3 times with me now. Loves them. The other may yet come around, his faves are Tool, Zep and NiN so he's got good taste even if Rush doesn't quite do it for him.

It didn't jump over any other album, but solidifed it's #10 ranking.

"It's a terrible feeling that, due to the lack of objectivity, you let an imperfect piece of work get out there" Geddy in the Rolling Stone interview. Is that explicit enough for you?? tilting at windmills. I completely agree the comments were explicit regarding VT, but by the sheer fact that they have re-released other product that they "improved" multiple times now it is implicit that they felt the originals weren't good enough. Otherwise why bother ? Get it ?

But those self-same people released the album in the first place. Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released. You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now. Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty. Thy product is only better in the sense that it isn't broken. It's cheap minced beef to the original's horse meat. Lots of people convinced themselves they liked the taste of the meat in their lasagne until they realised it was horse and not beef. The band thinks it's better. Not everyone agrees. Those that do, can buy it, or not. Those that don't won't. Some people don't like either version and just want to complain about it regardless. Each to their own. The original wasn't broken, it just wan't as good quality as the band, with 20/20 hindsight, wanted it to be. If the band thought all the originals were perfect they wouldn't keep remastering and issuing new versions for sale. As most bands/record companies have been doing. What would you have them do, give it away ? So theoretically people who didn't have the first "broken" one could now get one for free ? The original was broken and there is definitely a good argument that says the band should consider a swap deal. I'm at a loss to understand how, given the evidence, you can't see that the original release was not as it should be or what the band envisaged. Lee admits that there were digital artefacts on the original that spoiled the sound and made the mixing and mastering almost impossible without the technology of today. This is not really open to debate or opinion as it is fact. And yet some people here like SOME aspects of each release and want both. Me included. There are many precedents for manufacturers "fixing" products in later releases that they didn't give away. The original may be flawed but it wasn't broken, it was playable and plenty of people liked it. Broken = Unplayable, was it "defective" ? Subjective. But like I said it's no different than buying a remastered version of Moving pictures. Whether or not you agree with that, well, who cares. Sounds like you didn't like the original or the remix so really you're getting your knickers in a twist over something that doesn't affect you one iota.

But those self-same people released the album in the first place. Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released. You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now. Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty. Thy product is only better in the sense that it isn't broken. It's cheap minced beef to the original's horse meat. Lots of people convinced themselves they liked the taste of the meat in their lasagne until they realised it was horse and not beef. The band thinks it's better. Not everyone agrees. Those that do, can buy it, or not. Those that don't won't. Some people don't like either version and just want to complain about it regardless. Each to their own. The original wasn't broken, it just wan't as good quality as the band, with 20/20 hindsight, wanted it to be. If the band thought all the originals were perfect they wouldn't keep remastering and issuing new versions for sale. As most bands/record companies have been doing. What would you have them do, give it away ? So theoretically people who didn't have the first "broken" one could now get one for free ?

But those self-same people released the album in the first place. Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released. You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now.

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

Ummm, how many times has Rush (or their record company) released remastered editions ? Or how many times have you bought the "same" thing more than once ? Some people are acting like this is a new thing. I have 4 versions of Moving Pictures for example. 2 Vinyls, original CD, reissued deluxe CD Don't want the new VT ? Don't buy it. Download it. Whatever. But stop acting like this isthe first time Rush rereleased something or that you will be buying a different version of something you already own.

Thin Lizzy : Cowboy Song/Boys are Back In Town

One difference is that the whole thing sounds better start to finish.

A sub-par season with just the crappiest series ending I think I've ever seen first hand. Lame Lame Lame. I'm expecting great things from Breaking Bad on Sunday.

The Black Crowes are/were a well rehearsed tight live band playing mostly unmemorable music. Zeppelin were sloppy, hit or miss, but playing songs for the ages. http://dogsondrugs.com/2012/05/18/why-led-zeppelin-kicks-the-everloving-shit-out-of-every-other-rock-band-ever/

First "new release" Rush album I ever bought. Great then, great now.

Can't wait to get my vinyl. This is basically a new album as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Lagunitas IPA. I was in the Bay Area last weekend and took a drive to the Brewery TapRoom, if you get the chance get their Fusion 17. Amazing stuff only available in the tap room.

Gin ? Sometimes a hot summer day calls for a nice cold Gin and Tonic, but otherwise, meh. Yeah the Woodford is my buddies' favorite, I find it a tad on the sweet side.

So I'm a Scotch guy. Whether it be a good blend or a single malt, whether it's the sweeter Macallan-esque type, a balanced Speyside, or a smoky Islay. Friend of mine keeps bringing bourbons for me to try but they don't quite grab me, either too harsh or too sweet. Maybe he's just not spending enough, but anyhow, thoughts on what I might try ? I typically spend $25-$50/bottle on my Scotch habit so that's the price range I'd prefer to stay in.

Rory was a great guy as well as a great musician. opening night of his 1978 (or was it 1979 ? , 1980 ? it's all a haze) UK tour in Glasgow and his flight is delayed, crowd very restless. Comes on stage maybe 45 mins late, played about an extra hour as way of apology. Great live performer. As well as albums mentioned already, check out Photo finish and Top priority

Awesome band up to and including the Rhythmeen tour. They started mailing it in after that, don't play much newer stuff, shows are fairly short. Mescalero and La Futura are right up there with Vapor Trails in the "mastered by monkeys" category.