GabesCavesOfIce

Tool has figured out the magic source to avoid releasing a dud album Just wait 13 years (ironically longer than Zeppelin's entire discography) between releases and what you come up with is an incredible album beloved by fans and a sold out tour where fans main complaint is the band is not playing enough new material. In my 38 years of concert going, I can not recall hearing that complaint too often.

.

As an album that you play through from start to finish, I definitely like it better than 10,000 Days. I miss not having at least one snappy shorter song like "Vicarious" but that's a minor quibble. I downloaded the album from HD Tracks. Hi-res flac files. It sounds phenomenal on my home theater system. Although I prefer their 1st 4 albums, I respect that Tool has grown by further exploring their progressive, immersive and complex style. Not by leaving their roots behind by coming up with an entirely new style (ahem synth) or "that lyrical style is too immature for me now." The album is essentially six songs that average 12 minutes and a drum solo and three segues. Imagine if a band like Rush were as bold in their mid 50s.

...when The Sound of Muzak is too hardcore for Rush fans.

As long as Geddy and Alex are in it, it’s Rush. Drums are just drums and no one ever got into Rush for the lyrics. Not the case - they've both said "No Neil, no Rush." It's all 3 or nothing. They don't mean it. They hate him. They always have. At least it's only Geddy, Al seems busy trying to break into MLB https://i.redd.it/rrfzhern61331.jpg

April 1 memories

I played it, minus Didacts and Narpets, (along with SteelCaressed son) during the TRF tailgate in the Jiffy Lube Live (DC) parking lot for the Snakes And Arrows, Time Machine, and Clockwork Angels tours. I think there may be videos of it in the meetup archives of the tour section. I can verify. Very enjoyable version!

31 and counting. Someone get Van Squalen to confirm.

I've been wanting to say, thank you, Jnoble. I picked some of the biggest hits, and concert favorites Rush fans, and who have been for a long time wanted to see, and hear in person. Alex's excuse was that they played a ton of mid-late 80s material on the Clockwork Tour so they didn't need to revisit. Well, yes, yes they did! It was a 40th anny greatest hits our last tour ever...You're SUPPOSED to hit on all phases of your long career, not just cherry pick the ones you like the most :codger: Not only was Alex right, they've been skipping many of the R40 tunes for years, some for decades. Can you imagine the frustration those fans have been feeling the last 25 years of their career? Is there a pattern to the Tulsa 2015 setlist? Set[set 1:] The World Is...The World Is @Tape[intro video] Clockwork Angels The Anarchist Headlong Flight @Info[with 'Drumbastica' mini drum solo] Far Cry The Main Monkey Business @Info[first time played live since 2008] One Little Victory @Info[first time played live since 2008] Animate @Info[first time played since 2004] Roll the Bones @Info[with 'celebrity rappers' video) (first time played since 2004] Distant Early Warning @Info[first time played live since 2007] Subdivisions @Set[set 2:] No Country for Old Hens @Tape[intro video] Tom Sawyer Red Barchetta @Info[first time played live since 2011] The Spirit of Radio Jacob's Ladder @Info[first time played since 1980] Cygnus X-1 Book II: Hemispheres Part I: Prelude @Info[first time played since 1994] Cygnus X-1 @Info[book One: The Voyage Parts 1 & 3) (with drum solo) (first time played since 2002] Closer to the Heart @Info[first time played live since 2011] Xanadu @Info[first time played since 2004] 2112 Part I: Overture 2112 Part II: The Temples of Syrinx 2112 Part IV: Presentation @Info[first time played since 1997] 2112 Part VII: Grand Finale Mel's Rock Pile starring Eugene Levy @Tape Lakeside Park @Info[first time played since 1978] Anthem @Info[first full performance since 1980] What You're Doing @Info[first time played since 1977] Working Man @Info[with 'Garden Road' outro) (first time played with regular intro since 2004] Exit Stage Left @Tape[outro video] ... Hint, begins with phrase"first time"

Touche random internet dude :)

Being the son of a Holocaust victim is nothing to sneeze at

When he spoke of people who eat darkness backstory, I was completely mesmerized. He also played Routine at the show I was at. Completely unexpected. Wow. His last two, TTB and HCE are both incredible albums. One with long form song prog brilliance, the other with shorter poppier songs with prog blended in. Let’s face it, SW can’t not do prog. It’s in him to the bone.

Caught the TTB tour at PlayStation a couple weeks ago... As an SW noob (thanks to TRF, TOST and Polarize and others for posting about SW and PT relentlessly) I am late to the game but am enjoying experiencing his vast catalogue for the first time in recent years. TTB is definitely a departure album, but despite his claims of being like an 80s pop record, it's difficult for SW to not have significant prog elements in his music. I won't say much to spoil his TTB show, other than Pariah (with it's unique screen ) was stunning live. .

My kid wore the Radical Action tour shirt yesterday!

We need to get this dude a copy of Tai Shan.

What makes you think that after Vapor Trails was released, Neil had X amount of shows left in him between then and whenever he packed it in, and that a longer tour in 2010 somehow affected how many shows he had in him in 2015? One possible scenario... Had the band been allowed to plan this together, perhaps scaling back time machine and CA live a bit, they could have moved their "year off " from 2014 to 2013, and perform 2 legs of R40 late 2014 into 2015.

How about doing away w/ the entire pointless Time Machine Tour as well? There was really no reason for that tour nor the size of it. They could have saved their physical resources, instead of burning themselves out w/ multiple high capacity tours in a relatively short time span. Fewer shows for CA tour. The R40 tour should've been huge, including Europe dates. They should've gone out w/ a giant bang, instead, because of the way it was done, the uncertainty and the suddenness, they went out w/ a whimper. And that, in a nutshell, is what so many long time fans are so upset about. Not that they retired, god knows they deserved to, but the way they retired. A whimper. You say it very well. It seems time machine, although I enjoyed it at the time, was crammed in to get a certain performer enough wealth to get to his magic retirement number ASAP. I don't care what they called each tour, but to finally pull out some long forgotten early classics, finally, then only do 35 shows, ignore Europe... . Maybe the Time Machine Tour was unnecessary, although I'm sure it was a great tour for most everyone involved. Besides, didn't they pull out a few rarer numbers for that one? Maybe it wasn't Jacob's Ladder, but I recall Presto being played for the first time live, and the live version being surprisingly better than the studio version. That's besides the point though. Neil didn't do any tour just to make enough money to retire with. He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s. He retired when he wanted to, and in 2010 and 2011 he didn't want to. He wanted to tour and write the lyrics to a concept album and work on it's novelization and make that album with Ged and Al and make it their most vital work since the 80s. By 2015, he was ready to retire, so he did. Why is that hard to understand? Wow, gone two days and missed the fireworks. Glad rush fans can patch things up and listen to others in some places around here. EP, as I have said a couple times in the first 7 pages of this topic, I agree 2015 was the year for Neil to retire, if that was his wish. It's the way he spent the last five years of his career, and his complete refusal to support his two band mates desire to not retire that I disagree with. 3 years later and zero hints of a "Leefson" project. Wonder if there is any connection to that with NP turning g his back on them. One sentence expressing curiosity what his mates create in the future? If he did, I must have missed it. Time machine did pull out a couple of rare songs, but that was not my point. Look at rush setlists from MP tour. And then review every tour following until R40. I saw MP and every tour since, except HYF (h/t Transverse Leaf Spring). From experience, I can tell you R40 is the tour 70s fans waited 34 years for. Then it was over 34 shows in. First single leg full tour of their career. Because they wore themselves out by jam packing the previous five years with synth dominated tours, to get a certain someone to their magic retirement number ASAP. Read Neal's book about his famous cycle tour dealing with loss before making comments like "He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s." An obvious innacurate statement, had you read his book. This is a forum for fans to express differing opinions. Why is that so hard to understand? . I completely understand this forum is for expressing different opinions. I was literally making the same point a couple days ago. Don't accuse me of not accepting that my opinions aren't universal. It's not your opinions I disagree with, it's the facts you believe. Yeah, R40 was an incredibly special tour, but I must say again, I highly doubt the previous tours were set up simply so Neil could feel like he earned his retirement. I'll accept that after a while he was much more interested in biking across the country than playing shows, but there's no way he couldn't have retired in 2011 if he'd wanted to. I think we're all upset at the way Rush ended, without much talk of officially putting an end to it, but if you were paying attention something was in the air that said "this could be important." When I was reading up on interviews about the upcoming R40 tour, I had a sense there was something more at work than a 40th anniversary, and when I heard what they put in the setlist, I started thinking they might not be planning to continue after this. I feel like the signs were there if you were open to seeing them, and I'm just glad my dad and I got to enjoy our first concert together being one from that incredible tour. All that aside, I don't really have a big problem with your points until you mention the idea that Neil is somehow preventing Alex and Geddy from making music. That's completely preposterous. Geddy and Alex don't need Neil to make music, they only need him to make Rush. Let's not forget that Ged and Al released solo albums while Neil was on hiatus, they very likely will again. If there's any reason why they haven't done it yet, it's probably that they've just begun to realize over the past year or so that Rush is really over. I know every time I've seen Ged in an interview he's seemed less and less confident that Rush will ever do anything again, and he had been super confident of that before. He most likely hasn't committed himself to solo work simply because he's not ready to tie himself down to a musical project other than Rush, as than would make it all too real that Rush is over. However, I think he's realized it by now, just as most of us have, and he'll probably get back in the studio on his own by next year, if not this year. He could work with Alex, true, and I'd love to hear a Leefson project, but I feel like he's more likely to do solo work, just like Alex has been busying himself working with other artists, painting, writing, and enjoying his life apart from Rush. Whatever the case, Neil has nothing to do with Ged and Alex's ability to make more music. That's baloney. If you want to be upset wth Neil for finally settling down with his family after 40 years of nearly non-stop Rush, after the physical toll it took on his body, after the toll it took on his mind and emotions, and not least after what happened to his last family in the 90s, then fine. That's your prerogative. But know that no one would probably support Ged and Al making more music than Neil. He's always been a humongous proponent of individualism and artistic freedom, he's probably wondering why they haven't done anything yet just like the rest of us. You said "preventing" while I said refused to publicly support. Those are different words with different meanings. Do you understand you changed the meaning of my comment and then attacked your interpretation? Regarding whether Neil needed to go back to work in 2002, read Ghost Rider. He writes about spending much more than his income during the hiatus, and was told by management they'd have to start selling his gear if that trend continued. There's a TRF topic from 2008 if you don't believe the facts being presented to you: "If you read closer, you will see that what Neil was saying was that at that time, he dodn't have enough saved up to retire completely, AND maintain his lifestyle WITHOUT selling off the band's infrastructure. Hence his reference to the discussions he had with Geddy and Al on this matter." " The answer lies in the legal paperwork that was submitted to the court when Alex was suing the neocon Cops in Florida. That showed Rush's 2005 (i think ) earnings. It was in the order of 17 million if my memory serves me correctly. As for each members personal wealth all he says in his books is that he was spending more than he earnt and that he was spending 7 times his earnings. (if my memory serves me correctly)." http://www.therushfo...money-problems/ . Alex and Geddy are big boys now. They don't need Neil's public support to continue making music, they just won't call it Rush, and for good reason. It doesn't matter if I (narrowly) changed the meaning of what you said by inserting a word that I thought you had clearly implied in your previous statement. The idea that Neil is obligated to tell his former band mates they're allowed to make music without him is incredibly short-sighted. Alex has already been working on musical projects, Geddy will soon, now that it's finally hitting him that Rush is done. It's a moot point. Believe what you want about Neil's character and retirement. I still doubt that he went to the trouble of touring nonstop and making Rush's best album since the 80s from 2008 to 2015 just to "hit his magic retirement number." Why? Look at the quality of work he put in in those years. This is a man who obviously had the utmost care and respect for his craft, and for his fans. He retired in 2015 because he decided he couldn't spend anymore time away from his family. Simple as that. Also, why the heck are we discussing Rush's personal finances. Few things are less interesting to me, and honestly I find it completely irrelevant how much money they had in 2005, or at any point in time. Neil could've retired whenever he wanted to, however many millions of dollars he didn't have yet. He certainly had enough to support a family of three. I agree,I could care less about his finances. However, in the context of this subject, when you consider his comments about finances in Ghost Rider, and examine their busy tour schedule post hiatus, it presents a clear picture, imo. This is a discussion about decisions made in the years leading up to his publicly abrupt retirement announcement. Some have said he wore himself out with the busy touring the last 10+ years. I agree. Yes Ged n Al are "big boys." But, you do not see how influential Neil is to them? How many bands have ever said "this band is just us, period." It's almost unheard of. Bands with just as much "musicianship" have reached outside when members leave. I agree Rush is done. To counter Geddys support (with that comment of Neil) during the hiatus by expressing a sentence or two of support or interest in checking out future material would have been a cool thing to do (considering the tension surrounding the band regarding their disagreements on this issue during R40). Just an opinion. It's not like I'm losing any sleep over it ;) Here's how I see it. You said Neil had a choice to either sell his drums and gear so he could retire, or to play so many shows he got burnt out to make a bunch of money quickly so he could retire. If I were Neil in that situation, and my only goal was to retire, I'd sell my stuff in a heartbeat. That's way easier and healthier than playing all those shows so quickly. Now obviously Neil decided to play the shows instead, which says something very clear about his dedication to the band, the fans, and about his desire to retire. If he had wanted to retire in 2005, 2008, 2011, or any other time before 2015, he'd have sold his gear and done it. He didn't, and Neil isn't one to do much of anything he doesn't want to do, so I can only conclude he wanted to keep Rush going until 2015. Also, I was at R40, and he sounded just as incredible as ever. Even with his foot problems on that tour, the man had not burnt out yet when I saw him. Honestly, the only things I noticed that weren't practically record perfect were Ged's voice on a couple songs and when Alex missed a note in the DEW solo. And I cannot express enough how little Peart has to do with Ged and Alex's career decisions anymore. He's retired, Rush is over, he no longer has any influence over what those two do with their careers. I guarantee Geddy hasn't been waiting out home browsing the internet waiting to see a public statement from Neil that says he'd love to hear new music from Ged and Al. Neil has no obligation to do anything of the sort. He put in the better part of his life with them. If they ever deserved anything from him, they got it and more. Yeah, it'd be a nice gesture for Neil to come out on the news just to say he's excited to hear what his former bandmates will do next, but don't you think that's a lot of effort to go to just to say something which could have easily been said in private any number of times over the past three years, and probably was? There's no good reason for Neil to go to the trouble of making a public statement that he's interested in the future careers of Alex and Geddy, especially with how much of a recluse the man is. He's retired for goodness sakes. I say let him be. He gave his all. Ged and Al will be back soon. There's nothing to complain about there. Yeah, the end was kind of abrupt and not well-worded. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you weren't picking up on those strange signals around the R40 tour, I do feel sorry for you, but they were there. There was a real sense of finality about the whole proceeding, Geddy just didn't want to come out and say it was going to be the end because 1. he wasn't sure it was, and 2. even if he knew it might, he didn't want to face that truth himself. I didn't quite put it like that... According to Ghost Rider, Rush management told Neil if he was indeed retired back during the hiatus, that he needed a new source of income, such as selling equipment, or scale back his spending. What occurred afterwards was some of their most extensive touring during the last ten years of their career, followed by an abrupt decision by Neil alone to retire, that obviously caught Ged n Al by surprise. Had they been allowed to plan for this ending as a band, it would have made alot more sense to scale back some shows 2004-2012, and have more time for a career spanning retrospective world tour at R40, with multiple legs. If you examine their historical setlist pre and post moving pictures, you'll find that R40 had the setlists 70s fans waited 34 years for. Then it was over, instantly. As far as Neil having no influence on Ged n Al's post Rush decisions, so far the opposite appears true. In early 2015, they were both certain of doing a second R40 leg, and were interested in recording together more. It's been three years, and according to the Dan Rather interview late last year, Geddy said he is not in a hurry to do any recording whatsoever, and didn't even mention that Alex has any part in the planning nor thought process. These events present a clear picture, to me at least, of Neils retirement having a huge influence on Ged n Al. . I cannot express enough how wrong that idea is. Neil is retired. Alex and Geddy are not. If you're upset that they haven't been doing anything yet, you have literally nothing to worry about. They will get around to it, and probably very soon. If they waited this long because of Neil in any way, it wouldn't be because they were waiting for his public approval, because that's completely unnecessary and dumb. If anything, they might've been waiting just to be sure Neil wasn't going to come back out after a year or two and want to do Rush again. Now that it's clear he's done with Rush, I'm sure they're already starting to think of how they'll take further steps. And also Alex has most definitely been working on other music projects, and just other projects in general, in the past few years. He's not made a solo album, sure, but that hasn't stopped his production work, his guest starring, his painting, column writing, the list goes on. If anything, Ged's the only one who's been wasting his time waiting, which is a little sad, but not inexcusable or particularly maddening. He'll be back at it in no time. You don't need to keep telling me R40 was the setlist of dreams. I already know that. I was there. Despite being only 19, and only 16 at the time, I could tell it was incredibly special to pull out Cygnus, Jacob's Ladder, Hems Prelude, Lakeside Park, and other old favorites. What I don't understand is exactly how that factors into your argument that it's somehow Neil's fault Alex and Ged haven't made a Leefson album yet, or done anything else (which isn't true in Al's case, but whatever). So the setlist was incredibly amazing and the tour was incredibly short. That has nothing to do with decisions Ged and Al have been making three years down the road from Neil's now permanent retirement. So what you said is Neil couldn't retire during his hiatus because his gear wasn't worth enough and he he was spending more than he was earning. While he was on hiatus he didn't have a family to support, and I don't see what was there to stop him from cutting down his spending other than his own monetary habits. Maybe not touring the country on a motorbike and instead living in his home would've helped? Obviously Neil didn't want to do that, and because Neil doesn't do what he doesn't want to do, he continued overspending and refused to sell his gear because he still loved music and drumming. Who knows exactly why he came back. I'm sure money was part of the picture, but I refuse to believe he put his reputation as a drummer on the line after not playing for five years just to make some money. He wanted to prove he could still do it, and dang it if he didn't. And, just my own speculation here, Ged is the one who seems more likely to have pushed for more extensive touring than Neil. I doubt Neil, if he was concerned about his finances, or later on about starting a new family, was ever really that enthusiastic about touring so prolifically and in so many places. Ged's the guy who was pushing for a European leg at the end of R40. Seems to me like he probably pushed for European and South American legs more than Neil during the 00's as well. Also I just don't see how Neil's finances during his hiatus can tell you anything about his finances 10 years later on the Time Machine Tour or in the making of Clockwork Angels. I seriously doubt Neil did those tours and made that album all for money just because he was having problems ten years prior to that. NVM FWIW, that's not an accurate representation of what I am writing .

How about doing away w/ the entire pointless Time Machine Tour as well? There was really no reason for that tour nor the size of it. They could have saved their physical resources, instead of burning themselves out w/ multiple high capacity tours in a relatively short time span. Fewer shows for CA tour. The R40 tour should've been huge, including Europe dates. They should've gone out w/ a giant bang, instead, because of the way it was done, the uncertainty and the suddenness, they went out w/ a whimper. And that, in a nutshell, is what so many long time fans are so upset about. Not that they retired, god knows they deserved to, but the way they retired. A whimper. You say it very well. It seems time machine, although I enjoyed it at the time, was crammed in to get a certain performer enough wealth to get to his magic retirement number ASAP. I don't care what they called each tour, but to finally pull out some long forgotten early classics, finally, then only do 35 shows, ignore Europe... . Maybe the Time Machine Tour was unnecessary, although I'm sure it was a great tour for most everyone involved. Besides, didn't they pull out a few rarer numbers for that one? Maybe it wasn't Jacob's Ladder, but I recall Presto being played for the first time live, and the live version being surprisingly better than the studio version. That's besides the point though. Neil didn't do any tour just to make enough money to retire with. He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s. He retired when he wanted to, and in 2010 and 2011 he didn't want to. He wanted to tour and write the lyrics to a concept album and work on it's novelization and make that album with Ged and Al and make it their most vital work since the 80s. By 2015, he was ready to retire, so he did. Why is that hard to understand? Wow, gone two days and missed the fireworks. Glad rush fans can patch things up and listen to others in some places around here. EP, as I have said a couple times in the first 7 pages of this topic, I agree 2015 was the year for Neil to retire, if that was his wish. It's the way he spent the last five years of his career, and his complete refusal to support his two band mates desire to not retire that I disagree with. 3 years later and zero hints of a "Leefson" project. Wonder if there is any connection to that with NP turning g his back on them. One sentence expressing curiosity what his mates create in the future? If he did, I must have missed it. Time machine did pull out a couple of rare songs, but that was not my point. Look at rush setlists from MP tour. And then review every tour following until R40. I saw MP and every tour since, except HYF (h/t Transverse Leaf Spring). From experience, I can tell you R40 is the tour 70s fans waited 34 years for. Then it was over 34 shows in. First single leg full tour of their career. Because they wore themselves out by jam packing the previous five years with synth dominated tours, to get a certain someone to their magic retirement number ASAP. Read Neal's book about his famous cycle tour dealing with loss before making comments like "He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s." An obvious innacurate statement, had you read his book. This is a forum for fans to express differing opinions. Why is that so hard to understand? . I completely understand this forum is for expressing different opinions. I was literally making the same point a couple days ago. Don't accuse me of not accepting that my opinions aren't universal. It's not your opinions I disagree with, it's the facts you believe. Yeah, R40 was an incredibly special tour, but I must say again, I highly doubt the previous tours were set up simply so Neil could feel like he earned his retirement. I'll accept that after a while he was much more interested in biking across the country than playing shows, but there's no way he couldn't have retired in 2011 if he'd wanted to. I think we're all upset at the way Rush ended, without much talk of officially putting an end to it, but if you were paying attention something was in the air that said "this could be important." When I was reading up on interviews about the upcoming R40 tour, I had a sense there was something more at work than a 40th anniversary, and when I heard what they put in the setlist, I started thinking they might not be planning to continue after this. I feel like the signs were there if you were open to seeing them, and I'm just glad my dad and I got to enjoy our first concert together being one from that incredible tour. All that aside, I don't really have a big problem with your points until you mention the idea that Neil is somehow preventing Alex and Geddy from making music. That's completely preposterous. Geddy and Alex don't need Neil to make music, they only need him to make Rush. Let's not forget that Ged and Al released solo albums while Neil was on hiatus, they very likely will again. If there's any reason why they haven't done it yet, it's probably that they've just begun to realize over the past year or so that Rush is really over. I know every time I've seen Ged in an interview he's seemed less and less confident that Rush will ever do anything again, and he had been super confident of that before. He most likely hasn't committed himself to solo work simply because he's not ready to tie himself down to a musical project other than Rush, as than would make it all too real that Rush is over. However, I think he's realized it by now, just as most of us have, and he'll probably get back in the studio on his own by next year, if not this year. He could work with Alex, true, and I'd love to hear a Leefson project, but I feel like he's more likely to do solo work, just like Alex has been busying himself working with other artists, painting, writing, and enjoying his life apart from Rush. Whatever the case, Neil has nothing to do with Ged and Alex's ability to make more music. That's baloney. If you want to be upset wth Neil for finally settling down with his family after 40 years of nearly non-stop Rush, after the physical toll it took on his body, after the toll it took on his mind and emotions, and not least after what happened to his last family in the 90s, then fine. That's your prerogative. But know that no one would probably support Ged and Al making more music than Neil. He's always been a humongous proponent of individualism and artistic freedom, he's probably wondering why they haven't done anything yet just like the rest of us. You said "preventing" while I said refused to publicly support. Those are different words with different meanings. Do you understand you changed the meaning of my comment and then attacked your interpretation? Regarding whether Neil needed to go back to work in 2002, read Ghost Rider. He writes about spending much more than his income during the hiatus, and was told by management they'd have to start selling his gear if that trend continued. There's a TRF topic from 2008 if you don't believe the facts being presented to you: "If you read closer, you will see that what Neil was saying was that at that time, he dodn't have enough saved up to retire completely, AND maintain his lifestyle WITHOUT selling off the band's infrastructure. Hence his reference to the discussions he had with Geddy and Al on this matter." " The answer lies in the legal paperwork that was submitted to the court when Alex was suing the neocon Cops in Florida. That showed Rush's 2005 (i think ) earnings. It was in the order of 17 million if my memory serves me correctly. As for each members personal wealth all he says in his books is that he was spending more than he earnt and that he was spending 7 times his earnings. (if my memory serves me correctly)." http://www.therushfo...money-problems/ . Alex and Geddy are big boys now. They don't need Neil's public support to continue making music, they just won't call it Rush, and for good reason. It doesn't matter if I (narrowly) changed the meaning of what you said by inserting a word that I thought you had clearly implied in your previous statement. The idea that Neil is obligated to tell his former band mates they're allowed to make music without him is incredibly short-sighted. Alex has already been working on musical projects, Geddy will soon, now that it's finally hitting him that Rush is done. It's a moot point. Believe what you want about Neil's character and retirement. I still doubt that he went to the trouble of touring nonstop and making Rush's best album since the 80s from 2008 to 2015 just to "hit his magic retirement number." Why? Look at the quality of work he put in in those years. This is a man who obviously had the utmost care and respect for his craft, and for his fans. He retired in 2015 because he decided he couldn't spend anymore time away from his family. Simple as that. Also, why the heck are we discussing Rush's personal finances. Few things are less interesting to me, and honestly I find it completely irrelevant how much money they had in 2005, or at any point in time. Neil could've retired whenever he wanted to, however many millions of dollars he didn't have yet. He certainly had enough to support a family of three. I agree,I could care less about his finances. However, in the context of this subject, when you consider his comments about finances in Ghost Rider, and examine their busy tour schedule post hiatus, it presents a clear picture, imo. This is a discussion about decisions made in the years leading up to his publicly abrupt retirement announcement. Some have said he wore himself out with the busy touring the last 10+ years. I agree. Yes Ged n Al are "big boys." But, you do not see how influential Neil is to them? How many bands have ever said "this band is just us, period." It's almost unheard of. Bands with just as much "musicianship" have reached outside when members leave. I agree Rush is done. To counter Geddys support (with that comment of Neil) during the hiatus by expressing a sentence or two of support or interest in checking out future material would have been a cool thing to do (considering the tension surrounding the band regarding their disagreements on this issue during R40). Just an opinion. It's not like I'm losing any sleep over it ;) Here's how I see it. You said Neil had a choice to either sell his drums and gear so he could retire, or to play so many shows he got burnt out to make a bunch of money quickly so he could retire. If I were Neil in that situation, and my only goal was to retire, I'd sell my stuff in a heartbeat. That's way easier and healthier than playing all those shows so quickly. Now obviously Neil decided to play the shows instead, which says something very clear about his dedication to the band, the fans, and about his desire to retire. If he had wanted to retire in 2005, 2008, 2011, or any other time before 2015, he'd have sold his gear and done it. He didn't, and Neil isn't one to do much of anything he doesn't want to do, so I can only conclude he wanted to keep Rush going until 2015. Also, I was at R40, and he sounded just as incredible as ever. Even with his foot problems on that tour, the man had not burnt out yet when I saw him. Honestly, the only things I noticed that weren't practically record perfect were Ged's voice on a couple songs and when Alex missed a note in the DEW solo. And I cannot express enough how little Peart has to do with Ged and Alex's career decisions anymore. He's retired, Rush is over, he no longer has any influence over what those two do with their careers. I guarantee Geddy hasn't been waiting out home browsing the internet waiting to see a public statement from Neil that says he'd love to hear new music from Ged and Al. Neil has no obligation to do anything of the sort. He put in the better part of his life with them. If they ever deserved anything from him, they got it and more. Yeah, it'd be a nice gesture for Neil to come out on the news just to say he's excited to hear what his former bandmates will do next, but don't you think that's a lot of effort to go to just to say something which could have easily been said in private any number of times over the past three years, and probably was? There's no good reason for Neil to go to the trouble of making a public statement that he's interested in the future careers of Alex and Geddy, especially with how much of a recluse the man is. He's retired for goodness sakes. I say let him be. He gave his all. Ged and Al will be back soon. There's nothing to complain about there. Yeah, the end was kind of abrupt and not well-worded. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you weren't picking up on those strange signals around the R40 tour, I do feel sorry for you, but they were there. There was a real sense of finality about the whole proceeding, Geddy just didn't want to come out and say it was going to be the end because 1. he wasn't sure it was, and 2. even if he knew it might, he didn't want to face that truth himself. I didn't quite put it like that... According to Ghost Rider, Rush management told Neil if he was indeed retired back during the hiatus, that he needed a new source of income, such as selling equipment, or scale back his spending. What occurred afterwards was some of their most extensive touring during the last ten years of their career, followed by an abrupt decision by Neil alone to retire, that obviously caught Ged n Al by surprise. Had they been allowed to plan for this ending as a band, it would have made alot more sense to scale back some shows 2004-2012, and have more time for a career spanning retrospective world tour at R40, with multiple legs. If you examine their historical setlist pre and post moving pictures, you'll find that R40 had the setlists 70s fans waited 34 years for. Then it was over, instantly. As far as Neil having no influence on Ged n Al's post Rush decisions, so far the opposite appears true. In early 2015, they were both certain of doing a second R40 leg, and were interested in recording together more. It's been three years, and according to the Dan Rather interview late last year, Geddy said he is not in a hurry to do any recording whatsoever, and didn't even mention that Alex has any part in the planning nor thought process. These events present a clear picture, to me at least, of Neils retirement having a huge influence on Ged n Al. .

How about doing away w/ the entire pointless Time Machine Tour as well? There was really no reason for that tour nor the size of it. They could have saved their physical resources, instead of burning themselves out w/ multiple high capacity tours in a relatively short time span. Fewer shows for CA tour. The R40 tour should've been huge, including Europe dates. They should've gone out w/ a giant bang, instead, because of the way it was done, the uncertainty and the suddenness, they went out w/ a whimper. And that, in a nutshell, is what so many long time fans are so upset about. Not that they retired, god knows they deserved to, but the way they retired. A whimper. You say it very well. It seems time machine, although I enjoyed it at the time, was crammed in to get a certain performer enough wealth to get to his magic retirement number ASAP. I don't care what they called each tour, but to finally pull out some long forgotten early classics, finally, then only do 35 shows, ignore Europe... . Maybe the Time Machine Tour was unnecessary, although I'm sure it was a great tour for most everyone involved. Besides, didn't they pull out a few rarer numbers for that one? Maybe it wasn't Jacob's Ladder, but I recall Presto being played for the first time live, and the live version being surprisingly better than the studio version. That's besides the point though. Neil didn't do any tour just to make enough money to retire with. He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s. He retired when he wanted to, and in 2010 and 2011 he didn't want to. He wanted to tour and write the lyrics to a concept album and work on it's novelization and make that album with Ged and Al and make it their most vital work since the 80s. By 2015, he was ready to retire, so he did. Why is that hard to understand? Wow, gone two days and missed the fireworks. Glad rush fans can patch things up and listen to others in some places around here. EP, as I have said a couple times in the first 7 pages of this topic, I agree 2015 was the year for Neil to retire, if that was his wish. It's the way he spent the last five years of his career, and his complete refusal to support his two band mates desire to not retire that I disagree with. 3 years later and zero hints of a "Leefson" project. Wonder if there is any connection to that with NP turning g his back on them. One sentence expressing curiosity what his mates create in the future? If he did, I must have missed it. Time machine did pull out a couple of rare songs, but that was not my point. Look at rush setlists from MP tour. And then review every tour following until R40. I saw MP and every tour since, except HYF (h/t Transverse Leaf Spring). From experience, I can tell you R40 is the tour 70s fans waited 34 years for. Then it was over 34 shows in. First single leg full tour of their career. Because they wore themselves out by jam packing the previous five years with synth dominated tours, to get a certain someone to their magic retirement number ASAP. Read Neal's book about his famous cycle tour dealing with loss before making comments like "He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s." An obvious innacurate statement, had you read his book. This is a forum for fans to express differing opinions. Why is that so hard to understand? . I completely understand this forum is for expressing different opinions. I was literally making the same point a couple days ago. Don't accuse me of not accepting that my opinions aren't universal. It's not your opinions I disagree with, it's the facts you believe. Yeah, R40 was an incredibly special tour, but I must say again, I highly doubt the previous tours were set up simply so Neil could feel like he earned his retirement. I'll accept that after a while he was much more interested in biking across the country than playing shows, but there's no way he couldn't have retired in 2011 if he'd wanted to. I think we're all upset at the way Rush ended, without much talk of officially putting an end to it, but if you were paying attention something was in the air that said "this could be important." When I was reading up on interviews about the upcoming R40 tour, I had a sense there was something more at work than a 40th anniversary, and when I heard what they put in the setlist, I started thinking they might not be planning to continue after this. I feel like the signs were there if you were open to seeing them, and I'm just glad my dad and I got to enjoy our first concert together being one from that incredible tour. All that aside, I don't really have a big problem with your points until you mention the idea that Neil is somehow preventing Alex and Geddy from making music. That's completely preposterous. Geddy and Alex don't need Neil to make music, they only need him to make Rush. Let's not forget that Ged and Al released solo albums while Neil was on hiatus, they very likely will again. If there's any reason why they haven't done it yet, it's probably that they've just begun to realize over the past year or so that Rush is really over. I know every time I've seen Ged in an interview he's seemed less and less confident that Rush will ever do anything again, and he had been super confident of that before. He most likely hasn't committed himself to solo work simply because he's not ready to tie himself down to a musical project other than Rush, as than would make it all too real that Rush is over. However, I think he's realized it by now, just as most of us have, and he'll probably get back in the studio on his own by next year, if not this year. He could work with Alex, true, and I'd love to hear a Leefson project, but I feel like he's more likely to do solo work, just like Alex has been busying himself working with other artists, painting, writing, and enjoying his life apart from Rush. Whatever the case, Neil has nothing to do with Ged and Alex's ability to make more music. That's baloney. If you want to be upset wth Neil for finally settling down with his family after 40 years of nearly non-stop Rush, after the physical toll it took on his body, after the toll it took on his mind and emotions, and not least after what happened to his last family in the 90s, then fine. That's your prerogative. But know that no one would probably support Ged and Al making more music than Neil. He's always been a humongous proponent of individualism and artistic freedom, he's probably wondering why they haven't done anything yet just like the rest of us. You said "preventing" while I said refused to publicly support. Those are different words with different meanings. Do you understand you changed the meaning of my comment and then attacked your interpretation? Regarding whether Neil needed to go back to work in 2002, read Ghost Rider. He writes about spending much more than his income during the hiatus, and was told by management they'd have to start selling his gear if that trend continued. There's a TRF topic from 2008 if you don't believe the facts being presented to you: "If you read closer, you will see that what Neil was saying was that at that time, he dodn't have enough saved up to retire completely, AND maintain his lifestyle WITHOUT selling off the band's infrastructure. Hence his reference to the discussions he had with Geddy and Al on this matter." " The answer lies in the legal paperwork that was submitted to the court when Alex was suing the neocon Cops in Florida. That showed Rush's 2005 (i think ) earnings. It was in the order of 17 million if my memory serves me correctly. As for each members personal wealth all he says in his books is that he was spending more than he earnt and that he was spending 7 times his earnings. (if my memory serves me correctly)." http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?/topic/34887-did-neil-have-money-problems/ . Alex and Geddy are big boys now. They don't need Neil's public support to continue making music, they just won't call it Rush, and for good reason. It doesn't matter if I (narrowly) changed the meaning of what you said by inserting a word that I thought you had clearly implied in your previous statement. The idea that Neil is obligated to tell his former band mates they're allowed to make music without him is incredibly short-sighted. Alex has already been working on musical projects, Geddy will soon, now that it's finally hitting him that Rush is done. It's a moot point. Believe what you want about Neil's character and retirement. I still doubt that he went to the trouble of touring nonstop and making Rush's best album since the 80s from 2008 to 2015 just to "hit his magic retirement number." Why? Look at the quality of work he put in in those years. This is a man who obviously had the utmost care and respect for his craft, and for his fans. He retired in 2015 because he decided he couldn't spend anymore time away from his family. Simple as that. Also, why the heck are we discussing Rush's personal finances. Few things are less interesting to me, and honestly I find it completely irrelevant how much money they had in 2005, or at any point in time. Neil could've retired whenever he wanted to, however many millions of dollars he didn't have yet. He certainly had enough to support a family of three. I agree,I could care less about his finances. However, in the context of this subject, when you consider his comments about finances in Ghost Rider, and examine their busy tour schedule post hiatus, it presents a clear picture, imo. This is a discussion about decisions made in the years leading up to his publicly abrupt retirement announcement. Some have said he wore himself out with the busy touring the last 10+ years. I agree. Yes Ged n Al are "big boys." But, you do not see how influential Neil is to them? How many bands have ever said "this band is just us, period." It's almost unheard of. Bands with just as much "musicianship" have reached outside when members leave. I agree Rush is done. To counter Geddys support (with that comment of Neil) during the hiatus by expressing a sentence or two of support or interest in checking out future material would have been a cool thing to do (considering the tension surrounding the band regarding their disagreements on this issue during R40). Just an opinion. It's not like I'm losing any sleep over it ;)

How about doing away w/ the entire pointless Time Machine Tour as well? There was really no reason for that tour nor the size of it. They could have saved their physical resources, instead of burning themselves out w/ multiple high capacity tours in a relatively short time span. Fewer shows for CA tour. The R40 tour should've been huge, including Europe dates. They should've gone out w/ a giant bang, instead, because of the way it was done, the uncertainty and the suddenness, they went out w/ a whimper. And that, in a nutshell, is what so many long time fans are so upset about. Not that they retired, god knows they deserved to, but the way they retired. A whimper. You say it very well. It seems time machine, although I enjoyed it at the time, was crammed in to get a certain performer enough wealth to get to his magic retirement number ASAP. I don't care what they called each tour, but to finally pull out some long forgotten early classics, finally, then only do 35 shows, ignore Europe... . Maybe the Time Machine Tour was unnecessary, although I'm sure it was a great tour for most everyone involved. Besides, didn't they pull out a few rarer numbers for that one? Maybe it wasn't Jacob's Ladder, but I recall Presto being played for the first time live, and the live version being surprisingly better than the studio version. That's besides the point though. Neil didn't do any tour just to make enough money to retire with. He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s. He retired when he wanted to, and in 2010 and 2011 he didn't want to. He wanted to tour and write the lyrics to a concept album and work on it's novelization and make that album with Ged and Al and make it their most vital work since the 80s. By 2015, he was ready to retire, so he did. Why is that hard to understand? Wow, gone two days and missed the fireworks. Glad rush fans can patch things up and listen to others in some places around here. EP, as I have said a couple times in the first 7 pages of this topic, I agree 2015 was the year for Neil to retire, if that was his wish. It's the way he spent the last five years of his career, and his complete refusal to support his two band mates desire to not retire that I disagree with. 3 years later and zero hints of a "Leefson" project. Wonder if there is any connection to that with NP turning g his back on them. One sentence expressing curiosity what his mates create in the future? If he did, I must have missed it. Time machine did pull out a couple of rare songs, but that was not my point. Look at rush setlists from MP tour. And then review every tour following until R40. I saw MP and every tour since, except HYF (h/t Transverse Leaf Spring). From experience, I can tell you R40 is the tour 70s fans waited 34 years for. Then it was over 34 shows in. First single leg full tour of their career. Because they wore themselves out by jam packing the previous five years with synth dominated tours, to get a certain someone to their magic retirement number ASAP. Read Neal's book about his famous cycle tour dealing with loss before making comments like "He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s." An obvious innacurate statement, had you read his book. This is a forum for fans to express differing opinions. Why is that so hard to understand? . This is such an awful take, words cannot describe it. Troll. I've seen trolling. That is not trolling. That expressing disgust at someone else's opinion. Maybe it's unwarranted, sure. Maybe it's not nice, sure. But it ain't trolling. Putting down someone's opinion, while providing zero reason and zero content, is provocative. Read their other comments. It's how that member operates. .

How about doing away w/ the entire pointless Time Machine Tour as well? There was really no reason for that tour nor the size of it. They could have saved their physical resources, instead of burning themselves out w/ multiple high capacity tours in a relatively short time span. Fewer shows for CA tour. The R40 tour should've been huge, including Europe dates. They should've gone out w/ a giant bang, instead, because of the way it was done, the uncertainty and the suddenness, they went out w/ a whimper. And that, in a nutshell, is what so many long time fans are so upset about. Not that they retired, god knows they deserved to, but the way they retired. A whimper. You say it very well. It seems time machine, although I enjoyed it at the time, was crammed in to get a certain performer enough wealth to get to his magic retirement number ASAP. I don't care what they called each tour, but to finally pull out some long forgotten early classics, finally, then only do 35 shows, ignore Europe... . Maybe the Time Machine Tour was unnecessary, although I'm sure it was a great tour for most everyone involved. Besides, didn't they pull out a few rarer numbers for that one? Maybe it wasn't Jacob's Ladder, but I recall Presto being played for the first time live, and the live version being surprisingly better than the studio version. That's besides the point though. Neil didn't do any tour just to make enough money to retire with. He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s. He retired when he wanted to, and in 2010 and 2011 he didn't want to. He wanted to tour and write the lyrics to a concept album and work on it's novelization and make that album with Ged and Al and make it their most vital work since the 80s. By 2015, he was ready to retire, so he did. Why is that hard to understand? Wow, gone two days and missed the fireworks. Glad rush fans can patch things up and listen to others in some places around here. EP, as I have said a couple times in the first 7 pages of this topic, I agree 2015 was the year for Neil to retire, if that was his wish. It's the way he spent the last five years of his career, and his complete refusal to support his two band mates desire to not retire that I disagree with. 3 years later and zero hints of a "Leefson" project. Wonder if there is any connection to that with NP turning g his back on them. One sentence expressing curiosity what his mates create in the future? If he did, I must have missed it. Time machine did pull out a couple of rare songs, but that was not my point. Look at rush setlists from MP tour. And then review every tour following until R40. I saw MP and every tour since, except HYF (h/t Transverse Leaf Spring). From experience, I can tell you R40 is the tour 70s fans waited 34 years for. Then it was over 34 shows in. First single leg full tour of their career. Because they wore themselves out by jam packing the previous five years with synth dominated tours, to get a certain someone to their magic retirement number ASAP. Read Neal's book about his famous cycle tour dealing with loss before making comments like "He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s." An obvious innacurate statement, had you read his book. This is a forum for fans to express differing opinions. Why is that so hard to understand? . I completely understand this forum is for expressing different opinions. I was literally making the same point a couple days ago. Don't accuse me of not accepting that my opinions aren't universal. It's not your opinions I disagree with, it's the facts you believe. Yeah, R40 was an incredibly special tour, but I must say again, I highly doubt the previous tours were set up simply so Neil could feel like he earned his retirement. I'll accept that after a while he was much more interested in biking across the country than playing shows, but there's no way he couldn't have retired in 2011 if he'd wanted to. I think we're all upset at the way Rush ended, without much talk of officially putting an end to it, but if you were paying attention something was in the air that said "this could be important." When I was reading up on interviews about the upcoming R40 tour, I had a sense there was something more at work than a 40th anniversary, and when I heard what they put in the setlist, I started thinking they might not be planning to continue after this. I feel like the signs were there if you were open to seeing them, and I'm just glad my dad and I got to enjoy our first concert together being one from that incredible tour. All that aside, I don't really have a big problem with your points until you mention the idea that Neil is somehow preventing Alex and Geddy from making music. That's completely preposterous. Geddy and Alex don't need Neil to make music, they only need him to make Rush. Let's not forget that Ged and Al released solo albums while Neil was on hiatus, they very likely will again. If there's any reason why they haven't done it yet, it's probably that they've just begun to realize over the past year or so that Rush is really over. I know every time I've seen Ged in an interview he's seemed less and less confident that Rush will ever do anything again, and he had been super confident of that before. He most likely hasn't committed himself to solo work simply because he's not ready to tie himself down to a musical project other than Rush, as than would make it all too real that Rush is over. However, I think he's realized it by now, just as most of us have, and he'll probably get back in the studio on his own by next year, if not this year. He could work with Alex, true, and I'd love to hear a Leefson project, but I feel like he's more likely to do solo work, just like Alex has been busying himself working with other artists, painting, writing, and enjoying his life apart from Rush. Whatever the case, Neil has nothing to do with Ged and Alex's ability to make more music. That's baloney. If you want to be upset wth Neil for finally settling down with his family after 40 years of nearly non-stop Rush, after the physical toll it took on his body, after the toll it took on his mind and emotions, and not least after what happened to his last family in the 90s, then fine. That's your prerogative. But know that no one would probably support Ged and Al making more music than Neil. He's always been a humongous proponent of individualism and artistic freedom, he's probably wondering why they haven't done anything yet just like the rest of us. You said "preventing" while I said refused to publicly support. Those are different words with different meanings. Do you understand you changed the meaning of my comment and then attacked your interpretation? Regarding whether Neil needed to go back to work in 2002, read Ghost Rider. He writes about spending much more than his income during the hiatus, and was told by management they'd have to start selling his gear if that trend continued. There's a TRF topic from 2008 if you don't believe the facts being presented to you: "If you read closer, you will see that what Neil was saying was that at that time, he dodn't have enough saved up to retire completely, AND maintain his lifestyle WITHOUT selling off the band's infrastructure. Hence his reference to the discussions he had with Geddy and Al on this matter." " The answer lies in the legal paperwork that was submitted to the court when Alex was suing the neocon Cops in Florida. That showed Rush's 2005 (i think ) earnings. It was in the order of 17 million if my memory serves me correctly. As for each members personal wealth all he says in his books is that he was spending more than he earnt and that he was spending 7 times his earnings. (if my memory serves me correctly)." http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?/topic/34887-did-neil-have-money-problems/ .

How about doing away w/ the entire pointless Time Machine Tour as well? There was really no reason for that tour nor the size of it. They could have saved their physical resources, instead of burning themselves out w/ multiple high capacity tours in a relatively short time span. Fewer shows for CA tour. The R40 tour should've been huge, including Europe dates. They should've gone out w/ a giant bang, instead, because of the way it was done, the uncertainty and the suddenness, they went out w/ a whimper. And that, in a nutshell, is what so many long time fans are so upset about. Not that they retired, god knows they deserved to, but the way they retired. A whimper. You say it very well. It seems time machine, although I enjoyed it at the time, was crammed in to get a certain performer enough wealth to get to his magic retirement number ASAP. I don't care what they called each tour, but to finally pull out some long forgotten early classics, finally, then only do 35 shows, ignore Europe... . Maybe the Time Machine Tour was unnecessary, although I'm sure it was a great tour for most everyone involved. Besides, didn't they pull out a few rarer numbers for that one? Maybe it wasn't Jacob's Ladder, but I recall Presto being played for the first time live, and the live version being surprisingly better than the studio version. That's besides the point though. Neil didn't do any tour just to make enough money to retire with. He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s. He retired when he wanted to, and in 2010 and 2011 he didn't want to. He wanted to tour and write the lyrics to a concept album and work on it's novelization and make that album with Ged and Al and make it their most vital work since the 80s. By 2015, he was ready to retire, so he did. Why is that hard to understand? Wow, gone two days and missed the fireworks. Glad rush fans can patch things up and listen to others in some places around here. EP, as I have said a couple times in the first 7 pages of this topic, I agree 2015 was the year for Neil to retire, if that was his wish. It's the way he spent the last five years of his career, and his complete refusal to support his two band mates desire to not retire that I disagree with. 3 years later and zero hints of a "Leefson" project. Wonder if there is any connection to that with NP turning g his back on them. One sentence expressing curiosity what his mates create in the future? If he did, I must have missed it. Time machine did pull out a couple of rare songs, but that was not my point. Look at rush setlists from MP tour. And then review every tour following until R40. I saw MP and every tour since, except HYF (h/t Transverse Leaf Spring). From experience, I can tell you R40 is the tour 70s fans waited 34 years for. Then it was over 34 shows in. First single leg full tour of their career. Because they wore themselves out by jam packing the previous five years with synth dominated tours, to get a certain someone to their magic retirement number ASAP. Read Neal's book about his famous cycle tour dealing with loss before making comments like "He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s." An obvious innacurate statement, had you read his book. This is a forum for fans to express differing opinions. Why is that so hard to understand? . This is such an awful take, words cannot describe it. Troll.

How about doing away w/ the entire pointless Time Machine Tour as well? There was really no reason for that tour nor the size of it. They could have saved their physical resources, instead of burning themselves out w/ multiple high capacity tours in a relatively short time span. Fewer shows for CA tour. The R40 tour should've been huge, including Europe dates. They should've gone out w/ a giant bang, instead, because of the way it was done, the uncertainty and the suddenness, they went out w/ a whimper. And that, in a nutshell, is what so many long time fans are so upset about. Not that they retired, god knows they deserved to, but the way they retired. A whimper. You say it very well. It seems time machine, although I enjoyed it at the time, was crammed in to get a certain performer enough wealth to get to his magic retirement number ASAP. I don't care what they called each tour, but to finally pull out some long forgotten early classics, finally, then only do 35 shows, ignore Europe... . Maybe the Time Machine Tour was unnecessary, although I'm sure it was a great tour for most everyone involved. Besides, didn't they pull out a few rarer numbers for that one? Maybe it wasn't Jacob's Ladder, but I recall Presto being played for the first time live, and the live version being surprisingly better than the studio version. That's besides the point though. Neil didn't do any tour just to make enough money to retire with. He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s. He retired when he wanted to, and in 2010 and 2011 he didn't want to. He wanted to tour and write the lyrics to a concept album and work on it's novelization and make that album with Ged and Al and make it their most vital work since the 80s. By 2015, he was ready to retire, so he did. Why is that hard to understand? Wow, gone two days and missed the fireworks. Glad rush fans can patch things up and listen to others in some places around here. EP, as I have said a couple times in the first 7 pages of this topic, I agree 2015 was the year for Neil to retire, if that was his wish. It's the way he spent the last five years of his career, and his complete refusal to support his two band mates desire to not retire that I disagree with. 3 years later and zero hints of a "Leefson" project. Wonder if there is any connection to that with NP turning g his back on them. One sentence expressing curiosity what his mates create in the future? If he did, I must have missed it. Time machine did pull out a couple of rare songs, but that was not my point. Look at rush setlists from MP tour. And then review every tour following until R40. I saw MP and every tour since, except HYF (h/t Transverse Leaf Spring). From experience, I can tell you R40 is the tour 70s fans waited 34 years for. Then it was over 34 shows in. First single leg full tour of their career. Because they wore themselves out by jam packing the previous five years with synth dominated tours, to get a certain someone to their magic retirement number ASAP. Read Neal's book about his famous cycle tour dealing with loss before making comments like "He probably had more than enough money to retire with by the mid-80s." An obvious innacurate statement, had you read his book. This is a forum for fans to express differing opinions. Why is that so hard to understand? .

How about doing away w/ the entire pointless Time Machine Tour as well? There was really no reason for that tour nor the size of it. They could have saved their physical resources, instead of burning themselves out w/ multiple high capacity tours in a relatively short time span. Fewer shows for CA tour. The R40 tour should've been huge, including Europe dates. They should've gone out w/ a giant bang, instead, because of the way it was done, the uncertainty and the suddenness, they went out w/ a whimper. And that, in a nutshell, is what so many long time fans are so upset about. Not that they retired, god knows they deserved to, but the way they retired. A whimper. You say it very well. It seems time machine, although I enjoyed it at the time, was crammed in to get a certain performer enough wealth to get to his magic retirement number ASAP. I don't care what they called each tour, but to finally pull out some long forgotten early classics, finally, then only do 35 shows, ignore Europe... .

Someday...but the clock is running and its been nearly three years and it appears their interest has diminished.