rushgoober

:(

R.I.P. to one of the greats - The Velvet Underground were a very special groundbreaking revolutionary group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yILeTWwfpDI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffr0opfm6I4

I just gave CP another listen because of the remaster. It is still far and away Rush's worst album, and perhaps the only album I can't listen to all the way through no matter what mood I'm in.

OHHHHH, I finally figured out what your problem is. First put down the crack pipe, and THEN listen to the album. :cheers:

The Final Cut is actually one of my favourites. Yes, it is depressing. But it sounds so nice and polished, but still warm, and even lush in spots. Everyone says it sounds more like a Waters solo effort, which I agree with -- though I like his solo stuff so I don't have a very big problem with it. :P There are some amazing compositions on there, like "The Gunner's Dream", "The Final Cut", and of course, "The Fletcher Memorial Home". All of that being said, it's no Wish You Were Here, which is arguably my favourite Floyd album, but it is a solid album overall, IMHO.

hey, jordan! :cheers:

the final cut SOUNDS incredible - i mean it's recorded fantastically, but the album is just far too suicidally depressing for me to listen to. the incredible audiophile sound is unfortunately completely wasted on me.

You're going to hate me, but I don't find the flaws on VT to be that awful. Why is everyone so vehement? They remixed it anyway, so this should be over with.

Ah, to be a naive TRF noob. :sigh:

:P

:cheers:

Remix or not, Vapor Trails still only has about 5 songs I like. It really starts to trail off in quality at the halfway mark. Nocturne, Freeze, and Out Of the Cradle are just very mediocre songs that shouldve been left on the editing room floor IMO. Ghost Rider is another one that had potential but the music they put to the lyric falls flat to my ears. It's not horrible but lacks any kind of hook and just rambles on to my ears. I've never liked Peaceable Kingdom either.

 

So overall, yes, it's much clearer and less muddy than the original. But there's no amount of mixing/remixing/remastering that will fix a song(s) that's not all that great to start with.

 

No I disagree, there are *some* improvements on it and worth the purchase for that. I will agree though that only half the album is likeable. Why Goobs is so insistent that there is *nothing* to like is just plain bananas though, and well he knows it.

No, well he does NOT know it.

:) :sundog: :D-13:

 

Does anyone else here agree with my fave three albums? Been in that order for ages now.

 

Dark Side

Animals

The Wall

 

Mine is a bit different.

 

1. The Final Cut

 

I'm assuming you're joking about The Final Cut?

 

And Steevo, not even close for me. I know everyone loves to site their super popular 1973-1979 period as their best, and while I agree that all their albums from that period were great (even though The Wall I find way too depressing to listen to these days, and I've felt that way for many years), their early pre-Dark Side album period is still my favorite and is criminally underrated. Yes, Dark Side is arguably their best album, but I go back and forth between that one and The Piper at the Gates of Dawn.

 

This is roughly my Pink Floyd album order:

 

1. The Dark Side of the Moon

2. The Piper at the Gates of Dawn (fights for #1 position)

3. A Saucerful of Secrets

4. Meddle

5. Ummagumma

6. Atom Heart Mother

7. Animals

8. Wish You Were Here

9. More

10. The Wall

11. Obscured By Clouds

12. A Momentary Lapse of Reason

13. The Division Bell

14. The Final Cut

 

If you add in The Early Singles (compilation of their 1967 & 1968 mostly non-album A & B sides), that would take likely take the #1 spot.

 

Why would I be joking?

 

I don't know... I guess I just thought you were...

 

The Final Cut really isn't even a Pink Floyd album to me. It's much more a solo Roger Waters album, and it's depressing as f*ck. it makes The Wall seem like an feel good romantic comedy in comparison.

 

I guess there are some people out there who think Islands is the best 70's King Crimson album too, so WTF do I know?

 

You know what you know. Nothing more.

How very zen of you.

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0205/2252/files/buddha-pond_large.jpg?2789

:) :sundog: :D-13:

 

Does anyone else here agree with my fave three albums? Been in that order for ages now.

 

Dark Side

Animals

The Wall

 

Mine is a bit different.

 

1. The Final Cut

 

I'm assuming you're joking about The Final Cut?

 

And Steevo, not even close for me. I know everyone loves to site their super popular 1973-1979 period as their best, and while I agree that all their albums from that period were great (even though The Wall I find way too depressing to listen to these days, and I've felt that way for many years), their early pre-Dark Side album period is still my favorite and is criminally underrated. Yes, Dark Side is arguably their best album, but I go back and forth between that one and The Piper at the Gates of Dawn.

 

This is roughly my Pink Floyd album order:

 

1. The Dark Side of the Moon

2. The Piper at the Gates of Dawn (fights for #1 position)

3. A Saucerful of Secrets

4. Meddle

5. Ummagumma

6. Atom Heart Mother

7. Animals

8. Wish You Were Here

9. More

10. The Wall

11. Obscured By Clouds

12. A Momentary Lapse of Reason

13. The Division Bell

14. The Final Cut

 

If you add in The Early Singles (compilation of their 1967 & 1968 mostly non-album A & B sides), that would take likely take the #1 spot.

 

Why would I be joking?

I don't know... I guess I just thought you were...

The Final Cut really isn't even a Pink Floyd album to me. It's much more a solo Roger Waters album, and it's depressing as f*ck. it makes The Wall seem like an feel good romantic comedy in comparison.

I guess there are some people out there who think Islands is the best 70's King Crimson album too, so WTF do I know?

Remix or not, Vapor Trails still only has about 5 songs I like. It really starts to trail off in quality at the halfway mark. Nocturne, Freeze, and Out Of the Cradle are just very mediocre songs that shouldve been left on the editing room floor IMO. Ghost Rider is another one that had potential but the music they put to the lyric falls flat to my ears. It's not horrible but lacks any kind of hook and just rambles on to my ears. I've never liked Peaceable Kingdom either.

 

So overall, yes, it's much clearer and less muddy than the original. But there's no amount of mixing/remixing/remastering that will fix a song(s) that's not all that great to start with.

Very, very true - you simply cannot polish a turd. And I never noticed a drop off in quality unless you consider correctly that the entire album is a drop off in quality, like a drop off a cliff. It's all one giant mush of depressing monotony.

The answer to the OP's question is:

 

'Cuase Goober hasn't given it a stamp of approval yet. Until this happens it is and will remain Shit!

 

Hear, hear! :cheers:

 

Thats what we want, for you to "Hear, Hear" the damn thing already!

Maybe I will if there's a time I'm not feeling good about myself and want to listen to music for 67 minutes. :P

The answer to the OP's question is:

 

'Cuase Goober hasn't given it a stamp of approval yet. Until this happens it is and will remain Shit!

Hear, hear! :cheers:

If brothel and genital warts talk don't kill this tired and pointless thread, nothing will. So bring on Trixie and all the VD hell that she has!!!

Better than the VT hell Goober is currently in. :P

I kept thinking with all this fantastically obnoxious talk about the VT remix I should really listen to it and see what I think, but after suffering through the 30 second clips and no improvement whatsoever over the original other than it being less physically painful to listen to (clearer sound doesn't magically make bad songs good), I just couldn't do it. I want to, in theory, but when it comes down to it I'm just not that masochistic to put myself through an hour plus of such a horrible album again when there is so much good and great music out there for my ears to spend time with instead.

 

Looking at the Rush board these days with 800 threads about Rush's worst moment in their recorded history (by a very long margin) is pretty disgusting and obnoxious. Likely many feel the same way about my posts on the matter and this thread. it is what it is, but thankfully it's not forever as VT's new 15 minutes will soon be up and people will revert back to talking about their great albums again.

 

And the ironic thing is all this talk is about an album that will at most sell a few thousand copies and be enjoyed only by the most rabid, forgiving and sentimental of their hardcore fan base.

 

With all the mastrubatory VT threads out there, someone needs to be the voice of reason and remember that this album is still a giant steaming POS.

Obssessing over an Album? Really GROW UP

 

Obsessing over an Opinion? Really? Well... do whatever you want to do. :P

I think i will do just that. I think i will blast Vt remix for the umpteenth time. :rush:

Enjoy! :cheers:

I kept thinking with all this fantastically obnoxious talk about the VT remix I should really listen to it and see what I think, but after suffering through the 30 second clips and no improvement whatsoever over the original other than it being less physically painful to listen to (clearer sound doesn't magically make bad songs good), I just couldn't do it. I want to, in theory, but when it comes down to it I'm just not that masochistic to put myself through an hour plus of such a horrible album again when there is so much good and great music out there for my ears to spend time with instead.

 

Looking at the Rush board these days with 800 threads about Rush's worst moment in their recorded history (by a very long margin) is pretty disgusting and obnoxious. Likely many feel the same way about my posts on the matter and this thread. it is what it is, but thankfully it's not forever as VT's new 15 minutes will soon be up and people will revert back to talking about their great albums again.

 

And the ironic thing is all this talk is about an album that will at most sell a few thousand copies and be enjoyed only by the most rabid, forgiving and sentimental of their hardcore fan base.

 

With all the mastrubatory VT threads out there, someone needs to be the voice of reason and remember that this album is still a giant steaming POS.

Obssessing over an Album? Really GROW UP

Obsessing over an Opinion? Really? Well... do whatever you want to do. :P

I kept thinking with all this fantastically obnoxious talk about the VT remix I should really listen to it and see what I think, but after suffering through the 30 second clips and no improvement whatsoever over the original other than it being less physically painful to listen to (clearer sound doesn't magically make bad songs good), I just couldn't do it. I want to, in theory, but when it comes down to it I'm just not that masochistic to put myself through an hour plus of such a horrible album again when there is so much good and great music out there for my ears to spend time with instead.

Looking at the Rush board these days with 800 threads about Rush's worst moment in their recorded history (by a very long margin) is pretty disgusting and obnoxious. Likely many feel the same way about my posts on the matter and this thread. it is what it is, but thankfully it's not forever as VT's new 15 minutes will soon be up and people will revert back to talking about their great albums again.

And the ironic thing is all this talk is about an album that will at most sell a few thousand copies and be enjoyed only by the most rabid, forgiving and sentimental of their hardcore fan base.

With all the mastrubatory VT threads out there, someone needs to be the voice of reason and remember that this album is still a giant steaming POS.

:) :sundog: :D-13:

 

Does anyone else here agree with my fave three albums? Been in that order for ages now.

 

Dark Side

Animals

The Wall

 

Mine is a bit different.

 

1. The Final Cut

I'm assuming you're joking about The Final Cut?

And Steevo, not even close for me. I know everyone loves to site their super popular 1973-1979 period as their best, and while I agree that all their albums from that period were great (even though The Wall I find way too depressing to listen to these days, and I've felt that way for many years), their early pre-Dark Side album period is still my favorite and is criminally underrated. Yes, Dark Side is arguably their best album, but I go back and forth between that one and The Piper at the Gates of Dawn.

This is roughly my Pink Floyd album order:

1. The Dark Side of the Moon

2. The Piper at the Gates of Dawn (fights for #1 position)

3. A Saucerful of Secrets

4. Meddle

5. Ummagumma

6. Atom Heart Mother

7. Animals

8. Wish You Were Here

9. More

10. The Wall

11. Obscured By Clouds

12. A Momentary Lapse of Reason

13. The Division Bell

14. The Final Cut

If you add in The Early Singles (compilation of their 1967 & 1968 mostly non-album A & B sides), that would take likely take the #1 spot.

This is difficult for me to answer. I answered "no," because the Beatles are, far and away, the most influential band ever. I remember when Oasis claimed to be the next Beatles, which is a joke when you think about it now. Nobody will ever come close to their lofty status. The Stones, Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd probably come the closest. Pick any Beatles album and it'll contain more hits or potential hits than most bands can boast of for their entire catalog. You could put five Beatles albums (Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Peppers, The White Album, and Abbey Road) in the top ten greatest albums of all time, and few would think you're crazy for doing so. They have more "throw-away" hit songs than any band, by far. Yes, they were that good.

 

On the other hand, I like Rush better. I love the Beatles, but I LOVE Rush. If I were stranded on a desert island, I'd pick Moving Pictures over any of the five Beatles albums I listed above.

 

Are they better to me? Yes. Are they "better?" No.

:goodone:

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

Actually, Eminem is credited with advancing rap far more than you may think.

Thrilling. :sarcastic:

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

Um, the Beatles didn't exist in 1976. Do you mean what if?

Other than that live music to me isn't very relevant in terms of determining great bands, except for some rare exceptions like the Grateful Dead who excelled live and played not only a different set list every night, but different versions of their songs every time. Sure, I'm sure Rush was the more exciting live band, but to me a band's lasting legacy 99% of the time is their studio albums.

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

The Beatles are in a dramatically different arena - it wasn't just a crazy buying public whim like say The Spice Girls suddenly appealing to millions of little girls and selling a shitload of albums. Three years later they were completely irrelevant.

 

 

I don't think that the Spice Girls were irrelevant three years later. Their songs still pop up in movies quite often and most people recognize any one of them immediately. The Spice Girls broke up when they were still very popular. Nelson Mandela said of all the people he ever met as president that he was the most impressed with the Spice Girls. They could have easily released and sold millions of more albums.

Oy.

My main point is that The Beatles are the best selling music group in the history of the world, and you have to have some significant measure of talent to achieve that in an 8 year career and then 43 years beyond that. They didn't get there by accident or luck or because they were the flavor of the month or just in the right place in the right time. Yes, albums sales and popularity do not necessarily equal quality, but we're talking about the f*cking Beatles here. They sold 600 million albums worldwide. And they made incredible music that influenced everything that came after it irrevocably forever. Nelson Mandela might be their #1 fan, but mostly The Spice Girls are a punch line, at least in terms of their music, and they were even when they were popular.

Because, of course, sales figures are always reliable indicators of greatness

 

But a reliable indicator of popularity.

 

LedRush likes to present this argument with me that RTB is more popular than Counterparts because it sold more albums. Besides the facts that most Rush fans would disagree that RTB is a better album, in a situation like that there were extenuating circumstances. The song Roll the Bones and Dreamline were huge rock radio hits and the album sold more copies then they'd sold in awhile, even though the album as a whole was seriously lacking. By Counterparts, grunge suddenly ruled the land, and even though CP was essentially Rush's reaction to grunge, it wasn't exactly marketed to the grunge crowd, and even if they had been they weren't exactly some exciting new band coming out of Seattle. Very often timing can have a huge effect on albums sales.

 

The Beatles are in a dramatically different arena - it wasn't just a crazy buying public whim like say The Spice Girls suddenly appealing to millions of little girls and selling a shitload of albums. Three years later they were completely irrelevant.

 

The Beatles changed music. What they did in 8 years was phenomenal. They epitomized all the dramatic changes going on in music in the 60's that changed music forever, and they were not only enormously influential and changed the industry, but their ongoing album sales showed they were no mere flash in the pan or just a product of their times. Yes, they were somewhat a product of their times, but their influence has endured, and they continue to have relevance and sell albums. And it's because they were f*cking talented.

 

I totally agree that in general albums sales don't mean a lot, but you also don't sell 600 million albums (which supposedly the Beatles have sold) by sucking either.

 

That was the biggest excercise in contridiction ever!

 

No, the Beatles did not attract countless of Little Teanie boppers that ran after them like children after an ice cream truck! Nah!

 

No, the Beatles did not come into popularity in the early 60's when Rock Music was on a declining slope.

 

No, the Beatles are not so popular that they can pee in a bottle and place a turd in it and someone will still buy it!

 

Next you'll say that the Remix of VT has done nothing to improve the overall album. Go ahead Say it!

:eyeroll:

Because, of course, sales figures are always reliable indicators of greatness

 

But a reliable indicator of popularity.

LedRush likes to present this argument with me that RTB is more popular than Counterparts because it sold more albums. Besides the facts that most Rush fans would disagree that RTB is a better album, in a situation like that there were extenuating circumstances. The song Roll the Bones and Dreamline were huge rock radio hits and the album sold more copies then they'd sold in awhile, even though the album as a whole was seriously lacking. By Counterparts, grunge suddenly ruled the land, and even though CP was essentially Rush's reaction to grunge, it wasn't exactly marketed to the grunge crowd, and even if they had been they weren't exactly some exciting new band coming out of Seattle. Very often timing can have a huge effect on albums sales.

The Beatles are in a dramatically different arena - it wasn't just a crazy buying public whim like say The Spice Girls suddenly appealing to millions of little girls and selling a shitload of albums. Three years later they were completely irrelevant.

The Beatles changed music. What they did in 8 years was phenomenal. They epitomized all the dramatic changes going on in music in the 60's that changed music forever, and they were not only enormously influential and changed the industry, but their ongoing album sales showed they were no mere flash in the pan or just a product of their times. Yes, they were somewhat a product of their times, but their influence has endured, and they continue to have relevance and sell albums. And it's because they were f*cking talented.

I totally agree that in general albums sales don't mean a lot, but you also don't sell 600 million albums (which supposedly the Beatles have sold) by sucking either.

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

When have Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix not been given credit for their contributions to rock music? You may not appreciate the Beatles, and that's fine, just try not to use lazy arguments.

Don't misunderstand me. I love and appreciate the Beatle more than you think. I just think the Media gives them way to much praise.

Musicians are the group that give Berry and Hendrix most credit but not the media! Berry and Hendrix were more influential in their particular time then Elvis or the Beatles. The Beatles even tried to sound like Berry at first until George Martin took control and guided them elsewhere. Its only after Hendrix came on to the scene that the Beatles started to gain a heavier sound and even then, they had to use other musicians like Clapton to enhance their songs and not even give him credit until later. Now that's lame! RUSH would never do that. Hell they don't need to!

 

You're information is very inaccurate. I don't know what muscians you haven't listened to in regards to giving the Beatles credit - the list is endless. Also Jimi Hendrix asked Paul McCartney to join a potential group. Credit through admiration? The Beatles covered many artists from numerous genres. Does "She Loves You" sound like anything other than the Beatles? George Martin enabled the Beatles to do what the Beatles wanted to do, not what George Martin wanted to do. I don't know about you, but songs like "You Can't Do That" and "Ticket to Ride" were very heavy sounding for their time. And the Revolver album was extremely heavy - "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Rain" for example. Released, months before Hendrix released his first single. Also, in the 1960s tons of musicians played on each other albums and weren't given credit due to contractual obligations.

 

You misunderstood me. I said that musicians are the ones that give Hendrix most of the praise. That the media has basically marginalized him and Chuck Berry and have just over showered The Beatles with praise. Don't get me wrong, I Love The Beatles, I grew up listening to them as have my kids. I just feel that they are overly popularized for the media sake. They've become like Hot Dog and Apple Pie! They've become the Coca Cola of the music world. Now we all know that Coke is awesome as indicated per your icon! (Which is great by the way), but this is my point here, the media has gone out of their way to over popularize The Beatles. Just like the have with Elvis and now with Micheal Jackson. The Media loves to have their dependable Icons and The Beatles has become one of them. Even John knew this which lead him to make his infamous Statement "We have become more popular than Jesus Christ"! This is what I felt he meant by this statement. That the media was giving them way more attention that they should. When they really should be focusing more on others like Jesus Christ. He knew very well back then what was happening to them as a group, as human beings which is one of the reason I feel lead to their early and unfortunate breakup.

I don't think the media has given The Beatles way more popularity than they should have. They actually DESERVE it. They made music that was immensely popular and accessible to countless millions of people, and they're still so popular today because their music has held up. They released their 1 compilation in 2000, 30 years after the band broke up, and it has sold over 31 million copies worldwide. I don't see Hendrix compilations doing that (and I love Hendrix, don't get me wrong), or Michael Jackson or Chuck Berry or Elvis or anyone else that you want to bring up.

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

Meh, I prefer Jeopardy.

 

Steve Harvey is a funny guy though.

Well Jeopardy is a way more intelligent show, but Alex Trebek isn't really funny.