Look to Sirius

Great version, great performance, great stuff! :yay: :haz:

Nobody's Hero can definitely make the mist roll in for me.

Great post, but the line "how it's going to be" does not suggest permanency to me. "That's how it's going to be"... somedays. It's just a "little trap that sometimes catches/trips up everyone". Just sometimes. I don't think the message of the song is that it's a giant chasm you can't escape. Just my interpretation, that's all. And, may I suggest Faith No More's cover of Easy- pretty good. :cheers:

I have gotten misty eyed on several Rush songs. Some for the power of the lyrics, and some while watching them live when I'm swept away with joy. I replied to your post mainly to second your MFH comment. Same experience. I ended up moving out and Moving To Bohemia the next year- my new bachelor pad apartment I christened 'Bohemia'. I said goodbye to suburbia, and I no longer had to cut the lawn.. and when friends came over, the beer was free. That was my theme song for a few years.

It's a parody of the other poll. The thinking here is that the 80s as a decade didn't technically begin until 1981, and since MP came out in early 81, it must be the case that most the material was written in 1980 (or earlier). Bathory is just taking a ridiculous argument to its logical conclusion. I like your post, but.. According to Wikipedia: The 1980s (pronounced "nineteen-eighties", commonly abbreviated as the "Eighties") was a decade of the Gregorian calendar that began on January 1, 1980 and ended on December 31, 1989. Some people involved in the debate whether or not Permanent Waves is a 70s or 80s album say that the 80s didn't begin until 1981. I believe JARG was saying that that is a dumb argument. Yes. That was a real reading comprehension issue there, doh.

It's a parody of the other poll. The thinking here is that the 80s as a decade didn't technically begin until 1981, and since MP came out in early 81, it must be the case that most the material was written in 1980 (or earlier). Bathory is just taking a ridiculous argument to its logical conclusion. I like your post, but.. According to Wikipedia: The 1980s (pronounced "nineteen-eighties", commonly abbreviated as the "Eighties") was a decade of the Gregorian calendar that began on January 1, 1980 and ended on December 31, 1989.

I didn't hear it. I would have to go back and listen.... So do I...I am at work and can't have the volume as loud as I'd like for obvious reasons, but it sounded like that's what he said. It's a thing people say. I don't think I'd read anything into it. I'm not... :) No, not either, just wondered. It just kind of struck my ear as odd for a second there. Geddy said, "Thanks guys, it's been a pleasure to be here." No God. Didn't hear it the first, second or third time I listened to the end.

I thought that too. Those orange lasers were awesome. I was on the floor, and they were right above me. Ohh, a sight to behold! Howard out-did himself.

Wow. So nice I had to watch twice. Direction was near spot on. Slightly more Neil here and there, and a better shot of the orange creamsicle lasers and it would have been delicious. Otherwise, excellent- very well done. Bravo! :clap:

Holy shit, this is from R40 Live and not a fan video? Holy Jacob's Ladder!!!

A Farewell To :rush: Oh wait, that's a process we're all going through, not a new, uh.. Nevermind.

He was a kid then and that was long before touring took its toll on all of them. Already at the end of the eighties, I understand Neil didn't want to tour anymore. In fact, according to my Rush book, they were all sick of touring. That's why they cut out touring Europe and started taking home breaks every few weeks of touring. Yes. I had just recently read a Neil interview where he said it was around Hold Your Fire that he really wanted to quit touring, but kept doing tours anyway because, to paraphrase, that's what you do when you're in an active working band.

It was a bad time for everyone, bill1971. It's all in the past now.

It oesn't bother me because I know it would never happen. Without Neil, there is no Rush. Geddy and Alex with a different drummer will never be Rush. I remember one of them, probably Geddy, said as much once. I don't recall the quote exactly but the sentiment of it stayed with me. If you believe Rush is a band with integrity, then you believe Rush can only be Geddy, Alex and Neil. They are not Yes.. they are not KISS. They are RUSH; not interchangeable, each irreplaceable.

Yes, especially during Jacob's Ladder. Have you seen this clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDG1VHG-2NE&feature=youtu.be Nice, thanks! Loved the lasers in this show. The creamsicle orange.. all the colors, all the patterns- just amazing work. As far as the light presentation, speaking as a 30+ year 25+ show live tour veteran, R40 Live's light show and overall presentation is right up there at the top as an all time favorite. Long live Herns!!

I've considered this. :( It's probably nothing nefarious really, but I do find it a little astonishing how minimized Neil is in that image. Alex and Geddy look like giants in full rock star pose. And in between, it looks like a Neil head was just pasted in above the drum kit. He looks almost child sized in comparison. Wonder if he's even seen this. Or maybe he has and his approval is another sign he doesn't give a **** anymore. Ultimately I do not think it is anything nefarious either, but I did consider it for a minute. I agree with you - Neil's head looks pasted on. I do not see any arms at all. Look at photo #4 of 10 here (Randy Johnson photographs Rush). http://mlb.mlb.com/photos/gallery.jsp?content_id=125665406&c_id=mlb That photo seems to be the basis for Neil on the cover. You clearly see his one arm twirling a stick, and clearly see his other arm down by his side. My recent thought on this is, since they did not extend the tour, they knew they had to get this product out for the Christmas shopping season. There are a number of things one can speculate on, but if Hugh was not involved it is possible that it was a scheduling conflict due to the tight release schedule that prevented him from working on this cover. I admit I could be entirely wrong on this and Hugh did do the cover, but I just can't shake the feeling that this isn't his work. The main reason for that really is that I cannot see Neil's arms. I cannot see his hands. I do not see any drumsticks. As they say, something's wrong with this picture.

Interesting observation. I thought that was the design on his t-shirt, like the S&A ouroboros.

I think this is post of the thread so far. :cheers:

I am 100% sure that isn't the CD cover. I have no proof of this, but I'm willing to bet money. I'm sure it will just be a cropped version of the DVD cover, like CA Live, but there is no way that image is the final design. I hope you're right, because if that's the actual CD cover with the bare left/right borders, it screams "we didn't care about the CD cover". From the Rush website: http://www.rushbackstage.com/images/products/RU/R4/RUR4CDSR40000_000.jpg?preset=details Thanks! Glad to see that. I'll take that back off my OP.

I am 100% sure that isn't the CD cover. I have no proof of this, but I'm willing to bet money. I'm sure it will just be a cropped version of the DVD cover, like CA Live, but there is no way that image is the final design. I hope you're right, because if that's the actual CD cover with the bare left/right borders, it screams "we didn't care about the CD cover".

Oh no.... we are a pathetic lot... there will be polls and debates and flame wars about the release of this live album. It's just not in our nature to say "we'll see it soon". One question.... are we still in spoiler mode or can we talk about the track listing?! :P Well, I'd say geeky lot, not pathetic. It's a new Rush release. When but now to geek out??

Another thing, and I should edit my OP. That is, the CD cover. http://smarturl.it/R40LIVE3CD As depicted on amazon, it's the rectangle DVD cover slapped onto a CD square. If this is the actual CD cover, there was no effort into making the CD cover uniform, so to speak. Very un-Hugh-like, IMO. Edited to add, I actually posted the CD cover in my OP, so its awkwardness is on display here.

Well, yes. The disco ball was only a brief part of their early history, so I wonder why does it deserve such prominence on the cover? To me it seems it was an esthetics choice of the cover designer above all other considerations.

Absolutely, but the question is on my mind now so Nov 20 is a a bit of a wait to confirm :D