MrMan

I can't think of any classic rock double album that didn't have it's share of filler songs that could've easily been tossed away... Elton John's Goodbye Yellow Brick Road and Blue Moves records, the Beatles White Album, the aforementioned Use Your Illusions. They are always bloated and indulgent.

Love Neal Morse Band's Similitude of a Dream....120 minutes running time and I don't consider a single song filler. And I'm not a Christian and generally Morse's proselytizing turns me off but that album just doesn't miss a note from beginning to end IMO.

I'm not really one for reactionvids that much, but whenit's someone who is musically trained who does it, it makes all the difference.

If there were multiple pauses by the usual open-mouthed grinning idiots it would be irritating, but she is using the opportunity to give an informed musical analysis.

 

Exactly. We can learn from it.

 

The Daily Doug is another really good one. He's a classically trained musician, does a great job of pulling apart the songs.

 

I'd also give a shout out to the Lost In Vegas guys... they're 2 rappers and they get music. The dig into the words and the musicianship like new fans would. It's cool to hear their POV on this stuff. It's not the typical 'oh...yo...look at that kit' garbage.

Those are the three I watch as well. Though I've grown tired of the Lost in Vegas guys. But I love Daily Doug bc he'll listen to a song I've heard a thousand times and point out things I've never noticed or didn't grasp / fully understand. He's really, really insightful.

Just imagine the experience she would have if she listens to the song without stopping it ten times ..... :facepalm:

She mentions multiple times in almost every video that you should really enjoy the song without interruption and has stated she usually does that so she can get the real experience. She's a professionally trained singer...I'm pretty sure she understands that hearing songs in parts isn't the optimum way to listen to music.

I've grown to really love her videos.

1. She understand the techinicals parts of singing so well and can articulate them

2. Her unbridled enthusiasm is infectious; her looks of pure unadulterated joy at listening to music is wonderful.

I will say I miss the era when music critics weren't afraid to say they thought something wasn't good. These days everyone's just trying to avoid the wrath of a band/artist's fanbase on social media.

 

 

The saying exists "There's no such thing as bad publicity" (meaning any and all attention can catapult someone to fame.)

 

Not contradicting you. IMO the buyers/fans decide whether a band picks up steam & gets a following. Of course the industry is so very different than it was in Rush's heyday.

 

Back on topic to Neil, I kind of wonder if his insults were fueled by Rush being bagged on so heavily by critics. In my mind he must have figured there was little harm in speaking his mind seeing as the band was openly loathed by so many. The classic "f*ck you too" situation.

If he was contemptuous of music critics in general (which he was) I'm sure he particularly hated anyone associated with Creem because they seemed to thoroughly enjoy mocking any band that made "serious" music or any heavy / hard rock band. It was their thing.

Wow - were some reviewers actually like this? Having started with Kerrang in the 80s and never having read Rolling Stone or any other non-British magazines, I can't remember reading any reviews or articles like this.

You did get some negative reviews of albums but usually the magazines I read were still reasonably supportive of bands.

 

However, I think reviewers should have or should now review music on a) is it well played e.g. in time, sloppily played etc and b) if you like X then you will like this, rather than "This is pretentious, outdated, <whatever> music".

It is probably difficult though for some, shock-jock-tactics aside, to distinguish between what they like and what others may like in music they don't.

I read RS, Creem, Circus and Hit Parader back then. Creem's whole things was to have a bunch of smart-ass writers who liked to act like they were cooler than the bands they covered. And it was great! I loved it. They insulted and denigrated all my favorite bands because they generally liked quirky, new-wave, punk bands.....basically adored anyone with short hair and pins in their face and truly hated heavy metal. Yet they would religiously put bands like Van Halen, Pat Benetar, Rush, Led Zeppelin on their cover...then mercilessly mock and ridicule them inside.

They even mocked their own readers. The letters section was extensive and every single one would have a smart ass reply from the "editor". Over time it became my favorite of the bunch. Circus and Hit Parader were little more than fanzines with no critical thought. Rolling Stones was always a pretentious bunch of pricks.

I'll also say I think Neil comes across as a total prick and I imagine his late-in-life self would absolutely cringe at many of the statements he makes here. But you also see the writer had already he decided he hates the band. Saying they have no humor is ridiculous as is suggesting Paul McCartney is a better bassist than Geddy. Ask anyone today who gets introduced to Rush, especially MP era Rush and they are astounded that three people can create an entire symphony of music...but the writer takes no note of that and instead takes every opportunity to insult and denigrate the band.

Must say....had some nostalgia reading that bc it reminds me how at first I hated Creem bc I was a rivet head back then and they made fun of every band I liked while licking the ass of bands like The Clash and Devo. But eventually I understood it was bit and began to enjoy it.

I'm a Power Windows truther. As a teenage "metal head" I was somewhat disappointed by Signal and GUP and had kind of stopped keeping up with a band I had loved most of my life. Then in spring of 1986 I was at an friend's apartment and he put it on and I was blown away. I immediately went out and bought and again fell in love with Rush.

I consider it the seminal document of the band's "keyboard" stage, superior to Signals and GUP (both very good) and vastly superior to HYF and Presto (good albums).

I love every song. What I most enjoy is how they absolutely mastered the technology of the time and seamlessly worked it all together. Every songs is great and honestly, was the last time where every song was longer than 5 minutes; after PW every Rush album had multiple songs clocked in under 5 minutes. They were still doing extended intros or outros, or extended instrumental sections.

Finally, I wasn't happy in general about the ever decreasing presence of Alex's guitar. But on PW I feel her perfected how to compliment the song. His playing is phenomenal throughout, with a heavy emphasis of the staccato guitar work that would come in at weird angles and was very creative and imaginative. Also, it perfectly captured the sterile, corporate, machine-like quality that were the Reagan 80's.

Love, love, love PW. Not going to say I like more than any other Rush album but there's not another Rush album I like more.

 

 

But we'll never see that, because Rush for many years has been a minimum expense, maximum revenue sort of operation...

Even Kiss would be impressed at how Rush have abandoned all pretense of being anything other than a corporate greed machine.

If this has been addressed I apologize; I've searched and didn't find anything.

I wanted to get all three Sectors box sets and have managed to get 1 and 2 at reasonable prices. But the Sectors 3 set seems to be very rare and resell marketers charge exorbitant prices.

I'm wondering why 1 and 2 are relatively plentiful and affordable but Sectors 3 is so rare and expensive?

Please forgive me butchering Neal's name...

 

It's Neil Peart.

 

 

I'm an idiot. Just typing too fast.

Hello everyone. I recently started a YouTube channel dedicated to rock and roll and added my quick history of Rush. I hope you'll give it a try and check it out. Please forgive me butchering Neal's name; I know how to pronounce it properly but 90% of the time I still get it wrong.

I don't really feel sorry for anyone who spent this much on a product without checking out reviews and feedback first.

 

Sure you got ripped off. But then again it's not exactly hard to get information of what's inside these things anymore. I mean I listened to all of Bruce Springsteen's the Ties That Binds River era box set several times on Spotify before I settled to buy it.

 

I also managed to avoid spending £80 on the Darkness box set by checking out the contents and buying the separate releases.

 

I checked out all the content of the deluxe vinyl/artbook CD Paradise Lost "The Plague Within" box set before I bought the beauty for £39.99.

 

I did the same with the recent Nightwish seven disc live bluray release, and recent Kansas, Dream Theater, Yes, and several movie box sets.

 

Honestly...you whine you were ripped off...but the chance to try before you burn that money away is readily available to all.

 

Cry by yourself.

I find it interesting you completely ignored this part of my post:

My point was bigger picture really. It's that Rush was once what I considered a "working man's band" and treated their fans fairly. But in the last ten years it's been nothing but one cash grab after another.....pure greed from my perspective. I bought this set almost solely for the 1977 video (I have an extensive video library and wanted to add this). I hoped the rest of the package would demonstrate at least a minimal level of quality.

But feel free to insult anyone who dares to express negative opinions. Never mind that my post is the EXACT sort of information you would rely upon to make your oh-so-smart decisions.

As for Rush...like I said in my OP I have almost completely avoided any of the repackages and having given in once you can bet I won't be doing it again.

So, as an older person who has paid repeatedly for the some of the old classic albums I've largely avoided most of the Rush re-issues. We all know the band has no "bonus" material the be included with re-issues. They have a long and extensive set of live albums. So...outside of improved sound there's not a lot of compelling reasons, to me, to buy, say the Sector series of the Studio Collection or really any of the re-issues.

My Rush CD collection consists entirely of the original CDs. But, I also love video and so I purchased the recent 2112 re-issue specifically for the restored, 45-minute show from 1977. And the video is about what I expected (I'd seen Youtube videos before, so knew what I was getting). I don't really have any complaints about that.

But as far as the rest of the package...I find it a bit insulting. What we get is the 2112 album. I'm sure there are those who will claim the sound on this version is superior to others....but I don't hear it. I'm sure they'll use words like "rich" and "deep" to describe how it's better. And for those with an ear or appreciation for that I'm sure it's worthwhile. But I played the CD in my car at loud volume and it sounded great...just as it had the eleventy-billion times I've played it before.

But the 2nd CD is what truly bothers me. What we get are:

• a 19 second clip of Neil saying the "Attention all planets..." piece. Why anyone thought this would be interesting is beyond me. I thought this was an actual SONG when I saw the tracklist. Maybe some reworked version of the Overture / Grand Finale...something like that.
  
• Five mediocre covers that I'll listen to mabye 15 times in total (meaning each song 3 times). I've listened to them twice already....there might be a 3rd time but beyond that it's unlikely. As all the previous cover versions of Rush songs prove...they're a hard band to cover. The people doing these covers are high quality musicians. I was particularly interested in Steven Wilson's version of Twilight Zone. But NONE of them work; they simply make me want to hear the original.
  
• Two live songs taken from the Massey Hall dates.....that sound pretty much exactly like the versions originally included on All The World's A Stage.
  
• An unlistenable bootleg version of Twilight Zone performed live
  
• A commercial
  

Look, I get it. Rush is very popular and their fans will eagerly embrace just about anything the ban puts out. And no one forced me to buy this package. And I could have checked before buying to understand exactly what I was getting. But to me....to be putting out bootlegs, commercials and interviews is needlessly exploiting fans love of the band.

I just feel the way Rush goes about merchandising all their material the last 10 years or so is desgined to extract maximum revenue from fans....as opposed to being fan-friendly and giving them what they want in a more affordable package.

Couldn't the Landover video have been packaged in some way that didn't nearly $30? Couldn't the DVD-Audio mixes from the Sector series been released in a way that didn't cost a fan hundreds of dollars? For a band that long articulated the ideas of balance in life the marketing approach of the last 10 years seems in conflict with the band's overall message.

Proably just me.

Is anybody familiar with this:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N7568N8/ref=pd_luc_rh_sbs_03_02_t_img_lh?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

It looks like a simple repackaging of a number of broadcast bootlegs...but I can't find anything about it. Which supports my idea that this is nothing more than bootleg prodcut...but I figured I'd put it out here to the experts who know best.

Something to look forward to? Or (if you're not a fan of bootleg material) something to avoid?

This is how I feel about Hemisperes.

I can recall the first time I heard La Villa Strangiato....a friend played it for me and I went out and bought the album as fast as possible. Arguably the band's most ambitious piece and really the culmination of the most progressive period.

For anyone who is complaining about Geddy's voice, the man IS 62, right?

 

Give your head a shake.

 

You're right. Geddy is 62 years old.

So why he chooses to push his voice into a register that sounds so tortured is anyone's guess.

 

Honestly not meaning to be an a-hole. Just think Geddy has done himself a disservice with the yodel voice.

You acknowledge and accept that he's 62, but seemingly can't for the life of you understand why he doesn't sing like a younger Geddy.

 

There is a lot more I could add, but it would seem to be pointless. I kind of feel the analogy of Geddy is the quarterback who threw multiple touchdowns to help his team win the Super Bowl, and all some people will focus on is the few errant passes he made.

No. The analogy is of a QB who once was the MVP of the league...but now plays like a 3rd-stringer yet fans still think he's an MVP.

For anyone who is complaining about Geddy's voice, the man IS 62, right?

 

Give your head a shake.

Well, let's just say we have different views on this. I hear this from fans of older bands all the time..."well, they're xty years old, give 'em a break". But I don't evaluate how enjoyable music is based upon how old the musician; I evaluate music based upon how enjoyable the listen. I simply cannot stand listening to Geddy at this point in his career. Those of you who aren't bothered by his current voice...good for you! I'm happy - perplexed - but happy that you're still able to enjoy Rush's great music sung in a completely different manner than for most of their career.

But for many of us, that simply isn't true. And telling us what we already know (the band has aged) doesn't change how we feel or think about this.

Yeah some of you people cant admit. geddys voice blows now. to me, the last time he sounded good was the first leg of the snakes and arrows tour. The time machine tour wasn't needed. But he really sounded god awful on the 2 songs they did on rock n roll hall of fame.. Yeah, he voice also just changed and he struggles and just whines rather than sing. No one here could ever use geddy as a great singer in an argument against many great singers. Rush fans are like sport team fans. no matter how bad they go they still have loyal fan base..

 

I guess I just don't understand the point you're trying to make. I don't think his singing has turned terrible at all, I think it's literally the natural progression that aging would take on the kind of singing he does. Same with Brian Johnson and AC/DC. Dude doesn't sound anyyyyything like he used to, but he's still a boss. Mick Jagger too, he can be hard to understand, but like Geddy, he's an admirably old man that's still putting on a show.

 

Neil Young still sounds really good, but his singing style has never really stressed out his voice in any way, so he can comfortably rest there. And that's totally fine too. But that doesn't mean he's any better, it means he has a style that has its benefits.

 

You make it sound like Geddy should be compared to Bob Dylan or Ozzy Osbourne, who at this point in their musical careers barely register as coherent human beings. Geddy doesn't sound as good as he did in the 80's, 90's or even 2000's, it's true. You mention the S&A tour, but even that was pushing 10 years ago now. That's a long f***ing time. But he still sounds good to me, he just sounds different, because lo and behold, turning 60 means you can't wail like you used to. Listen to the Led Zeppelin 2007 reunion concert, and you'll see the exact same thing. Plant just can't do it like he once did, sing in such a high register. But he still sounds pretty f***ing good considering it's a bunch of old-ass men up there on stage.

I guess I just don't understand people who think the reality of a singer's aging somehow negates the fact the singing is terrible. You can defend Geddy all you want; if you enjoy listening to nasal whining knock yourself out. But most music fans feel differently. I absolutely GUARANTEE you if Geddy of the 70;s / 80's sang the original versions of all their great songs in the manner he currently sings them...this web site wouldn't exist. Rush wouldn't be an iconic rock band but instead they would be Budgie or April Wine or Brownsville Station: bands that had short runs of success but were almost completey forgotten after that short run.

This is one of the better performances of this song in recent live albums. Last rendition of TSOR I really liked was on R30.

 

The R30 rendition of almost every song played there is the best version. I'll still argue that Red Barchetta on R30 is still their best single recorded live song ever. It's perfect. That album is an incredible mix of an incredible performance.

 

That said, this is easily the best version of SoR since then, and an all-around excellent live rendition. Geddy is singing incredibly, there are even flashes where, I shit you not, he sounds just like he did in the early 2000's. The drums are mixed well, hi-hat is fully audible, and the end solo is killah.

 

Like most Rush fans, I know this song (and all the live recordings of it) incredibly well, so it's good to have it available as an anchor to gauge the overall quality. With that in mind, I am very, VERY excited to have this album in my hands and to play it non stop :)

 

Wow. After reading this I was pretty excited and decided to check out the video. Once Geddy started singing it was over for me; I just can't listen to that nasally, low-timbered whine he has used for the last few tours. Guess we all hear things differently.

 

I think we hear things the same, one of us just has unrealistic expectations ;)

Not at all. My expectations were that Geddy can't sing any more because on the last several live CDs I've heard he's obviously lost his voice. My expectation was exactly met.

The release counts aren't right, either. You've missed a couple live releases and videos somewhere.

I go into that on the post. The basic gist of it is that for the band's first 20 years they released 600 minutes of studio material compared to 200 minutes of live material; little of that live material was duplicative.

Since then, however, they've produced 210 minutes of studio content and 1,100 minutes of live material. Much of this live material is duplicative. Add the fact Geddy's voice has declined dramatically over the last 10 years or so...and I see no need to buy a new live release where 90% of the songs already appear on previous live albums and feature versions inferior to previous versions.

What I wrote on the post:

I'll make one comment on this situation. On the one hand, who cares if Rush wants to put out a live document of every tour now? No one forces me or any other fans to buy them, it's our choice. On the other hand, it does seem a nakedly commercial money-grab; an attitude that is in conflict with the band's overarcing themes and messages.

I would much prefer the band mine their rich history for previous live documents that would capture them in their prime. They kind of did this with the ABC 1974 release, but that's from the band's first tour, before they really hit their stride. I think fans would eagerly pay for complete live shows from their 1975 to 1988 prime (I know I would).

This is one of the better performances of this song in recent live albums. Last rendition of TSOR I really liked was on R30.

 

The R30 rendition of almost every song played there is the best version. I'll still argue that Red Barchetta on R30 is still their best single recorded live song ever. It's perfect. That album is an incredible mix of an incredible performance.

 

That said, this is easily the best version of SoR since then, and an all-around excellent live rendition. Geddy is singing incredibly, there are even flashes where, I shit you not, he sounds just like he did in the early 2000's. The drums are mixed well, hi-hat is fully audible, and the end solo is killah.

 

Like most Rush fans, I know this song (and all the live recordings of it) incredibly well, so it's good to have it available as an anchor to gauge the overall quality. With that in mind, I am very, VERY excited to have this album in my hands and to play it non stop :)

Wow. After reading this I was pretty excited and decided to check out the video. Once Geddy started singing it was over for me; I just can't listen to that nasally, low-timbered whine he has used for the last few tours. Guess we all hear things differently.

Hi all. Am new here but a longtime Rush fan. Have been reading through some of the threads and find the opinions and insights quite interesing, especially the debates about when Geddy's voice changed and why Power Windows is the best/worst album of all.

I'm a big fan of visuals and put together a webpage charting the history of Rush. I hope you'll check it out and find it interesting. You can find it here: http://lifeismusic.m...-in-chart-form/

Pretty meh to me overall but there are several highpoints. Specifically The Main Monkey Business (their best individual piece in a very long time) and Malignant Narcissism. Among the songs with actual lyrics only Hope really resonates with me. I think it's telling the two instrumentals are far and away the best songs. Hadn't really thought about it until reading some posts here but from RTBones forward the lyrics really fell off in quality. They're often very poor melodies and more often just downright silly.

It ranks among my very favorite. I think the Fountain of Lamneth suite is the most underrated extended piece in the band's entire catalog with the Necromancer probably the second monst underrated extended piece. Lakeside Park is one of the band's great radio-friendly songs and Bastille Day perfectly captures the band's early era hard-rock aggressiveness. Even I Think I'm Going Bald is pretty good once you get past the terrible title. Here's how I rate all Rush albums:

 

 

I love this! Nice choice for number one.

 

You might as well add Mick to your friends list haha!

 

By the way what is the album bar after CA?

It's the average of all their albums. Somehow forgot to label it properly.

I have an entire History of Rush in Chart Form if you want to check it out: http://lifeismusic.me/2015/10/22/the-history-of-rush-in-chart-form/

It is by far my least favorite Rush album. it's the only album in their entire catalog where I have songs ranked 1 (on a 1-to-5 scale) and there are two of them (Dog Years / Virtuality). A one means that I find the song unlistenable. There are two great songs, ranked as 4 (T4E and Driven); three good songs, ranked as 3 (Time and Motion, Limbo, Carve Away the Stone) and the rest are ranked as 2 for me.