Timbale

I was looking at the encore section of A Show Of Hands - had not watched it in many a moon - and remembered something I've always wondered about. You can tell, as I think was the general practise in shooting shows back then, that they have used one night in the venue to shoot the far away, full scope shots and another night to shoot the close-ups on stage, which is the performance we're hearing. It's usually pretty seamless, but there are, I believe, a couple moments that give it away on ASOH...including during 2112, when you can see that Alex has a white guitar in the long shots, and a black guitar in the close ups. BUT, what's interesting to me is that between Overture and Temples, Alex takes a moment ( a moment too long, as far as Geddy is clearly concerned, haha) to switch his guitar to the white from the black. Is this a coincidence do you think? It doesn't seem like he has broken a string...but it also doesn't look like roadies/techs are motioning to him to make the change. I've always been curious about this moment...but have never seen it discussed. Thoughts?

Hey - thought it might be fun to pick 5 sleeve designs that you like and 5 that you don't! Here are mine. Top 5 Signals - A very simple, strong, striking image. Love the hand drawn "font" of the name. The spacing on it, the framing around the photo...it's just a perfect piece of design. It's, like, Pink Floyd level good (and for me, the only one that reaches that height.) Exit...Stage Left - I feel like the idea is just really really clever, and it's pulled off very well. I also really like the typeface design for the band's name. Presto - I'm not sure why, but for some reason the black and white image, the shape of the hill...I don't know, it just works well for me, despite not REALLY knowing why that's the image for the record. I only ever owned Presto on CD, so maybe I would feel different holding the lp in my hand...but that image with the red RUSH (and another good font) is striking in a positive way to me. Grace Under Pressure - The cover of p/g really captures the feel of the album to me, which makes it a success. It's actually kinda busy and maybe not in a good way...but it really says something metaphorically about the contents of the songs themselves, that cold, brooding and pessimistic 80s thing. I also am always a fan of artwork breaking the rules of a form it set up (like the burn mark at the edge of the "frame" on Wish You Were Here), and the false framing becoming the water drips is a cool touch. Rush - I actually find it hard to pick a fifth that I really like...but the debut is very immediate and striking... and you can't deny that "Rush" script is pretty perfect, as their long term use of it has shown. It is not in my top 5 records by them...but I think the cover is very simple and strong. Bottom 5 Rush In Rio - f**k off with that garbage. What am I, an 8-year old?! God awful. Snakes & Arrows - busy in a bad way. All of a sudden, we're going literal, with snakes and arrows on the cover? It's ugly and really forgettable. Test For Echo - it is a simple and clear image..but I just loathe that kind of digital art. The lean into realism makes it look more fake to me. It's like seeing a movie with CGI from the late 90s. A Show Of Hands - Ugh. The colour palette is SO of its time, of course...and I just don't know why these are the image representations of the band. I just find it childish and ugly. The typeface is terrible, too. (I always thought it would have been funny - like maybe, not as the cover but as an inner sleeve design - to use the ESL art, but do a Monty Python - Gilliam-style thing where the other characters from the next 4 albums had been cut out and sort of badly added to the original image...) Clockwork Angels - again, it's a little too literal for me..although, I don't hate the idea of a clock being incorporated. But I do find it to be ugly...I guess it's the digital thing...and that red is off-putting to me. Maybe if it had been a photo of an actual clock with the indices digitally altered to be sort of melting into the steampunk icons, I don't know. The thing is it's NOT an image of a clock...it's a digitally created set of hands/indices superimposed over clouds. So it's representational...but not (to me) very artful. I wish someone had told Syme to either get Dimo Safari on the blower and tell him to bring his camera over...or get your damn paint brushes out and make something that actually reflects steampunk aesthetics better. So those are mine...the rest of the record covers fall in the middle for me. Most of them are "fine". I was going to put Moving Pictures in the top 5...but I think it's just too much of a Rush icon for me to be objective about. I'm not sure if it's great...or just the cover of a really great record. A few others, Permanent Waves and Power Windows are similar for me, I like them a lot, but I don't know if that makes them "good". Top 5 Bottom 5 - go!

His voice is the perfect vehicle for Peart's lyrics. Peart used a lot of words that many lyric writers would stay away from, I think - "microcosmic" for example - and somehow, Geddy's very enunciated style (at least in the height of his career) was perfectly suited to that stuff. His voice is unique...and I think from MP on he is kind of underrated as a singer. Rush is not overly emotional music... but he does have moments where he connects that way. It's so hard to think of his voice as separate from Rush, which is why I voted that maybe he's in my top 10 - he just IS Rush. I particularly enjoyed when he dropped down into his less shrieky register. His singing on Signals is probably my fave.

I went for Tai Shan! It is not a great song...but it is more interesting than the other two. And better sung. I had to listen to both Dog Years and Bald to assess them - it's been a long while. Dog Years is somewhat interesting musically - and the chorus is kinda catchy. But of course the lyrics are dreadful. This is where Neil had gone so far beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel that he removed the bottom of the barrel, dug straight down to China, passed by the Tai Shan mountain on his way, and kept going until he found the Dog Years lyrics... I Think I'm Going Bald, as has been mentioned elsewhere, starts off as a rip off of In The Mood, which, if you're gonna steal from yourself, jesus christ, pick a good song at least. Then it goes on to be a kinda non-song to me. The solo is ok. The vocal has always been one of my least favourite things ever. I mean, I don't know how one could deliver the titular line without sounding like an idiot - maybe Paul Rodgers or someone could - but Geddy just sounds...ugh. I can't believe I just listened to it so I could vote. Damn you.

I went with Time Stand Still. For me, it's a song that resonates...and although Anthem is a great little rocker that is fundamental to the creation of the Rush, it is kind of like a museum piece to me now. I would never listen to it as a stand alone song. If I feel like some old school hard rock Rush, and am playing All The World's... I will listen to it, but I would never seek it out as a song. TSS is a proper song in a way that Anthem isn't for me - even though it's cool in it's way. I think a lot of it has to do with the lyrics - a big part of what I like about Rush. Anthem is just this antiquated, Randian thing that, if it was a new song, I would not tolerate at all. Like, if someone was playing me a song by a new band that they wanted me to check out and "begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more" jumped out at me, I'd move along. I know some people don't care about lyrics that much, but I do, and I grimace whenever I hear Peart's early dabblings with objectivism.

It seems like there are people who find Red Lenses "weird" and unlikeable. I have always dug this tune...and the drumming in the verses - "it's the colour of your heartbeat..." is the kind of stuff that, for me, sets Neil Peart apart from other good rock drummers. He was just making such interesting, "non rock" choices around that time - it's actually progressive. I often think of Mike Portney in the Rush doc praising La Villa and and saying some thing about when they went to the shorter songs, I lost interest...and I think, dude, did you listen to the inventive shit he was doing on those recrods?! Pull your rocker head out of your ass....

Damn.

I think of Alex, maybe more than the other two guys, as indistinguishable from Rush itself. Like, I don't tend to consider him as a player outside of the band - his basically IS Rush to me. Given that, and given how much I love the band, he is among my favourites...but he doesn't "stand out" like other players for me. Like, I love Pink Floyd...but I also think of Dave Gilmour as his own entity - I don't mean because he makes solo records, just that he is a stand out of that band. I don't think Alex stands out in the world of the hard rock riff gods - the Jimmy Pages of the world - but I think where he is unique and very cool is where the melding of the less hard rock stuff entered his playing. The era where he was still ripping crazy solos, but bringing that Alan Holdsworth, Andy Summers thing to it was for me the coolest era of his playing...although the least "guitar god" part of his career.

I love a lot of what Neil does, and it was very formative for me as a young music fan, but he wouldn't honestly be my favourite. He is totally unique...and like the band itself, I kind of approach his lyrics in that vein. I find it hard to "compare" him to other lyricists, because he often has that slightly removed, analytical bend to his writing that you don't find that often. He talks about emotional things, and I do find a lot of that stuff (as opposed to something like Cygnus X1) moving...but it is a very specific kind of emotional reaction. His lyrics, for me, never "cut deep" like many great writers I love - Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Joni Mitchell, Aimee Mann, Pete Townshend, Costello etc etc... Growing up as a Rush fan, I can remember thinking that someone who writes about black holes and Greek gods and tide pools is music for smart people, and someone who writes about girls and relationships is for dumb people. And, I think, having some friends who were into Kiss and that kinda think, I did feel justified in that perspective. But then you mature a bit and discover that binary does NOT exist, and very smart, insightful poets write about emotion. The umbrella of what I like is so much broader than it was when all I did was eat sleep and breathe Rush. But I could rattle off tons of Neil lyrics that I adore and that always stay with me. I love his word play, I love his attention to detail. I love, as a drummer, his rhythmic sensibilities around language. But it is a pretty specific thing, and sometimes it hits more in the head than the heart. Although they make very different music, I often think that he has a little in common with David Byrne as a lyricist - they're both kinda like aliens observing the human condition, haha. A Rush song popped up on a playlist when I was on a road trip with my then girlfriend now wife...and she is always willing to listen to different types of music. It was Spirit of Radio...and that 2nd verse came around, and I always think of that as such a great piece of writing, such a truth to power moment of righteousness. And the line went by "One likes to believe in the freedom of music..." And she said, "That's such a weird way to say that. Who says 'one' like that. It's so disconnected and impersonal". And having heard that lyric countless times for 40 years, I hadn't really thought of it that way. (And of course it made me also think of "one must put up barriers", another lyric that I think of as being among his best). It was a bit of a moment of insight for me, because seeing this thing I take for granted and am so used to...seeing it from the outside was interesting, and only underlined that slightly removed feeling that his work has. And again, I love a lot of it.

Neil is always going to be top 5 because he's a great drummer who was the drummer for my favourite band at a totally formative age. I have gone through phases where other players, most of whom still reside in my top 5 or 10, have been more favoured because I'm so into them in the moment. When I really got into 70's Genesis, Phil took that #1 place for some time. I had a period where Tony Williams was my #1, and all I could do was listen to the Miles Davis Quintet over and over and over. Simon Phillips, through his work with Townshend and then the Who, eclipsed everyone for a chunk of time. But Neil is always there...he got in so deep, and was so interesting in the way that he progressed - particularly his move from prog rock 70s guy to embracing 80s-style drum patterns guy - that he's always going to have a special spot. He gets knocked out of #1 for me...but he often finds his way back to the tip of the list.

I have given it a "spin" one time, though just on streaming - I'm currently away from my turn table, so will be buying the vinyl at some point soon. It is definitely a "clearer" mix...I didn't have the patience to A/B the entire thing, but did jump back and forth a couple times when I first started. The guitars off the top of Dogs sound more like "real" acoustics...there's a clarity there that is more present than the original mix...but I don't know if that adds up to "better" or not yet. The vocals have had some work done on them, removing reverbs seems to be the main thing. They feel more present, perhaps more in line with the vocal quality on The Wall. I think some other choices have been made as well - I believe the kind of prechorus on Pigs (You're nearly a good laugh...) used to have a double tracked Roger vocal, or perhaps a tape delay that was stereo panned to give a double track effect. It sounds like that has been altered...I don't know if maybe the time of the delay has just been shortened so it has a different sense of separation or something. Curious to really dig into that and figure it out. They also brought up Gilmour's back ups in the song. I'm not sure I ever really registered that it was him singing on the chorus, but now I can clearly hear that it's him. Over all the bass seems bigger and the overall separation of the instruments is greater, so there are a few keyboard things that I had never noticed before which was nice. I will have to live with it for a while to determine if it's "better" than the original or not...

This is the amazing thing about a band that was around as long as Rush...there's so much material that people can have such different opinions over. I respect yours, even though I disagree with it. After reading what you had written, I opened up my itunes to give T4E a spin, to at least listen to the songs you listed...only to find that I must have deleted it from my hard drive to make space for something else. I guess that says something about my feelings for it, haha. (I seem to have removed T4E, RTB and S&A. The rest of the records are there...) Maybe in another thread we could have a discussion about the difference between good songs and essential songs, if there even is one. I'm interested in the semantic difference that may exist. Like, I think for better or for worse, Roll The Bones is an essential Rush song when it comes to their trajectory...even though the middle section is kind of embarrassing to me, so might not go into my "good" category. I could kind of see that Resist might, might go in the essential column because it landed in a more melodic, acoustic place that they visited after that...but I don't know. :)

Yes, I agree, I should have said that. Although some of RTB is pretty disposable - I think we can all live without Face Up, for instance - those first three are important "modern" Rush songs in ways that none of the T4E songs are.

I think T4E is Rush's least essential album - like, if it didn't exist, it wouldn't alter the story or the trajectory of the band very much. There isn't a song from it that feels particularly emblematic or that you can't imagine a concert without. It just feels to me like it could disappear and we'd all just be OK I don't think you can say that for any of the other albums...maybe Roll The Bones, but that one was at least the continued step back to the 3 piece focus started on Presto. It's just so "meh"... it feels like a lot of filler to me, where everything is kinda so so ok...with a few real stinkers thrown in. I know I bring a subjective opinion because it was the first album they put out where my deep fandom waned. I never sat with T4E and dissected it the way I did with all the albums up to that point. It was the first one for me that didn't feel like an artistic statement, like an intentional release...it just felt like an album with some songs on it, which the other ones had not felt like to me (even though, of course, by definition, they were). Maybe that's why I don't like it...it kinda makes me feel sad, like the remnants of a breakup.

I feel a real sense of connection to a lot of Hold Your Fire. I think the songwriting is interesting, goes in some unexpected places and does not meander (save a few spots here and there.) I think it is a softer, less powerful album than Power Windows...but after giving it a spin recently, it really struck me how CATCHY so much of it is. I like when Rush is a bit heavier as well...but I would put many of these songs over stuff that came out on Vapour Trails, S&A and Clockwork Angels. When listening to Time Stand Still, I really noticed how the verse, the pre-chorus, the chorus, the sort-of post chorus ("freeze this moment...") and even the bridge were hummable and had intention to them. One of the things I dislike about more modern Rush is that the verses often feel like a hodge-podge of words and chords that don't create an interesting melody or rhythm...they're just crammed together. Songs on HYF are songs in a way that a lot of that stuff isn't for me. Honestly, I would rather listen to Tai Shan (which I seldom do) than Headlong Flight. I don't care if Headlong Flight kinda sounds like Bastille Day and they shred on it or whatever...I don't enjoy it as a song, and I think Tai Shan is at least a departure where they took a swing. And I think Ged sings it, and much of the album, really well. That said, it's not my fave album, and a few of the tracks get very little airtime for me (I cannot stand Turn The Page, despite Geddy's skill), but it overcomes it's sonic shortcomings for me by being interesting, and in that Neil Peart, slightly removed way, quite heartfelt.

AP - September 10, 2022 Although it has been touch and go with Her Majesty's health for the last year or so, Buckingham palace announced in a statement that the Queen and her family were comforted that she lived long enough to see the 40th Anniversary release of Moving Pictures. With the band delaying the release a year past its actual anniversary, there were rumours that the royal family were feeling stress that the band would not get the box set out in time. It has been long known that Moving Pictures is the Queen's favourite Rush record by some margin. Known for her cheeky sense of humour, Her Majesty would often pull the vinyl out in front of visiting dignitaries, point to the cover sleeve and say, "Look - the photo is taken at ME Park!" The newly crowned King Charles III, off the record, stated after his mother's passing, "It is a bloody shame that the band could not pull it together to get the damn Signals box set out on its proper anniversary - she would have had something to look forward to, and it may have just made her hold on through the fall." The new King made this comment, despite the fact that is well known that the Queen was not the biggest fan of the so called synth era, and preferred the classic, 3-piece approach. We hope her joy at receiving the deluxe Moving Pictures box set kept her vital signs up, if only for a little while longer.

Oh man, Omar playing with those guys was SO damn cool! I love that he didn't sound like some Rush tribute drummer, he sounded like his bada** self! And I don't care if it wasn't too close to the actual intro...having someone actually play the synth at the start of 2112 was a big smile!

Me as well. I hate that the Signals dog, for instance, is on the AFTK cover. Why?! "Oh, it's just a little reference", I imagine Syme or the band saying. But...a reference to what? We all own all the damn albums, I mean, we get it, it's a character from another record, but there's no logic to the reference itself. Exit...Stage Left is a great cover because the references make sense - it tells a little story. Having the dalmatian just shoved in there is idiotic, sorry.

It's a damn shame that there was a parting, whatever the circumstances, because Allen was clearly the superior tech. I can't imagine he would have let the atrocity that was the R40 second set kit go through the PA sounding like it did...

Ugh...the Farewell To Kings box cover is dreadful. I think Hugh Syme is super talented...but he seems to lean into "cute" with his digital stuff, and I find it really off-putting.

Wow...I guess they're not f**k ups because I assume Hugh Syme was on board for all of the boxsets...but those are some big differences with MP and Hemispheres. Hemispheres is almost a whole other album cover...not just the brain but the shadows, the horizon, the font and the colour around the red Rush lettering. And the missing lines around the name on Moving Pictures looks so weird to me...like a low rent version. I have read something somewhere with Syme voicing his distaste for the finished product of the Hemispheres cover...but it's a bit George Lucas to go in and make a new brain. Weird. (I didn't notice much difference with PW...)

I don't imagine that Signals gets an anniversary edition...although I would love it if it did - it is a definite top 5 album for me. I think, despite Subdivisions and New World Man being hits, that the "classic" era of albums is considered over by the record company and the band. The wider appeal to the rock fans who might buy, say, a Bruce Springsteen box or a Fleetwood Mac box or something, reaches its pinnacle with MP...after that it's "just" the fans. I will rejoice if I am wrong because it's one I'd run out to buy.

So you don't think Rush were performing Finding My Way, In The Mood, Working Man, Take A Friend and What You're Doing in '73-'74? I find it hard to believe that a band in that position went into the studio and decided "let's write new material for this". Like, it's not how bands make 1st records, almost ever.

So...Geddy has told the story before that he basically had to write the lyrics right in the studio because John was responsible for the lyrics but then he had a tantrum of some sort and destroyed them all? Something like that, anyway... But...these were surely songs that they had been gigging before they went into the studio, right? Weren't these songs that Geddy had been singing prior to making the first record? How does this make any sense?

Hmmm....I'd be interested to know what parts those are. I'm a Rush fan who puts 2112 in general way lower on the list than I think many fans do...but having said that, for me it's all of pretty much equal quality - I think Soliloquy is pretty much as good as Overture, for instance. I think Tears is quite cringy...but it's cringy the whole way though - it's not like the verse is blah and the chorus is really beautiful. It's all equally not good for me. I also think the songs on PW are very consistent - I can't think of a part of one of the songs that is of a different quality than the song itself. Freewill is a song I don't ever really listen to any more...but it's kinda because the whole thing doesn't appeal to me that much, not because I love the riff but hate the bridge or whatever. But Presto has things I really dislike rammed up against things I do like. 2 examples that are not Superconductor -1, Chain Lightning: the verses are tuneless and uninteresting to me, and the "that's nice" at the end pretty much guarantees that I would never play that song for another living grown up. BUT, the chorus "sun dogs fire..." is top tear middle period Rush, melodically, lyrically and arrangement wise. 2 - the title track: I like the verses a lot, I love the chorus and the bridge "don't ask me..." , but the "if I could wave my magic wand" into and pre-chorus thing - and particularly the synth sound that accompanies it - are terrible to me. So I don't know - does Jacob's Ladder go on a bit too long and meander a bit? Probably...but there's nothing that makes me wince like some parts of otherwise good songs from 1990 on....