SlyJeff

QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Feb 20 2012, 09:57 PM) QUOTE (psionic11 @ Feb 20 2012, 10:39 PM) At this point in time, the poll shows 53% like VT. In other words, half of us don't like VT. In other, other words, saying "very few don't" like VT is an incorrect conclusion. Anonymous or not. Just sayin'.... But you're leaving out the: I don't like the mixing and sound quality [ 38 ] [29.92%] They are saying they don't like the sound quality only, so since they had the choice of picking they didn't like the lyrics, the music OR the lyrics and music OR lyrics, music and sound quality, then you have to assume the 29.92% at least like the album lyrically and musically making it 83.46% who love or like Vapor Trails. So therefore, I would say MOST people love or like Vapor Trails. Just a different way of interpreting the results. I voted for that option, and I think VT is probably one of the worst albums ever printed. Please do not consider my vote as likeing the album- that is not fair to me as a person who gave an honest answer. I do not want an album I paid good money for and cannot listen to to be considered as anywhere near 'good' by me. I'm not saying you or anyone else has to agree with me. I just want to be free to have my own opinion.

The thing for me is, I wonder how many people who only know Rush for having a great drummer really heard a Rush song and thought "woah, this guy is smokin!", or was it more something they heard from a couple of people and the fad caught on to dismiss Rush as "the band who exists only because their drummer is amazing"? I mean, Geddy is amazing too (and I think Alex is WAY underrated), but where's his props? He gets em, sure, but not like Neil. I'll admit, I LOVE to focus on drums when I listen to a piece of music, and maybe that's why I'm such a Rush fan, but I'd like to think its the ensemble effort that is so magical that makes me like the band. And really, what do I know? I'm a guitarist, and I really couldn't tell you what makes a great drummer or not. I just know what I like to hear- what sounds cool and really accents the music. That's why love to hear the aforementioned Chad Szeliga play. He may be a nobody and play for small time bands, but it seems like he always is able to put interesting stuff into the music that fits without detracting. And I guess that is my real crieteria for a great drummer, one that Neil fits perfectly. I really don't think Neil is the best- I think it's probably impossible to say at that level. But Rush as a band is the best because no one puts it all together like they do and makes it work. And really, that's the most important thing.

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ Feb 16 2012, 02:30 PM) I'm selling my own Neil statue. Only R$279! http://i.imgur.com/ywdqu.jpg What tour was this from? I don't remember that kit.

QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Feb 13 2012, 07:08 AM) 10 Just don't like the sound quality, so I am assuming they don't HATE the album Well, I absolutly NEVER listen to it (though I listen to some of the songs in other forms)- so whether you define that as "hate" or not, it winds up being music I paid good money for that I don't listen to. In fact, I would say I do "hate" the album, but I'd love to own a version of it that does not create a headache and thus I can listen to.

QUOTE (Silas Lang @ Feb 12 2012, 10:23 PM) I'm in this camp. Then again some of my favorite albums are from the 60s/early 70s and are pretty primitive sounding. FWIW, I am not an audiophile and I cannot 'hear' what's wring with VT from a production standpoint. However, it isn't about a lack of quality- its that the recording is so harsh on the ears that it causes discomfort to me when listening. I attribute this to the production because others (including the band and the sound engineer who mix and mastered my own album) have said the production was harsh. Also, live and remixed versions of the songs don't bother me. But it's one thing to have a recording so poor it sounds like it was recorded by holding a glass up to the wall of the room the bad was playing in (how 'The Joshua Tree' sounds to me, for example) and another thing altogether when the recording induces a headache upon listening.

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 12 2012, 10:29 AM) QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Feb 12 2012, 07:46 AM) QUOTE (presto123 @ Feb 6 2012, 07:37 PM) To this day I still wonder how did the thing get released like that considering Rush are perfectionists and clipping would be one of the main quality checkpoints you look at before it goes to press. Heck....I can check for clipping in one minute here on my home PC. If you spend too much time completely focused on something, your just gets usd it. My previously favorite song I've ever written sounded great to me at the end of the mastering process- some time away from it and now I can't stand it- the mix and master is horrible and just kills it for me. This is the peril of recording an album the way Rush did, but it was probably the only way they were able to get back in the studio and produce something. There really is no excuse IMHO - a band with this much longevity and experience letting something like that get released is inexcusable. I wasn't saying it was excusable- just stating why I think it probably happened. Just like in my case- a sing I love got destroyed. Do I shrugs and say "oh we'll, not much I could have done"? Nope, I knowthat I dropped tha ball. I move on, but I regret that it didn't get the treatment I feel it deserved. I do not ever plan on going back to re-record the song. I DO think that recording VT the way they did was probably necessary to get back in the game, but there are measures they could have taken to prevent releasing VT as it went out. At the very least they should have had someone they trusted to give them some honest feedback on the recording before it got printed, because whoever did bless it really dropped the ball.

QUOTE (presto123 @ Feb 6 2012, 07:37 PM) To this day I still wonder how did the thing get released like that considering Rush are perfectionists and clipping would be one of the main quality checkpoints you look at before it goes to press. Heck....I can check for clipping in one minute here on my home PC. If you spend too much time completely focused on something, your just gets usd it. My previously favorite song I've ever written sounded great to me at the end of the mastering process- some time away from it and now I can't stand it- the mix and master is horrible and just kills it for me. This is the peril of recording an album the way Rush did, but it was probably the only way they were able to get back in the studio and produce something.

QUOTE (ReflectedLight @ Feb 12 2012, 01:55 AM) QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Feb 11 2012, 11:31 PM) I think I may be the only person on the planet who thinks this, but I just love listening to the drums of Breaking Benjamin's Chad Szeliga. I know it's nu metal and all and he's only been with them for two albums, but he seems a lot more talented than some of the honorable mentions. he's quicker than neil but neil has more power and rhythm. Lol, I wasn't trying to say he's the best- just would've liked to see him on the list somewhere.

I do here a very Rush like sound in the "Blood and Fire" intro, FWIW.

I think I may be the only person on the planet who thinks this, but I just love listening to the drums of Breaking Benjamin's Chad Szeliga. I know it's nu metal and all and he's only been with them for two albums, but he seems a lot more talented than some of the honorable mentions.

To append to my last post, as an example I like the instrument break in Caravan better than anything on the new VH album, even though there's stuff on there that really blows Alex's guitar work away in terms of guitar acrobatics. Caravan is just more fun to listen to for me and I love the way Rush sounds when they are tight, together, and jamming.

I don't think you could easily replace Alex on the drums- at least in some VH songs there are some pretty tricky change ups and added beats (not evey VH song is Jump). I think the band sounds really tight on the new CD- with as fast and acrobatic as Eddie is playing, it takes some talent to back him up and sound as polished as they do. But I'd prefer to listen to Alex L than EVH any day of the week. EVH may be the better player in terms of chops, but I prefer what Alex does with his chops more. Also, I love that Rush achieves a balance with all of the instruments and it's not just a platform to shine the light on a single player (like 99% of all rock bands do, and no one does it better than VH).

I think new VH is decent. Still like both CA songs better. But I've always liked Rush way better than VH. Eddie is smoking hot on the album no doubt, but it makes more than raw chops to make me consistently listen to a song. And I kind of am ashamed to admit this, but I think I prefer Chickenfoot to the new VH album.

QUOTE (trenken @ Feb 2 2012, 11:35 AM)

Feedback is obvious. The fact that I can't even be certain if it should "count" for this discussion makes it the first choice. However, barring Feedback I'd like to pick CoS. I don't know if they could've done 2112 without it, but in the fantasy in my head they could have.

QUOTE (doublereeder @ Mar 15 2011, 05:19 PM)The main topic at hand is: what the hell happened to music? Music illiteracy is what happened. Popular music became about melodies and lyrics only, not orchestration or virtuoso performances. It did this years ago, and rock music is responsible for a lot of it. So to keep things "fresh" in an age where not much of what you do matters you get garbage like this song (which incidentally has a terrible melody and terrible lyrics). Rush is an excellent example of why music is so screwed up. Why? Because a band like Rush gets regarded as complex and interesting (which they are, comparatively), but they barely scratch the surface of complexity that music written 100 years ago had. People used to study music in order to create it well, but "popular" music (including rock) is often made by people without a formal musical education so their toolbox is quite limited. And the people subsidizing this art are even less sophisticated in their musical appreciation- the average radio listener only cares about a decent melody line and maybe lyrics. I say this as someone with some formal musical education who is right along side the masses when it comes to appreciating a good hook and a clever rhyme. I regard Rush as the ultimate rock band in terms of offering interesting music that rises above. But it seems to me that Rush should be sitting at the bottom of the heap of what we as humans are capable of musically, not the top. So as musical education continues to falter the natural result is that the standards go lower and lower and ultimately music is evaluated not on musical elements at all, but the attractiveness of the performers or the mystique that marketing can create around them. But the REAL question is, did she sit in the front seat or the back seat?

QUOTE (IChoseFreeWill @ Mar 8 2011, 09:30 PM) In Cold Fire they tried too hard and failed. Rush is NOT known for love songs. At least not romantic love ones. FYI, CF is NOT a romantic love song. It's a bitter song about the limitations of so-called unconditional love.

I don't have faith in faith I don't believe in belief I know a lot of people like these lyrics, but to me they come off as trying to sound clever when they really are not. The idea that people have "faith in faith" or "belief in belief" is not novel or interesting; it's just a fact of some people's belief systems (not his). The way it comes off in his writing, though, makes it sound like he thinks the notion of having "faith in faith" or "belief in belief" is self evidently false, when it is not. If you want to present an opposing viewpoint, you need more than just to state what you do not believe in. Otherwise it isn't very interesting or compelling, which usually Peart's lyrics are whether I agree with them or not. I am fine with his anti-religion stuff in general, but this song always sounds sophmoric and self important to me. I also do not care for Dog Years or Virtuality. I LOVE the lyrics to Cold Fire.

Objectively, probably not. Subjectively, for me what Rush does musically is so "other" compared to any other rock band, I can't even compare. It's like there are bands that play rock,'and then there's Rush. To try and compare anyone to Rush is unfair to anyone else. I could be stranded on a desert island with the Rush catalog as the only recorded music I had available and I wouldn't miss the rest very much.

QUOTE (thelocator @ Sep 4 2010, 02:35 PM) Hmmn, no...That's not what I'm seeing with the 'Signals' era at all...I'm seeing a 'distilling' process of all the major popular, or 'Pop' elements found on both 'Permanent Waves' and 'Moving Pictures'...kinda like an extraction process where the musicians 'lift' only those elements which they believe will have the most effect on a total, overall, 'mass appeal' formula...leaving behind all those crafty musical passages, the complex instrumental structures that they were previously known for.... If you are lifting only those elements which are popular, you do not start off your album in 7/8. Geddy has already told us why they ramped up the keys- it was something he was interested in as a songwriter at the time. I have no reason to doubt that. Of course, no one will ever know the true motives the guys had behind the decisions they made, but of any band out there they are the ones who've made a name of themselves doing it "their way". Personally, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I have no reason not to. And for the record, I like that their definition of what Rush meant was open enough that that they could embrace Pop influences as much as Rock. Open minds yielded open music, and some of the best music this world has ever known.

QUOTE (thelocator @ Sep 3 2010, 10:06 PM) Where the heck do you think all these fans are coming from when you go and sit out in a parking lot before thee recent RUSH shows? I just told you that I had a direct experience in '07 where a whole slew of people we met up at the Jones Beach ampitheatre admitted to knowing basically ONLY the material from the early-to-mid 80's period...'Cause this was the period that got THE MOST radio attention out of any period, before or after... The popularity of the band is not a direct correlation to "selling out". It's really a measure of how close the band's vision of music was aligned with mainstream at the time- certainly PeW and MP were the period they were closest in that sense. But you don't write a song like TS with the idea in mind you are going to become rich off it. It's a great song and that fact shines through so loudly even the radio cannot ignore it, but if you were going to sit down and manufacture something to be popular, that song would not be it. Or take "Red Barchetta"- lines like "Alloy aircar two lanes wide" are not the kinds of topic one sings about at ANY time period where your goal is to make the most money possible. Finally, looking at your poll, "Signals" seems to be one point people are assessing Rush "sold out", which I take to mean those people are misunderstanding the term "Jumping the Shark", because Signals is the point where a lot of those people you talk about who only like PeW and MP stuff abandoned the band. If you are selling out, you don't do something really popular and follow it with something completely different.

Their videos petty much suck across the board. I don't think the band much cared about them, tbh. If they did, well that just proves being awesome at one thing doesn't make you awesome at everything.

QUOTE (thelocator @ Sep 3 2010, 04:16 PM)I wasn't going to add anything further on the subject because I know when I've gotten my point across, providing now FIVE very distinct and seperate examples of where this band has clung to popular trends in order to further their career interests...FIVE!You haven't gotten your point across because many of us think you are confusing "inspiration" with "selling out". You have provided 0 evidence the band has ever written or performed a song differently so that they could make more money or become more popular. All you have done is noted some trends in their music that align with popular trends, but that effect does not necessitate the cause you are ascribing.