eshine

QUOTE (presto123 @ Dec 8 2011, 04:42 PM) QUOTE (GotRush @ Dec 8 2011, 02:52 PM) QUOTE (presto123 @ Dec 8 2011, 09:03 AM)I would be less than thrilled about full 2112. I've already seen that before. Yea me 2 But how about side 2 of the 2112 album, I would like to hear those 5 songs Can you imagine Geddy trying to sing Lessons and Something For Nothing? Ouch! Yes, with the proper modifications (i.e. Circumstances from S&A tour) he would sound fine.

QUOTE (trenken @ Dec 8 2011, 09:15 AM) QUOTE (eshine @ Dec 8 2011, 02:37 AM) QUOTE (trenken @ Dec 6 2011, 09:33 PM) but honestly at this point I personally think he should consider dropping the key of even stuff like Moving Pictures. He's clearly struggling to sing all of that stuff. Give me a break. Fast forward to 1:45. Sorry, he sounds like complete garbage there. Serious strain in his voice. That sounds good to you? I'm a big Rush fan, but I'm not delusional and won't pretend he can sing these songs well anymore. He can't, so dropping the key is a very good idea. No shame in doing it. Garbage?? Seriously? If this is what you consider bad singing by Geddy then I rest my case. He sounds fine there. Absolutely fine, in fact - he sounds like... Geddy Lee singing Red Barchetta - totally in key and hitting the notes. You are absolutely wrong. I say bring on 2112 in 2012 - a current treatment of Something for Nothing and Sweet Memories would be worth the price of admission - and no, I wouldn't care if they downtuned those songs or if Ged sang them with a bit of strain in his 58 year old voice. It's rock and roll, not the opera.

QUOTE (trenken @ Dec 6 2011, 09:33 PM) but honestly at this point I personally think he should consider dropping the key of even stuff like Moving Pictures. He's clearly struggling to sing all of that stuff. Give me a break.

2112 in its entirety would be awesome - Ged can totally pull it off vocally with adjustments in a lower octave, which would be perfectly reasonable considering the album was written and recorded in the 70's. Circumstances sounded absolutely kick ass on the Snakes tour. And I love the fact that he recognizes they have become too reliant on multi-tracking. Cant believe we are so lucky to be anticipating brand new Rush and a tour in 2012. Who would have thought...

I used to LOATHE Power Windows - until I came to my senses later in life and realized it is a Rush masterpeice. CP sounds great, but has a few too many clunkers.

With regards to this "weakest link" talk - A voice like Geddy's, warts and all, is the farthest thing from a "weak link" for any band, let alone one that has been performing live for such a long time.

QUOTE (D3strukt @ Dec 1 2011, 02:16 PM)Okay serious, everyone please just shut the f**k up. ...The longer you take to accept that, the more people are going to shove it down your throat. Uhm, no and no thanks

QUOTE (GeddysMullet @ Dec 1 2011, 11:52 PM) QUOTE (StellarJetman @ Dec 1 2011, 10:19 PM) QUOTE (Analog_Bro @ Dec 1 2011, 08:00 PM)Well define "weak link". Wait, you're actually pulling the Clinton "defense"? For real? QUOTE (Analog_Bro @ Dec 1 2011, 08:00 PM)As far as my subjective listening goes everything is still going strong in the band, none of the links are "weak". Well, let's see here: Geddy, Alex, and Neil are all still playing at the top of their game. Geddy's vocal range has decreased. Which of these elements is weaker than the others? Even if you don't think that his voice is weak as a voice, he's still incapable of the kind of stuff that he was doing even as late as Vapor Trails, while all of the band's other aspects are just as strong as they ever were. How do you not get this? Rush fanboys scare and bewilder me in equal measure. People are entitled to like how Geddy's voice sounds now, to enjoy it as much as or more than they've enjoyed any other phase of his craft, and thus not consider it a weak link regardless of how it compares to the way Geddy used to sound. This doesn't make them stupid or wrong, and doesn't make "inarguably different" automatically equate to "objectively worse." People who can't accept that scare and bewilder ME. I watch Time Machine and my reaction is man, listen to how good Geddy Lee sounds singing Rush songs in 2011. Never thought I'd be saying that while watching him struggle through the HYF tour - over 20 years ago.

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 09:11 PM) QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 07:35 PM) No, it's not the bottom line. As a fan of the band, I acknowledge and accept that his voice sounds different then it did 30 years ago. I embrace it, quite frankly. But the vocal tragedy being perpetuated is not merited. It's over-the-top and silly. It's as if some fanbois cannot accept that they are aging and use the excuse that they are just "being critical" to hold the guy up to rediculous standards. I would love to see the same standards applied in reverse. The level of criticism here does not jibe with the actual performance. That is the bottom line. You're not reading what I wrote or you're being deliberately obtuse. I'm not comparing him to the way he was 30 years ago. 25 years ago, he wasn't the same as he was 30 years ago. He's not the same as he was six years ago, on R30. The Red Barchetta example is perfect - on R30, you could understand what he was singing. He had more range. He was naturally higher and wasn't forcing himself to hit notes that he knew he could no longer hit. He sounded effortless. There was no cracking, no "hiccups" (a term you keep using but I can't for the life of me figure out what you think it means). His delivery was significantly different on TM. It can't be argued that he does not enunciate the words as well as he used to. It can't be argued that he is singing in a lower pitch than he used to. These are quantifiable statements and are not subjective. You can say he's better now than ever, and that's fine. That's a valid opinion. But the fact is that he is different now. You are a fanboy in denial, unable to accept change. Your R30 example is silly and, for the record, - putting your opinions in bold does not make them quantifiable statements of fact. It does the reverse, quite frankly. You come across as very whiney.

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Nov 26 2011, 08:47 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 07:21 PM) QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 06:48 PM) He sounds better on Time Machine then he did on R30. Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. You listen to R30's Red Barchetta then listen to Time Machine's Red Barchetta. You can barely understand half the words on the TM version. The R30 version is not just better, on a scale of 1 to 10, there's at least a 5 point difference between the two. Now I know you're in denial. Agreed....vocally TM is worse... yeah - It's really not, though. He seems more weathered on R30. On TMT - he makes up for any early vocal hiccups with energy, ghutso and some really great performances later on.

Say what you will about Snakes and Arrows, but I personally love the songs on that record and the tour that followed. They set the bar high for Clockwork Angels. So far, the songs are aggressive, but lack melody...

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 08:21 PM) QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 06:48 PM) He sounds better on Time Machine then he did on R30. Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. You listen to R30's Red Barchetta then listen to Time Machine's Red Barchetta. You can barely understand half the words on the TM version. The R30 version is not just better, on a scale of 1 to 10, there's at least a 5 point difference between the two. Now I know you're in denial. I really don't care if you think I'm in denial. Vocally, the R30 show was lacking more then TMT

No, it's not the bottom line. As a fan of the band, I acknowledge and accept that his voice sounds different then it did 30 years ago. I embrace it, quite frankly. But the vocal tragedy being perpetuated is not merited. It's over-the-top and silly. It's as if some fanbois cannot accept that they are aging and use the excuse that they are just "being critical" to hold the guy up to rediculous standards. I would love to see the same standards applied in reverse. The level of criticism here does not jibe with the actual performance. That is the bottom line.

QUOTE (fledgehog @ Nov 26 2011, 07:27 PM) Geddy's voice has sounded strained and tired in live performance since the early '90s, and has lost its power in the studio since around Vapor Trails. It is impressive that someone his age who has been singing the way he does for so long is able to produce any of the notes he does at all, but that doesn't make it good. I think VT contains some of his best vocal ever - Earthshine is a vocal tour de force.

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 05:48 PM) QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 03:20 PM) The criticism of his voice by certain fans online has become epically absurd, as if a crack here and there is indicative of a man who needs to quit performing. I love my fellow Rush fans, but sometimes it becomes a bit much - the level of absolute perfection we expect from these guys. Many of us would kill to be able to pull off the physical aspect of a show at age 58 as well as Geddy does. I keep hearing comparisons to Waters, Daltry and Plant - not even close. Geddy shreds them vocally - he is easily one of the better vocalists of his generation - proving night after night that he can still bring it. If you're a Rush fan and you're embarressed by the fact that he has a vocal hiccup, heaven forbid, or that he doesn't sound like he did when he was 30 - that's entirely your problem. His performance of Freewill on this tour is a nice middle finger to his detractors If you think the summation of his vocal performance is "a crack here and there" then you are in serious denial. His voice is very, very different from what it used to be. Whether that's good or bad is subjective and up to each listener. But it cannot be denied that he sings very differently than he did even 10 years ago, different even than R30. There is no shame in admitting that the man's singing voice has changed. But you guys who won't admit that his abilities are significantly different have your heads in the sand. You've got your fingers in your ears and you're yelling "NANANANA CAN'T HEAR YOU GEDDY SOUNDS AWESOME". "a crack here and there" is ludicrous. He sounds better on Time Machine then he did on R30. Snakes and Arrows live is a vocal triumph, actually. He sounded amazing that entire tour. Nothing he does now sounds worse then Ceiling Unlimited did over ten years ago. I wish he knew then what he does now - that not all songs are worth "going for it". Gladly, they dropped that tune. No denial or head in the sand here. Ged sounds great on most nights and fantastic on really good nights nowadays. He knows his vocal limitation and isn't embarressed at all to accomodate. What is ludicrous is how embarressed so many of you guys seem to be that he is not perfect for you - all the time. I have never heard of a singer held up to higher expectations then Geddy Lee is right now by a segment of his fanbois - and what frustrates me is how much he actually does bring it - and how that should be celebrated, rather then drag the guy through the mud over a few vocal hiccups.

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Nov 26 2011, 07:23 PM) QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 04:13 PM) QUOTE (reani14 @ Nov 26 2011, 06:39 AM) freewill and time stand still and terrible on time machine. and vital signs, you can't even hear whats hes singing.. if you dont know the lyrics already. He nails freewill "and" time machine. You, on the other hand, cant even nail the proper keys on a computer to formulate cohesive sentences (although we all know you are just a "normal" member posing as someone else, which in itself is sadder then Geddy's most aweful night behind the mic) Freewil and Time Stand Still were both pretty bad vocally. Not just the sound of his voice, but terribly off key in spots.... But they weren't, and this is the problem with these criticisms is that they are factually incorrect. I don't think Geddy has ever given TSS a proper vocal treatement live - and he does warble a bit in spots - but terribly off-key? What is your definition of off-key? In a purely musical context - he is singing in-key. Freewill he simply nails - better then he did decades ago, actually. He was such an inconsistant vocalist that they switched over to Distant Early Warning to avoid the "cell of awareness" vocal during the RTB tour.

QUOTE (reani14 @ Nov 26 2011, 06:39 AM) freewill and time stand still and terrible on time machine. and vital signs, you can't even hear whats hes singing.. if you dont know the lyrics already. He nails freewill "and" time machine. You, on the other hand, cant even nail the proper keys on a computer to formulate cohesive sentences (although we all know you are just a "normal" member posing as someone else, which in itself is sadder then Geddy's most aweful night behind the mic)

The criticism of his voice by certain fans online has become epically absurd, as if a crack here and there is indicative of a man who needs to quit performing. I love my fellow Rush fans, but sometimes it becomes a bit much - the level of absolute perfection we expect from these guys. Many of us would kill to be able to pull off the physical aspect of a show at age 58 as well as Geddy does. I keep hearing comparisons to Waters, Daltry and Plant - not even close. Geddy shreds them vocally - he is easily one of the better vocalists of his generation - proving night after night that he can still bring it. If you're a Rush fan and you're embarressed by the fact that he has a vocal hiccup, heaven forbid, or that he doesn't sound like he did when he was 30 - that's entirely your problem. His performance of Freewill on this tour is a nice middle finger to his detractors

Geddys voice and melodies are tantamount to the instrumentation. They define Rush as we know them. No Geddy, No Rush.

QUOTE ... My retirement plan keeps getting pushed back. I we'll just keep playing it by ear. What we've learned over the last ten years in particular is just how unpredictable life is. So when it's good you just ride it. And right now things are very good for us. I don't think we've ever had an audience as big as we have now or been as well received around the world. And I don't think we've ever enjoyed playing as much as we do now. So we are really having a lot of fun right now. We're really luck and we do really like what we do and we like just hanging out with each other. I hadn't seen Alex in about a month and we got together the other day to work on some new stuff and just had the best time. We're all just natural friends and the relationship between the three of us is very much one of being three equals. ... ... If it gets to the point where one of us has had enough or we look at each other and kinda decide we've got nothing, we're out. I don't see that happening, but obviously there's gonna come a time when we don't feel we're playing as well as we have, and that will probably be the sign that says to hang it up. Neil had a bit of a revelation not long ago. He'd always been hesitant to tour but realized that as long as he can play the way he plays, he should be doing it, 'cause he wouldn't be able to play that way forever. And I think that's what's motivated us all to get out there and keep touring - do it while we can do it this well. People associate rock and roll with a particular lifespan that they wouldn't attribute to say a painter or a writer. In rock and roll the clock seems to be always ticking and everyone seems to be waiting for you to run out of juice, declare you're old age and fly the flag. But I think this is an outdated way of looking at rock and roll that has largely been transcended now. It is now an art form as legitimate as every other art form and those involved in the industry should be allowed to play until they are no longer creative. ... http://www.tidingsmag.com/features/an-inti....html?mid=53317 To all of the... "oh my God, Geddy you have failed us. What happened??? Your voice is goooone.. what happened to Time Stand Stiiiill. Your straiiiining, your not enuuunciiiataatingg - your old, your weak... please, for the sake of my embarressment to my freinds and family who used to love your singing - just retire, nooooow" ...please, bite me.

QUOTE (Mr. Krinkle @ Nov 17 2011, 08:15 AM) I'd say the vocals were better here..... http://www.youtube.com/embed/5yeq0-0APmk I'd have to disagree, actually. They sound a little "rushed" and all over the place. Plus the song is totally chopped... TCE 2011 is better then TCE 1983

dont be too hard on him, guyss - reaani only has the sex when its oon dv

Tough call - both versions are splendid.

I often wonder why people don't all sound exactly like they did in 1980. Perhaps it's because 1980 was 30 f***ing years ago.