Derv
-
Posts
47 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
I noticed the lip-syncing in CA on a youtube vid. Hardly suprising, and I don't think it's cheating. I agree with an earlier comment that it would be better for Geddy to not even try to pretend he's really singing the part. As far as instrument samples go, I might be wrong, but I think that the majority of what we hear coming from the stage is what the band is actually playing. A little "seasoning" here and there is acceptable to enhance the sonic flavour. Considering the band only has 3 "real" members, and the type of material they play (not to mention their age), it's no suprise they need a little bit of help here and there.
-
I happen to think that the audio quality of some tracks on CA is rather lacking. I know it's a heavy rock album, and there's a lot going on in the music, but to my ears it does sound a bit "boomy" at times. There are times when I really struggle to hear Geddy's vocals. Neil's drums can also sound a bit "muddled" in various places. It seems like I have placed a curtain between me and my speakers. It is frustrating, because I am pretty sure this could have been avoided. I admit that I have very little knowledge on how music is recorded/mastered, but I am pretty certain that these issues could have been avoided. I`ve read that the album was recorded with iPods in mind, maybe that's why some tracks seem clearer when played from youtube through my PC speakers than on my reasonably decent hi-fi system. Having said that, I still think it's a great album, and certainly hasn't been damaged to the extent that Vapor Trails was.
-
I have a problem understanding a fair few words that Geddy sings on recent recordings. I think it's due to the number, choice and speed of the words that he has to sing. I also think it's got something to do with the recording/mixing of some of the songs. Yes, it annoys me (because I think "if only I could hear him through the fog"), but I'm not complaining, too much.
-
QUOTE (Nootch @ Jun 23 2012, 03:56 PM) Couldn't find a mention of this in a search...the clock on the album cover reads 9:12 which is 21:12 on a 24 hour clock. Thought that was really cool nod to the album that really launched them. Pity the hour hand is still pointing at the "9", even thought the minute hand has moved nearly to the "3" position. Most analogue clocks that I`ve seen would show the hour hand slightly closer to the "10" when the minute hand is nearly at quarter past the hour. Ruins the whole album for me.
-
QUOTE (Todem @ Jun 13 2012, 02:41 PM) Sonically it is not a great Rush album. But it is far from a sonic trainwreck. Disagree about the songs. I really like all of them. Some of them will go down as classic Rush after the passage of time. Correct.
-
-
Dare I say it. Yes I do...... I really like the songs on CA. One or two are a bit so-so, but as a whole it's a great album. But - On my modest Hi-Fi system, it "booms" a bit. Now I know that there's a lot going on when these three musicians get going, but there seems to a be an almost constant low-end "hum". No, my connections/amp/CD player are all fine, it's like there's too much low frequency "noise" been left on the recording. Again, some of Geddy's vocals sound like they've been recorded from behind a curtain. Neils drums sound the same. I'm no recording engineer, or Hi-Fi expert, but surely they could have got a "crisper" result. Not as "crisp" as Presto, but something where there is more separation between instruments, and clearer vocals. Having said that, it isn't awful, but it is slightly fatiguing to listen to at times. And maybe if the recording wasn't so dense, the feel of the album wouldn't be the same. These problems aren't massive, and as I say, it really is a very good album. I just keep thinking "if only..."
-
All I know is that sometimes Rush write a song that remind me of why I like this band so much. And The Garden is one of those times.
-
I'm dying for a leak too...... I'll be back shortly.
-
Does anyone know the German translation of "PLEASE UPLOAD NOW !!!" ?
-
OK, must resist...... Oh well, just a quick listen.
-
QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ May 24 2012, 09:57 PM) QUOTE (JoenataArctica @ May 24 2012, 02:35 PM) I saw that he gave it a 10/10, but I didn't know if he liked or hated the album. Use normal people talk!! His editor said it was 10/10, I didn't get that impression at all from the actual text. I think probably his editor couldn't understand it either and just guessed. If his editor was doing his job, he would have edited out 95% of that "review".
-
QUOTE (KenJennings @ May 24 2012, 07:20 PM) QUOTE (FeelingUnlimited @ May 24 2012, 10:40 AM) God, what awful writing. Put away your flowery adjectives, pretentious sentence structures, and baffling cultural references. Just tell us something of substance about the album, instead of wasting our time with this junk. I found it downright hard to read. I really don't know what he was trying to say half the time.
-
QUOTE (GUP1771 @ May 24 2012, 05:19 PM) QUOTE (FeelingUnlimited @ May 24 2012, 11:40 AM) God, what awful writing. Put away your flowery adjectives, pretentious sentence structures, and baffling cultural references. Just tell us something of substance about the album, instead of wasting our time with this junk. That's how I felt. It's not entertaining. It's annoying. It made it a chore to read that. Agreed. Was it a review of CA, or an exercise in use of "fancy" language ? I admit that I'm no expert in literature, or the use of the English language, but I had to re-read several parts of that review, and it left me feeling slightly dizzy. Perhaps that's what CA will do when we hear it, and maybe the author of the review was trying to put that across. Or maybe he was just showing off.
-
I like this version........