GeoffMutton

I have no idea how to watch it from the UK and I'm sure I'd not be the only one appreciative of a way to check it out :)

Just wondering what people thought of the tour documentary on the DVD? There's been a lot of talk about the live footage and what people like and didn't like - what are people's thoughts on the doc?

Jesus H Peart - 230 magazines and it's only a partial collection??! :)

Of there being an address on the back of a Rush album and then 35 years later, a sign in the window of it saying "Big Al lives here".

Ok, this is a bit of a weird one: I was looking at the liner notes page on one of the other sites this morning and noticed a correspondence address: Correspondance – 55 Glencameron Rd., Thornhill, Ont., Canada. When I put this into Google maps and zoomed into the window of the house under the pushpin, there was a sign saying "Big Al Lives Here" (!!) http://www.picpaste.com/8ognAkpB.png (for some reason, I can't embed this image - sorry). I figured that maybe some Rush fans knew that the Google van was in the area and were having a joke, or that maybe it was the first SRO office and they still owned it and it was a silly gag or something. Also on the sign though, is a web-link that seems to point to www.cateringatbigal.com That webpage has expired, but the archive.org has it. Here's a link to the site's last archive crawl in Feb 2012: http://web.archive.org/web/20120202083441/http://www.cateringatbigal.com/ It appears to be a genuine page. (although with a conspiracy theory hat on, I could say that the all-flash site with music that auto-plays is very much in the style that Alex's son used to make - but that could be stretching things a little). The company is listed in several local business sites and even has a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Big-Als-Catering-and-Decor/128008847239151 There's a new address on the Facebook page, which seems to point to it being genuine. All seems very strange though! What are the odds? Apologies if this is old news and been talked to death already. If not - any thoughts?

Marathon?

May I recommend you try decaf?

Think there might be a documentary?

When I click on the 'buy in itunes' link, I get an error. Anyone else? Can't work out if it's because I'm in the UK, or because the book isn't available yet. Not holding out much hope for greatness, as I've heard almost every one of those tales before (with Lerxst spelled correctly, too...) but I'd like to get hold of it, nonetheless.

I'm **not asking whether they do or not**, I'm asking what your opini...... oh christ, never mind. And yes, I've read Mr Peart's books. (He's fortunate that people like hearing him play drums is all I'm saying).

I'm not asking whether they do use a click / backing tracks or not. I'm asking whether people really genuinely care.

Apologies if I've posted in the wrong forum. I'll have a hunt for the posting rules and have a scan before I start any other threads. My original post wasn't really discussing what they may or may not be doing on the present tour, it was a question to find out what fans themselves think of the 'all live' philosophy and whether it's an unnecessary exercise, or an important part of what makes Rush Rush.

TL, DR ??

Hello folks - first time poster after a lengthy lurking... I was wondering how people here would feel if Rush were to change their 'no backing tapes' policy? I've always read since the first time I got interested in Rush that every single sound coming out of the PA is somehow triggered by them. I've also read a whole bunch about how complex this makes the show for them - footpedals, triggers, samples being fired off left and right and so on. My question is: would it actually bother anyone if they played to a click and allowed themselves to enjoy being present in the show a little more, rather than carrying out what could be thought of as just a technical exercise? I know for example that they use samples of Geddy's vocal to thicken his voice out in choruses and so on. (not as a way for Geddy to 'mime', but just as a way of replicating the multi-layered textures of the record). Some people think that the use of pre-recorded vocals in any way is 'cheating', whereas some people go home disappointed if the show doesn't sound like the CD. I'm genuinely interested to see where the random sampling of the band's audience represented here stand. My own personal view is that it's very impressive that they can make all that stuff happen, but ultimately it's perhaps unnecessary. If the arrangements were radically different every night, I can understand needing to trigger things on the fly. Rush though, appear to thrive on structure and precision, with the songs having a very rigid arrangement. Even in the 'improv' bits, it's within a repeatable structure (i.e. "Lerxst goes off on one for x bars in the mid section of La Villa"). I've heard them say in interviews before that Neil is very comfortable playing to a click in the studio and actually enjoys it, as it allows him to be more adventurous. My feeling is that they have not yet explored fully the concept of 'making connection' with the audience, with being 'in the moment' at the shows by allowing the technology to worry about hitting the button at the right time and allowing the click to act as metronome, rather than Neil constantly having to worry about whether he's pushing things in a way that's going to make the next sample sound out of time when it arrives. Obviously, we know that Neil is a special boy and that he's probably happier with something that keeps him tied up and avoids the necessity of any interaction with (or acknowledgment of) the audience. I can't help feeling that Geddy and Alex would feel freed and more able to make each show special and unique if they were less slaved to their devices. After their 80's keyboard experimentation, they came around from writing complex technical exercises and moved much more into 'songwriting'. Everyone knew they could play every time signature under the sun and stack up hi-tech production techniques. The logical next step was to break things down, to explore simple band dynamics again. I'm wondering if it's time to move the live performances into a more loose and direct format? I know they're touring with a string section now. Many times in live production, string sections are pre-recorded and play along to a click. Loud rock stages (particularly with loud drum kits) make getting good string sounds extremely difficult, so the live strings are mixed in with the pre-recorded track to ensure that the mixer out front can get a good loud clean string sound. This means the band may already be playing to a click and backing tracks on the current tour. I honestly don't see a problem with this and wouldn't feel cheated if they carried on in this vein and expanded upon it. After all, when they make the records, it's months of work building up the tracks, we're not listening to a recording of the band playing everything together in 'one pass'. If it's never existed like this, why is it necessary for the show to be like this? Why not pick the bits that they do best and have the rest 'on track' ? My question is: should they allow the technology to take the strain on the next tour and do it with the fans' blessing, or is it important to you that they walk the tightrope? Is there no glory without the tension of potential train-wreck? If they're more free to concentrate on their primary roles, will they give a better performance, or will the show be lacking? Apologies for the long post, but I think it's a really interesting topic and one that's never really been openly discussed and explored amongst fans.