Do you think....

[Lucas]

In the documentary, there's a man from Argentina. He says, if I understood correctly, the no matter what is going on - even if it is a family or financial crisis - if Rush is going on tour, they drop everything and go. No matter what. That's the kind of loyalty I'm talking about.

 

As much as we like to think that's just special to Rush's fanbase, there are plenty of bands that have fans like that. Both old and new bands inspire that kind of devotion. I remembering reading an interview with James Hetfield of Metallica where he says that they've been seeing a lot of the same fans showing up at their shows for years. Including some fans that got into them back in the early 80s when they were just a small club band.

 

Yes, Rush fans are a very loyal bunch. But that loyalty is not exclusive to them.

I am sorry I gave the impression that I thought it was just Rush that had loyal fans. I don't. Just was wondering if any band today will have the same fans in forty years. If the band even lasts forty years itself.

 

I think this is the key ... Obviously, if a band has a career that spans 40 years, that means that fans have stuck around ( how else would a band last that long ? ) ...

 

Yes, new fans will come on at different times - as was the case with Rush - but I think it is safe to assume that there will be diehards who've been there all along ..

 

One of the first performers that came to mind when I saw this thread was Stevie Ray Vaughan .. Had tragedy never struck, he would be 62 years old now, and I'm sure, still going strong ..

 

Stevie was an amazing, dedicated performer and I think that is what will keep the fans ... If the band or performer is there, I am sure the fans will be too ...

 

I know that in my case, I am still as obsessive as ever in regards to interest

 

 

.

 

.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Lucas

[Disembodied Spirit]

In the documentary, there's a man from Argentina. He says, if I understood correctly, the no matter what is going on - even if it is a family or financial crisis - if Rush is going on tour, they drop everything and go. No matter what. That's the kind of loyalty I'm talking about.

 

As much as we like to think that's just special to Rush's fanbase, there are plenty of bands that have fans like that. Both old and new bands inspire that kind of devotion. I remembering reading an interview with James Hetfield of Metallica where he says that they've been seeing a lot of the same fans showing up at their shows for years. Including some fans that got into them back in the early 80s when they were just a small club band.

 

Yes, Rush fans are a very loyal bunch. But that loyalty is not exclusive to them.

I am sorry I gave the impression that I thought it was just Rush that had loyal fans. I don't. Just was wondering if any band today will have the same fans in forty years. If the band even lasts forty years itself.

 

I think this is the key ... Obviously, if a band has a career that spans 40 years, that means that fans have stuck around ( how else would a band last that long ? ) ...

 

Yes, new fans will come on at different times - as was the case with Rush - but I think it is safe to assume that there will be diehards who've been there all along ..

 

One of the first performers that came to mind when I saw this thread was Stevie Ray Vaughan .. Had tragedy never struck, he would be 62 years old now, and I'm sure, still going strong ..

 

Stevie was an amazing, dedicated performer and I think that is what will keep the fans ... If the band or performer is there, I am sure the fans will be too ...

 

I know that in my case, I am still as obsessive as ever in regards to interest

 

 

.

 

.

Lucas this goes back to my theory. Had musicians lived we are not sure what would have happened.

Had Elvis and Jimi Hendrix lived, they both may have been judges on American Idol

[lifeson90]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

[Lucas]

In the documentary, there's a man from Argentina. He says, if I understood correctly, the no matter what is going on - even if it is a family or financial crisis - if Rush is going on tour, they drop everything and go. No matter what. That's the kind of loyalty I'm talking about.

 

As much as we like to think that's just special to Rush's fanbase, there are plenty of bands that have fans like that. Both old and new bands inspire that kind of devotion. I remembering reading an interview with James Hetfield of Metallica where he says that they've been seeing a lot of the same fans showing up at their shows for years. Including some fans that got into them back in the early 80s when they were just a small club band.

 

Yes, Rush fans are a very loyal bunch. But that loyalty is not exclusive to them.

I am sorry I gave the impression that I thought it was just Rush that had loyal fans. I don't. Just was wondering if any band today will have the same fans in forty years. If the band even lasts forty years itself.

 

I think this is the key ... Obviously, if a band has a career that spans 40 years, that means that fans have stuck around ( how else would a band last that long ? ) ...

 

Yes, new fans will come on at different times - as was the case with Rush - but I think it is safe to assume that there will be diehards who've been there all along ..

 

One of the first performers that came to mind when I saw this thread was Stevie Ray Vaughan .. Had tragedy never struck, he would be 62 years old now, and I'm sure, still going strong ..

 

Stevie was an amazing, dedicated performer and I think that is what will keep the fans ... If the band or performer is there, I am sure the fans will be too ...

 

I know that in my case, I am still as obsessive as ever in regards to interest

 

 

.

 

.

Lucas this goes back to my theory. Had musicians lived we are not sure what would have happened.

Had Elvis and Jimi Hendrix lived, they both may have been judges on American Idol

 

I mentioned SRV because he had straightened himself out and was clean - he seemed primed for the long haul ..

 

We'll never know with Hendrix, or, with Elvis ....

 

But the fact that Steven Tyler did one of those shows ( I don't even know which one it was ) doesn't tarnish how I feel about Aerosmith .. Those 70s albums are as good as anything, ever, and when I listen to them, they take hit me as hard now as ever ..

 

In thinking about it, it is striking me that I cannot think of many bands or performers that have fallen by the wayside with me in terms of one era losing its impact ..

 

70s Rush means more to me now than ever, in spite of the stuff I didn't care for during the past 30 years

[Lucas]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Lucas

[Lucas]

Fans will support the bands ... that means financially

 

How else is a band going to survive 40 years ??

[Mr. JD]

Yes because technology has changed the way that music is created and distributed.

[Lucas]

Yes because technology has changed the way that music is created and distributed.

 

I'm not sure the creative or distribution process should inherently be impacted negatively by technology

 

But technology has made it easier to steal - and that is on the "fans"

[JohnnyBlaze]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

A few quotes from some friends of mine in their early 30s...

 

"Who buys music these days anyways?"

 

"Why would I buy a cd?!"

 

"I'm never buying another album again."

 

"They might as well get rid of all record shops."

 

"I don't remember the last time I've been in a record shop."

 

You can feel a sense of entitlement or arrogance in those words. Not evil or anything but definitely a bit of greed. It's a bit sad not only because they truly believe they're right (and agree with one another) but also because they sort of look down on those that don't download everything for free and DO buy CDs still.

[goose]

Well there are younger bands likely do have cult followings. I met people that dedicated huge amounts of time to following the band Ghost to every show in America. These people stayed behind at every show to meet the band for a few moments night after night. Newer bands do have loyal enduring fanbases, but they may not be easy to spot unless they have great success or they've been around for a while.

 

I wasn't around for pre-2000's Rush. Were people as well aware of Rush's enduring fanbase in the 70's, 80's, 90's? Or is this more of a recent thing people picked up on?

 

 

That's a good question. Speaking only for myself, I never met a Rush fan in person in my life, and I'm from the NYC metro area, and I didn't live a hermit existence.

Rush Crazies have been around for a long time. It just wasn't as cool as it is now.

[goose]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

A few quotes from some friends of mine in their early 30s...

 

"Who buys music these days anyways?"

 

"Why would I buy a cd?!"

 

"I'm never buying another album again."

 

"They might as well get rid of all record shops."

 

"I don't remember the last time I've been in a record shop."

 

You can feel a sense of entitlement or arrogance in those words. Not evil or anything but definitely a bit of greed.

Not greed, from my perspective, but common sense. And I'm one of those people. Why pay when everything from Bach to Basie to Boston to Beck is at my fingers for free on YouTube?

[Disembodied Spirit]

Yes because technology has changed the way that music is created and distributed.

 

I'm not sure the creative or distribution process should inherently be impacted negatively by technology

 

But technology has made it easier to steal - and that is on the "fans"

Sting had a great quote recently about his new album and said..and I am paraphrasing....

'this album is for my real fans. I wanted to give them something different that they have been asking for.'

He went on to say, the label expects to lose money on the project and he said that's okay send me the bill.

Saying he will have to tour next year to pay off these same debts.......WOW

^^This is the future

[JohnnyBlaze]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

A few quotes from some friends of mine in their early 30s...

 

"Who buys music these days anyways?"

 

"Why would I buy a cd?!"

 

"I'm never buying another album again."

 

"They might as well get rid of all record shops."

 

"I don't remember the last time I've been in a record shop."

 

You can feel a sense of entitlement or arrogance in those words. Not evil or anything but definitely a bit of greed.

Not greed, from my perspective, but common sense. And I'm one of those people. Why pay when everything from Bach to Basie to Boston to Beck is at my fingers for free on YouTube?

Maybe greed was the wrong word. I'm not sure what word I want really. Frankly, the most annoying thing is the frowning upon on those that DON'T download ALL their music. As if pressing a button and getting something for free makes them wise and great. Yes, that's annoying. That attitude, not so much the action of downloading.

[Lucas]

What a lot of people don't think about, care about or understand is that it is not just the performers that take the hit ..

 

There are people who come in an vacuum the studios, who set mics and gear up, who repair all that stuff, etc

 

I had this discussion with a friend a while back, and he said "Alex Lifeson doesn't need any of my money" - which is so shortsighted and idiotic, esp considering this guy is one of the most vehement of those who think that there is no good new music ..

 

Whenever he says that, I just tell him it's his own ******* fault ..

 

 

[goose]

Yes because technology has changed the way that music is created and distributed.

 

I'm not sure the creative or distribution process should inherently be impacted negatively by technology

 

But technology has made it easier to steal - and that is on the "fans"

Sting had a great quote recently about his new album and said..and I am paraphrasing....

'this album is for my real fans. I wanted to give them something different that they have been asking for.'

He went on to say, the label expects to lose money on the project and he said that's okay send me the bill.

Saying he will have to tour next year to pay off these same debts.......WOW

^^This is the future

The present. That's why tix aren't $35, but instead $135. All good.

[Lucas]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

A few quotes from some friends of mine in their early 30s...

 

"Who buys music these days anyways?"

 

"Why would I buy a cd?!"

 

"I'm never buying another album again."

 

"They might as well get rid of all record shops."

 

"I don't remember the last time I've been in a record shop."

 

You can feel a sense of entitlement or arrogance in those words. Not evil or anything but definitely a bit of greed.

Not greed, from my perspective, but common sense. And I'm one of those people. Why pay when everything from Bach to Basie to Boston to Beck is at my fingers for free on YouTube?

 

Goose, you can't be serious

 

That's like going into a supermarket and just walking out with a cart full of food when you know you can get away with it

[blueschica]

Good question, Lorraine! I was going to say that I doubt if any bands starting recently would end up with the kind of fan base Rush and a few other bands have. So much media competes for attention these days.

 

I just finished "Born to Run", Springsteen's autobiography. No matter how you feel about his music, the guy writes really well about what it was like to grow up during the 60's and 70's. He has a great sentence about how if you were a true fan of someone, you haunted the store til the record came out, waited months to see them on TV for 3 minutes, and twisted the radio knob through all the static to try and find "your" song. All that took devotion, and built loyalty. It's good that music is easier to find now but there's so much. . .

 

But then people like Got Neil Peart and others who are young ,find Rush and are as devoted as ever. Long Live Rush ( or do we say Long Live Rush music now? :( )

Edited November 24, 2016 by blueschica

[zroyperez]

RUSH can come to the PHILIPPINES??!! Come on Guyz! :drool:

[Digital Dad]

For me? No. No More of that sort of thing. I have Zappa, Floyd, the Dead, Peter Hammill and all the other shit I listen to on the regular. Rush is done for me pretty much. I will always have their music in my heart and am proud to say I own their complete discography and many of the extant live releases in some form. I love the guys and the music they created together all the way up to Clockwork. Their emotional impact is not lost on me even after 30 years of listening.

[goose]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

A few quotes from some friends of mine in their early 30s...

 

"Who buys music these days anyways?"

 

"Why would I buy a cd?!"

 

"I'm never buying another album again."

 

"They might as well get rid of all record shops."

 

"I don't remember the last time I've been in a record shop."

 

You can feel a sense of entitlement or arrogance in those words. Not evil or anything but definitely a bit of greed.

Not greed, from my perspective, but common sense. And I'm one of those people. Why pay when everything from Bach to Basie to Boston to Beck is at my fingers for free on YouTube?

 

Goose, you can't be serious

 

That's like going into a supermarket and just walking out with a cart full of food when you know you can get away with it

More like choosing to legally pick some apples from the tree at a park instead of paying $2.50/lb for the same thing at a supermarket. Nothing illegal going on.

[JohnnyBlaze]

RUSH can come to the PHILIPPINES??!! Come on Guyz! :drool:

Dangle a few lumpia, some mochiko, pancit, and lechon in front of Lifeson and he'll be on the plane faster than you can say "But Peart's retired"

[EagleMoon]

Yes I think it's over. Honestly I think they have something unique to be able to hang in there this long. I can see people being fans of a band for a long period of time but they will never have the experience that we have had over the years with these three guys. That time has passed. I think like they said in the documentary they are the end of an era.

[Syrinx]

I have been a fan since 1975 and have seen them over 40 times. Rush has been such a mainstay in my life that I will always remain loyal as a fan. I don't think I have ever been at the level of "fanatic" though. Led Zeppelin has been gone for a long time and they are still an all time fave. Rush is special though :)

[Ancient Ways]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

A few quotes from some friends of mine in their early 30s...

 

"Who buys music these days anyways?"

 

"Why would I buy a cd?!"

 

"I'm never buying another album again."

 

"They might as well get rid of all record shops."

 

"I don't remember the last time I've been in a record shop."

 

You can feel a sense of entitlement or arrogance in those words. Not evil or anything but definitely a bit of greed.

Not greed, from my perspective, but common sense. And I'm one of those people. Why pay when everything from Bach to Basie to Boston to Beck is at my fingers for free on YouTube?

 

Goose, you can't be serious

 

That's like going into a supermarket and just walking out with a cart full of food when you know you can get away with it

How is streaming music on YouTube akin to shoplifting?

[Blue Barchetta]

In the documentary, there's a man from Argentina. He says, if I understood correctly, the no matter what is going on - even if it is a family or financial crisis - if Rush is going on tour, they drop everything and go. No matter what. That's the kind of loyalty I'm talking about.

 

As much as we like to think that's just special to Rush's fanbase, there are plenty of bands that have fans like that. Both old and new bands inspire that kind of devotion. I remembering reading an interview with James Hetfield of Metallica where he says that they've been seeing a lot of the same fans showing up at their shows for years. Including some fans that got into them back in the early 80s when they were just a small club band.

 

Yes, Rush fans are a very loyal bunch. But that loyalty is not exclusive to them.

I am sorry I gave the impression that I thought it was just Rush that had loyal fans. I don't. Just was wondering if any band today will have the same fans in forty years. If the band even lasts forty years itself.

 

I think this is the key ... Obviously, if a band has a career that spans 40 years, that means that fans have stuck around ( how else would a band last that long ? ) ...

 

Yes, new fans will come on at different times - as was the case with Rush - but I think it is safe to assume that there will be diehards who've been there all along ..

 

One of the first performers that came to mind when I saw this thread was Stevie Ray Vaughan .. Had tragedy never struck, he would be 62 years old now, and I'm sure, still going strong ..

 

Stevie was an amazing, dedicated performer and I think that is what will keep the fans ... If the band or performer is there, I am sure the fans will be too ...

 

I know that in my case, I am still as obsessive as ever in regards to interest

 

 

.

 

.

Lucas this goes back to my theory. Had musicians lived we are not sure what would have happened.

Had Elvis and Jimi Hendrix lived, they both may have been judges on American Idol

We may not see Disembodied Spirit on this site anymore. Pretty sure he was struck by lightening after that comment.