Are Rush one of bands that never made a bad album?

[Wil1972]

I consider a "bad" album to be one on which I do not like at least 50% of the material. So the only album Rush has made that falls into that catagory is SnA. Even on RtB I like 70% of it. And I like probably 70% of Test for Echo. But Snakes, I barely like 40%.

 

However, it IS Rush... So that gives it some merit.

[Xanadoood]

I think Rush is different than other bands from their era in that they are truly sincere with the music they make. It's not forced , or influenced by management or record companies. The Bostons and Foreigners ran on a formula. I don't think Rush did that.

 

Test for Echo and RTB are my least favorite albums by them, but I wouldn't say they are bad. It's still high quality. Just not up to my standard for their best stuff.

[goose]

I give you Test for Echo, Vapor Trails and Roll the Bones.

 

So no.

 

Mick

 

I must be a nut!

That's just now occurred to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:cheers:

[goose]

I think Rush is different than other bands from their era in that they are truly sincere with the music they make. It's not forced , or influenced by management or record companies. The Bostons and Foreigners ran on a formula. I don't think Rush did that.

 

Test for Echo and RTB are my least favorite albums by them, but I wouldn't say they are bad. It's still high quality. Just not up to my standard for their best stuff.

:goodone:

 

 

[JohnnyBlaze]

I give you Test for Echo, Vapor Trails and Roll the Bones.

 

So no.

 

Mick

 

I must be a nut!

That's just now occurred to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:cheers:

 

Earl meant to type "bust" not "be".

 

:P

[goose]

I consider a "bad" album to be one on which I do not like at least 50% of the material. So the only album Rush has made that falls into that catagory is SnA. Even on RtB I like 70% of it. And I like probably 70% of Test for Echo. But Snakes, I barely like 40%.

 

However, it IS Rush... So that gives it some merit.

I think the fact that there is such disparity in which albums (if any) don't measure up speaks to the quality of RUSH's work. Even within an album, the songs targeted as duds varies. While not every song on every album connects with every fan, for each song RUSH has done, you can find someone here that will champion it passionately. That speaks to RUSH's artistry, to their consistency. It may not all be my cup of tea, but I can agree that it's all quality work.

[Wil1972]

I consider a "bad" album to be one on which I do not like at least 50% of the material. So the only album Rush has made that falls into that catagory is SnA. Even on RtB I like 70% of it. And I like probably 70% of Test for Echo. But Snakes, I barely like 40%.

 

However, it IS Rush... So that gives it some merit.

I think the fact that there is such disparity in which albums (if any) don't measure up speaks to the quality of RUSH's work. Even within an album, the songs targeted as duds varies. While not every song on every album connects with every fan, for each song RUSH has done, you can find someone here that will champion it passionately. That speaks to RUSH's artistry, to their consistency. It may not all be my cup of tea, but I can agree that it's all quality work.

 

Agreed.

[taurus]

Please DO NOT remove 2 of my 3 favourite songs off of Roll The Bones or the deserving last single from Test For Echo. There is also little reason to excise High Water from Hold Your Fire. There are no consensus "bad songs" so please do not speak for the rest of us by taking away songs that some of us love. You wouldn't want me deciding what RUSH songs should be removed and I certainly don't want you being the arbiter of what is a worthy song. The first thing I would eliminate are all of those boring instrumentals. Does that seem like a fair deal to you?

 

You should also do a little research. In 1987 cassette tapes were by far the dominant format, with vinyl beating out CDs by the smallest of margins. That was reversed in 1988, but the sales of both formats combined wouldn't overtake cassettes until 1992. CDs had nothing to do with Hold Your Fire having 10 tracks. I would say they did impact Counterparts and all subsequent albums in terms of length, but nothing prior to that. Don't believe me? See for yourself:

 

http://blog.thecurrent.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/9/files/2014/02/units-vs-dollars-riaa.jpg

 

Oh my - a little bit of fun and you go off the deep end. Well let me just offer a couple of small counterpoints, while not having stats at my fingertips, I was well aware that back in the late eighties, the cassette was selling more units than vinyl. Nonetheless, the "album" as in a 12 inch vinyl, was the standard format that a new release prioritized. The cassette had an increased capacity from the get go but it didn't lead to longer records, because it was a format of convenience like the 8-track before it. The radio industry spun records primarily, the artwork was manufactured with the lp in mind. The song sequence was dictated by the vinyl format. It was de facto, the format. Cassettes were little convenient copies of a record.

 

It was primarily the cd and its' increased capacity, that led to the well over 50 minute record. Sure there were technological advancements in record pressing that allowed the 25 minute + side duration, without a huge hit on sound quality but the cd capacity of 74 minutes gave way to the thinking that if you're not filling up the disc with an hour's worth of music, somehow you're cheating the customer.

 

And lastly your umbridge of me choosing which tracks should have been ditched, of course that's my opinion. While generally people think Tai Shan is crummy and Dog Years sucks, not everyone will agree. Can't get 100% of people to agree that the world isn't flat. But even if you think there's something worse than Tai Shan on HYF, the point is that you're removing a lesser track so while listening to HYF, you have a better ratio of good to bad songs. To explain my reasoning, let's take AFTK - a short duration album from the good old days. IMO (so don't start to get all quiver-lipped) Madrigal is the worst track on the album but it's only 1 track among 5 really great tracks, so I can easily listen to it and it doesn't ruin an otherwise great record. Now put 2-3 other songs of mediocre quality onto AFTK and now the ratio of good to bad gets more even and the magic of AFTK gets lost. See my point? I can handle a Tai Shan or a Dog Years but please only 1 per record, not 2, 3 or 4.

[diatribein]

It was primarily the cd and its' increased capacity, that led to the well over 50 minute record. Sure there were technological advancements in record pressing that allowed the 25 minute + side duration, without a huge hit on sound quality but the cd capacity of 74 minutes gave way to the thinking that if you're not filling up the disc with an hour's worth of music, somehow you're cheating the customer.

 

I did not disagree with your point, but rather your signalling of Hold Your Fire as the moment where that became reality. My point is that the change to a longer album format came about in the mid-1990s rather than the late 1980s. I actually feel like this is not to the detriment of any album, since I often like songs that might have been left on the cutting room floor. If you do not like a song you can just always skip it. There are many songs on albums I have only heard once or twice that contain songs I have heard thousands of times. It is up to you to what you listen to.

[Lurkst]

You should also do a little research. In 1987 cassette tapes were by far the dominant format, with vinyl beating out CDs by the smallest of margins. That was reversed in 1988, but the sales of both formats combined wouldn't overtake cassettes until 1992. CDs had nothing to do with Hold Your Fire having 10 tracks.

 

"we just thought it'd be great to have 50 minutes of music, to give people more VFM, I guess. Plus, we were aware that actual record sales only range from between 10-20% these days, with CDs and cassettes taking over the market. So we thought we wouldn't worry about the time limitations of the traditional album and stick a coupla extra tracks on it."

 

Alex Lifeson 1987...

 

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/kerrang-10.17.1987.php

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Lurkst

[edhunter]

Test For Echo is the only album that crosses the 60% suckage threshold. Caress gets a pass because they were young and going for it. With T4E, they were old enough to know better. I still remember exactly where I was driving when I heard the first pre-release single, and thinking "Well, they had a good run."

 

Snakes approaches 50% suckage but doesn't quite get there. Other albums have bits and pieces of suckage. I haven't heard Speed of Love or Alien Shore in over 20 years. Superconductor is supersuckage, made worse by the fact they used it in a mashup with Xanadu on tour.

 

 

[Brucey]

No. Test For Echo was dull pretty much throughout and was a massively disappointing follow up to Counterparts.

[YYZ Working Man]

Never made a bad album

[Disk98]

Caress of Steel. Blech…

[The K Man]

No. Test For Echo was dull pretty much throughout and was a massively disappointing follow up to Counterparts.

 

Agreed. It's not a bad album, but it's no better than average.

[Phantom]

To me, a bad album is one that has nothing on it that appeals to me. While I prefer some albums to others, every album has something redeeming so I voted yes.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Nah, not after RTB.

 

They are one of the bands who almost never made a bad album though.

[goose]

Caress of Steel. Blech…

I think you may make the point here that it's a listener problem rather than an artist problem.

[Verena]

No. I believe Roll The Bones is their worst album. There are five tracks I like.

Ghost Of A Chance is unforgettable.

 

Every album do have listening gems, but some albums are way better than few others.

 

Another example: Counterparts is an album I consider 50% great.

[JohnnyBlaze]

No. I believe Roll The Bones is their worst album. There are five tracks I like.

Ghost Of A Chance is unforgettable.

 

Every album do have listening gems, but some albums are way better than few others.

 

Another example: Counterparts is an album I consider 50% great.

RTB is my 2nd least favorite with only 4 songs I like. But two of them I REALLY like.

 

Snakes is my least favorite and it also has only 4 that I like. But none of the 4 are as good as the top two that I REALLY like off RTB.

 

And the worst off each...Bravest Face is worse than YBYL

Edited May 20, 2017 by JohnnyBlaze

[Lurkst]

I did like the instrumental remix of some of RTB's weaker tracks on The Boys In Brazil documentary.

[goose]

I did like the instrumental remix of some of RTB's weaker tracks on The Boys In Brazil documentary.

When things don't quite work out, I think it's usually the lyrics or vocal phrasing that is the problem.