R.G Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 I think its ridiculous to presume an instrument heralds a style of music, this thread was about hearing the instrument not the type of music that it used to be part of. That's like saying "no way should Neil use those drums again! that'll mean they'll compose songs which are epics", that just doesn't follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Limelight* Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 7 2006, 07:33 PM) On albums like A Farewell to Kings and Hemispheres there's more than a touch of classical guitar from Alex. Is this a path that he might return to on the new album, with the return of synthesisers unlikely, maybe a song intro or mid-tune passage or a ballad? If there was a lot of classical guitar on the new album would you welcome it or are you looking for and expecting something completely different? Going back to the previous sounds, is hard for a band. Even rush. Evolution has made the boys change there style, sound and musical taste. I find it hard to believe that we can see anything old form this new album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro2112 Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Don't get me wrong, I think those earlier, longer, songs were absolutley necessary to the development of the band, and I still enjoy listening to them (especially live). I just think it is idiotic to think that they will all of the sudden regress in their development because some overly geeked out Rush fans want them to go back to their "glory" days. It aint happenin' folks, and if it did, it would mean Rush violated every value that made them what they are today. Get over it. There will be no Cygnus book 3, nor will there be Moving Pictures II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.G Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 QUOTE (pedro2112 @ Sep 9 2006, 02:22 PM) Don't get me wrong, I think those earlier, longer, songs were absolutley necessary to the development of the band, and I still enjoy listening to them (especially live). I just think it is idiotic to think that they will all of the sudden regress in their development because some overly geeked out Rush fans want them to go back to their "glory" days. It aint happenin' folks, and if it did, it would mean Rush violated every value that made them what they are today. Get over it. There will be no Cygnus book 3, nor will there be Moving Pictures II. i think my post (which was evidently ignored) is pertinent to this, so i'll say again. I think its ridiculous to presume an instrument heralds a style of music, this thread was about hearing the instrument not the type of music that it used to be part of. That's like saying "no way should Neil use those drums again! that'll mean they'll compose songs which are epics", that just doesn't follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Netboy Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 The epic songs that rush belted out in their earlier years was in part due to the style of the time. I for one love long, complex instrumentals or songs. In the case of , many of their epics are not merely just repetitions of the same sound in a specific piece. Rather, there are subtle differences in each repetition. This is often done in classical music. Remember Alex was classically trained for two years or something. This has had an influence overall on rush as a band. You can still see this in their shorter songs now. Simply stated, good sounds never go out of style. Often, they can be reinvented and improved upon. Just look at HYF songs in R30. I for one love listening or watching them play LA Villa, 2112, Xanadu, ect. I aways hear the subtle difference and it always amazes me. Who knows what they are going to do. I have no expectation. Whatever it is I's sure I'll be peasantly suprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 9, 2006 Author Share Posted September 9, 2006 QUOTE (pedro2112 @ Sep 9 2006, 09:22 AM) Don't get me wrong, I think those earlier, longer, songs were absolutley necessary to the development of the band, and I still enjoy listening to them (especially live). I just think it is idiotic to think that they will all of the sudden regress in their development because some overly geeked out Rush fans want them to go back to their "glory" days. It aint happenin' folks, and if it did, it would mean Rush violated every value that made them what they are today. Get over it. There will be no Cygnus book 3, nor will there be Moving Pictures II. Introducing a classical guitar is not in itself a retrograde step, it depends how it's used within the context of the music. In Rush's case take Presto for example, acoustic guitar was reintroduced on this album especially on the title track after a decade long absence, was that an attempt to go back to their glory days? I mentioned older albums only in reference to previous usage of the instrument, there was no suggestion in this thread of recreating old albums. Read the original post before you hit the add reply button Pedro... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro2112 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 R.G. and Tree Duck, I reread the entire thread, and I apologize if you mistook my post to be in response to what you stated. It wasn't.. it was in response to Earthshine's post. I apologize for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.G Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 QUOTE (pedro2112 @ Sep 11 2006, 06:13 PM) R.G. and Tree Duck, I reread the entire thread, and I apologize if you mistook my post to be in response to what you stated. It wasn't.. it was in response to Earthshine's post. I apologize for the confusion. no problem pedro, sorry if my comments came across as i did not intend in the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 QUOTE (pedro2112 @ Sep 11 2006, 01:13 PM) R.G. and Tree Duck, I reread the entire thread, and I apologize if you mistook my post to be in response to what you stated. It wasn't.. it was in response to Earthshine's post. I apologize for the confusion. No problem It's all cool mate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.