treeduck Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Why are Tai Shan and High Water so much weaker than the rest of Hold your Fire? I mean they're ok, not as hideous as some people make out on here, but they are a steep drop off from the rest of HYF. So why is that? Well I think it's pretty obvious... In 1987 albums lengths were expanding to fit in with CD capabilities for holding data. When Rush came to record Hold your Fire it must have been decided that at least 10 songs were required. Rush had been used to 8 song albums or less; the previous 3 were 8, then 7, 6, 4 and so on. The first 8 tunes on HYF are all excellent but the two "extra" tracks that they had to come up with in the same studio time as usual don't quite cut the mustard. Ok 6 months longer between records as the previous few, but then everyone was going 2 years between records by then... So am I right or am I right? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisibleairwaves Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Nope, they didn't write Tai Shan and High Water last. Force Ten was actually the last song they wrote for HYF. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share Posted January 3, 2007 QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Jan 3 2007, 03:09 PM) Nope, they didn't write Tai Shan and High Water last. Force Ten was actually the last song they wrote for HYF. Hmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesweetscience Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Thats funny because I think they are the two strongest tracks on the CD (well except for mission). I guess it all depends on individual taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share Posted January 3, 2007 QUOTE (thesweetscience @ Jan 3 2007, 03:11 PM) Thats funny because I think they are the two strongest tracks on the CD (well except for mission). I guess it all depends on individual taste. Yeah it is down to personal taste but you have to admit in this case SS that you're in a minority... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesweetscience Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 3 2007, 04:12 PM) QUOTE (thesweetscience @ Jan 3 2007, 03:11 PM) Thats funny because I think they are the two strongest tracks on the CD (well except for mission). I guess it all depends on individual taste. Yeah it is down to personal taste but you have to admit in this case SS that you're in a minority... "broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction and many are the ones finding it!" Who cares what everyone else thinks? Except you of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share Posted January 3, 2007 QUOTE (thesweetscience @ Jan 3 2007, 04:01 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 3 2007, 04:12 PM) QUOTE (thesweetscience @ Jan 3 2007, 03:11 PM) Thats funny because I think they are the two strongest tracks on the CD (well except for mission). I guess it all depends on individual taste. Yeah it is down to personal taste but you have to admit in this case SS that you're in a minority... "broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction and many are the ones finding it!" Who cares what everyone else thinks? Except you of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I think you make a valid point. Hold Your Fire has a total running time of 50:21. Prior to Hold Your Fire only two albums (excluding live albums) approached that length - Power Windows at 44:30 and Caress of Steel at 44:51 - both of which had over 5 minutes LESS music. From 2112 through Moving Pictures only one album ran over 40 minutes - Moving Pictures at 40:04. It's hard to sustain a particular level of quality over the length of a CD. For many, Hold Your Fire was the last of the great Rush albums and the length of CDs may have played into that. There's too much filler nowadays! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 3 2007, 12:07 PM) Why are Tai Shan and High Water so much weaker than the rest of Hold your Fire? I mean they're ok, not as hideous as some people make out on here, but they are a steep drop off from the rest of HYF. So why is that? Well I think it's pretty obvious... In 1987 albums lengths were expanding to fit in with CD capabilities for holding data. When Rush came to record Hold your Fire it must have been decided that at least 10 songs were required. Rush had been used to 8 song albums or less; the previous 3 were 8, then 7, 6, 4 and so on. The first 8 tunes on HYF are all excellent but the two "extra" tracks that they had to come up with in the same studio time as usual don't quite cut the mustard. Ok 6 months longer between records as the previous few, but then everyone was going 2 years between records by then... So am I right or am I right? I've been saying this exact thing for years. Hey, Treeduck, check it out we agreed on something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share Posted January 3, 2007 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 3 2007, 04:28 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 3 2007, 12:07 PM) Why are Tai Shan and High Water so much weaker than the rest of Hold your Fire? I mean they're ok, not as hideous as some people make out on here, but they are a steep drop off from the rest of HYF. So why is that? Well I think it's pretty obvious... In 1987 albums lengths were expanding to fit in with CD capabilities for holding data. When Rush came to record Hold your Fire it must have been decided that at least 10 songs were required. Rush had been used to 8 song albums or less; the previous 3 were 8, then 7, 6, 4 and so on. The first 8 tunes on HYF are all excellent but the two "extra" tracks that they had to come up with in the same studio time as usual don't quite cut the mustard. Ok 6 months longer between records as the previous few, but then everyone was going 2 years between records by then... So am I right or am I right? I've been saying this exact thing for years. Hey, Treeduck, check it out we agreed on something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Jan 3 2007, 12:09 PM) Nope, they didn't write Tai Shan and High Water last. Force Ten was actually the last song they wrote for HYF. This may be true, but while Force Ten (and all of the first 8 songs for that matter) were outstanding, the last two tracks were very weak. Still I rate HYF as my 4th favorite Rush album based solely on the amazing strength of everything prior to Tai Shan and High Water. Maybe it's only because the first 8 songs ARE so good that the 2 final ones pale in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melll Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 It's an interesting theory. I tend to thing that those tracks are put last to wind the listener down. I like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 The album is flawless. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finbar Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 (edited) I think both songs are a step above Second Nature and Prime Mover. And I actually like Tai Shan a lot. It's all a matter of taste. Some love every song on Hold Your Fire. I don't, I think it's got just a bit of filler, but I still consider it a great album. It's just that most Rush fans happen to like the last two songs the least or not at all. But I'm sure I'm not the only Rush fan who loves every song but Second Nature and Prime Mover (which I still like, but don't love). Edited January 3, 2007 by Finbar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 This is from the poll on TF: What do you think is the best song from this album? Force Ten [ 51 ] [15.50%] Time Stand Still [ 83 ] [25.23%] Open Secrets [ 27 ] [8.21%] Second Nature [ 17 ] [5.17%] Prime Mover [ 36 ] [10.94%] Lock and Key [ 20 ] [6.08%] Mission [ 49 ] [14.89%] Turn The Page [ 27 ] [8.21%] Tai Shan [ 9 ] [2.74%] High Water [ 10 ] [3.04%] Tai Shan and High Water are definitely bottom of the barrel for the majority of Rush fans as far as HYF is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KublaKhan Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Tree, I think you may be right, and its probably why High Water and Tai Shan are the weaker tracks. I dont think it has anything to do with album placement either. I could rearange the tracklist, and still probably skip these two tracks, plus "Second Nature" (Which I REALLY don't like). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sangheili Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 All of the songs on HYF are top notch. Including Tai Shan, High Water, and especially Second Nature. There is not one song on here that's lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rocinante Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Tai Shan is okay, and High water is really good up untill the chorus, then it gets bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 we still feel that elation...when the water takes us home.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roddy Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I'm amazed this hasn't been mentioned...Tai Shan sounds a bit weaker because it's a...err....SOFT BALLAD. It's not meant to be a powerhouse track. And High Water is actually my favourite song on HYF, so I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clearingsky Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 3 2007, 04:50 PM) This is from the poll on TF: What do you think is the best song from this album? Force Ten [ 51 ] [15.50%] Time Stand Still [ 83 ] [25.23%] Open Secrets [ 27 ] [8.21%] Second Nature [ 17 ] [5.17%] Prime Mover [ 36 ] [10.94%] Lock and Key [ 20 ] [6.08%] Mission [ 49 ] [14.89%] Turn The Page [ 27 ] [8.21%] Tai Shan [ 9 ] [2.74%] High Water [ 10 ] [3.04%] Tai Shan and High Water are definitely bottom of the barrel for the majority of Rush fans as far as HYF is concerned. But these poll numbers just don't mean much to me,as one of my very favorite Rush albums. I would choose High Water and Prime Mover at the top of my list with the top vote getter,Time Stand Still at the bottom.Tai Shan sets up High Water perfectly for a great album closing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 3 2007, 03:07 PM) Why are Tai Shan and High Water so much weaker than the rest of Hold your Fire? I mean they're ok, not as hideous as some people make out on here, but they are a steep drop off from the rest of HYF. So why is that? Well I think it's pretty obvious... In 1987 albums lengths were expanding to fit in with CD capabilities for holding data. When Rush came to record Hold your Fire it must have been decided that at least 10 songs were required. Rush had been used to 8 song albums or less; the previous 3 were 8, then 7, 6, 4 and so on. The first 8 tunes on HYF are all excellent but the two "extra" tracks that they had to come up with in the same studio time as usual don't quite cut the mustard. Ok 6 months longer between records as the previous few, but then everyone was going 2 years between records by then... So am I right or am I right? I'm luke warm (or slightly warmer) on High Water, but Tai Shan is in my top 3 on this record....and one of the most beautiful and original songs Rush has ever done. So I'm going to opt for you being...wrong. :0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 3 2007, 03:10 PM) QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Jan 3 2007, 03:09 PM) Nope, they didn't write Tai Shan and High Water last. Force Ten was actually the last song they wrote for HYF. Hmmmm... This is true. Force Ten was their gratuitous "let's come up with something sponateous" to end the session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jan 3 2007, 09:55 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 3 2007, 03:07 PM) Why are Tai Shan and High Water so much weaker than the rest of Hold your Fire? I mean they're ok, not as hideous as some people make out on here, but they are a steep drop off from the rest of HYF. So why is that? Well I think it's pretty obvious... In 1987 albums lengths were expanding to fit in with CD capabilities for holding data. When Rush came to record Hold your Fire it must have been decided that at least 10 songs were required. Rush had been used to 8 song albums or less; the previous 3 were 8, then 7, 6, 4 and so on. The first 8 tunes on HYF are all excellent but the two "extra" tracks that they had to come up with in the same studio time as usual don't quite cut the mustard. Ok 6 months longer between records as the previous few, but then everyone was going 2 years between records by then... So am I right or am I right? I'm luke warm (or slightly warmer) on High Water, but Tai Shan is in my top 3 on this record....and one of the most beautiful and original songs Rush has ever done. So I'm going to opt for you being...wrong. :0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) Also...even if you call Tai Shan say the worst song on HYF, compared to the worst songs on other Rush albums (Dog Years, say...or Hand Over Fist...or You Bet Your Life, I Think I'm Going Bald, etc.) it's a damn musical classic. It is anyhow, but certainly by comparison. At least you can't call Tai Shan a filler track. It has so much more passion (lyrically) and originality (musically) than most of what passes for Rush "filler" it's not quite fair to dismiss such a song as "slapped together nonsense." SO THERE Edited January 4, 2007 by Presto-digitation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now