It's obvious why Tai Shan and High Water

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (deslock @ Jan 6 2007, 08:53 AM)

'As to the album, there are going to be 10 new tracks on this one, but don't worry, they're not short or anything. We simply decided that since more and more people are buying cassettes and CDs, why should we be limited by the archaic time considerations of records? So we're probably going to have over 50 minutes of music on this album, which will give a cutting engineer headaches, but means much more scope for us, and of course 'good value for money' (in the English phrase) for the buyer. The extra 10 minutes really makes a lot of difference in our conception of the album, as it gives that much more room to explore the strange corners of the things we like to do.'

Aha! We have it here from Neil's mouth himself. What I suspected all along, and what Treeduck's original assertion was in this thread.

 

Neil himself admits that they added 10 extra minutes because of the shift from lp's to cd's. It's unfortunate that Neil uses the term "good value for money". To me good value is good material. Quality over quantity any day of the week.

 

Had they stuck with the 40 or so minute length that albums had for decades, and had they decided at the very end that they needed to trim two songs off the album to make it fit that time constraint, one would hope that they would have had the wit and objectivity to realize that Tai Shan and High Water were the only weak tracks and that they needed to get the boot.

 

It's a shame too, as HYF would be pretty much a perfect album without the inclusion of those two final tracks.

Edited January 6, 2007 by rushgoober

[Mandalorian Hunter]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 05:06 PM)

QUOTE (deslock @ Jan 6 2007, 08:53 AM) 'As to the album, there are going to be 10 new tracks on this one, but don't worry, they're not short or anything. We simply decided that since more and more people are buying cassettes and CDs, why should we be limited by the archaic time considerations of records? So we're probably going to have over 50 minutes of music on this album, which will give a cutting engineer headaches, but means much more scope for us, and of course 'good value for money' (in the English phrase) for the buyer. The extra 10 minutes really makes a lot of difference in our conception of the album, as it gives that much more room to explore the strange corners of the things we like to do.' Aha! We have it here from Neil's mouth himself. What I suspected all along, and what Treeduck's original assertion was in this thread.   Neil himself admits that they added 10 extra minutes because of the shift from lp's to cd's. It's unfortunate that Neil uses the term "good value for money". To me good value is good material. Quality over quantity any day of the week.   Had they stuck with the 40 or so minute length that albums had for decades, and had they decided at the very end that they needed to trim two songs off the album to make it fit that time constraint, one would hope that they would have had the wit and objectivity to realize that Tai Shan and High Water were the only weak tracks and that they needed to get the boot.   It's a shame too, as HYF would be pretty much a perfect album without the inclusion of those two final tracks. Thing is though, would they have trimmed it? Didn't they express concerns of time on Vapor Trails and not wanting to throw songs away.   Also, if they had trimmed the album, who's to say Tai Shan and High Water, would have been the trimmed songs? The fact that they seem to be close to Neil, may go a long way in keeping them on the album?   I do agree with you on the Quantity over Quality remark. A huge shame that they went to ten for the quantity.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Mandalorian Hunter

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ Jan 6 2007, 10:55 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 05:06 PM) QUOTE (deslock @ Jan 6 2007, 08:53 AM) 'As to the album, there are going to be 10 new tracks on this one, but don't worry, they're not short or anything. We simply decided that since more and more people are buying cassettes and CDs, why should we be limited by the archaic time considerations of records? So we're probably going to have over 50 minutes of music on this album, which will give a cutting engineer headaches, but means much more scope for us, and of course 'good value for money' (in the English phrase) for the buyer. The extra 10 minutes really makes a lot of difference in our conception of the album, as it gives that much more room to explore the strange corners of the things we like to do.' Aha! We have it here from Neil's mouth himself. What I suspected all along, and what Treeduck's original assertion was in this thread.   Neil himself admits that they added 10 extra minutes because of the shift from lp's to cd's. It's unfortunate that Neil uses the term "good value for money". To me good value is good material. Quality over quantity any day of the week.   Had they stuck with the 40 or so minute length that albums had for decades, and had they decided at the very end that they needed to trim two songs off the album to make it fit that time constraint, one would hope that they would have had the wit and objectivity to realize that Tai Shan and High Water were the only weak tracks and that they needed to get the boot.   It's a shame too, as HYF would be pretty much a perfect album without the inclusion of those two final tracks. Thing is though, would they have trimmed it? Didn't they express concerns of time on Vapor Trails and not wanting to throw songs away.   Also, if they had trimmed the album, who's to say Tai Shan and High Water, would have been the trimmed songs? The fact that they seem to be close to Neil, may go a long way in keeping them on the album?   I do agree with you on the Quantity over Quality remark. A huge shame that they went to ten for the quantity. Obviously they must have liked those two tracks, or you would think they would have dumped them, but it doesn't mean I like them either. Most people naturally would defer to what Rush likes over what I like, and if I was anyone other than me, I'd agree with them.   Of course the worst abuse of this "good value for money" philosophy is the WAY too long VT at 67 minutes. If it was 67 minutes of great material, that's one thing, but that's pretty much a double album back in the day, and there are precious few double albums that ANYONE EVER pulled off of studio material that maintained a high level of quality throughout. The main criticism that was almost ever given to most double studio albums in the past is that they would have been far better had they been pared down to one album of the best material. In the case of VT, it wouldn't have helped as the material was very weak throughout, but at least 40 minutes would have been more bearable than an agonizing 67.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 02:04 PM)

QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ Jan 6 2007, 10:55 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 05:06 PM) QUOTE (deslock @ Jan 6 2007, 08:53 AM) 'As to the album, there are going to be 10 new tracks on this one, but don't worry, they're not short or anything. We simply decided that since more and more people are buying cassettes and CDs, why should we be limited by the archaic time considerations of records? So we're probably going to have over 50 minutes of music on this album, which will give a cutting engineer headaches, but means much more scope for us, and of course 'good value for money' (in the English phrase) for the buyer. The extra 10 minutes really makes a lot of difference in our conception of the album, as it gives that much more room to explore the strange corners of the things we like to do.' Aha! We have it here from Neil's mouth himself. What I suspected all along, and what Treeduck's original assertion was in this thread.   Neil himself admits that they added 10 extra minutes because of the shift from lp's to cd's. It's unfortunate that Neil uses the term "good value for money". To me good value is good material. Quality over quantity any day of the week.   Had they stuck with the 40 or so minute length that albums had for decades, and had they decided at the very end that they needed to trim two songs off the album to make it fit that time constraint, one would hope that they would have had the wit and objectivity to realize that Tai Shan and High Water were the only weak tracks and that they needed to get the boot.   It's a shame too, as HYF would be pretty much a perfect album without the inclusion of those two final tracks. Thing is though, would they have trimmed it? Didn't they express concerns of time on Vapor Trails and not wanting to throw songs away.   Also, if they had trimmed the album, who's to say Tai Shan and High Water, would have been the trimmed songs? The fact that they seem to be close to Neil, may go a long way in keeping them on the album?   I do agree with you on the Quantity over Quality remark. A huge shame that they went to ten for the quantity. Obviously they must have liked those two tracks, or you would think they would have dumped them, but it doesn't mean I like them either. Most people naturally would defer to what Rush likes over what I like, and if I was anyone other than me, I'd agree with them.   Of course the worst abuse of this "good value for money" philosophy is the WAY too long VT at 67 minutes. If it was 67 minutes of great material, that's one thing, but that's pretty much a double album back in the day, and there are precious few double albums that ANYONE EVER pulled off of studio material that maintained a high level of quality throughout. The main criticism that was almost ever given to most double studio albums in the past is that they would have been far better had they been pared down to one album of the best material. In the case of VT, it wouldn't have helped as the material was very weak throughout, but at least 40 minutes would have been more bearable than an agonizing 67. I bet you dance to all 67 minutes in a hula skirt, blonde wig and go go boots Goobs, of course you'll never admit it on here though and I really can't say I blame you...

[Mandalorian Hunter]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 07:04 PM)

QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ Jan 6 2007, 10:55 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 05:06 PM) QUOTE (deslock @ Jan 6 2007, 08:53 AM) 'As to the album, there are going to be 10 new tracks on this one, but don't worry, they're not short or anything. We simply decided that since more and more people are buying cassettes and CDs, why should we be limited by the archaic time considerations of records? So we're probably going to have over 50 minutes of music on this album, which will give a cutting engineer headaches, but means much more scope for us, and of course 'good value for money' (in the English phrase) for the buyer. The extra 10 minutes really makes a lot of difference in our conception of the album, as it gives that much more room to explore the strange corners of the things we like to do.' Aha! We have it here from Neil's mouth himself. What I suspected all along, and what Treeduck's original assertion was in this thread.   Neil himself admits that they added 10 extra minutes because of the shift from lp's to cd's. It's unfortunate that Neil uses the term "good value for money". To me good value is good material. Quality over quantity any day of the week.   Had they stuck with the 40 or so minute length that albums had for decades, and had they decided at the very end that they needed to trim two songs off the album to make it fit that time constraint, one would hope that they would have had the wit and objectivity to realize that Tai Shan and High Water were the only weak tracks and that they needed to get the boot.   It's a shame too, as HYF would be pretty much a perfect album without the inclusion of those two final tracks. Thing is though, would they have trimmed it? Didn't they express concerns of time on Vapor Trails and not wanting to throw songs away.   Also, if they had trimmed the album, who's to say Tai Shan and High Water, would have been the trimmed songs? The fact that they seem to be close to Neil, may go a long way in keeping them on the album?   I do agree with you on the Quantity over Quality remark. A huge shame that they went to ten for the quantity. Obviously they must have liked those two tracks, or you would think they would have dumped them, but it doesn't mean I like them either. Most people naturally would defer to what Rush likes over what I like, and if I was anyone other than me, I'd agree with them.   Of course the worst abuse of this "good value for money" philosophy is the WAY too long VT at 67 minutes. If it was 67 minutes of great material, that's one thing, but that's pretty much a double album back in the day, and there are precious few double albums that ANYONE EVER pulled off of studio material that maintained a high level of quality throughout. The main criticism that was almost ever given to most double studio albums in the past is that they would have been far better had they been pared down to one album of the best material. In the case of VT, it wouldn't have helped as the material was very weak throughout, but at least 40 minutes would have been more bearable than an agonizing 67. Or would they have dumped them? We all know what happened to Earthsine. (Ooops, two HYF - VT references in Goobs' company )   Maybe the music would've been different?   Sorry, i'm just playing Devils Advocate

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 6 2007, 11:08 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 02:04 PM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ Jan 6 2007, 10:55 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 05:06 PM) QUOTE (deslock @ Jan 6 2007, 08:53 AM) 'As to the album, there are going to be 10 new tracks on this one, but don't worry, they're not short or anything. We simply decided that since more and more people are buying cassettes and CDs, why should we be limited by the archaic time considerations of records? So we're probably going to have over 50 minutes of music on this album, which will give a cutting engineer headaches, but means much more scope for us, and of course 'good value for money' (in the English phrase) for the buyer. The extra 10 minutes really makes a lot of difference in our conception of the album, as it gives that much more room to explore the strange corners of the things we like to do.' Aha! We have it here from Neil's mouth himself. What I suspected all along, and what Treeduck's original assertion was in this thread.   Neil himself admits that they added 10 extra minutes because of the shift from lp's to cd's. It's unfortunate that Neil uses the term "good value for money". To me good value is good material. Quality over quantity any day of the week.   Had they stuck with the 40 or so minute length that albums had for decades, and had they decided at the very end that they needed to trim two songs off the album to make it fit that time constraint, one would hope that they would have had the wit and objectivity to realize that Tai Shan and High Water were the only weak tracks and that they needed to get the boot.   It's a shame too, as HYF would be pretty much a perfect album without the inclusion of those two final tracks. Thing is though, would they have trimmed it? Didn't they express concerns of time on Vapor Trails and not wanting to throw songs away.   Also, if they had trimmed the album, who's to say Tai Shan and High Water, would have been the trimmed songs? The fact that they seem to be close to Neil, may go a long way in keeping them on the album?   I do agree with you on the Quantity over Quality remark. A huge shame that they went to ten for the quantity. Obviously they must have liked those two tracks, or you would think they would have dumped them, but it doesn't mean I like them either. Most people naturally would defer to what Rush likes over what I like, and if I was anyone other than me, I'd agree with them.   Of course the worst abuse of this "good value for money" philosophy is the WAY too long VT at 67 minutes. If it was 67 minutes of great material, that's one thing, but that's pretty much a double album back in the day, and there are precious few double albums that ANYONE EVER pulled off of studio material that maintained a high level of quality throughout. The main criticism that was almost ever given to most double studio albums in the past is that they would have been far better had they been pared down to one album of the best material. In the case of VT, it wouldn't have helped as the material was very weak throughout, but at least 40 minutes would have been more bearable than an agonizing 67. I bet you dance to all 67 minutes in a hula skirt, blonde wig and go go boots Goobs, of course you'll never admit it on here though and I really can't say I blame you...   Actually more like bellydancing in a grass skirt and coconut bra.

[Retrospective]

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?

Who in the hell cuts mustard?!??!

 

jk.

 

 

Anyway, they were not the last ones written as people have previously said.

 

I really like Tai Shan and High Water... I don't see a problem with them.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Retrospective @ Jan 6 2007, 02:41 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? Who in the hell cuts mustard?!??!   jk.     Anyway, they were not the last ones written as people have previously said.   I really like Tai Shan and High Water... I don't see a problem with them. I purposely freeze my german mustard so I can cut it the next day...

[Retrospective]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 6 2007, 02:58 PM)

QUOTE (Retrospective @ Jan 6 2007, 02:41 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? Who in the hell cuts mustard?!??!   jk.     Anyway, they were not the last ones written as people have previously said.   I really like Tai Shan and High Water... I don't see a problem with them. I purposely freeze my german mustard so I can cut it the next day...   Well I guess you 'make the cut' then, eh?

[sirensong]

I have a soft spot for Tai Shan. I like that song. High Water starts off interesting and is a murky musical exploration. I don't hate the song, but I don't love it either. But Rush wouldn't be Rush if they allowed some room for a weird tangent on their albums. The new CD WILL be filler free! and a very cohesive album is my prediction. Mix that sumbitch already!

[clearingsky]

Hey,I'm all about the "more bang for your buck" ideal.And I thank my favorite band for being "on board".

 

More Rush=Great

 

Less Rush=not as great

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (clearingsky @ Jan 7 2007, 05:47 PM)

Hey,I'm all about the "more bang for your buck" ideal.And I thank my favorite band for being "on board". More Rush=Great Less Rush=not as great

Again, I'd much rather have 40 minutes of solid material than 50 minutes that includes 10 minutes of weak material, or worse yet, 67 minutes of subpar material. More Rush is great if the material is strong, otherwise it's not more bang for MY buck.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 7 2007, 09:19 PM)

QUOTE (clearingsky @ Jan 7 2007, 05:47 PM) Hey,I'm all about the "more bang for your buck" ideal.And I thank my favorite band for being "on board". More Rush=Great Less Rush=not as great Again, I'd much rather have 40 minutes of solid material than 50 minutes that includes 10 minutes of weak material, or worse yet, 67 minutes of subpar material. More Rush is great if the material is strong, otherwise it's not more bang for MY buck. Just program your CD to play tracks 1-8 Goobs, problem solved, right?

[thesweetscience]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 6 2007, 03:08 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 02:04 PM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ Jan 6 2007, 10:55 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 05:06 PM) QUOTE (deslock @ Jan 6 2007, 08:53 AM) 'As to the album, there are going to be 10 new tracks on this one, but don't worry, they're not short or anything. We simply decided that since more and more people are buying cassettes and CDs, why should we be limited by the archaic time considerations of records? So we're probably going to have over 50 minutes of music on this album, which will give a cutting engineer headaches, but means much more scope for us, and of course 'good value for money' (in the English phrase) for the buyer. The extra 10 minutes really makes a lot of difference in our conception of the album, as it gives that much more room to explore the strange corners of the things we like to do.' Aha! We have it here from Neil's mouth himself. What I suspected all along, and what Treeduck's original assertion was in this thread.   Neil himself admits that they added 10 extra minutes because of the shift from lp's to cd's. It's unfortunate that Neil uses the term "good value for money". To me good value is good material. Quality over quantity any day of the week.   Had they stuck with the 40 or so minute length that albums had for decades, and had they decided at the very end that they needed to trim two songs off the album to make it fit that time constraint, one would hope that they would have had the wit and objectivity to realize that Tai Shan and High Water were the only weak tracks and that they needed to get the boot.   It's a shame too, as HYF would be pretty much a perfect album without the inclusion of those two final tracks. Thing is though, would they have trimmed it? Didn't they express concerns of time on Vapor Trails and not wanting to throw songs away.   Also, if they had trimmed the album, who's to say Tai Shan and High Water, would have been the trimmed songs? The fact that they seem to be close to Neil, may go a long way in keeping them on the album?   I do agree with you on the Quantity over Quality remark. A huge shame that they went to ten for the quantity. Obviously they must have liked those two tracks, or you would think they would have dumped them, but it doesn't mean I like them either. Most people naturally would defer to what Rush likes over what I like, and if I was anyone other than me, I'd agree with them.   Of course the worst abuse of this "good value for money" philosophy is the WAY too long VT at 67 minutes. If it was 67 minutes of great material, that's one thing, but that's pretty much a double album back in the day, and there are precious few double albums that ANYONE EVER pulled off of studio material that maintained a high level of quality throughout. The main criticism that was almost ever given to most double studio albums in the past is that they would have been far better had they been pared down to one album of the best material. In the case of VT, it wouldn't have helped as the material was very weak throughout, but at least 40 minutes would have been more bearable than an agonizing 67. I bet you dance to all 67 minutes in a hula skirt, blonde wig and go go boots Goobs, of course you'll never admit it on here though and I really can't say I blame you...   Your getting him confused with Necro!

[Rush!]

I personally feel that Tai Shan and High Water are simply decent songs. Nothing more and nothing less, both are just OK to me. My favorite songs are Lock And Key & Turn The Page. I don't think any song on HYF can beat those two. I know some will disagree with me and say Mission can beat those 2, but those 2 are my personal favorites on the album.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (thesweetscience @ Jan 7 2007, 09:29 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 6 2007, 03:08 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 02:04 PM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ Jan 6 2007, 10:55 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 05:06 PM) QUOTE (deslock @ Jan 6 2007, 08:53 AM) 'As to the album, there are going to be 10 new tracks on this one, but don't worry, they're not short or anything. We simply decided that since more and more people are buying cassettes and CDs, why should we be limited by the archaic time considerations of records? So we're probably going to have over 50 minutes of music on this album, which will give a cutting engineer headaches, but means much more scope for us, and of course 'good value for money' (in the English phrase) for the buyer. The extra 10 minutes really makes a lot of difference in our conception of the album, as it gives that much more room to explore the strange corners of the things we like to do.' Aha! We have it here from Neil's mouth himself. What I suspected all along, and what Treeduck's original assertion was in this thread.   Neil himself admits that they added 10 extra minutes because of the shift from lp's to cd's. It's unfortunate that Neil uses the term "good value for money". To me good value is good material. Quality over quantity any day of the week.   Had they stuck with the 40 or so minute length that albums had for decades, and had they decided at the very end that they needed to trim two songs off the album to make it fit that time constraint, one would hope that they would have had the wit and objectivity to realize that Tai Shan and High Water were the only weak tracks and that they needed to get the boot.   It's a shame too, as HYF would be pretty much a perfect album without the inclusion of those two final tracks. Thing is though, would they have trimmed it? Didn't they express concerns of time on Vapor Trails and not wanting to throw songs away.   Also, if they had trimmed the album, who's to say Tai Shan and High Water, would have been the trimmed songs? The fact that they seem to be close to Neil, may go a long way in keeping them on the album?   I do agree with you on the Quantity over Quality remark. A huge shame that they went to ten for the quantity. Obviously they must have liked those two tracks, or you would think they would have dumped them, but it doesn't mean I like them either. Most people naturally would defer to what Rush likes over what I like, and if I was anyone other than me, I'd agree with them.   Of course the worst abuse of this "good value for money" philosophy is the WAY too long VT at 67 minutes. If it was 67 minutes of great material, that's one thing, but that's pretty much a double album back in the day, and there are precious few double albums that ANYONE EVER pulled off of studio material that maintained a high level of quality throughout. The main criticism that was almost ever given to most double studio albums in the past is that they would have been far better had they been pared down to one album of the best material. In the case of VT, it wouldn't have helped as the material was very weak throughout, but at least 40 minutes would have been more bearable than an agonizing 67. I bet you dance to all 67 minutes in a hula skirt, blonde wig and go go boots Goobs, of course you'll never admit it on here though and I really can't say I blame you...   Your getting him confused with Necro! That's what you think...

[Finbar]

QUOTE (deslock @ Jan 6 2007, 11:47 AM)

All that proves is that fewer people thought that each of those two songs was the best track. That doesn't mean that people considered them the worst.

I agree.

This, however, does... I've been participating in the "Rush Survivor" game, where one song is voted off each album one at a time until you're left with one song from each album. Right now we're voting on Hold Your Fire, and those last two tracks were the very first and second to be voted off.

http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21247

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 7 2007, 06:23 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 7 2007, 09:19 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Jan 7 2007, 05:47 PM) Hey,I'm all about the "more bang for your buck" ideal.And I thank my favorite band for being "on board". More Rush=Great Less Rush=not as great Again, I'd much rather have 40 minutes of solid material than 50 minutes that includes 10 minutes of weak material, or worse yet, 67 minutes of subpar material. More Rush is great if the material is strong, otherwise it's not more bang for MY buck. Just program your CD to play tracks 1-8 Goobs, problem solved, right?   It IS convenient that those songs are at the end of the cd. I just always turn that album off after the first 8 tracks.   That being said, they still unfortunately do mar HYF from being a virtually perfect album otherwise. Even with those two tracks I still consider HYF one of their very best due to the strength of the first 8 tracks.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 8 2007, 02:51 AM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 7 2007, 06:23 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 7 2007, 09:19 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Jan 7 2007, 05:47 PM) Hey,I'm all about the "more bang for your buck" ideal.And I thank my favorite band for being "on board". More Rush=Great Less Rush=not as great Again, I'd much rather have 40 minutes of solid material than 50 minutes that includes 10 minutes of weak material, or worse yet, 67 minutes of subpar material. More Rush is great if the material is strong, otherwise it's not more bang for MY buck. Just program your CD to play tracks 1-8 Goobs, problem solved, right?   It IS convenient that those songs are at the end of the cd. I just always turn that album off after the first 8 tracks.   That being said, they still unfortunately do mar HYF from being a virtually perfect album otherwise. Even with those two tracks I still consider HYF one of their very best due to the strength of the first 8 tracks. You worry too much Goober, nothing and no one is ever perfect, anyone who thinks this is severely deluded. You need to let go of a few of life's reigns Goobs and not take it all so seriously. In 10,000 years all this shit will be gone and everyone will be equal, we'll all be dust that's long been forgotten...

[thesweetscience]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 8 2007, 03:21 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 8 2007, 02:51 AM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 7 2007, 06:23 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 7 2007, 09:19 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Jan 7 2007, 05:47 PM) Hey,I'm all about the "more bang for your buck" ideal.And I thank my favorite band for being "on board". More Rush=Great Less Rush=not as great Again, I'd much rather have 40 minutes of solid material than 50 minutes that includes 10 minutes of weak material, or worse yet, 67 minutes of subpar material. More Rush is great if the material is strong, otherwise it's not more bang for MY buck. Just program your CD to play tracks 1-8 Goobs, problem solved, right?   It IS convenient that those songs are at the end of the cd. I just always turn that album off after the first 8 tracks.   That being said, they still unfortunately do mar HYF from being a virtually perfect album otherwise. Even with those two tracks I still consider HYF one of their very best due to the strength of the first 8 tracks. You worry too much Goober, nothing and no one is ever perfect, anyone who thinks this is severely deluded. You need to let go of a few of life's reigns Goobs and not take it all so seriously. In 10,000 years all this shit will be gone and everyone will be equal, we'll all be dust that's long been forgotten... What a pleasant thought!

[treeduck]

QUOTE (thesweetscience @ Jan 8 2007, 02:45 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 8 2007, 03:21 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 8 2007, 02:51 AM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 7 2007, 06:23 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 7 2007, 09:19 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Jan 7 2007, 05:47 PM) Hey,I'm all about the "more bang for your buck" ideal.And I thank my favorite band for being "on board". More Rush=Great Less Rush=not as great Again, I'd much rather have 40 minutes of solid material than 50 minutes that includes 10 minutes of weak material, or worse yet, 67 minutes of subpar material. More Rush is great if the material is strong, otherwise it's not more bang for MY buck. Just program your CD to play tracks 1-8 Goobs, problem solved, right?   It IS convenient that those songs are at the end of the cd. I just always turn that album off after the first 8 tracks.   That being said, they still unfortunately do mar HYF from being a virtually perfect album otherwise. Even with those two tracks I still consider HYF one of their very best due to the strength of the first 8 tracks. You worry too much Goober, nothing and no one is ever perfect, anyone who thinks this is severely deluded. You need to let go of a few of life's reigns Goobs and not take it all so seriously. In 10,000 years all this shit will be gone and everyone will be equal, we'll all be dust that's long been forgotten... What a pleasant thought!     It's the truth though, and the truth is seldom pleasant, just the truth...

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 8 2007, 11:21 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 8 2007, 02:51 AM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 7 2007, 06:23 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 7 2007, 09:19 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Jan 7 2007, 05:47 PM) Hey,I'm all about the "more bang for your buck" ideal.And I thank my favorite band for being "on board". More Rush=Great Less Rush=not as great Again, I'd much rather have 40 minutes of solid material than 50 minutes that includes 10 minutes of weak material, or worse yet, 67 minutes of subpar material. More Rush is great if the material is strong, otherwise it's not more bang for MY buck. Just program your CD to play tracks 1-8 Goobs, problem solved, right?   It IS convenient that those songs are at the end of the cd. I just always turn that album off after the first 8 tracks.   That being said, they still unfortunately do mar HYF from being a virtually perfect album otherwise. Even with those two tracks I still consider HYF one of their very best due to the strength of the first 8 tracks. You worry too much Goober, nothing and no one is ever perfect, anyone who thinks this is severely deluded. You need to let go of a few of life's reigns Goobs and not take it all so seriously. In 10,000 years all this shit will be gone and everyone will be equal, we'll all be dust that's long been forgotten... Surpassing completely the annoying trying to get me worked up with nonsense part of your post, there's nothing wrong with looking for perfection.   Someone started a Perfect Albums thread awhile back in the Music of the Spheres forum, albums that people considered to be perfect from start to finish. I listed 84 of them about a year ago. I could probably come up with a list of closer to 100 by now. Incidentally, only two Rush albums made my list...   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...=0entry375962

Edited January 8, 2007 by rushgoober

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 8 2007, 03:41 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 8 2007, 11:21 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 8 2007, 02:51 AM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 7 2007, 06:23 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 7 2007, 09:19 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Jan 7 2007, 05:47 PM) Hey,I'm all about the "more bang for your buck" ideal.And I thank my favorite band for being "on board". More Rush=Great Less Rush=not as great Again, I'd much rather have 40 minutes of solid material than 50 minutes that includes 10 minutes of weak material, or worse yet, 67 minutes of subpar material. More Rush is great if the material is strong, otherwise it's not more bang for MY buck. Just program your CD to play tracks 1-8 Goobs, problem solved, right?   It IS convenient that those songs are at the end of the cd. I just always turn that album off after the first 8 tracks.   That being said, they still unfortunately do mar HYF from being a virtually perfect album otherwise. Even with those two tracks I still consider HYF one of their very best due to the strength of the first 8 tracks. You worry too much Goober, nothing and no one is ever perfect, anyone who thinks this is severely deluded. You need to let go of a few of life's reigns Goobs and not take it all so seriously. In 10,000 years all this shit will be gone and everyone will be equal, we'll all be dust that's long been forgotten... Surpassing completely the annoying trying to get me worked up with nonsense part of your post, there's nothing wrong with looking for perfection.   Someone started a Perfect Albums thread awhile back in the Music of the Spheres forum, albums that people considered to be perfect from start to finish. I listed 84 of them about a year ago. I could probably come up with a list of closer to 100 by now. Incidentally, only two Rush albums made my list...   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...=0entry375962 All I'm saying is if i get 8 great tracks out of 10 I'm not going to have a heart attack over it...get it?

Edited January 8, 2007 by treeduck

[Sangheili]

I think you guys are crazy about Tai Shan. That song is superb. High Water is the only meh song on the whole album. It's not like I go, "OMG High Water! Turn it off! Turn it off!"

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Sangheili @ Jan 8 2007, 04:01 PM)

I think you guys are crazy about Tai Shan. That song is superb. High Water is the only meh song on the whole album. It's not like I go, "OMG High Water! Turn it off! Turn it off!"

They're not terrible just so-so, it's just that they're a bit of step down from the other 8 songs...