osage2112 Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 China did NOT speak to me. I have really tried to get into the song...or just let it happen to me...perhaps in another decade or two it'll sink in. I'm willing to give it time. Osage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 8 2007, 12:53 PM) 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? The only reason it's so noticable is it's literally the first time Rush made a bad song since 1975, and they made two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kudzu Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 8 2007, 03:55 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 8 2007, 12:53 PM) 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? The only reason it's so noticable is it's literally the first time Rush made a bad song since 1975, and they made two. Ahem... "Madrigal" in 1977, "Red Lenses" in 1984, "Manhattan Project" in 1985... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisibleairwaves Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2007, 10:06 AM) 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. Wit and objectivity? I think you're confusing "objective facts" with "your own personal tastes" here goob Personally, I love both songs, and judging by the responses this thread, so do a lot of other people. It's not really fair to say "it's obvious why they're so much weaker" when it isn't objectively true or universally agreed upon that they are weaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 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? Metal card...REVOKED!!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted May 5, 2019 Author Share Posted May 5, 2019 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? Metal card...REVOKED!!!Hmmm I don't remember writing that. :smoke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 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? Metal card...REVOKED!!!Hmmm I don't remember writing that. :smoke:Maybe you had second nature or mission on in the background and were typing in your sleep. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 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? Metal card...REVOKED!!!Hmmm I don't remember writing that. :smoke:Maybe you had second nature or mission on in the background and were typing in your sleep.Or Yanni, it would be pretty much the same thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted May 5, 2019 Author Share Posted May 5, 2019 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? Metal card...REVOKED!!!Hmmm I don't remember writing that. :smoke:Maybe you had second nature or mission on in the background and were typing in your sleep.Or Yanni, it would be pretty much the same thing.Turn the Page! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted May 5, 2019 Author Share Posted May 5, 2019 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? Metal card...REVOKED!!!Hmmm I don't remember writing that. :smoke:Maybe you had second nature or mission on in the background and were typing in your sleep.No reward for resistanceNo assistanceNo applause 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 (edited) 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? Metal card...REVOKED!!!Hmmm I don't remember writing that. :smoke:Maybe you had second nature or mission on in the background and were typing in your sleep.No reward for resistanceNo assistanceNo applauseThe most depressing lyrics Peart ever wrote, I wish I had that instinct, I wish I had that drive From the guy who wrote 2112. Sad! Edited May 5, 2019 by laughedatbytime 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted May 5, 2019 Author Share Posted May 5, 2019 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? Metal card...REVOKED!!!Hmmm I don't remember writing that. :smoke:Maybe you had second nature or mission on in the background and were typing in your sleep.No reward for resistanceNo assistanceNo applauseThe most depressing lyrics Peart ever wrote, I wish I had that vision, I wish I had that drive From the guy who wrote 2112. Sad!He may have already heard the music for Tai Shan and High Water by the time he wrote that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 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? Metal card...REVOKED!!!Hmmm I don't remember writing that. :smoke:Maybe you had second nature or mission on in the background and were typing in your sleep.No reward for resistanceNo assistanceNo applauseThe most depressing lyrics Peart ever wrote, I wish I had that vision, I wish I had that drive From the guy who wrote 2112. Sad!He may have already heard the music for Tai Shan and High Water by the time he wrote that.Probably. Please note that I corrected the mistake i made with the lyrics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted May 5, 2019 Author Share Posted May 5, 2019 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? Metal card...REVOKED!!!Hmmm I don't remember writing that. :smoke:Maybe you had second nature or mission on in the background and were typing in your sleep.No reward for resistanceNo assistanceNo applauseThe most depressing lyrics Peart ever wrote, I wish I had that vision, I wish I had that drive From the guy who wrote 2112. Sad!He may have already heard the music for Tai Shan and High Water by the time he wrote that.Probably. Please note that I corrected the mistake i made with the lyrics...Your version probably improved it a bit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRogers Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 Both songs are better than anything recorded by Ratt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 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. The entire record is a "FORCE TEN!" Pat isn't a drummer so he doesn't get how incredible Neil's playing is on both those tracks.If anything "Second Nature" is a weaker track than "Tain Shan" or "High Water" but I love every track and it's one of the funnest records to play to on the drums regardless of electronic triggers and percussion. I play to the record with my organic kit and it works out just fine. "Hold Your Fire" is a masterpiece. From start to finish. I feel sorry for humans who dislike this record. Then again who cares. To each their own. I hate "Vapor Trails." That's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted May 5, 2019 Author Share Posted May 5, 2019 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. The entire record is a "FORCE TEN!" Pat isn't a drummer so he doesn't get how incredible Neil's playing is on both those tracks.If anything "Second Nature" is a weaker track than "Tain Shan" or "High Water" but I love every track and it's one of the funnest records to play to on the drums regardless of electronic triggers and percussion. I play to the record with my organic kit and it works out just fine. "Hold Your Fire" is a masterpiece. From start to finish. I feel sorry for humans who dislike this record. Then again who cares. To each their own. I hate "Vapor Trails." That's life.The bass playing is the killer shit on HYF Earl, not the drums with that electro tupperware snare. That's the one thing you can say about this album the bass playing rules. Geddy owns this album with his bass gymnastics. There's more great basslines and intricate but melodic bass passages on this album than in a Jaco Pastorius Fender Jazz Bass museum warehouse. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entre_Perpetuo Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 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. The entire record is a "FORCE TEN!" Pat isn't a drummer so he doesn't get how incredible Neil's playing is on both those tracks.If anything "Second Nature" is a weaker track than "Tain Shan" or "High Water" but I love every track and it's one of the funnest records to play to on the drums regardless of electronic triggers and percussion. I play to the record with my organic kit and it works out just fine. "Hold Your Fire" is a masterpiece. From start to finish. I feel sorry for humans who dislike this record. Then again who cares. To each their own. I hate "Vapor Trails." That's life. The playing and predication are still phenomenal across the album, but I think the songwriting really started to take a dip here, mainly with Tai Shan and High water. Frankly, I’ve always thought Prime Mover, Turn The Page, and Second Nature...actually most of the album, could have been written/arranged a bit better. Only tracks that I really love are Force Ten and Time Stand Still, and Open Secrets and Mission to a lesser extent. Lock And Key has a great opening, but is a little less heavy than I’d prefer. Just my 2 centi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babycat Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 Will I be spanked or declawed if I say I like those songs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rugen Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 Because since the arrival of the CD Rush made more filler songs, After 40 minutes, the band is no more inspired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 Will I be spanked or declawed if I say I like those songs?No, but the reputation that cats have superior hearing will take a significant hit...:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 Because since the arrival of the CD Rush made more filler songs, After 40 minutes, the band is no more inspired. I thought Force 10 was added at the last minute and was made spontaneously. And it’s generally well received by Rush fans 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 Because since the arrival of the CD Rush made more filler songs, After 40 minutes, the band is no more inspired.But, wasn't it Force Ten that was actually the last song put together for FYI, a last-minute addition that turned out to be very radio friendly and, as a result, was put as the first track on the album? Much like New World Man, another radio-friendly track that was a last-minute addition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 Because since the arrival of the CD Rush made more filler songs, After 40 minutes, the band is no more inspired.But, wasn't it Force Ten that was actually the last song put together for FYI, a last-minute addition that turned out to be very radio friendly and, as a result, was put as the first track on the album? Much like New World Man, another radio-friendly track that was a last-minute addition. Yeah, that’s what I said too in the previous post 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babycat Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 Will I be spanked or declawed if I say I like those songs?No, but the reputation that cats have superior hearing will take a significant hit...:)Are you saying I have a hearing deficiency? :P ;) 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