GeminiRising79 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 When Counterparts was released I could begin to feel the first signs of this. Please don't flame me here, I'm only stating my interpretation of the band's aging/evolutionary process. I tried listening to Snakes and Arrows again but I simply cannot tolerate it. It all sounds like filler to me -with momentary regurgitations of preceding works mixed in. Nothing believably original or catchy. Brooding and moody. Why can't they do something uplifting and positive, beaming with energy/enthusiasm? I certainly love Rush, but I hate to see them fade out like they are (In my opinion). Again, I'm not trying to stir things up, I only want to see what others think about my interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mara Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Some will agree with you. I don't, personally, but I was somewhat worried when Test For Echo was released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Troll Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Yes. They have been for a long while. Power Windows was the last half way decent Rush album. I mean S&A is 18 albums into a career, you can't expect them to carry on as they used to be. Why are you here? I hear you cry - again, well, because their early recorded output is just so damn good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfratt Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 I would disagree. Musically, they have advanced and built upon themselves from album to album. Some albums, like as you say, Counterparts are musically simple compared to something like Hemsipheres, but the essence of the music and how it is developed and thought out, only continues to get better with time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Troll Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 QUOTE (mfratt @ Oct 25 2008, 06:17 PM) I would disagree. Musically, they have advanced and built upon themselves from album to album. Some albums, like as you say, Counterparts are musically simple compared to something like Hemsipheres, but the essence of the music and how it is developed and thought out, only continues to get better with time. Musically they have regressed. Geddy's bass playing probably peaked around Power Windows, even though the songwriting had been in decline since Hemispheres. The fact that they have to rely on somany samples live these days for the later material shows that they have lost the knack of writing for a three piece band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancient Ways Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 S&A is brooding and moody, I agree. I like the overall musical ideas on the album but sometimes the lyrics get in the way for me. One or two songs on the subject matter of choice would have been fine but it actually got a little too conceptual which I never thought I'd say. Still, I like it overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dances with the Moon Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 To answer the original question, I don't think so. I think they are evolving, along with the rest of the world. I think they are still the best band in the world. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthemic Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Snakes and arrows is my favorite rush album so obviously i totally disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Did Lee Squat? Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 No. IMO, they peaked around PeW and MP, but they've still got plenty left in the tank. I think S&A might be their best album since maybe HYF or PW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Too anybody who thinks this, screw you. Start your own band, make 18 albums and just TRY to be as artistic as Rush by that album. You will fall short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fridge Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 QUOTE (Alex @ Oct 26 2008, 01:47 AM) Too anybody who thinks this, screw you. Get it right up ye Yes, they have been declining for a long time. personally i think the last truly great album they put out was HYF. I think presto was halfway there, RTB and Counterfarts were both terrible, T4E a partial return to form, VT pretty poor, and S&A a bit better with some fleeting moments of genuine greatness, but mostly filler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 QUOTE (Fridge @ Oct 25 2008, 07:54 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ Oct 26 2008, 01:47 AM) Too anybody who thinks this, screw you. Get it right up ye Yes, they have been declining for a long time. personally i think the last truly great album they put out was HYF. I think presto was halfway there, RTB and Counterfarts were both terrible, T4E a partial return to form, VT pretty poor, and S&A a bit better with some fleeting moments of genuine greatness, but mostly filler. They are doing amazingly to counter the time that they have been around. Yes I agree that there are some so-so albums, like any other band, but for the amount of time that Rush has been around vs. the quality they put out they are still holding up strong, especialy with Snakes and Arrows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nappy2112 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I'm sorry but refering to Hold Your Fire as a great album is funny to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Did Lee Squat? Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 QUOTE (nappy2112 @ Oct 25 2008, 08:39 PM)I'm sorry but refering to Hold Your Fire as a great album is funny to me. No, what's funny is being a Kiss fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengal21 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Ok so heres my 2 cents I dont want to offend anyone but I must speak my mind. I am 46 yrs old and listen to all types of music. I will always be bias towards the music from my teens and twenties as I believe most people are. Why...music for me has the ability to take me anywhere I want to go. Its like a photo. I can listen to a song and smell the perfume of my first crush at the school dance. Bands like Rush and Journey take me back to my days partying with my friends and for brief moments trigger feeling of being young again. Why do folks always say " Well you know, I think (insert band here)their past their prime" or "time to hang it up already" Now you may think I'm having a midlife crisis or something and you may be correct, but my point is that I dont care if these guys are playing from wheelchairs in a care home, I will listen and appreciate it. They are a part of our lives as are the actors we watch on TV. I dont care how old Pacino or Hopkins are, I will watch any movie they appear in till one of us kicks the bucket. Its all about the emotional connection and where and how these artists fit into our lives. So having said that, I really think once a group has contributed so much and reached the status Rush has over the years, maintaining "peak" performance is absolutely irrelevent. Thats all there is to it. I want to see the people I admired as a youth continue to do the things I admired them for when I am 60. Isnt that awsome. What else can we expect them to do, sell insurance. So what if they arent as good. They love to perform and we love to watch and listen. At their worst, they would still be better than most of the crap artists are getting paid millions of $$$ to spew these days. I hope I am making my point as it is difficult to put into words exactly what I mean. ok Im done cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCFIELDS Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Oct 25 2008, 06:10 PM) When Counterparts was released I could begin to feel the first signs of this. Please don't flame me here, I'm only stating my interpretation of the band's aging/evolutionary process. I tried listening to Snakes and Arrows again but I simply cannot tolerate it. It all sounds like filler to me -with momentary regurgitations of preceding works mixed in. Nothing believably original or catchy. Brooding and moody. Why can't they do something uplifting and positive, beaming with energy/enthusiasm? I certainly love Rush, but I hate to see them fade out like they are (In my opinion). Again, I'm not trying to stir things up, I only want to see what others think about my interpretation. I agree........although I thought VT was pretty good........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilderness_of_Mirrors Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 i could not disagree anymore with this thread. so im not going to post a legitimate response, ill just leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamneth08 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I feel Rush, more than any other band from there era, are still making artistically relevant and mature music. Look at someone like Journey. Finding there new singer on YouTube!!...And still pretty much playing the songs that made them who they were 25 years ago. They know the fanbase dont care about new material. Van Halen the same thing. AC/DC releasing there album through WAL-MART!! Rush fans really should be thankful that they havn't turned into Spinal Tap. Not a whole lot of bands from 30 years ago are still bringing it live and not resting on past glories. S&A is a great album , IMO. The production and different textures is awesome. They don't sound like they are packing it in quite yet. In fact, they sound reborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clue69Less Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 QUOTE (Lamneth08 @ Oct 25 2008, 11:18 PM) In fact, they sound reborn. Word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestyk Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 QUOTE They have been for a long while. Power Windows was the last half way decent Rush album. I mean S&A is 18 albums into a career, you can't expect them to carry on as they used to be. I agree. Hold Your Fire was the start of a decline. But I do think S&A picked things up a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygXanTor Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 QUOTE (bengal21 @ Oct 25 2008, 10:25 PM) Ok so heres my 2 cents I dont want to offend anyone but I must speak my mind. I am 46 yrs old and listen to all types of music. I will always be bias towards the music from my teens and twenties as I believe most people are. Why...music for me has the ability to take me anywhere I want to go. Its like a photo. I can listen to a song and smell the perfume of my first crush at the school dance. Bands like Rush and Journey take me back to my days partying with my friends and for brief moments trigger feeling of being young again. Why do folks always say " Well you know, I think (insert band here)their past their prime" or "time to hang it up already" Now you may think I'm having a midlife crisis or something and you may be correct, but my point is that I dont care if these guys are playing from wheelchairs in a care home, I will listen and appreciate it. They are a part of our lives as are the actors we watch on TV. I dont care how old Pacino or Hopkins are, I will watch any movie they appear in till one of us kicks the bucket. Its all about the emotional connection and where and how these artists fit into our lives. So having said that, I really think once a group has contributed so much and reached the status Rush has over the years, maintaining "peak" performance is absolutely irrelevent. Thats all there is to it. I want to see the people I admired as a youth continue to do the things I admired them for when I am 60. Isnt that awsome. What else can we expect them to do, sell insurance. So what if they arent as good. They love to perform and we love to watch and listen. At their worst, they would still be better than most of the crap artists are getting paid millions of $$$ to spew these days. I hope I am making my point as it is difficult to put into words exactly what I mean. ok Im done cheers I'm 46 also, and I feel the same kind of connection to the "old" Rush that you're referring to. The thing I believe needs to be understood is that we all change. It's unrealistic to expect Rush to keep cranking out the same old stuff just because all some want to hear is 2112 and Tom Sawyer! If there's anything I know about Rush, it's that they thrive on change. They love what they do, and they like to keep it interesting for themselves, as well as the fans. If they didn't, they probably would have burned out and called it quits a long time ago, and for some here that would mean never having experienced Rush live at all. Imagine there not being a second generation of Rush fans. Wouldn't that be a shame? I'll take an aging "maybe not as good as they used to be" Rush in the here and now over fading memories of a Rush that hasn't been heard from since the 80's any day. Btw, to answer the original question; No, I don't think Rush is artistically spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liddybuck01 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 as a new fan i don't know what it feels like when a new cd comes out and seeing if it's good or not. now, just from purchasing and listening to all of the cds i can say, for me, i love everything from Rush to Grace Under Pressure. everything after that is ok, but nothing really grabs me like "wow this is a great album." a few songs here and there but that's it. but, to be fair, i still really haven't LISTEN listened to a few songs so i can't make a complete judgement on all of their work. but, for being new, Snakes and Arrows really grabbed my attention. i think the songs are catchy and sound good and i just like it, overall. so, as far as "fading out" goes, i think they're comingback to. even though it doesn't sound like what we know and love, it's still good. i think if they stopped now they will have ended on a good note, imo. but i think they have one more classic under their belts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telegraphcreeklocal Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Oct 25 2008, 04:10 PM) When Counterparts was released I could begin to feel the first signs of this. Please don't flame me here, I'm only stating my interpretation of the band's aging/evolutionary process. I tried listening to Snakes and Arrows again but I simply cannot tolerate it. It all sounds like filler to me -with momentary regurgitations of preceding works mixed in. Nothing believably original or catchy. Brooding and moody. Why can't they do something uplifting and positive, beaming with energy/enthusiasm? I certainly love Rush, but I hate to see them fade out like they are (In my opinion). Again, I'm not trying to stir things up, I only want to see what others think about my interpretation. If you don't like a new effort, you still can see your fav's at the show...did you turn off the album you don't like forever? Give peace a chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Snakes & Arrows is over 60 minutes long and in the old days that would be long enough for a double album! I bet all the classic-era Rush albums are around 40 minutes long. To me that's the problem. The CD format has led to longer lengths, which leads to more songs, which leads to more filler, which leads to the impression, to some, that they are artistically spent. I believe if Rush limited themselves to a 35-40 minutes of music it would be superb without the "filler" that plagues their later albums. Artistically spent. Nope. Just too much filler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Oct 26 2008, 09:28 PM) Snakes & Arrows is over 60 minutes long and in the old days that would be long enough for a double album! I bet all the classic-era Rush albums are around 40 minutes long. To me that's the problem. The CD format has led to longer lengths, which leads to more songs, which leads to more filler, which leads to the impression, to some, that they are artistically spent. I believe if Rush limited themselves to a 35-40 minutes of music it would be superb without the "filler" that plagues their later albums. Artistically spent. Nope. Just too much filler. Possibly. But unfortunately we'll never be able to test this theory. I would've loved to listen to all the "filler time" from AFTK-MP. The instrumentals off Snakes make me believe they aren't spent yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.