Anyone else feel that Rush is artistically spent ?

[CygXanTor]

I like this...now we're having an intelligent conversation about the evolution of Rush...Also, we can't ignore advances in technology that have played a major role in that process...Rush may still be the same three guys they've been since 1974, but they've become a much larger band...

[Weakly Criminal]

[ArrowSnake]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Oct 26 2008, 01:28 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.

 

[CygXanTor]

[metaldad]

for me, the last album they did where i loved every song was moving pictures . i love all of signals except new world man and all of g.u.p exept d.e.w. ever since , i like some of it but not all of it . some albums i really don't like but that is beating a dead horse. i love but not everything they put out

[circumstantial tree]

"Hold Your Fire is an arrival record for us" - Geddy Lee, 1988

 

I think Presto was the last album I was truly enamored with straight from the first listen. The same could be said of Roll the Bones, except I was getting more into more experimental and alternative music at that time, so Rush wasn't necessarily my musical focus from that point in time.

 

"My Favorite Headache" and "Vapor Trails" reintroduced me to Rush and I like both of those albums.

 

"Snakes and Arrows" has great music but the lyrics are the same 'ol thing that keeps getting revisited time and again.

 

And I truly wished Neil would abandon the drum solo he's been playing since the 70's. Yes, it's somewhat different, but not enough.

 

I'd say they've passed their peak, but are still capable of good music.

 

[wordsmith]

Wow. Does "screw you" mean "I disagree?" What's up with personal attacks when a differing opinion is floated?

[GeddysMullet]

I love every song on Snakes And Arrows, and the 2008 tour was one of the best times of my life.

 

So,

[telegraphcreeklocal]

[snowdog2112]

QUOTE

Snakes and arrows is my favorite rush album so obviously i totally disagree.

 

Agreed, and I've been a fan for decades.

 

[nobodys hero]

No, they are still vital. Look at S&A. They proved that even in their mid-50's they can still get out there and make music that the fans will love.

I believe they still have a lot of music yet to be created/played

[theredtamasrule]

The first time I listened to Presto I realized that the boys just didn't have much to say at that point and, for me, it's been that way ever since. A few flashes of brilliance: The Pass, Ghost of a Chance, Alien Shore, The Way The Wind Blows, Ceiling Unlimited, Driven (among others) but obviously they don't generate the same level of excellence that was produced 2112 - GUP (for me, those albums are all superbly great). Since GUP (except for HYF I think) it's been hit, miss and filler...with waaaaayy too much filler which is a result of excess studio time and the long CD format compared to LP's. I think S&A could have been cut to 7 or 8 songs and been nearly great but such offerings as Bravest Face and the last song...what's it called?..can't even remember...dilute the product too much.

 

Neil doesn't create such busy drum parts anymore (he's not been the same since the Burning For Buddy sessions...don't know why but it seems obvious to me), Alex for some reason refuses to play a solo and Geddy has gone crazy with the chorus effect. They need to get back to being a power trio: drums, guitar & bass with one vocal. Maybe some synth for atmosphere. IMO.

 

I mean, they're still awesome live and kick serious ass in concert but the new material hasn't been up to snuff for a while. Songs for the S&A tour was drawn from a huge chunk of Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures and S&A...what does this tell us? The boys obviously agree about the quality of recent material.

 

This is what happens when the bar is set so high in the first place.

[WCFIELDS]

For those who say S&A is an "advancement" or a "progression forward"........how so?

[ozzy85]

Sometimes I miss 1979, too. But it's over and passed and I'm OK with it. I enjoy VT and S&A to much to agree here. I like newer Ozz also, although, yeah, I still play his older stuff .

[fledgehog]

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Oct 25 2008, 07:10 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.

hey look everyone, it's Prince Troll!

[fledgehog]

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Oct 26 2008, 02:25 PM)

For those who say S&A is an "advancement" or a "progression forward"........how so?

because Test for Echo and Vapor Trails were more or less a total load of crap, and feedback was utterly useless, whereas Snakes and Arrows was a decent album, in fact I would go so far as to call it Rush's best since Presto. the mix doesn't make your brain implode, there were no shitty lyrics about the speed of virtual dogs or "all the crap we have to take", and the music itself had a real, refreshing vitality to it.

[nappy2112]

QUOTE (Did Lee Squat? @ Oct 25 2008, 08:54 PM)

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.         yeah yeah

[WCFIELDS]

QUOTE (fledgehog @ Oct 26 2008, 01:53 PM)

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Oct 26 2008, 02:25 PM) For those who say S&A is an "advancement" or a "progression forward"........how so? because Test for Echo and Vapor Trails were more or less a total load of crap, and feedback was utterly useless, whereas Snakes and Arrows was a decent album, in fact I would go so far as to call it Rush's best since Presto. the mix doesn't make your brain implode, there were no shitty lyrics about the speed of virtual dogs or "all the crap we have to take", and the music itself had a real, refreshing vitality to it. I will agree it's better than RTB, Counterparts, and TFE........not hard to beat those. I like VT much better songwise though...........a lot more edge to it........IMO

[tel]

QUOTE (Marathonist @ Oct 25 2008, 06:12 PM)

Some will agree with you. I don't, personally, but I was somewhat worried when Test For Echo was released.

yeah me too,test is all filler and vapor trails was a poor album also,but ofcourse the boys redeemed themselves admirably

[angel in my armor]

IMO I think that the content over the past few albums isn't some of Rush's best material,now whether or not the boys are spent artistically I'm not sure.It must be after thirty plus years of creating music get harder and harder to put together something new and fresh yet still familiar to the masses.

[Netboy]

This thread is kind of silly and a breeding ground for TROLLS. It is hard to believe that people are criticizing a band that already receives unfair criticism of its music for the main stream. They are almost sixty and they just released a new kick ass album. What specifically is filler on S&A? Bands recycle their sound over and over and over and over. keep in mind that most famous bands do not even evolve! they just play the same pop songs that made them famous. Therefore, why is it sacrilegious if RUSH wants to incorporate a particular sound from a past song? It is important to keep in mind that S&A was intended by the trio to explore a Little of their musical roots. Aside from a few rare "injections" of chords, there is little in terms of recycling. And to the original poster who find it dark. Where have you been living the past ten years?? Go listen to a disney album if you want upbeat. Personally, I want serious music and lyrics from serious musicians.

 

 

What keeps RUSH fresh and relevant is musical composition, a love for playing and lyrical writing. I see this thread degenerating into a "when are they going to retire post." I'll give you the short answer...when they are dead.

[WCFIELDS]

QUOTE (Netboy @ Oct 26 2008, 02:44 PM)

This thread is kind of silly and a breeding ground for TROLLS. It is hard to believe that people are criticizing a band that already receives unfair criticism of its music for the main stream. They are almost sixty and they just released a new kick ass album. What specifically is filler on S&A? Bands recycle their sound over and over and over and over. keep in mind that most famous bands do not even evolve! they just play the same pop songs that made them famous. Therefore, why is it sacrilegious if RUSH wants to incorporate a particular sound from a past song? It is important to keep in mind that S&A was intended by the trio to explore a Little of their musical roots. Aside from a few rare "injections" of chords, there is little in terms of recycling. And to the original poster who find it dark. Where have you been living the past ten years?? Go listen to a disney album if you want upbeat. Personally, I want serious music and lyrics from serious musicians. What keeps RUSH fresh and relevant is musical composition, a love for playing and lyrical writing. I see this thread degenerating into a "when are they going to retire post." I'll give you the short answer...when they are dead.

Some people don't like the new album as much as others.........and you are calling people trolls for that? Yeah, ok........Aside from a few songs on S&A, I can't really listen to it..........it bores me bad........

[Karena]

I think with S&A they almost had it. I agree with the OP about the dark brooding tone, and I think that ruined it for me. Taken up a notch it could have kicked ass. I do prefer S&A to Presto, however.

 

Journey et al can do whatever, I do not relate those bands to Rush, so there can be no comparison. I don't believe that being around for x number of years necessarily means that an artist must decline creatively. It is a reaction we often have to expect less because others are doing even less, but that is BS. If they don't have it to give any longer, maybe it is time to hang it up or just be one of those nostalgia bands. But I don't believe this is true with Rush, that they probably have the ability to hit one out of the park if they still possess the drive.

 

As one of the more, ehm, mature fans, I actually started listening to them seriously more recently so don't have the nostalgic connection that many others do. I love a lot of the older stuff because I think it's better without any particular bias. There is no reason fans should lower their expectations in regards to creativity just because the band has been around for a long time. If the day comes when I do that, the passion is over and I'll find something else to listen to.

 

[New World Kid]

This is my take on all of this:

 

I have Rush's entire discography. I haven't listened to anything pre-2112 in a very very long time. The albums I play most are P/G forward. Favorite albums of theirs for me would include P/G, VT, CP, HYF...

 

That's just right now, sometimes my favorites are Presto and TFE, or PoW... but never in my rotating line-up of Rush that I listen to a lot does an album like CoS or FbN ever make the line-up.

 

Maybe I'm just strange, but I find classic Rush to be musically gifted, but dually almost immature efforts. Not immature in the sense of bathroom jokes are immature, but immature like a band that hadn't quite grown up yet.

 

I think Rush's music is an evolution, and each evolution alienates some and resonates with others.

 

*shrug*

[ArrowSnake]

QUOTE (New World Kid @ Oct 26 2008, 09:41 PM)

Maybe I'm just strange, but I find classic Rush to be musically gifted, but dually almost immature efforts. Not immature in the sense of bathroom jokes are immature, but immature like a band that hadn't quite grown up yet. I think Rush's music is an evolution, and each evolution alienates some and resonates with others.

 

I totally agree.