treeduck Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I wouldn't say they're spent, but at the same time I wouldn't argue against anyone who said their best period was between 1975-1982, I'd agree, but just because their golden period is behind them doesn't mean that they haven't produced good music for the last 26 years. I used to compare their new stuff to the vintage stuff, nowadays I take the albums for what they are. The last two studio albums sound good to me and that's all that I need to say, the same as if someone doesn't like them it's just an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMCXII Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Oct 26 2008, 06:28 AM) 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. good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Hunter Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 They might be artistically spent, but they're relevant. Alot of bands are name-checking them, and not just small bands. Matt Bellamy has said all he listened to as a kid was Rush, and I think alot of Muse's music has a clear Rush influence. Biffy Clyro are another band that come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osage2112 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Maybe... Perhaps they're in the last phase of a resurgent turn for their music. I too would like to see them shift their music, but perhaps they are unwilling to "go back". Look at David Bowie, after his last foray into POP, he pretty much stopped. Perhaps the next step is to stop and to start producing. Too bad for us needful fans, but beneficial to the young musicians of today and tomorrow. Osage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILSnwdog Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 One listen to Snakes and Arrows, and my fears were waned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArrowSnake Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Rush is not artistically spent. Snakes & Arrows is a damn good album. Just listen to Armor & Sword and TMMB, these guys are still putting out excellent music. I do agree that the CD format is a bit too long though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmotionDetector Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 My simple answer is: NO These guys are still making great and relevant music, which is more than any other band that's been around as long as them can say. I've probably said this 1000 times, so what's one more?! SNAKES & ARROWS is the best album they've made since Power Windows. Yes...I do agree with all who made mention of CD's and their ability to hold alot more music. This has indeed brought "filler" tracks to albums. However, I still love everything that Rush releases. All of the songs on S&A are strong in their own right, with some absolute gems on the album (TMMB, Spindrift, Larger Bowl, and Good News First). The fact is, the golden era of Rush has past, but that doesn't mean that what they release today is not "artistic". Their albums are solid, and although they may not reach the heights of a Moving Pictures or Hemispheres, I'm okay with that, because they still kick a**!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softfilter Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 QUOTE (daveyt @ Oct 26 2008, 06:52 PM) QUOTE (himey @ Oct 26 2008, 02:57 PM) i think there taste in music has changed/evolved but some of there fans taste have not. Neil not the same Neil from his twentys early thirties or... Most of us that have experienced our journey of life do change "a photograph the way I used to be" I can't see how anyone could expect the same level of creative energy to continue with the present Rush, compared with the stimulating naive adolescent days of the conceptual period. Age and experience I believe can harden a person(and Neil had plenty to color his perspective grey& black)maturity sets in. I don't think there completely artistically spent, because some stuff on S&A is the best I've heard in years.... BUT on the other hand there is weak often used phrase on this thread "filler". Neil tends to use over wrought symbolism in his lyrical content in recent years. My opinion get mad if you want! Rush still has the spark and with S&A made overall a good album . From here on out I'm afraid it's going to be hit and miss, take the good with the bad. btw Musicianship I think there at the peak of there ability, and LIVE a pleasure to witness ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tupelobarchetta Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 QUOTE (MMCXII @ Oct 27 2008, 02:03 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Oct 26 2008, 06:28 AM) 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. good point They need to include more 8-to-10 minute epic songs instead of 4-to-5 minute fillers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 You know, I have a pretty good idea what the new U2 album is going to sound like. If it does sound like I think it will, then U2 is a perfect example of a group that is artistically spent. You CAN NOT say that about Rush. Rush's next album WILL NOT sound like any other Rush album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoddess Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 in some ways your are right, I feel Vapor trails is a much more energetic and uplifting record, yet there are some beautiful melodies and jams on Snakes and Arrows, bur does it really matter anyway? with a band with so much material, having almost done it all, i'd be happy if they just keep on touring, touring,touring... we can always count on alex to "bring it" to the show! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softfilter Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I can't find the post now, but someone said there tired of the gloomy depressing nature of S&A. I don't think there ever was a era of Rush that you could say this is Rush 's "Happy Shiney People" album Go back not going to find it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apetersvt Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 QUOTE (King Troll @ Oct 26 2008, 06:42 PM) QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Oct 26 2008, 06:34 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ Oct 26 2008, 05:02 PM)QUOTE (himey @ Oct 26 2008, 04:57 PM) i think there taste in music has changed/evolved but some of there fans taste have not. it sounds like they put as much effort if not more into snakes as they have in previous records from back in the day. i would not say they are burned out or just going through the motions. I agree. There are so many people that are stuck on the Permanent Waves/Moving pictures era and base all of the other Rush albums and compare them to that style. That's because for many that was their creative peak........therefore it will draw lots of comparisions to what they are doing now. Their music has changed alot........they stuff they've put out in the last 20 years sounds almost nothing like they were putting out in their best period (2112 - MP)......therefore tends to draw some criticism.........make sense? Heck, they were once considered "prog band". Not much prog about them anymore, if you ask me......... Well said sir. The creative Peak of Rush is from CoS to PeW IMHO of course, and that is the material that has to be the Rush benchmark, and nothing recorded since then matches up to it. And of course Rush aren't Prog now, because they're an HM band, always and 4 eva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 From a live point of view, they have certainly passed their peak. I've noticed that their more recent live shows sound too muddy. If you didn't know Rush music, you wouldn't be able to pick out the music in them. But, take Different Stages disk 3 (from 1978) and ATWAS and the music is clear as a bell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apetersvt Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 To me, the magic of Rush was COS-MP. Everything after that was a decline. However, I still enjoy VT and SnA and am glad they are still cranking out albums. The last two have been improvements and are headed in the right direction (certainly better albums then anyone else has put out that have been around 25+ years). To agree with some other statements in this thread: The boys should isolate themselves, smoke some doobies, get Terry Brown back, and put together a couple of 12-15 minute tunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softfilter Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Oct 27 2008, 12:41 PM) From a live point of view, they have certainly passed their peak. I've noticed that their more recent live shows sound too muddy. If you didn't know Rush music, you wouldn't be able to pick out the music in them. But, take Different Stages disk 3 (from 1978) and ATWAS and the music is clear as a bell. I disagree, live they have a confidence about them that really comes through the music. Of course concerts vary show from show, and one thing I have noticed(R30-Blossom) it has become obvious it really is more WORK to acheive that level night after night for them compared to 80's Rush. But I still think Rush has remained consistiant in the last three performances I've seen them, spanning T4E to S&A more in control tighter, just at there age more of a work out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCFIELDS Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 QUOTE (apetersvt @ Oct 27 2008, 12:43 PM) To agree with some other statements in this thread: The boys should isolate themselves, smoke some doobies, get Terry Brown back, and put together a couple of 12-15 minute tunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djb Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Lots of good posts.... When I first discovered Rush, I was 18, that was 1991. I loved everything up to Signals. I could not relate to post-Signals. Although I got Presto, because it was the album of the time, and loved it, it was not until I cam back to Rush at 34, that the 80s albums made sense to me. I think it was because Neil was 35 then and I am 35 now, the sentiments of that age are more relevent. For that reason, I think I can grow with Rush, but just a few years out of sync. Anyway, I agree they have evolved, but until I am 50, I wont be able to say whether they are spent, but just speaking from a differnent perspective, which I will appreciate more when I am that age... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaldad Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 QUOTE (apetersvt @ Oct 27 2008, 12:43 PM) To agree with some other statements in this thread: The boys should isolate themselves, smoke some doobies, get Terry Brown back, and put together a couple of 12-15 minute tunes. right on the money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthemic Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 QUOTE (metaldad @ Oct 27 2008, 01:22 PM) QUOTE (apetersvt @ Oct 27 2008, 12:43 PM) To agree with some other statements in this thread: The boys should isolate themselves, smoke some doobies, get Terry Brown back, and put together a couple of 12-15 minute tunes. right on the money you forgot the most important thing they need for that plan to work, a time machine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamneth08 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Oct 27 2008, 11:29 AM) You know, I have a pretty good idea what the new U2 album is going to sound like. If it does sound like I think it will, then U2 is a perfect example of a group that is artistically spent. You CAN NOT say that about Rush. Rush's next album WILL NOT sound like any other Rush album. So true. Many bands have a formula and stick with it. The last 3 albums from Rush sound nothing alike. As does none of there other stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karena Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 QUOTE (Anthemic @ Oct 27 2008, 01:27 PM) QUOTE (metaldad @ Oct 27 2008, 01:22 PM) QUOTE (apetersvt @ Oct 27 2008, 12:43 PM) To agree with some other statements in this thread: The boys should isolate themselves, smoke some doobies, get Terry Brown back, and put together a couple of 12-15 minute tunes. right on the money you forgot the most important thing they need for that plan to work, a time machine! Or maybe a midlife crisis (is it too late for that?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortkort Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddysMullet Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Oct 27 2008, 01:41 PM) From a live point of view, they have certainly passed their peak. I've noticed that their more recent live shows sound too muddy. If you didn't know Rush music, you wouldn't be able to pick out the music in them. But, take Different Stages disk 3 (from 1978) and ATWAS and the music is clear as a bell. I couldn't disagree more. I never liked Rush until I saw them live for the first time in 2007. I've seen them another 7 times since, and the only time they sounded even slightly less than glorious it was down to the acoustics in the hall, not to the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog Kelly Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I don't think they are artistically spent .....they are gifted musicians who continue to evolve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.