rushgoober Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Mar 17 2009, 08:45 AM) Count me in the group that thinks Hold Your Fire was the last truly great Rush album. I also think Counterparts and Snakes & Arrows were great albums, but Hold Your Fire was the end of their LONG run of consistently great albums. IMHO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1974FAN Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I fell in love with Rush when the 1st LP was released way back in 1974! I've always looked at it this way...With each new LP came something completely new and totally different. Call me nuts, but I have to agree that the newer "stuff" is much better. As Geddy once said, "We've become better song writers and better song arrangers." Some of my favorite LPs of theirs were not their best produced, i.e. Presto & Vapor Trails. It boils down to how the songs speak to me personally at that time. Besides, listening to S&A live and seeing them in Chicago last June, they sound better than ever. However, to keep the peace...To each his/her own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPRushHed Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 17 2009, 10:21 AM) QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 17 2009, 10:09 AM) Now granted The Pass isn't Xanadu, but the quantity is there. Sorry, I don't understand this. Could you please elaborate? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart-ass...I just want you to explain this line further. What I was saying is that there is so much more material that I like thats considered New Rush vs. Old Rush. From Rush through Hemispheres there are only about 12 songs that I love. From Presto through Snakes there are about 45-50 songs that I truly love. I was also saying that a song like Xanadu is worth more than a one for one trade off. If that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (1974FAN @ Mar 17 2009, 09:28 AM)Call me nuts, but I have to agree that the newer "stuff" is much better. As Geddy once said, "We've become better song writers and better song arrangers." The old question of "maturity." Is it a blessing or a curse? I think Snakes & Arrows is a "mature" Rush, and in that it works very well. I still miss the guitar solos of old and the more sweeping free-flowing epics, but it works. Not all their albums in their more "mature" phase have worked out quite as well IMHO. An interesting example to me is Jethro Tull. I have an expanded cd where Ian Anderson is interviewed, and he talks about how the band has matured. He goes on and on and on about a latter day song of theirs that is mature, that is something he's very proud of and couldn't have written in the 70's, about how they've really grown to be able to do a song like that. I listened to this song on youtube out of curiosity, and I thought it was awful. If that was them mature, they could keep it. Rush have at least had some success as more mature artists. We'll see if they take the artistic success of S&A and run with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H. P. L. Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2009, 06:55 PM) An interesting example to me is Jethro Tull. I have an expanded cd where Ian Anderson is interviewed, and he talks about how the band has matured. He goes on and on and on about a latter day song of theirs that is mature, that is something he's very proud of and couldn't have written in the 70's, about how they've really grown to be able to do a song like that. I listened to this song on youtube out of curiosity, and I thought it was awful. If that was them mature, they could keep it. Rush have at least had some success as more mature artists. We'll see if they take the artistic success of S&A and run with it... I bet you're referring to Budapest, Goobs! I have that cd too. I think Anderson talks about "detail" in that interview, stating that when he was young he was, like, painting with raw, large brushes, while "maturity" for him means the ability to be more subtle and paint more detailed, precise pictures akin to those by a XVI century Flemish painter. In a way, I think the same applies to Rush. I've said many times that I consider them better songwriters now than they've ever been. Their wide concepts always failed to impress me, while I could always relate to the shorter, more "real world" songs. All in all, I agree with PD's original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILSnwdog Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Interesting thread. I used to be of the school that everything after Signals was substandard. During a period in the 90s, I kind of gave Rush a break for a few years. When I came back to the band, I kind of rediscovered the newer stuff (G/P and on), and found a new appreciation for it, and now I love the newer stuff almost as much as the older stuff. I think Tamas hit on this earlier. The only thing I miss in the newer Rush is their reluctance to "show off". While I appreciated the craftsmanship in their newer music, I really crave some of the musicianship they exhibited in tracks like Free Will, YYZ, and La Villa. IMO, the band hit their stride from Kings to Power Windows. There was hardly a weak track in any of those releases. Before Kings, I think the band was still finding their way, but even those releases contain genius. After PW, I think they gave up the "attacking" style of their earlier releases...but again, each release after PW contains gems that I enjoy listening to, and I'm very thankful for each album the guys give us. Well, there's my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
job Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Holy crap Presto-D!! You got some serious mileage outta this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 The way I see it is that Rush have already "hit their mark". I don't think they'll be able to do better than what's been done already. The same goes for Yes as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaldad Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Mar 17 2009, 01:37 PM) The way I see it is that Rush have already "hit their mark". I don't think they'll be able to do better than what's been done already. The same goes for Yes as well. same goes for a lot of bands . too bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Mar 17 2009, 01:37 PM) The way I see it is that Rush have already "hit their mark". I don't think they'll be able to do better than what's been done already. The same goes for Yes as well. That's DEFINITELY true of Yes! Cruising on the past, I'm afraid. I still think Rush is fairly "relevant," but yes, their best is probably behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Mar 17 2009, 02:51 PM) QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Mar 17 2009, 01:37 PM) The way I see it is that Rush have already "hit their mark". I don't think they'll be able to do better than what's been done already. The same goes for Yes as well. That's DEFINITELY true of Yes! Cruising on the past, I'm afraid. I still think Rush is fairly "relevant," but yes, their best is probably behind them. By the way, I'm speaking of how I personally feel about the band. I am sure that they are able to release good material, but I don't think they'll be able to surpass my favorite material. With Signals and HYF being my top two albums, I know I'm speaking only for myself (since there are fans who dislike these albums) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmotionDetector Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Mar 17 2009, 01:37 PM) The way I see it is that Rush have already "hit their mark". I don't think they'll be able to do better than what's been done already. The same goes for Yes as well. Well, while I agree that I don't think RUSH will ever make another "Moving Pictures", I still have high expectations because to me, even their more recent output has been excellent. Of course, I'm one of those people who actually loved S&A thoroughly. Hell, I drove into work this morning listening to it again! I agree with the fact that there probably won't ever be another RUSH album that we can consider "classic". But, they still manage to show strokes of real genius with alot of their songs. I think one main problem that keeps new Rush albums from being comparable to the 'classics' is the amount of songs on each record. On both VT and S&A, they have chosen to go with 13 tracks on each. Many people find problems with these albums because they consider them to have "filler". If each album was shortened by a few tracks, or limited to just 10 tracks max on each, they probably would be looked at as even stronger pieces of work than they are. While I easily consider myself a fan of all the songs on both of these albums, let's try and see what they would look like if limited to 8-9 tracks on each: Snakes & Arrows 1) Far Cry 2) Armor & Sword 3) Workin' Them Angels 4) The Larger Bowl 5) Spindrift 6) The Main Monkey Business 7) The Way The Wind Blows 8) Good News First 9) Malignant Narcississm Vapor Trails 1) One Little Victory 2) Ceiling Unlimited 3) Ghost Rider 4) How It Is 5) Vapor Trail 6) Secret Touch 7) Earthshine 8) Nocturne Now, like I said, I enjoy every song on both records. I'm just making a point that these shortened tracklists look much tighter, and don't have anything that could even be considered "filler" IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Let's see: Vapor Trails: One Little Victory Ceiling Unlimited Vapor Trail Secret Touch Earthshine Nocturne Freeze Out of the Cradle Perfect! That would move VT from the number 6 position to number 3 or 4 (based on my faves) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Mar 17 2009, 11:37 AM)The way I see it is that Rush have already "hit their mark". I don't think they'll be able to do better than what's been done already. Warning: All IMHO! While I would be shocked if they were able to pull out another album as good as Moving Pictures or Signals or Hemispheres, I still have faith that they have high quality material in them. After all, they made two really mediocre albums with Presto & RTB, and followed it with a winner in Counterparts. They made two even worse albums with T4E and VT, and followed it with an even bigger winner in Snakes & Arrows. So yeah, their very, very best work is most likely behind them, but you never know. What band that's been around or even close to as long as Rush puts out an album with the same quality as S&A? Nobody. They've been the exception to the rule enough times that anything is possible. I'm not holding my breath, but it's possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmotionDetector Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 17 2009, 03:48 PM) But there are some songs, especially in the later albums that get alot of grief from fans (ie. Face Up, You Bet Your Life, The Speed of Love, Dog Years, etc.), and I often wonder if these songs didn't exist on those records, if it would bring up the 'value' of that record on everyone's "favourite Rush albums" list. Face it, a lot has to do with the CD's total run time. A lot of songs on later Rush albums wouldn't find room on a CD if the run time was, say 45 minutes. Snakes & Arrows would kick total ass by editing down the run time by 15 minutes or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmotionDetector Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2009, 02:33 PM) So yeah, their very, very best work is most likely behind them, but you never know. What band that's been around or even close to as long as Rush puts out an album with the same quality as S&A? Nobody. They've been the exception to the rule enough times that anything is possible. I'm not holding my breath, but it's possible... I couldn't agree more with this statement. I know alot of people may be indifferent about S&A, but it is an exceptional piece of work. When I think about how S&A is their 18th original studio album, it blows my mind. That leads me to the even bigger point that you touched upon: What other band from 1974 is putting out albums nearly as good as the stuff Rush has released over the last decade? Seriously. Like I mentioned before, even if every new Rush album from here on out is not a "classic album", I'm okay with it as long as we still get some solid songs out of each and every album, which in my opinion, they have yet to fail in doing so. With every new release, I still expect a solid effort from the boys, because I know that it's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmotionDetector Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Mar 17 2009, 03:08 PM) QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 17 2009, 03:48 PM) But there are some songs, especially in the later albums that get alot of grief from fans (ie. Face Up, You Bet Your Life, The Speed of Love, Dog Years, etc.), and I often wonder if these songs didn't exist on those records, if it would bring up the 'value' of that record on everyone's "favourite Rush albums" list. Face it, a lot has to do with the CD's total run time. A lot of songs on later Rush albums wouldn't find room on a CD if the run time was, say 45 minutes. Snakes & Arrows would kick total ass by editing down the run time by 15 minutes or so. Yeah, that's exactly where I was going with my posts. The run time of CD's have allowed for a lot more material to be put on albums, and bands have gone with it. That's why bands can have a song that they think is "decent", and can stick it on the album because there is room, whereas in the past, bands really had to be selective on what would make each release, and choose only the very best material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Mar 17 2009, 01:08 PM) QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 17 2009, 03:48 PM) But there are some songs, especially in the later albums that get alot of grief from fans (ie. Face Up, You Bet Your Life, The Speed of Love, Dog Years, etc.), and I often wonder if these songs didn't exist on those records, if it would bring up the 'value' of that record on everyone's "favourite Rush albums" list. Face it, a lot has to do with the CD's total run time. A lot of songs on later Rush albums wouldn't find room on a CD if the run time was, say 45 minutes. Snakes & Arrows would kick total ass by editing down the run time by 15 minutes or so. Remove Bravest Face, Good News First and We Hold On, and you've lost about 14 minutes. Those songs aren't horrible, but they're not great either (IMHO), and the album would be GREATLY improved. It's been a problem ever since the LP has fallen out of favor. Every album from HYF onwards could use 2 or 3 songs (and in some cases a lot more) to be snipped. 40 - 45 minutes of top notch music is difficult for ANY band to pull off for any given year or so of work, unless you're a rare band like the latter day Beatles who had off the charts talent and didn't tour. As an example, how many brilliant flawless double studio albums exist by any band? There are some notable exceptions, but not a lot, and for most double albums there's a fair amount of agreement that if they were made into one album it would have been far stronger. Those albums are often in the 70 to 80 minute range. The 60-70 minute cd's of today are damn close to double albums, and many would benefit from some serious cutting. Quality > Quantity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmotionDetector Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.