ReRushed 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 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...
rushgoober Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Since we're always pretty much firmly entrenched in the realm of subjective opinion around here, why not make the assumption that if you could shave off 10-15 minutes off of any given album to make it perfect or close to perfect, that we could decide which tracks get the axe? Sure, we could say the band would have cut other songs than the ones we would, but the fact is the albums are the way they are. If we're going to have fun talking and arguing about Rush with our multifaceted, subjective and creative opinions and points of views, we might as well create whatever artificial rules and guidelines make us happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober 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 I'm confused! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober 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 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2009, 03:58 PM) Maybe it would be better if they had been writing 75 or 80 minutes of material for an album and just kept the best 40 whether they were done first or towards the end of the process. Hell, they could've used the outtakes for a box set bonus cd or three of unreleased songs in 10 years from now that would thrill Rush fans to death and not interfere with their "proper" albums. Alas, Rush seem to have a thing about never recording a song and deciding not to release it. You obviously know as well as I that they HAVE NO unreleased material. They want 70 minutes on a CD, they record 70 minutes worth of material and release it all, with no leftovers. Some of the 70 is going to be sub-par... that's just the law of averages. Your method would work. Record everything, THEN take a step back and decide what the best 45 minutes is. Everything else goes into the closet until it's released years later as a less-than-stellar compilation of previously-unreleased songs. And when we see those songs as inferior to most Rush songs - which we would - the band has a built-in excuse: "We know they're inferior, too... that's why they didn't make the original studio album!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I'd rather have those extra "subpar" songs than not have them. There's some value in every Rush song as well as immensely diverging opinions for them. Even Dog Years has some excellent musicianship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPRushHed Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 This is a great thread. GeddyRulz I appreciate your sentiments, I just fiercely defend the new stuff because I think its wonderful. Anybody who left the band after Moving Pictures is honestly stuck in a time warp. Most of the great bands need to stretch out and experiment, otherwise they get bored and their sound gets redundant. Also to GRulz - Great point about the editing down. Since the digital age, bands now make records that are 12-13 songs and 60 minutes long. In most cases, its too much. I remember having this discussion with a major label recording artist (when I was in the biz) who at the time disagreed with me that albums should be no longer than around 10 songs and 45 minutes. Anything longer and it gets hard to digest IMO. The problem is what songs to cut. In regards to the bands best work being behind them... Every band that has been recording for over 30 years, have seen their best days come and go. That being said, I think Rush trump their contemporaries in this category. I never thought the band would make a record as good as Vapor Trails at that point in their career. For a record to be that good almost 30 years from the date of their first record is extraordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPRushHed Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 "For me, Rush had about a 10 year run of 8 albums from 1976-1985 without any bad songs. Can the same be said about the last 7 studio albums from 1987-2007?" - Rush Goober Well I would dispute that run because 2112 -side 2 isn't perfect. Kings also has several average songs and a clunker on it IMO., and Signals even has Countdown and Chemistry which are just ok and could be considered clunkers. But let's just say that those albums were all perfect. 2112 & Kings have 6 songs on them. Compare that to Roll The Bones one of my least favs and I can still find 6 songs I love on RTB. So even if there's more filler in your opinion there should still be close to an equal amount of songs that you like because there's more to choose from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 17 2009, 03:50 PM) "For me, Rush had about a 10 year run of 8 albums from 1976-1985 without any bad songs. Can the same be said about the last 7 studio albums from 1987-2007?" - Rush Goober Well I would dispute that run because 2112 -side 2 isn't perfect. Kings also has several average songs and a clunker on it IMO., and Signals even has Countdown and Chemistry which are just ok and could be considered clunkers. But let's just say that those albums were all perfect. 2112 & Kings have 6 songs on them. Compare that to Roll The Bones one of my least favs and I can still find 6 songs I love on RTB. So even if there's more filler in your opinion there should still be close to an equal amount of songs that you like because there's more to choose from. I agree that there are songs on side two of 2112 that aren't among their best, and there are songs from that time period that aren't their very best, but there are no songs from that period that I feel any desire to skip over, and at the minimum they're all good songs. I guess for me the criteria is if it's a song I need to skip over or not. I'm not saying each album from 1976-1985 is pure perfection, just that they're all consistent albums, and even the lesser material among them are still completely liistenable. In more recent years, there have been a lot of songs I just don't like, and some full or almost full albums I don't like and will skip over almost entirely. Of course, it's all IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verena Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2009, 05:25 PM) 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 I appreciate 'old' and 'new' Rush and their music always impress me. Although there are moments where they did better albums. The 'weakest' albums in my opinion are Presto, RTB and TFE. There are great songs in these three albums, of course. But my perception tells me they already did better than these. They did mature again in Counterparts, VT and S & A. The band has always been chaging and maturing each decade; we can find great instrumental arrangements, vocals and lyrics in Rush music since 70's until nowadays. Their music always received new elements and the band does search for quality. But I agree in one thing: the albums would sound better without few tracks. QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2009, 05:58 PM)Why can't Rush simply do things the way I want them to do things???!! Goober... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fridge Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Personally I reckon they were outstanding up to and including HYF, then started to go off the boil with Presto (which is half a great album). Lets face it though, they have really been treading water for the past twenty years. We still get the odd good (even great) track, but the consistency of yore is long gone..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxtrice Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Interesting thread..I'm a young Rush fan and have since becoming one have been slowly working my way through the back catalog. Many of the posts here contain great points and then some point out songs as being "bad" that I actually enjoy. I would hypothesize that this has to do with age/generation and the kind of music we grew up with. I'm always surprised to find what others consider "bad" Rush; because most of the time it's a song I like. (i.e. High Water from HYF & Sweet Miracle from VT) I will say that in my own experience of discovering Rush; Hemispheres, PeW, MP, Signals & P/G are what I would consider brilliant. Presto, Counterparts and T4E have their moments and I have a special place for T4E because that was the first "new official Rush release" I was excited to get; instead of listening to the old material. I love the balls out rocking of the 70's stuff, but I also love the tight mulitlayered tracks of the 80's and into the 90's. Like PuppetKing 2112, my music taste are kind of all over the map too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaldad Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (Fridge @ Mar 17 2009, 06:58 PM) Lets face it though, they have really been treading water for the past twenty years. We still get the odd good (even great) track, but the consistency of yore is long gone..... you are correct sir................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCFIELDS Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (Fridge @ Mar 17 2009, 05:58 PM) Personally I reckon they were outstanding up to and including HYF, then started to go off the boil with Presto (which is half a great album). Lets face it though, they have really been treading water for the past twenty years. We still get the odd good (even great) track, but the consistency of yore is long gone..... Exactly how I think........Rush - HYF, with Presto being about half good. Ever since then it's been a downward spiral (minus VT, although I know you hate that one too lol)...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaldad Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Mar 17 2009, 07:49 PM) QUOTE (Fridge @ Mar 17 2009, 05:58 PM) Personally I reckon they were outstanding up to and including HYF, then started to go off the boil with Presto (which is half a great album). Lets face it though, they have really been treading water for the past twenty years. We still get the odd good (even great) track, but the consistency of yore is long gone..... Exactly how I think........Rush - HYF, with Presto being about half good. Ever since then it's been a downward spiral (minus VT, although I know you hate that one too lol)...... i really dig V.T. the rest after GUP, i can make my own retrospective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theredtamasrule Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I've often wondered about their inspiration or need to make a musical statement during the Presto & RTB years. The music, with notable exceptions, is pretty pedestrian for a band with the ability & talent of Rush. The feeling I get from those albums is one of guys going through the motions. Of course their "mailing it in", for lack of a better term, created Ghost of A Chance, The Pass and others that I love but for the most part a pretty bland and aimless period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weakly Criminal Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pags Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Whatever... they are almost 60 f***ing years old. Nobody their age in the business does what they do, either in the studio nor on stage. Not the Stones, not Led Zeppelin, not Genesis, not Yes, not Kiss, not Aerosmith... nobody. Why does every discussion have to be about now vs. then - then vs. now? How many people do you know who judge what you do today vs. when you were 20? And wouldn't you want to shove a brick down their throat if they did? Jeez Era wars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCFIELDS Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (Pags @ Mar 17 2009, 07:08 PM) Nobody their age in the business does what they do, either in the studio nor on stage. Not the Stones, not Led Zeppelin, not Genesis, not Yes, not Kiss, not Aerosmith... nobody. Priest and Iron Maiden are still going hard.......and what about Whitesnake? even though I disagree some say they are still rockin' hard.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaldad Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Mar 17 2009, 08:11 PM) QUOTE (Pags @ Mar 17 2009, 07:08 PM) Nobody their age in the business does what they do, either in the studio nor on stage. Not the Stones, not Led Zeppelin, not Genesis, not Yes, not Kiss, not Aerosmith... nobody. Priest and Iron Maiden are still going hard.......and what about Whitesnake? even though I disagree some say they are still rockin' hard.......... MAIDEN and PRIEST still kick ass...................... so does [live] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.