rushgoober Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Ok, instead of me bringing this up in several threads, I thought I'd put it here. This is from Neil's recent interview: QUOTE ... "I know that the mechanism that brought us up doesn't exist anymore," he says. "For instance, a perfect example of how reversed it is, in those days we made no money touring for a long time, even into the successful years. You counted on record sales and songwriting to make your living. And touring was a way to publicize that. Suddenly, in the last 10, 15 years all that turned around and our income is entirely from touring, and recording is an indulgence. In a band like Rush, no one's going to pay us to make a record. It's going to be an indulgence. Even Snakes & Arrows basically paid for itself and that's it, and if we want to make a living beyond that we have to go on the road and tour."... So now making an album is an indulgence? It ONLY pays for itself? Basically, he's outright saying that they're not doing it because it makes no money, and he'd rather do touring which does make money. Whatever happened to making new music because you're passionate about music, about being creative, about making something new, trying out new things, stretching your boundaries, etc.? It's not like they're losing money from a new album, and they still have the tour to add to their already great wealth. Am I the only one who thinks there's something seriously wrong with this picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 There's obviously a paradigm shift happening here and Neil isn't equipped to deal with it or simply doesn't want to deal with it. I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I like Snakes & Arrows and eagerly await its follow up. Hopefully it'll be a 35 minute EP, which, in the old days, was a LP. Who knows, this might not be that big of a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-D-RocK- Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 2 2010, 03:44 PM) Ok, instead of me bringing this up in several threads, I thought I'd put it here. This is from Neil's recent interview: QUOTE ... "I know that the mechanism that brought us up doesn't exist anymore," he says. "For instance, a perfect example of how reversed it is, in those days we made no money touring for a long time, even into the successful years. You counted on record sales and songwriting to make your living. And touring was a way to publicize that. Suddenly, in the last 10, 15 years all that turned around and our income is entirely from touring, and recording is an indulgence. In a band like Rush, no one's going to pay us to make a record. It's going to be an indulgence. Even Snakes & Arrows basically paid for itself and that's it, and if we want to make a living beyond that we have to go on the road and tour."... So now making an album is an indulgence? It ONLY pays for itself? Basically, he's outright saying that they're not doing it because it makes no money, and he'd rather do touring which does make money. Whatever happened to making new music because you're passionate about music, about being creative, about making something new, trying out new things, stretching your boundaries, etc.? It's not like they're losing money from a new album, and they still have the tour to add to their already great wealth. Am I the only one who thinks there's something seriously wrong with this picture? What Neil said makes perfect sense to me........... But what the hell do I know? I don't work in the music biz...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeaveMyThingAlone Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 A. He never said they're not making a new album, he was merely making an observation about the industry today (and he's right) B. They DID make Snakes and Arrows because they were passionate about making new music. They knew going into it it wasn't going to make money, but they made it anyway. Why? Because they wanted to make new music together! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Score Out Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 The way Rush works it takes almost a year and a half to make a new album. At their age and with their limited time until retirement I don't see anything wrong with an attitude that it makes more sense to devote a few months to touring and making millions than a year to making an album that makes nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 I understand they never said they weren't making a new album absolutely, but with a tour almost definitely looming this summer, they clearly don't have time to make a full album. And every interview seems to be them confirming over and over how making albums isn't where it's at these days. The chance of a new album at this point seems slim. If they truly do make a 35-minute EP, as ReRushed suggested, I'd be ecstatic - these 60 minute albums are way too padded anyway. I think it would be very optimistic to hope for that though. And then there's the element, as has been suggested, that they may only release MP3's ( ) as opposed to an actual album. Time will tell, and I seriously hope I'm wrong and that we do get a full album or a EP of decent length - one that I can hold in my hand that isn't a compressed file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeminiRising79 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Ffs, I don't care anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (Score Out @ Feb 2 2010, 02:55 PM) The way Rush works it takes almost a year and a half to make a new album. At their age and with their limited time until retirement I don't see anything wrong with an attitude that it makes more sense to devote a few months to touring and making millions than a year to making an album that makes nothing. I guess it's about priorities. Clearly making a lot of money on touring is much more important than making new music. At least they're being honest about it, but as a fan who wants new music from one of the very few current bands that I still care about, it kinda sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun3701 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I think at their age this is a step in the right direction. I'm sure they have plenty of good songs left in them, but let's face it they're way past their prime. I wouldn't mind if they just toured now and forgot about albums altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Feb 2 2010, 03:23 PM) I think at their age this is a step in the right direction. I'm sure they have plenty of good songs left in them, but let's face it they're way past their prime. I wouldn't mind if they just toured now and forgot about albums altogether. Not this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Score Out Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 2 2010, 05:04 PM) QUOTE (Score Out @ Feb 2 2010, 02:55 PM) The way Rush works it takes almost a year and a half to make a new album. At their age and with their limited time until retirement I don't see anything wrong with an attitude that it makes more sense to devote a few months to touring and making millions than a year to making an album that makes nothing. I guess it's about priorities. Clearly making a lot of money on touring is much more important than making new music. At least they're being honest about it, but as a fan who wants new music from one of the very few current bands that I still care about, it kinda sucks. I think it's naive to think that making money wasn't previously important to them. Money has always mattered in one form or another (it is a business after all), it's simply that the choices have always been a little more benign. I'm sure if albums made them millions and tours were a money-losing proposition all of a sudden, you'd rarely see them on the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (Score Out @ Feb 2 2010, 03:24 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 2 2010, 05:04 PM) QUOTE (Score Out @ Feb 2 2010, 02:55 PM) The way Rush works it takes almost a year and a half to make a new album. At their age and with their limited time until retirement I don't see anything wrong with an attitude that it makes more sense to devote a few months to touring and making millions than a year to making an album that makes nothing. I guess it's about priorities. Clearly making a lot of money on touring is much more important than making new music. At least they're being honest about it, but as a fan who wants new music from one of the very few current bands that I still care about, it kinda sucks. I think it's naive to think that making money wasn't previously important to them. Money has always mattered in one form or another (it is a business after all), it's simply that the choices have always been a little more benign. I'm sure if albums made them millions and tours were a money-losing proposition all of a sudden, you'd rarely see them on the road. I guess I was naive then, but with the quality of their material from 1974-1987, they must have also cared about their art as well. Or were they only trying hard to make great material because that would make them the most money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady April Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 My whole perception of Rush has been crushed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Score Out Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 2 2010, 05:30 PM) QUOTE (Score Out @ Feb 2 2010, 03:24 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 2 2010, 05:04 PM) QUOTE (Score Out @ Feb 2 2010, 02:55 PM) The way Rush works it takes almost a year and a half to make a new album. At their age and with their limited time until retirement I don't see anything wrong with an attitude that it makes more sense to devote a few months to touring and making millions than a year to making an album that makes nothing. I guess it's about priorities. Clearly making a lot of money on touring is much more important than making new music. At least they're being honest about it, but as a fan who wants new music from one of the very few current bands that I still care about, it kinda sucks. I think it's naive to think that making money wasn't previously important to them. Money has always mattered in one form or another (it is a business after all), it's simply that the choices have always been a little more benign. I'm sure if albums made them millions and tours were a money-losing proposition all of a sudden, you'd rarely see them on the road. I guess I was naive then, but with the quality of their material from 1974-1987, they must have also cared about their art as well. Or were they only trying hard to make great material because that would make them the most money? While you or I might think that older Rush songs are far superior to new material, the band definitely doesn't feel that way. As is evident from their comments and their setlist last tour, they feel that Snakes & Arrows is among the best 2 or 3 albums they've ever written. - And I think that's actually another source of this new perception from them. They think they wrote a masterpiece and it was their worst selling record ever so I'm sure they found that quite discouraging and are rationalizing that sales decline by pointing to the overall state of the music industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReflectedLight Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 at this point in their career they can do whatever they want. i don't care one way or the other as long as they give us something different to chew on for the tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (Score Out @ Feb 2 2010, 03:58 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 2 2010, 05:30 PM) QUOTE (Score Out @ Feb 2 2010, 03:24 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 2 2010, 05:04 PM) QUOTE (Score Out @ Feb 2 2010, 02:55 PM) The way Rush works it takes almost a year and a half to make a new album. At their age and with their limited time until retirement I don't see anything wrong with an attitude that it makes more sense to devote a few months to touring and making millions than a year to making an album that makes nothing. I guess it's about priorities. Clearly making a lot of money on touring is much more important than making new music. At least they're being honest about it, but as a fan who wants new music from one of the very few current bands that I still care about, it kinda sucks. I think it's naive to think that making money wasn't previously important to them. Money has always mattered in one form or another (it is a business after all), it's simply that the choices have always been a little more benign. I'm sure if albums made them millions and tours were a money-losing proposition all of a sudden, you'd rarely see them on the road. I guess I was naive then, but with the quality of their material from 1974-1987, they must have also cared about their art as well. Or were they only trying hard to make great material because that would make them the most money? While you or I might think that older Rush songs are far superior to new material, the band definitely doesn't feel that way. As is evident from their comments and their setlist last tour, they feel that Snakes & Arrows is among the best 2 or 3 albums they've ever written. - And I think that's actually another source of this new perception from them. They think they wrote a masterpiece and it was their worst selling record ever so I'm sure they found that quite discouraging and are rationalizing that sales decline by pointing to the overall state of the music industry. While I do love their 1974-1987 material the best, I still think they are capable of stellar material. The first three songs from S&A - Far Cry, Armor & Sword and Workin' Them Angels I thought were particularly impressive. And that's why I'm so disappointed in all the info that comes from interviews. If I really thought they were over the hill and incapable of creating great new material, I wouldn't care that they seem so disinterested in making any more. Bands like Yes and The Moody Blues tour endlessly without new material, and that's fine because we know from recent experience that they're creatively over the hill. For them it's better to tour than to continue to release sub-standard material. While Rush has had their share of sub-standard material in more recent times, they've also show that they're still capable of greatness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (ReflectedLight @ Feb 2 2010, 04:02 PM) at this point in their career they can do whatever they want. i don't care one way or the other as long as they give us something different to chew on for the tour. To me a Rush show is a Rush show - they play this song, they don't play that song - it really doesn't matter much to me. Seeing them is always great whether or not they play The Camera Eye, whether they open with TSOR or Far Cry, whether they play 2 songs or 5 songs from S&A. It makes very little difference to me. Speculating about what songs they'll play or won't play doesn't do it for me. The real excitement about this band for me is new albums. Without that, it's a golden oldies tour. Rush are better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godeater2112 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Feb 2 2010, 04:51 PM) A. He never said they're not making a new album, he was merely making an observation about the industry today (and he's right) B. They DID make Snakes and Arrows because they were passionate about making new music. They knew going into it it wasn't going to make money, but they made it anyway. Why? Because they wanted to make new music together! Good posting. Don't fly off the handle and criticize Neil for these comments, as a veteran world renowned rocker he is only discussing and making observations on the current state of the music industry. And what he says is entirely true for any band outside of the bigger top 40 releases. We'll see what they do drum up so far as new material goes, I'm not too worried and I find Neil's insight very interesting as it pertains to Rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya_Big_Tree Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Partypooper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppetKing2112 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 There are other ways to release music besides on an album. I download all my music at this point, so I'm completely okay with what it sounds like they're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weatherman2112 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Feb 2 2010, 05:23 PM) I think at their age this is a step in the right direction. I'm sure they have plenty of good songs left in them, but let's face it they're way past their prime. I wouldn't mind if they just toured now and forgot about albums altogether. Funny...As many times as I've seen them over the years, if I had to choose, I'd say just the opposite. I'd rather have more new music and no tour. My favorite parts of Rush tours has always been seeing them perform the new stuff. I've see all the old stuff plenty. Now, a tour with no new album but with older stuff that has never been played or hasn't been played in years? That would be VERY interesting to me. Same old, same old tour?...eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necromancer Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 At least they want to adapt to the times, which they've kinda always been about. They've embraced new technology from the beginning. I admire that. I remember my mom just couldn't stop using her rotary phone. She hated the idea of getting a push-button. I understood her craziness about it because she was old. Rush doesn't seem to want to get OLD, like some of their fans that just can't let the old ways die. Another thing, maybe they realize how much they kinda ripped us off with Snakes. It had two, MAYBE three halfway decent songs. Maybe they don't feel like ripping us off again, so doing songs as they are complete, and songs they LOVE, being released on the internet is the way to go. I'd be quite apolgetic to the fan base, and looking for an alternative to repeating that too. Bring on the downloads and tour your asses off guys. I'm right there with ya's. I gave up vinyl and 8tracks and reel to reel and cassettes ages ago. I'll have no problem with cd's either. Technology is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReflectedLight Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 but if they only release a few songs they'll be less for the fans to bitch about. that's not fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeminiRising79 Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 How the Rush guys envision us http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v661/spacegoon/FatNerd.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Feb 2 2010, 07:54 PM) How the Rush guys envision us http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v661/spacegoon/FatNerd.jpg http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee138/ReRushed/nerd-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.