The strong possibility of no new album

[shaun3701]

QUOTE (druid13 @ Feb 3 2010, 03:53 PM)

you could have said the same thing even as early as the 70's.....in fact read some old interviews and you will hear Rush talking about Capitalism. Not that they did not belive in the stuff...or love the stuff....but honestly anyone who thinks they did not want to be successful is kidding themselves a bit.

exactly... do you really think they would have made ANY albums if they weren't making money?

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (druid13 @ Feb 3 2010, 01:53 PM)

you could have said the same thing even as early as the 70's.....in fact read some old interviews and you will hear Rush talking about Capitalism. Not that they did not belive in the stuff...or love the stuff....but honestly anyone who thinks they did not want to be successful is kidding themselves a bit.

The thing that makes it hard to see something like this is I always seem to remember Rush not doing things the easy way. I always got the feeling that they could have written top ten singles if they really wanted to, but they always seemed to stay true to what they wanted to do regardless of what would be the obvious purely financially motivated thing to do.

 

After the mammoth success of Moving Pictures, they didn't make Moving Pictures 2, but went in an entirely different direction. They didn't play the games that most bands play to get them more mainstream exposure and acceptance, and they could have. They always seemed to have artistic integrity. Aren't they known for that? Isn't that one of the things that us fans have always loved about them?

 

It's hard to believe it's always been all about the money and success. In more recent times, however, it seems to be more about the money than perhaps it once was. I don't know...

[Tarkus406]

QUOTE (PuppetKing2112 @ Feb 2 2010, 06:45 PM)

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.

Well, I think you're getting ripped off if you pay for zeros and ones.

 

And it just wouldn't be the same at all. What do you have to show for it? "Yeah I own all the Rush albums, even this burned Memorex disc of their newest stuff I had to download"

 

Oh, and when they play the new song "this if off our.....internet downloads...album?...no i guess you couldnt call that an album....oh well this a song"

 

pfsh

[youngoldman]

IMHO, it wouldn't be necessary for them to tour in support of a new LP, since they've got soooooo much material to choose from already.

 

I just like to see them live and have been fortunate enough to see them in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 5 times this decade. They were my second live show. (Boston was first, with Sammy Hagar opening. Boston was pretty damn good, but Sammy & Co. blew 'em off the stage). I saw them in Columbia, SC ( Head East opened) on the Tour of the Hemispheres, yeah, I know , fu**in' A, man! Anyway, I had only been turned on to them about 2 weeks before the show but I KNEW this was something special after lots of listening to "Hemispheres" and "...Kings", and of course, "2112"(on a cassette, no less). I can almost still smell the...

 

Sorry about getting carried away but sometimes we need to remember why we all love this incredible band and the awesome music and lyrics so much.

 

And to all of you good people who share this common bond and are able to come to a community where you can meet new friends from all corners of the earth. Yes, we seem to be spread out a bit, but with our common interest in Rush we may as well be neighbors.

 

I will always be one of the band's most loyal fans, and I'll go to catch them live as long as they tour, and to me, it doesn't matter what they play. I do, however think it would be too cool to play or open with Zeppelin's "Good Times, Bad Times". Letting Alex have some lone "shread" time would be nice, too.

 

Thank you...

[ReflectedLight]

QUOTE (youngoldman @ Feb 3 2010, 05:15 PM)

IMHO, it wouldn't be necessary for them to tour in support of a new LP, since they've got soooooo much material to choose from already. I just like to see them live and have been fortunate enough to see them in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 5 times this decade. They were my second live show. (Boston was first, with Sammy Hagar opening. Boston was pretty damn good, but Sammy & Co. blew 'em off the stage). I saw them in Columbia, SC ( Head East opened) on the Tour of the Hemispheres, yeah, I know , fu**in' A, man! Anyway, I had only been turned on to them about 2 weeks before the show but I KNEW this was something special after lots of listening to "Hemispheres" and "...Kings", and of course, "2112"(on a cassette, no less). I can almost still smell the... Sorry about getting carried away but sometimes we need to remember why we all love this incredible band and the awesome music and lyrics so much. And to all of you good people who share this common bond and are able to come to a community where you can meet new friends from all corners of the earth. Yes, we seem to be spread out a bit, but with our common interest in Rush we may as well be neighbors. I will always be one of the band's most loyal fans, and I'll go to catch them live as long as they tour, and to me, it doesn't matter what they play. I do, however think it would be too cool to play or open with Zeppelin's "Good Times, Bad Times". Letting Alex have some lone "shread" time would be nice, too. Thank you...

you're a lucky fan to see them in every decade they've been around, but good times bad times? even though it's a good song, hell no!

[shaun3701]

they could always do "Feedback II" and throw some Zeppelin on there lol

[Lady April]

QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Feb 3 2010, 05:40 PM)

they could always do "Feedback II" and throw some Zeppelin on there lol

please God no...

[Mandalorian Hunter]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 3 2010, 04:14 PM)

QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ Feb 3 2010, 08:59 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 3 2010, 03:28 PM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ Feb 3 2010, 08:21 AM) The infuriating part is the older fans don't seem to realise if we get 8 tracks as downloads, say, one a week, it's exactly the same as having an album except the fans don't have to wait months for the printing, pressing and advertising. We get the same amount music, just even quicker if they record, master, mix and release. If the touring schedule isn't as heavy we could new material in between legs if they did it that way. I don't want to use the term 'Stuck in their ways', but it's ridiculous to dismiss a model that's advantageous to the band and the fans so quickly without it being tried. Being one of the "older fans" you're referring to ( ), if they did it that way, it would be a LOT better than nothing at all for sure.   I am stuck in the old ways though when an album was an album, meaning it was a statement and a work of art as a whole, as opposed to just a collection of songs. In this world of MP3's, iTunes and shuffle, often the idea of an album as a cohesive work is lost.   For example, I recently lent 4 of my favorite Rush albums to a friend who then ripped them to his computer. I asked him later on what he thought of 2112 and Permanent Waves, and he had no idea what I was talking about. He likes a lot of the songs that he listens to when they came up on shuffle, but he had no context for the songs. If that's the way he chooses to listen, that's fine, but I think something is truly lost that can never be regained.   And in terms of waiting months for them to do "the printing, pressing and advertising," as opposed to getting the songs one at a time via download, I would much rather wait and get the whole package for the reasons I described above. I've had discussions about this with people my own age and of different ages. I'd have to say, if it isn't a concept album or the music doesn't link together I can go with seperate releases because the album as a format will die if it's just a collection of songs thrown onto a disc. For example, I don't think a Rush records structure has particularly mattered since Hold Your Fire. S&A certainly wasn't conceptual, and that bollocks about it being thematically linked is just that, bollocks. It could have been released as standalone tracks, as could Vapor Trails, Test For Echo, Counterparts and maybe Roll The Bones and Presto. To go back to your use of context, the aforementioned albums have got nothing on Fly By Night through to Hold Your Fire where you really did need to listen to the album as a whole. And this is the problem; bands are no longer seeing the album as a cohesive work of art but still sticking to the old model.   That being said, Rush could still release a song a week, and all those songs would make up an album. It would just be like watching a TV show. And throughout that they could announce tour details, tickets while still building up to the last few songs which would increase exposure, thus making the recording more than pay for itself, giving them mroe money to spend on the boxset with making-of dvd's which would inevitably come. Nevermind the possibilties of the itunes LP, and the other format I can't remember, which has interactive artwork, videos, extras etc etc.   My point is, if they're going to record to something that is a cohesive work, that is conceptually, thematically or musically linked then they should take their time with it. If it isn't, and the idea of giving us tracks every so often excites the band to the point the music is better (which it should be if they're devoting their time to one song as a standalone i.e. it has to carry itself) then give us the tracks as and when! We'll get 13 awesome songs and a great tour. Individual albums convey a mood, and even if the songs aren't linked thematically, it's still a statement of what an artist or group was thinking and expressing creatively during a window of time. Also, unless an artist just doesn't care at all, track sequencing is very important (even in a greatest hits collection) for flow and balance. Even the artwork helps convey a mood and context for the overall experience.   I hear what you're saying. S&A might not have the conceptual identity that say Signals or Hemispheres has, but it does have some. This is especially true for a writer like Neil Peart who really expresses his opinions and thoughts on life as they change over time.   S&A has its own identity without a doubt, and those listening to it for the first time in 2010 or 2020 or 2030 will not look at it merely as a collection of songs, but also as a unified whole. It's inevitable when you hold a product in your hands and listen to the songs in order the way the artist chose to release it. If you never hear it that way and only listen to the songs in random order one at a time on shuffle mixed in with other stuff, there is something that just won't be conveyed. Surely though, if a band records the songs in the same sessions that still conveys a mood, or gives an insight into where the band were at that particular time? Even if they released them sporadically, if the songs were recorded in the same studio, the lyrics were written in the same room or in the same frame of mind by the writer, wouldn't that be exactly the same as an album?

[ReflectedLight]

guys if you're listening, do whatever the hell you want with new material.

some will like it and some will hate it. can't please em all. all i ask is a major shakeup with the setlist and replace the chicken's on the rotisserie's with baby back ribs.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 3 2010, 11:48 AM)

QUOTE (softfilter @ Feb 3 2010, 11:36 AM)   Of course it's indulgence to make new music, it's what they enjoy doing. Haven't they earned the right, and enough money, to "indulge" if that's what they enjoy doing? And another thing - they mention that they pretty much break even with an album. What about making an album in one of the many off years when they're not doing anything anyway? All of the sudden it's like they're ready to do something and it has to be one or the other, so touring wins? Why couldn't they have been working on an album this past year if they enjoy it so much?   Does not compute.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ Feb 3 2010, 04:02 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 3 2010, 04:14 PM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ Feb 3 2010, 08:59 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 3 2010, 03:28 PM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ Feb 3 2010, 08:21 AM) The infuriating part is the older fans don't seem to realise if we get 8 tracks as downloads, say, one a week, it's exactly the same as having an album except the fans don't have to wait months for the printing, pressing and advertising. We get the same amount music, just even quicker if they record, master, mix and release. If the touring schedule isn't as heavy we could new material in between legs if they did it that way. I don't want to use the term 'Stuck in their ways', but it's ridiculous to dismiss a model that's advantageous to the band and the fans so quickly without it being tried. Being one of the "older fans" you're referring to ( ), if they did it that way, it would be a LOT better than nothing at all for sure.   I am stuck in the old ways though when an album was an album, meaning it was a statement and a work of art as a whole, as opposed to just a collection of songs. In this world of MP3's, iTunes and shuffle, often the idea of an album as a cohesive work is lost.   For example, I recently lent 4 of my favorite Rush albums to a friend who then ripped them to his computer. I asked him later on what he thought of 2112 and Permanent Waves, and he had no idea what I was talking about. He likes a lot of the songs that he listens to when they came up on shuffle, but he had no context for the songs. If that's the way he chooses to listen, that's fine, but I think something is truly lost that can never be regained.   And in terms of waiting months for them to do "the printing, pressing and advertising," as opposed to getting the songs one at a time via download, I would much rather wait and get the whole package for the reasons I described above. I've had discussions about this with people my own age and of different ages. I'd have to say, if it isn't a concept album or the music doesn't link together I can go with seperate releases because the album as a format will die if it's just a collection of songs thrown onto a disc. For example, I don't think a Rush records structure has particularly mattered since Hold Your Fire. S&A certainly wasn't conceptual, and that bollocks about it being thematically linked is just that, bollocks. It could have been released as standalone tracks, as could Vapor Trails, Test For Echo, Counterparts and maybe Roll The Bones and Presto. To go back to your use of context, the aforementioned albums have got nothing on Fly By Night through to Hold Your Fire where you really did need to listen to the album as a whole. And this is the problem; bands are no longer seeing the album as a cohesive work of art but still sticking to the old model.   That being said, Rush could still release a song a week, and all those songs would make up an album. It would just be like watching a TV show. And throughout that they could announce tour details, tickets while still building up to the last few songs which would increase exposure, thus making the recording more than pay for itself, giving them mroe money to spend on the boxset with making-of dvd's which would inevitably come. Nevermind the possibilties of the itunes LP, and the other format I can't remember, which has interactive artwork, videos, extras etc etc.   My point is, if they're going to record to something that is a cohesive work, that is conceptually, thematically or musically linked then they should take their time with it. If it isn't, and the idea of giving us tracks every so often excites the band to the point the music is better (which it should be if they're devoting their time to one song as a standalone i.e. it has to carry itself) then give us the tracks as and when! We'll get 13 awesome songs and a great tour. Individual albums convey a mood, and even if the songs aren't linked thematically, it's still a statement of what an artist or group was thinking and expressing creatively during a window of time. Also, unless an artist just doesn't care at all, track sequencing is very important (even in a greatest hits collection) for flow and balance. Even the artwork helps convey a mood and context for the overall experience.   I hear what you're saying. S&A might not have the conceptual identity that say Signals or Hemispheres has, but it does have some. This is especially true for a writer like Neil Peart who really expresses his opinions and thoughts on life as they change over time.   S&A has its own identity without a doubt, and those listening to it for the first time in 2010 or 2020 or 2030 will not look at it merely as a collection of songs, but also as a unified whole. It's inevitable when you hold a product in your hands and listen to the songs in order the way the artist chose to release it. If you never hear it that way and only listen to the songs in random order one at a time on shuffle mixed in with other stuff, there is something that just won't be conveyed. Surely though, if a band records the songs in the same sessions that still conveys a mood, or gives an insight into where the band were at that particular time? Even if they released them sporadically, if the songs were recorded in the same studio, the lyrics were written in the same room or in the same frame of mind by the writer, wouldn't that be exactly the same as an album? If they're all written at the same time in the same sessions, etc. - why not just release an album? I understand what you're trying to say, but I still think it's not the same thing. If it's between that and nothing, it's better than nothing, but it's just not the same as an album IMHO...

[Tick]

Neil was just thinking out load. There will be another Rush album. I actually downloaded my first album recently which was the latest Porcupine Tree, but I much prefer to buy a CD. I know change is inevitable but I think Rush will give us a new album instead of any alternative.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (tick @ Feb 3 2010, 05:40 PM)

Neil was just thinking out load. There will be another Rush album.

IDK, Alex has been "thinking out loud" along the same lines. They know people pay attention when they say things like that and run with it, so I'm suspecting they aren't just saying it as passing thoughts.

 

Then again, I would LOVE to be wrong and have them release an album the way they always have.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Feb 3 2010, 04:06 PM)

QUOTE (druid13 @ Feb 3 2010, 03:53 PM) you could have said the same thing even as early as the 70's.....in fact read some old interviews and you will hear Rush talking about Capitalism. Not that they did not belive in the stuff...or love the stuff....but honestly anyone who thinks they did not want to be successful is kidding themselves a bit. exactly... do you really think they would have made ANY albums if they weren't making money? Were you attacked in the past by a posse of album covers, and trussed up like a turkey then tarred and feathered and humiliated, all under the ministrations of a Pink Floyd The Wall picture disc???

[Tarkus406]

CDs and LPs are collectors items, in a way. When you look back at your Rush collection years from now, do you want to see complete albums with the covers and jackets and labels and whatnot?

 

Or do you want a collection of real albums and a memory stick labelled "Rush songs - 2010"

 

I know some of you dont give a crap but some of the rest of us do!

[librarian]

I think if they were done, they would have said it already. So I shall not worry another second about it!

 

 

[trenken]

Im not sure he's saying there's a possibility of no album. He has mentioned the EP thing as being a tempting option for them at this point. Less time in the studio, less money to spend making it, then just tour and rake in the cash.

 

He's merely stating the fact that they dont sell nearly enough albums anymore to actually make a profit on that step of the process, mostly due to the digital age. People arent buying full albums anymore, they're buying the songs they like in itunes. So if Rush can only sell 500k albums, there's no profit there for them.

 

They only make albums because they like doing it. Neil has said its the only part of the process he still enjoys. So I think they'll still write music, but at what capacity is unknown.

[RUSHHEAD666]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Feb 3 2010, 06:11 PM)

QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Feb 3 2010, 04:06 PM) QUOTE (druid13 @ Feb 3 2010, 03:53 PM) you could have said the same thing even as early as the 70's.....in fact read some old interviews and you will hear Rush talking about Capitalism. Not that they did not belive in the stuff...or love the stuff....but honestly anyone who thinks they did not want to be successful is kidding themselves a bit. exactly... do you really think they would have made ANY albums if they weren't making money? Were you attacked in the past by a posse of album covers, and trussed up like a turkey then tarred and feathered and humiliated, all under the ministrations of a Pink Floyd The Wall picture disc???

[rushgoober]

As a general statement, man, if a group can sell 500,000 copies of an album, or even 300,000 copies and not make any money, that's a sad, sad state of affairs for up and coming talented groups trying to make it today. In the past, a group selling 500,000 albums was a huge measure of success.

 

It sounds like the only shot new groups have is touring relentlessly with the hope of building up an audience, or being so commercial that they'll get enough exposure to crack the market. Sad.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 3 2010, 09:34 PM)

It sounds like the only shot new groups have is touring relentlessly with the hope of building up an audience, or being so commercial that they'll get enough exposure to crack the market. Sad.

This is how it's always been!

[trenken]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 3 2010, 09:34 PM)

As a general statement, man, if a group can sell 500,000 copies of an album, or even 300,000 copies and not make any money, that's a sad, sad state of affairs for up and coming talented groups trying to make it today. In the past, a group selling 500,000 albums was a huge measure of success. It sounds like the only shot new groups have is touring relentlessly with the hope of building up an audience, or being so commercial that they'll get enough exposure to crack the market. Sad.

Well I think S&A sold somewhere under 500k, and Neil said himself they only made enough off it to pay for the recording. They didnt make any money off it, that all comes from touring.

 

I remember an old interview with the R&B group TLC. Their album crazy sexy cool sold like 10 million copies, and each of the 3 members made 50 grand off it, 150k profit on 10 million album sales. Rush gets no money on 500k sales. I always remembered that because I was very surprised about it. They said they made all their money on touring, and this was probably 15 years ago now. So even then you just could not make money on album sales.

 

You only made albums because you loved it, and needed something to tour on. It was all just about the tour and Neil is just confirming that. The difference with Rush is they dont need new music to tour, people will go see them either way.

[Score Out]

I think there will be an album - probably in 2011 - but certainly not before this summer's tour. The plan seems to be to record a few songs in time for the tour and then go back and do more for a complete album later on. 100% there won't be an album out when they hit the road.

[quantex]

Dream on...its over after this year!

[Earthshine]

I think it is Neil who does not want to record and does not want to tour. I have the feeling that Alex and Geddy are always raring to go and have to drag Neil to writing sessions, rehearsals, recording sessions to the tour bus and ultimately to the stage.

 

If this is all too much of a burden to Neil, he needs to leave and let Alex and Geddy get on with things. Enough is enough. There are other drummers out there who they could play with. It won't be Rush but it will be great. Guaranteed!

[softfilter]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 3 2010, 07:32 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 3 2010, 11:48 AM) QUOTE (softfilter @ Feb 3 2010, 11:36 AM)   Of course it's indulgence to make new music, it's what they enjoy doing. Haven't they earned the right, and enough money, to "indulge" if that's what they enjoy doing? And another thing - they mention that they pretty much break even with an album. What about making an album in one of the many off years when they're not doing anything anyway? All of the sudden it's like they're ready to do something and it has to be one or the other, so touring wins? Why couldn't they have been working on an album this past year if they enjoy it so much?   Does not compute. Why do they have to schedule a time table and appropriate order based on fans demands?