OFFICIAL Caravan and BU2B reaction thread

[trenken]

QUOTE (PariahDog @ Jun 3 2010, 01:18 AM)

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Jun 3 2010, 12:09 AM) IMO, if the music is twisted and disjointed, doesn't it make sense that the vocal part might have to be, too? It's possible Geddy wrote the vocal part that way to match the edgy mood of the song instead of trying to make it catchy. Besides, I imagine it'd be pretty tough to write a lovely and singable melody over such a weird piece of music. Yeah, I don't know what you could possibly sing over that pre-chorus ("caravan thunders onward") section that would flow any better. That riff is seriously twisted, and as it is I can't see how Geddy will pull off singing and playing that part live. I dont think that part is as complex as you're thinking it is. It's just a straight forward bass run, its the drums that make it sound weird, not what Geddy and Alex are doing. I think it will be very easy for him to sing over that live.

[SpiritOfRush]

Well, after listening to these songs numerous more times yesterday, I can honestly say...I really, really like BU2B (especially the chorus which I found myself singing while shaving this morning...scary, I know).

 

With more listens however, Caravan is just not doing it for me. It sounds so forced and unorganized. There are parts that are good, but overall, very forgetable tune. I also can't get passed the constant repetition of "I can't stop thinking big...".

[H. P. L.]

Well, I might be missing two or three posts here and there of reactions, but I've tried my best to read the whole thread since my last post, down there in page 9 or whatever...

I'm going to let the songs rest for a while and come back to them in a day or two.

Meanwhile, I find extremely interesting that almost everyone is finding references to some of their favourite Rush moments in these. It goes from La Villa to VT (like I do) to Spindrift. I might have missed someone who claims to hear some Working Man in there, but the point is: everyone finds in the new material something that goes back to what they love.

Like Rush are able to put most of their career in a 5 minutes piece of music. Or it might be wishful thinking, of course. Nothing wrong with that.

But like ol' Mr Spock would say, I find that fascinating.

[trenken]

QUOTE (SpiritOfRush @ Jun 3 2010, 09:25 AM)

Well, after listening to these songs numerous more times yesterday, I can honestly say...I really, really like BU2B (especially the chorus which I found myself singing while shaving this morning...scary, I know). With more listens however, Caravan is just not doing it for me. It sounds so forced and unorganized. There are parts that are good, but overall, very forgetable tune. I also can't get passed the constant repetition of "I can't stop thinking big...".

Totally with you there. I like BU2B a lot, Caravan sound so bad to me though. Its just a mess lyrically, structurally, nothing that sounds catchy to me in it, really putrid sounding chord progression in chorus, hate it.

 

BU2B is much more inviting and easy to listen to, it just flows like a normal Rush song, I dont know what the hell they were trying to do with caravan. They're trying to sound modern and edgy, not working out too well there.

[tangy]

i really like both songs but do not see them as radical departure from S&A.

 

Whats the freshest sound in these songs?

 

Is there any new ground broken here?

 

 

[theredtamasrule]

QUOTE (tangy @ Jun 3 2010, 09:32 AM)

i really like both songs but do not see them as radical departure from S&A. Whats the freshest sound in these songs? Is there any new ground broken here?

I don't thnk it's so much a departure from S&A as it is an extension or improvement upon musical ideas, overall sound, etc. that they began developing with VT.

 

The improvements, for me, are the tempos, Neil's busier, an actual jam & no Geddy choirs.

 

I don't know what ground they can break at this point.

[templejanitor]

I haven't played the new songs more than once or twice a day, but I've gotten alot from them. It has always taken many listenings to digest their music properly. I don't jam it in to my brain in one day.

 

I think the boys have jumped into a time machine and gone back to the beginning, where the world was Toronto and they had big dreams.

 

The instrumental section of Caravan seems to be a medley of older bits done as they might do them if they were written today. Newer technology, better musicianship. But as everybody has noticed, there are lots of older bits in there.

 

The Caravan - is you and me and all of us who have followed them for 36 years and I think they're trying to thanks us for our support.

 

But I also think it's the beginning of the end.

 

I think the Time Machine album will celebrate their time with us for all these years and everything will come to an end after the tour next year.

 

I thank the boys for their participation in my life and hope I am wrong.

 

 

[H. P. L.]

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 04:51 PM)

I don't know what ground they can break at this point.

Geddy choirs with unusual tempos?

[tangy]

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 09:51 AM)

QUOTE (tangy @ Jun 3 2010, 09:32 AM) i really like both songs but do not see them as radical departure from S&A. Whats the freshest sound in these songs? Is there any new ground broken here? I don't thnk it's so much a departure from S&A as it is an extension or improvement upon musical ideas, overall sound, etc. that they began developing with VT.   The improvements, for me, are the tempos, Neil's busier, an actual jam & no Geddy choirs.   I don't know what ground they can break at this point. I agree with everything you just said, in particular the part of neil being busier.   It seems to me that there are a number of people here who disliked S&A but like the new music. That puzzles me?

[tangy]

QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Jun 3 2010, 09:53 AM)

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 04:51 PM) I don't know what ground they can break at this point. Geddy choirs with unusual tempos? I am hoping for some cookie monster growls from Ged!   I would die laughing!

[theredtamasrule]

QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Jun 3 2010, 09:53 AM)

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 04:51 PM) I don't know what ground they can break at this point. Geddy choirs with unusual tempos? The Geddy Lee Chorale Experience presents an a cappella Rush retrospective?

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 10:51 AM)

QUOTE (tangy @ Jun 3 2010, 09:32 AM) i really like both songs but do not see them as radical departure from S&A. Whats the freshest sound in these songs? Is there any new ground broken here? I don't thnk it's so much a departure from S&A as it is an extension or improvement upon musical ideas, overall sound, etc. that they began developing with VT.   The improvements, for me, are the tempos, Neil's busier, an actual jam & no Geddy choirs.   I don't know what ground they can break at this point. Another obvious difference from S&A is the lack of acoustic guitars. It was obvious that the last album was written on acoustics, and it's also obvious these new songs weren't. And what we get is a heavier sound and more riffing as opposed to fitting everything around mid-tempo strumming.

[theredtamasrule]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Jun 3 2010, 10:08 AM)

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 10:51 AM) QUOTE (tangy @ Jun 3 2010, 09:32 AM) i really like both songs but do not see them as radical departure from S&A. Whats the freshest sound in these songs? Is there any new ground broken here? I don't thnk it's so much a departure from S&A as it is an extension or improvement upon musical ideas, overall sound, etc. that they began developing with VT.   The improvements, for me, are the tempos, Neil's busier, an actual jam & no Geddy choirs.   I don't know what ground they can break at this point. Another obvious difference from S&A is the lack of acoustic guitars. It was obvious that the last album was written on acoustics, and it's also obvious these new songs weren't. And what we get is a heavier sound and more riffing as opposed to fitting everything around mid-tempo strumming. I can see that. Hopefully the folky aspects they started introducing in T4E (Alex used a mandola I think) and continued on S&A are over until they're 70 when they do "Rush Unplugged" or "Rush on Hee Haw".

[H. P. L.]

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 05:00 PM)

QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Jun 3 2010, 09:53 AM) QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 04:51 PM) I don't know what ground they can break at this point. Geddy choirs with unusual tempos? The Geddy Lee Chorale Experience presents an a cappella Rush retrospective? With some Carmina Burana casually thrown in, to keep it classy.

[Todem]

QUOTE (tangy @ Jun 3 2010, 09:32 AM)

i really like both songs but do not see them as radical departure from S&A. Whats the freshest sound in these songs? Is there any new ground broken here?

Breaking new ground? I think Rush stopped doing that after Roll the Bones.

 

What started with Presto and ended with Roll the Bones was the most commercially accessable Rush music. Roll the Bones was one of their best selling albums and drew in a younger generation of fans. They had some ground breaking tunes for what they were known for doing in songs like Bravado, Roll The Bones, Ghost of a Chance and to the dismay of some Rush fans songs like Heresy, and You Bet Your Life....those were a radical departure for Rush whether you liked those songs or not.

 

With Counterparts and going forward they went back to the roots of Guitar, Bass and Drums and a beefed up sound. The breaking new ground was so evident between 77 and 91. Each 4 album cycle had it's beginning and end. But in the 4 Album cycle of Presto, Roll the Bones, Counterparts and Test For Echo I think things came to a head with the Counterparts sessions. I remember reading quotes from the band about heated tension between Alex and Geddy , with Geddy wanting to continue the pop rock direction (with their great playing of course) they began on Presto and Alex wanting to get back to guitar driven songs. Also Neil was so bored he re-learned how to drum for Test For Echo as the Work in Progress DVD points out. Neils reached a point where he could not do anymore than he already had. He reached a peak and needed something else to climb.

 

 

So as far as ground breaking....I really never expected Rush to break new ground unless they did another 180 and went in a totally different direction. There is only so much you can do in Rock music. I think Rush has really been reborn starting with Snakes and Arrows. They really have gone back to the prog formula first....then the pop sensibility second. Where as during the Presto - T4E period it was a battle. With Geddy really getting what he wanted on the Presto and RTB and Alex cutting through on the last two efforts with CP and T4E.

 

Think about it....I always viewed Rush as Prog first and foremost. And their best albums have a perfect mix of the 2 elements they always tried for.

 

Permanent Waves

Moving Pictures

 

Those 2 albums are the trademark of the very best of Rush. You have songs that jam have great time changes and solo's and you also have some great compact songs that rock but also have a great pop sensibility to them.

 

Signals was the big culture shift and a ground breaking album for them IMO. And we know the rest of the cycle that culminated with Hold Your Fire.

 

So fast forward to 2002. We were so blessed they regrouped and gave us a new album. With Vapor Trails we heard an attempt to really try new things recording wise with layers and layers of guitars and some bass.....it did not work sonically. But we did get some serious gems off that album. Snakes and Arrows was the first album IMO since Moving Pictures that we got the core trio back playing epic big songs with some great jams.

 

But what about now?

 

They have improved (at least on these 2 songs...we have 10 more to hear next year) what they stared with Snakes...a return to their prog roots. Jams first.....hooks second.

 

 

This is the Rush I love most. So any fan who loved the true golden period of 77-82 the most (and I think this is many of us) should be thrilled that Rush are jamming again with such drive and force and are letting the instruments do all the talking. These 2 new songs are a pleasant suprise and a return to the essence of what they really are.

 

 

A POWER TRIO.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Todem

[templejanitor]

And for BU2B -

 

Brought up to Believe - you can do anything you want.

 

And they certainly have, and I believe in their desire to do whatever they want.

 

And I believe in their ability to keep us entertained and inquisitive as to the real meaning to their music. That's why we discuss it here.

 

I think it's alot simpler than most of us say here.

 

I don't think they have anything to prove to anybody else but themselves, and I appreciate their ability to push the outside of the envelope.

 

All their music means something to me, and I believe in their ability to make me think about it. I have many albums I call favorites, but none that I really don't care to ever listen to again.

 

RUSH music has set a mood for my life for over 30 years. It is a respect I will carry forever.

 

 

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 09:51 AM)

QUOTE (tangy @ Jun 3 2010, 09:32 AM) i really like both songs but do not see them as radical departure from S&A. Whats the freshest sound in these songs? Is there any new ground broken here? I don't thnk it's so much a departure from S&A as it is an extension or improvement upon musical ideas, overall sound, etc. that they began developing with VT.   The improvements, for me, are the tempos, Neil's busier, an actual jam & no Geddy choirs.   I don't know what ground they can break at this point. Honestly when did they last break ground??   But I agree with this. More than treading new avenues they're perhaps shedding certain features (the vocals) and dressing in some other aspects of their music again for the first time in while (jammy; keyboard flourishes for color).   I think this is why the album reminds me a bit of T4E because it's been since then that we really last heard some of these things. VT was a good tempo and "heavy" but the keys were gone, the ooh-ahh vocal coloring had arrived. S&A was far more lush (w/acoustics EVERYWHERE) and the tempo was back down, etc.   You have to go back to T4E and CP to find Rush sounding this way...(although you do hear bits of VT and S&A; that's inevitable).

[tangy]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Jun 3 2010, 10:08 AM)

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 10:51 AM) QUOTE (tangy @ Jun 3 2010, 09:32 AM) i really like both songs but do not see them as radical departure from S&A. Whats the freshest sound in these songs? Is there any new ground broken here? I don't thnk it's so much a departure from S&A as it is an extension or improvement upon musical ideas, overall sound, etc. that they began developing with VT.   The improvements, for me, are the tempos, Neil's busier, an actual jam & no Geddy choirs.   I don't know what ground they can break at this point. Another obvious difference from S&A is the lack of acoustic guitars. It was obvious that the last album was written on acoustics, and it's also obvious these new songs weren't. And what we get is a heavier sound and more riffing as opposed to fitting everything around mid-tempo strumming. thats a great point. it will be interesting to see if any acoustic guitars show up on the other songs.   Alex playing keys is something that has not happened in a long while either.

[tangy]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 3 2010, 10:27 AM)

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 09:51 AM) QUOTE (tangy @ Jun 3 2010, 09:32 AM) i really like both songs but do not see them as radical departure from S&A. Whats the freshest sound in these songs? Is there any new ground broken here? I don't thnk it's so much a departure from S&A as it is an extension or improvement upon musical ideas, overall sound, etc. that they began developing with VT.   The improvements, for me, are the tempos, Neil's busier, an actual jam & no Geddy choirs.   I don't know what ground they can break at this point. Honestly when did they last break ground??   But I agree with this. More than treading new avenues they're perhaps shedding certain features (the vocals) and dressing in some other aspects of their music again for the first time in while (jammy; keyboard flourishes for color).   I think this is why the album reminds me a bit of T4E because it's been since then that we really last heard some of these things. VT was a good tempo and "heavy" but the keys were gone, the ooh-ahh vocal coloring had arrived. S&A was far more lush (w/acoustics EVERYWHERE) and the tempo was back down, etc.   You have to go back to T4E and CP to find Rush sounding this way...(although you do hear bits of VT and S&A; that's inevitable). the rap in roll the bones? that was new ground.   to me the biggest change in sounds between discs is that of signals to grace under pressure.

[trenken]

Its hard for me to look at Rush as a ground breaking band at all. They're a band who has had a lot of success, are very good at what they do, have influenced many, but ground breaking? Im not so sure about that.

 

You look at a band they influenced, Metallica. They broke new ground in music, they basically sparked a new genre in music itself, and really popularized it, Rush never did anything like that, and I think thats the sole reason Metallica beat Rush into the HoF. Their impact has been far greater than Rush's.

 

Rush has always been an adventurous band, willing to try new styles, and often succeeding at that, but they dont actually do anything new, they just sort of follow whats going on around them. In the 70s they did prog like other bands did before them, in the 80s they start the synth rock, which they were not the first to do, in the 90s more grungy, after bands like Nirvana were already doing it.

 

They've broken new ground for themselves, but not in music itself, if thats what we're talking about.

Edited June 3, 2010 by trenken

[tangy]

QUOTE (Todem @ Jun 3 2010, 10:22 AM)

This is the Rush I love most. So any fan who loved the true golden period of 77-82 the most (and I think this is many of us) should be thrilled that Rush are jamming again with such drive and force and are letting the instruments do all the talking. These 2 new songs are a pleasant suprise and a return to the essence of what they really are. A POWER TRIO.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (tangy @ Jun 3 2010, 10:31 AM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 3 2010, 10:27 AM) QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Jun 3 2010, 09:51 AM) QUOTE (tangy @ Jun 3 2010, 09:32 AM) i really like both songs but do not see them as radical departure from S&A. Whats the freshest sound in these songs? Is there any new ground broken here? I don't thnk it's so much a departure from S&A as it is an extension or improvement upon musical ideas, overall sound, etc. that they began developing with VT.   The improvements, for me, are the tempos, Neil's busier, an actual jam & no Geddy choirs.   I don't know what ground they can break at this point. Honestly when did they last break ground??   But I agree with this. More than treading new avenues they're perhaps shedding certain features (the vocals) and dressing in some other aspects of their music again for the first time in while (jammy; keyboard flourishes for color).   I think this is why the album reminds me a bit of T4E because it's been since then that we really last heard some of these things. VT was a good tempo and "heavy" but the keys were gone, the ooh-ahh vocal coloring had arrived. S&A was far more lush (w/acoustics EVERYWHERE) and the tempo was back down, etc.   You have to go back to T4E and CP to find Rush sounding this way...(although you do hear bits of VT and S&A; that's inevitable). the rap in roll the bones? that was new ground.   to me the biggest change in sounds between discs is that of signals to grace under pressure. Ok, well that's been 20 years ago, so well over half a career now.   No, I don't think the new stuff is a radical departure either. I think they've merely re-embraced some things they'd gotten away from and discarded some things they'd recently embraced. That's hardly radical, but it is a little bit fresh...(like incense to cover the cat box odor).

[tangy]

QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 3 2010, 10:32 AM)

Its hard for me to look at Rush as a ground breaking band at all. They're a band who has had a lot of success, are very good at what they do, have influenced many, but ground breaking? Im not so sure about that. You look at a band they influenced, Metallica. They broke new ground in music, they basically sparked a new genre in music itself, and really popularized it, Rush never did anything like that, and I think thats the sole reason Metallica beat Rush into the HoF. Their impact has been far greater than Rush's. Rush has always been an adventurous band, willing to try new styles, and often succeeding at that, but they dont actually do anything new, they just sort of follow whats going on around them. In the 70s they did prog like other bands did before them, in the 80s they start the synth rock, which they were not the first to do, in the 90s more grungy, after bands like Nirvana were already doing it. They've broken new ground for themselves, but not in music itself, if thats what we're talking about.

many consider rush to be the founders of prog-metal.

 

 

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 3 2010, 10:32 AM)

Its hard for me to look at Rush as a ground breaking band at all. They're a band who has had a lot of success, are very good at what they do, have influenced many, but ground breaking? Im not so sure about that. You look at a band they influenced, Metallica. They broke new ground in music, they basically sparked a new genre in music itself, and really popularized it, Rush never did anything like that, and I think thats the sole reason Metallica beat Rush into the HoF. Their impact has been far greater than Rush's. Rush has always been an adventurous band, willing to try new styles, and often succeeding at that, but they dont actually do anything new, they just sort of follow whats going on around them. In the 70s they did prog like other bands did before them, in the 80s they start the synth rock, which they were not the first to do, in the 90s more grungy, after bands like Nirvana were already doing it. They've broken new ground for themselves, but not in music itself, if thats what we're talking about.

+ 1

 

Great post. Agree entirely. Their "new" ground is relative to themselves and not some industry wide revelation.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (tangy @ Jun 3 2010, 10:35 AM)

QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 3 2010, 10:32 AM) Its hard for me to look at Rush as a ground breaking band at all. They're a band who has had a lot of success, are very good at what they do, have influenced many, but ground breaking? Im not so sure about that. You look at a band they influenced, Metallica. They broke new ground in music, they basically sparked a new genre in music itself, and really popularized it, Rush never did anything like that, and I think thats the sole reason Metallica beat Rush into the HoF. Their impact has been far greater than Rush's. Rush has always been an adventurous band, willing to try new styles, and often succeeding at that, but they dont actually do anything new, they just sort of follow whats going on around them. In the 70s they did prog like other bands did before them, in the 80s they start the synth rock, which they were not the first to do, in the 90s more grungy, after bands like Nirvana were already doing it. They've broken new ground for themselves, but not in music itself, if thats what we're talking about. many consider rush to be the founders of prog-metal. ...along with other bands like Yes and Genesis, no? You could argue Rush was influenced by them and did their own form of that. Rush is always doing their OWN form of whatever they're influnced by, but are they CREATING something no one ever heard before? I'm not so sure. Of course few bands have. That's not a knock.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Presto-digitation