My ACC review!!

[moedrabowsky]

QUOTE (Zanadoo @ Jul 18 2010, 06:01 PM)

QUOTE (moedrabowsky @ Jul 18 2010, 06:00 PM) QUOTE (Zanadoo @ Jul 18 2010, 05:52 PM) Well if the people on the forum piss you off so much, maybe you'd be better served doing something that doesn't piss you off instead of telling them to go screw. Go screw.

[moedrabowsky]

I wish Neil would dump all the MIDI stuff and go all acoustic at least once more. Same with all the samples.

 

Wishful thinking, but you don't have to worry about a chime or a bell tree "going out" during the show.

[WCFIELDS]

you guys need to get a room.......

[Zanadoo]

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Jul 18 2010, 06:06 PM)

you guys need to get a room.......

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/14/1268207662518.jpg

[Hemispheres89]

QUOTE (bigman208 @ Jul 18 2010, 05:59 PM)

There were a few technical issues with Alex's guitar as was mentioned by a few people, but also Neil had an issue with his MIDI marimba during the YYZ intro. It kept cutting in and out during the morse code intro just before the band comes in with the intro riff. I noticed his drum tech playing around with the wires during the song trying to fix it, and luckily it did get sorted out.

That was an actual technical issue?!

 

I remember it happening very vividly, but I thought it was for effect on purpose. I guess that just goes to show my technical prowess!

 

Alex's guitar, on the other hand, did not go unnoticed. There was a heavy squealing sound during YYZ, followed by guitar problems on Limelight upon startup. Both didn't hinder enjoyment for me though, although I did ask my friend besie me if the "squealing" sound was just me, as if my ears were effed up. haha.

 

Which section were you sitting in? Because I rememeber a group of guys air drumming RIGHT in front of me.

 

 

I like how Geddy said at intermission: "we need to take a weeeeee short break! Be right back!"

[bigman208]

QUOTE (Hemispheres89 @ Jul 18 2010, 07:12 PM)

QUOTE (bigman208 @ Jul 18 2010, 05:59 PM) There were a few technical issues with Alex's guitar as was mentioned by a few people, but also Neil had an issue with his MIDI marimba during the YYZ intro. It kept cutting in and out during the morse code intro just before the band comes in with the intro riff. I noticed his drum tech playing around with the wires during the song trying to fix it, and luckily it did get sorted out.  That was an actual technical issue?!   I remember it happening very vividly, but I thought it was for effect on purpose. I guess that just goes to show my technical prowess!   Alex's guitar, on the other hand, did not go unnoticed. There was a heavy squealing sound during YYZ, followed by guitar problems on Limelight upon startup. Both didn't hinder enjoyment for me though, although I did ask my friend besie me if the "squealing" sound was just me, as if my ears were effed up. haha.   Which section were you sitting in? Because I rememeber a group of guys air drumming RIGHT in front of me.     I like how Geddy said at intermission: "we need to take a weeeeee short break! Be right back!" I was sitting in section 322, row 5. I was impressed with the seats. Even though we were high up, we were pretty close to the stage and saw everything. I LOVED the lighting rig this time out!!! Very cool!!

[J2112YYZ]

QUOTE (Hemispheres89 @ Jul 18 2010, 05:47 PM)

QUOTE (J2112YYZ @ Jul 18 2010, 01:16 PM) Great song by song review and of your concert experience. I wouldn't have accommodated just one person who wanted you to sit. If there's one buzzkill in the crowd don't please them. Tell them "you're at a rock concert and you're standing the f**k up!" This reminds me of when I saw Rush at the Molson amphitheater in Toronto in the summer of 1997. The crowd stood up when they hit the stage and then they proceeded to sit down for the whole show That's the only time i've ever experienced that at a hard rock concert. I'm with you in not understanding the behavior of some people at concerts. The ego of a person behind you asking you to sit as if it's somehow your duty to please them that night is downright ridiculous. I'm glad you enjoyed your live Rush experience. On the 23rd it will be my seventh time seeing them and i'll continue to go see them until I can't anymore. I'm still not bored of seeing them live and while there are a few better selections they can do, I don't complain about the set very much. Hopefully they still got enough left in the tank to continue touring for a long time to come. Thanks!! And I like your attitude. Do continue to see them for as long as humanly possible. I can tell you that you are in for a REAL treat this tour, but you've seen them way more times than i have, so you probably don't need me to tell you that. haha.   Most people tend to sit at Rush concerts because, although it is a hard rock concert, there's also many slower/lengthier songs they play live. Another reason may be that Rush have an older fanbase as well as younger. Most older folks go as a husband/wife combination and are perfectly content sitting down. However, what they are quick to forget here (as in the woman demonstarted in my example) is that they were once young too... and when Rush was the hot new band that everybody was talking about, they were on their feet. I'm now that "young" kind of person and wish to stand, so she should have left me alone. It put a bit of a damper on things, however, it was NOT nearly enough to ruin my night.   I hear there are already plans for the actual studio album tour NEXT summer, so I already can't wait for that! I woke up this morning feeling refreshed, but was ready for round 2!!! Let's hope they keep touring Being younger does play a bit into weather you prefer to sit or stand. But what I don't get is why someone is going to a rock concert and wanting to sit for the whole thing? Rush does play a few intramentals, has an intermission and a drum/guitar solo at every show so it's not like they don't give the people a chance to sit and relax a few times during the performance if they want to.   As long as i'm able to stand I will attend concerts. If the time comes where I can't stand for the majority of shows or am unwilling to stand for them I will stop going.   Yes, Rush is always a treat live. No sitting through any crappy opening bands who you aren't gonna care about anyways, just seeing the best band in the world play for 3 hours. It doesn't get better than that live

[Freeze]

I was at the ACC last night as part of our trip to Toronto this summer. In my opinion the ACC concert was better than the Molson Amphitheater show which I also attended. The first set at the ACC was pretty much flawless. Besides from the technical issues already discussed here, I think set two was brilliant as well. "The Cameray Eye" and "Caravan" both worked better last night than at Molson in my opinion. And in our seats in section 108 I thought the sound was for the most part very good. And THAT light show .. spectacular indeed! It was only my seventh Rush show last night , but certainly one of, if not the best show I`ve seen from them!

[xredsectorx]

QUOTE (bigman208 @ Jul 18 2010, 07:27 PM)

I was sitting in section 322, row 5. I was impressed with the seats. Even though we were high up, we were pretty close to the stage and saw everything. I LOVED the lighting rig this time out!!! Very cool!!

 

I was in the same row!!! Seat 9

[Hemispheres89]

[bigalfan]

QUOTE (Hemispheres89 @ Jul 18 2010, 02:22 PM)

QUOTE (Todem @ Jul 18 2010, 01:30 PM) Rush is certainly not in their absolute prime anymore. But they are still better than 99% of what is out there today as a live act. ahhhhhhh This is the key paragraph right here, my friends. Listen to this man when he speaks. So, if Rush aren't in their 'prime" anymore, who is nowadays? Next to nobody because most acts suck and I'd pick seeing Rush 70,000 times in a row over seeing a new act ONCE for the first time.   This is precisely why I don't understand people who say "I'm gonna pass on getting tickets because of the setlist." They are quick to forget that a group of legends are visiting their city. Who cares what they're playing, an d who cares that they aren't in their prime? It's called "getting older and moving in a different musical direction". If Aerosmith, U2, The Eagles, The Police and Rush are in my town on the same night, different venues, guess who I would pay twice as much to see over the others? I don't belong to TAF or TU2F or TEF for a reason! Rush is THE best band from their era who is still together and still touring - bar none! Hell, there are only a few...very few...bands - past or present - that would force me to think over that decision very long.   Kuddos on the review. You and I have just a little disagreement on our particular likes/dislikes of a few songs, but mostly, imo, dead on accurate. YUP! the Marathon KABOOM! startled me as well!! GREAT show!!! Am looking more than forward to seeing this SAME 'OL TOUR again Wichita....and quite possibly again in Tulsa. I consider myself lucky to be given the chance.

[Hemispheres89]

QUOTE (bigalfan @ Jul 18 2010, 06:53 PM)

QUOTE (Hemispheres89 @ Jul 18 2010, 02:22 PM) QUOTE (Todem @ Jul 18 2010, 01:30 PM) Rush is certainly not in their absolute prime anymore. But they are still better than 99% of what is out there today as a live act. ahhhhhhh This is the key paragraph right here, my friends. Listen to this man when he speaks. So, if Rush aren't in their 'prime" anymore, who is nowadays? Next to nobody because most acts suck and I'd pick seeing Rush 70,000 times in a row over seeing a new act ONCE for the first time.   This is precisely why I don't understand people who say "I'm gonna pass on getting tickets because of the setlist." They are quick to forget that a group of legends are visiting their city. Who cares what they're playing, an d who cares that they aren't in their prime? It's called "getting older and moving in a different musical direction". If Aerosmith, U2, The Eagles, The Police and Rush are in my town on the same night, different venues, guess who I would pay twice as much to see over the others? I don't belong to TAF or TU2F or TEF for a reason! Rush is THE best band from their era who is still together and still touring - bar none! Hell, there are only a few...very few...bands - past or present - that would force me to think over that decision very long.   Kuddos on the review. You and I have just a little disagreement on our particular likes/dislikes of a few songs, but mostly, imo, dead on accurate. YUP! the Marathon KABOOM! startled me as well!! GREAT show!!! Am looking more than forward to seeing this SAME 'OL TOUR again Wichita....and quite possibly again in Tulsa. I consider myself lucky to be given the chance. EXACTLY.   And indeed, there are a very FEW bands that could surpass Rush, one of them obviously being The Beatles. They actually revolutionized music as we see it today, combinig different cultures and instrumentation into the mix taht later bands would utilize.   I don't intend to sound ignorant here, but I also think that Led Zeppelin garners FAR too much praise than it deserves. They were good, and they ARE legends in their own ways, but how many albums did they release? Like, 2? What have they done for us lately? Two of the members are dead, and two others don't usually play as a group anymore - just a bunch of cover bands. To me, Led Zepprelin was, is, and always will be.. just a good rock band.   Now, take what I just said there about Led Zeppelin and throw Rush into the mix. 40 years later, the original members are still together, they are still touring heavily, they are still on the radio, they are still praised by musician's musicians, and they are still recording albums. That says something.   What makes Rush so great is what they've done towards rock n roll. Queen made rock more energy-driven and operatic. Black Sabbath made it darker and gloomier. Rush made rock more aggressive which has gone a long way towards providing influence towards countless bands such as Metallica, who in turn have influenced countless bands and expanded into countless subgenres.   Rant over hahah

[bigalfan]

QUOTE (Hemispheres89 @ Jul 18 2010, 08:00 PM)

QUOTE (bigalfan @ Jul 18 2010, 06:53 PM) QUOTE (Hemispheres89 @ Jul 18 2010, 02:22 PM) QUOTE (Todem @ Jul 18 2010, 01:30 PM) Rush is certainly not in their absolute prime anymore. But they are still better than 99% of what is out there today as a live act. ahhhhhhh This is the key paragraph right here, my friends. Listen to this man when he speaks. So, if Rush aren't in their 'prime" anymore, who is nowadays? Next to nobody because most acts suck and I'd pick seeing Rush 70,000 times in a row over seeing a new act ONCE for the first time.   This is precisely why I don't understand people who say "I'm gonna pass on getting tickets because of the setlist." They are quick to forget that a group of legends are visiting their city. Who cares what they're playing, an d who cares that they aren't in their prime? It's called "getting older and moving in a different musical direction". If Aerosmith, U2, The Eagles, The Police and Rush are in my town on the same night, different venues, guess who I would pay twice as much to see over the others? I don't belong to TAF or TU2F or TEF for a reason! Rush is THE best band from their era who is still together and still touring - bar none! Hell, there are only a few...very few...bands - past or present - that would force me to think over that decision very long.   Kuddos on the review. You and I have just a little disagreement on our particular likes/dislikes of a few songs, but mostly, imo, dead on accurate. YUP! the Marathon KABOOM! startled me as well!! GREAT show!!! Am looking more than forward to seeing this SAME 'OL TOUR again Wichita....and quite possibly again in Tulsa. I consider myself lucky to be given the chance. EXACTLY.   And indeed, there are a very FEW bands that could surpass Rush, one of them obviously being The Beatles. They actually revolutionized music as we see it today, combinig different cultures and instrumentation into the mix taht later bands would utilize.   I don't intend to sound ignorant here, but I also think that Led Zeppelin garners FAR too much praise than it deserves. They were good, and they ARE legends in their own ways, but how many albums did they release? Like, 2? What have they done for us lately? Two of the members are dead, and two others don't usually play as a group anymore - just a bunch of cover bands. To me, Led Zepprelin was, is, and always will be.. just a good rock band.   Now, take what I just said there about Led Zeppelin and throw Rush into the mix. 40 years later, the original members are still together, they are still touring heavily, they are still on the radio, they are still praised by musician's musicians, and they are still recording albums. That says something.   What makes Rush so great is what they've done towards rock n roll. Queen made rock more energy-driven and operatic. Black Sabbath made it darker and gloomier. Rush made rock more aggressive which has gone a long way towards providing influence towards countless bands such as Metallica, who in turn have influenced countless bands and expanded into countless subgenres.   Rant over hahah Sorry man, can't follow you with the Zeppelin comments. No Zeppelin - no Rush...and a thousand other groups. Not the way you're hearing them now anyway. Elvis got the ball rolling - The Beatles took it to the next level and, make no mistake, Led Zeppelin took it into the stratosphere and set the bar for hard rock from that point on. They are King!

[moedrabowsky]

That's a joke, right?

 

Led Zeppelin had more than "like 2" albums. Their first six studio albums are essential to any hard rock fan's library.

 

They are the definitive hard rock band, the one by which all others in the genre are measured.

 

It's no coincidence that the first Rush album sounds more than a little like LZ because of the fact that Jimmy Page is Alex Lifeson's admittedly biggest influence.

 

 

[Todem]

Yeah gotta echo the Led Zeppelin comments.

 

They made 7 amazing albums and one good one. It was a shame Bonzo passed because they had a ton left in the tank when he went.

 

I agree no Rush without Led Zeppelin. They were the first progressive hard rock band in my mind. And it's funny I got into them much later than Rush. I then became obsessed with them for a couple of years.

 

But no contest for me as to who I prefer.

 

And I am so glad to hear they are sounding amazing (as usual) on this tour.

 

Just two and half months left for me!

Edited July 19, 2010 by Todem

[ReRushed]

Led Zeppelin are gods!!!!!!

 

[Hemispheres89]

QUOTE (moedrabowsky @ Jul 18 2010, 08:11 PM)

That's a joke, right? Led Zeppelin had more than "like 2" albums. Their first six studio albums are essential to any hard rock fan's library. They are the definitive hard rock band, the one by which all others in the genre are measured. It's no coincidence that the first Rush album sounds more than a little like LZ because of the fact that Jimmy Page is Alex Lifeson's admittedly biggest influence.

But it just seems that everyone thinks Led Zeppelin is the greatest, because "it's the norm" to think so.

 

I grew up as a little kid being told by my dad that Led Zeppelin is the greatest band, but... now that I'm much older and can form my own opinions, I'm not using his same mentality at all.

 

The first couple albums by Rush, most specifically "Rush", is very indicitive of Led Zeppelin.... which is precisely why it's one of my least favourite Rush albums, not because I necessarily don't like the music, I just don't like that direction when compared to later Rush.

 

I realize that everybody is influenced by somebody, and led zeppelin was a major influence, but here is the bottom line I don't agree with, and sums up what I'm trying to say pretty good:

 

- to give a band credit for 40 years when it only lasted around 10 is absurd, while a band that HAS been around actively for the past 40 years is under the radar and takes backseat.

 

I think that's where we tend to disagree.

[moedrabowsky]

Led Zeppelin didn't last 40 years because one of the members died.

 

And they had the class and good sense to end it there.

 

The Beatles lasted less than 10 years as a recording act. Is their legacy less than Rush's? No way.

 

Longevity is a noteworthy thing, especially with the same members. But Zeppelin aren't getting credit for 40 years (whatever that means).

 

The reason they remain popular and revered is because their music still resonates 30 years after their final record. They are part of the elite like The Beatles, The Stones and Pink Floyd. They made albums -- and in the case of those bands, several in a row -- that tens of millions of people bought and were influenced by.

 

I think Rush is a great band and they are my favorite band whose music reaches me in a way that no other band does, but they aren't in that class. I'm just being objective.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Hemispheres89 @ Jul 18 2010, 09:24 PM)

QUOTE (moedrabowsky @ Jul 18 2010, 08:11 PM) That's a joke, right? Led Zeppelin had more than "like 2" albums. Their first six studio albums are essential to any hard rock fan's library. They are the definitive hard rock band, the one by which all others in the genre are measured. It's no coincidence that the first Rush album sounds more than a little like LZ because of the fact that Jimmy Page is Alex Lifeson's admittedly biggest influence. But it just seems that everyone thinks Led Zeppelin is the greatest, because "it's the norm" to think so.   I grew up as a little kid being told by my dad that Led Zeppelin is the greatest band, but... now that I'm much older and can form my own opinions, I'm not using his same mentality at all.   The first couple albums by Rush, most specifically "Rush", is very indicitive of Led Zeppelin.... which is precisely why it's one of my least favourite Rush albums, not because I necessarily don't like the music, I just don't like that direction when compared to later Rush.   I realize that everybody is influenced by somebody, and led zeppelin was a major influence, but here is the bottom line I don't agree with, and sums up what I'm trying to say pretty good:   - to give a band credit for 40 years when it only lasted around 10 is absurd, while a band that HAS been around actively for the past 40 years is under the radar and takes backseat.   I think that's where we tend to disagree. Led Zeppelin spent those ten years in the musical stratosphere. Let's face it, Rush never attained those heights.   Led Zeppelin is ingrained in Western cultural DNA. Very few bands are. IMO.   Oh yeah, I listen to Rush more than I do Led Zeppelin.

Edited July 19, 2010 by ReRushed

[Hemispheres89]

QUOTE (moedrabowsky @ Jul 18 2010, 08:30 PM)

Led Zeppelin didn't last 40 years because one of the members died. The reason they remain popular and revered is because their music still resonates 30 years after their final record.

But these two separate sentences right here coincide with each other, and echo my argument perfectly.

 

How do you know they would have lasted 40 years?

 

I have a sense among me that feels like if he hadn't died and they were still touring today, they would still be regarded as a great band like Rush, NOT the legendary behemoths that they were made out to be.

 

If you ask almost anybody on this planet if they've heard of Led Zeppelin, you will almost predominantly hear a resounding "yes". Rush, on the other hand, seems a bit more far-fetched to others. You may not believe me, but a lot of people my age haven't even heard of them, and I am shocked every time I get a "who's that?" if I ask them if they like Rush. Ridiculous.

 

It just seems like every time somebody dies tragically, the band suddenly garners attention, just like Nirvana for instance when Kurt Kobain committed suicide. Or, in another instance, when Michael Jackson was treated so badly by everybody for the second half of his life, people calling him names and accusing him of malicious things. Then he dies and now hes regarded as the King Of Pop, and EVERYBODY is listening to his songs all of a sudden.

 

I really really HATE to say it, but if we lost a member of Rush tomorrow, it would be huge news and everyone would be listening to them

[KublaKhan]

QUOTE (Hemispheres89 @ Jul 18 2010, 02:21 AM)

1. A lady behind me tapped my shoulder and asked me to sit down when the show first started.

I didn't have someone ask me to sit down, but I felt the eyes of the people behind me upon me, so I sat down after a few songs, even though I would have stood up for the whole damn thing. But, during the solo section of Freewill I basically said screw it and stood up and jammed.

 

Also, I saw everyone in the ACC jump during the Marathon explosion. Fun times.

[Snyder80]

LZ are legends without question but I find most of what they did very ordinary. From a popularity stand point they have surpassed Rush in every way imaginable. From a musical prowess stand point I don't think they could touch them. Very few people realize just how ignored this band was at one point. My father saw them at The Forum in Harrisburg when they did their Fly by Night tour and he said you NEVER heard Rush on the radio. The only people that knew about them were the people who bought their records. Nothing LZ has ever done can come close musically to things like La Villa Strangiato, Xanadu, 2112, etc. Do I respect that band and their place in history? Absolutely. But I find that band more on the t-shirts worn by high school students than I do anywhere else and that sits very bad with me. Anymore that band is nothing more than a pop culture icon. Not to mention the fact that their best band member by far died way before his time. I also think that the fact that Rush only has three band members should be taken into serious account when people try to compare them to other acts. I mean do you really think Robert Plant could do what Geddy Lee does??? And as much as I respect Jimmy Page I could list at least a dozen guitar players who could blow him out of the water, both technically and in his writing. Lifeson is definitely one of them. I never heard Page do anything that rivals the solo on La Villa or Freewill. Lifeson is without question the most underrated guitar player in history. Still to this day I hear people say how he isn't as fast as Zakk Wylde and I'll have to walk away from the conversation because even mentioning the name Zakk Wylde in the same sentence with Alex Lifeson is on a level of blasphemy that I find ridiculously offensive.

[moedrabowsky]

QUOTE (Hemispheres89 @ Jul 18 2010, 08:54 PM)

QUOTE (moedrabowsky @ Jul 18 2010, 08:30 PM) Led Zeppelin didn't last 40 years because one of the members died. The reason they remain popular and revered is because their music still resonates 30 years after their final record. But these two separate sentences right here coincide with each other, and echo my argument perfectly.   How do you know they would have lasted 40 years?   I have a sense among me that feels like if he hadn't died and they were still touring today, they would still be regarded as a great band like Rush, NOT the legendary behemoths that they were made out to be.   If you ask almost anybody on this planet if they've heard of Led Zeppelin, you will almost predominantly hear a resounding "yes". Rush, on the other hand, seems a bit more far-fetched to others. You may not believe me, but a lot of people my age haven't even heard of them, and I am shocked every time I get a "who's that?" if I ask them if they like Rush. Ridiculous.   It just seems like every time somebody dies tragically, the band suddenly garners attention, just like Nirvana for instance when Kurt Kobain committed suicide. Or, in another instance, when Michael Jackson was treated so badly by everybody for the second half of his life, people calling him names and accusing him of malicious things. Then he dies and now hes regarded as the King Of Pop, and EVERYBODY is listening to his songs all of a sudden.   I really really HATE to say it, but if we lost a member of Rush tomorrow, it would be huge news and everyone would be listening to them Well, that wasn't the case with Led Zeppelin.   They garnered attention because they were the mightiest hard rock act in the world in the 1970s.   And whether or not they would have lasted 40 years in immaterial and not sure what that has to do with a band's "greatness."   People your age know who Led Zeppelin is and not Rush for the simple fact that LZ is -- as I posted before -- an iconic band. Some people also haven't heard of Scott Rolen but they know who Babe Ruth is even though he's been dead for 60 years.   I also think if Zeppelin had carried on they would have been like The Stones -- the kind of band that can fill up a 70,000 seat stadium 100 times a year.   There is really no understating how important, popular and -- most of all --excellent Led Zeppelin were.

[moedrabowsky]

I don't think there are two, much less a dozen, guitarists who are better writers than Jimmy Page. His catalog is filled with mountains of mighty riffs and instantly recognizable licks.

 

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but you basically have to discount everything that Geddy and Alex (and we all know how important their opinions are around these parts) have said about Led Zeppelin to slag them.

 

You don't have to tear down LZ to pump up Rush.

Edited July 19, 2010 by moedrabowsky

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (moedrabowsky @ Jul 18 2010, 10:10 PM)

I don't think there are two, much less a dozen, guitarists who are better writers than Jimmy Page. His catalog is filled with mountains of mighty riffs and instantly recognizable licks. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but you basically have to discount everything that Geddy and Alex (and we all know how important their opinions are around these parts) have said about Led Zeppelin to slag them. You don't have to tear down LZ to pump up Rush.

Let's be fair, Mr. Page "borrowed" many of those riffs! And Mr. Jones came up with plenty himself.

 

And yes, you don't have to tear down the mighty Zep! They are Rock Gods!!! Just accept it!

 

I really do like Led Zeppelin, in case anyone is wondering.

Edited July 19, 2010 by ReRushed