Jump to content

What was the last truly great album?


Tick

Recommended Posts

Another point I will put out there...

For me personally, I don't think no matter what they do Rush could recreate the magic I felt for there music at age 17 compared to how I feel at age 46. That is certainly not the fault of Rush, its just my evolution as a music fan and a person in general. I used to loose my mind in anticipation of a new Rush album but I had that passion about my sports teams and other things that have now just taken a backseat in the natural progression of life.

When I was 18, if I missed a football playoff game because I had to work, or didn't get the seats I wanted for a particular concert I would get over the top about it. Now, those things are small potatoes for the most part.

I guess my point is, I just don't feel the same way as I to about these kinds of things so my ears probably don't hear a new record the way they used to if that makes sense to you all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 337
  • Created
  • Last Reply
hey we all hear things differently and i guess it's great that rush has such a diverse catalogue. some will like it and some won't. i'm trying to have an open ear but take for example caravan. the part where ged sings, "i can't stop thinking big" plus the guitar part in that section makes my ears bleed. the notes sound so high out of of place to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good points. I too have grown to love some of their older albums, that I wasn't into when I first heard them. As Pags said... I changed, not the album. BUT... i haven't changed that much, that I can really get into Snakes. Maybe I'll have changed enough in my musical tastes when i'm like ninety... and adult contemporary is as heavy as I can jam to. Right now... no.gif

 

Almost any album, would get me into Rush as a teenager, when I first got into them. Snakes would never have appealed to me. When I first heard Rush, if the music was as ballless as Snakes, I highly doubt it would even have been recorded by a rock label. So since I listened to ROCK stations, i wouldn't have been unlucky enough to even hear it.

 

I am not a prog fan much, and I don't consider 2.gif a prog band. They were always a kick ass rock band with prog leanings. Now... they are a Vegas act, playing adult contemporary crap. Regardless of how much I love 2.gif I don't feel as though it's a sin to admit that they've run out of gas. Hopefully they fill up again for the next album.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite period of the band is from 2112 through Counterparts. Even including Roll The Bones. All of those songs are strong and wonderful.

 

I enjoy every Rush album, but those are my favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 27 2010, 11:22 AM)
Lots of good points. I too have grown to love some of their older albums, that I wasn't into when I first heard them. As Pags said... I changed, not the album. BUT... i haven't changed that much, that I can really get into Snakes. Maybe I'll have changed enough in my musical tastes when i'm like ninety... and adult contemporary is as heavy as I can jam to. Right now... no.gif

Almost any album, would get me into Rush as a teenager, when I first got into them. Snakes would never have appealed to me. When I first heard Rush, if the music was as ballless as Snakes, I highly doubt it would even have been recorded by a rock label. So since I listened to ROCK stations, i wouldn't have been unlucky enough to even hear it.

I am not a prog fan much, and I don't consider 2.gif a prog band. They were always a kick ass rock band with prog leanings. Now... they are a Vegas act, playing adult contemporary crap. Regardless of how much I love 2.gif I don't feel as though it's a sin to admit that they've run out of gas. Hopefully they fill up again for the next album.

Armor and Sword Ballessness?

 

I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Todem @ Dec 27 2010, 01:32 PM)
QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 27 2010, 11:22 AM)
Lots of good points.  I too have grown to love some of their older albums, that I wasn't into when I first heard them.  As Pags said... I changed, not the album.  BUT... i haven't changed that much, that I can really get into Snakes.  Maybe I'll have changed enough in my musical tastes when i'm like ninety... and adult contemporary is as heavy as I can jam to.  Right now...  no.gif 

Almost any album, would get me into Rush as a teenager, when I first got into them.  Snakes would never have appealed to me.  When I first heard Rush, if the music was as ballless as Snakes, I highly doubt it would even have been recorded by a rock label.  So since I listened to ROCK stations, i wouldn't have been unlucky enough to even hear it. 

I am not a prog fan much, and I don't consider 2.gif a prog band.  They were always a kick ass rock band with prog leanings.  Now... they are a Vegas act, playing adult contemporary crap.  Regardless of how much I love 2.gif I don't feel as though it's a sin to admit that they've run out of gas.  Hopefully they fill up again for the next album.

Armor and Sword Ballessness?

 

I think not.

Well good for you, but i think SO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Pags @ Dec 27 2010, 07:06 AM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 27 2010, 06:13 AM)
QUOTE (Pags @ Dec 26 2010, 08:48 PM)
QUOTE (ReflectedLight @ Dec 26 2010, 09:33 PM)
QUOTE (Pags @ Dec 26 2010, 08:32 PM)
QUOTE (ReflectedLight @ Dec 26 2010, 08:19 PM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 26 2010, 06:29 PM)
QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Dec 26 2010, 02:45 PM)
QUOTE (Silas Lang @ Dec 26 2010, 04:09 PM)
QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Dec 26 2010, 02:46 PM)
I think a lot of people forget Rush is a "rock band", and a lot of the music they created in the 80s and early 90s was not "rock". Sure they wrote a few good songs, but overall that was a terrible period for them. Vapor Trails (and to a lesser extend Counterparts and T4E) was a return to their roots, and I'm glad they found their way back.

So because they used more synthesizers, it automatically means it isn't rock?

No, but when the synths are at the forefront and take away from the rest of the music, it doesn't sound like "rock" to me. Guitar, bass, and drums are the foundation that a "rock" song should be built on.

It all depends on what's done with it. I'm assuming you really don't like progressive rock? Prog rock definitely (at least usually) has the basis of guitar, bass and drums, but there are often tons of keyboards and other sundry instrumentation as well.

 

I personally LOVE the period of Signals through HYF. I've bitterly missed the keyboards ever since. Now that I think about it, however, maybe it wasn't just the loss of the keyboards that caused them to lose a lot of their magic they had during the keyboard era, as they did make a lot of incredible music prior to the keyboard era. Maybe it's just that after 1987 the group could only sporadically reach the highs they reached up through HYF.

 

I really don't care if the music has keyboards or not. It's still all "rock" to me. I just care if it's good...

it's called running out of gas. tongue.gif

Really... how easy it is for people to sit behind their keyboards and say these guys have run out of gas, and other comments of the like. Honestly, the greatest thing you'll ever accomplish in your lifetime won't so much as pale in comparison next to something like Snakes, or T4E, or Speed of Love from CP, or You Bet Your Life from Bones.

 

But you all go right ahead saying they ran out of gas, and just don't have it anymore. laugh.gif okay.

this is a forum right and we do get to express our opinions? imo they have but maybe they haven't compared to someone like yourself. that's the great thing about music, you might hear things differently than the next guy but it still won't change my opinion. also i'm quite happy with my accomplishments in life but who are you to say or compare myself to rush. i'm not beating my chest but i can guarantee you that i've done things or accomplished things rush hasn't or never will, and vice versa.

Of course it's a forum, and you're welcome to share your opinion all you wish. And, I'm free to express my opinion out your opinion. That's how it works, see?

 

No one expects that everyone is going to like every single thing they've ever done. But to suggest the reason why you don't like it is their fault, is just silly to me.

 

Personally I can't answer Tick's original question. I like it all, so I can't say what their last great album is. But that wasn't always the case. There are several albums I never liked for years. The fact that I like them now, can only mean that I'm the one who changed. What's been recorded is set in stone for eternity. It didn't change. I did. So I'll never put the responsibility on them for making something I may not like.

 

Anyway, you don't have to like it all. Let's just hope we all can still kick ass in our late 50's like they do.

Obviously everyone's opinion is subjective, but the general consensus is that the quality of their music has gone down in the last few albums. One only need look as far as their rateyourmusic page HERE for evidence, as several hundred, or even thousands of people have voted on each album.

 

Of course this means absolutely nothing to you if you personally love every album or if you love their later albums as much as their more popular 1976-1984 period, but there is a valid argument based on the numbers that people in general think the quality of their music has gone down.

 

The whole aspect of is it their fault or our fault if we don't like it as much seems somewhat moot in that it's all subjective opinion, but our subjective opinions are important to us. Ultimately, all I can say in truth is that MY reality is that the quality of their music has dropped over the past several albums. Your reality is very different, as is each person's.

You make some good points. Yet I'm not as concerned with popular vote or the 'norm' as you seem to want me to be. Never really thought you were either. How many thousands of people out there (especially off this site) are going to consider Moving Picture Rush's greatest album and Tom Sawyer Rush's greatest song? I'm not concerned on the answer, personally. That may be great for them, but not for me. Oh well. The very fact that we're Rush fans makes us somewhat of mainstream misfits to begin with. I guess within that circle of misfits, I'm a misfit too.

I just like using rateyourmusic stats as a point of argument. People obviously can have whatever opinions they want. God knows I have mine, and one look around TRF is enough to show anyone that no two people agree on everything (sometimes they don't even agree on anything). I disagree sometimes with the general consensus opinion on Rush albums. For example, I think the first album and HYF are amazing albums, and they are usually among the lowest rated. I just assume people are delusional in those instances and leave it at that. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 27 2010, 11:22 AM)
Lots of good points. I too have grown to love some of their older albums, that I wasn't into when I first heard them. As Pags said... I changed, not the album. BUT... i haven't changed that much, that I can really get into Snakes. Maybe I'll have changed enough in my musical tastes when i'm like ninety... and adult contemporary is as heavy as I can jam to. Right now... no.gif

Almost any album, would get me into Rush as a teenager, when I first got into them. Snakes would never have appealed to me. When I first heard Rush, if the music was as ballless as Snakes, I highly doubt it would even have been recorded by a rock label. So since I listened to ROCK stations, i wouldn't have been unlucky enough to even hear it.

I am not a prog fan much, and I don't consider 2.gif a prog band. They were always a kick ass rock band with prog leanings. Now... they are a Vegas act, playing adult contemporary crap. Regardless of how much I love 2.gif I don't feel as though it's a sin to admit that they've run out of gas. Hopefully they fill up again for the next album.

I can agree with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of a single band with music that gets more popular as time goes on. I think that equating musical preferences with quality is a mistake. What happens with long lives bands is that either they never evolve and are seen as has beens relying on the strength of their earlier work to make money, or they evolve and their fans feel left behind and long for the glory days. There is just no way for the new music to get a fair shake because it's always going to be compares to the older stuff which is boosted by associated memories and experiences linked to the music. Songs that make up the soundtrack to our lives are always going to have a certain something the new stuff lacks.

 

IMO, Rush has always gotten better and S&A is a stellar album, worthy of being ranked with the other greats like MP and Hemispheres. Of course, MPmand Hemispheres were not the albums of my childhood and I only discovered Rush in the 90s. The result of that was I got to learn the entire catalog (up to RtB) at once, and the progression of quality I defined in my own head without outside influence, was that they seemed to take these changes in direction that would take 2-4 albums to explore, and they always improved as they got better with the new direction.

 

My opinion is that S&A is a truly great album. I love to put it on end to end, and it's probably the one I play the most aside from Moving Pictures. You can tell me all day long tha half the album sucks and I know it, but my listening habits tell a different story. And who is anyone to say they know better about my opinion than my actual the actual play counts in iTunes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 09:45 PM)
I can't think of a single band with music that gets more popular as time goes on. I think that equating musical preferences with quality is a mistake. What happens with long lives bands is that either they never evolve and are seen as has beens relying on the strength of their earlier work to make money, or they evolve and their fans feel left behind and long for the glory days. There is just no way for the new music to get a fair shake because it's always going to be compares to the older stuff which is boosted by associated memories and experiences linked to the music. Songs that make up the soundtrack to our lives are always going to have a certain something the new stuff lacks.

IMO, Rush has always gotten better and S&A is a stellar album, worthy of being ranked with the other greats like MP and Hemispheres. Of course, MPmand Hemispheres were not the albums of my childhood and I only discovered Rush in the 90s. The result of that was I got to learn the entire catalog (up to RtB) at once, and the progression of quality I defined in my own head without outside influence, was that they seemed to take these changes in direction that would take 2-4 albums to explore, and they always improved as they got better with the new direction.

My opinion is that S&A is a truly great album. I love to put it on end to end, and it's probably the one I play the most aside from Moving Pictures. You can tell me all day long tha half the album sucks and I know it, but my listening habits tell a different story. And who is anyone to say they know better about my opinion than my actual the actual play counts in iTunes?

cool10.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kill me for this if you will, but I feel RTB was the last really good Rush album. CP sounded good production wise, but Neils lyrics took a turn for the worse and only went downhill every album after that. And the push to make themselves more "raw and heavy" started off good but soon dissolved into Alex's wall of distortion sound which is still around today. And I haven't really enjoyed Geddys style of bass playing since CP, he plays too many notes too fast in that distorted Jazz tone. I liked the melodic lines he was writing prior to '93 even if he was playing a polite sounding Wal bass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (jnoble @ Dec 27 2010, 10:25 PM)
kill me for this if you will, but I feel RTB was the last really good Rush album. CP sounded good production wise, but Neils lyrics took a turn for the worse and only went downhill every album after that. And the push to make themselves more "raw and heavy" started off good but soon dissolved into Alex's wall of distortion sound which is still around today. And I haven't really enjoyed Geddys style of bass playing since CP, he plays too many notes too fast in that distorted Jazz tone. I liked the melodic lines he was writing prior to '93 even if he was playing a polite sounding Wal bass.

One thing that got worse about Rush, was the bassplaying got less and less good after signals. Its still good on HYF but not genius like before and after that it lacked completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 07:45 PM)
I can't think of a single band with music that gets more popular as time goes on.
Rush has gotten more popular due to longevity and being introduced to a new generation, NOT because of the music on their last few albums.

 

QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 07:45 PM)
I think that equating musical preferences with quality is a mistake.
How on earth else are we supposed to deem what we consider to be quality music or not? It's all about personal musical preferences.

 

QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 07:45 PM)
What happens with long lives bands is that either they never evolve and are seen as has beens relying on the strength of their earlier work to make money, or they evolve and their fans feel left behind and long for the glory days. There is just no way for the new music to get a fair shake because it's always going to be compares to the older stuff which is boosted by associated memories and experiences linked to the music. Songs that make up the soundtrack to our lives are always going to have a certain something the new stuff lacks.
I really think it has nothing to do with what we grew up with, glory days, etc. I think the music either stacks up to what it used to be or it doesn't, and for the most part, I think their older stuff is just plain old better. I'll be the first in line to admit when their new music is as good as their older stuff is. Please understand that I desperately want it to be, and I give it way more than a fair shake to grow on me if I don't instantly love it. I think the first 3 songs on S&A are up their with their best material. I can only hope for a couple/few more songs of that quality before they pack it in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 27 2010, 11:13 PM)
QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 07:45 PM)
I can't think of a single band with music that gets more popular as time goes on.
Rush has gotten more popular due to longevity and being introduced to a new generation, NOT because of the music on their last few albums.

I know- read the quoted post. I worded it carefully- Rush may be getting more popular, but their music itself is not (that is- as they write new tunes, the new tunes are not increasing in popularity over the old stuff). This is par for the course, though. I can't think of a single band that has existed longer than a few years were existing fans like the new stuff better than the old stuff.

 

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 27 2010, 11:13 PM)
QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 07:45 PM)
I think that equating musical preferences with quality is a mistake.
How on earth else are we supposed to deem what we consider to be quality music or not? It's all about personal musical preferences.
What you listen to and enjoy is all about personal musical preference, and really that is all that matters. But that isn't the same as "quality" because any of us fans are going to be influenced by stuff external to the music itself.

 

Think about it like that old recipe that your mom made that you thought was awesome. You ate it growing up and it was a part of your childhood. Then you go to a 5 star restaurant and have the same dish and it just isn't as good. People rave about this dish and say that it is the best, but to you it just isn't and it never will be. You prefer it the way mom made it. That does not mean that your mom's dish is of better quality than the 5 star restaurant or that the 5 star restaurant is of poor quality. It COULD mean that, but far more likely is the case that you like your mom's cooking better because it is what you grew up with and is what you are used to. In the end, it doesn't really matter because to you, you'd prefer to eat your mom's cooking. That's a perfectly valid response, but if you went around telling people that the quality of the food at the restaurant was poor, you'd be doing the resturant and the people you are talking to a disservice, because they do not have the same bias that you do going into the meal.

 

The problem with a rock band is there are a lot of people eating "mom's cooking" in that they grew up with the band doing a certain kind of music and playing certain songs. I think that's an impossible mountain to climb for any music group, because no matter what you do it's going to be compared to the earlier work put on a pedestal. Really, this isn't a problem, but to say a band has stopped producing "quality" or "run out of juice" is a disservice to both the band and newcomers who don't have a lot of preconceptions about the band.

 

And to the latter point I'll say that when I've been introducing people to Rush recently, there have been a LOT of positive reactions from S&A material and some "meh" reactions to some of the 70s material. I would say almost all of these newcomers would label their newer stuff as on par or higher quality than the classic stuff. Of course this is all anecdotal, but it seems to me like established fans prefer the established music, while newer fans are more open minded.

 

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 27 2010, 11:13 PM)
QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 07:45 PM)
What happens with long lives bands is that either they never evolve and are seen as has beens relying on the strength of their earlier work to make money, or they evolve and their fans feel left behind and long for the glory days. There is just no way for the new music to get a fair shake because it's always going to be compares to the older stuff which is boosted by associated memories and experiences linked to the music. Songs that make up the soundtrack to our lives are always going to have a certain something the new stuff lacks.
I really think it has nothing to do with what we grew up with, glory days, etc. I think the music either stacks up to what it used to be or it doesn't, and for the most part, I think their older stuff is just plain old better. I'll be the first in line to admit when their new music is as good as their older stuff is. Please understand that I desperately want it to be, and I give it way more than a fair shake to grow on me if I don't instantly love it. I think the first 3 songs on S&A are up their with their best material. I can only hope for a couple/few more songs of that quality before they pack it in.
Well, there's no way to prove one way or another- but I know that I have a strong disposition toward the music that got me into the band (RtB and Counterparts)- and while I don't think RtB is the best album they've done it seems I like it a lot more than I'm "supposed to" (according to general consensus around here). IMO the new music DOES stack up. Sure there are misfires ("Speed of Love") in the new stuff- but I find the same ratio in the old stuff too ("Madrigal").

 

At the end of the day, I think it's impossible for any fan of the band to fairly judge the "quality" of music the band is putting out. We all just have too much baggage in tow. Fortunately it doesn't matter -we can spin whatever we like- it's our choice after all. But that doesn't mean it's a fair assessment of the quality of what the band is doing.

 

 

And FWIW, I think that an objective measure of quality can be established, and when it is it is NOT about personal preference. You can look at how the music is crafted and how the pieces fit together- what techniques were used and if they were employed appropriately and executed well. We certainly did this in school back when I was a music major. Doing so for a rock band is probably pointless, though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 28 2010, 12:17 AM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 27 2010, 11:13 PM)
QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 07:45 PM)
I can't think of a single band with music that gets more popular as time goes on.
Rush has gotten more popular due to longevity and being introduced to a new generation, NOT because of the music on their last few albums.

I know- read the quoted post. I worded it carefully- Rush may be getting more popular, but their music itself is not (that is- as they write new tunes, the new tunes are not increasing in popularity over the old stuff). This is par for the course, though. I can't think of a single band that has existed longer than a few years were existing fans like the new stuff better than the old stuff.

 

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 27 2010, 11:13 PM)
QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 07:45 PM)
I think that equating musical preferences with quality is a mistake.
How on earth else are we supposed to deem what we consider to be quality music or not? It's all about personal musical preferences.
What you listen to and enjoy is all about personal musical preference, and really that is all that matters. But that isn't the same as "quality" because any of us fans are going to be influenced by stuff external to the music itself.

 

Think about it like that old recipe that your mom made that you thought was awesome. You ate it growing up and it was a part of your childhood. Then you go to a 5 star restaurant and have the same dish and it just isn't as good. People rave about this dish and say that it is the best, but to you it just isn't and it never will be. You prefer it the way mom made it. That does not mean that your mom's dish is of better quality than the 5 star restaurant or that the 5 star restaurant is of poor quality. It COULD mean that, but far more likely is the case that you like your mom's cooking better because it is what you grew up with and is what you are used to. In the end, it doesn't really matter because to you, you'd prefer to eat your mom's cooking. That's a perfectly valid response, but if you went around telling people that the quality of the food at the restaurant was poor, you'd be doing the resturant and the people you are talking to a disservice, because they do not have the same bias that you do going into the meal.

 

The problem with a rock band is there are a lot of people eating "mom's cooking" in that they grew up with the band doing a certain kind of music and playing certain songs. I think that's an impossible mountain to climb for any music group, because no matter what you do it's going to be compared to the earlier work put on a pedestal. Really, this isn't a problem, but to say a band has stopped producing "quality" or "run out of juice" is a disservice to both the band and newcomers who don't have a lot of preconceptions about the band.

 

And to the latter point I'll say that when I've been introducing people to Rush recently, there have been a LOT of positive reactions from S&A material and some "meh" reactions to some of the 70s material. I would say almost all of these newcomers would label their newer stuff as on par or higher quality than the classic stuff. Of course this is all anecdotal, but it seems to me like established fans prefer the established music, while newer fans are more open minded.

 

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 27 2010, 11:13 PM)
QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 07:45 PM)
What happens with long lives bands is that either they never evolve and are seen as has beens relying on the strength of their earlier work to make money, or they evolve and their fans feel left behind and long for the glory days. There is just no way for the new music to get a fair shake because it's always going to be compares to the older stuff which is boosted by associated memories and experiences linked to the music. Songs that make up the soundtrack to our lives are always going to have a certain something the new stuff lacks.
I really think it has nothing to do with what we grew up with, glory days, etc. I think the music either stacks up to what it used to be or it doesn't, and for the most part, I think their older stuff is just plain old better. I'll be the first in line to admit when their new music is as good as their older stuff is. Please understand that I desperately want it to be, and I give it way more than a fair shake to grow on me if I don't instantly love it. I think the first 3 songs on S&A are up their with their best material. I can only hope for a couple/few more songs of that quality before they pack it in.
Well, there's no way to prove one way or another- but I know that I have a strong disposition toward the music that got me into the band (RtB and Counterparts)- and while I don't think RtB is the best album they've done it seems I like it a lot more than I'm "supposed to" (according to general consensus around here). IMO the new music DOES stack up. Sure there are misfires ("Speed of Love") in the new stuff- but I find the same ratio in the old stuff too ("Madrigal").

 

At the end of the day, I think it's impossible for any fan of the band to fairly judge the "quality" of music the band is putting out. We all just have too much baggage in tow. Fortunately it doesn't matter -we can spin whatever we like- it's our choice after all. But that doesn't mean it's a fair assessment of the quality of what the band is doing.

 

 

And FWIW, I think that an objective measure of quality can be established, and when it is it is NOT about personal preference. You can look at how the music is crafted and how the pieces fit together- what techniques were used and if they were employed appropriately and executed well. We certainly did this in school back when I was a music major. Doing so for a rock band is probably pointless, though.

goodpost.gif applaudit.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (MovingSignals @ Dec 28 2010, 03:45 AM)
QUOTE (jnoble @ Dec 27 2010, 10:25 PM)
kill me for this if you will, but I feel RTB was the last really good Rush album. CP sounded good production wise, but Neils lyrics took a turn for the worse and only went downhill every album after that. And the push to make themselves more "raw and heavy" started off good but soon dissolved into Alex's wall of distortion sound which is still around today. And I haven't really enjoyed Geddys style of bass playing since CP, he plays too many notes too fast in that distorted Jazz tone. I liked the melodic lines he was writing prior to '93 even if he was playing a polite sounding Wal bass.

One thing that got worse about Rush, was the bassplaying got less and less good after signals. Its still good on HYF but not genius like before and after that it lacked completely.

You've got to be kidding surely?

 

HYF contains some of Geddys best bass work, even if the tone is somewhat different.

 

The line to Turn the Page is outstanding, and he sings at the same time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 10:17 PM)
Think about it like that old recipe that your mom made that you thought was awesome. You ate it growing up and it was a part of your childhood. Then you go to a 5 star restaurant and have the same dish and it just isn't as good. People rave about this dish and say that it is the best, but to you it just isn't and it never will be. You prefer it the way mom made it. That does not mean that your mom's dish is of better quality than the 5 star restaurant or that the 5 star restaurant is of poor quality. It COULD mean that, but far more likely is the case that you like your mom's cooking better because it is what you grew up with and is what you are used to. In the end, it doesn't really matter because to you, you'd prefer to eat your mom's cooking. That's a perfectly valid response, but if you went around telling people that the quality of the food at the restaurant was poor, you'd be doing the resturant and the people you are talking to a disservice, because they do not have the same bias that you do going into the meal.

The problem with a rock band is there are a lot of people eating "mom's cooking" in that they grew up with the band doing a certain kind of music and playing certain songs. I think that's an impossible mountain to climb for any music group, because no matter what you do it's going to be compared to the earlier work put on a pedestal. Really, this isn't a problem, but to say a band has stopped producing "quality" or "run out of juice" is a disservice to both the band and newcomers who don't have a lot of preconceptions about the band.

Yes, but what you're saying implies that we're incapable of judging fairly because we have these rose colored glasses on, that we love the old stuff so much for sentimental reasons that nothing possibly could live up to that. I completely disagree. I guess I can't speak for everyone, but I truly believe that I can give a fair and accurate assessment of their music now. Yes, I'm going to compare, that's inevitable, but the new music stands just as fair a chance to me regardless. That's why I can happily say that the first 3 songs on S&A are among the best stuff they've ever done. No, none of those songs are Xanadu or Tom Sawyer or La Villa, but they are truly excellent songs of a very high caliber that make me ridiculously happy. The music on TFE & VT is nowhere near that quality. I don't say that because I'm too enamored with Moving Pictures and Signals to be able to see clearly, it's because after dozens of listens, they simply don't hold a candle IMHO.

 

QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 10:17 PM)
At the end of the day, I think it's impossible for any fan of the band to fairly judge the "quality" of music the band is putting out. We all just have too much baggage in tow.

Again, I completely disagree. The most I'll give you on this is that an established band with classic material admittedly has a lot more to live up to. There's no way around it - Rush have created a ridiculously high standard. If they make music that can't live up to that standard, it's not because I'm too blind to see it, it's because I simply don't think they've lived up to that standard. I really think people are smart enough to judge fairly regardless. There's no way you're gonna tell me that the RTB album is as good as Permanent Waves and I can't see that because I have too much baggage. That just doesn't wash. Sorry, but Face Up and Neurotica simply sucks compared to The Spirit of Radio and Natural Science. Yes, that's my opinion, but it's also a very fair and accurate personal assessment.

 

QUOTE (SlyJeff @ Dec 27 2010, 10:17 PM)
And FWIW, I think that an objective measure of quality can be established, and when it is it is NOT about personal preference. You can look at how the music is crafted and how the pieces fit together- what techniques were used and if they were employed appropriately and executed well.  We certainly did this in school back when I was a music major. Doing so for a rock band is probably pointless, though.

There is no objective measure for quality. You could go on and on about an album and talk about those seemingly objective measurements for determining its quality, and I could come along and say the album is crap, and you could do the same thing. It's ALL about personal preference. The most we can do is show consensus opinion, which is why I cite things like rateyourmusic.com where several hundred or thousands of people vote on albums. Even then, when that data conflicts with your personal preference, you're just going to think all those people are wrong, or if you're maybe more charitable about it than I am, that you just disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this probably won't be a very popular post among some, but try to keep an open mind.

 

It seems like people often come up with elaborate reasons to defend latter-day Rush, like that it's not the band's fault if we don't like their newer music, they're just evolving and we're not up to the task somehow of being able to appreciate what they've evolved into, or that we're not grateful enough to just get anything from them at this point, or that somehow we're too jaded by our love of their earlier material and how it made us feel growing up that nothing could possibly live up to it.

 

I understand the desire to defend your favorite band, but sometimes it seems to boil down to a difficulty in accepting that a large portion of fans simply don't think their newer music in general is as good as their older material.

 

For some, and I completely understand this point of view, Rush is such an all-consuming passion that people will listen to material they don't initially like or love a ridiculous amount of times (understanding that some have loved their newer stuff immediately), hunting for buried treasure, intensely trying to wring every ounce of possible enjoyment out of it. It's like "I'm going to learn to appreciate this damn album if it kills me!," whereas if it were any other group, the album never would have gotten past listen one, or listen three or five if you're really patient.

 

I do understand, as I've done the same thing. I want to love new Rush as much as I loved older Rush. I give their albums WAY more chances than I would anything else, but in the end for the most part (although sometimes I have been very pleasantly surprised like with CP and much of S&A), I simply don't think their newer stuff is up to the old standard.

 

Believe me, I wish it were different and that I loved every album like I did all the way through HYF. It's NOT for a lack of trying or wanting it to be so. I want it to be so like you wouldn't believe. I'm crushed when I can't get into a new Rush album, especially after waiting years for it.

 

I truly believe that I'm smart enough to take off those rose colored glasses and give something a fair (actually much, MUCH more than fair) chance to impress me on its own merits. It either does, or it doesn't - pure and simple. Constructing elaborate reasons as to why I don't like it as much seems as pointless to me as my previous attempts to come up with reasons why someone would love VT - you either like things or you don't. I can't try any harder than I have to like their later stuff as much. Believe me, I've put in the time. If you like their newer stuff as much or more than their older stuff, that's fantastic. I wish I felt the same way, but it's not my fault that I don't like it as much. I simply don't.

 

Is it the band's fault? From my point of view, and I understand it's only MY point of view, the band isn't as good or consistent as they used to be with their newer material. I have to say it's the band's fault. Who else should I blame? Is it Radiohead's fault that I don't think T4E and VT are anywhere close in quality to Moving Pictures and Signals? In the end, who cares, and no one is truly to blame - I like what I like and I don't like what I don't like, and the same goes for everyone. It's just MY opinion that they're not putting out as good material as they once did. If you disagree, that's totally fine. Your reality might be very different, and that reality is no less valid a point of view than mine. I wish I shared your view, but I can't force what isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 28 2010, 06:00 AM)
If they make music that can't live up to that standard, it's not because I'm too blind to see it, it's because I simply don't think they've lived up to that standard.  I really think people are smart enough to judge fairly regardless.

 

Explain to me, then, why no long lived band has a majority fan base that prefer their new stuff to their earlier stuff? Is the answer that it's just impossible for a rock band to get better over time? If so, then it marks rock musicians as being unique, because most musicians (along with other master practitioners in any art) get better over time.

 

I'm not saying that new Rush is better or as good as old Rush. But I AM saying fans are too biased to judge it. You may think you are objective, and maybe you are, but it seems to me that the larger Rush fan base, like any other rock band's fan base, is not objective when judging these things.

 

You accuse people like me for liking the new music because I look at it with rose colored glasses (despite the fact that I never liked VT, even when it was the latest greatest thing), and then I accuse you of being too emotionally attached to the old stuff to judge fairly. Maybe I'm wrong about you- maybe you are wrong about me. Maybe it is all just about taste. But I don't think I'm wrong about rock music fans in general. There is just no realistic explanation as to why every rock band on the planet gets worse over time in their fans eyes.

 

 

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 28 2010, 06:00 AM)
There's no way you're gonna tell me that the RTB album is as good as Permanent Waves and I can't see that because I have too much baggage.

 

I don't think RtB is better than PW. Like I said, my view is that they've tried new things and gotten better as they refined what they were doing. PW represents the penultimate album of what they were doing in the 70s and culminated with MP. RtB they were still figuring out what they were doing in the 90s. The following albums were much stronger. It is a fairer comparison to put it up against "Fly By Night" or "Caress of Steel". Now Snakes and Arrows I'll equate to PW. Yes, I think it's that good. It's not quite as good as MP, but its pretty darn close, to my ears.

 

 

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 28 2010, 06:00 AM)
There is no objective measure for quality.

 

Tell this to my music professors. But again, "Quality" and "What I Like" are not always the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...