Riv Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (garbo @ Apr 3 2011, 12:38 PM) I always try to look for an opportunity to use this... http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/31808561/Michael%20Jackson%20Jackson_popcorn.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisibleairwaves Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barney_rebel Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Shattered the illusion of artistic integrity, yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riv Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 02:54 PM) QUOTE (tangy @ Apr 3 2011, 11:00 AM) I am sure they are crushed. Don't laugh. Things are a lot worse than we thought.   http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e85/rushgoober6/rushcom.jpg  Sorry....I know I am posting useless crap, but this is brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 07:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. Forget my notions of artistic integrity. What about wanting to create something new and exciting because you're a band and that's what bands do? Â Tens of thousands of dollars? That's less than one night's take on a tour. I think they could swing it if they wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 10:21 PM) QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 07:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. Forget my notions of artistic integrity. What about wanting to create something new and exciting because you're a band and that's what bands do? Â Tens of thousands of dollars? That's less than one night's take on a tour. I think they could swing it if they wanted to. They do. Just not to your expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 06:34 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 12:13 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 08:52 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 11:28 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:14 AM)QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 01:06 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 2 2011, 08:26 PM) Funny, I've never seen a band supply their fan base with more choices than Rush has in the past decade or so. They're busting their asses. Thank you. Are you serious? In the last 10 years (or the last almost 15 years for that matter, although those first 5 are understandable), they've made 2 albums, 1 ep of covers, and a single. Those aren't many choices, unless you consider live albums and DVD's choices. They're busting their asses on the road raking in the cash, and that's mostly been it. I dunno, in the past ten years I've had the pleasure of more options from Rush than any other time I can remember. And yes, live albums and DVDs are choices! The entire music industry is in a paradigm shift and Rush, at their age and comfort zone, is doing a pretty good job and providing their fan base plenty of options. Rush are old dogs and they are open to learning new tricks. Jeez, they're touring and writing and recording a new album AT THE SAME time. That's pretty good for old geezers... Also, it seems you believe that musicians should be holed up in a recording studio, whereas most musicians love performing their music live. And, I don't get this whole "raking in" the cash criticism. They're musicians, it's their livelihood. God bless 'em for "raking in" the cash, last summer I witness one of the best Rush concerts I've ever attended. And I'm looking forward to next week and seeing them at MSG. live albums and DVD's - meh. nice, but those are so easy these days and need almost no input from the band - easy money without having to produce any new material. and who's been listening to the last couple/few live rush albums? certainly not me...  it sounds to me just like rationalizing and not wanting to criticize your favorite band, but the reality is the band has released 2 albums, 1 EP of cover tunes and a single in the past 14 years. I'm not saying they have to be "holed up in a recording studio," but come on already!  QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:17 AM)When hasn't Rush, or any other band, been a "cash machine" for the business side of their profession? It's such a silly argument... it's really not. they managed for many, many years to both make money touring AND release albums on a semi-regular basis. music for me is creativity, and creativity is creating. without new material, they're just living off past glories as a golden oldies band and making a bundle covering the same ground over and over. you're free to look at them with as thick rose colored glasses as you want to, however. i love the band too, but i can't ignore the realities of precious few albums for the last two decades, and a plethora of cash-vacuuming touring. people say, oh great for them, they're making well-earned money. of course they are, and of course they deserve it, but they're not living up to the standard of a band with huge integrity to me by going the easy route.  the argument i don't buy is there's no money to be made in albums anymore. i'm not saying it's not true, but it's a poor excuse for not being an active creative band. if they were really interested in making new material, they'd make it work. god knows they've got enough money that they could make an album every 2 years, or even 3 if it was about still being a creative entity. once every 4 or 5 years feels more like "well, we can't get way with this incessant touring thing anymore without it looking really bad, so let's suck it up and make an album." ahhhhh, it feels so good to tell it like it is (obviously IMHO from my perspective), regardless of what anyone else thinks! I most certainly do not look at Rush through ["thick rose colored glasses". I criticize Rush when I think it is deserved. You simply want the Rush experience of 30 years ago. You seem to be the who is rationalizing your argument. To say that Rush, who are currently in their late fifties, are playing in safe and "raking in" the cash is silly. They are working hard and doing their best in a radically changing music business. And to say they aren't creative anymore is hogwash. You can argue they aren't as prolific or as cutting edge, but you can't argue they aren't being creative. Not many bands in the same boat as Rush are doing as much.  how are they being creative? in the 9 years since VT, they've made 1 ep of covers, 1 single and 1 (count 'em) studio album of new material. creativity, yes, if a tad chintzy and sporadic to say the least. yeah, supposedly they're working on a new album. i go by what they've released, not what they're supposedly working on. the only argument i'll give people is that at their age they don't have to be doing anything anymore. that's true. it IS much better than nothing, but that still doesn't change anything.  saying i want the band of 30 years ago seems to be yet another rationalization to me to give them a free pass to do whatever they want. and yeah, i do have to question their integrity. i don't think they've ever intentionally compromised with their music (although i have to wonder what the hell they were thinking with some of the songs on RTB), even when i didn't like it, and i don't think they've ever half-assed it at a concert, but i bet if you asked Rush 30 years ago if they ever thought they'd go on three tours in a row without a new album, they'd have laughed in your face and talked about bands who do that as sell outs who are just chasing a buck. some people want to be very glass half full and have nothing but positive things to say about the band, giving them a lot of leeway and the benefit of the doubt about everything. that's cool. it's very upbeat. i'm just calling 'em the way I see 'em. the first three songs on S&A are phenomenal, and the instrumentals were great. i'll give them credit where credit is due. You accuse me of rationalizing my argument that Rush is still a creative band and, ironically, you do a heck of a lot of rationalizing and assuming with your arguments. The fact is the music business is changing and Rush is adapting. The "record an album and then tour every year or two" cycle is pretty much gone and I get the feeling that's the standard of your argument. You don't have to like the way Rush is doing things nowadays (and believe me, I have some issues with how Rush does some things), but you gotta hand it to them that they are working hard. Three guys in their late fifties simultaneously touring the Americas and Europe and writing an album is impressive. It's fine. Rush can do what they want. My approval is obviously not required. And if the music industry is SOOOO bad that making albums is like throwing $50,000 into the fireplace, why are so many people still making albums? Maybe the fault is partially in the music industry, and part in Rush's inability to make music that captures the public imagination. Then again, a song like Far Cry had monster hit all over it. Maybe the record company no longer supports the band the way they would with a new band in terms of getting their new material the exposure it needs to be successful. Regardless, obviously something is majorly f*cked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wordy_McWordword Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 11:13 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 08:52 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 11:28 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:14 AM)QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 01:06 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 2 2011, 08:26 PM) Funny, I've never seen a band supply their fan base with more choices than Rush has in the past decade or so. They're busting their asses. Thank you. Are you serious? In the last 10 years (or the last almost 15 years for that matter, although those first 5 are understandable), they've made 2 albums, 1 ep of covers, and a single. Those aren't many choices, unless you consider live albums and DVD's choices. They're busting their asses on the road raking in the cash, and that's mostly been it. I dunno, in the past ten years I've had the pleasure of more options from Rush than any other time I can remember. And yes, live albums and DVDs are choices! The entire music industry is in a paradigm shift and Rush, at their age and comfort zone, is doing a pretty good job and providing their fan base plenty of options. Rush are old dogs and they are open to learning new tricks. Jeez, they're touring and writing and recording a new album AT THE SAME time. That's pretty good for old geezers... Also, it seems you believe that musicians should be holed up in a recording studio, whereas most musicians love performing their music live. And, I don't get this whole "raking in" the cash criticism. They're musicians, it's their livelihood. God bless 'em for "raking in" the cash, last summer I witness one of the best Rush concerts I've ever attended. And I'm looking forward to next week and seeing them at MSG. live albums and DVD's - meh. nice, but those are so easy these days and need almost no input from the band - easy money without having to produce any new material. and who's been listening to the last couple/few live rush albums? certainly not me...  it sounds to me just like rationalizing and not wanting to criticize your favorite band, but the reality is the band has released 2 albums, 1 EP of cover tunes and a single in the past 14 years. I'm not saying they have to be "holed up in a recording studio," but come on already!  QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:17 AM)When hasn't Rush, or any other band, been a "cash machine" for the business side of their profession? It's such a silly argument... it's really not. they managed for many, many years to both make money touring AND release albums on a semi-regular basis. music for me is creativity, and creativity is creating. without new material, they're just living off past glories as a golden oldies band and making a bundle covering the same ground over and over. you're free to look at them with as thick rose colored glasses as you want to, however. i love the band too, but i can't ignore the realities of precious few albums for the last two decades, and a plethora of cash-vacuuming touring. people say, oh great for them, they're making well-earned money. of course they are, and of course they deserve it, but they're not living up to the standard of a band with huge integrity to me by going the easy route.  the argument i don't buy is there's no money to be made in albums anymore. i'm not saying it's not true, but it's a poor excuse for not being an active creative band. if they were really interested in making new material, they'd make it work. god knows they've got enough money that they could make an album every 2 years, or even 3 if it was about still being a creative entity. once every 4 or 5 years feels more like "well, we can't get way with this incessant touring thing anymore without it looking really bad, so let's suck it up and make an album." ahhhhh, it feels so good to tell it like it is (obviously IMHO from my perspective), regardless of what anyone else thinks! I most certainly do not look at Rush through ["thick rose colored glasses". I criticize Rush when I think it is deserved. You simply want the Rush experience of 30 years ago. You seem to be the who is rationalizing your argument. To say that Rush, who are currently in their late fifties, are playing in safe and "raking in" the cash is silly. They are working hard and doing their best in a radically changing music business. And to say they aren't creative anymore is hogwash. You can argue they aren't as prolific or as cutting edge, but you can't argue they aren't being creative. Not many bands in the same boat as Rush are doing as much.  how are they being creative? in the 9 years since VT, they've made 1 ep of covers, 1 single and 1 (count 'em) studio album of new material. creativity, yes, if a tad chintzy and sporadic to say the least. yeah, supposedly they're working on a new album. i go by what they've released, not what they're supposedly working on. the only argument i'll give people is that at their age they don't have to be doing anything anymore. that's true. it IS much better than nothing, but that still doesn't change anything.  saying i want the band of 30 years ago seems to be yet another rationalization to me to give them a free pass to do whatever they want. and yeah, i do have to question their integrity. i don't think they've ever intentionally compromised with their music (although i have to wonder what the hell they were thinking with some of the songs on RTB), even when i didn't like it, and i don't think they've ever half-assed it at a concert, but i bet if you asked Rush 30 years ago if they ever thought they'd go on three tours in a row without a new album, they'd have laughed in your face and talked about bands who do that as sell outs who are just chasing a buck. some people want to be very glass half full and have nothing but positive things to say about the band, giving them a lot of leeway and the benefit of the doubt about everything. that's cool. it's very upbeat. i'm just calling 'em the way I see 'em. the first three songs on S&A are phenomenal, and the instrumentals were great. i'll give them credit where credit is due. You gotta remember though. It's THEIR band. THEY write the music. THEY record it. It's all THEIR decision. We don't have to like everything that they do. For me, I'm not a big fan of the mid- late '80's stuff they put out. But who am I to criticize that. It's THEIR music. They can write and play whatever and whenever THEY want. Not a damn thing us fans can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riv Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. They should do it because that is what they do! Musicians make music! Tens of thousands of dollars? They spend that every night flying around in their private jet. And Rush doesn't need to promote anything....they were made by their loyal fans and will always be supported by us...nobody is going to by a Rush album out of the blue by promotion....They are passed on to people by us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:24 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 10:21 PM) QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 07:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. Forget my notions of artistic integrity. What about wanting to create something new and exciting because you're a band and that's what bands do? Â Tens of thousands of dollars? That's less than one night's take on a tour. I think they could swing it if they wanted to. They do. Just not to your expectations. BTW, and FWIW, my apologies for any words I put forth that were offensive. I've always enjoyed your posts (and continue to). We obviously have different views on these matters, which is cool. We can agree to disagree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 10:28 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 06:34 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 12:13 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 08:52 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 11:28 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:14 AM)QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 01:06 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 2 2011, 08:26 PM) Funny, I've never seen a band supply their fan base with more choices than Rush has in the past decade or so. They're busting their asses. Thank you. Are you serious? In the last 10 years (or the last almost 15 years for that matter, although those first 5 are understandable), they've made 2 albums, 1 ep of covers, and a single. Those aren't many choices, unless you consider live albums and DVD's choices. They're busting their asses on the road raking in the cash, and that's mostly been it. I dunno, in the past ten years I've had the pleasure of more options from Rush than any other time I can remember. And yes, live albums and DVDs are choices! The entire music industry is in a paradigm shift and Rush, at their age and comfort zone, is doing a pretty good job and providing their fan base plenty of options. Rush are old dogs and they are open to learning new tricks. Jeez, they're touring and writing and recording a new album AT THE SAME time. That's pretty good for old geezers... Also, it seems you believe that musicians should be holed up in a recording studio, whereas most musicians love performing their music live. And, I don't get this whole "raking in" the cash criticism. They're musicians, it's their livelihood. God bless 'em for "raking in" the cash, last summer I witness one of the best Rush concerts I've ever attended. And I'm looking forward to next week and seeing them at MSG. live albums and DVD's - meh. nice, but those are so easy these days and need almost no input from the band - easy money without having to produce any new material. and who's been listening to the last couple/few live rush albums? certainly not me...  it sounds to me just like rationalizing and not wanting to criticize your favorite band, but the reality is the band has released 2 albums, 1 EP of cover tunes and a single in the past 14 years. I'm not saying they have to be "holed up in a recording studio," but come on already!  QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:17 AM)When hasn't Rush, or any other band, been a "cash machine" for the business side of their profession? It's such a silly argument... it's really not. they managed for many, many years to both make money touring AND release albums on a semi-regular basis. music for me is creativity, and creativity is creating. without new material, they're just living off past glories as a golden oldies band and making a bundle covering the same ground over and over. you're free to look at them with as thick rose colored glasses as you want to, however. i love the band too, but i can't ignore the realities of precious few albums for the last two decades, and a plethora of cash-vacuuming touring. people say, oh great for them, they're making well-earned money. of course they are, and of course they deserve it, but they're not living up to the standard of a band with huge integrity to me by going the easy route.  the argument i don't buy is there's no money to be made in albums anymore. i'm not saying it's not true, but it's a poor excuse for not being an active creative band. if they were really interested in making new material, they'd make it work. god knows they've got enough money that they could make an album every 2 years, or even 3 if it was about still being a creative entity. once every 4 or 5 years feels more like "well, we can't get way with this incessant touring thing anymore without it looking really bad, so let's suck it up and make an album." ahhhhh, it feels so good to tell it like it is (obviously IMHO from my perspective), regardless of what anyone else thinks! I most certainly do not look at Rush through ["thick rose colored glasses". I criticize Rush when I think it is deserved. You simply want the Rush experience of 30 years ago. You seem to be the who is rationalizing your argument. To say that Rush, who are currently in their late fifties, are playing in safe and "raking in" the cash is silly. They are working hard and doing their best in a radically changing music business. And to say they aren't creative anymore is hogwash. You can argue they aren't as prolific or as cutting edge, but you can't argue they aren't being creative. Not many bands in the same boat as Rush are doing as much.  how are they being creative? in the 9 years since VT, they've made 1 ep of covers, 1 single and 1 (count 'em) studio album of new material. creativity, yes, if a tad chintzy and sporadic to say the least. yeah, supposedly they're working on a new album. i go by what they've released, not what they're supposedly working on. the only argument i'll give people is that at their age they don't have to be doing anything anymore. that's true. it IS much better than nothing, but that still doesn't change anything.  saying i want the band of 30 years ago seems to be yet another rationalization to me to give them a free pass to do whatever they want. and yeah, i do have to question their integrity. i don't think they've ever intentionally compromised with their music (although i have to wonder what the hell they were thinking with some of the songs on RTB), even when i didn't like it, and i don't think they've ever half-assed it at a concert, but i bet if you asked Rush 30 years ago if they ever thought they'd go on three tours in a row without a new album, they'd have laughed in your face and talked about bands who do that as sell outs who are just chasing a buck. some people want to be very glass half full and have nothing but positive things to say about the band, giving them a lot of leeway and the benefit of the doubt about everything. that's cool. it's very upbeat. i'm just calling 'em the way I see 'em. the first three songs on S&A are phenomenal, and the instrumentals were great. i'll give them credit where credit is due. You accuse me of rationalizing my argument that Rush is still a creative band and, ironically, you do a heck of a lot of rationalizing and assuming with your arguments. The fact is the music business is changing and Rush is adapting. The "record an album and then tour every year or two" cycle is pretty much gone and I get the feeling that's the standard of your argument. You don't have to like the way Rush is doing things nowadays (and believe me, I have some issues with how Rush does some things), but you gotta hand it to them that they are working hard. Three guys in their late fifties simultaneously touring the Americas and Europe and writing an album is impressive. It's fine. Rush can do what they want. My approval is obviously not required. And if the music industry is SOOOO bad that making albums is like throwing $50,000 into the fireplace, why are so many people still making albums? Maybe the fault is partially in the music industry, and part in Rush's inability to make music that captures the public imagination. Then again, a song like Far Cry had monster hit all over it. Maybe the record company no longer supports the band the way they would with a new band in terms of getting their new material the exposure it needs to be successful. Regardless, obviously something is majorly f*cked up. There are a lot of established bands with long histories that take time between album releases. It's totally normal to release an album every 4 or 5 years. That's pretty much the pace Rush is currently on. Also, Rush's demographic and fan base simply do not buy albums or CDs or download in abundance. Newer bands record albums, but not much is expected in terms of sales. Concerts and touring. That's what bands rely on, for the most part. There was a time when a tour supported and album, now it's pretty much an album supports a tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barney_rebel Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 The caravan thunders onward... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 10:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:24 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 10:21 PM) QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 07:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. Forget my notions of artistic integrity. What about wanting to create something new and exciting because you're a band and that's what bands do? Â Tens of thousands of dollars? That's less than one night's take on a tour. I think they could swing it if they wanted to. They do. Just not to your expectations. BTW, and FWIW, my apologies for any words I put forth that were offensive. I've always enjoyed your posts (and continue to). We obviously have different views on these matters, which is cool. We can agree to disagree... I'm not offended, in any way. I look forward to and enjoy your posts. And sometimes it's fun to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 07:31 PM)QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. They should do it because that is what they do! Musicians make music!  That seems so obvious to me. And it's pretty simple. Add one more date to a tour, and voila, the album is paid for - the fans are happy, and the band gets to continue the creative process that is the basis of what being in a band is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (Wordy_McWordword @ Apr 3 2011, 07:28 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 11:13 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 08:52 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 11:28 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:14 AM)QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 01:06 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 2 2011, 08:26 PM) Funny, I've never seen a band supply their fan base with more choices than Rush has in the past decade or so. They're busting their asses. Thank you. Are you serious? In the last 10 years (or the last almost 15 years for that matter, although those first 5 are understandable), they've made 2 albums, 1 ep of covers, and a single. Those aren't many choices, unless you consider live albums and DVD's choices. They're busting their asses on the road raking in the cash, and that's mostly been it. I dunno, in the past ten years I've had the pleasure of more options from Rush than any other time I can remember. And yes, live albums and DVDs are choices! The entire music industry is in a paradigm shift and Rush, at their age and comfort zone, is doing a pretty good job and providing their fan base plenty of options. Rush are old dogs and they are open to learning new tricks. Jeez, they're touring and writing and recording a new album AT THE SAME time. That's pretty good for old geezers... Also, it seems you believe that musicians should be holed up in a recording studio, whereas most musicians love performing their music live. And, I don't get this whole "raking in" the cash criticism. They're musicians, it's their livelihood. God bless 'em for "raking in" the cash, last summer I witness one of the best Rush concerts I've ever attended. And I'm looking forward to next week and seeing them at MSG. live albums and DVD's - meh. nice, but those are so easy these days and need almost no input from the band - easy money without having to produce any new material. and who's been listening to the last couple/few live rush albums? certainly not me...  it sounds to me just like rationalizing and not wanting to criticize your favorite band, but the reality is the band has released 2 albums, 1 EP of cover tunes and a single in the past 14 years. I'm not saying they have to be "holed up in a recording studio," but come on already!  QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:17 AM)When hasn't Rush, or any other band, been a "cash machine" for the business side of their profession? It's such a silly argument... it's really not. they managed for many, many years to both make money touring AND release albums on a semi-regular basis. music for me is creativity, and creativity is creating. without new material, they're just living off past glories as a golden oldies band and making a bundle covering the same ground over and over. you're free to look at them with as thick rose colored glasses as you want to, however. i love the band too, but i can't ignore the realities of precious few albums for the last two decades, and a plethora of cash-vacuuming touring. people say, oh great for them, they're making well-earned money. of course they are, and of course they deserve it, but they're not living up to the standard of a band with huge integrity to me by going the easy route.  the argument i don't buy is there's no money to be made in albums anymore. i'm not saying it's not true, but it's a poor excuse for not being an active creative band. if they were really interested in making new material, they'd make it work. god knows they've got enough money that they could make an album every 2 years, or even 3 if it was about still being a creative entity. once every 4 or 5 years feels more like "well, we can't get way with this incessant touring thing anymore without it looking really bad, so let's suck it up and make an album." ahhhhh, it feels so good to tell it like it is (obviously IMHO from my perspective), regardless of what anyone else thinks! I most certainly do not look at Rush through ["thick rose colored glasses". I criticize Rush when I think it is deserved. You simply want the Rush experience of 30 years ago. You seem to be the who is rationalizing your argument. To say that Rush, who are currently in their late fifties, are playing in safe and "raking in" the cash is silly. They are working hard and doing their best in a radically changing music business. And to say they aren't creative anymore is hogwash. You can argue they aren't as prolific or as cutting edge, but you can't argue they aren't being creative. Not many bands in the same boat as Rush are doing as much.  how are they being creative? in the 9 years since VT, they've made 1 ep of covers, 1 single and 1 (count 'em) studio album of new material. creativity, yes, if a tad chintzy and sporadic to say the least. yeah, supposedly they're working on a new album. i go by what they've released, not what they're supposedly working on. the only argument i'll give people is that at their age they don't have to be doing anything anymore. that's true. it IS much better than nothing, but that still doesn't change anything.  saying i want the band of 30 years ago seems to be yet another rationalization to me to give them a free pass to do whatever they want. and yeah, i do have to question their integrity. i don't think they've ever intentionally compromised with their music (although i have to wonder what the hell they were thinking with some of the songs on RTB), even when i didn't like it, and i don't think they've ever half-assed it at a concert, but i bet if you asked Rush 30 years ago if they ever thought they'd go on three tours in a row without a new album, they'd have laughed in your face and talked about bands who do that as sell outs who are just chasing a buck. some people want to be very glass half full and have nothing but positive things to say about the band, giving them a lot of leeway and the benefit of the doubt about everything. that's cool. it's very upbeat. i'm just calling 'em the way I see 'em. the first three songs on S&A are phenomenal, and the instrumentals were great. i'll give them credit where credit is due. You gotta remember though. It's THEIR band. THEY write the music. THEY record it. It's all THEIR decision. We don't have to like everything that they do. For me, I'm not a big fan of the mid- late '80's stuff they put out. But who am I to criticize that. It's THEIR music. They can write and play whatever and whenever THEY want. Not a damn thing us fans can do about it. Nothing we can do about it, obviously. The band has done and will continue to do whatever it wants regardless of what anyone else thinks. I've never suffered from the illusion that the band cares one iota about my opinion, but it's a fan forum where we talk about the band, so I feel free to state it anyway. And why can't we criticize? We can praise the band, so why not criticize as well? Are only positive happy go lucky statements allowed? It's just our personal opinions and (hopefully) fun banter and conversation in the end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wordy_McWordword Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 09:44 PM) QUOTE (Wordy_McWordword @ Apr 3 2011, 07:28 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 11:13 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 08:52 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 11:28 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:14 AM)QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 01:06 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 2 2011, 08:26 PM) Funny, I've never seen a band supply their fan base with more choices than Rush has in the past decade or so. They're busting their asses. Thank you. Are you serious? In the last 10 years (or the last almost 15 years for that matter, although those first 5 are understandable), they've made 2 albums, 1 ep of covers, and a single. Those aren't many choices, unless you consider live albums and DVD's choices. They're busting their asses on the road raking in the cash, and that's mostly been it. I dunno, in the past ten years I've had the pleasure of more options from Rush than any other time I can remember. And yes, live albums and DVDs are choices! The entire music industry is in a paradigm shift and Rush, at their age and comfort zone, is doing a pretty good job and providing their fan base plenty of options. Rush are old dogs and they are open to learning new tricks. Jeez, they're touring and writing and recording a new album AT THE SAME time. That's pretty good for old geezers... Also, it seems you believe that musicians should be holed up in a recording studio, whereas most musicians love performing their music live. And, I don't get this whole "raking in" the cash criticism. They're musicians, it's their livelihood. God bless 'em for "raking in" the cash, last summer I witness one of the best Rush concerts I've ever attended. And I'm looking forward to next week and seeing them at MSG. live albums and DVD's - meh. nice, but those are so easy these days and need almost no input from the band - easy money without having to produce any new material. and who's been listening to the last couple/few live rush albums? certainly not me...  it sounds to me just like rationalizing and not wanting to criticize your favorite band, but the reality is the band has released 2 albums, 1 EP of cover tunes and a single in the past 14 years. I'm not saying they have to be "holed up in a recording studio," but come on already!  QUOTE (ReRushed @ Apr 3 2011, 07:17 AM)When hasn't Rush, or any other band, been a "cash machine" for the business side of their profession? It's such a silly argument... it's really not. they managed for many, many years to both make money touring AND release albums on a semi-regular basis. music for me is creativity, and creativity is creating. without new material, they're just living off past glories as a golden oldies band and making a bundle covering the same ground over and over. you're free to look at them with as thick rose colored glasses as you want to, however. i love the band too, but i can't ignore the realities of precious few albums for the last two decades, and a plethora of cash-vacuuming touring. people say, oh great for them, they're making well-earned money. of course they are, and of course they deserve it, but they're not living up to the standard of a band with huge integrity to me by going the easy route.  the argument i don't buy is there's no money to be made in albums anymore. i'm not saying it's not true, but it's a poor excuse for not being an active creative band. if they were really interested in making new material, they'd make it work. god knows they've got enough money that they could make an album every 2 years, or even 3 if it was about still being a creative entity. once every 4 or 5 years feels more like "well, we can't get way with this incessant touring thing anymore without it looking really bad, so let's suck it up and make an album." ahhhhh, it feels so good to tell it like it is (obviously IMHO from my perspective), regardless of what anyone else thinks! I most certainly do not look at Rush through ["thick rose colored glasses". I criticize Rush when I think it is deserved. You simply want the Rush experience of 30 years ago. You seem to be the who is rationalizing your argument. To say that Rush, who are currently in their late fifties, are playing in safe and "raking in" the cash is silly. They are working hard and doing their best in a radically changing music business. And to say they aren't creative anymore is hogwash. You can argue they aren't as prolific or as cutting edge, but you can't argue they aren't being creative. Not many bands in the same boat as Rush are doing as much.  how are they being creative? in the 9 years since VT, they've made 1 ep of covers, 1 single and 1 (count 'em) studio album of new material. creativity, yes, if a tad chintzy and sporadic to say the least. yeah, supposedly they're working on a new album. i go by what they've released, not what they're supposedly working on. the only argument i'll give people is that at their age they don't have to be doing anything anymore. that's true. it IS much better than nothing, but that still doesn't change anything.  saying i want the band of 30 years ago seems to be yet another rationalization to me to give them a free pass to do whatever they want. and yeah, i do have to question their integrity. i don't think they've ever intentionally compromised with their music (although i have to wonder what the hell they were thinking with some of the songs on RTB), even when i didn't like it, and i don't think they've ever half-assed it at a concert, but i bet if you asked Rush 30 years ago if they ever thought they'd go on three tours in a row without a new album, they'd have laughed in your face and talked about bands who do that as sell outs who are just chasing a buck. some people want to be very glass half full and have nothing but positive things to say about the band, giving them a lot of leeway and the benefit of the doubt about everything. that's cool. it's very upbeat. i'm just calling 'em the way I see 'em. the first three songs on S&A are phenomenal, and the instrumentals were great. i'll give them credit where credit is due. You gotta remember though. It's THEIR band. THEY write the music. THEY record it. It's all THEIR decision. We don't have to like everything that they do. For me, I'm not a big fan of the mid- late '80's stuff they put out. But who am I to criticize that. It's THEIR music. They can write and play whatever and whenever THEY want. Not a damn thing us fans can do about it. Nothing we can do about it, obviously. The band has done and will continue to do whatever it wants regardless of what anyone else thinks. I've never suffered from the illusion that the band cares one iota about my opinion, but it's a fan forum where we talk about the band, so I feel free to state it anyway. And why can't we criticize? We can praise the band, so why not criticize as well? Are only positive happy go lucky statements allowed? It's just our personal opinions and (hopefully) fun banter and conversation in the end... I just meant more along the lines of the fact that they put all of their hard work and energy into what they think we'll like. I'm not gonna say that they shouldn't have done it. That's not my place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisibleairwaves Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 06:31 PM) QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. They should do it because that is what they do! Musicians make music! Tens of thousands of dollars? They spend that every night flying around in their private jet. And Rush doesn't need to promote anything....they were made by their loyal fans and will always be supported by us...nobody is going to by a Rush album out of the blue by promotion....They are passed on to people by us. If they released an album without promoting it at all, simply expecting the diehards to know about it and buy it, they'd DEFINITELY lose a shitload of cash. The promotion is necessary to get the casual fans out to the stores, getting them to say "Oh, hey, Rush has a new album out, those songs that were on the radio way back when were pretty good, maybe I'll check it out". Us diehards that line up to buy it on release day aren't as numerous as we like to think we are, and they can't rely on us to make money from an album. And even if they didn't have to promote it, the cost of making albums the way they like to make albums is obscene. Spending months with world-renowned producers, top-notch engineers, and high-end studios doesn't come cheap. Sure, they could cut costs and use less expensive facilities and personnel and whatnot, but then we'd all be bitching about how it doesn't sound as good as other releases. So what if they're wealthy enough to absorb the financial loss without worrying too much? It's their money, not yours. If they don't spend it where you want them to spend it, tough shit. They're a group of 50-something guys that have paid their dues in the business, and they've long since earned the right to take it easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riv Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:53 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 06:31 PM) QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. They should do it because that is what they do! Musicians make music! Tens of thousands of dollars? They spend that every night flying around in their private jet. And Rush doesn't need to promote anything....they were made by their loyal fans and will always be supported by us...nobody is going to by a Rush album out of the blue by promotion....They are passed on to people by us. If they released an album without promoting it at all, simply expecting the diehards to know about it and buy it, they'd DEFINITELY lose a shitload of cash. The promotion is necessary to get the casual fans out to the stores, getting them to say "Oh, hey, Rush has a new album out, those songs that were on the radio way back when were pretty good, maybe I'll check it out". Us diehards that line up to buy it on release day aren't as numerous as we like to think we are, and they can't rely on us to make money from an album. And even if they didn't have to promote it, the cost of making albums the way they like to make albums is obscene. Spending months with world-renowned producers, top-notch engineers, and high-end studios doesn't come cheap. Sure, they could cut costs and use less expensive facilities and personnel and whatnot, but then we'd all be bitching about how it doesn't sound as good as other releases. So what if they're wealthy enough to absorb the financial loss without worrying too much? It's their money, not yours. If they don't spend it where you want them to spend it, tough shit. They're a group of 50-something guys that have paid their dues in the business, and they've long since earned the right to take it easy. They can do what they want. I saw them last night and it was my 26th show. I will see them 4 more times this tour. I love the fact they are touring because I just like spending time with them. BUT- your argument is BS. Money to make an album is not a factor for them. And I do believe it is only people who are fans of Rush that buy their albums. The only new fans they have are from our kids and our friends. It's not mainstream and there are only 3 or 4 songs you will ever hear on a radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barney_rebel Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 10:40 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 07:31 PM)QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. They should do it because that is what they do! Musicians make music!  That seems so obvious to me. And it's pretty simple. Add one more date to a tour, and voila, the album is paid for - the fans are happy, and the band gets to continue the creative process that is the basis of what being in a band is. Remember, there's a record label, producer and a lot of other people who have a say in things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riv Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (barney_rebel @ Apr 3 2011, 11:08 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 10:40 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 07:31 PM)QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. They should do it because that is what they do! Musicians make music!  That seems so obvious to me. And it's pretty simple. Add one more date to a tour, and voila, the album is paid for - the fans are happy, and the band gets to continue the creative process that is the basis of what being in a band is. Remember, there's a record label, producer and a lot of other people who have a say in things. If they really wanted to they could put out their own albums. Much poorer bands do it every day. Start their own label...like moon records! Or Rocinante. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisibleairwaves Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 07:05 PM) QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:53 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 06:31 PM) QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. They should do it because that is what they do! Musicians make music! Tens of thousands of dollars? They spend that every night flying around in their private jet. And Rush doesn't need to promote anything....they were made by their loyal fans and will always be supported by us...nobody is going to by a Rush album out of the blue by promotion....They are passed on to people by us. If they released an album without promoting it at all, simply expecting the diehards to know about it and buy it, they'd DEFINITELY lose a shitload of cash. The promotion is necessary to get the casual fans out to the stores, getting them to say "Oh, hey, Rush has a new album out, those songs that were on the radio way back when were pretty good, maybe I'll check it out". Us diehards that line up to buy it on release day aren't as numerous as we like to think we are, and they can't rely on us to make money from an album. And even if they didn't have to promote it, the cost of making albums the way they like to make albums is obscene. Spending months with world-renowned producers, top-notch engineers, and high-end studios doesn't come cheap. Sure, they could cut costs and use less expensive facilities and personnel and whatnot, but then we'd all be bitching about how it doesn't sound as good as other releases. So what if they're wealthy enough to absorb the financial loss without worrying too much? It's their money, not yours. If they don't spend it where you want them to spend it, tough shit. They're a group of 50-something guys that have paid their dues in the business, and they've long since earned the right to take it easy. They can do what they want. I saw them last night and it was my 26th show. I will see them 4 more times this tour. I love the fact they are touring because I just like spending time with them. BUT- your argument is BS. Money to make an album is not a factor for them. And I do believe it is only people who are fans of Rush that buy their albums. The only new fans they have are from our kids and our friends. It's not mainstream and there are only 3 or 4 songs you will ever hear on a radio. Not true at all. They've had a lot of exposure to people who aren't diehard fans, especially in the last few years what with the movie cameos and the new documentary. They aren't top-40 by any means, but it's not true at all to say that diehards are the only people that matter to them from a financial perspective. You really think all of the thousands of people filling arenas and auditoriums at Rush shows are the obsessives who have all the albums and would buy a new one whether they promoted it or not? There's plenty of casual fans out there, and that's where the big bucks are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barney_rebel Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 11:10 PM) QUOTE (barney_rebel @ Apr 3 2011, 11:08 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 10:40 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 07:31 PM)QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. They should do it because that is what they do! Musicians make music!  That seems so obvious to me. And it's pretty simple. Add one more date to a tour, and voila, the album is paid for - the fans are happy, and the band gets to continue the creative process that is the basis of what being in a band is. Remember, there's a record label, producer and a lot of other people who have a say in things. If they really wanted to they could put out their own albums. Much poorer bands do it every day. Start their own label...like moon records! Or Rocinante. Sure, but I think they're pretty loyal to the folks behind them. Except the fans, so it seems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riv Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 11:11 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 07:05 PM) QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:53 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 06:31 PM) QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. They should do it because that is what they do! Musicians make music! Tens of thousands of dollars? They spend that every night flying around in their private jet. And Rush doesn't need to promote anything....they were made by their loyal fans and will always be supported by us...nobody is going to by a Rush album out of the blue by promotion....They are passed on to people by us. If they released an album without promoting it at all, simply expecting the diehards to know about it and buy it, they'd DEFINITELY lose a shitload of cash. The promotion is necessary to get the casual fans out to the stores, getting them to say "Oh, hey, Rush has a new album out, those songs that were on the radio way back when were pretty good, maybe I'll check it out". Us diehards that line up to buy it on release day aren't as numerous as we like to think we are, and they can't rely on us to make money from an album. And even if they didn't have to promote it, the cost of making albums the way they like to make albums is obscene. Spending months with world-renowned producers, top-notch engineers, and high-end studios doesn't come cheap. Sure, they could cut costs and use less expensive facilities and personnel and whatnot, but then we'd all be bitching about how it doesn't sound as good as other releases. So what if they're wealthy enough to absorb the financial loss without worrying too much? It's their money, not yours. If they don't spend it where you want them to spend it, tough shit. They're a group of 50-something guys that have paid their dues in the business, and they've long since earned the right to take it easy. They can do what they want. I saw them last night and it was my 26th show. I will see them 4 more times this tour. I love the fact they are touring because I just like spending time with them. BUT- your argument is BS. Money to make an album is not a factor for them. And I do believe it is only people who are fans of Rush that buy their albums. The only new fans they have are from our kids and our friends. It's not mainstream and there are only 3 or 4 songs you will ever hear on a radio. Not true at all. They've had a lot of exposure to people who aren't diehard fans, especially in the last few years what with the movie cameos and the new documentary. They aren't top-40 by any means, but it's not true at all to say that diehards are the only people that matter to them from a financial perspective. You really think all of the thousands of people filling arenas and auditoriums at Rush shows are the obsessives who have all the albums and would buy a new one whether they promoted it or not? There's plenty of casual fans out there, and that's where the big bucks are. We've already established that putting out an album does not amount to money. If they are tired of being creative and working at their craft so be it. I'll still spend thousands every tour. But I want some new music before somebody dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 11:10 PM) QUOTE (barney_rebel @ Apr 3 2011, 11:08 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 10:40 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 07:31 PM)QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. They should do it because that is what they do! Musicians make music!  That seems so obvious to me. And it's pretty simple. Add one more date to a tour, and voila, the album is paid for - the fans are happy, and the band gets to continue the creative process that is the basis of what being in a band is. Remember, there's a record label, producer and a lot of other people who have a say in things. If they really wanted to they could put out their own albums. Much poorer bands do it every day. Start their own label...like moon records! Or Rocinante. How much does it cost to write, record, mix, master, package, ship and promote an album on a professional level? As rich as some of us think Rush is, if they record an album out of pocket, they will probably lose money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riv Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 QUOTE (barney_rebel @ Apr 3 2011, 11:14 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 11:10 PM) QUOTE (barney_rebel @ Apr 3 2011, 11:08 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 3 2011, 10:40 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Apr 3 2011, 07:31 PM)QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Apr 3 2011, 10:13 PM) Goobs, I'm not sure you appreciate just how dreadful the situation with music sales is. Not only is there no money to be made, it's actually worse than that. The fact is, writing, producing and promoting an album of the kind of standards expected of Rush would most likely be a money-losing proposition at this point, possibly to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or more. It's completely unreasonable to expect other people to throw away that kind of money simply to satisfy your notions of artistic integrity. They should do it because that is what they do! Musicians make music!  That seems so obvious to me. And it's pretty simple. Add one more date to a tour, and voila, the album is paid for - the fans are happy, and the band gets to continue the creative process that is the basis of what being in a band is. Remember, there's a record label, producer and a lot of other people who have a say in things. If they really wanted to they could put out their own albums. Much poorer bands do it every day. Start their own label...like moon records! Or Rocinante. Sure, but I think they're pretty loyal to the folks behind them. Except the fans, so it seems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.