Looking Through The Eyeglass in Reverse

[StuartBruce]

The argument about whether new output from Rush is ever as good as the songs they produced in their golden years is invalid for two reasons.

 

Firstly it is all subjective. An individual will enjoy a song or selection of songs much more than another individual. It all stems from life experience, preference in tonality and subject matter, along with their state of mind and circumstances when they first hear the work, and their mood when they select to listen to it again.

 

Secondly and maybe more importantly I believe, is the concept that older songs have been ingrained in to our psyche for such a long period of time that newer works can't dislodge them. It is all about perspective.

 

Whether you strongly agree or strongly disagree with me, it is highly unlikey to change how I feel about a song. Before I gave them a proper open listen, I read a fair few critiques of S&A and VT that were critical. I know it is opinion and people can and do dislike the songs and/or production.

 

But it made me wonder if you had been listening to VT or S&A for 20 - 30 years how would your opinion of it change? We won't know for another 20 odd years but both the albums are growing on me and each time I listen I wonder if we are being unfair in our judgement. Imagine VT was their second album, when production levels were less technical and more 'dirty'. How would you regard it then? It's a rhetorical question of course.

 

I don't want to start a VT and S&A battle thread (although I think I am deluding myself) but I would be interested if you think either album will improve with age.

[cygnus_thegodofbalance]

It is subjective, but only to a certain degree. Many Rush fans are so because of the strong songwriting and playing chops from the three members. It is hard to argue that The Larger Bowl is a stronger song than Natural Science in that sense; Natural Science is a better song in all categories, musically speaking.

 

Many Rush fans prefer their older work (or at least 2112-PoW) because of the complex songwriting and playing chops. It seems to me that their newer material is very "safe." There is no risk taking or complex themes going on in their new songs, and the progressive edge of their earlier music seems to be lost. They have gone much more pop and mainstream since the late 80s, and as a result, has lost some of what makes Rush Rush.

 

You can like Roll the Bones more than Moving Pictures, that's fine. That's your opinion. But try to argue that it is a better, stronger album. It can't be done.

[ioc]

QUOTE (cygnus_thegodofbalance @ Apr 27 2011, 10:43 AM)

But try to argue that it is a better, stronger album. It can't be done.

But it clearly CAN be done because...["and round and round she goes!"]

[zogoto]

I think a lot of it is complacency. I recall reading an interview with Alex in which he said he was very satisfied with his ability to play guitar. I don't blame him- I'd be satisfied to if I could compose solos like that, but I think it's a big change from their 'classic period' approach. I think Geddy is in a similar place, he has a style of composing now that seems pretty set in and comfortable.

 

Neil, on the other hand still seems to be pushing himself- especially right now. At least in regards to his instrument, not so sure about on the lyrical front.

[circumstantial tree]

Personally, I wouldn't overthink it. I may like it or I may not. I listen to it and let it flow. I have no control over how it will affect me. I typically enjoy music if I have some kind of personal association with enjoyable life experiences.

 

I don't delve into the technical aspects of "more guitar is better". I like Hold Your Fire and Vapor Trails, yet both are worlds apart in mood and content.

 

[rugen]

The quality of Rush's music is not a objective or subjective matter. It's "supersubjective". By that i mean it's a consensus about a large degree of people who have listened closely to their music over the years. And can say to other people that the music of Rush was as it's "best" in the 70's or 80's. This statement doesn't mean that you cannot like Rush's music today, but that you have to understand what meanings is in the concept use by people, like "better", "oustanding", "excellence" etc.. And those concepts are not subjective or objective, but supersubjective, if i assume that those people have listened to all their cd's with a open mind. Sure, i can think that the reasons why those people prefer the early period of Rush's music, is because of the complexity of the music, for one reason, but it's more than that. It's the overall experience that connect each subjects when they listen to the music of Rush. So, yes it's have to do with "subjectivity", but not personnal subjectivity. It's something stronger that i can share with the others and say : "We know what it means, when we say that the best Rush's years are the 70's and the 80's..." If time has something to do with that, it's only in relation with the quality of the music. If i like more the Presto album today after 20 years, it doesn't have the same meaning as "Moving Pictures"'s cd, who will remain a "classic", while Presto is not.

 

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (StuartBruce @ Apr 27 2011, 01:20 AM)

The argument about whether new output from Rush is ever as good as the songs they produced in their golden years is invalid for two reasons. Firstly it is all subjective. An individual will enjoy a song or selection of songs much more than another individual. It all stems from life experience, preference in tonality and subject matter, along with their state of mind and circumstances when they first hear the work, and their mood when they select to listen to it again. Secondly and maybe more importantly I believe, is the concept that older songs have been ingrained in to our psyche for such a long period of time that newer works can't dislodge them. It is all about perspective. Whether you strongly agree or strongly disagree with me, it is highly unlikey to change how I feel about a song. Before I gave them a proper open listen, I read a fair few critiques of S&A and VT that were critical. I know it is opinion and people can and do dislike the songs and/or production. But it made me wonder if you had been listening to VT or S&A for 20 - 30 years how would your opinion of it change? We won't know for another 20 odd years but both the albums are growing on me and each time I listen I wonder if we are being unfair in our judgement. Imagine VT was their second album, when production levels were less technical and more 'dirty'. How would you regard it then? It's a rhetorical question of course. I don't want to start a VT and S&A battle thread (although I think I am deluding myself) but I would be interested if you think either album will improve with age.

I disagree with both your main points. While I do agree that everyone's opinion is subjective, there definitely is an enormous general consensus opinion that states that their newer output isn't as strong as their older output. Of course that doesn't matter at all to you or anyone else's subjective opinion, but to deny that this is the case would be erroneous.

 

And I think plenty of time has passed by which we're able to fairly judge their material. You say the word "new" as if they just release an album last year, and then one the year before that. Their last album was 4 years ago, the one before that was 9 years ago. I would say that yeah, in the first year or maybe even two at the most opinions can change, but after that it's more of a rarity. There are some Rush songs that took 20 years to grow on me, but that is really the rare, rare exception. Usually if I don't like or love it after the first year, I never will, and if I like or love it pretty much immediately, that won't change. That seems to be the case for most people from what I've observed.

[Principled Man]

QUOTE (StuartBruce @ Apr 27 2011, 03:20 AM)

Secondly and maybe more importantly I believe, is the concept that older songs have been ingrained in to our psyche for such a long period of time that newer works can't dislodge them. It is all about perspective.

^^^I agree with this.

 

In the 70's, progressive rock was exploding onto the music scene. Those of us who were a part of that musical experience were swept away.....and willingly so! There is no way to duplicate that unique experience. Rush's progressive music was flowering at the same time we fans were reveling in the Progressive Era. The two are totally intertwined.

 

When Rush started to change their music in the 80's, a great many of us fans simply could not adapt. Their perspective, or their "definition" of Rush, was rigidly set, so it's only natural that they won't see any future music as "equal" to the music of the 70's.

 

Metallica experienced a similar response when they stopped writing their long epics and went to shorter, more "radio-friendly" songs. Those fans who followed/worshipped the band in their early years had trouble adapting, too.

 

Perspective does matter, according to when you lived and when you first bonded with Rush's music.

[Unattractive Truth]

I guess I have the opposite "problem".

 

I'd rather listen to Vapor Trails or Snakes and Arrows than Caress of Steel or Fly By Night any day....

 

I'm really got into Rush in the 80's. I was 14 when Moving Pictures came out. The era between PW and HYF is what I think of as the "glory days".

 

I wasn't thrilled with RTB or T4E, but these last two have been great, IMHO.

 

[Cosy Toes]

QUOTE (StuartBruce @ Apr 27 2011, 08:20 AM)

The argument about whether new output from Rush is ever as good as the songs they produced in their golden years is invalid for two reasons.

No.

 

It's valid for one reason, nuRush is Shite.

 

I'm only 17 years old, so am immune from the zeitgeist effect. I've heard BU2B (Ballsed up to Buggery) three timeson Planet Rock this week, and it makes me want to cob the radio out the window. This afternoon I heard Xanadu on Planet Rock, and the hairs on the back of my neck like so stood up on end *shakes hands in front of face*

 

It stretches credulity waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy beyond belief that a Rok band can produce music as good 40 years into their career as in their early days. Listen to the Led Zeppelin canon.

[USB Connector]

Well, I've discovered Rush on my own, so I only found out what was considered "prime" when I started following RIAB last year. The only push I ever got from an external source was Guitar Hero and Rock Band which introduced me to the older Rush songs in the following order: YYZ (Guitar Hero II), Tom Sawyer (Rock Band 1), Closer to the Heart, Working Man and Moving Pictures (Rock Band 1 Downloadable content). The first time I played any of the songs off of MP, I was just blown away by how it all stood up against the other songs in the franchise of Rock Band/Guitar Hero. Tom Sawyer was fairly boring to play on "guitar" and yet it was more fun to play overall, even against CTTH and WM which had much more interesting instrument tracks individually. Now I just want you guys to keep this in mind but at the time I didn't care to take notice what albums each song was coming from. After my Rock Band exposure, I just looked up their discography on wikipedia and went from there without looking at reviews.

 

Basically, after listening to the three retrospect albums I essentially listened to the albums in almost reverse order of release. I almost immediately disliked RTB, T4E, CP, S&A and CoS and just loved songs from PeW, MP, PoW and Presto. Mind you, I didn't like 2112 and Hemispheres at first because I still considered 4 minutes to be long songs but after I adapted to lengthy tracks, I liked 2112 and Hemispheres.

 

I've also come to love RTB and think more highly some of the other albums since then

 

So, without knowing what Rush was in their prime, I came to almost the same conclusions as many Rush fans. Does it mean their input was greater in their prime? Not necessarily, as I am only one individual. Is this subjective? Yes, but you have to admit, the numbers with similar opinions are quite staggering. All it means really is that by the standards of our culture they likely aren't as good.

 

As for the new singles, I think it's still too early to judge them with enough objectivity. Wait for CA to come out, and wait one more year, then we can look at them and judge after the initial "OMG NEW RUSH ALBUM IS AWESOME/CRAP!!!!" is over.

[Tarkus406]

I don't give a flyin crap what you think of Rush's newer albums. I friggen love them just as much as the older albums.

[Good,bad,andrush]

QUOTE (Tarkus406 @ Apr 27 2011, 07:22 PM)

I don't give a flyin crap what you think of Rush's newer albums. I friggen love them just as much as the older albums.

+1

[Tommy Sawyer]

QUOTE (Good,bad,andrush @ Apr 27 2011, 08:23 PM)

QUOTE (Tarkus406 @ Apr 27 2011, 07:22 PM) I don't give a flyin crap what you think of Rush's newer albums. I friggen love them just as much as the older albums. +1 +2 It's still after all

[GUP1771]

QUOTE (usb_connector @ Apr 27 2011, 07:14 PM)

Well, I've discovered Rush on my own, so I only found out what was considered "prime" when I started following RIAB last year. The only push I ever got from an external source was Guitar Hero and Rock Band which introduced me to the older Rush songs in the following order: YYZ (Guitar Hero II), Tom Sawyer (Rock Band 1), Closer to the Heart, Working Man and Moving Pictures (Rock Band 1 Downloadable content). The first time I played any of the songs off of MP, I was just blown away by how it all stood up against the other songs in the franchise of Rock Band/Guitar Hero. Tom Sawyer was fairly boring to play on "guitar" and yet it was more fun to play overall, even against CTTH and WM which had much more interesting instrument tracks individually. Now I just want you guys to keep this in mind but at the time I didn't care to take notice what albums each song was coming from. After my Rock Band exposure, I just looked up their discography on wikipedia and went from there without looking at reviews. Basically, after listening to the three retrospect albums I essentially listened to the albums in almost reverse order of release. I almost immediately disliked RTB, T4E, CP, S&A and CoS and just loved songs from PeW, MP, PoW and Presto. Mind you, I didn't like 2112 and Hemispheres at first because I still considered 4 minutes to be long songs but after I adapted to lengthy tracks, I liked 2112 and Hemispheres. I've also come to love RTB and think more highly some of the other albums since then So, without knowing what Rush was in their prime, I came to almost the same conclusions as many Rush fans. Does it mean their input was greater in their prime? Not necessarily, as I am only one individual. Is this subjective? Yes, but you have to admit, the numbers with similar opinions are quite staggering. All it means really is that by the standards of our culture they likely aren't as good. As for the new singles, I think it's still too early to judge them with enough objectivity. Wait for CA to come out, and wait one more year, then we can look at them and judge after the initial "OMG NEW RUSH ALBUM IS AWESOME/CRAP!!!!" is over.

 

Your post is somewhat a reflection of myself.

 

QUOTE (Tarkus406 @ Apr 27 2011, 07:22 PM)

I don't give a flyin crap what you think of Rush's newer albums. I friggen love them just as much as the older albums.

 

+3

 

Rush has showed me that diversity in musical approach leads to longevity, and also fuels creativity. If Rush continued, and made more albums similar to the album's between 2112 and Moving Pictures, I believe they wouldn't be around today, and there future material might have become stagnant. The various styles approached on each succeeding album has opened new doors in terms of musical genres for me, and I bet their experimenting over time helps them as musicians. Each album is special in their own way. Everything is subjective, especially in the realm of music.

 

[Silas Lang]

Power Windows was the last of what I would call their peak years. The material after that generally couldn't quite reach that level (with some exceptions of course). But they've still done better than any other group that's lasted a comparable length of time. Their recent stuff stacks up pretty damn well against lots of other bands in their respective primes.