The Gaps between albums..

[The Owl]

Just a Nice Reference guide till how long the spaces were in between albums.... an interesting topic for discussion.

 

- (Mar, 14 1974) to Fly By Night (Feb 15 1975) = 328 Days

 

- Fly By Night (Feb 15, 1975) to Caress of Steel (Sept, 24 1975) = 220 days

 

- COS (Sept, 24 1975) to 2112 (April 1, 1976) = 190 Days

 

- 2112 (April 1, 1976) to A Farewell to Kings (Sept, 1 1977) = 1 Year, 152 Days

 

- AFTK (Sept 1, 1977) to Hemispheres (Oct 29 1978) = 1 Year, 58 Days

 

- Hemispheres (Oct, 29, 1978) to Permanent Waves (Jan 1, 1980) = 1 Year, 64 Days

 

- PeW (Jan 1, 1980) to Moving Pictures (Feb 12, 1981) = 1 Year, 43 Days

 

- Moving Pictures (Feb 12, 1981) to Signals (Sept, 9 1982) = 1 Year, 208 Days

 

- Signals (Sept 9 1982) to Grace Under Pressure (April 12, 1984) = 1 Year, 216 Days

 

- GuP (April 12, 1984) to Power Windows (Oct, 29 1985) = 1 year, 200 Days

 

- Power Windows (Oct 29, 1985) to Hold Your Fire (Sept 8, 1987) = 1 Year, 313 Days

 

- HYF (Sept 8, 1987) to Presto (Nov 21, 1989) = 2 Years, 75 Days

 

- Presto (Nov, 21 1989) to Roll The Bones (Sept 3, 1991) = 1 Year, 285 Days

 

- RTB (Sept, 3 1991) to Counterparts (Oct, 19, 1993) = 2 Years, 47 Days

 

- CP (Oct, 19 1993) to Test for Echo (Sept, 10 1996) = 2 Years, 327 Days

 

- T4E (Sept, 10 1996) to Vapor Trails (May, 14 2002) = 5 Years, 247 Days

 

- VT (May, 14 2002) to Snakes & Arrows (May, 1 2007)= 4 Years, 353 Days

 

- S&A (May, 1 2007) to Clockwork Angles (????) = 4 Years, 20 Days AND COUNTING

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

Owl, I predict Goob will ask you to marry him. You've given him another excuse to tell Rush how often they SHOULD be releasing albums as opposed to touring.

[The Owl]

Additional Info

 

I did not include "Feedback" in this for obvious reasons.

 

 

If Clockwork Angels is NOT released by April 18th, 2012 it will mark the LONGEST gap in between albums, while the band is in an active state (I.E Not including the Hiatus due to Neal's Family Issues)

 

 

Longest Gap thus far was the T4E to VT hiatus.

 

Shortest gap was Caress of Steel to 2112! Only 190 days in between albums.... I wish this would happen again! lol

 

 

[metaldad]

QUOTE (The Owl @ May 20 2011, 10:14 AM)

- (Mar, 14 1974) to Fly By Night (Feb 15 1975) = 328 Days - Fly By Night (Feb 15, 1975) to Caress of Steel (Sept, 24 1975) = 220 days - COS (Sept, 24 1975) to 2112 (April 1, 1976) = 190 Days - 2112 (April 1, 1976) to A Farewell to Kings (Sept, 1 1977) = 1 Year, 152 Days - AFTK (Sept 1, 1977) to Hemispheres (Oct 29 1978) = 1 Year, 58 Days - Hemispheres (Oct, 29, 1978) to Permanent Waves (Jan 1, 1980) = 1 Year, 64 Days - PeW (Jan 1, 1980) to Moving Pictures (Feb 12, 1981) = 1 Year, 43 Days - Moving Pictures (Feb 12, 1981) to Signals (Sept, 9 1982) = 1 Year, 208 Days

This is how to do it Kiss, Van Halen and a few others did it like this as well . Then you have enough money and don't have to everything

[LeaveMyThingAlone]

QUOTE (metaldad @ May 20 2011, 10:22 AM)

QUOTE (The Owl @ May 20 2011, 10:14 AM) - (Mar, 14 1974)  to  Fly By Night (Feb 15 1975) = 328 Days - Fly By Night (Feb 15, 1975) to Caress of Steel (Sept, 24 1975) = 220 days - COS (Sept, 24 1975) to 2112 (April 1, 1976) = 190 Days - 2112 (April 1, 1976) to A Farewell to Kings (Sept, 1 1977) = 1 Year, 152 Days - AFTK (Sept 1, 1977) to Hemispheres (Oct 29 1978) = 1 Year, 58 Days - Hemispheres (Oct, 29, 1978) to Permanent Waves (Jan 1, 1980) = 1 Year, 64 Days - PeW (Jan 1, 1980) to Moving Pictures (Feb 12, 1981) = 1 Year, 43 Days - Moving Pictures (Feb 12, 1981) to Signals (Sept, 9 1982) =  1 Year, 208 Days This is how to do it Kiss, Van Halen and a few others did it like this as well . Then you have enough money and don't have to everything Well, when you dont make as much money on albums as you used to, you're going to have big gaps like this, particuarly since 2000. It's just a totally different world. Why would Rush make an album every year just to break even or even lose money?   You can even look at the new popular rock bands today and they do it the same way:   Linkin Park- Albums in 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010   The Killers-Albums in 2004, 2006, 2008...still waiting for next   Foo Fighter-2002, 2005, 2007, 2011   Green Day-2000, 2004, 2009   My Chemical Romance 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010   U2-2000, 2004, 2009   Red Hot Chili Peppers-2002, 2006, ?   Metallica 2003, 2008, ?         I could go on and on...   A lot of the Rush fans get on the boyz for not doing enough studio work, but NO ONE does it the same way. Look at the bands above...they are much younger and are at about the same pace as Rush since the turn of the century

[metaldad]

QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ May 20 2011, 10:48 AM)

Well, when you dont make as much money on albums as you used to, you're going to have big gaps like this, particuarly since 2000. It's just a totally different world. Why would Rush make an album every year just to break even or even lose money? Red Hot Chili Peppers-2002, 2006, ? Metallica 2003, 2008, ?

I agree with you, that has a Lot to do with it, i just miss the old daze . In the case of these 2 bands, just lazy, sitting at home and counting Money, Except Chad Smith . He is jammin with Chickenshit

[nealpert]

What, no bar graph?

[Xanadude69]

it was a different time back in the 1970s. As someone else has posted, modern day bands just don't put out records every year. It doesn't work that way anymore. It would be nice though.

[rushgoober]

Owl, will you MARRY me?

 

 

[Tommy Sawyer]

Bands just don't make enough moneys on albums anymore.

[IChoseFreeWill]

You forgot Feedback. In this case it SHOULD count. It is a studio album after all.

[Invisible To Telescopic Eye]

QUOTE (The Owl @ May 20 2011, 10:21 AM)

Only 190 days in between albums.... I wish this would happen again! lol

But it's already passed 190 days.

[micgtr71]

Wasn't it Boston that started this trend?

[LeaveMyThingAlone]

QUOTE (micgtr71 @ May 20 2011, 04:26 PM)

Wasn't it Boston that started this trend?

Because of legal issues....they were not allowed to make an album unless it was for a certain studio....and they got hose on that contract...

 

or something like that

[MCM]

That's a cool way to look at things, thanks. Hard to believe it took 190 days to create 2112. This also throws off my own personal timeline, I thought I got AFtK for Christmas 1978, but it must have been 1977. I guess I've been a Rush fan for one year longer than I thought.. YEAH.

 

It is true, no one puts out albums like they used to, most bands dont write the next one while they are touring the current one. Rush was not the only band to operate that way during the 70's. They all did. They also didn't have the luxury of month after month of time in the studio. Get in, get it done and get back on the road. It would be nice to have new music every year, year and half but I'm guessing if they had continued at that pace they would be fried and retired by now.

 

 

 

[An Enemy Without]

IMO, the longer they spend, the worse the music seems to be.

[rushgoober]

[GeddysMullet]

[Mr. Not]

QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ May 20 2011, 08:48 AM)

Linkin Park- Albums in 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010 The Killers-Albums in 2004, 2006, 2008...still waiting for next Green Day-2000, 2004, 2009 My Chemical Romance 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010 U2-2000, 2004, 2009 Metallica 2003, 2008, ?

It's a real shame that these great bands don't record more often

 

But - notice two are missing.

[Spindrift82]

You can't beat Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush. 10-15 years in between albums.

[Cosy Toes]

QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ May 20 2011, 03:48 PM)

Well, when you dont make as much money on albums as you used to, you're going to have big gaps like this, particuarly since 2000.

Errrrr, no. Completely wrong. The longer a band goes on the less creative juice it has. It has always been thus. It will always be so.

 

The Rush creative juice bottle started to empty after Hemispheres, oh yes indeedy.

[invisibleairwaves]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 21 2011, 04:15 PM)

It's all about priorities.  Do you care about creating new music because that's the heart of what a band does, or are you just a money-making enterprise? If you're just a money-making enterprise, that's fine, but I always thought Rush were above doing it the way everyone else did, a band known for its high integrity, which I would think involved touring to support an album, as opposed to touring just for the big bucks.  I was wrong.

 

It is not reasonable to expect someone to lose potentially tens of thousands of dollars or more of their own money just to satisfy your own views of integrity in the music business.

 

We always like to talk about the fact that the guys in Rush have been able to stick together for so long, and yes, much of that has to do with their characters...but let's not ignore the fact that they would never have been able to do it for this long if they couldn't do it profitably. Spin them as being a "money-making enterprise" if you will, but they aren't in this to lose money, nor should they be if we want them to keep going. Being sensible about money is one of the big reasons they're still able to do albums at all today, and producing albums at the same rate as 25 or 30 years ago would be pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Edited May 23, 2011 by invisibleairwaves

[rushgoober]

Edited May 23, 2011 by rushgoober

[ucsteve667]

[Tick]

Sadly, I'm not expecting much from the new album.