Latest Album Update

[lerxt1990]

QUOTE (presto123 @ Nov 19 2011, 11:11 PM)

They are back in the aggressive mode and they need to be after that last record. I was so let down after being pumped about Far Cry initially.

Edited November 20, 2011 by lerxt1990

[goose]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:10 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 19 2011, 08:14 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:54 AM) Every song on every album is one that they wrote, re-wrote, practiced, recorded, mixed and mastered. There is no such thing as filler for bands like this. That's a meaningless term used by people who want to marginalize songs they don't like. Neil has a reputation as a world-class lyricist, he's not going to jeopardize that by dashing off lyrics for a song in two minutes and calling it filler (Dog Years notwithstanding). Geddy and Alex have reputations as world-class musicians. Some may not like everything they've ever done, but they're not going to slap together three chords and call it a day. They don't do filler. I love this conversation/argument.   As far as I'm concerned, the band has had PLENTY of filler over the last few albums. Sure they might have given it their all, but maybe they just didn't have that much to give with certain songs/albums. Maybe they intentionally have never half-assed it, but sometimes it sure sounds like it. And that's fine, but if by "filler" you mean the typical definition, I still have to strongly disagree. I think that most people define "filler" as "okay, we wrote 6 really great songs, but we have room for 3 more, so let's spend tomorrow writing and recording something to fill that space". I do not believe Rush does that.   And I do maintain that "filler" is commonly used to simply disparage songs that someone doesn't like:   "I hate Superconductor. Sounds like they didn't put any effort into it, so it's filler."   It's a myopic view of the music and it assumes that one's opinion about a song is actual truth. My opinion is just that that they don't work like that.     [edited to add]   You mentioned Presto in another post, and I don't want to clog up the works too much by responding with three separate posts just to say.... I love Presto. There is only one song I don't dig - somewhat ironically, it's the aforementioned Superconductor (hello, subconscious!) but even that song I don't consider filler - and since they played it on tour, I doubt they do either. This, I think, speaks to my thoughts about marginalizing the songs that a person simply doesn't like. You don't like Presto, so the songs on it are mostly filler. I don't see it that way, so I don't call them that. We can debate it, but it's all just opinion.   Nicely said.

[GUP1771]

QUOTE (goose @ Nov 19 2011, 11:34 PM)

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:10 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 19 2011, 08:14 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:54 AM) Every song on every album is one that they wrote, re-wrote, practiced, recorded, mixed and mastered. There is no such thing as filler for bands like this. That's a meaningless term used by people who want to marginalize songs they don't like. Neil has a reputation as a world-class lyricist, he's not going to jeopardize that by dashing off lyrics for a song in two minutes and calling it filler (Dog Years notwithstanding). Geddy and Alex have reputations as world-class musicians. Some may not like everything they've ever done, but they're not going to slap together three chords and call it a day. They don't do filler. I love this conversation/argument.   As far as I'm concerned, the band has had PLENTY of filler over the last few albums. Sure they might have given it their all, but maybe they just didn't have that much to give with certain songs/albums. Maybe they intentionally have never half-assed it, but sometimes it sure sounds like it. And that's fine, but if by "filler" you mean the typical definition, I still have to strongly disagree. I think that most people define "filler" as "okay, we wrote 6 really great songs, but we have room for 3 more, so let's spend tomorrow writing and recording something to fill that space". I do not believe Rush does that.   And I do maintain that "filler" is commonly used to simply disparage songs that someone doesn't like:   "I hate Superconductor. Sounds like they didn't put any effort into it, so it's filler."   It's a myopic view of the music and it assumes that one's opinion about a song is actual truth. My opinion is just that that they don't work like that.     [edited to add]   You mentioned Presto in another post, and I don't want to clog up the works too much by responding with three separate posts just to say.... I love Presto. There is only one song I don't dig - somewhat ironically, it's the aforementioned Superconductor (hello, subconscious!) but even that song I don't consider filler - and since they played it on tour, I doubt they do either. This, I think, speaks to my thoughts about marginalizing the songs that a person simply doesn't like. You don't like Presto, so the songs on it are mostly filler. I don't see it that way, so I don't call them that. We can debate it, but it's all just opinion.   Nicely said. I second that. I didn't have the words for that, so I'm glad you did Daniel.

Edited November 20, 2011 by GUP1771

[presto123]

Presto is great. No filler there.

[Sin City]

[Cyclonus X-1]

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 20 2011, 03:47 AM)

While the last few albums have had some really good songs, has anything they have recorded since signals been anywhere near as good as xanadu, hemispheres, the trees, spirit, natural science, tom sawyer,subdivisions and so on?

Yes, I'd gladly take Distant Early Warning, Red Sector A, The Pass, Bravado, Animate, Leave That Thing Alone, Earthshine, Workin' Them Angels, Caravan and plenty of other fantastic post-Signals tunes over The Trees and many other older classics. Rush didn't stop writing great songs with Subdivisions.

 

QUOTE

And one final point- how many of the "newer" songs have been staples of the set list for as long as those songs have?

No offense intended, but that's an absurd question. How can they have been staples for as long when they haven't been in existence as long?

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 09:10 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 19 2011, 08:14 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:54 AM) Every song on every album is one that they wrote, re-wrote, practiced, recorded, mixed and mastered. There is no such thing as filler for bands like this. That's a meaningless term used by people who want to marginalize songs they don't like. Neil has a reputation as a world-class lyricist, he's not going to jeopardize that by dashing off lyrics for a song in two minutes and calling it filler (Dog Years notwithstanding). Geddy and Alex have reputations as world-class musicians. Some may not like everything they've ever done, but they're not going to slap together three chords and call it a day. They don't do filler. I love this conversation/argument.   As far as I'm concerned, the band has had PLENTY of filler over the last few albums. Sure they might have given it their all, but maybe they just didn't have that much to give with certain songs/albums. Maybe they intentionally have never half-assed it, but sometimes it sure sounds like it. And that's fine, but if by "filler" you mean the typical definition, I still have to strongly disagree. I think that most people define "filler" as "okay, we wrote 6 really great songs, but we have room for 3 more, so let's spend tomorrow writing and recording something to fill that space". I do not believe Rush does that.   And I do maintain that "filler" is commonly used to simply disparage songs that someone doesn't like:   "I hate Superconductor. Sounds like they didn't put any effort into it, so it's filler."   It's a myopic view of the music and it assumes that one's opinion about a song is actual truth. My opinion is just that that they don't work like that.     [edited to add]   You mentioned Presto in another post, and I don't want to clog up the works too much by responding with three separate posts just to say.... I love Presto. There is only one song I don't dig - somewhat ironically, it's the aforementioned Superconductor (hello, subconscious!) but even that song I don't consider filler - and since they played it on tour, I doubt they do either. This, I think, speaks to my thoughts about marginalizing the songs that a person simply doesn't like. You don't like Presto, so the songs on it are mostly filler. I don't see it that way, so I don't call them that. We can debate it, but it's all just opinion. It really is a semantics, but I don't care enough about being PC with the term. I absolutely admit to calling songs I don't like filler, and I will continue to do so.   To me, most of Presto sounds like filler, with the exception of The Pass and Chain Lightning. Whether they were TRULY half-assing it or not to fill up an album is up for debate. Knowing Rush, they probably weren't, but it boggles the mind for me to think that they did War Paint and Superconductor and most of the other songs on that album (or most of the material on RTB, or anything on T4E or VT) and truly thought they were making material that was anywhere up to the standards of anything from 1978-1982, but I guess anything's possible. Most of those albums sounds to me like they really phoned it in. That might not be the case, but it sure sounds like it to these ears.   Maybe they knew they had lost something and were just forging ahead anyway. Or maybe they truly thought they were making their very best material. Most likely it was the best they were capable of the time and they deluded themselves into thinking they were making masterpieces without any critical distance to realize they truly were not.   "I did my best, but I guess my best wasn't good enough."   In the end, I like what I like and I don't like what I don't like no matter what terms I choose to use and no matter who agrees with me or not. And besides, I don't get to have these fun conversations where everyone gets all worked up if I don't call it filler!

[treeduck]

Let's get back to METAL Neil!

 

[Majestyk]

QUOTE

Presto is great. No filler there.

 

I hated Presto. Alex's wimpy guitar sound and Geddy insisting to continue with too much keyboard (even when the album was hyped up to be a return to their glory days) killed it for me. I liked S&A better.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Majestyk @ Nov 20 2011, 03:31 AM)

QUOTE Presto is great. No filler there.   I hated Presto. Alex's wimpy guitar sound and Geddy insisting to continue with too much keyboard (even when the album was hyped up to be a return to their glory days) killed it for me. I liked S&A better. None of that bothered me with Presto. For me, the album (in general) was a huge step down lyrically from anything that came before. I don't feel this way with most bands as lyrics aren't as important to me, but with Rush, their lyrics can be so profound, and they set such a high standard, that when they don't quite make it, it's hard for me to ignore.   If they have great lyrics, I can overlook a lot musically. If they lyrics just aren't there, I barely even notice the music as the songs can't really be redeemed. The greatest example for me with this is the song Caravan - GREAT music, mediocre lyrics. I end up thinking the song is mediocre - it's unfortunate, but the lyrics either grab me with Rush, or the song just doesn't cut it.

[Sin City]

QUOTE (Cyclonus X-1 @ Nov 20 2011, 05:10 AM)

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 20 2011, 03:47 AM) While the last few albums have had some really good songs, has anything they have recorded since signals been anywhere near as good as xanadu, hemispheres, the trees, spirit, natural science, tom sawyer,subdivisions and so on? Yes, I'd gladly take Distant Early Warning, Red Sector A, The Pass, Bravado, Animate, Leave That Thing Alone, Earthshine, Workin' Them Angels, Caravan and plenty of other fantastic post-Signals tunes over The Trees and many other older classics. Rush didn't stop writing great songs with Subdivisions.   QUOTE And one final point- how many of the "newer" songs have been staples of the set list for as long as those songs have? No offense intended, but that's an absurd question. How can they have been staples for as long when they haven't been in existence as long? While there are some good songs there apart from bravado and the pass the others are nowhere close to being classic rush compositions. No, they didn't stop writing great songs after signals, just less of them. Your point about the newer songs in the set list is either obtuse or I didn't make my point clear enough. To clarify- what I mean is the "newer" material isn't played tour upon tour unlike the songs I referred to. I found it interesting that when the band returned to playing uk gigs on the R30 tour the bulk of the set was made up of the older classics like la villa, natural science, 2112 along with lots of other old stuff and lots of stuff from waves and pictures. The albums post signals were not particularly well represented in that set list-one track from presto, one from counterparts, none from TFE, only 3 from vapour trails, the latest studio album at thetime. The period post 82 isn't particularly well represented in the set list on the time machine tour either.

[Vive le Rush]

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Nov 18 2011, 12:41 PM)

Just finished the interview... Great stuff! Hearing how many of the songs will be lengthy is certainly promising...to me, anyways. Also, he answered the question that I remember seeing before about why they didn't put the 'I Love You Man' skit on the DVD. Bottom line, too many legal issues, and too many hoops to jump through to get it. Either way, loved hearing the interview! The fact that all the songs are written and they are now full-on recording is great! The lengths of the songs is really just icing on the cake for this Rush fan!

I completely agree!!!!! Hearing what Alex said in this interview was like "sweet music to my ears"!!!!!!!!!!

[Cyclonus X-1]

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 20 2011, 06:24 AM)

QUOTE (Cyclonus X-1 @ Nov 20 2011, 05:10 AM) QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 20 2011, 03:47 AM) While the last few albums have had some really good songs, has anything they have recorded since signals been anywhere near as good as xanadu, hemispheres, the trees, spirit, natural science, tom sawyer,subdivisions and so on? Yes, I'd gladly take Distant Early Warning, Red Sector A, The Pass, Bravado, Animate, Leave That Thing Alone, Earthshine, Workin' Them Angels, Caravan and plenty of other fantastic post-Signals tunes over The Trees and many other older classics. Rush didn't stop writing great songs with Subdivisions.   QUOTE And one final point- how many of the "newer" songs have been staples of the set list for as long as those songs have? No offense intended, but that's an absurd question. How can they have been staples for as long when they haven't been in existence as long? While there are some good songs there apart from bravado and the pass the others are nowhere close to being classic rush compositions. Perhaps not according to your definition of a "Rush classic composition." I consider many of those songs to be essential Rush tunes. So do many other Rush fans.   QUOTE I found it interesting that when the band returned to playing uk gigs on the R30 tour the bulk of the set was made up of the older classics like la villa, natural science, 2112 along with lots of other old stuff and lots of stuff from waves and pictures. The albums post signals were not particularly well represented in that set list-one track from presto, one from counterparts, none from TFE, only 3 from vapour trails, the latest studio album at thetime. The period post 82 isn't particularly well represented in the set list on the time machine tour either. Actually, most of the songs I listed have been played on multiple tours. But we can break things down mathematically if you'd like to.   Of the twenty-eight songs on the R30 setlist (I'm disregarding the opening medley and the solo), sixteen were from albums released after Signals.   Of twenty-four songs on Time Machine, fourteen were "Signals and earlier," but, of course, half of those were from Moving Pictures. The older albums aside from MP had fewer songs played from them than did the post-Signals albums. There were more Snakes and Arrows songs than Permanent Waves songs.

[EmotionDetector]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 20 2011, 12:10 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 19 2011, 08:14 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:54 AM) Every song on every album is one that they wrote, re-wrote, practiced, recorded, mixed and mastered. There is no such thing as filler for bands like this. That's a meaningless term used by people who want to marginalize songs they don't like. Neil has a reputation as a world-class lyricist, he's not going to jeopardize that by dashing off lyrics for a song in two minutes and calling it filler (Dog Years notwithstanding). Geddy and Alex have reputations as world-class musicians. Some may not like everything they've ever done, but they're not going to slap together three chords and call it a day. They don't do filler. I love this conversation/argument.   As far as I'm concerned, the band has had PLENTY of filler over the last few albums. Sure they might have given it their all, but maybe they just didn't have that much to give with certain songs/albums. Maybe they intentionally have never half-assed it, but sometimes it sure sounds like it. And that's fine, but if by "filler" you mean the typical definition, I still have to strongly disagree. I think that most people define "filler" as "okay, we wrote 6 really great songs, but we have room for 3 more, so let's spend tomorrow writing and recording something to fill that space". I do not believe Rush does that. Exactly...people insist on using the word "filler" to represent songs they don't like. Why don't you guys stick to using the term that you really mean to be using: "songs I hate"?   Do you know what filler is? I'll give you a hint...'New World Man', 'Twilight Zone', and I believe even 'YYZ' if I read it correctly somewhere. Songs that were made last minute because they had room left on the album that they wanted to 'fill' out.   Now, how many of you truly would call those songs 'filler'? I know Goobs wouldn't. Out of the 4-5 songs he disliked between Rush-HYF, none of the three songs above are included in that list.   The word 'filler' is thrown around way too often IMO. Judging by everyone's definition here, the number of filler is completely different for each person here. I guess depending on how many songs you dislike...

[Tony R]

Natural Science was "filler" too...

[Mr. Krinkle]

I think we all should wait on our judgement of the new album until it is released.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Nov 20 2011, 08:54 AM)

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 20 2011, 12:10 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 19 2011, 08:14 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:54 AM) Every song on every album is one that they wrote, re-wrote, practiced, recorded, mixed and mastered. There is no such thing as filler for bands like this. That's a meaningless term used by people who want to marginalize songs they don't like. Neil has a reputation as a world-class lyricist, he's not going to jeopardize that by dashing off lyrics for a song in two minutes and calling it filler (Dog Years notwithstanding). Geddy and Alex have reputations as world-class musicians. Some may not like everything they've ever done, but they're not going to slap together three chords and call it a day. They don't do filler. I love this conversation/argument.   As far as I'm concerned, the band has had PLENTY of filler over the last few albums. Sure they might have given it their all, but maybe they just didn't have that much to give with certain songs/albums. Maybe they intentionally have never half-assed it, but sometimes it sure sounds like it. And that's fine, but if by "filler" you mean the typical definition, I still have to strongly disagree. I think that most people define "filler" as "okay, we wrote 6 really great songs, but we have room for 3 more, so let's spend tomorrow writing and recording something to fill that space". I do not believe Rush does that. Exactly...people insist on using the word "filler" to represent songs they don't like. Why don't you guys stick to using the term that you really mean to be using: "songs I hate"?   Do you know what filler is? I'll give you a hint...'New World Man', 'Twilight Zone', and I believe even 'YYZ' if I read it correctly somewhere. Songs that were made last minute because they had room left on the album that they wanted to 'fill' out.   Now, how many of you truly would call those songs 'filler'? I know Goobs wouldn't. Out of the 4-5 songs he disliked between Rush-HYF, none of the three songs above are included in that list.   The word 'filler' is thrown around way too often IMO. Judging by everyone's definition here, the number of filler is completely different for each person here. I guess depending on how many songs you dislike... And after all that, their last several albums have still had tons of filler!

[lerxt1990]

QUOTE (Tony R @ Nov 20 2011, 11:38 AM)

Natural Science was "filler" too...

stop.

[treeduck]

Let's get back to thrash Geddy!!

 

[lerxt1990]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Nov 20 2011, 02:17 PM)

Let's get back to thrash Geddy!!

[treeduck]

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Nov 20 2011, 02:24 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Nov 20 2011, 02:17 PM) Let's get back to thrash Geddy!! Yeah they should throw rotten meat at the audience on the next tour!   And burgers...

[Tony R]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Nov 20 2011, 07:31 PM)

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Nov 20 2011, 02:24 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Nov 20 2011, 02:17 PM) Let's get back to thrash Geddy!! Yeah they should throw rotten meat at the audience on the next tour!   And burgers...   They've been serving up tripe to their fans for years...

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Tony R @ Nov 20 2011, 02:38 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Nov 20 2011, 07:31 PM) QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Nov 20 2011, 02:24 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Nov 20 2011, 02:17 PM) Let's get back to thrash Geddy!! Yeah they should throw rotten meat at the audience on the next tour!   And burgers...   They've been serving up tripe to their fans for years... I wonder if Alex will bring out Mr Banana for the ladies?

[theredtamasrule]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Nov 20 2011, 02:31 PM)

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Nov 20 2011, 02:24 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Nov 20 2011, 02:17 PM) Let's get back to thrash Geddy!! Yeah they should throw rotten meat at the audience on the next tour!   And burgers...     I knew a guy that got drunk and fixed himself a hamburger...but forgot to cook it all the way thru and when he got too drunk and hurled it looked like Dracula blew chunks.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Mr. Krinkle @ Nov 20 2011, 10:08 AM)

I think we all should wait on our judgement of the new album until it is released.

Oh come on man, where's the fun in that?? Let's judge it NOW!!!!

 

I half jest, but we DO have two songs off the album by which to judge it, and a lot of other hints and info. I say, let the judging continue - the spicier, the better!

 

 

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f72/rushgoober5/rushgoober2/banana3.gif http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f72/rushgoober5/rushgoober2/banana30.gif http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f72/rushgoober5/rushgoober2/banana3.gif http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f72/rushgoober5/rushgoober2/banana30.gifhttp://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f72/rushgoober5/rushgoober2/banana3.gif http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f72/rushgoober5/rushgoober2/banana30.gif http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f72/rushgoober5/rushgoober2/banana3.gif