Latest Album Update

[lerxt1990]

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... intestines? cmon!

[Sin City]

[micgtr71]

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

3 or 4 songs with arrangements that are "different" from the usual Rush-style. Hopefully that means we won't get endless repeats of verses...

Last time I heard this there was a rap in Roll the Bones...even if it is to be called a spoken word part.

[Cyclonus X-1]

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 20 2011, 03:04 PM)

QUOTE (Cyclonus X-1 @ Nov 20 2011, 10:13 AM) 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. So that means that about 60% of the material they played on the time machine tour is 30 years or older, no? And there's the rub-if those newer songs are the "better rush" as Geddy claimed in BTLS why doesn't the set contain a higher proportion of them? We can toss questions like this back and forth all day. Why did the R30 tour feature mostly newer stuff? Why did the Time Machine tour feature mostly newer stuff aside from the string of MP tunes? Why were there more songs from Snakes and Arrows played during that set than there were from Signals or any pre-MP album? Why have you conveniently left the Snakes and Arrows tour out of your "analysis"?   What you've been doing is attributing mythical qualities to your old personal favorites and making erroneous claims regarding recent set lists to support your statements.   I just don't know what band you've been following for the last thirty years if you believe that The Trees somehow "objectively" manages to annihilate The Pass or if you consider Hemispheres a concert staple but not Distant Early Warning or Time Stand Still.   I get it; you love older Rush material. I do too. In fact, if I could have my druthers, Jacob's Ladder and The Necromancer would be played at every darn show. I just happen to think that plenty of post-Signals tunes can stand alongside the old classics quite well. That seems to be where we differ, and no set list analysis or magical equation is going to decide who's "right" about the matter.

[Zanadoo]

http://www.theagrarianhomesteader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Filler1.jpg

[lerxt1990]

QUOTE (Cyclonus X-1 @ Nov 20 2011, 03:32 PM)

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 20 2011, 03:04 PM) QUOTE (Cyclonus X-1 @ Nov 20 2011, 10:13 AM) 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. So that means that about 60% of the material they played on the time machine tour is 30 years or older, no? And there's the rub-if those newer songs are the "better rush" as Geddy claimed in BTLS why doesn't the set contain a higher proportion of them? We can toss questions like this back and forth all day. Why did the R30 tour feature mostly newer stuff? Why did the Time Machine tour feature mostly newer stuff aside from the string of MP tunes? Why were there more songs from Snakes and Arrows played during that set than there were from Signals or any pre-MP album? Why have you conveniently left the Snakes and Arrows tour out of your "analysis"?   What you've been doing is attributing mythical qualities to your old personal favorites and making erroneous claims regarding recent set lists to support your statements.   I just don't know what band you've been following for the last thirty years if you believe that The Trees somehow "objectively" manages to annihilate The Pass or if you consider Hemispheres a concert staple but not Distant Early Warning or Time Stand Still.   I get it; you love older Rush material. I do too. In fact, if I could have my druthers, Jacob's Ladder and The Necromancer would be played at every darn show. I just happen to think that plenty of post-Signals tunes can stand alongside the old classics quite well. That seems to be where we differ, and no set list analysis or magical equation is going to decide who's "right" about the matter.   Excepting the fact that The Tress does in fact annihilate The Pass.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Nov 20 2011, 03:38 PM)

QUOTE (Cyclonus X-1 @ Nov 20 2011, 03:32 PM) QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 20 2011, 03:04 PM) QUOTE (Cyclonus X-1 @ Nov 20 2011, 10:13 AM) 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. So that means that about 60% of the material they played on the time machine tour is 30 years or older, no? And there's the rub-if those newer songs are the "better rush" as Geddy claimed in BTLS why doesn't the set contain a higher proportion of them? We can toss questions like this back and forth all day. Why did the R30 tour feature mostly newer stuff? Why did the Time Machine tour feature mostly newer stuff aside from the string of MP tunes? Why were there more songs from Snakes and Arrows played during that set than there were from Signals or any pre-MP album? Why have you conveniently left the Snakes and Arrows tour out of your "analysis"?   What you've been doing is attributing mythical qualities to your old personal favorites and making erroneous claims regarding recent set lists to support your statements.   I just don't know what band you've been following for the last thirty years if you believe that The Trees somehow "objectively" manages to annihilate The Pass or if you consider Hemispheres a concert staple but not Distant Early Warning or Time Stand Still.   I get it; you love older Rush material. I do too. In fact, if I could have my druthers, Jacob's Ladder and The Necromancer would be played at every darn show. I just happen to think that plenty of post-Signals tunes can stand alongside the old classics quite well. That seems to be where we differ, and no set list analysis or magical equation is going to decide who's "right" about the matter.   Excepting the fact that The Tress does in fact annihilate The Pass. And the Trees too!

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Zanadoo @ Nov 20 2011, 01:34 PM)

http://www.theagrarianhomesteader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Filler1.jpg

 

 

Maybe people would stop getting offended if we change the term to "spackle." Is anyone with me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://0.tqn.com/d/homerenovations/1/G/6/3/-/-/spackle.JPG

[They Bow Defeated]

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

"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.

Brilliant! Thank you! "Filler" seems to mostly mean "Songs I Don't Like."

 

Of course, I DO think Rush knows some songs are "better" than others when they write and record them. They're not deluding themselves that Good News First is "better" than Armor And Sword. But I don't think they put out stuff they don't believe in. Except maybe Dog Years. Although even there, they probably thought it was funny or snarky at the time.

 

On a side note: why does "slow" so often mean "filler?" Can you have a couple of slower tunes on an album, or does every song need to be at least 120 beats per minute? Is Dark Side of the Moon filler because it's all slow tempos? Should symphonies in classical music be altered to drop those boring slow sections?

 

 

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Nov 20 2011, 04:02 PM)

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:10 PM) "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. Brilliant! Thank you! "Filler" seems to mostly mean "Songs I Don't Like."   Of course, I DO think Rush knows some songs are "better" than others when they write and record them. They're not deluding themselves that Good News First is "better" than Armor And Sword. Sounds to me like you just made the argument FOR there being filler on Rush albums. Good News First is a great example of a filler song.

[USB Connector]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 20 2011, 07:32 PM)

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Nov 20 2011, 04:02 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:10 PM) "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. Brilliant! Thank you! "Filler" seems to mostly mean "Songs I Don't Like."   Of course, I DO think Rush knows some songs are "better" than others when they write and record them. They're not deluding themselves that Good News First is "better" than Armor And Sword. Sounds to me like you just made the argument FOR there being filler on Rush albums. Good News First is a great example of a filler song. You don't need any more proof for filler songs than hope. That could have been an intro or a midway riff in any song, but they decided to leave it on it's own. It's a neat little thing Alex has going but when I first heard S&A I wondered what it was doing on the album.

[GUP1771]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 20 2011, 06:32 PM)

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Nov 20 2011, 04:02 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:10 PM) "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. Brilliant! Thank you! "Filler" seems to mostly mean "Songs I Don't Like."   Of course, I DO think Rush knows some songs are "better" than others when they write and record them. They're not deluding themselves that Good News First is "better" than Armor And Sword. Sounds to me like you just made the argument FOR there being filler on Rush albums. Good News First is a great example of a filler song. Do you like Good News First?

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (GUP1771 @ Nov 20 2011, 05:51 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 20 2011, 06:32 PM) QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Nov 20 2011, 04:02 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:10 PM) "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. Brilliant! Thank you! "Filler" seems to mostly mean "Songs I Don't Like."   Of course, I DO think Rush knows some songs are "better" than others when they write and record them. They're not deluding themselves that Good News First is "better" than Armor And Sword. Sounds to me like you just made the argument FOR there being filler on Rush albums. Good News First is a great example of a filler song. Do you like Good News First? No. (let me guess, I just made the case against filler? )

[WCFIELDS]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 20 2011, 05:32 PM)

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Nov 20 2011, 04:02 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:10 PM) "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. Brilliant! Thank you! "Filler" seems to mostly mean "Songs I Don't Like."   Of course, I DO think Rush knows some songs are "better" than others when they write and record them. They're not deluding themselves that Good News First is "better" than Armor And Sword. Sounds to me like you just made the argument FOR there being filler on Rush albums. Good News First is a great example of a filler song. That's actually a perfect example.

[danielmclark]

QUOTE (USB Connector @ Nov 20 2011, 06:25 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 20 2011, 07:32 PM) QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Nov 20 2011, 04:02 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:10 PM) "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. Brilliant! Thank you! "Filler" seems to mostly mean "Songs I Don't Like."   Of course, I DO think Rush knows some songs are "better" than others when they write and record them. They're not deluding themselves that Good News First is "better" than Armor And Sword. Sounds to me like you just made the argument FOR there being filler on Rush albums. Good News First is a great example of a filler song. You don't need any more proof for filler songs than hope. That could have been an intro or a midway riff in any song, but they decided to leave it on it's own. It's a neat little thing Alex has going but when I first heard S&A I wondered what it was doing on the album. The earliest Rush community I was in was back in alt.music.rush, right before RTB came out. There was all kinds of speculation about what the new album would be like and what people wanted on it. At the time, nearly everyone on AMR wanted two things: more acoustic guitar from Alex and another instrumental - because at the time, there hadn't been either in about a decade. Even after RTB, right before CP, same thing. People wanted more acoustic from Alex and another instrumental.   Well... on S&A, we got Hope. More acoustic and an instrumental

[Tommy Sawyer]

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Nov 20 2011, 02:11 PM)

QUOTE (Tony R @ Nov 20 2011, 11:38 AM) Natural Science was "filler" too... stop. well it was recorded at the last minute, was it not? I think that's what Tony's getting at.

[lerxt1990]

QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Nov 20 2011, 09:11 PM)

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Nov 20 2011, 02:11 PM) QUOTE (Tony R @ Nov 20 2011, 11:38 AM) Natural Science was "filler" too... stop. well it was recorded at the last minute, was it not? I think that's what Tony's getting at. ahhh.   I wouldnt call a lot of these later songs filler, but IMO, a lot of the additional songs simply dont add up to some of the stuff of the past. I prefer upbeat, uptempo harder songs... so the mid tempo slower stuff I just dont get into as much.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 20 2011, 06:32 PM)

QUOTE (USB Connector @ Nov 20 2011, 06:25 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 20 2011, 07:32 PM) QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Nov 20 2011, 04:02 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:10 PM) "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. Brilliant! Thank you! "Filler" seems to mostly mean "Songs I Don't Like."   Of course, I DO think Rush knows some songs are "better" than others when they write and record them. They're not deluding themselves that Good News First is "better" than Armor And Sword. Sounds to me like you just made the argument FOR there being filler on Rush albums. Good News First is a great example of a filler song. You don't need any more proof for filler songs than hope. That could have been an intro or a midway riff in any song, but they decided to leave it on it's own. It's a neat little thing Alex has going but when I first heard S&A I wondered what it was doing on the album. The earliest Rush community I was in was back in alt.music.rush, right before RTB came out. There was all kinds of speculation about what the new album would be like and what people wanted on it. At the time, nearly everyone on AMR wanted two things: more acoustic guitar from Alex and another instrumental - because at the time, there hadn't been either in about a decade. Even after RTB, right before CP, same thing. People wanted more acoustic from Alex and another instrumental.   Well... on S&A, we got Hope. More acoustic and an instrumental and Hope is a GREAT song. i mean, it's not Embryonic Journey, but it's still great - a welcome departure for Rush.

[GeddysMullet]

Cygnus X1 Book II: Hemispheres is filler!

 

Seriously! It fills one side of a vinyl album! It fills a room when you turn it up loud! It fills my ears with glorious sound! It fills my heart with joy! It's FILLER!

[trenken]

As typical of Rush albums for so many years now, Im expecting a lot of lack luster filler. I hope they prove me wrong but it seems like ive been hoping that since the 80s.

 

They've been around for so long and all bands only have so much great music in them so Im not going to get overly excited about it. If there's only 3 great songs on it and the rest if forgettable crap I'm totally fine with that.

[lerxt1990]

QUOTE (GeddysMullet @ Nov 20 2011, 09:44 PM)

Cygnus X1 Book II: Hemispheres is filler! Seriously! It fills one side of a vinyl album! It fills a room when you turn it up loud! It fills my ears with glorious sound! It fills my heart with joy! It's FILLER!

[USB Connector]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 20 2011, 09:25 PM)

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 20 2011, 06:32 PM) QUOTE (USB Connector @ Nov 20 2011, 06:25 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 20 2011, 07:32 PM) QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Nov 20 2011, 04:02 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 19 2011, 11:10 PM) "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. Brilliant! Thank you! "Filler" seems to mostly mean "Songs I Don't Like."   Of course, I DO think Rush knows some songs are "better" than others when they write and record them. They're not deluding themselves that Good News First is "better" than Armor And Sword. Sounds to me like you just made the argument FOR there being filler on Rush albums. Good News First is a great example of a filler song. You don't need any more proof for filler songs than hope. That could have been an intro or a midway riff in any song, but they decided to leave it on it's own. It's a neat little thing Alex has going but when I first heard S&A I wondered what it was doing on the album. The earliest Rush community I was in was back in alt.music.rush, right before RTB came out. There was all kinds of speculation about what the new album would be like and what people wanted on it. At the time, nearly everyone on AMR wanted two things: more acoustic guitar from Alex and another instrumental - because at the time, there hadn't been either in about a decade. Even after RTB, right before CP, same thing. People wanted more acoustic from Alex and another instrumental.   Well... on S&A, we got Hope. More acoustic and an instrumental and Hope is a GREAT song. i mean, it's not Embryonic Journey, but it's still great - a welcome departure for Rush. It's 2 minutes long. There are instrumental sections on Rush songs that last longer than this entire song did. The entire song is nothing but Alex playing an acoustic guitar. That almost sounds familiar: The Beatles - Her Majesty, filler.

[Sin City]

@ Cyclonus x-1;- I'm making erroneous claims to support my statements? Ok, how is the fact that 60% of the time machine setlist is virtually 30 years or older erroneous?

As regards the R30 tour , are you seriously including the 3 cover versions as newer rush stuff?

You're right, we could toss these points of view around all day long, but you still seem to not understand the point I'm trying to make-which isn't about attributing mythical status to the older songs. What I'm trying to suggest is that the likelihood is that the new album will be very much like the last 3 or 4 given the sound of caravan and BU2B and what Lerxst has said in the interview which kicked this thread off.

What I'm trying to show with these points about set lists is that inspite of what the band says about their career the older songs have more staying power when it comes to live performance than "newer" material within the context of a discussion about the next album.

You may disagree but it's clear to me (and many others) that when the band were writing albums with 6 to 8 songs those records were much more coherent than the 11-13 song records. And while I agree they can still write some good songs, when have they written an album of the quality of moving pictures since, er, moving pictures? At best, all those subsequent records have 2 or 3 songs which match the quality of the "classics".

FWIW I thought snakes was the best record since power windows and I really want the new record to blow me away. Sadly, I suspect it just might blow. Porcupine Tree have spoiled me

[analog guy]

Records in general, not just Rush records, are too long.

 

I actually miss the limitations of vinyl... not just because of the length, but also the mastering (another argument for another time).

 

Still, I find a 45 minute statement is much easier to digest than a 70-80 minute one. Inevitably, the creativity is always stretched a little thin over the longer running time.

 

I might just be a jaded old fart... but I miss the days of doing shorter records but putting them out quicker.

 

Sure, you only got a 7 song album, but in 12 months you had another one. Better than waiting four years for a 12 song album.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (trenken @ Nov 20 2011, 08:16 PM)

As typical of Rush albums for so many years now, Im expecting a lot of lack luster filler. I hope they prove me wrong but it seems like ive been hoping that since the 80s. They've been around for so long and all bands only have so much great music in them so Im not going to get overly excited about it. If there's only 3 great songs on it and the rest if forgettable crap I'm totally fine with that.

I would be THRILLED with three great songs, even two. S&A for me proved that they still have it in them to make great songs. The instrumentals were great, but the first three songs on the album especially were truly excellent. I didn't think they had that in them to do that anymore. It's been five more years now, however, or it will be by the time the new album comes out (how the hell did THAT happen again???), and the first two songs we've heard from this album didn't thrill me like I hoped. Two or three more songs would be awesome, and a fitting end to a great career that lost some steam along the way, but still made tons of amazing music that we can enjoy for a very long time.

Edited November 21, 2011 by rushgoober