Latest Album Update

[JohnnyBlaze]

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 19 2011, 04:39 AM)

70 minutes of music isn't good news, tho. That equates to about 30 minutes of filler

Nonsense. It could be anything....70 minutes of perfection, 20 minutes of greatness with 50 minutes of balls, 40 minutes of interesting with 30 minutes of "What the hell was that?!", and so on...

[Sin City]

Let's wait and see. Then we'll all agree I was right. Seriously tho - all the evidence suggests otherwise. The fact Alex says the songs are heavy, 11 (count em) songs, the epic piece hinted at in previous interviews seemingly disappearing scares me this new album will be a mixture of counterparts, TFE and vapour trails.

Tony R is right- the band needs to play to their strengths and return to making wide screen music rather than claustrophobic verse/chorus songs.

It's ironic and contradictory of Neils assertion the band doesn't like to repeat themselves, but that's exactly what they have done in the last 30 years or so by refusing to embrace their own heritage.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Tony R @ Nov 18 2011, 10:41 AM)

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...

Don't they always say some of their new material is very "different?" I tend to not take any pre-album hype seriously anymore. The proof is in the proverbial pudding.

 

And all I can do is hope that a long song translates into a great song without it just being repeats of choruses and verses. Three songs on S&A were over 6 minutes. Armor & Sword was one of their best songs in a VERY long time, so that was 6+ minutes of awesomeness, but The Way The Wind Blows certainly didn't need to be that long, and The Main Monkey Business, while great, wasn't so involved or complex that it needed that kind of length. Compare that to La Villa which was even longer, but far more complex and deserving of excess length. YYZ was far shorter and had a lot more going on than TMMB. Long songs should be long because the song warrants it, not for padding or unnecessary lyrical or musical repetition.

 

And for the love of God, it better contain a long searing guitar solo.

 

 

QUOTE (Tony R @ Nov 19 2011, 12:52 AM)

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 19 2011, 07:46 AM) What made me determine that? Well, all the classic albums 2112, AFTK, hemispheres, waves and pictures are no more than 40 minutes long. Power windows was probably the last great album they recorded and thats 44 minutes long. Very few duds if any in that collection of records. Since windows the albums have got longer with much more filler, tai shan, high water, superconductor, face up, neurotica, virtually all of counterparts and test for echo. And  both vapour trails and snakes are about 3 or 4 songs too long. Vapor Trails is about an hour too long... Specifically, 67 minutes and 15 seconds too long.   I'm really hoping for 2 or 3 great songs here, as I already know the first 2 songs don't really work for me, although Caravan is light years better than BU2B.   In the interview he does state that some things have changed since those first 2 songs were recorded. I can only hope and pray (because Rush won't ) that it changes thematically from the track they've been on. The easiest way to ruin a Rush song IMHO is lyrically.

[WCFIELDS]

QUOTE (Tony R @ Nov 18 2011, 01:47 PM)

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 18 2011, 07:39 PM) 70 minutes of music isn't good news, tho. That equates to about 30 minutes of filler SnA was about 50 minutes of filler... At least. And Caravan is not prog......

[GUP1771]

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 19 2011, 02:46 AM)

What made me determine that? Well, all the classic albums 2112, AFTK, hemispheres, waves and pictures are no more than 40 minutes long. Power windows was probably the last great album they recorded and thats 44 minutes long. Very few duds if any in that collection of records. Since windows the albums have got longer with much more filler, tai shan, high water, superconductor, face up, neurotica, virtually all of counterparts and test for echo. And both vapour trails and snakes are about 3 or 4 songs too long.

Of course, all in your opinion. But where did you get the 30 minutes of filler from? Sounds like a number that fell from the sky. Just because the older albums hovered around 40 minutes doesn't mean Clockwork Angels will automatically equate to 30 minutes of filler. If they have quality music there, there won't be a need for filler. It doesn't sound like they are trying to fill the album up. They're just trying to right music that means something to them that they truly like and think is great.

 

And trust me, Hemispheres and all of those classics would have been much longer if they technology was there to allow for more time on an album. It is possible to make quality music with few to no duds on a record totaling in time of 70 minutes. Rush can do it, but it's definitely gonna be a challenging task. From what it sounds, they're giving it their all, and the intense playing seems to indicate that the music will be awesome. Of course, that last previous sentence is speculation on my part, but we'll know if it's true or not when the record comes out.

 

Edit: I notice someone already responded to what you said, but you responded towards me, so I'll keep this anyway.

[GUP1771]

[Scobie]

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 19 2011, 02:46 AM)

What made me determine that? Well, all the classic albums 2112, AFTK, hemispheres, waves and pictures are no more than 40 minutes long. Power windows was probably the last great album they recorded and thats 44 minutes long. Very few duds if any in that collection of records. Since windows the albums have got longer with much more filler, tai shan, high water, superconductor, face up, neurotica, virtually all of counterparts and test for echo. And both vapour trails and snakes are about 3 or 4 songs too long.

That's because there was no such thing as compact disks when their "classic" albums were recorded. Vinyl albums only held around 40 minutes of music. That's why there is no "filler".

 

But when the CD became the popular method of releasing music, artists/bands had to fill the remaining time with music, or risk being accused of "ripping off" their fans.

[Tony R]

QUOTE (Scobie @ Nov 19 2011, 06:17 PM)

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 19 2011, 02:46 AM) What made me determine that? Well, all the classic albums 2112, AFTK, hemispheres, waves and pictures are no more than 40 minutes long. Power windows was probably the last great album they recorded and thats 44 minutes long. Very few duds if any in that collection of records. Since windows the albums have got longer with much more filler, tai shan, high water, superconductor, face up, neurotica, virtually all of counterparts and test for echo. And  both vapour trails and snakes are about 3 or 4 songs too long. That's because there was no such thing as compact disks when their "classic" albums were recorded. Vinyl albums only held around 40 minutes of music. That's why there is no "filler".   But when the CD became the popular method of releasing music, artists/bands had to fill the remaining time with music, or risk being accused of "ripping off" their fans. You are completely missing the point.

[go2wrk@95974]

Sounds like they're goin' back to the late 70's sound...

7 + min. songs of prog-hard rock, definitely sounds good to me.

 

[danielmclark]

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.

[They Bow Defeated]

Edited November 19, 2011 by They Bow Defeated

[danielmclark]

[presto123]

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (GUP1771 @ Nov 19 2011, 11:09 AM)

QUOTE (Sin City @ Nov 19 2011, 02:46 AM) What made me determine that? Well, all the classic albums 2112, AFTK, hemispheres, waves and pictures are no more than 40 minutes long. Power windows was probably the last great album they recorded and thats 44 minutes long. Very few duds if any in that collection of records. Since windows the albums have got longer with much more filler, tai shan, high water, superconductor, face up, neurotica, virtually all of counterparts and test for echo. And  both vapour trails and snakes are about 3 or 4 songs too long. Of course, all in your opinion. But where did you get the 30 minutes of filler from? Sounds like a number that fell from the sky. Just because the older albums hovered around 40 minutes doesn't mean Clockwork Angels will automatically equate to 30 minutes of filler. If they have quality music there, there won't be a need for filler. It doesn't sound like they are trying to fill the album up. They're just trying to right music that means something to them that they truly like and think is great.   And trust me, Hemispheres and all of those classics would have been much longer if they technology was there to allow for more time on an album. It is possible to make quality music with few to no duds on a record totaling in time of 70 minutes. Rush can do it, but it's definitely gonna be a challenging task. From what it sounds, they're giving it their all, and the intense playing seems to indicate that the music will be awesome. Of course, that last previous sentence is speculation on my part, but we'll know if it's true or not when the record comes out.   Edit: I notice someone already responded to what you said, but you responded towards me, so I'll keep this anyway. You said, " It is possible to make quality music with few to no duds on a record totaling in time of 70 minutes."   I would say that's a very, very difficult task. Essentially a 70 minute CD is a double album by old standards. How many double albums are there out there that are high quality albums all the way through? It's very, very difficult to do, if not next to impossible. Usually some of the material suffers when you try to do too much in one shot, unless maybe you spent 3 or 4 years working on an album and only choose the very, very best tracks.

[rushgoober]

[Can-Utility]

[rushgoober]

[rushgoober]

[rushgoober]

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.

[WCFIELDS]

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. no question that there has been plenty of it on every album starting with HYF IMO......

Edited November 20, 2011 by WCFIELDS

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Nov 19 2011, 07:22 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. no question that there has been plenty of it on every album starting with Counterparts IMO...... For me the first signs of filler were the last two songs on HYF, followed by most of Presto and RTB. Counterparts for me was a comeback album.

[WCFIELDS]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 19 2011, 09:36 PM)

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Nov 19 2011, 07:22 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. no question that there has been plenty of it on every album starting with Counterparts IMO...... For me the first signs of filler were the last two songs on HYF, followed by most of Presto and RTB. Counterparts for me was a comeback album. I meant HYF......

[danielmclark]

[danielmclark]

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.

Edited November 20, 2011 by danielmclark

[presto123]

Goob I think SnA has more filler than any Rush record. Half of it is OK but the other half? Are slow tempo folk songs really what you want out of Rush? 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.