Ged answers his critics

[WCFIELDS]

[oldphilly]

QUOTE (upstateNYfan @ Nov 23 2011, 06:39 PM)

Rush are probably the best all-around value in live music. No one plays longer or harder. The notion of (fill in X) as a "cash grab" is silly. They are a business. Simply don't buy it if you feel a product isn't redeeming or worthwhile. I can think of no other band who has pushed--and continues to push--the envelope for so long.

haha...Rush is cash grabbing and that is a fact. You rush apologists crack me up.

[GUP1771]

QUOTE (oldphilly @ Nov 23 2011, 09:42 PM)

QUOTE (upstateNYfan @ Nov 23 2011, 06:39 PM) Rush are probably the best all-around value in live music. No one plays longer or harder. The notion of (fill in X) as a "cash grab" is silly. They are a business. Simply don't buy it if you feel a product isn't redeeming or worthwhile. I can think of no other band who has pushed--and continues to push--the envelope for so long. haha...Rush is cash grabbing and that is a fact. You rush apologists crack me up. Forgive me, but I hope that was sarcasm.

[oldphilly]

QUOTE (GUP1771 @ Nov 23 2011, 09:43 PM)

QUOTE (oldphilly @ Nov 23 2011, 09:42 PM) QUOTE (upstateNYfan @ Nov 23 2011, 06:39 PM) Rush are probably the best all-around value in live music. No one plays longer or harder. The notion of (fill in X) as a "cash grab" is silly. They are a business. Simply don't buy it if you feel a product isn't redeeming or worthwhile. I can think of no other band who has pushed--and continues to push--the envelope for so long. haha...Rush is cash grabbing and that is a fact. You rush apologists crack me up. Forgive me, but I hope that was sarcasm. Of course it wasn't sarcasm. You need to think objectively and realize the truth.

[GUP1771]

QUOTE (oldphilly @ Nov 23 2011, 09:48 PM)

QUOTE (GUP1771 @ Nov 23 2011, 09:43 PM) QUOTE (oldphilly @ Nov 23 2011, 09:42 PM) QUOTE (upstateNYfan @ Nov 23 2011, 06:39 PM) Rush are probably the best all-around value in live music. No one plays longer or harder. The notion of (fill in X) as a "cash grab" is silly. They are a business. Simply don't buy it if you feel a product isn't redeeming or worthwhile. I can think of no other band who has pushed--and continues to push--the envelope for so long. haha...Rush is cash grabbing and that is a fact. You rush apologists crack me up. Forgive me, but I hope that was sarcasm. Of course it wasn't sarcasm. You need to think objectively and realize the truth.

[Analog_Bro]

QUOTE (oldphilly @ Nov 23 2011, 09:42 PM)

QUOTE (upstateNYfan @ Nov 23 2011, 06:39 PM) Rush are probably the best all-around value in live music. No one plays longer or harder. The notion of (fill in X) as a "cash grab" is silly. They are a business. Simply don't buy it if you feel a product isn't redeeming or worthwhile. I can think of no other band who has pushed--and continues to push--the envelope for so long. haha...Rush is cash grabbing and that is a fact. You rush apologists crack me up. If cash grabbing means that they are playing music and getting paid to do it... then every band that is touring is cash grabbing   Plus you can't speak objectively what Rush's intentions are for touring unless you are psychic and know exactly what Geddy, Alex and Neil are thinking.     So objectively you cannot comment on that issue

[oldphilly]

QUOTE (Analog_Bro @ Nov 23 2011, 10:19 PM)

QUOTE (oldphilly @ Nov 23 2011, 09:42 PM) QUOTE (upstateNYfan @ Nov 23 2011, 06:39 PM) Rush are probably the best all-around value in live music. No one plays longer or harder. The notion of (fill in X) as a "cash grab" is silly. They are a business. Simply don't buy it if you feel a product isn't redeeming or worthwhile. I can think of no other band who has pushed--and continues to push--the envelope for so long. haha...Rush is cash grabbing and that is a fact. You rush apologists crack me up. If cash grabbing means that they are playing music and getting paid to do it... then every band that is touring is cash grabbing   Plus you can't speak objectively what Rush's intentions are for touring unless you are psychic and know exactly what Geddy, Alex and Neil are thinking.     So objectively you cannot comment on that issue If you had read my post carefully you'd realize that I was talking about the endles re-packaging,endless live releases that are available through numerous cd's.Compilation cd's,boxsets...The same material being re-released with the only difference being the artwork. If that's not cash grabbing I don't know what is. Sure the band has the right to try and make as much money as possible but let's call a spade a spade. Sheeesh.

[Analog_Bro]

It depends, was it the band who decided to release the greatest hit packages or was it the record label with a little input from the band?

[danielmclark]

QUOTE (Analog_Bro @ Nov 23 2011, 11:58 PM)

It depends, was it the band who decided to release the greatest hit packages or was it the record label with a little input from the band?

It's the label for the most part. My understanding is that they have complete control over the live sets but that the label is responsible for the compilations - Chronicles, Gold, Icon, Icon 2, Spirit of Radio: Greatest Hits - stuff like that.

 

I think I read somewhere that the band was actually involved in the new Sectors box sets though? And maybe the Retrospective sets? Not sure about that.

 

The thing to remember here is that nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to buy this stuff. There is no reason for any Rush fan to buy Icon, for example. Cash grab or not, we need to be sensible about this stuff. Those compilations aren't for us. The live sets, I'm fine with, personally. If they want to document their final years, so much the better. I wish they'd put out a proper live CD from every tour, to be honest. It wouldn't be a cash grab because we'd have a choice to buy them or not, instead of relying on (in many cases) poor quality bootlegs.

[Presto-a RUSH fan!]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 23 2011, 07:50 AM)

I used to think this was an infallible band when I was a young fan in the 80's - every album was stellar and magical.  Then there were the two songs at the end of HYF, and then the mediocre Presto, and then the even worse  Roll the Bones.  I knew then that my heroes were no longer beyond redemption.  In recent years there has been the unfortunate several year gap between albums in favor of making The Big Money touring.  They're such nice guys and they frame things so nicely and diplomatically that most people don't pay any attention to this fact, automatically forgive them,  give them the benefit of the doubt and accept the reasoning they give for their actions or lack thereof, and/or simply refuse to say (or even think) anything unpleasant about their favorite band.  I also used to think their professionalism wouldn't allow them to continue on with a glaring deficiency, that is to say the pink elephant in the room that is Geddy's deteriorating voice.  I was wrong about that too. So, ok, they're human, very human, capable of making inferior songs and albums, doing shameless cash grab multiple leg tours without albums, playing at way less than peak ability (though their musical chops are better than ever), etc.  It is what it is.  Many, many fans will obviously keep on forking over the cash no matter what, so I guess in the end that's what's important.  Even I will buy the new album when it comes out. Don't get me wrong, as much as some would love to call me "not a real Rush fan" or whatever, I'm still grateful for many years of great music, more great albums than most bands will ever come close to making and decades of fandom.  I will still love and appreciate this band's history no matter what.  That said, I do think they should retire, or at least be seriously considering it VERY soon (one more tour TOPS), before their legacy gets more tarnished with another bad or mediocre album (though I'd be thrilled to be wrong on that one and love some or most of CA, just like I loved at least half of S&A), and another endless tour with even worse vocals.  Ah, freedom of expression - don't you love it?!

rushGOOBER is the perfect name for you.

 

That said, saying definitively like you try to sound, that say Presto is mediocre and that RUSH is on a money grab are just your opinion. And just like aholes, we all have one. Yours just seems to make people wonder why you are still on the forum if you have so many problems with RUSH.

 

I consider myself a hardcore fan. I love every album. Ok...tell me I don't and that I am just a fanboy or whatever. But if I put my player on shuffle I can listen to it all day and love everything I hear. Do I love some songs more than others, of course. Are there songs that are not my favorite..sure. But to say some of the things you do, lets just say your user name is perfect.

 

Funny thing about the "mediocre" Presto, is that was the first concert I went to and the first cassette I bought and I was blown away and that "mediocre" album made me the "fanboy" I am today. I LOVE PRESTO and it's in my top 5 RUSH albums. Of course, that is MY opinion. You're free to have yours, but don't be surprised on "The RUSH Forum" when people get annoyed when they constantly hear you rip them or critique them or whatever you want to call it. Again, feel free. But I will feel free to say you are a goober.

 

And the money grab thing? I personally love RUSH, but I don't buy half the stuff they put out that is redundant. BUT there are tons of fans who want it and LOVE it. So, again, IMO, RUSH can put out every practice session they do and if people buy them, then so be it. Call it a money grab, but what do you do? Do you work? Do you work for your sheer love of work? Or do you work for $. I don't blame RUSH for trying to cash in right now at all. THEY DESERVE EVERY DIME SOMEONE IS WILLING TO SPEND ON THEM. You don't have to buy shyt...YOUR NOT REQUIRED TO...maybe you didn't realize that because your a goober (hey it's your username). Look at it this way, they are getting paid now for all the "flawless" albums that you love so much when they didn't get jack shyt back then. So look at it that way if it helps you sleep at night.

 

But regardless, you can have your, again, IMO, ridiculous opinion, and I will be here to give my ridiculous opinion right back.

 

And I guarantee, that more people on "THE RUSH FORUM" agree with me than do with you. But then again, that's probably because you are so much smarter than everyone else.

 

But keep and I will keep telling you how perfect your username is for you.

 

 

AND lastly, is Geddy's voice as good as it used to be no. Does he have off nights? Of course. In Columbus, OH I thought he sounded unbelievable. My brother who is a casual fan remarked after the show he couldn't believe that Geddy could still sing so high. Granted, he didn't hear them back in the days when he could sing way higher, but my brother was blown away, by Geddy's voice, the music and the whole spectacle that is a RUSH concert. If they keep doing that, I don't care if they play until they are 70. But to whoever said, "do you want them to play if Alex has arthritis or Neil can't play as well.....of course not. AND YOU KNOW WHO ELSE DOESN'T WANT THEM TO DO THAT? ALEX, GEDDY AND NEIL.

[ucsteve667]

for the record, Stones were never a very good live band. Jagger rarely sounded all that good live to me Edited November 24, 2011 by ucsteve667

[JohnnyBlaze]

[rushgoober]

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 23 2011, 06:35 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 23 2011, 06:58 PM) Then they decided to forego new music for tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything. This part I don't get. It's been album-tour-album-tour since... forever, basically.   T4E -> tour -> VT -> tour -> Feedback -> tour (R30) -> S&A -> tour -> Caravan/BU2B (admittedly a stretch) -> tour   Even if you discount Feedback, which I don't, and even if you discount Caravan/BU2B (I'll grant that), I don't think "tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything" is really warranted. Here's how I see it:   R30 tour (supporting nothing - I don't see and EP of covers as being anywhere close to a studio album of original material)   S&A - two tours (the first one I get, the second one redundant)   Time Machine Tour - two tours supporting nothing (unless you consider two songs enough to hang two full tours on).   So, I'm seeing since after the VT tour - FOUR TOURS, ONE ALBUM. And, in the last 9 years (2003-2011) guess how many albums they've made? ONE.   Nope, no cash grabbing going on there.

Edited November 24, 2011 by rushgoober

[danielmclark]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 24 2011, 02:10 AM)

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 23 2011, 06:35 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 23 2011, 06:58 PM) Then they decided to forego new music for tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything. This part I don't get. It's been album-tour-album-tour since... forever, basically.   T4E -> tour -> VT -> tour -> Feedback -> tour (R30) -> S&A -> tour -> Caravan/BU2B (admittedly a stretch) -> tour   Even if you discount Feedback, which I don't, and even if you discount Caravan/BU2B (I'll grant that), I don't think "tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything" is really warranted. Here's how I see it:   R30 tour (supporting nothing - I don't see and EP of covers as being anywhere close to a studio album of original material)   S&A - two tours (the first one I get, the second one redundant)   Time Machine Tour - two tours supporting nothing (unless you consider two songs enough to hang two full tours on).   So, I'm seeing since after the VT tour - FOUR TOURS, ONE ALBUM. And, in the last 9 years (2003-2011) guess how many albums they've made? ONE.   Nope, no cash grabbing going on there. I follow your logic, though I don't agree with it.   What I still don't get though, is why it's a cash grab, which is clearly an insult. There are bands that make a career out of touring constantly - more than Rush does - and they're not accused of being in it for the money. In this day and age, don't bands need to tour more? They're sure not raking in the money on record sales anymore.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 24 2011, 11:00 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 24 2011, 02:10 AM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 23 2011, 06:35 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 23 2011, 06:58 PM) Then they decided to forego new music for tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything. This part I don't get. It's been album-tour-album-tour since... forever, basically.   T4E -> tour -> VT -> tour -> Feedback -> tour (R30) -> S&A -> tour -> Caravan/BU2B (admittedly a stretch) -> tour   Even if you discount Feedback, which I don't, and even if you discount Caravan/BU2B (I'll grant that), I don't think "tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything" is really warranted. Here's how I see it:   R30 tour (supporting nothing - I don't see and EP of covers as being anywhere close to a studio album of original material)   S&A - two tours (the first one I get, the second one redundant)   Time Machine Tour - two tours supporting nothing (unless you consider two songs enough to hang two full tours on).   So, I'm seeing since after the VT tour - FOUR TOURS, ONE ALBUM. And, in the last 9 years (2003-2011) guess how many albums they've made? ONE.   Nope, no cash grabbing going on there. I follow your logic, though I don't agree with it.   What I still don't get though, is why it's a cash grab, which is clearly an insult. There are bands that make a career out of touring constantly - more than Rush does - and they're not accused of being in it for the money. In this day and age, don't bands need to tour more? They're sure not raking in the money on record sales anymore. A cash grab? Whatever. No one is going to change their mind on this issue. Rush like to play their music live and to do so they tour. Musicians touring. What nerve! Musicians "grabbing cash"! What nerve! It's what they do. It's what they always did. As for no new music, well, they're living their lives the way they want at the age they are. What nerve! As for all the DVDs and live CDs, well, I think it's to compete with the bootlegs and illegal downloads. What's wrong with official documentation of a tour with all the bootlegs out there? I wish they always did it! Rush making money! What nerve!

Edited November 24, 2011 by ReRushed

[Ghostnotes]

If I were Geddy ,Alex or Neil at this stage in their career i would for sure be saying SHOW ME THE MONEYYYYYYYY!!!!!!

 

Hopefully they have a good retirement plan and adding to it never hurts.

 

I really never bought all of the greatest hits....etc either( a few remasters and hopefully some vinyl reeeeal soon). But hell if they were to put out a dvd with recording sessions and the likes.....I'd buy it.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 24 2011, 09:00 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 24 2011, 02:10 AM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 23 2011, 06:35 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 23 2011, 06:58 PM) Then they decided to forego new music for tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything. This part I don't get. It's been album-tour-album-tour since... forever, basically.   T4E -> tour -> VT -> tour -> Feedback -> tour (R30) -> S&A -> tour -> Caravan/BU2B (admittedly a stretch) -> tour   Even if you discount Feedback, which I don't, and even if you discount Caravan/BU2B (I'll grant that), I don't think "tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything" is really warranted. Here's how I see it:   R30 tour (supporting nothing - I don't see and EP of covers as being anywhere close to a studio album of original material)   S&A - two tours (the first one I get, the second one redundant)   Time Machine Tour - two tours supporting nothing (unless you consider two songs enough to hang two full tours on).   So, I'm seeing since after the VT tour - FOUR TOURS, ONE ALBUM. And, in the last 9 years (2003-2011) guess how many albums they've made? ONE.   Nope, no cash grabbing going on there. I follow your logic, though I don't agree with it.   What I still don't get though, is why it's a cash grab, which is clearly an insult. There are bands that make a career out of touring constantly - more than Rush does - and they're not accused of being in it for the money. In this day and age, don't bands need to tour more? They're sure not raking in the money on record sales anymore. Well of course it's an insult, just like I feel insulted by the cash grab.   For me the life blood of a band is creating new music. That's what I've always loved about Rush historically. Sure, the tours were great, but they're transitory 2-3 hour events. Albums provide countless hours of enjoyment and live eternally.   Once Rush realized that they couldn't make much money on albums, they went into tour overdrive. Sure, nothing's wrong with making money, but at the expense of creativity? I just don't see any excuse for an album once every 5 years, unless we're talking about a band that simply cares very little about making new music, about being vital, creative entities. They've even blatantly said that albums don't make money any more, that touring does. Most people just accept this and think it's groovy.   And I never got the impression that any of them, Neil especially, are big fans of grinding tours that go on and on. Sure, they might say now how much they're loving it, but I think what they're really loving is the big bucks it's bringing in. They realize their time has been limited for awhile, so they're sucking in the cash as fast as they can. There's absolutely no reason they couldn't have done tours AND made an album every 2 or 3 years.   You can make the argument that albums just don't make money anymore. I counter with the argument that if they really cared about making new music and being a creative entity, they could have found a way.

Edited November 24, 2011 by rushgoober

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 24 2011, 12:21 PM)

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 24 2011, 09:00 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 24 2011, 02:10 AM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 23 2011, 06:35 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 23 2011, 06:58 PM) Then they decided to forego new music for tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything. This part I don't get. It's been album-tour-album-tour since... forever, basically.   T4E -> tour -> VT -> tour -> Feedback -> tour (R30) -> S&A -> tour -> Caravan/BU2B (admittedly a stretch) -> tour   Even if you discount Feedback, which I don't, and even if you discount Caravan/BU2B (I'll grant that), I don't think "tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything" is really warranted. Here's how I see it:   R30 tour (supporting nothing - I don't see and EP of covers as being anywhere close to a studio album of original material)   S&A - two tours (the first one I get, the second one redundant)   Time Machine Tour - two tours supporting nothing (unless you consider two songs enough to hang two full tours on).   So, I'm seeing since after the VT tour - FOUR TOURS, ONE ALBUM. And, in the last 9 years (2003-2011) guess how many albums they've made? ONE.   Nope, no cash grabbing going on there. I follow your logic, though I don't agree with it.   What I still don't get though, is why it's a cash grab, which is clearly an insult. There are bands that make a career out of touring constantly - more than Rush does - and they're not accused of being in it for the money. In this day and age, don't bands need to tour more? They're sure not raking in the money on record sales anymore. Well of course it's an insult, just like I feel insulted by the cash grab.   For me the life blood of a band is creating new music. That's what I've always loved about Rush historically. Sure, the tours were great, but they're transitory 2-3 hour events. Albums provide countless hours of enjoyment and live eternally.   Once Rush realized that they couldn't make much money on albums, they went into tour overdrive. Sure, nothing's wrong with making money, but at the expense of creativity? I just don't see any excuse for an album once every 5 years, unless we're talking about a band that simply cares very little about making new music, about being vital, creative entities. They've even blatantly said that albums don't make money any more, that touring does. Most people just accept this and think it's groovy.   And I never got the impression that any of them, Neil especially, are big fans of grinding tours that go on and on. Sure, they might say now how much they're loving it, but I think what they're really loving is the big bucks it's bringing in. They realize their time has been limited for awhile, so they're sucking in the cash as fast as they can. There's absolutely no reason they couldn't have done tours AND made an album every 2 or 3 years.   You can make the argument that albums just don't make money anymore. I counter with the argument that if they really cared about making new music and being a creative entity, they could have found a way. When is touring not a cash grab? It's part of their livelihood, it always has been. They still tour because the can.   As for being creative, I guess they should apologize for not being prolific enough.   With the possibility of Clockwork Angels running over 70 minutes, well, that's a good amount of creativity. Hopefully, most of it will be good.   Also, the current tours really aren't that long, 80 or so dates on the Time Machine tour over a year isn't that daunting.   Families and friends. I think that's Rush's priority. And with the lives they led away from them for so long, well, they've earned the right to do things the way they currently are.

[Tommy Sawyer]

Okay I will finally respond to this thread.

 

Let me first say that as a member, Rushgoober, you have usually had very grounded opinions and even if I don't agree, I can always see where you're coming from.

 

However, your entire cash grab argument is just ridiculous!

 

I can see how you're mad about not getting new albums, but really? Do you honestly think that they are still a band for us? No band on this earth that makes money is not around for their fans. The band is their job. Their job is to make money. I think it's great that they have a job that they clearly enjoy, but you're trying to tell them how to so their job.

 

I assume you have a job that you more or less enjoy. If not, I'm sorry for you. So let's say you currently enjoy your job 60% of the time (as an example) and you make 10 people happy a day. Now say your boss offered you a promotion and you would make much more money. However, you would only please 7 people a day and be happy 50% of the time. Would you take the promotion? I wold guess Yes. I know I would.

 

Rush is a business that doesn't exist for the fans, it exists because of the fans. If touring didn't make money, they wouldn't do it. If albums made twice as much money as a big tour, would they tour at all? Possibly not. However, I don't think that the albums would be magically better, or that their tours would go down in quality.

 

The members of Rush are all approaching 60. When you get to that age, don't you want some good sum of money to retire on? They are clearly not touring because they enjoy it so much. They're touring for the money. If I was in their position, I would probably do the same. If that's your definition of cash grab, then so be it. But I'd rather they tour and make money for themselves than put out a bad album a year and have abbreviated tours that they didn't even take seriously.

 

Just of course, but I seriously think this may be the first time you've had a total invalid argument.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Nov 24 2011, 10:57 AM)

They are clearly not touring because they enjoy it so much. They're touring for the money. If I was in their position, I would probably do the same. If that's your definition of cash grab, then so be it.

It is.

 

QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Nov 24 2011, 10:57 AM)

Just of course, but I seriously think this may be the first time you've had a total invalid argument.

 

You're entitled to your opinion obviously, but I think you actually proved my argument where I quoted you above.

 

Alas...

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Nov 24 2011, 10:41 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 24 2011, 12:21 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 24 2011, 09:00 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 24 2011, 02:10 AM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 23 2011, 06:35 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 23 2011, 06:58 PM) Then they decided to forego new music for tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything. This part I don't get. It's been album-tour-album-tour since... forever, basically.   T4E -> tour -> VT -> tour -> Feedback -> tour (R30) -> S&A -> tour -> Caravan/BU2B (admittedly a stretch) -> tour   Even if you discount Feedback, which I don't, and even if you discount Caravan/BU2B (I'll grant that), I don't think "tons and tons of touring rarely supporting a new anything" is really warranted. Here's how I see it:   R30 tour (supporting nothing - I don't see and EP of covers as being anywhere close to a studio album of original material)   S&A - two tours (the first one I get, the second one redundant)   Time Machine Tour - two tours supporting nothing (unless you consider two songs enough to hang two full tours on).   So, I'm seeing since after the VT tour - FOUR TOURS, ONE ALBUM. And, in the last 9 years (2003-2011) guess how many albums they've made? ONE.   Nope, no cash grabbing going on there. I follow your logic, though I don't agree with it.   What I still don't get though, is why it's a cash grab, which is clearly an insult. There are bands that make a career out of touring constantly - more than Rush does - and they're not accused of being in it for the money. In this day and age, don't bands need to tour more? They're sure not raking in the money on record sales anymore. Well of course it's an insult, just like I feel insulted by the cash grab.   For me the life blood of a band is creating new music. That's what I've always loved about Rush historically. Sure, the tours were great, but they're transitory 2-3 hour events. Albums provide countless hours of enjoyment and live eternally.   Once Rush realized that they couldn't make much money on albums, they went into tour overdrive. Sure, nothing's wrong with making money, but at the expense of creativity? I just don't see any excuse for an album once every 5 years, unless we're talking about a band that simply cares very little about making new music, about being vital, creative entities. They've even blatantly said that albums don't make money any more, that touring does. Most people just accept this and think it's groovy.   And I never got the impression that any of them, Neil especially, are big fans of grinding tours that go on and on. Sure, they might say now how much they're loving it, but I think what they're really loving is the big bucks it's bringing in. They realize their time has been limited for awhile, so they're sucking in the cash as fast as they can. There's absolutely no reason they couldn't have done tours AND made an album every 2 or 3 years.   You can make the argument that albums just don't make money anymore. I counter with the argument that if they really cared about making new music and being a creative entity, they could have found a way. When is touring not a cash grab? It's part of their livelihood, it always has been. They still tour because the can.   As for being creative, I guess they should apologize for not being prolific enough.   With the possibility of Clockwork Angels running over 70 minutes, well, that's a good amount of creativity. Hopefully, most of it will be good.   Also, the current tours really aren't that long, 80 or so dates on the Time Machine tour over a year isn't that daunting.   Families and friends. I think that's Rush's priority. And with the lives they led away from them for so long, well, they've earned the right to do things the way they currently are. I never got that argument that they're going out for months at a time year after year to spend more time with their families. If they really wanted to be around their families more, you would think they'd stick close to home and make albums.   They're entitled to do whatever they want, obviously. I just find that most people are eager to jump on the bandwagon of accepting whatever reasons Rush wants to give out for doing what they do, and accepting them at face value. Their heroes can do no wrong. They're always given the benefit of the doubt.   I don't just accept it. I question it. Of course I'm telling them how to do their jobs. It doesn't mean they'll listen, as they never have, but it's a message board discussing Rush, and I'm discussing them from my point of view. For many years I loved all the decisions they've made. Very often in recent years I don't. No one is required to agree. From my point of view, if we all did agree, talking about them would get very boring, very fast.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 24 2011, 01:23 PM)

QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Nov 24 2011, 10:57 AM) They are clearly not touring because they enjoy it so much. They're touring for the money. If I was in their position, I would probably do the same. If that's your definition of cash grab, then so be it. It is.   QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Nov 24 2011, 10:57 AM) Just of course, but I seriously think this may be the first time you've had a total invalid argument.   You're entitled to your opinion obviously, but I think you actually proved my argument where I quoted you above.   Alas... Damn, Rush have become lying money grubbing capitalist pigs who simply do not care about artistic integrity or being creative!   When hasn't touring been a "cash grab"?

[The Big Money]

Did the interviewer really need to relate everything to wine?

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Nov 24 2011, 11:30 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Nov 24 2011, 01:23 PM) QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Nov 24 2011, 10:57 AM) They are clearly not touring because they enjoy it so much. They're touring for the money. If I was in their position, I would probably do the same. If that's your definition of cash grab, then so be it. It is.   QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Nov 24 2011, 10:57 AM) Just of course, but I seriously think this may be the first time you've had a total invalid argument.   You're entitled to your opinion obviously, but I think you actually proved my argument where I quoted you above.   Alas... Damn, Rush have become lying money grubbing capitalist pigs who simply do not care about artistic integrity or being creative!   When hasn't touring been a "cash grab"? It can be argued that it always is, except when it's done just for the love of performing. Do they give it their all each performance? Yes, because they're professionals. Does that they mean they love the process? Not necessarily.   And it's a level of degree. Going on tour to support an album makes sense. You're doing a job and making money, yes, but you're taking your new creative endeavor out on the road. When it's tons of touring not in support of any new creative endeavor, even going as far as doing two legs of tours often playing the same areas or even specific locales, supporting nothing, it just seems less noble to me, and really solely for the money.   It's fine, they're entitled to do what they want and go for the money jugular. I'm just commenting on what I'm seeing from my point of view.