HEADLONG FLIGHT New RUSH Tune

[Priest of Syrinx]

QUOTE (Tony R @ Mar 29 2012, 06:06 AM)

If a Rush album sold 1 million copies these days I'd be very worried about the quality.

I don't get the correlation...?

[snowdog2112]

QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:38 AM)

QUOTE (Tony R @ Mar 29 2012, 06:06 AM) If a Rush album sold 1 million copies these days I'd be very worried about the quality. I don't get the correlation...? I think he means it would be appealing to the lowest common denominator and therefore generic.

[clem]

QUOTE (Alexmai @ Mar 29 2012, 03:36 AM)

QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Mar 29 2012, 03:25 AM) QUOTE (Alexmai @ Mar 29 2012, 10:17 AM) It looks like the single digital songs are sold well... it's about the albums... It just adds to the fact that the artists living on singles are generally more pop-oriented. Big bands went (go) big with albums. If Moving pictures was released today, its song would sell well without being pop If Moving Pictures were released today, there are people on this board that would say it sucks because Rush "hasn't done anything good since 1978".     Clem

[Priest of Syrinx]

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:48 AM)

QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:38 AM) QUOTE (Tony R @ Mar 29 2012, 06:06 AM) If a Rush album sold 1 million copies these days I'd be very worried about the quality. I don't get the correlation...? I think he means it would be appealing to the lowest common denominator and therefore generic. Rush has a very dedicated fan base, and I think that because we don't know if this will be the last album, there might be extra incentive to buy.   Hasn't every Rush studio LP sold a million? I thought I had read that somewhere, but I could be wrong.

[snowdog2112]

QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:53 AM)

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:48 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:38 AM) QUOTE (Tony R @ Mar 29 2012, 06:06 AM) If a Rush album sold 1 million copies these days I'd be very worried about the quality. I don't get the correlation...? I think he means it would be appealing to the lowest common denominator and therefore generic. Rush has a very dedicated fan base, and I think that because we don't know if this will be the last album, there might be extra incentive to buy.   Hasn't every Rush studio LP sold a million? I thought I had read that somewhere, but I could be wrong. No, some still aren't even gold.

[danielmclark]

Talk about fantasy land, I think it's ridiculous to think that it takes a full year and an untold large sum of money to record a freakin' album. If bands want to be full time musicians, then be full time musicians. When they were young and hungry, Rush put out 8 studio albums and 2 live albums in seven years, and they are widely regarded as the best work of their career. Who has that kind of work ethic these days? And I don't mean the old timers who have earned the right to go a few years between releases and put on massive tours, I'm talking about the up-and-comers. The acts that have only put out an album or two and then wait 4 years to put out another. "We were hard at work!" - no, you weren't! Not for four fking years, you weren't.

 

It should take a month to record an album. Maybe two if you're having trouble with it. I hear a lot "we put out an album, went on tour for 10 months, then had to spend 6 months writing..." what, you can't write on the road? Seems to me, that used to be the norm.

 

As for costing a ton of money - really? The band already has their instruments, so not counting the cost there, you can record an album for under $20,000, and that's being loose with your money. Technology the way it is now, you don't need to spend $50,000 an hour getting into the best studio in the world. With a little more work (there's that word again) you can put a kick-ass album out on a shoestring budget.

 

I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone that makes a boatload of money, and even less for people who make a boatload of money playing music. I have a lot of respect for people that can be that creative, but when you're making music your job, you should treat it like a job.

[Kent]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Mar 29 2012, 11:00 AM)

Talk about fantasy land, I think it's ridiculous to think that it takes a full year and an untold large sum of money to record a freakin' album. If bands want to be full time musicians, then be full time musicians. When they were young and hungry, Rush put out 8 studio albums and 2 live albums in seven years, and they are widely regarded as the best work of their career. Who has that kind of work ethic these days? And I don't mean the old timers who have earned the right to go a few years between releases and put on massive tours, I'm talking about the up-and-comers. The acts that have only put out an album or two and then wait 4 years to put out another. "We were hard at work!" - no, you weren't! Not for four fking years, you weren't. It should take a month to record an album. Maybe two if you're having trouble with it. I hear a lot "we put out an album, went on tour for 10 months, then had to spend 6 months writing..." what, you can't write on the road? Seems to me, that used to be the norm. As for costing a ton of money - really? The band already has their instruments, so not counting the cost there, you can record an album for under $20,000, and that's being loose with your money. Technology the way it is now, you don't need to spend $50,000 an hour getting into the best studio in the world. With a little more work (there's that word again) you can put a kick-ass album out on a shoestring budget. I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone that makes a boatload of money, and even less for people who make a boatload of money playing music. I have a lot of respect for people that can be that creative, but when you're making music your job, you should treat it like a job.

 

 

I remember in the 90's Pearl Jam said they wanted to put out an album every 9 months, but it never happened.

 

I don't know where the work ethic in musicians has gone. Live, I'd say Springsteen has the best work ethic out there.

 

But five years between albums? If you are still a working musician, that seems a little extreme.

 

 

--Kent

[Priest of Syrinx]

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:54 AM)

QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:53 AM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:48 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:38 AM) QUOTE (Tony R @ Mar 29 2012, 06:06 AM) If a Rush album sold 1 million copies these days I'd be very worried about the quality. I don't get the correlation...? I think he means it would be appealing to the lowest common denominator and therefore generic. Rush has a very dedicated fan base, and I think that because we don't know if this will be the last album, there might be extra incentive to buy.   Hasn't every Rush studio LP sold a million? I thought I had read that somewhere, but I could be wrong. No, some still aren't even gold. I looked at the Rush discography on Wikipedia, and you're right. It looks like every Rush studio album has gone Gold in either Canada or the USA, but I would think that Canada's Gold certification threshold is much lower, given the much lower population.   I still think that a million sales is not an indication of quality, though.

[canadianice]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Mar 29 2012, 11:00 AM)

Talk about fantasy land, I think it's ridiculous to think that it takes a full year and an untold large sum of money to record a freakin' album. If bands want to be full time musicians, then be full time musicians. When they were young and hungry, Rush put out 8 studio albums and 2 live albums in seven years, and they are widely regarded as the best work of their career. Who has that kind of work ethic these days? And I don't mean the old timers who have earned the right to go a few years between releases and put on massive tours, I'm talking about the up-and-comers. The acts that have only put out an album or two and then wait 4 years to put out another. "We were hard at work!" - no, you weren't! Not for four fking years, you weren't. It should take a month to record an album. Maybe two if you're having trouble with it. I hear a lot "we put out an album, went on tour for 10 months, then had to spend 6 months writing..." what, you can't write on the road? Seems to me, that used to be the norm. As for costing a ton of money - really? The band already has their instruments, so not counting the cost there, you can record an album for under $20,000, and that's being loose with your money. Technology the way it is now, you don't need to spend $50,000 an hour getting into the best studio in the world. With a little more work (there's that word again) you can put a kick-ass album out on a shoestring budget. I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone that makes a boatload of money, and even less for people who make a boatload of money playing music. I have a lot of respect for people that can be that creative, but when you're making music your job, you should treat it like a job.

Rush can release an album every 5 years, because they can!. As for Clockwork Angels, it's release is to coincide with the release of the 3 stooges film, in which Neil plays the role of Moe

[Kent]

QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 11:11 AM)

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:54 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:53 AM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:48 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:38 AM) QUOTE (Tony R @ Mar 29 2012, 06:06 AM) If a Rush album sold 1 million copies these days I'd be very worried about the quality. I don't get the correlation...? I think he means it would be appealing to the lowest common denominator and therefore generic. Rush has a very dedicated fan base, and I think that because we don't know if this will be the last album, there might be extra incentive to buy.   Hasn't every Rush studio LP sold a million? I thought I had read that somewhere, but I could be wrong. No, some still aren't even gold. I looked at the Rush discography on Wikipedia, and you're right. It looks like every Rush studio album has gone Gold in either Canada or the USA, but I would think that Canada's Gold certification threshold is much lower, given the much lower population.   I still think that a million sales is not an indication of quality, though. Platinum in Canada is 100, 000 copies. A million is considered Diamond.   Platinum in the US is a million.   It's driven by population I would think.   Rush are tied with KISS in third place for the most gold albums, they've all gone gold. All of em. I'm certain of it.

[snowdog2112]

QUOTE (clem @ Mar 29 2012, 09:52 AM)

QUOTE (Alexmai @ Mar 29 2012, 03:36 AM) QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Mar 29 2012, 03:25 AM) QUOTE (Alexmai @ Mar 29 2012, 10:17 AM) It looks like the single digital songs are sold well... it's about the albums... It just adds to the fact that the artists living on singles are generally more pop-oriented. Big bands went (go) big with albums. If Moving pictures was released today, its song would sell well without being pop If Moving Pictures were released today, there are people on this board that would say it sucks because Rush "hasn't done anything good since 1978".     Clem There's no doubt about that for at least some people. Nostalgia is a huge part of it with these older bands and whether it's a concious decision or not (usually not) people simply will always prefer what they grew up with and the revisionism is strong with this stuff. The idea that I hear Signals described as being part of the classic "they did no wrong" period all the time blows me away. I was in junior high when that album came out and it was more reviled at the time than any other Rush album since.   A lot of people consider AFTK the epitome of "classic Rush" but on the original album premier the host repeatedly questions Geddy about whether he's worried about what the fans will think because "it doesn't sound the the Rush we've grown acccustomed to." He's polite but he's almost begging Geddy for an apology. Things like "Are you worried about what the reaction will be when you play these live?" and "Will Rush be going back the their previous style after this?" etc.   Geoff Barton was instrumental in getting Rush exposure in the U.K. and he thought Rush peaked with AFTK and completely turned on the band when Hemipheres came out. He hated it and still bashes it. He's not just a single random fan, he was an early champion of the band.   In the Q interview with Geddy and Alex Geddy talked about how Fly by Night cost them some fans who expected it to be like the first album.   We all know Caress of Steel damn near ended the band.   When I hear people say stuff like "they should bring stuff back like Prime Mover or Lock and Key" live all I can think about is going to multiple Rush shows in 1988 where the reaction to the HYF songs live was far worse than the people who complained about hearing 5 straight S&A songs in 2007/2008.   Even albums that netted them lots more fans still lost them some older ones. I know multiple people that Moving Pictures turned off. One of my really good friends loves Rush but at the time MP was new he said he had the same hostile reaction as when he heard Jump in 1984 for the first time. He thought the band he loved was dead. He said MP was slow, overly polished sounding and not edgy, and with too much keyboard. And you know, that's not really that off-base. He's come around to love it but at the time he thought it was the classic "sell-out".   Tons of people seem to argue that Rush is really just about the 70s stuff, that that's why people love them. But that doesn't explain why they weren't even headlining until the AFTK tour and even then they were smaller venues. They didn't really start even getting in to the black financially until 1980. they were playing 200 or more shows a year to survive through 1979. Their back catalog got a huge boost in sales during 1980-1981.     One single thing many years ago told me all I needed to know about the crowd that will always say "it doesn't sound like their old stuff" and that's when I first started getting bootlegs in the early 90s. Back then when I ordered them blind through the mail without knowing the quality I would get a lot of horrible sounding audience bootlegs but I still thought they were cool that they even existed. I'd listen to them in my headphones at night when I got in bed. And I remember hearing one from the Hemispheres tour where during Hemispheres itself you hear a guy kind of behind the taper yelling throughout the whole thing "Play the old stuff! Play the old stuff!" I laughed and thought "Dude, that is the old stuff!" They've always been there.     I'm not saying you should pretend to like what you don't and I've been disappointed before like with Vapor Trails, all I'm saying is just don't buy into this "They were great up until ____________" absolutism where everybody fills in the blank with a different album. Dissension has always been a part of this and the "old stuff" was always better. Except it wasn't.

Edited March 29, 2012 by snowdog2112

[Kent]

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 11:29 AM)

QUOTE (clem @ Mar 29 2012, 09:52 AM) QUOTE (Alexmai @ Mar 29 2012, 03:36 AM) QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Mar 29 2012, 03:25 AM) QUOTE (Alexmai @ Mar 29 2012, 10:17 AM) It looks like the single digital songs are sold well... it's about the albums... It just adds to the fact that the artists living on singles are generally more pop-oriented. Big bands went (go) big with albums. If Moving pictures was released today, its song would sell well without being pop If Moving Pictures were released today, there are people on this board that would say it sucks because Rush "hasn't done anything good since 1978".     Clem There's no doubt about that for at least some people. Nostalgia is a huge part of it with these older bands and whether it's a concious decision or not (usually not) people simply will always prefer what they grew up with and the revisionism is strong with this stuff. The idea that I hear Signals described as being part of the classic "they did no wrong" period all the time blows me away. I was in junior high when that album came out and it was more reviled at the time than any other Rush album since.   A lot of people consider AFTK the epitome of "classic Rush" but on the original album premier the host repeatedly questions Geddy about whether he's worried about what the fans will think because "it doesn't sound the the Rush we've grown acccustomed to." He's polite but he's almost begging Geddy for an apology. Things like "Are you worried about what the reaction will be when you play these live?" and "Will Rush be going back the their previous style after this?" etc.   Geoff Barton was instrumental in getting Rush exposure in the U.K. and he thought Rush peaked with AFTK and completely turned on the band when Hemipheres came out. He hated it and still bashes it. He's not just a single random fan, he was an early champion of the band.   In the Q interview with Geddy and Alex Geddy talked about how Fly by Night cost them some fans who expected it to be like the first album.   We all know Caress of Steel damn near ended the band.   When I hear people say stuff like "they should bring stuff back like Prime Mover or Lock and Key" live all I can think about is going to multiple Rush shows in 1988 where the reaction to the HYF songs live was far worse than the people who complained about hearing 5 straight S&A songs in 2007/2008.   Even albums that netted them lots more fans still lost them some older ones. I know multiple people that Moving Pictures turned off. One of my really good friends loves Rush but at the time MP was new he said he had the same hostile reaction as when he heard Jump in 1984 for the first time. He thought the band he loved was dead. He said MP was slow, overly polished sounding and not edgy, and with too much keyboard. And you know, that's not really that off-base. He's come around to love it but at the time he thought it was the classic "sell-out".   Tons of people seem to argue that Rush is really just about the 70s stuff, that that's why people love them. But that doesn't explain why they weren't even headlining until the AFTK tour and even then they were smaller venues. They didn't really start even getting in to the black financially until 1980. they were playing 200 or more shows a year to survive through 1979. Their back catalog got a huge boost in sales during 1980-1981.     One single thing many years ago told me all I needed to know about the crowd that will always say "it doesn't sound like their old stuff" and that's when I first started getting bootlegs in the early 90s. Back then when I ordered them blind through the mail without knowing the quality I would get a lot of horrible sounding audience bootlegs but I still thought they were cool that they even existed. I'd listen to them in my headphones at night when I got in bed. And I remember hearing one from the Hemispheres tour where during Hemispheres itself you hear a guy kind of behind the taper yelling throughout the whole thing "Play the old stuff! Play the old stuff!" I laughed and thought "Dude, that is the old stuff!" They've always been there.     I'm not saying you should pretend to like what you don't and I've been disappointed before like with Vapor Trails, all I'm saying is just don't buy into this "They were great up until ____________" absolutism where everybody fills in the blank with a different album. Dissension has always been a part of this and the "old stuff" was always better. Except it wasn't.   Great one, man.

[Gompers]

QUOTE (Kent @ Mar 29 2012, 12:11 PM)

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Mar 29 2012, 11:00 AM) Talk about fantasy land, I think it's ridiculous to think that it takes a full year and an untold large sum of money to record a freakin' album. If bands want to be full time musicians, then be full time musicians. When they were young and hungry, Rush put out 8 studio albums and 2 live albums in seven years, and they are widely regarded as the best work of their career. Who has that kind of work ethic these days? And I don't mean the old timers who have earned the right to go a few years between releases and put on massive tours, I'm talking about the up-and-comers. The acts that have only put out an album or two and then wait 4 years to put out another. "We were hard at work!" - no, you weren't! Not for four fking years, you weren't. It should take a month to record an album. Maybe two if you're having trouble with it. I hear a lot "we put out an album, went on tour for 10 months, then had to spend 6 months writing..." what, you can't write on the road? Seems to me, that used to be the norm. As for costing a ton of money - really? The band already has their instruments, so not counting the cost there, you can record an album for under $20,000, and that's being loose with your money. Technology the way it is now, you don't need to spend $50,000 an hour getting into the best studio in the world. With a little more work (there's that word again) you can put a kick-ass album out on a shoestring budget. I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone that makes a boatload of money, and even less for people who make a boatload of money playing music. I have a lot of respect for people that can be that creative, but when you're making music your job, you should treat it like a job.     I remember in the 90's Pearl Jam said they wanted to put out an album every 9 months, but it never happened.   I don't know where the work ethic in musicians has gone. Live, I'd say Springsteen has the best work ethic out there.   But five years between albums? If you are still a working musician, that seems a little extreme.     --Kent At least Rush is putting something out.   Seriously, as you get older, sometimes your creativity starts to wane. Cut them some slack.

[ReflectedLight]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Mar 29 2012, 11:00 AM)

Talk about fantasy land, I think it's ridiculous to think that it takes a full year and an untold large sum of money to record a freakin' album. If bands want to be full time musicians, then be full time musicians. When they were young and hungry, Rush put out 8 studio albums and 2 live albums in seven years, and they are widely regarded as the best work of their career. Who has that kind of work ethic these days? And I don't mean the old timers who have earned the right to go a few years between releases and put on massive tours, I'm talking about the up-and-comers. The acts that have only put out an album or two and then wait 4 years to put out another. "We were hard at work!" - no, you weren't! Not for four fking years, you weren't. It should take a month to record an album. Maybe two if you're having trouble with it. I hear a lot "we put out an album, went on tour for 10 months, then had to spend 6 months writing..." what, you can't write on the road? Seems to me, that used to be the norm. As for costing a ton of money - really? The band already has their instruments, so not counting the cost there, you can record an album for under $20,000, and that's being loose with your money. Technology the way it is now, you don't need to spend $50,000 an hour getting into the best studio in the world. With a little more work (there's that word again) you can put a kick-ass album out on a shoestring budget. I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone that makes a boatload of money, and even less for people who make a boatload of money playing music. I have a lot of respect for people that can be that creative, but when you're making music your job, you should treat it like a job.

key words, "when they were young and hungry".

[canadianice]

QUOTE (ReflectedLight @ Mar 29 2012, 11:39 AM)

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Mar 29 2012, 11:00 AM) Talk about fantasy land, I think it's ridiculous to think that it takes a full year and an untold large sum of money to record a freakin' album. If bands want to be full time musicians, then be full time musicians. When they were young and hungry, Rush put out 8 studio albums and 2 live albums in seven years, and they are widely regarded as the best work of their career. Who has that kind of work ethic these days? And I don't mean the old timers who have earned the right to go a few years between releases and put on massive tours, I'm talking about the up-and-comers. The acts that have only put out an album or two and then wait 4 years to put out another. "We were hard at work!" - no, you weren't! Not for four fking years, you weren't. It should take a month to record an album. Maybe two if you're having trouble with it. I hear a lot "we put out an album, went on tour for 10 months, then had to spend 6 months writing..." what, you can't write on the road? Seems to me, that used to be the norm. As for costing a ton of money - really? The band already has their instruments, so not counting the cost there, you can record an album for under $20,000, and that's being loose with your money. Technology the way it is now, you don't need to spend $50,000 an hour getting into the best studio in the world. With a little more work (there's that word again) you can put a kick-ass album out on a shoestring budget. I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone that makes a boatload of money, and even less for people who make a boatload of money playing music. I have a lot of respect for people that can be that creative, but when you're making music your job, you should treat it like a job. key words, "when they were young and hungry". As opposed to old and content

[Gompers]

QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 12:11 PM)

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:54 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:53 AM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:48 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:38 AM) QUOTE (Tony R @ Mar 29 2012, 06:06 AM) If a Rush album sold 1 million copies these days I'd be very worried about the quality. I don't get the correlation...? I think he means it would be appealing to the lowest common denominator and therefore generic. Rush has a very dedicated fan base, and I think that because we don't know if this will be the last album, there might be extra incentive to buy.   Hasn't every Rush studio LP sold a million? I thought I had read that somewhere, but I could be wrong. No, some still aren't even gold. I looked at the Rush discography on Wikipedia, and you're right. It looks like every Rush studio album has gone Gold in either Canada or the USA, but I would think that Canada's Gold certification threshold is much lower, given the much lower population.   I still think that a million sales is not an indication of quality, though. Sales is not a reflection of quality. It is a sign of popularity.

[EmotionDetector]

QUOTE (Gompers @ Mar 29 2012, 12:41 PM)

QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 12:11 PM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:54 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:53 AM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:48 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:38 AM) QUOTE (Tony R @ Mar 29 2012, 06:06 AM) If a Rush album sold 1 million copies these days I'd be very worried about the quality. I don't get the correlation...? I think he means it would be appealing to the lowest common denominator and therefore generic. Rush has a very dedicated fan base, and I think that because we don't know if this will be the last album, there might be extra incentive to buy.   Hasn't every Rush studio LP sold a million? I thought I had read that somewhere, but I could be wrong. No, some still aren't even gold. I looked at the Rush discography on Wikipedia, and you're right. It looks like every Rush studio album has gone Gold in either Canada or the USA, but I would think that Canada's Gold certification threshold is much lower, given the much lower population.   I still think that a million sales is not an indication of quality, though. Sales is not a reflection of quality. It is a sign of popularity.

[rushlady23]

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 29 2012, 12:43 PM)

QUOTE (Gompers @ Mar 29 2012, 12:41 PM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 12:11 PM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:54 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:53 AM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:48 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:38 AM) QUOTE (Tony R @ Mar 29 2012, 06:06 AM) If a Rush album sold 1 million copies these days I'd be very worried about the quality. I don't get the correlation...? I think he means it would be appealing to the lowest common denominator and therefore generic. Rush has a very dedicated fan base, and I think that because we don't know if this will be the last album, there might be extra incentive to buy.   Hasn't every Rush studio LP sold a million? I thought I had read that somewhere, but I could be wrong. No, some still aren't even gold. I looked at the Rush discography on Wikipedia, and you're right. It looks like every Rush studio album has gone Gold in either Canada or the USA, but I would think that Canada's Gold certification threshold is much lower, given the much lower population.   I still think that a million sales is not an indication of quality, though. Sales is not a reflection of quality. It is a sign of popularity.

[rushlady23]

QUOTE (ReflectedLight @ Mar 29 2012, 12:39 PM)

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Mar 29 2012, 11:00 AM) Talk about fantasy land, I think it's ridiculous to think that it takes a full year and an untold large sum of money to record a freakin' album. If bands want to be full time musicians, then be full time musicians. When they were young and hungry, Rush put out 8 studio albums and 2 live albums in seven years, and they are widely regarded as the best work of their career. Who has that kind of work ethic these days? And I don't mean the old timers who have earned the right to go a few years between releases and put on massive tours, I'm talking about the up-and-comers. The acts that have only put out an album or two and then wait 4 years to put out another. "We were hard at work!" - no, you weren't! Not for four fking years, you weren't. It should take a month to record an album. Maybe two if you're having trouble with it. I hear a lot "we put out an album, went on tour for 10 months, then had to spend 6 months writing..." what, you can't write on the road? Seems to me, that used to be the norm. As for costing a ton of money - really? The band already has their instruments, so not counting the cost there, you can record an album for under $20,000, and that's being loose with your money. Technology the way it is now, you don't need to spend $50,000 an hour getting into the best studio in the world. With a little more work (there's that word again) you can put a kick-ass album out on a shoestring budget. I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone that makes a boatload of money, and even less for people who make a boatload of money playing music. I have a lot of respect for people that can be that creative, but when you're making music your job, you should treat it like a job. key words, "when they were young and hungry". Which, obviously, they are not. They can take as long as they want to record an album and there isn't anything anyone can do about it except wait patiently.

[snowdog2112]

QUOTE (Kent @ Mar 29 2012, 10:24 AM)

QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 11:11 AM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:54 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:53 AM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Mar 29 2012, 10:48 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Mar 29 2012, 09:38 AM) QUOTE (Tony R @ Mar 29 2012, 06:06 AM) If a Rush album sold 1 million copies these days I'd be very worried about the quality. I don't get the correlation...? I think he means it would be appealing to the lowest common denominator and therefore generic. Rush has a very dedicated fan base, and I think that because we don't know if this will be the last album, there might be extra incentive to buy.   Hasn't every Rush studio LP sold a million? I thought I had read that somewhere, but I could be wrong. No, some still aren't even gold. I looked at the Rush discography on Wikipedia, and you're right. It looks like every Rush studio album has gone Gold in either Canada or the USA, but I would think that Canada's Gold certification threshold is much lower, given the much lower population.   I still think that a million sales is not an indication of quality, though. Platinum in Canada is 100, 000 copies. A million is considered Diamond.   Platinum in the US is a million.   It's driven by population I would think.   Rush are tied with KISS in third place for the most gold albums, they've all gone gold. All of em. I'm certain of it. Unless something has just changed S&A is definitely not gold, Feedback is not gold (if you want to count that one), and I'm not even sure if Vapor Trails is, it may have shipped gold. The problem is that none of this is really scientific. Lots of albums "ship gold" but that doesn't mean they actually sold, etc.     But it's true that certainly almost all of them are at least gold.

Edited March 29, 2012 by snowdog2112

[LeaveMyThingAlone]

Some great points in this thread

 

A couple of my points:

 

Does anyone remember when Lars Ulrich basically represented the entire music industry in it's lawsuit against Napster? That Napster had absolutely no right to Metallica's music and give it away for free?

 

Lars took an absolute beating from Metallica fans and music fans in general. He was called greedy, selfish, and that he didn't care about the fans. But he was absolutely right. And little did anyone know how bad it would get.

 

Now today Music is in a state of flux. There WILL be less music made because bands cannot make money on an album. Period. Creativity will take a hit because of this.

 

It's an awful time for rock music because of so many factors (IE American Idol, The Voice, image means more than quality) but the biggest factor is that Bands do not make money on making albums no matter how good or popular it is.

 

I also predict that the movie industry will soon take a big hit as well as movies will soon be available for free download the same time (or even before) it comes out in the theater

 

For all the great advances in technology, it is going to really kill creativity if there is no money to be made

 

I can pretty much assure you Rush made this album for themselves. They made it because they till have their creative juices flowing and they needed a release. They're genius musicians and still have creative ideas and this was something they WANTED to do. It wasn't a good business decision but they didn't care.

 

I'd be shocked if Clockwork Angels was NOT their last studio album

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (clem @ Mar 29 2012, 10:52 AM)

QUOTE (Alexmai @ Mar 29 2012, 03:36 AM) QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Mar 29 2012, 03:25 AM) QUOTE (Alexmai @ Mar 29 2012, 10:17 AM) It looks like the single digital songs are sold well... it's about the albums... It just adds to the fact that the artists living on singles are generally more pop-oriented. Big bands went (go) big with albums. If Moving pictures was released today, its song would sell well without being pop If Moving Pictures were released today, there are people on this board that would say it sucks because Rush "hasn't done anything good since 1978".     Clem Yup.

[canadianice]

QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Mar 29 2012, 12:18 PM)

Some great points in this thread A couple of my points: Does anyone remember when Lars Ulrich basically represented the entire music industry in it's lawsuit against Napster? That Napster had absolutely no right to Metallica's music and give it away for free? Lars took an absolute beating from Metallica fans and music fans in general. He was called greedy, selfish, and that he didn't care about the fans. But he was absolutely right. And little did anyone know how bad it would get. Now today Music is in a state of flux. There WILL be less music made because bands cannot make money on an album. Period. Creativity will take a hit because of this. It's an awful time for rock music because of so many factors (IE American Idol, The Voice, image means more than quality) but the biggest factor is that Bands do not make money on making albums no matter how good or popular it is. I also predict that the movie industry will soon take a big hit as well as movies will soon be available for free download the same time (or even before) it comes out in the theater For all the great advances in technology, it is going to really kill creativity if there is no money to be made I can pretty much assure you Rush made this album for themselves. They made it because they till have their creative juices flowing and they needed a release. They're genius musicians and still have creative ideas and this was something they WANTED to do. It wasn't a good business decision but they didn't care. I'd be shocked if Clockwork Angels was NOT their last studio album

I would have to agree, considering they will be pushing 65 years of age, when the next release would be due

[andrew28]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Mar 29 2012, 11:00 AM)

Talk about fantasy land, I think it's ridiculous to think that it takes a full year and an untold large sum of money to record a freakin' album. If bands want to be full time musicians, then be full time musicians. When they were young and hungry, Rush put out 8 studio albums and 2 live albums in seven years, and they are widely regarded as the best work of their career. Who has that kind of work ethic these days? And I don't mean the old timers who have earned the right to go a few years between releases and put on massive tours, I'm talking about the up-and-comers. The acts that have only put out an album or two and then wait 4 years to put out another. "We were hard at work!" - no, you weren't! Not for four fking years, you weren't. It should take a month to record an album. Maybe two if you're having trouble with it. I hear a lot "we put out an album, went on tour for 10 months, then had to spend 6 months writing..." what, you can't write on the road? Seems to me, that used to be the norm. As for costing a ton of money - really? The band already has their instruments, so not counting the cost there, you can record an album for under $20,000, and that's being loose with your money. Technology the way it is now, you don't need to spend $50,000 an hour getting into the best studio in the world. With a little more work (there's that word again) you can put a kick-ass album out on a shoestring budget. I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone that makes a boatload of money, and even less for people who make a boatload of money playing music. I have a lot of respect for people that can be that creative, but when you're making music your job, you should treat it like a job.

While we all love Rush and put them on a higher pedestal, they are just like most bands, in that they realize that the money is in touring, not music sales.

 

I don't have the numbers, but I would venture to guess that 20 years ago bands made half their money from album sales/contracts with record companies and half from touring/merchandise sales. These days, I would think that it's probably an 20/80 split.

 

Granted, Rush does still produces new music, however, it's just not worth it for them to put out an album every six months or a year, when they can just tour and make more money.

 

Also, when Rush (and other bands) was releasing an album album every year, they were still proving themselves to their audiences. Now, they don't have to. The number of fans they would gain from a new release is minimal at best.

 

This isn't a knock on the boys, it's just the way things are.

Edited March 29, 2012 by andrew28

[snowdog2112]