The Owl Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) If I recall correctly the Band had stated that they were in the writing process of the new album as of March 2010, and began the recording of Caravan/BU2B in April, and those tracks were released the following summer of that year.... They of course went on a 2 leg/ year long tour before they resumed work on the album, but I believe some writing was done on the Time Machine tour.. My question is will the slow development of the album translate in quality in any way... the songs/the concept/and the musical direction had 2 years to mature until it's release in June... does this raise your expectations in any way? Bear in mind that some of Rush's best albums were released under a year of each other, so longer development (=/=) quality for certainty Edited April 13, 2012 by The Owl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate2112 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Good point you have there dear sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 They spent longer in the studio on VT than any other album and it was their worst. They pumped out classic albums in the mid-70's to early 80's in less than a year. The only way I think that more time would necessarily equal greater quality is if 5 years between albums meant they were recording on a regular basis and then when it came time for an album they handpicked the very best material that they had available, but Rush doesn't work that way. I think they've either got it in them for a great album or they don't, no matter how much time they spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
workingcinderellaman Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 13 2012, 02:06 PM) They spent longer in the studio on VT than any other album and it was their worst. They pumped out classic albums in the mid-70's to early 80's in less than a year. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg2112 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 QUOTE (workingcinderellaman @ Apr 13 2012, 02:18 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 13 2012, 02:06 PM) They spent longer in the studio on VT than any other album and it was their worst. They pumped out classic albums in the mid-70's to early 80's in less than a year. This. +3... EXACTLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Cocky Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 13 2012, 03:06 PM) They spent longer in the studio on VT than any other album and it was their worst. They pumped out classic albums in the mid-70's to early 80's in less than a year. But S&A was put out after 5 years, so there goes that theory. I just know I like what I've heard so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 possiby. Next topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaked Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 13 2012, 03:06 PM) They spent longer in the studio on VT than any other album and it was their worst. They pumped out classic albums in the mid-70's to early 80's in less than a year. The only way I think that more time would necessarily equal greater quality is if 5 years between albums meant they were recording on a regular basis and then when it came time for an album they handpicked the very best material that they had available, but Rush doesn't work that way. I think they've either got it in them for a great album or they don't, no matter how much time they spend. Song wise VT is one of their best. Problem is the production is criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Cocky Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 QUOTE (Snaked @ Apr 13 2012, 03:49 PM) Song wise VT is one of their best. You'll never get rushgoober to acknowledge this. And there are several others who disagree with this sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaked Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 QUOTE (Rush Cocky @ Apr 13 2012, 03:51 PM) QUOTE (Snaked @ Apr 13 2012, 03:49 PM) Song wise VT is one of their best. You'll never get rushgoober to acknowledge this. And there are several others who disagree with this sentiment. Funny thing is I dont give a rats ass who agrees with me. I know it's one of their best collections of songs and thats all that matters to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
presto123 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 VT is an awesome collection of songs. With a good production SnA wouldn't even be in the same ballpark. VT is much more consistent than SnA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemispheresserehpsimeH Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 One thing that I've always loved about Rush is that their sound doesn't ever seem forced to me, no matter how long they take in between albums. They're not all amazing masterpieces, but they all have some good quality to them. I have no doubt in my mind that CA will follow this path also. For me, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReflectedLight Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 QUOTE (Rush Cocky @ Apr 13 2012, 02:33 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Apr 13 2012, 03:06 PM) They spent longer in the studio on VT than any other album and it was their worst. They pumped out classic albums in the mid-70's to early 80's in less than a year. But S&A was put out after 5 years, so there goes that theory. I just know I like what I've heard so far. plus it only took 5 weeks to record s & a and it turned out to be absolute sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReflectedLight Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 QUOTE (HemispheresserehpsimeH @ Apr 13 2012, 03:27 PM) One thing that I've always loved about Rush is that their sound doesn't ever seem forced to me, no matter how long they take in between albums. They're not all amazing masterpieces, but they all have some good quality to them. I have no doubt in my mind that CA will follow this path also. For me, at least. sorry dude but s & a sounds forced. alot of the music sounds that way and the shoehorning of the lyrics was quite obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossedSignals Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 It seems like every thread I visit on TRF there's an argument about Vapor Trails. Can't we just all learn to agree that's it's one of their best albums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemispheresserehpsimeH Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (ReflectedLight @ Apr 13 2012, 03:40 PM) QUOTE (HemispheresserehpsimeH @ Apr 13 2012, 03:27 PM) One thing that I've always loved about Rush is that their sound doesn't ever seem forced to me, no matter how long they take in between albums. They're not all amazing masterpieces, but they all have some good quality to them. I have no doubt in my mind that CA will follow this path also. For me, at least. sorry dude but s & a sounds forced. alot of the music sounds that way and the shoehorning of the lyrics was quite obvious. "One thing that I'VE always loved about Rush..." I didn't say it was universal fact. Just because you have a hard on for hating S&A doesn't mean it sounds forced to everyone else ever. Edited April 13, 2012 by HemispheresserehpsimeH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlyJeff Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 QUOTE (The Owl @ Apr 13 2012, 02:03 PM) Bear in mind that some of Rush's best albums were released under a year of each other, so longer development (=/=) quality for certainty I will point out that while that isn't an argument for taking a long time to record an album, it IS an argument for developing albums while touring, which I believe was their stated goal. VT was a total studio album with no live play. The songs on CA were partially written and all honed while they were out there, busting their chops playing live shows. In that respect, this album is being developed more like their 70s material than a lot of their more recent material. But the question itself is unanswerable, even after we hear the recording. It could be fantastic and yet would have been even MORE fantastic if they just knocked it out in a shorter time frame. It might also suck, and yet would have sucked more if they'd rushed it. Without having an alternate timeline we can jump into and compare, there's just no knowing whether this approach was good, bad, or indifferent. The band will likely judge the process based on their feelings of how it went, and that's the best indicator we'll get as to whether this was a good plan or not. Personally, I am eagerly anticipating the album, but not because of the long timeframe. I am looking forward to it because I love everything I've heard so far and I love S&A. As long as they are going in the direction their recent material has been following, I have every reason to believe this is going to be a stellar work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 QUOTE (CrossedSignals @ Apr 13 2012, 04:56 PM) It seems like every thread I visit on TRF there's an argument about Vapor Trails. Can't we just all learn to agree that's it's one of their best albums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Short length of studio time can't always equal great material. Their shortest time in the studio was probably their debut album, no? But I don't think that there's ANY Rush fan who'd say that that is their best material. [i like that first album btw. It's good and fun but nowhere near their best stuff]. And ripping on VT for the time spent in the studio can't be the only problem with it. They were coming off a looooooong hiatus and were extremely rusty (except for maybe Geddy who had made MFH a little bit before that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losingit2k Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) I feel the extra time was needed after decided that they were going to make the entire album a concept. Maybe at first they had only 4 or 5 songs for a suite like 2112, but in time, they decided to transformed and include the other unrelated track into the concept. Edited April 14, 2012 by losingit2k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog212 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 It took them 2 yrs to put out the record. Not 2 yrs to record it. They have lives to lead Jeez the threads on this board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eshine Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 The extra time certainly won't hurt - and I'm sure Ged needed the vocal rest after the long tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shredder2 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Here's what I'm gonna say based of everything I've heard so far from CA (which is just Caravan/BU2B/Headlong Flight 30 sec. tease); I have high hopes for the album, and seeing that they only started to write it in March 2010, with June 2012 seeing its release, I am very hopeful for the quality... Or it may just take me by surprise, who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGr8imL84AD8inF8sBlackSedan Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I guess we'll just have to wait and see...Oh and lets not forget we all have opinion which vary from one end of the spectrum to the other so "quality" is totally relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unattractive Truth Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 QUOTE (The Owl @ Apr 13 2012, 12:03 PM) My question is will the slow development of the album translate in quality in any way... Sure. It worked for Chinese Democracy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now