Jump to content

Over 2 Years from Start to Release


The Owl
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by The Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

goodpost.gif

 

This.

+3... EXACTLY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. yes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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. yes.gif

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

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

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

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 by HemispheresserehpsimeH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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?

laugh.gif

 

trink39.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I feel the extra time was needed after 2.gif 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.

 

2.gif 1022.gif 2.gif

Edited by losingit2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...