How do we not compare New Rush to Classic Rush?

[rushgoober]

I've heard it argued that some people have an inability to appreciate new Rush because of prejudice, or even worse, some kind of ego position where there's an image or reputation to protect where liking new Rush would go against that image. I personally doubt anyone holds that strongly to a position that if some new Rush came along that they love they'd disregard it, deny themselves the pleasure and/or try to hide that they loved it. That seems kind of ridiculous to me, and to me shows an inability or difficulty in accepting that some people just don't love the new stuff like they do.

 

I've also heard it argued that people who don't like new Rush are too busy comparing it to older, more classic Rush, and that they should appreciate it for what it is since Rush are always moving forward. I really do understand the concept of trying to listen to something on its own merits and judging it accordingly, but when it comes to a band with as incredible a history and legacy as Rush, it has to be at a certain level of quality or it just won't work.

 

Obviously if the new music is immediately great to us, comparisons seem unnecessary, but if it's lacking in any way, it's because we're holding it up to this high standard and something isn't there. And it's not necessarily something as technical or specific as a lack of a guitar solo or enough melody or too much structure, but often something as simple as "it's just not as good as much of the past stuff."

 

Let's face it, unless you're a brand new fan (and even if you got into Rush because of say S&A, chances are you've heard MP, PeW, 2112, etc. by now), comparisons are inevitable. We're not listening to new Rush because we happened upon Caravan on the radio, we're listening because we have a history with the band. When we hear new Rush music, we can't help but listen to see if it has any of the elements that made us fall in love with the band in the first place, even if one of those elements is them never repeating themselves.

 

The other day I was listening to A Farewell to Kings and Xanadu, and it made me realize why I was having a hard time loving Headlong Flight. There was a joy in the listening experience, a daring and spaciousness in the music, a complete disregard for what was popular or radio-friendly, the simplicity mixed with complexity in the arrangements and instrumentation, the reckless soloing, etc. Yes, part of that love is a familiarity with the material, but mostly I just found it so damn easy to listen to, and I felt like that the first time I heard it.

 

Now, obviously this assessment is subjective. Many people here probably experienced those qualities when listening to HF (or Caravan or BU2B for that matter) the first time or twentieth time, and perhaps for many the new song(s) holds up to their classic material. It doesn't for me in the same way, and I find it a lot more work and effort to appreciate it, but if you've had that natural ease with the new songs, then that's great.

 

And it's not as if I never love new Rush or am merely trying to find another reason to put down HF or Caravan or BU2B. I personally consider Armor & Sword to be one of their best songs ever - no, it's not Xanadu or La Villa, but it's way up there. So is Far Cry and some other recent songs.

 

I'm also not merely trying to make the familiar Old Rush good, New Rush bad argument, as sometimes the new stuff does it for me, and obviously for many here it REALLY does it for you, but only when it favorably compares to the standards and quality of old.

 

Basically, Rush has created a VERY high standard, a standard so high that arguably even the band has a hard time matching it, much less surpassing it. When listening to new Rush, how can we not compare it to all that came before it?

Edited May 13, 2012 by rushgoober

[ThinkingBig]

I wasn't aware that all three members of 'classic Rush' had been replaced by new people.

 

Does RUSH have a new line up and no one told me?

 

 

 

New RUSH, Caravan in particular, is CLASSIC. It's one of their best songs.

 

 

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (ThinkingBig @ May 13 2012, 08:01 AM)

I wasn't aware that all three members of 'classic Rush' had been replaced by new people. Does RUSH have a new line up and no one told me? New RUSH, Caravan in particular, is CLASSIC.  It's one of their best songs.

Did you actually read the post, or are you merely humorously responding to the thread title?

 

Regardless, you're going to post however you decide to post. I wouldn't try to change you, and even if I wanted to, I can't stop ThinkingBig.

Edited May 13, 2012 by rushgoober

[trenken]

Basically what you learn real quick on any internet message board, not just here and not just for bands, is that people have a serious problem accepting the fact that not everyone shares the same opinion as them, but at the same time it's everyone's right to share their opinions, even the negative ones as long as they don't start attacking people or trying to start fights, which is what trolling is.

 

I've said many times I really dont love much of anything they've done since I guess Presto. I dont think the playing by either member is on the same level as it was, I dont think Geddy is a very good singer anymore, I absolutely hate Neil's lyrics, and I just don't think the song writing or many of the vocal melodies are even close to what it used to be, but I'm still a fan, I still spend money to see them, I dont attack people that feel differently. In fact Im often attacked just for sharing an honest opinion.

 

To me it's not really about just comparing. The old stuff was just better. The band was better, they were younger and hungry. That's just how I see it and that won't change at this point.

[The K Man]

QUOTE (ThinkingBig @ May 13 2012, 10:01 AM)

I wasn't aware that all three members of 'classic Rush' had been replaced by new people.

Well, while Alex, Geddy and Neil are still Alex, Geddy and Neil, they are not the same people they are that they were 30, 20 or even 10 years ago; I know I am not the same person I was 10 years ago. People change, interests change, etc. In other words, the three guys who wrote Snakes and Arrows and Clockwork Angels are not the same guys who 2112 and A Farewell to Kings.

 

Personally, I like a lot of the newer material a lot, but even I can say that most of it cannot compare to the older, classic material. Even if I did a top 50 today, there might be two or three songs from the last 11 years, but that's it. However, I still like a lot of it quite a bit, and I enjoy it for what it is.

 

And relatively speaking compared to other new music, while I like S&A a lot, it didn't make my top 5 for the year for 2007, and Vapor Trails didn't make my top 10 for 2002. So, Rush's new stuff is still very good, but just not all-time great like the material from 1976-1981 or Power Windows or Counterparts.

 

[micgtr71]

I'm not sure how old you are, but at 41 (my age), I find that I compare because of my age and where I am and was relative to the music coming out. The first "new" Rush I heard was Signals and shortly thereafter I heard the older music.

 

With each release that comes out, I have a memory attached. From junior high to high school to college and then adulthood. The time between T4E and VT found me getting married and having a child. S&A found me taking my son to his first Rush show.

 

Maybe I don't get excited about new music like I used to. I like all of the Rush albums for certain reasons and there are some that I like better than others.

 

PoW transports me back to the fall of high school. Signals takes me back to my room in 5th grade. ASOH takes me back to Friday night rides with my then girlfriend. Lots of memories. Easy to compare. All good...some better than others.

 

Hope this helps. Think I am going to have my own Time Machine today. Thanks for the memory lane trip Rushgoober.

[losingit2k]

It is inevitable, to compare New RUSH to anything that came before it. Only because that's all we have to compare it too. I like to compare new RUSH to what came just before it! In this case Snakes and Arrows. I like to see the recent progression in their music. Comparing RUSH to the 70's, 80's and 90's is insane, and personally I think futile. They all have grown, changed and progressed since then. I feel that the recent surge in approval for the new material is the fact that they have progressed towards what we fell in Love with RUSH in the past for. In my case. its the intense musicianship. Regardless of what you might think of the structure of the new songs, you can't deny the musicianship has improved since S & A. Hell, I feel it rivals much of the older stuff as well. Additionally, the rawness and power these three new songs pocess has not been seen (IMO) since at least Counterparts. I actually feel its their heaviest since effort since the early 80's, but thats me. We have had inclings throughout the years. This was evident with most of Counterparts, songs like Driven, Secret Touch and Far Cry, but not nealy close to the extent that these three new songs have provided. This, I believe is one if not the main factor towards the appreciation of these new songs from CA. I agree they are not, Xanadu, Natural Science, Cygnus X-1 or Hemispheres, But they are on the right track and they are getting close......And we haven't heard Clockwork Angels, Seven Cities of Gold or the rest of CA yet!

 

Edited May 13, 2012 by losingit2k

[GUP1771]

Being a new Rush fan, I definitely have a different perspective from the long-time fans that followed the band throughout the years.

 

It's now going to be 2 years this summer that I got into them, and to be honest, their older material completely turned me off at first. (The only songs I knew of were the hits: Spirit of Radio, Tom Sawyer, Limelight, Freewill, and Subdivisions.) In fact, almost every song in their material I just couldn't like. I finally came across the Counterparts album, listened to samples of all the songs, and found two songs that stood out to me: Cold Fire and Leave That Thing Alone, although the latter was a bit strange, yet interesting for me at the time. I found both to be great transition songs for me. I was just coming out of an arena rock phase listening to the likes of Foreigner, Journey, etc.

 

From thereon, I went all the way back to Hemispheres and found Circumstances and The Trees. Next, I began listening to all of Moving Pictures, then some songs off of GUP (e.g. The Enemy Within and Between the Wheels), S&A (e.g. Far Cry), and HYF (e.g. Prime Mover and Force Ten). I was all over the place.

 

Finally, after giving 2112 (the song) a few careful listens and trying to adjust to Geddy's vocals, I began to expand into their epics. Long story short, I expanded to where I almost enjoy their entire discography. The only album I still can't listen to is Caress of Steel, although I believe that will break eventually where I'll like at least one song.

 

The point of all of that was to show that I didn't enjoy the old stuff first. I was all over, striking a balance between all of the periods. I don't try to compare Rush to their older material. I want them to do what they've always done on every album, and that is to make music that they like, which shows a continued progression in sound with their style. (If I like the music, I like the music. If I don't, it's okay. I want the band to be happy with their work first. If an artist can't like their own work, what's the point to making art in the first place? I won't be upset with the band.) That's why I like the band so much. They are pretty much the most diverse band I've ever heard in music. They are the only band that can get me to listen to almost their entire catalog and thoroughly enjoy it.

 

I want to ask this question though. "Do you think in regards to the 1976-81 period, there might be a bit of nostalgia towards it, and that's a partial reason why people have such high regards for it?"

 

When I ask that, I'm not demeaning the period or saying there is not excellent quality musicianship, but I'm assuming that many of the long-term fans grew up during that period (teen years, I'd assume?), so perhaps nostalgia has at least some part? I didn't grow up during that period, so I don't see it that way. I wasn't born until 1990, and didn't start listening to them until 2010. Clockwork Angels is going to be coming out next month and will be my first newly released Rush album since I've become a fan, so maybe 20 years later, I may have nostalgia for this record and regard it as a favorite or one of their "greatest albums" (if I really like it that is, we'll have to see with that.)

 

So because of this difference in the time spent following the band, I don't see "new rush, old rush." I see RUSH and only that. Only one amazing career comprising of three individuals who are always trying to progress forward and find a different "sound" in the hopes to be better!

Edited May 13, 2012 by GUP1771

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (losingit2k @ May 13 2012, 08:47 AM)

Comparing RUSH to the 70's, 80's and 90's is insane, and personally I think futile. They all have grown, changed and progressed since then.

My whole premise though is how can you NOT compare them to the 70's, 80's and 90's? No they're not the same people, but listening to a new song, you're inevitably going to compare it with their history and legacy. They have grown, changed and progressed, but people always seem to say that as if that's necessarily a wonderful, positive thing. What if you don't like a lot of the directions they've progressed into?

 

QUOTE (losingit2k @ May 13 2012, 08:47 AM)

I feel that the recent surge in approval for the new material is the fact that they have progressed towards what we fell in Love with RUSH in the past for. In my case. its the intense musicianship. Regardless of what you might think of the structure of the new songs, you can't deny the musicianship has improved since S & A.

I agree that Rush are probably at their peak in terms of musicianship, but does that mean they're making music that's as interesting?

 

For example, people are super grateful that guitar soloing is back, and there is a solo in HF, but compare that to say the all-out guitar wankfest of La Villa Strangiato. I would much rather listen to the mega intense, raw and long guitar solo in Working Man than I would to the short wah-wah solo in HF. You might say those comparisons are unfair, but again, they've created a ridiculously high standard, and when it doesn't live up, it's noticeable. It may be unfair, but it is inevitable for most of us.

 

Alex might be a technically better musician than in 1974 or 1978, or even 2007, but that can't make up for soulful playing and taking the room to do the involved and intricate solos of old. I simply enjoy those a lot more. The Beatles weren't the best musicians in the world, but it was what they did with what they had that was much more important than technical proficiency.

 

QUOTE (losingit2k @ May 13 2012, 08:47 AM)

Additionally, the rawness and power these three new songs pocess has not been seen (IMO) since at least Counterparts. I actually feel its their heaviest since effort since the early 80's, but thats me.

Also true, but does heavier equal better? To me heavier just equals heavier. I don't care if the songs are heavy or not, just that they're as great as what they're capable of. And often that is the problem - we know what they're capable of in terms of making classic, timeless songs. Sometimes in recent years the songs have been great, but more often than not for me, they haven't been.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (GUP1771 @ May 13 2012, 09:04 AM)

Being a new Rush fan, I definitely have a different perspective from the long-time fans that followed the band throughout the years. It's now going to be 2 years this summer that I got into them, and to be honest, their older material completely turned me off at first. (The only songs I knew of were the hits: Spirit of Radio, Tom Sawyer, Limelight, Freewill, and Subdivisions.) In fact, almost every song in their material I just couldn't like. I finally came across the Counterparts album, listened to samples of all the songs, and found two songs that stood out to me: Cold Fire and Leave That Thing Alone, although the latter was a bit strange, yet interesting for me at the time. I found both to be great transition songs for me. I was just coming out of an arena rock phase listening to the likes of Foreigner, Journey, etc.  From thereon, I went all the way back to Hemispheres and found Circumstances and The Trees. Next, I began listening to all of Moving Pictures, then some songs off of GUP (e.g. The Enemy Within and Between the Wheels), S&A (e.g. Far Cry), and  HYF (e.g. Prime Mover and Force Ten). I was all over the place. Finally, after giving 2112 (the song) a few careful listens and trying to adjust to Geddy's vocals, I began to expand into their epics. Long story short, I expanded to where I almost enjoy their entire discography. The only album I still can't listen to is Caress of Steel, although I believe that will break eventually where I'll like at least one song. The point of all of that was to show that I didn't enjoy the old stuff first. I was all over, striking a balance between all of the periods. I don't try to compare Rush to their older material.

I would guess that you're the exception to most fans of the band in this regard based on when you came on board, and I would also venture that a lot of newer fans like you who have absorbed their entire catalog would still prefer the older stuff in general. Or maybe you're more inclined towards newer styles of music so you enjoy the newer stuff more than some of us old fogies can.

 

QUOTE (GUP1771 @ May 13 2012, 09:04 AM)

I want them to do what they've always done on every album, and that is to make music that they like, which shows a continued progression in sound with their style. (If I like the music, I like the music. If I don't, it's okay. I want the band to be happy with their work first. If an artist can't like their own work, what's the point to making art in the first place? I won't be upset with the band.)

That's EXTREMELY selfless of you.

 

I'm far more selfish. I want them to please ME. Of course they don't try to please me, but they did anyway for decades. I don't want them to make music they're unhappy with, but I also don't want them to make music I'm unhappy with either.

 

QUOTE (GUP1771 @ May 13 2012, 09:04 AM)

I want to ask this question though. "Do you think in regards to the 1976-81 period, there might be a bit of nostalgia towards it, and that's a partial reason why people have such high regards for it?"

It's impossible to divorce ourselves from our history entirely, and it can perhaps be hard to have the same kind of objectivity listening to music you've had 20 or 30 years of familiarity with, as opposed to music you've had 5 or 10 years of familiarity with, or in the case of Headlong Flight, 1 month.

 

That said, I think that the nostalgic aspect is minimal. Sure it plays a part, but I loved the songs from that era IMMEDIATELY when I first heard them. I fell in love with that music in a heartbeat. Most of the more recent stuff I either didn't, or had to really work to try and enjoy. Yes, I was a different person then than when I was in my teens, but if an album has been out for 5 years or 10 years, and there are songs I still can't get into, I'm probably never going to.

 

I simply think the songs from that more vintage era are better no matter what angle I look at it from. No, I can't be completely objective, but that's what my ears are telling me. I love Far Cry and Armor and Sword and Workin' Them Angels regardless of when they came out or how long I've known them compared to the material from MP or Permanent Waves or Hemispheres, so I know I'm capable of loving new material even without the nostalgic aspect. The songs have to be good enough, however...

[losingit2k]

QUOTE

The Beatles weren't the best musicians in the world, but it was what they did with what they had that was much more important than technical proficiency.

 

The Beatles were only around for 10 Years! Granted, I consider them the best band in the world, but lets face it we're comparing Apples and Oranges here. I'm extremely glad and appreciative that RUSH didn't hang it up after Grace Under Pressure. They could have easily said that it boys, We're on our own now. But unlike those Enbattled Beatles, these three guys get along, they continue to provide us with wonderful music and they are still touring! Something the Beatles never did after they broke up. They were much better composers of songs, Well I always thought it was (Martin) considering what came after the break up but that just me. RUSH is much more powerful and much better musicians. . I really think the only Beatle that may compare to RUSH musicianship wise was Paul. I think Neil's lyrics are much more profound as well. Yet again, Apples and Oranges. Regardless, I prefer my Oranges! I hope you get that one!

 

Edited May 13, 2012 by losingit2k

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (losingit2k @ May 13 2012, 09:30 AM)

QUOTE The Beatles weren't the best musicians in the world, but it was what they did with what they had that was much more important than technical proficiency.   The Beatles wereonly around for 10 Years! Granted, I consider them the best band in the world, but lets face it we're comparing Apples and Oranges here. I'm extremely glad and appreciative that RUSH didn't hang it up after Grace Under Pressure. They could have easily said that it boys, We're on our own now. But unlike those Enbattled Beatles, these three guys get along, they continue to provide us with wonderful music and they are still touring! Something the Beatles never did after they broke up. They were much better composers of songs, Well I always thought it was (Martin) considering what came after the break up but that just me. RUSH is much more powerful and extremely better muscians. I really think the only Beatle that may compare to RUSH musicianship wise was Paul Yet again, Apples and Oranges. Regardless, I prefer my Oranges! I hope you get that one!   I don't mean to compare Rush to The Beatles, merely to illustrate the point that it's what you do with what you have that's important. Just because Alex is a better technical musician than he used to be doesn't mean he's capable of composing another La Villa Strangiato or doing the wide and spacious guitar solos of old. Or maybe he can and he doesn't want to, which then leads me back to the fact that yes they're moving forward and progressing, but do I like what they're progressing into as much as what came before? Generally the answer for me has been no.

[Tony R]

You are wasting your time Goober. Most fanboys are thicker than a plate of whale sandwiches.

 

 

[toscanobarga]

"Classic" Rush is tainted.

 

By nostalgia.

 

We always look back fondly as there is/was emotional attachments that maybe aren't there today, or that have reduced by familiarity.

 

No reason not to enjoy the moment.

 

 

[WCFIELDS]

QUOTE (Tony R @ May 13 2012, 10:44 AM)

You are wasting your time Goober. Most fanboys are thicker than a plate of whale sandwiches.

[losingit2k]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 13 2012, 11:34 AM)

QUOTE (losingit2k @ May 13 2012, 09:30 AM) QUOTE The Beatles weren't the best musicians in the world, but it was what they did with what they had that was much more important than technical proficiency.   The Beatles wereonly around for 10 Years! Granted, I consider them the best band in the world, but lets face it we're comparing Apples and Oranges here. I'm extremely glad and appreciative that RUSH didn't hang it up after Grace Under Pressure. They could have easily said that it boys, We're on our own now. But unlike those Enbattled Beatles, these three guys get along, they continue to provide us with wonderful music and they are still touring! Something the Beatles never did after they broke up. They were much better composers of songs, Well I always thought it was (Martin) considering what came after the break up but that just me. RUSH is much more powerful and extremely better muscians. I really think the only Beatle that may compare to RUSH musicianship wise was Paul Yet again, Apples and Oranges. Regardless, I prefer my Oranges! I hope you get that one!   I don't mean to compare Rush to The Beatles, merely to illustrate the point that it's what you do with what you have that's important. Just because Alex is a better technical musician than he used to be doesn't mean he's capable of composing another La Villa Strangiato or doing the wide and spacious guitar solos of old. Or maybe he can and he doesn't want to, which then leads me back to the fact that yes they're moving forward and progressing, but do I like what they're progressing into as much as what came before? Generally the answer for me has been no. Lets face it they were in the basement with Vapor Trails and they've taken the elevator back with Snake and Arrows. Now it seems they are running up the stairs with Clockwork Angles. Soon they'll be back Knocking on that penthouse door that holds (Xanadu, Cygnus X-1, Natual Science and The Camera Eye)! Sorry Hemispheres was in a Helicopter sitting on a lauching pad, stationed on the roof!

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (toscanobarga @ May 13 2012, 09:45 AM)

"Classic" Rush is tainted. By nostalgia. We always look back fondly as there is/was emotional attachments that maybe aren't there today, or that have reduced by familiarity. No reason not to enjoy the moment.

Understood, but is the music now truly as good? I think we can still make that determination despite nostalgia.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Tony R @ May 13 2012, 09:44 AM)

You are wasting your time Goober. Most fanboys are thicker than a plate of whale sandwiches.

 

Yes, well, some of us have perhaps a tad more faith in humanity than others.

[losingit2k]

QUOTE (Tony R @ May 13 2012, 11:44 AM)

You are wasting your time Goober. Most fanboys are thicker than a plate of whale sandwiches.

Look you two legged freak! I'm far from being a fanboi! I wasn't to found of Vapor Trails. I truly dislike Animate. There are several songs on Snake and Arrows as in most the of albums post Power Windows that I dislike. I just think that the last two albums are moves in the right direction. And if that's being a fanboi than , I guess I'm a fan boi!

 

 

Are Whale Sandwishes real? Or is that a just an ellaborate reference of You between two thin people?

Edited May 13, 2012 by losingit2k

[Tony R]

QUOTE (losingit2k @ May 13 2012, 05:54 PM)

QUOTE (Tony R @ May 13 2012, 11:44 AM) You are wasting your time Goober. Most fanboys are thicker than a plate of whale sandwiches. Look you two legged freak! I'm far from being a fanboi! I wasted to found of Vapor Trails. I truly dislike Animate. There are several songs on Snake and Arrows as in most the of albums post Power Windows that I dislike. I just think that the last two albums are moves in the right direction. And if that's being a fanboi than , I guess I'm a fan boi!     Are Whale Sandwishes real. Or is that a just a reference of You between to thin people? There's a coherent sentence in there somewhere but I'll be buggered if I can find it!

[WCFIELDS]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 13 2012, 10:49 AM)

QUOTE (toscanobarga @ May 13 2012, 09:45 AM) "Classic" Rush is tainted. By nostalgia. We always look back fondly as there is/was emotional attachments that maybe aren't there today, or that have reduced by familiarity. No reason not to enjoy the moment. Understood, but is the music now truly as good? Do you really have to ask that?....we all know the obvious answer...

[Gilbertk]

Rushgoober! I'm impressed!!!!

 

You asked a question and DIDN'T include a poll!!!!

 

 

[WCFIELDS]

QUOTE (losingit2k @ May 13 2012, 10:54 AM)

QUOTE (Tony R @ May 13 2012, 11:44 AM) You are wasting your time Goober. Most fanboys are thicker than a plate of whale sandwiches. Look you two legged freak! I'm far from being a fanboi! I wasted to found of Vapor Trails. I truly dislike Animate. There are several songs on Snake and Arrows as in most the of albums post Power Windows that I dislike. I just think that the last two albums are moves in the right direction. And if that's being a fanboi than , I guess I'm a fan boi!     Are Whale Sandwishes real? Or is that a just an ellaborate reference of You between to thin people? Huh?

[HemispheresserehpsimeH]

QUOTE (Tony R @ May 13 2012, 11:44 AM)

You are wasting your time Goober. Most fanboys are thicker than a plate of whale sandwiches.

Unfortunately, this just shows how thick you are. Goobs brings up a pretty good discussion and of course someone has to bring up "fanboys" on the first page. Nice contribution, though

 

Anyways, I think goobs brings up a good point here. I mean, it all depends on one person's perspective, but I know that even as a newer Rush fan, I still compare their newer material to their older material. I still wish to hear that spark that brought upon songs like Natural Science or Something For Nothing.

 

I think a lot of people are less objective than they think they are. I mean, people exploded when the Far Cry sample had that F#sus or "Hemispheres" chord attached at the end. I can't single anyone out specifically, so I apologize if I group people into these kinds of categories, but people also erupted when it was known that Alex brought out the double neck again for one of the new songs.

 

There's no doubt that people want to hear that spark again, but can still accept the new tunes as good tunes because it is a band like Rush. And again, as much as I love the three new tunes so far on CA, I still want to hear something on the forthcoming album that really makes me jaw drop like the middle section in Marathon or gives me chills like the ending of Hemispheres.

 

So for me, a newer Rush fan, I find it impossible not to compare new Rush to old Rush because I do want to hear that kind of songwriting again. However, I still very much appreciate the newer songs that they're writing and can still find a ton of enjoyment in them. Just because I'm comparing them doesn't mean I don't like new Rush or anything. It's hard to describe, because I love both old and new Rush, but I want to be able to put CA in my stereo just as much as I put in Hemispheres or Power Windows.

 

So yes, I compare even though I love both eras. It's impossible for me not to because classic Rush is classic for a reason. I mean, how many people were up in arms after CA's tracktimes were leaked and there was no 10+ minute song? People want to cling to anything that may showcase a tinge of old school Rush. It's just the way we are as Rush fans. Maybe I'm not speaking for everyone, but a lot of people wanted to see a 10+ minute song and that's not just something they pulled out of the air.

[losingit2k]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 13 2012, 11:49 AM)

QUOTE (toscanobarga @ May 13 2012, 09:45 AM) "Classic" Rush is tainted. By nostalgia. We always look back fondly as there is/was emotional attachments that maybe aren't there today, or that have reduced by familiarity. No reason not to enjoy the moment. Understood, but is the music now truly as good? I think we can still make that determination despite nostalgia. Well depends, If you are comparing to Xanadu, Cygnus X-1, Hemispheres, Jacobs Ladder, and Natural Science....NO! But if you are comparing it to, say: Most of RUSH-2112, Closer to the Heart, Cinderella Man, Madrigal, Different Strings, Entre Nous, Vital Signs, Witch Hunt, and most of the songs after MP Yes! They are better!