How do we not compare New Rush to Classic Rush?

[losingit2k]

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ May 17 2012, 06:08 PM)

QUOTE (Steely Caress @ May 16 2012, 10:02 PM) Impossible not to compare. When you set the bar as high as Rush has, with me I am always comparing to different eras, fair or unfair as it seems. I know much of the 80's era Rush resonates more because of memories from that time, but they have had a long career. When you think of other great bands, like the beatles, zeppelin, Pink Floyd Etc, none have had the recording history or length as rush. No doubt they would have put out some duds if they were longer in their careers. But Rush had a golden almost flawless 13 year 76-89, not many (if any) can say that. Yup, I agree that it's reasonable to compare Rush eras. And I would freely admit that the "classic" era (Rush through Signals) is my favorite era of the band.   I think the real question should be, is it reasonable to demand that Rush live up to the incredible achievements of A Farewell to Kings or Moving Pictures thirty years after the fact?   Has any band from Rush's era and genre ever done this? Not Genesis, Floyd, or Zeppelin, they're all pretty much done. Certainly not Yes, whose late-period work has been much spottier than Rush, IMO (though Fly From Here was pretty good). Hogarth-era Marillion has been consistently very good, IMO, but never quite up to their classic period. King Crimson has had some good later albums, but again never quite equaling their 70s/80s work.   I think we all may dream about Rush someday coming out with a true late-period masterpiece ( and probably reuniting with Terry Brown ). But to expect this to happen and to be dissapointed or angry when it doesn't, I think you're only setting yourself up for perpetual dissapointment.   One final question: if CA turns out to be a very good late-period album (say in the ballpark of Counterparts) but not a classic on par with Moving Pictures, would that be a good outcome or bad outcome? That would be great if they reunite with Terry Brown for one last ditch effort to recapture the glory days. A 20th studio album named: "Still Pictures"!

[Steely Caress]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 17 2012, 06:59 PM)

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ May 17 2012, 04:08 PM) QUOTE (Steely Caress @ May 16 2012, 10:02 PM) Impossible not to compare. When you set the bar as high as Rush has, with me I am always comparing to different eras, fair or unfair as it seems. I know much of the 80's era Rush resonates more because of memories from that time, but they have had a long career. When you think of other great bands, like the beatles, zeppelin, Pink Floyd Etc, none have had the recording history or length as rush. No doubt they would have put out some duds if they were longer in their careers. But Rush had a golden almost flawless 13 year 76-89, not many (if any) can say that. Yup, I agree that it's reasonable to compare Rush eras. And I would freely admit that the "classic" era (Rush through Signals) is my favorite era of the band.   I think the real question should be, is it reasonable to demand that Rush live up to the incredible achievements of A Farewell to Kings or Moving Pictures thirty years after the fact?   Has any band from Rush's era and genre ever done this? Not Genesis, Floyd, or Zeppelin, they're all pretty much done. Certainly not Yes, whose late-period work has been much spottier than Rush, IMO (though Fly From Here was pretty good). Hogarth-era Marillion has been consistently very good, IMO, but never quite up to their classic period. King Crimson has had some good later albums, but again never quite equaling their 70s/80s work.   I think we all may dream about Rush someday coming out with a true late-period masterpiece ( and probably reuniting with Terry Brown ). But to expect this to happen and to be dissapointed or angry when it doesn't, I think you're only setting yourself up for perpetual dissapointment.   One final question: if CA turns out to be a very good late-period album (say in the ballpark of Counterparts) but not a classic on par with Moving Pictures, would that be a good outcome or bad outcome? I completely hear you. Hey man, we agree on something!   Honestly, I don't ever expect them to come out with something anywhere near as great as a Terry-Brown era masterpiece, and I agree that would be majorly setting myself up for disappointment. I know that's not going to happen. It's hard not to get excited by the perpetual "best album ever" hype that always accompanies new albums, but I try and keep my expectations in check.   If they came out with an album on the level of Counterparts, or even of Snakes & Arrows, I'll be thrilled! That for me would be a HUGELY great outcome. Bow defeated, I agree if it is something on the level of Counterparts, I would be pleased. I am not expecting them to do what they did 30 years ago. Just keep wishing for something close. I still give them kudos for putting out new music. And you are correct on all the bands you mentioned)).

[pedro2112]

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ May 17 2012, 05:08 PM)

Has any band from Rush's era and genre ever done this?

Yes. Aerosmith's best album "Get a Grip" came out in the 1990s, waaaayy after we all thought they peaked in the 70s. Also, Tom Petty's best "Full Moon Fever" also came out after we all thought he peaked wiht "Damn the Torpedos."

 

I do agree that these two are the exception to the rule, but I did want to point out that it is possible.

 

 

 

[Xanadoood]

QUOTE (pedro2112 @ May 17 2012, 10:59 PM)

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ May 17 2012, 05:08 PM) Has any band from Rush's era and genre ever done this? Yes. Aerosmith's best album "Get a Grip" came out in the 1990s, waaaayy after we all thought they peaked in the 70s. Also, Tom Petty's best "Full Moon Fever" also came out after we all thought he peaked wiht "Damn the Torpedos."   I do agree that these two are the exception to the rule, but I did want to point out that it is possible. Get a Grip is their best album?

[Animate]

In a strange way, the artists that Rush should be compared to in terms of creative longevity despite limited air play and public awareness are Iron Maiden and The Grateful Dead.

 

After all, the GD had a career that spanned from 1965 to 1995, which ended only because of JG death. They ended on a high note (har har) still very much in demand on tour.

 

Similarly, Iron Maiden has a fantastic worldwide following and is still putting out viable music and selling out tours. Maybe the most under rated band of all.

[The K Man]

QUOTE (pedro2112 @ May 17 2012, 10:59 PM)

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ May 17 2012, 05:08 PM) Has any band from Rush's era and genre ever done this? Yes. Aerosmith's best album "Get a Grip" came out in the 1990s, waaaayy after we all thought they peaked in the 70s. Also, Tom Petty's best "Full Moon Fever" also came out after we all thought he peaked wiht "Damn the Torpedos."   I do agree that these two are the exception to the rule, but I did want to point out that it is possible. The Petty example is a bad one, since Full Moon Fever was only 13 years after his first album; Clockwork Angels will be out 38 years (!!!!) after Rush's debut. Big, big, massive difference.   And while Get a Grip had a bunch of hits, all of which had the aid of outside writers, most do not even consider it their best post-reunion (1987 and forward), much less their best overall.

[ArrowSnake]

Neil's lyrics are still very much positive. But you just can't deny there's a lot of things wrong with the world today. There's war, terrorist attacks, poverty, hatred and ignorance in the world because of fear, religion, money and power. Neil talks about these things in his lyrics, because he sees the world as it is, but in the end he's always positive. Just not blind positive.

 

As for the comparison of old and new Rush. For me, from the first album up until Hemispheres was an era when Rush was still learning about who they are and what they stand for, making innovative music with great lyrics along the way. Permanent Waves until Hold Your Fire is to me the best period, this is where they really found their sound. Both music and lyric wise this is Rush at their peak. From Presto to Test for Echo is again a searching period. Searching for a new direction and new sound. Then we have Vapor Trails, which I find one the best, most personal and intense albums they have ever made, be it with subpar production. Snakes & Arrows is where they have really found a way to be the new Rush with all the power and excitement of classic Rush. And then comes Clockwork Angels, which judging from the songs I've heard is more of new Rush with the progressiveness of old Rush, but with a more loose, spontaneous feeling.

 

In the end, Rush is still a band that's evolving, progressing and reinventing themselves. This means taking risks sometimes, and maybe letting some fans down. But for me, this is the genius of Rush.

Edited May 18, 2012 by ArrowSnake

[Snowman]

Well, I have accepted that Rush, or noone else, will top the 2112-HYF releases (though Counterparts should also be included).

 

If you can accept that, I think you also can skip the comparison and just enjoy the high quality that Rush still delivers.

 

That is up to S&A at least. CA could maybe deliver some surprises after what I have read.