circumstantial tree Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I like the album, but it seems too long to me. If it were shorter, I think it would be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jomboni Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 that's what she said. (wait, that makes no sense) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Finn Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) I kinda agree. Some songs repeat verse/chorus too many times. But it's only a small nitpick. Edited June 19, 2012 by Flying Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Sawyer Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Just cut BU2B2 and Wish Them Well, and it would be perfect length, and perfect quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toscanobarga Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 VT and SnA could both have stood to lose about 2 songs. I like them both "as is" but they'd have been better with fewer songs. Remember 'old-school' albums were usually around 40 mins max. Only the best gets on, the filler stays off. In the CD-era the filler goes on too instead of being kept for B-sides to singles. Having said all of that, I don't think CA would be the same if it lost a couple of songs. Maybe Carnies. Adds little to the story and is, imho, the weakest song on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lerxster Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 If what were shorter. The songs too long? Too many songs? The cd should be an inch shorter. Would be nice to knowwhat you're actually talking about when you start a thread. Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 I'm speaking about the overall length of the CD. 66 minutes is probably a bit too long to listen to it. Since I love "The Garden" the most, it's a good thing it's the last tune, because if it weren't, I'm not sure I'd listen to songs that would come after it. The length of the songs themselves doesn't bother me. In fact, I'd been hoping they'd do some 7 minute songs. And since I am not interested in the overall story, cutting out a few songs wouldn't have ruined for me. 40 to 50 minute CDs are ideal, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaked Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 it's fine as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Slipperman Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) I've thought of the last 3 Rush albums as "Three Sided" albums, if you follow me. It's too much for a single and not enough for a double! Although... the way that they have been spreading out the tracks for vinyl (roughly 3 songs a side for 4 sides) makes for better fidelity. Even on VT. Edited June 19, 2012 by Mystic Slipperman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormtron Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Usually, a 60 minute album would be too long for me, but this one flies by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (Mystic Slipperman @ Jun 19 2012, 02:35 PM) I've thought of the last 3 Rush albums as "Three Sided" albums, if you follow me. It's too much for a single and not enough for a double! I swear you're quoting Rick Wakeman regarding his take on Topographic Oceans. He said exactly that on an interview I have of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Slipperman Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 11:37 AM) QUOTE (Mystic Slipperman @ Jun 19 2012, 02:35 PM) I've thought of the last 3 Rush albums as "Three Sided" albums, if you follow me. It's too much for a single and not enough for a double! I swear you're quoting Rick Wakeman regarding his take on Topographic Oceans. He said exactly that on an interview I have of him. HA! you are correct. He did say something very similar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I only feel an album is too long when I don't like the songs. For example, VT was about 67 minutes too long, S&A was maybe 20 minutes longer than it should have been - cut out that 20 minutes or so and that album is that much better. CA I feel is literally 90 seconds too long - cut out BU2B2 as the unnecessary dross that it is, and you have a really fantastic album. Still, 90 seconds... not so bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 19 2012, 02:42 PM) I only feel an album is too long when I don't like the songs. For example, VT was about 67 minutes too long, S&A was maybe 20 minutes longer than it should have been - cut out that 20 minutes or so and that album is that much better. CA I feel is literally 90 seconds too long - cut out BU2B2 as the unnecessary dross that it is, and you have a really fantastic album. Still, 90 seconds... not so bad! Yeah, that's one song I'd cut out if I could. "Wish Them Well" is another I'd like to take out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 01:18 PM) I like the album, but it seems too long to me. If it were shorter, I think it would be better. Well all the last three albums have been long because of the 5 year gaps between albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DistantEarlyRushFan Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (toscanobarga @ Jun 19 2012, 01:27 PM) VT and SnA could both have stood to lose about 2 songs. I like them both "as is" but they'd have been better with fewer songs. Remember 'old-school' albums were usually around 40 mins max. Only the best gets on, the filler stays off. In the CD-era the filler goes on too instead of being kept for B-sides to singles. Having said all of that, I don't think CA would be the same if it lost a couple of songs. Maybe Carnies. Adds little to the story and is, imho, the weakest song on there. Agreed. But SA could stand to lose more than 2 songs imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ Jun 19 2012, 01:36 PM) Usually, a 60 minute album would be too long for me, but this one flies by. Yeah it doesn't seem like 66 minutes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 19 2012, 11:46 AM)QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 01:18 PM) I like the album, but it seems too long to me. If it were shorter, I think it would be better. Well all the last three albums have been long because of the 5 year gaps between albums. Maybe, but I think it's just par for the course these days that since groups have an 80-minute window on CD, instead of the 40-50-minute tops window on LP that they feel a need to fill it up more than they used to. This is usually a very unfortunate trend, as most groups couldn't pull off a double album way back when (which is essentially what these 60-70 minute albums are) without compromising on quality or padding an album with filler. Yeah, you get an occasional exception like Astra's The Weirding where it's brilliant all the way through, but that's the exception. Usually we're left with Grace For Drowning or S&A, both of which needed some serious trimming. Thankfully with CA, they managed to keep weak material and filler out of the picture, BU2B2 notwithstanding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rushman14 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 love it all from beginning to end. complaining about BU2B2 is ridonkulous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 19 2012, 01:51 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 19 2012, 11:46 AM)QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 01:18 PM) I like the album, but it seems too long to me. If it were shorter, I think it would be better. Well all the last three albums have been long because of the 5 year gaps between albums. Maybe, but I think it's just par for the course these days that since groups have an 80-minute window on CD, instead of the 40-50-minute tops window on LP that they feel a need to fill it up more than they used to. This is usually a very unfortunate trend, as most groups couldn't pull off a double album way back when (which is essentially what these 60-70 minute albums are) without compromising on quality or padding an album with filler. Yeah, you get an occasional exception like Astra's The Weirding where it's brilliant all the way through, but that's the exception. Usually we're left with Grace For Drowning or S&A, both of which needed some serious trimming. Thankfully with CA, they managed to keep weak material and filler out of the picture, BU2B2 notwithstanding! Well in the case of Clockwork Angels it doesn't matter as the album doesn't drag at all. It plays like a 40 minute album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-D-RocK- Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Another thread slamming CA. Rush fans are the most unappreciative fans of any band. "it's too long" "Geddy pronounces his F's funny" "the mix isn't good enough" "what's with this?" "what's with that?" Jesus Chirst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 01:18 PM) I like the album, but it seems too long to me. If it were shorter, I think it would be better. I LOVE the album, and felt it flew by much too quickly. Today, a week later, it still doesn't feel like enough. More! More! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILSnwdog Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 19 2012, 01:53 PM) love it all from beginning to end. complaining about BU2B2 is ridonkulous If all we are complaining about is that there are a couple too many songs, I guess the latest offering is pretty damn good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdFireYYZ Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I like it how it is. I think generally shorter albums (45-50 minutes) are better though there are lots of longer albums that I enjoy straight through, CA included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 01:18 PM) I like the album, but it seems too long to me. If it were shorter, I think it would be better. Oddly it passes quite quickly for me, given its over hour-long length. When you think about the story demands alone, it's surprising that they fit it all into an hour. I think, if anything, the character's lifetime seems a bit rushed along. 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