Jump to content

too long?


circumstantial tree
 Share

Recommended Posts

The funny thing is: people who complain a Rush album should be "about two songs shorter" are thinking THEIR least favorite songs are the ones that would've been left on the cutting room floor. But it just wouldn't happen that way! Whatever your least favorite song is, it could be one of Alex's "top dogs" (as he said of "Good News First," which I felt was garbage). Another example: many of us agree that HYF is excellent, save for the last two songs on the album ("Tai Shan" and "High Water"). But had the band kept the CD to a shorter length, those two songs still would've made the cut and it would've been "Force Ten," which was recorded and thrown on the CD at the last minute, that we would never have heard of.

 

See what I'm saying?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jun 19 2012, 02:45 PM)
The funny thing is: people who complain a Rush album should be "about two songs shorter" are thinking THEIR least favorite songs are the ones that would've been left on the cutting room floor. But it just wouldn't happen that way! Whatever your least favorite song is, it could be one of Alex's "top dogs" (as he said of "Good News First," which I felt was garbage). Another example: many of us agree that HYF is excellent, save for the last two songs on the album ("Tai Shan" and "High Water"). But had the band kept the CD to a shorter length, those two songs still would've made the cut and it would've been "Force Ten," which was recorded and thrown on the CD at the last minute, that we would never have heard of.

See what I'm saying?

If CA had been made as a double album in 1977, it would be hailed an all-time classic and worthy of two vinyls. Fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 19 2012, 02:53 PM)
If CA had been made as a double album in 1977, it would be hailed an all-time classic and worthy of two vinyls.  Fact.

laugh.gif Yeah, probably.

 

But hey, even in 2012, I consider this the band's "Tommy."

Edited by GeddyRulz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Shreddy Lee @ Jun 19 2012, 03:04 PM)
At this point in time, I would never complain about getting too much Rush material. You know what I mean?

Agree. trink39.gif I even welcome a fairly shitty album, honestly. Not because of low expectations, but any NEW Rush release nearly 40 years in that elicits even a few good songs is well worth it to me. That CA is filled with cool stuff means I've not a ton to complain about.

 

There are a lot of bands who release utter SHIT this late in the game. So CA isn't better than Moving Pictures (to most). biggrin.gif Well no feckin' shit!! Few bands release their best work at nearly age 60.

 

It sounds so apologist to say all of the ^ but it's true. If the album blew through-and-through, I might say, "Eh, hang it up." In fact I'm wondering how we keep them doing this 10 more years....

Edited by Presto-digitation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 19 2012, 02:53 PM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jun 19 2012, 02:45 PM)
The funny thing is: people who complain a Rush album should be "about two songs shorter" are thinking THEIR least favorite songs are the ones that would've been left on the cutting room floor.  But it just wouldn't happen that way!  Whatever your least favorite song is, it could be one of Alex's "top dogs" (as he said of "Good News First," which I felt was garbage).  Another example: many of us agree that HYF is excellent, save for the last two songs on the album ("Tai Shan" and "High Water").  But had the band kept the CD to a shorter length, those two songs still would've made the cut and it would've been "Force Ten," which was recorded and thrown on the CD at the last minute, that we would never have heard of.

See what I'm saying?

If CA had been made as a double album in 1977, it would be hailed an all-time classic and worthy of two vinyls. Fact.

Well said. The album is so incredible it gets two vinyls!! 2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wakeman did say that about Oceans...but Oceans was full of filler..to stretch it out..

 

CA is long, but if we have to wait 5 years between albums...bring it LONG.

 

back in the day, 40 mins was tight..but you got another album in a year-year 1/2...

 

nowadays..YES and RUSH just dont put out what they once did(yes album AND fragile in one year?!?!?)...

so i will take a long album if it has NO filler..

 

THis one doesnt...its a good collection.

 

if i gotta wait so long...then long is Good!

 

and that...my friends...is what SHE SAID.

 

peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 01:31 PM)
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.

This kind of complaint can never possibly make sense to me.

 

At the point you're tired of listening press Stop.

If you don't like a track, press Next.

 

I don't love every song on every album, but I don't begrudge their existence. Somebody likes it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Slack jaw gaze @ Jun 19 2012, 03:39 PM)
QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 01:31 PM)
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.

This kind of complaint can never possibly make sense to me.

 

At the point you're tired of listening press Stop.

If you don't like a track, press Next.

 

I don't love every song on every album, but I don't begrudge their existence. Somebody likes it.

And having a shorter album (restriction of the medium or self-discipline) ensures NOTHING. For instance, what if the band did that and took off songs that you liked more for ones you liked less? There's no guarantee that they'd edit down an album the same way you would. That just means you get through a mediocre or poor album quicker...but if it's good, it means you get more goodness.

 

I haven't disliked ONE Rush album in the CD age, even if they do produce the occasionally clunky song here or there. To me it's mostly been a case of more is more.

Edited by Presto-digitation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are always some throw away songs, and this has only a few. It's the great albums that have none. That is why I'm sickened with the comparison of this album to 2112 and MP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (mazyyz @ Jun 19 2012, 04:36 PM)
There are always some throw away songs, and this has only a few. It's the great albums that have none. That is why I'm sickened with the comparison of this album to 2112 and MP.

Honestly I think The Twilight Zone and Tears are throwaway songs... none on Moving Pictures though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Slack jaw gaze @ Jun 19 2012, 03:39 PM)
QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 01:31 PM)
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.

This kind of complaint can never possibly make sense to me.

 

At the point you're tired of listening press Stop.

If you don't like a track, press Next.

 

I don't love every song on every album, but I don't begrudge their existence. Somebody likes it.

you hit the nail on the head but it's a war between two sides that will never end. one guy says its great but the other person needs to let it be known that it's not great and both think they're right and the other is wrong.

 

less filling! 1287.gif

tastes great! 1287.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jomboni @ Jun 19 2012, 05:43 PM)
QUOTE (mazyyz @ Jun 19 2012, 04:36 PM)
There are always some throw away songs, and this has only a few.  It's the great albums that have none.  That is why I'm sickened with the comparison of this album to 2112 and MP.

Honestly I think The Twilight Zone and Tears are throwaway songs... none on Moving Pictures though!

I can see Tears but not TZ. Forgot to include PWaves No throw aways there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jomboni @ Jun 19 2012, 04:43 PM)
QUOTE (mazyyz @ Jun 19 2012, 04:36 PM)
There are always some throw away songs, and this has only a few.  It's the great albums that have none.  That is why I'm sickened with the comparison of this album to 2112 and MP.

Honestly I think The Twilight Zone and Tears are throwaway songs

huh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe people think I'm complaining. I like the album, but I just prefer shorter ones.

 

There's no perfect Rush album. There's always something not right, even if it's minimal.

 

I only really ever complain about Test for Echo. It's not up to Rush standards.

 

And no, it's not as easy to skip songs since, in order to do that means getting my lazy ass out of the rocker/recliner chair I sit in when I listen to music. common001.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 05:02 PM)


And no, it's not as easy to skip songs since, in order to do that means getting my lazy ass out of the rocker/recliner chair I sit in when I listen to music. common001.gif

it doesn't seem too long of an album when you make use of the skip button. you don't have a remote control for your stereo? if not i recommend getting one. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 19 2012, 03:55 PM)
QUOTE (Slack jaw gaze @ Jun 19 2012, 03:39 PM)
QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 01:31 PM)
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.

This kind of complaint can never possibly make sense to me.

 

At the point you're tired of listening press Stop.

If you don't like a track, press Next.

 

I don't love every song on every album, but I don't begrudge their existence. Somebody likes it.

And having a shorter album (restriction of the medium or self-discipline) ensures NOTHING. For instance, what if the band did that and took off songs that you liked more for ones you liked less? There's no guarantee that they'd edit down an album the same way you would. That just means you get through a mediocre or poor album quicker...but if it's good, it means you get more goodness.

trink39.gif

 

Thanks; that's what I was saying earlier. In keeping the album shorter, the guys could insist on including a song (or songs) you hate, while dumping a song you would've liked had you known about it. It's easy to say an album would've been better "without these two songs I hate," but who's to say those are the very two songs the band doesn't include when trying to make the album shorter??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 19 2012, 05:02 PM)
And no, it's not as easy to skip songs since, in order to do that means getting my lazy ass out of the rocker/recliner chair I sit in when I listen to music. common001.gif

Your complaint is based on the fact that you haven't incorporated 1985 remote control technology into your listening set up.

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...