ReflectedLight Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 if there is another album i hope they go with somebody different, and no not terry brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombstone Mountain Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 QUOTE (gtbos @ Sep 8 2012, 04:30 PM) ive been told by my kids i can be a grumpy old man.im almost 52.but i love the new cd. rocks as usual,this will be show sweet 16 for me nov.17,i missed the GUP TO PRESTO TOURS so im lookin forward to this set list.they cant play to everyones favs or they would be there till 4am every night............. DUDE You will freaking love it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kentpilot Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 QUOTE (Mr. IsNot @ Sep 8 2012, 02:54 AM) QUOTE (Astroboy2112 @ Sep 7 2012, 10:27 PM) You guys need to stop this CA sounds like Rush doesn't care about sound anymore crap. CA sounds the way that it was meant to sound. Rush obviously heard Nick's work on coheed and cambria, stone sour, foo fighters, Deftones, Trivium, etc etc You guys clearly haven't! Otherwise you'll realize that those records sound like CA does!! They wanted that KICK ASS loud sound because CA is a KICK ASS album. Get it? Source? and fwiw I'm a big Coheed fan. Coheed f***ing rules I'm seeing them in two weeks in Rochester and then a month later in Cleveland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rushman14 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 whatever dude. I'm older and listen to plently of modern rock. I'm used to newer albums sounding loud and compressed, and many of them sound great. But I think CA is poorly mixed, and I do blame Nick. Snakes and Arrows sounds great because Nick didnt mix it. The mastering kinda blows too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cat 3 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 QUOTE (Smegger68 @ Sep 8 2012, 01:11 PM) The album is badly MASTERED, not badly PRODUCED. Nothing to do with Nick R, all to do with Brian G. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have ourselves a winner! The album is nothing short of amazing and it stands should to shoulder with their best, in my opinion. Again, in my opinion, the album is no where near as "polished" as it should be. A killer record that just sounds a bit muddy...this hasn't stopped me from listening to it over and over and over and over again since it's release. It won't be long as we hear members of the band saying the same things about Clockwork Angels' sound as they do about the sound of Vapor Trails now. Both fine albums in their own right, of course. That being said, I am old, I am grumpy, cranky, bitter, nasty and tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmm_donuts Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 QUOTE (My_Shrimp_Cot @ Sep 8 2012, 07:26 AM) QUOTE (Astroboy2112 @ Sep 8 2012, 12:27 AM) Ok this is my response to all these old grumpy old men stuck in the 80's who dont have a clue about modern rock sounds and yet get in their high horse, brag that they have $5,000 audio systems and criticize CA here and elsewhere... Have you listened to Nick R's body of work? No right? Do you think that Rush hired Nick without hearing his previous work!? Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is not CA but your lack of familiarity and knowledge of the modern bands that currently influence Rush's sound? Do you honestly think that they got Nick R so he could mix CA like Peter Collins would and he just failed miserably at it?! You guys need to stop this CA sounds like Rush doesn't care about sound anymore crap. CA sounds the way that it was meant to sound. Rush obviously heard Nick's work on coheed and cambria, stone sour, foo fighters, Deftones, Trivium, etc etc You guys clearly haven't! Otherwise you'll realize that those records sound like CA does!! They wanted that KICK ASS loud sound because CA is a KICK ASS album. Get it? It's tiring to hear that CA it's too loud. It's *^$* meant to be loud and heavy!! You are beginning to sound like your parents when you were little. "Son that Black Sabath stuff sounds terrible, that's too loud and messy! Here listen to The Everly Brothers" Well that's you now. You've become that person. You are stubborn in your ways and way too protective of the sounds you grew up with. Everything else is unacceptable! Your stuck in your generation's sound and music. RUSH ISNT!!! They are not that type of band they are looking FWD ALWAYS! On the CA fanpack Neil mentions how he stays in touch with his inner 17 year old and asks him whether he thinks what they are doing is cool.You guys lost that. Were you simply listening to the music when you were 17 or where you looking at waveforms and going wow this shit is all wrong. Look at this waveform, this is too loud!!!? It's not Rush's fault that some fans simply don't listen to any modern music and are stuck in the 70's or 80's. CA is a kickass record with a kickass mix. Just because it sounds modern doesnt make it bad. Learn to understand modern mixing and mastering instead of dismissing them as "too loud" "no clarity", "a mess" and all these other ignorant comments. You are listening to a 2012 Hard rock record looking for 70's or 80's soft rock sounds - not happening! I want my clarity on mellow material (like presto for example) i want my space on a atmospheric nocturnal kinda record but not on kickass material like BU2B, The Anarchist or Headlong Flight!! On that type of material i want a loud in your face mix that makes me want to rock! They are modern KICK ASS rock songs meant to sound like modern KICK ASS rock songs!! That's just how modern mixing of heavy music is done. People like it and it has always been the norm in the rock world. Each era wants to sound different from the previous one. Does the new generation of rock listeners want their Linkin Park, Avenged Sevenfold, Slipknot, etc to sound like Journey or Van Halen?! Hell no! They sound the way they sound on purpose, just like Rush sounds the way they sound on CA on purpose. They want to attract new listeners, they want to make new fans, they are catering to the young and young in spirit with this new record and you just don't do that mixing your album like an 80's album. You know why modern rock critics like this album? Because they understand the modern rock sound it has and can appreciate the awesome material in the record. You know why you old audiophiles dont like it? It's because as much as you think you know about sound you simply don't know jack about modern rock sounds and since you can't get pass the sound you cant discover how truly awesome this record is. Get out of your comfort zone, grab some of Nick R's produced records and comeback to this album and maybe you'll get it but going from listening to Permanent Waves (1981) to CA (2012) wont help you gain an understanding of CA at the sonic level. Finally, get in touch with ur inner kid and listen to this album as if you were a kid and you will see it's magic. I agree 100% I would also add that the sonic qualities aren't nearly as important for me as the songs and the playing. Case in point: Charlie Parker - recorded on 50s era crap recording technology - mono Kenny G - Recorded 80s style - beautiful sound quality and mixes I still listen to The Bird - Kenny G is all in the garbage can where it belongs. It's not that important. I'd rather take the drill without the novacaine at the dentists office than listen to their Kenny G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astroboy2112 Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 i see the truth bothers a few people. The fact is a lot of older rock fans never got into the 90's alternative movement that changed the sound of hard rock. So if you avoided the Nirvanas, Smashing Pumpkins, Peal Jams, Sound Gardens, etc and you skipped that gens music and then u listen to a work from 2012 then you are going to have trouble. Every generation is heavier and louder than the next. Just compare 50's, 60's, 70's,80's,90's,00's. Problem for the older fans complaining about CA's sound is that you didnt do your homework and you skip the 90's and 00's so now ur listening to 2012 music and ur going holy shit this is too loud! It makes my ears bleed! Theres no space! Based on what you know (70's and 80's) you think there's a problem with the mastering,there is a problem with the mixing, there is a problem with production but there is no f***ing problem!!! The real problem is your untrained ear! You jumped a couple of gens of rock music and now everything modern sounds way too loud, way to muddy, no dynamics, etc, etc. This is the same thing that happened when u were a kid and u blasted Led Zeppelin in the 70's or Metallica in the 80's and your parents were: WTF that is too loud, that makes my ears bleed, sounds too muddy, there's no space, etc, etc " Your basically saying the same things your parents told you when you were a kid. It's understandable because the sound feels so foreign. All im saying is listen to some modern stuff, try to get why kids nowadays like this "muddy" stuff and then CA is going to make more sense but if you stay in your stubborn ways just like your parents who never made an effort to understand that "loud and muddy" sound of your bands back then then i guarantee you than you will have a hard time listening to Rush next new album in 4-5 years all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbirdsong Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I don't care how loud it is. I have a volume knob on all my listening devices. My only real problem with modern recordings is the lack of space in the mix. I have some older jazz recordings that are so good they can make you cry. I also have some rock records that are equally as good. The first vinyl record I ever bought for myself was Yes' Fragile. (THICK cardboard sleeve and HEAVY vinyl!!) At times it sounds like you are in the room with them while they recorded it. No CD version has ever re-created that experience. It's the wall of sound that people don't like, I think. I get it, people don't have their speakers on opposite sides of the room anymore. Instead they have computer speakers and headphones. I'm not a old grumpy man, I'm middle aged (God willing), but I would dearly love a return to some of the best of "ancient" recording techniques that were never bad to begin with. The latest Beatles releases are a fine example of how to do it. Steve Wilson's newly remastered versions of the Emerson, Lake & Palmer albums are done very well. Even the Rush Sector box sets are a big improvement over the 1997 versions. It can be done and it can be done with new music as well. The latest Dead Can Dance CD sounds VERY good. In my biggest dreams, Rudy Van Gelder (IMHO the best ever) would be paid incredibly large sums to teach young producers and engineers how to do it right with the simplest of tools. Oh well, keep dreaming I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbirdsong Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 P.S. I've recently completed my collection of the original West German Rush CDs. Best version ever and as close to vinyl as you can get. Highly recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smegger68 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Astroboy, you clearly like the modern 'muddy' production sound. Fine. Plenty of people don't. This does not make them wrong. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeminiRising79 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Grumpy old man? Aren't you describing Neil Peart?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushfanforever! Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Sep 13 2012, 08:36 AM) Grumpy old man? Aren't you describing Neil Peart?! No, to me it's the collective "old" men on this board who see no shame in bashing without abandon! Very annoying to say the least! No appreciation for the fact that the boys are still rocking? They could have packed it in years ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeminiRising79 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) No appreciation for the fact that the boys are still rocking? They could have packed it in years ago! But instead they are packing it into the rear of their roots fans! Edited September 13, 2012 by GeminiRising79 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Sep 13 2012, 09:36 AM) Grumpy old man? Aren't you describing Neil Peart?! http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff508/blackcc/hZJHx.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushfanforever! Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) But instead they are packing it into the rear of their roots fans! Well, everyone should be happy and appreciate regardless! Does everyone really want to hear Geddy straining to sing the 70's stuff just to satisfy some "root" fans? Certainy not worth it to cause him any unneccesary vocal problems! This 1980 fan says no way! Edited September 13, 2012 by rushfanforever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbirdsong Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 "Root Fans"? Sounds kind of gay (not that there's anything wrong with that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pound of Obscure Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Sep 8 2012, 06:27 PM) "Modern Rock Sound" is not really a recording technique...it's the way bands sound now days. They are loud and noisy. You think recording engineers are adding noise to records on purpose? Hell no...the bands are noisy and this noise makes it onto the recording. I like some "modern" bands, but so many of them just aren't very good musicians and don't play with any clarity. This is what you hear as your "modern sound". There is no reason why Loud can't equal Clear. There is no reason every modern rock record has to sound the same. So the whole "loudness" thing wouldn't be an issue if bands played with more clarity. Hell, you can record audio up to 0db (the limit) and still make it clear. Also, about being old and not relating to the sound of "modern rock music": Anyone with any knowledge of sound and music will tell you that digital recording has reduced the sonic enjoyment of music. Try playing the record version, vs the MP3 version for anyone, especially a kid. They will all say the record sounds so much better. Sound quality has nothing to do with age.It sounds good or it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushfan Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 So I guess when Peart's snare disappears in the title track or when Alex's acoustic is too loud in the Garden, or when Geddy's vocals get buried, it's just part of the "modern" sound. Sorry man, a bad mix is a bad mix...regardless of the era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 QUOTE (Mushfan @ Sep 13 2012, 10:44 AM) So I guess when Peart's snare disappears in the title track or when Alex's acoustic is too loud in the Garden, or when Geddy's vocals get buried, it's just part of the "modern" sound. Sorry man, a bad mix is a bad mix...regardless of the era. That's why i'm Dying for a live release. Cause the albums a sonic mush. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushfan Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 QUOTE (bluefox4000 @ Sep 13 2012, 11:17 AM) QUOTE (Mushfan @ Sep 13 2012, 10:44 AM) So I guess when Peart's snare disappears in the title track or when Alex's acoustic is too loud in the Garden, or when Geddy's vocals get buried, it's just part of the "modern" sound. Sorry man, a bad mix is a bad mix...regardless of the era. That's why i'm Dying for a live release. Cause the albums a sonic mush. Mick I saw them in Bristow, VA Sunday and it was so nice to hear CA live. It sounded great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Sawyer Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Sep 13 2012, 10:38 AM) "Root Fans"? Sounds kind of gay (not that there's anything wrong with that). Careful, eshine might come over here and beat you up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueowl Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I don't know about grumpy, but I'm one of the old guys. Started listening to Rush 34 years ago. I absolutely love the CA sound. I remember how rich the old vinyl sounded, but it also popped, got scratched, skipped, and was a general PITA even though it was much richer sound than digital. We were thrilled when CDs came along, then MP3s, but the richness of the sound is gone and probably not coming back. Yet I can now carry my entire music collection with me and listen to it anywhere, always seems to be trade-offs. But if CA is loud and noisy, hell, I like it that way :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowItIs Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) How about old ladies? Listen, I know the OP is young but you are old enough to learn the difference between "subjective" and "objective." Music appreciation is the former hence there will always be disagreements. That's why we use the word "opinion" or IMHO or It's a good thing to understand at an early age that not everyone will agree with you. If you accept that life will be much less stressful for you. Just sayin' FWIW I absolutely love CA. Edited September 22, 2012 by HowItIs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdogged Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Sep 13 2012, 04:47 PM) QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Sep 13 2012, 10:38 AM) "Root Fans"? Sounds kind of gay (not that there's anything wrong with that). Careful, eshine might come over here and beat you up. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astroboy2112 Posted October 14, 2012 Author Share Posted October 14, 2012 QUOTE (Smegger68 @ Sep 13 2012, 02:04 AM)Astroboy, you clearly like the modern 'muddy' production sound. Fine. Plenty of people don't. This does not make them wrong. Deal with it. It's not wrong to not like it, that's not what im saying, what it's wrong is to think that because YOU dont like it is 100% proven that it sounds bad,horrible, muddy, etc Rush's using another gens way of tuning/mixing/mastering/production and it has been proven time and time again people are biased, more partial, more protective, have more nostalgia, have more fondness, more preference to THEIR generation's sound. CA clearly does not sound like the 70's or 80's music these fans are used to. CA is a contemporary record and sounds like a contemporary record. Got rave reviews by current critics and everybody who understands what they are going for in terms of sound. The problem is that these people insist that the mix/mastering/production is bad,horrible, a mess, etc It's completely arrogant to think that because is not up to your liking is 100% proven that it sounds bad. Again, these people have become their parents.Totally unwilling to do some research and try to understand a different sound. If i play Coheed and Cambria, Foo Fighters, Stone Sour, Avenged Sevenfold, Slipknot, etc to these fans they are all going to say that it's sounds horrible, too loud, and muddy and all the usual complaints CA has received. Why because your listening to it with YOUR gens perspective.However if I play those bands to the current gen of fans that go in droves to see those acts those fans are going to say that they sound awesome. Why? Because they dont know any better? No, it's because is their sound, its their gens sound and they grew up with it and love it. Now if I play AFTK, Hemispheres, PW, MP (albums that are the pinnacle of sound to Rush fans) to the current gen a lot are going to say that it sounds terrible and old. Why? Because it doesnt sound like their music, they are protective of their sound, and this sounds too different from what they are used too. It goes both ways. Is a lack of understanding of the evolution of rock's sound. If these Rush fans did a little homework into the bands that are influencing Rush's contemporary sound they might be able to understand that the album does sound like it's meant to sound - they want to sound like that and that's why they got Nick whose previous work all sounds like that! They certainly didnt get Nick and co to have CA sound like a Terry Brown record. In 4-5 years when Rush releases a new modern record produced by a young guy like Nick its going to be the same problem all over again. I would like these fans to understand that theres a difference between saying that this current gen type of rock sound is not appealing to them instead of saying that it CA sounds horrible, Rush doesnt care about quality control, and all the ignorant nonsense that gets thrown around just because your not familiar or dont like the way rock sounds this gen. 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