Test for Echo vs Vapor Trails

[JohnnyBlaze]

Test For Echo is a much better sounding and produced album while the writing in VT is better. Regardless, I think these album are about the same. Test for Echo: TFE, Driven, Half the World, Time & Motion, Resist and Limbo. Vapor Trails: One Little Victory, Secret Touch, Earth Shine, Vapor Trails, Ghost Rider, and Sweet Miracle. So basically Test For Echo wins by the margin of Production. At least you can listen to it. :codger:

Make a 2 hour setlist using those 2 albums and 7 songs from any of the other albums....but 1 rule: you can't use all of 2112 or Hemispheres Edited June 20, 2013 by JohnnyBlaze

[LedRush]

One more for Vapor Trails. Not at all close for me. But then, outside a few tracks, I don't care for what they made between GUP and VT, so though I happen to really like VT, for me almost anything would have been improvement over what they'd been doing the previous decade plus. I'm one of those who grew up on Terry Brown Rush and never warmed up to stuff that followed (except for GUP), until their recent albums -- VT and S&A especially - and middle-age nostalgia brought me back to the fold.

 

New to the forum. Greetings fellow Trekkies :cheers:

 

So you actually like S&A? You meet all kinds...

 

Indeed. In fact, I like it more than anything they've done after Moving Pictures, in spite of Neil Peart's emerging journal-entry-as-song-lyric style of wiriting. A Larger Bowl is one of their best songs, I think, aside from Richard Dawkins-channeled refrain ("the world's so badly arranged" -- yeah, our world really sucks compared to other worlds). Several other strong tracks incl three really excellent instrumentals. I think VT and S&A were the first albums since Moving Pictures that a non-Rush-specific music fan can easily appreciate. Just my opinion, obviously.

 

Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

are you trying rushgoober, jr.? You need a new shtick, dawg. Copying RG's act is lame.

 

Well, when we talk about whether or not non-Rush fans can appreciate it, I think we get into the area where we can quantify things a bit. Non-Rush fans obviously like RTB more than CP, Presto and HYF as RTB sold more than the band was selling earlier or later. The same argument holds for VT and S&A. Obviously there are other factors, but this is a more objective discussion than just, "VP sucks", "No, CP sucks!"

Your devotion to hating CP is lame. Don't be a goober jr. TRF needs less dicks. :)

 

I thought Goobs liked Counterparts, somewhat?

My point being, Ledrush likes to put down CP as much as goober loves putting down VT. LR should be embarrased he copies goobers shtick, but he's not, and that's okay if you obviously don't care about being perceived as a lame goober copycat. It shouldn't be hard to come up with an original shtick for TRF, but some folks have no creativity.

 

"As much"? You're crazy.

[Rutlefan]

LedRush wrote: Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

 

I suppose I should have said any non-Rush devotee with tastes remotely like mine or others I know. I have several friends who don't like Rush in general, but they think VT and S&A is at least ok, while they can't stomach the late '80's and '90's stuff; I remember a couple of them laughing at Roll the Bones' rap.

 

As well, Signals and RtB were released while Rush was in their commercial prime, unlike VT and S&A. Also, they were supported by singles, and Signals was carried (arguably) by the broad appeal won by Moving Pictures; doesn't mean people in general thought Signals and RtB were really appealing albums (maybe many did; people like Matchbox 20 and Creed, so who knows).

 

Lastly, comparing album sales b/t the age of download and pre-download isn't really valid, is it? How about this: acc to Wikipedia's Rush Discography page, VT and S&A went to #3 in Canada, and #6 and #3 in the U.S. Compare that to Signals (#1 CAN and #10 US) and RtB (#11 and #3). So I'd say comparing apples to apples (sales strength relative to the market), VT/S&A arguably did better than Signals/RtB. In fact, only Moving Pictures at 1 and 3 and CA at 1 and 2 did better. So not only is my opinion close to being accurate, I think it arguably is accurate.

 

RTB came after almost a decade of decreasing album sales...HYF and Presto were the only two albums not to go platinum since Caress of Steel. RTB reversed that trend.

 

And while it is true that people buy less albums nowadays, if you buy the digital version of the entire album, I believe it still counts as an album sale. Also, they changed what it takes to get into the top for a release, and Rush, as is typical of cult bands, sells a shitload the first weak and then sales trickle. That is a measure of the hardcore, not the measure of the casuals. Those sales are measured in the coming weeks as word of mouth, radio, or internet induce more people to buy. That's how RTB went platinum, and that's why S&A will never go gold.

 

And the band did release singles from those albums, it's just that no one liked them. RTB had 4 singles in the top 15, and Signals had 3 in the top 20. Despite releasing 7 singles from VT and S&A, only 4 charted and only one was top 20. And radio is different nowadays. It is much easier to chart in the US Main category now as there is so much less competition as the format and genre becomes decreasingly popular as music continues to fragment into more and more niches.

 

The position that casual fans like VT and S&A more than the band's 1982-96 output is very, very unlikely to be true as it just isn't supported by much evidence.

 

Well, I'll admit that RtB is probably the turd in the puchbowl that is my argument. Can't figure out the appeal myself (sounds like Rush doing Kajagoogoo to me), but to each one's own.

 

At any rate, peace. Rush, Led Zep, and Aerosmith were my Holy Trinity as a kid in the late '70's. Led Zep is still among my favorites (and still appreciate those early Aerosmith albums), so we're probably not that far apart on most things music. Frankly, after the first listenings to VT or S&A, I never imagined I'd be defending them. I remember earlier wishing the Rush in Rio songlist would have just skipped the VT songs altogether, but over time they grew on me some. Nothing compares to their early stuff though. Like radiohead in '96/'97 with Bends and OK Computer (and related b-sides), Rush was the best band in the world in '80/'81 with PW and MP. Having grown up as a hockey-playing, SCTV-watching kid in N. Dakota, I was so proud of them. ;)

[rushgoober]

LedRush wrote: Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

 

I suppose I should have said any non-Rush devotee with tastes remotely like mine or others I know. I have several friends who don't like Rush in general, but they think VT and S&A is at least ok, while they can't stomach the late '80's and '90's stuff; I remember a couple of them laughing at Roll the Bones' rap.

 

As well, Signals and RtB were released while Rush was in their commercial prime, unlike VT and S&A. Also, they were supported by singles, and Signals was carried (arguably) by the broad appeal won by Moving Pictures; doesn't mean people in general thought Signals and RtB were really appealing albums (maybe many did; people like Matchbox 20 and Creed, so who knows).

 

Lastly, comparing album sales b/t the age of download and pre-download isn't really valid, is it? How about this: acc to Wikipedia's Rush Discography page, VT and S&A went to #3 in Canada, and #6 and #3 in the U.S. Compare that to Signals (#1 CAN and #10 US) and RtB (#11 and #3). So I'd say comparing apples to apples (sales strength relative to the market), VT/S&A arguably did better than Signals/RtB. In fact, only Moving Pictures at 1 and 3 and CA at 1 and 2 did better. So not only is my opinion close to being accurate, I think it arguably is accurate.

 

RTB came after almost a decade of decreasing album sales...HYF and Presto were the only two albums not to go platinum since Caress of Steel. RTB reversed that trend.

 

And while it is true that people buy less albums nowadays, if you buy the digital version of the entire album, I believe it still counts as an album sale. Also, they changed what it takes to get into the top for a release, and Rush, as is typical of cult bands, sells a shitload the first weak and then sales trickle. That is a measure of the hardcore, not the measure of the casuals. Those sales are measured in the coming weeks as word of mouth, radio, or internet induce more people to buy. That's how RTB went platinum, and that's why S&A will never go gold.

 

And the band did release singles from those albums, it's just that no one liked them. RTB had 4 singles in the top 15, and Signals had 3 in the top 20. Despite releasing 7 singles from VT and S&A, only 4 charted and only one was top 20. And radio is different nowadays. It is much easier to chart in the US Main category now as there is so much less competition as the format and genre becomes decreasingly popular as music continues to fragment into more and more niches.

 

The position that casual fans like VT and S&A more than the band's 1982-96 output is very, very unlikely to be true as it just isn't supported by much evidence.

 

You really can't use album sales as a barometer. RTB got lucky - it was released at the right time, and Dreamline and the title track took off in rock radio airplay resulting in album sales. Most Rush fans would agree though that RTB is a weaker album than a lot of albums that didn't sell as well. Album sales have a lot of ephemeral factors involved that often doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the music.

 

If you really want to know what a majority of people think about Rush albums; non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, go to the rateyourmusic.com page for Rush where every studio album has had at least 1,000 numerical ratings attached to it and you'll get a consensus opinion: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

[ILSnwdog]

Driven is the only great song from either effort. TFE in a battle of lower tier albums.

Driven is the only great song? T4E is a awesome song! I get slack for this all the time, but Time And Motion is one of my all time favorite Rush songs...from any period.

 

It's tough to pick a favorite here. T4E has some incredibly heavy tunes, yet there is some god awful stuff (by Rush standards) on there too. I think VT is more consistent, but I don't think there is anything on VT that approaches T4E (the song) or Time and Motion. I guess if I had to give a nod, it would be to VT because there is just more quality material on there.

[Lerxster]

One more for Vapor Trails. Not at all close for me. But then, outside a few tracks, I don't care for what they made between GUP and VT, so though I happen to really like VT, for me almost anything would have been improvement over what they'd been doing the previous decade plus. I'm one of those who grew up on Terry Brown Rush and never warmed up to stuff that followed (except for GUP), until their recent albums -- VT and S&A especially - and middle-age nostalgia brought me back to the fold.

 

New to the forum. Greetings fellow Trekkies :cheers:

 

So you actually like S&A? You meet all kinds...

 

Indeed. In fact, I like it more than anything they've done after Moving Pictures, in spite of Neil Peart's emerging journal-entry-as-song-lyric style of wiriting. A Larger Bowl is one of their best songs, I think, aside from Richard Dawkins-channeled refrain ("the world's so badly arranged" -- yeah, our world really sucks compared to other worlds). Several other strong tracks incl three really excellent instrumentals. I think VT and S&A were the first albums since Moving Pictures that a non-Rush-specific music fan can easily appreciate. Just my opinion, obviously.

 

Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

are you trying rushgoober, jr.? You need a new shtick, dawg. Copying RG's act is lame.

 

Well, when we talk about whether or not non-Rush fans can appreciate it, I think we get into the area where we can quantify things a bit. Non-Rush fans obviously like RTB more than CP, Presto and HYF as RTB sold more than the band was selling earlier or later. The same argument holds for VT and S&A. Obviously there are other factors, but this is a more objective discussion than just, "VP sucks", "No, CP sucks!"

Your devotion to hating CP is lame. Don't be a goober jr. TRF needs less dicks. :)

Excellent contribution for bringing down the level of dickness in here.

Sorry dude, but the older I get, the more it seems I generally can't stand most people. If TRF didn't have as many cool like-minded folks as it does, I would have left here a long time ago. But that never means I have to ignore what I can't stand. No real offense intended. If we tailgated before a Rush show, I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy your company. :codger: :cheers:

[ILSnwdog]

One more for Vapor Trails. Not at all close for me. But then, outside a few tracks, I don't care for what they made between GUP and VT, so though I happen to really like VT, for me almost anything would have been improvement over what they'd been doing the previous decade plus. I'm one of those who grew up on Terry Brown Rush and never warmed up to stuff that followed (except for GUP), until their recent albums -- VT and S&A especially - and middle-age nostalgia brought me back to the fold.

 

New to the forum. Greetings fellow Trekkies :cheers:

 

So you actually like S&A? You meet all kinds...

 

This coming from the man who brought you:

 

TFE and VT are better than just about everything from 1982 on, and CP is the band's worst album.

 

:crazy:

 

Indisputable facts.

TFE and VT better than p/g and CA? :rfl:

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/imgs/media/Colin_Wolf/Bug_eyed_caddy_shack_guy.jpg

[Na na na]

Vapor Trails is a great album, Test For Echo is a very good album...and I do agree with Counterparts being their worst !

[LedRush]

LedRush wrote: Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

 

I suppose I should have said any non-Rush devotee with tastes remotely like mine or others I know. I have several friends who don't like Rush in general, but they think VT and S&A is at least ok, while they can't stomach the late '80's and '90's stuff; I remember a couple of them laughing at Roll the Bones' rap.

 

As well, Signals and RtB were released while Rush was in their commercial prime, unlike VT and S&A. Also, they were supported by singles, and Signals was carried (arguably) by the broad appeal won by Moving Pictures; doesn't mean people in general thought Signals and RtB were really appealing albums (maybe many did; people like Matchbox 20 and Creed, so who knows).

 

Lastly, comparing album sales b/t the age of download and pre-download isn't really valid, is it? How about this: acc to Wikipedia's Rush Discography page, VT and S&A went to #3 in Canada, and #6 and #3 in the U.S. Compare that to Signals (#1 CAN and #10 US) and RtB (#11 and #3). So I'd say comparing apples to apples (sales strength relative to the market), VT/S&A arguably did better than Signals/RtB. In fact, only Moving Pictures at 1 and 3 and CA at 1 and 2 did better. So not only is my opinion close to being accurate, I think it arguably is accurate.

 

RTB came after almost a decade of decreasing album sales...HYF and Presto were the only two albums not to go platinum since Caress of Steel. RTB reversed that trend.

 

And while it is true that people buy less albums nowadays, if you buy the digital version of the entire album, I believe it still counts as an album sale. Also, they changed what it takes to get into the top for a release, and Rush, as is typical of cult bands, sells a shitload the first weak and then sales trickle. That is a measure of the hardcore, not the measure of the casuals. Those sales are measured in the coming weeks as word of mouth, radio, or internet induce more people to buy. That's how RTB went platinum, and that's why S&A will never go gold.

 

And the band did release singles from those albums, it's just that no one liked them. RTB had 4 singles in the top 15, and Signals had 3 in the top 20. Despite releasing 7 singles from VT and S&A, only 4 charted and only one was top 20. And radio is different nowadays. It is much easier to chart in the US Main category now as there is so much less competition as the format and genre becomes decreasingly popular as music continues to fragment into more and more niches.

 

The position that casual fans like VT and S&A more than the band's 1982-96 output is very, very unlikely to be true as it just isn't supported by much evidence.

 

You really can't use album sales as a barometer. RTB got lucky - it was released at the right time, and Dreamline and the title track took off in rock radio airplay resulting in album sales. Most Rush fans would agree though that RTB is a weaker album than a lot of albums that didn't sell as well. Album sales have a lot of ephemeral factors involved that often doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the music.

 

If you really want to know what a majority of people think about Rush albums; non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, go to the rateyourmusic.com page for Rush where every studio album has had at least 1,000 numerical ratings attached to it and you'll get a consensus opinion: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

Sales figures and chart numbers are very good indicators of how the casuals and non-fans view the band. It's no surprise that the casuals clamor for songs off the best selling albums while us hardcore look for the rarely played jems.

 

And there's no way that site represents casuals and non-fans? GuP live better ranked than every studio album save MP? TM live better than all albums except from 2112-MP? No way that's the view of the non-fan. Even fans barely can deal with the TM live vocals.

[condemned2bfree]

Vapor Trails gets my vote. Bad production aside, the songs are just so much better than what's on T4E.

 

Exactly.

[ILSnwdog]

I do agree with Counterparts being their worst !

:LMAO:

 

Wait, are you serious?

[Shredder2]

I'll take T4E over VT any day. xD

[Dscrapre]

VT is better than T4E. Specifically, the lyrics. The lyrics on Vapor Trails are among the best that Neil has ever written. Test for Echo is my least favorite album that they've made. The title track and Driven are pretty good, but everything else is kinda blah.

 

CP and HYF are also really great in my opinion.

[Na na na]

I do agree with Counterparts being their worst !

:LMAO:

 

Wait, are you serious?

 

Yes I am...an awkward album, not very satisfying at all

[rushgoober]

LedRush wrote: Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

 

I suppose I should have said any non-Rush devotee with tastes remotely like mine or others I know. I have several friends who don't like Rush in general, but they think VT and S&A is at least ok, while they can't stomach the late '80's and '90's stuff; I remember a couple of them laughing at Roll the Bones' rap.

 

As well, Signals and RtB were released while Rush was in their commercial prime, unlike VT and S&A. Also, they were supported by singles, and Signals was carried (arguably) by the broad appeal won by Moving Pictures; doesn't mean people in general thought Signals and RtB were really appealing albums (maybe many did; people like Matchbox 20 and Creed, so who knows).

 

Lastly, comparing album sales b/t the age of download and pre-download isn't really valid, is it? How about this: acc to Wikipedia's Rush Discography page, VT and S&A went to #3 in Canada, and #6 and #3 in the U.S. Compare that to Signals (#1 CAN and #10 US) and RtB (#11 and #3). So I'd say comparing apples to apples (sales strength relative to the market), VT/S&A arguably did better than Signals/RtB. In fact, only Moving Pictures at 1 and 3 and CA at 1 and 2 did better. So not only is my opinion close to being accurate, I think it arguably is accurate.

 

RTB came after almost a decade of decreasing album sales...HYF and Presto were the only two albums not to go platinum since Caress of Steel. RTB reversed that trend.

 

And while it is true that people buy less albums nowadays, if you buy the digital version of the entire album, I believe it still counts as an album sale. Also, they changed what it takes to get into the top for a release, and Rush, as is typical of cult bands, sells a shitload the first weak and then sales trickle. That is a measure of the hardcore, not the measure of the casuals. Those sales are measured in the coming weeks as word of mouth, radio, or internet induce more people to buy. That's how RTB went platinum, and that's why S&A will never go gold.

 

And the band did release singles from those albums, it's just that no one liked them. RTB had 4 singles in the top 15, and Signals had 3 in the top 20. Despite releasing 7 singles from VT and S&A, only 4 charted and only one was top 20. And radio is different nowadays. It is much easier to chart in the US Main category now as there is so much less competition as the format and genre becomes decreasingly popular as music continues to fragment into more and more niches.

 

The position that casual fans like VT and S&A more than the band's 1982-96 output is very, very unlikely to be true as it just isn't supported by much evidence.

 

You really can't use album sales as a barometer. RTB got lucky - it was released at the right time, and Dreamline and the title track took off in rock radio airplay resulting in album sales. Most Rush fans would agree though that RTB is a weaker album than a lot of albums that didn't sell as well. Album sales have a lot of ephemeral factors involved that often doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the music.

 

If you really want to know what a majority of people think about Rush albums; non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, go to the rateyourmusic.com page for Rush where every studio album has had at least 1,000 numerical ratings attached to it and you'll get a consensus opinion: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

Sales figures and chart numbers are very good indicators of how the casuals and non-fans view the band. It's no surprise that the casuals clamor for songs off the best selling albums while us hardcore look for the rarely played jems.

 

And there's no way that site represents casuals and non-fans? GuP live better ranked than every studio album save MP? TM live better than all albums except from 2112-MP? No way that's the view of the non-fan. Even fans barely can deal with the TM live vocals.

 

Chart numbers don't mean anything. Rush albums go to top 3 because it's Rush before anyone hears note one.

 

Of course rateyourmusic doesn't differentiate between non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, but it's a safe bet with that big of sampling that it's an effective consensus view of what a mix of all those groups thinks of every album compared to their other ones. If I polled a thousand people and asked them 1 to 10 what they thought of an album, you actually think that data is less relavant than how many copies the album sold or its chart position was? There are just too many factors that can play into that - the timing of an album release with what genres are popular, the current popularity of a band, one hit song that catches on or doesn't, the economy and shifting tides in how people buy music, etc. - it's really pretty meaningless in terms of actual album quality or in determining what most pepole think of it.

[ShlappinDahBass]

One more for Vapor Trails. Not at all close for me. But then, outside a few tracks, I don't care for what they made between GUP and VT, so though I happen to really like VT, for me almost anything would have been improvement over what they'd been doing the previous decade plus. I'm one of those who grew up on Terry Brown Rush and never warmed up to stuff that followed (except for GUP), until their recent albums -- VT and S&A especially - and middle-age nostalgia brought me back to the fold.

 

New to the forum. Greetings fellow Trekkies :cheers:

 

So you actually like S&A? You meet all kinds...

 

Indeed. In fact, I like it more than anything they've done after Moving Pictures, in spite of Neil Peart's emerging journal-entry-as-song-lyric style of wiriting. A Larger Bowl is one of their best songs, I think, aside from Richard Dawkins-channeled refrain ("the world's so badly arranged" -- yeah, our world really sucks compared to other worlds). Several other strong tracks incl three really excellent instrumentals. I think VT and S&A were the first albums since Moving Pictures that a non-Rush-specific music fan can easily appreciate. Just my opinion, obviously.

 

Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

are you trying rushgoober, jr.? You need a new shtick, dawg. Copying RG's act is lame.

 

Well, when we talk about whether or not non-Rush fans can appreciate it, I think we get into the area where we can quantify things a bit. Non-Rush fans obviously like RTB more than CP, Presto and HYF as RTB sold more than the band was selling earlier or later. The same argument holds for VT and S&A. Obviously there are other factors, but this is a more objective discussion than just, "VP sucks", "No, CP sucks!"

Your devotion to hating CP is lame. Don't be a goober jr. TRF needs less dicks. :)

 

I thought Goobs liked Counterparts, somewhat?

My point being, Ledrush likes to put down CP as much as goober loves putting down VT. LR should be embarrased he copies goobers shtick, but he's not, and that's okay if you obviously don't care about being perceived as a lame goober copycat. It shouldn't be hard to come up with an original shtick for TRF, but some folks have no creativity.

 

haha, I don't think he's necessarily trying to be like Goobs! I mean, people can have their reasons for disliking an album and what not. Goobs, clearly, HATES Vapor Trails but that's just a way for him to express his dislike. Not a big deal. And Led probably doesn't like Counterparts just the same. Though, I agree with both of their opinions...It's still just an opinion and isn't going to change mine. In my opinion, it's a "their loss" kind of deal.

 

But I am one of those rare breeds who love all their work. So, I'm probably not making too much sense...Eh.

[LedRush]

LedRush wrote: Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

 

I suppose I should have said any non-Rush devotee with tastes remotely like mine or others I know. I have several friends who don't like Rush in general, but they think VT and S&A is at least ok, while they can't stomach the late '80's and '90's stuff; I remember a couple of them laughing at Roll the Bones' rap.

 

As well, Signals and RtB were released while Rush was in their commercial prime, unlike VT and S&A. Also, they were supported by singles, and Signals was carried (arguably) by the broad appeal won by Moving Pictures; doesn't mean people in general thought Signals and RtB were really appealing albums (maybe many did; people like Matchbox 20 and Creed, so who knows).

 

Lastly, comparing album sales b/t the age of download and pre-download isn't really valid, is it? How about this: acc to Wikipedia's Rush Discography page, VT and S&A went to #3 in Canada, and #6 and #3 in the U.S. Compare that to Signals (#1 CAN and #10 US) and RtB (#11 and #3). So I'd say comparing apples to apples (sales strength relative to the market), VT/S&A arguably did better than Signals/RtB. In fact, only Moving Pictures at 1 and 3 and CA at 1 and 2 did better. So not only is my opinion close to being accurate, I think it arguably is accurate.

 

RTB came after almost a decade of decreasing album sales...HYF and Presto were the only two albums not to go platinum since Caress of Steel. RTB reversed that trend.

 

And while it is true that people buy less albums nowadays, if you buy the digital version of the entire album, I believe it still counts as an album sale. Also, they changed what it takes to get into the top for a release, and Rush, as is typical of cult bands, sells a shitload the first weak and then sales trickle. That is a measure of the hardcore, not the measure of the casuals. Those sales are measured in the coming weeks as word of mouth, radio, or internet induce more people to buy. That's how RTB went platinum, and that's why S&A will never go gold.

 

And the band did release singles from those albums, it's just that no one liked them. RTB had 4 singles in the top 15, and Signals had 3 in the top 20. Despite releasing 7 singles from VT and S&A, only 4 charted and only one was top 20. And radio is different nowadays. It is much easier to chart in the US Main category now as there is so much less competition as the format and genre becomes decreasingly popular as music continues to fragment into more and more niches.

 

The position that casual fans like VT and S&A more than the band's 1982-96 output is very, very unlikely to be true as it just isn't supported by much evidence.

 

You really can't use album sales as a barometer. RTB got lucky - it was released at the right time, and Dreamline and the title track took off in rock radio airplay resulting in album sales. Most Rush fans would agree though that RTB is a weaker album than a lot of albums that didn't sell as well. Album sales have a lot of ephemeral factors involved that often doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the music.

 

If you really want to know what a majority of people think about Rush albums; non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, go to the rateyourmusic.com page for Rush where every studio album has had at least 1,000 numerical ratings attached to it and you'll get a consensus opinion: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

Sales figures and chart numbers are very good indicators of how the casuals and non-fans view the band. It's no surprise that the casuals clamor for songs off the best selling albums while us hardcore look for the rarely played jems.

 

And there's no way that site represents casuals and non-fans? GuP live better ranked than every studio album save MP? TM live better than all albums except from 2112-MP? No way that's the view of the non-fan. Even fans barely can deal with the TM live vocals.

 

Chart numbers don't mean anything. Rush albums go to top 3 because it's Rush before anyone hears note one.

 

Of course rateyourmusic doesn't differentiate between non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, but it's a safe bet with that big of sampling that it's an effective consensus view of what a mix of all those groups thinks of every album compared to their other ones. If I polled a thousand people and asked them 1 to 10 what they thought of an album, you actually think that data is less relavant than how many copies the album sold or its chart position was? There are just too many factors that can play into that - the timing of an album release with what genres are popular, the current popularity of a band, one hit song that catches on or doesn't, the economy and shifting tides in how people buy music, etc. - it's really pretty meaningless in terms of actual album quality or in determining what most pepole think of it.

 

I was talking about chart positions on radio stations, and your argument regarding first week sales reenforces my point.

 

I would agree that a randomized sample would be a better indicator of how people now feel about the album (as opposed to how they felt when it was released), but that's not what we have. There is a self-selected group of people rating the albums on that site, and the ratings for GuP live (which I doubt any casuals or non-fans ever even heard of) and the TM live prove to me beyond any doubt that the vast majority of voters are hardcore.

[LedRush]

One more for Vapor Trails. Not at all close for me. But then, outside a few tracks, I don't care for what they made between GUP and VT, so though I happen to really like VT, for me almost anything would have been improvement over what they'd been doing the previous decade plus. I'm one of those who grew up on Terry Brown Rush and never warmed up to stuff that followed (except for GUP), until their recent albums -- VT and S&A especially - and middle-age nostalgia brought me back to the fold.

 

New to the forum. Greetings fellow Trekkies :cheers:

 

So you actually like S&A? You meet all kinds...

 

Indeed. In fact, I like it more than anything they've done after Moving Pictures, in spite of Neil Peart's emerging journal-entry-as-song-lyric style of wiriting. A Larger Bowl is one of their best songs, I think, aside from Richard Dawkins-channeled refrain ("the world's so badly arranged" -- yeah, our world really sucks compared to other worlds). Several other strong tracks incl three really excellent instrumentals. I think VT and S&A were the first albums since Moving Pictures that a non-Rush-specific music fan can easily appreciate. Just my opinion, obviously.

 

Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

are you trying rushgoober, jr.? You need a new shtick, dawg. Copying RG's act is lame.

 

Well, when we talk about whether or not non-Rush fans can appreciate it, I think we get into the area where we can quantify things a bit. Non-Rush fans obviously like RTB more than CP, Presto and HYF as RTB sold more than the band was selling earlier or later. The same argument holds for VT and S&A. Obviously there are other factors, but this is a more objective discussion than just, "VP sucks", "No, CP sucks!"

Your devotion to hating CP is lame. Don't be a goober jr. TRF needs less dicks. :)

 

I thought Goobs liked Counterparts, somewhat?

My point being, Ledrush likes to put down CP as much as goober loves putting down VT. LR should be embarrased he copies goobers shtick, but he's not, and that's okay if you obviously don't care about being perceived as a lame goober copycat. It shouldn't be hard to come up with an original shtick for TRF, but some folks have no creativity.

 

haha, I don't think he's necessarily trying to be like Goobs! I mean, people can have their reasons for disliking an album and what not. Goobs, clearly, HATES Vapor Trails but that's just a way for him to express his dislike. Not a big deal. And Led probably doesn't like Counterparts just the same. Though, I agree with both of their opinions...It's still just an opinion and isn't going to change mine. In my opinion, it's a "their loss" kind of deal.

 

But I am one of those rare breeds who love all their work. So, I'm probably not making too much sense...Eh.

 

I don't hate CP, and therefore I can't even come close to hating CP as much as he hates VT. I think CP has two great songs, a couple of ok ones, and a handful of bad ones. I don't think they are objectively horrible (compared to all music), but they are horrible by Rush standards. If the Speed of Love comes on I cringe at the lyrics and think the song is uninspired, but I don't hate it or run to turn it off or claim that it destroys Rush's reputation. I just think it's a bad Rush song.

[rushgoober]

LedRush wrote: Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

 

I suppose I should have said any non-Rush devotee with tastes remotely like mine or others I know. I have several friends who don't like Rush in general, but they think VT and S&A is at least ok, while they can't stomach the late '80's and '90's stuff; I remember a couple of them laughing at Roll the Bones' rap.

 

As well, Signals and RtB were released while Rush was in their commercial prime, unlike VT and S&A. Also, they were supported by singles, and Signals was carried (arguably) by the broad appeal won by Moving Pictures; doesn't mean people in general thought Signals and RtB were really appealing albums (maybe many did; people like Matchbox 20 and Creed, so who knows).

 

Lastly, comparing album sales b/t the age of download and pre-download isn't really valid, is it? How about this: acc to Wikipedia's Rush Discography page, VT and S&A went to #3 in Canada, and #6 and #3 in the U.S. Compare that to Signals (#1 CAN and #10 US) and RtB (#11 and #3). So I'd say comparing apples to apples (sales strength relative to the market), VT/S&A arguably did better than Signals/RtB. In fact, only Moving Pictures at 1 and 3 and CA at 1 and 2 did better. So not only is my opinion close to being accurate, I think it arguably is accurate.

 

RTB came after almost a decade of decreasing album sales...HYF and Presto were the only two albums not to go platinum since Caress of Steel. RTB reversed that trend.

 

And while it is true that people buy less albums nowadays, if you buy the digital version of the entire album, I believe it still counts as an album sale. Also, they changed what it takes to get into the top for a release, and Rush, as is typical of cult bands, sells a shitload the first weak and then sales trickle. That is a measure of the hardcore, not the measure of the casuals. Those sales are measured in the coming weeks as word of mouth, radio, or internet induce more people to buy. That's how RTB went platinum, and that's why S&A will never go gold.

 

And the band did release singles from those albums, it's just that no one liked them. RTB had 4 singles in the top 15, and Signals had 3 in the top 20. Despite releasing 7 singles from VT and S&A, only 4 charted and only one was top 20. And radio is different nowadays. It is much easier to chart in the US Main category now as there is so much less competition as the format and genre becomes decreasingly popular as music continues to fragment into more and more niches.

 

The position that casual fans like VT and S&A more than the band's 1982-96 output is very, very unlikely to be true as it just isn't supported by much evidence.

 

You really can't use album sales as a barometer. RTB got lucky - it was released at the right time, and Dreamline and the title track took off in rock radio airplay resulting in album sales. Most Rush fans would agree though that RTB is a weaker album than a lot of albums that didn't sell as well. Album sales have a lot of ephemeral factors involved that often doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the music.

 

If you really want to know what a majority of people think about Rush albums; non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, go to the rateyourmusic.com page for Rush where every studio album has had at least 1,000 numerical ratings attached to it and you'll get a consensus opinion: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

Sales figures and chart numbers are very good indicators of how the casuals and non-fans view the band. It's no surprise that the casuals clamor for songs off the best selling albums while us hardcore look for the rarely played jems.

 

And there's no way that site represents casuals and non-fans? GuP live better ranked than every studio album save MP? TM live better than all albums except from 2112-MP? No way that's the view of the non-fan. Even fans barely can deal with the TM live vocals.

 

Chart numbers don't mean anything. Rush albums go to top 3 because it's Rush before anyone hears note one.

 

Of course rateyourmusic doesn't differentiate between non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, but it's a safe bet with that big of sampling that it's an effective consensus view of what a mix of all those groups thinks of every album compared to their other ones. If I polled a thousand people and asked them 1 to 10 what they thought of an album, you actually think that data is less relavant than how many copies the album sold or its chart position was? There are just too many factors that can play into that - the timing of an album release with what genres are popular, the current popularity of a band, one hit song that catches on or doesn't, the economy and shifting tides in how people buy music, etc. - it's really pretty meaningless in terms of actual album quality or in determining what most pepole think of it.

 

I was talking about chart positions on radio stations, and your argument regarding first week sales reenforces my point.

 

I would agree that a randomized sample would be a better indicator of how people now feel about the album (as opposed to how they felt when it was released), but that's not what we have. There is a self-selected group of people rating the albums on that site, and the ratings for GuP live (which I doubt any casuals or non-fans ever even heard of) and the TM live prove to me beyond any doubt that the vast majority of voters are hardcore.

 

The GUP live has a lot less votes than their other albums - the more well known the album, the more votes it seems to have. Anyway, if you want to totally discard those numbers, feel free - to me they're extremely telling.

[LedRush]

LedRush wrote: Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

 

I suppose I should have said any non-Rush devotee with tastes remotely like mine or others I know. I have several friends who don't like Rush in general, but they think VT and S&A is at least ok, while they can't stomach the late '80's and '90's stuff; I remember a couple of them laughing at Roll the Bones' rap.

 

As well, Signals and RtB were released while Rush was in their commercial prime, unlike VT and S&A. Also, they were supported by singles, and Signals was carried (arguably) by the broad appeal won by Moving Pictures; doesn't mean people in general thought Signals and RtB were really appealing albums (maybe many did; people like Matchbox 20 and Creed, so who knows).

 

Lastly, comparing album sales b/t the age of download and pre-download isn't really valid, is it? How about this: acc to Wikipedia's Rush Discography page, VT and S&A went to #3 in Canada, and #6 and #3 in the U.S. Compare that to Signals (#1 CAN and #10 US) and RtB (#11 and #3). So I'd say comparing apples to apples (sales strength relative to the market), VT/S&A arguably did better than Signals/RtB. In fact, only Moving Pictures at 1 and 3 and CA at 1 and 2 did better. So not only is my opinion close to being accurate, I think it arguably is accurate.

 

RTB came after almost a decade of decreasing album sales...HYF and Presto were the only two albums not to go platinum since Caress of Steel. RTB reversed that trend.

 

And while it is true that people buy less albums nowadays, if you buy the digital version of the entire album, I believe it still counts as an album sale. Also, they changed what it takes to get into the top for a release, and Rush, as is typical of cult bands, sells a shitload the first weak and then sales trickle. That is a measure of the hardcore, not the measure of the casuals. Those sales are measured in the coming weeks as word of mouth, radio, or internet induce more people to buy. That's how RTB went platinum, and that's why S&A will never go gold.

 

And the band did release singles from those albums, it's just that no one liked them. RTB had 4 singles in the top 15, and Signals had 3 in the top 20. Despite releasing 7 singles from VT and S&A, only 4 charted and only one was top 20. And radio is different nowadays. It is much easier to chart in the US Main category now as there is so much less competition as the format and genre becomes decreasingly popular as music continues to fragment into more and more niches.

 

The position that casual fans like VT and S&A more than the band's 1982-96 output is very, very unlikely to be true as it just isn't supported by much evidence.

 

You really can't use album sales as a barometer. RTB got lucky - it was released at the right time, and Dreamline and the title track took off in rock radio airplay resulting in album sales. Most Rush fans would agree though that RTB is a weaker album than a lot of albums that didn't sell as well. Album sales have a lot of ephemeral factors involved that often doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the music.

 

If you really want to know what a majority of people think about Rush albums; non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, go to the rateyourmusic.com page for Rush where every studio album has had at least 1,000 numerical ratings attached to it and you'll get a consensus opinion: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

Sales figures and chart numbers are very good indicators of how the casuals and non-fans view the band. It's no surprise that the casuals clamor for songs off the best selling albums while us hardcore look for the rarely played jems.

 

And there's no way that site represents casuals and non-fans? GuP live better ranked than every studio album save MP? TM live better than all albums except from 2112-MP? No way that's the view of the non-fan. Even fans barely can deal with the TM live vocals.

 

Chart numbers don't mean anything. Rush albums go to top 3 because it's Rush before anyone hears note one.

 

Of course rateyourmusic doesn't differentiate between non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, but it's a safe bet with that big of sampling that it's an effective consensus view of what a mix of all those groups thinks of every album compared to their other ones. If I polled a thousand people and asked them 1 to 10 what they thought of an album, you actually think that data is less relavant than how many copies the album sold or its chart position was? There are just too many factors that can play into that - the timing of an album release with what genres are popular, the current popularity of a band, one hit song that catches on or doesn't, the economy and shifting tides in how people buy music, etc. - it's really pretty meaningless in terms of actual album quality or in determining what most pepole think of it.

 

I was talking about chart positions on radio stations, and your argument regarding first week sales reenforces my point.

 

I would agree that a randomized sample would be a better indicator of how people now feel about the album (as opposed to how they felt when it was released), but that's not what we have. There is a self-selected group of people rating the albums on that site, and the ratings for GuP live (which I doubt any casuals or non-fans ever even heard of) and the TM live prove to me beyond any doubt that the vast majority of voters are hardcore.

 

The GUP live has a lot less votes than their other albums - the more well known the album, the more votes it seems to have. Anyway, if you want to totally discard those numbers, feel free - to me they're extremely telling.

 

I agree that they are telling, but they tell me how rush fans rank the albums, not what casuals and non-fans think of them.

[rushgoober]

LedRush wrote: Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

 

I suppose I should have said any non-Rush devotee with tastes remotely like mine or others I know. I have several friends who don't like Rush in general, but they think VT and S&A is at least ok, while they can't stomach the late '80's and '90's stuff; I remember a couple of them laughing at Roll the Bones' rap.

 

As well, Signals and RtB were released while Rush was in their commercial prime, unlike VT and S&A. Also, they were supported by singles, and Signals was carried (arguably) by the broad appeal won by Moving Pictures; doesn't mean people in general thought Signals and RtB were really appealing albums (maybe many did; people like Matchbox 20 and Creed, so who knows).

 

Lastly, comparing album sales b/t the age of download and pre-download isn't really valid, is it? How about this: acc to Wikipedia's Rush Discography page, VT and S&A went to #3 in Canada, and #6 and #3 in the U.S. Compare that to Signals (#1 CAN and #10 US) and RtB (#11 and #3). So I'd say comparing apples to apples (sales strength relative to the market), VT/S&A arguably did better than Signals/RtB. In fact, only Moving Pictures at 1 and 3 and CA at 1 and 2 did better. So not only is my opinion close to being accurate, I think it arguably is accurate.

 

RTB came after almost a decade of decreasing album sales...HYF and Presto were the only two albums not to go platinum since Caress of Steel. RTB reversed that trend.

 

And while it is true that people buy less albums nowadays, if you buy the digital version of the entire album, I believe it still counts as an album sale. Also, they changed what it takes to get into the top for a release, and Rush, as is typical of cult bands, sells a shitload the first weak and then sales trickle. That is a measure of the hardcore, not the measure of the casuals. Those sales are measured in the coming weeks as word of mouth, radio, or internet induce more people to buy. That's how RTB went platinum, and that's why S&A will never go gold.

 

And the band did release singles from those albums, it's just that no one liked them. RTB had 4 singles in the top 15, and Signals had 3 in the top 20. Despite releasing 7 singles from VT and S&A, only 4 charted and only one was top 20. And radio is different nowadays. It is much easier to chart in the US Main category now as there is so much less competition as the format and genre becomes decreasingly popular as music continues to fragment into more and more niches.

 

The position that casual fans like VT and S&A more than the band's 1982-96 output is very, very unlikely to be true as it just isn't supported by much evidence.

 

You really can't use album sales as a barometer. RTB got lucky - it was released at the right time, and Dreamline and the title track took off in rock radio airplay resulting in album sales. Most Rush fans would agree though that RTB is a weaker album than a lot of albums that didn't sell as well. Album sales have a lot of ephemeral factors involved that often doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the music.

 

If you really want to know what a majority of people think about Rush albums; non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, go to the rateyourmusic.com page for Rush where every studio album has had at least 1,000 numerical ratings attached to it and you'll get a consensus opinion: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

Sales figures and chart numbers are very good indicators of how the casuals and non-fans view the band. It's no surprise that the casuals clamor for songs off the best selling albums while us hardcore look for the rarely played jems.

 

And there's no way that site represents casuals and non-fans? GuP live better ranked than every studio album save MP? TM live better than all albums except from 2112-MP? No way that's the view of the non-fan. Even fans barely can deal with the TM live vocals.

 

Chart numbers don't mean anything. Rush albums go to top 3 because it's Rush before anyone hears note one.

 

Of course rateyourmusic doesn't differentiate between non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, but it's a safe bet with that big of sampling that it's an effective consensus view of what a mix of all those groups thinks of every album compared to their other ones. If I polled a thousand people and asked them 1 to 10 what they thought of an album, you actually think that data is less relavant than how many copies the album sold or its chart position was? There are just too many factors that can play into that - the timing of an album release with what genres are popular, the current popularity of a band, one hit song that catches on or doesn't, the economy and shifting tides in how people buy music, etc. - it's really pretty meaningless in terms of actual album quality or in determining what most pepole think of it.

 

I was talking about chart positions on radio stations, and your argument regarding first week sales reenforces my point.

 

I would agree that a randomized sample would be a better indicator of how people now feel about the album (as opposed to how they felt when it was released), but that's not what we have. There is a self-selected group of people rating the albums on that site, and the ratings for GuP live (which I doubt any casuals or non-fans ever even heard of) and the TM live prove to me beyond any doubt that the vast majority of voters are hardcore.

 

The GUP live has a lot less votes than their other albums - the more well known the album, the more votes it seems to have. Anyway, if you want to totally discard those numbers, feel free - to me they're extremely telling.

 

I agree that they are telling, but they tell me how rush fans rank the albums, not what casuals and non-fans think of them.

 

I know for a fact it includes more than just hardcore fans. Why? Becuase I, like so many pepole, have rated a LOT of albums on rateyourmusic - some by groups I love, some by groups I like, some I don't like, and it's always a fair assessment of what I think of that particular album. I've met a lot of people who post on rateyourmusic who do exactly the same thing. Somewhat of a moot point, but still...

[LedRush]

LedRush wrote: Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

 

I suppose I should have said any non-Rush devotee with tastes remotely like mine or others I know. I have several friends who don't like Rush in general, but they think VT and S&A is at least ok, while they can't stomach the late '80's and '90's stuff; I remember a couple of them laughing at Roll the Bones' rap.

 

As well, Signals and RtB were released while Rush was in their commercial prime, unlike VT and S&A. Also, they were supported by singles, and Signals was carried (arguably) by the broad appeal won by Moving Pictures; doesn't mean people in general thought Signals and RtB were really appealing albums (maybe many did; people like Matchbox 20 and Creed, so who knows).

 

Lastly, comparing album sales b/t the age of download and pre-download isn't really valid, is it? How about this: acc to Wikipedia's Rush Discography page, VT and S&A went to #3 in Canada, and #6 and #3 in the U.S. Compare that to Signals (#1 CAN and #10 US) and RtB (#11 and #3). So I'd say comparing apples to apples (sales strength relative to the market), VT/S&A arguably did better than Signals/RtB. In fact, only Moving Pictures at 1 and 3 and CA at 1 and 2 did better. So not only is my opinion close to being accurate, I think it arguably is accurate.

 

RTB came after almost a decade of decreasing album sales...HYF and Presto were the only two albums not to go platinum since Caress of Steel. RTB reversed that trend.

 

And while it is true that people buy less albums nowadays, if you buy the digital version of the entire album, I believe it still counts as an album sale. Also, they changed what it takes to get into the top for a release, and Rush, as is typical of cult bands, sells a shitload the first weak and then sales trickle. That is a measure of the hardcore, not the measure of the casuals. Those sales are measured in the coming weeks as word of mouth, radio, or internet induce more people to buy. That's how RTB went platinum, and that's why S&A will never go gold.

 

And the band did release singles from those albums, it's just that no one liked them. RTB had 4 singles in the top 15, and Signals had 3 in the top 20. Despite releasing 7 singles from VT and S&A, only 4 charted and only one was top 20. And radio is different nowadays. It is much easier to chart in the US Main category now as there is so much less competition as the format and genre becomes decreasingly popular as music continues to fragment into more and more niches.

 

The position that casual fans like VT and S&A more than the band's 1982-96 output is very, very unlikely to be true as it just isn't supported by much evidence.

 

You really can't use album sales as a barometer. RTB got lucky - it was released at the right time, and Dreamline and the title track took off in rock radio airplay resulting in album sales. Most Rush fans would agree though that RTB is a weaker album than a lot of albums that didn't sell as well. Album sales have a lot of ephemeral factors involved that often doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the music.

 

If you really want to know what a majority of people think about Rush albums; non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, go to the rateyourmusic.com page for Rush where every studio album has had at least 1,000 numerical ratings attached to it and you'll get a consensus opinion: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

Sales figures and chart numbers are very good indicators of how the casuals and non-fans view the band. It's no surprise that the casuals clamor for songs off the best selling albums while us hardcore look for the rarely played jems.

 

And there's no way that site represents casuals and non-fans? GuP live better ranked than every studio album save MP? TM live better than all albums except from 2112-MP? No way that's the view of the non-fan. Even fans barely can deal with the TM live vocals.

 

Chart numbers don't mean anything. Rush albums go to top 3 because it's Rush before anyone hears note one.

 

Of course rateyourmusic doesn't differentiate between non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, but it's a safe bet with that big of sampling that it's an effective consensus view of what a mix of all those groups thinks of every album compared to their other ones. If I polled a thousand people and asked them 1 to 10 what they thought of an album, you actually think that data is less relavant than how many copies the album sold or its chart position was? There are just too many factors that can play into that - the timing of an album release with what genres are popular, the current popularity of a band, one hit song that catches on or doesn't, the economy and shifting tides in how people buy music, etc. - it's really pretty meaningless in terms of actual album quality or in determining what most pepole think of it.

 

I was talking about chart positions on radio stations, and your argument regarding first week sales reenforces my point.

 

I would agree that a randomized sample would be a better indicator of how people now feel about the album (as opposed to how they felt when it was released), but that's not what we have. There is a self-selected group of people rating the albums on that site, and the ratings for GuP live (which I doubt any casuals or non-fans ever even heard of) and the TM live prove to me beyond any doubt that the vast majority of voters are hardcore.

 

The GUP live has a lot less votes than their other albums - the more well known the album, the more votes it seems to have. Anyway, if you want to totally discard those numbers, feel free - to me they're extremely telling.

 

I agree that they are telling, but they tell me how rush fans rank the albums, not what casuals and non-fans think of them.

 

I know for a fact it includes more than just hardcore fans. Why? Becuase I, like so many pepole, have rated a LOT of albums on rateyourmusic - some by groups I love, some by groups I like, some I don't like, and it's always a fair assessment of what I think of that particular album. I've met a lot of people who post on rateyourmusic who do exactly the same thing. Somewhat of a moot point, but still...

 

But that doesn't make the sampling any more scientific. This type of self-selection bias virtually guarantees that the poll doesn't not reflect the people at large.

 

And I've never argued that the ratings are exclusively from hardcore fans. I just believe there is a systematic bias to vastly over represent that group, and I think the evidence supports that basic polling truth.

Edited June 20, 2013 by LedRush

[rushgoober]

LedRush wrote: Well, RTB obviously reached many more people, and ditto for Signals. And seeing as you picked the first two albums by Rush to NOT go Gold, I somehow doubt that your opinion is close to being accurate.

 

I suppose I should have said any non-Rush devotee with tastes remotely like mine or others I know. I have several friends who don't like Rush in general, but they think VT and S&A is at least ok, while they can't stomach the late '80's and '90's stuff; I remember a couple of them laughing at Roll the Bones' rap.

 

As well, Signals and RtB were released while Rush was in their commercial prime, unlike VT and S&A. Also, they were supported by singles, and Signals was carried (arguably) by the broad appeal won by Moving Pictures; doesn't mean people in general thought Signals and RtB were really appealing albums (maybe many did; people like Matchbox 20 and Creed, so who knows).

 

Lastly, comparing album sales b/t the age of download and pre-download isn't really valid, is it? How about this: acc to Wikipedia's Rush Discography page, VT and S&A went to #3 in Canada, and #6 and #3 in the U.S. Compare that to Signals (#1 CAN and #10 US) and RtB (#11 and #3). So I'd say comparing apples to apples (sales strength relative to the market), VT/S&A arguably did better than Signals/RtB. In fact, only Moving Pictures at 1 and 3 and CA at 1 and 2 did better. So not only is my opinion close to being accurate, I think it arguably is accurate.

 

RTB came after almost a decade of decreasing album sales...HYF and Presto were the only two albums not to go platinum since Caress of Steel. RTB reversed that trend.

 

And while it is true that people buy less albums nowadays, if you buy the digital version of the entire album, I believe it still counts as an album sale. Also, they changed what it takes to get into the top for a release, and Rush, as is typical of cult bands, sells a shitload the first weak and then sales trickle. That is a measure of the hardcore, not the measure of the casuals. Those sales are measured in the coming weeks as word of mouth, radio, or internet induce more people to buy. That's how RTB went platinum, and that's why S&A will never go gold.

 

And the band did release singles from those albums, it's just that no one liked them. RTB had 4 singles in the top 15, and Signals had 3 in the top 20. Despite releasing 7 singles from VT and S&A, only 4 charted and only one was top 20. And radio is different nowadays. It is much easier to chart in the US Main category now as there is so much less competition as the format and genre becomes decreasingly popular as music continues to fragment into more and more niches.

 

The position that casual fans like VT and S&A more than the band's 1982-96 output is very, very unlikely to be true as it just isn't supported by much evidence.

 

You really can't use album sales as a barometer. RTB got lucky - it was released at the right time, and Dreamline and the title track took off in rock radio airplay resulting in album sales. Most Rush fans would agree though that RTB is a weaker album than a lot of albums that didn't sell as well. Album sales have a lot of ephemeral factors involved that often doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the music.

 

If you really want to know what a majority of people think about Rush albums; non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, go to the rateyourmusic.com page for Rush where every studio album has had at least 1,000 numerical ratings attached to it and you'll get a consensus opinion: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

Sales figures and chart numbers are very good indicators of how the casuals and non-fans view the band. It's no surprise that the casuals clamor for songs off the best selling albums while us hardcore look for the rarely played jems.

 

And there's no way that site represents casuals and non-fans? GuP live better ranked than every studio album save MP? TM live better than all albums except from 2112-MP? No way that's the view of the non-fan. Even fans barely can deal with the TM live vocals.

 

Chart numbers don't mean anything. Rush albums go to top 3 because it's Rush before anyone hears note one.

 

Of course rateyourmusic doesn't differentiate between non-fans, casual fans and hardcore fans, but it's a safe bet with that big of sampling that it's an effective consensus view of what a mix of all those groups thinks of every album compared to their other ones. If I polled a thousand people and asked them 1 to 10 what they thought of an album, you actually think that data is less relavant than how many copies the album sold or its chart position was? There are just too many factors that can play into that - the timing of an album release with what genres are popular, the current popularity of a band, one hit song that catches on or doesn't, the economy and shifting tides in how people buy music, etc. - it's really pretty meaningless in terms of actual album quality or in determining what most pepole think of it.

 

I was talking about chart positions on radio stations, and your argument regarding first week sales reenforces my point.

 

I would agree that a randomized sample would be a better indicator of how people now feel about the album (as opposed to how they felt when it was released), but that's not what we have. There is a self-selected group of people rating the albums on that site, and the ratings for GuP live (which I doubt any casuals or non-fans ever even heard of) and the TM live prove to me beyond any doubt that the vast majority of voters are hardcore.

 

The GUP live has a lot less votes than their other albums - the more well known the album, the more votes it seems to have. Anyway, if you want to totally discard those numbers, feel free - to me they're extremely telling.

 

I agree that they are telling, but they tell me how rush fans rank the albums, not what casuals and non-fans think of them.

 

I know for a fact it includes more than just hardcore fans. Why? Becuase I, like so many pepole, have rated a LOT of albums on rateyourmusic - some by groups I love, some by groups I like, some I don't like, and it's always a fair assessment of what I think of that particular album. I've met a lot of people who post on rateyourmusic who do exactly the same thing. Somewhat of a moot point, but still...

 

But that doesn't make the sampling any more scientific. This type of self-selection bias virtually guarantees that the poll doesn't not reflect the people at large.

 

And I've never argued that the ratings are exclusively from hardcore fans. I just believe there is a systematic bias to vastly over represent that group, and I think the evidence supports that basic polling truth.

 

:eyeroll:

 

anyway...

[Retrospective]

CARVE AWAY THE STONE! :haz:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:outtahere:

[Na na na]

CARVE AWAY THE STONE! :haz:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:outtahere:

 

GREAT RUSH SONG !!!