The Counterparts appreciation thread

[LedRush]

I'm going to vent a teeny weeny bit here. You see, I don't quite follow the thinking of Rush 'going back to form' or 'going back to their roots' or 'the best album since Moving Pictures' kind of stuff. I think of Rush as an ultimate progressive band - their sound is constantly progressing through time. I like that there's so much to choose from on their vast canvas of musical art. So, I don't think of Counterparts as, say, 'a step backwards for all the right reasons' - it's a progression of sound for the band. The boys wanted more guitars and a rock-ier feel to the album, so they did that. I don't think there was conscious thought of, "well, let's go backwards, musically, and do what we've done before, because that was good."

 

This isn't speaking just of Counterparts, of course, but also of the deserved praise that's been lauded on Clockwork Angels as being "the best album since Moving Pictures / Signals / Power Windows / Counterparts". I don't tend to like albums being pitted against each other, as if every album in between 'the best' are insignificant in comparison. Each album Rush has done has a unique flavour, and I enjoy them all, for varying reasons. I don't need to categorize them into "the best since..." or "a return to guitars". Maybe I'm less analytical about these kind of things, and just go with the flow when it comes to listening to my music.

 

Anyway. I'm not begrudging anyone that says these kinds of things, I'm just sharing what I think. I find I enjoy music more if I don't categorize it too much, or pick it apart, or label it. And, obviously I have preferences of some albums over others (as I'm sure I've shown through my love of Counterparts and Vapor Trails!), but, like children, I don't feel a blatant favouring of one over another; don't want to make the others jealous, !

 

I think this is kind of why I've never been overly fond of the 'Bastille Day' bass noodle in 'Headlong Flight' - it's a good bass part, but it's already been done; to me, it's kind of like going backwards to do something again, instead of coming up with something new: progressing.

 

Anyway. I'm happy to have my ability to do paragraphs back again. And I'll finish by saying: 'Speed of Love' has been growing on me - I like the moody low-end synths (I think it's synths) that is heard after the first lines of the verses. And the building-up drumming during the "Got to keep on moving..." parts. :)

 

Posts that are in a similar vein to yours that essentially say "all rush albums are great" or "i can find something to love in all rush albums" or "i don't like comparing" or "they were always doing what was natural to them at the time and it's great that rush is always changing and not trying to do what they did before" or some such are always popular. they always get a lot of likes.

 

the more realistic truth for many of us is simply that some rush albums are better than others. some are a LOT better than others. i wish i could say that every album they've done since the late 80's was great, some greater than others and not be analytical or judgmental or whatever, but the sad truth of it for me at least is that some of their albums have sucked in the last 25 years. some have REALLY sucked. and some have been great. i can't just gloss over that fact.

 

i felt similarly to you with their 1974-1987 period, because even though every album from that period wasn't as amazing as every other one, they were all truly great and for the most part remarkably consistent. it was a hell of a run. since then, however, it's been hit and miss.

 

I'm sort of halfway between these two viewpoints. I think that some of Rush's albums are pretty lame, but I appreciate and respect the fact that Rush has always sought to evolve and to pursue what interested them the most. I find that seeking and adventurous creative spirit to be healthy and inspiring, even though I don't always like the results. Therefore, although there might be Rush albums that I don't care for, I believe that every album that Rush has made has value.

 

Agreed. The middle ground may be boring, but it often makes the most sense.

[Mika]

Not to get the thread off-track but I don't understand the hate by some for The Trees. I've always thought that it was brilliant and inventive.

Hey, it's your thread! I read it as a poem in my high school speech class and got an A. :codger:

Another good ^^vid^^, btw. I hope you can find a great live version of Alien Shore before all is said and done. :outtahere:

 

You used it in school, too? So did my brother! Except he passed it off as his own. He had to write a poem, don't remember the criteria, and used 'The Trees'. And got a great mark. I assume his teacher wasn't a Rush fan....

[Ged Lent's sis]

Not to get the thread off-track but I don't understand the hate by some for The Trees. I've always thought that it was brilliant and inventive.

Hey, it's your thread! I read it as a poem in my high school speech class and got an A. :codger:

Another good ^^vid^^, btw. I hope you can find a great live version of Alien Shore before all is said and done. :outtahere:

 

You used it in school, too? So did my brother! Except he passed it off as his own. He had to write a poem, don't remember the criteria, and used 'The Trees'. And got a great mark. I assume his teacher wasn't a Rush fan....

Yeah. The album was already about four years old at that point, so it wasn't getting max radio play or anything. And, in a way, I did kind of try to pass it off as my own, too. That is, had one of the class not asked about it, I wouldn't have said where it came from. At any rate, it was speech class, and the exercise was about delivery and not writing, so I got marko numero uno on it.

 

I wish I were in high school now, I would read something from Counterparts*. Oh, hell, I just wish I were in high school now. :dweez:

*(that's my gratuitous way of keeping the thread on topic;)

[rushgoober]

I'm going to vent a teeny weeny bit here. You see, I don't quite follow the thinking of Rush 'going back to form' or 'going back to their roots' or 'the best album since Moving Pictures' kind of stuff. I think of Rush as an ultimate progressive band - their sound is constantly progressing through time. I like that there's so much to choose from on their vast canvas of musical art. So, I don't think of Counterparts as, say, 'a step backwards for all the right reasons' - it's a progression of sound for the band. The boys wanted more guitars and a rock-ier feel to the album, so they did that. I don't think there was conscious thought of, "well, let's go backwards, musically, and do what we've done before, because that was good."

 

This isn't speaking just of Counterparts, of course, but also of the deserved praise that's been lauded on Clockwork Angels as being "the best album since Moving Pictures / Signals / Power Windows / Counterparts". I don't tend to like albums being pitted against each other, as if every album in between 'the best' are insignificant in comparison. Each album Rush has done has a unique flavour, and I enjoy them all, for varying reasons. I don't need to categorize them into "the best since..." or "a return to guitars". Maybe I'm less analytical about these kind of things, and just go with the flow when it comes to listening to my music.

 

Anyway. I'm not begrudging anyone that says these kinds of things, I'm just sharing what I think. I find I enjoy music more if I don't categorize it too much, or pick it apart, or label it. And, obviously I have preferences of some albums over others (as I'm sure I've shown through my love of Counterparts and Vapor Trails!), but, like children, I don't feel a blatant favouring of one over another; don't want to make the others jealous, !

 

I think this is kind of why I've never been overly fond of the 'Bastille Day' bass noodle in 'Headlong Flight' - it's a good bass part, but it's already been done; to me, it's kind of like going backwards to do something again, instead of coming up with something new: progressing.

 

Anyway. I'm happy to have my ability to do paragraphs back again. And I'll finish by saying: 'Speed of Love' has been growing on me - I like the moody low-end synths (I think it's synths) that is heard after the first lines of the verses. And the building-up drumming during the "Got to keep on moving..." parts. :)

 

Posts that are in a similar vein to yours that essentially say "all rush albums are great" or "i can find something to love in all rush albums" or "i don't like comparing" or "they were always doing what was natural to them at the time and it's great that rush is always changing and not trying to do what they did before" or some such are always popular. they always get a lot of likes.

 

the more realistic truth for many of us is simply that some rush albums are better than others. some are a LOT better than others. i wish i could say that every album they've done since the late 80's was great, some greater than others and not be analytical or judgmental or whatever, but the sad truth of it for me at least is that some of their albums have sucked in the last 25 years. some have REALLY sucked. and some have been great. i can't just gloss over that fact.

 

i felt similarly to you with their 1974-1987 period, because even though every album from that period wasn't as amazing as every other one, they were all truly great and for the most part remarkably consistent. it was a hell of a run. since then, however, it's been hit and miss.

 

I'm sort of halfway between these two viewpoints. I think that some of Rush's albums are pretty lame, but I appreciate and respect the fact that Rush has always sought to evolve and to pursue what interested them the most. I find that seeking and adventurous creative spirit to be healthy and inspiring, even though I don't always like the results. Therefore, although there might be Rush albums that I don't care for, I believe that every album that Rush has made has value.

 

Agreed. The middle ground may be boring, but it often makes the most sense.

 

except when it doesn't.

 

i find value in what has value, and unfortunately there are a few rush albums (4 to be precise) that have little or no value. i can appreciate and respect too that they were always trying, but the proof is in the pudding.

 

i'm just glad (and amazed, quite frankly) that after two not very good albums they came back with the excellent CP, and then after two even worse albums, they came back with two great ones in S&A and especially CA. most groups can't come back like that once, much less twice.

[LedRush]

I'm going to vent a teeny weeny bit here. You see, I don't quite follow the thinking of Rush 'going back to form' or 'going back to their roots' or 'the best album since Moving Pictures' kind of stuff. I think of Rush as an ultimate progressive band - their sound is constantly progressing through time. I like that there's so much to choose from on their vast canvas of musical art. So, I don't think of Counterparts as, say, 'a step backwards for all the right reasons' - it's a progression of sound for the band. The boys wanted more guitars and a rock-ier feel to the album, so they did that. I don't think there was conscious thought of, "well, let's go backwards, musically, and do what we've done before, because that was good."

 

This isn't speaking just of Counterparts, of course, but also of the deserved praise that's been lauded on Clockwork Angels as being "the best album since Moving Pictures / Signals / Power Windows / Counterparts". I don't tend to like albums being pitted against each other, as if every album in between 'the best' are insignificant in comparison. Each album Rush has done has a unique flavour, and I enjoy them all, for varying reasons. I don't need to categorize them into "the best since..." or "a return to guitars". Maybe I'm less analytical about these kind of things, and just go with the flow when it comes to listening to my music.

 

Anyway. I'm not begrudging anyone that says these kinds of things, I'm just sharing what I think. I find I enjoy music more if I don't categorize it too much, or pick it apart, or label it. And, obviously I have preferences of some albums over others (as I'm sure I've shown through my love of Counterparts and Vapor Trails!), but, like children, I don't feel a blatant favouring of one over another; don't want to make the others jealous, !

 

I think this is kind of why I've never been overly fond of the 'Bastille Day' bass noodle in 'Headlong Flight' - it's a good bass part, but it's already been done; to me, it's kind of like going backwards to do something again, instead of coming up with something new: progressing.

 

Anyway. I'm happy to have my ability to do paragraphs back again. And I'll finish by saying: 'Speed of Love' has been growing on me - I like the moody low-end synths (I think it's synths) that is heard after the first lines of the verses. And the building-up drumming during the "Got to keep on moving..." parts. :)

 

Posts that are in a similar vein to yours that essentially say "all rush albums are great" or "i can find something to love in all rush albums" or "i don't like comparing" or "they were always doing what was natural to them at the time and it's great that rush is always changing and not trying to do what they did before" or some such are always popular. they always get a lot of likes.

 

the more realistic truth for many of us is simply that some rush albums are better than others. some are a LOT better than others. i wish i could say that every album they've done since the late 80's was great, some greater than others and not be analytical or judgmental or whatever, but the sad truth of it for me at least is that some of their albums have sucked in the last 25 years. some have REALLY sucked. and some have been great. i can't just gloss over that fact.

 

i felt similarly to you with their 1974-1987 period, because even though every album from that period wasn't as amazing as every other one, they were all truly great and for the most part remarkably consistent. it was a hell of a run. since then, however, it's been hit and miss.

 

I'm sort of halfway between these two viewpoints. I think that some of Rush's albums are pretty lame, but I appreciate and respect the fact that Rush has always sought to evolve and to pursue what interested them the most. I find that seeking and adventurous creative spirit to be healthy and inspiring, even though I don't always like the results. Therefore, although there might be Rush albums that I don't care for, I believe that every album that Rush has made has value.

 

Agreed. The middle ground may be boring, but it often makes the most sense.

 

except when it doesn't.

 

i find value in what has value, and unfortunately there are a few rush albums (4 to be precise) that have little or no value. i can appreciate and respect too that they were always trying, but the proof is in the pudding.

 

i'm just glad (and amazed, quite frankly) that after two not very good albums they came back with the excellent CP, and then after two even worse albums, they came back with two great ones in S&A and especially CA. most groups can't come back like that once, much less twice.

 

We l know of your extremist views on this. "This album suck more than Yoko Ono...the next album is exceptional, the next sucks more than Kenny G kicking me in the nuts".

 

I'm more bothered when you pretend your views are widely held.

[coventry]

I'm going to vent a teeny weeny bit here. You see, I don't quite follow the thinking of Rush 'going back to form' or 'going back to their roots' or 'the best album since Moving Pictures' kind of stuff. I think of Rush as an ultimate progressive band - their sound is constantly progressing through time. I like that there's so much to choose from on their vast canvas of musical art. So, I don't think of Counterparts as, say, 'a step backwards for all the right reasons' - it's a progression of sound for the band. The boys wanted more guitars and a rock-ier feel to the album, so they did that. I don't think there was conscious thought of, "well, let's go backwards, musically, and do what we've done before, because that was good."

 

This isn't speaking just of Counterparts, of course, but also of the deserved praise that's been lauded on Clockwork Angels as being "the best album since Moving Pictures / Signals / Power Windows / Counterparts". I don't tend to like albums being pitted against each other, as if every album in between 'the best' are insignificant in comparison. Each album Rush has done has a unique flavour, and I enjoy them all, for varying reasons. I don't need to categorize them into "the best since..." or "a return to guitars". Maybe I'm less analytical about these kind of things, and just go with the flow when it comes to listening to my music.

 

Anyway. I'm not begrudging anyone that says these kinds of things, I'm just sharing what I think. I find I enjoy music more if I don't categorize it too much, or pick it apart, or label it. And, obviously I have preferences of some albums over others (as I'm sure I've shown through my love of Counterparts and Vapor Trails!), but, like children, I don't feel a blatant favouring of one over another; don't want to make the others jealous, !

 

I think this is kind of why I've never been overly fond of the 'Bastille Day' bass noodle in 'Headlong Flight' - it's a good bass part, but it's already been done; to me, it's kind of like going backwards to do something again, instead of coming up with something new: progressing.

 

Anyway. I'm happy to have my ability to do paragraphs back again. And I'll finish by saying: 'Speed of Love' has been growing on me - I like the moody low-end synths (I think it's synths) that is heard after the first lines of the verses. And the building-up drumming during the "Got to keep on moving..." parts. :)

 

Posts that are in a similar vein to yours that essentially say "all rush albums are great" or "i can find something to love in all rush albums" or "i don't like comparing" or "they were always doing what was natural to them at the time and it's great that rush is always changing and not trying to do what they did before" or some such are always popular. they always get a lot of likes.

 

the more realistic truth for many of us is simply that some rush albums are better than others. some are a LOT better than others. i wish i could say that every album they've done since the late 80's was great, some greater than others and not be analytical or judgmental or whatever, but the sad truth of it for me at least is that some of their albums have sucked in the last 25 years. some have REALLY sucked. and some have been great. i can't just gloss over that fact.

 

i felt similarly to you with their 1974-1987 period, because even though every album from that period wasn't as amazing as every other one, they were all truly great and for the most part remarkably consistent. it was a hell of a run. since then, however, it's been hit and miss.

 

It's been hit or miss because the music hasn't conformed to your solidified schema of what you feel Rush should sound like. Mika's post wasn't saying "all Rush albums are great" - not at all, and I don't think she would agree to that. In fact, I think you missed her point that there IS no "return to form" because there never HAS been a form to begin with. You could argue that both MP and Signals are mastepieces in their own right, just as you could argue that CP is as close to the grunge zeitgeist as Rush could ever hope to come. But are any of those albums their "form"?

 

I mean, by eulogizing the 74-87 period, you're essentially deifying the first 13 years of artistic output while going on to poke holes in the next 26 years.

 

Seriously? Like there's any way you could compare qualitatively the songwriting and framework of PW versus CA. Those could have come from two different bands - and indeed they did, really, because there is no form, no mold or cast to compare them to.

 

Compare with The Police, musical geniuses in their own right. After Synchronicity, where else was there to go? They HAD solidified their sound to such an extent that they were locked into it. Anything they might have done after Sync would, in Sting's words, "have sounded like a band trying to be the Police."

 

Like Rush, though not as extreme or marked, U2 is another band that barely broke out of "their sound" to keep making interesting music that pushed their sonic soundprint forward.

[rushgoober]

I'm going to vent a teeny weeny bit here. You see, I don't quite follow the thinking of Rush 'going back to form' or 'going back to their roots' or 'the best album since Moving Pictures' kind of stuff. I think of Rush as an ultimate progressive band - their sound is constantly progressing through time. I like that there's so much to choose from on their vast canvas of musical art. So, I don't think of Counterparts as, say, 'a step backwards for all the right reasons' - it's a progression of sound for the band. The boys wanted more guitars and a rock-ier feel to the album, so they did that. I don't think there was conscious thought of, "well, let's go backwards, musically, and do what we've done before, because that was good."

 

This isn't speaking just of Counterparts, of course, but also of the deserved praise that's been lauded on Clockwork Angels as being "the best album since Moving Pictures / Signals / Power Windows / Counterparts". I don't tend to like albums being pitted against each other, as if every album in between 'the best' are insignificant in comparison. Each album Rush has done has a unique flavour, and I enjoy them all, for varying reasons. I don't need to categorize them into "the best since..." or "a return to guitars". Maybe I'm less analytical about these kind of things, and just go with the flow when it comes to listening to my music.

 

Anyway. I'm not begrudging anyone that says these kinds of things, I'm just sharing what I think. I find I enjoy music more if I don't categorize it too much, or pick it apart, or label it. And, obviously I have preferences of some albums over others (as I'm sure I've shown through my love of Counterparts and Vapor Trails!), but, like children, I don't feel a blatant favouring of one over another; don't want to make the others jealous, !

 

I think this is kind of why I've never been overly fond of the 'Bastille Day' bass noodle in 'Headlong Flight' - it's a good bass part, but it's already been done; to me, it's kind of like going backwards to do something again, instead of coming up with something new: progressing.

 

Anyway. I'm happy to have my ability to do paragraphs back again. And I'll finish by saying: 'Speed of Love' has been growing on me - I like the moody low-end synths (I think it's synths) that is heard after the first lines of the verses. And the building-up drumming during the "Got to keep on moving..." parts. :)

 

Posts that are in a similar vein to yours that essentially say "all rush albums are great" or "i can find something to love in all rush albums" or "i don't like comparing" or "they were always doing what was natural to them at the time and it's great that rush is always changing and not trying to do what they did before" or some such are always popular. they always get a lot of likes.

 

the more realistic truth for many of us is simply that some rush albums are better than others. some are a LOT better than others. i wish i could say that every album they've done since the late 80's was great, some greater than others and not be analytical or judgmental or whatever, but the sad truth of it for me at least is that some of their albums have sucked in the last 25 years. some have REALLY sucked. and some have been great. i can't just gloss over that fact.

 

i felt similarly to you with their 1974-1987 period, because even though every album from that period wasn't as amazing as every other one, they were all truly great and for the most part remarkably consistent. it was a hell of a run. since then, however, it's been hit and miss.

 

I'm sort of halfway between these two viewpoints. I think that some of Rush's albums are pretty lame, but I appreciate and respect the fact that Rush has always sought to evolve and to pursue what interested them the most. I find that seeking and adventurous creative spirit to be healthy and inspiring, even though I don't always like the results. Therefore, although there might be Rush albums that I don't care for, I believe that every album that Rush has made has value.

 

Agreed. The middle ground may be boring, but it often makes the most sense.

 

except when it doesn't.

 

i find value in what has value, and unfortunately there are a few rush albums (4 to be precise) that have little or no value. i can appreciate and respect too that they were always trying, but the proof is in the pudding.

 

i'm just glad (and amazed, quite frankly) that after two not very good albums they came back with the excellent CP, and then after two even worse albums, they came back with two great ones in S&A and especially CA. most groups can't come back like that once, much less twice.

 

We l know of your extremist views on this. "This album suck more than Yoko Ono...the next album is exceptional, the next sucks more than Kenny G kicking me in the nuts".

 

I'm more bothered when you pretend your views are widely held.

 

you did see the post with the data from rateyourmusic.com where over 1,000 people voted on each album, right? if not, i can post it again. ;)

 

oh yeah, they were self-selected people or some nonsense, and those figures can't possibly be accurate because they disagree with yours, right? :eyeroll:

 

anyway, it shows quite conclusively that the consensus opinion is that counterparts had a far higher rating than the two albums that came before it, and the two albums that came after it had even lower ratings than presto & rtb - then the two most recent albums shot back up again. that's EXACTLY how i see it.

 

of course on TRF consisting of rabid rush fans that will defend any rush album to death no matter how much the boys are farting around it might be a different matter, but i'm actually in the majority in terms of consensus opinion. you can disagree with my personal assessment of any given album, but the fact that i'm in the majority opinion as evidenced by over ONE THOUSAND people voting on each album is not up for debate. you can disagree with how the majority feels, but that's how the majority feels. the only place i'm particularly in the minority in terms of where rush albums are ranked is i think that their debut and HYF are incredibly underrated.

[rushgoober]

I'm going to vent a teeny weeny bit here. You see, I don't quite follow the thinking of Rush 'going back to form' or 'going back to their roots' or 'the best album since Moving Pictures' kind of stuff. I think of Rush as an ultimate progressive band - their sound is constantly progressing through time. I like that there's so much to choose from on their vast canvas of musical art. So, I don't think of Counterparts as, say, 'a step backwards for all the right reasons' - it's a progression of sound for the band. The boys wanted more guitars and a rock-ier feel to the album, so they did that. I don't think there was conscious thought of, "well, let's go backwards, musically, and do what we've done before, because that was good."

 

This isn't speaking just of Counterparts, of course, but also of the deserved praise that's been lauded on Clockwork Angels as being "the best album since Moving Pictures / Signals / Power Windows / Counterparts". I don't tend to like albums being pitted against each other, as if every album in between 'the best' are insignificant in comparison. Each album Rush has done has a unique flavour, and I enjoy them all, for varying reasons. I don't need to categorize them into "the best since..." or "a return to guitars". Maybe I'm less analytical about these kind of things, and just go with the flow when it comes to listening to my music.

 

Anyway. I'm not begrudging anyone that says these kinds of things, I'm just sharing what I think. I find I enjoy music more if I don't categorize it too much, or pick it apart, or label it. And, obviously I have preferences of some albums over others (as I'm sure I've shown through my love of Counterparts and Vapor Trails!), but, like children, I don't feel a blatant favouring of one over another; don't want to make the others jealous, !

 

I think this is kind of why I've never been overly fond of the 'Bastille Day' bass noodle in 'Headlong Flight' - it's a good bass part, but it's already been done; to me, it's kind of like going backwards to do something again, instead of coming up with something new: progressing.

 

Anyway. I'm happy to have my ability to do paragraphs back again. And I'll finish by saying: 'Speed of Love' has been growing on me - I like the moody low-end synths (I think it's synths) that is heard after the first lines of the verses. And the building-up drumming during the "Got to keep on moving..." parts. :)

 

Posts that are in a similar vein to yours that essentially say "all rush albums are great" or "i can find something to love in all rush albums" or "i don't like comparing" or "they were always doing what was natural to them at the time and it's great that rush is always changing and not trying to do what they did before" or some such are always popular. they always get a lot of likes.

 

the more realistic truth for many of us is simply that some rush albums are better than others. some are a LOT better than others. i wish i could say that every album they've done since the late 80's was great, some greater than others and not be analytical or judgmental or whatever, but the sad truth of it for me at least is that some of their albums have sucked in the last 25 years. some have REALLY sucked. and some have been great. i can't just gloss over that fact.

 

i felt similarly to you with their 1974-1987 period, because even though every album from that period wasn't as amazing as every other one, they were all truly great and for the most part remarkably consistent. it was a hell of a run. since then, however, it's been hit and miss.

 

It's been hit or miss because the music hasn't conformed to your solidified schema of what you feel Rush should sound like. Mika's post wasn't saying "all Rush albums are great" - not at all, and I don't think she would agree to that. In fact, I think you missed her point that there IS no "return to form" because there never HAS been a form to begin with. You could argue that both MP and Signals are mastepieces in their own right, just as you could argue that CP is as close to the grunge zeitgeist as Rush could ever hope to come. But are any of those albums their "form"?

 

The only criteria I have about what a Rush album SHOULD sound like is that it SHOULD be filled with great music. I love their debut hard rocking Zep album, their prog period, their synth period, their later heavier albums like CP & CA, etc. It doesn't have to have any kind of sound other than it being quality. Return to form means simply to me a return to great music from not great music.

 

I mean, by eulogizing the 74-87 period, you're essentially deifying the first 13 years of artistic output while going on to poke holes in the next 26 years."

 

 

Seriously? Like there's any way you could compare qualitatively the songwriting and framework of PW versus CA. Those could have come from two different bands - and indeed they did, really, because there is no form, no mold or cast to compare them to.."

 

Again, my only basis of comparison is GREAT ALBUM or NOT GREAT ALBUM. Hold Your Fire is a great album (for the most part), Presto & RTB are not, though they have their moments. Counterparts is a great album. T4E & VT are not. S&A (for the most part) and CA are great albums. Simple.

 

I appreciate you getting all philosophical about "return to form" but that's all that I'm meaning by it.

[LedRush]

I'm going to vent a teeny weeny bit here. You see, I don't quite follow the thinking of Rush 'going back to form' or 'going back to their roots' or 'the best album since Moving Pictures' kind of stuff. I think of Rush as an ultimate progressive band - their sound is constantly progressing through time. I like that there's so much to choose from on their vast canvas of musical art. So, I don't think of Counterparts as, say, 'a step backwards for all the right reasons' - it's a progression of sound for the band. The boys wanted more guitars and a rock-ier feel to the album, so they did that. I don't think there was conscious thought of, "well, let's go backwards, musically, and do what we've done before, because that was good."

 

This isn't speaking just of Counterparts, of course, but also of the deserved praise that's been lauded on Clockwork Angels as being "the best album since Moving Pictures / Signals / Power Windows / Counterparts". I don't tend to like albums being pitted against each other, as if every album in between 'the best' are insignificant in comparison. Each album Rush has done has a unique flavour, and I enjoy them all, for varying reasons. I don't need to categorize them into "the best since..." or "a return to guitars". Maybe I'm less analytical about these kind of things, and just go with the flow when it comes to listening to my music.

 

Anyway. I'm not begrudging anyone that says these kinds of things, I'm just sharing what I think. I find I enjoy music more if I don't categorize it too much, or pick it apart, or label it. And, obviously I have preferences of some albums over others (as I'm sure I've shown through my love of Counterparts and Vapor Trails!), but, like children, I don't feel a blatant favouring of one over another; don't want to make the others jealous, !

 

I think this is kind of why I've never been overly fond of the 'Bastille Day' bass noodle in 'Headlong Flight' - it's a good bass part, but it's already been done; to me, it's kind of like going backwards to do something again, instead of coming up with something new: progressing.

 

Anyway. I'm happy to have my ability to do paragraphs back again. And I'll finish by saying: 'Speed of Love' has been growing on me - I like the moody low-end synths (I think it's synths) that is heard after the first lines of the verses. And the building-up drumming during the "Got to keep on moving..." parts. :)

 

Posts that are in a similar vein to yours that essentially say "all rush albums are great" or "i can find something to love in all rush albums" or "i don't like comparing" or "they were always doing what was natural to them at the time and it's great that rush is always changing and not trying to do what they did before" or some such are always popular. they always get a lot of likes.

 

the more realistic truth for many of us is simply that some rush albums are better than others. some are a LOT better than others. i wish i could say that every album they've done since the late 80's was great, some greater than others and not be analytical or judgmental or whatever, but the sad truth of it for me at least is that some of their albums have sucked in the last 25 years. some have REALLY sucked. and some have been great. i can't just gloss over that fact.

 

i felt similarly to you with their 1974-1987 period, because even though every album from that period wasn't as amazing as every other one, they were all truly great and for the most part remarkably consistent. it was a hell of a run. since then, however, it's been hit and miss.

 

I'm sort of halfway between these two viewpoints. I think that some of Rush's albums are pretty lame, but I appreciate and respect the fact that Rush has always sought to evolve and to pursue what interested them the most. I find that seeking and adventurous creative spirit to be healthy and inspiring, even though I don't always like the results. Therefore, although there might be Rush albums that I don't care for, I believe that every album that Rush has made has value.

 

Agreed. The middle ground may be boring, but it often makes the most sense.

 

except when it doesn't.

 

i find value in what has value, and unfortunately there are a few rush albums (4 to be precise) that have little or no value. i can appreciate and respect too that they were always trying, but the proof is in the pudding.

 

i'm just glad (and amazed, quite frankly) that after two not very good albums they came back with the excellent CP, and then after two even worse albums, they came back with two great ones in S&A and especially CA. most groups can't come back like that once, much less twice.

 

We l know of your extremist views on this. "This album suck more than Yoko Ono...the next album is exceptional, the next sucks more than Kenny G kicking me in the nuts".

 

I'm more bothered when you pretend your views are widely held.

 

you did see the post with the data from rateyourmusic.com where over 1,000 people voted on each album, right? if not, i can post it again. ;)

 

oh yeah, they were self-selected people or some nonsense, and those figures can't possibly be accurate because they disagree with yours, right? :eyeroll:

 

anyway, it shows quite conclusively that the consensus opinion is that counterparts had a far higher rating than the two albums that came before it, and the two albums that came after it had even lower ratings than presto & rtb - then the two most recent albums shot back up again. that's EXACTLY how i see it.

 

of course on TRF consisting of rabid rush fans that will defend any rush album to death no matter how much the boys are farting around it might be a different matter, but i'm actually in the majority in terms of consensus opinion. you can disagree with my personal assessment of any given album, but the fact that i'm in the majority opinion as evidenced by over ONE THOUSAND people voting on each album is not up for debate. you can disagree with how the majority feels, but that's how the majority feels. the only place i'm particularly in the minority in terms of where rush albums are ranked is i think that their debut and HYF are incredibly underrated.

 

I love how you cling to the idea that 1000 self selected rush fans rate songs so it must be true, though you inability to process data is kinda sad, too. Even that data doesn't support your extremist views. Vapor Trails getting a 0.5 lower rating than Signals doesn't prove your belief that VT is an objectively horrible album. The decreasing scores during the synth era doesn't help your argument that the synth era isn't viewed by many to be a departure from form.

 

And in the conversation of how the fans and critics look at the albums, why not look at the reviews? Bat the interviews? At chart positions for singles? At how the albums sold? More sales doesn't mean more quality, but it does mean more fans like it (when taking into account variables like the evolving music distribution systems, etc.). When polling nearly 300 million people, 5,000/20,000% more than your tiny band of self-selectors voted with the time and money to buy the albums. Not just the 3 seconds to click a button on a small corner of a niche site.

 

When assessing how the band's music is perceived by all, I'd rather cast a wide net of info rather than rely on a minuscule subset of mostly hardcore fans to the exclusion of the vast majority of data available.

Edited July 11, 2013 by LedRush

[rushgoober]

I'm going to vent a teeny weeny bit here. You see, I don't quite follow the thinking of Rush 'going back to form' or 'going back to their roots' or 'the best album since Moving Pictures' kind of stuff. I think of Rush as an ultimate progressive band - their sound is constantly progressing through time. I like that there's so much to choose from on their vast canvas of musical art. So, I don't think of Counterparts as, say, 'a step backwards for all the right reasons' - it's a progression of sound for the band. The boys wanted more guitars and a rock-ier feel to the album, so they did that. I don't think there was conscious thought of, "well, let's go backwards, musically, and do what we've done before, because that was good."

 

This isn't speaking just of Counterparts, of course, but also of the deserved praise that's been lauded on Clockwork Angels as being "the best album since Moving Pictures / Signals / Power Windows / Counterparts". I don't tend to like albums being pitted against each other, as if every album in between 'the best' are insignificant in comparison. Each album Rush has done has a unique flavour, and I enjoy them all, for varying reasons. I don't need to categorize them into "the best since..." or "a return to guitars". Maybe I'm less analytical about these kind of things, and just go with the flow when it comes to listening to my music.

 

Anyway. I'm not begrudging anyone that says these kinds of things, I'm just sharing what I think. I find I enjoy music more if I don't categorize it too much, or pick it apart, or label it. And, obviously I have preferences of some albums over others (as I'm sure I've shown through my love of Counterparts and Vapor Trails!), but, like children, I don't feel a blatant favouring of one over another; don't want to make the others jealous, !

 

I think this is kind of why I've never been overly fond of the 'Bastille Day' bass noodle in 'Headlong Flight' - it's a good bass part, but it's already been done; to me, it's kind of like going backwards to do something again, instead of coming up with something new: progressing.

 

Anyway. I'm happy to have my ability to do paragraphs back again. And I'll finish by saying: 'Speed of Love' has been growing on me - I like the moody low-end synths (I think it's synths) that is heard after the first lines of the verses. And the building-up drumming during the "Got to keep on moving..." parts. :)

 

Posts that are in a similar vein to yours that essentially say "all rush albums are great" or "i can find something to love in all rush albums" or "i don't like comparing" or "they were always doing what was natural to them at the time and it's great that rush is always changing and not trying to do what they did before" or some such are always popular. they always get a lot of likes.

 

the more realistic truth for many of us is simply that some rush albums are better than others. some are a LOT better than others. i wish i could say that every album they've done since the late 80's was great, some greater than others and not be analytical or judgmental or whatever, but the sad truth of it for me at least is that some of their albums have sucked in the last 25 years. some have REALLY sucked. and some have been great. i can't just gloss over that fact.

 

i felt similarly to you with their 1974-1987 period, because even though every album from that period wasn't as amazing as every other one, they were all truly great and for the most part remarkably consistent. it was a hell of a run. since then, however, it's been hit and miss.

 

I'm sort of halfway between these two viewpoints. I think that some of Rush's albums are pretty lame, but I appreciate and respect the fact that Rush has always sought to evolve and to pursue what interested them the most. I find that seeking and adventurous creative spirit to be healthy and inspiring, even though I don't always like the results. Therefore, although there might be Rush albums that I don't care for, I believe that every album that Rush has made has value.

 

Agreed. The middle ground may be boring, but it often makes the most sense.

 

except when it doesn't.

 

i find value in what has value, and unfortunately there are a few rush albums (4 to be precise) that have little or no value. i can appreciate and respect too that they were always trying, but the proof is in the pudding.

 

i'm just glad (and amazed, quite frankly) that after two not very good albums they came back with the excellent CP, and then after two even worse albums, they came back with two great ones in S&A and especially CA. most groups can't come back like that once, much less twice.

 

We l know of your extremist views on this. "This album suck more than Yoko Ono...the next album is exceptional, the next sucks more than Kenny G kicking me in the nuts".

 

I'm more bothered when you pretend your views are widely held.

 

you did see the post with the data from rateyourmusic.com where over 1,000 people voted on each album, right? if not, i can post it again. ;)

 

oh yeah, they were self-selected people or some nonsense, and those figures can't possibly be accurate because they disagree with yours, right? :eyeroll:

 

anyway, it shows quite conclusively that the consensus opinion is that counterparts had a far higher rating than the two albums that came before it, and the two albums that came after it had even lower ratings than presto & rtb - then the two most recent albums shot back up again. that's EXACTLY how i see it.

 

of course on TRF consisting of rabid rush fans that will defend any rush album to death no matter how much the boys are farting around it might be a different matter, but i'm actually in the majority in terms of consensus opinion. you can disagree with my personal assessment of any given album, but the fact that i'm in the majority opinion as evidenced by over ONE THOUSAND people voting on each album is not up for debate. you can disagree with how the majority feels, but that's how the majority feels. the only place i'm particularly in the minority in terms of where rush albums are ranked is i think that their debut and HYF are incredibly underrated.

 

I love how you cling to the idea that 1000 self selected rush fans rate songs so it must be true, though you inability to process data is kinda sad, too. Even that data doesn't support your extremist views. Vapor Trails getting a 0.5 lower rating than Signals doesn't prove your belief that VT is an objectively horrible album.

 

Wow, you just made a whole lot of completely wrong assumptions. I'm not saying anything about objective opinion. I'm talking about CONSENSUS opinion. The consensus opinion matches mine. There obviously is no objective reality when it comes to art. All I'm saying is a majority of people share my views as to which albums are better than other albums.

 

And in the conversation of how the fans and critics look at the albums, why not look at the reviews? Bat the interviews? At chart positions for singles? At how the albums sold? More sales doesn't mean more quality, but it does mean more fans like it (when taking into account variables like the evolving music distribution systems, etc.). When polling nearly 300 million people, 5,000/20,000% more than your tiny band of self-selectors voted with the time and money to buy the albums. Not just the 3 seconds to click a button on a small corner of a niche site.

 

Really? I mean, REALLY? Album sales are completely meaningless as to album quality. Otherwise, the best album of all time is Thriller. No.

 

There are a dozen factors that factor into why any given album sells well or not. Is the Shawshank Redemption considered to be a crappy movie because it didn't do that well at the theaters? Is Titanic among the best movies of all time because it sold so many tickets? Come on.

 

Get those people who've actually heard the album to tell us what they think and I'll listen. That's why people look at rankings on IMDB or rottentomatoes - consensus opinion based on A LOT of real people who actually saw a movie or a tv show or heard an album is valuable. That's what I did - I showed you a place where over ONE THOUSAND people voted on each Rush album. No other webiste like that exists that I'm aware of. Your "self-selected" brush off statement is meaningless. Those are over 1,000 pepole who had no ulterior motive to vote in a way you didn't agree with. They voted because that's how they felt.

 

 

When assessing how the band's music is perceived by all, I'd rather cast a wide net of info rather than rely on a minuscule subset of mostly hardcore fans to the exclusion of the vast majority of data available.

 

Ok, please give me the link to a place online where well over a thousand people have voted on each album that displays different results. That's right, you can't because it doesn't exist. Disagree on your opinion of any given album or on the consensus opinion of people in general, but that still does NOT change the consensus opinion.

Edited July 11, 2013 by rushgoober

[coventry]

^^^^^^^

 

Thriller is a damn good album.

[GeddysMullet]

I'm going to vent a teeny weeny bit here. You see, I don't quite follow the thinking of Rush 'going back to form' or 'going back to their roots' or 'the best album since Moving Pictures' kind of stuff. I think of Rush as an ultimate progressive band - their sound is constantly progressing through time. I like that there's so much to choose from on their vast canvas of musical art. So, I don't think of Counterparts as, say, 'a step backwards for all the right reasons' - it's a progression of sound for the band. The boys wanted more guitars and a rock-ier feel to the album, so they did that. I don't think there was conscious thought of, "well, let's go backwards, musically, and do what we've done before, because that was good."

 

This isn't speaking just of Counterparts, of course, but also of the deserved praise that's been lauded on Clockwork Angels as being "the best album since Moving Pictures / Signals / Power Windows / Counterparts". I don't tend to like albums being pitted against each other, as if every album in between 'the best' are insignificant in comparison. Each album Rush has done has a unique flavour, and I enjoy them all, for varying reasons. I don't need to categorize them into "the best since..." or "a return to guitars". Maybe I'm less analytical about these kind of things, and just go with the flow when it comes to listening to my music.

 

Anyway. I'm not begrudging anyone that says these kinds of things, I'm just sharing what I think. I find I enjoy music more if I don't categorize it too much, or pick it apart, or label it. And, obviously I have preferences of some albums over others (as I'm sure I've shown through my love of Counterparts and Vapor Trails!), but, like children, I don't feel a blatant favouring of one over another; don't want to make the others jealous, !

 

I think this is kind of why I've never been overly fond of the 'Bastille Day' bass noodle in 'Headlong Flight' - it's a good bass part, but it's already been done; to me, it's kind of like going backwards to do something again, instead of coming up with something new: progressing.

 

Anyway. I'm happy to have my ability to do paragraphs back again. And I'll finish by saying: 'Speed of Love' has been growing on me - I like the moody low-end synths (I think it's synths) that is heard after the first lines of the verses. And the building-up drumming during the "Got to keep on moving..." parts. :)

 

Posts that are in a similar vein to yours that essentially say "all rush albums are great" or "i can find something to love in all rush albums" or "i don't like comparing" or "they were always doing what was natural to them at the time and it's great that rush is always changing and not trying to do what they did before" or some such are always popular. they always get a lot of likes.

 

the more realistic truth for many of us is simply that some rush albums are better than others. some are a LOT better than others. i wish i could say that every album they've done since the late 80's was great, some greater than others and not be analytical or judgmental or whatever, but the sad truth of it for me at least is that some of their albums have sucked in the last 25 years. some have REALLY sucked. and some have been great. i can't just gloss over that fact.

 

i felt similarly to you with their 1974-1987 period, because even though every album from that period wasn't as amazing as every other one, they were all truly great and for the most part remarkably consistent. it was a hell of a run. since then, however, it's been hit and miss.

 

I'm sort of halfway between these two viewpoints. I think that some of Rush's albums are pretty lame, but I appreciate and respect the fact that Rush has always sought to evolve and to pursue what interested them the most. I find that seeking and adventurous creative spirit to be healthy and inspiring, even though I don't always like the results. Therefore, although there might be Rush albums that I don't care for, I believe that every album that Rush has made has value.

 

Agreed. The middle ground may be boring, but it often makes the most sense.

 

except when it doesn't.

 

i find value in what has value, and unfortunately there are a few rush albums (4 to be precise) that have little or no value. i can appreciate and respect too that they were always trying, but the proof is in the pudding.

 

i'm just glad (and amazed, quite frankly) that after two not very good albums they came back with the excellent CP, and then after two even worse albums, they came back with two great ones in S&A and especially CA. most groups can't come back like that once, much less twice.

 

Perhaps I should add that there isn't a single Rush album on which there is absolutely nothing that I can appreciate? Every single Rush album, in my opinion, has at least something on it that I like. Therefore, every Rush album has value

 

Even those dire albums from the 90s, like Counterparts! ;)

[rushgoober]

^^^^^^^

 

Thriller is a damn good album.

 

 

i doubt there's many rush fans who consider it the best of all time. ;)

[LedRush]

I'm going to vent a teeny weeny bit here. You see, I don't quite follow the thinking of Rush 'going back to form' or 'going back to their roots' or 'the best album since Moving Pictures' kind of stuff. I think of Rush as an ultimate progressive band - their sound is constantly progressing through time. I like that there's so much to choose from on their vast canvas of musical art. So, I don't think of Counterparts as, say, 'a step backwards for all the right reasons' - it's a progression of sound for the band. The boys wanted more guitars and a rock-ier feel to the album, so they did that. I don't think there was conscious thought of, "well, let's go backwards, musically, and do what we've done before, because that was good."

 

This isn't speaking just of Counterparts, of course, but also of the deserved praise that's been lauded on Clockwork Angels as being "the best album since Moving Pictures / Signals / Power Windows / Counterparts". I don't tend to like albums being pitted against each other, as if every album in between 'the best' are insignificant in comparison. Each album Rush has done has a unique flavour, and I enjoy them all, for varying reasons. I don't need to categorize them into "the best since..." or "a return to guitars". Maybe I'm less analytical about these kind of things, and just go with the flow when it comes to listening to my music.

 

Anyway. I'm not begrudging anyone that says these kinds of things, I'm just sharing what I think. I find I enjoy music more if I don't categorize it too much, or pick it apart, or label it. And, obviously I have preferences of some albums over others (as I'm sure I've shown through my love of Counterparts and Vapor Trails!), but, like children, I don't feel a blatant favouring of one over another; don't want to make the others jealous, !

 

I think this is kind of why I've never been overly fond of the 'Bastille Day' bass noodle in 'Headlong Flight' - it's a good bass part, but it's already been done; to me, it's kind of like going backwards to do something again, instead of coming up with something new: progressing.

 

Anyway. I'm happy to have my ability to do paragraphs back again. And I'll finish by saying: 'Speed of Love' has been growing on me - I like the moody low-end synths (I think it's synths) that is heard after the first lines of the verses. And the building-up drumming during the "Got to keep on moving..." parts. :)

 

Posts that are in a similar vein to yours that essentially say "all rush albums are great" or "i can find something to love in all rush albums" or "i don't like comparing" or "they were always doing what was natural to them at the time and it's great that rush is always changing and not trying to do what they did before" or some such are always popular. they always get a lot of likes.

 

the more realistic truth for many of us is simply that some rush albums are better than others. some are a LOT better than others. i wish i could say that every album they've done since the late 80's was great, some greater than others and not be analytical or judgmental or whatever, but the sad truth of it for me at least is that some of their albums have sucked in the last 25 years. some have REALLY sucked. and some have been great. i can't just gloss over that fact.

 

i felt similarly to you with their 1974-1987 period, because even though every album from that period wasn't as amazing as every other one, they were all truly great and for the most part remarkably consistent. it was a hell of a run. since then, however, it's been hit and miss.

 

I'm sort of halfway between these two viewpoints. I think that some of Rush's albums are pretty lame, but I appreciate and respect the fact that Rush has always sought to evolve and to pursue what interested them the most. I find that seeking and adventurous creative spirit to be healthy and inspiring, even though I don't always like the results. Therefore, although there might be Rush albums that I don't care for, I believe that every album that Rush has made has value.

 

Agreed. The middle ground may be boring, but it often makes the most sense.

 

except when it doesn't.

 

i find value in what has value, and unfortunately there are a few rush albums (4 to be precise) that have little or no value. i can appreciate and respect too that they were always trying, but the proof is in the pudding.

 

i'm just glad (and amazed, quite frankly) that after two not very good albums they came back with the excellent CP, and then after two even worse albums, they came back with two great ones in S&A and especially CA. most groups can't come back like that once, much less twice.

 

We l know of your extremist views on this. "This album suck more than Yoko Ono...the next album is exceptional, the next sucks more than Kenny G kicking me in the nuts".

 

I'm more bothered when you pretend your views are widely held.

 

you did see the post with the data from rateyourmusic.com where over 1,000 people voted on each album, right? if not, i can post it again. ;)

 

oh yeah, they were self-selected people or some nonsense, and those figures can't possibly be accurate because they disagree with yours, right? :eyeroll:

 

anyway, it shows quite conclusively that the consensus opinion is that counterparts had a far higher rating than the two albums that came before it, and the two albums that came after it had even lower ratings than presto & rtb - then the two most recent albums shot back up again. that's EXACTLY how i see it.

 

of course on TRF consisting of rabid rush fans that will defend any rush album to death no matter how much the boys are farting around it might be a different matter, but i'm actually in the majority in terms of consensus opinion. you can disagree with my personal assessment of any given album, but the fact that i'm in the majority opinion as evidenced by over ONE THOUSAND people voting on each album is not up for debate. you can disagree with how the majority feels, but that's how the majority feels. the only place i'm particularly in the minority in terms of where rush albums are ranked is i think that their debut and HYF are incredibly underrated.

 

I love how you cling to the idea that 1000 self selected rush fans rate songs so it must be true, though you inability to process data is kinda sad, too. Even that data doesn't support your extremist views. Vapor Trails getting a 0.5 lower rating than Signals doesn't prove your belief that VT is an objectively horrible album.

 

Wow, you just made a whole lot of completely wrong assumptions. I'm not saying anything about objective opinion. I'm talking about CONSENSUS opinion. The consensus opinion matches mine. There obviously is no objective reality when it comes to art. All I'm saying is a majority of people share my views as to which albums are better than other albums.

 

And in the conversation of how the fans and critics look at the albums, why not look at the reviews? Bat the interviews? At chart positions for singles? At how the albums sold? More sales doesn't mean more quality, but it does mean more fans like it (when taking into account variables like the evolving music distribution systems, etc.). When polling nearly 300 million people, 5,000/20,000% more than your tiny band of self-selectors voted with the time and money to buy the albums. Not just the 3 seconds to click a button on a small corner of a niche site.

 

Really? I mean, REALLY? Album sales are completely meaningless as to album quality. Otherwise, the best album of all time is Thriller. No.

 

There are a dozen factors that factor into why any given album sells well or not. Is the Shawshank Redemption considered to be a crappy movie because it didn't do that well at the theaters? Is Titanic among the best movies of all time because it sold so many tickets? Come on.

 

Get those people who've actually heard the album to tell us what they think and I'll listen. That's why people look at rankings on IMDB or rottentomatoes - consensus opinion based on A LOT of real people who actually saw a movie or a tv show or heard an album is valuable. That's what I did - I showed you a place where over ONE THOUSAND people voted on each Rush album. No other webiste like that exists that I'm aware of. Your "self-selected" brush off statement is meaningless. Those are over 1,000 pepole who had no ulterior motive to vote in a way you didn't agree with. They voted because that's how they felt.

 

 

When assessing how the band's music is perceived by all, I'd rather cast a wide net of info rather than rely on a minuscule subset of mostly hardcore fans to the exclusion of the vast majority of data available.

 

Ok, please give me the link to a place online where well over a thousand people have voted on each album that displays different results. That's right, you can't because it doesn't exist. Disagree on your opinion of any given album or on the consensus opinion of people in general, but that still does NOT change the consensus opinion.

 

I will take the wide sampling of hundreds of millions, in addition to the arguments made by critics, the band, and other objective data on how well people view the album over a tiny subset of a fans on a remote corner of niche site any day. Anyone interested in getting an honest answer instead of one they mistakenly think supports their own would. (And your argument about quality is bizarre - I said sales do not equal quality.)

[rushgoober]

I'm going to vent a teeny weeny bit here. You see, I don't quite follow the thinking of Rush 'going back to form' or 'going back to their roots' or 'the best album since Moving Pictures' kind of stuff. I think of Rush as an ultimate progressive band - their sound is constantly progressing through time. I like that there's so much to choose from on their vast canvas of musical art. So, I don't think of Counterparts as, say, 'a step backwards for all the right reasons' - it's a progression of sound for the band. The boys wanted more guitars and a rock-ier feel to the album, so they did that. I don't think there was conscious thought of, "well, let's go backwards, musically, and do what we've done before, because that was good."

 

This isn't speaking just of Counterparts, of course, but also of the deserved praise that's been lauded on Clockwork Angels as being "the best album since Moving Pictures / Signals / Power Windows / Counterparts". I don't tend to like albums being pitted against each other, as if every album in between 'the best' are insignificant in comparison. Each album Rush has done has a unique flavour, and I enjoy them all, for varying reasons. I don't need to categorize them into "the best since..." or "a return to guitars". Maybe I'm less analytical about these kind of things, and just go with the flow when it comes to listening to my music.

 

Anyway. I'm not begrudging anyone that says these kinds of things, I'm just sharing what I think. I find I enjoy music more if I don't categorize it too much, or pick it apart, or label it. And, obviously I have preferences of some albums over others (as I'm sure I've shown through my love of Counterparts and Vapor Trails!), but, like children, I don't feel a blatant favouring of one over another; don't want to make the others jealous, !

 

I think this is kind of why I've never been overly fond of the 'Bastille Day' bass noodle in 'Headlong Flight' - it's a good bass part, but it's already been done; to me, it's kind of like going backwards to do something again, instead of coming up with something new: progressing.

 

Anyway. I'm happy to have my ability to do paragraphs back again. And I'll finish by saying: 'Speed of Love' has been growing on me - I like the moody low-end synths (I think it's synths) that is heard after the first lines of the verses. And the building-up drumming during the "Got to keep on moving..." parts. :)

 

Posts that are in a similar vein to yours that essentially say "all rush albums are great" or "i can find something to love in all rush albums" or "i don't like comparing" or "they were always doing what was natural to them at the time and it's great that rush is always changing and not trying to do what they did before" or some such are always popular. they always get a lot of likes.

 

the more realistic truth for many of us is simply that some rush albums are better than others. some are a LOT better than others. i wish i could say that every album they've done since the late 80's was great, some greater than others and not be analytical or judgmental or whatever, but the sad truth of it for me at least is that some of their albums have sucked in the last 25 years. some have REALLY sucked. and some have been great. i can't just gloss over that fact.

 

i felt similarly to you with their 1974-1987 period, because even though every album from that period wasn't as amazing as every other one, they were all truly great and for the most part remarkably consistent. it was a hell of a run. since then, however, it's been hit and miss.

 

I'm sort of halfway between these two viewpoints. I think that some of Rush's albums are pretty lame, but I appreciate and respect the fact that Rush has always sought to evolve and to pursue what interested them the most. I find that seeking and adventurous creative spirit to be healthy and inspiring, even though I don't always like the results. Therefore, although there might be Rush albums that I don't care for, I believe that every album that Rush has made has value.

 

Agreed. The middle ground may be boring, but it often makes the most sense.

 

except when it doesn't.

 

i find value in what has value, and unfortunately there are a few rush albums (4 to be precise) that have little or no value. i can appreciate and respect too that they were always trying, but the proof is in the pudding.

 

i'm just glad (and amazed, quite frankly) that after two not very good albums they came back with the excellent CP, and then after two even worse albums, they came back with two great ones in S&A and especially CA. most groups can't come back like that once, much less twice.

 

We l know of your extremist views on this. "This album suck more than Yoko Ono...the next album is exceptional, the next sucks more than Kenny G kicking me in the nuts".

 

I'm more bothered when you pretend your views are widely held.

 

you did see the post with the data from rateyourmusic.com where over 1,000 people voted on each album, right? if not, i can post it again. ;)

 

oh yeah, they were self-selected people or some nonsense, and those figures can't possibly be accurate because they disagree with yours, right? :eyeroll:

 

anyway, it shows quite conclusively that the consensus opinion is that counterparts had a far higher rating than the two albums that came before it, and the two albums that came after it had even lower ratings than presto & rtb - then the two most recent albums shot back up again. that's EXACTLY how i see it.

 

of course on TRF consisting of rabid rush fans that will defend any rush album to death no matter how much the boys are farting around it might be a different matter, but i'm actually in the majority in terms of consensus opinion. you can disagree with my personal assessment of any given album, but the fact that i'm in the majority opinion as evidenced by over ONE THOUSAND people voting on each album is not up for debate. you can disagree with how the majority feels, but that's how the majority feels. the only place i'm particularly in the minority in terms of where rush albums are ranked is i think that their debut and HYF are incredibly underrated.

 

I love how you cling to the idea that 1000 self selected rush fans rate songs so it must be true, though you inability to process data is kinda sad, too. Even that data doesn't support your extremist views. Vapor Trails getting a 0.5 lower rating than Signals doesn't prove your belief that VT is an objectively horrible album.

 

Wow, you just made a whole lot of completely wrong assumptions. I'm not saying anything about objective opinion. I'm talking about CONSENSUS opinion. The consensus opinion matches mine. There obviously is no objective reality when it comes to art. All I'm saying is a majority of people share my views as to which albums are better than other albums.

 

And in the conversation of how the fans and critics look at the albums, why not look at the reviews? Bat the interviews? At chart positions for singles? At how the albums sold? More sales doesn't mean more quality, but it does mean more fans like it (when taking into account variables like the evolving music distribution systems, etc.). When polling nearly 300 million people, 5,000/20,000% more than your tiny band of self-selectors voted with the time and money to buy the albums. Not just the 3 seconds to click a button on a small corner of a niche site.

 

Really? I mean, REALLY? Album sales are completely meaningless as to album quality. Otherwise, the best album of all time is Thriller. No.

 

There are a dozen factors that factor into why any given album sells well or not. Is the Shawshank Redemption considered to be a crappy movie because it didn't do that well at the theaters? Is Titanic among the best movies of all time because it sold so many tickets? Come on.

 

Get those people who've actually heard the album to tell us what they think and I'll listen. That's why people look at rankings on IMDB or rottentomatoes - consensus opinion based on A LOT of real people who actually saw a movie or a tv show or heard an album is valuable. That's what I did - I showed you a place where over ONE THOUSAND people voted on each Rush album. No other webiste like that exists that I'm aware of. Your "self-selected" brush off statement is meaningless. Those are over 1,000 pepole who had no ulterior motive to vote in a way you didn't agree with. They voted because that's how they felt.

 

 

When assessing how the band's music is perceived by all, I'd rather cast a wide net of info rather than rely on a minuscule subset of mostly hardcore fans to the exclusion of the vast majority of data available.

 

Ok, please give me the link to a place online where well over a thousand people have voted on each album that displays different results. That's right, you can't because it doesn't exist. Disagree on your opinion of any given album or on the consensus opinion of people in general, but that still does NOT change the consensus opinion.

 

I will take the wide sampling of hundreds of millions, in addition to the arguments made by critics, the band, and other objective data on how well people view the album over a tiny subset of a fans on a remote corner of niche site any day. Anyone interested in getting an honest answer instead of one they mistakenly think supports their own would. (And your argument about quality is bizarre - I said sales do not equal quality.)

 

whatever makes you happy

[bathory]

too much scrolling!

 

counterparts - good ass album

[GeddysMullet]

I think that the lyrics to "The Trees" work brilliantly as a parody of Objectivism.

 

Can you break down that analysis for me. I've always assumed that Neil intended it to be (perhaps subconsciously) as a criticism of collectivism.

 

How familiar are you with Ayn Rand's novels?

[LedRush]

I think that the lyrics to "The Trees" work brilliantly as a parody of Objectivism.

 

Can you break down that analysis for me. I've always assumed that Neil intended it to be (perhaps subconsciously) as a criticism of collectivism.

 

How familiar are you with Ayn Rand's novels?

 

I vaguely remember the "plots" of these thinly veiled metaphors from reading them 20 years ago. I liked them, but not as art.

[GeddysMullet]

I think that the lyrics to "The Trees" work brilliantly as a parody of Objectivism.

 

Can you break down that analysis for me. I've always assumed that Neil intended it to be (perhaps subconsciously) as a criticism of collectivism.

 

How familiar are you with Ayn Rand's novels?

 

I vaguely remember the "plots" of these thinly veiled metaphors from reading them 20 years ago. I liked them, but not as art.

 

I don't know that I can break down that analysis, because honestly, I never really did an analysis. I liked Ayn Rand's novels as feats of wordcraft and storytelling and loved the "Be true to thyself" artistic manifesto represented in The Fountainhead, but it took me years to figure out that there was anything meant to even slightly resemble an overall viable life philosophy underlying them. I was totally gobsmacked when I realised after twenty or so years and several re-reads that there are people who actually take Objectivism seriously as an approach to living in the real world. I have no idea how Neil meant those lyrics, but to me they tell a literate but unrealistic and fundamentally silly story about one-dimensional characters exactly the same way that Ayn Rand's novels do, and have similarly been taken way more seriously as a political/philosophical statement than they deserved to be. :)

Edited July 12, 2013 by GeddysMullet

[rushgoober]

too much scrolling!

 

counterparts - good ass album

 

i'll give you the quick run down. ledrush made some crazy statements, i showed him indisputable facts and figures on why he was wrong, he still insisted he was right because he disagreed with all logic and reason... and in the end counterparts is still an excellent album.

[coventry]

^^^^^^^

 

Thriller is a damn good album.

 

 

i doubt there's many rush fans who consider it the best of all time. ;)

 

Probably not. But it's still damn good. I mean, as far as pure pop albums go.

[calirush]

http://i.qkme.me/3v5goh.jpg

[rushgoober]

http://i.qkme.me/3v5goh.jpg

 

 

I can't decide if I'm spy... or spy...

[Your_Lion]

I'm more bothered when you pretend your views are widely held.

 

Wait...isn't that what you were doing when you said that people who like Counterparts

just fell in love with the production and sound (both of which are great), and ignored all the flaws.

 

To you, it may be full of flaws, but that doesn't mean that that view is shared by everyone.

If you don't like Counterparts, fine. I'm not going to force you to listen to it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But at the same time, others are allowed to like the album for whatever reasons they want.

[LedRush]

I'm more bothered when you pretend your views are widely held.

 

Wait...isn't that what you were doing when you said that people who like Counterparts

just fell in love with the production and sound (both of which are great), and ignored all the flaws.

 

To you, it may be full of flaws, but that doesn't mean that that view is shared by everyone.

If you don't like Counterparts, fine. I'm not going to force you to listen to it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But at the same time, others are allowed to like the album for whatever reasons they want.

 

No, that's not at all what i was doing. And only one person on this thread has regularly argued that people who like an album are objectively wrong: Rushgoober in talking about Vapor Trails.