Principled Man Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 All this talk about the band playing Losing It on stage is based on the assumption that the band had any interest in playing it. They've always said that there are songs on their albums that were never meant to be played live. Losing It is probably one of those songs.I think you might've missed an interview or two. I clearly remember reading AND listening to interviews in the early 90s in which Geddy stated that anything recorded is with the thought that it CAN be duplicated onstage (if they so desire). He went on to say that they are built around their performances They CAN play any song on stage - so what? Being able to play every song live is not the same as wanting to play every song live. There has been no indication that they've had any desire to play Losing It live. I say again - all this talk about Losing It is just a pipedream for certain fans who want to see it in concert. It is not a "missed opportunity" for the band, as the band has never shown any desire to play it. I was referring to the bit where you stated "They've always said that there are songs on their albums that were never meant to be played live." The way that sounds SOUNDS like they never INTENDED for some songs to EVER be played live. The articles and interviews that I'm talking about refer to the point that every song may or may not be played...but there's NEVER a song made where they DON'T WANT to play it live. At least that's what Geddy said 20 years ago or so anyway. The interviews I remember had Neil discussing older songs and how there are some that will never see the stage. I can definitely see the band members having different views when it comes to their catalogue. Geddy may see all songs as doable, whereas Neil might look at some songs and say, "No way". Tai Shan, for example. Geddy and Alex HATE it..... I'd bet real money that after they recorded Hold Your Fire, they said to themselves, "We're NEVER playing that again....." :laughing guy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerofthor Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Thirty years ago how the words would flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slack jaw gaze Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 (edited) The interviews I remember had Neil discussing older songs and how there are some that will never see the stage. He even had a term for them : "production numbers", I believe. Different Strings was given as one example. I believe Witch Hunt was as well, but technology allowed Neil to play the cowbell part live. That being said, I believe Losing It was at least considered for this tour. I recall it from an interview but I have no idea where. Edited November 24, 2013 by Slack jaw gaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony R Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 All this talk about the band playing Losing It on stage is based on the assumption that the band had any interest in playing it. They've always said that there are songs on their albums that were never meant to be played live. Losing It is probably one of those songs.I think you might've missed an interview or two. I clearly remember reading AND listening to interviews in the early 90s in which Geddy stated that anything recorded is with the thought that it CAN be duplicated onstage (if they so desire). He went on to say that they are built around their performances I'm sorry mate but you are wrong. Back in the day they had what they referred to as "studio production numbers" that were never designed or destined to be played live. Some they have resurrected as technology has permitted but it doesn't alter the fact they they did write and record "studio only" tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGr8imL84AD8inF8sBlackSedan Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 All this talk about the band playing Losing It on stage is based on the assumption that the band had any interest in playing it. They've always said that there are songs on their albums that were never meant to be played live. Losing It is probably one of those songs.I think you might've missed an interview or two. I clearly remember reading AND listening to interviews in the early 90s in which Geddy stated that anything recorded is with the thought that it CAN be duplicated onstage (if they so desire). He went on to say that they are built around their performances I'm sorry mate but you are wrong. Back in the day they had what they referred to as "studio production numbers" that were never designed or destined to be played live. Some they have resurrected as technology has permitted but it doesn't alter the fact they they did write and record "studio only" tracks. This is true. As much as I or anyone else would love to have heard or would want to hear Losing It live...It ain't gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grover Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 I was excited in 1985 when Ben Mink appeared on stage with FM again when they opened for Rush in Toronto. I was hoping he would join Rush on stage for Losing It. Didn't happen. I think it would have been great to play and not very hard for Geddy to sing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barchetta90480 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Absolutely. It was the 30th anniversary of Signals, and they had a string section for what will likely be the only time in their history. Missed opportunity. Should have replaced Red Sector A.Why replace the best song they ever wrote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powderfinger Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Absolutely. It was the 30th anniversary of Signals, and they had a string section for what will likely be the only time in their history. Missed opportunity. Should have replaced Red Sector A.Why replace the best song they ever wrote? Well, I don't know if you are being sarcastic. There once was a time when I adored Red Sector A—around the Show of Hands period. I like the song, and appreciate the lyrical subject matter and how it must hit close to home for Geddy. But it's a classic example of a song that the band thinks is more important and popular than it really is—every band has one or two of those, no? Just my two cents. Red Sector is simply the first song that, when I looked at the CA tour setlist, I thought, "That one again? Why?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGr8imL84AD8inF8sBlackSedan Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Absolutely. It was the 30th anniversary of Signals, and they had a string section for what will likely be the only time in their history. Missed opportunity. Should have replaced Red Sector A.Why replace the best song they ever wrote? Well, I don't know if you are being sarcastic. There once was a time when I adored Red Sector A—around the Show of Hands period. I like the song, and appreciate the lyrical subject matter and how it must hit close to home for Geddy. But it's a classic example of a song that the band thinks is more important and popular than it really is—every band has one or two of those, no? Just my two cents. Red Sector is simply the first song that, when I looked at the CA tour setlist, I thought, "That one again? Why?" I agree with the "That one again"...But it is such a great guitar song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RushBoingo Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 I agree, Red Sector A was the only song on the Winnipeg set that I really felt was, "Oh come on, there were so many better choices you could have made". The Red Deer show on the other hand, that title went to Bravado. Now that one has been played more than it has deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) All this talk about the band playing Losing It on stage is based on the assumption that the band had any interest in playing it. They've always said that there are songs on their albums that were never meant to be played live. Losing It is probably one of those songs.I think you might've missed an interview or two. I clearly remember reading AND listening to interviews in the early 90s in which Geddy stated that anything recorded is with the thought that it CAN be duplicated onstage (if they so desire). He went on to say that they are built around their performances I'm sorry mate but you are wrong. Back in the day they had what they referred to as "studio production numbers" that were never designed or destined to be played live. Some they have resurrected as technology has permitted but it doesn't alter the fact they they did write and record "studio only" tracks.No need to say 'sorry'. All good.Again though, I'm only referring to what Geddy SAID in a couple of interviews about 20 years ago. Things they say differ from decade to decade and from member to member while none, some or all of what they say may or may not be bs....----> After Signals and the Subdivisions video were released I remember Lifeson saying that they intend to make several videos for the album (since videos were a great way to reach modern audiences [in the early 80s]). Yeah, he said that, and they might've even INTENDED that but we all know (now) that Signals saw very few videos made. My point: I'm not giving an opinion or even a concert tune desire. Hell, I don't really care if they play(ed) Losing It with or without an orchestra. I'm only stating what Geddy STATED decades ago Edited November 25, 2013 by JohnnyBlaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamie Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 My dad and I were discussing that yesterday. We both feel that if would be great to hear it with the string ensemble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanadoood Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 I think it might have something to do with the subject matter of the song.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 I think it might have something to do with the subject matter of the song.. I agree. Not really something they would want to put up front and out there at this stage in their careers. It's a nice song, but it's a bit depressing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclonus X-1 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 I don't see why the subject matter should have anything to do with it. These guys are always talking about how they're playing better than ever these days, about how all their performances nowadays are awesome and fulfilling, etc., etc. They just put out a killer album on top of that. These men are NOT has-beens; why should they pussyfoot around that song as if they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddysMullet Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 I don't see why the subject matter should have anything to do with it. These guys are always talking about how they're playing better than ever these days, about how all their performances nowadays are awesome and fulfilling, etc., etc. They just put out a killer album on top of that. These men are NOT has-beens; why should they pussyfoot around that song as if they are? Perhaps they simply aren't interested in playing it because feelings it expresses are so far from how they feel now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaminbenb Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 YES! They freaking blew it! Bravado is as much of a "buzz kill" IMHO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddysMullet Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 YES! They freaking blew it! Bravado is as much of a "buzz kill" IMHO! I don't like Bravado either, but Geddy has cited the lyric "We will pay the price but we will not count the cost" as one of his top favourites, so I reckon that's why they wanted to play that song. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P-Tor Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I agree, Red Sector A was the only song on the Winnipeg set that I really felt was, "Oh come on, there were so many better choices you could have made". The Red Deer show on the other hand, that title went to Bravado. Now that one has been played more than it has deserved. Disagree about RSA. TOTALLY agree about Bravado. They need to bury that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 love the song but don't really care they didn't play it because I loved the concerts anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I don't see why the subject matter should have anything to do with it. These guys are always talking about how they're playing better than ever these days, about how all their performances nowadays are awesome and fulfilling, etc., etc. They just put out a killer album on top of that. These men are NOT has-beens; why should they pussyfoot around that song as if they are? Perhaps they simply aren't interested in playing it because feelings it expresses are so far from how they feel now. true, they've often said that they don't like playing songs they can no longer relate to. I'm not sure how often they hold themselves to that though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losingit2k Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 (edited) Yes! Yes!Yes! Biggest missed opportunity ever. They could have played Analog kid then said " here's one we've never played live" as the violinist walked down from the platform. http://www.lamusicalsalon.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/AudreySolomon.jpg Edited November 27, 2013 by losingit2k 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calirush Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Yes! Yes!Yes! Biggest missed opportunity ever. They could have played Analog kid then said " here's one we've never played live" as the violinist walked down from the platform. http://www.lamusicalsalon.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/AudreySolomon.jpg I couldn't agree more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losingit2k Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Yes! Yes!Yes! Biggest missed opportunity ever. They could have played Analog kid then said " here's one we've never played live" as the violinist walked down from the platform. http://www.lamusicalsalon.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/AudreySolomon.jpg I couldn't agree more. Honestly, I think they took the easy way with the strings. They could have done so much more. They could have played Tears, Nobody's Hero even Limelight. They didn't even play BU2B2 which only has strings. But Losing it, that was total FUBAR not to play that during the last tour. It was the 30th Anniversary of Signals as well. Instead they went the Power Windows route. I never understood that one. Oh Well on to the next tour I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarcasm Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Could I just say how awesome it would have been to hear Witchhunt live with a full string section in place of the traditional synthesizer part? Can you imagine? The righteous riseWith Burning eyesof hated and ill will Imagine that part/s but with strings? It would be unbelievable. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now