Lorraine Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 When I first heard it I wondered what the hell had happened to my beloved band. By the next album, I had my answer. Do you know why they changed direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 When I first heard it I wondered what the hell had happened to my beloved band. By the next album, I had my answer. Do you know why they changed direction?To piss me off, obviously! :) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyLee Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 When I first heard it I wondered what the hell had happened to my beloved band. By the next album, I had my answer. Do you know why they changed direction? Aren't they always changing? Actually, let's say evolving. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rutlefan Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 When I got it, I just thought it was a very different kind of music from all the other hard rock out there which generated my interest into really liking them. In many respects I reckon that but for Signals the band would probably not be around today.What makes you say that? I think he's right, if Signals didn't exist, it's possible the band would've just made Moving Pictures II and slowly turned into another irrelevant rock band from the '70's. Signals was their first major evolution of their sound. Not criticizing, not saying you're wrong, you may be right, but I don't get it. I think that if they had kept making albums predominantly in the style of Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves (of course there's going to be some evolution, as opposed to a huge departure) they would have been huge (granted, they ARE huge, but in the "world's biggest cult band" sense). Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd didn't have to become a disco or punk band to remain relevant. By becoming a mediocre synth band as opposed to being the world's greatest "Thinking Man's Hard/Prog Rock Band," they did in fact become mostly irrelevant to the general listening public until they started making interesting albums again post-'90s and those two parallel documentaries revived interest among many who had forgot about them. As the saying goes, you've got to play to your strengths. While they're admirable for not sitting on their laurels and doing the "safe" thing, they were sooo good doing what they did well, and so so-so when trying to be a mish-mash of The Police and The Fixx (as in Power Windows and HYF -- I have no idea how one would categorize their '90s material). My opinion. But again, maybe you're right. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 When I got it, I just thought it was a very different kind of music from all the other hard rock out there which generated my interest into really liking them. In many respects I reckon that but for Signals the band would probably not be around today.What makes you say that? I think he's right, if Signals didn't exist, it's possible the band would've just made Moving Pictures II and slowly turned into another irrelevant rock band from the '70's. Signals was their first major evolution of their sound. Not criticizing, not saying you're wrong, you may be right, but I don't get it. I think that if they had kept making albums predominantly in the style of Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves (of course there's going to be some evolution, as opposed to a huge departure) they would have been huge (granted, they ARE huge, but in the "world's biggest cult band" sense). Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd didn't have to become a disco or punk band to remain relevant. By becoming a mediocre synth band as opposed to being the world's greatest "Thinking Man's Hard/Prog Rock Band," they did in fact become mostly irrelevant to the general listening public until they started making interesting albums again post-'90s and those two parallel documentaries revived interest among many who had forgot about them. As the saying goes, you've got to play to your strengths. While they're admirable for not sitting on their laurels and doing the "safe" thing, they were sooo good doing what they did well, and so so-so when trying to be a mish-mash of The Police and The Fixx (as in Power Windows and HYF -- I have no idea how one would categorize their '90s material). My opinion. But again, maybe you're right. I know exactly what you are saying. What I don't understand is that they said in many interviews that they always did their own thing regardless of what anyone else was doing. What I am trying to say, and maybe not doing a very good job of it, is that they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick N. Backer Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 What bathory said. I bought Signals on cassette the day it was released, in September of '82. I rushed my gangly 14-year-old self home and popped it in the boombox, salivating at the prospect of more "old Rush." Instead I promptly went, "Dafuq?" and I shelved it for quite a while. Now it's one of my mostest favoritest albums ever. I'd rank it 5 or 6 in the Rush discography.I had trouble warming up to Signals as well. Even more with GUP. Love them both now. :haz: I liked Signals when it came out, although not as much as its two predecessors. It's still probably my third favorite album by the band. GUP was the first one that I said, "whoa, what's going on here?" but I still liked it. PoW was the first one I didn't really like. I like Countdown too. Maybe in part because it was a really cool part of the live show during that tour. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick N. Backer Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Let me just add that, as a garage band bassist at the time, The Analog Kid and Digital Man were finger breakers. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbine Freight Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 When I first heard it I wondered what the hell had happened to my beloved band. By the next album, I had my answer. Do you know why they changed direction? Aren't they always changing? Actually, let's say evolving. :) I disagree. One of Rush's main problems is that they've basically made the same album for the last 25 years. And a bad album at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
len(songs) Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) When I first heard it I wondered what the hell had happened to my beloved band. By the next album, I had my answer. Do you know why they changed direction? Aren't they always changing? Actually, let's say evolving. :) I disagree. One of Rush's main problems is that they've basically made the same album for the last 25 years. And a bad album at that.Wait, so Presto is the same album as Vapor Trails? And Counterparts is the same as Snakes and Arrows? :P Edited June 9, 2014 by len(songs) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I think I am pleased the synth era happened. I love the progressive hard rock BUT I LOVE the beauty of songs like The Analog Kid, Marathon, Distant Early Warning. I think the eighties albums are possibly the finest in the bands canon. Seriously... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 When I first heard it I wondered what the hell had happened to my beloved band. By the next album, I had my answer. Do you know why they changed direction? Aren't they always changing? Actually, let's say evolving. :) I disagree. One of Rush's main problems is that they've basically made the same album for the last 25 years. And a bad album at that.Wait, so Presto is the same album as Vapor Trails? And Counterparts is the same as Snakes and Arrows? :P Nope. Disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rutlefan Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 When I got it, I just thought it was a very different kind of music from all the other hard rock out there which generated my interest into really liking them. In many respects I reckon that but for Signals the band would probably not be around today.What makes you say that? I think he's right, if Signals didn't exist, it's possible the band would've just made Moving Pictures II and slowly turned into another irrelevant rock band from the '70's. Signals was their first major evolution of their sound. Not criticizing, not saying you're wrong, you may be right, but I don't get it. I think that if they had kept making albums predominantly in the style of Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves (of course there's going to be some evolution, as opposed to a huge departure) they would have been huge (granted, they ARE huge, but in the "world's biggest cult band" sense). Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd didn't have to become a disco or punk band to remain relevant. By becoming a mediocre synth band as opposed to being the world's greatest "Thinking Man's Hard/Prog Rock Band," they did in fact become mostly irrelevant to the general listening public until they started making interesting albums again post-'90s and those two parallel documentaries revived interest among many who had forgot about them. As the saying goes, you've got to play to your strengths. While they're admirable for not sitting on their laurels and doing the "safe" thing, they were sooo good doing what they did well, and so so-so when trying to be a mish-mash of The Police and The Fixx (as in Power Windows and HYF -- I have no idea how one would categorize their '90s material). My opinion. But again, maybe you're right. I know exactly what you are saying. What I don't understand is that they said in many interviews that they always did their own thing regardless of what anyone else was doing. What I am trying to say, and maybe not doing a very good job of it, is that they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that. "they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that." Exactly. Look at that picture that starts the "It's the '80s" thread. They look like they so desperately want to look like the Thompson Twins or The Police or something; like they really want to fit in what was going on at the time. Geddy said about the kimono stage that they were trying to find a look but just really wanted to wear t-shirts. "Well," I thought, "why didn't you just wear t-shirts then?" By the same token, why the Simply Red imitation? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 When I got it, I just thought it was a very different kind of music from all the other hard rock out there which generated my interest into really liking them. In many respects I reckon that but for Signals the band would probably not be around today.What makes you say that? I think he's right, if Signals didn't exist, it's possible the band would've just made Moving Pictures II and slowly turned into another irrelevant rock band from the '70's. Signals was their first major evolution of their sound. Not criticizing, not saying you're wrong, you may be right, but I don't get it. I think that if they had kept making albums predominantly in the style of Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves (of course there's going to be some evolution, as opposed to a huge departure) they would have been huge (granted, they ARE huge, but in the "world's biggest cult band" sense). Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd didn't have to become a disco or punk band to remain relevant. By becoming a mediocre synth band as opposed to being the world's greatest "Thinking Man's Hard/Prog Rock Band," they did in fact become mostly irrelevant to the general listening public until they started making interesting albums again post-'90s and those two parallel documentaries revived interest among many who had forgot about them. As the saying goes, you've got to play to your strengths. While they're admirable for not sitting on their laurels and doing the "safe" thing, they were sooo good doing what they did well, and so so-so when trying to be a mish-mash of The Police and The Fixx (as in Power Windows and HYF -- I have no idea how one would categorize their '90s material). My opinion. But again, maybe you're right. I know exactly what you are saying. What I don't understand is that they said in many interviews that they always did their own thing regardless of what anyone else was doing. What I am trying to say, and maybe not doing a very good job of it, is that they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that. "they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that." Exactly. Look at that picture that starts the "It's the '80s" thread. They look like they so desperately want to look like the Thompson Twins or The Police or something; like they really want to fit in what was going on at the time. Geddy said about the kimono stage that they were trying to find a look but just really wanted to wear t-shirts. "Well," I thought, "why didn't you just wear t-shirts then?" By the same token, why the Simply Red imitation? I think I can answer that. They didn't wear tshirts and jeans because at the time, bands tried to have their own individual look. That generally included dressing up in some fashion. (Something sorely lacking in so many of today's bands, who tend to dress "down".)It was a look as well as a sound. MTV made it even more important to have a memorable style. Good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pause Rewind Replay Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I'm a pretty inclusive Rush fan, the only album that I dislike the majority of is CoS. Signals to me is an excellent album, not a clunker on it. Now that we finally got to hear AK on the CA tour, its time to bring back.... The Weapon :7up: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rutlefan Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 When I got it, I just thought it was a very different kind of music from all the other hard rock out there which generated my interest into really liking them. In many respects I reckon that but for Signals the band would probably not be around today.What makes you say that? I think he's right, if Signals didn't exist, it's possible the band would've just made Moving Pictures II and slowly turned into another irrelevant rock band from the '70's. Signals was their first major evolution of their sound. Not criticizing, not saying you're wrong, you may be right, but I don't get it. I think that if they had kept making albums predominantly in the style of Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves (of course there's going to be some evolution, as opposed to a huge departure) they would have been huge (granted, they ARE huge, but in the "world's biggest cult band" sense). Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd didn't have to become a disco or punk band to remain relevant. By becoming a mediocre synth band as opposed to being the world's greatest "Thinking Man's Hard/Prog Rock Band," they did in fact become mostly irrelevant to the general listening public until they started making interesting albums again post-'90s and those two parallel documentaries revived interest among many who had forgot about them. As the saying goes, you've got to play to your strengths. While they're admirable for not sitting on their laurels and doing the "safe" thing, they were sooo good doing what they did well, and so so-so when trying to be a mish-mash of The Police and The Fixx (as in Power Windows and HYF -- I have no idea how one would categorize their '90s material). My opinion. But again, maybe you're right. I know exactly what you are saying. What I don't understand is that they said in many interviews that they always did their own thing regardless of what anyone else was doing. What I am trying to say, and maybe not doing a very good job of it, is that they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that. "they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that." Exactly. Look at that picture that starts the "It's the '80s" thread. They look like they so desperately want to look like the Thompson Twins or The Police or something; like they really want to fit in what was going on at the time. Geddy said about the kimono stage that they were trying to find a look but just really wanted to wear t-shirts. "Well," I thought, "why didn't you just wear t-shirts then?" By the same token, why the Simply Red imitation? I think I can answer that. They didn't wear tshirts and jeans because at the time, bands tried to have their own individual look. That generally included dressing up in some fashion. (Something sorely lacking in so many of today's bands, who tend to dress "down".)It was a look as well as a sound. MTV made it even more important to have a memorable style. Good or bad. "They didn't wear tshirts and jeans because at the time, bands tried to have their own individual look." The kimono phase was mid-'70s. Plenty of t-shirt and jeans bands if that's what you wanted to do. But there was probably label pressure to stand out no doubt. At least they weren't space wizards or druids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyLee Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 When I first heard it I wondered what the hell had happened to my beloved band. By the next album, I had my answer. Do you know why they changed direction? Aren't they always changing? Actually, let's say evolving. :) I disagree. One of Rush's main problems is that they've basically made the same album for the last 25 years. And a bad album at that.Wait, so Presto is the same album as Vapor Trails? And Counterparts is the same as Snakes and Arrows? :P Yeah, I'm with len, I disagree. Whether or not you like or dislike the way they change between albums can be debated but you can't say they haven't. From RTB to CA you think their albums have sounded the same? I am not a huge fan of the last three albums (although I think the Garden is gorgeous) but they are definitely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 When I got it, I just thought it was a very different kind of music from all the other hard rock out there which generated my interest into really liking them. In many respects I reckon that but for Signals the band would probably not be around today.What makes you say that? I think he's right, if Signals didn't exist, it's possible the band would've just made Moving Pictures II and slowly turned into another irrelevant rock band from the '70's. Signals was their first major evolution of their sound. Not criticizing, not saying you're wrong, you may be right, but I don't get it. I think that if they had kept making albums predominantly in the style of Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves (of course there's going to be some evolution, as opposed to a huge departure) they would have been huge (granted, they ARE huge, but in the "world's biggest cult band" sense). Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd didn't have to become a disco or punk band to remain relevant. By becoming a mediocre synth band as opposed to being the world's greatest "Thinking Man's Hard/Prog Rock Band," they did in fact become mostly irrelevant to the general listening public until they started making interesting albums again post-'90s and those two parallel documentaries revived interest among many who had forgot about them. As the saying goes, you've got to play to your strengths. While they're admirable for not sitting on their laurels and doing the "safe" thing, they were sooo good doing what they did well, and so so-so when trying to be a mish-mash of The Police and The Fixx (as in Power Windows and HYF -- I have no idea how one would categorize their '90s material). My opinion. But again, maybe you're right. I know exactly what you are saying. What I don't understand is that they said in many interviews that they always did their own thing regardless of what anyone else was doing. What I am trying to say, and maybe not doing a very good job of it, is that they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that. "they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that." Exactly. Look at that picture that starts the "It's the '80s" thread. They look like they so desperately want to look like the Thompson Twins or The Police or something; like they really want to fit in what was going on at the time. Geddy said about the kimono stage that they were trying to find a look but just really wanted to wear t-shirts. "Well," I thought, "why didn't you just wear t-shirts then?" By the same token, why the Simply Red imitation? I think I can answer that. They didn't wear tshirts and jeans because at the time, bands tried to have their own individual look. That generally included dressing up in some fashion. (Something sorely lacking in so many of today's bands, who tend to dress "down".)It was a look as well as a sound. MTV made it even more important to have a memorable style. Good or bad. "They didn't wear tshirts and jeans because at the time, bands tried to have their own individual look." The kimono phase was mid-'70s. Plenty of t-shirt and jeans bands if that's what you wanted to do. But there was probably label pressure to stand out no doubt. At least they weren't space wizards or druids. I was talking more about the 80s rather than the 70s. But even then most of the bands tried to dress up a bit rather than wearing jeans and T-shirts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy's Soul Patch Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) When I got it, I just thought it was a very different kind of music from all the other hard rock out there which generated my interest into really liking them. In many respects I reckon that but for Signals the band would probably not be around today.What makes you say that? I think he's right, if Signals didn't exist, it's possible the band would've just made Moving Pictures II and slowly turned into another irrelevant rock band from the '70's. Signals was their first major evolution of their sound. Not criticizing, not saying you're wrong, you may be right, but I don't get it. I think that if they had kept making albums predominantly in the style of Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves (of course there's going to be some evolution, as opposed to a huge departure) they would have been huge (granted, they ARE huge, but in the "world's biggest cult band" sense). Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd didn't have to become a disco or punk band to remain relevant. By becoming a mediocre synth band as opposed to being the world's greatest "Thinking Man's Hard/Prog Rock Band," they did in fact become mostly irrelevant to the general listening public until they started making interesting albums again post-'90s and those two parallel documentaries revived interest among many who had forgot about them. As the saying goes, you've got to play to your strengths. While they're admirable for not sitting on their laurels and doing the "safe" thing, they were sooo good doing what they did well, and so so-so when trying to be a mish-mash of The Police and The Fixx (as in Power Windows and HYF -- I have no idea how one would categorize their '90s material). My opinion. But again, maybe you're right. I know exactly what you are saying. What I don't understand is that they said in many interviews that they always did their own thing regardless of what anyone else was doing. What I am trying to say, and maybe not doing a very good job of it, is that they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that. "they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that." Exactly. Look at that picture that starts the "It's the '80s" thread. They look like they so desperately want to look like the Thompson Twins or The Police or something; like they really want to fit in what was going on at the time. Geddy said about the kimono stage that they were trying to find a look but just really wanted to wear t-shirts. "Well," I thought, "why didn't you just wear t-shirts then?" By the same token, why the Simply Red imitation? I think I can answer that. They didn't wear tshirts and jeans because at the time, bands tried to have their own individual look. That generally included dressing up in some fashion. (Something sorely lacking in so many of today's bands, who tend to dress "down".)It was a look as well as a sound. MTV made it even more important to have a memorable style. Good or bad. "They didn't wear tshirts and jeans because at the time, bands tried to have their own individual look." The kimono phase was mid-'70s. Plenty of t-shirt and jeans bands if that's what you wanted to do. But there was probably label pressure to stand out no doubt. At least they weren't space wizards or druids. I was talking more about the 80s rather than the 70s. But even then most of the bands tried to dress up a bit rather than wearing jeans and T-shirts. Rush always pretends like they dressed in funky clothes because they were told they "had to find a look" or whatever, but at the end of the day they were just dressing how they wanted to. I'm sure they thought the kimonos were really cool when they started wearing them, same goes for the ridiculous 80s clothes Edited June 10, 2014 by Geddy's Soul Patch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 MTV was the bane of bands as far as I am concerned. All of a sudden, rockers had to turn p/t actors. Too much glitz. Too much hollywood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rutlefan Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Yeah, I remember well when MTV first started. Steady diet of concert clips, mostly REO Speedwagon for some reason (yech; I won't mind if I never hear Ridin' the Storm Out again), though there were some real videos, like Video Killed the Radio Star of course. Then there was Duran Duran, and you realized that image was going to take over like never before. Didn't hurt that Girls on Film and Hungry Like the Wolf were killer songs, even if you weren't into them, but you realized then that the pretty boys (and girls) were going to be taking over fast. First video that I thought was real art was Vienna by Ultravox. Again, you realized that it's now about more than just the music, for better or worse (better in that more bands got exposure, but worse for other reasons). Unfortunately for us dinosaurs, Rush was not immune to the times. Edited June 10, 2014 by Rutlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILSnwdog Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 What bathory said. I bought Signals on cassette the day it was released, in September of '82. I rushed my gangly 14-year-old self home and popped it in the boombox, salivating at the prospect of more "old Rush." Instead I promptly went, "Dafuq?" and I shelved it for quite a while. Now it's one of my mostest favoritest albums ever. I'd rank it 5 or 6 in the Rush discography.I had trouble warming up to Signals as well. Even more with GUP. Love them both now. :haz: I liked Signals when it came out, although not as much as its two predecessors. It's still probably my third favorite album by the band. GUP was the first one that I said, "whoa, what's going on here?" but I still liked it. PoW was the first one I didn't really like. I like Countdown too. Maybe in part because it was a really cool part of the live show during that tour.I had real trouble warming up to GuP and PoW. I wasn't ready to evolve with the band. I wanted MP II. It wasn't until my taste in music matured that I came to appreciate what Signals, GuP, and PoW were. I remember hating Mystic Rythyms. It was such a departure from the sound that I had grown to love. I used to long for the day when they guys would welcome Terry Brown back with open arms. Then I realized that had the band not grown, eventually, I probably would have grown tired of them. There was a point where I had come back to Rush, and when I came back, I had a new appreciation for everything from Signals on. It was like listening to Rush with new ears. I was finally able to appreciate the amazing baseline in Digital Man. I finally recognized that there wasn't a weak track in GuP. Power Windows had killer tracks after Big Money and Manhatten Project...and Mystic Rythym is nothing short of amazing. When I listen to Signals, I still can't believe I was disappointed by that album. But I was just a 13 year old shit head at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILSnwdog Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 When I got it, I just thought it was a very different kind of music from all the other hard rock out there which generated my interest into really liking them. In many respects I reckon that but for Signals the band would probably not be around today.What makes you say that? I think he's right, if Signals didn't exist, it's possible the band would've just made Moving Pictures II and slowly turned into another irrelevant rock band from the '70's. Signals was their first major evolution of their sound. Not criticizing, not saying you're wrong, you may be right, but I don't get it. I think that if they had kept making albums predominantly in the style of Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves (of course there's going to be some evolution, as opposed to a huge departure) they would have been huge (granted, they ARE huge, but in the "world's biggest cult band" sense). Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd didn't have to become a disco or punk band to remain relevant. By becoming a mediocre synth band as opposed to being the world's greatest "Thinking Man's Hard/Prog Rock Band," they did in fact become mostly irrelevant to the general listening public until they started making interesting albums again post-'90s and those two parallel documentaries revived interest among many who had forgot about them. As the saying goes, you've got to play to your strengths. While they're admirable for not sitting on their laurels and doing the "safe" thing, they were sooo good doing what they did well, and so so-so when trying to be a mish-mash of The Police and The Fixx (as in Power Windows and HYF -- I have no idea how one would categorize their '90s material). My opinion. But again, maybe you're right. I know exactly what you are saying. What I don't understand is that they said in many interviews that they always did their own thing regardless of what anyone else was doing. What I am trying to say, and maybe not doing a very good job of it, is that they came across as being hard-core individuals who never went with the flow, only to wind up doing just that.Did they go with the flow? Their music certainly encorporates what may have been popular at the time...but I've never seen them dumb down their music so it would appeal to the masses. There is nothing wrong with letting what infulences them at the time shape their sound. The fact that each album from the band has it's own personality is proof that they are always pushing the envelope, and that is more than I can say for many bands cough...cough...Metallica...cough...Aerosmith...cough...cough...ZZ Top...cough. ;) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 cough drop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILSnwdog Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 cough drop?I'm fine. Thanks. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hukos Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I remember hating Mystic Rythyms. From where I stand, them's fighting words. 1 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