Geddy's Soul Patch Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) They seem to be playing better than ever. How are they a little bit "worse"? They are tight as hell. Don't get it... I Have absolutely no issues with how they're playing, I hope they continue to tour. But you could argue that Alex and Neil aren't quite as good as they once were. I would agree that they are playing super tight lately Edited June 15, 2014 by Geddy's Soul Patch 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 They seem to be playing better than ever. How are they a little bit "worse"? They are tight as hell. Don't get it... I Have absolutely no issues with how they're playing, I hope they continue to tour. But you could argue that Alex and Neil aren't quite as good as they once were. I would agree that they are playing super tight lately But saying they are not as good as thirty years ago still pretty much implies that they are better than 99% of other bands! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dscrapre Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) But you could argue that Alex and Neil aren't quite as good as they once were. I don't get that feeling from Neil at all. Watching him play back in the day is almost painful. His technique was so stiff and he just pounded directly through his drums. He's gotten so much better in terms of economy of motion. Now he's better able to get volume through technique instead of brute force. His soloing is not quite what it used to be, but that has more to do with the composistion of his solos than his technique. Alex is still a strong guitar player. Maybe a little less precise than he once was, but I sometimes like that. I'm not loving all of his studio work on Clockwork Angels though. He's still a world-class performer live. To say that they are playing "badly" though is just simply untrue. Edited June 15, 2014 by Dscrapre 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbine Freight Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 It's about how bad they are playing live. Yeah, because this totally sucks: You said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
himey Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 no, too many whiny fans that think they should still be performing like 20 something year old guys from the 70's. time to sit back and enjoy retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy's Soul Patch Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 But you could argue that Alex and Neil aren't quite as good as they once were. I don't get that feeling from Neil at all. Watching him play back in the day is almost painful. His technique was so stiff and he just pounded directly through his drums. He's gotten so much better in terms of economy of motion. Now he's better able to get volume through technique instead of brute force. His soloing is not quite what it used to be, but that has more to do with the composistion of his solos than his technique. Alex is still a strong guitar player. Maybe a little less precise than he once was, but I sometimes like that. I'm not loving all of his studio work on Clockwork Angels though. He's still a world-class performer live. To say that they are playing "badly" though is just simply untrue. Exactly, if there has been any deterioration is skill level, it is not even noticeable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Analog Cub Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 It's about how bad they are playing live. Yeah, because this totally sucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoTxTM6kBuU You said it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dscrapre Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 It's about how bad they are playing live. Yeah, because this totally sucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoTxTM6kBuU You said it. If you think that performance was bad, then you are officially unpleasable. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbine Freight Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 It's about how bad they are playing live. Yeah, because this totally sucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoTxTM6kBuU You said it. If you think that performance was bad, then you are officially unpleasable. Nope, not unpleasable. I just don't kid myself that Rush are the cat's pajamas onstage anymore. By way of example, in the slow passage after Lerxst does the volume swells on his guitar (which is fine) he then does a few fast runs comprising of a flurry of notes. His hands are uncoordinated & the playing is sloppy & slipshod. So is some of Geddy's playing. It's right there on the very clip you yourself posted as "proof" that they are sh1t hot live. Talk about hoisted by your own petard. Look, you think Rush are still good live. That's fine by me. I just don't think they are, so let's leave it at that. And it has nothing to do with how old they are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstateNYfan Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 You've got to be kidding. Perfect? No. Outstanding? Yes, by any measure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucey Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 It's about how bad they are playing live. Yeah, because this totally sucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoTxTM6kBuU You said it. If you think that performance was bad, then you are officially unpleasable. Nope, not unpleasable. I just don't kid myself that Rush are the cat's pajamas onstage anymore. By way of example, in the slow passage after Lerxst does the volume swells on his guitar (which is fine) he then does a few fast runs comprising of a flurry of notes. His hands are uncoordinated & the playing is sloppy & slipshod. So is some of Geddy's playing. It's right there on the very clip you yourself posted as "proof" that they are sh1t hot live. Talk about hoisted by your own petard. Look, you think Rush are still good live. That's fine by me. I just don't think they are, so let's leave it at that. And it has nothing to do with how old they are. I agree that some of Lifeson's playing is sloppy these days, but I still think Geddy's Bass playing is absolutely top notch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dscrapre Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 His hands are uncoordinated & the playing is sloppy & slipshod. He was also "sloppy & slipshod" at Pinkpop in 1979. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbine Freight Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 His hands are uncoordinated & the playing is sloppy & slipshod. He was also "sloppy & slipshod" at Pinkpop in 1979. And? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dscrapre Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 His hands are uncoordinated & the playing is sloppy & slipshod. He was also "sloppy & slipshod" at Pinkpop in 1979. And? You seem to imply that him being sloppy is some recent development. Every performance I've seen of La Villa Strangiato has had "sloppy" moments. He's been playing like that forever. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbine Freight Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 His hands are uncoordinated & the playing is sloppy & slipshod. He was also "sloppy & slipshod" at Pinkpop in 1979. And? You seem to imply that him being sloppy is some recent development. Every performance I've seen of La Villa Strangiato has had "sloppy" moments. He's been playing like that forever. No I don't claim it to be a "recent development". I've never typed that anywhere. He definitely used to be a far more accurate & well-timed player though. So did Geddy. Rush have deteriorated badly in the live format. But as I said at the beginning of this thread, they had further to fall than most. There are many performers who are in their 50s/60s who are still as good as ever they were (Jeff Beck, Brian May, Robert Cray, Clapton, Buckingham, Tuck Andress, George Benson etc etc etc). Rush are not. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irenicus Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 It's just ridiculous to claim they are playing "bad" now, either trolling or doesn't know shit about live music. Their playing may not be quite as precise and tight as back in the 70s or 80s, but certainly not much worse. And EVERY musician gets worse to some degree with age, that's just natural. But for their age and compared to other bands, they still play very well for sure. If you want to hear a poor, sloppy live band, go listen to Metallica nowadays (and they aren't even as old as Rush)... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 It's about how bad they are playing live. Yeah, because this totally sucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoTxTM6kBuU I stopped after the first solo. Bless you, Alex, but you're just a shadow of your former self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhyta Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Be glad you got to see them in their prime :sigh: But for those of us who found them later in their career, we love them and want to enjoy the concerts we can see now. Things must be pretty boring wherever the OP is, why come on a Rush forum and trash the band intentionally.. unless you just want to watch the sparks fly :eyeroll: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucey Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) It's about how bad they are playing live. Yeah, because this totally sucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoTxTM6kBuU I stopped after the first solo. Bless you, Alex, but you're just a shadow of your former self. Perhaps, but he's still pretty good. To my ears, his tone and phrasing is still excellent, but he struggles with quick parts now. Edited June 16, 2014 by RushAreAwesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombstone Mountain Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Their playing may not be quite as precise and tight as back in the 70s or 80s, but certainly not much worse. And EVERY musician gets worse to some degree with age, that's just natural.I'm inclined to a good agree but consider these dudes.Ever seen Les Paul play? Mel Torme? They were stroking it well into their lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyLee Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Alex has always been sloppy but it had energy, passion and emotion. Still does in my opinion. Neil's playing is less aggressive but damned precise now. It's evolved. Listen to some old boots where his tempos where fast of even sped up and slowed down in songs. He has not declined, he has evolved. Anyone who thinks that Geddy's bass playing has declined at all either (a) does not know how to play bass and/or (b) is listening to the wrong band because you obviously have no appreciation for talent. Geddy's bass playing has actually improved every album without exception. He is an absolute monster and seems to never have a bad night on bass. He is my God! He has absolutely lost his upper range and has changed the way he sings to get through a tour and hit some high notes that are uncomfortable. He does it for us and if you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself. Believe me, they could be very happy touring and playing just the songs that are comfortable. He pushes through on the older stuff cause he knows that's what a lot of us want to hear. These three are remarkable musicians who are still doing what they love to do. If I could play like that at 60 I know I would still be doing it and if you don't want to come watch... 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I still have a good time at rush shows. I think it helps that I'm not a musician and I didn't see the hemispheres tour, so I don't notice the things other people bitch about 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Their playing may not be quite as precise and tight as back in the 70s or 80s, but certainly not much worse. And EVERY musician gets worse to some degree with age, that's just natural.I'm inclined to a good agree but consider these dudes.Ever seen Les Paul play? Mel Torme? They were stroking it well into their lives And this is why they should have retired years ago. Rock is a young man's genre. There came a time when the Stones became parodies of themselves (because who wants to watch a 60+ year old Mick Jagger strutting around on stage?) -- Rush is dangerously close to suffering the same fate. When Rush is compared with Mel Torme, you know the four horsemen of the apocalypse have saddled up! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyLee Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Their playing may not be quite as precise and tight as back in the 70s or 80s, but certainly not much worse. And EVERY musician gets worse to some degree with age, that's just natural.I'm inclined to a good agree but consider these dudes.Ever seen Les Paul play? Mel Torme? They were stroking it well into their lives And this is why they should have retired years ago. Rock is a young man's genre. There came a time when the Stones became parodies of themselves (because who wants to watch a 60+ year old Mick Jagger strutting around on stage?) -- Rush is dangerously close to suffering the same fate. When Rush is compared with Mel Torme, you know the four horsemen of the apocalypse have saddled up! Rush is, and always has been, in a different league. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Their playing may not be quite as precise and tight as back in the 70s or 80s, but certainly not much worse. And EVERY musician gets worse to some degree with age, that's just natural.I'm inclined to a good agree but consider these dudes.Ever seen Les Paul play? Mel Torme? They were stroking it well into their lives And this is why they should have retired years ago. Rock is a young man's genre. There came a time when the Stones became parodies of themselves (because who wants to watch a 60+ year old Mick Jagger strutting around on stage?) -- Rush is dangerously close to suffering the same fate. When Rush is compared with Mel Torme, you know the four horsemen of the apocalypse have saddled up! Rush fans are, and always has been, willing to look the other way when it comes to Rush. fixed ;) 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