Rutlefan Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 "You can disagree, but I listen to Power Windows, and its complexity and the way its produced sounds timeless" -- Seque This is an excellent point. Whereas they'll never be favorites of mine, I'll grant that they've (PoW and HYF) aged way better than their more hip contemporaries. Whereas I can appreciate them more now, listening to those other bands I mentioned is like opening a time capsule, and the items haven't necessarily aged well. Mid/late '80s Rush is definitely more appreciated now than then; both popularly and critically (at least from what I've seen). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted June 28, 2014 Author Share Posted June 28, 2014 You know though, I can honestly say I don't remember hearing any of Hold Your Fire on the radio at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted June 28, 2014 Author Share Posted June 28, 2014 Right now I am watching Exit...Stage Left. I think if I could have frozen them in time, it would have been then. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 "You can disagree, but I listen to Power Windows, and its complexity and the way its produced sounds timeless" -- Seque This is an excellent point. Whereas they'll never be favorites of mine, I'll grant that they've (PoW and HYF) aged way better than their more hip contemporaries. Whereas I can appreciate them more now, listening to those other bands I mentioned is like opening a time capsule, and the items haven't necessarily aged well. Mid/late '80s Rush is definitely more appreciated now than then; both popularly and critically (at least from what I've seen). I am glad you get my drift! Right now Power Windows and Hold Your Fire are my favourite Rush albums. Whether or not this will be long term I don't know, but I would rather listen to these than either CoS or AFTK right now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Digital Man Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 (edited) I love the sound on Hold Your Fire. Real 80s sound! I hear what you mean about the bass though. Sort of like those Steinbergers (?)--those little toy basses he used live...to me there wasn't much that was distinctive about the sound. Maybe the Wal has a kind of distinctive sound, but it doesn't seem to have much sonic range or musical muscle, or something. This from a non-audiophile. I usually plug my bass in, set everything to middle, and hope for the best. Geddys Wal tone has been discussed here many times before with most people wrongly assuming that the tone and depth of the Wal instrument brand to be weak, thin and one dimensional which is far from the case! Most instruments including Fender basses have a wide range of tonal possibilities and the Wal has more than most, what you have to take into account is that the sound that Geddy produced from his Wal and the rig he was using at the time is the sound that he created because that was what he wanted and the thiness of tone was largely due to the ultra-light 30-90 series strings he was using at the time! It was a shame that he didn't re-string it with standard guage as he does now with his Fender which would sound equally pathetic with ultra-lights! Listen to Flea on Blood Sugar Sex Magic or any Tool records and then tell me the bass sounds thin! Edited June 28, 2014 by New Digital Man 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMCXII Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) Basically it's because they weren't doing what they're good at. Geddy himself said that he's a bass player first and keys are a distant third after vocals.. So why all the keys?? You have the best bass player and the best drummer in the same band, the ultimate rhythm section! They should have focused on that and being the solid stripped down three piece Prog monsters they were instead of trying to fill the world with keyboard noise.. That said I do enjoy all Rush but post signals isn't Rush at their best for sure.. Edited July 1, 2014 by MMCXII 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I love the sound on Hold Your Fire. Real 80s sound! I hear what you mean about the bass though. Sort of like those Steinbergers (?)--those little toy basses he used live...to me there wasn't much that was distinctive about the sound. Maybe the Wal has a kind of distinctive sound, but it doesn't seem to have much sonic range or musical muscle, or something. This from a non-audiophile. I usually plug my bass in, set everything to middle, and hope for the best. Geddys Wal tone has been discussed here many times before with most people wrongly assuming that the tone and depth of the Wal instrument brand to be weak, thin and one dimensional which is far from the case! Most instruments including Fender basses have a wide range of tonal possibilities and the Wal has more than most, what you have to take into account is that the sound that Geddy produced from his Wal and the rig he was using at the time is the sound that he created because that was what he wanted and the thiness of tone was largely due to the ultra-light 30-90 series strings he was using at the time! It was a shame that he didn't re-string it with standard guage as he does now with his Fender which would sound equally pathetic with ultra-lights! Listen to Flea on Blood Sugar Sex Magic or any Tool records and then tell me the bass sounds thin! I don't think the light strings are the total story. I think it's more his amp settings. With Justin Chancellor, his tone is not just his bass. You'd never know he uses a Wal because he runs it through all the digital effects. He could use some crappy old Sears bass and it would still sound the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy's Soul Patch Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I love the sound on Hold Your Fire. Real 80s sound! I hear what you mean about the bass though. Sort of like those Steinbergers (?)--those little toy basses he used live...to me there wasn't much that was distinctive about the sound. Maybe the Wal has a kind of distinctive sound, but it doesn't seem to have much sonic range or musical muscle, or something. This from a non-audiophile. I usually plug my bass in, set everything to middle, and hope for the best. Geddys Wal tone has been discussed here many times before with most people wrongly assuming that the tone and depth of the Wal instrument brand to be weak, thin and one dimensional which is far from the case! Most instruments including Fender basses have a wide range of tonal possibilities and the Wal has more than most, what you have to take into account is that the sound that Geddy produced from his Wal and the rig he was using at the time is the sound that he created because that was what he wanted and the thiness of tone was largely due to the ultra-light 30-90 series strings he was using at the time! It was a shame that he didn't re-string it with standard guage as he does now with his Fender which would sound equally pathetic with ultra-lights! Listen to Flea on Blood Sugar Sex Magic or any Tool records and then tell me the bass sounds thin! I don't think the light strings are the total story. I think it's more his amp settings. With Justin Chancellor, his tone is not just his bass. You'd never know he uses a Wal because he runs it through all the digital effects. He could use some crappy old Sears bass and it would still sound the same. No way, yes Justin runs his bass through a plethora of effects but the Wal is absolutely essential to his tone. It gives him that nice "woody" tone 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I love the sound on Hold Your Fire. Real 80s sound! I hear what you mean about the bass though. Sort of like those Steinbergers (?)--those little toy basses he used live...to me there wasn't much that was distinctive about the sound. Maybe the Wal has a kind of distinctive sound, but it doesn't seem to have much sonic range or musical muscle, or something. This from a non-audiophile. I usually plug my bass in, set everything to middle, and hope for the best. Geddys Wal tone has been discussed here many times before with most people wrongly assuming that the tone and depth of the Wal instrument brand to be weak, thin and one dimensional which is far from the case! Most instruments including Fender basses have a wide range of tonal possibilities and the Wal has more than most, what you have to take into account is that the sound that Geddy produced from his Wal and the rig he was using at the time is the sound that he created because that was what he wanted and the thiness of tone was largely due to the ultra-light 30-90 series strings he was using at the time! It was a shame that he didn't re-string it with standard guage as he does now with his Fender which would sound equally pathetic with ultra-lights! Listen to Flea on Blood Sugar Sex Magic or any Tool records and then tell me the bass sounds thin! I don't think the light strings are the total story. I think it's more his amp settings. With Justin Chancellor, his tone is not just his bass. You'd never know he uses a Wal because he runs it through all the digital effects. He could use some crappy old Sears bass and it would still sound the same. No way, yes Justin runs his bass through a plethora of effects but the Wal is absolutely essential to his tone. It gives him that nice "woody" tone If you say so. I've heard people get tone like his with a Fender and a Ric, so I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy's Soul Patch Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I love the sound on Hold Your Fire. Real 80s sound! I hear what you mean about the bass though. Sort of like those Steinbergers (?)--those little toy basses he used live...to me there wasn't much that was distinctive about the sound. Maybe the Wal has a kind of distinctive sound, but it doesn't seem to have much sonic range or musical muscle, or something. This from a non-audiophile. I usually plug my bass in, set everything to middle, and hope for the best. Geddys Wal tone has been discussed here many times before with most people wrongly assuming that the tone and depth of the Wal instrument brand to be weak, thin and one dimensional which is far from the case! Most instruments including Fender basses have a wide range of tonal possibilities and the Wal has more than most, what you have to take into account is that the sound that Geddy produced from his Wal and the rig he was using at the time is the sound that he created because that was what he wanted and the thiness of tone was largely due to the ultra-light 30-90 series strings he was using at the time! It was a shame that he didn't re-string it with standard guage as he does now with his Fender which would sound equally pathetic with ultra-lights! Listen to Flea on Blood Sugar Sex Magic or any Tool records and then tell me the bass sounds thin! I don't think the light strings are the total story. I think it's more his amp settings. With Justin Chancellor, his tone is not just his bass. You'd never know he uses a Wal because he runs it through all the digital effects. He could use some crappy old Sears bass and it would still sound the same. No way, yes Justin runs his bass through a plethora of effects but the Wal is absolutely essential to his tone. It gives him that nice "woody" tone If you say so. I've heard people get tone like his with a Fender and a Ric, so I disagree. I would be interested to hear who. Personally, I haven't heard anyone achieve a tone quite like Chancellor's 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I love the sound on Hold Your Fire. Real 80s sound! I hear what you mean about the bass though. Sort of like those Steinbergers (?)--those little toy basses he used live...to me there wasn't much that was distinctive about the sound. Maybe the Wal has a kind of distinctive sound, but it doesn't seem to have much sonic range or musical muscle, or something. This from a non-audiophile. I usually plug my bass in, set everything to middle, and hope for the best. Geddys Wal tone has been discussed here many times before with most people wrongly assuming that the tone and depth of the Wal instrument brand to be weak, thin and one dimensional which is far from the case! Most instruments including Fender basses have a wide range of tonal possibilities and the Wal has more than most, what you have to take into account is that the sound that Geddy produced from his Wal and the rig he was using at the time is the sound that he created because that was what he wanted and the thiness of tone was largely due to the ultra-light 30-90 series strings he was using at the time! It was a shame that he didn't re-string it with standard guage as he does now with his Fender which would sound equally pathetic with ultra-lights! Listen to Flea on Blood Sugar Sex Magic or any Tool records and then tell me the bass sounds thin! I don't think the light strings are the total story. I think it's more his amp settings. With Justin Chancellor, his tone is not just his bass. You'd never know he uses a Wal because he runs it through all the digital effects. He could use some crappy old Sears bass and it would still sound the same. No way, yes Justin runs his bass through a plethora of effects but the Wal is absolutely essential to his tone. It gives him that nice "woody" tone If you say so. I've heard people get tone like his with a Fender and a Ric, so I disagree. I would be interested to hear who. Personally, I haven't heard anyone achieve a tone quite like Chancellor's These are people I know, not people online. I have a couple of friends who are really into Tool and they've bought all the effects Justin uses on his albums. They sound just like him. I know people like to give the Wal all the credit but unless you're running a bass with flat EQ through an amp that doesn't color the tone then the instrument itself isn't as important, Don't get me wrong, I think Wals are very well made basses and they have nice tone on their own, but you rarely hear someone play or record one that way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy's Soul Patch Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I love the sound on Hold Your Fire. Real 80s sound! I hear what you mean about the bass though. Sort of like those Steinbergers (?)--those little toy basses he used live...to me there wasn't much that was distinctive about the sound. Maybe the Wal has a kind of distinctive sound, but it doesn't seem to have much sonic range or musical muscle, or something. This from a non-audiophile. I usually plug my bass in, set everything to middle, and hope for the best. Geddys Wal tone has been discussed here many times before with most people wrongly assuming that the tone and depth of the Wal instrument brand to be weak, thin and one dimensional which is far from the case! Most instruments including Fender basses have a wide range of tonal possibilities and the Wal has more than most, what you have to take into account is that the sound that Geddy produced from his Wal and the rig he was using at the time is the sound that he created because that was what he wanted and the thiness of tone was largely due to the ultra-light 30-90 series strings he was using at the time! It was a shame that he didn't re-string it with standard guage as he does now with his Fender which would sound equally pathetic with ultra-lights! Listen to Flea on Blood Sugar Sex Magic or any Tool records and then tell me the bass sounds thin! I don't think the light strings are the total story. I think it's more his amp settings. With Justin Chancellor, his tone is not just his bass. You'd never know he uses a Wal because he runs it through all the digital effects. He could use some crappy old Sears bass and it would still sound the same. No way, yes Justin runs his bass through a plethora of effects but the Wal is absolutely essential to his tone. It gives him that nice "woody" tone If you say so. I've heard people get tone like his with a Fender and a Ric, so I disagree. I would be interested to hear who. Personally, I haven't heard anyone achieve a tone quite like Chancellor's These are people I know, not people online. I have a couple of friends who are really into Tool and they've bought all the effects Justin uses on his albums. They sound just like him. I know people like to give the Wal all the credit but unless you're running a bass with flat EQ through an amp that doesn't color the tone then the instrument itself isn't as important, Don't get me wrong, I think Wals are very well made basses and they have nice tone on their own, but you rarely hear someone play or record one that way. You make a very valid point. But Justin isn't always using effects galore. There are times when you can definitely tell it's just straight Wal tone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lachrymal Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I love the sound on Hold Your Fire. Real 80s sound! I hear what you mean about the bass though. Sort of like those Steinbergers (?)--those little toy basses he used live...to me there wasn't much that was distinctive about the sound. Maybe the Wal has a kind of distinctive sound, but it doesn't seem to have much sonic range or musical muscle, or something. This from a non-audiophile. I usually plug my bass in, set everything to middle, and hope for the best. Geddys Wal tone has been discussed here many times before with most people wrongly assuming that the tone and depth of the Wal instrument brand to be weak, thin and one dimensional which is far from the case! Most instruments including Fender basses have a wide range of tonal possibilities and the Wal has more than most, what you have to take into account is that the sound that Geddy produced from his Wal and the rig he was using at the time is the sound that he created because that was what he wanted and the thiness of tone was largely due to the ultra-light 30-90 series strings he was using at the time! It was a shame that he didn't re-string it with standard guage as he does now with his Fender which would sound equally pathetic with ultra-lights! Listen to Flea on Blood Sugar Sex Magic or any Tool records and then tell me the bass sounds thin! I don't think the light strings are the total story. I think it's more his amp settings. With Justin Chancellor, his tone is not just his bass. You'd never know he uses a Wal because he runs it through all the digital effects. He could use some crappy old Sears bass and it would still sound the same. No way, yes Justin runs his bass through a plethora of effects but the Wal is absolutely essential to his tone. It gives him that nice "woody" tone If you say so. I've heard people get tone like his with a Fender and a Ric, so I disagree. I would be interested to hear who. Personally, I haven't heard anyone achieve a tone quite like Chancellor's These are people I know, not people online. I have a couple of friends who are really into Tool and they've bought all the effects Justin uses on his albums. They sound just like him. I know people like to give the Wal all the credit but unless you're running a bass with flat EQ through an amp that doesn't color the tone then the instrument itself isn't as important, Don't get me wrong, I think Wals are very well made basses and they have nice tone on their own, but you rarely hear someone play or record one that way. You make a very valid point. But Justin isn't always using effects galore. There are times when you can definitely tell it's just straight Wal tone It's that classic Injun sound! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMCXII Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I love the sound on Hold Your Fire. Real 80s sound! I hear what you mean about the bass though. Sort of like those Steinbergers (?)--those little toy basses he used live...to me there wasn't much that was distinctive about the sound. Maybe the Wal has a kind of distinctive sound, but it doesn't seem to have much sonic range or musical muscle, or something. This from a non-audiophile. I usually plug my bass in, set everything to middle, and hope for the best. Geddys Wal tone has been discussed here many times before with most people wrongly assuming that the tone and depth of the Wal instrument brand to be weak, thin and one dimensional which is far from the case! Most instruments including Fender basses have a wide range of tonal possibilities and the Wal has more than most, what you have to take into account is that the sound that Geddy produced from his Wal and the rig he was using at the time is the sound that he created because that was what he wanted and the thiness of tone was largely due to the ultra-light 30-90 series strings he was using at the time! It was a shame that he didn't re-string it with standard guage as he does now with his Fender which would sound equally pathetic with ultra-lights! Listen to Flea on Blood Sugar Sex Magic or any Tool records and then tell me the bass sounds thin! I don't think the light strings are the total story. I think it's more his amp settings. With Justin Chancellor, his tone is not just his bass. You'd never know he uses a Wal because he runs it through all the digital effects. He could use some crappy old Sears bass and it would still sound the same. No way, yes Justin runs his bass through a plethora of effects but the Wal is absolutely essential to his tone. It gives him that nice "woody" tone If you say so. I've heard people get tone like his with a Fender and a Ric, so I disagree. I would be interested to hear who. Personally, I haven't heard anyone achieve a tone quite like Chancellor's These are people I know, not people online. I have a couple of friends who are really into Tool and they've bought all the effects Justin uses on his albums. They sound just like him. I know people like to give the Wal all the credit but unless you're running a bass with flat EQ through an amp that doesn't color the tone then the instrument itself isn't as important, Don't get me wrong, I think Wals are very well made basses and they have nice tone on their own, but you rarely hear someone play or record one that way. You make a very valid point. But Justin isn't always using effects galore. There are times when you can definitely tell it's just straight Wal tone It's that classic Injun sound! It's that.. Wal of sound! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rutlefan Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) Right now I am watching Exit...Stage Left. I think if I could have frozen them in time, it would have been then. I started listening to MP on my way in to work. First time I've sat through all of Tom Sawyer in years (just became a little weary of it over the years, like Stairway to Heaven). Such an amazing album; as close to a perfect album as you can get. Brings me back to when MP and then ESL came out. Sure there was The Police and The Clash, signalling (no pun intended) the way things were moving, but with MP and ESL, Rush just seemed to be sitting on a mountain top, lords of all they survey, untouchable. That's why I guess for me Signals was disappointing. It's not that it's not a very good album, but compared to what they'd been doing right before, it didn't measure up. It wasn't epic, like 2112 (or CoS if that's your thing) through MP. I have to be careful. As my signature says, I'm a fan of Tolkien's mythology. He wrote that the primary "sin" of the Elves is nostalgia: living in/continually looking back on/idealizing the past, to the expense of the present (not exactly how he put it, but that's the idea more or less). I'm prone to that too, ESPECIALLY when it comes to Rush. Now off to craft a haunting dirge about the past glories of Rush sung by Elizabeth Frazier... :eyeroll: Edited July 1, 2014 by Rutlefan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I played Signals last night. It was really irritating! I think he five albums that preceded it and the four that followed were much better. Its a good album, but not one I can play all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyLee Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I played Signals last night. It was really irritating! I think he five albums that preceded it and the four that followed were much better. Its a good album, but not one I can play all the time. Irritating? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I played Signals last night. It was really irritating! I think he five albums that preceded it and the four that followed were much better. Its a good album, but not one I can play all the time. Irritating? I was not in the mood for all the bouncy reggae elements. But it was literally just in that moment, I usually really enjoy it but it still isn't my favourite from that era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
404-ed!!! Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I tend to lurk around here, but for this I think I need to post. Signals, for me, is the start of the era that kept me from becoming a big Rush fan for a long time. I was still a year away from being born when this came out, so most of their career for me has been looking backwards at the old catalog. When I 1st really got into music, my buddy turned me on to Rush with 2112 and ESL. Great place to start. This was right when Test for Echo came out, so i also got a copy of that (Ok, nothing mind blowing). He also gave me a copy of a show of hands (meh). I loved 2112 and ESL, but the others were not impressive, and not at all what I first thought of the band. I struggled (still do) to listen to those 2 records the whole way through. Echo - I just tend to eventually put in another disc, show of hands - I tend to skip most of it. I picked up Roll the Bones in a discount rack, and needless to say I thought I basically had the gist of the band at that point. I think I figured since a show of hands had synth stuff and closer to the heart, and I knew the songs that get radio play, I pretty much had the 70's covered. Lived this way till college. 1st chance to see them live was Vapor Trails my freshman year. I just remember hearing the greats that I knew and being blown away by some other stuff I never heard. Picked up Fly By night and Permament Waves and (by chance) basically discovered those songs that I remember from that tour being awesome (Bytor, and Natural Science) and the rest of the goodies. Now I had to go get all the classics up to Signals but stopped there. I have the Retrospective, and I really struggle with the 80's disc, especially if you exclude the MP stuff. If I can make it through Time Stands Still, I almost never get through Mystic Rhythms, and then the skipping starts. I like some of that stuff, but don't love any of it really. With youtube, and all the tours since, I've heard much of the sythn era but just can't really get into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x1yyz Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 404-ed, Although I got into the band earlier than you, I also do not like the RTB/Presto/T4E crap. I suggest to just ignore it all and concentrate on the albums you do like. You didn't mention having Hemispheres or A Farewell to Kings—have you heard them? If not, GO OUT AND BUY THEM RIGHT NOW, You're in for a treat :D 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LedRush Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 When I first got into Rush, I got Chronicles and loved every song until subdivisions and disliked everything after. A couple of years later I started getting all the full albums, and I got Rush through MP (I also owned RTB, which I had heard a ton on the radio, but not CP, which I had also heard on the radio) as I didn't like the other stuff on Chronicles . It was too synthy, soft, and wimpy for age 17-27 year-old ledrush. But I picked up a couple of CDs for a buck a pop when I was 27 and started to really like all the other Rush that I had missed. I'll never like it as much as classic Rush (and I understand completely why Signals/GuP/PoW scared so many fans away), but there are songs I love on all those albums now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narps Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 404-ed, Although I got into the band earlier than you, I also do not like the RTB/Presto/T4E crap. I suggest to just ignore it all and concentrate on the albums you do like. You didn't mention having Hemispheres or A Farewell to Kings—have you heard them? If not, GO OUT AND BUY THEM RIGHT NOW, You're in for a treat :DI am hoping you have ATWAS as well..... :codger: :D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I began my Rush fandom with MP, PeW and 2112. Signals was absolutely disappointing, and it took me a year to appreciate the 80's stuff. My how things change! But AFTK is essential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rushman14 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I tend to lurk around here, but for this I think I need to post. Signals, for me, is the start of the era that kept me from becoming a big Rush fan for a long time. I was still a year away from being born when this came out, so most of their career for me has been looking backwards at the old catalog. When I 1st really got into music, my buddy turned me on to Rush with 2112 and ESL. Great place to start. This was right when Test for Echo came out, so i also got a copy of that (Ok, nothing mind blowing). He also gave me a copy of a show of hands (meh). I loved 2112 and ESL, but the others were not impressive, and not at all what I first thought of the band. I struggled (still do) to listen to those 2 records the whole way through. Echo - I just tend to eventually put in another disc, show of hands - I tend to skip most of it. I picked up Roll the Bones in a discount rack, and needless to say I thought I basically had the gist of the band at that point. I think I figured since a show of hands had synth stuff and closer to the heart, and I knew the songs that get radio play, I pretty much had the 70's covered. Lived this way till college. 1st chance to see them live was Vapor Trails my freshman year. I just remember hearing the greats that I knew and being blown away by some other stuff I never heard. Picked up Fly By night and Permament Waves and (by chance) basically discovered those songs that I remember from that tour being awesome (Bytor, and Natural Science) and the rest of the goodies. Now I had to go get all the classics up to Signals but stopped there. I have the Retrospective, and I really struggle with the 80's disc, especially if you exclude the MP stuff. If I can make it through Time Stands Still, I almost never get through Mystic Rhythms, and then the skipping starts. I like some of that stuff, but don't love any of it really. With youtube, and all the tours since, I've heard much of the sythn era but just can't really get into it. go on Spotify and give Power Windows a listen from beginning to end and report back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rutlefan Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) I think one thing that hurts the CD era material (meaning that CDs had eclipsed LPs as the primary medium, basically starting with Power Windows as I recall) is that the albums got longer and longer, and so did the filler. 2112 through PeW all came in under 39 minutes. Moving Pictures just hit 40. By HYF they were up to 50 minutes and the last three average at about 65 minutes. VT at 67 and CA at 66 minutes are each nearly twice PeW's 35:35 length. No doubt other factors are more important to the difference (like the departure of Terry Brown), but I wonder how good of an album Rush might make now if they only had to fill a 38 minute play length like the old days. Edited July 1, 2014 by Rutlefan 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