Narps Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Ok. So its decided its a 70's album then. Then I was right all along. Got it..... :dweez: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifeson90 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) Yeah after giving it some more thought i'm going for the 'timeless' category. When i think about it, Waves is probably the single rush album that has retained all its freshness over the decades, that thing could have been released today for me whereas even most of the other great rush albums seem to fit in a certain time, with one or two possible exceptions like VT. Even moving pictures, which has a strong connection for me with waves, has an 80s feel to it. I cant personally lock PeW into the 70s, 80s, 90s or 00s the sound is just permanently cool and contemporary to me. Thats my take on it now. Waves is neither 70s, 80s or transitional. It's just there, every note perfect, a truly biblical piece of work. Edited October 3, 2014 by lifeson90 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 PeW has one excellent song...two very good ones...and three so-so ones. That said, it is, in my ears, the least dated-sounding record in their collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LedRush Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 PeW has one excellent song...two very good ones...and three so-so ones. If that were true, it would be more like the 80's material than I thought. :D 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I think we know this: 1) It was released Jan 1, 1980. 2) Stylistically, some think it belongs to what is stereotypically considered '80s music and some think it belongs to what is stereotypically considered '70s music, and some think it is a transition album belonging to both the '70s and '80s, or neither. 3) Work in the film industry affords a lot of time to post on internet fan forums. That's pretty good, but I would summarize it thus:One forum member posts a topic saying, "Hey everybody, let's have fun!" to which one member replied, "No fun! The facts make it thus." to which someone replied, "Well, not really, because I'm still having fun!" to which that member replied, "Well, yeah, I can see that, but NO." to which others replied, "That still doesn't stop the fun!" to which the one member responded, "How often do I have to repeat myself: Lemme go look what I said... oh yeah, 'NO FUN!'" Others called the whole thing silly but stuck around anyway, because they think it is fun, apparently. Fin I don't see how any of this is either fun or unfun. The word "fun" doesn't apply to anything in this thread. And I work on my computer a lot (that's when I'm usually here). Yesterday I was out on a shoot all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'm waiting patiently for a good explanation of why "releasing" art is "part of the creative process." Actually, I'm not really wating. Or patient. Curious, perhaps. It's the culmination of the process. I've already explained it in a couple posts. Go look for it. Here: I know this and I've stated it several times in thus thread and Ive specified how the marketing is a big part of the process of the entire release process. I work in the film industry. I'm well aware of the steps and procedures that are necessary to release something to the public. And the "official release" of any entertainment product is pretty much the defining moment for the creator and the consumer. Do you not think that an initial public screening of a film would be a defining moment for the creators as releasing something to the public is pretty much the climax of months or even years of hard work and dedication. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. The release of movies is out of control of the artists and is subject to the whim of suits at corporations in the vast majority of cases. Maximizing ticket sales is not an artistic decision. Ridiculous? Showing the film to an audience ie having a premeire screening after months or years of arduous work wouldn't be a culmination of that experience? Some filmmakers have some say or influence of when and how a film is released. They are few but they exist. It is no way "ridiculous". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy's Soul Patch Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'm waiting patiently for a good explanation of why "releasing" art is "part of the creative process." Actually, I'm not really wating. Or patient. Curious, perhaps. It's the culmination of the process. I've already explained it in a couple posts. Go look for it. Here: I know this and I've stated it several times in thus thread and Ive specified how the marketing is a big part of the process of the entire release process. I work in the film industry. I'm well aware of the steps and procedures that are necessary to release something to the public. And the "official release" of any entertainment product is pretty much the defining moment for the creator and the consumer. Do you not think that an initial public screening of a film would be a defining moment for the creators as releasing something to the public is pretty much the climax of months or even years of hard work and dedication. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. The release of movies is out of control of the artists and is subject to the whim of suits at corporations in the vast majority of cases. Maximizing ticket sales is not an artistic decision. Ridiculous? Showing the film to an audience ie having a premeire screening after months or years of arduous work wouldn't be a culmination of that experience? Some filmmakers have some say or influence of when and how a film is released. They are few but they exist. It is no way "ridiculous". It's absolutely ridiculous, deciding when to a release a movie isn't part of the f***ing creative process 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutman Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 :givebeer: :7up: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :codger: :rush: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'm waiting patiently for a good explanation of why "releasing" art is "part of the creative process." Actually, I'm not really wating. Or patient. Curious, perhaps. It's the culmination of the process. I've already explained it in a couple posts. Go look for it. Here: I know this and I've stated it several times in thus thread and Ive specified how the marketing is a big part of the process of the entire release process. I work in the film industry. I'm well aware of the steps and procedures that are necessary to release something to the public. And the "official release" of any entertainment product is pretty much the defining moment for the creator and the consumer. Do you not think that an initial public screening of a film would be a defining moment for the creators as releasing something to the public is pretty much the climax of months or even years of hard work and dedication. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. The release of movies is out of control of the artists and is subject to the whim of suits at corporations in the vast majority of cases. Maximizing ticket sales is not an artistic decision. Ridiculous? Showing the film to an audience ie having a premeire screening after months or years of arduous work wouldn't be a culmination of that experience? Some filmmakers have some say or influence of when and how a film is released. They are few but they exist. It is no way "ridiculous". It's absolutely ridiculous, deciding when to a release a movie isn't part of the f***ing creative process The release of the movie IS the culmination. Not necessarily "deciding" when it is released. I've attended premiere screenings. It is a cathartic (and sometimes nerve-racking) and exciting moment for the people involved with the production of the movie. And do you really think an entertainment artist wouldn't be concerned if his work is profitable or not? It has a big influence on his/her future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy's Soul Patch Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'm waiting patiently for a good explanation of why "releasing" art is "part of the creative process." Actually, I'm not really wating. Or patient. Curious, perhaps. It's the culmination of the process. I've already explained it in a couple posts. Go look for it. Here: I know this and I've stated it several times in thus thread and Ive specified how the marketing is a big part of the process of the entire release process. I work in the film industry. I'm well aware of the steps and procedures that are necessary to release something to the public. And the "official release" of any entertainment product is pretty much the defining moment for the creator and the consumer. Do you not think that an initial public screening of a film would be a defining moment for the creators as releasing something to the public is pretty much the climax of months or even years of hard work and dedication. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. The release of movies is out of control of the artists and is subject to the whim of suits at corporations in the vast majority of cases. Maximizing ticket sales is not an artistic decision. Ridiculous? Showing the film to an audience ie having a premeire screening after months or years of arduous work wouldn't be a culmination of that experience? Some filmmakers have some say or influence of when and how a film is released. They are few but they exist. It is no way "ridiculous". It's absolutely ridiculous, deciding when to a release a movie isn't part of the f***ing creative process The release of the movie IS the culmination. Not necessarily "deciding" when it is released. I've attended premiere screenings. It is a cathartic (and sometimes nerve-racking) and exciting moment for the people involved with the production of the movie. And do you really think an entertainment artist wouldn't be concerned if his work is profitable or not? It has a big influence on his/her future. I'm sure it's nerve racking, not debating any of that. Movie premieres aren't creative, by the time it's out, all of the creative part is done 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) I'm waiting patiently for a good explanation of why "releasing" art is "part of the creative process." Actually, I'm not really wating. Or patient. Curious, perhaps. It's the culmination of the process. I've already explained it in a couple posts. Go look for it. Here: I know this and I've stated it several times in thus thread and Ive specified how the marketing is a big part of the process of the entire release process. I work in the film industry. I'm well aware of the steps and procedures that are necessary to release something to the public. And the "official release" of any entertainment product is pretty much the defining moment for the creator and the consumer. Do you not think that an initial public screening of a film would be a defining moment for the creators as releasing something to the public is pretty much the climax of months or even years of hard work and dedication. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. The release of movies is out of control of the artists and is subject to the whim of suits at corporations in the vast majority of cases. Maximizing ticket sales is not an artistic decision. Ridiculous? Showing the film to an audience ie having a premeire screening after months or years of arduous work wouldn't be a culmination of that experience? Some filmmakers have some say or influence of when and how a film is released. They are few but they exist. It is no way "ridiculous". It's absolutely ridiculous, deciding when to a release a movie isn't part of the f***ing creative process The release of the movie IS the culmination. Not necessarily "deciding" when it is released. I've attended premiere screenings. It is a cathartic (and sometimes nerve-racking) and exciting moment for the people involved with the production of the movie. And do you really think an entertainment artist wouldn't be concerned if his work is profitable or not? It has a big influence on his/her future. I'm sure it's nerve racking, not debating any of that. Movie premieres aren't creative, by the time it's out, all of the creative part is done Hence I keep repeating that it's the CULMINATION of the process. I don't view the creative process as something that exists only during the production or post-production of the product. Some artists are very involved in the marketing and business aspects of their work. That to me requires creativity. Marketing in general is a creative art and film and music is as much a business as it is an art. The business aspect requires creative decisions. It's not all black and white. Even cutting a trailer or choosing to release a trailer and when it is released is a creative decision. How things are presented is a creative decision. How the premiere and release of the work transpires and how it is presented is a creative decision. There is no clear and sharp divide between the "artistic" and business aspects in these industries. They are mutually dependent on one another and constantly coexist in every decision that is made. Edited October 3, 2014 by savagegrace26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toymaker Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 It was also quite "creative" when someone put a black box over the "Dewei defeats Truman" headline because they were worried that the newspaper that prematurely printed copies with the headline would sue them. Actually, on my CD version the whole top of the paper is whited out; on my LP copies, you can still see the headline but the name of the paper looks like it's been scribbled over. But that probably also happened before Jan 1 1980. Anyway. I'm not convinced that "there is no clear and sharp divide" between art and business. When that line becomes blurred, art for art's sake becomes steamrollered under money concerns. I think a band like Rush is paying attention to the musical climate and is being influenced, but I like to think that's because they want to produce something that is both true to their vision and musically relevant. I'll probably stop posting about this now, but one last thing I've been thinking: when the topic was posted, I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that the poster was thinking more about what our hearts tell us about the album's spirit and sound, not some semantic debate about temporal technicalities. It seems we may have a battle between heart and mind here. . . . 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ged Lent's sis Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Oh, yes, the vaunted movie premier is a culmination, indeed -- especially for the vast majority of Hollywood hokum, most of which also thankfully drops from the radar immediately thereafter. Fortunately for great works like Permanent Waves, they are not defined by release date, but the permanent test of time, which owes primarily to the superior creative endeavour that emerged through the artists prior to its release. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 It was also quite "creative" when someone put a black box over the "Dewei defeats Truman" headline because they were worried that the newspaper that prematurely printed copies with the headline would sue them. Actually, on my CD version the whole top of the paper is whited out; on my LP copies, you can still see the headline but the name of the paper looks like it's been scribbled over. But that probably also happened before Jan 1 1980. Anyway. I'm not convinced that "there is no clear and sharp divide" between art and business. When that line becomes blurred, art for art's sake becomes steamrollered under money concerns. I think a band like Rush is paying attention to the musical climate and is being influenced, but I like to think that's because they want to produce something that is both true to their vision and musically relevant. I'll probably stop posting about this now, but one last thing I've been thinking: when the topic was posted, I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that the poster was thinking more about what our hearts tell us about the album's spirit and sound, not some semantic debate about temporal technicalities. It seems we may have a battle between heart and mind here. . . . These aren't the days of Van Gogh standing in a field. Almost every aspect of a creative production has a business aspect to it. It cost money to produce and record an album and the artists have to mindful and make decisions based on that (some more than others of course). Time and money are constantly in the entertainment industry and creative decisions have generally be made with those constants in mind . You may not like it but that's how it is. I remember reading that Rush wasn't really comfortable with releasing Vapor Trails yet but the record company wanted to push it out (but this discussion isn't really about Rush anymore. That's because time and money are a constant factor and completely influence and sometimes dictate the creativity. They are constantly linked in the entertainment business. Every second of of producing something costs something. "when the topic was posted, I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that the poster was thinking more about what our hearts tell us about the album's spirit and sound, not some semantic debate about temporal technicalities. It seems we may have a battle between heart and mind here. . . ." She never clarified specifically so it doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Oh, yes, the vaunted movie premier is a culmination, indeed -- especially for the vast majority of Hollywood hokum, most of which also thankfully drops from the radar immediately thereafter. Fortunately for great works like Permanent Waves, they are not defined by release date, but the permanent test of time, which owes primarily to the superior creative endeavour that emerged through the artists prior to its release. Eh...the movie industry has produced some timeless artistic works. Some even much greater than Permanent Waves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'll probably stop posting about this now, but one last thing I've been thinking: when the topic was posted, I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that the poster was thinking more about ... If you are referring to me as "the poster", this thread came out of this one: http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?/topic/89731-70s-vs-80s/ Read the first page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toymaker Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) Huh! I had no idea that it cost money to make an album. I thought all that stuff was free, which is why all rock stars are so rich! I'm learning a lot. Almost forgot: ;) Edited October 3, 2014 by toymaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toymaker Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'll probably stop posting about this now, but one last thing I've been thinking: when the topic was posted, I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that the poster was thinking more about ... If you are referring to me as "the poster", this thread came out of this one: http://www.therushfo...731-70s-vs-80s/ Read the first page. Sorry . . . it happened so many pages ago I just forgot (also I'm very lazy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Huh! I had no idea that it cost money to make an album. I thought all that stuff was free, which is why all rock stars are so rich! I'm learning a lot. Well now you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rutlefan Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Oh, yes, the vaunted movie premier is a culmination, indeed -- especially for the vast majority of Hollywood hokum, most of which also thankfully drops from the radar immediately thereafter. Fortunately for great works like Permanent Waves, they are not defined by release date, but the permanent test of time, which owes primarily to the superior creative endeavour that emerged through the artists prior to its release. "but the permanent test of time," It's funny that I've read since that the title was a nod to "New Wave," because when it came out I assumed it was a snub, like "You want 'New' Wave, here today gone tomorrow!? heres some 'Permanent' waves!" I thought the title was supposed to be a re-affirmation of good ol' traditional rock in the face of what had started around '78/'79 when punk started morphing into New Wave. Sounded just like good ol' rock n roll to my 14 year-old ears, with a Rush twist. Sounded no more different from Hemi to me than Hemi sounded from AFTK or AFTK sounded from 2112. Rush was always evolving. Never remotely associated PeW with New Wave. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ged Lent's sis Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Oh, yes, the vaunted movie premier is a culmination, indeed -- especially for the vast majority of Hollywood hokum, most of which also thankfully drops from the radar immediately thereafter. Fortunately for great works like Permanent Waves, they are not defined by release date, but the permanent test of time, which owes primarily to the superior creative endeavour that emerged through the artists prior to its release. Eh...the movie industry has produced some timeless artistic works. Some even much greater than Permanent Waves. Yes, they have. And the more timeless the works, the less significant the premier date. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Oh, yes, the vaunted movie premier is a culmination, indeed -- especially for the vast majority of Hollywood hokum, most of which also thankfully drops from the radar immediately thereafter. Fortunately for great works like Permanent Waves, they are not defined by release date, but the permanent test of time, which owes primarily to the superior creative endeavour that emerged through the artists prior to its release. Eh...the movie industry has produced some timeless artistic works. Some even much greater than Permanent Waves. Yes, they have. And the more timeless the works, the less significant the premier date. It's very significant when the work is initially completed, which is what we were discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ged Lent's sis Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Oh, yes, the vaunted movie premier is a culmination, indeed -- especially for the vast majority of Hollywood hokum, most of which also thankfully drops from the radar immediately thereafter. Fortunately for great works like Permanent Waves, they are not defined by release date, but the permanent test of time, which owes primarily to the superior creative endeavour that emerged through the artists prior to its release. Eh...the movie industry has produced some timeless artistic works. Some even much greater than Permanent Waves. Yes, they have. And the more timeless the works, the less significant the premier date. It's very significant when the work is initially completed, which is what we were discussing. Yes, we were. We were also discussing what decade we felt the album belonged in, and the question wasn't "Hey, I can't remember when PeW was released... anybody know?" For the vast majority of works of film and music, that initial completion kick fades into obscurity. More rarely, however, the a great work transcends the first day or weekend receipts. Unfortunately, your creativity in marketing opinion as fact culminated several pages ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Oh, yes, the vaunted movie premier is a culmination, indeed -- especially for the vast majority of Hollywood hokum, most of which also thankfully drops from the radar immediately thereafter. Fortunately for great works like Permanent Waves, they are not defined by release date, but the permanent test of time, which owes primarily to the superior creative endeavour that emerged through the artists prior to its release. Eh...the movie industry has produced some timeless artistic works. Some even much greater than Permanent Waves. Yes, they have. And the more timeless the works, the less significant the premier date. It's very significant when the work is initially completed, which is what we were discussing. Yes, we were. We were also discussing what decade we felt the album belonged in, and the question wasn't "Hey, I can't remember when PeW was released... anybody know?" For the vast majority of works of film and music, that initial completion kick fades into obscurity. More rarely, however, the a great work transcends the first day or weekend receipts. Unfortunately, your creativity in marketing opinion as fact culminated several pages ago. Now it's all about when people actually first heard it and when Rush performed the songs on stage (not counting the half-realized prerelease versions). So it's a 1980's album ;) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ged Lent's sis Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Now it's all about when people actually first heard it and when Rush performed the songs on stage (not counting the half-realized prerelease versions). So it's a 1980's album ;) Now we're talking. I am still of the opinion, though, that it's an '80s album about the '70s and/or a '70s album that just happened to be released in the '80s. Or, indeed, something in between. 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