Lucas Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) A few thoughts on this, as I was recently discussing this very topic with a friend. The album was recorded in 1979, but *intentionally released* at midnight, January 1st, 1980. Neither of these facts are in dispute, so is what we're really discussing actually the band's' intention for the work? They wanted the album to herald in the '80s and I think that's a very important detail to keep in mind, because Rush is a band who puts a great deal of care and attention to detail into their work, into every aspect of their work. They don't always step in and dictate release dates, but in this instance they did. I think it goes beyond simply being a marketing gimmick (first album released in the '80s). They were radically, deliberately, altering their craft, doing away with side-long epics of the Fountain/2112/Cygnus X-1 variety and streamlining their sound. They dropped the planned "Sir Gawain And The Green Knight" epic because it did not fit the more modern sensibilities of the rest of the material they were recording, and that was a quarter of the album they were dropping and had to replace later (with "Natural Science," which in a way also says something about the direction they were choosing, dropping a song about knights and replacing it with a song looking at science, nature and evolution). This was a new Rush sound they were presenting to the world, a more contemporary one from all sides, and they decided to put it out at the start of the new decade. I don't think it would change anything if PW was released January 15th instead of 12 AM, January 1st. The intention would seem to be that the band wanted this updated Rush positioned in the 1980s. Or put another way, they deliberately created an album for the '80s at the very end of the '70s. That's how I see it, anyway. Permanent Waves is very much an '80s album This is a fun discussion ... or, a discussion for fun But this post is spot on ... well said Welcome to the forum Mad . . Edited October 23, 2015 by Lucas 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) This was a new Rush sound they were presenting to the world, a more contemporary one from all sides, and they decided to put it out at the start of the new decade. I don't think it would change anything if PW was released January 15th instead of 12 AM, January 1st. The intention would seem to be that the band wanted this updated Rush positioned in the 1980s. Or put another way, they deliberately created an album for the '80s at the very end of the '70s. Half of that album is seventies material, and the other half introduced the new Rush. When did you ever hear a song again that came close to Losing It? That was definitely a seventies song. Same with Entre Nous and Different Strings. All three very seventies sounding Rush songs. Natural Science, Freewill and TSOR were introducing the Rush you would come to know. Also, the only reason why it was released on January 1st had to do with Ray. He didn't want it to be released in the last half of 1979 for a specific reason: I would put a record out in January because a chart position was important, and the tour wasn’t starting until April. They (the U.S. label) would insist that they wanted it in the 4th quarter (of the past year) because that’s the biggest quarter (of music sales). I would say. “That’s great. The record will be over in four weeks.” And they thought, “It makes our year, our quarter, and it is probably going to sell as much in that quarter as it is going to sell anyway” blah blah blah. I’m like “no.” To this day, I still try to build this band. If I wanted to go out January or February, and do a release to coincide with the tour so that the record would be in the stores for 6 months rather than 6 weeks, I didn’t care ultimately if it sold the same amount. I ultimately cared that it built the band. Edited October 23, 2015 by Lorraine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I'd be more excited hearing "Sir Gawain And The Green Knight" if it were to be released now than any new material 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy's Soul Patch Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I'd be more excited hearing "Sir Gawain And The Green Knight" if it were to be released now than any new material I think all of the music for Sir Gawain was repurposed for Natural Science 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadTheDJ Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) "Welcome to the forum Mad" Thanks! Happy to be here. Edited October 23, 2015 by MadTheDJ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rutlefan Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Since it was a departure from their long, proggish material, it must be an '80s album, just as Queen's News of the World (released 1977) moved on from early proggish Queen, and is therefore an '80s album, because, you know, the '70s was only about long prog songs. Nah, I still vote for '70s. PeW produced no videos; AOR at its finest. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnEggplant Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 "Welcome to the forum Mad" Thanks! Happy to be here. Welcome! Also if you click 'quote' on the comment you're responding too, their comment will appear in yours so they know you're addressing them. Just a tip. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I'd be more excited hearing "Sir Gawain And The Green Knight" if it were to be released now than any new material I think all of the music for Sir Gawain was repurposed for Natural Science I mean any original demos or recordings - if any exist That would definitely be a cause for discussion - Is Sir Gawain a 70s or 80s song ? ;) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Haven't read through all 20 pages but has anyone has asked the critical question of "what's the difference"?Rush fans. This is to be expected. Many here probably alphabetize the foods in their refrigerator. Rush fan: "Honey, what're you doing?!! Not next to the ham! Bacon goes on the top shelf on the left between the avocados and Camembert cheese!" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital Dad Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Haven't read through all 20 pages but has anyone has asked the critical question of "what's the difference"?Rush fans. This is to be expected. Many here probably alphabetize the foods in their refrigerator. Rush fan: "Honey, what're you doing?!! Not next to the ham! Bacon goes on the top shelf on the left between the avocados and Camembert cheese!" I wouldn't put the bacon near any other vegetables or uncooked food. I would put your bacon in the bottom drawer of your fridge, preferably not near any other raw vegetables. that being said a bacon avocado and camembert sammich sounds absolutely friggin delicious. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Haven't read through all 20 pages but has anyone has asked the critical question of "what's the difference"?Rush fans. This is to be expected. Many here probably alphabetize the foods in their refrigerator. Rush fan: "Honey, what're you doing?!! Not next to the ham! Bacon goes on the top shelf on the left between the avocados and Camembert cheese!" I wouldn't put the bacon near any other vegetables or uncooked food. I would put your bacon in the bottom drawer of your fridge, preferably not near any other raw vegetables. that being said a bacon avocado and camembert sammich sounds absolutely friggin delicious.Well, you know some Rush fans. They're just nuts. Come dinner time you ask them to pass the salt and they're just as likely to brief you on the atomic properties of sodium...or relentlessly debate on which decade an album belongs. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your_Lion Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I'd be more excited hearing "Sir Gawain And The Green Knight" if it were to be released now than any new material I think all of the music for Sir Gawain was repurposed for Natural ScienceAw, surely with a name like "Sir Gawain And The Green Knight" it's got to sound like something from a Rick Wakeman album 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue J Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I'd be more excited hearing "Sir Gawain And The Green Knight" if it were to be released now than any new material I think all of the music for Sir Gawain was repurposed for Natural ScienceAw, surely with a name like "Sir Gawain And The Green Knight" it's got to sound like something from a Rick Wakeman album :P True. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuigisMansion44 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 70's 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toymaker Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 70's LM44, you da man! Only three posts and already showing great wisdom! Welcome to the forum. :cheers: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnEggplant Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Both! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbobby10 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Since it as recorded in 70s and released in 80s, dont we add the numbers together? its a 150s album 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnEggplant Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Since it as recorded in 70s and released in 80s, dont we add the numbers together? its a 150s album Why didn't I think of that!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toymaker Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w47/msspielm1/IMG_1055_zps0x6syjuy.jpg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w47/msspielm1/IMG_1055_zps0x6syjuy.jpg lol you are as bad as I am with the ******* KISS photos 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 21 pages of this shit?! I'd agree to it being in the 1940s if it'll end the discussion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRogers Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w47/msspielm1/IMG_1055_zps0x6syjuy.jpgBOOM...*mic drop* 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ged Lent's sis Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 21 pages of this shit?! I'd agree to it being in the 1940s if it'll end the discussion. What an appropriate way to start the 22nd page! :cheers:But I'm pretty sure it's more of a '30s album than a '40s one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toymaker Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 21 pages of this shit?! I'd agree to it being in the 1940s if it'll end the discussion. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest the 1940s. The guys in Rush were not even born yet. Sheesh. The newspaper headline is from the 40s, though, so there is at least partly a 40s vibe to the album cover . . . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 21 pages of this shit?! I'd agree to it being in the 1940s if it'll end the discussion. What an appropriate way to start the 22nd page! :cheers:But I'm pretty sure it's more of a '30s album than a '40s one. I love the irony. Let's fill 22, 23, 24, 25 pages of this crap! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now