The Mick and Segue Music Commentary Thread

[Lorraine]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

[Blue J]

I bet why you think that of King's X.

 

But as far as I am concerned, Faith Hope Love is better than nearly everything else on the planet.

 

It is indeed an incredible record.

 

(It's one of the two albums of theirs that I'm familiar with!).

[bluefox4000]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

 

oh a huge chunk was luck. 2112 could have very easily sunk too. it was luck that it didn't.

 

as i said. in the 70's Rush is near the bottom when put up against what was out there.

 

but man do i love 80's Rush.

 

Mick

[Blue J]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

 

Oh, I think luck, or a right place/right time scenario plays a part in lots of bands that really make it. As far as their longevity is concerned, I think there are other factors at work there.

 

I won't posit which bands over those two whole decades might be considered better than Rush...it's all a matter of personal taste.

 

But according to my own ( :) )...Rush had something then that was truly unique. And I believe they've shown, at certain times since, that they still do.

[Lorraine]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

 

Oh, I think luck, or a right place/right time scenario plays a part in lots of bands that really make it. As far as their longevity is concerned, I think there are other factors at work there.

 

I won't posit which bands over those two whole decades might be considered better than Rush...it's all a matter of personal taste.

 

But according to my own ( :) )...Rush had something then that was truly unique. And I believe they've shown, at certain times since, that they still do.

I honestly don't agree. There's a lot more involved than just talent that's kept them afloat for 41 years.

 

So, what am I doing here on TRF?

[Blue J]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

 

Oh, I think luck, or a right place/right time scenario plays a part in lots of bands that really make it. As far as their longevity is concerned, I think there are other factors at work there.

 

I won't posit which bands over those two whole decades might be considered better than Rush...it's all a matter of personal taste.

 

But according to my own ( :) )...Rush had something then that was truly unique. And I believe they've shown, at certain times since, that they still do.

I honestly don't agree. There's a lot more involved than just talent that's kept them afloat for 41 years.

 

So, what am I doing here on TRF?

 

I agree with that, too; it isn't just their talent.

 

As I said above, I think there are a number of other factors that have contributed to their longevity. I just didn't go into what they are. (I tend to be a loquacious bore when I start to wax philosophical :P ).

[Segue Myles]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

 

I completely agree, what I was trying to say is they weren't more successful because, unlike their peers, they played 100% by their own rules!

 

I think they could have been bigger if they churned out pure pop like Yes, Genesis or Journey (and I use pop as a good thing), but even the most mainstream Rush album is full of twisty, turny, awesome Rush moments of pure weird! That is AMAZING to me, but I know it turns all my friends off completely.

[Lorraine]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

 

I completely agree, what I was trying to say is they weren't more successful because, unlike their peers, they played 100% by their own rules!

 

I think they could have been bigger if they churned out pure pop like Yes, Genesis or Journey (and I use pop as a good thing), but even the most mainstream Rush album is full of twisty, turny, awesome Rush moments of pure weird! That is AMAZING to me, but I know it turns all my friends off completely.

 

I'm not trying to be purposely disagreeable here, but I still disagree. :codger:

 

i think they dragged behind their peers. It's true they did what they want, but that was usually after others did it before them.

 

I don't consider Close To The Edge "pop." Rush wishes they could have turned out a Close To The Edge. I bet they wish they could have turned out a Quadrophenia too. Rush turned out plenty of pop in the eighties. The later the eighties, the more the pop.

 

Again. I'm not trying to be contrary. Just sharing my honest assessment that I have come to via my untrained ear. :)

[Segue Myles]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

 

I completely agree, what I was trying to say is they weren't more successful because, unlike their peers, they played 100% by their own rules!

 

I think they could have been bigger if they churned out pure pop like Yes, Genesis or Journey (and I use pop as a good thing), but even the most mainstream Rush album is full of twisty, turny, awesome Rush moments of pure weird! That is AMAZING to me, but I know it turns all my friends off completely.

 

I'm not trying to be purposely disagreeable here, but I still disagree. :codger:

 

i think they dragged behind their peers. It's true they did what they want, but that was usually after others did it before them.

 

I don't consider Close To The Edge "pop." Rush wishes they could have turned out a Close To The Edge. I bet they wish they could have turned out a Quadrophenia too. Rush turned out plenty of pop in the eighties. The later the eighties, the more the pop.

 

Again. I'm not trying to be contrary. Just sharing my honest assessment that I have come to via my untrained ear. :)

 

Aahh you are referring to the seventies...agreed but during the eighties they took on trends and sounded like no one else.

 

But they never started trends, they just didn't paint my numbers either.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Segue Myles

[Segue Myles]

Next to some of their peers:

 

Eighties Rush- sounded like a streamlined Rush, complex yet accessible.

 

Eighties Yes- sounded like A Flock Of Seagulls meets The Cure at a housewarming party.

 

Eighties Genesis- sounds like Phil Collins solo career.

 

Eighties Kansas- sounds like [insert generic AOR band here]

 

Eighties Queen- sounds like Freddie Mercury, but little like Queen (not for the whole decade)

 

Eighties Styx- sounds less like rock and more like Liberace started a metal band in a gay bar.

[bluefox4000]

80's Rush-Was Pop/synth but undeniably there own stamp.

 

80s Yes-Older dinosaur band trying desperatly to be hip.......sorry just how i see it.

 

80's Genesis-Pop.....but done brilliently only prog band to rival Rush in the 80's IMO

 

80's Kansas-Generic bland.......not even trying

 

80's Queen-Total singles band......but what nice pop singles.

 

80's Styx-Bite me Deyoung. i mean you had paradise Theater but........screw you Dennis, lol

 

Mick

[Segue Myles]

80's Rush-Was Pop/synth but undeniably there own stamp.

 

80s Yes-Older dinosaur band trying desperatly to be hip.......sorry just how i see it.

 

80's Genesis-Pop.....but done brilliently only prog band to rival Rush in the 80's IMO

 

80's Kansas-Generic bland.......not even trying

 

80's Queen-Total singles band......but what nice pop singles.

 

80's Styx-Bite me Deyoung. i mean you had paradise Theater but........screw you Dennis, lol

 

Mick

 

I do love eighties Yes (Union aside). Like...A LOT.

[J2112YYZ]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

 

I completely agree, what I was trying to say is they weren't more successful because, unlike their peers, they played 100% by their own rules!

 

I think they could have been bigger if they churned out pure pop like Yes, Genesis or Journey (and I use pop as a good thing), but even the most mainstream Rush album is full of twisty, turny, awesome Rush moments of pure weird! That is AMAZING to me, but I know it turns all my friends off completely.

 

I'm not trying to be purposely disagreeable here, but I still disagree. :codger:

 

i think they dragged behind their peers. It's true they did what they want, but that was usually after others did it before them.

 

I don't consider Close To The Edge "pop." Rush wishes they could have turned out a Close To The Edge. I bet they wish they could have turned out a Quadrophenia too. Rush turned out plenty of pop in the eighties. The later the eighties, the more the pop.

 

Again. I'm not trying to be contrary. Just sharing my honest assessment that I have come to via my untrained ear. :)

 

Aahh you are referring to the seventies...agreed but during the eighties they took on trends and sounded like no one else.

 

But they never started trends, they just didn't paint my numbers either.

 

Part of Rush's longevity is that they follow the musical trends of the time. No, they never set any trends but they are paying enough attention to what is going on in the music world to help keep their sound current and relevant. They always sound modern and up to date, but at the same time they always added their own musical identity to everything they've done which helped them to standout. They were probably one of the smartest bands of all time by doing that.

Edited September 10, 2015 by J2112YYZ

[Lorraine]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

 

I completely agree, what I was trying to say is they weren't more successful because, unlike their peers, they played 100% by their own rules!

 

I think they could have been bigger if they churned out pure pop like Yes, Genesis or Journey (and I use pop as a good thing), but even the most mainstream Rush album is full of twisty, turny, awesome Rush moments of pure weird! That is AMAZING to me, but I know it turns all my friends off completely.

 

I'm not trying to be purposely disagreeable here, but I still disagree. :codger:

 

i think they dragged behind their peers. It's true they did what they want, but that was usually after others did it before them.

 

I don't consider Close To The Edge "pop." Rush wishes they could have turned out a Close To The Edge. I bet they wish they could have turned out a Quadrophenia too. Rush turned out plenty of pop in the eighties. The later the eighties, the more the pop.

 

Again. I'm not trying to be contrary. Just sharing my honest assessment that I have come to via my untrained ear. :)

 

Aahh you are referring to the seventies...agreed but during the eighties they took on trends and sounded like no one else.

 

But they never started trends, they just didn't paint my numbers either.

 

They sounded like no one else because they were off in their own world.

 

Well, never mind. Just thought I'd ask. My husband and I were discussing this on Sunday.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Lorraine

[Segue Myles]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

 

I completely agree, what I was trying to say is they weren't more successful because, unlike their peers, they played 100% by their own rules!

 

I think they could have been bigger if they churned out pure pop like Yes, Genesis or Journey (and I use pop as a good thing), but even the most mainstream Rush album is full of twisty, turny, awesome Rush moments of pure weird! That is AMAZING to me, but I know it turns all my friends off completely.

 

I'm not trying to be purposely disagreeable here, but I still disagree. :codger:

 

i think they dragged behind their peers. It's true they did what they want, but that was usually after others did it before them.

 

I don't consider Close To The Edge "pop." Rush wishes they could have turned out a Close To The Edge. I bet they wish they could have turned out a Quadrophenia too. Rush turned out plenty of pop in the eighties. The later the eighties, the more the pop.

 

Again. I'm not trying to be contrary. Just sharing my honest assessment that I have come to via my untrained ear. :)

 

Aahh you are referring to the seventies...agreed but during the eighties they took on trends and sounded like no one else.

 

But they never started trends, they just didn't paint my numbers either.

 

They sounded like no one else because they were off in their own world.

 

Well, never mind. Just thought I'd ask. My husband and I were discussing this on Sunday.

 

Exactly! But if Rush released the same music but started several years earlier, they'd have been a lot bigger

 

[EagleMoon]

Rather than quote Mick and Blue J and Segue, I will say that I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Rush is still around because they are genuinely that talented rather than that they were lucky and had die-hard fans.

 

I think in both the seventies and the eighties many bands blew them right out of the water. Sometimes I wonder how they made it so big. Again, an amateur opinion just based on what I am hearing. As you all know, I technically know 1% about music and the intricacies that are involved in playing an instrument.

 

I completely agree, what I was trying to say is they weren't more successful because, unlike their peers, they played 100% by their own rules!

 

I think they could have been bigger if they churned out pure pop like Yes, Genesis or Journey (and I use pop as a good thing), but even the most mainstream Rush album is full of twisty, turny, awesome Rush moments of pure weird! That is AMAZING to me, but I know it turns all my friends off completely.

 

I'm not trying to be purposely disagreeable here, but I still disagree. :codger:

 

i think they dragged behind their peers. It's true they did what they want, but that was usually after others did it before them.

 

I don't consider Close To The Edge "pop." Rush wishes they could have turned out a Close To The Edge. I bet they wish they could have turned out a Quadrophenia too. Rush turned out plenty of pop in the eighties. The later the eighties, the more the pop.

 

Again. I'm not trying to be contrary. Just sharing my honest assessment that I have come to via my untrained ear. :)

 

Aahh you are referring to the seventies...agreed but during the eighties they took on trends and sounded like no one else.

 

But they never started trends, they just didn't paint my numbers either.

 

They sounded like no one else because they were off in their own world.

 

Well, never mind. Just thought I'd ask. My husband and I were discussing this on Sunday.

 

Exactly! But if Rush released the same music but started several years earlier, they'd have been a lot bigger

 

They have always incorporated elements of the current musical trend, but have always sounded like themselves. The most obvious things being Alex's thin Andy Summers guitar during the eighties and then the synth period after that. Both of those things were popular at the time even if a lot of people didn't want Rush to use them. Even now their sound has changed to sound more like popular music ala Foo Fighters.

Edited September 10, 2015 by EagleMoon

[Entre_Perpetuo]

80's Rush-Was Pop/synth but undeniably there own stamp.

 

80s Yes-Older dinosaur band trying desperatly to be hip.......sorry just how i see it.

 

80's Genesis-Pop.....but done brilliently only prog band to rival Rush in the 80's IMO

 

80's Kansas-Generic bland.......not even trying

 

80's Queen-Total singles band......but what nice pop singles.

 

80's Styx-Bite me Deyoung. i mean you had paradise Theater but........screw you Dennis, lol

 

Mick

 

Nice analysis, I agree with a good bit of this, though I'll never quite comprehend the hatred of Deyoung.

[bluefox4000]

80's Rush-Was Pop/synth but undeniably there own stamp.

 

80s Yes-Older dinosaur band trying desperatly to be hip.......sorry just how i see it.

 

80's Genesis-Pop.....but done brilliently only prog band to rival Rush in the 80's IMO

 

80's Kansas-Generic bland.......not even trying

 

80's Queen-Total singles band......but what nice pop singles.

 

80's Styx-Bite me Deyoung. i mean you had paradise Theater but........screw you Dennis, lol

 

Mick

 

Nice analysis, I agree with a good bit of this, though I'll never quite comprehend the hatred of Deyoung.

 

he's not terrible. but when he goes full flamboyant Deyoung. Kinda turns me off.

 

See Kilroy.

 

Mick

[Entre_Perpetuo]

80's Rush-Was Pop/synth but undeniably there own stamp.

 

80s Yes-Older dinosaur band trying desperatly to be hip.......sorry just how i see it.

 

80's Genesis-Pop.....but done brilliently only prog band to rival Rush in the 80's IMO

 

80's Kansas-Generic bland.......not even trying

 

80's Queen-Total singles band......but what nice pop singles.

 

80's Styx-Bite me Deyoung. i mean you had paradise Theater but........screw you Dennis, lol

 

Mick

 

Nice analysis, I agree with a good bit of this, though I'll never quite comprehend the hatred of Deyoung.

 

he's not terrible. but when he goes full flamboyant Deyoung. Kinda turns me off.

 

See Kilroy.

 

Mick

 

Kilroy I understand. For some reason my dad loved that album back in the eighties and suggested I grab it for 3 bucks in a used vinyl bin. I don't hate it, but it's not as good as most of my records, or most records that I listen to. Although, Mr. Roboto is perfect.

[Segue Myles]

80's Rush-Was Pop/synth but undeniably there own stamp.

 

80s Yes-Older dinosaur band trying desperatly to be hip.......sorry just how i see it.

 

80's Genesis-Pop.....but done brilliently only prog band to rival Rush in the 80's IMO

 

80's Kansas-Generic bland.......not even trying

 

80's Queen-Total singles band......but what nice pop singles.

 

80's Styx-Bite me Deyoung. i mean you had paradise Theater but........screw you Dennis, lol

 

Mick

 

Nice analysis, I agree with a good bit of this, though I'll never quite comprehend the hatred of Deyoung.

 

he's not terrible. but when he goes full flamboyant Deyoung. Kinda turns me off.

 

See Kilroy.

 

Mick

 

This exactly! Styx from the debut to Paradise Theater, I can cope with him (although Cornerstone is a little meh). Kilroy? Kildeyoung more like!

[Segue Myles]

80's Rush-Was Pop/synth but undeniably there own stamp.

 

80s Yes-Older dinosaur band trying desperatly to be hip.......sorry just how i see it.

 

80's Genesis-Pop.....but done brilliently only prog band to rival Rush in the 80's IMO

 

80's Kansas-Generic bland.......not even trying

 

80's Queen-Total singles band......but what nice pop singles.

 

80's Styx-Bite me Deyoung. i mean you had paradise Theater but........screw you Dennis, lol

 

Mick

 

Nice analysis, I agree with a good bit of this, though I'll never quite comprehend the hatred of Deyoung.

 

he's not terrible. but when he goes full flamboyant Deyoung. Kinda turns me off.

 

See Kilroy.

 

Mick

 

Kilroy I understand. For some reason my dad loved that album back in the eighties and suggested I grab it for 3 bucks in a used vinyl bin. I don't hate it, but it's not as good as most of my records, or most records that I listen to. Although, Mr. Roboto is perfect.

 

We can still be friends.

 

But this hurts. This hurt me bad.

 

Joking! Mr Robot was a hit. Must be something good about it haha!

 

Maybe it is time to revisit this album...*shudders*

[Blue J]

I think Mr. Roboto may be the only song from that album that I know.

 

It's not a great song, but I don't think it's horribly bad.

[Segue Myles]

I think Mr. Roboto may be the only song from that album that I know.

 

It's not a great song, but I don't think it's horribly bad.

 

It's absolutely revolting.

 

I have never hated an album so much by any band I love as much as I do Kilroy.

[Blue J]

I think Mr. Roboto may be the only song from that album that I know.

 

It's not a great song, but I don't think it's horribly bad.

 

It's absolutely revolting.

 

I have never hated an album so much by any band I love as much as I do Kilroy.

 

Duly noted.

 

I will hit up the Wooden Nickel releases and listen to those before anything else.

[Segue Myles]

I think Mr. Roboto may be the only song from that album that I know.

 

It's not a great song, but I don't think it's horribly bad.

 

It's absolutely revolting.

 

I have never hated an album so much by any band I love as much as I do Kilroy.

 

Duly noted.

 

I will hit up the Wooden Nickel releases and listen to those before anything else.

 

They are very chaotic, an amazing mixed bag. Never been so enthralled by flawed works in my life!

 

Those Wooden Nickel albums give me life.