bluefox4000 Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Honestly i can agree slightly. Rush always plays top notch. but with little to no variation. so i sort of agree. can see how they'd bore some.......in fact i've heard them called boring live, lol Mick What I detest about shows nowadays, and I'm not even sure exactly when it began, but... Everything is rushed. The old days, bands could jam and do whatever they wanted to on stage not heeding the fact that they only had a limited amount of time on stage. Led Zeppelin was famous for turning a two hour show into three plus hours with Jimmy doing whatever he felt like doing whenever he felt like doing it. Now, they get a certain amount of time for a show. No time to waste. Not even enough time to clap and appreciate the song you just saw performed without the opening notes to the next song starting. Rush. Rush. Rush. No more spontaneity. Did Rush ever jam though? i'm not being a smart ass.....i'm just curious. Mick You are asking me? I don't know. I just mentioned that. It doesn't have to be jamming. In the old days, encores weren't planned. And, an encore could go on an hour. There was no rush to get off stage and out of the building. Like I said, there was a lot more spontaneity from bands back then. There was a lot of bantering and stuff between songs. And you got time to clap. Today it appears like every single thing is on a strict time-table. Not a minute more is allowed. Too uniform. Too planned. Too orchestrated. I guess a lot of that has to do with the light shows and all of the doo-dads that Geddy and Alex are pushing with their feet to get special effects or added enhancement for their instruments? I don't know. The old days, you never knew what would happen next. Today, you know every little thing, and it rarely, if ever, deviates from that. oh ok i got ya, lol Yea.......it really is people these days too. phones texting during shows. no patiance. talking during like quieter songs.......which REALLY annoys me. like if a band does an acoustic set. people will be having full blown conversations. it ain't right. Mick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J2112YYZ Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Honestly i can agree slightly. Rush always plays top notch. but with little to no variation. so i sort of agree. can see how they'd bore some.......in fact i've heard them called boring live, lol Mick What I detest about shows nowadays, and I'm not even sure exactly when it began, but... Everything is rushed. The old days, bands could jam and do whatever they wanted to on stage not heeding the fact that they only had a limited amount of time on stage. Led Zeppelin was famous for turning a two hour show into three plus hours with Jimmy doing whatever he felt like doing whenever he felt like doing it. Now, they get a certain amount of time for a show. No time to waste. Not even enough time to clap and appreciate the song you just saw performed without the opening notes to the next song starting. Rush. Rush. Rush. No more spontaneity. Were their venue curfews back in the 60s, 70s and 80s? If not, I can see why bands had a little more freedom live years ago. Venues can fine a band huge amounts of money of they go over the curfew these days. So, because of that, it's "let's go out there and get the job done" with no BS. Honestly, I like that much better. Like x1yyz said, I prefer to hear bands play songs then jam and noodle around on stage. I don't mind Neil's solos since they were never overly long and always felt like it belonged. Same with when Alex would do something like Broon's Bane or one of his other little solos. I'm a direct and to the point person, so I like to see the same thing when I go to see a band live. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Honestly i can agree slightly. Rush always plays top notch. but with little to no variation. so i sort of agree. can see how they'd bore some.......in fact i've heard them called boring live, lol Mick What I detest about shows nowadays, and I'm not even sure exactly when it began, but... Everything is rushed. The old days, bands could jam and do whatever they wanted to on stage not heeding the fact that they only had a limited amount of time on stage. Led Zeppelin was famous for turning a two hour show into three plus hours with Jimmy doing whatever he felt like doing whenever he felt like doing it. Now, they get a certain amount of time for a show. No time to waste. Not even enough time to clap and appreciate the song you just saw performed without the opening notes to the next song starting. Rush. Rush. Rush. No more spontaneity. Were their venue curfews back in the 60s, 70s and 80s? If not, I can see why bands had a little more freedom live years ago. Venues can fine a band huge amounts of money of they go over the curfew these days. So, because of that, it's "let's go out there and get the job done" with no BS. Honestly, I like that much better. Like x1yyz said, I prefer to hear bands play songs then jam and noodle around on stage. I don't mind Neil's solos since they were never overly long and always felt like it belonged. Same with when Alex would do something like Broon's Bane or one of his other little solos. I'm a direct and to the point person, so I like to see the same thing when I go to see a band live. Couldn't have been curfews from the venues back then. Concerts were a new thing. It took time to develop into a full-blown business. Which is what destroyed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemiBeers Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Honestly i can agree slightly. Rush always plays top notch. but with little to no variation. so i sort of agree. can see how they'd bore some.......in fact i've heard them called boring live, lol Mick What I detest about shows nowadays, and I'm not even sure exactly when it began, but... Everything is rushed. The old days, bands could jam and do whatever they wanted to on stage not heeding the fact that they only had a limited amount of time on stage. Led Zeppelin was famous for turning a two hour show into three plus hours with Jimmy doing whatever he felt like doing whenever he felt like doing it. Now, they get a certain amount of time for a show. No time to waste. Not even enough time to clap and appreciate the song you just saw performed without the opening notes to the next song starting. Rush. Rush. Rush. No more spontaneity. Were their venue curfews back in the 60s, 70s and 80s? If not, I can see why bands had a little more freedom live years ago. Venues can fine a band huge amounts of money of they go over the curfew these days. So, because of that, it's "let's go out there and get the job done" with no BS. Honestly, I like that much better. Like x1yyz said, I prefer to hear bands play songs then jam and noodle around on stage. I don't mind Neil's solos since they were never overly long and always felt like it belonged. Same with when Alex would do something like Broon's Bane or one of his other little solos. I'm a direct and to the point person, so I like to see the same thing when I go to see a band live. Couldn't have been curfews from the venues back then. Concerts were a new thing. It took time to develop into a full-blown business. Which is what destroyed them.Here's a clip of Hendrix in Sweden. A full 2 minutes of lowkey messing around before they start playing. Laughable compared to concerts these days with their GRAND ENTRANCES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koxpJ7nhz2Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J2112YYZ Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) Honestly i can agree slightly. Rush always plays top notch. but with little to no variation. so i sort of agree. can see how they'd bore some.......in fact i've heard them called boring live, lol Mick What I detest about shows nowadays, and I'm not even sure exactly when it began, but... Everything is rushed. The old days, bands could jam and do whatever they wanted to on stage not heeding the fact that they only had a limited amount of time on stage. Led Zeppelin was famous for turning a two hour show into three plus hours with Jimmy doing whatever he felt like doing whenever he felt like doing it. Now, they get a certain amount of time for a show. No time to waste. Not even enough time to clap and appreciate the song you just saw performed without the opening notes to the next song starting. Rush. Rush. Rush. No more spontaneity. Were their venue curfews back in the 60s, 70s and 80s? If not, I can see why bands had a little more freedom live years ago. Venues can fine a band huge amounts of money of they go over the curfew these days. So, because of that, it's "let's go out there and get the job done" with no BS. Honestly, I like that much better. Like x1yyz said, I prefer to hear bands play songs then jam and noodle around on stage. I don't mind Neil's solos since they were never overly long and always felt like it belonged. Same with when Alex would do something like Broon's Bane or one of his other little solos. I'm a direct and to the point person, so I like to see the same thing when I go to see a band live. Couldn't have been curfews from the venues back then. Concerts were a new thing. It took time to develop into a full-blown business. Which is what destroyed them. So, if there were no curfews back then, it gave the bands more freedom. Venues having curfews is not the fault of any band in particular, I don't believe. It's just a way for the venue to try and collect some more cash from them outside of the venue rental fee. Unfortunately, bands have to abide by those curfews unless they are not concerned getting fined tens of thousands of dollars or more. Touring is expensive for most acts, so most of them don't want to have to pay that. It could be the difference on whether or not a band makes money on that tour or not. Concerts have always been a business. It just took a number of years for people to catch onto it. I can't recall ever going to a live show and not enjoying it. I loved it the 12 times I was fortunate enough to see Rush. Even though it's a business, it's never once destroyed my concert going experiences. Edited December 28, 2015 by J2112YYZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Honestly i can agree slightly. Rush always plays top notch. but with little to no variation. so i sort of agree. can see how they'd bore some.......in fact i've heard them called boring live, lol Mick What I detest about shows nowadays, and I'm not even sure exactly when it began, but... Everything is rushed. The old days, bands could jam and do whatever they wanted to on stage not heeding the fact that they only had a limited amount of time on stage. Led Zeppelin was famous for turning a two hour show into three plus hours with Jimmy doing whatever he felt like doing whenever he felt like doing it. Now, they get a certain amount of time for a show. No time to waste. Not even enough time to clap and appreciate the song you just saw performed without the opening notes to the next song starting. Rush. Rush. Rush. No more spontaneity. Were their venue curfews back in the 60s, 70s and 80s? If not, I can see why bands had a little more freedom live years ago. Venues can fine a band huge amounts of money of they go over the curfew these days. So, because of that, it's "let's go out there and get the job done" with no BS. Honestly, I like that much better. Like x1yyz said, I prefer to hear bands play songs then jam and noodle around on stage. I don't mind Neil's solos since they were never overly long and always felt like it belonged. Same with when Alex would do something like Broon's Bane or one of his other little solos. I'm a direct and to the point person, so I like to see the same thing when I go to see a band live. Couldn't have been curfews from the venues back then. Concerts were a new thing. It took time to develop into a full-blown business. Which is what destroyed them. So, if there were no curfews back then, it gave the bands more freedom. Venues having curfews is not the fault of any band in particular, I don't believe. It's just a way for the venue to try and collect some more cash from them outside of the venue rental fee. Unfortunately, bands have to abide by those curfews unless they are not concerned getting fined tens of thousands of dollars or more. Touring is expensive for most acts, so most of them don't want to have to pay that. It could be the difference on whether or not a band makes money on that tour or not. Concerts have always been a business. It just took a number of years for people to catch onto it. I can't recall ever going to a live show and not enjoying it. I loved it the 12 times I was fortunate enough to see Rush. Even though it's a business, it's never once destroyed my concert going experiences. Of course concerts were always a money making deal, but it didn't start out what it developed into. You aren't even forty, so you wouldn't know what it was like when it all began. There is a difference. Of course, it's no reflection on any one band, and I never said it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital Dad Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Honestly i can agree slightly. Rush always plays top notch. but with little to no variation. so i sort of agree. can see how they'd bore some.......in fact i've heard them called boring live, lol Mick What I detest about shows nowadays, and I'm not even sure exactly when it began, but... Everything is rushed. The old days, bands could jam and do whatever they wanted to on stage not heeding the fact that they only had a limited amount of time on stage. Led Zeppelin was famous for turning a two hour show into three plus hours with Jimmy doing whatever he felt like doing whenever he felt like doing it. Now, they get a certain amount of time for a show. No time to waste. Not even enough time to clap and appreciate the song you just saw performed without the opening notes to the next song starting. Rush. Rush. Rush. No more spontaneity. Did Rush ever jam though? i'm not being a smart ass.....i'm just curious. Mick Jam? On stage? In front of people? Not really. The extent to which they do is limited to the extended jam bits like on the end of Bravado, is one occurrence I can identify. Rush music by nature is not very exploratory nor do they take many chances in a live setting. Maybe they shouldn't but I wouldn't mind them mixing the sets up a bit more than they do. Still with the kind of show they are known for they really cant mix things up with the amount of triggering and the choreography that goes on with the backdrops and lights as such. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue J Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Honestly i can agree slightly. Rush always plays top notch. but with little to no variation. so i sort of agree. can see how they'd bore some.......in fact i've heard them called boring live, lol Mick What I detest about shows nowadays, and I'm not even sure exactly when it began, but... Everything is rushed. The old days, bands could jam and do whatever they wanted to on stage not heeding the fact that they only had a limited amount of time on stage. Led Zeppelin was famous for turning a two hour show into three plus hours with Jimmy doing whatever he felt like doing whenever he felt like doing it. Now, they get a certain amount of time for a show. No time to waste. Not even enough time to clap and appreciate the song you just saw performed without the opening notes to the next song starting. Rush. Rush. Rush. No more spontaneity. Did Rush ever jam though? i'm not being a smart ass.....i'm just curious. Mick Jam? On stage? In front of people? Not really. The extent to which they do is limited to the extended jam bits like on the end of Bravado, is one occurrence I can identify. Rush music by nature is not very exploratory nor do they take many chances in a live setting. Maybe they shouldn't but I wouldn't mind them mixing the sets up a bit more than they do. Still with the kind of show they are known for they really cant mix things up with the amount of triggering and the choreography that goes on with the backdrops and lights as such. True- that's one of the spontaneity killers that Lorraine referred to. I've heard Geddy refer to 'jamming' with Alex or with Neil, separately, but I think he really means riffing. Could be just a matter of semantics, that's all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Vapor Trails is perfect lyrically, and their most unique album musically.Vapor Trails is better than Signals by far. Two epic posts! Signals is the bands most overrated album. At least on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital Dad Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Vapor Trails is perfect lyrically, and their most unique album musically.Vapor Trails is better than Signals by far. Two epic posts! Signals is the bands most overrated album. At least on this forum. I think Caress of Steel is moreOverrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Geddy's voice sounds awful on the R40 recording. Probably best they are hanging it up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Geddy's voice sounds awful on the R40 recording. Probably best they are hanging it up. No doubt about it. That's an unpopular opinion around here. ;) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue J Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Clockwork Angels was their best album, from start to finish, since Hold Your Fire. I think I may be captaining my own ship on that one, haha! But I stand by it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 R40 was great in concept.........but i just got around to watching that first half.........god how utterly boring. Should have just done a whole show of pre 90's stuff Mick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Vapor Trails is perfect lyrically, and their most unique album musically.Vapor Trails is better than Signals by far. Two epic posts! Signals is the bands most overrated album. At least on this forum. I think Caress of Steel is moreOverrated. Caress Of Steel is a masterpiece. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Clockwork Angels was their best album, from start to finish, since Hold Your Fire. I think I may be captaining my own ship on that one, haha! But I stand by it. I replayed it this week and some of its magic was back! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 R40 was great in concept.........but i just got around to watching that first half.........god how utterly boring. Should have just done a whole show of pre 90's stuff Mick I agree that set one is/was boring. This ties in to the other thread about why we don't love modern era Rush. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 I have no interest in ever seeing Rush live. I love them to death, but there are bands around today on peak form in every department that I would much rather witness live. Alter Bridge, Lacuna Coil, Within Temptation, hopefully soon Jimmy Eat World. I adore Rush but after CA Live, and R40, plus bootlegs and the regular live video feed (whatever it was called) sounded so dreadful, my money is better spent elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue J Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Clockwork Angels was their best album, from start to finish, since Hold Your Fire. I think I may be captaining my own ship on that one, haha! But I stand by it. I replayed it this week and some of its magic was back! Yes, I saw you post about that! I listened to Vapor Trails sometime last week as well. Still a grower...but there are some really good things on it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue J Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 R40 was great in concept.........but i just got around to watching that first half.........god how utterly boring. Should have just done a whole show of pre 90's stuff Mick I agree that set one is/was boring. This ties in to the other thread about why we don't love modern era Rush. Disagreeing! :hi: Hahaha... I just watched it for the first time, a couple of days ago. Thought it was really good, all the way through. Is it anything like the old days? No, of course not. But capturing their former glory is not something they've ever wanted to do. I feel that they put on a great show, regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Clockwork Angels was their best album, from start to finish, since Hold Your Fire. I think I may be captaining my own ship on that one, haha! But I stand by it. I replayed it this week and some of its magic was back! Yes, I saw you post about that! I listened to Vapor Trails sometime last week as well. Still a grower...but there are some really good things on it. I found the songs I regarded as "filler" on CA to actually be quite nice build ups to the next great song. So, rather than bore, they added to the flow. Nothing sounded weak (production aside), but little blew me away. I still find myself really enjoying The Wreckers, Seven Cities and Wish Them Well more than most it seems! In its own way, a wonderful record but for now it's still not really doing much for me. But if I get my love back for it, it would be nice, as the album meant so much to me back in 2012! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Believe it or not, I really do try not to offend anyone else's musical sensibilities around here. Admittedly, I don't always succeed, but I do try. Also, I am always aware that there are a few here who see Rush through eyes that I will never look at them through. Having said that, here's an undoubtedly unpopular opinion. It is time Rush retires for good. Geddy's voice is gone. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Believe it or not, I really do try not to offend anyone else's musical sensibilities around here. Admittedly, I don't always succeed, but I do try. Also, I am always aware that there are a few here who see Rush through eyes that I will never look at them through. Having said that, here's an undoubtedly unpopular opinion. It is time Rush retires for good. Geddy's voice is gone. I agree so much! It isn't even sad to me, they have had such a great career phenomenal, that if this is the end, they more than deserve to be remembered for the last few years as much as the Rush of decades ago. But at the same time, I find his voice to be so bad I really never want to see them live. And whilst many on this forum would argue otherwise, this is purely my opinion and I am glad you also share it! It's not even harsh. It is facing up to reality. And the reality is, Rush are wonderful but that doesn't mean they should be expected to be around forever. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Believe it or not, I really do try not to offend anyone else's musical sensibilities around here. Admittedly, I don't always succeed, but I do try. Also, I am always aware that there are a few here who see Rush through eyes that I will never look at them through. Having said that, here's an undoubtedly unpopular opinion. It is time Rush retires for good. Geddy's voice is gone.Agreed! His voice has been gone for a while now IMO 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Believe it or not, I really do try not to offend anyone else's musical sensibilities around here. Admittedly, I don't always succeed, but I do try. Also, I am always aware that there are a few here who see Rush through eyes that I will never look at them through. Having said that, here's an undoubtedly unpopular opinion. It is time Rush retires for good. Geddy's voice is gone. his voice has been done since 2011 sadly...........but we don't acknowledge that. hee hee Mick 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