Crystal Grand Theater 4-24

[StyxCollector]

One thing I've wondered is this: What if by some miracle there was a rock group that came out with record after record for decades, and each one was a hit on the Modern Rock radio charts, would they still be forced to play old faves, or would there be as much demand for the newer stuff? I'm talking strictly hypothetical, where their popularity in the early years was mirrored by their "golden years". Sorry to go off topic, but I just wanted to know what other people thought about this.

just look at Rush. half the set is new stuff and everyone eats it up.

Not really. Even the die hards I know (including myself) hated that stretch in the beginning of the second set for both legs of the S&A tour where it was only S&A stuff (like six songs in a row). That was a poorly laid out set even by Rush standards.

So I think you're a bit delusional on that one.

[KWH17]

^If those six songs had been sprinkled in thru-out the performance they probably wouldn't have been so irritating. I saw U2 Concert and th ebasic formula was 3 old faves-2 newbies-2 old faves-2 newbies: basically something like that.

I wouldn't argue that their creativity has been poorer in recent years, but these kinds of things seem to work in an up-and-down kind of fashion, and while they've been down for awhile, I could easily see them getting up again.

[foolintherain]

One thing I've wondered is this: What if by some miracle there was a rock group that came out with record after record for decades, and each one was a hit on the Modern Rock radio charts, would they still be forced to play old faves, or would there be as much demand for the newer stuff? I'm talking strictly hypothetical, where their popularity in the early years was mirrored by their "golden years". Sorry to go off topic, but I just wanted to know what other people thought about this.

just look at Rush. half the set is new stuff and everyone eats it up.

Not really. Even the die hards I know (including myself) hated that stretch in the beginning of the second set for both legs of the S&A tour where it was only S&A stuff (like six songs in a row). That was a poorly laid out set even by Rush standards.

So I think you're a bit delusional on that one.

I saw four concerts on the Snakes and Arrows tour. Evey single time everyone loved them. You're a bit retarded. You, like most people on this board don't have a clue about music. Snakes and Arrows is one of the best Rush albums.

[pinkfloyd1973]

One thing I've wondered is this: What if by some miracle there was a rock group that came out with record after record for decades, and each one was a hit on the Modern Rock radio charts, would they still be forced to play old faves, or would there be as much demand for the newer stuff? I'm talking strictly hypothetical, where their popularity in the early years was mirrored by their "golden years". Sorry to go off topic, but I just wanted to know what other people thought about this.

just look at Rush. half the set is new stuff and everyone eats it up.

Not really. Even the die hards I know (including myself) hated that stretch in the beginning of the second set for both legs of the S&A tour where it was only S&A stuff (like six songs in a row). That was a poorly laid out set even by Rush standards.

So I think you're a bit delusional on that one.

I saw four concerts on the Snakes and Arrows tour. Evey single time everyone loved them. You're a bit retarded. You, like most people on this board don't have a clue about music. Snakes and Arrows is one of the best Rush albums.

(Shaking her head) Uh "foolin" You really don't know who you're talking to, do you?


Robin

[StyxCollector]

I saw four concerts on the Snakes and Arrows tour. Evey single time everyone loved them. You're a bit retarded. You, like most people on this board don't have a clue about music. Snakes and Arrows is one of the best Rush albums.

Oh, OK. S&A was a mediocre effort; better than VT, but far from great. It had some good moments, but not everything worked on there. I saw that tour both legs and every tour since HYF (1st show was one where Tommy Shaw was the opener @ the Spectrum in Philly). And oh yeah, was in a Rush tribute band for five years playing bass and keys. But I have no clue about Rush ... right.

Rush has always sucked at set flow, but the S&A tour was the worst. They should have never done as many in a row. "Subdivisions" was a major relief after all of that (and my favorite Rush song to play on keys).

[foolintherain]

I saw four concerts on the Snakes and Arrows tour. Evey single time everyone loved them. You're a bit retarded. You, like most people on this board don't have a clue about music. Snakes and Arrows is one of the best Rush albums.

Oh, OK. S&A was a mediocre effort; better than VT, but far from great. It had some good moments, but not everything worked on there. I saw that tour both legs and every tour since HYF (1st show was one where Tommy Shaw was the opener @ the Spectrum in Philly). And oh yeah, was in a Rush tribute band for five years playing bass and keys. But I have no clue about Rush ... right.

Rush has always sucked at set flow, but the S&A tour was the worst. They should have never done as many in a row. "Subdivisions" was a major relief after all of that (and my favorite Rush song to play on keys).

Snakes and Arrows was a fantastic album. Those songs come off great live. You're just another one of "those" idiots. I bet I could play circles around you too!

[Zan]

[quote="pinkfloyd1973"] (Shaking her head) Uh "foolin" You really don't know who you're talking to, do you?




Uh "Robin," you really haven't grasped the concept of anonymous posting on the Internet, have you?

[foolintherain]

I saw four concerts on the Snakes and Arrows tour. Evey single time everyone loved them. You're a bit retarded. You, like most people on this board don't have a clue about music. Snakes and Arrows is one of the best Rush albums.

Oh, OK. S&A was a mediocre effort; better than VT, but far from great. It had some good moments, but not everything worked on there. I saw that tour both legs and every tour since HYF (1st show was one where Tommy Shaw was the opener @ the Spectrum in Philly). And oh yeah, was in a Rush tribute band for five years playing bass and keys. But I have no clue about Rush ... right.

Rush has always sucked at set flow, but the S&A tour was the worst. They should have never done as many in a row. "Subdivisions" was a major relief after all of that (and my favorite Rush song to play on keys).

Rush have never sucked at anything by the way. Unless you count sucking at not sucking. VT was great but the production and mixes were bad. S and A is for sure their best sounding album.

[chowhall]

yogi ANYONE?

[StyxCollector]

Snakes and Arrows was a fantastic album. Those songs come off great live. You're just another one of "those" idiots. I bet I could play circles around you too!

Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one. WHat you don't seem to grasp is that it's your opinion that you like S&A. It's my opinion that it wasn't great, but better than the one that came before it. But you saying it was fantastic does not make it fact. Now tell Neil, Alex, and Geddy to give you $5 for maybe making another sale. Unlike some fans of bands, I actually think for myself. If people don't agree with me, I'm not going to worry about it. You clearly seem bothered that I don't lie down at the altar of Rush (who arguably has snuck ahead of Styx for me as a favorite band at times over the past 10 - 15 years) and kiss their ass.

[StyxCollector]

Rush have never sucked at anything by the way. Unless you count sucking at not sucking. VT was great but the production and mixes were bad. S and A is for sure their best sounding album.

VT is what it is: a difficult album to make largely due to the circumstances (Neil's tragedies). That doesn't excuse the bad mixes and cut-and-paste arrangements right out of ProTools in places. I think some of those songs could have been better with different production, others not. Combine VT with S&A and I think you'd have one really good Rush record. The remixes of the two VT songs on Retrospective III are interesting to hear, and while in some spots they clean things up, a song like OLV lost a bit of its balls.

VT was far from great, not the worst album I've ever heard, but I'd still rank it next to the bottom of the Rush catalog right above Presto.

[Zan]

[MCM]

One thing I've wondered is this: What if by some miracle there was a rock group that came out with record after record for decades, and each one was a hit on the Modern Rock radio charts, would they still be forced to play old faves, or would there be as much demand for the newer stuff? I'm talking strictly hypothetical, where their popularity in the early years was mirrored by their "golden years". Sorry to go off topic, but I just wanted to know what other people thought about this.

just look at Rush. half the set is new stuff and everyone eats it up.

Not really. Even the die hards I know (including myself) hated that stretch in the beginning of the second set for both legs of the S&A tour where it was only S&A stuff (like six songs in a row). That was a poorly laid out set even by Rush standards.

So I think you're a bit delusional on that one.

I saw four concerts on the Snakes and Arrows tour. Evey single time everyone loved them. You're a bit retarded. You, like most people on this board don't have a clue about music. Snakes and Arrows is one of the best Rush albums.

I saw them twice on the second leg of the S&A tour, You can't honestly believe that "everyone" loved that string of new stuff at the beginning of the second set. There were plenty of empty seats during that time at both shows I saw and plenty of complaints from the fan base. I'm on the side of S&A but you can't say it's one of their best.

[pinkfloyd1973]

(Shaking her head) Uh "foolin" You really don't know who you're talking to, do you?




Uh "Robin," you really haven't grasped the concept of anonymous posting on the Internet, have you?

You got me there "Zan"



Robin

[Mr JY Roboto]

I saw four concerts on the Snakes and Arrows tour. Evey single time everyone loved them. You're a bit retarded. You, like most people on this board don't have a clue about music. Snakes and Arrows is one of the best Rush albums.

Oh, OK. S&A was a mediocre effort; better than VT, but far from great. It had some good moments, but not everything worked on there. I saw that tour both legs and every tour since HYF (1st show was one where Tommy Shaw was the opener @ the Spectrum in Philly). And oh yeah, was in a Rush tribute band for five years playing bass and keys. But I have no clue about Rush ... right.

Rush has always sucked at set flow, but the S&A tour was the worst. They should have never done as many in a row. "Subdivisions" was a major relief after all of that (and my favorite Rush song to play on keys).

Rush have never sucked at anything by the way. Unless you count sucking at not sucking. VT was great but the production and mixes were bad. S and A is for sure their best sounding album.

Well..there is not a band out there that hasn't sucked at least a little bit in their career. S&A was definately an improvement over VT but it is far from their best. Some nice songs but... I was disappointed they played that many new songs because I want to hear the classics or some of their old rare stuff. At the most, 3 new songs would do it.

You sound like a teenager getting pissy because someone said something you didn't like about your fav band.

[StyxCollector]

Rush is one of those bands - sans the R30 tour - where they have always done a good chunk of their latest album. Even on R30 they did a few from Feedback. I like that about them. The S&A tour was the first time I can remember since 1988 they did most of those at the same time; at most in the past they'd do 2 or 3 new ones, and then play a recognizable song or three. They've generally been a bit better at spreading them around. Heck, on the HYF tour I think I was the only person happy when they played "Turn the Page".

[Ehwmatt]

Rush is one of those bands - sans the R30 tour - where they have always done a good chunk of their latest album. Even on R30 they did a few from Feedback. I like that about them. The S&A tour was the first time I can remember since 1988 they did most of those at the same time; at most in the past they'd do 2 or 3 new ones, and then play a recognizable song or three. They've generally been a bit better at spreading them around. Heck, on the HYF tour I think I was the only person happy when they played "Turn the Page".

I always wish all the bands I go see would do this. If you're touring behind a new album, you should really play at least 3 from the new album. I do think it's probably a good strategy to sprinkle them in rather than assault the unknowing audience all at once, unless you're a prog band touring behind a new concept album or something...

[foolintherain]

I saw four concerts on the Snakes and Arrows tour. Evey single time everyone loved them. You're a bit retarded. You, like most people on this board don't have a clue about music. Snakes and Arrows is one of the best Rush albums.

Oh, OK. S&A was a mediocre effort; better than VT, but far from great. It had some good moments, but not everything worked on there. I saw that tour both legs and every tour since HYF (1st show was one where Tommy Shaw was the opener @ the Spectrum in Philly). And oh yeah, was in a Rush tribute band for five years playing bass and keys. But I have no clue about Rush ... right.

Rush has always sucked at set flow, but the S&A tour was the worst. They should have never done as many in a row. "Subdivisions" was a major relief after all of that (and my favorite Rush song to play on keys).

Rush have never sucked at anything by the way. Unless you count sucking at not sucking. VT was great but the production and mixes were bad. S and A is for sure their best sounding album.

Well..there is not a band out there that hasn't sucked at least a little bit in their career. S&A was definately an improvement over VT but it is far from their best. Some nice songs but... I was disappointed they played that many new songs because I want to hear the classics or some of their old rare stuff. At the most, 3 new songs would do it.

You sound like a teenager getting pissy because someone said something you didn't like about your fav band.

The Beatles never sucked. Neither did Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd. Rush is, as it always has been, a contemporary band.

[Jodes]

Too each their own.. I think the Pre-Dark Side of the Moon Pink Floyd blows.. as well as a lot of the Beatles stuff post 66..

As for Led Zeppelin, I can appreciate what they've done for music and rock n roll, but I'm so sick of hearing them day in and day out on the radio up here, I can't stand to listen any of their stuff anymore.

[Zan]

Well..there is not a band out there that hasn't sucked at least a little bit in their career. S&A was definately an improvement over VT but it is far from their best. Some nice songs but... I was disappointed they played that many new songs because I want to hear the classics or some of their old rare stuff. At the most, 3 new songs would do it.

You sound like a teenager getting pissy because someone said something you didn't like about your fav band.

The Beatles never sucked. Neither did Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd. Rush is, as it always has been, a contemporary band.

I've never thought Zeppelin was all that.

[StyxCollector]

I've never thought Zeppelin was all that.

We agree on this one ... Zep is definitely overrated. Not bad, but overrated. I think their legend - especially their tours - is bigger than their recorded output.

[LtVanish]

I was in a Rush once, actually yesterday when I was late for work, so all of you don't know shit about anything.

[chowhall]

I was in a Rush once, actually yesterday when I was late for work, so all of you don't know shit about anything.

You're quite wrong. There are those here that all they know is shit.

[Zan]

I ♥ Trent.

[froy]

I've never thought Zeppelin was all that.

We agree on this one ... Zep is definitely overrated. Not bad, but overrated.

This does not look overrrated to me

http://tr.youtube.com/watch?v=NbumbaJzhAs


That band rocks hard








I think their legend - especially their tours - is bigger than their recorded output.

[kansas666]

When you had albums sell five or six million a piece then now can't even sell a million, you're fan base has started sending you a message. (Just Push Play just squeeked into platinum and honkin on bobo only sold about 600,000 units)

It's not the quality of the music or a dwindling fan base.

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?