The new Rush cd is finally here. What is your opinion of Vapor Trails? Great to see Rush is back after a six year hiatus! Anyone going to see them on tour? I’ll be at the Scranton PA show on June 29, can’t wait!
It’s 27 years gone since anyone gave a rat’s ass about Rush.
I am a ruge RUSH fan. However, I have to qualify that remark a bit: First, for me, Rush music falls into three periods: (1) the first few albums; (2) Moving Pictures through Roll The Bones; (3) everything after that. Second, although there are a few good songs from both the first and the last periods, there’s no question that Rush’s most fecund period was the middle one. Third, I haven’t heard Vapor Trails yet, but the last three albums have, in a word, sucked. I really hope that Rush gets whatever key element is missing back and comes out with a winner this time around.
Yes Rush music does fall into three catagories,I really didn’t like most of the music they put out in the eighties although they did have some good songs I think they relied too heavily on the synthesizer. As far as the last three cd’s I thought Counterparts was good, Test For Echo however wasn’t that good it has a couple of good songs. Vapor Trails is a return to the old days no synth just straight forward rock kinda heavy. I don’t think you will be disappointed in it at all. Have you ever gone to a Rush concert? The first time I saw them was in 97 and I was impressed they are good live.
You could say that I’m a Rush fan. Vapor
Trails sounds quite a bit different from
everything Rush has done before. So if you
liked older Rush stuff, don’t assume you will
like this. And likewise, if you didn’t like
older stuff, don’t assume you won’t like
VT. Vapor Trails does away with
synth stuff (which in my opinion is mostly a
good thing). It is basic three piece hard
rock. However they were pretty experimental on
a lot of the songs on VT - EG “One
Little Victory,” “Sweet Miracle,” “Nocturne.”
This album is heavier than rush has been in a
while (which IMO is also a good thing). And
the combination of heavier + more
experimental, has, dare I say, a bit
of a “grungy” sound to it. From this album
you can tell not only that these guys are
talented, but that their skills as musicians
have become very mature. The thing you have
to understand about Rush is that the members
of the band are mature and intelligent people,
and that is reflected in their music. If you
want childish, bubble gum culture stupidity,
then go listen to Briteny Spears; or if you
want angst-ridden self pity go listen to
linkin park or slipknot. If you want
intelligence in music, then you listen to
Rush. (This is why most people don’t “get”
Rush music - it is intelligent and mature,
and I guess most people can’t relate to that.)
The lyrics are good as usual, but Neil Peart
seems to be runing out of things to write
about: EG the song “Nocturne” covers the same
topic as the song “Double Agent” on
Counterparts, and “Vapor Trail” seems
to be a song about nothing more than the
weather. In my opinion, this release could
have been an absolutely incredible album,
because there are parts of songs that are
just amazing - they just blew me away. But
then there are other parts in the same songs
that are just bad. (If they had me mixing this
would have been an amazing CD. :-)) Overall
this release is good, but not their best. It
is IMO, better than Test For Echo, and better
than all of the synth-heavy stuff they put out
in the 80s. It still doesn’t top their best
works such as Permanent Waves or
Moving Pictures, but it gets them
closer than they have been in a long time.
As far as going to concerts - hell yeah! If I can get tickets. This might be the last chance to see them live. And they do kick ass live.
No, I’ve never been to one of their concerts. A definite gap in my education. Appreciate the comments on the latest album; I’ll give it a listen soon.
For my money, “Moving Pictures” is one of the all-time great rock albums, on a par with Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” and one or two others. “Hold Your Fire” is almost at the same level.
I remember in the early 80’s listening to ‘Working Man’ by Rush and playing air guitar to that song over and over again. I soon had my friends over and we would all grab a pool stick, tennis racket, baseball bat and jam the night away to that song. Oh for the simple days!!
Well, as a long time Rush fan (if just really liking their music counts as being a fan – I’ve never seen them live), I must admit that I haven’t heard “Test for Echo”, I have “COunterparts”, but really only like a couple of the tracks from that one. I’d have to say my favorites are “Moving Pictures”, Permanent Wave", and “Subdivisions.” I didn’t even know they came out with a new release. I just haven’t had my finger on the pulse of the music industry at all.
Rush suck ass, dude. That singer has the single most annoying voice of anyone on the entire planet. And no, it means nothing to me about how “complex” and “sophisticated” their music is.
Yeah, that Geddy Lee voice…having the same last name as me notwithstanding, I just have to turn the radio off everytime I hear that otherwordly voice. Just makes my stomach churn. I’d rather hear a Chris Cornell or a Layne Staley (R.I.P.) howl when I’m in the mood for a high-pitched singer.
I have to agree that Geddy Lee could have been born with a better voice. Oh well. But the reason I (still) listen to Rush is mainly for the lyrics. Let’s face it: Neal Peart is the closest thing rock music has to Shakespeare.
How can you say Layne Staley and Cornell have high pitched voices like Geddy? Geddy voice is definietly high but it is very unique. Staley has a deeper, nasal, grunge voice. Cornell is probably the best pure rock vocalist since Robert Plant. He can go low and high. listen to badmotorfinger sometime. Anyway unique voices are what makes the band and gives the band some personality. there are some good groups today but it is very hard to distinguish the vocalists. I like linkin park but the high pitched singer sounds like his balls just got cut off and jammed down his throat!!!
Yeah, you’re right. Cornell can do both high and low, but what I had in mind when I said high pitched, is the screechy quality his voice takes when he’s singing the words, “like I’m driving the nails, nails, nails…” in “Jesus Christ Pose.” Of course, since I’m a fan, I would call his screechiness, “soulful.” As for Staley, he can sound sound “soulful” too. Like some of the high notes in “Rooster,” but the gravelly quality of his voice certainly fits as he sings about his ‘Nam vet dad or when he is singing about drug abuse. Staley’s voice is a bit lower than Cornell’s, but certainly not in the Jeff Healey or Eddie Vedder region. As for Geddy Lee, I just find his voice unpleasant. It sounds like a malfunctioning robot. Just not my cup o’ tea. I’d much rather listen to other “unpleasant” voices in rock like Brian Johnson or Axel Rose. Uh-oh, now I’m opening up a can of worms.
It’s strange how some people can like Geddy’s voice so much and others hate it like poison. I saw them back on 2112/all the world’s a stage, and it was THE best concert that I had/have ever seen…mostly because of his voice. I saw them several years later…Grace under pressure I think and his voice had degraded quite a bit, it wasn’t as shrill as it used to be. Wich, I would imagine, is the part that those of you hate him hate most!!
I’m not trying to start a big flame fest here, but I think that the quality of music has gone way down hill in the last decade, especially vocalists. With a few exceptions there isn’t a male singer that stands out or has over a two range octave. THere has been a lot of good SONGS written, but most of these songs could have been sung by almost anyone with the least amount of talent. Can you picture %99 of today’s singers singing say…Black Dog, Lime light, Still loving you? I can’t.
anyway, that’s my opinion.