DS review in Entertainment Weekly
FritzJames
It takes chutzpah to put out a fourth live album if you're not the Dead or the
Stones, but apparently Canada's most beloved power trio is determined to carry
the progrock lighter- er, torch- into the new millennium. This three-CD set,
from tours in '78 and '97, showcases how adeptly Rush can replicate
masturbatory masterpieces like "2112" and "Natural Science." That said, the
band's recent material rings hallow, the drum solo ain't happening, and you can
find comparable versions of the halcyon tracks on the other three live discs.
C+
dave...@mindspring.com
Wings4Wins
>band's recent material rings hallow, the drum solo ain't happening, and you
>can
>find comparable versions of the halcyon tracks on the other three live discs.
>
I think Different Stages is pretty good...but I would have been happier if they
chose not to put a couple of songs (like Closer To The Heart, The Trees, or
any other song we already have on their other live recordings) on this release,
and put other songs like Ghost Of A Chance, The Pass, Cold Fire, etc...,
especially more Presto material.
GaryBlog
::From: wings...@aol.com (Wings4Wins)
::Date: Sat, Nov 21, 1998 21:28 EST
::Message-id: <19981121212825...@ng72.aol.com>
::
::>That said, the
I kinda have to agree with both EW and wings4wins. I'm sorry, but I don't need
to hear a THIRD live version of Closer to the Heart, second times with Tom
Sawyer, The Trees, Freewill, Spirit of Radio and YYZ when there are so many
other songs played during the last couple of tours (and the last set of albums)
they could have put on instead (Superconductor, Half the World, The Pass
instantly come to mind).While I do understand why they included these songs
(Rush wanted the live album to match the last tour), it doesn't mean I have to
like it (especially since I like the Exit, Stage Left versions much better).
Reani14
probley just got out of college. ya feel me!
ELVIS 1999
I would like for some older stuff from GUP and Signals that never made
it to ASOH. But, it *is* a good recreation of a TFE concert, so....
Jeff
ELVIS 1999
information you disagree with.
Jeff
On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 22:22:02 -0700, <dave...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Glad I canceled my subscription
>FritzJames wrote in message <19981121184003...@ng33.aol.com>...
>>RUSH Different Stages
>>It takes chutzpah to put out a fourth live album if you're not the Dead or
>the
>>Stones, but apparently Canada's most beloved power trio is determined to
>carry
>>the progrock lighter- er, torch- into the new millennium. This three-CD
>set,
>>from tours in '78 and '97, showcases how adeptly Rush can replicate
>>masturbatory masterpieces like "2112" and "Natural Science." That said,
>the
>>band's recent material rings hallow, the drum solo ain't happening, and you
>can
>>find comparable versions of the halcyon tracks on the other three live
>discs.
>>C+
>>
>>
>>
>
F.B.
(GaryBlog) writes:
>
>::Subject: Re: DS review in Entertainment Weekly
>::From: wings...@aol.com (Wings4Wins)
>::Date: Sat, Nov 21, 1998 21:28 EST
>::Message-id: <19981121212825...@ng72.aol.com>
>::
>::>band's recent material rings hallow, the drum solo ain't happening,
and you
>::>can
>::>find comparable versions of the halcyon tracks on the other three
live
>discs.
>::
>::I think Different Stages is pretty good...but I would have been
happier if
>they
>::chose not to put a couple of songs (like Closer To The Heart, The
Trees, or
>::any other song we already have on their other live recordings) on
this
>release,
>::and put other songs like Ghost Of A Chance, The Pass, Cold Fire,
etc...,
>::especially more Presto material.
>
don't need
>to hear a THIRD live version of Closer to the Heart, second times with
Tom
>Sawyer, The Trees, Freewill, Spirit of Radio and YYZ when there are so
many
>other songs played during the last couple of tours (and the last set
of albums)
>they could have put on instead (Superconductor, Half the World, The
Pass
>instantly come to mind).While I do understand why they included these
songs
>(Rush wanted the live album to match the last tour), it doesn't mean I
have to
>like it (especially since I like the Exit, Stage Left versions much
better).
I agree. I really wish that people would stop whining and bitching
about the criticaL reception of this album. It deserves to be trashed,
because it does not conform to ANY of the established critical
guidlines for a positive review of a multiple live set:
1. songs not included on studio albums; 2. existing songs in highly
re-worked versions and 3. little-to-no repetitions from past live sets.
Basically, the critics apply these rules equally to all bands, so it's
not fair to say that these publications are picking on Rush. If the
Rolling Stones released a live album, most of which was already covered
on past live albums, and just played carbon copies of the studio
tracks, it would get trashed, too.
The fact is, that on all three critieria, DS fails miserably. On
counts one and two, I don't really care as far as Rush is concerned but
I, in particular, *am* upset with the redundancy of this album. So
many songs also heard elswhere, while much of the best newer stuff
wasn't even included. Tom Sawyer, Freewill and the Trees? Give me a
break. Was this done just to sell albums? The recent sales figures
indicate that it didn't matter either way.
Matt P
king druman
not trying to be a dick or anything,but here,if the rolling stones with
their new live album gets reviews the critics just suck the stone's ass.
they act like the stone's are jesus or something.
but when rush gets reviewed they pick it apart and trash every bit of
it.
but they can sure lick the beans out of the stone's asses!
rush rules!
mike
Paul Maynard
>I agree. I really wish that people would stop whining and bitching
>about the criticaL reception of this album. It deserves to be trashed,
>because it does not conform to ANY of the established critical
>guidlines for a positive review of a multiple live set:
>1. songs not included on studio albums; 2. existing songs in highly
>re-worked versions and 3. little-to-no repetitions from past live sets.
it does satisy one of the established critical guidlines for a NEGATIVE review:
it is from rush.
F.B.
writes:
First of all, the Rolling Stones were/are a great band that deserves
every once of critical adulation that it has ever received.
Secondly, as far as your comments on Rolling Stones live albums, you
are incredibly mistaken.
See: Still Life
Love You Live
Flashpoint.
These three Rolling Stones live albums were mostly given reviews
anywhere from a complete panning to something mediocre, Flashpoint
being the only one to even occasionally get something positive. In
Jimmy Gutterman's book about the worst 50 albums of all time (no Rush
fan, let me tell you) he ranked Still Life among them.
Again, the critical criteria for live albums, agree with it or disagree
with it, are rules that apply more or less equally for all bands. Rush
never meets these criteria, so their live albums are almost never
well-received.
Matt P
Geezer Butler
F.B. wrote:
> It deserves to be trashed,
> because it does not conform to ANY of the established critical
> guidlines for a positive review of a multiple live set:
> 1. songs not included on studio albums;
So in order to get a good review, they have to include new songs? Rush
generally don't "practice" new material in their set (esp. having given up
the mini-tour of old). If that's a necessary criterion, it's bullshit.
> 2. existing songs in highly re-worked versions
You mean like a 27 minute Dazed & Confused or 14 min Whole Lotta Love?
Longer/re-worked doesn't necessarily mean better. In Rush's case, as
discussed in another thread, some of the songs are brought to their
fruition in a live setting, revealing depthness otherwise unnoticed on a
studio recording. One must be a Rush fan/listener to understand this, not
just some guy that's heard some of their stuff on the radio and was forced
to listen to some of the tracks on the album he/she/it is reviewing. After
looking at the song list, how much of this extravaganza do you think the
reviewer actually listened to?
> and 3. little-to-no repetitions from past live sets.
This is somewhat valid, but weak. I was one of those that was cringing at
having CTTH and TS, etc. on this disc. But the (oh my) reworked endings
just fucking jammed and made it alrightee by me.
The Stones have always had a weak sound and are even more pathetic live.
Lifeson could bury Richards just by turning his amp on, let alone actually
playing anything. If I flip by VH-1 and see Jagger's skinny little ass
pooching out of the screen screaming "Plug me! Fill me up, you bitch!" one
more time I'm gonna hurl.
king druman
and no doubt the stones are a great band.
but........
around here where i live, the stones are supposed to be god and
storyville the son of god.
when the subject of rush comes up,even a new studio album like
when test for echo was released,the media was ready to start trashing
it the day it hit the stores.
and the people at the radio station just hated it.
when i would call about info on ds they would just sigh and give
some lame ass comment.
but when you mention the stones,they are ready to suck anything
that represents that band.
in my opinion,and don't get me wrong,i like a lot of the stone's songs,
but i think rush kicks their ass all over the place.
especially when you compare ds to the live stone's album.
apples and oranges.
now i am wearing my flameproof suit,so let em fly!
rush rules!
and go dirty birds!!!!!!!!!!!!!
falcons,can they go to the super bowl?
i hope so!
mike
F.B.
writes:
>
>
>F.B. wrote:
>
>> It deserves to be trashed,
>> because it does not conform to ANY of the established critical
>> guidlines for a positive review of a multiple live set:
>> 1. songs not included on studio albums;
>
>So in order to get a good review, they have to include new songs?
No, but it helps. See Neil Young's Rust Never Sleeps or Nirvana's
Unplugged for these kinds of well-received live albums.
Rush
>generally don't "practice" new material in their set (esp. having
given up
>the mini-tour of old). If that's a necessary criterion, it's
bullshit.
Again, it's not necessary but it helps.
>
>> 2. existing songs in highly re-worked versions
>
>You mean like a 27 minute Dazed & Confused or 14 min Whole Lotta Love?
>Longer/re-worked doesn't necessarily mean better. In Rush's case, as
>discussed in another thread, some of the songs are brought to their
>fruition in a live setting, revealing depthness otherwise unnoticed on
a
>studio recording. One must be a Rush fan/listener to understand this,
not
>just some guy that's heard some of their stuff on the radio and was
forced
>to listen to some of the tracks on the album he/she/it is reviewing.
After
>looking at the song list, how much of this extravaganza do you think
the
>reviewer actually listened to?
I don't know. All I'm saying is that, agree or disagree with the
criteria, a publication will NEVER give a positive review to a live
album that 1) consists of nearly carbon-copy versions of the studio
tracks; and 2) consists heavily of music already released on other live
albums.
And I really don't blame them. Such sets are highly redundant, and
these publications are geared toward potential consumers. Note that
nearly all reviews are end-noted by the claim that the album in
question "would only be of interest to the hard-core fan." Well, most
people in *here* would fit that description. That would explain why
most of them still like DS, despite its many shortcomings.
>> and 3. little-to-no repetitions from past live sets.
>
>This is somewhat valid, but weak.
Why is this weak? Especially given the large quantity of material that
could easily have been substituted.
I was one of those that was cringing at
>having CTTH and TS, etc. on this disc. But the (oh my) reworked
endings
>just fucking jammed and made it alrightee by me.
I found them a waste of space.
>
>The Stones have always had a weak sound and are even more pathetic
live.
What a fucking joke.
>Lifeson could bury Richards just by turning his amp on,
Lifeson does his thing and Richards does his. Lifeson could never in a
million years make music as authentic as Richards, and so seamlessly
incorporate rock and roll's source material into something new and
wonderful, as Richards did on Exile on Main Street. Likewise, Richards
could never play most of Lifeson's solos.
Each is equally great.
let alone actually
>playing anything. If I flip by VH-1 and see Jagger's skinny little
ass
>pooching out of the screen screaming "Plug me! Fill me up, you
bitch!" one
>more time I'm gonna hurl.
Hmm. So you feel the way most critics feel upon hearing Geddy Lee's
screech.
And neither of you has any less of a valid opinion.
Matt P
>
>
TapeHead4
>
>You mean like a 27 minute Dazed & Confused or 14 min Whole Lotta Love?
>Longer/re-worked doesn't necessarily mean better. In Rush's case, as
>discussed in another thread, some of
>the songs are brought to their
>fruition in a live setting, revealing depthness otherwise unnoticed on a
>studio recording. One must be a Rush fan/listener to understand this, not
>just some guy that's heard some of their stuff on the radio and was forced
>to listen to some of the tracks on the album he/she/it is reviewing. After
>looking at the song list, how much of this extravaganza do you think the
>reviewer actually listened to?
Geezer, this is the best point you have ever made. It really takes a Rush fan
to understand the excellence of DS, and how each song is presented in a live
setting. And I can tell you that I am not one of those fans that likes
everything the band has put out simply because they are Rush. But I do know
that DS has put me into Rush mode (in overdrive) yet again...as if I was ever
out of Rush mode :)
Paul
TapeHead4
F.B.
writes:
>i agree with you about the critic thing.
>and no doubt the stones are a great band.
>but........
>around here where i live, the stones are supposed to be god and
>storyville the son of god.
>when the subject of rush comes up,even a new studio album like
>when test for echo was released,the media was ready to start trashing
>it the day it hit the stores.
Well, then they are wrong to trash something without listening to it.
But, honestly, if they listen to it and still don't like it, how is
this in any way different from you trashing music that YOU don't like?
I don't need to listen to, say, a Leanne Rimes album to know that I'll
hate it. I guess some of these critics feel the same way about Rush.
It's just too bad if a major publication gives the Rush review to a
member of their staff who goes into the process with a prejudice
already in place, but it happens.
Anyway, at this point it's probably prudent to note that many Rush
albums HAVE been very positively reviewed in major publications.
Presto got a good review in RS, and Power Windows got a glowing review
in RS. The second RS record guide (blue cover) gave four-star reviews
to every Rush album from 2112 to Signals, I believe. The all-music
guide has several very strong Rush review capsules.
I read a number of good Counterparts reviews, too.
>and the people at the radio station just hated it.
>when i would call about info on ds they would just sigh and give
>some lame ass comment.
>but when you mention the stones,they are ready to suck anything
>that represents that band.
Well, that's them. I can only just say that despite the fact that the
Rolling Stones have a large number of albums that receive nearly
universal acclaim, they also have a number of albums, live *plus*
studio, that have been nearly universally panned. It certainly does
appear, then, that the critical aggregate *is* capable of recognizing a
weak Stones album when they hear it.
>in my opinion,and don't get me wrong,i like a lot of the stone's
songs,
>but i think rush kicks their ass all over the place.
Fine. And a lot of critics think that the Rolling Stones kick Rushs'
ass all over the place.
Me, I just love the music of both of them (and am quite able to realize
it when either of them make a real stinker).
>now i am wearing my flameproof suit,so let em fly!
No need to flame an honest, tolerant opinion.
>rush rules!
>and go dirty birds!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>falcons,can they go to the super bowl?
As long as they take the West away from the 49rs, I'll be happy.
Matt P
king druman
i feel really good about their chances this season.
go dirty birds!
mike
Erasmus Brown
> Anyway, at this point it's probably prudent to note that many Rush
> albums HAVE been very positively reviewed in major publications.
> Presto got a good review in RS, and Power Windows got a glowing review
> in RS. The second RS record guide (blue cover) gave four-star reviews
> to every Rush album from 2112 to Signals, I believe. The all-music
> guide has several very strong Rush review capsules.
> I read a number of good Counterparts reviews, too.
On the RS site, it lists Presto as receiving 2 stars. I'd like to see this
new RS guide.
>
> >rush rules!
> >and go dirty birds!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >falcons,can they go to the super bowl?
>
> As long as they take the West away from the 49rs, I'll be happy.
Fuck you. :)
>
> Matt P
MARK ALLEN
C+ . IT IS SAD THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT THE MUSIC
BUSINESS HAVE NO GRASP OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
F.B.
writes:
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------C526D91F0030F4C629B7B818
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>"F.B." wrote:
>
>> Anyway, at this point it's probably prudent to note that many Rush
>> albums HAVE been very positively reviewed in major publications.
>> Presto got a good review in RS, and Power Windows got a glowing
review
>> in RS. The second RS record guide (blue cover) gave four-star
reviews
>> to every Rush album from 2112 to Signals, I believe. The all-music
>> guide has several very strong Rush review capsules.
>> I read a number of good Counterparts reviews, too.
>
>On the RS site, it lists Presto as receiving 2 stars. I'd like to see
this
>new RS guide.
Not the new guide, but the original review. It got 3.5 stars, I
believe.
Matt P
Jon Ernst
king druman wrote:
> and go dirty birds!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> falcons,can they go to the super bowl?
>
Nothing would be sweeter than to have Mr. Elway spank Mr. Reeves at the
big show.
JE
king druman
i would be happy if they just make it to the super bowl
compared to our seasons before!
dan reeves.... winningest active coach in the league.
mike
Jon Ernst
king druman wrote:
John Elway - winingest active quarterback in history. Kinda
helped Danny get that honor didn't he?