Vapor Trails and Geddy Lee

Mag · « **on:** 16 Jul 2004, 04:08 am »

When I first spun Vapor Trails I didn't like it. I suppose its mainly due to the singing, I prefer just instruments. I gave it another spin the other day and although the singing still bugs me, this time I really was impressed with the powerful bass playing by Geddy Lee.
He still gets my vote for the bass player role in an ultimate rock band contingent.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #1 on:** 16 Jul 2004, 04:25 am »

Vapor Trails isn't a very good sounding album, but I like the music. Not quite as much as Geddy's solo album a few years back, but it's pretty solid.

My favorite Rush album in years would have to be Roll the Bones.

Mag · « **Reply #2 on:** 16 Jul 2004, 04:53 am »

Didn't know he had a solo album, I'll have to look for it.
I like 'Exit Stage Left ' the best and my favorite Rush song is Camera Eye off of 'Moving Picures' and 2112 off of 'All the World's Stage' would be # 2.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #3 on:** 16 Jul 2004, 06:44 am »

It's called My Favorite Headache, and it's a few years old now.

jakepunk · « **Reply #4 on:** 17 Jul 2004, 02:38 am »

I'm a big Rush fan. I think they peaked with Hold Your Fire. Things got a little too pop and commercial for me after that.

Here is the reason why Vapor Trails doesn't sound so great.

EDS_ · « **Reply #5 on:** 17 Jul 2004, 02:55 am »

Quote from: jakepunk

I'm a big Rush fan. I think they peaked with Hold Your Fire. Things got a little too pop and commercial for me after that.

Here is the reason why Vapor Trails doesn't sound so great.

Thanks for the link. I think compression and loudness are used to make music sound more impressive on crappy boom boxes and lame stereos.
I'd guess a boom box can sound more impressive running full-power into clipping at 10%thd better than if asked to play music that has lots of dynamic range at any loudish volume.

Mag · « **Reply #6 on:** 17 Jul 2004, 03:31 am »

That was a very informitive article, thanks. I understand now what normalizing means when you burn a cd.
I gave Vapor Trails another spin last night and could not get through the cd. But I honestly thought it was the bad lyrics and singing.
And seeing the wave graphs I think that a recordings like these could potentially damage speakers if played loud enough.

Housteau · « **Reply #7 on:** 4 Aug 2004, 03:35 am »

Quote from: Mag

But I honestly thought it was the bad lyrics and singing.

You do realize that is blasphemy

.

Compression is a bad word in my house and although I love the new recording, as an audiophile I was very disappointed.

My first Rush concert was 2112.

Dave

audioslave · « **Reply #8 on:** 4 Aug 2004, 06:04 am »

Quote from: jakepunk

I'm a big Rush fan. I think they peaked with Hold Your Fire. Things got a little too pop and commercial for me after that.

Here is the reason why Vapor Trails doesn't sound so great.

Thanks for the heads-up on Vapor Trails, Jakepunk. I think Rip Rowan hit the nail on the head! I found the article to be a highly interesting read. I have often wondered what the deal was with newer Rush recordings. I have owned "Vapor Trails" since it has first come out, but it is the least listened to of all my Rush collection. It is just too"in yer face" for me to be able to get through the whole album. Upon first listen, I was of the opinion that the album wasn't that great. I could not understand why it had gotten that many good reviews. It was only after I took the time to listen to it through a pair of headphones on my Dad's super laid back system that I began to find it somewhat musically involving. That to me is what the essence of Rush is-the fact that they have such a unique musical signature. It sounded so crappy on my system to the point that the caccophony was overwhelming the musical message itself.

I have felt that ever since the 1989 release of "Presto", Rush recording values have gone way down. The 1993 release "Counterparts" does an ok job with the recording but damn, even my old copy of "Moving Pictures" puts it to shame. I guess I grew up spoiled listening to early Rush on nothing but good ole' vinyl.

Housteau · « **Reply #9 on:** 4 Aug 2004, 11:49 am »

I wonder if there is hope for a remaster sometime in the future. The damage wasn't done in the recording studio. It was the mastering and digital manipulation afterwards. As such, all of the good unaltered session material should still be available for use.

nathanm · « **Reply #10 on:** 4 Aug 2004, 03:00 pm »

I just picked up a "remastered" copy of "Caress Of Steel". Although I haven't done any waveform analysis of it I am quite sure there is no nasty peak limiting going on here. Rush to me always had a great warm analog sound. Rush is certainly one band who shouldn't need gimmicks to sell their music. They already have a huge fanbase, so what would be the point of cramming the level to the ceiling on "Vapor Trails"? It seems silly. (I haven't heard that one myself however)

What bugs me is that remastering is used as a selling point and I have to wonder how many people really know what it means. They plaster it all over the CDs as if to suggest it is automatically better than the older release. I noticed Apple's iTunes has a lot of albums tagged as "remastered" without really explaining it. How about "Louder, With More Clipping!"? That'd be more accurate. "Now More Fatiguing To Listen To!"

Most of the time I can't tell the difference although on some CDs the remaster sounded worse! "Remastered" has become just one of those meaningless marketing terms like "new and improved" it's just peripheral blather that nobody really understands. Might as well just say "Buy It Again, Assholes" on the sticker.