Rush to overhaul 2002 album

[That 70s Guy]

classicrockmagazine.com

Rush To Overhaul 2002 Album
mdome / News, Top Posts / 03/02/2011 17:31pm
Rush To Overhaul 2002 Album

Rush are planning to totally remix their 2002 album Vapor Trails.

Talking exclusively to Classic Rock, guitarist Alex Lifeson revealed: “We were never happy with the production. Perhaps we should have taken more time over the record. But now we’ve got the chance to improve things. There will be no re-recording, just a remix”.

The famed Canadian trio are also working on songs for their new album, Clockwork Angels, due later in the year. And they’ll be here touring in the spring

Find out more at RUSH - Official Website

 

[METALPRIEST]

I'd buy that.....I'd like to hear a remix

 

[Abraxas]

I'm very interested in hearing the remix.

 

[Prime]

This'll be interesting, but it's Rush, so it naturally has to be great.

 

[aeroplane]

As usual, I gotta roll in and be a downer.

But my opinion is they already had their chance with that studio album. It sold what it sold and it sounded the way it sounded when done. End of story.

I'd be far more interested in hearing new music from a band instead of them choosing to remix/rerecord albums they didn't like the sound of or albums that they are pissed didn't sell more copies (which is a tactic the band Boston nearly used before coming to their senses).

I'm sure a band like Aerosmith, Kiss or Black Sabbath, at varying points in their career, would have loved to be allowed a "do-over" on an album that they weren't happy with but they were smarter than that.

I'd prefer Rush just accept what it was and move on.

 

[Kuaizi]

I like the fact that they are going to fix the sound of the album. (I actually have always thought the sound wasn't quite right myself)
I don't see why an album has to be set totally in stone. Hypothetically, wouldn't it be nice if artists could take some of their previous work and make it better? Could produce some really cool stuff perhaps. It's too bad an album is done and that's that, and don't mess with it. But as a musician, who's to say you can't go back and improve upon your own work throughout your lifetime? As long as they are improvements (unlike some Ozzy and Megadeth re-recordings, which were just retakes of drums and vocals anyways, not really what I'm talking about).
But therein lies the main problem. Most band's creativity peaked long ago, and going back now would only mess up what they were able to do that was great or just make matters worse with their "flops."
Anyways~~
Looking forward to Rush's new album!

 

[aeroplane]

I like the fact that they are going to fix the sound of the album. (I actually have always thought the sound wasn't quite right myself)
I don't see why an album has to be set totally in stone. Hypothetically, wouldn't it be nice if artists could take some of their previous work and make it better? Could produce some really cool stuff perhaps. It's too bad an album is done and that's that, and don't mess with it. But as a musician, who's to say you can't go back and improve upon your own work throughout your lifetime? As long as they are improvements (unlike some Ozzy and Megadeth re-recordings, which were just retakes of drums and vocals anyways, not really what I'm talking about).
But therein lies the main problem. Most band's creativity peaked long ago, and going back now would only mess up what they were able to do that was great or just make matters worse with their "flops."
Anyways~~
Looking forward to Rush's new album!

I'm not opposed to bands rerecording their songs for the purpose of a "greatest hits" style album. In fact, sometimes the results are interesting. But I draw the line at redoing a single studio album in the way Rush intends to.

You can only put so much effort into a single studio album, especially one that has already been on the market for nearly ten years, before it gets ridiculous.

It is this sort of logic that allowed Boston to take a decade between studio albums and it is also the same logic that allowed Axl Rose to spend fifteen years "recording" a single studio album, which incidentally resulted in both of them being nailed with lawsuits from a record label.

I want an album to sound as good as possible, just as much so as anybody here, but a less-than-perfect album is just that and 99 times out of a hundred no amount of work (outside of fixing sloppy production) is going to improve things. Sooner or later you just have to bite the bullet and either scrap the product or get it into the stores so everybody (band and the band's fanbase) can get on with their lives.

To share an analogy, if you are a horse trainer or jockey, you can work a lame, overweight pasture horse ten hours a day on his endurance for 6 months but he ain't ever gonna win the Kentucky Derby.

 

[LG]

I am torn on this one, I love the best quality possible but also see what Aero is getting at...

Why not do a live version of the album instead and release it on DVD?

I am not sure I will buy the new remix when it comes out anyway, I will check it out first and see what they have done.

 

[aeroplane]

I am torn on this one, I love the best quality possible but also see what Aero is getting at...

Why not do a live version of the album instead and release it on DVD?

I am not sure I will buy the new remix when it comes out anyway, I will check it out first and see what they have done.

My problem is that Rush wouldn't be doing this if they were happy with how well the album sold or was reviewed. I take it the album didn't sell to their expectations, which is the main reason for this latest move.

You don't see people remixing albums that sold 2-3 million copies (or more), other than Ozzy Osbourne, who in his case apparently just wanted to get out of paying royalties to ex-band members.

Sometimes albums don't sell because they weren't properly promoted by the band/label or because the songs just aren't that good, period. Remixing an album doesn't change any of this.

They are still the same songs and you are facing an uphill climb because some people who bought the first copy aren't going to pay for the exact same songs again.

 

[LG]

^^I understand that, when I bought "Bursting Out", Jethro Tull's double live album in the late 70's Ian said that he was happy with the diversity on the record, that along with newer material he had a chance to "redo some of the old stuff to bring them up to standard production wise". That is why I think rather than a reissue of a remastered CD they should do a live set, and include it in the next DVD they release after the upcoming tour.

Kills two birds with one stone, and maybe the songs will play better live than in the studio.