Rush v. Dirk, Pratt, & Lerxst

[dbrooks22]

RTB is one of their all-time best, imo. 

I think you are likely in the minority on that one.  I know a number of people who think it is the worst album they've ever done.  Personally I like Dreamline, Bravdo, Ghost of Chance, Where's My Thing?, and the Big Wheel.  But the rest of that album is garbage IMO.  With the exception of The Big Wheel those other songs along with RTB has seen a decent amount of coverage through the years.

Rush thinks it's one of their best.  We've debated this to death in past Rush threads here.  The consensus seems to be that while there are some junky tracks and poor production, the best songs on RTB are degrees stronger than the best songs on other albums surrounding RTB.

[Cedar redaC]

I really like Roll the Bones, that song is so funky!

[KevShmev]

Good grief.  Post-1991 through pre-2007 is not a single era.  The band taking four years off in the middle of that timespan eliminates that possibility.  If anything, CP and TFE are either their own era or are in the same era as Roll the Bones (and possibly Presto), as that was the post-synth era, although CP and TFE are obviously much more rocking (thanks in large part to the difference in production). 

Besides, most would argue that Rush through Caress of Steel is its own era, and they skip that era all of the time, so there goes that theory.  Again, your arbitrary way of selecting those particular years is just bizarre.  Your attitude is basically, "I don't care much for those three albums, and this is the first tour EVER in which they played nothing from any of them, so that must mean the band doesn't like them either."  You continue to ignore how much Counterparts material HAS BEEN played over the years and are instead focusing on just this one tour.  It makes no sense.

But hey, whatever makes you feel better.

[KevShmev]

Also, Neil Peart has stated in the past that a good recorded song doesn't always equal a good live song.  Again, look at Test for Echo, an album the band still speaks fondly of, but has been largely ignored since the Test for Echo tour.  You can't always point to albums and how many songs are played from them as an indication of how much the band likes each.  Hell, Neil Peart thinks most of the 70s material is forgettable (but acknowledges that certain songs must be played), so if we are putting a lot of stock in what the band thinks, then I guess those of us who consider the 1976-1981 era to be their best are wrong, right?

[TAC]

No, we're still right!

[KevShmev]

But the band is hardly playing any of the 70s on THIS tour, so I think that proves that their current feelings aren't overly positive about that material, thus it isn't that good, right?

[The Letter M]

The difference is that while they have skipped albums on previous tours, they have not skipped entire eras.  To skip over every song written between 1991 and 2007 is statistically significant, and i believe reflects their current feeling toward the songs written during that period.  A view i happen to agree with.

Also, more than a third of their set is dedicated to the new album, while most of the rest is dedicated to revisiting an era of Rush that has similarly been neglected over recent tours (the 80's Synth Era - while only 1 or 2 songs from SIG/GUP/POW/HYF have been played each tour, this tour represents that era really well).

Given time and the decline of Geddy's voice, we may see more 90's Era Rush in future setlists, where his voice doesn't reach as high as it used to. I think the R30 was the last great hurrah for 70's Era Rush, which had "2112", "Xanadu", "La Villa Strangiato", "By-Tor And The Snowdog" and the "R30 Overture", as well as '00's concert staple "Working Man", which hadn't been played live since the Moving Pictures Tour.

-Marc.

[Mladen]

But the band is hardly playing any of the 70s on THIS tour, so I think that proves that their current feelings aren't overly positive about that material, thus it isn't that good, right?

Well done, sir.

Personally, I think Rush likes to shake things up from tour to tour, bust out some songs they haven't played in a while every tour, just so the fans get the opportunity to hear a little something from every era. It seems to me like they're happy with most of their works, they know that every single album has its share of songs worth playing - the only problem is, how to fit all of those songs in one set list? The answer is not to, and switch the set around from tour to tour. That's why Power windows got four songs this time around, yet, as Kev pointed out, they left it aside on Snakes and arrows tour. I'm sure there will be a tour with a few songs from Test for echo and Vapor trails.

The only exception might be Caress of steel, but the reasons might be obvious. Geddy would hardly pull of Bastille day, The Necromancer and Fountain of Lamneth are too long (especially the latter), and the remaining two might not actually be their favorites. But they're not our favorites neither. 

[TAC]

But the band is hardly playing any of the 70s on THIS tour, so I think that proves that their current feelings aren't overly positive about that material, thus it isn't that good, right?

Well done, sir.

Personally, I think Rush likes to shake things up from tour to tour, bust out some songs they haven't played in a while every tour, just so the fans get the opportunity to hear a little something from every era. It seems to me like they're happy with most of their works, they know that every single album has its share of songs worth playing - the only problem is, how to fit all of those songs in one set list? The answer is not to, and switch the set around from tour to tour. That's why Power windows got four songs this time around, yet, as Kev pointed out, they left it aside on Snakes and arrows tour. I'm sure there will be a tour with a few songs from Test for echo and Vapor trails.

The only exception might be Caress of steel, but the reasons might be obvious. Geddy would hardly pull of Bastille day, The Necromancer and Fountain of Lamneth are too long (especially the latter), and the remaining two might not actually be their favorites. But they're not our favorites neither. 

Right, M. They have so much to choose from.

[KevShmev]

I know they said their set lists are always like four hours long once they get into rehearsals, and then they have to par it down from that.  It has to be a bitch, and this year was even tougher with most of the new album being played.  Once you factor in the new songs, the 80s stuff they wanted to bring back and the few standards they are playing this time around, there wasn't much room for anything else.  The 70s and 90s obviously got the short end of the stick (only 1-3 songs from each decade, depending on which night you see the band).  And like has been said, for those 40 and under fans like myself who never got to see the band in the 80s, this tour is a real treat. 

[dbrooks22]

Besides, most would argue that Rush through Caress of Steel is its own era, and they skip that era all of the time, so there goes that theory. 

No, i already addressed that a few posts ago.  Those songs were played to death early on.  Plus, those were the band's early formative years, and as Neil points out he doesn't hold that material in high regard.

Again, your arbitrary way of selecting those particular years is just bizarre. 

I didn't select those years to leave out.  Rush did.

[dbrooks22]

for those 40 and under fans like myself who never got to see the band in the 80s, this tour is a real treat. 

Best tour ever!   

[KevShmev]

The "old songs were played to death back in the day" argument doesn't hold up since their oldest songs were all played a lot because when they toured in the early days, those were the only songs they had.  That is significantly different from now, where they have 19 albums and 170+ songs to choose from. 

Also, Rush played nothing from Power Windows on the S&A tour.  Using dbrooks logic, that means the band didn't care for it at that point in time.

Rush played nothing from Roll the Bones on the Time Machine tour.  Using dbrooks logic, that means the band didn't care for it at that point in time.

Going one further, there were several shows early on in the current tour where they played nothing from Permanent Waves.  Using dbrooks logic, that means the band didn't care for it on those particular nights.

We are going to ignore how much play those albums all got at other shows and on other tours.  Ignoring them at some point means that they don't care for them, just like them not playing anything from CP on this tour means they don't like it.

End of story.

[dbrooks22]

The "old songs were played to death back in the day" argument doesn't hold up since their oldest songs were all played a lot because when they toured in the early days, those were the only songs they had.  That is significantly different from now, where they have 19 albums and 170+ songs to choose from. 

You just stated my argument doesn't hold up and then reiterated it.  Thank you.

Also, Rush played nothing from Power Windows on the S&A tour.  Using dbrooks logic, that means the band didn't care for it at that point in time.

Rush played nothing from Roll the Bones on the Time Machine tour.  Using dbrooks logic, that means the band didn't care for it at that point in time.

Going one further, there were several shows early on in the current tour where they played nothing from Permanent Waves.  Using dbrooks logic, that means the band didn't care for it on those particular nights.

Rush cannot represent every album at shows, for reasons stated above.  Not sure how you make these "logic" leaps that you do.  Why do you keep erroneously extrapolating from what I've said, and trying to twist it into something else?

I stated that they left out 3 consecutive of their last five albums, spanning a period between 1991-2007.  Given how much time and effort they put into each album these days - up to 5yrs/album for the last 4 albums - that is a significant stretch of recent songwriting to completely leave out of a 3+hr show. 

The correlation is that, in most people's eyes, that time period represents a lower quality of songwriting in Rush's catalog.

Anything else you are extrapolating is nonsense.  Don't attribute that "logic" to me.

[Orbert]

Kev's examples are attempting to point out to you how ridiculous your argument is, but you're not getting it. 

Any given album can and will be underrepresented on a given tour.  Any given era can and will be underrepresented on a given tour.  That's just how it goes.  You are the one who keeps insisting that these three albums somehow constitute their own era, and because no songs are being played from them this tour, that somehow Rush holds them in lower esteem.  Kev's examples show how that has happened many, many times in the past and clearly has nothing to do with how Rush feels about them.

It doesn't matter that they are three consecutive albums.  It just doesn't.

It doesn't matter that they happen to span a relatively large amount of time.  It just doesn't.

[dbrooks22]

But the band is hardly playing any of the 70s on THIS tour, so I think that proves that their current feelings aren't overly positive about that material, thus it isn't that good, right?

I still love the old stuff, but we all know the band (particularly Neil) doesn't as much.  Most artists cringe at playing songs they wrote when they were very young, even if it's their most popular work. 

[dbrooks22]

Kev's examples are attempting to point out to you how ridiculous your argument is, but you're not getting it. 

Any given album can and will be underrepresented on a given tour.  Any given era can and will be underrepresented on a given tour.  That's just how it goes.  You are the one who keeps insisting that these three albums somehow constitute their own era, and because no songs are being played from them this tour, that somehow Rush holds them in lower esteem.  Kev's examples show how that has happened many, many times in the past and clearly has nothing to do with how Rush feels about them.

It doesn't matter that they are three consecutive albums.  It just doesn't.

It doesn't matter that they happen to span a relatively large amount of time.  It just doesn't.

CP, T4E, and VT are consecutive and have a similar guitar-heavy sound, which is why i loosely defined it as an "era."  Don't get hung up on that word.  It doesn't matter what you want to call it.  It's a span of songwriting breaching 15yrs of their recent history. 

No - it's never happened.  KS showed examples of specific albums being left out, which we all agree has to happen (can we beat that horse any more?).  He did not show examples of 15yrs/several consecutive albums being NOT represented.


Look - the vast majority of Rush fans agree that their best songs are not from the 90s-00s.  We all like different albums, but the majority opinion is that Rush's golden years happened somewhere in the 70's and 80's.  It's natural that the band would want to focus on their best work at this late stage of their career.

[The Letter M]

Kev's examples are attempting to point out to you how ridiculous your argument is, but you're not getting it. 

Any given album can and will be underrepresented on a given tour.  Any given era can and will be underrepresented on a given tour.  That's just how it goes.  You are the one who keeps insisting that these three albums somehow constitute their own era, and because no songs are being played from them this tour, that somehow Rush holds them in lower esteem.  Kev's examples show how that has happened many, many times in the past and clearly has nothing to do with how Rush feels about them.

It doesn't matter that they are three consecutive albums.  It just doesn't.

It doesn't matter that they happen to span a relatively large amount of time.  It just doesn't.

CP, T4E, and VT are consecutive and have a similar guitar-heavy sound, which is why i loosely defined it as an "era."  Don't get hung up on that word.  It doesn't matter what you want to call it.  It's a span of songwriting breaching 15yrs of their recent history. 

No - it's never happened.  KS showed examples of specific albums being left out, which we all agree has to happen (can we beat that horse any more?).  He did not show examples of 15yrs/several consecutive albums being NOT represented.


Look - the vast majority of Rush fans agree that their best songs are not from the 90s-00s.  We all like different albums, but the majority opinion is that Rush's golden years happened somewhere in the 70's and 80's.  It's natural that the band would want to focus on their best work at this late stage of their career.

I don't think that's entirely TOO accurate. Rush didn't spend 5 years on Vapor Trails, and if anything, it was less than 2. The time between 1998 and 2001 was spent in limbo - the band themselves didn't know if they would go on after Neil's tragedies. Similarly, they did not spend 2002-2007 writing S&A - they recorded an EP and did an Anniversary Tour in between. They spent less than 2 years on that album as well. Only with Clockwork Angels have they spent more than 2 years on material, and that was mostly because they released the "Caravan" single early on before the Time Machine Tour, then toured and wrote at the same time, then finally got the album out.

I believe, since the VT Tour, the band has had to be a bit more careful with the set list (at least up until this tour), carefully choosing songs that would well-represent their entire career, please the casual fans, and throw in a few gems for the hard-core fans. I believe they pretty well succeeded with every tour (VT, R30, S&A and TM), including all of those aspects. Before then, it was largely to promote the new album by playing about half the songs from it, while carrying over a lot of the songs from the last tour over. If you look at the progression of the tours from the 80's into the 90's, you see a lot of the songs still carry over. The encore medley that began in the POW Tour eventually built up to the monster encore that was on the RTB tour, something that allowed them to represent their first two albums with bits of "Finding My Way" and "Anthem", two songs that hadn't been played since the PEW Tour.

Just because the band hadn't played them in so long doesn't mean they didn't love them, or appreciate them. Sometimes there's only so many songs you can play on the tour, and back then, in order to play what they liked and represent some albums, they had to shorten them into medleys, a practice the band had been doing since the AFTK tour, with the "Working Man" Medley, which originally featured "Finding My Way" and later expanded to include "Anthem" and "Bastille Day", as well as "In The Mood", all songs from their first three albums.

Going from tour to tour, you realize that they really didn't shake things up much, which is why the current tour is such a huge shock. Even over the course of the previous four tours (VT to TM), they kept a lot of staples and concert regulars, while occasionally making room for new songs. With the S&A tour, they did shake things up a bit by playing 9 out of 13 new songs, but there was plenty of setlist staples thrown in, so it wasn't such a huge change from the previous tour's setlists.

I don't think whether or not an album gets a song played from it really matters - they just play what they like. I think they throw all their "have played live" songs into a bin, spin it around, and pull out the ones they really like and try them for the tour - some of them work, some of them don't. It really depends on how they fit into the set list and the overall dynamic of the set and the show. As was said earlier, they usually work up about 4 hours of music and they end up cutting out an hour or more of those songs. "The Camera Eye" was one that was said to have been worked up for a tour but was later cut because the band didn't feel like it fit the set as well as other songs.

Bottom line - the band plays what they want, and while they may have gone on record as saying that their then-current album was a huge labor of love and that they enjoyed the album, we can't be sure if that remains true to this day for that album. It might be, it might not, but all we can surmise is that what they ARE playing is what they like to play. We cannot assume that what they are NOT playing are songs that they dislike. They love the HECK out of "Roll The Bones", but it hasn't been played for two tours - and "Closer To The Heart" was played EVERY TOUR, regularly, up until the VT Tour, then it was dropped with the exception of a few nights. Sometimes songs come and go. They even brought out a CP song they had never played before on the VT tour, a trick they rarely do and, I believe, has only been done 3 or 4 times (IIRC, "Witch Hunt", "Entre Nous" and "Faithless", in addition to "Between Sun & Moon"). Just because a song wasn't played live on the current album's tour doesn't mean they didn't love it - it just didn't fit the set at the time, and those four songs are prime examples of that.

-Marc.

[dbrooks22]

I don't think that's entirely TOO accurate. Rush didn't spend 5 years on Vapor Trails, and if anything, it was less than 2. The time between 1998 and 2001 was spent in limbo - the band themselves didn't know if they would go on after Neil's tragedies. Similarly, they did not spend 2002-2007 writing S&A - they recorded an EP and did an Anniversary Tour in between. They spent less than 2 years on that album as well. Only with Clockwork Angels have they spent more than 2 years on material, and that was mostly because they released the "Caravan" single early on before the Time Machine Tour, then toured and wrote at the same time, then finally got the album out.

Agreed and good point.  That being said, they do spend a lot more time on writing/recording for each album now than in the 70s/80s. 

[The Letter M]

I don't think that's entirely TOO accurate. Rush didn't spend 5 years on Vapor Trails, and if anything, it was less than 2. The time between 1998 and 2001 was spent in limbo - the band themselves didn't know if they would go on after Neil's tragedies. Similarly, they did not spend 2002-2007 writing S&A - they recorded an EP and did an Anniversary Tour in between. They spent less than 2 years on that album as well. Only with Clockwork Angels have they spent more than 2 years on material, and that was mostly because they released the "Caravan" single early on before the Time Machine Tour, then toured and wrote at the same time, then finally got the album out.

Agreed and good point.  That being said, they do spend a lot more time on writing/recording for each album now than in the 70s/80s.

Also true, but back then, one might say they almost HAD to - there was a certain momentum for them to write/record/release/tour on a nearly yearly basis. If you look at the release dates, it becomes clear:
March 1, 1974 (my birthday, btw, well 10 years prior to my birth!)
February 15, 1975
September 24, 1975
April 1, 1976
September 1, 1977
October 29, 1978
January 1, 1980
February 12, 1981
September 9, 1982
April 12, 1984
October 29, 1985
September 8, 1987
November 21, 1989
September 3, 1991
October 19, 1993
September 10, 1996

Up until the last date (TFE), the longest time between album releases had been just over 2 years, and up until Signals in 1982, they had a new album every year since 1974, with exception of 1979, but that whole year was spent extensively touring on Hemispheres, and so the new album was pushed back a couple of months (their previous two albums, AFTK and HEMI, had been released in the fall of 77 and 78).

From POW to CP, they were on a regular schedule, releasing a new album in the Fall of every odd-year from 85 to 93, and because of a short break the band took after the CP tour, their next album was delayed another year to 1996.

I think they take longer now because they are allowed the luxury to be able to do so - there's no rush to constantly record and tour - they're a well-known act by now, and even though they've only released 3 albums in the last decade, they've gone on 5 major tours. Had they been recording albums in between, we could have had as many as 5 albums in the last 10 years, which, between 1985-1995, had been done.

However, you also have to take into account that their last 3 albums have been over an hour long, where as albums in the 80s were no more than 45 minutes, and up until HYF, they hadn't gone over 50, so really, there is more material per album. The 3 last studio albums add up to about 190 minutes or so, about the length of nearly 4 albums from the 80s.

Do I wish they had written MORE albums with LESS songs in the same 10-year span from 2002-2012? Maybe, but the 3 albums we DO have are all fantastic, full of carefully crafted songs that the band took their time with, and that extra time spent writing was well worth it. Not to say taking less than a year to write and record was bad, some of my favorite albums/songs exist in the earlier years of the band, but there's greatness in spontaneity AND patience.

-Marc.

[TAC]

I think they take longer now because they are allowed the luxury to be able to do so - there's no rush to constantly record and tour - they're a well-known act by now, and even though they've only released 3 albums in the last decade, they've gone on 5 major tours. Had they been recording albums in between, we could have had as many as 5 albums in the last 10 years, which, between 1985-1995, had been done.

However, you also have to take into account that their last 3 albums have been over an hour long, where as albums in the 80s were no more than 45 minutes, and up until HYF, they hadn't gone over 50, so really, there is more material per album. The 3 last studio albums add up to about 190 minutes or so, about the length of nearly 4 albums from the 80s.

Do I wish they had written MORE albums with LESS songs in the same 10-year span from 2002-2012? Maybe, but the 3 albums we DO have are all fantastic, full of carefully crafted songs that the band took their time with, and that extra time spent writing was well worth it. Not to say taking less than a year to write and record was bad, some of my favorite albums/songs exist in the earlier years of the band, but there's greatness in spontaneity AND patience.

-Marc.

M, first off, I didn't realize you were so young!

Also, the parallels between Iron Maiden and Rush over the last 15 years is amazing.

[The Letter M]

M, first off, I didn't realize you were so young!

Also, the parallels between Iron Maiden and Rush over the last 15 years is amazing.

28 is young?! Some days I don't feel young but thanks!

I'm not much of an Iron Maiden fan, but I assume you mean that their frequency of releasing albums has gotten wider apart while they've regularly toured is similar?

-Marc.

[TAC]

M, first off, I didn't realize you were so young!

Also, the parallels between Iron Maiden and Rush over the last 15 years is amazing.

28 is young?! Some days I don't feel young but thanks!

I'm not much of an Iron Maiden fan, but I assume you mean that their frequency of releasing albums has gotten wider apart while they've regularly toured is similar?

-Marc.

Trust me..28 is young.

Regarding Maiden, yes, what you said. Plus they both reeased live albums from Rio a year apart from each other!
They have both had world conquering popularity so deep in their career. And the regained classic sound and quality of Clockwork Angels has been ever present in Maidens post reunion albums as well.

[dbrooks22]

And didn't the same filmmaker duo do both of their recent documentaries?  McFadyen, Dunn?

[KevShmev]

Kev's examples are attempting to point out to you how ridiculous your argument is, but you're not getting it. 

Any given album can and will be underrepresented on a given tour.  Any given era can and will be underrepresented on a given tour.  That's just how it goes.  You are the one who keeps insisting that these three albums somehow constitute their own era, and because no songs are being played from them this tour, that somehow Rush holds them in lower esteem.  Kev's examples show how that has happened many, many times in the past and clearly has nothing to do with how Rush feels about them.

It doesn't matter that they are three consecutive albums.  It just doesn't.

It doesn't matter that they happen to span a relatively large amount of time.  It just doesn't.

Exactly. 

And CP-VT does NOT cover a 15-year span; it covers a 10-year span (1993-2002).  Stretching it from 1992 to 2006 is disingenuous since they didn't release any new, original material in 1992, 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006.  It would be like them playing something from every album but Test for Echo and someone then saying that they ignored eight years of their history (1994-2001).

[jammindude]

Is this the thread where we're keeping up to date on the tour at this point?   

Anyway...just got back from the Seattle show.   It was just freakin amazing. 

Some points.  LOVE the new drum solo.  Everyone's been talking about how hot the brunette is...I thought the redhead was cuter.   They still had the fireworks and explosions for Carnies....but the light show was very scaled back from what I had seen online early in the tour.   I seem to remember that the first show had these spinning lighted carousels that came down from the ceiling....or maybe I'm just imagining it.  (I'm too tired to look it up at the moment)  But we didn't get anything that over the top.  Just the fireworks and explosions.

The setlist:

SET A:

Subdivisions
Big Money
Force Ten
Grand Designs
Middletown Dreams
Territories
Analog Kid
The Pass
Where's My Thing (with drum solo)
Far Cry

INTERMISSION

SET B:

Caravan
Clockwork Angels
The Anarchist
Carnies
The Wreckers
Headlong Flight (with drum solo)
Halo Effect (with extended guitar intro by Alex)
Wish Them Well
The Garden
Dreamline
Drum Solo 3
Red Sector A
YYZ
Spirit of Radio

Encore:

Tom Sawyer
2112: Overture/Temples/Grand Finale

And Alex played a piano solo!!  I think it was on The Garden??  But I can't remember for sure at the moment.   But I know the setlist is right because I typed each song into my phone as it happened.   

Anyway....it's late.  I'm tired.   Awesome show.

[jammindude]

BTW....the highlight of the night for me was hearing my three all time favorite PoW songs IN A ROW in the first set.   

[Mladen]

BTW....the highlight of the night for me was hearing my three all time favorite PoW songs IN A ROW in the first set.

Holy shit, that must have been awesome. 

[dbrooks22]

And CP-VT does NOT cover a 15-year span; it covers a 10-year span (1993-2002).  Stretching it from 1992 to 2006 is disingenuous since they didn't release any new, original material in 1992, 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006.  It would be like them playing something from every album but Test for Echo and someone then saying that they ignored eight years of their history (1994-2001).

Everything written in between 1991 and 2007 was my original point.  No, they didn't spend 16yrs writing those albums, but those are the ones representing the gap between RTB and SnA.  Time to move on....

[dbrooks22]

BTW....the highlight of the night for me was hearing my three all time favorite PoW songs IN A ROW in the first set.

I love 80s Rush.  During that first set, i started texting my buddies "Holy Shit!  They just opened with 4 consecutive 80's songs!"

followed by:

"6 in a row now!!"

followed by:

"HOLY SHIT 7 in a row!!!"

etc etc.

Basically, i had to change my underwear.

[Cedar redaC]

I know, I don't get the hate for 80's Rush, I really enjoyed it.

[dbrooks22]

Hot off the press:

https://www.rushisaband.com/blog/2012/11/14/3395/Rush-to-film-Phoenix-and-Dallas-shows-for-live-DVD-release

[TVC 15]

Show last night in SEA was off-the-chain!  I also love me some 80's era Rush, so it was total hog heaven.  I guess it was good to skip out on a couple of tours from the last time seeing them.  It helps recapture the personal love for the band and their efforts.

Now it's time to give Clockwork Angels a few more spins.

[Cedar redaC]

Is anyone going to the Las Vegas show? We could do dinner or something before the show if anyone is interested.

[fadetoblackdude7]

Hot off the press:

https://www.rushisaband.com/blog/2012/11/14/3395/Rush-to-film-Phoenix-and-Dallas-shows-for-live-DVD-release

Fuck, that was fast!! We only just got the TM film. I didn't think they would even THINK about filming until towards the end of the tour, if at all!