Rush v. Dirk, Pratt, & Lerxst

[The Letter M]

Well, we already did the top Rush songs countdown last year, but maybe it is time to do the rank the albums countdown, yes?

I'm down, especially since I am in the thick of re-listening to all of their albums anyway.

-Marc.

[hefdaddy42]

Well, we already did the top Rush songs countdown last year, but maybe it is time to do the rank the albums countdown, yes?

[TAC]

Well, we already did the top Rush songs countdown last year, but maybe it is time to do the rank the albums countdown, yes?

That works!

[pg1067]

I wouldn't call Side 2 of 2112 inconsistent, as every song is, at the very least, good, but obviously none of them are super amazing like the Side 1 title track.  I do have much love, however, for both The Twilight Zone and Tears.

I still find if fascinating that Hold Your Fire was Neil's favorite Rush album over the final years of his life (per a friend of his, who told the story after Neil's passing about how often he and Neil would listen to that record).

I think HYF is BY FAR the most misunderstood and underrated of their albums.  I think that album has some of their best songwriting, and is the ONLY album in their catalogue that I would have LOVED to have heard them do acoustically.

"Underrated" simply means you like it more than the consensus.  I'm not sure what "misunderstood" means in this context.

I've told this story before, but through the '80s, I DESPERATELY wanted to like what Rush was releasing, even though I really didn't.  Each of the three "synth era" albums (of which I don't consider Signals a part) was increasingly disappointing to me.  One of my two best friends was a huge Rush fan like me (he was my best man and actually worked a Lock and Key reference into his toast at our wedding reception), but the other could take or leave them.  I remember playing HYF for the second guy.  When we got a few songs in, he commented, "if this wasn't Rush, you wouldn't even give it the time of day."  I realized he was right.  Of course, to each his own.

I think it goes without saying as well that "harder to play does not equal better."

That, and I know for me on guitar some things are "hard" not because they are objectively difficult to play, but because for whatever reason it's "different" (I don't know the right word) than where my skill is.  If that makes sense. 

This reminds me of a lot of Chris Squire's bass playing.  When I focus on him playing it, watch a play through video on YT, or look at sheet music/tab, it's really not that complex, but a lot of it eludes me because his approach to playing was very different than mine.

Well, we already did the top Rush songs countdown last year, but maybe it is time to do the rank the albums countdown, yes?

Bring it on!  I'll be nothing but disappointed with how a certain album ranks.

[Architeuthis]

I am one of those weird Rush fans that has Test for Echo in my top 5 Rush albums.  Alex's tone is great, Neil does some killer stuff (love watching the playthrough videos with some of these songs), and the music slaps.  Yes the lyrics to Virtuality are quite dated, and I don't mind the Dog Years lyrics.  It is just a really great album for me.  Also, the cover art is one of my faves.

Virtuality is a really fun track, and that main riff 💥.  I don't see the lyrics as bad, they work for the song just fine. Dog years is a cool song too and sounds good cranked up loud (this applies even more so to Virtuallty).
I saw the T4E tour at one of the best venues in the world. The Gorge amphitheater in Washington state. It also happened to be a full moon night.  "Dogs cry for the moon, but those connections are mysterious".. 

[Kram]

Well, we already did the top Rush songs countdown last year, but maybe it is time to do the rank the albums countdown, yes?

Count me in!

[Orbert]

I like Test For Echo.  The last time I saw Rush was on the Test For Echo tour, and they were still playing a lot of Counterparts tunes as well, so it was great.  As far as "later Rush" goes, this is my favorite era.  The last three albums were marred by the horrible sound, which should actually be justifiable homicide, but I'm a peace-loving man.  There's a lot of Test For Echo and Counterparts that feels really "open", like there's room for the music to breathe.  The last three albums are compressed to hell and back twice and it just wrecks the experience.

[Stadler]

"Underrated" simply means you like it more than the consensus.  I'm not sure what "misunderstood" means in this context.

I've told this story before, but through the '80s, I DESPERATELY wanted to like what Rush was releasing, even though I really didn't.  Each of the three "synth era" albums (of which I don't consider Signals a part) was increasingly disappointing to me.  One of my two best friends was a huge Rush fan like me (he was my best man and actually worked a Lock and Key reference into his toast at our wedding reception), but the other could take or leave them.  I remember playing HYF for the second guy.  When we got a few songs in, he commented, "if this wasn't Rush, you wouldn't even give it the time of day."  I realized he was right.  Of course, to each his own.

Won't argue with the "underrated" definition.  I think the "misunderstood" has to do with that lumping in with the synth era.  I know it IS heavy on the synths, but to me it sounds different.  I'm not a fan of Grace Under Pressure - what I would consider the "quintessential" synth album from the band.  It is, to me, slight, and I intensely dislike the drum sounds.   The lyrics, to me, reflect that "synth ethos", with a lot of single word or phrase-type lyrics (I'm thinking of Red Lenses, or Kid Gloves).   HYF is, to me, different in EVERY way from P/G, even though instrumentally there are overlaps.  If the Rush of 1976 was handed the sheet music to the songs on P/G I'm not sure they'd know what to do with them, or what the output would be, since I don't think those songs would translate; they're already guitar heavy, just in a different way.  But I think if the Rush of 1976 was given the sheet music to the songs on HYF, they could dig right in and that would be an album to behold.   I don't think it's just "because I like the songs".  I didn't for the longest time.  I can remember when I had the epiphany; I was painting my bedroom in my old house, and was doing my semiannual revisit of P/G. Then I went to HYF, and it was decidedly different.

I think it goes without saying as well that "harder to play does not equal better."

That, and I know for me on guitar some things are "hard" not because they are objectively difficult to play, but because for whatever reason it's "different" (I don't know the right word) than where my skill is.  If that makes sense. 

This reminds me of a lot of Chris Squire's bass playing.  When I focus on him playing it, watch a play through video on YT, or look at sheet music/tab, it's really not that complex, but a lot of it eludes me because his approach to playing was very different than mine.

Well, we already did the top Rush songs countdown last year, but maybe it is time to do the rank the albums countdown, yes?

Bring it on!  I'll be nothing but disappointed with how a certain album ranks.
[/quote]

[pg1067]

Won't argue with the "underrated" definition.  I think the "misunderstood" has to do with that lumping in with the synth era.  I know it IS heavy on the synths, but to me it sounds different.  I'm not a fan of Grace Under Pressure - what I would consider the "quintessential" synth album from the band.  It is, to me, slight, and I intensely dislike the drum sounds.   The lyrics, to me, reflect that "synth ethos", with a lot of single word or phrase-type lyrics (I'm thinking of Red Lenses, or Kid Gloves).   HYF is, to me, different in EVERY way from P/G, even though instrumentally there are overlaps.  If the Rush of 1976 was handed the sheet music to the songs on P/G I'm not sure they'd know what to do with them, or what the output would be, since I don't think those songs would translate; they're already guitar heavy, just in a different way.  But I think if the Rush of 1976 was given the sheet music to the songs on HYF, they could dig right in and that would be an album to behold.   I don't think it's just "because I like the songs".  I didn't for the longest time.  I can remember when I had the epiphany; I was painting my bedroom in my old house, and was doing my semiannual revisit of P/G. Then I went to HYF, and it was decidedly different.

I don't agree, but fair enough (especially since I think I'm in the minority with not regarding Signals as "synth era").  A lot of what you wrote after that is very interesting to ponder and will make for a great discussion one of these days when I get to buy you a beer in person.

[TAC]

Signals is definitely the Synth Era!

[King Postwhore]

Signals is definitely the Synth Era!

Yes it is.  I remember reading that Alex was disappointed that the guitars took the background over the keyboard on Signals.  The compensated with GUP having the guitars up in the mix.

[Kram]

Won't argue with the "underrated" definition.  I think the "misunderstood" has to do with that lumping in with the synth era.  I know it IS heavy on the synths, but to me it sounds different.  I'm not a fan of Grace Under Pressure - what I would consider the "quintessential" synth album from the band.  It is, to me, slight, and I intensely dislike the drum sounds.   The lyrics, to me, reflect that "synth ethos", with a lot of single word or phrase-type lyrics (I'm thinking of Red Lenses, or Kid Gloves).   HYF is, to me, different in EVERY way from P/G, even though instrumentally there are overlaps.  If the Rush of 1976 was handed the sheet music to the songs on P/G I'm not sure they'd know what to do with them, or what the output would be, since I don't think those songs would translate; they're already guitar heavy, just in a different way.  But I think if the Rush of 1976 was given the sheet music to the songs on HYF, they could dig right in and that would be an album to behold.   I don't think it's just "because I like the songs".  I didn't for the longest time.  I can remember when I had the epiphany; I was painting my bedroom in my old house, and was doing my semiannual revisit of P/G. Then I went to HYF, and it was decidedly different.

I don't agree, but fair enough (especially since I think I'm in the minority with not regarding Signals as "synth era").  A lot of what you wrote after that is very interesting to ponder and will make for a great discussion one of these days when I get to buy you a beer in person.

I'm with you I don't consider it "synth era" Rush.  It's a bridge from their "greatest era" to the "syth era" IMO

[TAC]

Signals is definitely the Synth Era!

Yes it is.  I remember reading that Alex was disappointed that the guitars took the background over the keyboard on Signals.  The compensated with GUP having the guitars up in the mix.

That's weird. My GUP doesn't have any guitars.

[King Postwhore]

Time to get your ears checked  Tim. Lol

[pg1067]

Won't argue with the "underrated" definition.  I think the "misunderstood" has to do with that lumping in with the synth era.  I know it IS heavy on the synths, but to me it sounds different.  I'm not a fan of Grace Under Pressure - what I would consider the "quintessential" synth album from the band.  It is, to me, slight, and I intensely dislike the drum sounds.   The lyrics, to me, reflect that "synth ethos", with a lot of single word or phrase-type lyrics (I'm thinking of Red Lenses, or Kid Gloves).   HYF is, to me, different in EVERY way from P/G, even though instrumentally there are overlaps.  If the Rush of 1976 was handed the sheet music to the songs on P/G I'm not sure they'd know what to do with them, or what the output would be, since I don't think those songs would translate; they're already guitar heavy, just in a different way.  But I think if the Rush of 1976 was given the sheet music to the songs on HYF, they could dig right in and that would be an album to behold.   I don't think it's just "because I like the songs".  I didn't for the longest time.  I can remember when I had the epiphany; I was painting my bedroom in my old house, and was doing my semiannual revisit of P/G. Then I went to HYF, and it was decidedly different.

I don't agree, but fair enough (especially since I think I'm in the minority with not regarding Signals as "synth era").  A lot of what you wrote after that is very interesting to ponder and will make for a great discussion one of these days when I get to buy you a beer in person.

I'm with you I don't consider it "synth era" Rush.  It's a bridge from their "greatest era" to the "syth era" IMO

Yup...to me, Signals has FAR more in common with MP than with the three albums that followed.

Signals is definitely the Synth Era!

Yes it is.  I remember reading that Alex was disappointed that the guitars took the background over the keyboard on Signals.  The compensated with GUP having the guitars up in the mix.

That's weird. My GUP doesn't have any guitars.

They're there.  They're just shrill and tinny (for the most part).

[HOF]

I think arguably Moving Pictures was the beginning of the synth era, but Signals was when they really started to force the issue, which caused the rift with Terry Brown. I think it owes more to MP just because Brown was still producing, and in that sense it is more of a bridge album. But I do think of it as synth era Rush.

[TAC]

I became a fan with Moving Pictures' release. I quickly got all of their albums. All I know is that when Signals came out, I was like WTF is this shit?

[The Letter M]

Won't argue with the "underrated" definition.  I think the "misunderstood" has to do with that lumping in with the synth era.  I know it IS heavy on the synths, but to me it sounds different.  I'm not a fan of Grace Under Pressure - what I would consider the "quintessential" synth album from the band.  It is, to me, slight, and I intensely dislike the drum sounds.   The lyrics, to me, reflect that "synth ethos", with a lot of single word or phrase-type lyrics (I'm thinking of Red Lenses, or Kid Gloves).   HYF is, to me, different in EVERY way from P/G, even though instrumentally there are overlaps.  If the Rush of 1976 was handed the sheet music to the songs on P/G I'm not sure they'd know what to do with them, or what the output would be, since I don't think those songs would translate; they're already guitar heavy, just in a different way.  But I think if the Rush of 1976 was given the sheet music to the songs on HYF, they could dig right in and that would be an album to behold.   I don't think it's just "because I like the songs".  I didn't for the longest time.  I can remember when I had the epiphany; I was painting my bedroom in my old house, and was doing my semiannual revisit of P/G. Then I went to HYF, and it was decidedly different.

I don't agree, but fair enough (especially since I think I'm in the minority with not regarding Signals as "synth era").  A lot of what you wrote after that is very interesting to ponder and will make for a great discussion one of these days when I get to buy you a beer in person.

I'm with you I don't consider it "synth era" Rush.  It's a bridge from their "greatest era" to the "syth era" IMO

Yup...to me, Signals has FAR more in common with MP than with the three albums that followed.

I've seen folks group their albums (at least the first twelve or fifteen) into trios, and I can see it that way as well.

Rush-FBN-COS are very Zeppelin-inspired, proto-prog-metal sounding stuff.
2112-AFTK-HEMI are where they really dug their feet into the prog scene with sprawling epics, lush arrangements and complex orchestrations within the ensemble, along with the introduction of synths, bass pedals, and more auxiliary percussion by Neil.
PEW-MP-SIG, as stated earlier in this thread, kind of feels like the band taking a turn at the turn of the decade, writing more concise songs but still infusing them with progressive bridges and solos.
GUP-POW-HYF saw the band reach the heights of incorporating synths and keyboards to their sound, along with Neil bringing in electronic drums and synth percussion.
Presto-RTB-CP saw the band slowly moving back to their hard rock roots and dialing up Alex a bit more.
TFE-VT-S&A kind of don't really feel like a trio, but I could sense some similarities within those albums, but I'd say they're just as different as they are similar.

I think if it wasn't for the "live album every four studio albums" pattern they created for themselves up to Different Stages, fans might have seen their discography in this manner (in threes instead of fours).

-Marc.

[pg1067]

I've seen folks group their albums (at least the first twelve or fifteen) into trios, and I can see it that way as well.

Rush-FBN-COS are very Zeppelin-inspired, proto-prog-metal sounding stuff.
2112-AFTK-HEMI are where they really dug their feet into the prog scene with sprawling epics, lush arrangements and complex orchestrations within the ensemble, along with the introduction of synths, bass pedals, and more auxiliary percussion by Neil.
PEW-MP-SIG, as stated earlier in this thread, kind of feels like the band taking a turn at the turn of the decade, writing more concise songs but still infusing them with progressive bridges and solos.
GUP-POW-HYF saw the band reach the heights of incorporating synths and keyboards to their sound, along with Neil bringing in electronic drums and synth percussion.
Presto-RTB-CP saw the band slowly moving back to their hard rock roots and dialing up Alex a bit more.
TFE-VT-S&A kind of don't really feel like a trio, but I could sense some similarities within those albums, but I'd say they're just as different as they are similar.

I think if it wasn't for the "live album every four studio albums" pattern they created for themselves up to Different Stages, fans might have seen their discography in this manner (in threes instead of fours).

I think that all makes a lot of sense, although I think T4E fits more with the prior group than with the 21st century albums.

[HOF]

I also see Counterparts as a fairly huge departure from Presto and Roll the Bones, which are much closer to Hold Your Fire. Counterparts, T4E, and Vapor Trails are much more of a trio I think.

[The Letter M]

I've seen folks group their albums (at least the first twelve or fifteen) into trios, and I can see it that way as well.

Rush-FBN-COS are very Zeppelin-inspired, proto-prog-metal sounding stuff.
2112-AFTK-HEMI are where they really dug their feet into the prog scene with sprawling epics, lush arrangements and complex orchestrations within the ensemble, along with the introduction of synths, bass pedals, and more auxiliary percussion by Neil.
PEW-MP-SIG, as stated earlier in this thread, kind of feels like the band taking a turn at the turn of the decade, writing more concise songs but still infusing them with progressive bridges and solos.
GUP-POW-HYF saw the band reach the heights of incorporating synths and keyboards to their sound, along with Neil bringing in electronic drums and synth percussion.
Presto-RTB-CP saw the band slowly moving back to their hard rock roots and dialing up Alex a bit more.
TFE-VT-S&A kind of don't really feel like a trio, but I could sense some similarities within those albums, but I'd say they're just as different as they are similar.

I think if it wasn't for the "live album every four studio albums" pattern they created for themselves up to Different Stages, fans might have seen their discography in this manner (in threes instead of fours).

I think that all makes a lot of sense, although I think T4E fits more with the prior group than with the 21st century albums.

Thus my comment about grouping either their first 12 or 15 albums together. I think from Neil's perspective, though, given his change of style and performance after his lessons with Gruber, I'd say TFE's drumming has more in common with the albums that followed than the ones that preceded it.

You could also say that the first trio are their Mid70s, then the Late 70s, then Early 80s with PEW/MP/SIG, then mid 80s, then Early 90s (Presto came out so close to 1990 that most fans forget it came out in 1989, especially since the Presto Tour began in February 1990.

-Marc.

[jammindude]

Signals might have a completely different tone from the three albums that followed…but in regards to how “synth laden” it is, it definitely has more in common with GUP-HYF than MP by a long shot. I think people just like the songs better because it’s a “warmer” album, so in their minds they try to force it into the previous album category.

But Signals is absolutely a synth-era album.

[HOF]

I do think people forget how synth heavy MP is though. Tom Sawyer is especially synth driven. There are a lot of more atmospheric synths on Red Barchetta, Limelight, Which Hunt, and Vital Signs. YYZ has a synth solo, Camera Eye has some prominent synth leads. The album has a heavier, rockier sound than Signals and I’m sure that’s more of the delineating feature for most people. But it’s not like Signals featuring a lot of synths should have surprised anyone.

[King Postwhore]

It surprised fans because the keys were more prominent in the mix.

[jammindude]

It surprised fans because the keys were more prominent in the mix.

And also, instead of painting the background, it became the primary melody.

Before Signals, things were primarily written on guitar and bass. But starting with Signals, they started writing on the keyboards. Subdivisions is a perfect example.

[Architeuthis]

Analog Kid is the most guitar driven and rockin song off of Signals, and Digital Man has some great guitar work.  The rest of the songs are a lot more synth heavy.
New World Man is fairly riff oriented now that I think about it.  Definitely inspired by The Police.

[Kram]

I've seen folks group their albums (at least the first twelve or fifteen) into trios, and I can see it that way as well.

Rush-FBN-COS are very Zeppelin-inspired, proto-prog-metal sounding stuff.
2112-AFTK-HEMI are where they really dug their feet into the prog scene with sprawling epics, lush arrangements and complex orchestrations within the ensemble, along with the introduction of synths, bass pedals, and more auxiliary percussion by Neil.
PEW-MP-SIG, as stated earlier in this thread, kind of feels like the band taking a turn at the turn of the decade, writing more concise songs but still infusing them with progressive bridges and solos.
GUP-POW-HYF saw the band reach the heights of incorporating synths and keyboards to their sound, along with Neil bringing in electronic drums and synth percussion.
Presto-RTB-CP saw the band slowly moving back to their hard rock roots and dialing up Alex a bit more.
TFE-VT-S&A kind of don't really feel like a trio, but I could sense some similarities within those albums, but I'd say they're just as different as they are similar.

I think if it wasn't for the "live album every four studio albums" pattern they created for themselves up to Different Stages, fans might have seen their discography in this manner (in threes instead of fours).

I think that all makes a lot of sense, although I think T4E fits more with the prior group than with the 21st century albums.

Thus my comment about grouping either their first 12 or 15 albums together. I think from Neil's perspective, though, given his change of style and performance after his lessons with Gruber, I'd say TFE's drumming has more in common with the albums that followed than the ones that preceded it.

You could also say that the first trio are their Mid70s, then the Late 70s, then Early 80s with PEW/MP/SIG, then mid 80s, then Early 90s (Presto came out so close to 1990 that most fans forget it came out in 1989, especially since the Presto Tour began in February 1990.

-Marc.

I can get on board with this for the first 12 albums.  Actually grouping those 12 in threes makes more sense.  But I agree with HOF and pg1067.  Presto and Counterparts are nothing alike - and I can say the same for TFE and VP and S&A.  If anything I'd say S&A and Clockwork Angels are "somewhat" similar sounding, but of course very different at the same time.  I'd say the first 12 work well as trios though.

[The Letter M]

I've seen folks group their albums (at least the first twelve or fifteen) into trios, and I can see it that way as well.

Rush-FBN-COS are very Zeppelin-inspired, proto-prog-metal sounding stuff.
2112-AFTK-HEMI are where they really dug their feet into the prog scene with sprawling epics, lush arrangements and complex orchestrations within the ensemble, along with the introduction of synths, bass pedals, and more auxiliary percussion by Neil.
PEW-MP-SIG, as stated earlier in this thread, kind of feels like the band taking a turn at the turn of the decade, writing more concise songs but still infusing them with progressive bridges and solos.
GUP-POW-HYF saw the band reach the heights of incorporating synths and keyboards to their sound, along with Neil bringing in electronic drums and synth percussion.
Presto-RTB-CP saw the band slowly moving back to their hard rock roots and dialing up Alex a bit more.
TFE-VT-S&A kind of don't really feel like a trio, but I could sense some similarities within those albums, but I'd say they're just as different as they are similar.

I think if it wasn't for the "live album every four studio albums" pattern they created for themselves up to Different Stages, fans might have seen their discography in this manner (in threes instead of fours).

I think that all makes a lot of sense, although I think T4E fits more with the prior group than with the 21st century albums.

Thus my comment about grouping either their first 12 or 15 albums together. I think from Neil's perspective, though, given his change of style and performance after his lessons with Gruber, I'd say TFE's drumming has more in common with the albums that followed than the ones that preceded it.

You could also say that the first trio are their Mid70s, then the Late 70s, then Early 80s with PEW/MP/SIG, then mid 80s, then Early 90s (Presto came out so close to 1990 that most fans forget it came out in 1989, especially since the Presto Tour began in February 1990.

-Marc.

I can get on board with this for the first 12 albums.  Actually grouping those 12 in threes makes more sense.  But I agree with HOF and pg1067.  Presto and Counterparts are nothing alike - and I can say the same for TFE and VP and S&A.  If anything I'd say S&A and Clockwork Angels are "somewhat" similar sounding, but of course very different at the same time.  I'd say the first 12 work well as trios though.

Yeah, Vapor Prails definitely feels pretty unique compared to what came before and after. 

I also think the time between their last four albums really gave them a chance to grow and change as writers, so those last four all feel different from each other, for better or worse.

-Marc.

[pg1067]

I also think the time between their last four albums really gave them a chance to grow and change as writers, so those last four all feel different from each other, for better or worse.

That's the interesting thing about Rush (and really a lot of bands of their vintage).  Their career as recording artists spanned 38 years and 19 studio albums.  However, they released 10 studio albums (more than half of their studio releases) in the first 10 years of that career and only 3 in the last 10 years.  Of course, the last three albums were 2 minutes shy of having the same amount of music as the first five albums.  The stylistic changes between Rush and GUP were massive, while the changes from VT through CA....

[The Letter M]

I also think the time between their last four albums really gave them a chance to grow and change as writers, so those last four all feel different from each other, for better or worse.

That's the interesting thing about Rush (and really a lot of bands of their vintage).  Their career as recording artists spanned 38 years and 19 studio albums.  However, they released 10 studio albums (more than half of their studio releases) in the first 10 years of that career and only 3 in the last 10 years.  Of course, the last three albums were 2 minutes shy of having the same amount of music as the first five albums.  The stylistic changes between Rush and GUP were massive, while the changes from VT through CA....

Yeah, stylistically, their last three albums are probably more similar to each other than any other three consecutive albums in their catalog. Their first 10-15 years really saw them change at rapid paces, but I guess, like with anything in life, getting older means settling more into what you know and what you're comfortable with. At least lyrically and thematically, VT/S&A/CA are all quite different from each other, though that isn't to say they weren't like that before, but it helps to set them apart from each other. I'm just glad the band closed out their career with a pretty good concept album, in the rock opera sense (since many of their prior albums had thematic concepts rather than narrative ones).

-Marc.

[Architeuthis]

I dunno,  VT,  S&A, and CA seem like three completely different beasts.

[KevShmev]

I agree that the albums are not all that similar.  Vapor Trails, which is aging really well for me thanks to the remaster (NOT the remix), is unlike any other album they have done.  I don't think it and S&A are that similar at all.  While S&A has some rocking songs, it is generally pretty laid back by Rush standards and has a lot of acoustic guitar.  VT oozes with fire and brimstone and rocks like crazy. 

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

I agree that the albums are not all that similar.  Vapor Trails, which is aging really well for me thanks to the remaster (NOT the remix), is unlike any other album they have done.  I don't think it and S&A are that similar at all.  While S&A has some rocking songs, it is generally pretty laid back by Rush standards and has a lot of acoustic guitar.  VT oozes with fire and brimstone and rocks like crazy.

I still don't understand what everyone's issue is with the remix, I like it better than any other version that's been released.

[KevShmev]

I agree that the albums are not all that similar.  Vapor Trails, which is aging really well for me thanks to the remaster (NOT the remix), is unlike any other album they have done.  I don't think it and S&A are that similar at all.  While S&A has some rocking songs, it is generally pretty laid back by Rush standards and has a lot of acoustic guitar.  VT oozes with fire and brimstone and rocks like crazy.

I still don't understand what everyone's issue is with the remix, I like it better than any other version that's been released.

The remix:

a) sucked too much of the energy out of the record.
b) resulted in too many of the vocal parts remixed to sound unnatural.

The remaster did a great job of maintaining the energy and power of the original, while taking away enough of the loudness to make it easily listenable now from start to finish.

[HOF]

I think VT, SNA, and CA all inhabit the same general stylistic and sonic space. I think Counterparts and Test for Echo are also similar, but just better produced.