'Moving Pictures'

One of the greatest phenomena of the past five years or so are older bands performing in concert the entirety of one of their foremost albums in order.

Rush did exactly this this year during their tour playing Moving Pictures from "Tom Sawyer" all the way to "Vital Signs" in front of thousands of 40-year-old socially awkward men.

It's interesting that a band generally has two identities: The guys in the studio, recording; and the guys on the roading, playing.

One is a circus of emotions and creativity. The other is a job. It pays the bills. Rarely do the two ever meet except if someone releases a live album.

Even then, would it be interesting for Rush to release Moving Pictures as a live album?

Probably not. The main reason is that the only people going to see Rush this year play the entire album of Moving Pictures were those 40-year-old losers we mentioned earlier.

Would all those dudes go to Best Buy and spent $16 on an album they already own except done in front of 5,000 other people?

Even if, is it worth a record company releasing an album that'll sell 100,000 copies, if that?

It only really works one way: From record to stage. People don't sound awesome live. Some are better than others. However, there's the power of the live show that takes so-so bands and turns them into experiences. It's not unlike watching the World Series on TV or live at the stadium. There's an electricity that'll you'll not find in the .mp3 file. Then again, it sounds like crap.

More and more bands are doing the "whole album" tour like Aerosmith. Others should adopt it. How many times can a person see Rush or Aerosmith? Why not change things up and give your diehard fans something different, unique?