StellarJetman

I'd make one, but that would involve picking something from Hold Your Fire, and I'm not sure that I'd be able to do that.

QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Aug 30 2012, 10:49 PM) You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but would you mind explaining the 7/10 for Permanent Waves? I think that besides Moving Pictures it is one of the most widely acclaimed albums among even casual fans. Jus wondrin. "Jacob's Ladder" is a monotonous, repetitive slog that goes on forever and destroys the album's pacing, and "Different Strings", while pretty (and graced with an excellent chorus), has stupid lyrics and just trails off disappointingly instead of having a real ending, which almost ruins it for me. Together, these songs take up a third of the whole album. I'm not a big fan of the title track's third part, either. Everything else is great, and I'd probably give the album a high 8 if it had real music in place of "Jacob's Ladder".

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Aug 30 2012, 09:12 PM) The vocals are fine, the songs just aren't there on Islands. They aren't bad, but they're completely anonymous, especially in comparison to Lake's, Wetton's, and Belew's.

What Hemispheres should have been: Side 1: "Hemispheres" "The Trees" Side 2: "Xanadu" "Circumstances" "La Villa Strangiato" Would definitely have fit on vinyl.

QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Aug 29 2012, 04:55 PM) Or maybe they genuinely prefer Boz's voice and.... I could see that being the case if the only other one that they'd heard was Lizard. (This is a state that I do not wish on anyone.)

"A Farewell to Kings"? "What You're Doing"? "Circumstances"? Pretty sure that this list was randomly generated.

ha ha ha a person voted for islands

Oh, I might as well... 9/10: Moving Pictures 8/10: Presto Hemispheres Clockwork Angels Power Windows 2112 7/10: Vapor Trails Fly by Night Permanent Waves Grace Under Pressure 6/10: Counterparts Snakes and Arrows Signals Rush 5/10: A Farewell to Kings 4/10: Hold Your Fire Caress of Steel Roll the Bones 3/10: Test for Echo Albums with the same rating are arranged in descending order of preference.

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Aug 27 2012, 01:06 PM) QUOTE (StellarJetman @ Aug 26 2012, 07:46 PM)Fanboys ruin everything. You mean, "haters ruin everything," right? I mean that fanboys ruin everything. This thread is loaded with horrible fanboys on both sides of the issue. If you like "The Wreckers", you're an idiot with no musical taste and don't deserve to listen to the band in the first place (according to the "elitist Rush connoisseur" type of fanboy). If you don't like it, you're a miserable "hater" who can't be happy about anything and are probably lying about liking the band anyway (according to the YOU HAVE TO LIKE EVERYTHING THAT RUSH DOES OR YOU AREN'T A TRUE FAN type of fanboy). What separates fanboys from plain old fans is that fanboys have to be retarded about what they like. When they argue, everybody loses. I'm beginning to remember why I took such a long break from this forum.

Snakes and Arrows felt like it was loaded with filler; Clockwork Angels does a much better job for me of making its songs count. No contest here.

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Aug 26 2012, 07:08 PM) Sounds like something that was thrown together and highly influenced by Nick/Foo Fighters for sure.. Reminds me more of REM and U2. I enjoy the song, but, yeah, I don't think that it's very representative of the band.

Fanboys ruin everything.

I saw it at Barnes & Noble yesterday and took a quick look at it. The prologue was really annoying. Basically "Headlong Flight", but in prose and with lots of intrusive lyrical references that destroyed the suspension of disbelief. First page of the book proper was the main character as a teenager talking about clouds with his girlfriend. Skipped forward a bit and ran into a big, ugly paragraph explaining how airships worked ("alchemical pistons" or something like that) without any effort made to integrate it into the actual narrative - it was like a footnote, but in the middle of the page, interrupting the story. Illustrations (by Hugh Syme!) were cool; they were all Photoshop collages and had kind of a surreal look to them. But the book itself, like everything else of Anderson's that I've read, was just too hackish to enjoy, at least from my brief experience with it. I'll give it another crack at some point (it's gotten some positive reviews, if my two minutes of Google research is worth anything), but it doesn't look too promising at the moment.

QUOTE (priest_of_syrinx @ Aug 14 2012, 06:44 PM) QUOTE (metaldad @ Aug 14 2012, 12:57 PM) Everything after Duke sucked balls . Watered down pop songs you here in Disney movies Go back and listen to "Me and Sarah Jane" from Abacab and tell me it's a watered-down pop song. Or "Dodo/Lurker". Things didn't get truly brainless until Invisible Touch.

Why would I pay three bucks for MP3s of a terrible remaster when I can get one of the excellent '80s CDs used for the same price, rip it to my computer, and have both the files and the disk? (I have already done this, and so should you.)

QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Aug 13 2012, 10:02 PM) Early Genesis. The stuff after the self titled album make me So that's, what, two albums? (I haven't met a single person who actually thinks of Calling All Stations as a Genesis album.)

Would be an 8, but the awful mixing and mastering brings it down to a 7. The songs lose a lot of differentiation and atmosphere because of it, though it's still possible to hear where it would otherwise have been.

I left out lesser-known bands like Camel and Gentle Giant because I knew that I'd be missing most of them if I did. Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention aren't here because they were really their own thing and it didn't seem right to pigeonhole them into a genre like this. Deep Purple was too borderline for me to feel comfortable putting it in the same poll as Yes and Genesis. Kansas isn't an option because nobody who would vote for them deserves to vote in the first place. I went with King Crimson because, aside from basically defining the genre, they were one of the few true "progressive" influences on it. Emerson, Lake & Palmer certainly wouldn't put out something like Larks' Tongues in Aspic.

Clockwork Angels; would have been Hemispheres a few months ago, though.

Oh, dear.

Fly by Night, easily. Caress of Steel is like a bad parody of progressive rock. Also, Fly by Night has infinitely better production.

It's been ages and it still hasn't come out. Google hasn't turned up anything either. It is happening, isn't it?

QUOTE (Rush Cocky @ Jun 12 2012, 12:04 PM) So let's sum up the numbers....9 + 6.5 + 6 + 8.5 + 7 + 7 + 9.5 + 7 + 9 + 5.5 + 8 + 9 = 92. In my school, anything from 90-100 was an A, and so that's exactly what this album will get on it's first spin. Final Grade = A! Yeah, but there are twelve tracks, not ten, so that's 92 out of 120, which is 76.7%. That's a far cry from an A.

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Jan 9 2012, 09:13 AM) I did a side by side (by side by side ) critical review a few years ago my verdict? > the MFSL sounds the best > followed very closely by the W. German '89 CD (2nd) > the SHM-CD (3rd) > the '97 Remaster (dead last - worst of the worst) here's a link to the full review, if you're interested in my take Well, I was actually hoping for louder guitars and a brighter sound overall. I really can't stand the way that the original sounds and I almost always listen to it with treble-shifted equalization. You say, "The MFSL does the best job of taking the original song and 'improving' on the foundation (bass guitar, snare sound, guitar) without changing the original intent or mix," but I honestly hate the "original intent". I'll be getting the remaster now for sure.

Blu-Ray.