Entre_Perpetuo

You know how often I actually listen to Queen these days? Those albums, at least most of them, are embedded in my DNA, entwined with my soul. It's really not that often. I always keep their music on me, bring a couple of their records to campus with me, have all their albums on my iPod which I always carry, but there's not usually much of an urge to listen to Queen because I can basically run through most of their music note for note in my head in my sleep. When I do listen to Queen, I still love it and enjoy the experience thoroughly, but most of the time it's much more interesting to expose myself to new music or to get into a groove with other music that's speaking to me at the moment. Queen will always be there for me when I need them, but some days I need to hear Eve 6 and Fall Out Boy, and other days it's Judas Priest and Megadeth, and other days its Kendrick Lamar and Kanye West, and other days it's MisterWives and Michael Jackson.

Why is Tom Sawyer automatically a teenager? I thought I remembered him being like 12 in the books or something.

The band ended. The AFTK reissue and Time Stand Still DVD are both seen as very non-essential, not to mention you've probably become more interested in many other bands since you first came here that seem more appealing right now either because you haven't finished learning about them and their music yet, or perhaps because they aren't over like Rush. You're still a fan if you would still enjoy it if you did listen to their music. If you one day decide that you no longer have any affection for the group or their songs, then on that day you may no longer be a fan, but as long as that hasn't happened, you're just taking a break.

PoW's easily my fav album out of this bunch, and HYF my least favorite, but actually HYF starts off with the strongest one-two punch. Force Ten is formidable and a bit curious in structure and hook and just all around likable, then Time Stand Still might be their best pop song. I love The Big Money, but Grand Designs is really pretty average (still great considering it's Rush we're taking about). Then there's DEW, which I adore, but it's followed by Afterimage, which is lyrically brilliant, but structured and produced semi-unflatteringly to my ears.

I re listened to the first half of Dirt recently....well at some point the emotional taxation took a backseat to the music and well...yeah sorry it's better than CP. CP has The Speed Of Love, Between Sun And Moon, and Leave That Thing Alone where Dirt has Junkhead, Godsmack, and Sickman. The better written and performed songs clearly lie with AIC in the case of the worst songs on either, not to mention the best CP can offer is Double Agent, Cut To The Chase, Animate, and Nobody's Hero, where Dirt has Rooster (better than everything else here), Them Bones, Dam That River, Rain When I Die, Down In A Hole, and Would?

Dreamline is the guitar version of DEW musically, though it breaks some new ground lyrically. I love the lyrics in Manhattan Project, or more especially the delivery. It's like Rush heard Iron Maiden had been doing historical lyrics successfully and actually getting pretty emotional points across and decided to try the same thing in a different context musically and wound up succeeding stupendously. When Ged cries "flying out the shockwave," I feel more emotional connection to WWII than I ever felt in history class.

Working Man Fly By Night Closer To The Heart (studio version only...kicks ass live) Limelight are these four not almost universally considered among the band's most noteworthy and beloved works? Like...CTTH is in my top ten, and the other three aren't far behind at all...

Eh, criticism is fun to write, besides, there's so much amazing Rush stuff that it's actually kind of interesting to take a closer look at the times when they just lost the plot. I'll bite. 5. Leave That Thing Alone - someone said lazy earlier, and while I think that's not quite right, it isn't far off. This is easily the most boring instrumental in the Rush catalogue. I mean, I can tell they put effort into it, Ged's got a neat little bass part or two that many praise, but on the whole, the song is missing a strong hook, or centerpiece, or awesome breakdown, or literally anything to keep it from coming off as elevator music. If Ged had just sung on this one it could've been so much better, but instead it's just a lame jam that would be satisfying to hear live, but just eats up time on an already overlong album as a studio cut. 4. You Bet Your Life - I'll say it again, but you'll see it here first. The album this comes from is basically Rush's take on Huey Lewis and The News, but without any kind of punch in the production, no matter how hard the band tries. Now on it's own, this misfire of style and sonics isn't the worst thing in the world, even though it's a lot of the reason RTB is my least favorite Rush album, but on this track, they pair those two mistakes with yet another blatant issue: annoyance. The hook of this song gets on my nerves. I didn't know what to make of it at first, thought I might kind of get used to it and like it. It's certainly catchy enough. But they just keep going over and over and over with more meaningless "ist" words and after hearing it a few times I'd lost all my appetite for this track. There could have been a decent song here, maybe, but that hook just kills it. 3. The Speed Of Love - And here we have the strange case where Rush are actually even more boring than on Leave That Thing Alone. Even adding a vocal couldn't save this cut. The chorus is pretty weak, and any catchiness it has might actually only stem from the number of times they repeat it...kind of lazily I might add (yeah, I'll go there on this song). There's barely anything mildly interesting going on in the instrumentals (but this is Rush!?), the production isn't as strong as the rest of CP, and...oh yeah, the lyrics. Neil had a long period of strong lyricism, and though we all know some (or much) of it took a turn for the worse around the 80s/90s line, this is possibly some his worst work. It's not even notably for being cringey or outdated like Virtuality or Dog Years, it's not even something that's simply over preachy (like most of SnA). Neil tries to write a love song of sorts and...it's just dull. It's like he read a book on "love" and tried to describe what it is as logically as possible and how (in his opinion) its always moving and changing. This sort of approach has worked fine in other songs of his, but those songs weren't about love. You can't take a scientific and logical approach to love if your going to write a poem or a song about it. It needs to feel real and heartfelt, and it should read like it's coming from another human being, not like it's coming from a mashup of watered down buddhism and a science textbook. TBF, I don't hate this song, honestly most days I'd prefer to hear it over the two I put before it, but if I'm having to force myself to try to relate to the lyrics of a love song as an overly romantic teenager...there's been a major failure on the song's part. 2. Neurotica - So again, coming from RTB, it's got no guts, and no style. The only saving grace it could hope for is songwriting or outstanding performance. Rush normally have great performances, but on this album, they need to be just extra-spectacular to catch my ear. And Rush are normally fine songwriters, especially in the two decades they just left. Sadly, this song has neither of those. Nary an instrumental that just speaks to me, and songwriting that just fails to interest me in the slightest. Peart seems to be having to much fun rhyming things again (what's up with these lyrical games he's playing? Red Lenses? Anagram? Hand Over Fist? now this?? I'm nt even sure some of these are real words...), so it's up to Ged and Alex to write interesting music and melodies...and sadly they fail. Ged is playing around with how many times he can overdub his voice before it becomes unbearable (see You Bet Your Life), and Al doesn't really seem to have noticed the 80s are over and he can come out of the shadows now. Plus the hook is weak, the verses are dull, the riff doesn't have any power, the bridge (which is mildly interesting) isn't even finished before Al jumps in to try to feed some life back into the song with a guitar solo that might've been memorable if it had been twice as long and in a better song, Peart tries to do the same multiple times throughout the song with energetic fills that make it even more obvious this song is on life support, and it doesn't even care to end in an interesting way. 1. Heresy - in addition to being completely ball-less and watered down Huey Lewis material like much of the rest of the album, this one has the gall to not even have a half-way decent chorus or hook that I'm even marginally tempted to sing along to. "all those precious wasted years?" BLECH This is one of the only times in music where I just cringe so hard that the feeling actually bears the faintest resemblance to nausea. Oh, and that "c***" line? Was that supposed to make me feel like I could just relate so hard to this song?Because it just came off as unnecessary. Yeah, least favorite Rush song of all time. Compared to my least favorite Queen song (Coming Soon) and my least favorite Muse song (Follow Me), this one takes the cake for being my least favorite song made by one of my three favorite bands. Heresy? Yep, they said it.

Oh, yeah from what I recall when I last listened to it, it sounded excellent. I'm not much of an audiophile, but I didn't notice anything wrong.

I totally get your point. TS is actually a really weird song. It doesn't have a chorus, it's got a crazy instrumental breakdown with all sorts of weird time signatures and finicky bits, the "riff" is almost just a chord progression, it's got an incredibly heavy emphasis on groove and feel over structure or melody, it's just a really weird song. But all the things you can say about it to make it seem weird (though they are all true) go away when it hits you. However strange it is, it's got a strangeness that just works, and it couldn't seem to do anything but work. Ubiquity and popularity followed seemingly without a care for its strangeness, because the music being made was just too good to ignore. Really, that's the story of a lot of Rush in a nutshell. There's kind of no reason the band should have ever gotten to be so popular, so revered, and not to say at all that their popularity and reverence were just granted to them (they were one of the hardest working bands of all time, and it was a long climb to success), but they had something just undeniably good, and as much as the spotlight was held away from them, eventually the music was all that was left to do the talking, and it's overall goodness earned it the kind of popularity and longevity every band strives for. Tom Sawyer is a weird song that shouldn't have ever been a hit by radio standards. Rush is a weird band that shouldn't have had hits and popularity by radio standards. And yet, here we are, die hard fans, brought together on an internet forum by a band that defied every expectation of their day to become of the the most respected musical acts of all time.

Maybe as far as hitting high notes on any particular night, but he never gave any performance less than his absolute all, and whether or not his singing was quite perfect that night, one would always walk away feeling thoroughly entertained. You can't say he was ever an inconsistent all around performer and front man. Perhaps, but now you’re getting away from the thread point and getting into an even more subjective observation. By that measure, Ozzy still entertains the crowd now. His voice is shot though. Oh no I realize I'm not talking about the thread topic anymore, I just wanted to make sure Freddie's case was fully presented. Yes, he could be inconsistent as a singer live, for various reasons such as writing parts that were too high or technical for him to hit night after night, or just from being so athletic on stage, or for his illness around 1986 first becoming noticeable. I don't deny that at all, but I also care very little if he's having an off night vocally when I watch footage or when I listen to the recordings, because everything else about his performance was always kept to an outstanding standard. Freddie was consistently good. yeah, like, despite what I've said, he was too good of a singer to ever let himself sound anything close to bad. What I mean by inconsistent is he wouldn't always reach the enormously high standard he set for himself in the studio, he would often settle for something easier on his voice or more suited for a live setting, even if it wasn't as amazing, as long as it was still good. Sometimes the result was better than the studio, like with Spread Your Wings. so true actually. Honestly...the live recording of Somebody To Love from the deluxe version of ADATR is the only Queen recording that can actually contend with Bo Rhap for title of my favorite thing they've ever done, whereas the studio version is a solid like 5th place in my top ten Queen tunes.

I have it, I have actually let to listen to the live show portion of the vinyl, but I'll let you know when I do. The CD version sounded excellent to me though.

Maybe as far as hitting high notes on any particular night, but he never gave any performance less than his absolute all, and whether or not his singing was quite perfect that night, one would always walk away feeling thoroughly entertained. You can't say he was ever an inconsistent all around performer and front man. Perhaps, but now you’re getting away from the thread point and getting into an even more subjective observation. By that measure, Ozzy still entertains the crowd now. His voice is shot though. Oh no I realize I'm not talking about the thread topic anymore, I just wanted to make sure Freddie's case was fully presented. Yes, he could be inconsistent as a singer live, for various reasons such as writing parts that were too high or technical for him to hit night after night, or just from being so athletic on stage, or for his illness around 1986 first becoming noticeable. I don't deny that at all, but I also care very little if he's having an off night vocally when I watch footage or when I listen to the recordings, because everything else about his performance was always kept to an outstanding standard. Freddie was consistently good. yeah, like, despite what I've said, he was too good of a singer to ever let himself sound anything close to bad. What I mean by inconsistent is he wouldn't always reach the enormously high standard he set for himself in the studio, he would often settle for something easier on his voice or more suited for a live setting, even if it wasn't as amazing, as long as it was still good.

Where are you trying to buy tickets from? KeyBank Center's website Wow, if they're charging that much for the upper level then where are the $65 seats that are listed on the site? I'm not sure I'll be going to this show now. My brother got shut out on three of the presales and they're charging that much for the upper level? I'd love to see them again but it just doesn't seem worth it. Maybe I can luck out and get something cheap on stub hub as the show gets close. I'll go see Ozzy in Syracuse or something instead. I'm seeing Anthrax tonight so I get to see a few of the Big 4 before they retire Oh cool. I hope you enjoy their stale, run of the mill, ignore a ton of our best stuff setlist they always play. Dang...I mean I would love to see them play literally anything so...

Maybe as far as hitting high notes on any particular night, but he never gave any performance less than his absolute all, and whether or not his singing was quite perfect that night, one would always walk away feeling thoroughly entertained. You can't say he was ever an inconsistent all around performer and front man. Perhaps, but now you’re getting away from the thread point and getting into an even more subjective observation. By that measure, Ozzy still entertains the crowd now. His voice is shot though. Oh no I realize I'm not talking about the thread topic anymore, I just wanted to make sure Freddie's case was fully presented. Yes, he could be inconsistent as a singer live, for various reasons such as writing parts that were too high or technical for him to hit night after night, or just from being so athletic on stage, or for his illness around 1986 first becoming noticeable. I don't deny that at all, but I also care very little if he's having an off night vocally when I watch footage or when I listen to the recordings, because everything else about his performance was always kept to an outstanding standard.

Maybe as far as hitting high notes on any particular night, but he never gave any performance less than his absolute all, and whether or not his singing was quite perfect that night, one would always walk away feeling thoroughly entertained. You can't say he was ever an inconsistent all around performer and front man.

Nope. This is just plain wrong. Mustaine, yes. Hetfield, hell no. To me, Mustaine sounds like one of my buddies just screwing around on vocals by trying to sound menacing in front of quality instruments... You take a mortal man And put him in control Watch him become a god Watch people’s heads a’roll A’roll, a’roll Kinda like mastodon. It fits the music. The more polished he became the more he sucked. Rust in peace was his vocal sweet spot but i prefer the more aggressive sfsgsw and peace sells. Liar! To me, Mustaine fits the music like my old flatmate Randy fits Megadeth. He actually had a broad vocal range and did a great imitation of Mustaine BUT ultimately, Randy was just f***ing around being a goof. I've always found it easy to a solid Mustaine imitation. You really don't need to know shit about how to sing to do that voice which Dave has proven over the years. He's got a pretty high voice, but otherwise yeah anyone could basically do what he does. Thing is though he had the guts (hair-brained genius? dim-wittedness?) to actually do it in the first place. I think it panned out rather well for him.

Yeah! Now you're talking some sense Earl! ;) You bastards and your “fixed” jazz. Puppets and Lightning are easily my two favorite Met albums. Lighting over Puppets every day for me, but I also prefer Justice to the both of 'em, so what do I know. :P

Yeah! Now you're talking some sense Earl! ;)

and that's why we love you, buddy! :D

Couldn't find it in the search, so here's a new poll I guess. Which of the classic Dio-Sabbath albums do you prefer? For my money, Heaven And Hell is great, but Mob Rules is more fun. MOB RULES!! (does that make me a fool?)

The synth era gets plenty of love from fans. Whatever they say in a few books and documentaries isn't nearly as important. Many fans would take Signals through HYF over CoS through Hems in a heartbeat, no questions asked. If there's an argument to be made for any era not getting enough love from fans, that would have to be the 90s (+ Presto). Now, I don't like RTB, and CP is vastly overrated to my ears, and as much as I do enjoy Presto and T4E, they never really get beyond average quality for a Rush album to me. I'm no humongous proponent of that era is what I mean to say, but even I can see those who stand by those albums as loyally as those who stand behind the synth era or the prog era are pretty few and far between. But the thing is the fans are still out there. I've seen folks on this board rank RTB as their favorite Rush release, which blows my mind, but is a totally valid opinion. Rush's fanbase is one of the more forgiving and accepting ever to exist. IMO, pretty much every album has its fair share of fans and detractors (well, not many detractors for MP and PeW, but that's about it). That's a great accomplishment in my book.

Wow! What a bold statement! I'm in shock!!!! "Supper's Ready" is better than anything on MP!! Supper's Ready isn't the only thing Genesis did that's possibly better than anything on MP. Absolutely Everything On Nursery Cryme, Foxtrot, Selling England, and Lamb and Trick and Wind blow MP away! Lol, I'm not prepared to go that far Earl! :P But yeah, MP isn't the be all end all, much as I love it. I'd probably put Supper's Ready above YYZ, that being my fav track on MP, and I wouldn't be discontent with a couple other songs as well...maybe Get 'Em Out By Friday...maybe Dancing With The Moonlit Knight...I could possibly see Firth Of Fifth or Watcher Of The Skies as well... And much of what's on those albums does blow TCE away, sorry.

so was I :( It'll be interesting to see what Rob says to this, or if he says anything. If I were in the band's shoes, I probably wouldn't have asked him to come back either tbh. Not because I didn't want him back, but simply because he chose to leave, and he made that choice on his own. From the band's perspective, I would have to guess they didn't consider asking him back because they didn't honestly think he might actually want to come back. Not to mention when you're about to launch a giant tour...it is going to be a lot easier to take someone who's been hearing and working with the new music from day one on the road than someone who'll be thrown into two albums worth of songs he'll have to learn from scratch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnHm4ro_l8s&sns=em No no no, that's a weak band with a great singer. Only put it there because Earl said “loose” lol That is a great song though, always forget about that one.