Mosher

Even Bob Seger would find this discussion laughable. Young easily. That being said, there are a lot of people who cannot tolerate Young's voice and the quality of his song writing is never noticed because they hate the voice so much. So I can see why some might say Bob. But as songwriters it isn't remotely close.

Peter was a great guitarist, but Buckingham was far more creative and honestly straight up bizarre with his playing than he's usually given credit for. He didn't play in the blues style Green did, but he definitely could play better than most. I have always loved Nicks, she and Buckingham made Fleetwood Mac a great pop band. I typically hate pop, but they were really very very good. This doesn't take away from Green's Mac. Totally different band, honestly. People who feel Mac was creatively stunted by the addition of Nicks as a pop writer should go listen to Tusk. Apples and oranges.

I went with Rob. I am a huge Maiden fan, though. Far much more so than any of the other bands. I liked Paul's vocals in Maiden and I can see the argument that he's better. But I have so much respect for Bruce, kicking out that very good album after that cancer diagnosis instead of putting it off until after. Apparently Nicko quit drinking because of Bruce's battle.

Alchemist Escape From the Black Hole Chinese Whispers God Shaped Hole Spiritechnology Tide In, Mind Out

Rocket From the Tombs Ain't It Fun 30 Seconds Over Tokyo Sonic Reducer So Cold Never Gonna Kill Myself Again

Drive By Truckers: Sink Hole Decoration day Where the Devil Won't Stay A Ghost to Most Puttin' People on the Moon

The Rush album that I relate to the most is Power Windows. That was the second Rush album I ever owned, but the first that reflected who they were when I first connected them with the band that wrote so many songs I loved. New World Man was the first song I owned by them, but I didn't yet know that they were the same band that wrote Tom Sawyer/Freewill/Closer/Working etc. Caress was the first I owned after I knew they were 'my' band, but Caress had no familiar songs and didn't reflect who they were when I connected with them. That album should have been Grace, but I owned Power well before I owned Grace. So Power Windows was played constantly and it was the album that wired my brain completely as a 'Rush' brain. It's not my favorite, but it has the most hooks in me and I'm never unwilling to listen.

Rust is a great album, but not great all the way through. The musicianship when it's on is superior to Master. Tornado of Souls is one of my favorite Megadeth songs. Holy Wars is a great showoff track that everyone seems to agree on. But Master is more consistent. It's the better album, and Master of Puppets (the song) is better that anything off Rust. Dave's voice has never bothered me, but I can easily see why it bugs others. It's an odd one.

I assumed the question referred to 'critics', in which case aren't they still either hated, mocked, or ignored? If the question refers to media praise then they are getting everything they should and more. Don't most critics give today give them the faintest praise- 'If you like Rush, you'll like the album. Otherwise it's the same boring virtuosity devoid of soul with pretentious lyrics they've always had.' If that constitutes critical acclaim, I read such things differently. To me the critics tend to acknowledge that some people inexplicably like them but that they still suck. So no, they do not get critical acclaim. They do however get fawning media attention from 'entertainment' writers. I always felt that too many rock critics look at every release through a shallow filter. It's like reviewing Paul Simon for how well his album conveys death metal. Or judging a fish for its ability to fly. Judging Rush by how close they approximate Little Richard. Stupid criteria that they get away with because it's all 'rock'.

I'm far more familiar with BOC, but of course I know the Demons and Wizards album. I will say that the reason my BOC catalog is complete is because I like them much much more. That being said, I don't really know their later output at all. I'm not a fan of the operatic style of rock singing, so that actually is a minus for me where it's a plus for so many others.

The first problem with this is it requires prescience. If the band is new, we can't know yet whether they will gain that level or not. The other is a problem of connection. While I have no idea how connected you are to what teens, especially 'rock' teens are listening to, I know that most of us don't have that connection. My older daughter got into metal really heavily, and a lot of metal bands have similar fandom, even new ones. Of course, their base is far smaller. But the fandom is just as real and avid. I suppose there's nothing out there like Rush, but I wonder if many of us would even notice it yet, considering any new band couldn't be that huge yet. Rush took years to develop a base like they have now.

My top ten, along with the usual disclaimer that it is subject to change without notice, and it is not in any specific order. 1. Revenge of Vera Gemini 2. Fireworks 3. The Old Gods Return 4. Joan Crawford 5. Flaming Telepaths 6. I am the Storm 7. Teen Archer 8.Workshop of the Telescopes 9. Dancing in the Ruins (Yeah, I know. Deal with it.) 10. Black Blade Wow. I left off some great songs, but I decided to keep it to only one per album.

Dedicated fandom hasn't disappeared nor will it. We remain fundamentally the same animal we were for the last several millennia. Music isn't going anywhere, it isn't getting worse, it is merely different. There is a huge problem with cultivating a climate where a band can be successful, especially bands that offer something outside of the approved mold, and that does water things down. But there will always be artists who must create, and there will always be people who require music to be healthy. People should pay the artist for their art. If you like the art, presumably you want that artist to keep at it. Eventually they will choose eating over making free music, and when that happens a band's music disappears. Since the problem of free music isn't going anywhere, it becomes even more vital to go see bands when they tour. And when you do, buy a t-shirt once in awhile. The band would love to return from the road having at least broke even. But some bands will make it bigger. Some bands will become THE band for some group of kids, and those kids will keep listening to that band for decades. Most kids never had a band they followed intently. I've got dozens. Some kids require music as the only sure solace for their teenage issues, and their will continue to be bands that fill that.

Ramones were more important. When the Ramones went to London a lot of kids there paid attention. Obviously the same is true of the Pistols, but that was part of the chain after the Ramones. There is no vacuum situation, and there was of course cross pollination, but on sheer importance the Ramones win. I also like the Ramones better. Had the Sex Pistols managed to keep Matlock and work for artistry over image they would have been better. Lydon's stuff with PiL proves that. But I would take the Clash, Adverts, Buzzcocks, and the Damned all over the Sex Pistols, even while crediting the Pistols for the impression they made. The Ramones were the real catalyst.

I love Clutch. Could listen to "Rising Son" over and over

On a five star system, Passage to Bangkok- silly song that's beneath them, but the music is great. So 4 stars Twilight Zone- silly song that's right up their alley, with interesting music. 4 stars Lessons - silly song that rocks. 3.5 stars Tears- good song but puts me to sleep. 2 stars Something for Nothing -good song, and rocks. Best on side two hands down. 5 stars So the average for me is (at least today) - 3.7/5 3.7 rounded up to four for the poll.

I liked SRV's version better. Just like I prefer Hendrix's version of All Along the Watchtower. It isn't a slight on the originator. It's a credit to the originator that great artists see your work as a vehicle to continue the greatness.

That's a great analysis of the band. I never thought about that, but that might be why I love the Cars so much.

The Talking Heads were more unique, and a lot weirder. I really like the bands that are almost their own genre, and the Talking Heads fit that. When they were on they were on big. That being said, I adore the Cars. The Cars have more songs I love, but the Talking Heads have more songs at the top. So if I shuffled their songs together the top of the list would be way over represented by TH, but then we'd have a vast array of Cars tracks, and oddly the bottom of the list would again be over represented by TH.

Such a wonderful band.

Excellent post. :ebert: Thank you! Excellent post. :ebert: Indeed! I enjoyed every single word of it. I'm really glad that I didn't write a post justifying my vote (1970's) because it would have paled terribly in comparison. Thank you both! I don't think this really had a right or wrong answer and 'because I like it most' is just as valid a reason for deciding which decade is best. There are different lenses to look at the question.

For Whom the Bell Tolls is a brilliant work, and Creeping Death wrecked my ears I played it so much. But Powerslave is my favorite Maiden album so this choice was easy.

This is really tough. I'll choose instead to look at the most important decades irrespective of my taste. The roots of any decade's advances in music lay in previous decades, that's how the whole thing has always worked. So this isn't any easier for me. :) The 1910's when jazz really began to explode down in New Orleans, that has to be crucial. One could argue the 20's as it really took hold around the US and world, but to me the 1910s get the jazz nod. I realize you can draw jazz back to the 19th century, but everything can be pushed back. This is where I'll draw a distinctive line. The 1940's saw the best roots of rock and roll, but as with jazz I'll move the pinnacle decade up. So the 1950s have to be in the running. Country was heavily changed by the 50s and rock emerged and began to diverge in the 1950s. The elasticity of rock is the foundation of the entire genre. Similar to jazz in its flexibility and because of that I won't address each additional movement. Both rock and jazz branch off limitlessly so the changes in later decades aren't as important to me as their foundational years. If one looks at the electronic movement of the 70s as important (and they should) then the 70s get a say. Probably not in the same league as the 1910s or 1950s, but then you add hip hop to the 70s and suddenly a one-two punch brings the 70s into contention. Neither fit the idea of being obviously connected to the flexibility of either rock or jazz as their evolution has strong roots outside of the genres of their birth. So the 1910s, 1950s, or 1970s are my top votes. I think I will go with the 50s because that decade seems to control the culture more firmly than the 10s does. Since the blues are so much more solidly grounded outside the 20th century I'll take it as a given that the blues are integral to the whole mess. And the same goes for European folk which became bluegrass and so heavily influenced the old country music. (a different animal than modern country which is really just pop music.) I don't have a personal favorite decade, but my personal music catalogue is solidly reflective of the 60s through the 90s. Now the nerd in me wants to graph my music by era and see how my preferences are reflected through the years.

I love Suicidal from their hardcore beginnings through their crossover heights. And then they released the abysmal Suicidal For Life in 1994. My understanding is that they made that horrible album as an FU to their record company. All I know is that I bought that out of love for the band and I was floored that anything that terrible ever gto anywhere near release. I never bought another record by them, and I loved that band. I've heard I should check out their later albums. i'm willing to do so. Just warn a guy next time you decide to take out the trash under the guise of art. This thread is leading me to back to the well. I really miss Suicidal. 5 great albums and a couple of really nice releases of extras followed by complete garbage. It keeps sounding like I took that release too hard. Time to forgive Mike? Probably way past time. Probably my loss.

I thought Vapor Trails was quite weak for Rush, although it has grown on me and the remix was a big improvement. Snakes and Arrows was a very good album that nevertheless still felt like a Rush that wasn't quite hitting on all cylinders overall. But Clockwork Angels was different. This is my favorite album since the eighties. I was actually wondering if I was clouded by my adolescence, since music rarely hits the same way for older adults like it does for the young. Clockwork Angels is stellar, and it works perfectly like a Rush album for me. It's not new fan blindness, I've been a big fan for more than twenty years. I'm not a last gasp apologist, either. Because I didn't know it was their probable last album and I didn't have the same feeling about Snakes. For whatever reason I am a big fan of CA. Sometimes older artists put out great albums. Ray Davies with Working Man's Cafe. Bowie's last few albums. This one was very good.