barchetta90480
-
Posts
482 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by barchetta90480
-
-
Headlong Flight, clearly - reinstalled my hope that CA might be a decent album after all.
Still, it will be the first Rush album since their first one on which I might regularly skip the first song.
-
QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Apr 23 2012, 03:12 AM) QUOTE (Priest of Syrinx @ Apr 22 2012, 08:20 PM) "Similar omissions: Devo, Electric Light Orchestra, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Peter Gabriel, King Crimson, Yes. "
2 of these are not like the others.King Crimson and Yes?
The rest aren't as good....
Oh ... apart from ELP (5 to ten killer songs , the rest never got me), I like all of them ...
-
-
Finally!!!
in Rush
QUOTE (Powderfinger @ Apr 20 2012, 02:26 PM) QUOTE (J2112YYZ @ Apr 20 2012, 08:03 AM) What the hell is Mojo magazine? I've never heard of it. It's been one of if not the best popular music magazines for the past fifteen years or so.
That's UNCUT for me, mainly because of the CDs.
Mojo's pretty fine, though - and it's great to see them featured aside from the Classic Rock/ Prog emblems - as a very PRESENT band that has an awesome back catalogue as well.
The world's greatest cult band ... been reading that pretty often in the past few years. A much better emblem than "RRHOF inductee" for sure!
-
Album Leak
in Rush
QUOTE (That One Guy @ Apr 24 2012, 08:20 AM) If it did leak.... I don't think i'd take one look at it.
This might be the final studio album.
When Alice In Chains' 2009 album "Black Gives Way To Blue" came out, I had heard one song off it. After school on release day, I went to the CD store with two friends, I bought it and we got in the car and listened to the whole thing. The "surprise" on release-day felt special.
I'm going to do this with Clockwork Angels. I'm not gonna be buying an album on Itunes, or checking it out on youtube or spotify. I'm gonna go about my day, and when everything's done, I'll hit FYE or the like, pay the $15 or so, and put it in a stereo. It'll be a good day.Sounds a bit like
, but is definitely 
I'm completely with you there.
-
QUOTE (hughes&kettner @ Apr 23 2012, 06:31 PM) metallica gave a DVD with St. Anger, which was them playing the songs live in the studio. Off the topic, but ...
Well ... that was ... brave.
I guess
Did they play any instruments on St. Anger?
-
QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Apr 23 2012, 04:05 PM) Of course, it will be an adaptation of this classic:
http://www.cbarks.dk/Digital/pan196138.jpg
Finally, classic culture enters the world of Rush ...
Carl Barks forever!
What about Barks illustrations for the whole of CA? Nothing against Hugh Syme, but that would be ... epic! Duckwork Angels ...
-
OH MY GOD!
in Rush
QUOTE (tas7 @ Apr 21 2012, 01:36 AM) Don't get me wrong the first two minutes are Rush at their best, after that it sort of meanders too much for me. It will be interesting to hear the radio edit to see if it sits better. I'm not analyzing it as a musician but as a listener of Rush over 33 years. 
+1 (replace 33 years by 28 years ...)
Yet ... still towering far above Caravan and BU2B ... and most of S&A (which wasn't half bad!)
Great merger of Bastille Day, Far Cry, Test for Echo, and half of Vapor Trails. Geddy's bass and Neil's fiills are unbelievable.
Somebody get me into a time capsule and catapult me to early June!!! Please!!!
-
One of the best albums ever ... not only by Rush
11 - if it was there
-
Here's mine:
Red Lenses
Subdivisions (Cleveland version)
Hope
Nocturne
Afterimage
Between the Wheels
Force Ten
New World Man
Something for Nothing
Leave That Thing Alone / Camera Eye (tier)
Some surprises (Nocturne, Something ...) due to my Shuffle obsession, others quite deliberate. Yeah, I love "Hope" ...
-
-
QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Apr 2 2012, 10:16 AM) QUOTE (barchetta90480 @ Mar 31 2012, 09:22 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Mar 30 2012, 12:41 PM) QUOTE (Union 5-3992 @ Mar 30 2012, 02:47 AM) What a landslide. Now let's compare each of their careers again. One was a factor in the break up of The Beatles, and released music that is the sonic equivalent of a cat's intestines. And is a very rich widow.
Another one, whilst as rich as Croesus, is a miserable, pinched, plastic infused crow, manipulating her gibbering, but lovable, dolt of a husband into money making ventures left, right, and centre.
The other one just seems like an all round good egg, who managed her husbands career, and nursed him til the end with love and care. And very wealthy too, I'm sure she's a tough businesswoman, but she does not come across like a mental harridan. Unlike the other two.
I'm far from being a Yoko fan, but she made one or two quite interesting albums in the 70s. Interesting doesn't equal listenable, though.
Yet - she's not responsible for the Beatles breakup. Blame Paul or all four.
Well ... three. You can't put any blame on Ringo ....
Which is why I said she was a factor. I chose the word carefully. She was one of many factors.
Coleman's book on Lennon is crap. Coleman was in the "John can do no wrong" camp. Almost as bad as Goldman's, which was in the other direction.
Shout
Revolution In The Head
Howard Sounes Fab (Paul bio). They're my top 3 Beatles books.
Can agree with that. Maybe not even a deliberate factor. But she had an impact on John, obviously, which made him choose a future different from what many would have expected.
Was Shout the book by Philip Norman? I remember reading that one five or six times in a row as a 14-year-old. Have to look if it's still in print ...
-
-
QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Mar 30 2012, 12:41 PM) QUOTE (Union 5-3992 @ Mar 30 2012, 02:47 AM) What a landslide. Now let's compare each of their careers again. One was a factor in the break up of The Beatles, and released music that is the sonic equivalent of a cat's intestines. And is a very rich widow.
Another one, whilst as rich as Croesus, is a miserable, pinched, plastic infused crow, manipulating her gibbering, but lovable, dolt of a husband into money making ventures left, right, and centre.
The other one just seems like an all round good egg, who managed her husbands career, and nursed him til the end with love and care. And very wealthy too, I'm sure she's a tough businesswoman, but she does not come across like a mental harridan. Unlike the other two.
I'm far from being a Yoko fan, but she made one or two quite interesting albums in the 70s. Interesting doesn't equal listenable, though.
Yet - she's not responsible for the Beatles breakup. Blame Paul or all four.
Well ... three. You can't put any blame on Ringo ....
-
QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Mar 30 2012, 07:37 PM) Great thread, passed me by first time round. +1
Just listened to "No Prayer For The Dying". Certainly not Maiden's masterpiece, especially after their heyday between "Number" and "Seventh", but there are gems on it, for sure. I always liked Holy Smoke, Mother Russia, and Run Silent, Run Deep. And the title track is one of the 10 best Maiden tracks. This one deserves to be played on tours much more than "Fear of the Dark"!
I'm also warming to "Final Frontier" after hearing the live versions on "En Vivo", with El Dorado being the exception. A song so dull, it would have fit on AMOLAD (never got into this one). Whre the Wild Wind Blows, on the other hand, is an epic that rivals Seventh Son or Alexander. Not Rime of the Ancient Mariner, sure ...
Sacrilege last: "X Factor", despite Bayleys voice, is much better than at least 4 of the Dickinson era albums (AMOLAD, FOTD, NPFTD, DoD, although not entirely sure about the last one, with Paschendale being so exceptional). Some great compositions! I love "The Unbeliever" and "2a.m.". "Virtual XI", though, is their absolute nadir, save for Clansman. I really gave up on Maiden when this came out - and came back big way with "Brave New World".
Up the Irons, still ... !
-
Strong contestants, but I#ll go with Distant Early Warning - great combination of mood, drive and musicianship. Love the lyrics as well. They set the standard for the whole of GUP. One of their strongest tracks ever.
Close seconds are plenty, from the obvious Tom Sawyer, Spirit of Radio and Subdivisions to the slightly more obscure One Little Victory, Animate or Show Don't Tell. Force Ten, Anthem, A Farewell ... and 2112 are brilliant, too.
Hell, there's not one mediocre song opening an album. Not even Test For Echo.
... Hemispheres, though. But I just don't dig that one. Others do, and I can understand why.
-
Red Sector A
in Rush
They'll just play the whole f****in' album, and I'll be over the top.
Boys, you started with Moving Pictures - make GUP the next one. Pleeeease ...
-
QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 15 2012, 04:38 PM) QUOTE (barchetta90480 @ Feb 15 2012, 09:12 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 15 2012, 06:43 AM) QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Feb 14 2012, 04:32 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 14 2012, 05:54 PM) QUOTE (barchetta90480 @ Feb 14 2012, 05:45 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 14 2012, 11:01 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Feb 14 2012, 04:45 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 13 2012, 01:00 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Feb 13 2012, 12:43 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 13 2012, 11:50 AM) Addiction is not a disease. There is no such thing as an "addictive gene".
Totally 100% false
LeaveMy, only the body can become diseased. Brain, organs etc.
The "addictive gene" has never been isolated or "discovered".
It's the equivalent of a unicorn.
So depression, bipolar disorder, OCD, schizophrenia, etc etc are not diseases?
No, they are not.
You seem interested in psychology. May I recommend the writings of Thomas Szasz?
They are. May I recommend common sense?
Insulting me is not an argument.
Diseases include cancer, heart disease etc.
When people speak of depression, OCD as diseases, they are speaking metaphorically. They are not literal diseases.
This is a crucial distinction.
When the body is addicted to alcohol or other chemicals, it is a biological condition - not a disease like cancer, influenza, measles, etc. Chronic abuse of alcohol can cause certain organs to become diseased, as we all know. The dysfunctional behavior we know as alcoholism is a different issue.
There is ongoing genetic research in regards to the ability of people to metabolize alcohol. Current research does suggest that some ethnic groups are genetically more (or less) prone to become addicted to alcohol. That genetic variation is not a disease. It is what it is - a genetic variation of Homo sapiens.
We could argue all night about the agendas of people who promote alcoholism as a "disease". Personally, I think it's sometimes used to avoid taking personal responsibility for one's choice to keep drinking.
ANYONE can quit drinking. ANYONE. As long as you have a reason to do it, and you want it badly enough, you'll quit. Your intellect and will power are far stronger than any chemical. FAR stronger.....
I don't believe it's a crucial distinction at all. Why?
Say it's a disease.
Say it's a genetic condition or a psychological disorder or whatever.
The result is the same - something needing treatment and sympathy for people who suffer because of it. If a person needs help, they need help. What's the difference how you label it?
just what I meant to say but couldn't somehow ...
But you had no problem calling me stupid.
Did I?
Not my intention. We both seem to have experiences in this field. Makes us biased, perhaps.
-
QUOTE (driventotheedge @ Feb 15 2012, 11:35 AM) QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Feb 14 2012, 06:56 PM) QUOTE (Union 5-3992 @ Feb 14 2012, 06:35 PM) QUOTE (barchetta90480 @ Feb 14 2012, 05:25 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Feb 14 2012, 03:57 PM) QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Feb 14 2012, 01:04 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Feb 14 2012, 04:58 AM) This thread is depressing. That some Rush fans could be so close minded musically appals me. 
So now expressing our opinions is close-mindedness?I honestly cannot fathom why The Who is so freaking popular!
No not at all, your opinions are what they are, but pretty much the entire list of "Best Respected Worst Acts" happen to be artists I love dearly.
Keep calm and mellotron.
That is all.
+1
As for The Who's popularity some might not understand ...
A) There are few albums in the history of rock that I regard as absolutely flawless, meaning without a second of boredom, useless soloing, lack of ideas etc. Maybe 25. GUP or MP come close. "Who's Next" definitely is one. Maybe the best rock album ever. And there are three or four more Who albums which come close to that definition.
B ) Songwriting - Pete Townshend managed to combine perfect hooks with incredibly intelligent harmonies. Example: "I can see for Miles". A huge hit, and one of the few that never gets boring. In the three minutes of that song, there are more musically interesting things happening than, say, Dream Theater managed to have in their entire career.
C) They had the best singer in rock. Ever.
D) They had the best drummer in rock. Ever. Problably a tier with Neil, though.
E) They had one of the best bass players in rock.
F) They had an outstanding guitar player.
G) They made one of the best & rawest live records in history.
You really make me want to listen to The Who for the rest of the night. Though Live At Leeds isn't exactly my favorite album. About half the songs are amazing, but a few feel a bit stale after listening to it over and over. I must say Keith Moon's drumming is so damn powerful on that album.
I must be the only one on this universe who wouldn't put Keith Moon in a top 10 rock drummers list. Yep, very likely you are. I like him better than Bonzo and that will probably be seen as blasphamy on these boards.
+1 Much better ...
@ Union-5: Hope you had a great night of listening. Live at Leeds is also not one of my favourite live albums for the music itself. It's the amazing energy put into it.
-
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 15 2012, 06:43 AM) QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Feb 14 2012, 04:32 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 14 2012, 05:54 PM) QUOTE (barchetta90480 @ Feb 14 2012, 05:45 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 14 2012, 11:01 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Feb 14 2012, 04:45 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 13 2012, 01:00 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Feb 13 2012, 12:43 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 13 2012, 11:50 AM) Addiction is not a disease. There is no such thing as an "addictive gene".
Totally 100% false
LeaveMy, only the body can become diseased. Brain, organs etc.
The "addictive gene" has never been isolated or "discovered".
It's the equivalent of a unicorn.
So depression, bipolar disorder, OCD, schizophrenia, etc etc are not diseases?
No, they are not.
You seem interested in psychology. May I recommend the writings of Thomas Szasz?
They are. May I recommend common sense?
Insulting me is not an argument.
Diseases include cancer, heart disease etc.
When people speak of depression, OCD as diseases, they are speaking metaphorically. They are not literal diseases.
This is a crucial distinction.
When the body is addicted to alcohol or other chemicals, it is a biological condition - not a disease like cancer, influenza, measles, etc. Chronic abuse of alcohol can cause certain organs to become diseased, as we all know. The dysfunctional behavior we know as alcoholism is a different issue.
There is ongoing genetic research in regards to the ability of people to metabolize alcohol. Current research does suggest that some ethnic groups are genetically more (or less) prone to become addicted to alcohol. That genetic variation is not a disease. It is what it is - a genetic variation of Homo sapiens.
We could argue all night about the agendas of people who promote alcoholism as a "disease". Personally, I think it's sometimes used to avoid taking personal responsibility for one's choice to keep drinking.
ANYONE can quit drinking. ANYONE. As long as you have a reason to do it, and you want it badly enough, you'll quit. Your intellect and will power are far stronger than any chemical. FAR stronger.....
I don't believe it's a crucial distinction at all. Why?
Say it's a disease.
Say it's a genetic condition or a psychological disorder or whatever.
The result is the same - something needing treatment and sympathy for people who suffer because of it. If a person needs help, they need help. What's the difference how you label it?
just what I meant to say but couldn't somehow ...
-
QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 14 2012, 11:54 PM) QUOTE (barchetta90480 @ Feb 14 2012, 05:45 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 14 2012, 11:01 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Feb 14 2012, 04:45 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 13 2012, 01:00 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Feb 13 2012, 12:43 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 13 2012, 11:50 AM) Addiction is not a disease. There is no such thing as an "addictive gene".
Totally 100% false
LeaveMy, only the body can become diseased. Brain, organs etc.
The "addictive gene" has never been isolated or "discovered".
It's the equivalent of a unicorn.
So depression, bipolar disorder, OCD, schizophrenia, etc etc are not diseases?
No, they are not.
You seem interested in psychology. May I recommend the writings of Thomas Szasz?
They are. May I recommend common sense?
Insulting me is not an argument.
Diseases include cancer, heart disease etc.
When people speak of depression, OCD as diseases, they are speaking metaphorically. They are not literal diseases.
This is a crucial distinction.
Well, I'm not a psychologist. I am working with some in my job.
There are some 'experts' who deny that mental illness is a classic illness. 5 in a hundred, maybe.
Yet, there are some 'experts' who say that there's no climate change.
And I din't mean to insult you.
But you're insulting those who suffer from one of these diseases and those who try to help these people.
And back to the topic: Not at all a fan of her, but R.I.P. Whitney.
-
QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 14 2012, 11:01 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Feb 14 2012, 04:45 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 13 2012, 01:00 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Feb 13 2012, 12:43 PM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Feb 13 2012, 11:50 AM) Addiction is not a disease. There is no such thing as an "addictive gene".
Totally 100% false
LeaveMy, only the body can become diseased. Brain, organs etc.
The "addictive gene" has never been isolated or "discovered".
It's the equivalent of a unicorn.
So depression, bipolar disorder, OCD, schizophrenia, etc etc are not diseases?
No, they are not.
You seem interested in psychology. May I recommend the writings of Thomas Szasz?
They are. May I recommend common sense?
-
QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Feb 14 2012, 03:57 PM) QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Feb 14 2012, 01:04 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Feb 14 2012, 04:58 AM) This thread is depressing. That some Rush fans could be so close minded musically appals me. So now expressing our opinions is close-mindedness?I honestly cannot fathom why The Who is so freaking popular!
No not at all, your opinions are what they are, but pretty much the entire list of "Best Respected Worst Acts" happen to be artists I love dearly.
Keep calm and mellotron.
That is all.
+1
As for The Who's popularity some might not understand ...
A) There are few albums in the history of rock that I regard as absolutely flawless, meaning without a second of boredom, useless soloing, lack of ideas etc. Maybe 25. GUP or MP come close. "Who's Next" definitely is one. Maybe the best rock album ever. And there are three or four more Who albums which come close to that definition.
B ) Songwriting - Pete Townshend managed to combine perfect hooks with incredibly intelligent harmonies. Example: "I can see for Miles". A huge hit, and one of the few that never gets boring. In the three minutes of that song, there are more musically interesting things happening than, say, Dream Theater managed to have in their entire career.
C) They had the best singer in rock. Ever.
D) They had the best drummer in rock. Ever. Problably a tier with Neil, though.
E) They had one of the best bass players in rock.
F) They had an outstanding guitar player.
G) They made one of the best & rawest live records in history.
I won't start on Dylan. A man who recorded seven or eight albums which (nearly) fit the (absolutely) flawless definition deserves his praise. So does Springsteen. So do Petty, Cash and the Stones.
Velvet Underground or Bowie don't mean a lot to me, but I can understand why some people like them.
My vote for the utter bullshit yet completely overrated category will go to Dream Theater. With Nirvana and The Cure being a not very close second.
Still: To each his taste.
-
Limp Bizkit will get my vote any time in such a poll. If Bon Jovi and kiss aren't in it.
Europe, on the other hand ... Just listen to their last three albums and you might realize that they're very very far from being a bad band. And they don't suck live at all.
Time to rank the 3 songs we've heard
in Rush
Posted
Still, it will be the first Rush album since their first one on which I might regularly skip the first song.
You don't like Caravan I take it. Wow.
Sorry for posting late ... been away for two days...
I initially liked its power, but it quickly became the Rush song that bored me most. Apart form a fairly decent solo, there's nothing much happening in that song. And that chorus - nope ... for me personally, it's the worst Rush "classic" since Bravado. Far Cry or OLV, in comparison, are towering sky high above it.
Headlong Flight, in comparison ... WOW