Let's settle this once and for all, which is best, which is worse? Presto or Snakes & Arrows?

[treeduck]

As goose said above, S&A suffers because of the lyrics. Musically it's pretty good, even great in parts, but it doesn't say anything lyrically that Neil hadn't already said - and better - in songs like Freewill and Roll the Bones. An entire album of Neil's theological musings is a little much, the subject matter is simply spread too thin.

 

That said, Far Cry is a hell of a song, and I also like Armour and Sword, Mal Nar, and Good News First. If Bravest Face, The Larger Bowl and Faithless were cut from the tracklist, it would probably be a much more compelling album.

 

Presto I also have mixed feelings about. I like it, but I also rarely listen to it. It just doesn't compel me the way other Rush albums do, but I can't put my fingers on why, exactly. Somehow the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Despite some excellent songs (Show Don't Tell, The Pass, Scars, Hand Over Fist, Available Light) it just doesn't get me excited.

 

Which one of the two do I like more? I'd call it a toss-up. I really can't choose.

 

I don't like the yodelling on this album, it's just on a song or two, like Bravest Face.

[lerxt1990]

Presto by a hair...

[Weatherman]

Presto by a hair...

More like a whole wig...

The only real dud is Superconductor. A couple others are middling (like War Paint), but the majority of the album is strong songwriting, though not groundbreaking as many have noted.

Nobody can say the same about S&A. I think that when they went to that studio in upstate NY, Rush forgot to pack the suitcase that carried all their notes about musical arrangements.

[jnoble]

Presto has more cohesive memorable songs with better lyrics, SnA has a better more modern sound & mix.

I was bitterly disappointed when I first heard Snakes because aside from Far Cry & Malignant Narcissism, none of the other songs really sounded like classic Rush. Like they weren't putting forth any effort into writing compelling exciting music. Three or four of the songs start off with almost exactly the same guitar riff in the same key and Neil wasn't writing lyrics so much anymore as long rambling rants about theology that just could not be made into a good rock songs. Plus he was just repeating the same territory they covered on Vapor Trails only without any passion or energy

 

[jnoble]

Snakes was the first Rush album where a bunch of the tracks sounded too similar to each other. On previous albums even if it was a song I didn't care for I could still tell them all apart. With Snakes you listen to a song and think to yourself "Didn't I just hear this?"

I've respected Rush's willingness to dip into different styles but making an entire album of mid tempo folk/rock fusion was a bad idea.

[ytserush]

Except for maybe The Pass, Presto and War Paint, the Snakes and Arrows songs were much better live too. Of the ones that were played live anyway.

[treeduck]

Is it settled yet?? :hail:

[goose]

Except for maybe The Pass, Presto and War Paint, the Snakes and Arrows songs were much better live too. Of the ones that were played live anyway.

At the Snakes shows I saw, the crowd was bored to tears during the SnA stuff.

[Weatherman]

Except for maybe The Pass, Presto and War Paint, the Snakes and Arrows songs were much better live too. Of the ones that were played live anyway.

At the Snakes shows I saw, the crowd was bored to tears during the SnA stuff.

We must've been at the same show.

They did SIX new songs in a row, in the broad daylight. Even big fans like me were rolling their eyes.

Unfortunately, it put me off the group for a while, and I never saw them play live again.

[lifeson90]

Can't choose really both great albums that fall slightly below level where could say possibly their best

[Jeffrey]

I really like them both but I will say, The Pass, Presto and Available Light are absolute Rush classics in my opinion.