fonzbear2000 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Yes, I know there are other discussion threads for the album, but it would be interesting to see how people rank it. So, if you want, you can just vote here if you've already given your opinion elsewhere. For me, there are many Rush albums that I equally love and would give all 10's to and this one is no exception. They have really outdone themselves yet again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D3strukt Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Easy 8 for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix87 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 9.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trenken Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) I had to go with 7, which is relative to their best work of course. I dont think it touches my favorite albums from them, but its a step below that due to Ged not being as good of a singer as he once was, Neil's drumming really not being all that amazing, some vocal melodies dont do much for me, but overall it's somewhere maybe in the top 8, so I think 7 is a fair score. Edited June 4, 2012 by trenken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadlongMark Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 9.5 out of 10. It's an incredible achievement for a band nearing it's 40th year and all 3 members approaching 60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyd Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 7...for now. But I'm sure it'll go up a notch or two once I digest everything there is to offer. And that'll take a bit of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReflectedLight Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 a solid 6. there are some real duds that bring it down but i'm happy with the 4 or 5 i like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shredder2 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 First listen: 7 It'll grow on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t2s Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
presto123 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) 8.5 I guess I should have voted 9. You know the whole rounding up thing. Edited June 4, 2012 by presto123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
They Bow Defeated Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (ReflectedLight @ Jun 4 2012, 05:37 PM) a solid 6. there are some real duds that bring it down but i'm happy with the 4 or 5 i like. Sounds like The Rush Forum. What would you give your fave S&A in comparison, probably a 0? Edited June 4, 2012 by They Bow Defeated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog2112 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Way, way too soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilbertk Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Great to see no votes below 6! I voted 9, only because 10 had the "Rush's best album ever" bit. Not sure if I'd go THAT far yet, but it's still an amazing album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adace1 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) 7 Besides The Garden, it doesn't feel like there's much progression or innovation over the last two albums. It's not that VT and SaA are bad albums. It's just that after all the years the band spent away from their classic sound, I thought that this album might be a true return to form. Unfortunately, the songs on CA lack the dynamic feel of the 70's material and most don't really seem all that iconic. What happened to all the odd time signatures and tightness of the band? I can't pick out one moment on the album where Neil or Alex really shine in terms of technicality and dynamicism. On a more positive note, Geddy's vocals sound just fine to me and songs like HF and Wish Them Well would make fine additions to the band's setlist. Also, the production is everything you'd want on a modern hard rock album. Overall, CA is definitely better than the band's late 80's and 90's material, but a lot of it is still bland and fairly forgettable. Edited June 4, 2012 by adace1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaked Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I'm going to give it a solid 0. Ask me in a year after I've had time to absorb the whole thing and get a feel for how it's going to age. (the 0 does not mean I hate it... it means I'm going to reserve judgement for a year.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trenken Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 QUOTE (adace1 @ Jun 4 2012, 06:29 PM) 7 Besides The Garden, it doesn't feel like there's much progression or innovation over the last two albums. It's not that VT and SaA are bad albums. It's just that after all the years the band spent away from their classic sound, I thought that this album might be a true return to form. Unfortunately, the songs on CA lack the dynamic feel of the 70's material and most don't really seem all that iconic. What happened to all the odd time signatures and tightness of the band? I can't pick out one moment on the album where Neil or Alex really shine in terms of technicality and dynamicism. On a more positive note, Geddy's vocals sound just fine to me and songs like HF and Wish Them Well would make fine additions to the band's setlist. Also, the production is everything you'd want on a modern hard rock album. Overall, CA is definitely better than the band's late 80's and 90's material, but a lot of it is still bland. I definitely agree about the iconic comment. There is basically no chance of any of these songs being beloved like stuff like Limelight for examples. It's just not happening, but those guys were in their late 20s at the time! For a band where the guys are pushing 60, you really cant expect more than what they put together here, which is why Im pleased enough with it. They simply dont have it in them to be able to put an album together with a bunch of radio hits. They're old men now and they did the best they could with it which at this point after so many albums is plenty good enough for me. I dont need epic memorable songs like Jacobs Ladder, Subdivisions, etc.. We already got those, so this is just something different to ad to their catalog of music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deckiller Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) I was overhyped, so I was a tiny bit disappointed about certain aspects (the "epic" drumming, the solos, the piano bit) but overall it met my expectations. I'd give it an 8, ranking it slightly above Snakes and Arrows and slightly below Counterparts. I'd also say it's on par with HYF and Signals/Grace Under Pressure. After one listen, I'd probably put it around 8 or 9 on my list. Edited June 5, 2012 by Deckiller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitallware Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 first listen: 7 half of the songs just don't do it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gedneil Alpeart Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Way too soon to rate it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattp2112 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jun 4 2012, 06:13 PM) Way, way too soon. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitallware Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (adace1 @ Jun 4 2012, 06:29 PM) 7 Besides The Garden, it doesn't feel like there's much progression or innovation over the last two albums. It's not that VT and SaA are bad albums. It's just that after all the years the band spent away from their classic sound, I thought that this album might be a true return to form. Unfortunately, the songs on CA lack the dynamic feel of the 70's material and most don't really seem all that iconic. What happened to all the odd time signatures and tightness of the band? I can't pick out one moment on the album where Neil or Alex really shine in terms of technicality and dynamicism. On a more positive note, Geddy's vocals sound just fine to me and songs like HF and Wish Them Well would make fine additions to the band's setlist. Also, the production is everything you'd want on a modern hard rock album. Overall, CA is definitely better than the band's late 80's and 90's material, but a lot of it is still bland and fairly forgettable. I mostly agree with this assessment as I said half of the songs just don't do it for me. My favorites are: Caravan Bu2B Seven Cities of Gold The Wreckers Headlong Flight The Garden the rest are just forgettable for me Alex's guitar just doesn't have the kind of soul and power he's capable of. If the whole album had the energy and fire of Headlong Flight, Caravan or BU2B then it might change my opinion but sadly that's not the case. that being said Clockwork Angels is a testament to the resilience of a band that's been rockin' for close to 40 years I won't count Rush out just yet. Edited June 4, 2012 by Digitallware Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shredder2 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 QUOTE (Mattp2112 @ Jun 4 2012, 06:39 PM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jun 4 2012, 06:13 PM) Way, way too soon. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitallware Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 heres a tip for finding the album type the name then the word warez should pop up quick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gompers Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Too early...it's good, but will it stand the test of time. Right now we are all too pumped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Henry Gale Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Way too early to tell. But I guess for now, 78-80% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now