Am I the only one who feels somewhat underwhelmed?

[Lerxster]

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Jun 26 2012, 12:32 AM)

When you compare old Rush (more "out there") and new Rush (repeated chord progressions, more mainstream) you have to consider the music industry's influence on the band. When they have no influence, you get stuff like 2112, which was basically a giant middle finger to their record label. But after almost 40 years of working with the music industry, you get the less creative stuff we have today, which is based less on melody and more on chord progressions and would appeal more to the average person. I do not like chord progression Rush. If I wanted to listen to a bunch of chord progressions there are probably thousands of bands that could fill that need. --------- I fell in love with Rush after my first listen to Moving Pictures. One listen. It absolutely blew me away. Now after one listen to CA, I can't even tell the songs apart from each other. None of them really stood out to me (except for the three singles I had already heard). Great albums only need one listen. Good albums require many more. I think that in time I will begin to recognize CA as a good album, but it will never be a great album. And I think we can all agree that great is better than good, right?

Based on my personal feelings and the feelings of the majority of the folks who post at least semi-regularly here, the album is creative. Doing a rock opera in 2012 is not mainstream. And for your one complaint about too much melody, there was at the very least 10 complaints (not including duplicate complaints, which there were quite a few) about not enough melody of late in Rush. And if you feel there are a 1000 "chord progression" bands that could fill your need like Rush does, let them not remain nameless. Not that it would matter to me other than as a curiosity.

 

-----

 

I think most would agree here that any group's album requires more than one listen to judge and appreciate. My opinion of your opinion on expecting instant gratification is that it's the curse of the young.

 

You're implying that Rush somehow missed the mark on CA, and are asking us to agree? Good luck finding more than the very few to agree, and maybe a couple trolls. Your post is all about one man's opinion, and nothing more.

[greg2112]

The album is a quintessential grower. Give it a few more listens, full-through, theres alot to take in.

[greg2112]

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jun 21 2012, 11:06 AM)

QUOTE (CantStopThinkingBig @ Jun 20 2012, 08:18 PM) Don't get me wrong, it's a good album... and it blows away S&A (which isn't hard to do). But I'm just feeling a bit underwhelmed. Maybe I expected too much... maybe it was all the anticipation. I also feel like the 3 singles we got to hear ahead of time are the main highlights of the album, so everything else is just "meh". I don't know... maybe I need to give it more time. I agree. Its terrifically mediocre, imo. I love the album, but "terrifically mediocre" is a great phrase

[An Enemy Without]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 26 2012, 05:16 AM)

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Jun 26 2012, 12:32 AM) When you compare old Rush (more "out there") and new Rush (repeated chord progressions, more mainstream) you have to consider the music industry's influence on the band. When they have no influence, you get stuff like 2112, which was basically a giant middle finger to their record label. But after almost 40 years of working with the music industry, you get the less creative stuff we have today, which is based less on melody and more on chord progressions and would appeal more to the average person. I do not like chord progression Rush. If I wanted to listen to a bunch of chord progressions there are probably thousands of bands that could fill that need. --------- I fell in love with Rush after my first listen to Moving Pictures. One listen. It absolutely blew me away. Now after one listen to CA, I can't even tell the songs apart from each other. None of them really stood out to me (except for the three singles I had already heard). Great albums only need one listen. Good albums require many more. I think that in time I will begin to recognize CA as a good album, but it will never be a great album. And I think we can all agree that great is better than good, right? Based on my personal feelings and the feelings of the majority of the folks who post at least semi-regularly here, the album is creative. Doing a rock opera in 2012 is not mainstream. And for your one complaint about too much melody, there was at the very least 10 complaints (not including duplicate complaints, which there were quite a few) about not enough melody of late in Rush. And if you feel there are a 1000 "chord progression" bands that could fill your need like Rush does, let them not remain nameless. Not that it would matter to me other than as a curiosity.   I don't know thousands of bands, and I said "probably." I guess I could start the list with Nickelback.   QUOTE I think most would agree here that any group's album requires more than one listen to judge and appreciate. My opinion of your opinion on expecting instant gratification is that it's the curse of the young.   Most of the time, yes. I'm not expecting instant gratification. If all I wanted was instant gratification then I would probably only listen to the same four albums over and over.   QUOTE You're implying that Rush somehow missed the mark on CA, and are asking us to agree? Good luck finding more than the very few to agree, and maybe a couple trolls. Your post is all about one man's opinion, and nothing more.   Yes, they missed the mark, but it is an incredibly hard mark to hit and I wouldn't expect that of them so late in their career. It still (probably) is a good album that's worth listening to after a few tries.   What I'm saying is that after one listen, there was nothing that intrigued me and made me want to try again.

[LeaveMyThingAlone]

With where Rush is in their career and approaching 60, I could not imagine them putting out anything better than Clockwork Angels. As others have stated, bands 40 years into their career just don't put out quality like this.

 

Comparisons with Hemispheres, Moving Pictures, and 2112 aren't fair. It was a totally different band, with different capabilities, and different energy. The fans that don't like it or think it's just "ok" are few and far between understanding this. But those are the ones that were going to hate , no matter what they put out.

 

Clockwork Angels is an absolutely remarkable album, ESPECIALLY considering the above. The personalities that are "half empty" types are going to find everything wrong with it.....so it is

[Steevo]

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Jun 27 2012, 04:56 AM)

Yes, they missed the mark, but it is an incredibly hard mark to hit and I wouldn't expect that of them so late in their career. It still (probably) is a good album that's worth listening to after a few tries. What I'm saying is that after one listen, there was nothing that intrigued me and made me want to try again.

[D3strukt]

Rush was NEVER "Out there". For crying out loud, they're the most EASILY accessible prog band out there. I mean you get bands like YES, and King Crimson that truly ARE out there.

[troutman]

The album kicks a**! I am overwhelmed.

[bluefox4000]

Still underwhelmed. but.....unlike most, I was Never ever expecting anything much. Not this late..... in their 20th damn album I mean that is a lot of information. I'm just happy to still have them active.....even if it produces ok to good albums.

 

Mick

[andrew28]

QUOTE (bluefox4000 @ Jul 2 2012, 11:18 PM)

Still underwhelmed. but.....unlike most, I was Never ever expecting anything much. Not this late..... in their 20th damn album I mean that is a lot of information. I'm just happy to still have them active.....even if it produces ok to good albums. Mick

I agree. An "OK" Rush album is much better than a masterpiece from most bands.

[av450]

If there were more guitar solos then i would like CA more. And the solo's that are on it aren't very good except for Headlong Flight.

[trenken]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 26 2012, 05:16 AM)

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Jun 26 2012, 12:32 AM) When you compare old Rush (more "out there") and new Rush (repeated chord progressions, more mainstream) you have to consider the music industry's influence on the band. When they have no influence, you get stuff like 2112, which was basically a giant middle finger to their record label. But after almost 40 years of working with the music industry, you get the less creative stuff we have today, which is based less on melody and more on chord progressions and would appeal more to the average person. I do not like chord progression Rush. If I wanted to listen to a bunch of chord progressions there are probably thousands of bands that could fill that need. --------- I fell in love with Rush after my first listen to Moving Pictures. One listen. It absolutely blew me away. Now after one listen to CA, I can't even tell the songs apart from each other. None of them really stood out to me (except for the three singles I had already heard). Great albums only need one listen. Good albums require many more. I think that in time I will begin to recognize CA as a good album, but it will never be a great album. And I think we can all agree that great is better than good, right? Based on my personal feelings and the feelings of the majority of the folks who post at least semi-regularly here, the album is creative. Doing a rock opera in 2012 is not mainstream. And for your one complaint about too much melody, there was at the very least 10 complaints (not including duplicate complaints, which there were quite a few) about not enough melody of late in Rush. And if you feel there are a 1000 "chord progression" bands that could fill your need like Rush does, let them not remain nameless. Not that it would matter to me other than as a curiosity.   -----   I think most would agree here that any group's album requires more than one listen to judge and appreciate. My opinion of your opinion on expecting instant gratification is that it's the curse of the young.   You're implying that Rush somehow missed the mark on CA, and are asking us to agree? Good luck finding more than the very few to agree, and maybe a couple trolls. Your post is all about one man's opinion, and nothing more. Where do you hear a rock opera? These are very mainstream rock songs, not that unlike what bands like Foo Fighters are doing, except that it just has a linear story across all the songs. Rush is MUCH closer to what FF and Nickelback do rather than a band like Tool for example who is writing stuff much weirder and way more complex than Rush has in a very long time.   Rush fans have a hardcore love for this band, of course many people on a Rush board are going to be biased. Post this on a general rock message board and you'll get a lot of opinions that are very different than what you're seeing here. Guarantee many will just say its forgettable.   Are they really all that different from other rock bands out there now? No, and it's because they've been heavily influenced by whats going on around them instead of just doing their own thing off in left field.   When Geddy said he wanted each of the songs to be their own thing, I knew right then we were not getting something like Hemispheres or really anything very creative, that it would be another VT or whatever, which it is in many ways. This album sounds more like that than any of their other albums. I just think at this point near the end of the line, why do they still have rules? Just do whatever, go nuts with it, but nope, bunch of normal rock songs again. Neil playing dull 4/4 beats in pretty much every song. Alex with the normal power chords again, Geddy just playing scales instead of what he used to do.

[ReflectedLight]

QUOTE (trenken @ Jul 3 2012, 09:11 AM)

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 26 2012, 05:16 AM) QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Jun 26 2012, 12:32 AM) When you compare old Rush (more "out there") and new Rush (repeated chord progressions, more mainstream) you have to consider the music industry's influence on the band. When they have no influence, you get stuff like 2112, which was basically a giant middle finger to their record label. But after almost 40 years of working with the music industry, you get the less creative stuff we have today, which is based less on melody and more on chord progressions and would appeal more to the average person. I do not like chord progression Rush. If I wanted to listen to a bunch of chord progressions there are probably thousands of bands that could fill that need. --------- I fell in love with Rush after my first listen to Moving Pictures. One listen. It absolutely blew me away. Now after one listen to CA, I can't even tell the songs apart from each other. None of them really stood out to me (except for the three singles I had already heard). Great albums only need one listen. Good albums require many more. I think that in time I will begin to recognize CA as a good album, but it will never be a great album. And I think we can all agree that great is better than good, right? Based on my personal feelings and the feelings of the majority of the folks who post at least semi-regularly here, the album is creative. Doing a rock opera in 2012 is not mainstream. And for your one complaint about too much melody, there was at the very least 10 complaints (not including duplicate complaints, which there were quite a few) about not enough melody of late in Rush. And if you feel there are a 1000 "chord progression" bands that could fill your need like Rush does, let them not remain nameless. Not that it would matter to me other than as a curiosity.   -----   I think most would agree here that any group's album requires more than one listen to judge and appreciate. My opinion of your opinion on expecting instant gratification is that it's the curse of the young.   You're implying that Rush somehow missed the mark on CA, and are asking us to agree? Good luck finding more than the very few to agree, and maybe a couple trolls. Your post is all about one man's opinion, and nothing more. Where do you hear a rock opera? These are very mainstream rock songs, not that unlike what bands like Foo Fighters are doing, except that it just has a linear story across all the songs. Rush is MUCH closer to what FF and Nickelback do rather than a band like Tool for example who is writing stuff much weirder and way more complex than Rush has in a very long time.   Rush fans have a hardcore love for this band, of course many people on a Rush board are going to be biased. Post this on a general rock message board and you'll get a lot of opinions that are very different than what you're seeing here. Guarantee many will just say its forgettable.   Are they really all that different from other rock bands out there now? No, and it's because they've been heavily influenced by whats going on around them instead of just doing their own thing off in left field.   When Geddy said he wanted each of the songs to be their own thing, I knew right then we were not getting something like Hemispheres or really anything very creative, that it would be another VT or whatever, which it is in many ways. This album sounds more like that than any of their other albums. I just think at this point near the end of the line, why do they still have rules? Just do whatever, go nuts with it, but nope, bunch of normal rock songs again. Neil playing dull 4/4 beats in pretty much every song. Alex with the normal power chords again, Geddy just playing scales instead of what he used to do. well there are some parts where they went nuts in imo but certainly not nearly enough i would have liked them to.

[LeaveMyThingAlone]

I don't think they want to write Hemispheres again. I don't think they want to write a bunch of weird, out there, progressive songs just for the sake that they are hard to play

 

Rush has ALWAYS been a "been there, done that" kind of band for better or for worse. However, I think this album touches on a little bit of everything in their past. I do think they get a little funky in Headlong Flight , Clockwork Angels, and Caravan, but the album across the board is far from la Villa Strangiato or Hemispheres. It's just not their style to be repetitive

[goose]

QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Jul 3 2012, 04:37 PM)

I don't think they want to write Hemispheres again. I don't think they want to write a bunch of weird, out there, progressive songs just for the sake that they are hard to play Rush has ALWAYS been a "been there, done that" kind of band for better or for worse. However, I think this album touches on a little bit of everything in their past. I do think they get a little funky in Headlong Flight , Clockwork Angels, and Caravan, but the album across the board is far from la Villa Strangiato or Hemispheres. It's just not their style to be repetitive

I'll take CA over Hemi, side one. Now side 2...that's another story.

[GeminiRising79]

QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Jul 3 2012, 04:37 PM)

Rush has ALWAYS been a "been there, done that" kind of band

Not anymore. They've "been there" for the last three albums.

[Gedneil Alpeart]

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jul 3 2012, 07:54 PM)

QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Jul 3 2012, 04:37 PM) Rush has ALWAYS been a "been there, done that" kind of band Not anymore. They've "been there" for the last three albums.

[bluefox4000]

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jul 3 2012, 07:54 PM)

QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Jul 3 2012, 04:37 PM) Rush has ALWAYS been a "been there, done that" kind of band Not anymore. They've "been there" for the last three albums. Pretty much this. At this point there's no creativity left in the tank.....no matter how much we want to believe it's there.   Mick

[Gedneil Alpeart]

QUOTE (bluefox4000 @ Jul 3 2012, 08:04 PM)

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jul 3 2012, 07:54 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Jul 3 2012, 04:37 PM) Rush has ALWAYS been a "been there, done that" kind of band Not anymore. They've "been there" for the last three albums. Pretty much this. At this point there's no creativity left in the tank.....no matter how much we want to believe it's there.   Mick Their creative peak has certainly passed a while ago, but does not mean they are washed up....not at all...and the majority of Rush fans I believe would agree.

[Rick N. Backer]

I don't think I'm a "fanboy" of the band. Although I first got into them when PeW came out, I don't like Caress, I think AFTK is mediocre, and I only listen to the albums from HYF to VT when I'm on a binge and I need the variety.

 

No band maintains its peak for 30 plus years. To expect CA to be as good, or inventive, as MP is just not realistic. But to me, S&A and CA are both solid albums that I enjoy. I'll take either of them over anything else released after p/g.

[Analog_Bro]

QUOTE (bluefox4000 @ Jul 3 2012, 08:04 PM)

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jul 3 2012, 07:54 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Jul 3 2012, 04:37 PM) Rush has ALWAYS been a "been there, done that" kind of band Not anymore. They've "been there" for the last three albums. Pretty much this. At this point there's no creativity left in the tank.....no matter how much we want to believe it's there.   Mick I completely disagree about there being no creativity left - I feel the opposite

[troutman]

QUOTE (Analog_Bro @ Jul 3 2012, 05:58 PM)

QUOTE (bluefox4000 @ Jul 3 2012, 08:04 PM) QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jul 3 2012, 07:54 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Jul 3 2012, 04:37 PM) Rush has ALWAYS been a "been there, done that" kind of band Not anymore. They've "been there" for the last three albums. Pretty much this. At this point there's no creativity left in the tank.....no matter how much we want to believe it's there.   Mick I completely disagree about there being no creativity left - I feel the opposite Hey Mick,   Obviously some one sold you some bad sh**!

[WCFIELDS]

QUOTE (Analog_Bro @ Jul 3 2012, 07:58 PM)

QUOTE (bluefox4000 @ Jul 3 2012, 08:04 PM) QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jul 3 2012, 07:54 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Jul 3 2012, 04:37 PM) Rush has ALWAYS been a "been there, done that" kind of band Not anymore. They've "been there" for the last three albums. Pretty much this. At this point there's no creativity left in the tank.....no matter how much we want to believe it's there.   Mick I completely disagree about there being no creativity left - I feel the opposite Yeah, there may be a LITTLE left....

[bluefox4000]

OK OK.....it's not ALL gone...but you CANNOT tell me CA is overly innovative, pretty by the numbers

 

Just telling what I am hearing feel free to party on.

 

Mick

[GrandDesigner]

I was absolutely prepared to hate this album. I haven't truly loved anything they've done since Power Windows, and the best moments since then happened way back in the early/mid 90's. I do not like S&A and really dislike VT. And Caravan and BU2B, while being a step better, didn't completely blow me away.

 

But then I got CA. I honestly think it's the best album they've ever made. I've listened to it perhaps 50 times since it came out. It never gets weaker, the songs are memorable (kudos to Geddy for FINALLY writing some interesting/catchy vocal melodies), the songs evolve organically and have diverse and interesting sections, and the band sounds like they're having the time of their lives.

 

It blows my mind that a band of 60 year olds on their 19th album can make the best album of their career.

 

I was SOOO ready to feel underwhelmed. I was planning on it actually. Perhaps that's why the goodness of this album has hit me so hard.