Snakes and Arrows Vs. Clockwork Angels

[Tick]

Clockwork Angels is perfect! Score = 10!

Snakes And Arrows is pretty weak. Score = 4

 

That's just me.

 

and yeah...Metaldad loves Snakes And Arrows!!!!

Edited August 23, 2012 by Tick

[rushlady23]

QUOTE (metaldad @ Aug 23 2012, 11:44 AM)

Welcome . S&A is a baby diaper double stuffed with shit floating in a sea of mediocrity.

 

 

I like S&A just fine, but CA is SO much better. JMO...

[Jomboni]

QUOTE (DistantEarlyRushFan @ Aug 23 2012, 10:26 AM)

S&A is arguably the best Rush album, lyrically.

See, I think this is probably their absolute bottom album in terms of lyrics. Not for the subject matter (honestly Neil can write as many "faith-bashing" songs as he wants), I just really think his lyrics were clunky and poorly delivered on this album. I like the music a lot, because it's a real 180 for the band, it doesn't really sound like anything else in their catalog. But I just get so embarassed by the lyrics that it ruins the album for me :/

[They Bow Defeated]

QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 10:32 AM)

Sorry. I'm not drinking the cool-aid.

Ugh, you were doing fine up to this point. So there's no need to imply that those who prefer CA are brainwashed drones who are just buying into the hype. There are many of us who really do prefer CA. Most of us actually. The only place where I do agree that S&A is better is in the final mix and mastering.

 

 

[tommyali]

you are right, sorry.

no need to imply the "brainwashing".

I'm just surprised how many people are bashing S&A. We are Rush fans right?

I never bashed CA. I really think that S&A is better. Mix, by far.

CA is muddy. IMO. I can honestly say I am disappointed as a whole.

 

Just listened to S&A again. What a beautiful album!

[Gompers]

QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 12:47 PM)

you are right, sorry. no need to imply the "brainwashing". I'm just surprised how many people are bashing S&A. We are Rush fans right? I never bashed CA. I really think that S&A is better. Mix, by far. CA is muddy. IMO. I can honestly say I am disappointed as a whole. Just listened to S&A again. What a beautiful album!

Let 'em bash S&A. Chances are they liked VT quite a bit too.

 

I like the musical maturity of S&A, where CA seems like the band trying to be 20 again, which would work great if they were 20. With S&A, they branched out as the musicians they are, got outside the box, like they have always been known for. Many songs sound like new Rush. They used themselves for most of the album to find something different and creative.

 

With CA, they had Nick cheer-leading them to sound like the old days, and then he messed up the mix. CA has some great songs, like the title track and Headlong Flight, but from a dynamic perspective, the wall of sound encumbers those subtle things Rush has done so well in the past. It should be evident to Nick now that Rush is not Foo Fighters.

[Tick]

QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 11:42 AM)

Thank you Gompers!! I have some supporters after all. Rock On!

Just because I have the opposite view doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

[HomesickAlien]

QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 11:47 AM)

you are right, sorry. no need to imply the "brainwashing". I'm just surprised how many people are bashing S&A. We are Rush fans right? I never bashed CA. I really think that S&A is better. Mix, by far. CA is muddy. IMO. I can honestly say I am disappointed as a whole. Just listened to S&A again. What a beautiful album!

While I think CA is a very good album, I'd hardly call it a masterpiece. I give it a 10 for the energy and enthusiasm that went into it, but 7.5 is the best I can give the final product.

 

If you honestly don't like it that doesn't make you a bad Rush fan.

[Gompers]

QUOTE (substancewithoutstyle @ Aug 23 2012, 01:20 PM)

QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 11:47 AM) you are right, sorry. no need to imply the "brainwashing". I'm just surprised how many people are bashing S&A. We are Rush fans right? I never bashed CA. I really think that S&A is better. Mix, by far. CA is muddy. IMO. I can honestly say I am disappointed as a whole. Just listened to S&A again. What a beautiful album! While I think CA is a very good album, I'd hardly call it a masterpiece. I give it a 10 for the energy and enthusiasm that went into it, but 7.5 is the best I can give the final product.   If you honestly don't like it that doesn't make you a bad Rush fan. There is no denying it is adrenaline filled.

[Shredder2]

As much as I enjoyed Snakes & Arrows, I personally felt that some of the songs themselves were mediocre, and it really didn't move me much. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed listening to it!

 

Clockwork Angels is a different story, though. It just kicks ass... Do I really need to explain this statement?

[Tick]

QUOTE (substancewithoutstyle @ Aug 23 2012, 01:20 PM)

QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 11:47 AM) you are right, sorry. no need to imply the "brainwashing". I'm just surprised how many people are bashing S&A. We are Rush fans right? I never bashed CA. I really think that S&A is better. Mix, by far. CA is muddy. IMO. I can honestly say I am disappointed as a whole. Just listened to S&A again. What a beautiful album! While I think CA is a very good album, I'd hardly call it a masterpiece. I give it a 10 for the energy and enthusiasm that went into it, but 7.5 is the best I can give the final product.   If you honestly don't like it that doesn't make you a bad Rush fan. Its a masterpiece for me. A definite 10. Best album since the 80's easily.

[DistantEarlyRushFan]

QUOTE (Gompers @ Aug 23 2012, 12:15 PM)

QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 12:47 PM) you are right, sorry. no need to imply the "brainwashing". I'm just surprised how many people are bashing S&A. We are Rush fans right? I never bashed CA. I really think that S&A is better. Mix, by far. CA is muddy. IMO. I can honestly say I am disappointed as a whole. Just listened to S&A again. What a beautiful album! Let 'em bash S&A. Chances are they liked VT quite a bit too.   I like the musical maturity of S&A, where CA seems like the band trying to be 20 again, which would work great if they were 20. With S&A, they branched out as the musicians they are, got outside the box, like they have always been known for. Many songs sound like new Rush. They used themselves for most of the album to find something different and creative.   With CA, they had Nick cheer-leading them to sound like the old days, and then he messed up the mix. CA has some great songs, like the title track and Headlong Flight, but from a dynamic perspective, the wall of sound encumbers those subtle things Rush has done so well in the past. It should be evident to Nick now that Rush is not Foo Fighters. I don't think the band sounds like they are trying to be anything on CA. To me it sounds like every member of the band has grown into their respective parts of the sound and have matured therein.

[HomesickAlien]

QUOTE (Gompers @ Aug 23 2012, 12:22 PM)

QUOTE (substancewithoutstyle @ Aug 23 2012, 01:20 PM) QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 11:47 AM) you are right, sorry. no need to imply the "brainwashing". I'm just surprised how many people are bashing S&A. We are Rush fans right? I never bashed CA. I really think that S&A is better. Mix, by far. CA is muddy. IMO. I can honestly say I am disappointed as a whole. Just listened to S&A again. What a beautiful album! While I think CA is a very good album, I'd hardly call it a masterpiece. I give it a 10 for the energy and enthusiasm that went into it, but 7.5 is the best I can give the final product.   If you honestly don't like it that doesn't make you a bad Rush fan. There is no denying it is adrenaline filled. Too much adrenaline can trigger a headache, which is what I get when I try to crank CA!

[DistantEarlyRushFan]

QUOTE (Jomboni @ Aug 23 2012, 11:31 AM)

QUOTE (DistantEarlyRushFan @ Aug 23 2012, 10:26 AM) S&A is arguably the best Rush album, lyrically. See, I think this is probably their absolute bottom album in terms of lyrics. Not for the subject matter (honestly Neil can write as many "faith-bashing" songs as he wants), I just really think his lyrics were clunky and poorly delivered on this album. I like the music a lot, because it's a real 180 for the band, it doesn't really sound like anything else in their catalog. But I just get so embarassed by the lyrics that it ruins the album for me :/ I am sorry you feel that way. Maybe you could provide me with some examples on why you feel this way.   I think that the music perfectly accompanies Neil's words. There are so many spots where you can just feel the reality of what he is saying.

[Lerxster]

QUOTE (bluefox4000 @ Aug 23 2012, 09:47 AM)

QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 09:42 AM) Well thanks for the warm welcome guys! I was afraid I was gonna piss some people off. Bluefox4000, I agree with your feelings on S&A completely.  Couldn't have said it better myself. Any time. we are in a minority, but that stuff never bothered me....I'm just interested to see if CA holds up in a year's time. m or if it's rep will go the way of S&A. People say no but i have my doubts.   Mick Hey, if you're a Rush fan then you're in the majority here. And I'd also say S&A is viewed favorably by the majority of members here. I think it's a solid album. Side one is magnificent. It's just that most folks think CA is the stronger album of the two.

[canadianice]

QUOTE (Tick @ Aug 23 2012, 12:34 PM)

QUOTE (substancewithoutstyle @ Aug 23 2012, 01:20 PM) QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 11:47 AM) you are right, sorry. no need to imply the "brainwashing". I'm just surprised how many people are bashing S&A. We are Rush fans right? I never bashed CA. I really think that S&A is better. Mix, by far. CA is muddy. IMO. I can honestly say I am disappointed as a whole. Just listened to S&A again. What a beautiful album! While I think CA is a very good album, I'd hardly call it a masterpiece. I give it a 10 for the energy and enthusiasm that went into it, but 7.5 is the best I can give the final product.   If you honestly don't like it that doesn't make you a bad Rush fan. Its a masterpiece for me. A definite 10. Best album since the 80's easily. That's what i said

[Tombstone Mountain]

QUOTE (canadianice @ Aug 23 2012, 12:51 PM)

QUOTE (Tick @ Aug 23 2012, 12:34 PM) QUOTE (substancewithoutstyle @ Aug 23 2012, 01:20 PM) QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 11:47 AM) you are right, sorry. no need to imply the "brainwashing". I'm just surprised how many people are bashing S&A. We are Rush fans right? I never bashed CA. I really think that S&A is better. Mix, by far. CA is muddy. IMO. I can honestly say I am disappointed as a whole. Just listened to S&A again. What a beautiful album! While I think CA is a very good album, I'd hardly call it a masterpiece. I give it a 10 for the energy and enthusiasm that went into it, but 7.5 is the best I can give the final product.   If you honestly don't like it that doesn't make you a bad Rush fan. Its a masterpiece for me. A definite 10. Best album since the 80's easily. That's what i said Right there with ya...it has not gotten old in any way since release. I still listen to it all the way through if I can. There are 5 great, meaning, all time rush classic songs on that album...just amazing.   It keeps getting better

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 06:00 AM)

Am I the only one on the planet? Too me, Snakes and Arrows is just a better album from start to finish. A beautiful album. I would put it in my top three all time Rush albums. Don't get me wrong, Clockwork rocks. And at times rocks even harder than S&A. I mean, there's some pretty intense playing on it. But sometimes it seems to go a little too long. It drags. And some songs I'm just not crazy about. And I am a huge Rush fan, I've never disliked anything. But this one seems to have a little more bark than bite.

S&A is a much better album for many reasons. I wouldn't put it in my top 3 Rush albums by any stretch but it surpasses every other recent release going back to Counterparts. CP, S&A and Presto fall just below the 70s and 80's albums for me as those were the Rush albums I grew up with so I have a lot more emotional investment in those records but in terms of material and even productions S&A is head and shoulders above CA which to me is so badly squashed it is not listenable for the most part plus the material just does not have that same intensity and passion as the first 2 tracks. It's not horrible but it isn't great. S&A is great.

[They Bow Defeated]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Aug 23 2012, 01:18 PM)

S&A is a much better album for many reasons. I wouldn't put it in my top 3 Rush albums by any stretch but it surpasses every other recent release going back to Counterparts. CP, S&A and Presto fall just below the 70s and 80's albums for me as those were the Rush albums I grew up with so I have a lot more emotional investment in those records but in terms of material and even productions S&A is head and shoulders above CA which to me is so badly squashed it is not listenable for the most part plus the material just does not have that same intensity and passion as the first 2 tracks. It's not horrible but it isn't great. S&A is great.

And yet only 11% of TRF members would agree with you...

 

http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=75900

 

I like S&A a lot, but the second half is definitely dragged down by three mediocre tracks: Bravest Face, Good News First, We Hold On. If you leave out Hope and BU2B2, since they're both short "linking" songs, it's even more clear to me that CA is a stronger effort. IMO, the weakest CA song (Wish Them Well) is still stronger than BF, GNF, and WHO.

 

The strongest S&A songs (Far Cry, Armor and Sword, Faithless, Malnar) are very good, but IMO they can't quite hang with the likes of CA, The Anarchist, Seven Cities, Headlong Flight, The Wreckers, and The Garden.

 

EDIT: I do agree with you about the compression on CA vs. S&A, but for me it's more than made up for by the songs.

Edited August 23, 2012 by They Bow Defeated

[DistantEarlyRushFan]

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Aug 23 2012, 02:18 PM)

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Aug 23 2012, 01:18 PM) S&A is a much better album for many reasons. I wouldn't put it in my top 3 Rush albums by any stretch but it surpasses every other recent release going back to Counterparts. CP, S&A and Presto fall just below the 70s and 80's albums for me as those were the Rush albums I grew up with so I have a lot more emotional investment in those records but in terms of material and even productions S&A is head and shoulders above CA which to me is so badly squashed it is not listenable for the most part plus the material just does not have that same intensity and passion as the first 2 tracks. It's not horrible but it isn't great. S&A is great. And yet only 11% of TRF members would agree with you...   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=75900   I like S&A a lot, but the second half is definitely dragged down by three mediocre tracks: Bravest Face, Good News First, We Hold On. If you leave out Hope and BU2B2, since they're both short "linking" songs, it's even more clear to me that CA is a stronger effort. IMO, the weakest CA song (Wish Them Well) is still stronger than BF, GNF, and WHO.   The strongest S&A songs (Far Cry, Armor and Sword, Faithless, Malnar) are very good, but IMO they can't quite hang with the likes of CA, The Anarchist, Seven Cities, Headlong Flight, The Wreckers, and The Garden.   EDIT: I do agree with you about the compression on CA vs. S&A, but for me it's more than made up for by the songs. I think We Hold On is one of the better tracks on S&A.   I will agree with you about WTW being better than it.

[They Bow Defeated]

QUOTE (DistantEarlyRushFan @ Aug 23 2012, 02:27 PM)

I think We Hold On is one of the better tracks on S&A. I will agree with you about WTW being better than it.

It's not bad, but it's still in my bottom three for S&A. I like the instrumental/jamming sections a lot, but not so much the vocal sections. Especially the "how many times" verse sections, where it sounds like Ged needs a quick Starbucks run to perk him up.

Edited August 23, 2012 by They Bow Defeated

[DistantEarlyRushFan]

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Aug 23 2012, 02:39 PM)

QUOTE (DistantEarlyRushFan @ Aug 23 2012, 02:27 PM) I think We Hold On is one of the better tracks on S&A. I will agree with you about WTW being better than it. It's not bad, but it's still in my bottom three for S&A. I like the instrumental/jamming sections a lot, but not so much the vocal sections. Especially the "how many times" verse sections, where it sounds like Ged needs a quick Starbucks run to perk him up. True. But when you think about the words he is singing, it becomes more appropriate

[JoenataArctica]

Clockwork Angels is probably my favorite since Power Windows. That being said, there is not an album that I dislike at all! They all have their ups and downs.

For example I absolutely loved Caress of Steel and the longer songs that took me on an adventure through my long drives and the complexity of the music. Then when they branched away from that, I really started loving the synth era of Rush with the incredibly meaningful songs, not saying the 70's era didn't have meaning, but it was more accessible. When SnA came out, I was ecstatic, listening to every snip and clip available up to the albums release. When I finally had it in my hands, it did take me a few listens to get into it, but once I got into it it was immediate love for the album. The tones Alex have on that album really harken to his live performance.

Then Clockwork Angels happened. There is something from each era of Rush on that one album! From the nod to Bastille Day in Headlong Flight, to the incredibly Signals-esque guitar riff in the beginning of the Anarchist.

 

Rush on my friends!!

[Tick]

QUOTE (Gompers @ Aug 23 2012, 01:15 PM)

QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 12:47 PM) you are right, sorry. no need to imply the "brainwashing". I'm just surprised how many people are bashing S&A. We are Rush fans right? I never bashed CA. I really think that S&A is better. Mix, by far. CA is muddy. IMO. I can honestly say I am disappointed as a whole. Just listened to S&A again. What a beautiful album! Let 'em bash S&A. Chances are they liked VT quite a bit too.   I like the musical maturity of S&A, where CA seems like the band trying to be 20 again, which would work great if they were 20. With S&A, they branched out as the musicians they are, got outside the box, like they have always been known for. Many songs sound like new Rush. They used themselves for most of the album to find something different and creative.   With CA, they had Nick cheer-leading them to sound like the old days, and then he messed up the mix. CA has some great songs, like the title track and Headlong Flight, but from a dynamic perspective, the wall of sound encumbers those subtle things Rush has done so well in the past. It should be evident to Nick now that Rush is not Foo Fighters. You both need to understand that not liking something isn't bashing it. I'm not a fan of Snakes And Arrows. Would you like me to say otherwise to make you both happy?

[The Cat 3]

QUOTE (tommyali @ Aug 23 2012, 08:00 AM)

Am I the only one on the planet? Too me, Snakes and Arrows is just a better album from start to finish. A beautiful album. I would put it in my top three all time Rush albums. Don't get me wrong, Clockwork rocks.  And at times rocks even harder than S&A. I mean, there's some pretty intense playing on it.  But sometimes it seems to go a little too long. It drags. And some songs I'm just not crazy about. And I am a huge Rush fan, I've never disliked anything. But this one seems to have a little more bark than bite.

 

Greetings and welcome to TRF!

 

While I believe that "Clockwork Angels" is a better album musically, I still like "Snakes and Arrows" slightly better.

 

"Clockwork Angels" finds the band building on what they accomplished with "Snakes and Arrows"...a great "Rush Sound" with perfect blends of "old" and "new" Rush.

 

After all these years, they really are making some great music.

 

~Cheers, RGLT

Edited August 23, 2012 by ReGorLaTroy