Clockwork Angels - Might actually be better than Moving Pictures

[Lorraine]

BU2B2 sounds like nothing they ever did before. So very different. I love the way the music keeps rising. Every time I listen to it, it makes me so mad that they wasted the song. Edited December 30, 2014 by Lorraine

[len(songs)]

Great songs on MP: Tom Sawyer, Red Barchetta, YYZ, Limelight, The Camera Eye

Great songs on CA: title track, The Anarchist, Headlong Flight

 

Awful songs on MP: huh?

Awful songs on CA: BU2B (not BU2B2), Seven Cities Of Gold, Wish Them Well

 

 

...

Edited December 30, 2014 by len(songs)

[hem]

Sadly, just no. We shouldn't blame Rush for this though.

 

There seems to be a general arc to most bands who last a long time. It is generally in three stages. (Note the word 'generally')

 

STAGE ONE - Hungry. Flat broke. Trying to get noticed.

During stage one, most people are not masters of either their instruments or the art of songwriting/arranging. They get better, and with the good bands the curve is steep, but it takes a little time. Hopefully they get a minor hit or two which keeps the record company on their side. Moments of genius are exciting enough that bit by bit, they garner a good loyal following.

 

STAGE TWO - Still hungry. Enough money to live on. Getting noticed and some acclaim.

This is where the rewards for their efforts are in sight. They sell more records. Tours get bigger. Then something clicks and the record buying public catches on. The band is on fire now and becomes hungrier than ever. Their chops and songwriting hit a peak. This stage lasts five or so years. Everything they do, even if it doesn't quite work, has that feeling of "on a roll". They get serious money.

 

STAGE THREE - Fat. Rich. Guaranteed audience.

The band spend less time together, even when on tour. They practice their instruments less. They have hobbies and families. Maybe divorces and stints in rehab. Life exists outside the band now. They make more money than ever, but the fire is dwindling. Eventually, the band has become a business. Depending on their talent and chemistry, maybe they still have some of that old magic, but it is diminishing returns.

 

You coud distill that and make an age judgement.

 

16 - 24 You'd die for your band. You sleep on each others' socks and don't complain..

25 - 35 You'd die to help each other make the band the best it can be.

35+ You'd die to stop your wife leaving you, or be able to fit into your old jeans, but you still kind of like your band mates.

 

Rush haven't exactly followed this format - they had a terrible interlude - but I remember reading things from interviews with the guys like -

"I didn't pick up the guitar/bass the whole summer"

"Am I prepared to spend all that time obsessively working out that drum part?."

"I enjoy producing ..."

"My latest passion is wine/motorbikes/baseball/cooking etc"

 

When Rush released "Moving Pictures" they were at that pinnacle. They had got their chops to a frightening level and then, only the album before that, they had discovered mass appeal songwriting. They made a fortune, floated on that extraordinary wave of creative euphoria that must have brought, and then released another two (three) amazing albums. Then the slide began. They still make interesting music, and CA was a nice elevation that resembled former glory years, but it only resembled it. I like the album, much better than most things they have done in a long time, but they will never, not even if all their money, cars, homes, testicles, are taken from them, scale the heights that they reached from 1979 to 1984.

 

Rant over. Dismiss as you wish, or add boiling water and leave for five minutes. Nom nom.

[hammerofthor]

Surprised at all the CA hate, I thought I was the only one. I would rank it as their second or third worst. Definately better than S&A, but about the same level as RTB.

[g under p]

As much as I like CA it's not even close to MP.....where is there a song on CA that is close to The Camera Eye?

 

The Camera Eye...my goodness someone else loves it as well!

 

Are you kidding...that is my 2nd favorite RUSH song of all time with RSECTORA #1, and LVS #3.

[g under p]

Sadly, just no. We shouldn't blame Rush for this though.

 

There seems to be a general arc to most bands who last a long time. It is generally in three stages. (Note the word 'generally')

 

STAGE ONE - Hungry. Flat broke. Trying to get noticed.

During stage one, most people are not masters of either their instruments or the art of songwriting/arranging. They get better, and with the good bands the curve is steep, but it takes a little time. Hopefully they get a minor hit or two which keeps the record company on their side. Moments of genius are exciting enough that bit by bit, they garner a good loyal following.

 

STAGE TWO - Still hungry. Enough money to live on. Getting noticed and some acclaim.

This is where the rewards for their efforts are in sight. They sell more records. Tours get bigger. Then something clicks and the record buying public catches on. The band is on fire now and becomes hungrier than ever. Their chops and songwriting hit a peak. This stage lasts five or so years. Everything they do, even if it doesn't quite work, has that feeling of "on a roll". They get serious money.

 

STAGE THREE - Fat. Rich. Guaranteed audience.

The band spend less time together, even when on tour. They practice their instruments less. They have hobbies and families. Maybe divorces and stints in rehab. Life exists outside the band now. They make more money than ever, but the fire is dwindling. Eventually, the band has become a business. Depending on their talent and chemistry, maybe they still have some of that old magic, but it is diminishing returns.

 

You coud distill that and make an age judgement.

 

16 - 24 You'd die for your band. You sleep on each others' socks and don't complain..

25 - 35 You'd die to help each other make the band the best it can be.

35+ You'd die to stop your wife leaving you, or be able to fit into your old jeans, but you still kind of like your band mates.

 

Rush haven't exactly followed this format - they had a terrible interlude - but I remember reading things from interviews with the guys like -

"I didn't pick up the guitar/bass the whole summer"

"Am I prepared to spend all that time obsessively working out that drum part?."

"I enjoy producing ..."

"My latest passion is wine/motorbikes/baseball/cooking etc"

 

When Rush released "Moving Pictures" they were at that pinnacle. They had got their chops to a frightening level and then, only the album before that, they had discovered mass appeal songwriting. They made a fortune, floated on that extraordinary wave of creative euphoria that must have brought, and then released another two (three) amazing albums. Then the slide began. They still make interesting music, and CA was a nice elevation that resembled former glory years, but it only resembled it. I like the album, much better than most things they have done in a long time, but they will never, not even if all their money, cars, homes, testicles, are taken from them, scale the heights that they reached from 1979 to 1984.

 

Rant over. Dismiss as you wish, or add boiling water and leave for five minutes. Nom nom.

 

Bravo, well done my friend....say are you a writer?

[EagleMoon]

Sadly, just no. We shouldn't blame Rush for this though.

 

There seems to be a general arc to most bands who last a long time. It is generally in three stages. (Note the word 'generally')

 

STAGE ONE - Hungry. Flat broke. Trying to get noticed.

During stage one, most people are not masters of either their instruments or the art of songwriting/arranging. They get better, and with the good bands the curve is steep, but it takes a little time. Hopefully they get a minor hit or two which keeps the record company on their side. Moments of genius are exciting enough that bit by bit, they garner a good loyal following.

 

STAGE TWO - Still hungry. Enough money to live on. Getting noticed and some acclaim.

This is where the rewards for their efforts are in sight. They sell more records. Tours get bigger. Then something clicks and the record buying public catches on. The band is on fire now and becomes hungrier than ever. Their chops and songwriting hit a peak. This stage lasts five or so years. Everything they do, even if it doesn't quite work, has that feeling of "on a roll". They get serious money.

 

STAGE THREE - Fat. Rich. Guaranteed audience.

The band spend less time together, even when on tour. They practice their instruments less. They have hobbies and families. Maybe divorces and stints in rehab. Life exists outside the band now. They make more money than ever, but the fire is dwindling. Eventually, the band has become a business. Depending on their talent and chemistry, maybe they still have some of that old magic, but it is diminishing returns.

 

You coud distill that and make an age judgement.

 

16 - 24 You'd die for your band. You sleep on each others' socks and don't complain..

25 - 35 You'd die to help each other make the band the best it can be.

35+ You'd die to stop your wife leaving you, or be able to fit into your old jeans, but you still kind of like your band mates.

 

Rush haven't exactly followed this format - they had a terrible interlude - but I remember reading things from interviews with the guys like -

"I didn't pick up the guitar/bass the whole summer"

"Am I prepared to spend all that time obsessively working out that drum part?."

"I enjoy producing ..."

"My latest passion is wine/motorbikes/baseball/cooking etc"

 

When Rush released "Moving Pictures" they were at that pinnacle. They had got their chops to a frightening level and then, only the album before that, they had discovered mass appeal songwriting. They made a fortune, floated on that extraordinary wave of creative euphoria that must have brought, and then released another two (three) amazing albums. Then the slide began. They still make interesting music, and CA was a nice elevation that resembled former glory years, but it only resembled it. I like the album, much better than most things they have done in a long time, but they will never, not even if all their money, cars, homes, testicles, are taken from them, scale the heights that they reached from 1979 to 1984.

 

Rant over. Dismiss as you wish, or add boiling water and leave for five minutes. Nom nom.

 

I would agree with all of this. Kind of runs parallel to life in general. We can hope they'd release another Moving Pictures or Hemispheres, but I just don't think they've got it in them. They've lost the drive, even though they still make good music and seem to love doing it. The "being hungry" is long gone.

[Lorraine]

Sadly, just no. We shouldn't blame Rush for this though.

 

There seems to be a general arc to most bands who last a long time. It is generally in three stages. (Note the word 'generally')

 

STAGE ONE - Hungry. Flat broke. Trying to get noticed.

During stage one, most people are not masters of either their instruments or the art of songwriting/arranging. They get better, and with the good bands the curve is steep, but it takes a little time. Hopefully they get a minor hit or two which keeps the record company on their side. Moments of genius are exciting enough that bit by bit, they garner a good loyal following.

 

STAGE TWO - Still hungry. Enough money to live on. Getting noticed and some acclaim.

This is where the rewards for their efforts are in sight. They sell more records. Tours get bigger. Then something clicks and the record buying public catches on. The band is on fire now and becomes hungrier than ever. Their chops and songwriting hit a peak. This stage lasts five or so years. Everything they do, even if it doesn't quite work, has that feeling of "on a roll". They get serious money.

 

STAGE THREE - Fat. Rich. Guaranteed audience.

The band spend less time together, even when on tour. They practice their instruments less. They have hobbies and families. Maybe divorces and stints in rehab. Life exists outside the band now. They make more money than ever, but the fire is dwindling. Eventually, the band has become a business. Depending on their talent and chemistry, maybe they still have some of that old magic, but it is diminishing returns.

 

You coud distill that and make an age judgement.

 

16 - 24 You'd die for your band. You sleep on each others' socks and don't complain..

25 - 35 You'd die to help each other make the band the best it can be.

35+ You'd die to stop your wife leaving you, or be able to fit into your old jeans, but you still kind of like your band mates.

 

Rush haven't exactly followed this format - they had a terrible interlude - but I remember reading things from interviews with the guys like -

"I didn't pick up the guitar/bass the whole summer"

"Am I prepared to spend all that time obsessively working out that drum part?."

"I enjoy producing ..."

"My latest passion is wine/motorbikes/baseball/cooking etc"

 

When Rush released "Moving Pictures" they were at that pinnacle. They had got their chops to a frightening level and then, only the album before that, they had discovered mass appeal songwriting. They made a fortune, floated on that extraordinary wave of creative euphoria that must have brought, and then released another two (three) amazing albums. Then the slide began. They still make interesting music, and CA was a nice elevation that resembled former glory years, but it only resembled it. I like the album, much better than most things they have done in a long time, but they will never, not even if all their money, cars, homes, testicles, are taken from them, scale the heights that they reached from 1979 to 1984.

 

Rant over. Dismiss as you wish, or add boiling water and leave for five minutes. Nom nom.

The only thing I disagree with are your years - I would say from 1977 to 1982.

 

Other than that - you've nailed it pretty good even if it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

[Lorraine]

Sadly, just no. We shouldn't blame Rush for this though.

 

There seems to be a general arc to most bands who last a long time. It is generally in three stages. (Note the word 'generally')

 

STAGE ONE - Hungry. Flat broke. Trying to get noticed.

During stage one, most people are not masters of either their instruments or the art of songwriting/arranging. They get better, and with the good bands the curve is steep, but it takes a little time. Hopefully they get a minor hit or two which keeps the record company on their side. Moments of genius are exciting enough that bit by bit, they garner a good loyal following.

 

STAGE TWO - Still hungry. Enough money to live on. Getting noticed and some acclaim.

This is where the rewards for their efforts are in sight. They sell more records. Tours get bigger. Then something clicks and the record buying public catches on. The band is on fire now and becomes hungrier than ever. Their chops and songwriting hit a peak. This stage lasts five or so years. Everything they do, even if it doesn't quite work, has that feeling of "on a roll". They get serious money.

 

STAGE THREE - Fat. Rich. Guaranteed audience.

The band spend less time together, even when on tour. They practice their instruments less. They have hobbies and families. Maybe divorces and stints in rehab. Life exists outside the band now. They make more money than ever, but the fire is dwindling. Eventually, the band has become a business. Depending on their talent and chemistry, maybe they still have some of that old magic, but it is diminishing returns.

 

You coud distill that and make an age judgement.

 

16 - 24 You'd die for your band. You sleep on each others' socks and don't complain..

25 - 35 You'd die to help each other make the band the best it can be.

35+ You'd die to stop your wife leaving you, or be able to fit into your old jeans, but you still kind of like your band mates.

 

Rush haven't exactly followed this format - they had a terrible interlude - but I remember reading things from interviews with the guys like -

"I didn't pick up the guitar/bass the whole summer"

"Am I prepared to spend all that time obsessively working out that drum part?."

"I enjoy producing ..."

"My latest passion is wine/motorbikes/baseball/cooking etc"

 

When Rush released "Moving Pictures" they were at that pinnacle. They had got their chops to a frightening level and then, only the album before that, they had discovered mass appeal songwriting. They made a fortune, floated on that extraordinary wave of creative euphoria that must have brought, and then released another two (three) amazing albums. Then the slide began. They still make interesting music, and CA was a nice elevation that resembled former glory years, but it only resembled it. I like the album, much better than most things they have done in a long time, but they will never, not even if all their money, cars, homes, testicles, are taken from them, scale the heights that they reached from 1979 to 1984.

 

Rant over. Dismiss as you wish, or add boiling water and leave for five minutes. Nom nom.

 

I would agree with all of this. Kind of runs parallel to life in general. We can hope they'd release another Moving Pictures or Hemispheres, but I just don't think they've got it in them. They've lost the drive, even though they still make good music and seem to love doing it. The "being hungry" is long gone.

You are right and I agree with you as well. But isn't that true of any of us that grow old(er)? You just get weary, and I am sure they are too.

[patjnev]

If Rush released Cluckwork Angles after Permanent Waves they would be touring with Ringo Star's Allstar band by now.

[hammerofthor]

How many of you would become rabid fans of Rush if CA was their first album?

[Lorraine]

How many of you would become rabid fans of Rush if CA was their first album?

Were you around in 1974? I was 20.

 

The reason why I like CA - it is a throwback to the seventies. So,, to answer your question, yes. They would have caught my attention because they would have reminded me of King Crimson and The Moody Blues.

[hem]

I hope that my rambling post about phases of a band's life was not too depressing. That was not my intention. Only tonight, I played "Rush" for the first time in a while and still found myself jigging along to "Take a friend" and then feeling profoundly affected by the intro of "Before and after". Then, what do you know, I was there chorusing to "The Wreckers" and shaking my thankfully still full, though now short, hair to "Headlong Flight".

 

My point, I think, was about how some people are able to produce magic, but it does often only occur within a timeframe. I believe it is usually time-related, or age-related, but perhaps circumstance-related is a better catch-all. I am sure, on second thought.

 

1977 - 1982?

 

If I were to judge Rush in terms of abilitý as musicians, I would start earlier and finish later. My 1979 - 1984 comment was simply to express what I believe to be their golden years where they married musicianship with musicality, and accessability without compromise or loss of integrity. Before that I reckon they were difficult to reach for many. After, they became a little too easy. I liked the middle bit.

 

Bottom line? I fell in love with this band in about 1982 or so. I fell out of love with them by "Presto". I still buy their albums. I still listen to them every week. Very few bands have afforded me such long-lasting pleasure, and for that, I can never complain, though as a human being and paying customer, I feel I am allowed to have an opinion.

 

I wish everyone a fantastic new year.

[Irenicus]

I understand the contention that they don't really write memorable melodies anymore- and that those have largely been replaced with crushing, balls-to-the-wall riffs.

 

Problem is, the riffs are mostly not really crushing and balls-to-the-wall, but rather dull and plodding.

[Geddyleegenes]

Love The Wreckers, Wish Them Well and especially Headlong Flight. The rest has faded for me. Can't even identify some of the songs by name when they come around in the shuffle.

 

Moving Pictures is almost completely fantastic. The Camera Eye is a bit too repetitive for me. Tom, Red, Y, Lime, Witch and Vital are absolute top stuff.

[canadianice]

Key word being " might", although i stand by my statement CA is a CLASSIC :rush: Edited December 31, 2014 by canadianice

[Powderfinger]

Headlong Flight is a great tune, and The Wreckers has a nice enough melody. The title track is interesting. Beyond that I am not a fan. In fact, I found the album very disappointing. To be sure, I perhaps consider it their best since at least Counterparts, maybe even Hold Your Fire. Yet, I like it the least because it is the most underwhelming when accounting for my expectations (and yes of course, I understand that is my problem, and not the album's). I bought into the pre-release hype, and considered the band's decision to perform almost all of it live a sign that they were truly proud of it. So I anticipated a better album. But most days I cannot recall how 3/4 of the songs on the album go. So the songs aren't there for me.

 

Moreover, they've sort of been stuck in this turn-of-the-21st-century, sanitized, metal-rock production mode that is passé. They fell behind the curve for the first time in their career. I just prefer Rush when they sounded more organic, and a little more analog. In my appraisal, Terry Brown was just as important to Rush as Eddie Offord was to Yes, really another member of the band.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone's sensibilities. I still adore Rush, and I'll always support them. But like most older artists I follow, their best albums appear to be behind them.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Powderfinger

[bluefox4000]

Frankly i'm glad the CA love has died a little........it was opressive around here in 2012.

 

Mick

[LedRush]

It's a great album, and in the 5-8 range for me. But the production hurts it, and it lacks a bit of magic that the best have.

[EagleMoon]

Frankly i'm glad the CA love has died a little........it was opressive around here in 2012.

 

Mick

 

You weren't the only one who didn't care for it right off the bat.

[bluefox4000]

Frankly i'm glad the CA love has died a little........it was opressive around here in 2012.

 

Mick

 

You weren't the only one who didn't care for it right off the bat.

 

lol.......it was so lonely in that position in 2012 though. it was criminal to dislike CA, lol

 

and the blind love was akin to the Clockwork Angels in the story, llol

 

Mick

[EagleMoon]

Frankly i'm glad the CA love has died a little........it was opressive around here in 2012.

 

Mick

 

You weren't the only one who didn't care for it right off the bat.

 

lol.......it was so lonely in that position in 2012 though. it was criminal to dislike CA, lol

 

and the blind love was akin to the Clockwork Angels in the story, llol

 

Mick

 

You mean half human, half mechanical cyborg?

[goose]

Not even close. The production alone kills it and just for kicks the tunes aren't really even that close either for me. Probably just old man talk but it is what it is....

Whatever.

[Snyder80]

Comparing Clockwork Angels to Moving Pictures is akin to John Travolta's character in Pulp Fiction trying to compare a foot massage to cunnilingus to which Sam Jackson's character responds:

 

"...ain't no f***ing ballpark neither. You know maybe your version of a foot massage differs from mine but touches his wife's feet and sticking your tougnue in the holiest of holies ain't the same ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same f***ing sport."

[Snyder80]

But hey I prefer Presto to Hemispheres. It is cool with me for someone else to go against the grain!

 

When I read this statement, I got to the H at the beginning of the word Hemispheres before I was erupting a volcanic blast of bile into the trash can next to my desk.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Snyder80