The Mick and Segue Music Commentary Thread

[bluefox4000]

I didn't have my partner for a while. so now he's back this can come back.

 

Spock's beard is still my current fav band.

 

I still have to hear the new Iron Maiden.

 

i'll post my thoughts here away from the Iron maiden hype orgy when i listen to it.

 

Mick

[Segue Myles]

Bon Jovi for the win!

 

The Iron Maiden album deserves the love.

 

Just not from me.

[bluefox4000]

On the third song of book of Souls.

 

It's Beautifully Arranged. Played.....sung.

 

Solid so far..........buuuuuuut.............haven't we heard this many uh.......many times before.

 

it's great.....but not be still my beating heart.

 

oh and the ending talk-y Part in If Eternity should Fall gave me the giggles. so silly.

 

Mick

Edited September 9, 2015 by bluefox4000

[Union 5-3992]

On the third song of book of Souls.

 

It's Beautifully Arranged. Played.....sung.

 

Solid so far..........buuuuuuut.............haven't we heard this many uh.......many times before.

 

it's great.....but not be still my beating heart.

 

oh and the ending talk-y Part in If Eternity should Fall gave me the giggles. so silly.

 

Mick

This record kinda hits Spinal Tap zone a few times, but it never does it in a way that ruins the music. If you enjoy Disc 1 at all, Disc 2 is where the magic really happens for me. Though they do blatantly rip off Wasted Years for the opening of one track. I treat them like 2 albums. Disc 1 is a fine addition while Disc 2 could stand toe to toe with some of the 80's music.

[Lorraine]

Mick and Segue, I have a question for the both of you.

 

In listening to Rush up against other bands of the same time period back in the seventies and eighties, how would you rate them? Overshadowed? Misunderstood? Outclassed? So phenomenal, they withstood being different to outlast all of the other bands? None of these? Other?

[Blue J]

Mick and Segue, I have a question for the both of you.

 

In listening to Rush up against other bands of the same time period back in the seventies and eighties, how would you rate them? Overshadowed? Misunderstood? Outclassed? So phenomenal, they withstood being different to outlast all of the other bands? None of these? Other?

 

I imagine that this will start some voluminous posting...

 

[Lorraine]

[Segue Myles]

Mick and Segue, I have a question for the both of you.

 

In listening to Rush up against other bands of the same time period back in the seventies and eighties, how would you rate them? Overshadowed? Misunderstood? Outclassed? So phenomenal, they withstood being different to outlast all of the other bands? None of these? Other?

 

One of a kind. I love so much music from the seventies and eighties, and although they infused their sound with current trends, they never truly fit in. Say what you want about Presto or Roll The Bones, but even they sound like no one else.

 

Rush are Rush. The first time I played Moving Pictures, in 2011, I couldn't believe it was an "oldie". It sounded timeless!

[The Analog Cub]

Segue you need to listen to the new Maiden. I'd love to hear your opinion since you're a fellow 2000's prog-Maiden lover. I've been spamming the first side and it's f***ing brilliant. Haven't even touched the second side yet, and I think I'll tackle it tomorrow after I'm done absorbing the first side. Edited September 9, 2015 by BowlCity

[Segue Myles]

I can at once understand why they weren't mainstream. They weren't trendy, or fashionable, or as uniformly accessible as big hitters like Van Halen or Foreigner, and whilst Journey were technically very accomplished, even they buckled to commercial appeal over artistic integrity.

 

Someone posted yesterday that MP lacks the soul of Hemispheres because it was more streamlined, closer to pop.

 

I argue it was a winner because it infused the heart and soul of great prog, rock and somehow made it work in a mainstream friendly format.

 

Compare Moving Pictures to Journey's Escape. No one can argue the talent, and the skill that went into both records. Both easily appeal to the same crowd. But MP stands tall as art and entertainment. Escape is simply darn good pop rock, but hardly revolutionary, hence its easier to market appeal and widespread success.

 

And when Rush turned to poppier music, from GUP to RTB, the quality varied, but even the clunkers sounded passionate.

[Segue Myles]

Segue you need to listen to the new Maiden. I'd love to hear your opinion since you're a fellow 2000's prog-Maiden lover. I've been spamming the first side and it's f***ing brilliant. Haven't even touched the second side yet, and I think I'll tackle it tomorrow after I'm done absorbing the first side.

 

I have to be brutally honest: it disappointed me, but not because I think it sucked, or was weak, but because NOTHING took me by surprise, and my breath was left intact. And from BNW to TFF, that never happened. Something always blew me away, even if it was something as simple as a well thought out intro.

 

I could rate the album a 9/10 or a 5/10. I cannot argue either. If I was new to them, I'd be over the moon.

 

Maybe it's a slowburner? I also HATED the outro to the first track.

[J2112YYZ]

Segue you need to listen to the new Maiden. I'd love to hear your opinion since you're a fellow 2000's prog-Maiden lover. I've been spamming the first side and it's f***ing brilliant. Haven't even touched the second side yet, and I think I'll tackle it tomorrow after I'm done absorbing the first side.

 

I have to be brutally honest: it disappointed me, but not because I think it sucked, or was weak, but because NOTHING took me by surprise, and my breath was left intact. And from BNW to TFF, that never happened. Something always blew me away, even if it was something as simple as a well thought out intro.

 

I could rate the album a 9/10 or a 5/10. I cannot argue either. If I was new to them, I'd be over the moon.

 

Maybe it's a slowburner? I also HATED the outro to the first track.

 

It's a 90 minute album, so it's definitely a slow burn. It's one of those albums you need to hear a handful of times before you can really get a good feel for it. 90 mins or new music is far too much to take in with one listen. I'm sure you'll give it another shot at some point.

[Segue Myles]

Segue you need to listen to the new Maiden. I'd love to hear your opinion since you're a fellow 2000's prog-Maiden lover. I've been spamming the first side and it's f***ing brilliant. Haven't even touched the second side yet, and I think I'll tackle it tomorrow after I'm done absorbing the first side.

 

I have to be brutally honest: it disappointed me, but not because I think it sucked, or was weak, but because NOTHING took me by surprise, and my breath was left intact. And from BNW to TFF, that never happened. Something always blew me away, even if it was something as simple as a well thought out intro.

 

I could rate the album a 9/10 or a 5/10. I cannot argue either. If I was new to them, I'd be over the moon.

 

Maybe it's a slowburner? I also HATED the outro to the first track.

 

It's a 90 minute album, so it's definitely a slow burn. It's one of those albums you need to hear a handful of times before you can really get a good feel for it. 90 mins or new music is far too much to take in with one listen. I'm sure you'll give it another shot at some point.

 

I don't dislike it, it isn't really a disappointment, it could grow on me, but at the same time it all seems so familiar I don't really see how I missed out on anything.

[bluefox4000]

Most i could about disc 1.........yup......it's Maiden, lol

 

Mick

[Segue Myles]

Most i could about disc 1.........yup......it's Maiden, lol

 

Mick

 

On the second disc it sounds an awful lot like Iron Maiden as well.

 

Yawn! Haha

[Lorraine]

Mick and Segue, I have a question for the both of you.

 

In listening to Rush up against other bands of the same time period back in the seventies and eighties, how would you rate them? Overshadowed? Misunderstood? Outclassed? So phenomenal, they withstood being different to outlast all of the other bands? None of these? Other?

 

Mick, I call your attention to my question. I know how shy you are when it comes to stating your opinion, but give it the old college try! :) :codger: :cheerleader: :hi:

[bluefox4000]

Mick and Segue, I have a question for the both of you.

 

In listening to Rush up against other bands of the same time period back in the seventies and eighties, how would you rate them? Overshadowed? Misunderstood? Outclassed? So phenomenal, they withstood being different to outlast all of the other bands? None of these? Other?

 

Mick, I call your attention to my question. I know how shy you are when it comes to stating your opinion, but give it the old college try! :) :codger: :cheerleader: :hi:

 

I think there were multiple bands way better then 70's Rush. Theyd did the prog thing good........but...........then you had bands like

 

Yes

Jethro Tull

ELP

Queen

Kansas

Pink Floyd

Genesis

Gentle Giant

 

even putting aside the prog thing.

 

you had bands and artists in other genres who i'd take over 70's rush

 

Elton John

Billy Joel

Zappa

Tom Waits

Boz Scaggs

 

The point is.....70's Rush is trumped easily by tons of people.

 

80's rush.......not many bands were better IMO. I'm serious about that too.

 

80's Rush is one of my favorite bands.

 

Mick

Edited September 10, 2015 by bluefox4000

[Blue J]

^ I'll agree with Mick's point that there was so much music in the 1970s that was so ridiculously good...and this is an aside, really, but I think there's something about where recording technology was, at that time...we didn't really see it in the '60s, and it had changed again by the early '80s...there's just so much music that was made in the '70s that sounds so tremendously rich, and well-balanced...

 

At any rate, I think that even though Rush had their prog peers and their heavy rock and roll peers...they really were the only ones who did it quite the way they did. To me, they do stand out among all of the prog bands and all of the heavier bands of that era.

[bluefox4000]

^ I'll agree with Mick's point that there was so much music in the 1970s that was so ridiculously good...and this is an aside, really, but I think there's something about where recording technology was, at that time...we didn't really see it in the '60s, and it had changed again by the early '80s...there's just so much music that was made in the '70s that sounds so tremendously rich, and well-balanced...

 

At any rate, I think that even though Rush had their prog peers and their heavy rock and roll peers...they really were the only ones who did it quite the way they did. To me, they do stand out among all of the prog bands and all of the heavier bands of that era.

 

it didn't hurt they had Geddy. He'd make any Band stand out, lol

 

and 2112 was a huge win for them after COS. very lucky.

 

Mick

[Blue J]

Agreed. I think it also has to do with the fact that they only had three members. ELP is the only other band I can think of who made such rich and complex music with only three people. And they were also singularly talented.

 

But who would I rather listen to all day long?

 

No contest.

[Segue Myles]

Agreed. I think it also has to do with the fact that they only had three members. ELP is the only other band I can think of who made such rich and complex music with only three people. And they were also singularly talented.

 

But who would I rather listen to all day long?

 

No contest.

 

I would rank King's X first three albums higher than both these bands.

[Blue J]

Agreed. I think it also has to do with the fact that they only had three members. ELP is the only other band I can think of who made such rich and complex music with only three people. And they were also singularly talented.

 

But who would I rather listen to all day long?

 

No contest.

 

I would rank King's X first three albums higher than both these bands.

 

See, I didn't even think of King's X! I guess because they didn't come along until somewhat later.

 

I like them, but I'm not as blown away by them as some of you around here are. (But I think I've only heard two of their albums, and that's it).

[bluefox4000]

King's X are good. but i can't put them in the classic band's catigory i just can't.

 

 

Great first 3 albums though......i get a little bored after that though.

 

Mick

[Segue Myles]

I bet why you think that of King's X.

 

But as far as I am concerned, Faith Hope Love is better than nearly everything else on the planet.

[bluefox4000]

I've been absorbing Disc 1 of book of souls. and it just doesn't hold my Attention. it's good Maiden but.....Frustrating.

 

I need to try disc 2.

 

It's happened again. Albums failing to live up to the hype. Why does everybody fall victim to new album shine but me, lol

 

Mick

Edited September 10, 2015 by bluefox4000