Clockwork Angels: Any opinion

rogerthat wrote: I think Jim said it: it sounds more Rush.  And maybe your views will be coloured by whether that's what you wanted to hear.  S&A was a little different, less fury and energy but more heart imo.  This is so far another Rush album that I can't really complain about but probably won't get into in a big way.

I think the litmus test will be how the songs translate live; I wasn't a big fan of S&A when it first came out, but the songs took on a whole new level when played live. I like the new one considerably more than I did S&A & although I don't think (yet) it's a classic (for me), I can see some of these songs will turn into monsters on stage.

I think Jim said it: it sounds more Rush.  And maybe your views will be coloured by whether that's what you wanted to hear.  S&A was a little different, less fury and energy but more heart imo.  This is so far another Rush album that I can't really complain about but probably won't get into in a big way.

Just heard the whole album for the first time.

Okay, I've only listened to the album through once so this is a first impression. I'll probably post another review after a few more listens. I guess I had some expectations for this album. It's good, but I'm not floored by it in any way. It would be difficult for me to even call this album progressive in my book, especially compared to things that I've heard in the past from Rush. Now there are definitely some great moments and I got a brief amount of excitement from the song The Anarchist, which is probably one of the best things I've heard from the band in awhile. However, I feel like the sound is just an extension of S&A. I don't really think there was a clear vision musically for this album. I like it when music is built to specifically fit the concept that the lyrics are trying to get across. This album has a clear concept lyrically, but I don't think the band made any experimental adjustments in both the composing and tonality of the songs to really distinguish any one thing from another. It was just a muddled muck of over driven layered guitar and driving bass. I really feel like a song doesn't necessarily have to have a "loud" sound to really make it feel like it's flooring. I just like some variation. In this sense, even an album like Abbey Road by The Beatles, which isn't even considered to be progressive, does a better job. Although themes in songs are repeated in that album, each song at least has a truly distinct feel to it, and I like that. I am by no means a Beatles fan, but I thought it would make a good rate of comparison for the point I'm trying to convey. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good themes in CA, but in the past Rush would start a song, build up to a good theme, regress to a melodic verse, and then build up to an even better theme. I feel as if in CA, Rush builds up to a good theme rather quickly, but then fails to really introduce anything more exciting later in the song or any movements in dynamics and tone. Now I can see myself easily being able to get hooked on some of these themes in time, however I wish there was well, ....more. Each song sounds like a jam session that they recorded, and decided was decent, so then they turn whatever the hooking concept was into a song and then tack on an easy to sing, yet not really flooring melody for Ged's limited vocal range on top. This wouldn't be such a problem if Rush had a little bit more discretion over what each song was supposed to sound like. Now the lyrics have a nice amount of depth to them, especially in certain songs yet I also feel as if Neil's atheism and organized religion bashing lyrics are turning into a bit of a recycled theme here.

Like many others I posted how I wasn't "feeling" this album, well 2 days later and it is begging to grow on me. One thing I really enjoy is that throughout the whole album you get glimpses of their past albums. I'll be saying this part sounds like GUP or this other part has that T4E sounds, or that this song could be on Roll the Bones. The latest one that comes to mind is a part in the eponymous track that sounds like a portion of The Twilight Zone...

Textbook wrote: Catcher/Geneyes: I venture to suggest that you do not know what you are talking about. Usher is not One Direction. He is a 33 yo R&B giant who has been at the forefront of the genre since his second album in 1997. He can sing, he can write, he can dance, he can put a catchy song together. He is also a philanthropist who works against AIDS and has helped to rebuild New Orleans out of frustration of the government's continued failure to do so. There is nothing shameful or ridiculous about him outselling Rush.

Textbook wrote: Catcher/Geneyes: I venture to suggest that you do not know what you are talking about. Usher is not One Direction. He is a 33 yo R&B giant who has been at the forefront of the genre since his second album in 1997. He can sing, he can write, he can dance, he can put a catchy song together. He is also a philanthropist who works against AIDS and has helped to rebuild New Orleans out of frustration of the government's continued failure to do so. There is nothing shameful or ridiculous about him outselling Rush.

Catcher10 wrote: I also read, for those that care about lists, it should chart #2 on Billboard this week behind Usher (isn't that a job at a theater?), due to the girly teenybop factor.

AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: Its good to see Counterparts getting a lot of respect here - i thought it was just me but so many love this album. The new album too is really a great come back by Rush in their golden years (they are aged in the 60s now)

Snow Dog wrote: I've always been a fan of Test For Echo. And Dog Years too. So I cannot agree. I am not one of the "we"

aparently its very grungy and that puts people off.