Clockwork Angels: Any opinion

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...

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.

Just heard the whole album for the first time.

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.

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.

By the way.....this thread prompted me to check out a few songs of Usher.  I had somehow managed to never hear of him all this time and I was surprised to know he was so hugely successful.  Thanks are order to Textbook for that slight thread derailment.  It's not music I will be crazy over but I like to chill out listening to good pop singers and unless every note Usher sings is faked, he is, sorry, a far more talented singer than Geddy...imo, of course.  Reminiscent of Stevie Wonder...monster riffs especially on Caught Up.  Wish he sang some old school R&B though...

And with that, back to Rush.

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.

 

Catcher10 wrote: Zune Top 100 Albums/Rock/Classic Rock (Zune genre categories are weird sometimes)   1. Rush - Clockwork Angels

Did I just find someone else who has a zune? Holy balls!

And by the way, top notch profile picture dude, made me actually laugh out loud.

Well I've heard it for about 30 times now, and it is really good, I haven't enjoyed one of their albums like this since Counterparts. Of course it's not their 70's stuff but it is good no doubt.

I got this album a few weeks ago, and have been listening to it regularly, and I must say I enjoy it a lot. Before it, I had just gotten their classic albums (all the albums from 2112 up to Moving Pictures), and I'm afraid I was thinking about going no farther than that, because the rest of the albums are not considered as good, and I had felt they wouldn't be able to bring much more. I know most of you wouldn't agree with me, but even though I enjoyed all those albums pretty much, I couldn't help but feel that they were too similar between them, and as I bought them one after another, I just felt like I had heard that already. Now, Clockwork Angels felt fresher to me, something different (well, it had to be, after 30 years), and though it may sound like heresy, I belive I enjoy it more than their 70's classic albums. I really liked it's heaviness and so. Now, the thing is, given this, which other album would you recommend me to check? Some other of the 2000's albums? Or perhaps some recent live album from them? I'm wondering if they have played some of their 70's classics with the same heaviness they showed on this latest release. Oh, and by the way, I also found Geddy's voice very nice on this album. Perhaps not better then in the 70's, but no worse either (though perhaps some studio magic had something to do with that). Anyway, great album.