Rush Clockwork Angels- 2012
RMR Album Rating- 10 (Perfect)
Rush took a back to basics approach to their songwriting on their storybook concept album Clockwork Angels. This resulted in a new overall sound fueled by their fiery filled playing, and the outcome is arguably Rush’s best album.
Personally, I can’t call Clockwork Angels my favorite Rush album because I have a nostalgic anchor that has been buried for decades deep in the sands of albums like A Farewell to Kings, Hemispheres, Moving Pictures, Signals, Power Windows, and Hold Your Fire. And, I don’t think there could ever be a wave, even one as powerful as Clockwork Angels, that could move that un-rusted anchor. However, listening to Clockwork Angels objectively, I will say that although it might not be my personal favorite Rush album, I think it is their best album.
The sound of Clockwork Angels really grew out of Rush’s writing process for the album. Rather than building a rigid and structured foundation for their songs, Rush has commented that most of the songs grew out of their jamming sessions, and this is apparent on some of the album’s best tracks, which take the listener through a fluid and unstructured tunnel of mazes filled with searing guitar work, complex bass rhythms, and spiraling staircases of drum mastery. As a result, the songs are longer and more complex– weaving in and out of chaotic stability. The album as a whole is also arguably more energetic than any other Rush album; it is completely relentless from start to finish. The best examples of these jamming style songs are the title track, “The Anarchist,” and “Headlong Flight.” The latter is particularly impressive with its countless twists and turns, starts and stops, and even a drum fill nod to “Bastille Day” from Rush’s 1975 album Caress of Steel.
Click here to listen to Clockwork Angels
Click here to listen to The Anarchist
Click here to listen to Headlong Flight
There’s also “Caravan” and “BU2B.” These two tracks are not quite as extended or epic as the aforementioned tracks, but they have just as much interminable energy as anything else on the album. “Caravan” is the opener, and it sets the core sound for the album right away. “BU2B,” the album’s second track, starts with a slow 1-minute build up. Then, the song quickly kicks in to become one of the heaviest songs on the album. It is another major winner, and its slow intro and build up is reminiscent of the way “Natural Science” starts from Rush’s 1980 album Permanent Waves. (Click here to listen to BU2B)
Another major highlight is “The Wreckers,” which is less heavy and much more upbeat than most of the tracks, but it is unbelievably catchy, and it has an amazing chorus highlighted by one of Rush’s greatest lyrical bridges. After several refrains of the main chorus, Geddy uses his signature falsetto to deliver the vocal bridge of “All I know is that memory can be too much to carry/ striking down like a bolt from the blue.” Those lines are the absolute vocal peak of the album. (Click here, and listen for the bridge at about the 4:10 mark on The Wreckers)
There is not a weak song, or even moment, on the album, but in addition to the intricate instrumentation and vibrant vocals, everything is tied together with a storybook style concept. Rush has done extended concept songs before like “2112” and “Hemispheres.” Plus, they have done full thematic albums such as Power Windows and Hold Your Fire, but they have never done a true story style concept album.
So with Clockwork Angels being their first, they were very careful not to let the story take precedence over the music. Neil Peart stated that the lyrics and the song introductions (which are printed in the liner notes before each song) are really just footnotes to the full story, which is at heart an adventure story that chronicles the travels, many perils, and ultimate discovery of inner peace by the central character. Peart did a phenomenal job of creating a vividly detailed steampunk inspired aesthetic for the story’s setting, and there are many lyrical references to clocks, gears, and even a god-like watchmaker who seemingly acts as the overseer of the fictional world, but the real genius of Rush’s first full concept album is its execution. Not only do the lyrics provide a narrative for the concept, but the musicality of the individual songs is also directly correlated to what is happening in the story. Most of the songs, as mentioned, are chaotic and filled with twists and turns, and these twists and turns tie directly to the “series of misadventures,” “tragedies,” and narrow escapes that the protagonist experiences throughout the story. Ultimately, the story concludes with the protagonist finding inner peace, and the final song on the album also portrays a sense of musical peace. (Click here to listen to the final song on the album: The Garden)
Taking the album’s story as a whole, there are enough plot details for the listener to be satisfied, but at the same time, the album does not tell the full story. Personally, I like that Rush left some details out, as it leaves part of the story open to interpretation, and there is a full-length Clockwork Angels novel coming out in the fall of 2012 that will tell the complete story. Kevin J. Anderson (best selling science fiction author, and long time friend of Neil Peart) will write the novel.
I also want to point out the production of the album. It is crystal clear, and it incorporates very subtle orchestrated string work on many of the songs. Plus, there is beautiful classical piano work on “The Garden.” Much of the production credit should go to Nick Raskulinecz who co-produced the album with Rush. Nick played an integral role in the album’s sound, and he acted as not only the producer of the album but rather the conductor of Rush’s hard rock symphony.
Going back to my opening comments, it is certainly a bold claim to say that almost 40 years into Rush’s career, they would be capable of recording their best album, especially since their back catalog is worshiped by fans and is ranked 3rd in sales behind only The Beatles and The Rolling Stones for the most consecutive gold or platinum studio albums. However, when you take the sum of all the album’s parts like the intricate jamming, the heaviness, the energy, the choruses, the concept, the production, and the subtle orchestration, it equals everything that Rush perfected in the past and adds a current spin to it. Clockwork Angels is a pure stroke of genius; it is an absolute treasure for long-time Rush fans, and it would make a perfect first Rush album for a new fan. Lastly, although it would make a fitting one, I just hope it is not Rush’s swansong.
Rate this album now! Scroll over the stars and click to rate.
Loading ...
(3 reader ratings, average: 3.67 out of 5)
I routinely read music criticism sites and love compendium sites such as Metacritic as they distill varied reviews in an accessible format. I came across your site and am intrigued by the emphasis on certain bands and styles.
Please help me out as I have never understood the appeal of the band Rush. In high school many friends would write the band name on their book covers and talk about Neil Peart’s drumming. I was told a good introduction to the band would be the live album Exit Stage Left. I played it but never understood the appeal.
To begin, Geddy Lee has arguably the worst voice in pop music. It is shrill and abrasive. He sounds like a warbling castrato.
The songs. I do not understand the appeal of trite concepts such as Spirit of the Radio, Red Barchetta, and Tom Sawyer. The radio is fun, red cars are cool. There is no depth.
The lyrics. A modern-day warrior
Mean mean stride,
Today’s Tom Sawyer
Mean mean pride. Huh?
The album art. What is going on with the stupid literal jokes. Moving pictures: oh, they are moving these pictures around. Power Windows: I see, the window in the room is powered.
I just do not understand the appeal. The cheap poorly understood new age mysticism, the bad songs, the awful voice. It all seems like dumb cock rock.
To Salt Peanuts: Rush is certainly not a band for everyone, but no band really is. Most people that I know are not familiar with Rush at all, dislike them, or don’t care about music enough to have an opinion on them at all. Rush is definitely one of the most polarized bands around—in that people either love them or hate them, and it seems like you fall into the latter category, which is fine, and I’ll compliment you in that it seems like you have at least done your due diligence with them; you at least cite examples of reasons why you don’t like them, which most commenters don’t do.
So, here’s some feedback on your points because it seems like you’re actually interested. Or, maybe you’re not; either way, I like writing about Rush, so here you go. You mention Neil’s drumming. Neil is commonly cited as the greatest drummer of all time, but that is a matter of opinion. There are tons of excellent drummers out there: Mike Portnoy, Carl Palmer, Bill Buford, Phil Collins, Dave Lombardo, and many others. You also mention Geddy’s voice, which is without question the most criticized factor of Rush, and I can certainly see why people wouldn’t like it, but for me, it is one of my favorite parts of Rush’s music, and it is absolutely what peaked my interest in them, but as I mentioned, all of this is a matter of taste. I think an applicable analogy is Dylan’s voice, which I also love. Most of the music public can’t stand Dylan’s voice, but I absolutely love it as well.
In terms of songs, Neil writes the lyrics and he has been through several different periods of lyrical styles. You mention the Spirit of the Radio, which is exactly what you say above– a fun song about the Radio, and it is also an ode to the radio station that first played Rush. Red Barchetta is based on an article published in “Road & Track” magazine in the early 70’s. The article was a fictional story where cars were outlawed, and the song depicts this story quite well. Tom Sawyer is just about being a modern day rebel. I personally think Neil writes great lyrics and they always fit the music quite well, but I’m not trying to claim that he’s the Hemingway of lyrics or anything like that. It all just depends on what you’re looking for in lyrics, if you want true poetic lyrics check out Dylan’s “Desolation Row,” or “It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)”. But, when it comes to rock lyrics, I would take Neil’s lyrics over most of what is out there.
As the for the album art, Hugh Syme does most of their covers, and compared to most rock covers, I think they’re great; they are certainly better than just putting the band’s picture on the album. “Moving Pictures” has a triple meaning in that the movers are actually moving pictures (as you mentioned), but there are also bystanders crying and being sentimentally moved by the pictures (again moving pictures), and if you open the gatefold from the original LP, the whole scene is being filmed—hence moving pictures. I also really like the “Power Windows” cover. That album is a loose concept album on power, so the cover is just a simple take on the theme of power… nothing magical; just a guy in his room using a remote control to open his window (simple power)… I think it’s pretty cool.
Rush has one of most loyal fan followings in all of music, and some of these fans have been following them for almost 40-years. I think problems arise when fans can’t differentiate between their personal favorite band and other great bands. Rush has always resonated with me because their sound has a certain texture to it that just completely draws me in. That’s the only way I can explain it, but if a listener doesn’t hear that texture, then they’re not going to have the same listening experience. There has to be a clear difference between personal favorites and everything else, and that is true in any art, not just music.
If you really do want to explore their music further, I would recommend “Hemispheres,” “Moving Pictures,” “Signals,” and “Power Windows”. Or, if you’re just interested in what all the fuss is about, check out the movie that was recently made on Rush (2011). It answers all your questions much better than I just did, and even if you hate the band, it’s a cool documentary. Here’s the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk8hbSxY0sE.
My name comes from an old jazz standard and I do appreciate your thoughtful reply. I was generally interested in learning the basis for such rabid appreciation. Not just you, but all of my high school-well the males anyway. It is nice to hear a cogent careful reply to a question that I could never answer on my own. I know many fellas like you who quite favor the synth prog rock: Yes, Genesis, Rush, The Mars Volta and have always been intrigued by the appreciation. I often think people fall into music categories like Plinko chips. Some love and can listen to nothing but Jimmy Buffett, some love Dave Mathews Band, and some will pay to hear Radiohead burp on record. I never understood the Yes, Rush, Genesis appreciation-though I do love solo Peter Gabriel. A worthy response and much appreciated.
To Salt Peanuts and Mr. RMR: Excellent exchange. Props to both.
I liked this part:
“. . .their sound has a certain texture to it that just completely resonates with me . . .if a listener doesn’t hear that texture, then they’re not going to have the same listening experience. . . There has to be a clear difference between personal favorites and everything else, and that is true in anything, not just music.”
@ Salt: “Geddy Lee has arguably the worst voice in pop music”
Bingo.
I’ve heard Lee’s voice compared to Robert Plant’s, Dylans, etc… it falls on deaf ears to me. you cannot compare the attitude/energy, nor the poetic grit respectively.
Musically, it’s amazing that 3 people can put out such an impressive wall of sound.
As for Tom Sawyer, I saw the No BS Brass Band of central VA close with it and it completely rocked….. probably because the lyrics came from horns and a megaphone and not Lee’s shrill voice!
Nuance and the contextual theories of art and music to the rescue — Rush is a great band. However to me personally and relying on my own pure aesthetic experiences, I’ll take Zep and Dylan any day of the week.
To Mac: I love Dylan’s voice; it fits the music perfectly, so I won’t argue with you there. I like Plant’s voice as well, but it is a bit too normal for me, which I don’t don’t mean as a negative, I just gravitate toward more unique vocals, which Geddy Lee possesses, and as a result will always produce a polarized view of his singing. The other top vocalists for me also possess unique vocal styles such as Peter Gabriel, Peter Hammill, and Ian Anderson, and it is the uniqueness of their voices that draws me in, but it will also always produce criticism from some listeners.
I contend that Peter Gabriel has the most expressive voice in pop/rock. There is such a range of emotion from the frenzy of Shock the Monkey and I Have the touch to the intimacy of Mercy Street and Washing of the Water. As a musician, he is a bit lazy as he waits so long between proper releases but when he delivers he usually succeeds-US and UP while not perfect contain moments of excellence.
Again, I appreciate the thoughtful reply as this was an appreciation I could never understand. I also feel it takes a lot of courage to stand by a love of Rush. Even in the movie I Love You Man the appreciation of Rush was shown ironically. One of the harshest pop culture criticisms of the band comes from the movie Magnolia. In the two disc special edition they have deleted scenes featuring Frank TJ Mackey-the Tom Cruise character who promotes hateful seduction methods to lonely men. In the scene Frank TJ Mackey is calling a woman and manipulating/lying to her. It is indicative of his chicanery to dominate women and on his apartment wall is a large Rush poster-Chronicles, the greatest hits release. Now, there are no wasted details in a movie, the director selects carefully so it seems a connection is made between the character and Rush.
Ruch has always been the type of band some would insist you have to hear as they are life altering. Phish, Dave Matthews Band, Jimmy Buffett also fall into this category. However, upon listening I am left thinking that either I have missed some crucial aspect of the appreciation or that something is amiss.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply and, as stated, certainly applaud your courage in admitting your love of a band that is perennially ridiculed and thought of wholly unimportant by music writers and critics. I hesitate to bring in other reviews but since this is a music review site I suppose it is forgivable. Rolling Stone album guide rates their releases and they barely crest over three stars-three being average to good-with the majority of the albums rating at around 2 stars-fair to poor. Your defense is thoughtful and that certainly is to be respected.
Gabriel ranks right up there for me as one of the top vocalists of all time. You mentioned “Shock the Monkey,” from PG “Security,” which is a great track with great vocals. But, do you rank his vocal performances on his 80′s solo records above his early 70′s Genesis progressive rock vocals? For me, his all time top vocal performance is “Supper’s Ready” from Genesis’ 1972 album “Foxtrot.” The way he alters his vocal tone throughout the 20+ minute song and takes on the voice of several different characters is quite astounding to me (Same goes for “The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway,” from 1974).
Also, really interesting point on the movie Magnolia. I’ve seen the movie, but not the deleted scenes, so I never saw the poster. I agree that nothing is unintentional in that movie. So, here’s my take on the poster… the director could be a fan of Rush, so the poster could be partly an homage to Rush, but since the poster is of “Chronicles,” which as you mentioned is a compilation album, that would imply that the character is extremely shallow, for any “true” rush fan wouldn’t hang a poster of a Rush compilation album on his wall… because Rush is not a song oriented band, they are a album oriented band, and the chronicles album was really a record company contractual obligation… in other words it was a shallow album put together by the record company and not the band itself, so although I didn’t see the movie, my guess would be Shallow album = shallow character.
Lastly, if you like Gabriel’s vocals, you should really give Peter Hammill from Van Der Graaf Generator a listen. I have some audio clips from my “Pawn Hearts” review on my site. Here’s the link: http://recordmusicreviews.com/van-der-graaf-generator-pawn-hearts/
To Salty Peanuts: You mention that Rolling Stone doesn’t rate Rush albums very high, but apparently their fans do, as Rush was just named the “The best prog rock band of all time” in Rolling Stone’s recent reader’s poll. They beat out all other classic prog acts such as Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Genesis, King Crimson, Yes, and ELP. They also beat out the newer prog acts such as The Mars Volta, Tool, and Dream Theater (these were the top 10 bands listed in the poll). My point with this comment is not to try to convince you to enjoy Rush’s music (I can see why you and other people don’t… because everyone has different musical tastes), but I don’t think you give them enough credit as a band, and I think you might underestimate their impact on modern music. Here’s the link to the RS Story:
http://bit.ly/orDlUb
PS– you mention Peter Gabriel as one of your favorite vocalists and that you enjoy much of his 80′s output (as do I), but personally, I think he was at his best during the early 70′s with Genesis, and there’s a great youtube clip of him doing “Watcher of the Skies” from 1972 in the RS article that I posted in the link above. Genesis is ranked third behind Rush and Pink Floyd.