วีดีโอ

@@freedomNLG They are on the list for a full Ranking the Entire Catalog video. Had the pleasure to finally catch them live last summer and they were fantastic.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 wow so lucky, unfortunately for me I live in western Canada and they seem to never go there but will have to catch them sometime, will be looking out for that video!

@@freedomNLG They rarely ever tour since they haven't had a new album in ten years. I dunno know why they did this little east coast tour. Was a bit sad, in the venue only holds 400 people or so and it was like 70% capacity. But the band was great and the fans that were there were into it.

I cannot overemphasize how much I love that album. I was already a huge Marillion fan when it came out and never could have imagined the band could create a pop-sounding prog masterpiece but it's absolutely what they did. Thanks for the note!

agreed. Among the fans, it's rarely regarded as 1 piece/suite, but a few years ago it hit me how it really is like 1 41-minute SUITE or PIECE. Although my fanboy bias included, I would list Grendel or Ocean Cloud, however neither are 20 minutes long.

I bought it back around 85.or whenever it came out. its good musically but looking back at the lyrics, I cringe a bit

@@AllMediaReviewsPodcast Grendel is spectacular! I thought about it but yeah, not quite 20 minutes. One of the band’s underrated gems.

@@mikevincent6332 Hmmmm, I…cannot agree. I really enjoy the lyrics; they reveal a yearning heartbroken man trying to move on and eventually succeeding. I’m guessing you’re referring to the political stuff near the end?

Thanks Brennan!

It was literally my “first out” pick and I debated between Tarkus and Dazed and Confused.

That's dedication!

I think if you asked 100 Savatage fans their favorite song you might get 100 different answers. So many great songs and don't have those clear "fan favorites". I'll believe in Curtain Call when it's announced officially; they've been talking it up for a few years now. Am happy to hear about their upcoming show in Brazil, even if Jon isn't there. With Zak and Chris Caffery and Al Pitrelli and Jeff Plate and Johnny Lee Middleton you're getting a real version of Savatage. Hope it gets documented; we need a full video of a real Savatage show.

Thanks for contributing!

Thank you for taking time to comment!

agreed, the lateralus ranking hurt me. Reflection is one of my favorite tool songs so i was mind boggled by the ranking but everyone has their tastes i guess

@@shmugg1819 Yeah, Lateralus is definitely where my opinions seem to deviate from most Tool fans. I'm well aware I'm out of step here but...I'm just giving my opinion. Regarding Reflection, in many ways it perfectly illustrates the post-Aenima Tool that doesn't work too much for me. The beginning goes on for a full 4 minutes without any real progress; if you like this kind of repetitive, relatively ambient kind of music then this is terrific but for me it goes on much too long. Then we have the vocals with heavy effects, which Maynard uses extensively on Lateralus and quite often on other albums. I just prefer the aggressive, strong vocals that are more prominent on the early stuff. From about the 7 minute mark forward I think it's terrific, though it does drone a bit. I'm just sharing my feelings. I very much appreciate both of you taking time to listen and comment and also being graceful about differing opinions. When it comes to people's favorite bands or albums folks often get very defensive about anyone not sharing their enthusiasm so, again, thank you for being tactful.

Man, Parabol just doesn't work for me but I do understand why others like it. I feel it would it right in on some hippy late 60's psychedelic album. Again, I know I'm out of step with many Tool fans on these opinions so thanks for not being a Richard bc I don't love a song that you do. We all have different tastes and all I'm doing is sharing my thoughts. Thanks for taking time to listen and to comment.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 Hey man like I said each to their own. My tastes definitely lean more towards Aenima, Lateralus and 10,000 Days. I don't listen to Opiate or Undertow anywhere near as much as I do the later albums. Parabol leading into Parabola is one of my "Desert Island" moments, and I will never play Parabola without Parabol first. I'm almost 40, so Lateralus came out in my formative years and I've attached a lot of memories and emotions to those songs. First song I heard of theirs was Pushit Live on Salival through a friend, and it made me a fan for life. All that being said, I'd agree with 90% of your ratings with most of them being 100% 😂 If everyone liked the same stuff we'd have nothing to talk about. Thanks for posting 👌Totally agree on Disgustipated btw haha

To clarify, I don't have a problem with obscenity. My issue is with the inclusion what I consider non-musical nonsense as part of a listening experience. It's just not enjoyable (t0 me) listening to things like Harry Manback or Die Eier Bon Satan. I think they distract and diminish the "music" tracks and albums like Aenima and Lateralus would be better without them. I imagine Maynard would laugh at that. But as I mentioned in the vid, Tool wasn't interested in pandering to audiences and would often challenge us in a variety of ways. Sometimes in works but, for me, sometimes it doesn't. I very much appreciate you hearing me out and taking to comment. Hope you come back for more.

Hah...am always happy to take requests but I'm just not that much of a Cure fan and don't know their catalog very well. Savatage is probably next with bands like Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots, Kansas, Styx, Red Hot Chili Peppers on the horizon.

@therockrollsoapbox6075 I would recommend checking them out! defo gonna check the aic vid they're one of my favourite bands

@@scorclips8443 I'm very aware of The Cure - they're just not my kind of music. I'm more into prog / heavy / hard rock. My wife is a big fan of The Cure, as was a roommate I had in the early 90's. So I know the music. And I like the band, just not enough to invest in them like I have many other bands. Thanks for the comments!

Your mileage may vary.

Okay, two people saying I got it wrong is enough to make me go back and give I Love the Night another shot. And I agree - i't snot a 40% song it's a 60% song. My major issue with the song is I feel like the main theme is setting me up for a change and the song is going to take me somewhere else...but it never does. It stays in that same relatively quiet, mid-tempo lane and doesn't deviate, making it rather monotonous to me. This is made worse by the fact the chorus, so much as we have one, is not compelling. Combine that and you have what I think is a fairly pedestrian song but, yes, it deserves better than a 40. Your mileage may vary. Appreciate the comment.

See my response to another comment. I can understand why you and others enjoy it but it doesn't work for me. Again, thanks for commenting!

Yeah, they were always kind of the big whale for this channel both because I love them so much and their catalog is so big. I felt they deserved a real deep dive and that why I did the multiple vids. Appreciate you taking time to comment and hoped you enjoyed them.

I have to admit I've heard very little of it. What I did hear didn't impress me much but, TBH, I wasn't really open minded to BEING impressed. I'll give it another listen since you think it's good. I've actually had good luck with that with a few other bands where I dismissed an oddball album or two and then someone said "it's actually pretty good". Sometimes these obscure releases contain hidden gems.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 don’t think Triumph ! Think , does this suck or not ! I felt the same about Sport of Kings & Surveillance ! Eric Martin had already covered Just one night ! They must have had tbe same song cookie jar

@@christianpoint0888 Hah! That song is soooo bad.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 what song ?

Just One Night

Yeah, there's no comparing Hemispehers or Animals with Triumph. I really should have mentioned that Triumph wasn't a trailblazer or innovator and none of their albums were "classic" in they defined a time or had a clear cultural impact. I probably would not be a fan except they were there when I was 16 years old and the scratched a particular itch. Had I not discovered them until, say, my 30's I'm skeptical I would have liked their music. Sometimes music is about where YOU'RE at in your life at the time you're exposed to it.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 My post may have sounded sort of snobbish after re-reading it, but I listened to a lot of stuff that w wasnt as good as 'the best'.....whatever that is. Cheap Trick live at budokan I basically wore out I played it so much, but there's nothing groundbreaking about that band, imo. The Cars first album, waaaay outside of my normal style, but I played the crap out of that one, too. I really like Budgie, particularly the Bandolier album. None of those guys are virtuosos like the guys in Rush, but it's good stuff. I never want to come across like i'm bad mouthing any band or musician, just like the discussions and comparisons.

@@Heathcoatman Oh believe me you didn't; I totally get where you're coming from. There's a LOT of music I love that isn't "groundbreaking" or "must listen classic". I'd argue that a good portion of the music we all "love" isn't worthy of 40-years-later documentaries but nevertheless provided a lot of people joy and enhanced their lives. ANd any music that does that is a good thing IMO. I'm running out of bands with huge extensive high quality libraries so I'm going to start covering some of these 2nd tier bands bc they deserve some love too!

Thanks for the comment! Yeah, Rush were never fashion icons. Geddy in his kimono and cowboy boots is also something else. Thanks for noting that was Nick playing at the HoF ceremony; amazing how often producers or guitar techs step in to perform.

Thanks! And you might be right about 2112. I read where Neil said it was left open to the listener's interpretation on purpose. So there's no "right" answer.

You're almost certainly right.

Thanks for commenting! You comment about musicians becoming more melodic as they age is interesting. I don't disagree and will add that musicians also generally seem to become more "traditional" as they age. Example: Queen, in their early days, were absolutely gonzo in terms of arrangements, sound structures, use of vocals harmonies, etc. Just crazy stuff....but by the 80's they were basically writing traditional 4-minute pop songs. Bruce Springsteen's early efforts were equally "unstructured", if you will, but he eventually wrote almost exclusively straight-forward, traditional arrangements. This seems true of many bands. Red Hot Chili Peppers, Kansas, Genesis, Marillion. And it's really odd bc for most of these bands it's those zany, unstructured, non-traditional pieces of music that won them their initial acclaim and yet, they all seem to gravitate to traditional song structures.

Yeah, it's interesting. When I was young I just devoured live albums. They were often my first or second albums for bands I was getting into. Live at Leeds, Song Remains the Same, Two For the Show, All The Worlds a Stage, Alive and Dangerous, Live at Budokhan, Made in Japan....so many. But I've changed to where I really do much prefer studio versions and unless the band is playing the song differently from on the studio version...or they're playing something you can't get a studio version of...they're generally inferior to the studio version.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 Same here, maybe to a lesser degree but many of the ones you mentioned were my favorite in my collection at the time. Live at Leeds (the version of Magic Bus is soooo good), Live at Budokhan for sure. The day I bought a record player I had enough money for three albums. One of them was Some Enchanted Evening (BOC), which I listened to a lot. It was strange hearing the studio version of Dont Fear the Reaper after that because the live version is played faster. It sounded slow on the studio album. I never listened to Song Remains the Same, only jamming the studio albums until one night at a friend's house we watched it on VHS. I remember thinking 'is something wrong with Robert Plants voice?' The violin part blew me away, though. Rush is a little different for me though in that it's so detailed and nuanced and all of the levels are just the way they intended, etc. Hey, if someone puts on Exit Stage Left or any of them, I'm happy. I'm the guy that sneaks Hemispheres on then guards the turntable 😁

Thank you! Appreciate the feedback! Gotta admit I have a lot to learn regarding Genesis. I have the original albums with Peter Gabriel. And I just got the BBC Recordings live stuff, which is my way of starting to look at the later stuff. Kansas, Yes, Styx, RHCP, Stone Temple Pilots....any choices from those? They're prime candidates.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 I would vote Yes among these. Should be interesting. I like all of these choices.

@@Heathcoatman Eventually I'll do all of them but good to know there's interest out there.

"I agree the song writing picked up a lot in this era. Gone were the cooky songs about drinking honey dew or sci fi fights with dogs." So By Tor and Xanadu are cooky songs?

Man....Rush fan dunking on Xanadu! Anything is possible! Carl, appreciate your input on this channel! This type of discussion is exactly what I'm hoping to inspire.

Perhaps calling them synth driven is an overstatement, but I dont think it's in dispute that the guitar takes a step back and synths a step forward. Chemistry is another song from signals that has a lot of synth. People at the time could all tell the difference instantly. Still some great hooks and solos. I would argue that although Rush always tweaked their style from album to album, the tweak between Moving Pictures and Signals is one of the biggest changes.

@@Heathcoatman I can agree that there is much more synth on Signals than Moving Pictures. Signals was a large step from Moving Pictures to a more synth heavy sound. From MP to Signals was one of the bigger transitions of their career but I do not think it was the biggest even in regard to synths. But it was a progression. I think you agree. They changed their sound from album to album with some being more drastic. Like the huge difference between Hemispheres and Permanent Waves. I do think Signals is mostly still a guitar driven album. That was my contention or disagreement. I think the sound of Signals is closer to Moving Pictures and Hold your Fire. At least in the sense that guitars still drive most songs (not so much Subdivisions or Losing it (although the electric Violin largely takes the place of the guitar on the latter). Chemistry and the Weapon (maybe even more) has a good amount of synths. I do think the synths are still play more of the filler role than the guitar except maybe in the chorus of The Weapon that seems particularly synth heavy. I love Signals. It was the first Rush album I bought for myself. Not the first I heard but the first I bought. To me the classic Rush albums are Fly by Night, 2112 - Grace under Pressure, and Counterparts. Clockwork Angels is really good and so are some of the other albums I did not name. The very low point is Hold your Fire which has some of the only Rush music I have never liked at all. It still has a few good songs especially when performed live. But Counterparts is the only Rush album after Grace Under Pressure that is a true classic album to me. Caress if Steel is a good album but they were not ready for the true prog epic. Not yet. Albums like Power Windows, Presto, Roll the Bones, and Test for Echo suffer from production. Cold or thin sounding music. No grit. I really like Power Windows but it seems such a huge jump away from rock then Hold Your Fire became a tonal mess.

@@carlpeterson8182 Yeah, further proof that music is subjective. Other than the Debut album to FBN, I think the MP to signals jump is the biggest. Just my opinion. I also thought it was odd that you compared MP to Hold your Fire. I dont see the similarity at all. MP is an all-time iconic album and Hold Your Fire is my least favorite Rush album. Also on Chemistry, and not just the heavy synth intro, there are huge sections where Alex is just doing a muted 3 chord almost reggae part, almost like he's just accenting Neil. It's a simple melody during this part, but it's a synth melody....it leads. Again, important to understand that I'm not saying it's a synth album, I agree that there is Alex, playing lots of solos and leading the tune here and there, it's just s step back. If you listen to everything from Rush to Hemispheres, this is a lead guitar driven band. The melodies, the whole structure of their music is based on Alex. Geddy shreds, he leads here and there, his fills are epic. Neil is always just driving the song in all of it's directions, but the absolute core of these songs is Alex and his guitar. Look at By-Tor or Necromancer or the entire Fountain of Lamneth. 2112 is a song about a guitarist, there's the huge section where the lead is learning to play the guitar in his cave. The reason the went from a gymnasium band in Toronto to touring with groups like Kiss or Aerosmith (et al) is because some DJ in Cleveland heard Working Man, basically a 7 minute song with a 5 minute guitar solo. That was their break. Jump to Signals......where did Alex go? (exaggeration) What I have noticed is that in many cases older Rush fans, those that listened in the early days (dont mean this in any elitist way) are more likely to say 'starting with Signals Alex takes a step back' and younger fans or people who discovered them in a later part of their career are less likely to say or think that. It often depends on where they were in their catalog when you first started loving them.

@@carlpeterson8182 Of course I had to go listen to Signals after this discussion, haha. Another song that may even be the best example of what I was talking about is Analog Kid. While Alex has a really cool hook in this song, there are huge sections where he is just playing very basic chords in the background. You can barely even hear him during the chorus. Great hook, amazing solo, huge sections of studio musician caliber backing guitar. Sorry to ramble.

@@Heathcoatman I will attempt to reply to both your replies here. First I was not comparing MP to HyF. I was arguing that Signals sounds more like MP than HyF. There is a progression from album to album and Signals sounds much more like its predecessor than what they would become. Second, there is a difference between being guitar and synth driven and not having a good or complex guitar part. For instance I do not think the guitars on Def Leppard's Pyromania are that complex and sometimes they seem somewhat sparse. But I would still say that album is a guitar led album. I do believe there is a big difference between Signals and MP when it comes to synths and guitars. Much more synths on Signals that were part of MP but not as prevalent. Signals had a much more 80's sound with it love of the new synths. Also the guitars are less complicated. Alex started changing his style. I do not like it as much even though I love Signals and Grace Under Pressure. I do not think I am a new Rush fan at all. I was born in 1972 but they have been my favorite band since 1980 or 81 and I heard them before then. I know a lot about the progression of their music from a bluesy style to more progressive, to shorter popular songs, to synths, and then back to the 3-piece rock band, etc. I personally think the biggest jump is from Hemispheres to Permanent Waves. They stepped down the prog a lot and went for songs that had more regular running times. Even the longer songs they did on PW and MP were not as complex as on a Farewell to Kings or Hemispheres. Huge change. A close second is the change from Rush to Fly by Night. Peart changed a lot. Very early on Rush's songs featured the guitar more than later ones. But that really started to change on Fly by Night. Rush to me has always been led by the mixture of all three since Fly by Night. I guess one could say that the rhythm section (bass and drums) leads more on some pieces but that is true on YYZ so it did not just happen in the synth era. But Lifeson did start playing less. And I know 2112 is about a guitarist but that does not mean the guitar is the main driver of all the songs. Look aT Tom Sawyer. Often the bass is leading as much as the guitar on that song. Often they are playing similar parts or one picks up the same part from the other. That is what Geddy does during the guitar solo on Tom Sawyer. Anything on the first album is very different. It was mostly guitar. Rush was not much unlike Led Zeppelin and many other bands that featured almost exclusively a guitar only or mostly lead. That might be an overstatement but after the first album Geddy and the drums were much more. That is one reason why I always liked Rush. They were not like Van Halen or AC DC. Those bands rhythm sections were their almost just to set up the lead guitar. There are times on some VH albums and especially one Metallica album in which you cannot hear or have trouble hearing the bass and even the drums besides just a mess of sound. The bass especially gets drowned out. I love when all parts are heard. Like The soloing on Freewill. Or the great intro of Anthem. I think I responded to your points. Sure, Signals was a change and I did not like the overall point it took the band. I just think those early album (Signals and Grace Under Pressure) are still classic albums and do not take the synths too far. The sound starting on Power Windows through really Roll the Bones and Test for Eacho (although maybe for a slightly different reason) was not the best Rush. I like it better than Vapor Trails and Snakes and Arrows for the most part. Maybe only Nostalgia but those albums are good live. The studio recordings are just not always that great. But Rush has always sounded better live. The studio recordings just do not sound as thin and cold/ mechanical as they did during that time.

You're welcome. Exactly what I was hoping to achieve; to help some fans gain some more understanding. Appreciate you watching and taking time to comment.

Yeah, I think if you look at my ratings you'd see I'm not a huge fan of the early years. Don't think they really learned to write proper songs until Meddle. Agree with you that the Waters egoism detracts from The Wall but I still really enjoy both TW and The Final Cut. I just cannot get into Division Bell and MLOR; they just lack the dynamism and theatricality of the Waters 70's efforts. We'll agree to disagree there.

I don't think you can wrong with either of those three. They are my top 3 and you could talk me into any one of them being the best or 3rd place. I choose to exalt all - just incredibly fantastic musicians each one. Interesting, all three contributed significant vocals (Geddy obviously) but both John and Chris played big roles with backing vocals.

YEah, you and I feel pretty much the same about BS's catalog, except for Vol.4. and Mob Rules. I bought a cheap boxset that had ALL the album other than 13 (I'm pretty sure it's cheap as Chinese bootleg of dubious quality) and none of the later albums resonated with me. There's a few good songs here and there and Tony Martin deserved better bc he's a quality Dio clone. That show with VH, Hagar, BS and Boston sounds fun. I went to Texxas Jam II in 1979. Lineup (as I recall): TKO Sammy Hagar Blue Oyster Cult Van Halen Heart Boston A defining show in my life.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 Wow, that's a great lineup. Never saw Heart and I regret that. The Angel Stadium show started around 1pm with Van Halen parachuting in behind the stage, then they ran up on stage in white jump suits, unzipped them and were wearing all black. They started with Jamies Crying and everyone went wild. Nobody really knew who they were yet, they only had a couple of songs just starting to get airplay, but because they were from Pasadena (local) there were a lot of VH fans there. It was years later when I got a tad bit wiser I realized that those were stunt doubles who parachuted in, but as a 13 year old I thought it was just awesome.

Thanks for commenting Dennis. Yeah, not surprising we vary. With a band like Rush, who constantly evolved and went through different stages fans will have their disagreements. Seems like on the early stuff we largely agree and it's the later stuff we diverge. Not soo surprising. My guess on why your ranking is 2112 is lower is....you're probably weighting each song equally? So the 20-minute 2112 is getting the same weight as the 3.5 minute Tears? I'm guessing that's how you did your ratings? That would mean side 2, with 5 songs gets 5X as much "weight" as side 1. I take song lengths into account in my ratings. Works like this: 1. Establish the maximum number of possible points for a song: multiply the song's number of seconds by 5 (5 being the highest possible rating). 2. Establish the actual number of possible points for a song: multiply the song's number of second by the actual song rating (1,2,3,4 or 5) 3. Add up the maximum and actual points for all songs from an album 4. Divide the actual points by the maximum points to get the final rating For 2112 it would look like this (song name / maximum points / actual points): 2112 (5-star): 6195 / 6195 Bangkok (3-star): 1075 / 645 Twilight Zone (5-star): 995 / 795 Lessons (4-star): 1165 / 932 Tears (4-star): 1070 / 856 Something for Nothing (5-star): 1235 / 1235 Total possible points: 11,735 Actual Points: 10,894 Final rating: 10894/11735=92.8% = 93. Hmmm...I listed 94 so, not sure what happened. I'm sure that's more geeky and much more involved that you ever expected. But I feel the length of a song is important, especially with bands that play 8-10-12-20 minute songs like Rush or Floy or Dream Theater. Anyway, thanks again for commenting! Appreciate all of you watching.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 Interesting - thanks for your detailed reply. I did some weighting of the averages for long songs, but used a more rudimentary system than yours. I picked arbitrarily 2x weighting for 7-12 minute songs and 3x for >12 minutes. So, for example 2112 was weighted 3x and Camera Eye 2x. I never listened to 2112 until very recently, so I was aware of the historical significance but did not grow up listening to it like I did some of their 80's albums. It just has not grown on me compared to their other prog-rock era albums. I actually prefer both Cygnus X1 parts and Lamneth compared to the 2112 album side. Though the Overture is outstanding. Everyone has their favorites. I have noticed reading comments on TH-cam, that just about every song in their catalog gets a lot of enthusiasm and is the overall favorite of at least somebody.

@@dennisodell9835 Honestly, that approach is reasonable. Most songs are <5 minutes long, so I might have added a factor for every 5 minutes. Interesting you like COS but not 2112 as much; I'm not sure I've met anyone who would say that. Generally, if you don't like 2112 you REALLY don't like COS. Just goes to show, everyone has their own tastes. And yeah, vast majority of songs get love from someone. I'm not sure about some of the deeper cuts from Test For Echo would, however. Could be wrong; there might be someone out there who loves Dog Years.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 Hi again Michael - I don't know how to reply just to you so I will keep this public thread going. First off, I had messed up CwA calculation before so I have it as #7 not 3 now, which aligns better with my overall impression. As for Dog Years, yes some people get into that song. I don't even rate it as one of the 3 greatest clunkers on TFE - those would be Virtuality (the most un-listenable chorus in their catalog), The Color of Right and Totem. Also 3 clunkers apiece on my other lowest-scoring albums: Superconductor/Red Tide/Available Light, Neurotica/Roll the Bones/Big Wheel, Nobody's Hero/Double Agent/Speed of Love, and Sweet Miracle/Vapor Trail/Peaceable Kingdom. Presto has several very high points though. Next up for me: rating the Genesis catalog.

@@dennisodell9835 Oh no! Red Tide and Available Light are two songs on that list I really enjoy. I specifically mentioned Red Tide as an underrated gem (obviously, IMO, YMMV). Good luck with Genesis. I have the early albums and am just starting to explore the late 70's / early 80's with them. Never liked them much when I was younger so we'll see.

"I noticed on Tyranny and Mutation you are missing 7 Screaming Diz-Busters". Whaaaat? OMG. That's a massive mistake because that's definitely a top-5 all-time BOC song fro me. I'm wondering what happened and went back to my database and somehow that song wasn't included. When I add it to T&M the rating improves from 77 to 82 - not a huge difference but still. Do not understand how I messed that up; thanks for pointing it out! :)

Went back and listened to both The Vigil and I Am The Storm - both cool song names BTW. I've changed the Vigil from 3 stars to 4.....we'll see if it stays. But yeah, pretty dynamic song that for some reason never really resonated with me. I Am the Storm also sounds pretty good...but not enough to go to a 4-star for me. Always good to get feedback and based on it to reevaluate...so appreciate the comment.

Sorry? Are you kidding! Fantastic comments! Appreciate you taking time to contribute. Sounds like we’re pretty similar, though maybe diverge a bit on some of the keyboard-heavy stuff. Getting to see both Rush and BOC (I have a video on them too) from such close range had to be amazing. Once I saw Rush up close on MP tour it was really difficult to not be near the band. You can literally FEEL athe power and seeing those guys at such a young age was revelatory. Thanks again! I just posted pt 2 which isn’t as enthusiastic but, so be it.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 It was so great, the front row BOC/Rush concert. I'm a big guy, 6'7" and I was also in the Army so I was pretty buff at the time (that physique is LONG gone, haha) so I stood out significantly to both bands. I remember Geddy kept laughing at my 'enthusiasm' for the show and at one point, mid-song, Alex came over, gestured towards me and I swear he mouthed 'watch out for this guy' and they both laughed. I havent watched the BOC video but it's on my list. Love those guys. They used to play gigs in LA at small clubs under the pseudonym Soft White Underbelly. I saw them several times in that way and its so different to watch a band in a 50 seat venue than in a 20000+ seat arena. They are a tough band to classify, but my friends and I used to call them Monster-Billy. They really have several elements of a rock-a-billy band, like the Stray Cats, only considerably heavy and darker. The funniest way I've heard them described was: They are the band playing at the last stop bar before crossing the river Styx. I really love the older stuff, Secret Treaties, Agents of Fortune, Tyranny and Mutation, etc. (7 Screaming Diz-Busters is really underrated, Buck Dharma absolutely goes off on the guitar in that one)

@@Heathcoatman "They are the band playing at the last stop bar before crossing the river Styx" HAHA. That's about as good as any description I've heard. They really are hard to classify. You'd think with all the sci-fi and song names like Don't Fear the Reaper, Dominance and Submission, Flaming Telepaths they'd be these overly serious guys or a complete cartoon...and yet they somehow pull it off while winking and letting you know it's all good fun. That's a very fine line to walk and they did it beautifully. I also had opportunity to catch them twice in 80/81 and they were amazing. Got very close and Buck Dharma was so cool; throwing out picks endlessly to make sure anyone who wanted one got one. While also playing some of the best lead guitar you'll ever hear. Very cool band.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 Yep, and they just seem like they are having fun. Like they are just jamming in a garage and you got to sit in and watch.

Your mileage may vary! 😀

The title track isnt great, imo. It's a little too "should we try to make a radio song on this album?" I love Tolkien but Rivendell is a throwaway song.

Thanks for commenting Tom! Any ranking system is going to have strengths and weaknesses. I like mine bc it's consistent and easy to maintain. The weakness in my method is ther's no "album-level factor". For example, I did a Rush videos and based on an aggregate of the individual song rankings Power Windows comes out higher than Moving Pictures. But I would never argue PW is a "better" album than MP. An album score probably should account for things like how much impact it had upon release, it's long-term legacy, how influential it is, ect. I guess I'm saying....do it how you see best! Zero need to mimic anyone else. It's your list....make it exactly what you want it to be.

My first request - I'm honored! Yes is definitely on the agenda as I have all their albums except the last two - so can pretty easily do a comprehensive video. Jethro Tull is harder because I'm totally ignorant after Broadsword and the Beast. So, question....would you be interested in rankings that look at only a band's primary "peak" era? Like for Tull from This Was to Broadsword? Or a band like Kansas only the 20th century stuff?

@therockrollsoapbox6075 yes of course..while doing that you can research the rest😆😆🤟

@@johnwheatcroft1188 John I'm actually doing this with several bands that I have a lot of the catalog but kind of ignorant of the later years. Bands like Kansas, Styx, RHCP, Iron Maiden, Triumph. They're all sort of "on the agenda" but I'm checking out the albums I have mostly ignored so I can give thoughts on those as well. May not be comprehensive but still more complete. Great suggestion.

Thanks for taking time to comment! Appreciate the feedback.

Stephen I appreciate your comments. I'll check out Heaven Forbid but thus far haven't been able to find it on disc.

@@therockrollsoapbox6075 Thank you, I rarely watch long videos from start to finish but did yours so a measure of how interesting I found it. I've only listened to Heaven Forbid on TH-cam but it has some great tracks, the thunderous opener "I Want to see you in Black" and "Harvest Moon" being particularly good but it's all good and really heavy.