Review 1 of 50

msreilly2002 writes:

Not Rated

A good Rush album, perhaps their best since 1987, despite some flab here and there. Among the best songs are the instrumentals, which are truly great, and Far Cry. Not as good as Moving Pictures or Signals; personally, I like the early analog synth sounds(they got too digital around Power Windows) and less acoustic guitar. However, let RS talk up crap like Beggar's Banquet and subpar Dylan records while these guys keep actual music listeners entertained.

Aug 2, 2008 16:49:18

Review 2 of 50

parisfalls writes:

5of 5 Stars

After seeing the rush article in the current (July) R.S. I almost, I mean almost bought it. The article said there were more Rush stuff on the website. The only thing I saw was a shortly worded crappy review of the new Rush album. Maybe if Rush called themselves indie or wrote a blistering song against Bush or had Scorsese make a documentary about them they could get respect. Maybe an Amy Crackhouse meltdown or a spot in an overpriced sweaty "festival" where bands somehow manage to play a 30 minute set intead of a real tour would help. Or maybe they should make a film about the environment that will completely overshadow your wife's full out assault on music and freedom of expression. Rush never needed hype and never will. Don't try and cash in on them now R.S.

Jul 7, 2008 17:05:17

Review 3 of 50

jdawgnoonan writes:

4of 5 Stars

First off: Rolling Stone, your review is insulting. Obviously you only care about pop culture.

Secondly: Did you make it through one spin of this album?

My review: Fortunately there are still some bands who value music and growth in the expression of music. This album makes many statements about the current state of the world from this bands point of view all of course set to very well written music. Rush is not a band that sticks to any particular formula. Thus they are not the darlings of magazines like RS however they have legions of fans globally who have followed them for years.

This is a great album regardless of what Rolling Stone thinks.

May 23, 2008 15:25:22

Review 4 of 50

cstoppa01 writes:

5of 5 Stars

I am a "newish" fan of Rush. My husband turned me on to it even though I have heard them for years on the radio. I love bands like this because this is REAL music. I think the so-called critics here have been brain washed by the crap "artists" put out now. I totally dig their new CD and love their older stuff as well, At least they stayed true to their music and style.

Sep 6, 2007 07:10:34

Review 5 of 50

tigers88 writes:

5of 5 Stars

From reading the "review" by Mr. Sheffield, it's clear that he has little or no understanding/appreciation for bands like Rush and their music. It sounds like he only made it through the whole album once, if at all. I think this is their best album in a while. "Far Cry" is killer, and even more so live. I went and saw them in Detroit on August 28, and I was blown away. Didn't sit at all during the show, except for the intermission halfway through the set. Rush is still rocking into their 50's, and doing it better than almost every band half their age. Definitely not a nostalgia act. Snakes and Arrows is a must-have for the Rush/prog rock fan. Killer album!

Sep 4, 2007 19:20:03

Review 6 of 50

djt1977 writes:

5of 5 Stars

I love this album. Took a few spins to appreciate, but now it's on my Top 20 favorite album list. "Far Cry" is one of the best songs released recently. Definitely a vast improvement over their '80s stuff. No synths, just raw guitar, bass, and drums. 100% pure rock, no filler material. Check out "Workin' Them Angels" and "Bravest Face". Also, some good instrumentals like "The Main Monkey Business".
Again they come through after releasing "Vapor Trails" another good Rush album.

Aug 31, 2007 20:53:24

Review 7 of 50

53PiercisionBass writes:

5of 5 Stars

When I first heard this album, I immediately thought that it was a worthy addition to the Rush discography; one that would be accepted far and wide as Rush's best album in quite some time. Unfortunately, it would seem that those views aren't shared by the reviewers at Rolling Stone. Quite frankly, I was disgusted by the terse, 3-sentence bash of Rush given as a "review". I agree with Martythedwarf on this: you don't have to like Rush, but you could (and should) show them <i>at least<i> the same respect that you show Marilyn Manson when they released a new album.

Aug 28, 2007 15:24:19

Review 8 of 50

Scooch writes:

4of 5 Stars

I actually give this album 4 and a half stars. In my opinion, this is not their best, but it's the best album they've done since 1987's Hold Your Fire. Each member sounds inspired and prove that in their mid 50's, they can still rock better than most bands half their age. I can handle the fact that RS doesn't 'get' Rush, but their review of this album, as funny as it is, shows no one even listened to it. Maybe next time someone will spend more than five minutes to listen to and review their album.

Aug 26, 2007 13:02:25