Talk:Clockwork Angels

19th or 20th[edit]

I don't have a personal preference either way, but we should strive for consistency. Currently we have been treating Feedback (Rush album) as an EP (and it is listed as such in the template and I believe the Rush discography) and not a true "studio album", as in new Rush material. LedRush has brought up the important fact that the band refers to it as a studio album, and some sources refer to this upcoming album as their 20th. So, the question obviously is, which is it? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the EP is technically created in a studio and is an album, I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter (though I tend not to think of Feedback as a "real" studio album). However, seeing as the band does have an opinion, I say we listen to them.LedRush (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall this dilemma presenting itself back when Snakes & Arrows was released. I guess the consensus was to refer to it as "full-length studio album". What are you feelings? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My heart says that Feedback shouldn't count as a studio album, but my brain tells me that if it isn't live, it's a studio album. On the Rush article discussion page, in 2008, a wise man said "I decided to include feedback in the list of Rush studio albums - it seems quite accurate and no harm can come from it. Afterall, the main distinction seems to be between live verse studio anyway." Maybe that is the right answer...to include it both as an EP and a studio album. I don't mind if we say it is Angles is the 19th full length studio album, but do we have a citation for that? Is that original research?LedRush (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be that this should be 19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums LedRush (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, changed to fit with consensus. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I heard in some interview with Geddy and Alex that they referred to it as their 20th studio album. I'll have to look for it. --Pmsyyz (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the recent CNN interview they said they thought it was their 20th or 21st. The way new users are changing it, and then Wisdom89 is reverting, the consensus seems to be that it is their 20th. --Pmsyyz (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The band does not have authority, especially when they can barely recall the actual number. Moreover, calling it the 20th full length album is erroneous as an EP is not "full length" by definition. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When watching the interviews of them discussing Feedback the time they spent on it in the studio, the fun they had recording it, how much it meant to them personally and the 30th anniversary tour to go along with it. I would imagine the bands opinion on it is that it is a studio album and certainly counts. -- Rickeidson (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference for it being the 20th album, a recent article in Classic Rock Magazine. Wisdom89, do you have any reliable source for it being the 19th album? I looked through the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums but couldn't find the discussion that LedRush refers to about a consensus. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Snakes and Arrows refers to S&A as their 18th full-length studio album, and this is their first studio release since. Feedback was an EP, not an album, and so Clockwork Angels is their 19th album regardless, but calling it their '19th full-length studio album' seems like a good compromise. 142.68.221.58 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bought the album at Best Buy (in digi-pak form) and there was a sticker on the outer-wrapping that denoted the album was their 20th, so it seems that record company (and perhaps the band themselves) see it as their 20th album. MarkyMarc413 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Feedback was all cover songs, perhaps we could split the difference and say something like "Clockwork Angels is the band's 20th studio album, and their 19th album of all-original material." —Al E.^(talk) 18:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Al E. and others above. There is no question on the facts here, so determining appropriate secondary source is not the issue. We simply need to agree on a standard of how to count. I don't mind saying both (e.g. "19th studio LP (or full-length studio album) and 20th studio recording" or "19th original studio album"); in fact, i feel it's required, since the EP-length and non-original nature of Feedback are factors that seem to cause some folks to count it and others not to. Because there is ambiguity, we should be clear how we are counting, and provide the relevant data. It's a simple matter of consistency across articles; it's at the discretion of our collective authorship. Currently, the article is unclear, and an edit should be made. (Also: Whatever decision is made should be reflected in the Snakes & Arrows article, as well.) Unless there are arguments otherwise within a few days or so, i move that we make the necessary edits. Other opinions?? -- An Earthshine (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and made the change per your rational, to preserve consistency across articles, and to just plainly state the facts. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not agree with Pmsyyz's assertion that a reference is required for such a simple calculation and matter of counting. This is simply a matter of how one perceives Feedback and chooses to define it. Again, for the sake of consistency across articles and to alleviate any kind of confusion (just state the facts), the lead should describe this album as Rush's "19th full-length." Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 13:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Runtimes[edit]

Does anyone have a source for the runtimes of each song? I see it was recently added by an IP. Chris857 (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found one. Chris857 (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Artwork[edit]

The album is deicated to Andrew MacNaughtan (25th Feb 1964 - 25th Jan 2012) who has worked with the band on the production of their album covers and inner artwork for a lot of years. As a long term fan of the band I was wondering if anyone else noticed about the album cover art work for Clockwork Angels. We have twelve zodiac icon signs (which I have to work out the meaning off) for the hours of a clock face, but look at the time 9:12 of the clock hands. Well some of you will go so what, or what does it mean as with any Andrew MacNaughtoan pictures and images? The answer was puzzling me for ages since I first saw the album pre-release pictures, then it just hit me smack in the face, while looking at it after receiving my Fan Pack version from Classic Rock magazine. The time 9:12 in the 24 hour clock system equals 21:12 is a hidden reference to the 1976 album 2112. I am only going on my own judgement for this reference and if anyone can confirm this I would like to know via a post on here as it was the first Rush album I ever listened too. from User:Dynastyuk

I moved this here because of its chatty tone and so reference for some of it can be found. Chris857 (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Hi all. Sorry this is probably all out of format, I've never edited/commented on Wiki before. Just wanted to point out the wiki article is somewhat flawed on the meaning of the runes on the album. The source cited itself admits it doesn't know the meaning of some of the runes and is guessing (#4, "wine", for example). I've seen #4 be interpreted as "winter" elsewhere. Just wanted you to know those rune interpretations are probably not accurate. Please feel free to delete this paragraph and make whatever changes are necessary to get this in proper Wiki format, sorry for the mess here. Just wanted to point out the inaccuracy and didn't know any other way to do it. ********* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.13.53 (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Here's one example of someone interpreting #4 as "winter": http://www.whats-your-sign.com/what-are-the-symbols-on-the-new-rush-album.html

Otherwise most others do correlate pretty well. Sorry again for the messy posting here, editors! ****** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.13.53 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The runes in the album art suggest that the time on the clock is 22:17. It appears to be 21:12, but the 12 o'clock rune is actually the 1 from the album art, the 1 o'clock rune is 2, etc. However, the 4 o'clock position matches... argh they didn't match all the runes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.124.110 (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

matched to WHAT? you're saying the runes are 1 position out of place from a STANDARD ZODIAC, is that it? to say that the album art for 1 o'clock actually matches a "12 o'clock rune", etc., means nothing unless those runes are normally found on clocks.

in any case, even if they are 1 position rotated from the "normal" locations (w/e u mean by that), i'm with the first guy -- vertical is vertical and runes or no runes that is a standard clock reading 9:12, i.e. 21:12. good catch.

less clear is why it might be set to 3:00/15:00 for the caravan single. 209.172.25.26 (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

I asked for a citation of the 12th June release date, which was then reverted. My reasoning is I have ordered the CD from this seller, where the release date clearly states "Release Date - July 9th 2012 (item will be sent out at that time)". Therefore the claim to 12th June as the international date must be factually incorrect! At best I can only assume it was released on the 12th June in the US and / or Canada. Your thoughts, please. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of citations for the 12th. It's not that hard, really.LedRush (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? I've provided a link which said it's not the 12th, at least in the UK. You didn't provide any links. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just looked through most of the references in the article, but: [1], [2], [3]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two (which I had looked at) only confirm (or give me that impression) that it was released then in the US (the third is a dead link). I don't doubt the release date there, just not that it's international. Anyway, I think I'm just annoyed I've ordered it and I can't get it yet! --Ritchie333 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genres[edit]

As the album has now been released, divided opinions have materialized regarding what to "classify" its sound as. I usually like to err on the side of caution by being less descriptive (i.e. Rock, Hard Rock etc..etc..) unless it can be highly substantiated. With that said, I'm not entirely sure a single source (from Allmusic) that briefly refers to the new album as "neo-prog" warrants its placement within the info box. Certainly that is undo weight. I do think it is important to categorize albums, but it needs to be streamlined and done carefully. Thoughts? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every review I've read is calling this album (and/or the band) "prog-rock", "proggy" or "progressive" (mostly prog rock).

http://www.tmrzoo.com/2012/35356

http://www.toledoblade.com/Music-Theater-Dance/2012/06/14/Rush-is-back-in-the-limelight-with-Clockwork-Angels.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/music/for-the-record-rush-640300/

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/rush-clockwork-angels-album-review/

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2012/06/rush_clockwork_angels.php

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/06/12/dude-vs-chick-rock-is-there-a-music-gender-divide/

http://www.imaginativeconservative.org/2012/06/rock-as-mythos-rushs-clockwork-angels.html

http://blindedbysound.com/post/viewPost/review_rush_-_clockwork_angels/2e91ac44deba0cccd14ccbc6e755e50a

http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/Hear+This+Reviews+albums/6766208/story.html

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/reviews/story/2012-06-12/listen-up-notables-rush-bobby-womack-grace-potter-wocka-flocka-flame/55528164/1

http://popdose.com/album-review-rush-clockwork-angels/

http://www.buffalonews.com/entertainment/gusto/music/disc-reviews/article899122.ece

http://www.allmusic.com/album/clockwork-angels-mw0002332023

http://somethingelsereviews.com/2012/06/09/rush-clockwork-angels-2012/

http://social.entertainment.msn.com/music/blogs/headbang-blogpost.aspx?post=40f6b9ef-13fc-433c-9bfd-d050e25e23e9

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/05/rush-usher-top-cd-reviews

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/music/album-reviews/reviewed-new-albums-from-the-summers-hottest-concert-headliners/article4242213/?cmpid=rss1

LedRush (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds - I think this more than satisfies the addition of progressive rock to the info box. However, I don't quite feel "neo-prog" is appropriate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Positions[edit]

It looks like the album debuted at #2 in the US with 104,000 copies sold, and #1 in Canada with 20,000 sold. http://www.rushisaband.com/blog/2012/06/20/3171/Rushs-Clockwork-Angels-debuts-at-2-on-the-Billboard-200 http://www.billboard.com/news/usher-finds-fourth-no-1-album-on-billboard-1007371352.story http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/20/rushs-angels-fly-up-the-charts

Someone who knows how to properly format that section should add that. 142.68.93.253 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to the Release and Reception section. Chris857 (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the UK chart position, should a footnote be added, regarding the whole 'fanpack' issue? 142.68.171.71 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sound Quality Controversy" section[edit]

The way this section of the article is currently worded makes it sound as though compression, the loudness war, and mastering are all very different things, with different people blaming different aspects. In truth, the loudness war stems from excessive compression applied, usually, during mastering. They're just using different words to attack the same thing. Perhaps this section could be reworded for clarity. MXVN (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clockwork Angels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6GCHzd4yF?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/albums-chart/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/albums-chart/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clockwork Angels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EZFJQeR9?url=http://junoawards.ca/nominees-winners/ to http://junoawards.ca/nominees-winners/
Added archive https://archive.is/20120523232618/http://www.rush.com/rush/ to http://www.rush.com/rush/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson & Peart Companion Trilogy[edit]

Why is there no mention of the Kevin J. Anderson, with outlines provided by N.E.P., trilogy books? 2600:1011:B18C:77F:0:14:F2D3:4101 (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]