He said it was his second favorite, not their second best.
I don't really consider there to be any difference between those two things. But anyway
I mean....I get liking outlier stuff. And I get liking one era over another. But on some level this just seems like trolling.
I mean, I don't just say this as someone who feels that Roll the Bones is the only "bad" Rush album. Because I would be totally OK with someone having it in their top 10 or even top 5. But Rush has so many albums with NO klunkers at all.....really. Most of us agree (though we may not all pick the exact same ones) that there are at least 2 or 3 albums in the 2112 to Moving Pictures era that are "all killer and no filler", and many of us would pick one or two albums beyond that scope. (Power Windows, for instance, gets a lot of praise from most people, but not everyone). Whereas even the big fans of Roll the Bones admit that Neurotica and You Bet Your Life are less than stellar tracks. I get that the album has its high points. Even in my book, Dreamline is one of the best album openers in the catalog. But the album, as a whole, has its flaws.
Not trolling. Now, to be fair, I haven't heard every single Rush album in full, so there might be some in there that just really blow me away. But I have heard quite a few, and a lot of them tend to have songs or sections of songs that kind of lose my attention, whereas
Roll The Bones (and
Signals) really doesn't.
I'm a pretty big prog fan, but honestly I think Rush are at their best writing 4-6 minute songs rather than huge prog epics. I like 2112 as much as the next guy (or more, or less, I don't really know how the next guy feels about any particular Rush song to be honest), but it's got some sections that I think are pretty weak, or just forgettable. Whereas
Roll The Bones is just quality songs all the way through.
And those last two you mentioned as 'less than stellar tracks' I really love.
Poll