I was WRONG about Rage for Order...

I got this album when it first came out and thought to be so-so especially after the first ep and The Warning. But it grew on me over time and I think it's an excellent album.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Join the club. I dismissed R.F.O. for many years as well, and didn't really "discover" it till it was over a decade old.

That damn "Gonna Get Close To You" video scared me off back in '85 and I didn't bother to check out the rest of the album till I bought a used copy many years later. Then, of course, I was like "(*smacks forehead*)" Haha.

Coming off the Queensryche E.P and The Warning, who was it that thought it would be a good idea to release "Gonna Get Close to You" as the single and first video for M.T.V.? It just smacks of stupidity. I'm guessing the writing was on the wall for those who had been into the band since the beginning, since there was a departure with each release, BUT, for those who might be discovering Queensryche for the first time in 1986, this faux pas had to be damning. I didn't get into Queensryche until 1988 with Operation Mindcrime, but had I discovered them in 1986 and was introduced by the way of "Gonna Get Close To You", I might have never gotten into them.

It's a shame, because the rest of the album is pretty damn good.

Favs in order:

Walk in the Shadows
The Whisper
I Dream in Infrared
Neue Regel
The Killing Words
Chemical Youth

You weren't wrong about it, I still rip on it. Always will!

I also hated it when it was new, as I have done with anything they released after The Warning. But as most of you already told, I too started to love it after some time.

Say does anyone know if the Unplugged session Queensrÿche did for MTV exist in any format?

It exists in bootleg form...thats it.

Also, its so cliche to keep saying "the EP and The Warning are the best they ever did". Those are certainly more Metal and its all good if those are simply your favorites. But, The EP was the sound of a band wearing thier influences on thier sleeve (but I like it). The Warning was the band beginning to stretch a bit (and I love it) while still standing firmly in Metal territory.

RFO is the sound of a band defying trends, defying expectations, and making a brilliant album. The easiest thing they could have done was do another EP or Warning. What they did was gutsy and easily stands out as a shining star in thier catalog.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

It exists in bootleg form...thats it.

Also, its so cliche to keep saying "the EP and The Warning are the best they ever did". Those are certainly more Metal and its all good if those are simply your favorites. But, The EP was the sound of a band wearing thier influences on thier sleeve (but I like it). The Warning was the band beginning to stretch a bit (and I love it) while still standing firmly in Metal territory.

RFO is the sound of a band defying trends, defying expectations, and making a brilliant album. The easiest thing they could have done was do another EP or Warning. What they did was gutsy and easily stands out as a shining star in thier catalog.

How is it cliche' bro when I have been saying the same thing for since 1986

And how easy is it now to say they did something gutsy, brilliant or defied trends 24 years later. I saw it in 1986 as jumping on the image bandwagon and going the way of most popular MTV genereted bands of the time. Sure they may have done it as better than average songwriters and musicains, but in the end they still jumped.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

It exists in bootleg form...thats it.

Also, its so cliche to keep saying "the EP and The Warning are the best they ever did". Those are certainly more Metal and its all good if those are simply your favorites. But, The EP was the sound of a band wearing thier influences on thier sleeve (but I like it). The Warning was the band beginning to stretch a bit (and I love it) while still standing firmly in Metal territory.

RFO is the sound of a band defying trends, defying expectations, and making a brilliant album. The easiest thing they could have done was do another EP or Warning. What they did was gutsy and easily stands out as a shining star in thier catalog.

I never said that - I thought RFO was as good as Warning, just different. Personally, I thought Queensryche kept getting better until Empire, which I flip flop between that and MC and my favs. Then, they did a small step down in quality on Promised Land, then they had the downfall. I would love for the band to release something as great as those first 4 albums (plus EP). It doesn;t have to sound like those, just be a great album. I don;t think they have it in them anymore....

thejokeriv wrote:

I never said that - I thought RFO was as good as Warning, just different. Personally, I thought Queensryche kept getting better until Empire, which I flip flop between that and MC and my favs. Then, they did a small step down in quality on Promised Land, then they had the downfall. I would love for the band to release something as great as those first 4 albums (plus EP). It doesn;t have to sound like those, just be a great album. I don;t think they have it in them anymore....

I would agree with that 100%. Empire was the last great album for me. I liked parts of PL but have not liked the material since then.

James B. wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

It exists in bootleg form...thats it.

Also, its so cliche to keep saying "the EP and The Warning are the best they ever did". Those are certainly more Metal and its all good if those are simply your favorites. But, The EP was the sound of a band wearing thier influences on thier sleeve (but I like it). The Warning was the band beginning to stretch a bit (and I love it) while still standing firmly in Metal territory.

RFO is the sound of a band defying trends, defying expectations, and making a brilliant album. The easiest thing they could have done was do another EP or Warning. What they did was gutsy and easily stands out as a shining star in thier catalog.

How is it cliche' bro when I have been saying the same thing for since 1986

And how easy is it now to say they did something gutsy, brilliant or defied trends 24 years later. I saw it in 1986 as jumping on the image bandwagon and going the way of most popular MTV genereted bands of the time. Sure they may have done it as better than average songwriters and musicains, but in the end they still jumped.

Obviously I wasn't a fan when this album came out (a bit before my time), but I don't know what kind of bandwagon they were trying to jump with this album. The image is more gothic vampirism than it is glam or anything else, and the sound is wholly unique, even to this day.

And I think what Shawn is referring to when he says "cliche," is that it's always so easy for fans to blame a band for doing something wrong with certain albums, when the reality is that it's the usually the fan's inability to appreciate anything outside of what they consider normal. A form of close-mindedness, if you will.

I know metal fans that listen to Enya now, yet these same people will give a band no slack whatsoever when it comes to their music. They can change and grow as humans, but the band members can't. That's why you always hear people talking about how this or that band has two good albums, the first two. Helloween, for instance. How many say they haven't released a good album since Keeper II? TONS! Nonsense, of course.

Of course, bands becoming more popular is also a fan-favorite reason to start disliking a band. They see "outsiders" at the shows, or wearing t-shirts at the mall, and all of a sudden the band did something wrong. Again, total nonsense.

Eyesore wrote:

Obviously I wasn't a fan when this album came out (a bit before my time), but I don't know what kind of bandwagon they were trying to jump with this album. The image is more gothic vampirism than it is glam or anything else, and the sound is wholly unique, even to this day.

And I think what Shawn is referring to when he says "cliche," is that it's always so easy for fans to blame a band for doing something wrong with certain albums, when the reality is that it's the usually the fan's inability to appreciate anything outside of what they consider normal. A form of close-mindedness, if you will.

I know metal fans that listen to Enya now, yet these same people will give a band no slack whatsoever when it comes to their music. They can change and grow as humans, but the band members can't. That's why you always hear people talking about how this or that band has two good albums, the first two. Helloween, for instance. How many say they haven't released a good album since Keeper II? TONS! Nonsense, of course.

Of course, bands becoming more popular is also a fan-favorite reason to start disliking a band. They see "outsiders" at the shows, or wearing t-shirts at the mall, and all of a sudden the band did something wrong. Again, total nonsense.

I think that if a band wants to change its sound dramatically - then do it under another moniker. The EP was different from Empire but it was still metal. The stuff they have been doing post Promised Land is hardly metal. They are using the name to sell records - even though they dont want to play stuff that made them a name. I am all for them growing and changing - but please dont call it close-mindedness because when I buy a cd from a metal band, I want to hear metal. Let them release their new music under a new name.

Eyesore wrote:

[
I know metal fans that listen to Enya

Of course, bands becoming more popular is also a fan-favorite reason to start disliking a band. They see "outsiders" at the shows, or wearing t-shirts at the mall, and all of a sudden the band did something wrong. Again, total nonsense.

I like Enya - good stuff!!!!

BTW -Metallica would be the first band that comes to mind for a fan-favorite to dislike them

Until the re-releases, Rage and Empire were the only two 'ryche albums that I had on cd(The Warning I had on cassette). Rage is still my fav.

Eyesore wrote:

Obviously I wasn't a fan when this album came out (a bit before my time), but I don't know what kind of bandwagon they were trying to jump with this album. The image is more gothic vampirism than it is glam or anything else, and the sound is wholly unique, even to this day.

And I think what Shawn is referring to when he says "cliche," is that it's always so easy for fans to blame a band for doing something wrong with certain albums, when the reality is that it's the usually the fan's inability to appreciate anything outside of what they consider normal. A form of close-mindedness, if you will. (end qoute)


Regardless of what you label the image as, it was an image that they didn't have previously and it was done to generate sales via MTV format of the day. New Wave bands, LA bands, and Pop Music artists all had the image thing going on in their own distinct flavor(s). In regards to "Rage For Order", Queensryche abandoned (IMHO) not only the musical identity they molded with the two previous releases but kicked any resemblance left to the curb with the drastic image change. If they wouldn't of changed the image and released "Rage For Order", well then I'd buy the honesty aspect of growing, changing, and all that. But they didn't and those two drastic changes were far from an artistic statement. Just a mere attempt to market themselves in what was "commercial" at that point in time. I am not gonna go into how much of a change was evident onstage compared to previous tours. Then you toss in the next lp... an honest to goodness taking of a chance and making am artistic statement leaps and bounds beyond "Rage" and guess what ? Image wasn't a factor.
If "Rage" would of broke big like "Mindcrime" did, The "vampire/goth" image would of continued and "mindcrime" probably wouldn't of happened like it did as well.

exact33 wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Obviously I wasn't a fan when this album came out (a bit before my time), but I don't know what kind of bandwagon they were trying to jump with this album. The image is more gothic vampirism than it is glam or anything else, and the sound is wholly unique, even to this day.

And I think what Shawn is referring to when he says "cliche," is that it's always so easy for fans to blame a band for doing something wrong with certain albums, when the reality is that it's the usually the fan's inability to appreciate anything outside of what they consider normal. A form of close-mindedness, if you will.

I know metal fans that listen to Enya now, yet these same people will give a band no slack whatsoever when it comes to their music. They can change and grow as humans, but the band members can't. That's why you always hear people talking about how this or that band has two good albums, the first two. Helloween, for instance. How many say they haven't released a good album since Keeper II? TONS! Nonsense, of course.

Of course, bands becoming more popular is also a fan-favorite reason to start disliking a band. They see "outsiders" at the shows, or wearing t-shirts at the mall, and all of a sudden the band did something wrong. Again, total nonsense.

I think that if a band wants to change its sound dramatically - then do it under another moniker. The EP was different from Empire but it was still metal. The stuff they have been doing post Promised Land is hardly metal. They are using the name to sell records - even though they dont want to play stuff that made them a name. I am all for them growing and changing - but please dont call it close-mindedness because when I buy a cd from a metal band, I want to hear metal. Let them release their new music under a new name.

But I don't really think what they're doing now is so drastically different than Empire or even some tracks on Mindcrime. Those albums were just way better. The stuff after Promised Land, even in my opinion Hear In The Now Frontier, which I really like, lacks quality songs. There are some good ones, even a few great ones, but nothing as good as anything put out when DeGarmo was in the band.

I think a lot of fans of bands have to justify why an album isn't great to their ears. More often than not, the band simply put out a not-so-good album, or as in Queensryche's case, a string of them.

Do you think you'd be saying the same thing if Q2K, Tribe, OMII, and American Soldier were full of great songs?

Eyesore wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Obviously I wasn't a fan when this album came out (a bit before my time), but I don't know what kind of bandwagon they were trying to jump with this album. The image is more gothic vampirism than it is glam or anything else, and the sound is wholly unique, even to this day.

And I think what Shawn is referring to when he says "cliche," is that it's always so easy for fans to blame a band for doing something wrong with certain albums, when the reality is that it's the usually the fan's inability to appreciate anything outside of what they consider normal. A form of close-mindedness, if you will.

I know metal fans that listen to Enya now, yet these same people will give a band no slack whatsoever when it comes to their music. They can change and grow as humans, but the band members can't. That's why you always hear people talking about how this or that band has two good albums, the first two. Helloween, for instance. How many say they haven't released a good album since Keeper II? TONS! Nonsense, of course.

Of course, bands becoming more popular is also a fan-favorite reason to start disliking a band. They see "outsiders" at the shows, or wearing t-shirts at the mall, and all of a sudden the band did something wrong. Again, total nonsense.

I think that if a band wants to change its sound dramatically - then do it under another moniker. The EP was different from Empire but it was still metal. The stuff they have been doing post Promised Land is hardly metal. They are using the name to sell records - even though they dont want to play stuff that made them a name. I am all for them growing and changing - but please dont call it close-mindedness because when I buy a cd from a metal band, I want to hear metal. Let them release their new music under a new name.

But I don't really think what they're doing now is so drastically different than Empire or even some tracks on Mindcrime. Those albums were just way better. The stuff after Promised Land, even in my opinion Hear In The Now Frontier, which I really like, lacks quality songs. There are some good ones, even a few great ones, but nothing as good as anything put out when DeGarmo was in the band.

I think a lot of fans of bands have to justify why an album isn't great to their ears. More often than not, the band simply put out a not-so-good album, or as in Queensryche's case, a string of them.

Do you think you'd be saying the same thing if Q2K, Tribe, OMII, and American Soldier were full of great songs?

The band I heard on the last couple of albums sounded nothing like the band that put out the first five. Its hardly metal and what is borderline is not good. It just seems to me QR wants to be an artsy fartsy band now. If a band is trying to stay true to their roots and fails - that's one thing. Most bands have clunkers in their catalogs - and depending on how long, maybe multiple ones. QR seems like they have gone off into another style altogether.

It's definitely not metal, but it is rock. More modern in style, though. And they did evolve into it, so it's not like they just changed overnight.

But I understand what you're saying. The problem is, starting a new band or changing the name would be disastrous for them. Fans don't want that, labels don't want that, and promoters wouldn't book them. Remember when Distant Thunder had to tour as Helstar just to get gigs? It wasn't Helstar, though; totally different band. But no one wanted Distant Thunder.

Geoff Tate's solo album flopped. DeGarmo's Spys 4 Darwin EP went nowhere. Wilton's Soulbender flopped, as will Wratched Head, his latest project. And Rockenfield's Slave To The System flopped...twice! That album came out originally around 2000 or something, with the dude from Sweaty Nipples on vocals. It flopped. Then in 2006 or so, the albums is repackaged and re-released with all mention of Davey Nipples removed, like he'd never been in the band. It flopped again.

And the sad thing is, aside from Tate's album, which is just so-so, the other albums are really really good. But no one cares. And sadly, that's why bands never change their names.

kmorg wrote:

I also hated it when it was new, as I have done with anything they released after The Warning. But as most of you already told, I too started to love it after some time.

Say does anyone know if the Unplugged session Queensrÿche did for MTV exist in any format?

They released them sporadically on the remasters. I'm not sure if they released the whole thing though.

Definitely haven't released the whole thing. I have it on bootleg somewhere.

Lets see if I can dig myself out of that hole...

I wasn't putting anyone down when I said it was a "cliche" to call 'Ryche's first 2 albums their "best ever". Not 'Ryche specificially, anyway. It's what most people say about any band, and it's perfectly OK for anyone (not that anyone needs my permission) to simply prefer early material to later material...that's not really what I was saying. I totally get someone liking the EP or The Warning better than anything else the band did.

All I was doing, really, was sort of "defending the honor" of Rage For Order. While I understand people liking the 2 previous releases more, I have a hard time understand the reasons for someone not liking RFO.

The band's look was certainly no more ridiculous than previous albums...they were just coming off a more accepted "Metal" image. Watch the performance video of "Nightrider" on the Building Empires DVD and you'll see a teased hair, leather/spikes wearing, eyelinered band. So, changing looks is kind of a silly stipulation to put out there.

Musically, they in no way, shape or form jumped on any "bandwagon" with Rage For Order. What bandwagon could they have jumped on? Nothing sounded like that in 1986...there were no bands that sounded the way 'Ryche sounded on that album. "Gonna Get Close To You" (a cover song) was dark, weird, menacing, creepy and downright badass in the midst of Bon Jovi/Van Halen mania. Yeah they got on MTV, and they did it with a weird, twisted song...not with a power ballad.


That's all the band has tried to do ever...do something tons of people aren't already doing. With the exception of the EP (tons of obvious Priest influence there), they have always strived to push the envelope. Even at their most successful (Empire), they turned on a dime and put out Promised Land, which is the polar opposite of Empire.

Back to RFO, that album has some of the band's most daring, cerebral material ever..."Screaming In Digital", "Neue Regal", "I Will Remember", "London", "Surgical Strike"...amazing songs. Nobody in Metal sounded like that. That's not bandwagon jumping, that's daring....that's progressive.

I think Eyesore was right...those who don't like it, or prefer earlier material, look for reasons to justify not liking it...and the obvious "bandwagon" comments or "its not Metal" comments ensue. If you don't like it, you don't like it...nobody says you have to. It's all good. But to jump to basically accusing the band of selling out (with arguably the darkest, most twisted record they ever did) is baseless.

Yes, the 2 before it are more Metal...yes, O:M is amazing...but RFO, in my opinion, is brilliant and a cut above most everything else they ever did.

Hey Sean, I didn't think you were putting anyone down with the cliche' label. I was stating how I felt in 86'. I like "Rage" today but didn't really back then. I appreciate the concept and boldness of "Mindcrime" at it's release but would rather listen to the band's previous work than that. I don't recall saying they never had an image thing going on prior to "Rage", my opinion is that it went way out in left field. My bandwagon comment was more in regards to "image" than "music". If a band puts something "different" out in that capacity other than what others are doing. Is that an artistic statement or finding a niche in that particular corner of comerciality ? They were attempting to attract fans doing something different than say your Poison or Motley Crue but still doing what those bands were doing. Marketing themselves via image and MTV. Lots of bands did it, some prospered from it others did not. Case in point....Krokus

I still don't understand how this is construed from what they did:

Quote :

They were attempting to attract fans doing something different than say your Poison or Motley Crue but still doing what those bands were doing.

If that's how you see it, I'm not going to try and change your mind...I just don't agree at all.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I still don't understand how this is construed from what they did:

Quote :

They were attempting to attract fans doing something different than say your Poison or Motley Crue but still doing what those bands were doing.

If that's how you see it, I'm not going to try and change your mind...I just don't agree at all.

How can you not see that Queensryche were using image to market themselves. Why wear the outfits and the make-up if that wasn't the point.

I love 'Rage with Order' and while I did not care for the first single ( I'm Gonna Get Close) which I was not aware was a cover at the time I loved the rest of the album. I was 16 when it was first released and I never heard a metal band that sounded like this at the time, and it impressed me a great deal.

Image wise I hated it, I did not like their new image and like James I felt they were going for a more glam style with a bit of a futuristic look ( for the 80's anyway) to try to fit in with what was going on in the world of metal back then.

As far as I can remember there where no other prog metal bands on a major labels during this time period , so they were going against the grain musically on this album and did not fit in with either the Poison's of the world or the Slayer's either. At the time I thought that was gutsy.

Image wise I felt the label may have purchased to get a certain look, and I also think they looked uncomfortable with this image, and if I remember correctly as the tour progressed they dropped the image.

James B. wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I still don't understand how this is construed from what they did:

Quote :

They were attempting to attract fans doing something different than say your Poison or Motley Crue but still doing what those bands were doing.

If that's how you see it, I'm not going to try and change your mind...I just don't agree at all.

How can you not see that Queensryche were using image to market themselves. Why wear the outfits and the make-up if that wasn't the point.

They were already doing that on the EP and The Warning as well. They weren't doing anything out of the ordinary in that regard. They already wore eyeliner, and leather, and used hair products....the RFO "look" wasn't really a giant leap from where they already had been or were...more of an extension...more of it (which was most likely more label induced than band induced).

Shawn, here is a some visual aid to convey my point further



to



to



Go ahead and say the third one isn't a drastic change from the other two ? sheesh