I dunno guys, someone needs to explain what is at all redeeming about this beast. I was looking forward to reading its scathing reviews when I heard it, but everyone likes it and heck if I can figure out why.

Yknow?

I can't REALLY explain it, St. Pete nojax, but they sound a lot like yes, grand funk, hendrix, steppenwolf [blue cheer, sweets!], and that might make somebody pay attention. The reality IS that they sound like some youngsters who love ALL those bands, but decided to do their own take on them. NO, this won't explain a damn thing, but please come back, nojax, ASAP!

Well, I dunno what's bad about it. I would use the word "beast" to describe Blue Cathedral positively, actually- it's a cocktail of progressive rock and free jazz that just bowled me over when I heard it.

What did you hate about it so much, anyway?

I guess I could bring this thread back

Yeah, it just, I dunno. I mean I put it on and just forget that it's playing. When I am listening they're doing their noodly little solos while Jimmy Page stubs his toe into a megaphone a good hundred feet away, maybe in another building altogether, and apart from "Poosyfootin' the Duke" I can't remember a note of any of the songs, even like immediately after they've finished and I've been taking studious notes

I really like the music, but I thought the lyrics were really contrived, and the vocals are just filling a slot.

I could understand not liking the singing, but there aren't really lyrics to dislike. The guy screams so maniacally and there's so much reverb that no discernible words hit my ear.

In a good way, of course.

I have Comets on Fire at #7 on my 'best albums of 2004' list.

The first time I listened to it I thought it was a little meh, but then I listened to it more and I found it really engaging and interesting. I guess it gets mixed reviews because it's in that little avenue in prog that's hugely an acquired taste.