I'm going to be listening to this album but I'm not sure how it's meant to work. For example, like Big Ears has done should we write a review, or should I be matching my opinions to what Big Ears has already written in the form of a debate. Just trying to find the best angle for the club here.

Writing a review is the only way I could comment, I did not intend to set a precedent. My experience is that different people have their own way of responding to an album. I don't mind being matched or treated with indifference - I'm certainly used to the latter.

First off, I'd like to thank Big Ears for taking the time to listen to, form an opinion of, research and then review the album. Secondly I'd like to say excellent (hah!) job! Truly outstanding. Not meaning to be smug, but that was the kind of review I would have written --- indeed, did write, in my journal some time ago --- albeit with much more familiarity and comfort as to the music and how it's made: I wouldn't have known about Karn Evil 9, tom toms, Oldfield guitar solos and so on.

But it was an in-depth, informed, mostly unbiased review which asked and answered questions and gave a very deep and thoughtful overview of the album. I really enjoyed it, well done indeed. (Why don't you write a journal, with talent like that?) :confused:

As to whether everyone should do the same, well that's entirely up to you. You can write a review, write comments, discuss the album between us in short posts like on a normal thread, or whatever you want to do. I really don't mind, as long as we're talking about the album, and others to come. US, you might want to tackle it in the same format as your journal entries. Or not. It's completely up to everyone how they want to respond. Whatever you're comfortable with, or whatever you think suits.

If anyone does a review though, I have to say that I think they'll need to go a long way to beat the one written by Big Ears! Again, wonderful job.

As for other TN albums, I can only point you towards the excellent "Live and let live" which, though a live album and obviously containing tracks from F&F also has the brilliant "Sequences" on it (seventeen minutes long!) and also the opener "The ceiling speaks". There's an even longer version of "Sequences" (twenty minutes) on the live album "Live at the target", available here Twelfth Night Live At The Target mp3 music download | megaboon.com for thirty-two cents...

Have just read Big Ears review properly and it's impressive to say the least, if I was to write with that amount of detail for my journal, I'd only manage about one review a week:D. Anywat listening to the album now and my mini-review or critique will follow later today.

Thank you Trollheart. This is, without a doubt, the best reply I have ever had to a review. Perhaps I should post another here for you to cast your eyes over. Is a journal the best place for reviews? I read many of your reviews in your journal, when I first signed up here, and it was clear you had put a lot of work, as well as thought, into them.

I will definitely seek out those Twelfth Night live albums.

Thank you Unknown Soldier for your positive comments. A review can take me about a week to write. I take notes in a little book I carry around with me, as I listen to an album on my mp3 player. Drafting only takes about a day, but I have to leave it and think about it, before I return to produce the final copy. Some weeks I don't write one and, on other occasions, I can write a review over a weekend. The funny thing is, the more familiar I am with an album, the harder they can be to write. I also write band biographies, so they could probably go into a journal.

= = = =

I've just checked the journal rules and you need a post count of 100+. I am not a prolific poster, so it could take a while.

Now I feel better, it just takes me about an hour and a half to do an album review in my journal. I write the overview in about 20 mins and then do the rest whilst listening to the album again. Then in the final part I do some editing which takes a bit of time, but I cram it all into around 90 mins. BTW it makes perfect sense to make notes, ideas and ocurrences can come at anytime.

With your knowledge of prog, you could do a prog inspired journal and no need to worry about post count, you're nearly at 100 posts, so in between your good posts, just write some quick silly posts like most do on here and you'll be upto 100 in no time.:D

Twelfth Night Fact and Fiction 1982

What did I know about the album: Not much at all really, I'd hardly heard anything by the band previously and they were probably the neo-progressive rock band that I knew least about. It has been years since I've heard anything by IQ, Pallas or Pendragon from that era, but of course I've always been familiar with most of Marillion Fish era discography anyway.

Opinion: The album was quite different to what I expected it to sound like, I was kind of expecting a 1970s prog sound being revived as Marillion had done with the Gabriel era Genesis sound. Once started, I was immediately put off by the operatic whine of the lead singer, but once he settled down on the opening track the band's obvious talent opened up. First impressions were a strange amalgamation of a whole host of sounds and influences. In just the opening couple of tracks "We Are Sane" and "Human Being" I got bits and pieces of 1970s prog, a section similiar to classic Yes -the best on the album, a touch of Saga, a touch of Rush and even the future Marillion (who may have copied some bits here) but what most I noticed, especially on the opening track, were the then modern day New Romantic influences, subtle of course but they were there, truly making the band suitable for the neo-progressive label, rather than just recycling prog sounds of the 1970s. I also found tracks two and three to have a rockier feel about them and found the band very comfortable putting out this sound. I was intrigued to hear what the title track would be like and again the new romantics influence is very obvious on this song. "Creepshow" the longest song on the album wasn't the dramatic song I was expecting it to be at all. "Love Song" is a nice album closer though. Overall though it's a good album and worth a listen to anybody interested in 1980s prog, but not as good as early Marillion though.

7 out of 10

Footnote: This forum always has a lot of people either going on about classic prog from the 1970s and about modern post 1990s prog, seldom is their any real interest in its 1980s cousin.

Pertinent comments, Unknown Soldier, and it's funny that you should mention the new romantics. I was going to accuse Geoff Mann of sounding like Tony Hadley of Spandau Ballet, but opted for the out-of-tune Halford instead. Neo-progressive rock does seem a bit overlooked these days, but it is probably fair to say it was ignored in its day. It cast a long shadow as Transatlantic show the neo influence and Galahad are still making albums.

= = = =

I've started a journal. I hope it is accepted as a I didn't make a copy of my first post!

Hell do you think he sounds like Tony Hadley!!! Rob Halford never crossed my mind. The new romantics angle largely comes from the fact that I couldn't actually pin them down to a new romantics band when I was listening, but now post-album Visage comes to mind probably the best band of the movement.

You should always make copies of your journal entries, can't you just backspace on this page and then copy it from there?