An impossible review

How should one regard an album review, which now goes already in its third decade of life and is among the best that has ever been recorded? Strictly speaking, you can on this premise, its object really just miss.
I have many (too many) reviews read about this, but I dare even such; or just because.
Forget for now once everything have to complain about particularly clever about this record; there is nothing wrong with her.
Of course there are younger musicians, the technical (yet) play better than the trio of mature gentlemen from Toronto; but this says nothing, because the seven (a mythological figure) songs on the album can not be made differently than they have been made. Moving Pictures is perfect in this sense. Each song has its own atmosphere, but is not only a solitaire, but forms part of the jewel.
The work is (as is typical of Rush), a work of art: the cover of Hugh Syme is also reflected in the musical and rhythmic structures resists, as do the lyrics of Neil Peart.
The latter is in any case a phenomenon: For me, probably the best lyricist in the rock field, a philosopher and poet of the best wood.
If you want to understand Rush - and this is my only message to the gentle reader - so must not focus solely on the music you look. One must rather speak meditative, listen to music, look at the cover and read texts; then and only then opens up eienm rush cosmos. This succeeds again but only if you know all the other works of this band and appreciates. To deal with Rush is a mirror in the mirror to look at, so I'm going to lose no words about the musicianship of three ingenious Canadians.
I (then as LP) bought the album now almost 22 years ago for the first time - believe me - I discover while listening today new facets to it. This to me is a definition of true art - it does not wear out, but on the contrary by frequent enjoyment even more varied. You will be on a rush and you will have much pleasure in it; Moving Pictures is a good "gateway drug" in the Rush-universe.