Ah. New Rush album May 14.

Posted by: tfabris

Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 10/04/2002 16:09

Album title: "Vapor Trails"
First single: "One Little Victory"

Low-quality sample of the song at: http://www.buzztone.com/rush/splash.asp

Amazon album entry at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000065DTE/103-5233128-8610219

Track title listing:

1. One Little Victory
2. Peaceable Kingdom
3. Ghost Rider
4. Ceiling Unlimited
5. The Stars Look Down
6. How It Is
7. Vapor Trail
8. Out Of The Cradle
9. Earthshine
10. Sweet Miracle
11. Nocturne
12. Freeze (Part IV of 'Fear')
13. Secret Touch

Whoa, just noticed the "Part IV of 'Fear'" on there, CUTE.

Any guesses as to which one is the instrumental (if any)?
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 10/04/2002 20:14

Ohhhh! Just saw this

I had heard there would be an instrumental, but I have no idea which one. I also heard there would be a longer song but thats kind of hard to believe with 13 cuts. I'm going to go listen to the sample now. . .

[Edit] Ok, just finished listening and I am STOKED. Starting with the drums is a great start for any Rush album (I love the beginning of "Counterparts" too). Ok, time to listen again.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 10/04/2002 21:00

I actually found partial samples of three other songs by doing a web search. Decent samples, too, approx an intro, verse, and chorus of each. I like them even better than the "single" so far.

Haven't listened to enough of the stuff to have an opinion formed yet. And of course, I need to hear the whole album in full not-compressed-to-within-an-inch-of-its-life form. But my impression so far is that they're continuing the progression they started with the directions that Counterparts and Test for Echo were taking, i.e., this one is even harder and edgier. In fact, this one kinda reminds me of Tool so far. Which is interesting, because I figured that Tool was influenced by Rush, not the other way around.
Posted by: Satan_X

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 10/04/2002 21:11

Not that I'm condoning this (please dont flame). But someone has already posted it up in newsgroups....
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 10/04/2002 21:15

Nah, I'm happy with the small teasers I've already gotten and I'll wait for the album to come out so I can I buy it and have my usual ritual experience with the album art and the first listen.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 11/04/2002 04:30

I do agree that so far this sounds a lot like TFE, which isn't too suprising of course. I do admit that the heavier Rush isn't my favorite Rush, but I still like it better than most other music out there.

I acutally haven't listened to Tool yet, had not idea they might have anything to do with Rush... Any suggestions where to start?

I'm sure I will love this album 'cause, as I've mentioned before, Rush has yet to do anything I don't love. Unless they try something really wacked like rapping (oh, wait they already did that and even pulled it off in a humerous way!) this album will get a lot of playtime on the Empeg.
Posted by: Laura

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 11/04/2002 04:44

You should give Tool a listen. I have all 3 of their CD's, I don't think there have been more than that so far. I find that the lyrics have so much to say.

I also like Rush and will probably buy it when it comes out.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 11/04/2002 07:18

Great, as soon as I get a job I'll go buy a Tool album on your recomendation.
Posted by: peter

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 11/04/2002 07:28

rapping (oh, wait they already did that and even pulled it off in a humerous way!)

What, on Roll The Bones? That was meant to be humourous? And there was me thinking it was just half-assed...

Peter (who quite likes the rest of the song)
Posted by: robricc

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 11/04/2002 08:05

You should give Tool a listen. I have all 3 of their CD's

Tool really has 4 studio albums. The one you are probably leaving out is 'Opiate.' There is also 'Salival' which is a DVD/CD set with live tracks and music videos on it.

Tool is one of my all-time favorite bands, but I have to say the last album is barely okay.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 11/04/2002 08:41

Tool is one of my all-time favorite bands, but I have to say the last album is barely okay.

I'm very happy to hear someone else has their head screwed on properly. I've heard people/critics/fans saying that Lateralus is the crescendo of their career. I consider it to be a step backward from Aenima, and a pretty large one at that. The good part is that now that they've gotten it out of their system, they're likely to come back with a much more solid effort next time. Unless Maynard blows his load on A Perfect Circle instead.
Posted by: Satan_X

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 11/04/2002 09:34

Aenima is a little hard to top......It is an amazing album.
Any album that followed that would have a tough time......
Posted by: Laura

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 11/04/2002 15:23

You're right, I don't have that one. Is it hard to find or something. I've never seen it in the stores. I'll have to track down a copy of it and I don't have a DVD player (yet) so I'll wait on finding Salival.

I agree that Aenima is the best so far and I have A Perfect Circle also.
Posted by: Satan_X

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 11/04/2002 15:36

Salival high points:

- Third Eye - live
- No Quarter
Posted by: Shonky

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 11/04/2002 21:31

Tony,

As you seem to be quite an avid fan of these Rush guys, what do you think is their best album? After listening to that teaser I am going to go look for one of their albums to buy.

Recent albums seem to be:
2112
Moving Pictures
Permanent Waves
+ plus this new one

Are there any others worth looking at? It seems they've been around for quite a while (like 30 years).

I've never heard of them down here in Oz. Maybe I just don't recognize the name though.
Posted by: justinlarsen

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 00:12

ya the new rush album is great i have the whole thing.. plan on buying it when its released in stores.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 05:06

Shonky,
This is a pretty difficult question because Rush has had (in my opinion) as least 4 really different sounds since they have been around (and even at that a lot of these sounds changed a lot over their albums). If you want a good overview of the band, you might want to get Chronicles, which is a two-disc set and covers their stuff from the seventies and eighties.

There are two problems with this set however:1) It does not cover their newest stuff which you may be interested in if all you have ever heard is the teaser and 2) one of the bands great strengths is to create albums with a great deal of synergy which is lost on a compilation type album. It is, however, a great value since they put 74 min worth of music on each of the two discs.

If this teaser is all you have ever heard, then you are probably interested in their newest sound, which is quite different from their sound in the eighties and seventies. If you like edgier stuff I would try Test for Echo and Counterparts. This is by no means the best of Rush, but it is the closest to what you are hearing in the sample.

The three albums you mentioned are actually some of the band’s older work, but have withstood the test of time. 2112 was in 76 and their first concept album. The "A Side" of the disc is one twenty-minute song that tells a story set in the future. This is a landmark album for Rush as the next two albums also featured concept type songs.

Moving Pictures was recorded in 1981 (I think) and is the album I most often hear people saying is Rush's best. If you want to know Rush, this is my highest recommendation for a first buy. It would be very difficult to find someone who enjoys the music of Rush and doesn't care for this one. The "A Side" of Moving Pictures has four songs and each of these still receive regular air play on my local Rock station (Ok, well they did until I got my Empeg. I have no idea what they play now). The "B side" has three songs, all three of which are very good. "Tom Sawyer" is on this album which is by far the most recognized Rush song. This album is the point they started really adding keyboards heavily into their music.

Later in the eighties Rush really got into keyboards and I think this is the point some fans got disappointed. I (and Tony as well) really like the keyboard stuff, but it sounds very different from the 2112 sound. Of this eighties stuff Tony really likes Power Windows, but I will let him sell you on that one. I like Signals and Hold Your Fire the best, but I don't think I would recommend these as first buys.

After this, the band got into a progressive sound I really don't know how to describe which really (in my opinion) only lasted two albums - Presto and Roll the Bones. The band laid off the keyboards here and really started emphasizing a clean technical sound. Roll The Bones is my favorite Rush album, but I think I am the only one who thinks that so this is probably not a good first buy either.

Counterparts was the next album and saw the band get a little heavier. It wasn't totally different from the previous albums, but it was a lot closer to Test For Echo than anything else. Test for Echo sounds (to me) a lot like the clip from the new album and was a very different sound for Rush. Though this is a great album, I really wouldn't recommend it as a first buy unless all you have heard is the newest stuff and that's what you want to buy.

Sorry to be so long winded but it’s difficult to give recommendations about Rush. I’d wait to hear from Tony before you commit any dollars, but I figured you might want to hear from more than one source because this really is a very prolific band.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 08:14

Not a difficult question at all.

Without a doubt, every human being on the face of the planet should own a copy of the remastered version of Moving Pictures.

It is the single best Rock album ever made.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 08:25

Well Ok. What he said

My wife tells me I talk too much. . .
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 08:27

Okay, as a follow up, a new Rush listener should probably buy these albums in this order:

Moving Pictures
Permanent Waves
Power Windows

If you liked the "YYZ" instrumental on Moving Pictures, then your next purchase should be:
Hemispheres
for the sole purpose of having "La Villa Strangiato". The remainder of the album is very rewarding, but takes several listens to get into.

Following that, then get:
2112
Counterparts
Test For Echo
To book-end your collection. Don't know where the new album falls into this scheme yet.

The remainder of the catalog you can fill in later. You may completely avoid the first three albums (Rush, Fly By night, Caress of Steel) as they were simply a Zeppelin clone in those days. They didn't really find their own voice until 2112 (their fourth album). Only the hardest-core fan, looking to complete his collection, needs these first three albums. Note that there is a dual-disc release called "Archives" which is just a re-issue of those first three albums and can also be avoided. Others will contend this point with me, but those people are completely wrong and have no musical taste.

Live concert albums (All the World's a Stage, Exit Stage Left, A Show of Hands, Different Stages) are a lot of fun, but don't bother getting them until after you've either got all the studio albums you want, or you've seen them live and wish to re-live the experience.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 09:17

I disagree about "Fly By Night". I find myself listening to this one a lot, but then again these are just opinions. What I did when I first got into Rush was buy Chronicles first (although as Tony said "Moving Pictures" should really come first) and then used that to decide which other stuff I liked (This will give you "La Villa Strangiato", but its not the re-mastered version). Of course I've ended up liking everything, but I didn't know that at the time. Like I said before, Chronicles is not an album you'll end up listening too a lot if you really get into Rush, but it does give an amazing overview. Listening to the first and last songs makes a big impression about how much the group has changed.

All this aside I would say that Moving Pictures should be your first purchase and 2112 should follow in short order (as it's a landmark type of album with great music). Just my own humble "wrong" opinion
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 09:56

My problem with Chronicles is that, because it's a compilation album, you don't get that "full album" experience which is the best part of the better Rush albums. Admittedly, not all Rush albums hang together as a single unit as well as Moving Pictures does, but it's definitely an important part of listening to a Rush album.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 10:24

This, actually, would be an interesting topic for discussion.

What albums can you think of that work best as a single unit? An album where you can't imagine just one song being played?

Note: The following things are excluded from this discussion because they are "given": Most Pink Floyd albums, most live concert albums, and any symphonies or rock operas. I'm talking about albums that are merely a collection of songs, but they have some magical, subtle connection between the songs that makes the whole album pull together as a cohesive unit.

I can think of very few. One of the items on this following list surprised me, but every time one of its songs comes up, I have an irresistable urge to unshuffle:

Rush: Moving Pictures
Rush: Power Windows
Rush: Permanent Waves
Queen: A Night at the Opera
They Might Be Giants: Mink Car
Peter Gabriel: So
Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms
Sting: The Soul Cages (this one borderlines on non-inclusion, it is almost an opera)
The Police: Synchronicity
U2: The Joshua Tree

Most of mine are in the neighborhood of the Progressive Rock genre because that's what I listen to the most. I'm interested in hearing other's opinions from other genres. For instance, I'm told that Elton John's "Tumbleweed Connection" fits perfectly into this discussion, however I don't own that album so I don't know about it.

And it's not just because these albums are personal favorites, or because I like all of the songs on the album. Going through my artist list, there are many on the list which I listen to frequently and are top favorites, but which do not hang together well as an album. For example, one of my all time favorite albums is Tori Amos' "Little Earthquakes". But I don't see it as anything more than the sum of its parts. It is a collection of absolutely incredible songs, every single one of them, but there's nothing special about their inclusion onto the same album. They don't flow into a single uninterruptible experience the way the others do.
Posted by: peter

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 10:40

What albums can you think of that work best as a single unit? An album where you can't imagine just one song being played?

The Orb, Adventures Beyond The Ultraworld
The KLF, Chill Out
Portishead, Dummy

And I think Stone Roses, Stone Roses does work "best" as a single unit, though it's the furthest thing from unlistenable as separate tracks.

And, of course, Sergeant Pepper, though I think that came in your category of "given".

Peter
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 10:52

Damn, I forgot Sgt. Pepper. Of course. Thanks.

Right, I'm sure there are several Beatles albums which fall into that category. My bad for not including them.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 10:54

And by they way, by "can't imagine just one song being played", I didn't mean "one song is unlistenable", I meant "although an individual song might be great, once you hear the song, now you've just GOT to hear the whole album". Like eating just one potato chip.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 10:57

Synergy is very important to me, the reason I don't like "best of" albums. One of the reasons I like Rush so much is that every album has a great degree of Synergy. My list will include no Rush as I am sure you are tired of hearing me talk about them.

David Wilcox - Big Horizon
Sting - Ten Summoners Tales
Def Leppard - Hysteria
Caedmon's Call - My Calm/ Your Strom
Paul Simon - Graceland
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 11:03

Damn, I have to get a copy of Graceland! You're so right. However, that one was stolen in one of my car thefts and I never replaced it. /me heads over to Amazon right now...

I will also agree with Hysteria, although I don't own that one any more and I'm not a huge DL fan.

I will completely disagree with Ten Summoner's Tales. After hearing Soul Cages, I expected TST to be another concept album (based on the title) and instead we got a lacluster collection of mostly mediocre random songs. There's nothing about TST that holds my attention from beginning to end the way that Soul Cages does.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 12:51

BTW, the title ``Ten Summoner's Tales'' is supposed to be a ... pun? ... on Sting's real name, Gordon Sumner. So if you realize that, it no longer seems to have a thematic title.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 13:03

I don't know if this falls under your category of rock opera, but Husker Du's Zen Arcade is an album that works marvelously as a unit. It's intended as an opera, but is not so blatant about it as, say, Tommy (which is also wonderful, but clearly lies in your realm of disqualification).

Others, as I quickly go through my collection:

Bob Mould - Workbook
Pearl Jam - Ten
Liz Phair - Exile in Guyville
The Pixies - Trompe le Monde
Psychedelic Furs - Book of Days (which is probably disqualified as well)
Sebadoh - Bakesale and harmacy
Sonic Youth - Daydream Nation (also maybe out, but phenomenal)
Soul Asylum - Made To Be Broken and Hang Time
Ultra Vivid Scene - Joy 1967-1990
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 13:03

I know that the title was a reference to his name, (recognized that the first time I saw the title), but still assumed that it was some kind of a theme album. Maybe just wishful thinking, considering how much I'd liked Soul Cages.

Note: Supposedly everyone calls him Sting, no one calls him Gordon. According to the film "Bring on the Night", even his mother calls him Sting.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 14:57

I really didn't think there was a theme to "Ten Summoner's Tales", I just love to listen to it. As a matter of fact when the songs come up in random play, I never like them as much as I do when I listen to the whole album. I didn't have any expectations when I first heard the album.

About Def Leppard, I'm not a huge fan, though I do have the album. I almost always skip past the tracks in random play but I do like to listen to the album in its entirety.

I meant to put "Ten" by Pearl Jam also. I am surprised how few rock albums made it onto my list, as Rock comprises the biggest genre of music I own.
Posted by: Satan_X

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 15:02

I think the first thing I played on my empeg was Bob Mould - Workbook and yes, Zen Arcade needs (no, demands) to be played in order......
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 15:18

I always reference Zen Arcade as one of the few times that a band's best album (arguably) is also the worst introduction to the band. Zen Arcade is pretty much the definition of inaccessible.
Posted by: Satan_X

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 17:54

For all of those that have never heard Husker Du's album Zen Arcade, I advise you to follow this path for true enlightenment.

#1 Goto your local record store and hunt down a copy of Husker Du - Zen Arcade on CD.

#2 Come home and get prepaired, hit the bathroom, do what you gotta do.

#3 Find yourself some headphones and a nice chair (reclining chair a bonus). This ride is going to be about an Hour and ten minutes. You must not skip songs, you must not pause, rewind or Fast forward. You lose the whole momentum of the Album if you do.

#4 Hit play and close your eyes........

Posted by: BAKup

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 12/04/2002 22:43

Here's my additions.

Miles Davis - Kind Of Blue
Eric Johnson - Av Via Musicom
Yoko Kanno - Cowboy Bebop Soundtrack #1
Kristy MacColl - Tropical Brainstorm
David Garza - Eyes Wide Open

And I'm waiting for the new Rush album myself....Drool.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 06:29

Ah Via Musicom. . . I new I forgot something!
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 09:38

Ah Via Musicom is one that I specifically pondered for my list and I chose not to include it.

It is a fantastic album, one of my all-time favorites, but I don't get that "it has to be listened to as a whole and it must be in this order" feeling from it.

Don't get me wrong, I have listened to it over and over again in that order (back when I was listening to it on CD). It's one of the albums that would stay in my CD player for a week or two at a time.

But I just don't hear the "cohesive whole" in that album.

The fact that I did stop to consider it for a moment says something, though.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 09:45

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think maybe it should have been on my list. There's something about the way it ends with East Wes that makes the whole thing kind of "make sense".

Hmm. Maybe I would have sequenced the songs a bit differently in the middle, but the positioning of Dover, East Wes, and Trademark are correct...

I think maybe part of it is because there are a couple songs on the album I could do without. Desert Rose and Nothing Can Keep Me From You would not be missed if they dropped off the album. Perhaps that's what it is for me, I'm not being objective enough: if I don't like every song, then I don't think of the album as being cohesive.

If I take a step back and accept the songs for what they are, then I see where you're coming from. OK. It's in.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 10:54

I would have to add a step zero:

#0: If you've never listened to Husker Du significantly before, buy and listen to a copy of Candy Apple Grey, then Flip Your Wig and/or New Day Rising to work up to Zen Arcade. Do this for at least a month beforehand. It's likely to be an incomprehensible mess if you don't get yourself ready. (The lovely SST recording process doesn't help.)
Posted by: genixia

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 11:35


What albums can you think of that work best as a single unit? An album where you can't imagine just one song being played?


Banco de Gaia - Last Train To Llasa.
Just about anything that Sasha and Digweed mixed together.
Jeff Wayne et al - War of the Worlds.
Ozric Tentacles - Pungent Effluent.
Iron Maiden - Iron Maiden.
Joe Satriani - Surfing with the Alien.
Future Sound of London - Dead Cities.

And although not an album, Apollo440's single 'Liquid Cool' - the different mixes seem to build synergy.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 13:43

War of the Worlds doesn't count, it's an opera with narration and everything. That's a given.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 19:48

Moving Pictures was recorded in 1981 (I think) and is the album I most often hear people saying is Rush's best. If you want to know Rush, this is my highest recommendation for a first buy. It would be very difficult to find someone who enjoys the music of Rush and doesn't care for this one.

Uhhh... yeah. What he said.

I don't even like rock music but I certainly like "Moving Pictures". That CD is a pretty significant percentage of the total rock music I have in my empeg (most of it is classical), and it gets a disproportionate amount of play time.

Shonky, be sure you get the re-mastered version. It is greatly improved over the original. Also, look at "Hemispheres" (again, the remastered version) to get their best instrumental song, "La Villa Strangiato".

And ask Tony if he'll send you a copy of the 8-page analysis he did of the song "YYZ" from "Moving Pictures." You'll gain a greater appreciation not only of that song but of Rush as a group.

tanstaafl.
Posted by: BAKup

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 20:02

And ask Tony if he'll send you a copy of the 8-page analysis he did of the song "YYZ" from "Moving Pictures." You'll gain a greater appreciation not only of that song but of Rush as a group.

Ooo, 8 page analysis...Tony must be an addict...All a friend of mine and I would do is jam out along with the song...And get strange looks from the people in the other cars wondering now I was steering

Ok, I'm off to listen to La Villa Strangiato now.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 20:33

"And ask Tony if he'll send you a copy of the 8-page analysis he did of the song "YYZ" from "Moving Pictures."

Now this I would love to read. . . can I get a copy?
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 20:39

I'm loath to release that publicly...
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 20:46

Oh come on, I wouldn't show it to anyone

What kind of analsis did you do? I was a theory/ comp major for two years and would love to read something along those lines about Rush.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 21:04

Nothing so advanced. I was just explaining to Doug which melodies were done by which instruments. He thought there was more synthesizer in the song than there really was, and I pointed out to him all the places where things he thought was a synth was actually just Alex's guitar being played skillfully. For example, there are a couple moments of controlled feedback that sound very pure, and I was pointing out those sections.

For anyone who is already familiar with the song's instrumentation, it's not a very interesting read. It was only interesting for Doug because his ear is trained to recognize orchestral instruments, and he didn't realize you could get so many different kinds of sounds out of an electric guitar. What made it take eight pages was the descriptions of how they pulled it all off, for instance, the Taurus pedals at the beginning. And the back-and-forth bits on the bridge.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 13/04/2002 22:05

I was just explaining to Doug which melodies were done by which instruments.

Tony, you are far too modest. That essay you wrote could be submitted for credit in any college level music appreciation course. I hope you don't mind too much... but I will post here just two tiny excerpts from what you wrote as examples of what you did, just in case you have forgotten...

That long sustained note is a high "G" played at the twelfth fret on the third string, and sustained. During the sustain, the guitar begins to gradually feed back through its amplification.

and

When a string begins to feed back, it usually only resonates at one of its dominant harmonic sub-frequencies. The amplifier vibrates the air in the studio, which vibrates the body of the guitar, which adds energy to the string, which is picked up by the guitar pickups, which goes back to the amplifier... etc.

This is really good stuff!

tanstaafl.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 14/04/2002 01:12

Which is all "guitar 101" stuff and not news to any guitar players.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 14/04/2002 02:20

All right, all right. Fine. You badgered me into it. (Plus, I was bored.)

For those who were interested, here it is. It is a multi-email exchange between me and Doug, dated around the beginning of March 2000, before Doug even had his first Empeg. We began with Doug trying to comprehend that certain guitar parts were in fact guitar and not synthesizer (Doug being a Classical buff and therefore unfamiliar with electric guitars). Doug is also a bit confused as to which members of Rush play which instruments, so I decide to set him straight. Note that we've already gotten past certain "givens", for instance, that the introduction is morse code for the letters YYZ, and that YYZ is the international code for the Toronto airport (their home town). We join the conversation in progress, Doug is in orange...

OK, now you've done it.

You have gotten me very curious indeed about the inner workings of YYZ.

I may have misled you (but I doubt it -- I mis-stated myself but I am pretty sure you knew what I meant) about that octave-shift note: it is not the fifth note from the end but the 12th note from the end -- I forgot about that next to the last measure, just before the da-da-da-thump end.

I am wondering if that octave-shift note is guitar or keyboard. If it is guitar, it is NOT Lifeson -- he is playing around in counterpoint an octave or two below the main melodic line all the way through the piece. And Geddy Lee -- what's he doing in that piece? I know that a lot of the time he is on keyboard. The question is, does he stay on keyboard and sound like a guitar, or is he switching back and forth? If he is switching, he is doing it *really* quickly in a few spots...

Sometime in the last minute or so of the piece, what sounds like guitar, has to be guitar, is screaming out the melody, then repeats the same two bars an octave or two higher, way above the normal range of the instrument. Can't be Lifeson, he's down low on the bass guitar playing counterpoint. How is this trick done?

Anyway, listen carefully to YYZ, and see if you can tell for sure if it is keyboard or guitar doing that octave trick. I don't see how it could be guitar -- the blend from low octave to high octave is just too perfectly pitched to be any kind of electronic trickery with feedback or something. (he says, whose sum knowledge of guitars is that they're skinny on one end and fat on the other...)


----------------------------------------------

>You have gotten me very curious indeed about the inner workings of YYZ.

Oh boy! Here we go! Just remember-- You asked for it.

>it is not the fifth note from the end but the 12th note from
>the end -- I forgot about that next to the last measure, just
>before the da-da-da-thump end.


I totally understand which note you are referring to, and yes, I knew you had forgotten the last four notes. I knew what note you were talking about, and my description still stands. That is feedback. That long sustained note is a high "G" played at the twelfth fret on the third string, and sustained. During the sustain, the guitar begins to gradually feed back through its amplification. (Working in radio, I assume you know what feedback is.)

The reason the note seems to go from one octave to the next is because of the nature of the way feedback works for electric guitars. When a string begins to feed back, it usually only resonates at one of its dominant harmonic sub-frequencies. The amplifier vibrates the air in the studio, which vibrates the body of the guitar, which adds energy to the string, which is picked up by the guitar pickups, which goes back to the amplifier... etc. When done properly, it's a wonderful, gradual fade from the root note to the harmonic. In this case, it's the octave harmonic that stands out and feeds back. (And yes, Al records standing right in front of the amplifier. Yes, they record by pointing microphones at the amplifiers instead of direct-in to the mixing board, just so that they can get the proper tonality and, of course to capture cool feedback like this.)

>I am wondering if that octave-shift note is guitar or keyboard. If it
>is guitar, it is NOT Lifeson -- he is playing around in counterpoint an
>octave or two below the main melodic line all the way through the
>piece. And Geddy Lee -- what's he doing in that piece?


Ho, man, you're going to [censored] a brick when I tell you this next thing... I can't believe you didn't know this...

Prepare yourself. You are about to reach a whole new level of respect for this band as musicians.

Are you ready? Good.

Most of what you're mistaking for Al on the electric guitar is actually Geddy Lee playing the bass. There are many bass lines on that song (and on all of their songs) that are very intricate, complex, and played in a high register. For example, in the middle break, where the drums trade off little solos with another instrument- all of those little solos are all bass. During that section, Al only strums the rhythm stabs between the solos. You may not believe me yet, but I assure you, it's the truth. In time, you will come to understand. :-)

All of the thing you refer to as "playing around in counterpoint" on the second half of the main theme is actually Geddy on the bass. The high, legato notes are Alex, and the lower, percussive notes are all Geddy. It's some of the most brilliant counterpoint I've ever heard, too. The way they play off of each other gives me goose bumps through that section. Note that some of that low counterpoint is CHORDS, too, played by Geddy. It's possible to play chords on a bass, it's just that it usually sounds terrible. Unless, of course, it's done really really well...

The snappy, guitar-like sound that Geddy gets on his bass is from a combination of factors. First, he plucks the strings REALLY hard, making them sound picked when in fact they are plucked with his fingertips. Second, he chooses his basses carefully, and deliberately selects models that allow him to get that sound (in the case of that recording, I believe the instrument is a Rickenbacker). Third, they are very careful to select the right amplification and recording equipment to emphasize that sound.

Now, I dare you to listen to that song again, knowing this. You will be in awe of what an incredible bass player Geddy really is. The man is a God.

>I know that a lot of the time he is on keyboard.

There is actually very little keyboard on YYZ. They get almost all of their signature sound with guitar, bass and drums. There are only two small synthesizer parts in that whole song.

The first synth part:

In the morse-code introduction, the dissonant synthesizer notes that ride atop the morse-code rhythm are played by Geddy, but they're played with his FEET.

Yes, his FEET.

He uses an instrument called a Moog Taurus Pedal. It's basically a one-octave set of organ pedals that controls a Minimoog synthesizer. The notes played are F-sharp, A-flat, E-flat, D-flat, C. That progression is played twice through. After that, there is no more synthesizer until the last part of the bridge (more on that later).

Both Alex and Geddy make extensive use of these pedals. Although recently, they switched to MIDI controller pedals to trigger newer model synthesizers instead of the original Taurus pedals. But the layout is the same: A one-octave set of organ pedals in a little case sitting on the floor in front of them.

Actually, come to think of it, it's possible that the intro synth is done by Alex. Either one of them could be doing it. Having seen them perform the song a dozen times live, I just realized I don't know which one of them really does that part. Since the guitar and bass are doing identical lockstep notes during that intro, it would be easy for either of them to do the part. It's probably Geddy, though, because of logistical reasons. There's a Taurus part later that I know is being done by Alex, and it's using a different patch (sound). If Ged did the intro, that would allow Al to do the Taurus part on the bridge without having to switch patches mid-song.

I have a set of bass pedals, too, and I really enjoy playing those parts. It makes me feel powerful because I'm able to play intricate stuff with my hands while still having enough "CPU cycles" left over for the parts to be played with my feet. It's quite fun.

The second synth part:

The last part of the bridge after the main big guitar solo. This part is clearly keyboards. It is played by Geddy, with his hands, on a Minimoog synthesizer. The basic chord progression is A minor, G major, D major, F major. This progression is repeated four times. During this time, there is a very low, droning "A" note. That low droning "A" note is played by Alex on his Taurus pedals as the last note of his guitar solo starts to feed back over the top (yes, another example of really sweet feedback, almost identical to the one at the end- listen for it), then he adds a little more soloing at the end as the progression finishes, just before they launch back into the main theme again.

After this point, there is no more synthesizer in the song. Everything else you hear is guitar, bass, and drums. And for the most part, it's played without overt multitracking. Throughout the song, you're hearing one guitar, one bass, and one drum kit. Remember, when this album was made, they were still in their "we won't put anything onto a studio record that we couldn't perform live" phase.

Everything else you mentioned can be traced back to the roots of you mistaking Geddy's parts for Al's parts. I'll make a chart here with time codes for you to be absolutely clear on what instruments are playing which parts:

0:00: Morse Code Intro. Neil Peart, Triangle.

0:05: Alex and Geddy play identical notes (a couple of octaves apart, of course) in lockstep to the morse code rhythm. Alex on guitar, Geddy on bass. The notes played are C and F-sharp. Note that the C's are the morse code "dashes", and the F-sharps are the morse code "dots". High, dissonant, Moog Taurus pedal notes are played by Geddy, with his feet, droning over the top of everything.

0:31: The band launches into one of their trademark "hey, everybody, look how tight we are!" riffs, where they all perform a set of incredibly complex start/stop riffs in odd time signatures with inhuman synchronization and precision. God, I love that. Alex and Geddy are still playing identical notes a couple of octaves apart, in lockstep.

0:42: Main theme. If this song had lyrics, you might possibly call this the "verse". Alex and Geddy are still playing identical notes, a couple of octaves apart, in lockstep. You can start to hear a slight difference in the notes that they're playing on this riff. Only a guitarist who's trying to learn the song would notice this, but Geddy plucks an extra double-strike note in a couple of places where Alex is only picking a single note.

1:10: Second half of the main theme. If this song had lyrics, you might consider this the "chorus". The sledgehammer rhythm of the intro and verse was just a build-up to this moment. The lockstep synchronization of the guitar and bass is shattered as Geddy and Alex split up, with Geddy racing off on his own to do an intricate counterpoint to Alex's soaring main melody. Alex shifts up two octaves and plays smooth, legato guitar phrases that ride atop a set of Geddy's staccato bass riffs. The sudden shift here from synchronized to unsynchronized playing is one of the most brilliant parts of the song's arrangement. The effect is almost tangible: It's like Geddy and Alex are two jet airplanes flying in perfect formation up until this point, and suddenly they peel off and begin dogfighting with each other here.

1:38: Bridge. Alex plays sharp reggae-style strums (alternating between the chords B major and C major), stopping to allow Neil and Geddy to trade brief solos. It breaks down like this:

1:38: Alex strums, Geddy plays intricate bass riffs behind him.
1:43: Geddy solos on bass. Note that the last two notes are chords, played on the bass by plucking pairs of strings.
1:45: Alex strums again, Geddy plays intricate bass riffs behind him.
1:50: Neil solos on drums.
1:52: Alex strums again, Geddy plays intricate bass riffs behind him. There is a variation in this one, as Alex does a tiny arpeggio in addition to the chords here. There is a panning effect, too: strums are panned to one side, the arpeggio is panned to the other, but they are both the same instrument: Al's guitar. The arpeggio nestles neatly into Geddy's bass riff.
1:56: Geddy solos on bass.
1:58: Alex strums again, Geddy plays intricate bass riffs behind him.
2:03: Neil solos on drums.
2:05: Alex strums again, Geddy plays intricate bass riffs behind him.
2:10: Geddy solos on bass. The last two notes of this bass solo are interesting: They are plucked harmonic chords. He is effectively combining two different techniques, neither of which are usually done on a bass: Harmonics and chords. Harmonics means that you gently mute the string at a harmonic "node" (usually the 5th, 7th, or 12th fret), while plucking it, to achieve a "ringing bell" tone. This kind of tone is the one that Alex uses in the opening to "Red Barchetta". It's much easier to achieve this tone on a guitar than on a bass. Here, Geddy not only produces harmonics on his bass, but he's producing PAIRS of harmonics, plucking two strings at a time. (Tony melts into jelly at this point.)
2:14: Alex strums again, Geddy plays intricate bass riffs behind him.
2:18: Neil solos on drums, setting up the guitar solo.

Phew! As if that weren't enough, the song is only half-way over!!!!!

2:21: Alex launches into his big guitar solo. This solo is played in a very odd and "non-rock" scale. It's the scale of "E Harmonic Minor". (Note that the word "Harmonic" is used here differently than I used it previously. Here, it refers to the musical scale. Elsewhere it refers to a sub-frequency of a vibrating string.) The chord progression that set up this solo (during the trade-off section before) was B major to C major: Two chords precisely a half-step apart. This makes for a very odd set of notes to solo against. The only resolution to these chords is the E Harmonic Minor scale. The result is a solo that sounds very east-indian in nature.

During the solo, there is a really cool "WHACK" sound at the end of every other measure. This is a studio trick and is not reproduced accurately when they play the song live. From what I've gleaned from reading interviews, I'm pretty sure it's a combination of sounds mixed together, one of which is a recording of Neil smacking a piece of plywood onto the top of a wooden stool (hence the "plywood" credit in the liner notes). It also appears to be combined with a glass-break sample (right down to the tinkles of the bits of glass falling afterwards- listen closely for them) as well as gobs of reverb, and perhaps a whip crack, too.

2:47: Everyone stops as Alex performs a downward-spiraling riff to end the solo. This is all "hammers" and "pulls", a technique where you do not pluck or pick the notes- you simply fret the notes so firmly with the left hand that they ring out without the need for plucking with the right hand. It gives a very smooth, legato feel, and works best on a loud electric guitar with lots of amplification.

2:51: Geddy stops playing the bass altogether and slams into the Minimoog keyboards here. (When playing the song live, Geddy simply walks over to the keyboards and plays them while still wearing the bass around his shoulder. There's no instrument switching involved. That downward spiral that Alex played gives Geddy time to do this comfortably, although it can be much more hurried on other songs.) Alex lands on an "A" note the end of that downward spiral and continues to sustain it here. As Alex hits that last note on the guitar, he also steps on the "A" note of his Moog Taurus Pedal, which is set to one of those really low, arena-shaking bass patches.

Oh, wait! Sorry. You've never seen them live. You don't know what I'm talking about. There are moments in certain songs that can only be appreciated in concert. This is one of them. That low sound that Alex plays on the Taurus pedal is one of their trademarks in concert. They use that sound in a few places (most notably, the opening to Tom Sawyer). When it happens, you experience the sound on multiple levels. Your eardrums nearly burst from the sound pressure, your belly vibrates, your pant legs flap, you feel the note resonate up from the floor, through soles of your shoes, and up to the top of your head. Oh, and you see God.

2:54: The "A" note that Alex was sustaining on the guitar starts to feed back. It makes that same octave transition into feedback that you noticed at the end of the song, although faster and less controlled. It fades out pretty quick.

3:05: Alex, continuing to sustain the low "A" on the Taurus pedal, begins a short, melodic solo atop the synthesizer chords that Geddy continues to play.

3:20: Ged takes his hands off the keyboards, Al takes his foot off of the Taurus Pedals, and those instruments fade out naturally as defined by the "release" time programmed into the synthesizer patches. They launch back into the first main theme, as before, with Geddy on bass and Alex on Guitar, playing the same notes in lockstep a couple of octaves apart. From this point on, it's just the power trio: Guitar, bass, and drums.

3:47: Second half of main theme, as before, with Geddy playing a bass counterpoint under Al's soaring legato melody.

4:03: Al's variation on the main melody is to "pinch" the notes here. This is the same technique as the one he uses on the last note of the "Limelight" solo, although not as pronounced. It makes the notes squeal a little bit. I think he does it just for fun, just to dirty up the sound a little bit, not so much for musical reasons.

4:13: The last high note of Al's main theme melody is hit, and he sustains it as Geddy does a staccato downward riff on the bass, matched by Neil on the drums. Al's high note actually begins to feed back almost right away, but you don't really start to notice it until about...

4:14: Al's note shifts smoothly into feedback, one octave above the original note. Geddy and Neil are doing their own thing behind him, setting up for the finale. This is the only note Alex is playing at this time, and there are no synthesizers. You could argue that Alex isn't really playing the note- the note is actually playing itself. That's the definition of feedback. Well, OK, Al is adding some vibrato to sweeten the note, so he's helping it along.

4:16: Closing riffs and the end of the song, Alex and Geddy are playing lockstep identical notes, a couple of octaves apart. It is here that you notice the fact that Al's high melody was recorded on a different track than the final closing notes, because the feedback continues to sustain for a split second over the first note of the closing riffs. This is common in all kinds of rock recordings. It simply sounds better to have a solo smoothly taper into a rhythm part like that. When playing the song live, Alex simply switches to performing the rhythm part without trying to sustain the last note over the top.

>I don't see how it could be guitar -- the blend from low octave to
>high octave is just too perfectly pitched to be any kind of
>electronic trickery with feedback or something.


Feedback isn't electronic trickery. It's a natural part of the tonal range of the electric guitar as a musical instrument. Controlling feedback is difficult, and musicians have to go to great lengths to prevent it when it's unwanted (which is most of the time).

The "blend" you refer to is a natural part of the process. It's all about subharmonic frequencies, better known as "harmonics". It's the same thing that allows Alex and Geddy to get those "ringing bell" tones that I mentioned earlier. A vibrating string doesn't just vibrate at one frequency. It vibrates at several frequencies, each one being a sub-multiple of the main frequency. Each of these harmonics is audible in the root tone if you know how to listen for it. It's the ratios of these subharmonics that gives each instrument its tonal character.

Picture a vibrating string as an oscilloscope wave-- a dirty oscilloscope wave, with more than one "wave" combined to make a fairly complex wave. When you gently mute a string at the right point, it mutes some of the subharmonics, but leaves whatever harmonics were at the "0" crossover point of the wave at the point on the string where you muted it. The left over tone that's still ringing is a "pure" wave, a cleaned-up version of the original wave. For instance, if you mute the string gently at the 12th fret of a guitar, you are touching the string at the exact half-way mark. This harmonic frequency is exactly half of the root note, and therefore it's exactly one octave above the root note. The 12th fret harmonic is the most dominant subharmonic of any guitar note, and is the easiest to pluck. The others (located in several places along the string) produce different harmonic tones (such as fifths), but they are harder to produce because they are a fainter part of the root note and they require more precision to hit correctly.

Consequently, when a note on an amplified guitar starts to feed back, it usually tends to be at the 12th fret harmonic, one octave above the root tone. Now, feedback is achieved in a different way than a plucked harmonic, but the principle is the same. In order to feed back, the instrument needs to transmit the vibrating air back into the string so that the circle of energy can be completed. Because this involves physical distance (and the limitations of the speed of sound), the vibrating air is hitting the instrument at an offset of the string's original vibration. This offset tends to "mute" the other harmonic tones while accentuating the dominant one where the wave of the air and the wave of the string match. Hence, the feedback producing a pure tone one octave above the root note.

Experts like Hendrix could "play" feedback by altering the guitar's distance and angle from the speaker, deliberately accentuating different harmonics as they moved the guitar. Not very musical, but interesting from a technical point of view.

Now, I'll grant you that this particular instance of feedback in YYZ is exceptionally smooth and sweet sounding, giving it a synthesizer-like quality. There is also the fact that some effects (such as a chorus) are being put on the guitar, which helps to make it sound less electric and more electronic. But what you're hearing at the end of YYZ is definitely well-controlled feedback. It's not easy to make it sound that smooth. It takes careful placement of the amplifier and the instrument, and careful adjustment of the gain controls and the effects on the guitar. It probably took several takes to get it right.

Being a guitarist, I can hear the tones that the guitar is making, and I can tell that for most of the song, it's riding that hairy edge just beneath the level where the guitar will start feeding back. There's a certain way that the notes are ringing, it's hard to describe. But I can practically FEEL the volume level in the studio when I hear that recording. That's one of the reasons it's such an incredible piece of music and an incredible production job. That "just about to feed back" tone is where the electric guitar sounds its sweetest. What you're hearing is an example of an electric guitar recorded in the most perfect way possible, generating the most perfect tone possible. Some real magic happened in the studio when they recorded that album- it's so transcendent that it even crosses genre boundaries. You're a testament to that.

Jeez, it's 11:00 already. I've spent three hours composing this message. I guess I must be a real Rush fan. :-)

I'll be gone this weekend, but if you want to talk further on the subject, get back to me before Noon on Friday. I'm dying to hear what you have to say about all this.

----------------------------------------------

> Oh boy! Here we go! Just remember-- You asked for it.

And God, did I ever get it. Took 8 pages to print it out. Seriously, this was probably the best e-mail I have ever received.

> I totally understand which note you are referring to, and yes, I knew
> you had forgotten the last four notes.

I knew you would!

> When done properly, it's a wonderful,
> gradual fade from the root note to the harmonic. In this case, it's
> the octave harmonic that stands out and feeds back.

But why does the root note fade out, while the harmonic increase in volume? Intuitively it seems like the opposite would occur -- the amplifier would amplify the loudest frequency the most. Would there ever be a case where a sub-harmonic would amplify over the root note (i.e., an octave or a fifth or a third LOWER than the root) in the same fashion that the over-harmonic amplifies here?

> Most of what you're mistaking for Al on the electric guitar is
> actually Geddy Lee playing the bass.

You are 100% correct there (assuming you're not just making all this up out of your head. ;-) For some reason I had it in my head (the person who originally lent me the first Rush CDs I listened to told me this...) that Lifeson played bass guitar, and Geddy Lee played keyboards and sometimes "regular" (lead?) guitar. Is there even such a thing as a bass guitar? What do you mean when you say "Geddy Lee playing the bass."? I think of a bass as this sasquatch-sized violin standing on end, with some bearded, dark-glasses-wearing beatnik with a beret going "thum-thum-Thum-THUM-thum-thum-thum" on it. Obviously my mental image needs adjusting...

> For example, in the middle break, where the
> drums trade off little solos with another instrument- all of those
> little solos are all bass.

I knew that... I just thought it was Lifeson down in the low registers, not Geddy.

> All of the thing you refer to as "playing around in counterpoint" on
> the second half of the main theme is actually Geddy on the bass.

Yep. I know that now!

> Note that some of that low counterpoint is CHORDS, too,
> played by Geddy.

Haven't heard that yet, I'll be sure to listen for it.

> Now, I dare you to listen to that song again, knowing this. You will
> be in awe of what an incredible bass player Geddy really is. The man
> is a God.

Have done so. Will be even more impressed when I know exactly what a "bass" is...

> There is actually very little keyboard on YYZ. They get almost all of
> their signature sound with guitar, bass and drums. There are only two
> small synthesizer parts in that whole song.

Isn't there a third place -- where the guitar (s?) are trading solos with the percussion? I am referring to the part of the song where Peart does the "broken glass" sounds where I am pretty sure it is keyboard doing the chords, most notably at 1:58, where he is playing those short, choppy little notes. Or is this what you are referring to as the second synth part?

> Having seen them perform the song a dozen times live...

Does that mean you've been to a dozen Rush concerts? Or more... they wouldn't do YYZ in every concert, would they? I've never been to a rock concert of any type... If someone kidnapped me and dragged me to a live rock concert, I would willingly pay double the ticket price to be let out. The exception being Rush. I would actually pay money to see them in concert.

> The second synth part:
> The last part of the bridge after the main big guitar solo. This part
> is clearly keyboards. It is played by Geddy, with his hands, on a
> Minimoog synthesizer. During this time, there is a very low,
> droning "A" note. That low droning "A" note
> is played by Alex on his Taurus pedals as the last note of his guitar
> solo starts to feed back over the top (yes, another example of really
> sweet feedback, almost identical to the one at the end- listen for
> it), then he adds a little more soloing at the end as the progression
> finishes, just before they launch back into the main theme again.

I knew I really liked that part of the song, now I know why. I will listen
to that with much more attention now.


> After this point, there is no more synthesizer in the song.

Listening to the song with newly-educated ears, I must concur.

> Everything else you mentioned can be traced back to the roots of you
> mistaking Geddy's parts for Al's parts.

Correct.

> 0:00: Morse Code Intro. Neil Peart, Triangle.
> 0:31: The band launches into one of their trademark "hey, everybody,
> look how tight we are!" riffs,

They are actually *tighter* on the "Exit Stage Left" performance, which astounds me!

> Only a guitarist who's trying to learn the song would notice this, but Geddy
> plucks an extra double-strike note in a couple of places where Alex is
> only picking a single note.

I am embarrassed to admit this, but not only have I not noticed the "extra double-strike note in a couple of places" but it has never even registered on me that Alex and Geddy are mirroring each other.

> 1:10: Second half of the main theme.

Yes! to everything you point out there.

(lots of stuff skipped here... please don't assume I am unappreciative. There is so much good commentary that I am overwhelmed, and until I sit down with my CD player and your notes, I don't know what to say!


> 1:58: Alex strums again, Geddy plays intricate bass riffs behind him.

That is *not* an intricate bass riff. Somebody is pounding on a keyboard there! Either that, or Lifeson is really an octopus and playing about four guitars simultaneously.

> 2:10: Geddy solos on bass. The last two notes of this bass solo are
> interesting: They are plucked harmonic chords.

In the "Exit Stage Left" performance, the crowd goes nuts here -- is it because they have an appreciation for the difficulty of what he is doing (unlikely) or is he doing something else that really draws their attention?

> This kind of tone is the one that Alex uses in the opening to "Red
> Barchetta".

I always loved that opening -- and even more so the end, that long, long fade out of the four-note motif with all the subtle variations. I could listen to a full half-hour of that (assuming they could keep up with the subtle changes each eight notes...) with total delight. Never knew it had anything to do with "plucked harmonics" though. Never knew there was such a thing, even. Still don't entirely understand. You've got to remember, I know nothing of string instruments (I am a brass player) so I always figured that the frets were just markers where you put your finger so when you plucked the string it played the right note. Are you saying there might be more to playing a guitar than that? Naaahhhh, couldn't be.

> 2:21: Alex launches into his big guitar solo. This solo is played in a
> very odd and "non-rock" scale. It's the scale of "E Harmonic Minor".
> The result is a solo that sounds very East-Indian in nature.

What an excellent description. I'd never tried to identify the "ethnicity" of that part of the song like that before, just noted that it was different from the remainder of the piece. But I have to tell you... my music theory classes never talked about E Harmonic Minor. Wild stuff.

> During the solo, there is a really cool "WHACK" sound at the end of
> every other measure. This is a studio trick and is not reproduced
> accurately when they play the song live.

Actually, it's not too badly done in "Exit Stage Left" -- sounds like he's hitting a tambourine. Doesn't have the long "shattered glass" falloff of the studio version but it's still attention getting.

> From what I've gleaned from
> reading interviews, I'm pretty sure it's a combination of sounds mixed
> together, one of which is a recording of Neil smacking a piece of
> plywood onto the top of a wooden stool (hence the "plywood" credit in
> the liner notes). It also appears to be combined with a glass-break
> sample (right down to the tinkles of the bits of glass falling
> afterwards- listen closely for them) as well as gobs of reverb, and
> perhaps a whip crack, too.

That breaking glass sound was one of the first things that really grabbed my attention in YYZ. To me it sounds like a hard rim-shot (that's the plywood, maybe?), simultaneously with a tambourine hit and tinkling glass.

> 2:47: Everyone stops as Alex performs a downward-spiraling riff to end
> the solo. This is all "hammers" and "pulls", a technique where you do
> not pluck or pick the notes- you simply fret the notes so firmly with
> the left hand that they ring out without the need for plucking with
> the right hand. It gives a very smooth, legato feel, and works best on
> a loud electric guitar with lots of amplification.

I had *no* idea that you could make noise with a guitar by doing anything other than plucking the strings. I've always thought that riff was show-offy and needlessly flashy -- and I've always*loved* every single note of it! Even when I thought it was Geddy on keyboard doing it.

> Oh, wait! Sorry. You've never seen them live. You don't know what I'm
> talking about.

Right, rub it in, you hoser!

> Your eardrums nearly burst from the sound pressure, your belly
> vibrates, your pant legs flap, you feel the note resonate up from the
> floor, through soles of your shoes, and up to the top of your head.
> Oh, and you see God.

Just like when I play it in my car. ;-)

> 2:54: The "A" note that Alex was sustaining on the guitar starts to
> feed back. It makes that same octave transition into feedback that you
> noticed at the end of the song, although faster and less controlled.
> It fades out pretty quick.

I have never noticed that one. And that surprises me -- I usually catch stuff like that. I will be listening.

> 4:03: Al's variation on the main melody is to "pinch" the notes here.
> It makes the notes squeal a little bit.

I think it's more than just squealing -- doesn't the melody line jump up an octave (or two?) there?

> 4:14: Al's note shifts smoothly into feedback, one octave above the
> original note.

OK, I believe you now!

> 4:16: Closing riffs and the end of the song. It is
> here that you notice the fact that Al's high melody was recorded on a
> different track than the final closing notes, because the feedback
> continues to sustain for a split second over the first note of the
> closing riffs.

Well, maybe *you* notice it... I haven't picked up on that one (yet).

> Consequently, when a note on an amplified guitar starts to feed back,
> it usually tends to be at the 12th fret harmonic, one octave above the
> root tone. Now, feedback is achieved in a different way than a plucked
> harmonic, but the principle is the same. In order to feed back, the
> instrument needs to transmit the vibrating air back into the string so
> that the circle of energy can be completed. Because this involves
> physical distance (and the limitations of the speed of sound), the
> vibrating air is hitting the instrument at an offset of the string's
> original vibration. This offset tends to "mute" the other harmonic
> tones while accentuating the dominant one where the wave of the air
> and the wave of the string match. Hence, the feedback producing a pure
> tone one octave above the root note.

Aaahhh... Here is the answer to the question I asked at the top of this letter. I even understand it. Sort of.

> There is also the fact that some effects (such as a chorus)...sound less
> electric and more electronic.

Chorus? Elaborate, please....

> Being a guitarist, I can hear the tones that the guitar is making, and
> I can tell that for most of the song, it's riding that hairy edge just
> beneath the level where the guitar will start feeding back.

Even being a not-guitarist, I have been able to sense this -- sort of a raw, edgy feel to the sound.

> Some real magic happened in the studio when they recorded that album- it's
> so transcendent that it even crosses genre boundaries. You're a testament
> to that.

You nailed it -- it is the studio work, and the virtuosity of the performers, not the music itself that entrances me. I have rarely, if ever, heard music where such obvious attention was paid to the smallest details, where *somebody* knew exactly what they were trying to accomplish and wouldn't stop until they got it.

> Jeez, it's 11:00 already. I've spent three hours composing this
> message. I guess I must be a real Rush fan. :-)

Don't try eliciting any sympathy from me! Many's the time I've seen you on the empeg bbs well after midnight *my* time, which means one or two in the morning in California.

> I'll be gone this weekend, but if you want to talk further on the
> subject, get back to me before Noon on Friday. I'm dying to hear what
> you have to say about all this.

Hang onto this little essay you wrote. It is really good work. I have already saved it in my word processor, and unless you object I plan on forwarding it to a few people I know.

I thank you much more than you probably suspect for this -- you have definitely enhanced my enjoyment of what was already the second-favorite piece of music I own. (First place goes to Mozart Piano Concerto #21 in C-Major, Vilmos Fischer soloist. I may have mentioned that before. When I get going in the MP-3 business, I will send you a copy of that, and an email elucidating its delights comparable in scope to what you did with this one about YYZ.)

----------------------------------------------

>And God, did I ever get it. Took 8 pages to print it out.
>Seriously, this was probably the best e-mail I have ever received.


(*Blush*)

>Would there ever be a case where a sub-harmonic would amplify
>over the root note (i.e., an octave or a fifth or a third LOWER
>than the root) in the same fashion that the over-harmonic
>amplifies here?


Although you may have gleaned this answer later, the reason is that there aren't any lower sub-harmonics. All of the sub-frequencies are higher than the root note. The root note isn't even a frequency by itself- it's simply a complex sum of all the other subharmonics. When all the subharmonics get piled together, the result is the lower note.

>and Geddy Lee played keyboards and sometimes "regular" (lead?) guitar.

Geddy plays very little keyboards on the early albums, and has played more and more of them as their career progressed. Same with Al. He started off playing no keyboards at all, then they added the Taurus pedals, and now he actually has one keyboard off to the side of his onstage spot that he steps over to once in a while. The reason is that their arrangements have been getting increasingly complex, and in recent years they need to trigger samples and sequences from the keyboards sometimes.

>Is there even such a thing as a bass guitar?

Yes. It's the same thing. I avoided that term because I thought it might confuse you.

>What do you mean when you say "Geddy Lee playing the bass."?
>I think of a bass as this sasquatch-sized violin standing on end,
>with some bearded, dark-glasses-wearing beatnik with a beret going
>"thum-thum-Thum-THUM-thum-thum-thum" on it. Obviously my mental
>image needs adjusting...


Okay, when I say "Bass" it is short for "Electric Bass Guitar". It is simply an electric version of the beatnik instrument you just described, with a few differences: 1) It usually has frets like a guitar (although there are fretless ones too), 2) It's worn around the neck like a guitar (although there are standup ones too), 3) It has a solid body like an electric guitar instead of a large hollow body.

I don't know if the MP remaster CD has the same photos that mine does, but it shows Geddy holding a Fender bass while standing next to an Oberheim synthesizer.

Although there are similarities between an electric guitar and an electric bass, the two instruments have very different sounds and are played completely differently. An electric bass player has more in common with that beatnik than he does a guitar player. That's why Geddy's technique is so amazing. He can do things that make other bass players pee their pants.

>Isn't there a third place -- where the guitar (s?) are trading solos with
>the percussion? I am referring to the part of the song where Peart does the
>"broken glass" sounds where I am pretty sure it is keyboard doing the
>chords, most notably at 1:58, where he is playing those short, choppy little
>notes. Or is this what you are referring to as the second synth part?


The only synths are in the intro and in the obviously "synth" part starting at 2:51. There are no keyboards happening at 1:58. It's all guitar, bass and drums. These guys are very good at squeezing many different sounds out of their instruments. You'd be surprised how simple things like picking technique or choosing different chord inversions can drastically change the sound of an instrument.

>Does that mean you've been to a dozen Rush concerts? Or
>more... they wouldn't do YYZ in every concert, would they?


Actually, YYZ is one of their most popular songs, and they have performed it at every concert since Moving Pictures was released. They know we'd never forgive them if they dropped it from their live set.

When I say I've seen them perform it a dozen times, I'm counting both the times when I saw them live, and the times I've watched them do it on a concert videotape.

How many Rush concerts have I actually been to? Let me count... Hmm, I think it's been seven times. So I'm exaggerating. I've actually only seen ten different performances of YYZ. Seven in person and three on videotape. :-)

>I've never been to a rock concert of any type... If someone
>kidnapped me and dragged me to a live rock concert, I would
>willingly pay double the ticket price to be let out.


So would I... for most concerts. But there are some (not just Rush) that I wouldn't miss for the world. Peter Gabriel is a concert that just must NOT be missed. If you ever get a chance, that's the best concert for the money, hands down.

>I am embarrassed to admit this, but not only have I not
>noticed the "extra double-strike note in a couple of places"
>but it has never even registered on me that Alex and Geddy are
>mirroring each other.


That's a testament to how tight they are. But if you listen to the recording with your new ears, you can CLEARLY hear the bass and the guitar as two separate distinct instruments. It's crystal clear once you know what to listen for. Again, another example of how incredibly well-produced the album is.

Part of the reason the piece is so amazing is because of this doubling that they do. Most musicians would consider it boring to just have the guitar and bass doing the same lines for so long. But when they break apart on the chorus, it makes it all that much more amazing. The contrast between the rigid synchronization section and the freeform counterpoint section is so striking...

>That is *not* an intricate bass riff. Somebody is pounding on a keyboard
>there! Either that, or Lifeson is really an octopus and playing about four
>guitars simultaneously.


No, I just checked it. At 1:58, Lifeson is simply strumming those sharp, fast, reggae-style chords (chucka chucka CHA chucka chucka chucka CHA), while Geddy does his thing (bwa da dum da de da dum dum).

Now, it's possible that my CD/MP3 isn't time-indexed exactly the same as your remastered CD is. Just before 1:58 is a short bass solo that is rather amazing sounding. Perhaps that's what you're talking about? Still, even then, that's just Ged on the bass. Like I said, the man is a God.

>In the "Exit Stage Left" performance, the crowd goes nuts here --
>is it because they have an appreciation for the difficulty
>of what he is doing (unlikely)


No, that's exactly what's happening. Us Rush fans eat this stuff up. The crowd really does appreciate what's going on and they are literally cheering his solo.

>or is he doing something else that really draws their attention?

Trust me, he's got his hands full just playing the notes. There's nothing else he could be doing.

>(Re: Plucked harmonics)
>Never knew there was such a thing, even. Still don't entirely
>understand.


Have a guitarist demonstrate plucked harmonics for you sometime. Actually, you can even take a ringing note, and gently touch the string at one of the "nodes" and it will turn from a regular note into a harmonic. That's something that Alex does once in a while, too.

>I always figured that the frets were just markers where you put
>your finger so when you plucked the string it played the right note.


Frets are more than markers. They are physically raised from the surface of the neck so that you press down the string BEHIND the fret (not on it), and the fret becomes the new "end" of the string. When a guitarist frets a note, he is changing the pitch of the string by literally shortening the string.

>But I have to tell you... my music theory
>classes never talked about E Harmonic Minor.


The "E" part of "E Harmonic Minor" is just the key it's in-- which note the scale starts at. You can start any scale at any note. For instance, if the chords to the bridge were C and C-sharp instead of B and C, then the scale would have been "F Harmonic Minor" instead.

If you have played brass, then you know about how scales work. Most scales are just the major scale started at a different point. It's always the same pattern: Two whole steps, one half step, three whole steps, one half step. You can see this pattern on a piano keyboard as the intervals between the black and white keys.

What makes the Harmonic Minor scale sound odd is that its pattern of whole and half steps is quirky and doesn't follow the usual pattern. It has a step-and-a-half jump in one place, and three half-steps in another. It's quite fun to play.

>Actually, it's not too badly done in "Exit Stage Left" -- sounds
>like he's hitting a tambourine.


Actually I think it's a chinese cymbal, but I could be wrong.

>I had *no* idea that you could make noise with a guitar by doing
>anything other than plucking the strings.


Yeah, hammers are really fun. I like to stick my right hand up over my head when I play that riff. :-) Get a guitarist to demonstrate hammers for you sometime.

There is an instrument called a Chapman Stick that is designed around being played with ALL hammers. It's all fretboard. You use both hands to play it and hammer with both. You can accompany yourself on that instrument. It's really cool. Tony Levin from Peter Gabriel's band is a Stick player.

(Not to be confused with Steinberger guitars and basses, which are plain old guitars and basses but without a headstock and body...)


>> 4:03: Al's variation on the main melody is to "pinch" the notes here.
>> It makes the notes squeal a little bit.
>I think it's more than just squealing -- doesn't the melody line
>jump up an octave (or two?) there?


Nope. He frets the same notes. The "pinch" technique causes a similar thing to happen as with feedback and harmonics, making the dominant harmonic ring out. It sounds like the melody jumps up an octave, but the left hand is fingering the same notes.

>> There is also the fact that some effects (such as a chorus)...
>>sound less electric and more electronic.
>Chorus? Elaborate, please....

Chorus is one of many different kinds of electronic effects you can insert into a guitar's signal to alter its sound. Guitarists usually have a "pedalboard" containing lots of little boxes daisy-chained together, each one containing a different effect. Stepping on a switch on each of these boxes will activate or deactivate the effect.

Modern equipment usually involves multi-effects units: Rackmount units that sit at the back of the stage with the amplifiers and take the place of dozens of these little boxes. Those are controlled remotely from a high-tech pedalboard sitting on stage in front of the guitarist.

This is how Alex (and many other guitarists) can make their instrument change character in the middle of a song so easily.

The "Chorus" is a delay-based effect. In essence, it simply echoes the original sound back. But it does it very quickly, on the order of just a few milliseconds. This gives the guitar a sort of lush, swirling sound that makes it sound like the guitar has more strings than it really does. It's the most commonly-used guitar effect, and can be heard on almost every electric guitar these days.

----------------------------------------------


That's about all I need to post from this exchange, I think. That about covers it.
Posted by: BAKup

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 14/04/2002 10:09

Thank you Tony, I enjoyed reading that...And I think I need to buy you a beer now.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 14/04/2002 12:07

Awesome! That was really fun to read Tony. Believe me, this type of analsys was exactly what I had to do in some of my music classes and this process really helps you appreciate the song even more. (Of course, we always analyzed art and classical music, so this IS a little different, but the truth is most "pop" music would not survive such a treatment).

Thanks again for sharing, I really enjoyed that. If you ever want to write another we're waiting. . . (It doesn't even have to be Rush)
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 14/04/2002 20:10

Thanks, guys, glad you liked it. As I said, it wasn't originally meant to be an essay or anthing, I was just trying to explain some salient points to Doug.
Posted by: lectric

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 14/04/2002 21:16

Well, I feel weird. 3 pages of posts, and nobody even mentioned my favorite Rush album, Exit... Stage Left.
Posted by: Satan_X

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 14/04/2002 21:38

damn, nice analysis........
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 15/04/2002 03:55

>In the "Exit Stage Left" performance, the crowd goes nuts here --
>is it because they have an appreciation for the difficulty
>of what he is doing (unlikely)

Here you go!
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 15/04/2002 09:30

and nobody even mentioned my favorite Rush album, Exit... Stage Left.

You mean the worst-mixed and worst-EQ'd album on the face of the planet?
Posted by: genixia

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 15/04/2002 10:12

Damn you Tony, I've just had to go shopping.

BTW, since you're a 'prog' fiend, have you heard of the British band 'Jump' ?
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 15/04/2002 10:18

No, I haven't heard of Jump.

If you're referring to this Jump, Allmusic.com lists them as House/Electronica.

By the way, I'm glad to know I made you go shopping. What'd you buy?
Posted by: genixia

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 15/04/2002 10:38

Well, I went to get Moving Pictures, but as usual ended up spending $70 on other stuff.

Yeah, Allmusic have got that one completely wrong. Jump are a rock band who have been around at least 11 years. They are often labelled prog or classic, although they don't like to be pigeon-holed, and I don't think they fit a mold. Their vocalist John Dexter Johns keeps winning the Classic Rock Society's 'Vocalist of the Year' award..

Check out www.jumprock.co.uk
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 15/04/2002 10:47

/me downloads the MP3 files from Jump's web site...
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 15/04/2002 10:57

1/3 of the way through "Everybody Stop", /me thinks he's going to be buying some Jump albums in the near future.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 15/04/2002 11:48

Nice. . . This is good stuff. Ok, so which album do you recommend?
Posted by: genixia

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 15/04/2002 12:17

I'd start with the live album - "The Freedom Train", as Jump are fantastic live, and this album captured a momentous gig very well. It was recorded in late '98 at the original Bass player's last gig - the gig was a two and a half hour long showcase of their music to date. The album condenses that to 74 minutes, but still includes songs from all of their albums. (IIRC, the second track "The Lightbox" appears on a very early demo tape that I have stored somewhere..)


After that I don't really have a strong opinion - the production has gotten better over the years (The Winds Of Change was overproduced and lacks energy IMO), but all of their albums are good. I haven't heard their latest...yet. Time to buy.

They don't have many copies of TWOC left to sell...so if you suspect that you'd want to end up with all of their work then don't hang around too long with that one.
Posted by: tonyc

"Prog Rock" - 16/04/2002 16:32

So someone tell me what this "Progressive Rock" is. I've heard it used to describe bands like Rush, Yes, Dream Theater, etc. but I have no idea what makes a band progressive. The term itself reminds me too much of "alternative" in that it's "alternative to what?" Well, what is "progressive" music progressing away from, and towards?

It so happens I'm a huge fan of Rush, Pink Floyd, and several other bands that have received this label. But I have no idea what it means. I hear it sometimes married to another label, "Art Rock." I've heard people say that it's rock that likes to push the envelope with unconventional keys, timings, and songwriting... But if you ask me, there are LOTS of bands which get artistic with their music (go beyond 4/4 timing, use strange tunings, write 15 minute songs, etc) that don't really get called Progressive. Is there some kind of distinctive sound or theme or pattern that these progressive acts fit into? Is there some canonical list of progressive rock bands out there that I'm not aware of?

I guess I just don't understand this category, and never have. Most recently, I've heard of one of my favorite metal-ish bands, The Gathering, referred to as "Progressive Metal." Like a combination of a Prog Rock and a Metal band. I'm not quite sure what to call them really (I have them as "Hard Rock" in my genres for lack of anything better) but this "progressive" label really confuzzles me.

Basically, to me, it sounds like a hoitey-toitey label for snobby music listeners to say that their music has "progressed" beyond pop music. I would argue that every one of these artistic bands has stayed very much on course with trends in pop music. Though sometimes these "progressive" bands have shaped pop music's direction, it was usually by accident, and I certainly don't think any of them just plain ignored pop music trends and wrote their music in a vaccum.

Anyway, I've never seen an adequate explanation of this term. Someone please help me out so I can rip my hair out over my unsatisfactory genre categorizations on my player.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: "Prog Rock" - 16/04/2002 16:55

To me, Progressive Rock has always meant the following things. I don't know if this is accurate:

- Rock music that is noticeably influenced by classical music.

- Rock music that does not attempt to be pop music or to manufacture "hits".

- Rock music that is heavily focused around the instrumental aspect, for example, having extended instrumental sections on the albums.

- Rock music that is clearly written for the purpose of amusing the people who wrote and performed the music, rather than a blatant attempt to appeal to the public.

- Rock music with extensive production and complex arrangements.

- Rock music that is frequently experimental and non-conventional.

- Because of all of the above, it is often appreciated mostly by other musicians. I think the best summary term would be "music for musicians".

I don't know where the word came from, but most bands who get labeled as "progressive" are often known to have their style and sound change progressively as their careers progress instead of just re-making the same albums over and over again, so perhaps that's where it came from.

Bands that I feel deserve this name:

Yes
Rush
Jethro Tull
Dream Theater
Queensryche
Queen
Genesis

I don't think this category really existed much before the '70's. I'm not sure if Led Zeppelin and The Who fall into this category or not. The Beatles, in their time, were probably the most progressive band that was successful and well-known, but they break some of the guidelines on my list and I think they predate the term.

/me goes to look on the web for other definitions to see if they fit mine.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: "Prog Rock" - 16/04/2002 17:02

Hmmmm.... Although these guys don't really give an answer, they remind me of some other bands that fit my definition:

http://www.progrock.net/what.is.prog.html

- King Crimson (by the way, I'm going to see Tony Levin tomorrow night at the Boardwalk in Sacramento, woohoo!)

- Allan Holdsworth

- Frank Zappa

I agree with their implication that The Cure, The Smiths, and Nirvana are not progressive rock.
Posted by: genixia

Re: "Prog Rock" - 16/04/2002 17:02

Yeah, the meaning of Progressive is rather indefinite when it comes to music.

The dictionary meaning of progressive could probably be applied to any new music that is worth buying. Or put another way, anything that isn't progressing the musical arts probably isn't worth buying.

But I would say that those bands who are collectively thought of as 'prog' do tend to try more varied musical ideas than those who aren't.

Unfortunately, into this pigeon-hole also drop those bands that think an interesting CD consists purely of near-identical 15 minute long overly-theatrical stories of middle-age heroics, punctuated by heavy church-organ keyboard riffs, and as many key, tempo and time signature changes as they can cram in.

I never liked the term - it's too broad and vague.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: "Prog Rock" - 16/04/2002 17:04

Hmm, I like this definition, if a bit narrow:

http://www.e-prog.net/define.htm

It's pretty much what the early-'70's defintion was. It fits bands like Yes and early Rush to a T.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: "Prog Rock" - 16/04/2002 17:14

I like this one:

http://home.epix.net/~eichler/reviews/progdefn.htm
Posted by: genixia

Re: "Prog Rock" - 16/04/2002 17:14

Yeah, I like that second definition. It fits my expectations of what a 'prog' band is.

In the context of that, Jump tend to center their songs around modern life, and hence don't totally fit.

<edit> Man, Tony got another post in before I replied. The second definition, is the one in the post 2 above this one.
</edit>
Posted by: Flatline

Re: "Prog Rock" - 16/04/2002 17:47

You beat me to adding King Crimson to the list but what about the Dixie Dregs? Music for Musicians if there ever was.

Eric
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: "Prog Rock" - 16/04/2002 20:39

All of Tony's suggestions are, I think, accurate, but you have to consider where these terms came from. ``Progressive'' seems to come from the early to mid seventies, when the pop music scene was inundated with stuff like ``Afternoon Delight'' and ``Chevy Van''. ``Alternative'' was coined in the late 80's when there was a preponderance of equally bland pop music. Both terms essentially came about as a backlash against what pop music had become, which was largely innocuous radio-friendly pap. Neither term has much meaning on its own, but has come to describe what the popular backlash music sounded like. In the seventies, it tended to be orchestral-influenced stuff. In the eighties, it was less easy to describe, but has as cohesive a sound. In the nineties, it was ``Grunge'', which ended up being just hard rock (there were probably only two or three actual grunge bands popular back then, but many more got that appellation). I expect we'll be seeing another name pop up pretty soon. If we're lucky, it's not going to just be ``New'' rock, in the form of Limp Bizkit, etc.

BTW, CDnow keeps a reasonable description of music genres. Click on the genre links to the left on their page and click a more specific subgenre to get a description. They seem to all be taken from AMG, but here's the one for prog/art rock.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: "Prog Rock" - 17/04/2002 07:06

Hmm. I still think the term progressive is kinda pretentious. Especially the "music for musicians" part. Musicians all like different musical elements. In fact I think that kind of categorization trivializes the music of those bands, as if somehow the songs weren't meant to appeal to "regular Joes". To say that Rush, Queensryche, Genesis didn't write music in the hopes that musicians AND non-musicians would enjoy it is rather absurd. They were just writing it and performing it with their own style, which just didn't happen to sound like anything else at the time. And I know the early material of these bands was rather experimental and not very "accessible" but that doesn't mean they were writing with musicians as the target audience.

Genexia's rather cynical definition is maybe getting somewhere, though. Sometimes I think in an effort to "keep it real" some of these progressive acts become formulaic in their approach, focusing on adding quirky structural elements to the music and not the sound of the music itself.

I think your explanation that these terms are very time-specific (Progressive = 70's, Alternative = 90's, etc.) is helping me understand the definition better. But that makes me wonder how newer artists could possibly be called progressive when several other of these evolutionary phases of music have already come to pass.

By the way I think the CDNow genres (which are actually all borrowed from the All Music Guide) are pretty silly in many instances... Breaking things down so finely that a single band usually fits into at least ten genres. Not very helpful in categorizing one's music!
Posted by: tfabris

Re: "Prog Rock" - 17/04/2002 10:00

but what about the Dixie Dregs? Music for Musicians if there ever was.

Not sure how to classify the guitar-wizard, instrumental-only stuff like Dregs (and Steve Morse solo work of course), Eric Johnson, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Yngwie Malmsteen, etc.

Do they count as prog rock, or are they in a class by themselves?
Posted by: tfabris

Re: "Prog Rock" - 17/04/2002 10:11

I still think the term progressive is kinda pretentious.

I don't think the term itself is pretentious, I think it's often used as a synonym for saying "pretentious". When someone uses the word in a derogatory way, they usually mean it to say that the band is pretentious art-rock.

To say that Rush, Queensryche, Genesis didn't write music in the hopes that musicians AND non-musicians would enjoy it is rather absurd.

You're right, but there is still a tendency for prog rock to be mostly appreciated by other musicians, regardless of the intentions of the composers. But I will re-iterate that those bands were primarily intending to amuse themselves with the music rather than the general public. Rush in particular re-states this point regularly.

I mean, yes, sure, the whole point of music is to perform it to an audience. But the difference is that these bands don't sit there and try to write hits. They write music that makes THEM happy, and put it out there and hope that there will be other people with the same tastes.

As far as I'm concerned, that makes prog rock the OPPOSITE of pretentious. Don't you?
Posted by: genixia

Re: "Prog Rock" - 17/04/2002 10:32

Ahhh, some of my most-played stuff. Thank God for the empeg - I was on the 3rd taped copy of Surfing With The Alien.

I was wondering the very same thing last night. I didn't come to a solid conclusion. Some of Vai's work could easily fit in some of the definitions you've found - his Zappa influence can clearly be heard thoughout his career, and he is by far the most imaginative, and creative of the four, and takes the biggest risks with his music.
Satch could fit as well, but he is more often put in the equally misunderstood Fusion category.
Yngwie? On the one hand, he is neo-classical, complete with church-organs and mythical themes, so fits better than Vai or Satch into the 'typical' 'prog' category, but on the other hand there is little progression over his career IMO.

Did you know that Yngwie was in a bad road accident in the early-/mid-80's and was told by doctors that he'd never hold a cup of coffee again in his left hand? He reckoned that he'd got 95% of his playing ability back. I'd be happy to have the other 5%
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: "Prog Rock" - 17/04/2002 14:51

    I still think the term progressive is kinda pretentious.
Perhaps, but I don't think that you should judge a band based on an appelation that was applied to them. Now, if some band refers to itself as a ``progressive rock'' band, then go ahead. Most bands that feel it necessary to pigeonhole themselves in such a manner usually suck anyway. Most real artists try to avoid defining themselves.
    I think your explanation that these terms are very time-specific (Progressive = 70's, Alternative = 90's, etc.) is helping me understand the definition better. But that makes me wonder how newer artists could possibly be called progressive when several other of these evolutionary phases of music have already come to pass.
My point is that these bands were progressive or alternative at the time, by the usual definitions of those words. But there tended to be a commonality of the sounds of the bands, and that sound then became known as ``progressive'' or ``alternative'', and the original meanings of those words were lost. A definition might look something like:

alternative rock(n): the genre of music largely defined by rock bands of the mid 80s to early 90s who were seen as an alternative to the popular music of the time, but quickly became the status quo

alternative (adj): having to do with or sounding like alternative rock

But you're right, and it's an issue that friends of mine have harped on for years; what is it an alternative to? It was an alternative. Now it's just a name.

But to actually bother answering your question, it's because the newer ``progressive'' bands sound like the old progressive bands. Just forget that ``progressive'' has a meaning of its own and think of it as a name. It doesn't follow that a composer would not be considered baroque just because he was born in the 20th century, nor would it make sense to not see Stevie Ray Vaughn as a blues artist just because he came after some other offshoots of that genre.
Posted by: AndrewT

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 17/04/2002 17:16

I feel kindof cheated. Within hours of noticing this post I told a friend the great news about the new Rush album. I sent him the links at the top of this thread and within a day he called me to say he couldn't buy it anywhere (ahem, May 14th it's 'allegedly' available) but had downloaded it from one of the file-sharing networks. He's not a warez'er, just an unstoppable Rush fan.

I've held off posting this since I don't want to 'encourage' others to do the same thing. My friend (absolutely no doubt) will buy this album once it's listed in the UK, I will too but that's a 'given' as far as I'm concerned;
How could this material have 'leaked' given the recent (and rightly so) ass kicking the warez community has had over recent months? If I could pre-order on amazon.co.uk I'd feel so much happier about the next paragraph:

Should I (morally) be cast into the black hole of Cygnus X-1 for temporarily copying my friend's .mp3's until I can buy & rip a retail CD?
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 17/04/2002 18:06

Hell no, if you're going to buy the CD, nothing is wrong with grabbing the tracks online. Rush will make their money and then some.

Or, at least, the record company will. Rush will make enough to get by.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 17/04/2002 20:15

As I was driving to San Antonio this week I listened to "YYZ" thinking about your analysis. It was then that I realized the song is in Sonata form. Now, this is probably not intentional as most of the conventions of Sonata form are not followed (repeat of the 1st section, repetition in a key a fith away), but the basic approach of exosition, development, and recapitulation are there. I think more probably that our current musical masters have struck a method that musicians long ago uncovered. . . whatever that means
Posted by: Satan_X

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 17/04/2002 20:29

am I going to buy it........yes
do I have it........yes
Is it on the Empeg......yes

My ex works for capital records (I think she still does, it's been awhile). Promo cds start floating around up to 3-4 months before release (avg is about 1 month before release).
Before mp3's you had to know someone to get your hands on one of these promos. Now it takes one person to get there hands on one and release it.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 18/04/2002 10:45

Interesting note about the Sonata form, but doesn't that cover pretty much all popular music these days?
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 18/04/2002 16:51

most music tends to follow this form:
ABABCB

where 'A' is the verse, 'B' is the chorus and 'C' is a bridge/ solo section.

Sonata form is generally ABCAB which is a little differen (and the form of YYZ). Still a lot of classical music implemented Sonata form as ABABCAB which is closer to the majority of pop music today, although the second AB set is generally a repeat of the first AB (although I guess normally lyrics are the only differenc in pop music). I suppose then the only difference is that most pop music does not return to an 'A' section after a developmental section (although there is a lot of pop music that does in fact do this).

In the end, I suppose I spoke to quickly because I realizse now (after writing the above) that most pop music is at least as identifable with Sonata form as 'YYZ' so I'll have to let this point go. Its too bad they didn't do the 'B' section a fifth above the 'A' section or this really would have been a classic example of Sonata form. As it stands, it just has to be a really great piece of music!
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 18/04/2002 17:05

Except that the second half of the verse sections are a repeat of the first half, a fifth above...
Posted by: BleachLPB

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 19/04/2002 11:53

So, I plan to be seeing the Power Trio in my area on July 9. The best seats are $78!! I would not so eagerly pay that amount, however this is Rush we are talking about.

Anyone else have any plans? I cant wait...
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 19/04/2002 13:28

Hmm, album's not even out yet, but they're selling concert tix already? I think I should look up and see whether any local gigs have been planned yet...
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 20/04/2002 05:13

Well, as I don't listen to the radio anymore I just happened to hear about Rush comming to San Antonio on a co-workers radio. I haven't had a chance to check it out, but I'm definately going. Probably not going to pay $78 unless I had another die hard Rush fan to go with (I'm not paying $78 for my wife to go an be miserable!).
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 20/04/2002 09:17

No dates in California or Nevada yet...

Must bookmark ticketmaster and check daily...
Posted by: Laura

Re: Ah. New Rush album May 14. - 20/04/2002 11:18

I think I heard that they are coming to Cincinnati.