What are you listening to today?

Posted by: @nottamiata

By your description, I knew it was Rush before the slow-loading vid link appeared. Xanadu, good example.

Opinions vary as to whether they *looked* cool, but we thought they did at the time. Yet I still can't shake the mutual embarrassment of "the nut-huggers". Oh, Alex, did somebody force you to wear those?

I agree, the cloths are very tacky.  What I meant by cool is their use of two double necks, Geddy's keyboard, Alex's sound effects pedals and the Professors use of bells and chimes.  

 No stupid sound effects boards, mixing and overdubbing.  They recorded mostly as band and it shows. 

 I tried my best to listen to newer bands like Tool and although their music is complex its not anywhere the same thing because it seems like they planed to make it  complex to be great but in the process it  made it less musical and therefore less universal appeal.  

I was watching those reaction Youtube  videos from urban youth that were trying to enjoy other forms of music for the first time and unequivocally Rush had their minds blown. It reminded me as a kid listening to Moving Pictures for the first time, It did not have to grow on me to like it. 

 What is missing today is talent but that is still not enough, you need soul.  

@dev

Agree with you about Tool and pretty much all contemporary Prog. You are dancing around a topic that I have struggled to even phrase the question properly, usually with Rush as a primary example because the differences are so stark. It is easy to just call this indefinable thing "soul", but that doesn't satisfy my quest to know what "it" really is, in at least slightly more quantifiable terms.

There has been a rift in the Rush fan community over the question of whether the "new" Rush "sucks". Some don't see any difference at all between album 4 and album 14, but many like me draw the line somewhere around or just after Moving Pictures.

I am in the hater camp. IMO, they lost their "soul" after MP. They are still profoundly skilled musicians, and I am glad I got to take my son to see them in 2015. But the newer songs just don't have even a hint of that certain specialness. They can be complex, challenging, polyrythmic, interlocking, etc., but they generally aren't, and even when so, the magic just isn't there anymore. I am trying to define what that magic is, but it eludes me. I think it is more than just "what tickles me personally", since a lot of the old guard are asking the same thing. This is not limited to Rush.

Every band has the right to create and play whatever they want. I never wanted 18 more versions of 2112/Kings/Hemispheres (my personal favorites), and they did continue to evolve. But even when they were doing new things at the beginning, it still had that thing that made it better than mainstream rock. Eponymous didnt have "it" either. So they grew into it, and Peart probably helped that somewhat, but then lost or abandoned "it". So we cannot credit The Professor for the whole thing. It isn't just virtuosity, there are plenty of great players playing boring crap, both simple and complex.

So what is it that makes a song like Xanadu, Hemispheres, Cygnus X-1, or Natural Science so different? Maybe I need to play or write music to know, but I doubt it. Musicians just hand-wave and say it's "soul". So they don't know either, or they cannot express it any better than anyone else.

WHAT IS IT?

@nottamiata

I agree and I'm also in the hater camp.  You can see that the magic was lost after Moving Pictures.   Some People think reviving Le Studios in Quebec  will bring the magic of the earlier albums.   

 There are many schools of thought on why the soul was lost in most music but I have my own far out  theories. 

 1. Its possible that  ideas, behaviors and trends for the time are  infectious and spread the world over. It could be that the driving force of all the arts feed off each other as one giant consciousness. During these moments in time  great things are achieved universally as man pushes what he feels even if its not popular at the time risking it all  which ultimately  ends up being  better to stand the test of time. 

2. Universal consciousness where we are all connected in some way with the universe. The learned rat experience experiments got me thinking that there is a lot more going on that is a big mystery that should not be overlooked.  We just might not be in conscious control and these waves effect everything around us.  

Getting back to the music, it wasn't just Rush, it was just about everything and I can put a date on it.  I think there was a rift somewhere in 1985 where things started to become less organic.  It wasn't exactly like an off switch but a steep decline that lingered to 1989 and then dropped exponentially.    Could it be that the producers screwed it up by making the music less organic by using processors and separating the band to its components where each member plays his part. Could it be that the recording industry got greedy and started to use focus groups to determine what is more profitable by general consensus.  Its all very interesting.  Maybe being on the fringes of new ideas might not be popular and some may consider it absurd but what if these people are just ahead of themselves leading the way for the masses who relish in safe mediocrity.   

 We now have those in our time trying to capture that magic by analyzing what makes a song great and trying by reproduce it only to fail  because it just doesn't work if you are chasing after it because its no longer novel. 

Having said all that I found this video/art movie novel. So much talent in one video.  

Not my genre, but I found it both entertaining (LMAO) and profound at the same time.  

Posted by: @uncle-mush

Not my genre, but I found it both entertaining (LMAO) and profound at the same time.  

I thought they captured mid 80s Brooklyn in a hilarious way. Almost all of the people in that video are A listers.  When I seen Ted Danson next to Steve Buscemi I thought I was tripping. 

Rush is a long-standing favorite all the way back to my childhood. I am also not much interested in anything beyond moving pictures... something changed. I got to see them live back in 2010 or 2011 thou, and regardless of what isn't right in their recordings beyond 1981, I feel it is still with them on the stage. Or at least it was when I saw them.

I've been working in stagecraft for well over a decade and have seen just about every touring production that has rolled through Texas along with local and one-off shows. When it comes to live performances of any kind... I'm pretty much jaded. The list of live performances I would actually pay to see is extremely short. Rush is on the short list.

Posted by: @marsrock7

Rush is a long-standing favorite all the way back to my childhood. I am also not much interested in anything beyond moving pictures... something changed. I got to see them live back in 2010 or 2011 thou, and regardless of what isn't right in their recordings beyond 1981, I feel it is still with them on the stage. Or at least it was when I saw them.

I've been working in stagecraft for well over a decade and have seen just about every touring production that has rolled through Texas along with local and one-off shows. When it comes to live performances of any kind... I'm pretty much jaded. The list of live performances I would actually pay to see is extremely short. Rush is on the short list.

 I agree and have seen them live as well. They put on a great show especially when they play the old stuff.  

 After moving pictures it seemed like all the instruments were mashed together instead of separated with a lot of air between them.  It was a real joy when you can hear three playing together and could distinguish each personality at the same time which was mind blowing.  

What Im going to say next might piss off a few  but in my opinion The Police worst album is Synchronicity even though it was a commercial success. Its not a bad album but nowhere as good as their first three which are just outstanding organically with that reggae offbeat and lots of energy.  Every breath you take is just a dumb song now for mediocre people to have on their playlist to seem cool. 

Outlandos D' Amour is a great album. I am not as fond of the other two, but Synch is pretty much just bubble gum. Fame killed The Police, but they may have also run out of ideas along with simple patience for their bandmates. I will never say that Sting has no talent, and some of his solo stuff is quite good, IMO, but he overshadowed two other fantastic and still underrated musicians.

I have stopped trying to define Soul. For now. I will probably try again later, but I guess if you have to ask, you just don't get it. But I do get it. I just cannot describe it, which is my struggle, because sometimes I want to discuss it. I am trying to make myself feel better by thinking nobody else can either. I would still love to hear from some music scientist that can tell me exactly why new Rush "sux", but I probably don't even have the vocabulary to understand what they would say.

I find it that much more relevant that two more Rush fans also draw the line at Moving Pictures. Something about the songs changed. The band did not, really. One person has attempted to explain it. Not easy, is it? I agree about there being space between the three musicians and at the same time they are tightly integrated because the songs are written that way. But that one change doesn't seem like the entire explanation for the soul-death that the songwriting itself has ungergone.

But if you guys like that "interspatial rawk-out" aspect of classic Rush, and you haven't given them much attention, I strongly recommend Discipline by King Crimson, then you can work outward from there. It is a little more mathematical, but it is amazing music. You do have to work a little harder to groove with some of it, and some has no accessible groove at all, but some is readily accessible. I can go further into the interspace with KC than with Rush, but KC is the only band I know of that can take me that far. These two constantly trade the "my favorite band ever" title in my world, but I listen to Rush more often. Once again though, and only IMO, Crimson also appears to have run out of ideas right around 1984-85.

Posted by: @nottamiata

Outlandos D' Amour is a great album. I am not as fond of the other two, but Synch is pretty much just bubble gum. Fame killed The Police, but they may have also run out of ideas along with simple patience for their bandmates. I will never say that Sting has no talent, and some of his solo stuff is quite good, IMO, but he overshadowed two other fantastic and still underrated musicians.

I have stopped trying to define Soul. For now. I will probably try again later, but I guess if you have to ask, you just don't get it. But I do get it. I just cannot describe it, which is my struggle, because sometimes I want to discuss it. I am trying to make myself feel better by thinking nobody else can either. I would still love to hear from some music scientist that can tell me exactly why new Rush "sux", but I probably don't even have the vocabulary to understand what they would say.

I find it that much more relevant that two more Rush fans also draw the line at Moving Pictures. Something about the songs changed. The band did not, really. One person has attempted to explain it. Not easy, is it? I agree about there being space between the three musicians and at the same time they are tightly integrated because the songs are written that way. But that one change doesn't seem like the entire explanation for the soul-death that the songwriting itself has ungergone.

But if you guys like that "interspatial rawk-out" aspect of classic Rush, and you haven't given them much attention, I strongly recommend Discipline by King Crimson, then you can work outward from there. It is a little more mathematical, but it is amazing music. You do have to work a little harder to groove with some of it, and some has no accessible groove at all, but some is readily accessible. I can go further into the interspace with KC than with Rush, but KC is the only band I know of that can take me that far. These two constantly trade the "my favorite band ever" title in my world, but I listen to Rush more often. Once again though, and only IMO, Crimson also appears to have run out of ideas right around 1984-85.

The other two guys as they are referred to are way  underrated. Regatta de Blanc is the one I like. I will give King Crimson a listen, thanks for the recommendation.  

Another band that fell apart coincidently  around the same time period is Van Roth.  Its not that Hagar was a bad performer I think Eddie Van Halen ruined the band with too much synthesizer.  

I liked VH's first album. Different sort of thing from progressive, different expectations, but still good rock-n-roll. But it got old after one album. They applied the Boston Formula -- excellent moneymaker, but the art suffers dramatically when you make the same album over and over. That's usually record company BS driving that.

Crimson may take a little time to acquire the taste, but it is well worth it. Discipline is a good place to start. Lark's Tongues in Aspic is one of their best, but you may find that the first song there  really takes some effort to appreciate. But if you like really HEAVY, you might like it right away. Took me a few listens, now I think its still the heaviest metal ever recorded, and with a twist or two. Keep in mind that Larks was released in 1973, highly experimental, but you can hear the seeds of modern metal there, although they had already established that foundation way back in '69 with the song 21st Century Schizoid Man.

Lark's Tongues was released within one week of Dark Side of the Moon, to give you some context. It is something of a comeback from the downright embarrassing Lizard (my words). They made Floyd look mainstream with this album. I am not suggesting it as an immediate listen right after Discipline (but go ahead), just noting its significance, and my own opinion of its ranking in their catalogue.

If you give them a fair shake you should start to see them as the grandfathers of several genres of modern rock. Yes, that is a bold statement. Don't take my word for it, give them a real chance and you ought to see it after a while. (Don't expect to like every song, but hey, you might.)

There have been "a few" notable names in the band too; Greg Lake started his career in KC, Boz Burrell was taught how to play bass by Fripp, then went on to found Bad Company. Bruford left Yes to join KC. John Wetton founded Asia after KC and a tour with Roxy Music. Ian McDonald played sax with Foreigner, Adrian Belew came in after playing with Zappa and Talking Heads. Pat Mastolotto from Mister Mister, Gavin Harrison crosses over with Porcupine Tree. The incredible Tony Levin is Peter Gabriel's bassist since forever. Bill Rieflin from R.E.M....

How many is that? You can google the rest, plus the uncounted number of covers of 21st Century Schizoid Man, all of the studio work Fripp and the other personnel have done (Bowie [Fripp is what made Heroes the sonic wonder that it is], Blondie, Gabriel, Andy Summers...). That's a lot of cousins, nephews and nieces.

Many other notables claim to have been influenced by thes guys including our beloved The Professor. Put down Nirvana, Primus and Tool on that list, as well as every modern prog band. Like, every. Single. One. There is a metric in prog circles based on how much you sound like Crimson, with the goal being a low score. Apparently that's somewhat difficult.

I call them the most influential band that nobody's ever heard of. I don't really understand it, other than the fact that it can be challenging and even just downright noisy at times, and many people just don't care for it: maybe they cannot get that far out of the box or just don't want to. There are "odd" time signatures (who can name a song in 13/8?), non-western chords, and so forth. But, any fan of Old Rush is a good candidate, you just have to give them a chance. Man, they are so tight.

This is the concert from just before Discipline, the beginning of their fourth incarnation. This was a significant departure from their past sound(s). Lots of people do warm up to this, but it doesn't go to the extremes they are capable of, experimentally speaking, and that's fine -- its fairly accessible, IMO. The Sheltering Sky is plenty non-traditional, but they do it so well most people don't fully know what's happening:

https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=JFp95fr9A6w&feature=share

(Yes, that MTV, before they lost their soul)

Hey, I guess this is what I will listen to today, too.

(edit: sigh. somebody has monkeyed with the video in this upload, the official video is much more still, focused. Pretty Xheesy, people... it's not your work, don't "fix" it! The audio appears unmolested, tho, so I will leave the link alone)

I'm listening to ZZ top, CCR or Lynyrd Skynyrd

I couldn't listen to 80 % of the links in this thread, sorry.  I guess I'm to old for that stuff.

OK Rush fans... I feel similarly about The Change, however I put it around 1989 with Presto.  Signals, Grace Under Pressure, Power Windows and Hold Your Fire were all in constant rotation on my tape decks.  

That being said, I feel that what went missing from the really good bands was the storytelling put to song.  Iron Maiden were masters of operatic heavy metal both in the studio and on stage... especially on stage.  The show they put on really made the price of admission worth it.  Rush was definitely a great show for the money, but Iron Maiden always had a very theatrical quality that paralleled Pink Floyd in the sheer quality of the presentation.

At least, that's my opinion of things.  All the great bands seemed to fall off in the mid to late 1980's and good music these days is very scarce.

And now, for something completely different.

Posted by: @mrsponz

A long time ago, I loved Linda Ronstadt. Last night I watched  Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice.

Not ashamed to admit it, but I cried.

Thanks for sharing.  I don't watch much tv, so asked Miss Lisa if she could find that documentary for us to watch.  Thoroughly enjoyed it and learned a lot about a lot of music I had totally forgotten she recorded.   Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: @pwnzor

OK Rush fans... I feel similarly about The Change, however I put it around 1989 with Presto.  Signals, Grace Under Pressure, Power Windows and Hold Your Fire were all in constant rotation on my tape decks.  

That being said, I feel that what went missing from the really good bands was the storytelling put to song.  Iron Maiden were masters of operatic heavy metal both in the studio and on stage... especially on stage.  The show they put on really made the price of admission worth it.  Rush was definitely a great show for the money, but Iron Maiden always had a very theatrical quality that paralleled Pink Floyd in the sheer quality of the presentation.

At least, that's my opinion of things.  All the great bands seemed to fall off in the mid to late 1980's and good music these days is very scarce.

And now, for something completely different.

 

Iron Maiden  Is phenomenal and I'm a big fan.  They are also cursed by the 84-85 music decline.     

The Trooper and Run the to Hills are some of my favorites.  Their story telling is more than story telling or reciting a poem.   Its like having you live the life of the character. There is no other music that does it so well with such intense clarity  that makes you come out of body to experience the human condition and its like some weird from of quantum leap where you can actually feel the raw ugly point of view from both sides of the tail.  

I find poetry to be overrated and boring, but the way Iron Maiden does it with anxiousness, urgency and fear in the voice just freaks me out on other level.  Most music is like an illustrated book, their stuff is like a pop up book. Maybe one day they will make their songs into an Opera.