As I was walking out of Flipnotics this morning, that damn one-hit song entered my head for no apparent reason. I'm constantly amazed by the brain's ability to dredge up musical nuggets from the past (in my case a lot of bad ones, and a shitload of obscure jingles and theme songs) that often have no apparent relationship to what I've seen or heard. You, with your low-rent spirituality and Ouija-board credulity, probably reckon there is something supernatural in these coincidences. Crusty old cynics such as myself (and one hot barmaid, come to think of it) figure these things as the unpredictable workings of the subconscious. Plus, I think I must have seen a brimful of something out of the corner of my eye. Nevertheless, I am irritated at the intrusion of this music-cultural hiccup, and must now play some Sonic Youth to wash that out of my head.
You and I spoke at length about Rush the other evening, so I feel that a defense of said Canadian wank-rockers is somewhat redundant at this point, but I'll try to recall as much of the beer-hazed argument as I can. First of all, while Rush began in metal/heavy rock and eventually descended into unselfconscious wankdom, the broadest and most enjoyable swath of their career falls more or less into prog. You have to appreciate prog to really appreciate most of what Rush recorded during their heyday, and I'm not convinced that you've ever really bought into prog except for when it serves the needs of a Vincent Gallo film soundtrack.
Prog does not require wanking, but prog and wanking often seem to go together. Sometimes this wanking is appropriate - would anyone take away the roto-tom solo from Dark Side of the Moon? - and sometimes it's awful and self-indulgent (most Alex Lifeson solos). (By the way, I realize I am on shaky ground with Pink Floyd, since during that era they were as much psychedelic rock as they were prog, but fuck it; you know what I mean.) Many rock musicians who have wanted to do something "different" or forward-looking have experimented with elements of prog: Unusual time signatures; tons of time changes; non-rock instrumentation and effects, conceptual themes and lyrics, etc. Some of these artists, such as Robert Fripp, have escaped being labeled as wanks because - although a lot of their guitar work could reasonably be idenitifed as some form of wank - their spirit of experimentation and collaboration overshadows the wank characteristics of their music.
That brings us to two very important points. First, prog music is generally more enjoyable (and less prone to be considered wanky) if there is experimentation involved. Second, prog seems infinitely better if collaboration and conflict are present in the making of the music. Serious prog bands must ultimately break up not over "personal" differences but because of "musical" differences - because Tom wanted to incorporate too bloody many Middle Eastern scales or because Nigel blew the recording budget on an authentic sixteenth century brass gong because it just "had that sound." And, good prog bands must eventually break up or they turn to cheese: witness Yes and Genesis.
And thus we return to our Canadian power trio. As I mentioned the other night, I think Rush was at their best when they were their most prog and/or conceptual (witness the instrumental insanity of "La Villa Strangiato", or the sheer nutty audacity of "2112"), although they showed the capacity to produce an occasional rock hit ("Spirit of Radio", "Free Will"). Moving Pictures was really a rock record with prog elements and represents the zenith of their popular appeal, but they had abandoned experimentation and moved into tightly-crafted rock at this point (with the exception of "YYZ", which may go down as one of the most audacious wank-rock instrumentals ever).
One of my biggest problems with Rush is the band's hermetic nature. They seem to absorb nothing around them and make few references to anything other than their own sound. While a Steve Howe solo during Yes' heyday might have included licks as white-boy bluesy as anything Jimmy Page produced, everything about Rush's style seems calculated and isolated. In that sense, they are cult-like - which may explain a lot about their fan base.
The other issue is the previously mentioned conflict and collaboration. As they got suckier, Rush seemed more and more like three very talented session musicians playing pretentious rock. You never got the sense that these guys were fighting with each other (though Alex Lifeson apparently likes fighting other people in bars) to make good music.
Still, Rush made some damn interesting and sometimes enjoyable prog-rock records. I understand and appreciate the hate, but we need to trade some vintage Robert Palmer and some prime Rush ("Hemispheres" might knock you out) and see what happens. Then again, if you're like roughly 80% of the world's population, Geddy Lee's voice will always be completely intolerable, and that may be all there is to it.
BTW, isn't "self-masturbating" redundant?
You and I spoke at length about Rush the other evening, so I feel that a defense of said Canadian wank-rockers is somewhat redundant at this point, but I'll try to recall as much of the beer-hazed argument as I can. First of all, while Rush began in metal/heavy rock and eventually descended into unselfconscious wankdom, the broadest and most enjoyable swath of their career falls more or less into prog. You have to appreciate prog to really appreciate most of what Rush recorded during their heyday, and I'm not convinced that you've ever really bought into prog except for when it serves the needs of a Vincent Gallo film soundtrack.
Prog does not require wanking, but prog and wanking often seem to go together. Sometimes this wanking is appropriate - would anyone take away the roto-tom solo from Dark Side of the Moon? - and sometimes it's awful and self-indulgent (most Alex Lifeson solos). (By the way, I realize I am on shaky ground with Pink Floyd, since during that era they were as much psychedelic rock as they were prog, but fuck it; you know what I mean.) Many rock musicians who have wanted to do something "different" or forward-looking have experimented with elements of prog: Unusual time signatures; tons of time changes; non-rock instrumentation and effects, conceptual themes and lyrics, etc. Some of these artists, such as Robert Fripp, have escaped being labeled as wanks because - although a lot of their guitar work could reasonably be idenitifed as some form of wank - their spirit of experimentation and collaboration overshadows the wank characteristics of their music.
That brings us to two very important points. First, prog music is generally more enjoyable (and less prone to be considered wanky) if there is experimentation involved. Second, prog seems infinitely better if collaboration and conflict are present in the making of the music. Serious prog bands must ultimately break up not over "personal" differences but because of "musical" differences - because Tom wanted to incorporate too bloody many Middle Eastern scales or because Nigel blew the recording budget on an authentic sixteenth century brass gong because it just "had that sound." And, good prog bands must eventually break up or they turn to cheese: witness Yes and Genesis.
And thus we return to our Canadian power trio. As I mentioned the other night, I think Rush was at their best when they were their most prog and/or conceptual (witness the instrumental insanity of "La Villa Strangiato", or the sheer nutty audacity of "2112"), although they showed the capacity to produce an occasional rock hit ("Spirit of Radio", "Free Will"). Moving Pictures was really a rock record with prog elements and represents the zenith of their popular appeal, but they had abandoned experimentation and moved into tightly-crafted rock at this point (with the exception of "YYZ", which may go down as one of the most audacious wank-rock instrumentals ever).
One of my biggest problems with Rush is the band's hermetic nature. They seem to absorb nothing around them and make few references to anything other than their own sound. While a Steve Howe solo during Yes' heyday might have included licks as white-boy bluesy as anything Jimmy Page produced, everything about Rush's style seems calculated and isolated. In that sense, they are cult-like - which may explain a lot about their fan base.
The other issue is the previously mentioned conflict and collaboration. As they got suckier, Rush seemed more and more like three very talented session musicians playing pretentious rock. You never got the sense that these guys were fighting with each other (though Alex Lifeson apparently likes fighting other people in bars) to make good music.
Still, Rush made some damn interesting and sometimes enjoyable prog-rock records. I understand and appreciate the hate, but we need to trade some vintage Robert Palmer and some prime Rush ("Hemispheres" might knock you out) and see what happens. Then again, if you're like roughly 80% of the world's population, Geddy Lee's voice will always be completely intolerable, and that may be all there is to it.
BTW, isn't "self-masturbating" redundant?
