Totally agreed about 'Hemispheres.' - the whole long-form writing thing wasn't really what they were best at. I mean, I still like the track but I can see how it's not much, composition-wise.Originally Posted by Scrotum Scissor
Totally agreed about 'Hemispheres.' - the whole long-form writing thing wasn't really what they were best at. I mean, I still like the track but I can see how it's not much, composition-wise.
Say what you will about Cygnus X-1, the intro section played at high volume is useful for getting all of our cats out of the living room.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
I don't like it, and never have.
You've just nailed why Rush as "prog" band in the sense of trying to really write "epics" ala a harder rocking Yes has a somewhat limited appeal to me. In some ways, I'm surprised at how successful that stuff is with their fans, but maybe most people aren't that concerned with harmonic flow and logic when it comes to composition.
I'm not suggesting musicians have to have studied theory to pull off fantastic "epic" tracks, but for crying out loud, sometimes Rush sound downright amateur. They'll run out of steam, stop everything and just return to the beginning of something. Or they'll force ideas together that are both good but really don't sound right being juxtaposed.
People talk about them "hitting their stride." For me, they did that on Fly By Night, then completely lost that stride on the utter disaster that is Caress Of Steel. 2112 has some really great moments, but again, it sounds as if they are forcing their way into areas where they are simply not comfortable. Still, that was a sign that they had a way forward with a sort of metallic prog sound and they certainly redeemed themselves from COS. I like the live album as it was the first album I owned by them, and then that chapter closes.
So then they are reborn and the Yes influence is really coming to the fore. But those two albums show a band that is reaching well beyond the scope of their arranging capabilities. Admirable? I suppose, but at a certain point a band needs to also hone in on what they are truly great at. So, for me, they really "hit their stride" again on Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures. Yeah, the latter had some influence from The Police creeping in that then overstayed its welcome and reared its head on the next couple of albums, but more concise songs like "Limelight" and "Spirit Of Radio" show what Rush were best at and that period was their absolute prime for my money. There was "The Camera Eye," and that was a bit of a mess, but the shorter tracks were excellent for the most part. Signals was also excellent.
Wow, shows you how opinions can differ! Caress of Steel is my favourite Rush album. And this and Hemispheres are 2A and 2B on the list. I like the way they write epic tracks just fine. I can't explain it in advanced musical theory terminology, but it just works for me. One man's amateurish mish-mash, is another's musical bliss. There is magic in this album. Plus, one of the greatest bass tones of the 70's doesn't hurt....
neil
Agreed that Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures and Signals represent Rush's peak as a band, but I still think that AFTK and Hemispheres are very good albums - some great stuff on each, IMO, but also some lesser stuff.
Yes, both Hemispheres and Lamneth show that the side-long epic is really not their forte at all. 2112 is the only one that works for me.
Last edited by JJ88; 06-16-2016 at 02:03 PM.
Meh. Lee's bass tones at this time were just so lifted from Chris Squire that it's hard to view them with that kind of enthusiasm. Ironically, he was very innovative, vocally, but I far prefer his bass playing.
Aside from "Lakeside Park," I find much of Caress Of Steel downright embarrassing. The appeal of that album completely eludes me.
No, it doesn't work that way. "Hemipsheres *is* amateurish mish-mash. Whether or not one happens to like it is, of course, up to them. As I said in an earlier post, I like it OK, even though I know that it's compositionally quite weak.
I'm seeing claims of AFTK &/or Hemispheres being "amateurish". One has to remember that the band were still quite young men at the time & despite the success of '2112', were still improving as songwriters. They would keep making that point clear in interviews well into the 90s.
All things considered, I still believe 'Kings' & Hemispheres are brilliant, if ambitious works from such young people.
Quite the truth, but not necessarily a justification of anything. Just to illustrate; Steve Hillage was 18 when he wrote the following track (barely 20 on recording it), and he had no formal music training. It's utterly amateurish yet at the same time fascinatingly developed in terms of compositional tools as well as dynamics of performance. I don't mean to compare, only to demonstrate what the spirit of youth CAN achieve.
I suppose you've already heard this, but in case you haven't it is somewhat crucial that you play the whole thing.
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
My favorite Rush album (with 2112 and Hemispheres just a bit lower in my esteem.)
The Prog Corner
Yes, this is the album where Rush found their groove.
To be or not to be? That is the point. - Harry Nilsson.
As opposed to his lifting them from Geezer for the first album, and Fly By Night, Jeff?
Doesn't matter to me. He achieved the tone with his fingers, and put his own stamp on it, IMO. I do agree, that Caress of Steel is a very bizarre album, lol. But Bastille Day has always been my favourite Rush tune (amazing riff by Alex), and The Necromancer is pure musical bliss (despite the odd, some would say goofy, narration). Fountain of Lamneth captures a strange mythological world, that pulls me in. But I certainly get it, why some people don't like it.
neil
Of course it works that way! It's opinion. To me, Hemispheres is extremely cohesive and works beautifully. Compositionally weak?? You've got to be kidding. Everything flows together seamlessly, and makes 18 minutes fly by. They never did better. That thing is a work of art, made by 3 individuals in their prime of youth and creativity. It's one of their most beloved albums, and I hardly think that would be the case if it was so mish-mash. There is no way that it would be that popular, if it was just a bunch of good riffs, smashed together. And don't forget that it is 18 minutes long. Stuff on Signals, and later albums is much shorter, so it is difficult to compare with.
I stand by my statement, as I'm sure that you stand by yours.
neil
Yes, I would add "Bastille Day" to the list of strong material on COS. Still, between that "Lakeside Park," I prefer the live versions on ATWAS anyway. The other material on COS is below the caliber of songwriting on FBN, IMO. And some of the sections are just about cringe-worthy for me.
Agree about Lee's tone. I'm not criticizing it. But when I can listen to something like Chris Squire's playing on the '76 era material issued on Yesshows, I just can't get that excited about anybody else in that territory. It can't be done any better, IMO. And Jon Camp and others were already successful in bringing their own "spin" to that sound, so I guess I just feel Geddy Lee was a bit late to the party.
Yeah, some people also really seem to feel that "Working Man" really sounds like they were listening heavily to the first Sabbath album. Certainly Lifeson's leads on WM sound almost like outtakes from "Warning" at times, but I think they were more influenced by Led Zeppelin at that point, no?As opposed to his lifting them from Geezer for the first album, and Fly By Night, Jeff?
Whatever the case, I dig their early stuff. Solid hard rock. Fly By Night, in particular, just has good songs. Maybe some of it sounds a little cliché, but I'm not sure it was at the time it came out.
You can like it all you want - *that* is your opinion. If you actually think that it is compositionally strong, then I think it's kind of obvious that you don't really know what you are talking about. I guess you have a hard time separating your feelings about the album from objective analysis.
Standing by a false statement makes no sense, but I guess that's what you are prepared to do.
IMO the thing Geddy did that was innovative was that he took Squire's tone and applied it to Jack Bruce's playing style. He didn't use a pick like Squire or Camp, and he just riffed the living shit out of everything in a way that Squire would really only do on stage (which was also awesome, btw).
I'm holding out for the Wilson-mixed 5.1 super-duper walletbuster special anniversary extra adjectives edition.
I enjoy the bass & guitar riffing on that one!
I much prefer their debut to FBN. That special groove on first album, they've never recaptured again.
For pointing an 'objective' analysis, you've got to know in details the musical purposes they were aiming. Otherwise, applies to objectiveness is no more than schoolish wishful thinking.
Yeah, but I think he overplayed a bit. Of course, Neil Peart overplays all the time, IMO. I guess it kind of works them as a band, but I prefer the discipline that entered the picture with the 1979-1982 period. Down to taste, of course.
Each period is special in it's way. I agree Geddy's style is busy, though it also helped Rush deliver their trademark "Holy crap, that's just 3 guys?" effect, which has been part of their brand through their entire career.
I'm holding out for the Wilson-mixed 5.1 super-duper walletbuster special anniversary extra adjectives edition.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks