Does prog suffer from gear-fetishisation?

[Sputnik]

Wouldn't it be just as expensive to buy all the computer hardware and software? I'd expect that one would need lots of RAM, and a high-end CPU and GPU to run that software.

I'm not that familiar with music software, but I know that Pro Tools isn't cheap.

Ultimately, the computer stuff, or even digital keyboards that do analog modeling, are vastly less expensive to purchase, and even more important easier to move around, than vintage analog gear. You don't actually need Pro Tools to run VST plugins on a computer, you can get very inexpensive or even free software to active your plug-ins. And even a $1,000 or less computer can run a lot of plug-ins. RAM and hard drive space are cheap, and the plug-ins don't require that much in terms of computer space. If you gave me a budget of $1,500 - $2,000, I could get a rig together that sounded decent and covered all the "vintage" bases. I couldn't even get one or two decent vintage keyboards for that cost.

And even if I got all those lovely vintage keys, how the heck would I transport them? Yeah, I could probably handle a MiniMoog, or some such. But a Rhodes? A Tron? A freaking Hammond with its obligatory Leslie? For the average band, this is out of the question. There's simply no doubt about it, the modern digital emulations give you much of the benefit with a minuscule fraction of the cost associated with purchasing, transporting, and maintaining a true vintage rig. And they are far easier to work with.

My kudos go out to those bands that use vintage gear. If it's truly worth it to them, then I have no problem with it. But given the quality and flexibility of modern digital emulations, coupled with the price and portability issues, I blame no one for choosing the digital option. It's almost a no-brainier.

Bill

[PROGMONSTER]

I just want music with great melody and sound and prog seems to do that usually

[lak611]

Ultimately, the computer stuff, or even digital keyboards that do analog modeling, are vastly less expensive to purchase, and even more important easier to move around, than vintage analog gear. You don't actually need Pro Tools to run VST plugins on a computer, you can get very inexpensive or even free software to active your plug-ins. And even a $1,000 or less computer can run a lot of plug-ins. RAM and hard drive space are cheap, and the plug-ins don't require that much in terms of computer space. If you gave me a budget of $1,500 - $2,000, I could get a rig together that sounded decent and covered all the "vintage" bases. I couldn't even get one or two decent vintage keyboards for that cost.

And even if I got all those lovely vintage keys, how the heck would I transport them? Yeah, I could probably handle a MiniMoog, or some such. But a Rhodes? A Tron? A freaking Hammond with its obligatory Leslie? For the average band, this is out of the question. There's simply no doubt about it, the modern digital emulations give you much of the benefit with a minuscule fraction of the cost associated with purchasing, transporting, and maintaining a true vintage rig. And they are far easier to work with.

My kudos go out to those bands that use vintage gear. If it's truly worth it to them, then I have no problem with it. But given the quality and flexibility of modern digital emulations, coupled with the price and portability issues, I blame no one for choosing the digital option. It's almost a no-brainier.

Bill

That makes sense.

I think one reason I notice the vintage gear is because at least around here, the only prog bands that ever play are the big names who can afford the vintage gear and the roadies to transport it.

Bands that play in bars here don't play prog with any type of gear. Bands that play in bars here typically consist of guitars , bass and drums. Many of those bands do use vintage Fender or Marshall tube amps and Gibson Les Paul or Fender Stratocaster guitars and Fender Jazz basses.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[GuitarGeek]

In many cases, yes.

I still remember when Strawbs played Nearfest and didn't use the mellotron that was there as it had tuning issues in sound check - there was a strong contingent who were outraged that they used a software version.
.

Also consider Radio Massacre International, who similarly had problems with the Mellotron at NEARfest (in their case, there was excessive hum). I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't so much outraged as amused by each act essentially using the Mellotron as an expensive keyboard stand. To me both bands played excellently.

BTW, the story I remember hearing is that Blue Weaver simply wasn't as comfortable using the Mellotron as he was the digital sampled version that he had been using recently, and therefore only used the real thing on about one song, I think.

To me, it's not about the gear so much as the performance. So what if the band is using one keyboard (or a keyboard and a Mellotron) to replace the Hammond, Mellotron, Steinway, Rhodes, Prophet-5, and Mini-Moog? If that's what the keyboardist is comfortable using, fine. And besides, most of that gear would take up the entire stage that most bands get to play on these days, leaving no room for the rest of the band.

And if you've ever had to move a Mellotron, you'd know why someone might not be inclined to travel one. I remember telling someone that 99% of the people in the audience probably couldn't even tell whether there was a real Mellotron onstage or not, while the remaining 1% would know why this was the case.

I will admit, there have been times I've been records based on instrument credits. I went through a phase of buying records because someone was credited with playing 12 string guitar and I know my first Le Orme record was a compilation called Beyond Leng. I'd never heard of the band, but it looked there were long tracks on the record, the bassist was playing a Rickenbacker and the keyboardist had an impressive array of instruments on the back cover, so I went for it.

Keep in mind there's also been people who've used cool instruments who made boring music. I saw a clip of The Raspberries (side note: Eric Carmen ate at the restaurant I work at a couple weeks ago) from a reunion show where the guitarist was playing a doubleneck. OK, nice, but it didn't make Go All The Way sound any better. Likewise, there's a Top Of The Pop clip floating around of Pilot miming Magic, where the bass player is playing a Rickenbacker. OK, again, nice axe, but it doesn't make me want to buy your record.

As far as the gear fetish thing goes, I'm probably still as guilty of that as anyone. For instance, I imagine Adrian Belew is still making great music, but I keep wishing he put away that ugly Parker Fly guitar and go back to playing his Strats (the reason I haven't heard muvh of his music lately is there's simply too much stuff to choose from to hear everything). And there's probably other instances where I've said similar things. But in general, if the music sounds good, that's all that matters.

What drives me crazy is where you hear stuff that doesn't sound good and it's because of the gear, eg all those stupid 80's records with the DX-7 "slap bass" and "Rhodes" sounds, or the "Phil Collins" drum sound, or the Rockman'd guitar tones.

But if someone's using a laptop instead of a real Mellotron, I'm ok with that. If there's nothing that sounds like a Mellotron, I'm ok with that too.

[Sputnik]

Bands that play in bars here don't play prog with any type of gear. Bands that play in bars here typically consist of guitars , bass and drums. Many of those bands do use vintage Fender or Marshall tube amps and Gibson Les Paul or Fender Stratocaster guitars and Fender Jazz basses.

Are you sure they're vintage LPs, Strats, Marshalls and Jazz Basses? Might they not be modern instruments by these manufacturers, that cost a fraction of what a true vintage instrument costs, but play and sound just as good?

I only bring this up, because I think it points out how gear-fetishism goes far beyond simply the "Prog" arena. The prices of vintage Fender or Gibson guitars, and such, are flat out obscene. Far in excess of the utility these instruments provide. Fender USA, Gibson, and countless other manufacturers make instruments every bit as good as the vintage gear, often even better, for far less money. But there's this cache about using an old Fender or what-have-you. The whole "reliced" or "roadworn" phenomenon shows how people (mostly the musicians themselves) fetishize over their instruments. From where I sit, I think it's actually far worse in blues and mainstream rock than Prog, which has been relatively receptive to more modern instruments.

There's no doubt there's a certain feel and vibe to these old guitars, but that simply isn't with a $5,000+ price tag for a solid body guitar when you can get something just as good for less than half that price. It's gone beyond musical utility into some other sphere of collectibility. And to me, the collector's market is pure fetishism and anal retention run amok.

Bill

[lak611]

Are you sure they're vintage LPs, Strats, Marshalls and Jazz Basses? Might they not be modern instruments by these manufacturers, that cost a fraction of what a true vintage instrument costs, but play and sound just as good?

I only bring this up, because I think it points out how gear-fetishism goes far beyond simply the "Prog" arena. The prices of vintage Fender or Gibson guitars, and such, are flat out obscene. Far in excess of the utility these instruments provide. Fender USA, Gibson, and countless other manufacturers make instruments every bit as good as the vintage gear, often even better, for far less money. But there's this cache about using an old Fender or what-have-you. The whole "reliced" or "roadworn" phenomenon shows how people (mostly the musicians themselves) fetishize over their instruments. From where I sit, I think it's actually far worse in blues and mainstream rock than Prog, which has been relatively receptive to more modern instruments.

There's no doubt there's a certain feel and vibe to these old guitars, but that simply isn't with a $5,000+ price tag for a solid body guitar when you can get something just as good for less than half that price. It's gone beyond musical utility into some other sphere of collectibility. And to me, the collector's market is pure fetishism and anal retention run amok.

Bill

Yes, I know that these are vintage instruments, since I know the musicians. Some of these folks restored the gear themselves.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[lak611]

I think another reason why I'm skeptical about computer software rather than vintage instruments is due to sampling most prevalent in hip-hop, but found elsewhere too. How does one even know if a person can actually play a keyboard? Anyone could sound like a great keyboard player with the right software.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[GuitarGeek]

I think another reason why I'm skeptical about computer software rather than vintage instruments is due to sampling most prevalent in hip-hop, but found elsewhere too. How does one even know if a person can actually play a keyboard? Anyone could sound like a great keyboard player with the right software.

I think you're mixing up two different things that have nothing to do with each other. There's a difference between using sampled sounds (say a snare drum or a piano sound) and sampling entire musical phrases from someplace else.

In the first place, how is using samples any different from using a Mellotron? The Mellotron is just an analog sampler, using magnetic tape instead of digital memory. What's the difference whether you're playing an actual Mellotron or a Mellotron string or choir sound from a sampler? Depending on how well the sampling is done, it's likely you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference as a listener. The main difference would be that the sampler's keyboard probably has easier action than the Mellotron. But rest assured you'd still have to be able to at least pick out a melody to play the sampler.

Also, digital sampling has been used on a lot of our favorite records since the late 70's. Just because you didn't realize that they were triggering a digital recording from the keyboard (or a MIDI guitar or an electronic percussion pad) doesn't mean it's not there.

Also a lot of of the computer software that's being used is not sampling. The plethora of virtual synthesizers that one can choose from, mostly don't use sampling. A lot of what's available is creating electronic sounds inside the computer, just as electronic sounds are created inside your favorite Moog, ARP, EMS, Oberheim, Sequential Circuits, etc synths. Again, if someone used a laptop to replace his Prophet-5, Mini-Moog, Synthi AKS, or whatever, you the listener would probably be none the wiser, unless it said so in the credits.

And saying you don't like something because it's used in hip hop is like saying you refuse to listen any of the great jazz saxophonists who play soprano sax because of Kenny G. Really, if you're going to avoid John Coltrane because of some smoooooooth jazz poseur, you need professional help, I think.

[lak611]

I think you're mixing up two different things that have nothing to do with each other. There's a difference between using sampled sounds (say a snare drum or a piano sound) and sampling entire musical phrases from someplace else.

In the first place, how is using samples any different from using a Mellotron? The Mellotron is just an analog sampler, using magnetic tape instead of digital memory. What's the difference whether you're playing an actual Mellotron or a Mellotron string or choir sound from a sampler? Depending on how well the sampling is done, it's likely you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference as a listener. The main difference would be that the sampler's keyboard probably has easier action than the Mellotron. But rest assured you'd still have to be able to at least pick out a melody to play the sampler.

Also, digital sampling has been used on a lot of our favorite records since the late 70's. Just because you didn't realize that they were triggering a digital recording from the keyboard (or a MIDI guitar or an electronic percussion pad) doesn't mean it's not there.

Also a lot of of the computer software that's being used is not sampling. The plethora of virtual synthesizers that one can choose from, mostly don't use sampling. A lot of what's available is creating electronic sounds inside the computer, just as electronic sounds are created inside your favorite Moog, ARP, EMS, Oberheim, Sequential Circuits, etc synths. Again, if someone used a laptop to replace his Prophet-5, Mini-Moog, Synthi AKS, or whatever, you the listener would probably be none the wiser, unless it said so in the credits.

And saying you don't like something because it's used in hip hop is like saying you refuse to listen any of the great jazz saxophonists who play soprano sax because of Kenny G. Really, if you're going to avoid John Coltrane because of some smoooooooth jazz poseur, you need professional help, I think.

I understand what you're saying.

I do have to admit that I don't like any recordings by Rush after Signals.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[JKL2000]

I fetishize this gear:

[JKL2000]

I do have to admit that I don't like any recordings by Rush after Signals.

!!!

Geddy Lee's synth equipment - Signals tour:

OBERHEIM OBXA with a DSX Digital Sequencer, interfaced with two Moog Tarus Pedals. Roland JP 8 Synth, and a Roland 8o8 Compu-Rhythm working in conjunction
Mini-Moog with Yamaha E1010 Delay.

Geddy Lee's synth equipment - Grace Under Pressure tour:

PPG Wave 2.2#, Roland JP-8 and TR 808, Oberheim OBX-A and DSX digital sequencer, Moog Taurus pedals and Minimoog.


This is from their tour programs.

[battema]

I am lucky enough to have both options: I own the Arturia V-Collection which includes both Mini and Modular Moog software synths (along with about a dozen other vintage devices), but I also own a Moog Voyager along with some of the 'Foogers and CV expanders. I also have a semi-decent Eurorack system for full-tilt modular experimenting.

Both have their place. When I am in the studio improvising, the Voyager is my weapon of choice; it feels great and for me personally, the tactile experience of the knobs and controls is wonderfully expressive ('tis why I bought the thing in the first place!). And the Eurorack is amazing for pure imagination; no presets, no quick recalls...everything is wired on the fly and gets "erased" as soon as I unplug the cables. From an inspiration standpoint, these are wonderful instruments.

When it comes to recording though? The Arturia software is by far easier, especially for sketching out ideas quickly, without having to wire everything through my preamps and into the computer interface. I can also take some of the new ideas developed on the hardware devices above, and then emulate them with the software quite convincingly. I might still lay down a few tracks directly, but it depends.

Live, there's no way I'm hauling all that pricey gear to some club. For about a year or so I took the Voyager in the rig, until one evening it got dinged. I still wince every time I see that particular crunch on the synth. The MIDI controllers I have work perfectly well, and to date no one has come up after a show and beefed that my rig didn't look "authentic" enough.

IMHO some band have incorporated that gear as part of their signature; for example, I'd argue people might be distressed if Anglagard showed up for ROSFest and didn't have at least *one* genuine 'Tron up there with them. And I'm not hating on anyone who decides it's worth it for them to bring the "good stuff" to all the shows. But I definitely see the merit in modern tech, including software and laptops.

Minor aside, just 'cause it was mentioned earlier...for me personally, Emerson's synths were awesome on the ELPowell release. The overall production was/is very 80's but I loved the blend of synths and more orchestral tones. Different strokes for different folks, right?

[lak611]

!!!

Geddy Lee's synth equipment - Signals tour:

OBERHEIM OBXA with a DSX Digital Sequencer, interfaced with two Moog Tarus Pedals. Roland JP 8 Synth, and a Roland 8o8 Compu-Rhythm working in conjunction
Mini-Moog with Yamaha E1010 Delay.

Geddy Lee's synth equipment - Grace Under Pressure tour:

PPG Wave 2.2#, Roland JP-8 and TR 808, Oberheim OBX-A and DSX digital sequencer, Moog Taurus pedals and Minimoog.


This is from their tour programs.

Geddy Lee is a decent keyboard player, but I really consider him to be a bassist who happens to play keyboards sometimes. I really pay more attention to his bass than his keyboards. He didn't play any keyboards on 2112. The ARP Odyssey and Mellotron on the 2112 album were played by Hugh Syme.


I believe he switched from the Rickenbacker to the Steinberger after Signals.

I believe he uses a Fender Jazz nowadays.

I don't think Geddy ever used the Rickenbacker since Signals.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[arabicadabra]

The word instrument means "tool"......

[Rarebird]

Wouldn't it be just as expensive to buy all the computer hardware and software? I'd expect that one would need lots of RAM, and a high-end CPU and GPU to run that software.

I'm not that familiar with music software, but I know that Pro Tools isn't cheap.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I allready have the computer and Cubase Pro, doesn't come for free either and I need both to create music, with or without a real Mini Moog.

[GuitarGeek]

I understand what you're saying.

I do have to admit that I don't like any recordings by Rush after Signals.

Rush is an interesting example. On the one hand, I like the sound palette they used in the 70's and early 80's, ie more 12 string guitar, classic crunchy rhythm guitar tones, soaring lead guitar tones, analog synths and in particular Geddy's great synth melodies.

Later in the 80's, the 12 string guitar (and for the most part, acoustic guitar in general) kinda disappeared from their sound, and Geddy kinda stopped playing melodic stuff on synths and focused more on chordal playing. I think the absence of melodic synth work I find more disenchanting than the fact that Geddy switched from using an Oberheim 8 Voice or OB-X over to using the PPG synth (or whatever he had on the Power Windows and subsequent tours).

Grace Under Pressure I actually like, but except for a couple songs here or there, I don't really like much after that, even after Alex sort of started reasserting himself with the more prominent guitars in the post Mercury era albums.

[GuitarGeek]

Geddy Lee is a decent keyboard player, but I really consider him to be a bassist who happens to play keyboards sometimes. I really pay more attention to his bass than his keyboards. He didn't play any keyboards on 2112. The ARP Odyssey and Mellotron on the 2112 album were played by Hugh Syme.

I think Geddy is an awesome synth player. Yeah, he doesn't do anything technically impressive, but in that band, that's a good thing. When you've got Neal back there plotting out his drum parts using a protractor and graph paper, and Alex playing his extremely awesome guitar parts, sometimes it's nice to have someone just playing block chords, or relatively simple melodic lines. Besides, sometimes simple is what the music calls for.

[lak611]

I think Geddy is an awesome synth player. Yeah, he doesn't do anything technically impressive, but in that band, that's a good thing. When you've got Neal back there plotting out his drum parts using a protractor and graph paper, and Alex playing his extremely awesome guitar parts, sometimes it's nice to have someone just playing block chords, or relatively simple melodic lines. Besides, sometimes simple is what the music calls for.

Don't get me wrong. Rush is one of my favorite bands. However, I would put Geddy in the same category talent wise as Chris Squire. I wouldn't put Geddy in the same category talent wise as Keith Emerson or Rick Wakeman.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Rarebird]

When I bought my Nord Electro, I thought of an old neighbour of mine, who at that time was dead for quite some time. When I still lived with my parents, he played together with a drummer in some kind of weddingband. He had a small Farfisa organ, I sometimes borrowed from him. If there wasn't a piano available in the location they had to play, he hired some Fender Rhodes. I thought the Nord Electro would have suited his needs.

I think another reason why I'm skeptical about computer software rather than vintage instruments is due to sampling most prevalent in hip-hop, but found elsewhere too. How does one even know if a person can actually play a keyboard? Anyone could sound like a great keyboard player with the right software.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Yes, but with vintage equipment they can use prerecorded tapes as well, or a computer as well.
In the end you really never know.

I think Geddy is an awesome synth player. Yeah, he doesn't do anything technically impressive, but in that band, that's a good thing. When you've got Neal back there plotting out his drum parts using a protractor and graph paper, and Alex playing his extremely awesome guitar parts, sometimes it's nice to have someone just playing block chords, or relatively simple melodic lines. Besides, sometimes simple is what the music calls for.

I agree.


Of course a real prog band should have a theremin, or an ondes martenot.

[kid_runningfox]

Ultimately, the computer stuff, or even digital keyboards that do analog modeling, are vastly less expensive to purchase, and even more important easier to move around, than vintage analog gear. You don't actually need Pro Tools to run VST plugins on a computer, you can get very inexpensive or even free software to active your plug-ins. And even a $1,000 or less computer can run a lot of plug-ins. RAM and hard drive space are cheap, and the plug-ins don't require that much in terms of computer space. If you gave me a budget of $1,500 - $2,000, I could get a rig together that sounded decent and covered all the "vintage" bases. I couldn't even get one or two decent vintage keyboards for that cost.

And even if I got all those lovely vintage keys, how the heck would I transport them? Yeah, I could probably handle a MiniMoog, or some such. But a Rhodes? A Tron? A freaking Hammond with its obligatory Leslie? For the average band, this is out of the question. There's simply no doubt about it, the modern digital emulations give you much of the benefit with a minuscule fraction of the cost associated with purchasing, transporting, and maintaining a true vintage rig. And they are far easier to work with.

My kudos go out to those bands that use vintage gear. If it's truly worth it to them, then I have no problem with it. But given the quality and flexibility of modern digital emulations, coupled with the price and portability issues, I blame no one for choosing the digital option. It's almost a no-brainier.

Bill

Yes, this was one of my points in the thread OP; to recap, the only person I know who uses vintage keyboards live also repairs them professionally, too, and has the means to transport them between gigs. Like many, I would love to be able to turn to the keys player when playing live and see him/her surrounded by Hammond, Mellotron, multiple Moogs, CS80, OBX, etc., but in the real world, and in the small venues I generally play in, it's just not practical or, if I'm honest, desirable. I have no wish to give myself a hernia helping to shift that stuff from van to stage, or then spending a harrowing two hours from soundcheck to gig itself wondering if everything will be in tune/functional - or even worse watch the keyboardist spend that time frantically trying to fix/tune something that the soundcheck has revealed is having a few, erm, 'issues'. It used to be bad enough when Norman used to take his small Wiard modular system out with Vietgrove, and the damn thing always was a pain in the arse to set up and keep in tune. It sounded it great when it was finally settled, but whether it was worth the hassle for what was often largely a visual effect I'm not so sure.

Moreover, I would defy most listeners to be able to tell the difference between a decent set of samples of vintage instruments and the real thing through the average venue PA, especially when played via midi controllers where many of the tactile aspects of the instruments (drawbars etc) have been replicated. This goes double once the rest of the band joins in. From the practical point of view, therefore, it just makes so much more practical and economic sense to use virtual replicas of the real thing for most gigging musicians and those recordists on a tight budget. Also, for someone who now lives in China, where vintage instruments are simply unavailable at any price, there simply is no choice.

To my second point - whether many prog fans reflexively switch off when music doesn't feature those default vintage sounds many of us know and love (including me) - I'd certainly agree with Phil (Squ1ggle) that there is undoubtedly a 'comfort zone' in terms of sonic palette that many are reluctant to deviate from. I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing (and I love the latest Thieves' Kitchen album, so somebody has played your music in China, Phil!! ). I think what troubled me, and partly prompted my starting this thread, is when people refuse point blank to go beyond it. I've certainly encountered this attitude before, and it's always rather baffled me - for that reason, it's been interesting to read the responses so far.

[hFx]

Touring with vintage synths

One guy with problems....




Another more successful guy...

[GuitarGeek]

Don't get me wrong. Rush is one of my favorite bands. However, I would put Geddy in the same category talent wise as Chris Squire. I wouldn't put Geddy in the same category talent wise as Keith Emerson or Rick Wakeman.

I suppose that depends on how one is defining "talent". In terms of technique, sure, Wakeman and Emerson both are better than Geddy. But I think Geddy was better at writing stuff. I think Wakeman needed other people (eg Anderson, Howe, Squire, etc) to write stuff from him to sort of embroider, while I think Lake was definitely right about Emerson needing someone to edit his "compositions".

Geddy, by contrast I think did a great job on the late 70's and early 80's albums at coming up with actual melodic material that sounded like it was more than just a bunch of notes strung together. I'm thinking of things like The Trees, Xanadu, Jacob's Ladder, The Camera Eye, Subdivisions, etc. And I've always been impressed by the idea that he just sort of took up the challenge of playing both bass and synths, and he even worked out ways to play them both live.

[lak611]

I suppose that depends on how one is defining "talent". In terms of technique, sure, Wakeman and Emerson both are better than Geddy. But I think Geddy was better at writing stuff. I think Wakeman needed other people (eg Anderson, Howe, Squire, etc) to write stuff from him to sort of embroider, while I think Lake was definitely right about Emerson needing someone to edit his "compositions".

Geddy, by contrast I think did a great job on the late 70's and early 80's albums at coming up with actual melodic material that sounded like it was more than just a bunch of notes strung together. I'm thinking of things like The Trees, Xanadu, Jacob's Ladder, The Camera Eye, Subdivisions, etc. And I've always been impressed by the idea that he just sort of took up the challenge of playing both bass and synths, and he even worked out ways to play them both live.

I agree with you regarding Wakeman and Emerson as writers, especially Emerson who didn't do much of anything after ELP split up.

I think Geddy's talent shows the most on the instrumentals "La Villa Strangiato" and "YYZ". But he plays the bass as a lead instrument on parts of those songs like Chris Squire did with Yes.

How much did Alex write? Almost all of Rush's songs have music cowritten by Alex and Geddy. "YYZ" is an exception.

I've also noticed that Alex used synths more on earlier material, in addition to 12 string guitars and classical guitars.

I really like Hemispheres. Alex used a Roland guitar synthesizer and Taurus pedals. Geddy used a Minimoog, Oberheim polyphonic, and Taurus pedals.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Jerjo]

I am reminded of John Paul Jones who was positively overjoyed to stop using the tron and use a synth on the later Zep tours. He claimed he was quite tired of spending so much time on the road maintaining it or searching for parts. Then again, given the volume they played at, I doubt if most fans could tell the difference between the two.

[lak611]

I am reminded of John Paul Jones who was positively overjoyed to stop using the tron and use a synth on the later Zep tours. He claimed he was quite tired of spending so much time on the road maintaining it or searching for parts. Then again, given the volume they played at, I doubt if most fans could tell the difference between the two.

I never really noticed the keyboards on any Led Zeppelin songs, but then again I only liked their first 2 albums. Obviously Jimmy Page's guitars , which were vintage, were what I noticed most.

I also consider John Paul Jones to be a bassist who happens to play keyboards sometimes, like Geddy Lee. Keyboards aren't those guys' main instruments.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk