Uncle Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Ok well we've had a poll and sung it line by line so we may as well discuss it. First and foremost I like this song but here we go. There are problems with this song, the two strongest being: 1. It's repetetive. 2. It lacks punch in the production. Instrumentely it could do with out the Dionysus and Apollo sections as they are almost indentical extended passages allready covered in prelude but I understand their importance lyrically. They could have written some extra musical passages for theese sections but apart from these sections the rest is awesome. As for the production it doesn't seem to sound right. It doesn't seem to have the same punch as the other songs in the album and doesn't have that same raw ballsy edge of Cygnus X-1. It sounds better to me if I EQ the midsection into overdrive (I think the problem is the effect on Al's guitar it doesn't sound right) Other than those two criticisms an excellent song and I understand how hard it must have been to follow up the musical perfection that was AFTK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My_Shrimp_Cot Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 QUOTE (Uncle @ Mar 9 2005, 02:51 PM) 1. It's repetetive. 2. It lacks punch in the production. Instrumentely it could do with out the Dionysus and Apollo sections as they are almost indentical extended passages allready covered in prelude but I understand their importance lyrically. As for the production it doesn't seem to sound right. It doesn't seem to have the same punch as the other songs in the album and doesn't have that same raw ballsy edge of Cygnus X-1. It sounds better to me if I EQ the midsection into overdrive (I think the problem is the effect on Al's guitar it doesn't sound right) Other than those two criticisms an excellent song and I understand how hard it must have been to follow up the musical perfection that was AFTK. 1st point This is crazy....sorry but hemispheres is repetitive like Beethoven's Fifth is repetitive....There is no refrain where they sing the same stupid words over and over again. This is one of the least repetitive rock songs ever written. There is a lot of music there to let sink in to begin with. If you add much more you make it even more innaccesible to the average listener, who struggles with RUSH to begin with. 2nd point When people recorded back then they were looking for "perfect" sound quality not "punch". All of the highs and lows of the instruments are audible and a pleasure to listen to. When you add punch you clip the sound waves and lose some tonal quality...there is no way around it. People dont care about that anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Grizz Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I do find the music a bit repetitive, but I think that's intentional. And I like the sound on the remastered disc. Much better. Agreed, though. Overall it's a great piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 No need to get heated lol (It's just music you know!) 1st Point Defense: I did not in any way state that the lyrics were repetetive, in fact I admitted that lyrically both those sections were very important to the song. This is not one of the least repetetive rock songs ever written, how about 2112, Sheep or Karn Evil 9, these songs are far less repetetive. Each one of these songs can be listened to by your average listener without being confusing and are from much more succesfull albums than Hemispheres. 2nd Point Defense: Rush have allways had excellent seperation in regards to their music and still had the edge there. Just because you stick a bit more overdrive or gain on one instrument does not mean it evaporates the rest. I again quote AFTK excellent quality of seperation and the music still has impact, or even take the other songs on Hemispheres they still have that edge. Comments open to the floor (lets have a good debate here folks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My_Shrimp_Cot Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Im not heated lol I think it was important that Dionysis have the same music as Apollo...So as not to give either an advantage. The point that the philosophies are equally flawed without eachother is made. If the music was different you may ending liking one more than the other and this may ruin the point of "The Sphere" in some symbolic sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 But bearing in mind the theme is that some people prefer art others science and we take preference. If people like one section more than another then it is true to life. The message of the song will still be clear. I believe the sections should be juxtaposed musically to mirror their extreme real life differences. The end section gets the point across well enough. The quality of musical experience for the listener should not be sacrificed for the ends of the lyricist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My_Shrimp_Cot Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 But....I find it more tedious when they hammer away at some phrase.. like in Cygus, that triplet rythm that goes on for like two and a half minutes before "Invisible to telescopic eye". Revisiting a musical theme that occurred earlier in the piece doesnt bother me as much. It happens all the time in classical music... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaine mac Roth Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I think Uncle has a valid point here. With regard to Apollo/Dionysis, we're not talking about QUOTE that triplet rythm that goes on for like two and a half minutes before "Invisible to telescopic eye". , we're talking about around four minutes of almost identical music that had largely been worked over in the Prelude. Uncle's comments are quite close to my initial reaction to Hemispheres when I first heard it over 25 years ago. However, MSC's comments about the link in with the lyrical theme is equally valid (you might get the impression that I have something of a love/hate relationship with Hemispheres, and you'd be right). The thing is, though, the most people will take on board the musical identity of a piece before they even listen to the lyrics - I know I certainly do. And, in a case like this, the seemingly over repetetiveness can act against the piece as a whole. Now, to the production. Soundwise, Hemispheres has never been a favourite of mine. I can't put my finger on what the problem is, but the sounscapes seem to lack the textures of AFTK. Perhaps it could be the tiredness of the band after the mammoth touring schedule they'd undertaken, perhaps its the mixing problems that are chronicled in the 'Visions' bio. Anyway, whatever the reason, Hemispheres seems to lack that audio sparkle. Nevetheless, its still a classic. Despite its shortcomings, to my ears, Hemispheres remains an extraordiniarily powerful piece of work. Just a listen to the opening of Cygnus was enough to hook me on the piece - Cygnus remains one of Rush's most powerful and defining moments. So, for me to sum up, Hemispheres is a classic. A flawed classic maybe,but a classic nontheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 I think you said it right there. QUOTE Hemispheres is a classic. A flawed classic maybe,but a classic nontheless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yyz Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 QUOTE (Uncle @ Mar 9 2005, 07:36 PM) I think you said it right there. QUOTE Hemispheres is a classic. A flawed classic maybe,but a classic nontheless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilPeartFan2112 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 Although it may get repetative, it sounds amazing none the less. I wish they would play the whole version live on an upcoming tour, back to back with Cygnus. How sweet would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickyrob Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ Mar 9 2005, 05:52 PM) I think Uncle has a valid point here. With regard to Apollo/Dionysis, we're not talking about QUOTE that triplet rythm that goes on for like two and a half minutes before "Invisible to telescopic eye". , we're talking about around four minutes of almost identical music that had largely been worked over in the Prelude. Uncle's comments are quite close to my initial reaction to Hemispheres when I first heard it over 25 years ago. However, MSC's comments about the link in with the lyrical theme is equally valid (you might get the impression that I have something of a love/hate relationship with Hemispheres, and you'd be right). The thing is, though, the most people will take on board the musical identity of a piece before they even listen to the lyrics - I know I certainly do. And, in a case like this, the seemingly over repetetiveness can act against the piece as a whole. Now, to the production. Soundwise, Hemispheres has never been a favourite of mine. I can't put my finger on what the problem is, but the sounscapes seem to lack the textures of AFTK. Perhaps it could be the tiredness of the band after the mammoth touring schedule they'd undertaken, perhaps its the mixing problems that are chronicled in the 'Visions' bio. Anyway, whatever the reason, Hemispheres seems to lack that audio sparkle. Nevetheless, its still a classic. Despite its shortcomings, to my ears, Hemispheres remains an extraordiniarily powerful piece of work. Just a listen to the opening of Cygnus was enough to hook me on the piece - Cygnus remains one of Rush's most powerful and defining moments. So, for me to sum up, Hemispheres is a classic. A flawed classic maybe,but a classic nontheless. No flaws to my ears. I LOVED it when I first heard it in 1978, and I still love it now. I am sorry, but I cannot fault it, either musically (I do like the repetitive nature of the epic track) or lyrically (maybe a little too complex or for some), but this is what appealed to me - parhaps I'm just a whacko ?? I even love the front cover, the back cover, the pic's inside, the Rush logo on it..........its just fabulous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilPeartFan2112 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 QUOTE (rickyrob @ Mar 10 2005, 01:57 PM) QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ Mar 9 2005, 05:52 PM) I think Uncle has a valid point here. With regard to Apollo/Dionysis, we're not talking about QUOTE that triplet rythm that goes on for like two and a half minutes before "Invisible to telescopic eye". , we're talking about around four minutes of almost identical music that had largely been worked over in the Prelude. Uncle's comments are quite close to my initial reaction to Hemispheres when I first heard it over 25 years ago. However, MSC's comments about the link in with the lyrical theme is equally valid (you might get the impression that I have something of a love/hate relationship with Hemispheres, and you'd be right). The thing is, though, the most people will take on board the musical identity of a piece before they even listen to the lyrics - I know I certainly do. And, in a case like this, the seemingly over repetetiveness can act against the piece as a whole. Now, to the production. Soundwise, Hemispheres has never been a favourite of mine. I can't put my finger on what the problem is, but the sounscapes seem to lack the textures of AFTK. Perhaps it could be the tiredness of the band after the mammoth touring schedule they'd undertaken, perhaps its the mixing problems that are chronicled in the 'Visions' bio. Anyway, whatever the reason, Hemispheres seems to lack that audio sparkle. Nevetheless, its still a classic. Despite its shortcomings, to my ears, Hemispheres remains an extraordiniarily powerful piece of work. Just a listen to the opening of Cygnus was enough to hook me on the piece - Cygnus remains one of Rush's most powerful and defining moments. So, for me to sum up, Hemispheres is a classic. A flawed classic maybe,but a classic nontheless. No flaws to my ears. I LOVED it when I first heard it in 1978, and I still love it now. I am sorry, but I cannot fault it, either musically (I do like the repetitive nature of the epic track) or lyrically (maybe a little too complex or for some), but this is what appealed to me - parhaps I'm just a whacko ?? I even love the front cover, the back cover, the pic's inside, the Rush logo on it..........its just fabulous Same for me. It's such a great song, I've always loved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Posted March 10, 2005 Author Share Posted March 10, 2005 I would hope they play it too seeing as how they tend to crank it to 11 these days in live shows That would give it the punch I desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RushGuru Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 QUOTE (rickyrob @ Mar 10 2005, 11:57 AM) No flaws to my ears. I LOVED it when I first heard it in 1978, and I still love it now. I am sorry, but I cannot fault it, either musically (I do like the repetitive nature of the epic track) or lyrically (maybe a little too complex or for some), but this is what appealed to me - parhaps I'm just a whacko ?? I even love the front cover, the back cover, the pic's inside, the Rush logo on it..........its just fabulous This is exactly how I feel. Well said Ricky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proggy Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 Hemispheres is as repetitive as Close To The Edge -both crowning achievements in progessive rock. The similarity of Apollo and Dionysus only enchances Armageddon, making it sound even more dynamic and...punchy? I've always liked the "claustrophobic" feel in Hemispheres sound-wise. No need to have it sound like a metal-song a la Cygnus X-1, thank you very much! Yup, it's perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My_Shrimp_Cot Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 QUOTE (Proggy @ Mar 10 2005, 02:41 PM) Hemispheres is as repetitive as Close To The Edge -both crowning achievements in progessive rock. The similarity of Apollo and Dionysus only enchances Armageddon, making it sound even more dynamic and...punchy? I've always liked the "claustrophobic" feel in Hemispheres sound-wise. No need to have it sound like a metal-song a la Cygnus X-1, thank you very much! Yup, it's perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defrushfan01 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 I think they should make a music video of Hemispheres!! and put it on heavy rotation on VH1. HAHA (JUST MAKING A FUNNY) I played this for a friend and they dislike RUSH. But when Hemispheres was over, man she had to listen to it again. and she HATES PROG ROCK!! So its a classic song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Posted March 10, 2005 Author Share Posted March 10, 2005 lol guess we're at a disagreement but at least I shall be safe in the knowledge that I am correct ok I am most definately JOKING but this song has taken a good year or two to grow on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 I fell in love with Hemispheres the first time I heard it, and I still don't have any major complaints about it musically or lyrically. One thing that's always bothered me, though--how does the plot work? The pilot flies through a black hole (which is impossible) and is transported to Olympus with the Greek gods? To me, it seems like the relationship between Cygnus X-1 and Hemispheres is similar to The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings--it started with a very basic plotline, then the author decided to write a sequel that was exponentially more complex than the original work. How did Cygnus/Hemispheres evolve? Were they written together as one big work, or seperately? (I realize this is a lot of questions--if anyone knows any of the answers, I'd love to know ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaine mac Roth Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 From what I've heard, and I could be wrong, when the band came to record the Hemispheres album Neil had no idea about how to wrap up the Cygnus X-1 storyline. Fortunately, he read a book called 'Powers of Mind' (I think) and was inspired to write Hemispheres. As to how one fits with the other, I'm not too certain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.