Old instruments, set ups, etc

[Presto-digitation]

It's interesting to me how many people want/would like Rush to play on the old instruments, do older songs, etc.

 

For instance, that question arose in another thread about Neil's old kit (thinking MP)...and one poster remembered reading where Peart had given them away in some contest and probably doesn't care what's become of them. I'd concur that he probably does not care or have the attachment to them or to a certain sound the way fans do.

 

That got me thinking how it's cool to me that the band continues to progress in their own ways (even if you disagree) and are the last ones seemingly concerned with what constitutes the classic instruments, etc.

 

It's almost as if there's this belief that if Rush would go back to writing epic songs or if Geddy, say, ditched the Jazz for the Ricky that the sound would come back.

 

I'm really not sure anyone's really saying that specifically, to be fair, but it sometimes seems that's the suggestion. If only Peart would go back to a double bass...if only Geddy and Alex would whip out the double necks...if only they'd go back to writing long prog rock songs.

 

Would that change anything? Can they even write those songs anymore or would you likely be disappointed if they tried and failed?? Does playing the Ricky do anything except tickle your nostalgia bone? I realize they do sound different and look cooler than crap, but what's going to change?

 

I love that the guys continue to do what they want and don't feel pulled by the same feelings that fans have, necessarily. It's interesting to me that certain fans believe that some elements of the Rush sound are fundamental and to the guys that was just something they did from '77 to '81 (or whatever) and they're just not interested in revisiting it. To these guys (and many bands not hung up on their own importance) these were just parts of their career. To us Moving Pictures is legendary and to the guys in Rush it's the album they released in 1981. I don't pretend that they're not privy to these things, how good or important they were, but it somehow holds less importance to them....or at least a different kind of importance.

 

I also realize the irony of saying this as they plan to embark on what amounts to a nostalgia tour. But hopefully you all get what I'm getting at....

 

 

 

 

[Mara]

People forget the intangibles that influenced each album, each era of Rush's songwriting/performing.

They follow their instincts, always have. Sure, you could sit them down and tell them to write a massive over-the-top sci-fi epic song, and they could do it. The skill set is there. But their hearts wouldn't be in it. It would sound great, but there'd be something NQR about it. Something "essentially Rush" would be missing.

A loose parallel - I had eleven years of classical piano training. I can play, but I HATE it. I'll grudgingly do so if asked, but it's pretty clear I don't enjoy the experience.

[Del_Duio]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 12 2010, 09:17 AM)

It's almost as if there's this belief that if Rush would go back to writing epic songs or if Geddy, say, ditched the Jazz for the Ricky that the sound would come back.

Well... That might not be true but I know when I got the chance to play my brother's guitar I hadn't seen in 15 years I was starting to play stuff that was pretty different. I think it just puts you in a different frame of mind.

 

Kind of like trying out a brand new bass at the music store that you can't possibly ever afford. It's just cool and for me it makes me want to play different things on it.

[Del_Duio]

Sorry, I said "different" but to be more clear I meant playing the different style of music I used to when I first played in a band. I've changed a lot since then.

[metaldad]

Old Instruments -Good

New Instruments - Bad

[Presto-digitation]

It's further interesting to me how the band -- and naturally so -- doesn't just look at the music itself, but the recording process...and that impacts their recollection.

 

For instance, for us fans it's easy to say "Well honestly RTB isn't that strong of an album" but for the band, that recording session went so well, they enjoyed the process, and even if every single song isn't an instant classic (lol), they feel strongly enough about THAT WHOLE EXPERIENCE that it remains a positive album for them. We're left to count the filler songs and short-comings. Contrarily a record like Hemispheres reads so well to fans (because it rocks, let's be honest), but to the band that entire process was frustrating and difficult. And so to them they see that almost as much or more than they do the the purity or beauty of the songs themselves.

 

These kinds of dynamics...be they the songs, the tours, or the instruments...never fail to fascinate me.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (metaldad @ Apr 12 2010, 09:35 AM)

Old Instruments -Good New Instruments - Bad

What about the "middle" period instruments?

[metaldad]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 12 2010, 09:39 AM)

QUOTE (metaldad @ Apr 12 2010, 09:35 AM) Old Instruments -Good New Instruments - Bad What about the "middle" period instruments? That was in remeberance of King Troll

[Del_Duio]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 12 2010, 09:39 AM)

QUOTE (metaldad @ Apr 12 2010, 09:35 AM) Old Instruments -Good New Instruments - Bad What about the "middle" period instruments? I'd lump those in with the old. Rick / Doubleneck / Stein / Wal   And even though the Fender was back then too I'd say it'd be in the "new" group alongside the fretless and that red thing for 2112 and Circumstances.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (Mara @ Apr 12 2010, 09:26 AM)

People forget the intangibles that influenced each album, each era of Rush's songwriting/performing. They follow their instincts, always have. Sure, you could sit them down and tell them to write a massive over-the-top sci-fi epic song, and they could do it. The skill set is there. But their hearts wouldn't be in it. It would sound great, but there'd be something NQR about it. Something "essentially Rush" would be missing. A loose parallel - I had eleven years of classical piano training. I can play, but I HATE it. I'll grudgingly do so if asked, but it's pretty clear I don't enjoy the experience.

They might even be MORE heavily criticized, in fact.

 

Kiss recently did an album that somewhat (here and there at least) harkened back to some older styles...and that went over really well with some fans and very, very POORLY with others, who simply saw it as Kiss failing to do what they used to do.

 

So maybe it's best that, for the reasons you mention Mara (if their heart's not in it), that they simply do what moves them. Frankly it seems that's all they've ever done to begin with.

 

I guess I'm not really sure what's so wrong with the tacts they take. Do I love them all equally? Hardly. But I'm glad they take them. Sometimes a new journey is a great success and other times not so much...or only partially.

[ghostworks]

QUOTE (metaldad @ Apr 12 2010, 09:41 AM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 12 2010, 09:39 AM) QUOTE (metaldad @ Apr 12 2010, 09:35 AM) Old Instruments -Good New Instruments - Bad What about the "middle" period instruments? That was in remeberance of King Troll

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (Del_Duio @ Apr 12 2010, 09:42 AM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 12 2010, 09:39 AM) QUOTE (metaldad @ Apr 12 2010, 09:35 AM) Old Instruments -Good New Instruments - Bad What about the "middle" period instruments? I'd lump those in with the old. Rick / Doubleneck / Stein / Wal   And even though the Fender was back then too I'd say it'd be in the "new" group alongside the fretless and that red thing for 2112 and Circumstances. One day soon the current will be old as well. At the time it seemed odd we'd ever think of 1985 as "the good old days" huh? Now it really is just that.   Another Kiss analogy (sorry)...but at the time I never thought I'd WANT Kiss to play lots of their 80s stuff again, but that was IN THE 80s when they'd gotten away from a lot of classics, not unlike Rush. Now with both bands I think it'd be a real HOOT to see a tour from each that really went down that road and played a lot of interesting middle period material...because enough time has passed now that tours like the HYF jaunt really are awesome revisits these days.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Presto-digitation

[Del_Duio]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 12 2010, 09:42 AM)

QUOTE (Mara @ Apr 12 2010, 09:26 AM)   People forget the intangibles that influenced each album, each era of Rush's songwriting/performing.  They follow their instincts, always have.  Sure, you could sit them down and tell them to write a massive over-the-top sci-fi epic song, and they could do it.  The skill set is there.  But their hearts wouldn't be in it.  It would sound great, but there'd be something NQR about it.  Something "essentially Rush" would be missing. A loose parallel - I had eleven years of classical piano training.  I can play, but I HATE it.  I'll grudgingly do so if asked, but it's pretty clear I don't enjoy the experience. They might even be MORE heavily criticized, in fact.   Kiss recently did an album that somewhat (here and there at least) harkened back to some older styles...and that went over really well with some fans and very, very POORLY with others, who simply saw it as Kiss failing to do what they used to do.   So maybe it's best that, for the reasons you mention Mara (if their heart's not in it), that they simply do what moves them. Frankly it seems that's all they've ever done to begin with.   I guess I'm not really sure what's so wrong with the tacts they take. Do I love them all equally? Hardly. But I'm glad they take them. Sometimes a new journey is a great success and other times not so much...or only partially. Yeah I suppose when you look at it that way we'd never have something as great as Power Windows if Rush hadn't completely changed their sound from the PeW / MP days.   Good point.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (Del_Duio @ Apr 12 2010, 09:45 AM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 12 2010, 09:42 AM) QUOTE (Mara @ Apr 12 2010, 09:26 AM)   People forget the intangibles that influenced each album, each era of Rush's songwriting/performing.  They follow their instincts, always have.  Sure, you could sit them down and tell them to write a massive over-the-top sci-fi epic song, and they could do it.  The skill set is there.  But their hearts wouldn't be in it.  It would sound great, but there'd be something NQR about it.  Something "essentially Rush" would be missing. A loose parallel - I had eleven years of classical piano training.  I can play, but I HATE it.  I'll grudgingly do so if asked, but it's pretty clear I don't enjoy the experience. They might even be MORE heavily criticized, in fact.   Kiss recently did an album that somewhat (here and there at least) harkened back to some older styles...and that went over really well with some fans and very, very POORLY with others, who simply saw it as Kiss failing to do what they used to do.   So maybe it's best that, for the reasons you mention Mara (if their heart's not in it), that they simply do what moves them. Frankly it seems that's all they've ever done to begin with.   I guess I'm not really sure what's so wrong with the tacts they take. Do I love them all equally? Hardly. But I'm glad they take them. Sometimes a new journey is a great success and other times not so much...or only partially. Yeah I suppose when you look at it that way we'd never have something as great as Power Windows if Rush hadn't completely changed their sound from the PeW / MP days.   Good point. I remember the band getting some flack by fans for this too....the whole Power Windows-into-Hold Your Fire period. It was hardly a unanimously accepted venture. Sure there were the fans eager and interested and patient enough to give it all a fair shake, and others who simply said "UGH....too AOR, too many keys, etc." And now looking back those albums are great bits of color and texture in the full body of Rush's canvas. Even classic now to many...

[Solitudeix]

For me, it is simply a question of taste. I like their epic period waaaaaaay better than the rest. I like those types of songs. I think that their pride in being able to make shorter concise songs, to me I don't really understand it. As if they are thinking that that type of songs structure is a natural advancement from the long song thing. I don't personally agree with that at all. Also, I look at how heavy the 70's albums were compared to the other albums of the era and wonder why they couldn't have kept up the proportionate heaviness and edge today. I mean listen to the 3rd disc in Different Stages and compare that to most all other bands around at the time (even, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Mortorhead) and it is head and shoulders above all that in pure power and rawness. It is almost a thrash metal album at some points compared to the tolerance of the times. Granted that is just a small aspect, but it is one that has some value with me. ( and in all honestly, they couldnt have kept up the porportionate heaviness today unless they were playing death-grind or something, but they could easily top out around the TOOL level of heaviness).

 

So, I just simply like those songs more. Geddy clearly states on the Story Of Kings 2 that was released at the time of CP, that he feels that the sound of an album is a "sign of the times" but in recent years, the times have become alot more turbulent, bands not smack in the middle of the mainstream have been making super long engaging songs and stuff has gotten heavier. I just wish in my mind that they would see it as a "go ahead" to let some things like that fly. I cant possibly believe that they all have a blanket disdain for music of that nature. So I just want them to go for it with that type of music. I dont think SnA is "going for it". Even though I like that album, it sounds to me like a band that is just happy to be making an album. Great for them, but it doesnt mean I have to share all that personal enthusiasm.

 

 

and as far as the old instruments, the live sound I hear when I listen to old shows and bootlegs, has a much rawer edge and I think Rickenbackers sound better than Jazz basses. I dont think it is a given, but certain instruments sometimes act as a kind of "talisman" and put you in the certain mood that you need to be in.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Solitudeix

[jdouglas]

QUOTE (metaldad @ Apr 12 2010, 09:35 AM)

Old Instruments -Good New Instruments - Bad

+1

 

ESL gear will do just fine.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE

As if they are thinking that that type of songs structure is a natural advancement from the long song thing.

 

But it is an evolution IF what you do is the long song. What's an evolution otherwise...an even-longer-song?

 

For Rush I think it was an extreme challenge to write a shorter, more concise and simpler song that has a melodic cohesion and does it in short order. While it might make for a more complicated an challenging performance prospect, I think the idea of taking four song ideas and weaving them into one song isn't all it's cracked up to be. I think the boys in the band agreed with this. That's just what they were doing, tying together different ideas.

 

It's difficult to write a solid six minutes, as they alude to. Of course we'll always disagree on what defines "solid" versus "weak," but I guess to them the challenge was the change. To them it wasn't about simplifying and become lazier songwriters. I'd have to agree with that myself.

 

 

[Solitudeix]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 12 2010, 11:13 AM)

QUOTE As if they are thinking that that type of songs structure is a natural advancement from the long song thing.   But it is an evolution IF what you do is the long song. Yeah, I guess so... (however they always did have shorter songs) but they could have possibly evolved in other "artsy", technical ways. I don't get the same feeling in their shorter works as I do in their longer ones. I don't have that sense of how can I say it .... almost pretentious "f-you music world, we are here and we will overthrow you". I instead get a certain rebel-gone-car-salesmen trying to network at seminars feeling.   Mind you I love most all of their work (except Roll The Bones album). But that is what I feel. I don't think they were trying to sell out with the change to shorter songs. What bothers me is the utter absence of ANY long epic songs since MP, as well as the general uniformity of their song lengths. It would be interesting to see how many of their songs since MP fit into a window of 4 1/2 to 6 minutes. It is one thing to "evolve" and do other things. It is quite another to abandon completely a certain style of songwriting. I personally don't think they took that aspect any where near as far as they could have, and they could have continued making a couple epics here and there. If it doesn't come out that way, ok of course it shouldn't be forced. But I find it hard to believe that there has been no desire to work on something like that at all.   And about the 4 song ideas going into 1 long song... In my songwriting experience, long songs don't usually come about by hashing together many small parts and segueing into one after another. I can only speak for myself, but that is definitely a sure-fire way to create a long song that people later think should have been broken up in to smaller songs. not only that, nothing anywhere says that they need to talk sci-fi, or fantasy or anything like that. Natural Science is not "sci-fi"... TCE is not fantasy or sci-fi... down to earth epic is perfectly doable.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Solitudeix

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (Solitudeix @ Apr 12 2010, 11:44 AM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 12 2010, 11:13 AM) QUOTE As if they are thinking that that type of songs structure is a natural advancement from the long song thing.   But it is an evolution IF what you do is the long song. What's an evolution otherwise...an even-longer-song?   For Rush I think it was an extreme challenge to write a shorter, more concise and simpler song that has a melodic cohesion and does it in short order. While it might make for a more complicated an challenging performance prospect, I think the idea of taking four song ideas and weaving them into one song isn't all it's cracked up to be. I think the boys in the band agreed with this. That's just what they were doing, tying together different ideas.   It's difficult to write a solid six minutes, as they alude to. Of course we'll always disagree on what defines "solid" versus "weak," but I guess to them the challenge was the change. To them it wasn't about simplifying and become lazier songwriters. I'd have to agree with that myself. Yeah, I guess so... (however they always did have shorter songs) but they could have possibly evolved in other "artsy", technical ways. I don't get the same feeling in their shorter works as I do in their longer ones. I don't have that sense of how can I say it .... almost pretentious "f-you music world, we are here and we will overthrow you". I instead get a certain rebel-gone-car-salesmen trying to network at seminars feeling.   Mind you I love most all of their work (except Roll The Bones album). But that is what I feel. I don't think they were trying to sell out with the change to shorter songs. What bothers me is the utter absence of ANY long epic songs since MP, as well as the general uniformity of their song lengths. It would be interesting to see how many of their songs since MP fit into a window of 4 1/2 to 6 minutes. It is one thing to "evolve" and do other things. It is quite another to abandon completely a certain style of songwriting. I personally don't think they took that aspect any where near as far as they could have, and they could have continued making a couple epics here and there. If it doesn't come out that way, ok of course it shouldn't be forced. But I find it hard to believe that there has been no desire to work on something like that at all.   And about the 4 song ideas going into 1 long song... In my songwriting experience, long songs don't usually come about by hashing together many small parts and segueing into one after another. I can only speak for myself, but that is definitely a sure-fire way to create a long song that people later think should have been broken up in to smaller songs. not only that, nothing anywhere says that they need to talk sci-fi, or fantasy or anything like that. Natural Science is not "sci-fi"... TCE is not fantasy or sci-fi... down to earth epic is perfectly doable. And Natural Science (or Xanadu) are examples to me anyhow of epics of reasonable lengths. I think that 20 minute songs get lost up their own ass. Inherenetly they can't help but be about cobbled together musical pieces, if for no other reason that to keep them interesting. 10-12 minutes -- again, to me -- really is the extent of making ONE song interesting. Rush's smaller epics mark their bigger successes to my ears.

[Solitudeix]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 12 2010, 11:51 AM)

QUOTE (Solitudeix @ Apr 12 2010, 11:44 AM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 12 2010, 11:13 AM) QUOTE As if they are thinking that that type of songs structure is a natural advancement from the long song thing.   But it is an evolution IF what you do is the long song. What's an evolution otherwise...an even-longer-song?   For Rush I think it was an extreme challenge to write a shorter, more concise and simpler song that has a melodic cohesion and does it in short order. While it might make for a more complicated an challenging performance prospect, I think the idea of taking four song ideas and weaving them into one song isn't all it's cracked up to be. I think the boys in the band agreed with this. That's just what they were doing, tying together different ideas.   It's difficult to write a solid six minutes, as they alude to. Of course we'll always disagree on what defines "solid" versus "weak," but I guess to them the challenge was the change. To them it wasn't about simplifying and become lazier songwriters. I'd have to agree with that myself. Yeah, I guess so... (however they always did have shorter songs) but they could have possibly evolved in other "artsy", technical ways. I don't get the same feeling in their shorter works as I do in their longer ones. I don't have that sense of how can I say it .... almost pretentious "f-you music world, we are here and we will overthrow you". I instead get a certain rebel-gone-car-salesmen trying to network at seminars feeling.   Mind you I love most all of their work (except Roll The Bones album). But that is what I feel. I don't think they were trying to sell out with the change to shorter songs. What bothers me is the utter absence of ANY long epic songs since MP, as well as the general uniformity of their song lengths. It would be interesting to see how many of their songs since MP fit into a window of 4 1/2 to 6 minutes. It is one thing to "evolve" and do other things. It is quite another to abandon completely a certain style of songwriting. I personally don't think they took that aspect any where near as far as they could have, and they could have continued making a couple epics here and there. If it doesn't come out that way, ok of course it shouldn't be forced. But I find it hard to believe that there has been no desire to work on something like that at all.   And about the 4 song ideas going into 1 long song... In my songwriting experience, long songs don't usually come about by hashing together many small parts and segueing into one after another. I can only speak for myself, but that is definitely a sure-fire way to create a long song that people later think should have been broken up in to smaller songs. not only that, nothing anywhere says that they need to talk sci-fi, or fantasy or anything like that. Natural Science is not "sci-fi"... TCE is not fantasy or sci-fi... down to earth epic is perfectly doable. And Natural Science (or Xanadu) are examples to me anyhow of epics of reasonable lengths. I think that 20 minute songs get lost up their own ass. Inherenetly they can't help but be about cobbled together musical pieces, if for no other reason that to keep them interesting. 10-12 minutes -- again, to me -- really is the extent of making ONE song interesting. Rush's smaller epics mark their bigger successes to my ears.   Yeah, I am not looking for 20+ minute songs. TCE, NS, Xan, and even Jacobs Ladder. Are, I guess, "epics of reasonable length", and I wonder why they haven't been able to find a place for that type of songwriting in the past 30 years. And even though I cant 100% agree with your statement about 20+ minute songs (I love bands like Sleep, Sunno))), Corrupted, Boris, Melvins etc... that have plenty of 20+ minute songs that focus on hypnotic rhythms and psychedelic elements as well as weird time shifts and all that) I understand what you mean.

[apetersvt]

I dabble at playing guitar so I can only give a somewhat rational response with regards to Alex's instruments. My favorite albums are COS-Hemispheres so certainly my favorite instruments would be those associated with that time frame. With Alex playing Gibsons almost exclusively now, it coincides well with that time frame. Thus old=new=old or something like that. I am very happy with Alex's current guitar tone, so I must like the GK amps as well as the old Marshall stacks.

 

I've never liked electronic drums, so I do think Neil needs to ditch all of this new technology and go back to the regular drums (along with the chimes, bells, etc...)

[SunlightOnChrome]

To the original point of fans wanting the old equipment back, and the boys not really going that way:

I think it is natural for fans to feel this way, bit I am glad Rush doesn't pander. As a fan, seeing the old instruments and maybe even kimonos takes us back to the time that we fell in love with that song. For Rush it would be more like moving backwards. Sure, it would be cool to see the double necks and bass drums again, but Rush has always been about going forward.

What makes Rush's music so good is that it doesn't chase the style of the period. If it did, it wouldn't hold up. Instead, it reflects where they are at that moment and what is influencing them as musicians at that time.

 

[cubb]

Rush's sound has gotten way to compressed and condensed for my ears.

Their records used to breathe more and had a greater dynamic feel.

 

Alex used to have an amazing clean crunch sound that I loved.

He didn't just have it for one or two albums, he had it for all the albums up to and incl. Permanent Waves.

Then it got more processed, which was OK for my ears and for the times, but when you go past Grace Under Pressure, I think he just loses me.

Kahler trems and way too much digital sheen.

Come to the era of the Hughes & Kettner amps, ugh, they are so dense and over-saturated. I can hardly hear the difference in the guitars he uses.

Take a listen to the Pink Pop sound he had in '79. Now that's a great tone!

 

I don't think it would hurt if they made a conscious decision to exclusively use the amps and instruments from the 77-80 period for just one record.

They've never done it before, so why not give it a shot boys?

Jeez, I'd record the demos for free, just so they could hear how great that old stuff still sounds (yes, a pipe dream but one can still dream...).

Edited April 20, 2010 by cubb