Jump to content

Rush & Improvisation


The Weapon

Recommended Posts

I'm looking for any quotes from members of Rush about why they've shied away from improvising or "jamming" live.

 

I've had a few musical discussions/debates with people who have more of jazz/Grateful Dead/Phish sensibility, and they acknowledge that Rush are great musicians, but they take issue with the fact that Rush generally play the songs exactly the same way each time, and that they play the exact same setlist night after night on tour.

 

At times, I'm partially sympathetic to this criticism. There is something to be said for having each live performance being a truly unique experience. However, I readily admit that the privilege of improvising can be abused, as I've certainly heard my share of excessively long "jams" that devolve into musical masturbation. But with that said, there are some cool things to take away from the so-called "jam band" scene that would be very interesting if Rush ever embraced them (which they won't):

 

1. Varied Setlists

Imagine if when you went to a Rush concert, the entire catalog was fair game. Will they bust out a rare Fountain of Lamneth tonight? I wonder what they will open with? I would go see several shows per tour if they had this approach...as it stands, I don't get that excited once I know the setlist and exactly how each song will sound. (And for those of you who do go see multiple Rush shows on the same tour, wouldn't you be way more excited each night if you didn't know exactly what was going to happen?)

 

2. Guest Artist Appearances

Imagine if Keith Emerson (or some other monster musician) suddenly appeared on stage and he and Rush played a cool song together. Not every night of the tour, of course, but just when they happened to be in the same town. Just great musicians getting together and letting it happen. These things go a long way toward making each night a special musical experience.

 

3. Variation of Interpretation

I think part of the beauty of Rush is that their songs and instrumentals are very precisely and perfectly composed. I by no means advocate that you have do a complete makeover of a piece every night - that's foolish. But it's sort of cool when different intros are used, solos are extended (indefinitely), etc. Rush are good at adding these little twists to their live show each tour, but once you've heard it, you've heard it because it's the same each night.

 

Rush are talented enough musicians to pull off all of the above. I'm certainly not trying to detract from them - they're my all time favorite band. Just wondering if the band has ever commented on any of this stuff, and anyone has ever felt the same.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone just this week posted a Peart interview link in a foreign language (I read the google translation) where Neil talked about this. He basically said (as a I recall) that he worked really hard on the compositions to get it just the way he wants, so he rarely varies in the way he plays stuff.

 

IMO, improvisation and change is overrated (from a listening enjoyment standpoint- I completely respect the talent it takes to do it well)- but that's probably because I approach music the same way. When I work out an arrangement, even the guitar solos, I pretty much play it that way from then on out, whether its the recording or live. If I change it up live, it's an intentional thing and I usually play it the same afterward. I've been criticized myself for this approach to music, but I just can't help but think of music as a composition and I'll never improv something that expresses what I'm going for musical as well as what I've written.

 

When hear Rush play live they are playing these really great compositions that are difficult to play and that is what impresses me, just like if I hear someone play a challenging solo that was written 200 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely understand where you're coming from, alot of really strong points. In my opinion the only reason its not like that is because Rush is not that type of band. I mean all of their songs are really really hard to play. From reading interviews I mean it really seems that they have to practice a song a million times before they take it out on that tour. Especially songs like "The Camera Eye" or "2112" the songs are so complex that if the band wasn't all syncopated on the same page for the entire song then they could easily become a train wreck.

With the idea of guest musicians, it seems like a cool idea, but I just dont know any Rush songs that could really "fit well" with another person? I mean its not like their songs are easy walk through the parks that any musician could just sit in on a song. All of their songs are made perfectly for how they play together and to add in another person would either really throw rush off or give the guest musician absolutely nothing meaningful to do in the song.

Now on the other hand if members of Rush or even all of Rush sat in with another band and jammed on their songs, that could be awesome! Geddy playing bass randomly or Alex lifeson joining a crazy blues jam, Neil sitting in on a jazz trio. Now that would be something!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only improvisation they allow themselves is when they play the classics Closer to the Heart (where we have heard them play the end of the song in reggae style, country style, etc.) and Working Man.

 

Otherwise, I agree with the consensus that their songs are too difficult to play and their dedication to getting each song just right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worthwhile to note that RUSH's shows are very tightly scripted with synchronized and preprogrammed lighting and film elements.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (briremo @ Jul 20 2010, 12:29 PM)
It's worthwhile to note that RUSH's shows are very tightly scripted with synchronized and preprogrammed lighting and film elements.

 

Yes but the key question is whether that is partly used as an excuse not to change it up more. Only they know the answer to that but it seems odd that such a successful band who are obviously very talented musicians are in such thrall to the presentation side of it.

 

I know it makes for a great show but for quite a few years they used the same old visuals to a lot of the songs so even this 'the production is everything' stance is a bit of a myth.

 

Anyway even within that presentation there is nothing stopping them having one or two sections where the lighting is simpler, or even house lights up (Metallica did this on their last tour) leaving them with more flexibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I'm sure on some other band's boards, somebody is griping that when band "xyz" plays they never stick to the original material and screw up the songs by playing new arrangements or by "stretching out" too much.

 

I mean really? WTF is the big deal? They write music, and play what they wrote because that's why we like them. WTF is the BFD?

 

cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (briremo @ Jul 20 2010, 07:23 AM)
Look, I'm sure on some other band's boards, somebody is griping that when band "xyz" plays they never stick to the original material and screw up the songs by playing new arrangements or by "stretching out" too much.

I mean really? WTF is the big deal? They write music, and play what they wrote because that's why we like them. WTF is the BFD?

cool.gif

The big deal is that some of us would like to see more songs live. Wouldn't it be cool to see two different shows with completely different setlist? If the whole catalogue were to be fair game, you would most certainly get to hear your favourite song if you went to five consecutive shows no matter what that song might be. I realize it isn't ever going to happen, but I can dream.

 

Most of the bands that I follow mix up their setlist every night. If I were musician, I would be so sick of playing the same songs night after night after night. It's like listening to top 40 radio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me its their greatest weakness. i wish they would improvise and I am all for rearranging their music and bringing in guest musicians.

 

The most jamming improv that i can think of done by members of rush does not include Geddy. I am referring to a sound check with Alex, Neil and Billy Sheehan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't improvise Mozart, and you don't improvise Rush. Simple.

 

This band puts on a fully programmed and rehearsed show. Even changing the order of the songs night-to-night would be a major problem. Dropping in new songs nightly would be impossible - there's pyro, video, and samples that need to be triggered. All these things are thought out ahead of time.

 

Changing out songs night-to-night would be like going to the theater where they're putting on a performance of Phantom of the Opera, and the director says, "hey, after this scene is over, let's do a number from Cats".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jul 20 2010, 08:14 AM)
Changing out songs night-to-night would be like going to the theater where they're putting on a performance of Phantom of the Opera, and the director says, "hey, after this scene is over, let's do a number from Cats".

Or breaking out a rocking guitar solo in the middle of Don Giovanni.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Rush addresses this question in "Contents under Pressure" (don't quote me): I think the answer was (1) we like the songs we wrote, we play the songs as they were written and (2) the songs are difficult enough to play as they were written, without going off in different directions. Seems fair to me. I have wondered about the lack of improv but that's a small price to pay in the larger scheme of things.

 

Variety among concerts: I saw them at Bristow, VA during S&A and again a few weeks later in Camden, NJ. It wasn't lost on me that it was the same sequence of songs, lights, cameras, action, but it was still awesome. Since then, I've started playing guitar in a small band and gained a much greater appreciation for playing/singing/triggering in sync with other players without making mistakes or forgetting what comes next - doing that for 3+ hours is amazing. I would imagine that trying to remember 2-3 full show sequences over months of touring would invite trouble.

 

Variety in the setlists (sigh), I must confess that "If I could wave a magic wand..." I'd love to see a B-sides tour: no 'popular songs' I mean they've got their following, so would we really refuse to go to a concert if we couldn't hear 'Spirit of Radio'? Of course not. Why not this:

 

Before and After

I think I'm Going Bald

Anthem

Jacob's Ladder

The Camera Eye (I know, will be glad to hear it this time)

Circumstances (I know, was very glad to hear it last time)

Losing It

Red Lenses

Territories

High Water

Available Light

Time and Motion

Ghost of a Chance

Between Sun and Moon

Cold Fire

Peaceable Kingdom

Freeze (or entire Fear trilogy)

Good News First

 

Seriously, would anyone walk out of that setlist? smile.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, as others eluded to, that some of the compositions demand a strict interpretation.

 

Yes rarely varies their presentation either. Both bands have some complex material, but Rush has a lot of stuff that lends itself to jamming.

 

I, too, wish they would play a different set every night. I would gladly sacrifice all the lights and explosions -- and those cringe-worthy intro videos -- for some variation. It might even get me to go to more than one or two shows a tour, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then go see a different band. Rush does it like this, they're not going to change. Deal with it. I love it. They don't meet and rehearse a tour for months before for nothing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love hearing the early recordings where they did a bit of improvisation, especially Working Man. Some elements you see in the Spring 1974 video (w/ Rutsey), you also get to hear soon after Peart joined. Some of that evolved into By-Tor. That stuff 1022.gif

These days, a Rush show is all about a well-oiled performance. Alot of work goes into making sure everything works & all the trains arrive on time. It would be very interesting, if they had a part in the set where they just JAMMED. But I can understand keeping things tight & concise for the sake of the performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's both good and bad things that can come out of weather a band switches their setlist up every night.

 

One of the good things is that if the band plays the same songs every night there is less likely of a chance that mistakes will happen. Much like how most of us do the same duties at our jobs daily, there's less of a chance of screwing up if we perform the same tasks everyday. That's kind of what Rush is doing. They're performing their job the same every day so they don't goof stuff up.

 

Another good thing is that every fan gets the same show for the tour so they don't feel like they were cheated out of something or that the show the last show got a better set.

 

The bad is just the opposite. Songs are tough to remember when you've had a career as long as Rush has. Yes, they do have sound check to work on something different to see that if it sounds right, but that doesn't mean that they won't mess it up at the show. Also there's no uneven song switches in the set. If the last show got JL and then the show I went to they played Sweet Miracle in that spot I would feel like I got less of a show. I like both songs but JL blows that one away.

 

Bands like Metallica and Dream Theater switch a handful of songs up every night at their shows. Sometimes they do sound right but a lot of the time you can hear the song is a bit off since they don't do it all the time. I wouldn't wanna hear Rush have an off performance of a song. They've set too high of a standard live for the fans to accept that and I know that they themselves wouldn't accept a song not sounding perfect live either. Also, as someone mentioned before they do have a lot of lighting and videos set to the songs so it doesn't leave much wiggle room.

 

As for improvising or jamming live I personally can't stand when bands do that. The extra two minutes Rush adds live to CTTH and Bravado I don't mind because they fit the songs well and at least to me, the extended endings for those two come off making sense. I don't mind if a band takes a 3 or 4 minutes to do a little guitar, bass or drum diddy live but whenever i've been at a show and a band does extanded jams like 10-15 minutes long it bores me. I'm there to hear the songs I love from them not for the band to just go on a pointless jam. If they feel like jamming do that at soundcheck where I don't have to sit through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if the change the set list around or not. I would like to hear some jams on some songs. I think its sad that, that little "jam" ending they used to do on CTTH is the only thing we have gotten that's close to a true jam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that the band has very tightly integrated video, lights and other effects, but it is possible to work around that. The lighting guy from Phish is almost a fifth member of the band in that he knows the songs so well that he is able to follow a different setlist every night, and he knows how to follow along with the tension and release type moments that they build up during the jams. He's sort of winging it himself along with them. It can be done, but it just requires a different approach from top to bottom.

 

I don't argue that Rush should embrace the "in the moment" approach to the level that Phish does (Phish can get very sloppy sometimes), but one or two moments per night of improvisation from Geddy, Alex and Neil would be freakin' cool. It'll never happen, though. I'd still settle for a more varied set list each night.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (briremo @ Jul 20 2010, 08:23 AM)
Look, I'm sure on some other band's boards, somebody is griping that when band "xyz" plays they never stick to the original material and screw up the songs by playing new arrangements or by "stretching out" too much.

I mean really? WTF is the big deal? They write music, and play what they wrote because that's why we like them.  WTF is the BFD?

cool.gif

You know, I'm one of those who doesn't much care for bands making drastic rearrangements to their original compositions. I don't mean stuff like tossing in an extended jam in the middle or the end - that's great, and Rush does it well (yeah, I know it's rehearsed). laugh.gif

 

But I don't like to hear a hard rocker slowed waaaaayy down to where it becomes something else entirely, for example. I hated the whole "Unplugged" fad, because it rendered so many great songs almost unrecognizeable. A travesty to these ears! I hate jam bands, for the most part - TO ME it just sounds sloppy and disorganized.

 

What I am saying, I suppose, is I can pretty much understand Rush's "rigidity" in terms of the way they do things.

 

As well, they are total perfectionists, and that aspect by its nature does not allow for much flexibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They commonly do switch up their songs and have some fun with them (reggae, polka, country). Even if their switch-ups are rehearsed, I can't blame them, it's complicated music.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Xanadude69 @ Jul 21 2010, 02:20 AM)
I don't care if the change the set list around or not.  I would like to hear some jams on some songs.  I think its sad that, that little "jam" ending they used to do on CTTH is the only thing we have gotten that's close to a true jam.

 

I don't expect them to turn into a jam band but when they do a change up, such as 'Digital Man' changed outro - it can work really well.

 

Their music seems to give such great opportunity for exploration - e.g. the outro to 'Different Strings'. I think nearly everyone on this board who has commented on that has said they'd like to hear more of the guitar at the end and in a live setting it seems they could really do something with that arrangement.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of a couple of instances where songs were stretched out a bit live besides CTTH-the endings of Bravado and Secret Touch come to mind.

It may not be much, but it's about all you are going to get.

Rush's nature is to control as much of the live show as they can. Is it a weakness? Maybe.

I personally try to find small moments live where one of them reaches higher, and I think I appreciate noticing those more than I would like to hear an out and out "jam". It could be Geddy getting a hard vocal passage right that I didn't expect him to be able to hit, or Neil changing up a fill in a familiar song-after 40 plus shows those are the things I am looking for.

I'm not a jam band guy. Rush is the opposite of a jam band. You can keep Phish and Moe and all of the rest of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the "jams" at the end of CTTH and Bravado are largely scripted. I can't say for sure that Geddy isn't making up that bass part at the end of CTTH or that Alex isn't improvising the outro of Bravado, but the length of it, the tone, everything else about those sections is scripted. It's not really a spontaneous jam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...