Jump to content

Unretiring Older Songs: Time and Perspective


Principled Man
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a good look into how the band will retire certain songs and then return to play them again.....after time has passed. The band's likes and dislikes are not static. Every tour, they go through their catalogue, and some songs that turned them off one year may sound really good to them another year.

 

Geddy's take on The Camera Eye is very interesting:

 

It’s funny, some of those old songs sound so strange to me now, but when you start playing them you get back into that head-space you were in when they were written and recorded.

 

It’s really all about your sense of perspective. A few years ago we brought back "The Camera Eye". I never wanted to play that song. I never thought it was particularly worthy. And yet it was one the most requested Rush songs. I couldn’t understand it. How could people be so wrong?

 

I realised I underestimate the moment in time – the context of that moment. When we started playing "The Camera Eye", I thought, okay, there are a lot of pretentious moments in this song. It hasn’t aged well. But then I started re-learning the keyboard parts and putting together a slightly different version – instead of eleven minutes it clocks in at nine-and-a-half. And in the playing of it, yes, I fell in love with it again. And that’s where it becomes very subjective, and not objective.

 

I stopped being able to tell if it was a pretentious song, and I just enjoyed playing those chords and I remembered why the song got recorded in the first place – I liked the chord progression and the vocal melodies. You can go back to that time and appreciate what you were trying to do. This song – it was a point in your life, and fans want to relive that point in your life and you can have fun playing it. I dig the hell out of that song now.

 

 

 

:haz: :haz: :haz:

Edited by Principled Man
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pretty cool. I found it interesting that Ged characterized some passages as being "pretentious". In Beyond the Lighted Stage, Neil states that as a band Rush is not pretentious - they are not pretending to be anything.

 

I wonder what Ged means by saying that - are there sections in that song that they are "pretending" to be something else? Reaching to be something they are not? I don't really get it, Ged - to me that song is pure RUSH! I wonder what he meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pretty cool. I found it interesting that Ged characterized some passages as being "pretentious". In Beyond the Lighted Stage, Neil states that as a band Rush is not pretentious - they are not pretending to be anything.

 

I wonder what Ged means by saying that - are there sections in that song that they are "pretending" to be something else? Reaching to be something they are not? I don't really get it, Ged - to me that song is pure RUSH! I wonder what he meant.

 

My take on it is that in The Camera Eye, there are big grandiose chords, with lots of space in between...especially during the introduction. I can see Geddy getting bored during the first 2:45 of the song. Not much for him to do on the bass..... :LOL:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a body of work as large as theirs, I can see why things get tossed to the wayside...I just don't get why more songs from a given album don't get played on THAT tour? They JUST wrote the song, they SHOULD be proud enough of it to make sure they get to play it live (I get the fact that a few over the years were studio productions that they didn't have the technology at the TIME to play something live) but you'd really think that the _______ tour would feature at LEAST 75-80% off the songs on that albums respective tour!

 

They DID do a nice job with S&A and CA...but VT is "trickling" out, T4E didn't include too much as did the few albums before them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a body of work as large as theirs, I can see why things get tossed to the wayside...I just don't get why more songs from a given album don't get played on THAT tour? They JUST wrote the song, they SHOULD be proud enough of it to make sure they get to play it live (I get the fact that a few over the years were studio productions that they didn't have the technology at the TIME to play something live) but you'd really think that the _______ tour would feature at LEAST 75-80% off the songs on that albums respective tour!

 

They DID do a nice job with S&A and CA...but VT is "trickling" out, T4E didn't include too much as did the few albums before them.

 

I think Rush plays a lot of songs from the albums they are touring. It's just that when they started recording 10 or so (CD era) it was probably more a question of balance. Through Power Windows they typically played 3/4, even 7/8 of the songs. Since then it has been the same number of songs (6, usually) but a growing catalog and only so much time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They DID do a nice job with S&A and CA...but VT is "trickling" out, T4E didn't include too much as did the few albums before them.

 

Actually, T4E had 7/11 songs played live during the tour, a higher percentage than all other albums since the PoW tour and including VT.

 

HYF had 6/10

Presto had 5/11

RTB had 5/10

CP had 6/11

VT had 5/13

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T

 

They DID do a nice job with S&A and CA...but VT is "trickling" out, T4E didn't include too much as did the few albums before them.

 

Actually, T4E had 7/11 songs played live during the tour, a higher percentage than all other albums since the PoW tour and including VT.

 

HYF had 6/10

Presto had 5/11

RTB had 5/10

CP had 6/11

VT had 5/13

 

That's still right around 50%...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a catalogue that's always growing and with the 10+ 'must play' classics forced into rotations....it must be hard to please themselves with a setlist let alone the fans.

If you combine the setlists of R-30, S&A, TM, CA and R-40...I think they done and awesome job of spreading the love...

I've been fortunate enough to see every tour since Hemispheres...There might not be another band who has played as many different songs live through a similar time span as Rush.

Edited by WIDE-ANGLE WATCHER
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just like the fact that they play different old stuff every tour and don't just play the same "15 songs" over and above the current album stuff.

 

Even though I'm not a HUGE fan of PW and HyF, I was thrilled that they DID play a decent representation of that era on the CA tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T

 

They DID do a nice job with S&A and CA...but VT is "trickling" out, T4E didn't include too much as did the few albums before them.

 

Actually, T4E had 7/11 songs played live during the tour, a higher percentage than all other albums since the PoW tour and including VT.

 

HYF had 6/10

Presto had 5/11

RTB had 5/10

CP had 6/11

VT had 5/13

 

That's still right around 50%...

It's closer to 2/3 (64%)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T

 

They DID do a nice job with S&A and CA...but VT is "trickling" out, T4E didn't include too much as did the few albums before them.

 

Actually, T4E had 7/11 songs played live during the tour, a higher percentage than all other albums since the PoW tour and including VT.

 

HYF had 6/10

Presto had 5/11

RTB had 5/10

CP had 6/11

VT had 5/13

 

That's still right around 50%...

It's closer to 2/3 (64%)

 

Tomato-toMAHto...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pretty cool. I found it interesting that Ged characterized some passages as being "pretentious". In Beyond the Lighted Stage, Neil states that as a band Rush is not pretentious - they are not pretending to be anything.

 

I wonder what Ged means by saying that - are there sections in that song that they are "pretending" to be something else? Reaching to be something they are not? I don't really get it, Ged - to me that song is pure RUSH! I wonder what he meant.

 

My take on it is that in The Camera Eye, there are big grandiose chords, with lots of space in between...especially during the introduction. I can see Geddy getting bored during the first 2:45 of the song. Not much for him to do on the bass..... :LOL:

 

hmm, maybe, but I don't equate "boredom" with "pretentious". Definition:

 

pre·ten·tious

 

 

prəˈten(t)SHəs/

 

adjective
  • attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.


I guess I just don't get that word in it's association to The Camera Eye. The word "pretentious" is used by critics alot when describing music that I usually like (typically prog rock) but I really don't get it. Yes, alot of it is ambitious - but I'm not really interested in listening to things that are the same 4 chord, 4/4 back beat, mindless lyrics drivel that is all over the radio. It seems that when many critics sense something just slightly more adventurous than that drivel, they make the "pretentious" accusation. What confuses me is to hear Geddy use it in reference to something that isn't so nearly over the top as "Jacob's Ladder" "Cygnus X1" "2112" etc. I wonder what specifically, what quality or section, leads his to say a part is "pretentious". It's also interesting because Neil said exactly the opposite in the documentary movie - Rush is not pretentious in the least. As Alex states in his interview, they are a band that remained true to their artistic vision. Curious comment.

Edited by cygnify
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T

 

They DID do a nice job with S&A and CA...but VT is "trickling" out, T4E didn't include too much as did the few albums before them.

 

Actually, T4E had 7/11 songs played live during the tour, a higher percentage than all other albums since the PoW tour and including VT.

 

HYF had 6/10

Presto had 5/11

RTB had 5/10

CP had 6/11

VT had 5/13

 

That's still right around 50%...

It's closer to 2/3 (64%)

 

To be precise, it's 51.51% (34/66)

 

;) ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Jan Wenner corner Geddy at the Rock hall ceremony and convince him that Rush are indeed pretentious? He has been tossing that word out a lot recently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pretty cool. I found it interesting that Ged characterized some passages as being "pretentious". In Beyond the Lighted Stage, Neil states that as a band Rush is not pretentious - they are not pretending to be anything.

 

I wonder what Ged means by saying that - are there sections in that song that they are "pretending" to be something else? Reaching to be something they are not? I don't really get it, Ged - to me that song is pure RUSH! I wonder what he meant.

 

My take on it is that in The Camera Eye, there are big grandiose chords, with lots of space in between...especially during the introduction. I can see Geddy getting bored during the first 2:45 of the song. Not much for him to do on the bass..... :LOL:

 

hmm, maybe, but I don't equate "boredom" with "pretentious". Definition:

 

pre·ten·tious

 

 

prəˈten(t)SHəs/

 

adjective
  • attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.


I guess I just don't get that word in it's association to The Camera Eye. The word "pretentious" is used by critics alot when describing music that I usually like (typically prog rock) but I really don't get it. Yes, alot of it is ambitious - but I'm not really interested in listening to things that are the same 4 chord, 4/4 back beat, mindless lyrics drivel that is all over the radio. It seems that when many critics sense something just slightly more adventurous than that drivel, they make the "pretentious" accusation. What confuses me is to hear Geddy use it in reference to something that isn't so nearly over the top as "Jacob's Ladder" "Cygnus X1" "2112" etc. I wonder what specifically, what quality or section, leads his to say a part is "pretentious". It's also interesting because Neil said exactly the opposite in the documentary movie - Rush is not pretentious in the least. As Alex states in his interview, they are a band that remained true to their artistic vision. Curious comment.

 

Yeah, he recently said the same thing about some of their long instrumental passages in the 70s. Does Geddy not like Rush anymore? Haha

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he used the word pretentious in regards to padding the song (through repetition) to make it more "epic". He mentions that they cut a minute and a half when they brought it back.

 

But what do I know.

Edited by Boogieman2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T

 

They DID do a nice job with S&A and CA...but VT is "trickling" out, T4E didn't include too much as did the few albums before them.

 

Actually, T4E had 7/11 songs played live during the tour, a higher percentage than all other albums since the PoW tour and including VT.

 

HYF had 6/10

Presto had 5/11

RTB had 5/10

CP had 6/11

VT had 5/13

 

That's still right around 50%...

It's closer to 2/3 (64%)

 

Tomato-toMAHto...

Tomato-CArrOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "pretentious" is used by critics a lot when describing music that I usually like (typically prog rock) but I really don't get it.

 

Rock and roll critics....they're a dime-o-dozen. Any music that's over their heads automatically gets tagged as "pretentious"....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he used the word pretentious in regards to padding the song (through repetition) to make it more "epic". He mentions that they cut a minute and a half when they brought it back.

 

But what do I know.

 

Interesting. One could say the same thing about Cygnus Bk2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T

 

They DID do a nice job with S&A and CA...but VT is "trickling" out, T4E didn't include too much as did the few albums before them.

 

Actually, T4E had 7/11 songs played live during the tour, a higher percentage than all other albums since the PoW tour and including VT.

 

HYF had 6/10

Presto had 5/11

RTB had 5/10

CP had 6/11

VT had 5/13

 

That's still right around 50%...

It's closer to 2/3 (64%)

 

To be precise, it's 51.51% (34/66)

 

;) ;)

 

Gotta love people that actually paid attention in math class! :notworthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he used the word pretentious in regards to padding the song (through repetition) to make it more "epic". He mentions that they cut a minute and a half when they brought it back.

 

But what do I know.

 

Interesting. One could say the same thing about Cygnus Bk2.

 

While I would not agree with your last comment, I do agree that TCE is a song that is padded up. I think the way it was performed on the Signals tour put the point across of the song (and in 4 less minutes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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