Jump to content

Can Someone Please Explain 2112?!


O_Baterista
 Share

Recommended Posts

So there is this guy, and he's a bastard in a hospital,

and Mr. X wants him to kill Mary, "Kill Mary??" and get the priest as well.

 

:|

 

Ok, my iPod might be messing with me.

 

 

She's a risk!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is like trying to explain why some people like Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus.

 

look closely, aren't they the same person?

 

No way. Miley is quite different from her little sister.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right... I've listened to it a bit and I wouldn't call it phenomenal but I think now at least it surpasses the writing quality of almost every song before it. I still find Cygnus X-1 and Hemispheres much more enjoyable.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times have you heard the album? Sometimes songs take time to click with you.

 

Thanks for the advice :)

Like I said above, it FINALLY got to me. Many of you have said it's personal taste and looking back a bit I can see that because Xanadu is a masterpiece in my opinion but I've heard some people say it wouldve been great if not for the "needless length". Don't ask me where I heard that; I don't remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right... I've listened to it a bit and I wouldn't call it phenomenal but I think now at least it surpasses the writing quality of almost every song before it. I still find Cygnus X-1 and Hemispheres much more enjoyable.

 

That makes sense. Chronologically, anything before 2112 wouldn't have as good musicianship, and the couple albums afterwards are where they really came into their own. As much as I love 2112, I recognize its importance in the band's history, but I do think they have better albums.

 

And yes, those two Cygnus X-1 songs are two of my all-time favourite songs :wub: :heart: :heart: :haz: :rush:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think 2112 is phenomenal. But not everyone likes everything Rush has done, so if this doesn't work for you then that's just How It Is.

 

And how it's going to be...

 

Replying to O_Baterista:

 

Seriously though, I get it, especially if you are newer to Rush (forgive me if I am making the assumption based on it being your first show coming up).

 

I was introduced to Rush with Moving Pictures/Signals (at the age of 14), so that was my starting/reference point. Initially I was much more attuned to those albums and those that followed. It took me a few years to discover the back catalog and even more years after that to really appreciate it.

 

As we all know Rush is a band that demands your time and attention; the songs open themselves up over time and rewards those who are patient.

 

And you have to think of 2112 for what it was when it came out in 1976. At that time it was different, heavy and novel. Today there are other genres of music that owe themselves in part to the direction 2112 set when it came out.

Edited by ctbadger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you have to think of 2112 for what it was when it came out in 1976. At that time it was different, heavy and novel. Today there are other genres of music that owe themselves in part to the direction 2112 set when it came out.

If 2112 came out today, the Priests would be the benevolent heroes. Being heroes, however, they would have to be called something other than Priests, lest anyone get the idea that the song's author would have anything positive to say about anything that could be construed as involving organized religion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was kind of disappointed to hear Neil reveal that the forces assuming control at the end of 2112 were "the good guys"; not because I'd prefer "the bad guys" to win, but just because I thought it made the whole epic seem more poignant than a sort of "happy ending".

 

But I digress...

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the answers, guys. Yes, in a way I'm newer to Rush. Similarly to ctbadger, I'd known Moving Pictures and loved it and hadn't gone beyond that. Recently I comitted to learning YYZ, which fueled further investigation of Rush. That was back in December. I've obsessed over them enough that I feel like a huge fan, but I still have lots to explore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly the people I know who really dislike 2112 only dislike it because of Ged's pitch on the title song. Most tell me, yeah, they get that the song is straight-forward and epic prog'n'roll, but the shrill drives them nuts. The same argument against all of the early albums, really.

 

But I think the fandom love and appreciation for 2112 goes deeper than that. For some, it's the modification of Anthem and the context of the individual against the collective. For others, it's the understanding of the band's history and how that album was, in reality, a hail mary middle finger to the record company that miraculously resulted in a game-winning touchdown, and forever made it so Rush could do whatever they wanted on later albums. Quite literally 2112 made it so that all other albums could come after. Still, for others, its the fact that Overture and Syrinx live are staples of crowd involvement. And, oddly, for others, it's the fact that album jacket has this photo...

 

http://www.2112.net/...r/2112group.jpg

 

:eh:

 

Here's what I find really interesting about 2112. Even with Neil distancing himself from the Objectivist leaning to the lyrics of the title song.... Even with MP, PW, and Signals being more often recognized as the golden age of Rush by/on AOR station airplay... Even though that album will be 40 years old next April... the Starman logo is still the "emblem" of the band (the Kings skull being a close second, I think). It is universally used and recognized by Rush fans. It is still widely produced and sold on their gear. It is still the skin cover on Neil's bass drums. For all the other albums and experiences, 2112 is still, in many ways, the band's definitive piece.

Edited by WorkingAllTheTime
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in a lot of ways that, while Neil has distanced himself from the Ayn Rand thing, he hasn't distanced himself from 2112 as he interprets it, because his philosophy -- even before it has developed as he's aged -- never really was the same as hers, though they shared some tenets.

 

He has distanced himself from "Anthem," for example, but you can see some key differences between that song and its successor. In particular, Anthem claims "Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song," while 2112 announces, "Listen to my music... I know that it will reach you." Which I think highlights that while individual freedom is so important to Neil, in his view, it is not inherently selfish, but benefits others as well as the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly the people I know who really dislike 2112 only dislike it because of Ged's pitch on the title song.

2112 is still, in many ways, the band's definitive piece.

The heck with those people on the former and I agree 1000% with the latter... :codger:
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one aspect of 2112 that gets over looked is the job Geddy does on vocals. His ability to "sell the song" takes a major leap forward. He's very committed to the various moods and viewpoints on 2112, and performs them exceptionally well. Presentation highlights this best, IMO.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly the people I know who really dislike 2112 only dislike it because of Ged's pitch on the title song.

2112 is still, in many ways, the band's definitive piece.

The heck with those people on the former and I agree 1000% with the latter... :codger:

Narp's Latter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in a lot of ways that, while Neil has distanced himself from the Ayn Rand thing, he hasn't distanced himself from 2112 as he interprets it, because his philosophy -- even before it has developed as he's aged -- never really was the same as hers, though they shared some tenets.

 

He has distanced himself from "Anthem," for example, but you can see some key differences between that song and its successor. In particular, Anthem claims "Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song," while 2112 announces, "Listen to my music... I know that it will reach you." Which I think highlights that while individual freedom is so important to Neil, in his view, it is not inherently selfish, but benefits others as well as the individual.

Rand believed in helping others for your own sake as well
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in a lot of ways that, while Neil has distanced himself from the Ayn Rand thing, he hasn't distanced himself from 2112 as he interprets it, because his philosophy -- even before it has developed as he's aged -- never really was the same as hers, though they shared some tenets.

 

He has distanced himself from "Anthem," for example, but you can see some key differences between that song and its successor. In particular, Anthem claims "Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song," while 2112 announces, "Listen to my music... I know that it will reach you." Which I think highlights that while individual freedom is so important to Neil, in his view, it is not inherently selfish, but benefits others as well as the individual.

Rand believed in helping others for your own sake as well

Well what I'm talking here is helping yourself for others' sake... but I suppose I really haven't much more than a cursory knowledge of Rand's beliefs and I'm more than happy to remain that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly the people I know who really dislike 2112 only dislike it because of Ged's pitch on the title song.

2112 is still, in many ways, the band's definitive piece.

The heck with those people on the former and I agree 1000% with the latter... :codger:

 

Ged's voice on 2112 is some masterpiece quality vocal work on his part. Seriously, not only does he sing it grandly, he acts out the emotions of the story with such passion and presence. It's one of the most gripping pieces of the song's story for me.

 

2112 will definitely always be the definitive work by Rush for me because it is what brought me to the band and made me an instant mega fan. First time I heard it (I was giving Rush a try and had just picked up a used copy at a record store), I was blasting side 1 in my car cruising back home on the highway. By the time the Priests of Syrinx section was chiming in, my mind just kept tugging at me repeatedly. I got really excited because it was pure magic happening in that car, as dorky as that sounds. It's rare a band grips me like that so quickly, and 2112 cinched it for me. Thank god for that perfect song/album turning me into a magical Geddycorn.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly the people I know who really dislike 2112 only dislike it because of Ged's pitch on the title song.

2112 is still, in many ways, the band's definitive piece.

The heck with those people on the former and I agree 1000% with the latter... :codger:

 

Ged's voice on 2112 is some masterpiece quality vocal work on his part. Seriously, not only does he sing it grandly, he acts out the emotions of the story with such passion and presence. It's one of the most gripping pieces of the song's story for me.

 

Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in a lot of ways that, while Neil has distanced himself from the Ayn Rand thing, he hasn't distanced himself from 2112 as he interprets it, because his philosophy -- even before it has developed as he's aged -- never really was the same as hers, though they shared some tenets.

 

 

 

"Sharing some tenets" and dedicating what was, at the time, the most important creation and apex of their career to the "genius of Ayn Rand" are not quite the same

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in a lot of ways that, while Neil has distanced himself from the Ayn Rand thing, he hasn't distanced himself from 2112 as he interprets it, because his philosophy -- even before it has developed as he's aged -- never really was the same as hers, though they shared some tenets.

 

 

 

"Sharing some tenets" and dedicating what was, at the time, the most important creation and apex of their career to the "genius of Ayn Rand" are not quite the same

Unless you're in your early 20's...and kind of high.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in a lot of ways that, while Neil has distanced himself from the Ayn Rand thing, he hasn't distanced himself from 2112 as he interprets it, because his philosophy -- even before it has developed as he's aged -- never really was the same as hers, though they shared some tenets.

 

 

 

"Sharing some tenets" and dedicating what was, at the time, the most important creation and apex of their career to the "genius of Ayn Rand" are not quite the same

Unless you're in your early 20's...and kind of high.

^^^^^^^^^^

 

He's always described it as something of an afterthought, too, sort of "Oh, you know what, I totally stole this story from the plot of an Ayn Rand novella. I should give her credit for that." I get the impression he still stands by the literary merit of the work he adapted, and mostly regrets the word choice that makes him seem like an ultra-acolyte of Rand. But 2112 was written to express what he was feeling, not as a tribute to her work necessarily.

 

How Neil felt then was informed by his life experience, just as Rand's philosophy was informed by hers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in a lot of ways that, while Neil has distanced himself from the Ayn Rand thing, he hasn't distanced himself from 2112 as he interprets it, because his philosophy -- even before it has developed as he's aged -- never really was the same as hers, though they shared some tenets.

 

 

 

"Sharing some tenets" and dedicating what was, at the time, the most important creation and apex of their career to the "genius of Ayn Rand" are not quite the same

Unless you're in your early 20's...and kind of high.

^^^^^^^^^^

 

He's always described it as something of an afterthought, too, sort of "Oh, you know what, I totally stole this story from the plot of an Ayn Rand novella. I should give her credit for that." I get the impression he still stands by the literary merit of the work he adapted, and mostly regrets the word choice that makes him seem like an ultra-acolyte of Rand. But 2112 was written to express what he was feeling, not as a tribute to her work necessarily.

 

How Neil felt then was informed by his life experience, just as Rand's philosophy was informed by hers.

 

 

Interesting that you mention Neil putting his life experience into the story ... In probably just a flair or the dramatic, we have our "hero" commit suicide at the end of 2112, while Rand had our protagonist escape and begin anew at the conclusion of Anthem ..

 

This was obviously a turn Neil took intentionally, and 2112 would have felt very different had it ended more like Anthem .

 

In a flair for the dramatic, Neil did something very unlike Rand - he had his character give up

 

What this all means, I'm not sure, but it just sort of interesting to think about

Edited by Lucas
  • Like 2
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...