Is the car chase in Red Barchetta a 'dream'?

[rftag]

I recently came across a review of book written in 1999 about "the philosophy of Rush", which was apparently an effort to document the apparent philosophy espoused by Rush as expressed in - if I recall correctly - the lyrics of 39 or so of their songs.

 

Haven't read the book so can't comment on its quality or lack thereof, but one thing in review I read struck me as interesting.

 

Apparently the authors argue that the final lyric about returning to "dream with my uncle at the fireside" suggests the entire chase sequence is just a dream/fantasy/daydream etc.

 

I found that interpretation very interesting though I'm not convinced that is what Neil intended. I know the song is loosely based on a science fiction story involving a similar "motor law" but I don't think that is relevant to the question.

 

Thoughts?

Edited December 17, 2015 by rftag

[EagleMoon]

I recently came across a review of book written in 1999 about "the philosophy of Rush", which was apparently an effort to document the apparent philosophy espoused by Rush as expressed in - if I recall correctly - the lyrics of 39 or so of their songs.

 

Haven't read the book so can't comment on its quality or lack thereof, but one thing in review I read struck me as interesting.

 

Apparently the authors argue that the final lyric about returning to "dream with my uncle at the fireside" suggests the entire chase sequence is just a dream/fantasy/daydream etc.

 

I found that interpretation very interesting though I'm not convinced that is what Neil intended. I know the song is loosely based on a science fiction story involving a similar "motor law" but I don't think that is relevant to the question.

 

Thoughts?

 

I always took the "dream by the fireside" as reminiscing about ways things used to be.

[Maverick]

I always thought that the race/chase was imagined by the person as he was driving, much like a child would pretend they were racing someone who wasn't there. The key for me is the gleaming alloy "air car." Now, maybe that is just a new type of car that the "authorities" drive that doesn't use gas, and he ends up getting chased by two of them. And the part about dreaming by the fireside was just that he was tired about the day's adventure, and he'd fall asleep by the fire with his uncle.

[Ancient Ways]

I don't like solely relying on the author for interpretation. It's an important starting point. I like this theory.

[Lucas]

I always thought that the race/chase was imagined by the person as he was driving, much like a child would pretend they were racing someone who wasn't there.

 

This is my take on the song, too . .

 

Neil's love for the open road and the freedom of driving as pleasure - even escape - is obvious .. I can only imagine what goes thru his mind on those long trips, and even back in the day, I'm sure Neil loved getting away from it all ...

 

Driving is not simply commuting, and it can be more than fun- it can be fantasy, and that's how I see Red Barchetta

[Lucas]

I might add:

 

There are few things in life more exhilarating than ditching a cop

 

Adrenalin Surge !

[JARG]

I recently came across a review of book written in 1999 about "the philosophy of Rush", which was apparently an effort to document the apparent philosophy espoused by Rush as expressed in - if I recall correctly - the lyrics of 39 or so of their songs.

 

Haven't read the book so can't comment on its quality or lack thereof, but one thing in review I read struck me as interesting.

 

Apparently the authors argue that the final lyric about returning to "dream with my uncle at the fireside" suggests the entire chase sequence is just a dream/fantasy/daydream etc.

 

I found that interpretation very interesting though I'm not convinced that is what Neil intended. I know the song is loosely based on a science fiction story involving a similar "motor law" but I don't think that is relevant to the question.

 

Thoughts?

 

What was the protagonist in the song racing back to the farm from if not the car chase?

[Tony R]

I don't like solely relying on the author for interpretation. It's an important starting point. I like this theory.

 

I'm not following you, the author does not interpret his own work the reader does. The author's analysis of his own work is the only accurate one.

 

 

[Rutlefan]

Imagining the car chase didn't really happen in this future that hasn't yet happened and probably won't happen because alternative futures are more likely to happen would lessen my enjoyment and appreciation of the song because I'd like to think the car chase really did happen in this future that just might happen, and even if it's not likely to happen it is still an effectively poetic cautionary tale of over-reaching government regulation and control worth heeding (Neil's inner Ayn Rand is showing again, though I'm aware it was loosely based on the more benign "A Nice Morning Drive").

 

This is Neil's masterpiece IMO (Ayn Rand influence aside; I like to think of it more along the lines of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451); I wouldn't like to see it me cheapened by the "oh, it was all just a dream" ploy. Not saying it might not have been Neil's intent, or it's not a plausible interpretation, or someone isn't perfectly free to interpret it that way, it's just that it's not the one I would ever choose. I like my imaginary tales real :).

[toymaker]

Imagining the car chase didn't really happen in this future that hasn't yet happened and probably won't happen because alternative futures are more likely to happen would lessen my enjoyment and appreciation of the song because I'd like to think the car chase really did happen in this future that just might happen, and even if it's not likely to happen it is still an effectively poetic cautionary tale of over-reaching government regulation and control worth heeding (Neil's inner Ayn Rand is showing again, though I'm aware it was loosely based on the more benign "A Nice Morning Drive").

 

This is Neil's masterpiece IMO (Ayn Rand influence aside; I like to think of it more along the lines of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451); I wouldn't like to see it me cheapened by the "oh, it was all just a dream" ploy. Not saying it might not have been Neil's intent, or it's not a plausible interpretation, or someone isn't perfectly free to interpret it that way, it's just that it's not the one I would ever choose. I like my imaginary tales real :).

 

Your post kind of reminds me of the plot of that movie Inception.

[Digital Man]

I always thought that the race/chase was imagined by the person as he was driving, much like a child would pretend they were racing someone who wasn't there. The key for me is the gleaming alloy "air car." Now, maybe that is just a new type of car that the "authorities" drive that doesn't use gas, and he ends up getting chased by two of them. And the part about dreaming by the fireside was just that he was tired about the day's adventure, and he'd fall asleep by the fire with his uncle.

I have always pictured a hovercraft type car; too wide for the bridge but so heavy it couldn't have gone around the bridge made it across the chasm safely. It is set in the future where there are different rules and laws. He's riding a 'turbo' to get around so clearly the society has made up some new types of transportation. It says the gleaming alloy air car 'shoots' towards him from across the mountain-side, not the typical type of words used to describe a car accelerating - another joins the chase: I always pictured the second coming from another part of the valley. The race is deadly because he has to stay on the road but the air-cars do not. Yeah, there's a lot of detail it how I interpreted the song but I've had 35 years to think about it.

[LedRush]

I don't like solely relying on the author for interpretation. It's an important starting point. I like this theory.

 

I'm not following you, the author does not interpret his own work the reader does. The author's analysis of his own work is the only accurate one.

 

I've seen you make this point a few times, and it never fails to strike me as being so false that it becomes absurd. Even if your goal is to determine the author's intentions (which is a very narrow and boring way to conduct analysis), your line of reasoning still wouldn't be true. Sometimes people see things in us that we cannot or do not. And sometimes we express things subconsciously or in unintended ways.

[ReRushed]

I think "Red Barchetta" inspired the Kirk steals his stepdad's car chase sequence in Star Trek 2009.

[toymaker]

Re: post 12

 

The actual words expressed are only ever an incomplete and imperfect rendering of the chaos in our brains. If we're lucky, we'll convey some of the nuances, but the expression is also bound to be affected by what is external, including what we think our readers (our implied readers) want to hear, as well as our impressions of how they will judge us.

Edited December 17, 2015 by toymaker

[Geddy's Soul Patch]

It's a cream dream

[Ancient Ways]

I don't like solely relying on the author for interpretation. It's an important starting point. I like this theory.

 

I'm not following you, the author does not interpret his own work the reader does. The author's analysis of his own work is the only accurate one.

That's the exact opposite of the point of art. I've seen artists change their versions of the meanings of their work too many times as well.

[ReRushed]

I don't like solely relying on the author for interpretation. It's an important starting point. I like this theory.

 

I'm not following you, the author does not interpret his own work the reader does. The author's analysis of his own work is the only accurate one.

That's the exact opposite of the point of art. I've seen artists change their versions of the meanings of their work too many times as well.

Like Roger Waters milking The Wall.

[snowdogged]

I don't like solely relying on the author for interpretation. It's an important starting point. I like this theory.

 

I'm not following you, the author does not interpret his own work the reader does. The author's analysis of his own work is the only accurate one.

That's the exact opposite of the point of art. I've seen artists change their versions of the meanings of their work too many times as well.

Like Roger Waters milking The Wall.

Yeah, but I just watched the video of his Wall tour from last year and the stage show was by far the best I have ever seen. The lights, videos and props are second to none.

[Tony R]

I don't like solely relying on the author for interpretation. It's an important starting point. I like this theory.

 

I'm not following you, the author does not interpret his own work the reader does. The author's analysis of his own work is the only accurate one.

 

I've seen you make this point a few times, and it never fails to strike me as being so false that it becomes absurd. Even if your goal is to determine the author's intentions (which is a very narrow and boring way to conduct analysis), your line of reasoning still wouldn't be true. Sometimes people see things in us that we cannot or do not. And sometimes we express things subconsciously or in unintended ways.

 

And sometimes we seek for deeper meaning where there isn't any.

 

 

[Lucas]

I don't like solely relying on the author for interpretation. It's an important starting point. I like this theory.

 

I'm not following you, the author does not interpret his own work the reader does. The author's analysis of his own work is the only accurate one.

 

I've seen you make this point a few times, and it never fails to strike me as being so false that it becomes absurd. Even if your goal is to determine the author's intentions (which is a very narrow and boring way to conduct analysis), your line of reasoning still wouldn't be true. Sometimes people see things in us that we cannot or do not. And sometimes we express things subconsciously or in unintended ways.

 

And sometimes we seek for deeper meaning where there isn't any.

 

This was touched upon in the thread about Rush and religion, and in particular, Jacob's Ladder

 

But does it really matter ? .. Perception is reality

 

Jacob's Ladder may - or may not - be a good example, as I am convinced that Neil's intention with the lyrics coupled with the stirring music and production was to evoke much of the same feelings that a Biblical story might ..

 

There is a creative aspect in the listener too, and I think that this is what draws people to certain musical performers ( or any art, for that matter )

 

Some people are brought to tears listening to music, while some are unaffected by the very same piece - and for me, it is the overall vibe of the composition - not simply the lyrics - that can evoke such emotions ..

 

We take from these songs what we bring to them in the first place

 

 

[LedRush]

I always thought that the race/chase was imagined by the person as he was driving, much like a child would pretend they were racing someone who wasn't there. The key for me is the gleaming alloy "air car." Now, maybe that is just a new type of car that the "authorities" drive that doesn't use gas, and he ends up getting chased by two of them. And the part about dreaming by the fireside was just that he was tired about the day's adventure, and he'd fall asleep by the fire with his uncle.

I have always pictured a hovercraft type car; too wide for the bridge but so heavy it couldn't have gone around the bridge made it across the chasm safely. It is set in the future where there are different rules and laws. He's riding a 'turbo' to get around so clearly the society has made up some new types of transportation. It says the gleaming alloy air car 'shoots' towards him from across the mountain-side, not the typical type of words used to describe a car accelerating - another joins the chase: I always pictured the second coming from another part of the valley. The race is deadly because he has to stay on the road but the air-cars do not. Yeah, there's a lot of detail it how I interpreted the song but I've had 35 years to think about it.

 

I think Neil has gone on record to say that the story takes place in a time where government regulation has mandated super large, nearly indestructible cars for everyone's safety. After a point, drivers of these cars would ram drivers of now forbidden cars off the road with impunity, from a personal safety standpoint if not a legal one (I can't remember). I've always assumed that these large, heavy cars were just too big to make it across those tiny one-lane bridges from back in the day.

[ctbadger]

The song was entirely inspired by "A Nice Morning Drive" written by Richard Foster and appearing in the November, 1973 issue of Road & Track. It imagines a future where government safety regulations result in cars being overbuilt for safety:

 

"But in the late Seventies, with no major wars, cancer cured and social welfare straightened out. the politicians needed a new cause and once again they turned toward the automobile. The regulations concerning safety became tougher. Cars became larger, heavier, less efficient. They consumed gasoline so voraciously that the United States had had to become a major ally with the Arabian countries. The new cars were hard to stop or maneuver quickly. but they would save your life (usually) in a 5O-mph crash. With 200 million cars on the road, however, few people ever drove that fast anymore."

 

Article link here: http://www.2112.net/xanadu/articles/a_nice_morning_drive.htm

[JARG]

I always thought that the race/chase was imagined by the person as he was driving, much like a child would pretend they were racing someone who wasn't there. The key for me is the gleaming alloy "air car." Now, maybe that is just a new type of car that the "authorities" drive that doesn't use gas, and he ends up getting chased by two of them. And the part about dreaming by the fireside was just that he was tired about the day's adventure, and he'd fall asleep by the fire with his uncle.

I have always pictured a hovercraft type car; too wide for the bridge but so heavy it couldn't have gone around the bridge made it across the chasm safely. It is set in the future where there are different rules and laws. He's riding a 'turbo' to get around so clearly the society has made up some new types of transportation. It says the gleaming alloy air car 'shoots' towards him from across the mountain-side, not the typical type of words used to describe a car accelerating - another joins the chase: I always pictured the second coming from another part of the valley. The race is deadly because he has to stay on the road but the air-cars do not. Yeah, there's a lot of detail it how I interpreted the song but I've had 35 years to think about it.

 

I think Neil has gone on record to say that the story takes place in a time where government regulation has mandated super large, nearly indestructible cars for everyone's safety. After a point, drivers of these cars would ram drivers of now forbidden cars off the road with impunity, from a personal safety standpoint if not a legal one (I can't remember). I've always assumed that these large, heavy cars were just too big to make it across those tiny one-lane bridges from back in the day.

 

That assumption is borne out in the lyrics.

 

The bridge is a "one lane" bridge and the air cars are "two lanes wide".

[toymaker]

This was touched upon in the thread about Rush and religion, and in particular, Jacob's Ladder

 

But does it really matter ? .. Perception is reality

 

Jacob's Ladder may - or may not - be a good example, as I am convinced that Neil's intention with the lyrics coupled with the stirring music and production was to evoke much of the same feelings that a Biblical story might ..

 

There is a creative aspect in the listener too, and I think that this is what draws people to certain musical performers ( or any art, for that matter )

 

Some people are brought to tears listening to music, while some are unaffected by the very same piece - and for me, it is the overall vibe of the composition - not simply the lyrics - that can evoke such emotions ..

 

We take from these songs what we bring to them in the first place

 

Nicely stated.

 

It's like there is music that is sort of passive and music that is active - that requires more attention from the listener. Usually, for me, something is evoked either in the lyrics or in the music itself that activates my imagination. That may sound totally corny, but I don't mind. I love that there is some music that I can totally soak up. It's like the Force.

 

Jacob's Ladder is a good example. It's best listened to with the lights out, the music turned up loud, and goddamned phones and other distractions turned off. Cygnus X-1 is another one. For me, Rush at their best make me want to stop what I'm doing and focus on the music. When I was a teenager, I dropped the needle on the record, cut the lights, and dropped into my blue beanbag. Dark Side, Animals, Welcome to My Nightmare, Hemispheres, Wind & Wuthering.

 

Now I have a modest 5.1 system in my basement office, but it's not always easy to shut out the outside world - video games and teenagers listening to shitpop and all that. But when there is that occasional moment, there are those certain albums.

 

Reading a good book is the same way. If you don't invest your attention and find that quiet, distraction-free space to absorb the words, you're missing out.

Edited December 18, 2015 by toymaker

[EagleMoon]

This was touched upon in the thread about Rush and religion, and in particular, Jacob's Ladder

 

But does it really matter ? .. Perception is reality

 

Jacob's Ladder may - or may not - be a good example, as I am convinced that Neil's intention with the lyrics coupled with the stirring music and production was to evoke much of the same feelings that a Biblical story might ..

 

There is a creative aspect in the listener too, and I think that this is what draws people to certain musical performers ( or any art, for that matter )

 

Some people are brought to tears listening to music, while some are unaffected by the very same piece - and for me, it is the overall vibe of the composition - not simply the lyrics - that can evoke such emotions ..

 

We take from these songs what we bring to them in the first place

 

Nicely stated.

 

It's like there is music that is sort of passive and music that is active - that requires more attention from the listener. Usually, for me, something is evoked either in the lyrics or in the music itself that activates my imagination. That may sound totally corny, but I don't mind. I love that there is some music that I can totally soak up. It's like the Force.

 

Jacob's Ladder is a good example. It's best listened to with the lights out, the music turned up loud, and goddamned phones and other distractions turned off. Cygnus X-1 is another one. For me, Rush at their best make me want to stop what I'm doing and focus on the music. When I was a teenager, I dropped the needle on the record, cut the lights, and dropped into my blue beanbag. Dark Side, Animals, Welcome to My Nightmare, Hemispheres, Wind & Wuthering.

 

Now I have a modest 5.1 system in my basement office, but it's not always easy to shut out the outside world - video games and teenagers listening to shitpop and all that. But when there is that occasional moment, there are those certain albums.

 

Reading a good book is the same way. If you don't invest your attention and find that quiet, distraction-free space to absorb the words, you're missing out.

 

Well said. I love listening to music in the dark or in the car at night. It expands and surrounds you like it doesn't do in the light. I was just listening to Jacobs Ladder from R40 and that middle section just gave me chills.