A Review of “Experiencing Rush: A Listener’s Companion”

A positive, substantial review of Experiencing Rush: A Listener’s Companion​ (and my colleague Gregg Akkerman’s Experiencing Led Zeppelin) appeared in the Cleveland Music Examiner on February 11. See: http://www.examiner.com/review/listener-s-companion-series-to-help-fans-experience-led-zeppelin-rush-anew.

Excerpts: “While Bowman’s Rush reader need not be versed in theory, it nonetheless helps to keep one’s thinking cap on for his fascinating forage into what is arguably the world’s foremost intellectual rock band. … [T]he real success of the series is in the way the books rekindle readers’ interest in the subject matter by shedding light on the musical minutiae that might’ve escaped one’s attention till now. We knew these artists were good, but perhaps we couldn’t articulate precisely why. These authors effectively take reader / listeners undercover to view the musicians working all those levers behind the curtain. And it’s in their study and scholarly elucidation of all this musical sorcery that we arrive at a more profound understanding of (and appreciation for) the wizards responsible.”

The Untapped Doctoral Majority of Potential Public Musicologists (paper)

Read my latest conference paper.

The Past, Present and Future of Public Musicology

At the Westminster Choir College of Rider University in Princeton, New Jersey, I just presented “The Untapped Doctoral Majority of Potential Public Musicologists” at a conference about the Past, Present, and Future of #PublicMusicology. The paper went fine, and a number of people thanked me for being honest about my experiences and thoughts re musicology and my attempts at doing public music history & culture independently.

From other presentations and discussions, I also have some new ideas about things I can try in order to proceed, such as arranging for visiting scholar (though unpaid) status at a university, looking into more-mainstream presses as venues for my future books, and submitting things to a just-launched web-based forum for short articles (The Avid Listener; there is some money for them) meant for students and others.

I saw people I knew in earlier periods (up to fifteen years ago, in one case), met a number of people I knew of but hadn’t met before, and got to know some others for the first time.

Gabriel/Genesis writing sample submitted

I just submitted a five-page writing sample for “Experiencing Peter Gabriel: A Listener’s Companion.” I really wanted to give them something from his lengthy solo career (e.g., “Games without Frontiers” or “Come Talk to Me”), but the editor at the press was pretty keen on the complex, long, early Genesis song: “The Musical Box” (1971). So, that (from what will be Chapter 1) is what I gave them!

I used live videos on YouTube to help me practise “forensic musicology” to figure out who played what on that song. Actually, though, some significant parts of the song were composed (1969-71) by two guitarists (Anthony Phillips and Mick Barnard) who were not in the band at the same time and were no longer in it when the album was recorded (as were none of the band’s early drummers, either)! Other parts were written when the band briefly had no guitarist and instead used Tony Banks’ electric piano through fuzz effects, whereas the final version of the song has three guitarists (different from the first two!): Mike Rutherford starting on 12-string acoustic but also playing an electric bass pedal unit part of the time (before switching to electric bass), Steve Hackett on electric (initially pedally/pseudo-steel, but later very heavy), and Banks sometimes temporarily moonlighting on a 12-string acoustic rhythm instead of playing his usual keyboards. I also tracked down the related instrumental piece called “Manipulation” that was done as a demo for part of the score for a never-aired, 1969 television documentary, but not released until appearing as part of a boxed set in 2008. Oh yes, and lead singer Peter Gabriel plays a lot of flute and tambourine, and drummer/backup-singer Phil Collins has a lot of hair!

Purchase “Experiencing Rush”

Please purchase a copy of Experiencing Rush: A Listener’s Companion
(October 2014) at Rowman & Littlefield (the publisher), Amazon.com (or a non-US Amazon, such as in Canada or the UK), Barnes & Noble, Chapters Indigo, or another book retailer. Thanks!

Experiencing Rush - full cover

Experiencing Rush – full cover

“Experiencing Rush: A Listener’s Companion” – full cover

Please purchase the book now. Thanks!

Experiencing Rush - full cover

Experiencing Rush – full cover

Please purchase the book now. Thanks!

P.S. Today is Geddy Lee’s 61st birthday AND the 40th anniversary of the day that Neil Peart joined Rush.

Rush – Vapor Trails (2002) and Vapor Trails Remixed (2013)

I finally got around to a “Pepsi Challenge” re Rush’s album Vapor Trails (2002) and Vapor Trails Remixed (2013).  The original version was widely-discussed for being exceptionally “loud,” but I never really knew what that meant.

I can hear now that the 2002 version keeps too many of the various, heavily-layered multi-tracks (guitars, drums, bass, and background vocals) across the front and centre of the mix.  It’s almost as if someone set all songs on the album with a kind of preset to keep 80% of the composite tracks very close to the same position and volume.

Vapor Trails Remixed uses more of the stereo field, as well as wider dynamics.  One can now hear individual parts (and even instrumental and vocal effects, sometimes very quiet ones) that were almost completely buried before.  Also, many things aren’t centred nearly as much.  The lead vocal of a song is now usually the main thing that’s front and centre.  Incidentally, the songs “One Little Victory” and “Earthshine” were already available in remixed form on the Rush anthology “Retrospective III” (2009).

I listened through the two albums by interleaving them by song: AA’BB’CC’… — taking into account some of the differences I heard, but without making any specific notes.  Then, I wondered if I’d be able tell which song-version I was hearing if I set the playlist to shuffle and listened to the first minute or so of each song.  The challenge turned out to be quite difficult for me, because I can hear things like melodies, rhythms, and other structures much better than I can hear things having to do with mixing.  The former elements were not really changed at all in the remixed versions, in the same (“album rock”) way that Rush’s live song versions are very similar to its original, studio versions.  One would first have to get very familiar with the aural qualities for the “loud” version of each song on Vapor Trails, before confidently hearing the differences in its “remix” version.

The remixed album generally “sounds better,” in terms of how things are balanced.  However, I think it would also be fairly difficult for most other people to hear and explain exactly why and how that’s the case.  In any case, these are not “remixes” in the sense of substantially-revised interpretations, such as with newly-introduced material.  For Rush, the term just means “mixed over again.”  Many other musicians, though–ranging from classical string ensembles to death metal bands (and everything in between)–have re-worked Rush’s music more substantially than the band itself has.  I’ve written about that elsewhere.

Fantasia on Themes by Rush

The Royal Conservatory presents: “Fantasia on Themes by Rush”
with the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony

Saturday, November 9, 2013  8:00 p.m.
Koerner Hall – TELUS Centre for Performance and Learning
273 Bloor Street West, Toronto, ON

Tickets start at $30 – SPECIAL OFFER: 25% OFF TICKETS! (Use discount code: RUSH25KWS)

This spectacular concert features three incredibly skillful and creative composers who defy every rock/classical music cliché. Hear Nicole Lizée’s “2012: Triple Concerto for Power Trio and Orchestra” (Fantasia on Themes by Rush), two new pieces by electronica genius Dan Deacon, and a stunning orchestral showcase by Bryce Dessner of The National.

More Information

Buy Tickets

Career Archetype Test

On the Career Archetype Test, my top categories were Sage (81%) and Revolutionary (75%).

Apparently,

The Sage never stops learning and has a desire to understand everything.  This understanding doesn’t necessarily mean a desire to act on that truth, which can sometimes keep the Sage a dispassionate observer in his or her own life.  If Sage is dominant, you will feel most comfortable in a learning culture where people are valued as much for their knowledge and expertise as for the amount of work they generate.  Strengths: Discovering the deeper truths in situations means that the Sage is less likely to get caught up in an emotional reaction to short term problems.  You may have a capacity for critical analysis and tend to be a good strategic thinker.  Traps to avoid: The Sage can study issues forever and never act.  There is also a danger of getting caught up in a particular way of studying an issue, shutting out new or revolutionary ways of doing things. (from Sage)

By comparison, and in contradistinction to the end of the previous section,

Revolutionaries are unconventional risk takers with a tendency to do things differently just to be different.  Revolutionaries are rarely content with the status quo and will create new ways of doing things, even when the old ways are working just fine.  If you have a strong presence of the Revolutionary archetype you will feel comfortable in a work environment that encourages innovation and gives people the freedom to be themselves.  Strengths: Revolutionaries are innovators.  The innovation applies not just to products and process, but also culture and thought.  If you are a Revolutionary you are comfortable taking risks and usually don’t care what other people think about you.  Traps to avoid: The Revolutionary needs to avoid change for change’s sake.  Anarchy and chaos can overtake the reasonable order and discipline it takes to get everyday tasks accomplished. (from Revolutionary)

Those sound about right, but the only job types both in Sage and Revolutionary are Education and Science and Research, with IT-type things (computer software, hardware, and executive/consulting) also under the former category and Arts and Entertainment also under the latter.  My next three categories were Explorer (68%), Creator (68%), and Magician (62%), which certainly also explain my: (1) adventurous, but chaotic and unfocused, self-reliance, (2) inspiration, vision, and single-mindedness, and (3) over-complicating desire to redefine the issues in order to meet a new situation.

None of that is much help in my job search, though, I have to say!  Indeed, the fact that my highest “grades” on these scales are not actually very high underscores the issue that my diverse background (Ph.D. in musicology, academic research, university course instruction, professional choral singing, arts admin, IT studies and work, website and web content development, small business programs, etc.) has not actually coalesced into an employee profile that makes much sense in the “real world.”  I guess the results do motivate me, however, to think more about the idea of writing digital-only e-books on music-related subjects (for students and lifelong learners) and maintaining a related purchase, media-clip, and discussion-hub website.

Cosmos (TV series, 1980)

Growing up, I never saw Carl Sagan’s Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (PBS, 1980).  So, I’ve just been watching it (and reading the book) and pondering its approach and contributions to the popularization of science.  I’m doing this partly to help myself think about the implications of “public science” for “public musicology.”  It doesn’t surprise me that in 1994 Sagan (1934-96) won the National Academy of Sciences’ Public Welfare Medal (its highest honour), while simultaneously being denied membership in the Academy.  Numerous scientists didn’t like his media activities, in the same way that many of my fellow musicologists aren’t going to like my ventures into books for non-academic presses, self-published e-books for the public, and a collaborative community website for music history & culture.

The parts of Cosmos I like the best are the historical ones about the ancient Greeks and Ionians (the size of the Earth, the library at Alexandria, the scientific method), Kepler (elliptical orbits), Champollion (the Rosetta Stone), and so on.  On the other hand, there is surprisingly little in the 13-part series about Copernicus, Newton, and even Einstein.  Sagan and the other creators of Cosmos probably concluded that certain figures had already been covered at least adequately in such other places as high school and college textbooks.  I also like the 1990-92 updates included in the 2000 DVD edition.  For example, through updates of red-shift research, physicists have (since 1980) been able to model that the galaxies emanate outwards in a sort of plume shape (and, yes, thus away from each other at varying speeds) from a single point.  On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about the DVD edition having made obvious changes to the images of the 11th episode in order to add such things as 1990s’ computers, the World Wide Web, and so on.

Cosmos gets rather more into science-fiction towards the end, with the second-last (12th) episode a bit of a subtle plug for Sagan’s movie screenplay (1979) and eventual novel (1985) Contact, which was later revived as a major motion-picture (starring Jodie Foster) released in 1997.  Also, although it is not at all surprising for something from 1980, the last episode is quite pessimistically “cold war”-oriented.  For example, the last lines of a hypothetical, future Encyclopaedia Galactica entry about the Earth read:  “Communications Interrupted:  Neutron and Gamma Ray Doses approach lethality for dominant organisms.”  If the series had been done thirty years later, they probably would have spun those aspects to be more about such ecological and sociopolitical issues as global warming, natural disasters, the excess uses of energy, oil spills, controversies over acquiring and delivering energy, and rogue nuclear states.  However, the series (even the pessimism) holds up very well.  The last episode has the great line (still VERY applicable today):  “We accepted the products of science; we rejected its methods.”

I’m not a physicist, but it seems to me that everything we can model from the most distant galaxies happened billions of years ago.  So, what if everything that far away has already either turned into black holes (as happens with the largest stars) or (as might happen with neutron/pulsar systems and even white-dwarf systems, like ours will be) been sucked into their gravitational fields?  Maybe everything eventually disappears:  black holes into other black holes, probably, and perhaps even everything reaches a balance and the whole universe reverse big-bangs almost instantly!  Either way, the 4th-dimension (space-time, the best three-dimensional analogy for which has been that it’s “curved”) connects everything back to the singularity.  Done and done (closed universe).

Now, to music, since I am a musicologist!  It should be said that the credits of the series don’t list any of its specific items of music.  However, even on a cursory first pass, it is clear that Cosmos uses such accompanying music as recent electronic instrumental music, especially by Vangelis (such as from his 1975-76 albums, Heaven and Hell and Albedo 0.39), but also an electronic adaptation of Bach by Isao Tomita and several other pieces.  It also uses such classical works as Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring, Holst’s “Mars” from The Planets, Wagner’s “The Ride of the Valkyries,” Rimsky-Korsakov, Mozart, Bach, Pachelbel’s “Canon,” Vivaldi’s “Spring” from The Four Seasons, and early music and world music (for far away times and places, but Earth-bound ones).

Some of the music comes back too often (especially Vangelis’s mellow “Alpha” and “Heaven and Hell” excerpts) and some choices are too obvious (e.g., the “Martian” Holst).  However, there is also a much bigger problem in the idea that European 18th, 19th, and early-20th century classical or “art” music and 1970s’ pseudo-classical instrumental music is the “big music” most suitable to accompany “big questions” about the universe.  It’s not surprising that the series was made and developed in the late-1970s, just after the era in which Leonard Bernstein’s public lectures about classical music (1973) became well-known on TV, video, and in book form.  I wonder what choices the creators of Cosmos would have made if the series had appeared in 2010, instead of 1980?

A re-boot of the series is underway for 2014, to be hosted by science populist Neil deGrasse Tyson and co-written with Sagan’s two co-writers.  So, it will be interesting to see how the new, internet-age series compares to the original one.