Category Archives: Music and Musicians

Public Intellectuals

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Greif’s “What’s Wrong with Public Intellectuals?” gets at the issues that are also keeping the supposedly quite new area of “public musicology” about forty to eighty years behind the times: http://chronicle.com/article/Whats-Wrong-With-Public/189921/

Excerpt:

“A large pool of disgruntled free-thinking people who are not actually starving, gathered in many local physical centers, whose vocation leads them to amass an enormous quantity of knowledge and skill in disputation, and who possess 24-hour access to research libraries, might be the most publicly argumentative the world has known.”

My Comment:

That might actually work if the 83% of PhDs who never land permanent, full-time academic positions actually had 24-hour access to research libraries. I certainly have no such access myself, and neither does most of that “large pool.” Also, my attempt at a collaborative website for public music history & culture, OurMus.Net, did not succeed for reasons similar to the difficulty Greif and his colleagues at n+1 had in soliciting useful public writing from early-career academics. Most such people simply don’t know how to write for anyone other than themselves. That has got to change.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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)

Posted on by
Reply

Read my latest conference paper.

The Past, Present and Future of Public Musicology

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

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”

Posted on by
1

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

Posted on by
Reply

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)

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

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.