Led Zeppelin vs. Rush

[Kensterberg]

T -- the problem that I have with wankery is not that it's the product of "energy, passion and emotion," rather, it is that wankery consists of playing with no point, no emotion, just technique. Guys like Yngwie (sp?) Malmsteen personify wankery ... they play lots of notes, really fast, but their music doesn't have any real passion behind it, it's just technical. It's like listening to someone play scale exercises - it can be impressive as hell, but there's no point to it.

I prefer a surplus of passion to an abundance of technique. In the case of Led Zep, I don't hear passion, I hear bombast. I hear pointless soloing, singing which conveys to me the sole emotion of "I squeal like a eunoch, but I wanna get laid" (did I mention again how much I hate Plant's vocals?), I hear over-amplified rip-offs of classic blues tunes (generally w/o any credit to the originals) ... I just hear a bunch of egocentric, overly self-indulgent wankery.

I've got nothing against technique when it is in the service of a higher goal - a great song, an emotional impact, etc. Pete Townshend is perfectly capable of keeping up with anyone as a guitarist, but he rarely engages in really flashy guitar-work. His guitar technique (best demonstrated on his acoustic playing) is always in the service of the song, and for good or bad, his songs rise or fall as songs and not as technical show-pieces. Same is true for Entwistle, and even Moon. Now there's a guy whose passion continually came to the fore, whether or not he had the technical skills to pull it off!

And so this is why I don't consider Rush to be wankers, nor would I consider the lads in Genesis to be wankers (although I'm not nearly as enamored of Peter Gabriel era Genesis as many others here). Each of these groups can/could come up with grade-A songs, and their technique simply happens to enhance those tunes where it all works. The complaints that I have about Genesis and Rush don't come from the fact that they are/were very good at playing their instruments, it comes from the fact that both bands often fell into the trap of forgetting to hang all that talent on worthwhile songs.

I guess my take on technique is really summed up in listening to Miles Davis' recordings through the years. Miles was a good trumpet player, and he got great musicians to play with him, but he was never a traditionally "great" trumpeteer. He couldn't play as high or as fast as, say, Doc Severinson, but Miles Davis was a musical genius, and his trumpet work shows it. He made the most of what he had, and left the really complex stuff, the kinds of runs that make you clean your ears out to try to catch everything going on, to his sidemen. Listen to John Coltrane's work with Miles, listen to John McLaughlin's scorching guitar throughout the Jack Johnson sessions. It's always Miles setting things up, making the right conditions, and the sidemen doing the stuff that makes you go "woah."

That musicality, that special something, knowing what notes really matter, that's more important to rock (and jazz) than sheer technique. In fact, I'd argue that musicians (particularly in rock) who are too technically polished wind up losing an essential part of the music. It's about emotion, not form: substance, not style. That's why Jimmy Page is a wanker, and Hendrix (even though he doesn't speak to me) or SRV weren't.

And of course, if you don't have any substance, all the technique in the world won't help you make a great album. Listen to anything by Yes for proof positive of this fact.

[Thorngrub]

CLOSE TO THE EDGE is an amazing, heartfelt piece of music.

[sisyphus]

"I hate patriotism...I can't stand it, man—makes me fuckin' sick. It's a round world last time I checked."

nice

[melon1]

wankery consists of playing with no point, no emotion, just technique.

Yeah, and as far as I remember, you claim Wilco's "At Least That's What You Said" falls in the catagory of "wankery". So if that's your definition of wankery and such a song is this counts as THAT(a song which has nearly brought me to tears before because of the emotion - notice that the lyrics end early in the song and the rest of the song is just a build up on how powerful and emotional the words at the beginning are), then you are hands down, the strangest person I've ever come by, musically.

Malmsteen would be my definition of wankery as well. And I will readily admit that I personally deplore and loathe 75% of live Led Zeppelin as played on their DVD releases. It's some of the most annoying music I've ever heard. Indeed, wankery doesn't even begin to describe it. But on the albums you're simply DEAD WRONG. Your description of Townsend and Davis and how their notes had a discipline about them that adored and followed the feeling of the song rather than veering over to showing off is EXACTLY the way I feel about Page on the albums as well as Gilmour, for that matter.

[Ayinger]

pcook said:

I heard a little bit of Rush over the weekend, still had problems accepting Mr. Lee's vocals...

Another thing that I wasn't too crazy about was how good they are. Now this may seem odd, but what I mean by that is for me, they are almost too technical. I kinda like a little slop in my rock n' roll.

I know what you mean Paul, I know what you mean...

You made me dig out an old (OLD!) copy of this monthly music/entertainment paper that I used to write album reviews for back in the 80's -- check out this snippet I wrote back then on the lads:

I've had a hard time making up my mind on just how to review this new Rush album. Power Windows should be praised --any true Rush fan will love it -- but I keep having some real picky hesitations while listening to it. Let's face it: this Canadian trio has perfection down to an art. Each note is in place, all the levels blend harmoniously, and the music comes out so smooooothly. In just over a decade, Rush has progressed light years in quality and ability, and have become a polished virtuoso act. But it brings me to wonder if it's too much of a good thing.

Remember Rush's very first album? It reeked of raw energy no matter how crude it might sound now compared to their later work. The very cover of the album, with the band's name exploding outward, surged with power; you knew you were in for some music that could level your neighborhood. "Working Man" was the anthem for any teenager wanting to assault his partent's ears in the next room (after all, the album did have a note on the back cover saying that it should be played at max. volume).

Anyway, I was thinking of that and some of their other earlier stuff, and comparing it with their present techno-rock sound. This is what led to my hesitations about Power Windows. What it boils down to is that, and here's the picky part, Rush does it all so excellent, it seems that the raw excitement has been taken away or at least subdued.

Now before you Rush fans throw this paper down in disgust, let me tell you that I'd be the first one in line to laud and affirm the musicainship of these three gents. It's far too seldom that bands evolve such as they have. But I can't help wishing for just a little bit more of that old naked feeling that they had in the past. Enough of my petty complaints....

As I said, Power Windows proves that Rush is nothing short of a quality band. The album lies awash in squeaky clean guitar, bubbling bass lines, and sharp peppery drums knocking about. After receiving poor airplay from 1984's Grace Under Pressure, this lp is already seeing some chart action with "The Big Money", easily one of the more foreceful cuts on the album. "Territories" and "Middletown Dreams" are prime Rush tunes as well. Alex Lifeson ushers in his signature power bursts, while Geddy Lee and Neil Peart are again making up the busiest rhythm section in rock. The added synthesizers sprinkled throughout round off the overall dimension well. "Manhatten Project" is also an effective piece making use of quiet airey synths and an actual 30-piece string section. Peart's lyrics are poignant as ever, in this case dealing with the first construction of the bomb.

Mostly the lp expands on what the band gave us with Grace. One exception being that drummer Peart's rhytm in "Mystic Rhythm" turns out not to be all that mystic. It's practically the same line he used in last year's "The Body Electric" with a few electronic effects thrown in. If anything though, their sound on Power Windows is thighter and sharper. Lee has been quoted as saying that they chose a new producer who was a good song producer and not hung up on the technical stuff. Lee, Peart, and Lifeson's parts are equally well defined and prominint without overshadowing each other.

Power Windows is an intellectual rock album. So maybe Rush isn't toppling over buildings anymore -- rather, they're flying over them. ****

_{Performance Monthly, Griffith IN
December 1985}

[Kensterberg]

My problem with "At Least That's What You Said" ...

1. It doesn't go anywhere. Neither the narrative nor the instrumental ever progress beyond frustration. Tweedy had outgrown such emotive one-note performances by the time of Being There (and completely blown them away on Summerteeth). The track doesn't move, it just sits there, static. This is one of the big complaints I have about AGIB in general, the whole LP is static and unmoving.

2. The two halves of the song don't connect. There's no thematic link between the vocal and instrumental sections. It doesn't sound like continuing the vocal on guitar (a la Neil Young's "Like a Hurricane," which Tweedy had obviously been listening to waaaaaaay too much while recording this). As a result, it feels like you've got two unconnected compositions spliced together. Unlike "A Day in the Life" (in which the Beatles grafted a Macca bridge into a Lennon song that sorely needed one), the result doesn't surpass the sum of its parts.

3. The guitar line doesn't have any emotional impact. For all the flashy ax-work, there's no heat from the soloing. It remains as detached as Tweedy's breathy vocal. For a song that deals with domestic violence, this just doesn't work. Couples engaged in abuse have lots of ways of dealing with it, but when confronted by the reality of it (which is what the lyric depicts) they don't deny it, they justify it. Via Chicago was a much truer meditation on this ("I dreamed about killing you last night, and it felt alright"), whether it's the hitter or hittee, they come up with reasons that make the abuse okay. Neither lead voice in this piece really generates any emotional substance. It's emotional in the same manipulative way that an after school special might be, but that's it. And this distance between Tweedy and his songs is another of the big issues I have with this album in general. It's also part of why I described this as being an album of depression rather than an album about depression. That impossible distance between a depressed person and even the things that matter most to them is all over this album, and that's not a good quality!

4. THERE'S NO HOOK! Sorry to shout, but THERE IS NO FUCKING HOOK IN THIS SONG! Every line goes in one ear and out the other. There is no truly memorable riff or hook here, nothing that gets in your head and won't let go. It's one thing to write a song with minimal hooks, or one that intentionally with-holds the hook (check out the remix of "The Walk" from the Cure's Mixed Up release for one of the ultimate examples of the latter), but this song simply has no hook at all. Tweedy has shown many times that he can write a great song with almost no "hook" to it (witness "Theologians" from AGIB, or "Sunken Treasure" from Being There), but this one takes the approach to extremes, and it sinks b/c of it.

That's why "At Least That's What You Said" falls into wankery. It tries too hard, and comes up far short. Come to think of it, that's a pretty good description of almost all of AGIB. Maybe the effortless brilliance of "If All Men Are Truly Brothers," the astounding cover which concludes the live Kicking Television, will inspire Tweedy in the studio this time around. One can only hope.

[melon1]

You're so convinced that you are so right and are so completely wrong at the same time. What else can I say? heh, I'm sure plenty of people have wanted to say that same line to me before, and actually have with different words.

[melon1]

Ken,

What if I wrote a 4 or 5 paragraph intellectual diatribe on how "Like A Rolling Stone" and "Jesus etc." were shit songs? Would you read it? Probably not because of emotional attachment to some really great songs. So, sorry, I didn't read yours. Hopefully someone else did though, so it wasn't a waste. I've seen Weeping go off on you for dissing that song before too. I'm with him on this one. You could never convince me to think ANY differently whatsoever about Wilco's greatest song.


Btw, just reread that paragraph before posting and wanted to note that it might appear to have a hostile tone to it. Just assuring you that it does not. To each his own.

[rockysigman]

Damn, Ken. Come back after you've actually listened to the song.

;-)

[Kensterberg]

Well T, opinions are like assholes ... and at least I can explain mine! I hope that my explanation makes sense, b/c this is what I hear when I listen to "At Least That's What You Said." And I think I have given enough examples of tunes that work (or not) that it should be apparent what I like and don't like.

Or put it another way ... that was my truth, tell me yours. And be sure to give lots of details and explanation ... you know, WHY do you think the tune works, what do you disagree with in my analysis, etc. Then I (and everyone else) can judge the quality of your ass, erm, opinion.

And thanks for scoring the Album of the Century poll! I had a feeling YHF was going to take it, which is part of why I gave my top spot to Hail to the Thief.

[Galactus]

kenholzman said:

My problem with "At Least That's What You Said" ...

1. It doesn't go anywhere. Neither the narrative nor the instrumental ever progress beyond frustration. Tweedy had outgrown such emotive one-note performances by the time of Being There (and completely blown them away on Summerteeth). The track doesn't move, it just sits there, static. This is one of the big complaints I have about AGIB in general, the whole LP is static and unmoving.

2. The two halves of the song don't connect. There's no thematic link between the vocal and instrumental sections. It doesn't sound like continuing the vocal on guitar (a la Neil Young's "Like a Hurricane," which Tweedy had obviously been listening to waaaaaaay too much while recording this). As a result, it feels like you've got two unconnected compositions spliced together. Unlike "A Day in the Life" (in which the Beatles grafted a Macca bridge into a Lennon song that sorely needed one), the result doesn't surpass the sum of its parts.

3. The guitar line doesn't have any emotional impact. For all the flashy ax-work, there's no heat from the soloing. It remains as detached as Tweedy's breathy vocal. For a song that deals with domestic violence, this just doesn't work. Couples engaged in abuse have lots of ways of dealing with it, but when confronted by the reality of it (which is what the lyric depicts) they don't deny it, they justify it. Via Chicago was a much truer meditation on this ("I dreamed about killing you last night, and it felt alright"), whether it's the hitter or hittee, they come up with reasons that make the abuse okay. Neither lead voice in this piece really generates any emotional substance. It's emotional in the same manipulative way that an after school special might be, but that's it. And this distance between Tweedy and his songs is another of the big issues I have with this album in general. It's also part of why I described this as being an album of depression rather than an album about depression. That impossible distance between a depressed person and even the things that matter most to them is all over this album, and that's not a good quality!

4. THERE'S NO HOOK! Sorry to shout, but THERE IS NO FUCKING HOOK IN THIS SONG! Every line goes in one ear and out the other. There is no truly memorable riff or hook here, nothing that gets in your head and won't let go. It's one thing to write a song with minimal hooks, or one that intentionally with-holds the hook (check out the remix of "The Walk" from the Cure's Mixed Up release for one of the ultimate examples of the latter), but this song simply has no hook at all. Tweedy has shown many times that he can write a great song with almost no "hook" to it (witness "Theologians" from AGIB, or "Sunken Treasure" from Being There), but this one takes the approach to extremes, and it sinks b/c of it.

That's why "At Least That's What You Said" falls into wankery. It tries too hard, and comes up far short. Come to think of it, that's a pretty good description of almost all of AGIB. Maybe the effortless brilliance of "If All Men Are Truly Brothers," the astounding cover which concludes the live Kicking Television, will inspire Tweedy in the studio this time around. One can only hope.

It's one of my favorite songs from that album for most of those very reasons.

[Kensterberg]

Actually, I read a great book a while back that consisted of nothing but negative reviews of "classic" rock albums (including YHF! and Clapton's Layla ... the latter was so good that it made me go back and re-evaluate the record -- still didn't agree entirely with the critique, but I understood what the guy/gal (can't remember the author of that piece) was saying). It was called Kill Your Idols. I've got the author's name at home, if anyone's interested.

Negative reviews are generally more fun to read than glowing ones, IMHO. So yeah, if you wrote a four paragraph critique of "Jesus, Etc." or "Like a Rolling Stone" I'd definitely read it. I read everything that RocDoc writes about the Clash, even though he's obviously brain damaged in some significant respect.

Rocky -- alas, I just listened to the studio version of ALTWYS the other day, and I'm afraid that the above post accurately reflects my feelings about the song. It sounds like they had two totally unrelated bits, neither of which had a hook, and just spliced 'em together. The whole thing never goes anywhere, the lyrics don't hold up (which wouldn't be such a big deal if it were a better song) ... the song never delivers.

[Kensterberg]

ded said:

kenholzman said:

My problem with "At Least That's What You Said" ...

1. It doesn't go anywhere. Neither the narrative nor the instrumental ever progress beyond frustration. Tweedy had outgrown such emotive one-note performances by the time of Being There (and completely blown them away on Summerteeth). The track doesn't move, it just sits there, static. This is one of the big complaints I have about AGIB in general, the whole LP is static and unmoving.

2. The two halves of the song don't connect. There's no thematic link between the vocal and instrumental sections. It doesn't sound like continuing the vocal on guitar (a la Neil Young's "Like a Hurricane," which Tweedy had obviously been listening to waaaaaaay too much while recording this). As a result, it feels like you've got two unconnected compositions spliced together. Unlike "A Day in the Life" (in which the Beatles grafted a Macca bridge into a Lennon song that sorely needed one), the result doesn't surpass the sum of its parts.

3. The guitar line doesn't have any emotional impact. For all the flashy ax-work, there's no heat from the soloing. It remains as detached as Tweedy's breathy vocal. For a song that deals with domestic violence, this just doesn't work. Couples engaged in abuse have lots of ways of dealing with it, but when confronted by the reality of it (which is what the lyric depicts) they don't deny it, they justify it. Via Chicago was a much truer meditation on this ("I dreamed about killing you last night, and it felt alright"), whether it's the hitter or hittee, they come up with reasons that make the abuse okay. Neither lead voice in this piece really generates any emotional substance. It's emotional in the same manipulative way that an after school special might be, but that's it. And this distance between Tweedy and his songs is another of the big issues I have with this album in general. It's also part of why I described this as being an album of depression rather than an album about depression. That impossible distance between a depressed person and even the things that matter most to them is all over this album, and that's not a good quality!

4. THERE'S NO HOOK! Sorry to shout, but THERE IS NO FUCKING HOOK IN THIS SONG! Every line goes in one ear and out the other. There is no truly memorable riff or hook here, nothing that gets in your head and won't let go. It's one thing to write a song with minimal hooks, or one that intentionally with-holds the hook (check out the remix of "The Walk" from the Cure's Mixed Up release for one of the ultimate examples of the latter), but this song simply has no hook at all. Tweedy has shown many times that he can write a great song with almost no "hook" to it (witness "Theologians" from AGIB, or "Sunken Treasure" from Being There), but this one takes the approach to extremes, and it sinks b/c of it.

That's why "At Least That's What You Said" falls into wankery. It tries too hard, and comes up far short. Come to think of it, that's a pretty good description of almost all of AGIB. Maybe the effortless brilliance of "If All Men Are Truly Brothers," the astounding cover which concludes the live Kicking Television, will inspire Tweedy in the studio this time around. One can only hope.

It's one of my favorite songs from that album for most of those very reasons.

See, I didn't expect Mantis to understand the problems with this song ... after all, have you seen the size of an insect's brain? It's really just a convergence of various nerves ... with almost no cognitive function at all! So you can play almost anything for him, and he'll just sit there and tap his toes to it ...

[Galactus]

I don't have toes. I will bob my antenae to the beat though.

[Galactus]

BTW I'd love to check out that book. Good reviews are meaningless.