🚀 go-pugleaf

Ethan Carter:

> In the song ``The Spirit of Radio'', 1979, Neil Peart
> writes
>
>   All this machinery making modern music
>   Can still be open-hearted
>   [It's] Not so coldly charted
>   It's really just a question of your honesty
>   Yeah, your honesty
>   One likes to believe in the freedom of music
>   But glittering prizes and endless compromises
>   Shatter the illusion of integrity, yeah
>
> He values freedom in music and protests that the prizes
> given by the industry and all the expectations for artists
> to remain the way they found fame and fortune destroy the
> /illusion/ of integrity.

That's modern lyrics for you.  Either he needed the extra
word for metre, or he is that cynical: does not believe in
true integrity, and/but values the illusion it.  I'll prefer
old Biship Berekey any day.

This is an illustration of my perception of modern pop
music: it is (or pretends to be) complicated, mixed-up,
ambiguous, and unburdened with any healthy ideals worth
living and dying for -- the pefect mix for the modern
teenager!

Also, I feel sad to see such lowly world-wise matters
besmirch the elevated art of song, which has always favoured
timeless such timeless subjects as (often unrequited) love,
noble needs, or joyful celebrations (e.g. marriage).

--
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> writes:

> Ethan Carter:
>
>> In the song ``The Spirit of Radio'', 1979, Neil Peart
>> writes
>>
>>   All this machinery making modern music
>>   Can still be open-hearted
>>   [It's] Not so coldly charted
>>   It's really just a question of your honesty
>>   Yeah, your honesty
>>   One likes to believe in the freedom of music
>>   But glittering prizes and endless compromises
>>   Shatter the illusion of integrity, yeah
>>
>> He values freedom in music and protests that the prizes
>> given by the industry and all the expectations for artists
>> to remain the way they found fame and fortune destroy the
>> /illusion/ of integrity.
>
> That's modern lyrics for you.  Either he needed the extra
> word for metre, or he is that cynical: does not believe in
> true integrity, and/but values the illusion it.  I'll prefer
> old Biship Berekey any day.

Could you elaborate?  To think that Neil Peart would not value integrity
seems very non-obvious to me.  For instance, in Limelight, he writes:

  I have no heart to lie
  I can't pretend a stranger is a long-awaited friend

That's a reference to his difficulty to well-receive fans when they were
all strangers (to him).

I'd also believe that he would not add a word that would drastically
change what he means for mere harmony.  I'd actually trust his ability
to even change the music to fit the message.

> This is an illustration of my perception of modern pop
> music: it is (or pretends to be) complicated, mixed-up,
> ambiguous, and unburdened with any healthy ideals worth
> living and dying for -- the pefect mix for the modern
> teenager!
>
> Also, I feel sad to see such lowly world-wise matters
> besmirch the elevated art of song, which has always favoured
> timeless such timeless subjects as (often unrequited) love,
> noble needs, or joyful celebrations (e.g. marriage).

What world-wise matters exactly?  I'm a bit perplexed with your
interpretation of the song so far.  Isn't honesty and integrity a
timeless subject?

I would not even call Rush modern pop---if you alluded to such an idea,
which I'm not sure.  In summary, I'm lost. :)  Please clarify yourself?
Thanks very much.

Ethan Carter to Anton Shepelev:

> >
> >    All this machinery making modern music
> >    Can still be open-hearted
> >    [It's] Not so coldly charted
> >    It's really just a question of your honesty
> >    Yeah, your honesty
> >    One likes to believe in the freedom of music
> >    But glittering prizes and endless compromises
> >    Shatter the illusion of integrity, yeah
> >
> > [...]
> > That's modern lyrics for you.  Either he needed the
> > extra word for metre, or he is that cynical: does not
> > believe in true integrity, and/but values the illusion
> > it.  I'll prefer old Bishop Berekey any day.
>
> Could you elaborate?

The author or protagonist seems to criticise the music
induestry for destroying the illusion of integrity, which
means he does not care about actual integrity and, somewhy
or other, values the illusion of it.  Now, clinging to the
illusion makes attainment of the real thing impossible, and
contribues to deception -- self-deception and/or that of the
masses: music fans.  A worse interpretation is that it is
his very purpose: to prevent any real integrity by means of
maintaning an illusion of it.  If you disagree, provide your
interpretation.

> To think that Neil Peart would not value integrity seems
> very non-obvious to me.  For instance, in Limelight, he
> writes:
>
>    I have no heart to lie
>    I can't pretend a stranger is a long-awaited friend
>
> That's a reference to his difficulty to well-receive fans
> when they were all strangers (to him).

I did not know about these lines, and was not commenting on
them.  They can show sincerety, either fake or real.

> I'd also believe that he would not add a word that would
> drastically change what he means for mere harmony.  I'd
> actually trust his ability to even change the music to fit
> the message.

OK.  If I take your word of his abily as lyricist and
musician, I have to dismiss this conjecture.

> > Also, I feel sad to see such lowly world-wise matters
> > besmirch the elevated art of song, which has always
> > favoured timeless such timeless subjects as (often
> > unrequited) love, noble needs, or joyful celebrations
> > (e.g. marriage).
>
> What world-wise matters exactly?  I'm a bit perplexed with
> your interpretation of the song so far.  Isn't honesty and
> integrity a timeless subject?

I am referring to the dirty side of commercial radio or
music-recording industries.  It is matter for publicism,
rather than for song, IMHO.  This song's subject is not
timeless because (as you say) it is about specific and
recent events, which have not (and hadly ever will) become
timeless, i.e. turn into legend or metaphor.  It is no
Battle of Thermopylae.

> I would not even call Rush modern pop---if you alluded to
> such an idea, which I'm not sure.

I did.  IMHO, modern pop grows on the corpse of 1950's pop,
R'n'B, and R'n'R.  It started around the British invasion of
the USA: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, et al...  The
event coincided with degenerative trends in the recording
technology, viz.:

  1.  Aggressive use of polymicrophone technique -- as a
      cheap and thoughtless alternative the the artful
      placement of few microphones and acousitc screens.
      This alone removed all /integrity/ from the recording,
      because now each instruments has its own microphone,
      largely isolated from the rest.

  2.  Use of fake volume-based stereo, instead of natural
      time- and diffraction-based stereo achieved with A-B,
      SASS, Jecklin Disc, &c.  This, too, helps the sound
      engineer (or destroyer) pan the tracks arbitrarily
      without any correlation with the placement of
      instruments during the recording.

  3.  Near-complete abandonment of monophonic recording in
      spite of its many advantages.

  4.  Mulit-track, multisesssion recording, culminating of
      frankentein-monster records, made up of tracks
      recorded by individual performers in anechoric
      chambers, during separate events, so that the group
      may not even have seen each other at all.

  5.  Change from tube amps to transistor ones, with deep
      negative feedback around the entire amp (instead of a
      single cascade).  The major reasons had nothing to do
      with sound quality, being cost, weight, size, ease of
      maintenance, ease of various artificial effects, and
      the sheer level of THD (disregarding the long-tailed
      spectrum).

  6.  Increased use of artificial reverb, which is a much
      poorer phase randomniser than natural reverebration in
      a well-designed hall or studio.

  7.  Aggressive use of sound compressors -- killers of both
      micro- and macrodyamincs -- major carriers of emotion
      in music.

--
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> writes:

> Ethan Carter to Anton Shepelev:
>
>> >
>> >    All this machinery making modern music
>> >    Can still be open-hearted
>> >    [It's] Not so coldly charted
>> >    It's really just a question of your honesty
>> >    Yeah, your honesty
>> >    One likes to believe in the freedom of music
>> >    But glittering prizes and endless compromises
>> >    Shatter the illusion of integrity, yeah
>> >
>> > [...]
>> > That's modern lyrics for you.  Either he needed the
>> > extra word for metre, or he is that cynical: does not
>> > believe in true integrity, and/but values the illusion
>> > it.  I'll prefer old Bishop Berekey any day.
>>
>> Could you elaborate?
>
> The author or protagonist seems to criticise the music
> induestry for destroying the illusion of integrity, which
> means he does not care about actual integrity and, somewhy
> or other, values the illusion of it.  Now, clinging to the
> illusion makes attainment of the real thing impossible, and
> contribues to deception -- self-deception and/or that of the
> masses: music fans.  A worse interpretation is that it is
> his very purpose: to prevent any real integrity by means of
> maintaning an illusion of it.  If you disagree, provide your
> interpretation.

I certainly disagree with the ``worse interpretation''.  I am totally
lost on the first.  Let me provide my interpretation, but keep in mind
that my interpretation has the problem of not understanding the
appearance of the word ``illusion'' there.

Rush is a very well respected band---by musicians themselves.  Neil
Peart is a very well respected drummer and lyricist.  Rush is a band
known for using synthesizers in music and using other electronic
enhancers.  So I suppose they've been criticized for that---``not true
music'', say.  Peart's answer seems clear: he says---it's all good if
you don't lie about it.  It's not so coldly charted; as long as you're
honest, it's open-hearted.  It's a matter of your honesty.  Music should
be free---you make it however you want.  Honesty is not exactly in the
final product; honesty is in your intentions, it's in the artist (and
therefore in the final product, too, in a sense).

By ``glittering prizes'' I take music awards.  They're prizes, but
they're more like glitter---they mean nearly nothing.  Often these
prizes just reflect how many sales you generated.

By ``endless compromises'' I take these notions that fans usually have
that an artist has to stick to his origins, his beginnings.  It's as if
a fan becomes a fan by signing an endless contract with the artist that
he won't change into something the fan doesn't approve.  The term also
implies the idea that the entire craft has to remain in a certain way,
without any evolution or experimentation---as if the world signed a
contract with music that it must be always done in a certain way.

Then I'm in trouble with the last verse, but I see a connection with
``integrity''.  Integrity is not in his actions; if he does music one
way and then changes into something else, that does not mean he's not
whole anymore; because his integrity is in making music honestly, not in
some consistent way.

Perhaps ``integrity'' there could represent the idea that a musician
that sticks to what made him famous would be integral, whole.  But
that's just an illusory integrity---because the true artist evolves and
experiments.  So I have an attempt at making sense of ``illusion of
integrity'', but then my next problem is in making sense of ``shatter''.

It would be much easier for me if I could conclude that glittering
prizes and endless compromises give one an illusion of integrity: prizes
and adherence to pleasing the crowds do not make you integral at all;
they just make you obedient.  Integrity is not superficially in your
actions; integrity is in your intentions, hence in your actions only in
a deeper sense.  Peart doesn't fragment himself by using machines to
produce music.  (But the verse doesn't let me carry this out.)

By the way, I should say that I care less about the artist really meant
to write and more about how I can build a coherent interpretation.  It
would certainly be interesting to know what the artist really meant, but
(1) that is usually not attainable; (2) I might not like the original
meaning; and (3) sometimes it could be that we can do a better job
ourselves.

>> To think that Neil Peart would not value integrity seems
>> very non-obvious to me.  For instance, in Limelight, he
>> writes:
>>
>>    I have no heart to lie
>>    I can't pretend a stranger is a long-awaited friend
>>
>> That's a reference to his difficulty to well-receive fans
>> when they were all strangers (to him).
>
> I did not know about these lines, and was not commenting on
> them.  They can show sincerety, either fake or real.
>
>> I'd also believe that he would not add a word that would
>> drastically change what he means for mere harmony.  I'd
>> actually trust his ability to even change the music to fit
>> the message.
>
> OK.  If I take your word of his abily as lyricist and
> musician, I have to dismiss this conjecture.

He's well respected.  If you happen to have the interest, here's a
documentary where you can see many comments about the band as a whole
made by, I'd believe, many serious musicians.

  Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage, 2010,
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rNgfTb0u8U

  Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage, 2010, documentary film was directed by
  Scot McFadyen and Sam Dunn.  The film offers an in-depth look at Rush
  (Geddy Lee (bass guitar, keyboards, vocals), Alex Lifeson (guitar),
  and Neil Peart (drums, percussion, lyricist)), chronicling the
  Canadian hard rock band's history and musical evolution.  The film
  made its debut at the 2010 Tribeca Film Festival, where it earned the
  2010 Audience Award. The film was also nominated for Best Long Form
  Music Video at the 53rd Grammy Awards, losing to When You're Strange,
  a documentary about The Doors.  John Rutsey, the band's original
  drummer, died in 2008; tape-recorded comments from him are
  incorporated into the film.

>> > Also, I feel sad to see such lowly world-wise matters
>> > besmirch the elevated art of song, which has always
>> > favoured timeless such timeless subjects as (often
>> > unrequited) love, noble needs, or joyful celebrations
>> > (e.g. marriage).
>>
>> What world-wise matters exactly?  I'm a bit perplexed with
>> your interpretation of the song so far.  Isn't honesty and
>> integrity a timeless subject?
>
> I am referring to the dirty side of commercial radio or
> music-recording industries.  It is matter for publicism,
> rather than for song, IMHO.  This song's subject is not
> timeless because (as you say) it is about specific and
> recent events, which have not (and hadly ever will) become
> timeless, i.e. turn into legend or metaphor.  It is no
> Battle of Thermopylae.

I see.  But it seems a theme of ethics, which is likely timeless?  The
song is about the spirit of radio, which is electromagnetic waves,
something extremely elusive, like the human spirit, like honesty and
integrity, things with which he conducts his business, his art.
``Concert hall'' for the those that do their magic in the studio.  (The
last verses in the song.)  He's clearly saying they have nothing to
hide.  To think he doesn't believe in integrity would be totally
non-obvious here.  And the topic seems rather timeless to me.

>> I would not even call Rush modern pop---if you alluded to
>> such an idea, which I'm not sure.
>
> I did.  IMHO, modern pop grows on the corpse of 1950's pop,
> R'n'B, and R'n'R.  It started around the British invasion of
> the USA: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, et al...  The
> event coincided with degenerative trends in the recording
> technology, viz.:
>
>   1.  Aggressive use of polymicrophone technique -- as a
>       cheap and thoughtless alternative the the artful
>       placement of few microphones and acousitc screens.
>       This alone removed all /integrity/ from the recording,
>       because now each instruments has its own microphone,
>       largely isolated from the rest.
>
>   2.  Use of fake volume-based stereo, instead of natural
>       time- and diffraction-based stereo achieved with A-B,
>       SASS, Jecklin Disc, &c.  This, too, helps the sound
>       engineer (or destroyer) pan the tracks arbitrarily
>       without any correlation with the placement of
>       instruments during the recording.
>
>   3.  Near-complete abandonment of monophonic recording in
>       spite of its many advantages.
>
>   4.  Mulit-track, multisesssion recording, culminating of
>       frankentein-monster records, made up of tracks
>       recorded by individual performers in anechoric
>       chambers, during separate events, so that the group
>       may not even have seen each other at all.
>
>   5.  Change from tube amps to transistor ones, with deep
>       negative feedback around the entire amp (instead of a
>       single cascade).  The major reasons had nothing to do
>       with sound quality, being cost, weight, size, ease of
>       maintenance, ease of various artificial effects, and
>       the sheer level of THD (disregarding the long-tailed
>       spectrum).
>
>   6.  Increased use of artificial reverb, which is a much
>       poorer phase randomniser than natural reverebration in
>       a well-designed hall or studio.
>
>   7.  Aggressive use of sound compressors -- killers of both
>       micro- and macrodyamincs -- major carriers of emotion
>       in music.

I suppose you're a musician.  I am not.  All of the above is totally
Greek to me.