"The Spirit of Radio" opening the show

On Monday (August 9, 2010) I saw Rush perform at the Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View, CA. While the show was by no means perfect, the good – the great – far outweighed the bad. Rush fans of any generation should make every effort to catch the band this time out.

They seem to be calling the tour variously “The Time Machine Tour” or “An Evening with Rush.” These shows include performances of the entire Moving Pictures album from 1981. Previously Rush have never performed the entire album live in sequence – and I don’t think they’ve ever played “The Camera Eye” on stage.

I didn’t take detailed notes on the setlist, but I believe the Mountain View show’s was identical to others so far on the tour.

"Subdivisions": the anthem of every disaffected suburban boy in the early '80s

Let’s get the bad out of the way: each set was preceded by excruciatingly long and unfunny sketch comedy-style videos parodying what the band might have been like had things gone differently (oom-pah style dinner show performances, shots of babies playing Rush’s instruments, others with Neil playing guitar and Geddy on drums). The main character, I believe played by Alex, was a gigantic manager apparently modeled on Mr. Creosote from Monthy Python’s The Meaning of Life. The worst aspect of these videos was that they included album versions of the songs that started each set, so there was a sort of pre-climactic kickoff that minimized the excitement when the band actually came on stage.

The stage show itself was also pretty minimal, even half-assed. Equipment cases were left strewn about the actual set, and the load-in door backstage left open – like the guys had just set up and didn’t care to make the stage presentable. The screen was small with only intermittently amusing animations.

And the first set was very rocky. The mix was muddy – hard to discern instrumental lines, especially the triggered synthesizers from the ’80s tracks. Several synth lines seem to have been missed altogether – or at least not included in mix – mistakes that were especially obvious in “Time Stand Still” and “Marathon.” And the already-boring “Workin’ Them Angels” was an outright disaster – it sounded like Alex and Geddy were in different keys, perhaps having something to do with the Alex’ alternating between acoustic and electric sounds on his Les Paul (why not just play the acoustic portions on an acoustic?).

Nothing really caught fire until the instrumental breakdown of “Freewill,” which alone couldn’t make up for such lackadaisical presentation over the previous hour.

Fortunately all was forgiven and forgotten with the opening synth chord of “Tom Sawyer,” which kicked off a downright jaw-dropping second set.  The mix was clear, the synthesizers integrated nicely (especially on the interesting and unusual “The Camera Eye”), and Geddy and Alex beautifully in sync. After “Red Barchetta” all three band members even took a moment out to smile at each other, as if to acknowledge that the concert had kicked into gear. There was hardly a misstep for the rest of the evening – even the new song “Caravan” and recent “Far Cry” rocked hard, standing up nicely next to the classics they shared the stage with.

Guitar-wise, Alex played Gibson Les Pauls throughout the evening, usually Axcess-style versions with with whammy bars. He brought out a Fender Telecaster for “Closer to the Heart” and the famous white Gibson ES-335 for “La Villa Strangiato” (my friend and I think there was also a PRS for one tune, but we might be misremembering).

Geddy played his usual well-worn black Fender Jazz with the pearl pickguard, though for this tour he has replaced his trademark ’70s-style black-inlay neck with a neck with split pearloid inlays. He occasionally brought out an all-black Jazz bass, and once or twice played the bright red Jazz bass (no pickguard) with his the black inlays. Wonderful Geddy tone – tons of growl, lots of low and high-end both. I do really wish he would break out the old Rickenbacker 4001 again, even just for “2112,” but it’s hard to argue with the sound he gets from the Fender basses. And even though Rush is hardly known for improvisation, I was delighted to hear Geddy let loose with several extended bass licks.

It’s hard to overstate what Moving Pictures means to a certain generation of a certain type of music lover – I missed it at the time, but have grabbed on entirely since. Hearing it played live, in sequence, is a special treat. When Rush clicks with a good mix and good material, they still create a wonderful magic, as they did during the second part of their Mountain View earlier this week.

"Attention all planets of the Solar Federation: We have assumed control"

]]> http://ethanprater.com/rush-at-shoreline-amphitheatre-mountain-view-ca-august-9-2010/feed/ 1 http://ethanprater.com/my-most-popular-flickr-photo-jaco-pastorius-artist-series-fender-jazz-fretless-bass/ http://ethanprater.com/my-most-popular-flickr-photo-jaco-pastorius-artist-series-fender-jazz-fretless-bass/#comments Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:35:10 +0000 Ethan Prater http://ethanprater.com/my-most-popular-flickr-photo-jaco-pastorius-artist-series-fender-jazz-fretless-bass/ Over the past few years I’ve posted more than a thousand photos to Flickr. A few of them are actually good.

But somehow this mundane shot of an electric bass is the most-viewed. Thousands of looks at this unremarkable photo, followed by hundreds of others in the same set.

Posted only as a supplement to a for-sale listing on Craigslist. Yet orders of magnitude more attention than my funny Japanese signs or artistic shots of Vienna’s giant ferris wheel.

I’m guessing it has been linked from someone’s blog, or has been caught in some virtuous loop of search engine image search.

Time to pour some fuel on the fire. A gallery of the entire set is below (the three good ones in there – the final three – are just the stock catalog photos from Fender).

Ah well.

Here’s the whole gallery:

Disclaimer: I am not a guitarist. I am barely a bassist. But over the past couple of years, as I’ve picked up the bass again, I’ve been dabbling a bit with guitar on my own while jamming with guitarist friends of some ability. So several dozen guitars have passed through my hands.

The 1959 Gibson Les Paul Standard is probably the most famous and certainly the most sought-after electric guitar model ever. The topic of at least three books and subject of several lines of “reissues” over the years, original ’59 Les Pauls sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars when they’re available at all. Gibson’s most recent 2009 50^th Anniversary reissue retails for more than $5,000.

Epiphone themselves didn’t produce a Les Paul style guitar in 1959, so this model isn’t technically a reissue. But Gibson deserves some credit for attempting to distill some of the ’59 LP mojo into their affordable, made-in-China brand. (You can read Gibson’s description of this guitar’s unique ’59-specific features here.)

This guitar is unlikely to be collectible. Sure, each is numbered from a series limited to 1,959 (mine is 223). And sure, 2009 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the 1959 original. But this instrument is still just an Epiphone-branded copy of a Gibson original – with various corners cut to keep the price down.

So I didn’t buy the Epi ’59 LP to collect it. I bought it to play it (and paid nearly the full asking price of $899 from Sweetwater). I was especially excited about the neck shape, which the spec sheet says is the “1950′s [sic] Rounded ‘D’ profile”. The marketing copy waxes poetic, even if the author has trouble punctuating the possessive:

True to it’s [sic] heritage, the neck features an authentic, 1950′s [sic] rounded neck profile. Often referred to as “the baseball bat”, this neck feels beefy yet comfortable in your hands while adding warmth and sustain with it’s [sic] greater mass.

I love the neck on my friend Colin’s Gibson 2009 50^th Anniversary Les Paul. Round, thick – yes, even warm – unlike any guitar’s I’ve ever played. I was willing to pay $900 for a guitar just to get that neck. But the neck on this Epiphone is noticeably flatter and overall slimmer than the thick neck of the “true” ’59 LP reissue. The Epiphone ’59 LP’s neck is rounder and fatter than my Gibson Les Paul Classic Custom’s (listed as “1960s Slim Taper”) or even my Epiphone Dot’s. It’s just not what I was expecting based on the description.

Build quality is generally excellent. No cosmetic flaws to be found. I’m not sure the flamed maple veneer top is quite AAA – maybe AA – but that’s subjective (and you can judge for yourself in the photo gallery below). I ordered the “Faded Cherryburst” finish, because I prefer the rimburst/perimeterburst pattern to the more authentic “teardrop” shape of the “Faded Ice Tea” finish [update: although early Gibson product shots showed the Iced Tea model with the more traditional teardrop pattern, reports from the wild imply that both finishes are in fact rimburst]. The Epiphone feels a touch plasticky compared to the Gibson 50^th Anniversary version – perhaps a result of all the veneers used to mask the underlying cheap “mystery wood” – but overall it looks and feels like something in this price category should. Nice work by Epiphone.

The only outright build flaw is the neck pickup’s volume control, which functions essentially as a binary switch. From 6-10 it’s all the way loud, anything less it’s nearly silent. I would return it the store for adjustment if I had bought it locally – now I might ask a technician to fix it.

Otherwise I would say the guitar sounds pretty good, though it’s not a patch on either of the Gibson/Epiphone guitars mentioned above. I prefer my “real” Les Paul (a Classic Custom Silverburst from the now-defunct Guitar of the Week program – which sold for $2,400 new, I think) and even my Epiphone Dot (the Korean-made ES-335 clone easily available for $400). Unfortunately I haven’t been able to compare the sound to any other Epiphone Les Pauls. Unlike those, the ’59 is stocked with USA-made pickups, which in theory should get it closer to the classic Les Paul sound. They’re very true to character – nicely hot, distorted and grainy – you’re certainly not going to think you’re hearing a Strat. But a little trebly for my taste, less mid-range punch than my actual LP, and nowhere near as nice a ringing sound as my friend Rob’s stylistically comparable PRS (which, to be fair, sells for twice as much as the Epiphone).

So is the Epiphone Limited Edition “1959″ Les Paul Standard worth $900? Or even $800, which a 15% discount will get you from an online retailer like Musician’s Friend? On paper, yes. Relative to the typical Epiphone Les Paul, you get a flame veneer top, USA-made pickups, a nice rounded-top case, supposedly upgraded electronics, a few stylistic nods to the real ’59 (like green tuner pegs), numbered certificate from a limited edition run, and a deeper-set neck that may positively affect the sound. Not to mention that it’s significantly cheaper (and more attractive) than the least expensive American-made Les Paul.

But in practice, it’s not worth that price for me. I wanted a beefier ’59 neck profile. And if I have to compromise at all on the LP sound, I would go farther down the Epiphone line and get an Ultra-II – at least it also comes with a faux-acoustic pickup.

I’m on the fence about whether I’ll keep mine or return it. Though Sweetwater is nicely hands-on and full service on the sell side – this is how they try to head off discounting – their return policy is customer-unfriendly at best. You pay for return shipping, and then, unlike their competitors, they further deduct a fee for the “free” shipping they gave you on the way out. [Update: I decided to return the guitar. Though I'll likely stay a customer of Sweetwater's, given their return policy I'll stick to electronics or other items that don't vary much - very uncool for them to secretly charge a restocking fee and call it a non-refund for "free" shipping.]

Not only am I no guitarist, I’m no photographer. But I took some photos of this 2009 Epiphone Les Paul next to its Gibson big brother reissue. You can see the gallery below, though I recommend viewing them in full size directly on Flickr here.

From Lefsetz’ blog…

Bob Lefsetz is the author of “The Lefsetz Letter.” Famous for being beholden to no one and speaking the truth, Lefsetz addresses the issues that are at the core of the music business: downloading, copy protection, pricing and the music itself.

His intense brilliance captivates readers from Steven Tyler to Rick Nielsen to Bryan Adams to Quincy Jones to EVERYBODY who’s in the music business.

Maybe Steven Tyler and Bryan Adams pore over every word this guy writes, but please tell me that not everybody in the music business is captivated by CD sound quality comparisons done on a PC.

In his review of the new remastered Beatles CDs (“The Beatles Remasters“) Lefsetz does a nice job conveying his feelings on listening to music he lived with and loved as it was released. He also rightly rails against the sound quality of modern rock and pop recordings, badly compressed in one way to sound loud, in another to “be” small (the more easily to fit onto iPods).

However, Lefsetz steps in it about two-thirds of the way through this review of comparative sound quality. My friend Michael Levinson says it more succinctly than I can:

From Michael Levinson’s Facebook comment…

“Upon insertion of ‘Help!’, I was told by computer…” = FAIL

If that sentence had been at the beginning, I would have been spared the four minutes I took reading the rest of the article, which included such gems as “This was no longer a record, this was someone real singing.” and “Listening for hours, all I can say is…I believe in yesterday.”

Was Lefsetz really inspired to write such treacle – and to make such detailed comparisons to the previous CD issues – by the listening experience on his computer? Even if he has a tricked-out setup worthy of his station in the “music business”, who’s going to believe his sound quality claims when this is his sole reference to the reproduction system?

Sigh. Let’s look forward to next week, when the CDs are available to regular consumers. The hoi polloi might not share the “intense brilliance” of a Bob Lefsetz, but they might have the sense to blog responsibly about how these CDs differ from their predecessors.