The Game of Snakes and Arrows is On Again

Thanks to the great art of Rush, Snakes and Arrows is seeing the light once again. You probably played "Chutes and Ladders" in the dim and distant past (that is, in your early childhood), and that modern game is the watered down British version of the ancient Indus Valley Hindu-Buddhist game (or maybe "ungame") of Snakes and Arrows. "Chutes and Ladders" was sometimes called "Snakes and Ladders", in fact. But, you know, those Victorian Christian Brits weren't going to allow snakes to figure so prominently in someone's destiny, even though they were still an undeservedly negative symbol.

In the game of Snakes & Arrows, the player rolls a single die. This die roll is supposed to be influenced by the roller's personal energy that has been brought about as the consequences of said die roller's sum total of actions and deeds in the present as well as in past lives. The purpose of the game is not really to "win" but to come to a window on self-awareness or self-fulfillment. If you know where you are then you know where you are going or can begin going to. Arrows take you higher, while the Snakes bring you down. The structure of the game is such that it is meant to mirror the path of obstacles and insights that one encounters on the road of self-development.

Like the stock market on the way to bringing investors profits, the soul experiences highs and lows, ups and downs on the way to "self-actualization". The repeated encounters with arrows here and snakes there eventually let the player see through his own illusions about himself or his take on the world around him (always intertwined) and come to know how to act with dharma, or the principal of actively doing what is right (right as in correct and as in ethical). It is very interesting that to the Hindus, who directly preceded the Buddhists and out of whom the Buddhists emerged, Dharma is the body of written works of correct teachings, while to the later Buddhists it is the principal of correct action. I guess correct teachings bring about correct actions, huh?

If you know the dharma, then you have achieved self-actualization. What other Heaven could you really desire or need?

Being So Full of What is Right, Can You See What is Good?

So. I had a great evening, out with a group of friends from ancient days, for The Irish Endlessly Rock Day (that's St. Patrick's Day) at Chickie's & Pete's sports bar. ESPN says it's the third best sports bar in the nation. Whoah. I had never been there before. I had a whiskey and a few beers, along with my crab fries (never had them before, but I think I could eat them almost every night) and roast beef and cheese sammich. On the way home it snowed; what glory!

So. This morning I found some more commentaries in our Rush Group, which by the way I happen to know actually gets its posts read by the members of Rush themselves. One guy, whom I will call "Mac", really tore the band's new song (and new album, as yet unheard but for the one song) to shreds with a firey polemic the other day, and a few of us kinda took the firehoses to it. He then issued an apology, not for his opinion but for his ferocity. Then another guy said that he did not need to apologize. So. Here's my essay in response to alla that.

It's true that "Mac" is certainly entitled to his opinion. But, as he himself pointed out, his opinion was expressed in a way that even he himself, upon reflection, realized was not objective in certain ways. He was frothing at the mouth and at the keyboard, and I think some of his own spit got caught on his screen and blurred his vision.

He also opined that this whole album would suck based on this one song that he does not like. Again, Mac himself is saying that he knows that was not objective, just ranting.

All that we were really trying to say is that the ranting clouded his expressed perception of what he heard. If he still does not like the song, then so be it. He does not have to like the song. He can hate the song.

Personally, I don't understand most of the criticisms that anybody (not just Mac) has expressed about "Far Cry" thus far. I went and listened to the song another dozen times yesterday (I bought some new headphones), and I love it. I am a classically-trained amateur musician and a professional writer who has had poetry published, so I am listening and thinking with an informed perspective. I don't house any illusions that that makes me perfect and I don't think the members of Rush are perfect, either. However...

The song is not as simplistic as it's being made out to be. As far as the lyrics go, how can they be at once pedantic and too simple? They're not the most philosophically abstruse that Neil has ever written, but they're not even close to being feckless either, and given the subject matter I think they're a hand-in-glove fit.

I consider that Rush are trying deliberately to come up with a musical expression for the typically unreflecting faith and enthusiasm of people that would be aligned with the Christian Right, the kind of people who wrote about Rush being Satanic years ago. Neil wrote the lyrics to reflect an apocalyptic and a social-Christian perspective on how the world is not developing along the lines that the faithful were always so sure that it would with their values at the helm of the ship. This is an emotionally charged theme in a world where the music has turned raw; I consider that the song is meant to reflect the emotions of the theme.

Even I personally would rather have heard a "Turn the Page" style wicked-bad solo from Alex; but I don't think that his whammy-bar sustained precious few solo notes are as easy for a cat to play as has been made out.

My point is not that Mac or anyone else has to like the song, and Mac is free to never, ever want to hear that song again. But I do think that first comes an attempt at understanding and appreciating what Rush is maybe trying to get across musically and poetically, instead of coming off sounding like one of the typical so-called "rock music critics" who's in his cups.

"To each his own" is only a half-truth and, like reasoning, it's partly insane. I think we need to be careful in this present "almost glowing" world not to confuse our rights with what is right, just like we need to be careful not to mistake the goods for what is good.

Madmen Speaking in Tongues

I have now heard "Far Cry"...I downloaded it and listened to it for nearly two hours straight. It's endlessly rocking!

All of those crazy Rushians who have heavy-handed criticisms of this song need to get some Q-Tips and then disembark from that train to Bangkok, as they've already had far too much of "the best".

It's a Far Cry from What They Expected

Wooooo Hoooooo!

There's new Rush! Yyyeeeaaaahhh!

The new Rush single, called "Far Cry", is on the waves and on the Net. The new Rush album, Snakes and Arrows, is coming early May.

Sorry I haven't written anything new in a little while--I had some traveling to do and some arrangements to make.

So. I am part of a Rush group--this is like Mensa except it's about Rush (and sometimes about Rush offshoots, like rock music, politics, artworks, music gear, life stories...). This new Rush album is lyrically and conceptually inspired by something like "faith vs. rationality" and "religion vs. life". That's why it's so appropriate to house a talk about it here at Astral Trajectories. Not that I would not write about it anyway--it's Rush!

Now. Rush fans are the most loyal fans that any rock band could ever hope to have. On the flip side of that same coinage, Rush fans are the most critical people of the band they love. Even more critical than rock music critic journalists, who are jerks. So. At the Group, we've got dissenters who don't like the new song and are already down at the mouth and crestfallen. This was what I wrote to them...

You know, all of these criticisms sound just like the same ol', same ol'. Every time Rush release a new single, there's about a 65/35 split amongst the Rushians. 65% think it's incredible and they are excited, while the other 35% are all over it with criticism worse than a Rolling Stone review.

Then, months later, after they see Rush in concert, many among the 35% are converted and fall in love with what they previously disparaged. Sometimes this also comes about through continued listening and getting used to yet another "totally inconsistent" Rush album.

Then there is the 'single factor'. When was the last time Rush released the most original song on their latest album as the first single? MP (and I don't want to hear how "dull" "Tom Sawyer" is; it's one of their greatest songs so put a sock in it. If you don't like that song, then you are suffering from Overplayitis). Even as far back as PW, "Spirit of Radio" is not the best song on that album. You might say, "it's still a great song, though"; but that piano at the end fucks up that song. Nick Raskulinecz has promised, the band has promised, that Neil is all over the place on this album, that there are plenty of Lerxt solos, that Geddy has wailing Ban-Shae moments on this album. There are 12 other songs, people, including a mental instrumental on the forthcoming album. "Far Cry" is the first single. Singles are meant to garner airplay which then garners interest in the album and tour. Rush still try to make their leading single a quality song, but it doesn't necessarily sound like the rest of the album technically. Remember when you first heard "New World Man"? I bet half of you here lost your minds with grief (sorry, I bet 35% of you here lost your minds with grief). Now, most of you who became depressed and downtrodden because you heard "New World Man" a few times on the radio own copies of Signals and you love it (at least the album if still not that song). I remember when I first heard "Dreamline". I thought it was a simplistic song including lyrically compared to what I expected and I felt let down. While that song is still not my favorite on RTB, I now realize that it is a good song with some fine lyrics. (RTB is not a "dubious" album, either....er, except for Face Up. That song is awful, a complete throw away. Oh, and except for the lyrics I am not at all a fan of the mid-section of the title song.)

Aw, does it disappoint you that Rush release singles to make money? Do you want Rush to stay around for as long as possible? Then you need to let them make some money.

Raskulinecz is a savvy producer; do you really think he was going to let the boys get away with not doing a song or two that could be digested by today's alternative (to music) audience?

By the way, I have not heard the song yet, I will later today. Then I'll make up my mind who has been telling the truth and who is full of "they didn't write the song I would have written" horseshit.

Rush fans should know by now that the band saves the real treats for the full album. Rush fans should know by now that you have to listen to a new Rush album for at least a week and perhaps many weeks before you can even begin to make up your mind about how you feel about it.