Well, then.

There’s something happening here.

So I’m a Rush fan.

Like, A huge one. Lifelong. Got into them when I was 9 years old, been listening to them ever since. If I had to choose, they are probably my favorite my band (with all due respect to Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails), if only for sentimental reasons.

Which is why I have really confusing feelings about Feedback.

Feedback, for those of you who don’t know, was an 8-song cover EP they released to celebrate their 30th anniversary (well, the 30th anniversary of their first album) back in 2004. The songs are all mid- to late- sixties hard rock tunes - Neil Young, Cream, Yardbirds, The Who - you get the idea. Here’s the thing.

I kinda prefer Rush’s versions to the originals.

I feel like this would be obvious and cliched. I mean, I’m a die-hard Rush fan, right? I would praise them for anything they do…right?

But I’m aware of this. I’m aware that I love the band and their output so much I that would expect myself to heap praise on whatever their latest release is (even if someone else wrote it) just because it’s Rush. But after seven years, I’ve come to a very simple conclusion:

Feedback is eight tracks of Rush upstaging the original artists. And when “original artists” includes The Who, Eric Clapton, Neil Young and Jeff Beck, that’s pretty fucking impressive.

Here’s the thing: The original recordings were done by bands that were throwing these songs together (sometimes as an excuse to just jam) and recorded on the fly on sometimes primitive analog gear. The bands had only played together for a few short years, if even that. Rehearsals happened in concert, production consisted of pressing “record” and hoping for a good take. Feedback, on the other hand, is eight songs played by musicians who have (at the time of recording) over three decades experience playing together, developing not only their instrumental proficiency but their musical relationships with one another. Their instruments are extensions of themselves, and their bandmates are their right and left hands. The bands who originally recorded these songs could not make the same claims when they first put these tracks to tape.

Not only that, but Rush had a budget. They could afford to put just the right amount of time, effort and a hint of polish (like the harmonies on “Heart Full of Soul”) on the record - a luxury the original artists couldn’t afford. These songs aren’t just played great, they sound pretty good, too, loudness wars notwithstanding.

There’s a tendency to focus on who did what first in music. We all like to be snobs. We all take rock as an expression of our originality. Covers are beneath us, even though they’re the meat ‘n potatoes for blues, jazz, country, and classical musicians. We’re doing ourselves a disservice, though to pretend that the original recordings made by 20-odd-year-old artists trying to get the record out on time and under budget are so sacrosanct that they can’t be improved on. Recordings aren’t definitive; they are snapshots. This is how a song sounded on this date in history. Who’s to say they can’t be improved?

  1. onetruegeorge posted this