1991 Carushdiacs Instrumentals: Rush vs Cardiacs

This one truly comes under the heading of not contest.  

Rush by far

Is "All His Geese Are Swans" that bad for you, Phil? .

Epic thread fail methinks. I thought this might be a good match-up for both discussion and discovery. I rarely have managed to put up good matches when comparing/ contrasting bands which are not very stylistically similar. I should think harder before coming up with polls so that people might find them more challenging, interesting, and even thought-provoking, or at least fun or funny.

Edited by LAM-SGC - January 22 2019 at 15:52

This is a very interesting poll for me personally, because although I'm a Cardiacs fan, this is far from their best, and on the other hand I thought for quite some time that I don't like Rush at all, but then I found out that when they tell their singer to shut up I find them pretty decent. There actually *are* Rush instrumentals that would have beaten the Geese that are Swans. This one is not quite their best but it holds a draw, which is still a good result given how far Rush are from Cardiacs in my overall appreciation.


Edited by Lewian - January 22 2019 at 17:42

Edited by Jeffro - January 23 2019 at 06:48

Logan wrote: Still, hope Cardiacs fares better against Bon Jovi (I don't care about the votes thmeselves, but in the comments).

^ I enjoy Rush through the 80s (and love hits like Subdivisions), but yeah....

^^ It's this ditty.

"Shot through the heart
And you're to blame
You give love a bad name (bad name)"

Which certainly is catchy and memorable as heck. Whether it's something one would want to catch or remember is another issue.

^^^ and ^^^^ Thanks Jeffro and Mormegil for the thoughtful posts (good to wake up to). While it's not my favourite Rush instrumental, it is a highlight of Roll the Bones for me. I actually quite like the album, and it has nostalgia value. I can remember first hearing it in the early 90s on the pier of a Dundarave Park like it was yesterday (which is sort of like my Lakeside Park).

Edited by Logan - January 23 2019 at 08:06

Yeah, definitely Peart’s drumming is a plus for the Rush. Cardiacs can be tiring due to the frenetic qualities. I was thinking more about Lewian’s point about this Cardiacs piece and why one might consider this to be mediocre is because (and every listener’s experience is unique, and it’s the experience that matters) it does not have as much groove or driving intensity, and the contrast generally, of many Cardiacs songs. Rhythmically it’s not that interesting or complex, and doesn’t get me bobbing and shaking my head as various other Cardiacs songs. It’s not one of Cardiacs more adventurous tracks, but I still find it quite magestic and moving, and it still builds very nicely to these ears. I think the plodding rhythms and regular drumming must be the problem for some.   I am reminded of Focus. I love Hamburger Concerto, but I don’t find it nearly as rhthmically interesting as the van der Linden albums. It could seem boring in the way, that say, Is This the Life by Cardiacs could. Geese moves me, but not in a really excitable way. Would totally understand someone finding it bland, and I like it more in contrast to other songs off its album, and do think that it works as a lovely closer. For me it works for what it is, and I don’t want it to be something different.

Edited by Logan - January 23 2019 at 10:31

Man With Hat wrote: Logan wrote: ^ EDIT: Now that balances things out (came in while I was composing this post and talking to my daughter). Some sense of equilibrium is restored in the universe. ^^ Ah, I see, Phil, I think I interpreted your post a little differently. I'm glad that you enjoy the Rush track, and it's not a matter of hating it less. :) I knew you weren't a Cardiacs fan, but it's a track that I thought might appeal somewhat even to those not into Cardiacs (depending on why they don't like the band -- it still has a circus atmosphere that may would find off-putting, but I figure with some it might be the aggressive, harsh vocals that Tim Smith sometimes employs). Personal preference, but I generally prefer music polls where instead of bands being pitted against each other, it comes down to individual pieces, since in my case, that gets me comparing and contrasting the music more, listening sometimes with new ears, and aids me in discovering and re-discovering music. I took the three comments in coordination as a little disheartening (or should I say discardiacing?), as while I have no issue with preferring "Where's My Thing?", of course, the fact that there seemed to be such a wide gap in appreciation when judging the posts (reading into them) made me think that this poll was really badly conceived. I'm generally happiest when people can find something positive, or at least constructive (there's still time, as its a cumulative effect and not down to any one post), to say about the music of both of the choices, and am especially happy when somebody discovers something new to a poll and shares those impressions, be the reaction good or bad (it's a way of getting into the minds of people, even if you aren't really, but one has the sense of it, and sharing in that experience which creates more of a sense of empathy/personal connection with my fellow posters). Still, hope Cardiacs fares better against Bon Jovi (I don't care about the votes thmeselves, but in the comments).   The main reason I don't like the Cardiacs is purely musical. Of all the stuff I've heard by them, so little of it has the depth, musicality, and complexity that I look for in music. (For the purposes of this poll, Rush doesn't exactly excel in this area outside the prog 'era' they are mostly revered for here, which is why I'm not really a fan of them either.)  I suppose it looks like I'm picking on the Cardiacs a lot lately, but they've been featured in many polls of late, so not my fault. :p

I'd rather see anything in my polls being picked on than not commented on at all (feeling ignored can be terribly disheartening and I feel terrible when I make a topic that goes uncommented.... or misunderstood makes me haz a sad). I have appreciated your contributions to this forum over the years very much (I like people who can be both serious and have a sense of humour), and certainly took no offence. I'm just in one of my insecure phases, which is still better than when I'm confident and really obnoxious.

I get your point, or your impressions, but I'm just going off on tangents and egotistically using your thoughts as a springboard for my thoughts. Thanks for explaining.

I think, maybe cause I haven't given it a lot of thought, that Cardiacs can be, or seem, more complicated than complex in a deeper sense, in some ways (same with some other "art punk" bands). It reminds me of Gentle Giant in the scales (I think Gentle Giant was keen on the Lydian scale) and tempo shifts, but lacks the harmonic complexities.

There are certain usual techniques to the music that give it a typical Cardiacs sound (Lydian scale, quick changing chords, the melodic movement using whole tones etc.), and some would hope for more variation of styles and techniques across the discography. That signature sound can make the band seem more complex or even complicated overall than it is, I think. It can sound jumpy, frenetic, but that's controlled and makes sense in the structure. The structures aren't that easy to pull off, unless you've done it quite a few times, and I think they thought like editors when making music (one of those bands that spends a lot of time rehearsing and fine-tuning I would guess, rather than jam bands, various peanut butter bands, and most peanut butter and jam bands).

"Two Bites of Cherry" is one song that exemplifies Cardiacs for me (and for me it is one of the best songs at what they do, and I think do really well). It's quite dense and has more changes in three minutes than Lady Gaga might have changes of costume in a whole concert. And to me that is a very progressive three minute song. There is complexity to the whole structure, but it depends upon what kind of complexity one is looking for. If it was my dad, he cared most about the harmonies (loved Brahms the most), and I don't think that he would have thought of bands such as Yes and Genesis during the Prog years. But he had his biases, as do we all.

Cardiacs also reminds me of Van der Graaf Generator, and originally I thought VdGG not complex enough, or more accurately, not complex in the way that I was looking for (think classical music). I love VdGG now.

As for depth, well, I don't find it terribly deep, but the music seems deeper because of how much it resonates with me. Music is deeper to us when we can relate it to it more, and bring out more associations. It has to resonate deep inside you, and we all bring our own individual meaning into the listening experience. Music, and sound waves, is a thing, but different brains filter it differently, so it becomes something else depending on the individual (our brain has to interpret it before we can know it or seem to hear it, so it can seem like one thing to one person and another to someone else).

It's not the most textured, intellectual, or nuanced of bands (but not lacking when compared to the majority in my estimation), and more textures can create that sense of depth. As for musicality, I could understand someone thinking that it lacks a certain sensitivity or melodiousness, but for me that sense of musicality does come through when listening to any of the band's albums. For me, Cardiacs can be achingly beautiful at times, and contrast is one of the most important complexities to me commonly, and I find that they can pull it off. I like the transitions in the music, and how the mood and tempo can shift.



I'm not saying that you should like or appreciate Cardiacs, of course, but I think the musicality, and structure, and the complexities could reveal itself to many over time when listening to the albums (whole albums are better to listen to than individual songs, which you might have done).

I wish I could get my thoughts out in fewer words, but with more depth, nuance and style.

Edited by Logan - January 23 2019 at 14:12