Talk:2112 (album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dedication to Ayn Rand

Check your liner notes for the album 2112. It clearly says that the album is dedicated to the "genus" of Ayn Rand, not the "genius" of Ayn Rand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.165.228 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The user is correct - however, the above is a misspelling. It should be genius, as I believe there are some units sold with the correct liner note spelling. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing! On my album (CD version) it is written : "With acknowledgement to th genius of Ayn Rand". So the initial misspelling has been corrected but they forgot an other letter (the "e" of "the").

One potential explanation is that both spellings were deliberate. Is this a band that doesn't know how to spell the word 'genius'? Or were they trying to make a clever statement that this album is about the evolution of humanity, where while our ancestors struggled to walk upright, as we look to the future we will have people today to thank for helping to take our species to the next step? Perhaps a step so significant that it not only defines a new species, but rather a new genus.

People right now are talking about the upcoming year 2012. Why is that significant? Because the Mayans predicted the coming of a new age then? Well when did the Mayan's choose to start their calendar? My understanding is that the starting point has been back-calculated to have been 3113 BC. Has anyone asked Rush how or why they picked the year 2112? Is it possible that they were harkening to that ancient Mayan theme of a new era dawning for humanity?

If so, then maybe Rush really meant to title their album '2012' instead of '2112'. Yeah, let's all here arrive at the conclusion that the album name itself was a typo. No points for them trying to do or say anything original. Anything that would force us to ponder some higher meaning of their words, let alone their cymbals.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Overture

I was listening to 2112 last week and was struck by what is surely a deliberate resemblance to the guitar solo from "Stairway to Heaven," at 3:05 into the album. I am neither a Rush nor a Led Zeppelin scholar, and a cursory Google search revealed nothing to confirm my suspicions, but I find it feasible that Rush, in writing a rock epic about the wonders of music, would have sneaked a tribute or homage to "the greatest rock 'n roll song ever." After all, Plant introduced STH as "a song of hope" in a live bootleg that I've heard. Apropos to the redemptory theme of "2112?" I think it could bear a mention in the article. --baccaruda66 05:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, dude, it's one (very common) chord. I wouldn't get too excited about it. Kurt Weber 00:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Guitars and Laptops

How did he learn to tune and play the guitar on his own? Especially with no knowledge of music theory or even that it exists? And who stores a guitar in a cave behind a waterfall anyway? You'd think the strings would have corroded by then.

And why do the Priests' computers fill their hallowed halls? Haven't they heard of laptops?

First off, give Neil Peart some creative license. Not all stories make complete sense, so just enjoy the song for what it is. Second off, the album was recorded in 1976. I'm not sure that laptops even existed then, or at least in the form we know of them. Squid Vicious 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides, even today, there are supercomputers that take up gigantic space. You know, the ones that can do stuff and predict stuff that's impossible for humans? Those computers are gigantic. In fact, they're several hundred computers linked together. Do a google search.

Part 7 - The Grand Finale

Should there be a section seriously discussing the ending of the title track? I myself am of the opinion that it is the 'Elder Race' that has returned. If you listen to the first section (Overture), then you will hear a 'futuristic' sound effect directly at the start, extremely similar to SF television spaceship effects, which is then not repeated throughout until the final section - it most certainly is not repeated at all through the Priest's chorus. There is a distorted guitar line which seems to me to represent the Priests, which first appears, I believe, when the protagonist despairs and dies - this is the Priests' triumph. But at the conclusion of Part VII, although you hear this line war with the original, initial theme at the start of Part I, it cuts out abruptly as the victory message is transmitted. It is extremely clear that the uplifting chords in Part I signify the Elder Race, as they are repeated throughout the dream sequence.

Grand Finale

Other than the opening line of the song, there is no evidence that the elder race will return or even actually still exists. The protagonist's dream is merely a dream and does not confirm the existence of the the elder race and his suicide seems to be a final victory for the priests which would give them full control of the Solar Federation. Also it seems wrong to have the elder race return suddenly and "assume control" for two reasons: 1. Rush did not introduce a sequence where the elder races returns to the Solar Federation - this creates a large hole in the story between the death of the protagonist and the "assuming of control" of the elder race, which counters the continuity of the res of the story. 2. The words "Assume Control" - from the dream sequence, It seems that in the elder race community there is a sense of freedom and creativity among the elder race - therefore they would not "Assume Control" of the Solar Federation, rather the words would be more about the deafeat of the tyrannical priests. A third point is the robotic voice saying the last lines - the voice of the elder races seems like it would be filled with more emotion.

We have assumed control

The Grand Finale can't possibly imply the priests have conquered the galaxy/universe/whatever. The Solar Federation is defined as the planets already under the control of the Priests, therefore, they could not ASSUME control of them as they are already IN control. The end is clearly a reference to the Elder Race returning to defeat the Priests and destroy the Solar Federation. 69.118.235.3 19:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think your right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.92.68 (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

-Well, I like how people can come up with multiple interpretations of it. It's probably meant to be ambiguous. The Elder Race could be returning, or else it's some other, unknown military power...there might be some vicious planetary war or cycle of violence that never ended, where the Solar Federation was replaced by another, equally tyrannical power. The story isn't explicitly resolved. Either way, there's definitely a trace of violence at the end, whether for good or for ill. But yeah, I agree with you on that point...the Syrinx already had control...they can't assume it..

-In no way, shape or form is The Solar Federation defined as anything. It's hardly mentioned and the only parallel that can be drawn between the federation and the temple is that there are temples in every federation city. There's churches in every city as well, does that make the planet fall under the same theological ideology let alone a theocracy? In any case, the "mechanical" voice hints more at Syrinx being the cause of the announcement than any elder race.

Device as a guitar

Who changed "guitar" to "strange device?" To quote the album's liner notes:

I learned to lay my fingers across the wires, and to turn the keys to make them sound differently. As I struck the wires with my other hand, I produced my first harmonious sounds, and soon my own music!

Peart clearly had a guitar in mind, not any unspecified string instrument. - Calmypal (T) 21:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe they may have wished to make a reference to the songs lyrics. To quote Discovery:

What can this strange device be? When I touch it it gives forth a sound

I could be wrong but I'm not sure that any specific instument is mentioned anywhere in the song and as with many of Rush's songs, it's open to interpretation... just a thought. - Stu Hacking (T) 16:35, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

If you would just enjoy the music & think; maybe you would pick up that maybe the guy that found the guitar had told alot of other people & they also tried to learn to express themselfs & started to find freedom so they started to rebel against the federation so they could enjoy life once more & it got crushed by the preists —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.76.23.140 (talk) 03:31, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

2112

Do you guys perfer the song having its own seperate page, or do you feel that they should be re-merged? Deckiller 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of Title

Have you ever wondered how Rush came up with the seemingly arbitrary year 2112 for their album title (whose story is about an Anthem’esque future with a iron-fist priest class who engender ignorance etc., but is ultimately repossessed by the elders)?

I have a hunch it has to do with the verse in Genesis [21:12]: “For your progeny will be called according to [the lineage of] Yitzchok [not his half-brother Yishmoel].” Ultimately Yitzchok’s progeny will be victorious over the unworthy lineage of Yishmoel. 69.197.175.22 03:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Boruch M, Toronto Canada

I think it has something to do with Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture Imadofus 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I always thought it was because different parts of the song are in a 21 12 time signature. (Shorteys89 (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Don't you people actually recognize Alex Lifeson playing a rubato of "1812 Overture" at the coda of "2112 Overture?" I guess no one listens to actual classical music anymore! Perhaps, if they made a hip-hop metal version, Rush might make the Hall of Fame after all...

Yes, Tchaikovsky is the standard explanation for picking the '12 part of the year. Now why 2112? Why not 2012? Or 2212? I've posted a first cut at an analysis in a section above about a supposed typo of genus/genius. It says that 2012 was a bit too Mayan for their liking. But then there are those who identify the start of the Mayan calendar to have been 3113 BC, so while 2112 is un-Mayan, it seems to honor their beliefs at the same time. Not that this was a popular topic in the mid-70s, but with Rush I will avoid a failure of giving them the benefit of doubt.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Merge it back. This is ridiculous. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 01:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous, eh? =P. Ok, it's reverted. Deckiller 02:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever listened to this album? There's nothing good ON It EXCEPT "2112", and possibly "Something for Nothing". :P — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 02:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Point ^_^ Although I do like "Tears". Deckiller 02:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Proper Pronunciation

I was recently discussing the 2112 album and as we all said "2112" each had their own pronunciation of it. Can anyone clear this up? Is it said as "Twenty-one Twelve"? Or is it said "Two Thousand One Twelve"? Or is it said "Two Thousand One Hundred Tweleve?" I have always thought it was Twenty-one Twelve, as people tend to refer to the years as such, i.e. 2056 would be said as "Twenty Fifty-Six."

It's twenty-one twelve. I've never heard anyone refer to it otherwise. I, myself, would never refer to a year in the long form, except for the hundreds (1900, 2000, etc.) For example, I'd call this year twenty o-six. Additionally, the Coheed & Cambria homage to it is pronounced twenty-one thirteen in their song, if that's evidence for you. NEMT 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, funny story... in like 1995 I called BMG, the old mail-order CD place that used to hook you in with "12 CDs for 1 cent!" with the intent of filling out my Rush CD collection for one solitary penny... so I called them up and got a woman and asked her what Rush albums they stocked... and with much boredom, she read off what they had... "Power Windows... Counterparts... Two Thousand One Hundred and Twelve..." I hung up on her :-) Mscudder 11:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think there is an "official" way of saying it, unless you want to go ask Geddy and Neil themselves. You say tomato, I say tomato type of thing.

You don't have to ask Geddy becuase he states the title as "Twenty-One Twelve" before the abridged version of the suite found on ATWAS. Dexta32084 17:10, 06 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the year was called "2112" because it's Neil Peart's birthday in standard military time. (I read this somewhere else, not sure if it says so in the article or not). 21:12 is 9:12 in SMT. Neil was born on September 12th. So the correct pronunciation is technically Twentyone-Twelve. Though I'm still used to calling it Two-One-One-Two because that's how I referred to it as a little kid. (Not Alex)24.128.232.145 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Debate over whether the narrator does kill himself?

Why is there a line in the article that says "There's debate whether or not Neal Peart intended with his lyrics to say that the narrator kills himself?" It's pretty clear in the lyric. Plus in the linear notes included with the album it states "I can no longer live under the control of the Federation, but there is no other place to go. My last hope is that with my death I may pass into the world of my dream and know peace at last." The lyric itself is "I don't think I can carry on/This cold and empty life/my spirits are low, in depths of despair/my lifeblood spills over..."

What argument is there for him not kiling himself?

The search feature sucks.

By typing in "2112 (album", I got a long list of albums that were not 2112, including 333 and 184, or some such. Why does the search feature here at Wiki suck so much?67.142.130.39 19:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Genus Vs Genius

My original 1976 European, printed in the Netherlands, vinyl gatefold copy says verbatum "Lyrics by Neil Peart With acknowlegdement to the genius of Ayn Rand" Was there a difference with the origional North American release or is this a typo on the remasters or what? Can someone come up with some evidence of the use of the word "genus" As far as I'm concerned its "genius", I would prefer if it was "genus" but there you go, thats life. Can we resolve this issue here instead of ding dong rv-ing--KaptKos 15:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

'In the liner notes, the title song is annotated "With acknowledgment to the genius of Ayn Rand", as it contains many parallels to her novella Anthem. On the Rush Remasters CD edition of the album, this can be seen misprinted as "the genus of Ayn Rand."

The above should be removed from the trivia section unless their is some kind of official announcement as to whether it is genus or genius. Sittingonfence 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. Wouldn't they be correcting their mistake on the remaster instead of making a new one? Sittingonfence 15:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Until the band makes a clear statement that the original spelling was a typo/misspelling, I think it would be a mistake for this article to definitively eliminate the possibility that it was not one. (More posted above in the 'Dedication to Ayn Rand' section.)

And even if every member of the band gives an official story that it was a typo, that STILL does not eliminate the possibility that it was not. As we all are well aware, there are times when bands prefer to be deceptive about their intentions. (Or are we to take folks like Led Zeppelin at their word that the Stairway backward masking was some random coincidence!)--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh yeah, because it was. Vonbontee (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"And the Meek shall inherit the Earth"

2112 commences with a lengthy instrumental section ("Overture") which concludes with the spoken phrase "And the meek shall inherit the Earth"

Sorry, but that line isn't spoken. It has clearly distinguishable pitches and it's sung in time:

--Alvabass 05:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Ayn Rand's Anthem is a short dystopic novel about a man who escapes a society from which all individuality has been squeezed. Its allegory is crudely transparent, and the ideas have lost their political urgency. (The book was published in 1938, a decade before Orwell's 1984.) But Anthem provides a good introduction to Rand's philosophy of "objectivism," which is built on individuality, freedom, and reason. Paul Meier is an excellent choice for the novel's first-person narrator--he manages to maintain an urgency in his voice, pleading but never whining, mirroring the main character's struggle against his totalitarian world this was were ruch got the idea for 2112, cbsavage_99@yahoo.com

Help

I can't figure out how to put in a reference to my comment about Planet Rock. The source is here http://www.planetrock.com/Article.asp?id=323788 - if anyone could tell me what to do it would be appreciated. Thanks. Kelpin 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sticking to Their Guns

I originally changed the word guns to roots, but it was reverted and I was informed it actually means "principles". I changed it so as to not have slang on this article. 67.188.172.165 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your original edit which in my view changed the meaning of the paragraph. I don't see a problem with the current version though. Thanks. Kelpin 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected release date

Amazon.com has March 1976 listed as the released date on all versions listed instead of April 1976, as the "infobox" had it listed. I changed it.

Here's the Amazon search page URL I used to check the present, previous versions [1].

freedb also lists the release date as March.

PainMan (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The infobox still carries the April date while the text says march. Can someone confirm which is correct? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The official rush homepage reports February 1976 [2]. All other searches seem to point to March. Go figure. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It may have been released on different dates in Canada, the US and Europe. Danceswithzerglings (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. That's definitely it. The question is, which date is attributed to which nation? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Satan

I am amazed with how sanitized the article is, considering the huge controversy over the Pentagram and such. This was all amidst the huge controversy Led Zeppelin was facing over the Stairway-in-reverse satanism allegations. Surely it is worthy to at least mention that there were many people who were bothered by Rush's choice of symbols. Now I'm not suggesting that the article go so far as to give a deep explanation of how Satanism is broadly misunderstood, but it could at least touch on the topic.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The controversy doesn't mean anything, since the fact is that the symbol on the album cover is not a pentagram. 208.98.172.42 (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Genus or Genius...again

I know of at least one source which states that the "genus" was not a typo. http://www.ctzine.com/the-political-importance-of-rush/ I've also seen many claim that the word is "genius" on their liner notes. It seems presumptuous to say insert the [sic] in the statement if we don't know it's a mistake, and if different liner notes have different words, we should state that as well.LedRush (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation used in the Peart article saying it's "genius" http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/rush.htm LedRush (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Chicago Sun Times says "genius" http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F17CFF6B396AE51&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM (have to pay to see article). LedRush (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Book cites "Genius" http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/archives/jars5-1/jars5_1dbowman.pdf LedRush (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Per this discussion, and the VH1 Classic DVD in which they show both the album cover with "genius" and Peart saying he meant "genius", I have made the change.LedRush (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)