Talk:2112 (song)

Live performance Key change

I changed "Lee and Lifeson eventually detuned the Overture and this section down from 'A' minor to 'G' minor to give Lee a much- deserved rest on his vocals (first heard on the Rush In Rio DVD and CD)." to being on the "Different Stages" CD because the Test For Echo tour (which is the source for the DS cds) was the first tour where they took the song's key down (and the entire song, not just the first two parts) a step (from Am to Gm on the overture and verses, Bm to Am on the chorus in "The Temples Of Syrinx"). I'm not sure exactly how that should be referenced (not that the RIR statement was referenced), but I own the "Different Stages" CD and went to a concert on the tour, and it was tuned down.

Mtndrums (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

song Starting time/Length

How come according to the back of the 2112 CD it says that the total running time is 20:33, but when you add up all the times from the individual parts of the song you get 20:31? where did that missing two seconds go? is it extra time for silence between 2112 and A Passage to Bangkok? I think this should be noted in the Starting time/Length table Chosen One 41 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably due to the natural inconsistencies of play times. Checking against my own copy (The Remaster CD) I notice "The Temples Of Syrinx" is only 2:12 as opposed to 2:19 like the article says. I also get 20:31 when I do the math. The way the tracks were split, there was probably some points where the audio was broken at 1/2-second intervals, which wouldn't be counted when calculating the duration of the single part, but when assembled into the full length track (along with the other partial-seconds) they add up to the extra 2 seconds which otherwise appear to be lost. --Crimson Bleeding Souls (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The voice of The Preists

The Priests of the Temples of Syrinx, characterized by an uncharacteristically high, even shrieking singing phased and processed voice by Geddy Lee

I hear no sign of any phasing or processing applied to Geddy's vocals during the lines that are from the Preists' point of view. It sounds like his natural voice to me, though he is obviously delivering those lines in a more shrill tone than usual, even for him. If someone can provide confirmation, I'll gladly concede. Druff 05:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Trust me: Geddy's voice is not phased or processed. I deleted those words.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

2112 Trivia?

The first part of the last verse, "Attention all planets of the Solar Federation..." is seven words long, they repeat it three times, coming to a total of 21 words. The last part of the last verse, "We have assumed control..." is four words long and they repeat it three times, coming to a total of 12 words. Together they say "2112".

I think that is probably just coincidence, though I may be wrong. If someone can come up with a citation for that, feel free to add it to the article.—83.104.37.31 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling it is almost definitely intentional, as Rush has been know to do small things like this, such as the opening of YYZ being Morse Code for the IATA code of the airport in the bands' hometown. However, I don't think this will ever verified by the band. --Crimson Bleeding Souls (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Bill Banasiewicz's book, these lines were recorded by Neil during the "Caress of Steel" sessions, just toying with soundboards and effects, and later reused. So I don't think this is intentional.--Gorpik (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to conclude this ten-year old thread: in a 2013 interview, Lifeson suggests that the number symbolism the last verse was probably unintentional:

Interviewer: Mathematically, that comes to 21 words for the first sentence, and 12 for the second. 2112.

Lifeson: Oh, I didn't know about that!

Interviewer: So it wasn't intentional?

Lifeson: No. But that's pretty cool! That's the first time I heard that...but yes, that's exactly what we were thinking!

Interviewer: You learn something new every day.

Lifeson: Absolutely. I had no idea.

2.244.120.136 (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

synthesizer

The synth sound at the beginning: Is it a minimoog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.97.235 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is. I can create the same sound using the minimoog.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read that it was an ARP 2600, and the article already identifies it as an Odyssey. So who knows?Vonbontee (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill Banaciewicz's authorized book identifies it as an ARP. You don't get that kind of waveform from a MoogMzmadmike (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

I had changed the contradiction that was in the quick facts sidebar. The legnth had said 20:33 and the total length in the layout of the song below had said 20:31. I'm not really sure what the exact legnth is so I just chose one(Please note at this time I was not logged in.). If you could please change both to the correct time because obviously at least one or both of them had to be wrong. Thank you. 4M4|Go here 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, reading one of the talk sections, I see what happened. I'm going to edit that but make a notation. 4M4|Go here 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolution

At the end it says that it might be that the priests take total control with the death of the protaganist, but it also says it could be the return of the Elder Race. I would like to suggest that it can be assumed it is the elder race as its a totally novel voice that makes the phrase 'we have assumed control', nothing like what to that time has been the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx. Does anyone know for certain, any statements by the band? Mincan (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no official confirmation from the band as far as I know - but, I think I recall seeing/hearing Neil Peart comment that it was purposefully left open ended. Nevetheless, I personally feel it's pretty obvious that it's the return of the elder race as it was forecasted earlier in the story. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Alleged "Original research" on 2112 (song)

I have just been in what could be called my first edit war, in which I was (unfairly, in my opinion) accused, first of insufficient citation, then of inserting original research. On the first, I relied on no additional sources aside from what the article already cited, so I didn't feel a need to add a "ref" (nevertheless, I did subsequently include one that I thought would be comprehensive enough to cover the entire Synopsis section--both my edits and pre-existing stuff). On the second, I don't believe that I crossed the line between simply paraphrasing (acceptable) and making subjective personal inferences (unacceptable)--but "Wisdom89"--whose user-page suggests he considers himself a pre-eminent authority on the rock band Rush--disagrees and threatened to block me like a common vandal (touchy, touchy--considering he knows nothing about me personally).

Strictly speaking, ANY paraphrasing of a source--putting something "into your own words"--involves making interpretations and inferences; therefore, anything other than verbatim quotations (which I also included in my edits) could be considered "original research" by an overzealous, overprotective editor. IF I crossed the line and made personal deductions that didn't necessarily follow from the lyrical and non-lyrical text (which I DID NOT intend), THEN some of the previous editors must have done so as well--and, since their text apparently wasn't reverted, they got away with it. I simply expanded on what was already there to the extent of providing more detail. I may have been over the top by referring to the song "2112" in the beginning of the article as a mini-rock opera onto itself (that could be considered speculative), and perhaps my interpreting the "Overture" and "Grand Finale" as the rise and fall of the Solar Federation (when they weren't explicitly so documented in the CD liner notes) was too far (although, on his talk page, Wisdom89 personally agreed with another editor who made the same inferences). But I stand by all of my other edits--as I relied on the exact same sources as previous editors--namely, the CD liner notes. (Should I have mentioned that in my "ref"?) In any case, any change to the overall meaning of the Synopsis section was minor and--in my personal opinion--in the direction of greater accuracy.

I understand that "common sense", in and of itself, is not sufficient rationale for inferences--as what's obvious to one can be counter-intuitive to another, depending on life experience and prejudice, but if what I added was unreasonably speculative--then the article was already that to begin with. (It's like saying that "1 person, then 2 more people, came" can't be paraphrased as "3 people came".) I'd like know more on how I might--might--appeal or arbitrate this (I've already posted my objections on his talk page and the "2112 (song)" talk page). I'm not a sorehead, but I take objection to his assuming vandalism on my part and being so quick to do a blanket revert. I've been an editor for less than 6 months, and edit disputes are an entirely new experience--although I've already created my own article on something, which required me to research not only my subject but your instructions on many things. (You could say I have a fair amount of experience in Wikipedia matters but I'm not an expert yet.) I don't want to get blacklisted for things that were innocent (in intention) even if wrong; and the web site doesn't say a lot about "taking issues upstairs" before you get blocked or banned.

-User:RobertGustafson (talk) October 7, 2011

PS. I have now created a new section on the talk page, labeled "Proposed New Synopsis"--which will not only feature a version of the "Synopsis" section which I hope can resolve most of the aforementioned "synthesis" issue, but also condense the synopsis into a more song-structure oriented format without the numerous information redundancies. Hopefully, what I propose will be accepted for the article's actual Synopsis (with or without modifications). And I STRENUOUSLY suggest that anyone who takes issue with subsequent edits (mine or anyone else's) "re-edit" the page to fix or remove SPECIFIC faults, rather than doing a blanket revert--along with a detailed description of HOW and WHY they break a rule; simply stating that something is "synthetic" doesn't help very much. Wikipedia: NORN is a better place to air out the arguments. (Incidentally, Wikipedia itself says that the spirit of its rules matter more than the letter. If there's no other way to do proper justice to an article--i.e., making it adequately explainative and complete--a little lattitude is warranted.)

PPS. I will repeat that IF I (unintentionally) made any "artificial snythesis", THEN so did previous editors. Aside from some content about instrumental info in the article, the sole source for ANYONE'S info on the song is obviously the liner notes of the album and its lyrical/non-lyrical text. I simply elaborated by providing more detail. Any lack of secondary sources didn't start with me. I expected to get the same lattitude--no more, no less--as the previous editors got.

Proposed New Synopsis

[by RobertGustafson (talk)]

This song is described in the liner notes of the album—its interior and back cover—in two ways:

1. by the actually-sung lyrics, and
2. by the narrative of the song's Protagonist—identified as "Anonymous, 2112"—quoted and italicized like entries from a personal journal—on the back cover and before the lyrics of all songs except "Overture" and "Grand Finale".

Both serve as the source, except where otherwise noted, of all that follows.

Lyricist/drummer Neil Peart is credited in the liner notes as acknowledging "the genius of Ayn Rand." Some listeners believe that "2112" is based on Ayn Rand's book, Anthem, but Neil Peart maintains that the resemblence is coincidental, saying in a 1991 "Rockline" interview: "The inspiration behind it was ... It's difficult always to trace those lines because so many things tend to coalesce, and in fact it ended up being quite similar to a book called Anthem by the writer Ayn Rand. But I didn't realize that while I was working on it, and then eventually as the story came together, the parallels became obvious to me and I thought, 'Oh gee, I don't want to be a plagiarist here.' So I did give credit to her writings in the liner notes."

I Overture

This part musically foreshadows the rest of the song—incorporating movements from "The Temples Of Syrinx", "Presentation", "Oracle: The Dream", and "Soliloquy"—as well as a guitar adaptation of a familiar part of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. Its sole lyric, at the end, "And the meek shall inherit the Earth", is a reference to the Beatitudes of the New Testament and Psalm 37:11.

The meaning of this part is not explained; some listeners regard this part (and this lyric) as signifying the rise of the Solar Federation, an event described on the back cover as follows:

The Protagonist lives in "the bleakness of Megadon", reflecting on how "we have had peace since 2062, when the surviving planets were banded together under the Red Star of the Solar Federation." The Protagonist initially believes what he's been told, thinking he is happy, until he finds, as will soon be seen, "something that changed it all"—an old guitar from the time before the Federation.

II The Temples Of Syrinx

Everything he's been "told" comes from "The Priests of the Temples of Syrinx". The Priests—relying on an elaborate set of "great computers"—micromanage every aspect of Federation life: They proclaim, "We've taken care of everything—the words you read and the songs you sing. ... Never need to wonder how or why", asserting a "Brotherhood of Man". But their "equality" is illusory: They control all available information, and, as will soon become clear, have little tolerance for individuality or creativity that doesn't conform to their plan.

The song is hard rock, except for a gentle acoustic guitar tag at the end—foreshadowing the next part, "Discovery".

Note: In Greek mythology, a syrinx is a water nymph. Temples are ascension symbols and are regarded to be closer to the gods with their height. The computerized nature of The Priests' system was a concept envisioned by Neil Peart in the 1970s.

III Discovery

The Protagonist finds the guitar—the life-changing thing—in a cave by a waterfall. He figures out how to tune and play it—enabling him to make his own music: "How different it could be from the music of the Temples!" He decides to preform it before the Priests, believing they will "praise my name" for letting "the people ... all make their own music."

In this song, guitarist Alex Lifeson builds up from simple open string guitar playing into increasingly complex patterns and chords, showing the man's progress as he teaches himself to play the guitar.

Note: Printed on the album were the lyrics "Chords that build high like a mountain" and Geddy sang it this way for the 1996 live album, but the original lyrics were the same way as recorded, with the word "sounds" instead of "chords" ("sounds that build...").

IV Presentation

The Protagonist performs before the Priests, but they—particularly Father Brown—express not "grateful joy" but "quiet rejection": They tell him that "we have no need for ancient ways", and dismiss the instrument as a "silly whim" that "doesn't fit the plan"—in fact, "another toy that helped destroy the elder race of man." Not believing "these things", the Protagonist tries to explain, "our world could use this beauty; just think what we might do"—to no avail. Father Brown stomps on the guitar and destroys it, and the Priests tell him, "Don't annoy us further."

Vocalist/bassist Geddy Lee and guitarist Alex Lifeson alternately represent the Protagonist—with gentle, low-pitched vocals and clean, soft rock guitar—and the Priests—with harsh, high-pitched vocals and distorted, hard rock guitar. The song ends with an guitar solo outro similar instrumentally to the chorus of "The Temples of Syrinx".

V Oracle: The Dream

The Protagonist "wanders home" and has a vision of the past and future—he "guesses" it was a dream, but it seems "so vivid" to him: An oracle shows him the way it was before the Federation rose—a society where creativity and individuality flourished, with great "schulptured" works of beauty driven by "the pure spirit of man." He now sees that without these things, life has become "meaningless."

But he also sees "the hand of man arise with hungry mind and open eyes": The "elder race" was not destroyed, but "left our planets long ago", plotting to ultimately return "home to tear the Temples down."

VI Soliloquy

The protagonist returns to the cave and broods for "days". He imagines "what I my life might be in a world like I have seen", and now considers life under the Federation "cold and empty", with his spirits "low in the depths of despair". He resolves that, in order to "pass into the world of my dream, and know peace at last", he must take his own life—his narrative ending as "my life blood spills over."

VII Grand Finale

The concludes with an upbeat hard rock instrumental part. Like "Overture", the meaning here is ambiguous. Pingree's Music Reviews says, "‘2112’ ends with the oppressive government being attacked by another entity, left entirely up to the listener’s interpretation."; some listeners infer it to be an attempt—successful or unsuccessful—by the "elder race" to overthrow the Solar Federation, as forseen in the Protagonist's dream.

What's definite are the spoken words in the final flourish: "Attention all planets of the Solar Federation", which is spoken 3 times—followed by "We have assumed control", which also spoken 3 times. The mechanical-sounding voice was reportedly created by Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson, "messing around with a tape recorder". Rush has not commented on whether its use of 21 words followed by 12 words ("21-12") in the spoken section is a coincidence or intentional.

More on my proposed changes

By RobertGustafson (talk)

I hope to receive feedback over time on my "Proposed New Synopsis" above, regarding whether it can be used to replace the existing one in the article. I would argue that the proposed changes are actually better, for the following reasons:

1. It eliminates the redundancy of first summing the story's message up, then repeating it in greater detail--and it presents the story in a song-part-sequence manner, rather than a character-oriented manner. This makes the explanation easier to follow.
   
   
2. It actually has less of the "original research" and artificial "synthesis" that Wisdom89 complained of than the original, in that it sticks, even in paraprase, more closely to the documentation of the CD liner notes. (In fact, it contains many verbatim quotes, which, as such, could hardly be "synthesis".) For example, the original synopsis argues that the Protagonist realizes that the idealized world in his dream "will never exist"--when the liner note text does not say whether he believes in the dream's coming true or not--rather simply, that he hopes that by dying, he can "pass into" that world. That's an example of the original/current synopsis being more speculative than anything I put in.
   
   
3. It should be noted that, aside from the prohibition from making unverifiable or defamatory comments about living people, the rules are actually guidelines; that is, exceptions can be justifiably made in exceptional cases. Two such exceptional cases exist with my descriptions of "Overture" and "Grand Finale". The liner notes do not flat-out specify what these parts are about; however, I would argue that: a.) Most people who are familiar with the song---including Wisdom89 (see Mincan's "Resolution" section above)--would agree with my assertion that they are about the rise and fall, respectively, of the Solar Federation visa vi the Elder Race; b.) it would be a greater injustice to provide no explanation at all as to how these parts fit, thematically, into the overall song's message, as Wikipedia's readers deserve a full description; and c.) if the very minor "syntheses" I introduced on these parts are incorrect, then certainly someone who works with Rush will see them and fix them. I can't believe that a group as successful as Rush wouldn't have Wikipedia editors checking for innacurate stuff on their songs. They do, after all, have a multi-million dollar reputation to defend! Yes, it shouldn't be Rush's responsibility to police Wikipedia, but they have that right, and can do it any time. Why wouldn't they?
   
   
4. If I receive no feedback on this matter after one week, I will attempt to paste my "Proposed New Synopsis" into the article. NOTE TO Wisdom89 AND ANYONE ELSE: If you find any resulting changes objectionable, don't simply do a blanket revert and accuse me of "Wiki-vandalism". Contact me at my user talk page or on this talk page, and discuss the issue with me (maybe we can work out a compromise), or take it to Wikipedia:NORN. If you feel the need to change it again, RE-EDIT THE SECTION to make specific, surgical edits/deletions to the specific parts of the section you don't like, and explain to me why in detail--some of my changes, particularly the new layout, may actually be good.

Progressive Metal

Why does Wisdom 89 keep on removing it even though it stays on the album? Jamcad01 (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Music Video

Likeness of the trio appear at 15:32 and 20:05 in the music video. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Father Brown?

The synopsis mentions a "Father Brown" several times. I can only assume that he's one of the priests, perhaps the head priest (and not e.g. that guy), but the lyrics don't mention anyone by their names. Where does this name come from? 2.244.120.136 (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)