Author Archives: Time Lord
The three tracks released so far from the forthcoming Sloan LP, Commonwealth, sound great.
This one, “Carried Away,” the latest, is my favorite so far, no doubt because it is a Chris Murphy song.
He usually pens all my favorite Sloan songs:
Dave Kerzner is previewing the totally awesome track “Stranded” from his forthcoming album New World over on his Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/davekerznerband/stranded-squids-mix-full-version
Part 1: Isolation
Part 2: Delirium
Part 3: March of the Machines
Part 4: Source Sublime
Part 5: The Darkness
You will hear many wonderful influences in this stellar track, most obviously Pink Floyd and Genesis.
Dave writes on FB:
Legendary keyboardist/composer Keith Emerson of Emerson, Lake & Palmer premiered “Stranded”, the first song from my album, on Planet Rock this past Sunday! Per his request, they played the entire 10 and a half minutes of it on the radio! Keith told me this today:
“…they played the whole of ‘Stranded”. I haven’t known that to happen since Scott Munie of WNEW played all of ELP’s “Pictures…” – Keith Emerson
Now that it has been introduced to the public in the most deluxe Progalicious way possible, I’d like to share it with you!
This is an early mix of “Stranded” on my Sound Cloud (the final mix is being done by Tom Lord-Alge now).
The song features guests Steve Hackett (Genesis), Durga McBroom (Pink Floyd), Nick D’Virgilio (Kevin Gilbert), Jason Scheff (Chicago), Fernando Perdomo, Ana Cristina and myself on lead vocals and keys.
No wonder it sounds so incredible!
YES – Live at San Jose Civic
On 19 August 2014 – Watch the YES live show from San Jose Civic CA – FREE – exclusively on Yahoo Screen.
Setlist: FRAGILE & CLOSE TO THE EDGE in their entireties plus 2 tracks from HEAVEN & EARTH plus more GREATEST HITS!
Showtime: 11:30pm ET / 8:30pm PT / 4:30am UK
Check the show time in your location here.
If you miss the live event, don’t worry, the show will also be available to view afterwards on the same website.
Attention all Progarchists! Time Lord relays and endorses the following message to you all:
We’re delighted to give you a sneak peak at a track from our upcoming 3rd studio album. The song is called Takeover, and was filmed on June 12, 2014 at Martyrs': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCyjk-g5T48. Please share this video!
If you’d like to hear this and the rest of our new music on a new album, please consider contributing to our Kickstarter, which launches August 25th!
Kickstarter Launch Shows
In celebration of the Kickstarter Launch, we’ll be playing some live shows. There are 2 confirmed so far, with more to be added:
Thursday, 8/28 @ Double Door
w/The Chinese Professionals, Riddle House
8 PM, tickets at http://www.doubledoor.com/event/648139-district-97-chicago/
Friday, 9/5 @ Q-Bar
Chicago is getting its very own Progfest this October! We’re really happy to be playing alongside bands such as Spock’s Beard, Stick Men, Richard Sinclair and many more. Join us for what should be an amazing weekend:
REGGIES ROCK CLUB
2105 S State St, Chicago, IL 60616
tickets at http://www.ticketfly.com/purchase/event/631771
Thanks for your support everyone!
Jonathan & District 97
Will Yes be the first band to transcend generations?
From an awesome new interview with the excellent Jon Davison:
But even with all the lineup changes, Yes’ music retains a dynamic, unmistakable identity that manages to end up being bigger than its individual players.
That’s right, and it’s similar to the way classical music works. Long after those marvelous composers, like Chopin and Bach and all of them, passed, and the centuries moved forward, their music lives on. It’s not so much about the personality anymore. And people have a hard time seeing that now, because obviously the members [of Yes] are still alive, apart from [original guitarist] Peter Banks, who passed away last year. But it’s so easy to associate the music with the personality, and that causes a lot of conflict among fans. But ultimately, it’s about the music, and just taking the music forward. And there will always be a Yes. And I’m a lover of Jon Anderson as much as I’m a lover of Chris Squire, but you can’t fight it. And when something has that power to it, it’s beautiful, and beauty transcends all of that personality, and it’s always gonna belong, you just can’t put a cap on it and say, “Well, the original members aren’t doing this music anymore, so it’s over.” That can never be. It just can’t be.
It reminds me of the music of Frank Zappa, who composed so much great material with many different lineups — and many different lineups have performed it.
Yeah, that’s exactly it. Art just transcends so much. And when there’s something beautiful and powerful, it’s going to thrive, and you can’t stop it. Each lineup of Yes reflects a new, fresh kind of flavor, if you will. In the grand scheme and topography of Yes. So I think that’s kept it going. I think that’s kept it really fresh. Even the later albums, with “Open Your Eyes,” and so on, those albums are less popular, perhaps, but there was always a nice freshness there, the music was alive, and I think that has to do so much with the unique lineups that keep evolving.
In a recent article, Yes bassist Chris Squire joked, but in a somewhat serious way, that Yes will be around in a hundred years.
For me, when I hear the classic Yes stuff, yeah, I definitely hear that this is a ’70s band — there’s a lot of aspects in it that reveal that. But at the same time, it’s futuristic music. It’s like this thing you can’t quite pinpoint. It’s, like, way ahead of its time. And I still think we haven’t arrived at the point where, OK, we’ve arrived to the full realization of what Yes is. No, it’s like it’s still in the future, and I think that’s why it goes over so many people’s heads.
It’s definitely rock and roll, but at the same time, it has this transcendental quality that you can’t quite pinpoint.
I am curious to see how Robert Freedman explains “Aristotelian individualism” in his book, Rush: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Excellence (Algora, 2014).
Tibor Machan’s Classical Individualism: The Supreme Importance of Each Human Being, Studies in Social and Political Thought (New York: Routledge, 1998) discusses it in the following way, as recounted by Irfan Khawaja:
Machan distinguishes between two brands of individualism, Aristotelian and Hobbesian. Hobbesian individualism, on his account, is the problematic form, characterized by nominalism about universals, subjectivism about value, and atomism about human nature. Aristotelian individualism is the “classical” and defensible form, characterized by conceptualism about universals, objectivism about value, and what we might call biosocial essentialism (my term) about human nature. On this latter Aristotelian or classical view of individualism, Aristotelian individuals ought to be the primary unit of analysis in normative theory, and the primary concern of a legitimate social system. Each of us ought to strive, as Aristotelian individuals, to regard the pursuit of our own happiness as our overriding moral obligation. A just social order would respect that obligation by protecting the conditions that facilitated its optimal pursuit by each of us. Machan argues that the anti-individualists mentioned above are successful in their attacks on Hobbesian individualism, but fail to distinguish between it and Aristotelian individualism, which they leave entirely unscathed in their criticisms. (For a concise statement of Aristotelian individualism, see CI p. 170).
Among the criticisms Machan works to overcome in CI is the objection that the very idea of “Aristotelian individualism” is incoherent. Aristotle, after all, is well known for his dictum that “man is by nature a political animal.” Anti-individualists have often used this Aristotelian thesis to argue against individualism as follows:
1. Aristotle was correct to argue that humans are by nature political animals;
2. But individualism denies this Aristotelian truth;
3. Hence, individualism is false.
The argument raises a dilemma for Machan: if classical individualism is Aristotelian, it can’t be genuinely individualistic; but if it’s really individualistic, it can’t be genuinely Aristotelian. So, the criticism goes, Machan must choose between his commitments to Aristotelianism and to individualism.
Machan, however, believes that he can have both Aristotelianism and individualism simultaneously. Granting the existence of contrary evidence, he isolates a solid core of textual evidence for a form of individualism in Aristotle and generally in the Aristotelian tradition. The plausibility of Machan’s argument derives from the fact that individualism is in fact a pervasive theme in several important elements of Aristotle’s philosophy. Thus some support for individualism comes from Aristotle’s metaphysics of entities which, to quote Eduard Zeller, makes “the Individual…the primary reality” in Aristotle’s ontology, and gives it “first claim on recognition” (CI, p. 175). Some of it comes from Aristotle’s theory of action, which is the locus classicus of the agent-causal theory of free will that Machan defends elsewhere in the book. Some of it comes from Aristotle’s theory of value, which makes an individual organism’s flourishing that organism’s ultimate end, and the source of the norms that guide its life. Some of it comes from Aristotle’s theory of practical reasoning and virtue, which places a high premium on ordering one’s life by one’s own rational choices. Some of it even comes from the most anti-individualist part of Aristotle’s philosophy, his politics. In a justly-celebrated study, Fred D. Miller Jr. has recently argued that Aristotle’s political theory gives a central place to individual rights and a “moderately individualistic” theory of the common good. Machan usefully points to similarities between this Aristotelian conception of individualism and various historical influences on contemporary life, from Christian and Islamic theology, to classical liberalism, to the thought of the American Founders, to the writings of Ayn Rand (CI, Preface, chs. 1, 14, 15).
One of the virtues of Machan’s discussion is that he manages to maintain a healthy sense of perspective on the texts, making a good case for Aristotelian individualism while acknowledging the existence of other ways of reading the texts, and some texts that contradict his interpretation. The purpose of appealing to the texts is to identify two forms of individualism at a fairly high level of generality, and the evidence that Machan cites is more or less sufficient for this task. In this respect, Machan’s approach differs drastically from that of some of his critics (e.g., John Gray) whose modus operandi consists in making bold, unsupported, and occasionally downright wild assertions about the relationship between Aristotle and individualism. A close reading of the Preface, and of chapters 1, 4, 14, and 15 of CI should give such critics pause, and give others a lot to think about.
Having made the case for the coherence of an Aristotelian form of individualism, however, it’s a separate task to make that case relevant to contemporary life. Aristotle lived nearly 2400 years ago in a slave-owning, deeply misogynistic society, and explicitly deprecated the value of productive work. In fact, Aristotle’s view of productive work—that it is a morally inferior task performed by morally inferior people whose products can be expropriated at will (cf. Politics 1254a4-8)—is not only the antithesis of Machan’s individualism, but is arguably one of the sources of opposition to it. Historically, Aristotle’s conception of productive work was invoked to justify the slave trade; today, it remains entrenched in the views of those advocates of redistribution who believe that “the needy” have de facto property rights in the labor and talents of “the able.” Drawing on Locke and the other classical liberals, Machan works to detach these Aristotelian prejudices from Aristotle’s more fundamental claims (e.g., those mentioned above), and then connects those fundamental claims with an essentially Lockean politics. One of the best results of this approach is Machan’s treatment of the so-called “tragedy of the commons,” which he renames the moral tragedy of the commons, and conceptualizes in a way that is both clearer and deeper than that of its “original” author, Garrett Hardin (CI, p. 49). The idea of a moral tragedy of the commons has deep roots in Aristotle’s critique of Platonic communism, and in Locke’s theory of property; Machan redeploys the concept to offer cogent criticisms of redistribution and environmentalism that maintain continuity with the Aristotelian and Lockean arguments (CI, chs. 5, 10, 11, 12, passim).
Greetings all. Over the weekend before Talk came out, I picked up the promo CD single for "The Calling" from my local rarites dealer. It contains three different edits of the song plus the original version. Imagine my surprise a few days later when I found that the original version of the song is not on the album (not on the US release, anyway). The four tracks are: Radio Edit (5:58) The only version that I have heard on the radio. An apt title, I suppose then. Edited out are the funky guitar/keyboard break (occurs about 3:00 into the original version) and the long quiet part that immediately follows. Single Edit (4:39) Like the radio edit, but with the harmonized vocal intro edited out (that is, the first verse starts where we would expect the harmonized intro to start), and an very early faded-out ending. Album Edit (6:55) You guessed it, the same version that is on the album. Like the original version, but with the long quiet part (for lack of a better name) edited out. Silly me, I was puzzled for a few days as to why they called this the "Album Edit", but now I know. Original Version (8:06) This is the version some have heard on the radio, and I believe it was played at the premiere party. There is a soft quiet part right after the guitar/keyboard break. To give those who haven't heard it an idea of what it sounds like, I halfway expected Anderson to start singing "Awaken" during it. The cover to the cardboard sleeve is exactly like that of the album (minus the word "Talk", naturally). Stranger still is the fact that the words "The Calling" do not appear anywhere on the cover. The spine reads "Yes - The First Track From Talk". The back cover reads "The First Track From Talk", and "Start TALK-ing now!" (duh). Was there perhaps some indecision over what the first single would be? The number on the spine is CDP 1178, if that helps anyone, and I paid $4 for it.
A great observation — typical of Mark Judge — made recently on FB:
Almost unheard of in the digital age: the great song that’s impossible to find. Was re-watching “Rounders,” a very cool and underrated movie, and this is the closing number. Arguably their best song, and the B-side to the much more mediocre “Hanginaround.” Unavailable on iTunes, Amazon, anywhere. Like keeping a Picasso in the garage.
And I couldn’t agree more about Rounders. Great movie.
You know, there’s something about card games captured on film. They always seem to work very well.