Can we put Rush in the super prog category?

E-Dub wrote: All those who say Rush aren't prog are basing their stance on what? Because they haven't had a 10+ minute epic since 1981? If it's because of other reasons, I'd certainly like to know. They have just as much right to be in the super category as any band. E

    

Well, I can't say they are not prog. As I said before, they have good moments. I don't care if a band have 10 seconds songs, or a 32 hours epic. Is not about formal elements; it is about conceptual ones. And Rush is uneven. when they want, the level of their creations surprises because of how simple but effective they are. But a fair amount of their musical production is less that average; boring sometimes. As for the Supergroup thing, I think I really don't care. please join me in my crusade to list every band under Proto Prog Alpha Male Elctronic Sandwich Morgan Freeman Related label.

Tales is a garbage album. There is a LOT of things wrong with Tales. The tone is about as horrible as it gets for one. They do get some things right, but overall it's not a good representation of prog, and the good things are overshadowed by the horrible sections. I'm not even talking about the eccentricity of the concept, I am talking about the actual music itself.

Crimson's "ITCOTCK" is an album I would point to for that matter, and even Frank Zappa's "Hot Rats"

Also, I don't guess I will ever "get" some of the older members here. It seems as though some of you have one interpretation of Prog and that if it's not album X by band X, then it isnt prog and isn't worthy music. Elitism is one thing, stubbornness is another.

Like I have said before, just because you were the first doesn't make you the best and it doesn't make you the only one with excellent musical sense.

MajesterX wrote: Liquid Len wrote: I like Rush, I like them a lot, I have all their albums from Rush to Exit Stage Left and they're all at least very good some are excellent.   However Prog they are definitely NOT. your serious? have you ever Listened to Hemispheres? Cygnus C-1? 2112??? You can't  seriously say those songs are not prog! 2112 is as much prog as Close to the Edge. Of couse they should be in the Super Prog category. Oh, yeah, it does NOT matter what so ever where the band comes from. It's like not adding Opeth or POS into the Prog Metal Greats genre because they're not American. Prejudice.

Edited by Liquid Len - July 25 2006 at 03:30

Liquid Len wrote: MajesterX wrote: Liquid Len wrote: I like Rush, I like them a lot, I have all their albums from Rush to Exit Stage Left and they're all at least very good some are excellent.   However Prog they are definitely NOT. your serious? have you ever Listened to Hemispheres? Cygnus C-1? 2112??? You can't  seriously say those songs are not prog! 2112 is as much prog as Close to the Edge. Of couse they should be in the Super Prog category. Oh, yeah, it does NOT matter what so ever where the band comes from. It's like not adding Opeth or POS into the Prog Metal Greats genre because they're not American. Prejudice.   Yes I am serious.   No more Prog than Iron Maiden on Seventh Son.

what is your definition of prog?

About Aaron and his 'creative contribution' "Rush sucks", he is the same who said in another thread that "most progrock bands sucks live" , I think he feels fine while hijacking threads with provoking words, like a little boy who behaves negative when he gets no attention or feels bad.

Again I notice very opposite reactions: from BaldFriede who accuses Rush having a lack of original ideas and Liquid Len with his "Rush is no more prog than Iron Maiden on Seventh Son to Majester X and OpethGuitarist who are defending Rush enthousiasticly!

About the 'super prog category', I created this term in order to point at the seminal Seventies symphonic rock dinosaurs Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, ELP and Pink Floyd as the main influential bands in the history, in my opinion these bands are unsurpassed looking at their serie of great and pivotal albums, their compositional skills and the level of the musicians. My question in this thread is or Rush belongs in that category?

My view on Rush (1977-1986 era); Rush their sound is very varied but basically rock, they often swing and put a lot of rock and roll in their compositions. But the captivating element is that Rush also blend this rock/rock and roll based music with a variety of styles, from symphonic rock to ska, reggae and grunge. Personally I am not very happy and excited about Rush their music from their album Presto (1989), in my opinion it's a bit too much the same and not as captivating as the era 1977-1986. But I am sure that many Rush fans don't share this with me ..

 

For me 'being prog' is confusing on Prog Archives, for instance I just noticed that Osibisa in added while, I repeat this over and over, bands like The Doors and Santana deserve an addition way more. This confusion is created by the same element as on this thread: personal taste, like progheads who nail Rush and progheads who hail Rush, both sides are convinced that they have good points ... and cannot be punished by the High Court Progrock Inquisition ..  !

Edited by erik neuteboom - July 25 2006 at 04:25

I would say yes, to a lesser extent compared to the prog "dinosaurs" of the 70s. Rush were definitely influential. Dream Theater would not exist if it weren't for Rush, and if DT didn't exist than a whole host of 90s prog/prog metal "revival" bands would not have existed either.

but... Rush were not innovators like Genesis, Yes, ELP, Pink Floyd who are the forefathers of prog-rock. They pioneered the complex song structures and laid the foundations for Rush to plug their own ideas into. Not to mention they came from a later generation of music. In the shadow's of the prog dinosaurs of the 70s Rush are a speck on the radar screen. No one is denying they made great music, but I think the the super d00per [morgan freeman] catagory of prog rock is reserved for the classic prog bands who were the trailblazers of prog.


Edited by Hierophant - July 25 2006 at 05:43

Please! Does it really matter that much? Anyone is free to make their own "Big 6" or "Super Prog Category", with whatever bands they want. Making an elite category would only be inflamatory, because there will always be someone who feel some band(s) are left out.

Personally, I have always regarded Rush as one of the greats, but I can understand why some people doesn't. The thing is, I know that the people who doesn't consider Rush as one of the "Big 6" will never do it, so there's no point in trying to convince them. Rush is one of those bands that you either adore or hate, and it's important to respect other people's opinions, to let them like whatever they want.

Can't you people see how pointless this discussion is?


Edited by Philéas - July 25 2006 at 07:15

OpethGuitarist wrote: I could care less if someone likes or dislikes Rush. If you don't like Rush, that's fine and I can totally understand why. It's when you close yourself off becuase a band doesn't have the name you like, and you are unwilling to accept that their's other music that is great and might even be better than those classics you love. One can be elitist, but please don't be stubborn enough to believe that Yes is the only band in existence who did anything great and no one will ever do anything great again.(just a random example)

OK.