Can we put Rush in the super prog category?

Hey,dont even pretend to compare Queensryche to Rush,not even just to yank my chain!

Mickey,when you talk about influence,as in the case of Yes or Genesis,are you talking about Prog as a whole genre or just Symphonic? I believe that when you talk about Prog you mean Symphonic only.The so-called Neo Prog bands,those nearest to Symphonic,are as much influenced by Rush as they are by the likes of Yes,Genesis,GG,VDGG and Jethro Tull.The fact that Rush are still releasing meaningful output suggests that they will continue to have influence whilst the Genesis/Yes influnce will naturally become more diluted.

If you look at Prog Rock in its broadest sense and consider Krautrock,Zeuhl,Jazz Rock,Psyche and Space and even Prog Metal then I believe the perceived influence of Yes and Genesis to Prog in this context is virtually non-existent.That would include Rush too,except for Prog-Metal where I think that Rush's influence is seminal.

WaywardSon wrote: Hmmm The old Queensryche debate again Let´s just say 2112 was the first Prog Metal album (This will please Tony R) Isn´t Promised Land more proggier than Vapor Trails?(This will not please Tony)

I agree with you, but the Rush topic is now turning into a Queensrÿche topic.


Edited by Philéas - July 30 2006 at 06:47

heyitsthatguy wrote: alan_pfeifer wrote: I've always considered them top-tier material.  I don't see how Rush aren't as influential as other bands. I totally agree. They had an influence on Fates Warning to become more prog, who, along with Queensryche (whom I don't consider nearly as progressive but still vital) founded an entire (albeit hotly debated) subgenre: prog metal

easy why they aren't as influential as other bands.... those bands created prog rock, Rush didn't, and influenced Rush in the process,  some like Yes are still influencing bands today.... simple enough even to an old fart like me...


Edited by micky - July 29 2006 at 22:11

erik neuteboom wrote: The return of the giant Phileas ...  ?!

Philéas wrote: Looks like I won...

I'd wait for the intimidating  guy in shades wielding more firerams than humanly possible before declaring victory....


HE"LL be back.....


Edited by micky - July 29 2006 at 18:18

erik neuteboom wrote: Micky, you should try to launch Michael Moore as president ...  !

hahaha.. I would have in the last election hahha.... a definite improvement over Kerry... who knows.. he might have won

Philéas wrote: Prog Related definition wrote: ...that either consist of progressive artist that strayed away from their progressive roots into mainstream rock... That definitely applies for all Rush albums released between 1982 and 1993. Even if they're not exactly mainstream, they're not prog either. They're a sort of proggish synth-driven rock, which is better described as Prog Related than Prog Rock. Please remeber that I mean no harm! I don't want to make Rush look like some kind of "decievers of prog", but really, all good music is not prog music, and Rush's post-1981 albums, although wonderful (my favourite Rush albums are the post-1981 ones) are not Prog Rock, but rather Prog Related. Open your eyes, fanboys! You, if any people, should be the first to recognize this. A band that is able to successfully switch styles is nothing to be ashamed about, what are you afraid of? Someone accusing you of listening to shallow pop music? If you can have Saga in Prog Related, you ought to be able to realize that Rush's '80s material is Prog Related aswell. Furthermore, I read somewhere that Rush never considered themselves a prog band, and they ought to know what they're doing.

that about sums up how I view that period of Rush.. though I did get off on a tangent about  record sales...  I'm not good  with words at times...  a product of the failure that is the United States educational system hahaha.   I take the abuse and propose eccentric ideas and others sweep in and eloquently put my radical ideas to paper.  Good job Phileas.. I've got my eye on you for when they kick my ass off the symphonic team... Ivan and Raffaella are ganging up on me. 

Prog Related definition wrote: ...that either consist of progressive artist that strayed away from their progressive roots into mainstream rock...

That definitely applies for all Rush albums released between 1982 and 1993. Even if they're not exactly mainstream, they're not prog either. They're a sort of proggish synth-driven rock, which is better described as Prog Related than Prog Rock. Please remeber that I mean no harm! I don't want to make Rush look like some kind of "decievers of prog", but really, all good music is not prog music, and Rush's post-1981 albums, although wonderful (my favourite Rush albums are the post-1981 ones) are not Prog Rock, but rather Prog Related. Open your eyes, fanboys! You, if any people, should be the first to recognize this. A band that is able to successfully switch styles is nothing to be ashamed about, what are you afraid of? Someone accusing you of listening to shallow pop music? If you can have Saga in Prog Related, you ought to be able to realize that Rush's '80s material is Prog Related aswell.

Furthermore, I read somewhere that Rush never considered themselves a prog band, and they ought to know what they're doing.





Edited by Philéas - July 29 2006 at 15:40

micky wrote: Philéas wrote: micky wrote: well said big difference between Genesis and Rush, the only similarity was the turn away from prog.....  Rush  did retain prog sensiblilites, Genesis did not haha... .that's why I called Rush's  80's stuff prog-related I am once again bound to agree with micky. thanks... always nice to have someone agree with my 'out-there' views....  beats being tarred and feathered hahaha

Philéas wrote: Am I the only person in the world who recognizes Test for Echo (which is a wonderful album) as the proggiest thing they've done since Moving Pictures?