Can we put Rush in the super prog category?

Say no more Certified and marry BaldFriede  !

Edited by erik neuteboom - August 03 2006 at 16:22

Certif1ed wrote: I'm not her type.

LMAO!!!!

Certified, work on it to be her type, together nailing Rush and hailing Gong is almost the perfect match  !

Cert doesnt think he computes

micky wrote: erik neuteboom wrote: Certified, work on it to be her type, together nailing Rush and hailing Gong is almost the perfect match  ! the ol' hail and nail move.... used to be a specialty of mine...

You were into taxi drivers then...
    

erik neuteboom wrote: Certified, work on it to be her type, together nailing Rush and hailing Gong is almost the perfect match

    
I have the wrong chromosomes.
    
    
    

Edited by Certif1ed - August 03 2006 at 18:24

Edited by Yukorin - September 14 2006 at 05:49

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I think to some fans comercial appeal does do that. Some fans seem to like prog as more of a novelty allowing them to be esoteric and part of their own little elite crowd. When a band is popular they can't do that and so to them, not prog micky wrote: Certif1ed wrote: (...) You want another 11 pages of reasoning? Didn't think so I wouldn't mind hahahha... always curious as to what you think.... I actually wouldn't mind either; I'm sure it'd be very interesting.

Popularity should never be a determining factor - it's all about the music, as I'm sure everyone would agree.

The main problem with any discussion of this type is defining Prog Rock, as no two Prog-heads have the same definition.

However, there are elements of Prog that Rush do not utilise that the 9 in my list do, and I think the most important is in constant development of thematic material such that the impression of the music is that it is spontaneous, ie Form.

In other words, although it must be composed as opposed to jammed, and it's obvious that Rush do compose their material, what they do not do is make the music sound like a continuous improvisation.

What their music sounds like is elaborately constructed rock songs - the verses and choruses are easy to identify, riffs are employed as a major structural element rather than a kind of by-product, and guitar solos tend to be on the noodly side - pentatonic scales instead of continuous melodic themes.

Of course, these are generalisations, and I'm only covering one area of the music - there's a lot more to Prog than form. One should also consider timbre, harmony, rhythm and melody - but I feel that form is a notable area that separates Rush from the top 9 I picked.

I also think that timbrally and harmonically there are considerable differences - but less so in terms of melody and rhythm.


Any thoughts?


    
    

Edited by Certif1ed - August 04 2006 at 17:54

Well, Certified, thanks for your well thought contribution, to me it sounds as a proove that this thread is a 50-50 balance of plus and nons!