Can we put Rush in the super prog category?

This weekend I had a progrock party, also with Dirk, Antennas and Dutch Tony from PA, they all were pleasantly surprised that my joke with BaldFriede about the 1969 Rush Germany tour had worked out so well... RUSH .......!

Edited by Yukorin - September 14 2006 at 05:53

Yukorin wrote: Now I'm right confused an' I haven't even had a beer yet. Perusing the Art Rock category I come across Rush. Since when have Rush been Art Rock ? And then VdGG ? ! And, even more bizarrely, KC ? ! ? ! Is the Art Rock category operating as a seperate organism taking whatever bands it fancies from the archives ?                      Then I went off looking for 10cc and Roxy Music who are Art Rock but the Art Rock category has eaten them and, in an eye-popping moment, replaced them with France's seminal zeuhl outfit 'Xaal'         (a power trio incidentally)

well Art Rock is acting ...at least in how I'm reading it... as the de facto 'prog' genre.  It grabs no one.. it is the final resting place for those groups miscategorized like those you mentioned at the top of your post.  King Crimson did one symphonic album... or two if you count the near faximile of the first for their second.  That doesn't make them a 'symphonic group'.  Take for  example Rush, they were  not a symphonic group.. not a Canterbury... a fusion etc..... and the jury is out as to whether they were Prog Related group  or not ... sometimes groups cannot be pigeonholed into a nice tidy... SPECIFIC sub-genres.  Not every group belongs in sub genre.. not without creating scores more than we already have. As far as specific screw ups like Xaal.... the site is a work in progress... it'll be cleared up I'm sure.

erik neuteboom wrote: Three quick reactions, two from Greece, remarkably [IMG]height=17 alt=Wink src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> ! About their sales, good point [IMG]height=17 alt="Thumbs Up" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley20.gif" width=23 align=absMiddle> !

    

here comes another one...

RUSH RULE ALL..

IMHO, it's the only band worthy of having full discography of...

Im trying to get who are the supergroups in prog archives, so I take the 3 best rated albums of each band! and according to the archives:

Poor you, Yukorin, I remember that during their tour in 1982 Rush kept me very well awake, in a positive way, great performance, wonderful lightshow and funny cartoons,  !

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!

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

Edited by Yukorin - September 14 2006 at 05:49