Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Are RUSH actually Prog?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Are RUSH actually Prog?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1516171819 27>
Author
Message
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13065
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 09 2021 at 13:19
^ As I've stated before numerous times, there was no "prog" in the 70s. It was not a word used at the time. Never heard the term, and I was in bands. You listened to Yes, Floyd, Sabbath, Zeppelin, Tull, The Who, Bowie, Crimson, The Allman Brothers, Traffic, Santana, Deep Purple, The Beatles, The Stones, etc. interchangeably. There was no weird-ass delineation into little genre bins. 

It was not until probably the late 70s, or more likely the 80s when such parceling and partitions of music became important. You had punk which sneered at dinosaur rock and corporate rock and arena rock. You had new wave (which punks also sneered at because the new wavers could actually sell albums after the initial punk period petered out). You had new age. You had new country (and country/western all but disappeared). And you had prog. 

Everything had to be neatly compartmentalized so that record execs and radio stations could properly disseminate their garbage (of course, this is when the term "classic rock" came in vogue for albums you bought new only 5 years or so previously). 
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
jude111 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1754
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jude111 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 09 2021 at 14:14
Originally posted by Deidre Deidre wrote:

No, Rush weren't considered as a progressive rock band at all at the time. Just hard-rock. It was a world without the Internet and multiplied tags.

I grew up listening to Rush on my radio stations in the US in the late 70s and early 80s. These radio stations called themselves "AOR" (album oriented rock), and then in the 80s, "classic rock." The music these radio stations played side-by-side with Rush were tunes by Pink Floyd, Yes, Supertramp, Jethro Tull, Kansas, Led Zeppelin, Styx, Queen, Jimi Hendrix, early Sabbath, the Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan.

Rush's genre was 'album-oriented rock.' That was the industry term; that's how they were marketed, to radio stations that played music by 'album-oriented rock bands like Pink Floyd, Yes, and Led Zeppelin. Rush's big breakthrough was when the Cleveland radio station WMMS played "Working Man" on their station, and championed the band on air. WMMS also played David Bowie and Bruce Springsteen, helping them attain wider attention in the US. WMMS played Rush tunes side-by-side to tunes by King Crimson, Soft Machine, MC5, the Velvet Underground, and glam band the New York Dolls (whom Rush performed with). From Wikipedia: "WMMS during this period would play a key role in breaking several major acts in the U.S., including: RushRoxy MusicBruce SpringsteenSouthside JohnnyFleetwood MacMeat LoafThe Pretenders, the New York DollsLou ReedMott the HoopleBoston, and The Sensational Alex Harvey Band. Of special note was the early support of Bruce Springsteen by Kid Leo and others, prior to the release of the Born to Run album. For the station's tenth anniversary in 1978, WMMS hosted and broadcast a live Springsteen concert at the Agora Ballroom independent of his concert tour."

Here's an interview with singer/bassist Geddy Lee in 1979 during their Hemispheres tour, a year before Permanent Waves came out. The interviewer asks Geddy who he listens to, who he's influenced by. Geddy Lee answers, "Right now, I'm really in love with Bill Bruford; he used to be with Yes and Genesis." (Bruford was the drummer of Yes, then joined King Crimson, then joined Genesis briefly on tour; then released a fusion album with guitarist Alan Holdsworth (who played in Gong and Soft Machine), which was Geddy's favorite music at this time. [It's at the 8 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDZUqwlu-7Q]

I remember Rush was on the cover of Circus Magazine a few times in the late 70s and 80s. Other Circus covers included Hall & Oates, Rolling Stones, Jethro Tull, Elton John, Jimi Page, Yoko & John Lennon, Queen, Carly Simon, David Bowie, Kiss, etc.

Rush a "hard rock band"? No. They were certainly marketed to people who enjoyed 'hard rock." But they were mainly marketed to people who listened to AOR rock (much of it what we call prog today). And Rush themselves were influenced by fellow prog acts, particularly Genesis, Yes, and King Crimson.


Edited by jude111 - May 09 2021 at 14:39
Back to Top
jude111 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1754
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jude111 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 09 2021 at 17:52
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

^ As I've stated before numerous times, there was no "prog" in the 70s... There was no weird-ass delineation into little genre bins. 

It was not until probably the late 70s, or more likely the 80s when such parceling and partitions of music became important.

The notion of genre wasn't invented in the 1980s, Aristotle was writing about it over two thousand years ago in his Poetics, the earliest surviving work of dramatic theory and first to focus on literary theory.

I used to listen to my parents argue who was better, Elvis or the Beatles - American rockabilly versus doowop; the merits of Merseybeat and the British Invasion; they'd talk about different 50s dance styles that were associated with different genres and regional scenes (the bop, the jitterbug, the twist, etc). The first British Invasion gave way to psychedelic music, electric folk rock, surf rock in the US, etc etc. From its inception rock was changing rapidly and going off in many different directions, birthing many different new genres and dance styles.


Edited by jude111 - May 09 2021 at 22:52
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13065
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 09 2021 at 20:04
Originally posted by jude111 jude111 wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

^ As I've stated before numerous times, there was no "prog" in the 70s... There was no weird-ass delineation into little genre bins. 

It was not until probably the late 70s, or more likely the 80s when such parceling and partitions of music became important.

The notion of genre wasn't invented in the 1970s, Aristotle was writing about it over two thousand years ago in his Poetics, the earliest surviving work of dramatic theory and first to focus on literary theory.

I used to listen to my parents argue who was better, Elvis or the Beatles - American rockabilly versus doowop; the merits of Merseybeat and the British Invasion; they'd talk about different 50s dance styles that were associated with different genres and regional scenes (the bop, the jitterbug, the twist, etc). The first British Invasion gave way to psychedelic music, electric folk rock, surf rock in the US, etc etc. From its inception rock was changing rapidly and going off in many different directions, birthing many different new genres and dance styles.

I never said that genres didn't exist prior to the 70s. Of course they did. I don't know how old you are, but I would suggest that the importance and marketing of compartmentalized genres and the hyper-compartmentalization of music occurred in the late 70s/early 80s due to consolidation of corporate record companies and the emasculation of FM radio to fit very rigid marketing demographics based on ad buys. If you listened to a FM rock station in the early 70s, you heard literally everything. It was radio without borders, so to speak, and often quite radical in airplay (you could hear the MC5, War, P-Funk, Gentle Giant, early Genesis, Iggy, Neil Young, Mott the Hoople, Stevie Wonder, T.Rex, Alice Cooper and Bowie all on one station, interspersed with the Led Zeppelins, Doors, Hendrixes, Stones and Beatles of the world).  Hell, even AM radio would play at least the hits of bands like Deep Purple, Yes, Tull, The Allman Brothers and Uriah Heep.

That really changed later, and drastically. AOR rock made way for corporatization. It came to a point that you could hear a deejay announce they were going to play a certain band next, and with the utmost certainty you could predict that it would be one of two or three songs played in endless rotation. Ah, the endless drone of Boston, Foreigner, Styx, Kansas, REO, Bad Company, Bob Seger and John Cougar Mellonhead in a monotonous loop! We had a radio station in Detroit that started in 1980 with the call letters WLLZ -- and the running joke was that it stood for Whole Lotta Led Zeppelin, and then other stations adopted "classic rock" or "new wave", etc. Every station became a  stratified, stultified niche and MTV became its own niche. And creativity died. 
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
Un Amico View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 01 2021
Location: Tauranga, NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 114
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Un Amico Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 09 2021 at 21:38
Brilliant. Some food for thought, folks...

Edited by Un Amico - May 09 2021 at 21:38
Back to Top
Un Amico View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 01 2021
Location: Tauranga, NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 114
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Un Amico Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 09 2021 at 22:04
The classic Power-trio formation Guitar, Bass and Vocals, Drums seems to suggest Rush were/are a Hard Rock group with a penchant for long pieces of music. Mountain were similar, and Cream (live) as well as Mahogany Rush, also from Canada (I love them). There is not a violin or a flute anywhere, no cello or oboe, nothing. There is some synth here and there. I may be wrong here though because I do not know the whole Rush output. Does all of this really matter? Only as far as future listeners are concerned I guess. We need to make sure that what we pass on to them is the correct information. Most of us, we just enjoy the music. When I play a record, I don't think ' oh, I want to play some Prog now'...I just think 'I want to play In The Wake Of Poseidon' I have been thinking about it since this morning! That's it.
Back to Top
jude111 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1754
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jude111 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 09 2021 at 22:09
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

I don't know how old you are, but I would suggest that the importance and marketing of compartmentalized genres and the hyper-compartmentalization of music occurred in the late 70s/early 80s due to consolidation of corporate record companies and the emasculation of FM radio to fit very rigid marketing demographics based on ad buys. If you listened to a FM rock station in the early 70s, you heard literally everything. It was radio without borders, so to speak, and often quite radical in airplay

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. I agree, radio got really bad especially in the 80s, at least in the US. (I have the impression UK radio was much more interesting.)

The point I was trying to make is that Rush emerged during this period, and they definitely benefited from this corporatization of the radio that you mention: "Radio consultants Kent Burkhart and Lee Abrams had a significant impact on AOR programming. Beginning in the mid-1970s they began contracting with what would become over 100 stations by the 1980s. Abrams had developed a format called SuperStars, pioneering it at WQDR, and had been very successful in delivering high ratings."

Lee Abrams was a fan of Rush; thanks to him, they got national airplay across the US on AOR stations. He wrote about Rush: "I repect those guys. Been around forever and still crankin it out. They’re pretty normal guys too. Whatever “Wave” we go through…Rush will be there…delivering. Pink Floyd are kind of like that too, but more on a grandiose and global scale…of course Pink Floyd have their share of internal drama…they have musical stability at least. Pisses me off about Yes. They had it all during the early 70’s…but screwed it up in every imaginable way. Individually brilliant…they get on stage and they can still blow you away…but if they only had the stability and consitancy of Rush!" 

Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak: Rush aligned with Pink Floyd and Yes, and were crucial to AOR radio formatting along with said bands. If there was a genre they were thought to be a part of, I submit the said genre was "album oriented rock," which was created in part by prog bands (and a few others like Led Zeppelin, who also benefited greatly from American AOR radio stations - that's why they were far bigger in the US than the UK). Rush, Floyd, Yes, and Zeppelin weren't hit machines like Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney, or the Bee Gees. Their bread-and-butter was album sales based on radio programming at AOR stations, and their songs were all over AOR radio: Working Man, Fly by Night, Temples of Syrinx, Closer to the Heart, The Trees, Spirit of Radio, Freewill, Tom Sawyer, Limelight, A Passage to Bangkok, New World Man, Subdivisions...


Edited by jude111 - May 09 2021 at 22:45
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17847
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catcher10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 09 2021 at 22:29
Originally posted by Deidre Deidre wrote:

Are Rush actually Prog? Well, at the time when Rush were a current band, they were considered as a hard-rock band and there's no doubt about that. However, they were among, let's say, "intellectual" hard-rock bands whose heavy music has been regarded beyond that "just for fun" heavy stuff like, for example, Slade were back then. Rush were among hard-rock bands like Blue Öyster Cult, Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep and Rainbow. Now their fans tag some of Rush's best songs as "Heavy Prog" and I have no problem with that at all.
A cover of a hard-rock magazine from 1986:







Rush concert poster from 1979:



Nope.....you can't simply go by a rock magazine or a music critic who both usually have an agenda. 

Rush has been described as being hard rock, heavy metal, acid, progressive and prog rock......bands like them are able to cover many rock based genres.

So how do you explain that EMI categorized DSOtM as Popular: Pop Groups?



Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 09 2021 at 22:39
Originally posted by Un Amico Un Amico wrote:

The classic Power-trio formation Guitar, Bass and Vocals, Drums seems to suggest Rush were/are a Hard Rock group with a penchant for long pieces of music. Mountain were similar, and Cream (live) as well as Mahogany Rush, also from Canada (I love them). There is not a violin or a flute anywhere, no cello or oboe, nothing. There is some synth here and there. I may be wrong here though because I do not know the whole Rush output. Does all of this really matter? Only as far as future listeners are concerned I guess. We need to make sure that what we pass on to them is the correct information. Most of us, we just enjoy the music. When I play a record, I don't think ' oh, I want to play some Prog now'...I just think 'I want to play In The Wake Of Poseidon' I have been thinking about it since this morning! That's it.

There is none in UK either.  There's lots of synth but it clearly leans on the jazz/fusion side of things. 

Further, this website, like elsewhere in the progosphere, recognises progressive metal as a part of the larger prog rock universe.  Prog metal again doesn't have wood wind or string instruments nor mellotron.  So Rush fits in neatly in that basket.  Rush is the bridge band between the old prog and the new prog. 


Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17847
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catcher10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 09 2021 at 22:41
Originally posted by Un Amico Un Amico wrote:

The classic Power-trio formation Guitar, Bass and Vocals, Drums seems to suggest Rush were/are a Hard Rock group with a penchant for long pieces of music. Mountain were similar, and Cream (live) as well as Mahogany Rush, also from Canada (I love them). There is not a violin or a flute anywhere, no cello or oboe, nothing. There is some synth here and there. I may be wrong here though because I do not know the whole Rush output. Does all of this really matter? Only as far as future listeners are concerned I guess. We need to make sure that what we pass on to them is the correct information. Most of us, we just enjoy the music. When I play a record, I don't think ' oh, I want to play some Prog now'...I just think 'I want to play In The Wake Of Poseidon' I have been thinking about it since this morning! That's it.

Since you admit you don't know the whole Rush output you are not qualified to pass on the correct information to future listeners. And BTW, there is a violin on the 1982 Rush album Signals.
Back to Top
Frenetic Zetetic View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 09 2017
Location: Now
Status: Offline
Points: 9233
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Frenetic Zetetic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 09 2021 at 23:58
This thread has been going on so long, RUSH is no longer prog and reverted to a shoe gaze band with progressive elements.

"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2021 at 00:28
Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

This thread has been going on so long, RUSH is no longer prog and reverted to a shoe gaze band with progressive elements.

LOLLOLLOL
Back to Top
Un Amico View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 01 2021
Location: Tauranga, NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 114
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Un Amico Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2021 at 03:49
If you are talking about UK the band, Eddie Jobson plays keyboards and violin.
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2021 at 05:15
Originally posted by Deidre Deidre wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

^ As I've stated before numerous times, there was no "prog" in the 70s. It was not a word used at the time. Never heard the term, and I was in bands. You listened to Yes, Floyd, Sabbath, Zeppelin, Tull, The Who, Bowie, Crimson, The Allman Brothers, Traffic, Santana, Deep Purple, The Beatles, The Stones, etc. interchangeably. There was no weird-ass delineation into little genre bins. 

It was not until probably the late 70s, or more likely the 80s when such parceling and partitions of music became important. You had punk which sneered at dinosaur rock and corporate rock and arena rock. You had new wave (which punks also sneered at because the new wavers could actually sell albums after the initial punk period petered out). You had new age. You had new country (and country/western all but disappeared). And you had prog. 

Everything had to be neatly compartmentalized so that record execs and radio stations could properly disseminate their garbage (of course, this is when the term "classic rock" came in vogue for albums you bought new only 5 years or so previously). 
"Progressive rock" the term wasn't exclusive to England nor Europe, either. Although it may not have been a frequently used term in America, it certainly wasn't unknown. Just to name a few examples:

King Crimson Opens Its Rock 'n' Roll Stand
Los Angeles Times, Dec 5, 1969
JOHN MENDELSOHN

King Crimson, who opened Wednesday at Hollywood's Whisky, is known in the pop press of its native England as a progressive rock group.





John Mendelssohn, Los Angeles Times, 21 March 1972

KING CRIMSON, which performed locally for the first time in two years Sunday afternoon at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, is the very embodiment of English progressivism.

Duh! This article must have posted in past discussions 5 times already. At this time in music history (1969), media articles have also cited Ten Years After, The Allman Bros. Band, The Blues Breakers, Blind Faith, Mountain and MC5 as being "progressive bands", so these isolated posts mean nothing. So, once again, I say Duh!
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13065
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2021 at 07:18
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Deidre Deidre wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

^ As I've stated before numerous times, there was no "prog" in the 70s. It was not a word used at the time. Never heard the term, and I was in bands. You listened to Yes, Floyd, Sabbath, Zeppelin, Tull, The Who, Bowie, Crimson, The Allman Brothers, Traffic, Santana, Deep Purple, The Beatles, The Stones, etc. interchangeably. There was no weird-ass delineation into little genre bins. 

It was not until probably the late 70s, or more likely the 80s when such parceling and partitions of music became important. You had punk which sneered at dinosaur rock and corporate rock and arena rock. You had new wave (which punks also sneered at because the new wavers could actually sell albums after the initial punk period petered out). You had new age. You had new country (and country/western all but disappeared). And you had prog. 

Everything had to be neatly compartmentalized so that record execs and radio stations could properly disseminate their garbage (of course, this is when the term "classic rock" came in vogue for albums you bought new only 5 years or so previously). 
"Progressive rock" the term wasn't exclusive to England nor Europe, either. Although it may not have been a frequently used term in America, it certainly wasn't unknown. Just to name a few examples:

King Crimson Opens Its Rock 'n' Roll Stand
Los Angeles Times, Dec 5, 1969
JOHN MENDELSOHN

King Crimson, who opened Wednesday at Hollywood's Whisky, is known in the pop press of its native England as a progressive rock group.





John Mendelssohn, Los Angeles Times, 21 March 1972

KING CRIMSON, which performed locally for the first time in two years Sunday afternoon at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, is the very embodiment of English progressivism.

Duh! This article must have posted in past discussions 5 times already. At this time in music history (1969), media articles have also cited Ten Years After, The Allman Bros. Band, The Blues Breakers, Blind Faith, Mountain and MC5 as being "progressive bands", so these isolated posts mean nothing. So, once again, I say Duh!

It's rather like Johnny Winters' Progressive Blues Experiment (1968). Great album, but it's neither progressive nor very experimental. Wink
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote chopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2021 at 08:23
As far as I remember there was a term "progressive rock" in the 70s (when I was at school with a lot of people who liked Yes and Genesis etc) but I never heard it called "prog" till much later.

At time like these I normally refer to my trusty 1978 NME Encyclopedia of Rock, in which ELP and Yes are labelled "techno-rock" but there is no mention of "progressive rock" in the entries for them or KC or Genesis.

In the entry for Tull it says they gained a devoted following on the "progressive rock" circuit alongside others such as Ten Years After, Fleetwood Mac, Pink Floyd and The Nice, so the term existed in 1978 but not as we know it today.
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17847
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catcher10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2021 at 09:12
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Deidre Deidre wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

^ As I've stated before numerous times, there was no "prog" in the 70s. It was not a word used at the time. Never heard the term, and I was in bands. You listened to Yes, Floyd, Sabbath, Zeppelin, Tull, The Who, Bowie, Crimson, The Allman Brothers, Traffic, Santana, Deep Purple, The Beatles, The Stones, etc. interchangeably. There was no weird-ass delineation into little genre bins. 

It was not until probably the late 70s, or more likely the 80s when such parceling and partitions of music became important. You had punk which sneered at dinosaur rock and corporate rock and arena rock. You had new wave (which punks also sneered at because the new wavers could actually sell albums after the initial punk period petered out). You had new age. You had new country (and country/western all but disappeared). And you had prog. 

Everything had to be neatly compartmentalized so that record execs and radio stations could properly disseminate their garbage (of course, this is when the term "classic rock" came in vogue for albums you bought new only 5 years or so previously). 
"Progressive rock" the term wasn't exclusive to England nor Europe, either. Although it may not have been a frequently used term in America, it certainly wasn't unknown. Just to name a few examples:

King Crimson Opens Its Rock 'n' Roll Stand
Los Angeles Times, Dec 5, 1969
JOHN MENDELSOHN

King Crimson, who opened Wednesday at Hollywood's Whisky, is known in the pop press of its native England as a progressive rock group.





John Mendelssohn, Los Angeles Times, 21 March 1972

KING CRIMSON, which performed locally for the first time in two years Sunday afternoon at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, is the very embodiment of English progressivism.

Duh! This article must have posted in past discussions 5 times already. At this time in music history (1969), media articles have also cited Ten Years After, The Allman Bros. Band, The Blues Breakers, Blind Faith, Mountain and MC5 as being "progressive bands", so these isolated posts mean nothing. So, once again, I say Duh!
Deidre, he gone....again! LOL
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17847
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catcher10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2021 at 09:24
Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

As far as I remember there was a term "progressive rock" in the 70s (when I was at school with a lot of people who liked Yes and Genesis etc) but I never heard it called "prog" till much later.

At time like these I normally refer to my trusty 1978 NME Encyclopedia of Rock, in which ELP and Yes are labelled "techno-rock" but there is no mention of "progressive rock" in the entries for them or KC or Genesis.

In the entry for Tull it says they gained a devoted following on the "progressive rock" circuit alongside others such as Ten Years After, Fleetwood Mac, Pink Floyd and The Nice, so the term existed in 1978 but not as we know it today.
Growing up in Los Angeles area in the early 70s the FM station KMET 94.7 would play a lot of obscure hard rock and progressive rock and the DJs would use the term "progressive music" or "progressive rock". That is the station where I first heard Genesis, it was the Cinema Show from Seconds Out. Only played at night since it was a 11 minute song.
I only heard/read the term "prog" maybe in the last 25yrs.
Back to Top
verslibre View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 17223
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote verslibre Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2021 at 11:29
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Growing up in Los Angeles area in the early 70s the FM station KMET 94.7 would play a lot of obscure hard rock and progressive rock and the DJs would use the term "progressive music" or "progressive rock". That is the station where I first heard Genesis, it was the Cinema Show from Seconds Out. Only played at night since it was a 11 minute song.

KLOS (95.5 FM) did, too. KLOS aired Greg Stone's Stone Trek, all the way into the '90s, which was an hour of pure prog. That's where I first heard Camel!

Back to Top
verslibre View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 17223
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote verslibre Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2021 at 12:11
Originally posted by Un Amico Un Amico wrote:

The classic Power-trio formation Guitar, Bass and Vocals, Drums seems to suggest Rush were/are a Hard Rock group with a penchant for long pieces of music. Mountain were similar, and Cream (live) as well as Mahogany Rush, also from Canada (I love them). There is not a violin or a flute anywhere, no cello or oboe, nothing. There is some synth here and there. I may be wrong here though because I do not know the whole Rush output. Does all of this really matter? Only as far as future listeners are concerned I guess. We need to make sure that what we pass on to them is the correct information. Most of us, we just enjoy the music. When I play a record, I don't think ' oh, I want to play some Prog now'...I just think 'I want to play In The Wake Of Poseidon' I have been thinking about it since this morning! That's it.

LOTS of synth on the '80s albums — LOTS.

Mellotron (M400, owned by Hugh Syme, played by Geddy) on "Tears" from 2112 and four songs on Snakes & Arrows.

Violin (played by Ben Mink) on "Losing It" from Signals.

Acoustic piano (played by Hugh Syme) on "Different Strings" from Permanent Waves.

And you know what? A violin, oboe, cello or flute automatically make something "prog" about as much as a food mixer does. Just ask Rick Wakeman.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1516171819 27>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.