Print Page | Close Window

Is Rush prog

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Recommendations/Featured albums
Forum Description: Make or seek recommendations and discuss specific prog albums
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=134099
Printed Date: January 12 2025 at 19:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Is Rush prog
Posted By: jeeglefun
Subject: Is Rush prog
Date Posted: December 21 2024 at 18:23
Is Rush progressive 



Replies:
Posted By: Jeffro
Date Posted: December 21 2024 at 18:31
Yes

-------------
We all dwell in an amber subdomain, amber subdomain, amber subdomain.

My face IS a maserati


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: December 21 2024 at 18:47
In terms of their whole catalogue a lot isn't. However they were certainly very influential in helping to create progressive metal and heavier prog styles with the albums 2112, A Farewell To Kings and Hemispheres. They then moved towards an artier 'synth pop' style in the 80's before eventually returning to a harder rock style in the 90's partly as a result of the rise of 'grunge' in North America I suspect


Posted By: Jacob Schoolcraft
Date Posted: December 21 2024 at 20:38
They are not always "straight up" Rock . I've read comments where people attempt to make the band look small in comparison to the big 5 or 6 . I've heard musicians say..."It's easy to play " Maybe it's not overly difficult to learn, but try playing 2112 , tracks from Hemispheres...Live 5 nights a week . Yeah...let's see what happens then?

People have said their music is not difficult to play...however try putting yourself to the test by playing their music every week and see if you don't begin making mistakes? The difficulty in performing Rush every week is being consistent every night in getting the breaks clean and the dynamics perfect. Even after you have their pieces memorized you are bound for mistakes on stage. It's not like playing regular Rock on stage and close your eyes and not have to pay attention and so Rush has to be identified as being progressive right?


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 00:11
Sure they are. Rush have probably recorded more Progressive Rock albums/material in total than Genesis.


Posted By: I prophesy disaster
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 00:43
According to the documentary series "Metal Evolution" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Evolution" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Evolution ), Episode 11 - "Progressive Metal", Rush were pretty much at the start of Progressive Metal (which is a much broader subgenre in the documentary series than in Prog Archives).
 



-------------
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 00:43
There's a huge thread about this still active (and i bet this was discussed to death in the past)
https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=126250&PID=5889315" rel="nofollow - https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=126250&PID=5889315
I wonder how much off-topic-ness is in that thread though. LOL



Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 01:10
Originally posted by hrotod hrotod wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Sure they are. Rush have probably recorded more Progressive Rock albums/material in total than Genesis.
Isn't it ridiculous to compare the progressiveness of such two legendary bands in that sense? Rush and Genesis were both proggy in their own unique ways, in different times and in different circumstances (Genesis was at their most progressive era in the early 70s as part of the genuine progressive rock wave).
I didn't compare their progressiveness, just the quantity of relevant material.


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 02:01
^ Either you get it or you don't. Three days in with your new account, and you're already boring me.


Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 02:22
Originally posted by jeeglefun jeeglefun wrote:

Is Rush progressive 

Personally, I'd say they were progressive between Fly By Night and Permanent Waves (you might stretch this to Moving Pictures). Others may have a different view, which I'd respect.


-------------
Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson


Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 02:24
Originally posted by hrotod hrotod wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Originally posted by hrotod hrotod wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Sure they are. Rush have probably recorded more Progressive Rock albums/material in total than Genesis.
Isn't it ridiculous to compare the progressiveness of such two legendary bands in that sense? Rush and Genesis were both proggy in their own unique ways, in different times and in different circumstances (Genesis was at their most progressive era in the early 70s as part of the genuine progressive rock wave).
I didn't compare their progressiveness, just the quantity of relevant material.
Genesis was a magnificent symphonic prog band and does not serve as a measuring unit for determining a level of progressiveness of a musical ensemble within the genre of prog.

hmm... I think we might have another Pedro on our hands... Ermm


-------------
Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 02:35
Originally posted by Jared Jared wrote:

Originally posted by hrotod hrotod wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Originally posted by hrotod hrotod wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Sure they are. Rush have probably recorded more Progressive Rock albums/material in total than Genesis.
Isn't it ridiculous to compare the progressiveness of such two legendary bands in that sense? Rush and Genesis were both proggy in their own unique ways, in different times and in different circumstances (Genesis was at their most progressive era in the early 70s as part of the genuine progressive rock wave).
I didn't compare their progressiveness, just the quantity of relevant material.
Genesis was a magnificent symphonic prog band and does not serve as a measuring unit for determining a level of progressiveness of a musical ensemble within the genre of prog.

hmm... I think we might have another Pedro on our hands... Ermm

or rather a Svetty clone. Ermm


Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 03:28
Is this even in question? Note that the TO didn't bother to set a question mark, let alone any other relevant input.


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 03:33
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

Is this even in question? Note that the TO didn't bother to set a question mark, let alone any other relevant input.
Thumbs Up


Posted By: I prophesy disaster
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 04:18
Originally posted by hrotod hrotod wrote:

Genesis was a magnificent symphonic prog band and does not serve as a measuring unit for determining a level of progressiveness of a musical ensemble within the genre of prog.
 
Interesting idea using a Genesis as a unit of measure for proginess. For example, Pawn Hearts might have a proginess of 1.5 Genesises, whereas Moving Pictures might have a proginess of only 0.9 Genesises. Tongue
 



-------------
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.


Posted By: Jeffro
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 08:20
Nothing says snooty elitism from high atop the ivory tower like some comments on a progressive rock message board.

Come for the music, stay for the drama

-------------
We all dwell in an amber subdomain, amber subdomain, amber subdomain.

My face IS a maserati


Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 08:38

In his article from 2002 about Rush, entitled ""Let Them All Make Their Own Music": Idividualism, Rush, and the Progressive / Hard Rock Alloy, 1976-77", musicologist Durrell S. Bowman writes that "On the whole, Rush's music is best termed "progressive hard rock"." *
As I see it, Rush are something like being on the borderline between progressive Hard Rock and Progressive Rock, but more on the Prog side.

( * as published in the book Progressive Rock Reconsidered (2002, p. 189) edited by Kevin Holm-Hudson)




-------------
                      quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond


Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 10:32
Suspicious topic and account, but... I think Rush is progressive as the sound changed throughout the career, and I would describe albums by Rush as Progressive Rock -- some more than others. I wouldn't call the debut Progressive Rock, but I would call Hemispheres (an album I have adored) Progressive Rock for shizz.


Posted By: omphaloskepsis
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 10:42
^This


Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 22 2024 at 12:37
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I think Rush is progressive as the sound changed throughout the career, ...........

I think, really many progressive artists with a definition like this. Big smile



-------------
                      quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond


Posted By: Floydoid
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 09:52
This looks like typical troll type behaviour - a newly registered account makes one provocative post to get everyone arguing, only for the OP never to return to it.

-------------
Is it any wonder that the monkey's confused?


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 10:03
Have we arrived at a consensus?

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 10:08
Originally posted by Floydoid Floydoid wrote:

This looks like typical troll type behaviour - a newly registered account makes one provocative post to get everyone arguing, only for the OP never to return to it.

Yes, it does seem distinctly odd that Jeeglefun joined PA at 18:21 on December 21st and his last visit was just two minutes later at 18:23.  Confused


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 10:27
Not to be mean but a lot of so called prog isn't exactly progressive. A case in point would be neo-prog. Most (if not all of it) does not push boundaries or do anything truly progressive. It is mostly a rehash of older prog with a more contemporary (and even stripped down) element. Rush in the 70s and 80s weren't really doing anything that hadn't been done before. They were influenced by KC, Yes and Genesis but with a heavier element. So yeah Rush were prog but were they progressive in the literal sense of the word? Not so much imo.


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 10:51
There's progressive in the literal sense of the word and there's capital "P" Prog, which is what most of the bands we listen to fall under.

Maybe it should be called "art rock," but I don't think that's going to catch on now.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 10:59
I'd rather put most of what I listen to under the small p (adjective label) than the big P (noun/genre) label. I'm not a big fan of tons of generic/ stereotypical Prog. More so, I would put music I like under the art label, however.

Aside from having Prog genre albums, I think Rush's music progressed from album to album in that it changed and adapted with the times.


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 12:15
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I'd rather put most of what I listen to under the small p (adjective label) than the big P (noun/genre) label. I'm not a big fan of tons of generic/ stereotypical Prog. More so, I would put music I like under the art label, however.

Aside from having Prog genre albums, I think Rush's music progressed from album to album in that it changed and adapted with the times.

That's true to a great degree even though they were doing proggy prog in the late 70s and early 80s when that was no longer fashionable. Signals and GUP were both very new wave influenced but 19993's Counterparts was more hard rock than it was grunge. They never really took the grunge route. After that more hard rock and semi-metal (kind of like their debut but more modern sounding).


Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 16:14
Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

There's progressive in the literal sense of the word and there's capital "P" Prog, which is what most of the bands we listen to fall under.

Actually, "progressive" is just a word which can be and has been used in many different ways/meanings.



-------------
                      quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 16:29
Originally posted by David_D David_D wrote:

Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

There's progressive in the literal sense of the word and there's capital "P" Prog, which is what most of the bands we listen to fall under.


Actually, "progressive" is just a word which can be and has been used in many different ways/meanings.



Right, David, but remember, we're talking about music — specifically the music discussed and archived on this site. Context is everything.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 16:31
They were "prog-rock" at one point, but coming after most of the major pioneer acts of the late 60s/early 70s, I wouldn't say they were "progressive".

-------------
...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...


Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 17:05
Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

Originally posted by David_D David_D wrote:

Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

There's progressive in the literal sense of the word and there's capital "P" Prog, which is what most of the bands we listen to fall under.
Actually, "progressive" is just a word which can be and has been used in many different ways/meanings.
Right, David, but remember, we're talking about music — specifically the music discussed and archived on this site. Context is everything.

Right, and to me in this context, "progressive" is also just a part of the genre name "Progressive Rock". Smile



-------------
                      quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 17:30
Originally posted by David_D David_D wrote:

Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

Originally posted by David_D David_D wrote:

Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

There's progressive in the literal sense of the word and there's capital "P" Prog, which is what most of the bands we listen to fall under.
Actually, "progressive" is just a word which can be and has been used in many different ways/meanings.
Right, David, but remember, we're talking about music — specifically the music discussed and archived on this site. Context is everything.


Right, and to me in this context, "progressive" is also just a part of the genre name "Progressive Rock". Smile



Which takes us full circle to progressive (adj., relating to or characterized by interest in new ideas) and capital "P" you/know/what.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 17:54
Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

Which takes us full circle to progressive (adj., relating to or characterized by interest in new ideas) and capital "P" you/know/what.

and we could continue because "Actually, "progressive" is just a word which can be and has been......" LOL



-------------
                      quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 21:42
Well the OP used the shortened term ''prog'' in the thread title which I've always taken to mean 'of a style' rather than 'progressive' in terms of an idea. But I still think Rush represented a major shake up of the genre and moved it forward in the late seventies when the major bands like ELP and Yes were doing nothing new. So they were both imo. Many don't find their music elegant as such and the lack of a full time keyboard player might not have helped perhaps so that could be a reason why they are so often considered not as important. I've seen the weird backlash against them on here for a while and also online with some like Andy Edwards consider their fans to be 'zealots' (but to be fair he also raises this point about Pink Floyd fans as well). They seem though to have a very nice intellegent fanbase (from a distance) but I would say that wouldn't I? They also attract the slightly nerdy and very harmless rock fan who likes their sc-fi.


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: December 23 2024 at 22:58
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Well the OP used the shortened term ''prog'' in the thread title which I've always taken to mean 'of a style' rather than 'progressive' in terms of an idea.


Yes, I've no doubt that's how they meant it. (Are "they" still a member...?)

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

I've seen the weird backlash against them on here for a while and also online with some like Andy Edwards consider their fans to be 'zealots' (but to be fair he also raises this point about Pink Floyd fans as well).


I've not caught a whiff of any general "backlash" here, but I know some members aren't fans. As far as zealotry, that's characteristic of many artists' fanbases, e.g. those belonging to Rush, Marillion, Dream Theater, Yes, Floyd, Crimson, Tangerine Dream, etc. It is what it is.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 00:50
^ & ^^ I do wish Rush had somehow managed to keep the heavy, Hard Rock-punch of their earliest albums (Working Man in particular) into their Prog Rock-era. But people claiming that they are simply Hard Rock or Heavy Rock aren't listening properly. I know I don't need to tell any of you, but I'm gonna write it anyway: Those who actually listen will notice the band's growth and a willingness to change from album to album (up to point). They've got plenty of complexity and sophisticated compositions to match their relatively impressive playing as well. It should be enough for anyone to acknowledge them as "Prog enough". Rush surely sound unmistakably like themselves as well. That should count for something imo.

Personally I love less than an hour worth of Rush' music in total. But it's for similar reasons that I don't enjoy classic Yes as much as "everyone else" - or the fact that I don't like ELP at all. It's about preferences, not a measurement of progressiveness. We all have them, preferences I mean.

Andy Edwards is good fun, and he knows his stuff. But provoking certain fanbases is part of his business model, isn't it? I mean he usually make sure to tell viewers that he loves the bands he's got on his overrated this or that lists or whatever. Except for Van Morrison and his godawful Astral Weeks) - and I 100% agreed with him. My favorite video of his among the twenty or so I've seen. I think I even laughed out loud a couple of times.


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 01:36
Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

I do wish Rush had somehow managed to keep the heavy, Hard Rock-punch of their earliest albums


Have you heard Vapor Trails?



-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 01:52
^ I'm thinking more about that thick, crunchy and heavy riff sound. That kind of punch. Working Man is the closest I ever heard a Rush-riff resembling Doom Metal. I prefer the drum sound too, although the drummer is no Neil Peart:). It's meatier. One Little Victory, although very "Metal" has virtually nothing of the qualities I'm thinking of. It does have other qualities, and I don't mind the track though.


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 02:23
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

In terms of their whole catalogue a lot isn't.


I have a hard time calling everything from Signals (81) until Vapor (2004?) "prog" (in the wider sense of the word) indeed

Even the last two (CA and S&A) are slightly so.


Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Sure they are. Rush have probably recorded more Progressive Rock albums/material in total than Genesis.


Genesis: 10 (from FGTR to Duke)
Rush: 7 (from FBN to MP, plus maybe the last two)


-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 02:59
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Sure they are. Rush have probably recorded more Progressive Rock albums/material in total than Genesis.

Genesis: 10 (from FGTR to Duke)
Rush: 7 (from FBN to MP, plus maybe the last two)
I do think that's being more generous in regards to certain albums "in favour of" Genesis and less towards a few albums by Rush. But either way I just wrote "probably" and my point still comes across.


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 03:26
^ Trolling much? wtf?! Censored


Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 03:44
Oh dear.... could you write 'no' without the flashing lights and give us an explanation for your conclusion?




-------------
Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson


Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 03:59
Originally posted by Jared Jared wrote:

Oh dear.... could you write 'no' without the flashing lights and give us an explanation for your conclusion?


Yeah, that annoying flashing "No" sign gives  me a headache and should come with a warning for those suffering from epilepsy. Ouch


Posted By: Hrychu
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 04:10
You guys mental? Rush is not even close to prog rock. They were a pop or blues band at best with a strong fetish for the 7/8 time signature. A bunch of posers worshipped by the Dream Theater loving losers who like to wаnk to unchallenging derivative rubbish.

/s

-------------
“On the day of my creation, I fell in love with education. And overcoming all frustration, a teacher I became.”
— Ernest Vong


Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 05:15
Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

Which takes us full circle to progressive (adj., relating to or characterized by interest in new ideas) and capital "P" you/know/what.

Okay, there might be such a thing like "progressive" in the most common use and sense. Tongue



-------------
                      quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 05:19
Originally posted by Hrychu Hrychu wrote:

You guys mental? Rush is not even close to prog rock. They were a pop or blues band at best with a strong fetish for the 7/8 time signature. A bunch of posers worshipped by the Dream Theater loving losers who like to wаnk to unchallenging derivative rubbish.

It's unclear to me whether you are joking or being serious here. Confused


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 05:36
^The image of a classic snob with his pipe and a raised eyebrow should give you a little hint.


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 06:06
Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

^The image of a classic snob with his pipe and a raised eyebrow should give you a little hint.

Still I'm not sure. LOL


Posted By: Hrychu
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 06:16
Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

^The image of a classic snob with his pipe and a raised eyebrow should give you a little hint.


Still I'm not sure. LOL

Originally posted by Hrychu Hrychu wrote:

/s


-------------
“On the day of my creation, I fell in love with education. And overcoming all frustration, a teacher I became.”
— Ernest Vong


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 06:18
Originally posted by Hrychu Hrychu wrote:

/s
TBH I do not know what that means. Smile


Posted By: Hrychu
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 06:19
Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by Hrychu Hrychu wrote:

/s
TBH I do not know what that means. Smile

Really? It's quite common online lately.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2FS" rel="nofollow - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2FS

-------------
“On the day of my creation, I fell in love with education. And overcoming all frustration, a teacher I became.”
— Ernest Vong


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 06:24
Originally posted by Hrychu Hrychu wrote:

Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by Hrychu Hrychu wrote:

/s
TBH I do not know what that means. Smile
Really? It's quite common online lately.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2FS" rel="nofollow - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2FS
ok, thanks Smile


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 12:22
Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

^ I'm thinking more about that thick, crunchy and heavy riff sound. That kind of punch. Working Man is the closest I ever heard a Rush-riff resembling Doom Metal. I prefer the drum sound too, although the drummer is no Neil Peart:). It's meatier. One Little Victory, although very "Metal" has virtually nothing of the qualities I'm thinking of. It does have other qualities, and I don't mind the track though.


That's funny, because I prefer nothing from that first album. It's their wannabe phase. I tired of it because Alex tries to channel Page so hard. I'm glad they got past that. For thick, crunchy, heavy riffs, that's what Tony Iommi and a few other guys specialize in!

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 12:23
Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

It's unclear to me whether you are joking or being serious here. Confused


"7/8 pop"

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 12:37
I hid that annoying and potentially seizure-inducing flashing no post. This stuff is out of controll.


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 13:08
I'm not very expert in Rush. I don't dislike them so it could mean that they are quite prog, but they fail to kick with me. I can't say why. 
Anyway, I think that 2112 and the Plague of Lighthouse Keeper are prog enough so for me it's a yes.


-------------
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution


Posted By: Floydoid
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 13:16
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:


I'm not very expert in Rush. I don't dislike them so it could mean that they are quite prog, but they fail to kick with me. I can't say why. 


Pretty much the same here. On a side note Genesis have never really pushed my buttons either for some reason, even though I consider them very influential and giants of the genre, in particular the Gabriel-Hackett era.

-------------
Is it any wonder that the monkey's confused?


Posted By: Mishkou
Date Posted: December 24 2024 at 23:19
Originally posted by Jared Jared wrote:

give us an explanation for your conclusion?
Rush wasn't a progressive rock band at the time when they were a current band because their sound was firmly rooted in hard rock, characterized by powerful guitar riffs and a driving rhythm that set them apart from the more experimental and symphonic elements typical of progressive rock. Now, one can categorize them as prog, but it's hindsight because nobody considered them progressive rock back then.


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 00:14
Originally posted by Mishkou Mishkou wrote:

Originally posted by Jared Jared wrote:

give us an explanation for your conclusion?
Rush wasn't a progressive rock band at the time when they were a current band because their sound was firmly rooted in hard rock, characterized by powerful guitar riffs and a driving rhythm that set them apart from the more experimental and symphonic elements typical of progressive rock. Now, one can categorize them as prog, but it's hindsight because nobody considered them progressive rock back then.

A lot depends on the definition but because we now have prog metal (that didn't exist in 1978) we can now consider Rush one of the pre-cursor's of that genre. If we just limit prog to 'The Big Six' for the sake of argument then it was more or less done by 1977 with Pink Floyd- Animals being the last truly great 'traditional' prog album. After this what we call 'Prog' just diversified becoming simpler in many cases mainly because of the punk backlash against prog. (btw I don't consider Jazz Rock/Fusion ''Prog'' at all. It's just too wide an area to be lumped in with prog).

In the seventies the term 'prog' was a narrow corridor because there were commercially succesful bands that represented it (The Big Six). In general I can accept 2 strands of thought. A) It was a movement that happened post psychedelic and burnt out by 1977 or B) it was an ethos that started in the late sixties and adapted to current styles and thinking of the times. PA as a site clearly represents the latter and therefore Rush are as important as any Post Rock or Neo Prog band. IMO


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 00:29
I could tell Rush was prog when I was eleven and bought Hemispheres ... and I didn't even know what prog was.

Nice try.



-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: Mishkou
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 00:50
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:


In the seventies the term 'prog' was a narrow corridor
The term ‘prog,’ in fact an abbreviation that has gained a good measure of new meaning, did not exist in the seventies, as progressive rock was a more narrowly defined genre with a limited number of bands recognized under that label. Even Pink Floyd wasn't considered progressive rock; rather, they were a psychedelic rock band. The term “progressive rock” emerged in the late 1960s as a way to describe a new wave of underground music that sought to push the boundaries of rock music through complex compositions, innovative instrumentation, and eclectic structure, often featuring medieval folk and classical music sounds. However, during the seventies, when progressive rock was in its heyday, the shorthand “prog,” a much broader category where one can put both Yes and Rush and Pink Floyd and Return to Forever and Tangerine Dream and Dream Theater, did not exist.


Posted By: Mishkou
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 00:53
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

I could tell Rush was prog when I was eleven and bought Hemispheres ... and I didn't even know what prog was.

Nice try.

Rush was a typical hard rock band at the time when they released Hemispheres. In the same league with Blue Öyster Cult, Rainbow, or UFO.


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 01:58
^Uhh... no.

-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 03:35
Originally posted by Mishkou Mishkou wrote:

Originally posted by Jared Jared wrote:

give us an explanation for your conclusion?
Rush wasn't a progressive rock band at the time when they were a current band because their sound was firmly rooted in hard rock, characterized by powerful guitar riffs and a driving rhythm that set them apart from the more experimental and symphonic elements typical of progressive rock. Now, one can categorize them as prog, but it's hindsight because nobody considered them progressive rock back then.

I'm sorry but that is utter rubbish. Admittedly, my first exposure to Rush was Signals in 1982, when I was 14, but by then they were certainly considered much more aligned with Genesis, Yes & Pink Floyd style 'prog' than anything from the hard rock category... that is in the English Midlands, at any rate?


-------------
Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson


Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 03:38
Originally posted by Mishkou Mishkou wrote:

[Rush was a typical hard rock band at the time when they released Hemispheres. In the same league with Blue Öyster Cult, Rainbow, or UFO.

I really can only put this down to you coming from LA, where band categorisations may have been different, because what you are describing certainly wasn't my formative experience?


-------------
Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 03:48
Originally posted by Mishkou Mishkou wrote:

Rush was a typical hard rock band at the time when they released Hemispheres. In the same league with Blue Öyster Cult, Rainbow, or UFO.

"same league"?! What does that even mean?! Confused


Posted By: meAsoi
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 04:08
Originally posted by Jared Jared wrote:

Originally posted by Mishkou Mishkou wrote:

[Rush was a typical hard rock band at the time when they released Hemispheres. In the same league with Blue Öyster Cult, Rainbow, or UFO.

I really can only put this down to you coming from LA, where band categorisations may have been different, because what you are describing certainly wasn't my formative experience?
I, for one, absolutely agree with Mishkou. My formative experience as a West European rock music listener tells me that acoustic guitar intros and some atmospheric passages here and there featuring keyboards can be heard on the many albums of the 70s hard rock bands with a more artistic approach than, e.g., Kiss or AC/DC. Rush was regarded as a hard rock band in the same way as, for instance, Uriah Heep, Led Zeppelin, Blue Öyster Cult, Rainbow, and underrated UFO.

Of course, in the meantime, "prog" became a broad classification for various genres, so any slightly sophisticated hard rock band could be easily proclaimed as a heavy prog or prog-related band.


Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 04:10
Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by Mishkou Mishkou wrote:

Rush was a typical hard rock band at the time when they released Hemispheres. In the same league with Blue Öyster Cult, Rainbow, or UFO.

"same league"?! What does that even mean?! Confused

I think he means 'stylistically similar', but I really don't see it at all... if anything, Hemispheres era Rush had more in common with Eloy and even Nektar than any of these?


-------------
Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson


Posted By: meAsoi
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 09:41
Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

There's a huge thread about this still active (and i bet this was discussed to death in the past)
https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=126250&PID=5889315" rel="nofollow - https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=126250&PID=5889315
Indeed. I'm a newbie to this forum; however, I've already witnessed debates regarding the progressive classification of Rush before, on other web locations. Indeed, "Is Rush progressive rock?" isn't the first time such a question has arisen. Nevertheless, from what's being said, one could infer that, while this question might still recur at least in their time of high, Rush was never a progressive rock band but a hard rock band.

In the domain of progressive rock, there prevails an unequivocal consensus regarding the bands such as Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Yes, VdGG, and Genesis; despite their individual styles, they are universally regarded as paragons of the genre; however, with regard to Rush, this assertion does not really hold true.

It is a fact that back in the 1970s, Rush was considered to be a hard rock band. Although some might want to refer to Rush as "heavy prog" as absolute truth, one has to realise that this kind of categorisation cannot change how rock history really happened. "Heavy prog" is an artificial genre heading that did not exist at that time. 

While personal interpretations of what the musical groupings mean are valid, they cannot rewrite history regarding what happened in progressive rock or remove the fact that certain labels, such as "heavy prog," did not exist at that time.


Posted By: Hrychu
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 11:07
Quote an artificial genre heading that did not exist at that time
Honestly, I think that music genres are artificial by definition and thus, whether they're created in real time or retroactively doesn't matter. At the end of the day, the existence of music genres serves its purpose - it helps listeners as well as musicians find the music they enjoy more easily.

-------------
“On the day of my creation, I fell in love with education. And overcoming all frustration, a teacher I became.”
— Ernest Vong


Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 15:12
agree, fk genres

...but Rush is prog hehe


Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 15:13
Originally posted by Hrychu Hrychu wrote:

I think that music genres are artificial by definition and thus, whether they're created in real time or retroactively doesn't matter.

I wouldn't say it that flatly, but you got a good point there.



-------------
                      quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 15:44
Originally posted by meAsoi meAsoi wrote:

Although some might want to refer to Rush as "heavy prog" as absolute truth, one has to realise that this kind of categorisation cannot change how rock history really happened. "Heavy prog" is an artificial genre heading that did not exist at that time. 

That's not the point or purpose of such categories.   They're not necessarily meant to be historic, but to provide clarity for those who are new to, or don't really know, progressive rock.   They are descriptors, not genres.



-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: Hrychu
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 15:49
I agree with Achron. This website is not meant to accurately reflect the historical classification of the bands that are in the database. If you think about it, the very term "progressive rock", when referring to 70's formations, is a retroactive label that didn't exist back then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The purpose of genre labels on PA, to me, are mostly symbolic.

-------------
“On the day of my creation, I fell in love with education. And overcoming all frustration, a teacher I became.”
— Ernest Vong


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 16:36
Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

^ I'm thinking more about that thick, crunchy and heavy riff sound. That kind of punch. Working Man is the closest I ever heard a Rush-riff resembling Doom Metal. I prefer the drum sound too, although the drummer is no Neil Peart:). It's meatier. One Little Victory, although very "Metal" has virtually nothing of the qualities I'm thinking of. It does have other qualities, and I don't mind the track though.


That's funny, because I prefer nothing from that first album. It's their wannabe phase. I tired of it because Alex tries to channel Page so hard. I'm glad they got past that. For thick, crunchy, heavy riffs, that's what Tony Iommi and a few other guys specialize in!
I'm not a fan, and I quite enjoy their wannabe phase. I see where you're coming from. It's ok.

Btw: Yes I know where to find those riffs. I love the sound of plenty "Heavy Prog" bands who successfully combined a more progressive approach to rock with the thick, crunchy riffs I much, much prefer. And I would like Rush more if that part wasn't lost somewhere underways. It's a preference. Like enjoying the taste of some food over some other food.


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 20:51
Originally posted by Mishkou Mishkou wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:


In the seventies the term 'prog' was a narrow corridor
The term ‘prog,’ in fact an abbreviation that has gained a good measure of new meaning, did not exist in the seventies, as progressive rock was a more narrowly defined genre with a limited number of bands recognized under that label. Even Pink Floyd wasn't considered progressive rock; rather, they were a psychedelic rock band. The term “progressive rock” emerged in the late 1960s as a way to describe a new wave of underground music that sought to push the boundaries of rock music through complex compositions, innovative instrumentation, and eclectic structure, often featuring medieval folk and classical music sounds. However, during the seventies, when progressive rock was in its heyday, the shorthand “prog,” a much broader category where one can put both Yes and Rush and Pink Floyd and Return to Forever and Tangerine Dream and Dream Theater, did not exist.

as is typical around here you just took a very small part of my thoughts even not including the entire sentence let alone both paragraphs (this is my pet hate tbh)
As I implied it's likely that the original movement was giving way to other musical formats that were art based. Rusb were already taking on these categoristics. I roomed with an AC/DC fan in 1980 when at college and he hated Rush because in his words 'they were trying to be like Genesis' (and he didn't like Genesis that much!). Essentially Rush were coming more from a had rock background but they were clearly influenced by then progressive rock movement more obviously than your typical hard rock band. Just La Villa Strangiato on its own put them well apart from the hard rock scene. Music will always move on. We can just talk about the main pioneers and many do feel that Rush are interlopers somehow or maybe a cuckoo in the nest. 
Oh and the term 'prog' was well in use in 1977 but it mainly referred to ELP, Tull, Floyd,Genesis and Yes who were roundly disliked by the punks. King Crimson were gone by this time and Rush were just too new to be lumped in with those bands.



Posted By: meAsoi
Date Posted: December 25 2024 at 23:51
Originally posted by Hrychu Hrychu wrote:

Quote an artificial genre heading that did not exist at that time
music genres are artificial by definition
There's a difference between an artificial and an organic name for a genre. "Heavy Prog" is a typical artificial genre name created for the needs of this site in order to include hard rock bands like Rush and Uriah Heep in its database. It was apparently created by an individual or a few people who came up with it in favour of the classification system of this site; it wasn't arising from the 70s progressive or heavy music milieu. Unlike an organic name for a genre, such as progressive rock or hard rock, "heavy prog" does not carry any cultural weight outside of this site's needs.


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2024 at 00:41
^ Untrue---   'Heavy Prog' as both a phrase and a subgenre in fact has street credibility, as compared to 'Eclectic' or 'Crossover Prog' which were developed specifically for ProgArchives.   And it was not "created by an individual or a few people who came up with it", it existed as a phrase well before it was used here at PA.

-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: meAsoi
Date Posted: December 26 2024 at 00:58
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

^ Untrue---   'Heavy Prog' as both a phrase and a subgenre in fact has street credibility, as compared to 'Eclectic' or 'Crossover Prog' which were developed specifically for ProgArchives.   And it was not "created by an individual or a few people who came up with it", it existed as a phrase well before it was used here at PA.
Ah, the utterly contrived genre label "Heavy Prog" has somehow managed to earn itself a bit of street cred in the illustrious Prog Music Lounge Street, nestled within the cyber metropolis known as Progarchives. One can only marvel at how such an artificial concoction has found its way into the hearts (or perhaps just the playlists) of those who frequent this digital haven. It’s as if someone decided that mixing some acoustic guitar intros and short keys-driven atmospheric passages and other tricks into heavy riffing hard rock songs was a stroke of genius, and now we're all supposed to nod sagely and pretend it's not just another marketing ploy. Bravo, internet! You've done it again!


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2024 at 01:12
^ Thems is fightin' words, and complete nonsense.   It's not a stroke of genius, it's an apt and straightforward term to describe exactly what Rush is.   What's really odd is that the existence of the phrase Heavy Prog bothers you so much.   Did someone give you a Rush CD in your stocking you didn't want?   Or maybe Alex Lifeson insulted your second cousin at an airport years ago.   How did that stick up your ass get there?



-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: December 26 2024 at 01:18
Originally posted by meAsoi meAsoi wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

^ Untrue---   'Heavy Prog' as both a phrase and a subgenre in fact has street credibility, as compared to 'Eclectic' or 'Crossover Prog' which were developed specifically for ProgArchives.   And it was not "created by an individual or a few people who came up with it", it existed as a phrase well before it was used here at PA.
Ah, the utterly contrived genre label "Heavy Prog" has somehow managed to earn itself a bit of street cred in the illustrious Prog Music Lounge Street, nestled within the cyber metropolis known as Progarchives. One can only marvel at how such an artificial concoction has found its way into the hearts (or perhaps just the playlists) of those who frequent this digital haven. It’s as if someone decided that mixing some acoustic guitar intros and short keys-driven atmospheric passages and other tricks into heavy riffing hard rock songs was a stroke of genius, and now we're all supposed to nod sagely and pretend it's not just another marketing ploy. Bravo, internet! You've done it again!

Svetty, is that you again?!
Marketing ploy?! How does a term like "heavy prog" help sell more records?! LOL

I don't know who came up with the term "heavy prog", whether it was someone from PA or not, I don't think it matters. The term got accepted by people because it was a good descriptor for the music. It makes sense and that's what counts in the end. 


Posted By: meAsoi
Date Posted: December 26 2024 at 01:29
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

^ Thems is fightin' words, and complete nonsense.   It's not a stroke of genius, it's an apt and straightforward term to describe exactly what Rush is.   What's really odd is that the existence of the phrase Heavy Prog bothers you so much.   Did someone give you a Rush CD in your stocking you didn't want?   Or maybe Alex Lifeson insulted your second cousin at an airport years ago.   How did that stick up your ass get there?

The artificial genre heading "Heavy Prog" actually dilutes the essence of what made Rush iconic. The term suggests an amalgamation that may not accurately reflect their musical ethos. It's as if someone decided to mix green tea with a pint of beer—an affront to both beverages!

And as for your cheeky suggestion about receiving a Rush CD in one's stocking—well, I daresay that would be quite the gift for any discerning rock enthusiast! However, for those more inclined to progressive rock and less inclined towards the thunderous sounds of hard rock (albeit infused with virtuosity), such a present might indeed feel like receiving socks instead of something truly delightful.

While "Heavy Prog" may roll off the tongue with an air of sophistication (or perhaps pretentiousness), it fails to encapsulate the true spirit of Rush. They are hard rockers at heart who occasionally flirt with progressive ideas but remain steadfastly rooted in their electrifying sound.


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2024 at 01:43
Actually they were heavy blues for years until at least the second record.   But then, all rock variations are blues-based, even Floyd, Tull, and of course Sabbath & Zep which were, I'm sorry to say, all blues bands until they weren't anymore.   Try telling that to someone who doesn't know rock history and they'd likely laugh at you.   But true nonetheless.

But that's a big part of progressive music, isn't it, the blend of musics that didn't get along with each other until someone got them to start talking.



-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: Hrychu
Date Posted: December 26 2024 at 03:00
Quote There's a difference between an artificial and an organic name for a genre. "Heavy Prog" is a typical artificial genre name created for the needs of this site in order to include hard rock bands like Rush and Uriah Heep in its database. It was apparently created by an individual or a few people who came up with it in favour of the classification system of this site; it wasn't arising from the 70s progressive or heavy music milieu. Unlike an organic name for a genre, such as progressive rock or hard rock, "heavy prog" does not carry any cultural weight outside of this site's needs.
I think your argumentation is getting dangerously close to a fallacy. Genre labels, even back in the day, were (and still are) relative and subjective.

The 'cultural needs' you've mentioned actually did vary significantly from region to region. For example, in 70s Poland and Czechoslovakia, rock music was frowned upon by the government and thus it couldn't be widely advertised, so the "prog" bands from that area at the time, were marketing themselves as more of "jazz" groups rather than "rock" groups.

-------------
“On the day of my creation, I fell in love with education. And overcoming all frustration, a teacher I became.”
— Ernest Vong


Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 26 2024 at 10:30
Originally posted by meAsoi meAsoi wrote:

There's a difference between an artificial and an organic name for a genre.

I agree that genre names and definitions can have different degree of closeness with the real movements.




-------------
                      quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: December 26 2024 at 12:59
No comment......jeez.
n/s: would this mean "not sarcasm"? What would be b/s?



-------------


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 27 2024 at 06:26
Originally posted by jeeglefun jeeglefun wrote:

Is Rush progressive 

Hi,

Considering how many cookie cutter bands get to be considered "progressive", I would say that RUSH is definitely progressive, and I find it sad that folks question it so much ... there aren't/weren/t many bands that had the quantity/quality of a lot of their work in the first place ... makes me wonder how much listening is really being done.


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Zeph
Date Posted: December 27 2024 at 06:50
Some of the albums? Yes.
All of the albums? No.


Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 27 2024 at 07:10
Originally posted by David_D David_D wrote:

Originally posted by meAsoi meAsoi wrote:

There's a difference between an artificial and an organic name for a genre.

I agree that genre names and definitions can have different degree of closeness with the real movements.
Or to put it in a better way, genre names and definitions will always have some degree of subjectiveness, but on the other hand, they can have different degree of closeness with the real movements.



-------------
                      quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond


Posted By: Hrychu
Date Posted: December 27 2024 at 09:52
Now. Here's the question. Is "Heavy Prog" more artificial of a genre label than "Yacht Rock"? 🤔


-------------
“On the day of my creation, I fell in love with education. And overcoming all frustration, a teacher I became.”
— Ernest Vong


Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: December 27 2024 at 10:30
^ How Deep is My Love for Yacht Rock? About as Deep as My Love for Yachtley Crew. Smile



Posted By: Hector Enrique
Date Posted: December 27 2024 at 17:32
Even iconic groups have had albums that were far from progressive rock due to some commercial mutation or musical evolution, or for whatever reason. There are ELP's "Love Beach", Yes's "90125", almost all of Genesis' final stage, Steve Hackett's "Cured", etc, etc... Surely some Rush albums were also a bit distant from the progressive concept (Presto, Roll the Bones, Test for Echo among others), but due to the quantity and quality of albums and songs they have delivered ("By-Tor and Snow Dog", the suites "The Fountain of Lamneth", "2112" and "Cygnus X-1 Book II Hemispheres", Xanadu", "Natural Science", "The Camera Eye", and a list of several etceteras more) it seems to me that the Canadians are part of the great cosmos that is progressive rock and they do it honor.

-------------
Héctor Enrique


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 27 2024 at 18:28
^ Nice.


-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: December 27 2024 at 23:12
Originally posted by Hector Enrique Hector Enrique wrote:

Even iconic groups have had albums that were far from progressive rock due to some commercial mutation or musical evolution, or for whatever reason. There are ELP's "Love Beach", Yes's "90125", almost all of Genesis' final stage, Steve Hackett's "Cured", etc, etc... Surely some Rush albums were also a bit distant from the progressive concept (Presto, Roll the Bones, Test for Echo among others), but due to the quantity and quality of albums and songs they have delivered ("By-Tor and Snow Dog", the suites "The Fountain of Lamneth", "2112" and "Cygnus X-1 Book II Hemispheres", Xanadu", "Natural Science", "The Camera Eye", and a list of several etceteras more) it seems to me that the Canadians are part of the great cosmos that is progressive rock and they do it honor.

This does inadvertently raise another question, not so much about Rush but progressive rock in general, does it need to be actually 'good' to be progressive? At some point most bands of any style have done their best work and never better it. They carry on regardless (not Syd James and Hattie Jacques I'm talking about here though Wink) and sometimes reinvent themselves and the music in doing so rather than just release limp pastiche versions of classic albums (Yes **cough**). Rush did go through different incarnations but never stunk up the place. Roll The Bones was actually the album that brought me back to Rush in the 90's. I thought it was fresh sounding and interesting. Many though regard it as their worst album. Another reason why I like them so much.


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: December 28 2024 at 00:46
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Rush did go through different incarnations but never stunk up the place. Roll The Bones was actually the album that brought me back to Rush in the 90's. I thought it was fresh sounding and interesting. Many though regard it as their worst album. Another reason why I like them so much.


They never "stunk up the joint," but at times they got a bit close for my comfort. Unfortunately, I do think Roll the Bones isn't aging that well, mainly due to the dodgy production and the meh-ness (pun intended) of Side 2, with the worst offenders being "Neurotica" and "You Bet Your Life."

Counterparts was a huge step back in the right direction! I skip no songs on that one (and I do on Test for Echo).

But, on the '90s flipside, Alex's Victor album is very much a foray into elements Rush didn't incorporate, and I think it's a successful one. Geddy's My Favorite Headache is very solid, too.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 28 2024 at 04:20
Originally posted by Hrychu Hrychu wrote:

... in 70s Poland and Czechoslovakia, rock music was frowned upon by the government and thus it couldn't be widely advertised, so the "prog" bands from that area at the time, were marketing themselves as more of "jazz" groups rather than "rock" groups.

Btw, it's definitely not my impression that Rock music was any problem in the 1970s Poland. For instance, the Polish (state) Radio was playing whole albums of the most popular Western Rock bands, and did it in a way so it was very convenient to record them on tape recorders / cassette decks.


-------------
                      quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond


Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: December 28 2024 at 04:58
A wise owl says By-Tor and the Snow Dog is the most progressive of all of Rush's songs, maybe. Smile



Posted By: Grumpyprogfan
Date Posted: December 28 2024 at 05:46
^That Owl isn't very wise, Paul.


Posted By: Hector Enrique
Date Posted: December 28 2024 at 08:23
I love By-Tor and Snow Dog, and it's on my list of best Rush songs.

-------------
Héctor Enrique


Posted By: johnobvious
Date Posted: December 28 2024 at 08:33
I just finished Geddy Lee's book and he referred to their music as prog rock several times like it was a given.


-------------
Biggles was in rehab last Saturday



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk