Can we put Rush in the super prog category?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26478
Printed Date: February 18 2025 at 10:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Can we put Rush in the super prog category?
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Subject: Can we put Rush in the super prog category?
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 07:54
|
Hello progheads.
This week I enjoyed the Rush Replay box and was again impressed by the incredible high level of this seminal Canadian progrock trio. Along with the DVD's Rush In Rio and R30 you can conclude that during the years Rush have made lots of outstanding compositions like Xanadu, La Villa Strangiato, Jacob's ladder, Natural Science and YYZ, to name a few. Between the early Seventies and the mid-Eighties they have turned from a Led Zep/Cream/Hendrix inspired progressive hardrock band into a highly acclaimed heavy progressive high-tec orchestra'. I wonder or Rush can be put in the same category as bands like Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, ELP and Pink Floyd, the superprog category?
Personally I have the opinion that Rush is the only band that can compete with the socalled superprogrock bands because of their outstanding high technical level, compositional skills and adventurous approach, their innovative sound, their serie of great albums (I would like to focus on the era 1976-1986) and their huge influence on (prog) rock bands all over the world
 !I am curious to your opinion about this: am I too subjective as a huge Rush fan or do Rush deserve a place among Yes, Genesis, ELP, Pink Floyd and King Crimson in the super prog category?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 08:02
I have the same opinion. If they're not in the supergroup, they are only just outside.
I heard some people say that the main reason they missed out on the "Big 6" is because they started too late. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10"> 
|
erik neuteboom wrote:Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 08:12
|
Wait, Rush isn't in the superprog category? I always thought they were. ------------- 
|
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 08:15
|
^ I also think that this is the reason But alongside these big 5, I think we should put Rush and Jethro Tull
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 08:18
|
If the criteria is musicianship, and creative songwriting, then yes! If it's album sales then possibly yes, also. I wouldn't be suprised if they had sold more albums over their career so far, than King Crimson or ELP. Remember ELP split in the late 70's, and didn't do anything until ELPowell which flopped. In that time Rush had released Permenant Waves, Moving Pictures, Signals, Grace Under Pressure all of which were top ten albums (I think) That was on the back of 2112 (which has gone platinum more than once) I think they have sold in excess of 45,000,000 albums.
They are 'Premier League' as far as I'm concerned. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 08:19
Three quick reactions, two from Greece, remarkably  !
About their sales, good point
 ! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 08:22
|
I don't think so. I can't no way compare Rush with the big names you mentioned ( and some other ones you forgot ).
To me they are in a second or third division, which means they are good. Of course, fans won't agree with me.
Greetings to everybody.
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 08:23
I agree. |
Posted By: Frasse
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 08:44
Among the mentioned bands, only Pink Floyd have sold more than Rush, I think. |
Posted By: Phil
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 08:50
|
"Superprog"...a sort of PA "Hall of Fame?!
I've always thought Rush were one of the "big" prog bands!
|
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 09:04
Reading other peoples' replies, I just noticed that you missed out Jethro Tull from the "Big 6".  I thought we had sorted this out on the forum.   ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 09:12
|
Let's see what the rankings in our own PA say.... Ranked by their third best album: 1 [8] Genesis 2 [12] Yes 3 [13] Pink Floyd 4 [17] King Crimson 5 [28] Rush 6 [29] Camel 7 [46] Gentle Giant 8 [50] VDGG 9 [57] Dream Theater 10 [61] Opeth Not in the top 10: Jethro Tull [92] and ELP [80]. Ranked by their fourth best album: 1 [11] Genesis 2 [34] Yes 3 [38] Pink Floyd 4 [48] Rush 5 [49] Gentle Giant 6 [62] Dream Theater 7 [65] VDGG 8 [96] Porcupine Tree 9 [99] King Crimson 10 [101] ELP Still no Tull [116] Let's go with their fifth best albums: 1 [24] Genesis 2 [55] Pink Floyd 3 [60] Rush 4 [63] Gentle Giant 5 [68] Yes 6 [72] Dream Theater 7 [119] Jethro Tull 8 [127] King Crimson 9 [137] Camel 10 [200] Marillion Sixth, you say? 1 [70] Genesis 2 [81] Yes 3 [87] Gentle Giant 4 [111] Rush 5 [133] Dream Theater 6 [156] Pink Floyd 7 [145] King Crimson 8 [171] Jethro Tull 9 [245] Porcupine Tree 10 [263] Camel One last shot, lucky seven: 1 [71] Genesis 2 [115] Yes 3 [138] Gentle Giant 4 [174] Pink Floyd 5 [176] Jethro Tull 6 [187] Dream Theater 7 [239] Rush 8 [252] King Crimson 9 [305] Camel 10 [419] Porcupine Tree conclusion: based on this, ELP should not be mentioned as one of the supergroups, Gentle Giant, Jethro Tull, Dream Theater, Rush and possibly Camel have a good claim on that status. ------------- Blog this: http://artrock2006.blogspot.com |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 09:13
|
Even though their appeal was diminished for me, I believe they are members of prog's elite class. They may be on a slightly lower tier, because they were not as influential as the others. Before all the fanboys get upset, this is only because of timing. The others just had a head start. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: BDTF
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 09:33
|
Hello everybody,
I did the following to get a (somewhat) objective answer to this question. I gave points to every release in the PA top 100. Number 1 (CTTE) got 100 points, number 2 (TAAB) got 99 points and so on...
Then I counted the first three albums of every band and in doing so I got the following:
(1) Genesis 97 + 96 + 93 = 286
(2) Pink Floyd 98 + 95 + 88 = 281 (3) Yes 100 + 91 + 89 = 280 (4) King Crimson 94 + 87 + 84 = 265 (5) Rush 92 + 86 + 73 = 251 (6) Camel 81 + 79 + 72 = 232 (7) Gentle Giant 83 + 70 + 55 = 208 (8) Van Der Graaf Generator 82 + 74 + 51 = 207 (9) Dream Theater 85 + 62 + 44 = 191 (10) Jethro Tull 99 + 66 + 9 = 174 (11) Opeth 60 + 48 + 40 = 148 (12) ELP 65 + 47 + 21 = 133 (13) Pain Of Salvation 56 + 43 + 34 = 133 So if you follow this way of thinking, Rush certainly belongs in the "super-prog" category.
If you ask my (really subjective) opinion on this matter: yes, Rush belongs in the all-time top 5!!!! ------------- BDTF - Belgian Dream Theater Fan |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 09:40
|
Historically, when people have talked of these prog super groups, they meant 2 things: - the band was recording in the early 70's;
- they achieved widespread recognition.
Genesis, Yes, Pink Floyd, ELP and Jethro Tull meet both of these criteria and King Crimson is included because they were in there at the beginning.
Of all the other bands, they either came on the scene too late or were not widely popular enough. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: Baza
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 09:46
| I believe that Rush doesn't belong there. I think that Rush is more a hard rock than prog band, they reached their peak later than most of the other big groups, and they are not British!! There are exactly 9 big prog bands, you know which bands I'm talking about. The rating in this site has nothing to do with Rush being a "super-prog" band. The criteria for that is importance and influence of the bands on the music scene. |
Posted By: pirkka
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 10:39
I agree about Rush, completely.
But now I must dissagree "are not British!!" shame shame shame on you!
 Allthough Prog has a lot of it's origins in brittish music scene it is not brittish music. It is mostly EUROPEAN! And also bands from USA and Canada were there when the style evolved. Classical music is the one biggest influence to turn rock into prog and, pardon me, Britain has never been in the superleague of calassical music.
So being non-brittish is no reason why a band could not be a superhyperprogband! Perkele!
Pirkka
|
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 10:52
RUSH IS A GREAT BAND... BUT ONLY THE EUROPEAN BAND ARE FOR INCLUDING IN THIS CATEGORY!!!! ------------- 
|
Posted By: pirkka
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 10:56
And where do you put these: Moody Blues, Caravan, Barclay James Harvest, Camel, Deep Purple, Gentle Giant, Renaissance, Strawbs, Uriah Heep, VdGG?
Pirkka
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 11:00
I think you are quite right. I am a major Rush fan (it wasn't that hard to miss, BTW...  ), but I admit that their having started later than the others has been detrimental to their being considered part of the so-called 'big league'. However, they have been (and still are) extremely influential for the newer prog groups, notably Muse, TMV and Tool as well - not to forget DT, of course... |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 11:00
Not proggy enough:
Moody Blues
Barclay James Harvest
Deep Purple
Uriah Heep
Not popular enough:
Caravan
Camel
Gentle Giant
Renaissance
Strawbs
VdGG
No offense to anyone. I'm not the one who thought up the idea of the "Big 6". ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: pirkka
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 11:27
|
I don't know who thinks that he has some authority to say that these bands belong to some big 6 but IMHO popularity can not, must not be a factor when you decide the big X of prog. Pop is popular. Art has never been.
If Moody Blues is not in the big whatsoever then no band is. It's helluva proggy and it was there in the beginning. (And they were popular as well. They did not rent an aeroplane like the rest did. They had their own!)
Pirkka
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 11:42
Didn't know you were such a huge Rush fan, but anyways  .I think it's difficult to be completely objective about Rush's place in the prog pantheon when you're a big fan of their music; also, when discussing prog "greats" is it solely the quality of musical output, or do we take into account influence on the prog scene and other such factors? Personally, I don't think I'd be too out of line by putting them in the same class as ELP and King Crimson, and maybe close to Floyd. I'd think that Yes and Genesis will probably remain in a class above - certainly I've expressed many times here my belief that Yes is the pinnacle of progressive music. |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 12:46
|
From the very first moment I heard Rush (All The World's A Stage), I was impressed by their interplay and dynamic sound and since then they only improved with the Exit Stage Left era as their pinnacle in my opinion. I was also lucky to see them many times between 1979-1986 so they became my second favorite progrock band, after 70-77 Genesis. I am pleased with the many reactions, unfortunately Tony R is asleep
... |
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 12:48
Tony R shouldn't be asleep, it's around 6 in the evening where he is, Eric. And he's on vacation, so why would he be here? And I do agree with what you stated at the beginning of this thread  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Flip_Stone
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 13:00
|
RUSH? Super-prog??? I don't think so. This is the same band that started drifting away from prog. in the late 1980's, and still hasn't returned.
Let's instead put them in the Overrated category, along with Yes and Pink Floyd...
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 13:00
|
I like some aspects of Rush music; but ¿"Supergroup"?... their discography is too uneven. In fact, their albums are too uneven. Even the good ones are good ones because of a percentage of the whole thing; while songs like "Cinderella Man" work their way to lead albums to ruin. The way I see it, Rush is a less focused band than Pink Floyd, for example. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: Masque
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 13:09
I have my own top 6 and Rush are in it ! it does at times seem like people still think the prog world is flat once you step outside Europe you fall over the edge .. well its not flat unless you like it being flat ... but wouldn`t that thinking be limiting and some what anti progressive ?  ------------- |
Posted By: glass house
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 13:44
| I don't really care if they are of the big 5, 6 or 7. I like them alot. That's all that matters for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 14:32
|
not even in the big 20 for me
-------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: glass house
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 14:41
We know, BaldJean
. |
Posted By: billbuckner
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 15:00
Wow! I mean, like, none of the other big prog bands did that!
|
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 15:17
| I think the overall quality of RUSH's releases through the years is totally awesome, and in this field they beat GENESIS, YES and even KING CRIMSON, though I enjoy KC's music more, and I think it's more imaginative. Still, they are one of the great bands, though they started quite late, wasn't their first album out 1974? Their music also started to gain progressive elements little later, when the first generation of classic prog started to fade out. |
Posted By: dralan
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 15:24
| I love Rush as much as the next guy, but I cant say I'd place them in the 'super prog' category along with Yes, Genesis etc. I was a huge Rush fan in their heyday and seen them 4 times from '78-'81. I know there is alot of people here who like their later material, but to me it is very uninspired and unfocused. Rush may have had some prog elements to their music, but Ive always seen them as something like thinking mans hard-rock power trio, not full blown progressive. |
Posted By: sm sm
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 15:32
|
When they are "more faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings at a single bound" then Rush or any other band can be labeled as "Superprog".
Any progressive rock band that continues to tough it out, well knowing they are not going to sell a lot of cds through playing this music today, and does not sell out, like Genesis, or a lot of bands that came after the prog heyday and continued play this unfashionable music are "superprog" bands in my book.
|
Posted By: Liquid Len
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 15:37
Rush...Prog?
 Oh don't make me laugh.....no don't you're killing me!
------------- Can you tell me where my country lies? |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 15:56
Funny to notice that since I became a Rush fan, this band still succeeds to evoke totally opposite opinions as you can read in the reactions till so far. Lots of progheads are very positive and even sheer euphoric, others seem to take the opportunity to release some venom and sarcasm, it's all between hail and nail  ... !
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 16:05
|
I'd rather put Gong into the super prog category. some of the very best prog musicians played in that band
-------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 16:08
|
"Not even in the big 20 for me" ... ..!
|
Posted By: alan_pfeifer
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 16:12
| I've always considered them top-tier material. I don't see how Rush aren't as influential as other bands. |
Posted By: WaywardSon
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 16:13
You fall over the edge and land in South America. Then you realize Rush, like Kansas, are in the super prog category!
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 16:17
| Well, WaywardSon, the Brasilian crowd delivered a great progrock carnival atmosphere on the Live In Rio DVD, very emotional to witness how happy progheads can be while enjoying Rush for the first time in their country! |
Posted By: WaywardSon
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 16:22
| I was actually at the show they did before Rio (in Porto Alegre) What memories!! |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 16:24
| Was that the show in the rain? |
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 16:32
|
Definitely should be. One of the most influential bands, I put them over a majority of the bands considered in the "big 5" My view on prog is more or less like this. Jimi Hendrix may have been the first great guitar player, but that doesn't make him the all time best (and he certainly is not). I feel the same with many old prog bands, that while good and even excellent, that doesn't necessarily give them a passage to eternity as best ever. ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: Liquid Len
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 16:34
Because they're not prog?
------------- Can you tell me where my country lies? |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 16:37
|
Most influential? Doubtful. And thanks God for that! Or rather, thanks Goddess. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 16:43
|
OpethGuitarist for President !
|
Posted By: BebieM
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 17:09
|
Rush is a "good" band, nothing special though or at least not to my taste. Soft Machine on the other hand should be among the big bands |
Posted By: Liquid Len
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 17:12
|
I like Rush, I like them a lot, I have all their albums from Rush to Exit Stage Left and they're all at least very good some are excellent.
However Prog they are definitely NOT. ------------- Can you tell me where my country lies? |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 17:16
|
^ Oh come on! Overall, sure they're not prog. But in the mid-late 70s, they did make hard prog influenced rock. Simple as that. Symphonic like Genesis/Yes? No, but it was there, for however short a time. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 17:21
|
If Rush was not progressive rock between 1977 and 1983 we have to close this site immediately ...
|
Posted By: WaywardSon
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 17:34
Yes, the same one!
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 17:44
|
I read about it, very heavy rain showers, like on Woodstock 1969 ("stop that rain")!
|
Posted By: Zac M
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 17:50
 ------------- "Art is not imitation, nor is it something manufactured according to the wishes of instinct or good taste. It is a process of expression." -Merleau-Ponty |
Posted By: MajesterX
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 18:41
your serious? have you ever Listened to Hemispheres? Cygnus C-1? 2112??? You can't seriously say those songs are not prog! 2112 is as much prog as Close to the Edge. Of couse they should be in the Super Prog category. Oh, yeah, it does NOT matter what so ever where the band comes from. It's like not adding Opeth or POS into the Prog Metal Greats genre because they're not American. Prejudice. ------------- 
|
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 20:49
|
All those who say Rush aren't prog are basing their stance on what? Because they haven't had a 10+ minute epic since 1981? If it's because of other reasons, I'd certainly like to know.
They have just as much right to be in the super category as any band. E ------------- 
|
Posted By: Aaron
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 21:03
|
rush suck
Aaron
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 21:17
Yea, you might not have a taste for them but to call them not progressive? Why because they didn't have a mellotron.
I agree with previous posters that their late start probably has kept them out of the big five recognition even though their material, popularity, and influence clearly give them acceptance.
I disagree with you erik when you said theyre the only band that can compete with the giants though. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 21:19
|
What an excellent idea. This injustice should have been rectified long ago!
|
Posted By: MajesterX
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 22:32
Oh Good! A wonderful insight and thoughtful addition to our discussion!  -------------
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: July 24 2006 at 23:24
Well, I can't say they are not prog. As I said before, they have good moments. I don't care if a band have 10 seconds songs, or a 32 hours epic. Is not about formal elements; it is about conceptual ones. And Rush is uneven. when they want, the level of their creations surprises because of how simple but effective they are. But a fair amount of their musical production is less that average; boring sometimes. As for the Supergroup thing, I think I really don't care. please join me in my crusade to list every band under Proto Prog Alpha Male Elctronic Sandwich Morgan Freeman Related label. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 02:04
I would agree and their work "Tales From Topographic Oceans" is in my opinion the "Flag Ship" progressive rock album of all time.
As far as Rush goes. Well, I think that metal gets a pretty fair representation here, so you can bet it's going to be a bit biased for bands like Rush, on this web site anyway. I'm not a big fan of Rush but I can see how they might be considered in the top tier of prog bands.
|
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 03:16
|
Tales is a garbage album. There is a LOT of things wrong with Tales.
The tone is about as horrible as it gets for one. They do get some
things right, but overall it's not a good representation of prog, and
the good things are overshadowed by the horrible sections. I'm not even
talking about the eccentricity of the concept, I am talking about the
actual music itself. Crimson's "ITCOTCK" is an album I would point to for that matter, and even Frank Zappa's "Hot Rats" Also, I don't guess I will ever "get" some of the older members here. It seems as though some of you have one interpretation of Prog and that if it's not album X by band X, then it isnt prog and isn't worthy music. Elitism is one thing, stubbornness is another. Like I have said before, just because you were the first doesn't make you the best and it doesn't make you the only one with excellent musical sense. ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 03:24
|
No idea if I count as "older", but Rush nevertheless don't do it fo me.
They simply lack the original ideas I am looking for in prog. I am not
after instrumental virtuosity, though if it is there it is a nice
add-on. But some bands never had the big virtuosos (though solid
musicans), but a lot of original ideas, and I much prefer them to Rush.
And some had both (Gong for example).
------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Liquid Len
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 03:30
Yes I am serious.
No more Prog than Iron Maiden on Seventh Son. ------------- Can you tell me where my country lies? |
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 03:36
|
I could care less if someone likes or dislikes Rush. If you don't like
Rush, that's fine and I can totally understand why. It's when you close
yourself off becuase a band doesn't have the name you like, and you are
unwilling to accept that their's other music that is great and might
even be better than those classics you love. One can be elitist, but please don't be stubborn enough to believe that Yes is the only band in existence who did anything great and no one will ever do anything great again.(just a random example) ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 03:37
what is your definition of prog? ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: Hierophant
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 03:46
|
Who is "we" and what the hell is the "super-prog category"?
------------- 
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 04:08
|
About Aaron and his 'creative contribution' "Rush sucks", he is the same who said in another thread that "most progrock bands sucks live" , I think he feels fine while hijacking threads with provoking words, like a little boy who behaves negative when he gets no attention or feels bad.
Again I notice very opposite reactions: from BaldFriede who accuses Rush having a lack of original ideas and Liquid Len with his "Rush is no more prog than Iron Maiden on Seventh Son to Majester X and OpethGuitarist who are defending Rush enthousiasticly! About the 'super prog category', I created this term in order to point at the seminal Seventies symphonic rock dinosaurs Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, ELP and Pink Floyd as the main influential bands in the history, in my opinion these bands are unsurpassed looking at their serie of great and pivotal albums, their compositional skills and the level of the musicians. My question in this thread is or Rush belongs in that category? My view on Rush (1977-1986 era); Rush their sound is very varied but basically rock, they often swing and put a lot of rock and roll in their compositions. But the captivating element is that Rush also blend this rock/rock and roll based music with a variety of styles, from symphonic rock to ska, reggae and grunge. Personally I am not very happy and excited about Rush their music from their album Presto (1989), in my opinion it's a bit too much the same and not as captivating as the era 1977-1986. But I am sure that many Rush fans don't share this with me ..
|
Posted By: Liquid Len
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 04:14
I don't think that I could easily quantify that, It's far too diverse a genre.
Although having said that people still seem intent on including bands which are clearly not Prog;
Rush, I love them, I'm not putting them down because they're not English. I just wouldn't call them prog, neither;
BJH
Moody Blues
Beatles
Traffic
Goodness me if you include these then you must include Iron Maiden, Megadeth, Alice Cooper, etc. etc. etc. I could go on.
And the Psychomodo is then by definition a Prog masterpiece!
------------- Can you tell me where my country lies? |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 04:24
|
For me 'being prog' is confusing on Prog Archives, for instance I just noticed that Osibisa in added while, I repeat this over and over, bands like The Doors and Santana deserve an addition way more. This confusion is created by the same element as on this thread: personal taste, like progheads who nail Rush and progheads who hail Rush, both sides are convinced that they have good points ... and cannot be punished by the High Court Progrock Inquisition .. !
|
Posted By: pirkka
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 04:41
|
Progressive music is music that progresses. It is kinda opposite to verse based music that keeps repeating the same chorus (pop or rock). Some rock bands seem to progress (like Doors and Lynyrd Skynyrd) but its not prog music. Roughly: rock moves your ass and prog your brain. In songs like LA Woman or Free Bird it is not the musical theme that progresses but the rhythm, the swing. In prog the progressive element is the harmony struckture (melodies and arrangement). It is a variation of sonata form.
A band is not either prog or not prog. It is a composition that should be evaluated. A band that has a tendency to produce more or less proggish compositions should be listed as a prog band.
Pirkka
|
Posted By: Hierophant
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 05:39
|
I would say yes, to a lesser extent compared to the prog "dinosaurs" of the 70s. Rush were definitely influential. Dream Theater would not exist if it weren't for Rush, and if DT didn't exist than a whole host of 90s prog/prog metal "revival" bands would not have existed either. but... Rush were not innovators like Genesis, Yes, ELP, Pink Floyd who are the forefathers of prog-rock. They pioneered the complex song structures and laid the foundations for Rush to plug their own ideas into. Not to mention they came from a later generation of music. In the shadow's of the prog dinosaurs of the 70s Rush are a speck on the radar screen. No one is denying they made great music, but I think the the super d00per [morgan freeman] catagory of prog rock is reserved for the classic prog bands who were the trailblazers of prog. -------------
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 06:34
I do! ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 07:14
|
Please! Does it really matter that much? Anyone is free to make their
own "Big 6" or "Super Prog Category", with whatever bands they want.
Making an elite category would only be inflamatory, because there will
always be someone who feel some band(s) are left out. Personally, I have always regarded Rush as one of the greats, but I can understand why some people doesn't. The thing is, I know that the people who doesn't consider Rush as one of the "Big 6" will never do it, so there's no point in trying to convince them. Rush is one of those bands that you either adore or hate, and it's important to respect other people's opinions, to let them like whatever they want. Can't you people see how pointless this discussion is? |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 07:53
There are bands of the "new era" that I love. Porcupine Tree is one for sure. I do not enjoy music just because a certain band performs it. I know what I like and I like what I know.
To me Heavy Metal or even so called "hard rock" wears thin with me. This is not to say I don't listen to it, but just not quite as often. As
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 08:00
The name of the band matters not with me. I listen to many bands but some just stick out with me as being more personally appealling. Porcupine Tree is one of those bands. I love their stuff, but I seldom listen to Rush anymore at all. I seldom listen to Genesis anymore to be honest. I have never been a real big fan of "metal" although I do spin the odd disc once in a while. I am always on the look out for new music I can get my head around. Simple as that.
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 08:21
Just look at the evidence - side-long epics (on Caress of Steel, 2112 and Hemispheres), multi-part epics (the afore-mentioned plus By-Tor and the Snow Dog to name but one), songs about fantasy subjects (The Necromancer), songs based on classical poetry (Xanadu), use of unusual time signatures (many examples), use of electronic instrumentation etc etc. Granted this applies mainly to their early stuff, but they still meet the criteria with ease. How can you have a song called "By-Tor and the Snow Dog" and not be prog?
|
Posted By: Liquid Len
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 09:00
|
OK.
Side long epics, multi parts, unusual time sigantures.
I give you Extreme, Three Sides to Every Story, Prog?
------------- Can you tell me where my country lies? |
Posted By: Single Coil
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 09:42
|
I say Yes, they are a prog super-group.
If you take their most commercial album from the 80's, say Power Windows or Hold Your Fire... it is still far less of a cop-out and sell-out than 90125, Love Beach, Abacab, etc. I personally don't believe Rush ever had much of a "low". They have been pretty consistent.
They have been very influential, if you remember who they influenced. Prog metal bands owe alot to Rush, where the neo prog bands do not.
They are good live. Nice long sets and obvious ability.
There is an overlying theme in their music. I guess that's due to the lyrics. But even when the music doesn't sound that proggy, there is still a complex theme that runs through all of their music. There is an arc of progress that only long time fans would notice... but it's there, and it shows that they have a long term plan to put out ideas.
Or I could be totally wrong !
------------- If it's worth playing, it's worth playing loud! |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 09:45
My question is, does it really matter?
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 10:04
Does it really matter Phileas? Of course there are more burning musical questions and there are more important things in life to spend time on but .. yes, it matters if you like to discuss this kind of questions, it's part of the existence of The Forum, looking at the many, often interesting reactions I am glad I have started it  ! And I have no problem at all with some negative and even childish reactions, that's also part of setting up a thread. And although I am a huge fan of Rush, I can imagine that progheads are not pleased with the Rush sound, personally I don't like prog metal, Canterbury, jazz and experimental prog, I simply cannot listen to it as progheads cannot bear the distinctive, very dynamic and captivating 77-86 Rush sound !
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 10:48
| Well, my point is, the discussion won't lead anywhere. At least that's what my experience of discussing Rush with people who don't like them tells me. |
Posted By: Aaron
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 10:59
it's because of you Rush fans that still live at your parents house, play Dungeons and Dragons, go to euro board gaming conventions to play tournaments of Puerto Rico and Transamerica, and can't get a girlfriend, that us normal Prog Rock fans have to put up with the stereotype of progheads being dorks that like all that fruity sh*t
Aaron
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 11:28
Stop the darned flaming now!  None of us want this topic to turn into a flame war, so please, avoid the personal insults. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 11:46
Don't know, never heard the song. It's possible that this song is prog in itself, but it would have to be representative of the majority of their output to make them a prog band.
|
Posted By: Aaron
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 11:59
hahaha, chill out dude, i have all of those above listed qualities, except that i have never been to a euro board game convention
my thoughts on rush besides sucking are as follows
that weren't part of the influential groundbreaking classic era, their major influences can be heard in prog metal, which gets enough criticism as it is
also, i don't think their sound if very colorful, blame it on only 3 members or blame it on bad song writing, take your pick, but probably because of bad song writing, because ELP could write colorful songs despite being so pompous
i used to like rush, i can't think of the last time i listened to one of their albums, they are a bit of a snoozefest
"fly by night, ooohhh the mountain dew"
Aaron
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 12:33
|
I have asked Easy Livin to warn Aaron because of his agressive childish behaviour (not only in this thread) and I would like to ask all visitors of this thread "don't react no longer on his reactions" because these are not meant serious, thanks in advance!
And now for something completely different
...About the Rush compositions: in the era 77-88, especially between A Farewell To Kings and Moving Pictures, Rush made many longer compositions featuring lots of shifting moods, great dynamics (surprising breaks, mellow and heavy parts and acoustic - and electric movements), tasteful ingredients (Moog Taurus bass pedals, Moog - and Oberhem synthesizers, assorted percussion) and excellent soli. These elements made listening to Rush to a very exciting experience
! |
Posted By: Aaron
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 13:17
not to get off track, because i know how important it is that you guys figure out if Rush has what it takes to be super prog goup
BUT, Extreme is a great band, and probably more progressive than Rush was at the time, just a guess
Pornograffiti and Three Sides are greats albums (both have prog tendencies), Nuno should be ranked among the great shredders, no diggity
Aaron
|
Posted By: Liquid Len
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 13:36
More Rush Albums post Hemispheres than pre, therefore the majority of their output isn't Prog.
So Rush (who used to have some Prog tendencies) are not (based on the majority of their output) Prog
Just to emphasise I LOVE Rush and have TEN of their albums all good some excellent.
BUT THEY AIN'T PROG ------------- Can you tell me where my country lies? |
Posted By: spacecraft
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 14:39
|
The answer is NO. They have not done enough for prog music to warrent in the premier league of prog.
And, influencing prog metal, should be the nail in their coffin. ------------- To Him as the Supreme King and Judge we commit our cause, casting our cares upon Him and firmly trusting that He will inspire us with courage and bring our enemies to nought. |
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 15:17
What's wrong with prog metal? Sure there are a lot of bad bands and bad albums, as in any genre of music, but there are also some very talented and unique bands, it's also probably one of the Broadest genre's we have on this site. Listen to Kayo Dot, or Pelican, and tell me that they sound anything like Dream Theater with a straight face. Influencing someone has no bearing on their ability or lack of ability. ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 15:31
Well, when I picked up Brian Aydair (prog metal specialist) from the Schiphol Airport Amsterdam last week, we started to talk about prog music. When we visited a record store with a large prog metal section, Brian explained to me how broad this genre is (I was not aware of this .. ), he even dislikes Dream Theater, I couldn't imagine because I thought that if you love progmetal you are always up to their sound...
Back to Rush, I cannot imagine that you love Rush but at the same time don't consider Rush as progrock.
And looking at the many reactions on this thread I have the idea that it's 50-50 to the answer of Rush belongs to the super prog category.
|
Posted By: juanvalverde
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 15:55
I agree a 100%. Prog music works your brain. But hey, there are also diferent opinions around here. I hear some of the new progmetal bands or so they are called, like opeth, and i dont think they deserve to be cataloged as prog. But that is only my opinion. As for Rush, OF COURSE they are prog. They have many of the elements described in this site, as many of the ones used by bands like Genesis and Yes. If you dont think Rush is Prog, than probably Pink Floyd isnt. They dont sound like prog to me. But again, its only my opinion. To me, the big 5 (big 6 or 7, whatever) is independent to each person.... Genesis, Rush, Yes, Pink Floyd, (for me its only the big 4) ------------- Dream Theater made me listen to Rush,Yes, ELP, Genesis.. That must count for something! |
Posted By: Aaron
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 16:08
|
my main problem with most prog metal is that it is hardly prog and hardly metal, it covers up its pussefisidiousness with technical musicianship, and that sh*t has been played out is Rush prog, sure they are, but the problem is that they only fit the definition of prog that we use nowadays, they never ever fit the definition of the avant-garde/art rock form of progressive rock like Yes, Genesis, KC, VDGG, PF (sort of) and others of the beginning
Aaron
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 16:21
|
I thought I would grant Erik his wish and deign to grace this thread.
Unfortunately,though I am on Holiday,I am still bound by the ancient laws of The Grand Moderator.
Therefore I cannot possibly describe Aaron as a moron as that would be disrespectful.......
.....to morons.
Nor could I suggest that his presence on this forum is about as welcome as a fart in a space suit.
Why the likes of BF get involved in a discussion about Rush is beyond me.We have all accepted that Gong are the only important band in Progressive Rock,despite the fact that Gong are neither progressive nor do they rock.
Whilst Gong were happily ensuring through their winning formula of combining a throwaway joke with soporific musicianship that prog would be confined to the margins,Rush with their lack of imagination,terribly unappealing vocalist and ill-educated unintelligent drummer were struggling to have an impact in the US charts with their #3 albums Permanent Waves,Moving Pictures and Signals.This at a time when Punk and New Wave had ensured the extinction of the dinosaurs.Heck even their Live album ESL got to #6 in the American chart and all the subsequent 80s output went top 10. In the Uk more affected by the Punk explosion Rush managed a string of Top 5 albums and a Top 20 single-this from a Canadian Band! Rush have been a band since 1969 BTW and released their first album in 1974.
Ok so popularity is not a sign of quality,but Rush have never been a commercial band nor have they ever had the weight of the media behind them to help them along.They have always done things their way and are easily the most professional Prog band around.
Rush are far more influential to todays Rock,Prog and Metal bands than any of the 70s so-called Supergroups. Read any drum magazine and you will see Peart feted as a god by hundreds of top drummers and the band in general gets namechecked more than all the so-called Prog Supergroups put together. I am not making this up.
But for Rush,none of us would probably be here......
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 16:28
I think Genesis had sold 80 Million by Invisible Touch. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: chessman
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 16:50
|
There will never be a satisfactory answer to this question, Rush always stirs up extreme view points. People seldom sit on the fence with them. I have played Rush to numerous people over the years, and, to a man, they have all said the same "good music, shame about that voice". Geddy gets up a lot of people's noses, it seems. Personally, I have enjoyed Rush since Caress Of Steel came out. I think most of their output has been solid to excellent, whatever the phase. Funnily enough, I was never keen on 2112, or Fly By Night. But the rest of their early stuff, up to Permanent Waves, was, and still is, superb. And yes, I think thair early stuff does have proggish qualities, though the band themselves are, probably, overall, not truely prog in the accepted term.
Caress Of Steel, 2112,A Farewell To Kings and Hemispheres are all very much prog influenced albums. But I also love the later stuff, like Presto, Roll The Bones and Counterparts, though these have little in common with prog really.
Yes, I would say they were and are influencial enough to include in the big 6, they are certainly better than ELP for instance!
(Incidentally, I thought they actually formed back in 1968, while still at school. Of course, this would make them as old, or older than some of the so-called giants. (Yes formed also in '68. ELP came later)
Just out of interest, I do agree that, just because a band rose to prominence early on, it doesn't make that band the best. A quick example: Yes were my second favourite band (behind Genesis) in the '70s. However, I think The Flower Kings, obviously influenced in a big way by them, are far superior, and more consistent musically. (And I still am a Yes fan!)
So yes, give Rush a vote from me. A consistent band over a long period who have been influencial in prog, though mainly in the prog-metal sub genre.
|
Posted By: Aaron
Date Posted: July 25 2006 at 17:06
alright, seriously, someone ban this jerk
i am not really sure what i said that was so moronic, does everything on this forum have to contribute so that we have a well developed thread where a definite conclusion is created and posters opinions are swayed by the comments made by others, oh wait, it never works out that way
therefore, my comments of no value, true, have about as much value as a thread on whether or not Rush should be more highly regarded, to what purpose baffles me, is it so that Rush fans have something to be proud of, what do you Rush dorks want out of this, more Rush threads for your silly Rush heads
Aaron
|