Rush Overvalued band

poslednijat_colobar wrote: I salute you my friend - some people haven't any imagination in their posts. Only the same and the same!

Yeah.

What's all the fuss about?  I have to say that Rush were rarely mentioned in my circle of friends in the 70's and early 80's and none of them had any of their albums. Of the 6 or so albums in my collection I had to relegate them to my secondary storage system to make way for albums I preferred more. I won't say whether they are over-rated or not, because that is down to individual's taste, but they are just not my cup of tea.

GhostWorks wrote: King By-Tor wrote: topofsm wrote: Actually, despite what I've said earlier, I have to say that they are definetely a prog band, just not as prog as "real" prog bands are.   I mean, how can you deny the progressiveness of "Xanadu", "2112", and "Hemispheres". Of course, sometimes it seems that they changed from being a prog band into a hard rock band that uses 5/4 or 7/4. Other occasions, they pushed limits. I guess they're a bit hit and miss, like lots of prog bands. and what exactly is a REAL prog band? ...and KBT with a wicked baseline backhand...it's 15-all!

I just find it funny sometimes when people say "real" prog band. We all know that they're referring to the giants that shaped the phrase (Genesis, Yes, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull), but when bands clone those bands they're called retro and when they don't appeal to the template their integrity is questioned.

Rush is a collage of progressive "elements" - abnormal time signatures, winding instrumentals, symphonic epics and a general tenancy to change with each album. Things that all the prog giants did.

I think that a "real" prog band no longer exists - since the genre has no hard and fast definition. Bands are either progressive in nature or they're not, and Rush were certainly just as progressive as, say, Genesis in their help in creating the heavy prog genre.

topofsm wrote: Actually, despite what I've said earlier, I have to say that they are definetely a prog band, just not as prog as "real" prog bands are.   I mean, how can you deny the progressiveness of "Xanadu", "2112", and "Hemispheres". Of course, sometimes it seems that they changed from being a prog band into a hard rock band that uses 5/4 or 7/4. Other occasions, they pushed limits. I guess they're a bit hit and miss, like lots of prog bands.

and what exactly is a REAL prog band?

Actually, despite what I've said earlier, I have to say that they are definetely a prog band, just not as prog as "real" prog bands are.

Vi0LaToR wrote: i only said that RUSH is not really a prog band because : if you compare the probably best album of the band "moving pictures" or "farewell to kings" to the probably best album of yes "close to the edge" or fragile", CTTE is so far a best album in comparison.

Hmmm. Rush is not prog, because other prog bands made better albums. Oh boy... Let's just assume that the definition of 'best' means 'matches the definition of prog in the most complete manner'. That means just about all bands on PA are non prog bands, because only one of them recorded CTTE.

timothy leary wrote: are we done yet

Rush may stretch themelves less than a lot of other prog acts, but they are very good at what they do.

Yawns 

To the best of my knowledge, the first progressive rock bands were from England.  That doesn't necessarily make them the best bands, however.  I'd say that all of the previously mentioned bands are great, and are favorites of mine.  I don't know the history of Krautrock, Zeuhl, or Italian Symphonic rock.  I believe that all of these bands came a little later than the original England prog bands.  Personally, I am not really familiar with artists from these areas, but I'd guess that their fans might argue that their bands are better bands than the England bands.  Again, that is merely subjective opinion.  As far as modern prog goes, there is probably a really good argument that Sweden holds the torch these days.  There are hundreds of really good bands coming out of Sweden these days.