| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
motrhead 
Forum Newbie
Joined: May 15 2010
Location: BC,Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 39
|
 Topic: Is Rush really a Prog band ?
Posted: May 16 2010 at 16:42 |
I think they qualify. They are definitely a difficult band to pigeonhole in any one genre, but they did put out a lot of music I would call prog. I wonder how would most of you would categorize side 2 of Moving Pictures (not to mention Tom Sawyer and YYZ) ? What I find interesting is that their more recent albums ( Counterparts on ) were harder than anything they did in the past (more alternative and grungy), up until 2007s Snakes and Arrows...which was named as one of Classic Rock Magazine's "10 essential progressive rock albums of the decade".  |
 |
Mr. Maestro
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2010
Location: Knowhere, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 918
|
Posted: May 14 2010 at 10:33 |
|
Is Rush a prog band? No, of course not. They're a flamenco dance band.
Also, Genesis plays death metal and King Crimson is a rapper.
Journey, on the other hand, is full-blown symphonic prog.
|
|
"I am the one who crossed through space...or stayed where I was...or didn't exist in the first place...."
|
|
lazland
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13797
|
Posted: May 12 2010 at 17:49 |
 Certif1ed wrote:
lazland wrote:
Rush are progressive in every sense of the word - continually moving on and reinventing themselves. |
Um... that's ONE sense of the word 
It's more to do with Lazland's misperception - Prog bands don't necessarily move on and re-invent themselves - but they might.
The inherent progressive nature of Prog rock is completely intertwined with any ideals of literal progression that a band might have.
|
Mark, I think there is a difference between prog & progressive. My take on this was to do with the latter word. Bands can, of course, be prog without being progressive. Sorry, this is probably appropriate for another thread, but I meant that Rush are a truly progressive band, rather than pure prog.
|
|
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
|
|
rod65
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 28 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 248
|
Posted: May 12 2010 at 15:13 |
Hi, Scott:
YOU TRADED SIGNALS FOR ROLLER SKATES!!!???
OK, now that I've got that out of my system ... 
There does seem to be a bit of a divide on who thinks what is prog and isn't, and I suppose it might be largely generational (see below). My own experience is similar to yours if a tad earlier. My first Rush album--and second album overall--was A Farewell to Kings, which I got at the age of 12, on 8-track if you can believe it. I've since owned it on vinyl, cassette, and CD as well. It largely defined for me what rock music was, and I admit that when Rush's style began to seriously shift in the early 80s I was at first a little disappointed. What kept me listening was the simple fact that many of the songs on Signals spoke so directly to my own experience at the time. Then, once I had given the music itself a fair chance, and accepted that no artist can stay the same and yet remain an artist, I found that the new direction was very exciting and, as you said yourself, unlike anything else happening at the time.
As for the other bands you mention, I admit to having liked "Owner of a Lonely Heart" since the first time I heard it, though I do find that early Yes holds my attention more consistently. And as for Genesis, my own introduction was similar to yours, specifically ABACAB. I only discovered Gabriel-era Genesis a few years later. My own take on that band is that the departure of Hacket had a far stronger impact on their music than the departure of Gabriel did. This line of thought it off-topic for this thread, though, so I will call it quits here.
Best wishes,
Rod
|
|
DaysBeforeTomorrow
Forum Newbie
Joined: September 25 2008
Location: Wyckoff, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 34
|
Posted: May 12 2010 at 08:41 |
Thanks Rod.
I think it goes back to the who prog/not prog debate, and my gut tells me that the guys who are in their 50s and up regard Howe-era Yes, Gabriel-era Genesis, and King Krimson as the only "real prog" whereas I grew up in the '80s and was into Collins-era Genesis and Rabin-era Yes long before I grew to appreciate the "old" prog.
My first Rush album was Signals, though I had seen the video for "Limelight" on MTV and knew it was from the Exit Stage Left concert... but I traded Signals for a cool pair of roller skates that my friend had at the time (hey, I was 12 or so, what did I know?). It wasn't until Power Windows that Rush really grabbed my attention and kept it. Today, I still can't stand the first two Rush albums -- Geddy hadn't yet learned to sing :-p.
|
|
rod65
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 28 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 248
|
Posted: May 12 2010 at 08:00 |
Scott:
I share your fondness for Rush's mid-80s albums. They tend to be under-appreciated.
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: May 12 2010 at 02:36 |
|
In the case of Rush being prog, personally I'm on the fence, but I don't think this classification is important.
But it did strike me as being weird that some views here seem to reflect that some people seem to find it excessively important that Rush be classified as prog and nothing else.
I mean, how important is it, exactly? Would it take something away from the actual enjoyment of the music if Rush music was not called prog? It seems strange that in some cases classification here could seriously dent the appreciation of the actual music itself.
|
|
RUSHFANATIC63
Forum Newbie
Joined: May 06 2010
Location: SOUTHSIDE VA
Status: Offline
Points: 11
|
Posted: May 11 2010 at 17:44 |
|
RUSH,may be the 2nd best band ever,led zeppelin would be number 1!!!
i don't kniow what you'd call RUSH,but whatever it is,it's awesome.i have been a fan since 1974,when the 1st lp came out.seen them 1 time live,other than page n plant,the who,ac/dc,or the stones,best concert i ever saw!every RUSH release of new materail is an event,every tour is great!
how many other bands 30 years in,put on 3 hour concerts?
|
|
"there is trouble with the trees
for the maples want more sunlight and the oaks ignore their pleas"
[RUSH-The Trees]
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 11 2010 at 06:04 |
lazland wrote:
Rush are progressive in every sense of the word - continually moving on and reinventing themselves. |
Um... that's ONE sense of the word
DaysBeforeTomorrow wrote:
I think the fundamental disconnect between prog fans who don't think Rush is prog, and those of us who do, is this:
Just because a song has hooks and melodies doesn't make it "not progressive."
|
Not at all - most of Genesis' material has strong melodies and hooks, and it really doesn't get much more melodic and hooky than "Firth of Fifth".
It's more to do with Lazland's misperception - Prog bands don't necessarily move on and re-invent themselves - but they might.
The inherent progressive nature of Prog rock is completely intertwined with any ideals of literal progression that a band might have.
The thing is that a band could re-invent themselves without necessarily playing Prog Rock, so this single aspect means nothing without the music itself being progressive.
The other common mistake is to think that the music is progressive because it somehow "goes somewhere", "tells a story" or otherwise literally progresses. I'd offer "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" by the Charlie Daniels Band as an illustration of why this is not a good measure.
rod65 wrote:
They are the quintessential Heavy Prog band. While their proggiest output was 1976-1980, the intelligence and complexity of their music--key elements in progressive rock--have always been present. |
Another very common misconception - that somehow "intelligence" and "complexity" are key elements, so therefore the result must be Prog - not to mention that people often confuse "complexity" with "complicated".
Many electro bands of the 1980s were "intelligent", and ABBA had some very complex arrangements - see how this assumption falls apart?
In any case, Prog is not a jigsaw puzzle comprised of key elements - we can identify elements in it, just as we can identify chromosomes in genes, but you'd really have to know what you're looking for to be able to discover any kind of "musical DNA".
Trying to identify it from elements like "intelligence" is like trying to identify an animal given the country it lives in.
It lives in Africa, ergo it's an Elephant.
Hmm - don't think that works!
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
presdoug
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8752
|
Posted: May 10 2010 at 19:45 |
|
You know what Rush really is?
Rush
|
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17969
|
Posted: May 10 2010 at 15:16 |
lazland wrote:
Rush are progressive in every sense of the word - continually moving on and reinventing themselves. |
What the 4-eyed monkey said....  
You don't pass up Aerosmith to become 3rd all time consecutive gold/platinum album certifications (behind the Stones and Beatles) by doing the same thing over and over.....Everyone knows you have to progress forward to keep your main listeners interested but also attract new legions of listeners. After 35+ years of recording I expect they will run out of "new" things to do....So the next harder thing to do rather than quit is to re-invent yourself in many ways...Style of play, song writing, arrangements...so on...
I wish groups like Genesis, Yes, ELP and Pink Floyd would have kept going...it pains me to wonder what music they could be putting out right now.
|
|
|
|
tuxon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 21 2004
Location: plugged-in
Status: Offline
Points: 5502
|
Posted: May 10 2010 at 15:13 |
Rush are as prog as Uriah Heep
And don't try and convinse me Uriah heep actually is Prog as they are not, just artsy fairy Led Zep/Deep P clones with too much Tolkien wizardry, which i prefer above Ayn Rhand imagery by the way
|
|
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
|
|
ProgressiveAttic
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 05 2008
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 1243
|
Posted: May 10 2010 at 14:54 |
|
|
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com) 
|
|
tarkus1980
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 29 2010
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 233
|
Posted: May 10 2010 at 14:33 |
|
Rush was a full-fledged prog rock band for 3.5 albums (second half of Caress of Steel through Hemispheres). Rush's genre definition was blurry between Permanent Waves and Hold Your Fire; somewhat proggish, somewhat not. For their first 2.5 albums they were solidly hard rock, and from Presto onward they were hard-pop-rock.
|
|
"History of Rock Written by the Losers."
|
|
DaysBeforeTomorrow
Forum Newbie
Joined: September 25 2008
Location: Wyckoff, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 34
|
Posted: May 10 2010 at 14:33 |
I think the fundamental disconnect between prog fans who don't think Rush is prog, and those of us who do, is this:
Just because a song has hooks and melodies doesn't make it "not progressive."
My favorite period in Rush's history is mid-'80s: Power Windows, Hold Your Fire, Presto. These songs are melodic, catchy, and totally progressive. Compare them to any music in the mainstream at the time and this stuff was unlike all of it. In fact, compare it to music from any other band and it stands alone with its unique style. Odd time signatures, cool synth sounds, intricate musical arrangements, technical playing. And Presto had more acoustic guitar than anyone else was doing at the time, too.
Scott
|
|
lazland
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13797
|
Posted: May 10 2010 at 14:25 |
|
Rush are progressive in every sense of the word - continually moving on and reinventing themselves.
|
|
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
|
|
friso
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 24 2007
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 2506
|
Posted: May 10 2010 at 11:56 |
|
It's no Progressive (with the big P) band, that's for sure. They adapted some progressive elements and regressed the music from that moment on. Every time I try to listen to a Rush lp I get very nervous because of the pop sound. It's not my cup of tea.
|
|
rod65
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 28 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 248
|
Posted: May 10 2010 at 10:45 |
|
They are the quintessential Heavy Prog band. While their proggiest output was 1976-1980, the intelligence and complexity of their music--key elements in progressive rock--have always been present.
|
|
Pilkenton
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 28 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 72
|
Posted: March 29 2010 at 13:27 |
I think they started out as heavy metal, but evolved into a progressive. I liked the heavy metal stuff way better than their progressive stuff.
Working Man rocks Closer to the Heart doesn't
|
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17969
|
Posted: March 29 2010 at 12:59 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Biff Tannen wrote:
And they are absolutely not metal. Never have been, never will be.
|
Wow - you seem very sure - can you say why they have never been metal?
Do you mean to say that Iron Maiden aren't metal too?
|
Biff and Days.....you are still missing the point being made here about metal. We mentioned it in the context of firstly the '70's. DT, Mind Key....are not relavent in the topic.
Secondly it was mentioned in relation to bands in the '70's like Yes, PF, KC, Genesis....who are prog symphonic/rock, where the music that Rush was putting out at the same time can be seen as prog metal...in the same vein as Deep Purple was.
Now OBVIOUSLY in the '80-'00's Rush would not be considered prog metal compared to groups in the same date range.
That being said because Rush crossed several sub-genres within prog, metal, heavy/hard rock....they are a Prog band.
I don't see where anyone called them an out-and-out Metal band.
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is Rush really a Prog band ?
