| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
verslibre 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 18651
|
 Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:24 |
|
As you no doubt have seen myriad times on this forum, terms like "for me" and "IMHO" go right out the window.
|
|
|
 |
AFlowerKingCrimson
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18987
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:26 |
|
Well, what do you think Happy the Man were then? They weren't a pure symph prog band. They definitely had fusion influences.
Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - October 08 2020 at 11:27
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 18651
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:27 |
 AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
Well, what do you think Happy the Man were then? They weren't a pure symph prog band. They definitely had fusion influences imo. |
Sir, they are categorized as "Eclectic Prog" on this site and I believe that is accurate.
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65671
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:28 |
verslibre wrote:
Paulo V wrote:
Progressive composition with odd time signatures & lyrics, lengthy instrumental passages and unnorthodox arrangements i.e 2112, Farewell to Kings & Hemispheres are a proven fact, some bands influenced by them absolutely!!! Tool often has its moments among others?Question: Prog Metal that sounds like amped up 70īs Rush?
YEAHHHH |
Sounds simple enough to me!  |
"Some bands influenced by them absolutely" ??
Oy-- Hundreds of bands were influenced by Rush. But they had almost nothing to with with prog metal, or with metal itself for that matter.
Uli Roth, Michael Schenker, Randy Rhoads, Gary Moore, Steve Harris, all had far more to do with progressing heavy rock.
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 18651
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:30 |
Atavachron wrote:
Uli Roth, Michael Schenker, Randy Rhoads, Gary Moore, Steve Harris, all had far more to do with progressing heavy rock. |
That sounds like a different thread.
|
|
|
|
AFlowerKingCrimson
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18987
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:31 |
verslibre wrote:
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
Well, what do you think Happy the Man were then? They weren't a pure symph prog band. They definitely had fusion influences imo. |
Sir, they are categorized as "Eclectic Prog" on this site and I believe that is accurate. |
There's a lot of stuff that is incorrectly categorized on this site. Echolyn are on here under symphonic prog. Do you agree with that too?
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 18651
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:34 |
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
verslibre wrote:
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
Well, what do you think Happy the Man were then? They weren't a pure symph prog band. They definitely had fusion influences imo. |
Sir, they are categorized as "Eclectic Prog" on this site and I believe that is accurate. |
There's a lot of stuff that is incorrectly categorized on this site. Echolyn are on here under symphonic prog. Do you agree with that too? |
Symph is an extremely broad category many bands can fit under. It isn't limited to "sounds like Yes, Genesis and ELP." But we're not talking about Echolyn or symph.
And I agree with erroneous categorizations where other bands are concerned, but not that one.
|
|
|
|
AFlowerKingCrimson
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18987
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:39 |
verslibre wrote:
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
verslibre wrote:
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
Well, what do you think Happy the Man were then? They weren't a pure symph prog band. They definitely had fusion influences imo. |
Sir, they are categorized as "Eclectic Prog" on this site and I believe that is accurate. |
There's a lot of stuff that is incorrectly categorized on this site. Echolyn are on here under symphonic prog. Do you agree with that too? |
Symph is an extremely broad category many bands can fit under. It isn't limited to "sounds like Yes, Genesis and ELP." But we're not talking about Echolyn or symph.
And I agree with erroneous categorizations where other bands are concerned, but not that one. |
Sir, we weren't talking about prog fusion either until it was brought up(by you).
Anyway, a more accurate description for echolyn would be eclectic prog. I can only see the really early stuff qualifying as symph prog(broad category or not). For HTM I'm not sure. I'm not saying they are full blown fusion but since there is no category for prog fusion I'm not sure where I would put them. They weren't really eclectic because their sound didn't change that much from song to song and were pretty uniform in over all sound imo. And yes I will say my opinion because like it or not all these discussions are about our opinions. There's no reason that shouldn't be taken into consideration. Only the moderators on here have the final say on how stuff gets categorized on here whether we disagree or not.
Anyway, back to the rush influence on prog metal now. 
Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - October 08 2020 at 11:46
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 18651
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:47 |
Eclectic means "s electing or employing individual elements from a variety of sources, systems, or styles."
Sounds like Happy the Man to me. I'm good.
Yeah, back to Rush, etc.! 
|
|
|
|
AFlowerKingCrimson
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18987
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:51 |
verslibre wrote:
Eclectic means "selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources, systems, or styles."
Sounds like Happy the Man to me. I'm good.
Yeah, back to Rush, etc.! |
I know what eclectic means. I just think prog fusion is a better category for them. Being that it isn't one on here I'll reluctantly acquiese to eclectic or even crossover prog but I'm not too happy about it. 
Ok, now back to Rush.
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 18651
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:57 |
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
I know what eclectic means. I just think prog fusion is a better category for them. Being that it isn't one on here I'll reluctantly acquiese to eclectic or even crossover prog but I'm not too happy about it. |
You know, if you want them to be prog-fusion, and that's how you file them in your collection, there's nothing wrong with that. Just sayin'!
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65671
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 11:58 |
verslibre wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Uli Roth, Michael Schenker, Randy Rhoads, Gary Moore, Steve Harris, all had far more to do with progressing heavy rock. |
That sounds like a different thread. |
Yeah, a thread about who prototyped prog metal.
Rush were a rock band who were most musically creative in the 70s/early 80s during the Prog era, took influence form bands as Yes and Genesis, and tried to write a few radio-friendly hits along the way. Nothing more, nothing less.
Edited by Atavachron - October 08 2020 at 11:58
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
AFlowerKingCrimson
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18987
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 12:00 |
verslibre wrote:
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
I know what eclectic means. I just think prog fusion is a better category for them. Being that it isn't one on here I'll reluctantly acquiese to eclectic or even crossover prog but I'm not too happy about it. |
You know, if you want them to be prog-fusion, and that's how you file them in your collection, there's nothing wrong with that. Just sayin'! |
If I want them to be? LOL. Dude, you are killing me! Do you seriously think I'm the only one who hears fusion in their music? Just because you don't doesn't mean it's not in there. I've heard enough fusion to detect it in their music. I'm sure others would agree. I also hear a little proto new age in there but not as much as fusion. Yeah, and you can file them under eclectic prog. Obviously this site agrees with you.
Edit: Oh and I just noticed jazz music archives has HTM as "jazz related rock" so there's that. ;)
Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - October 08 2020 at 12:04
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 18651
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 12:06 |
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
verslibre wrote:
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
I know what eclectic means. I just think prog fusion is a better category for them. Being that it isn't one on here I'll reluctantly acquiese to eclectic or even crossover prog but I'm not too happy about it.  |
You know, if you want them to be prog-fusion, and that's how you file them in your collection, there's nothing wrong with that. Just sayin'! |
If I want them to be? LOL. Dude, you are killing me! Do you seriously think I'm the only one who hears fusion in their music? Just because you don't doesn't mean it's not in there. I've heard enough fusion to detect it in their music. I'm sure others would agree. I also hear a little proto new age in there but not as much as fusion. Yeah, and you can file them under eclectic prog. Obviously this site agrees with you. |
I knew you would take my post the wrong way. I saw it coming a mile away.
I meant: If you think HTM is prog-fusion, don't concern yourself if other people (like myself) think they fit in another category.
Is that better?
|
|
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 18651
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 12:09 |
Atavachron wrote:
verslibre wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Uli Roth, Michael Schenker, Randy Rhoads, Gary Moore, Steve Harris, all had far more to do with progressing heavy rock. |
That sounds like a different thread. |
Yeah, a thread about who prototyped prog metal.
Rush were a rock band who were most musically creative in the 70s/early 80s during the Prog era, took influence form bands as Yes and Genesis, and tried to write a few radio-friendly hits along the way. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Whatever works. I'm more interested in hearing sample clips that show how Rhoads and Harris had far more to do with progressing heavy rock.
|
|
|
|
Awesoreno
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 07 2019
Location: Culver City, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 3080
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 12:10 |
|
Eclectic is the one of the most grab-bag categories on this site. It's no wonder they could be put there. It's full of bands that are a little too avant to be symph, and a little too symph (or neo or crossover) to be avant. Maneige is somehow in JRF, but they could just as easily be in eclectic (I actually think they should).
Edited by Awesoreno - October 08 2020 at 12:13
|
|
AFlowerKingCrimson
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18987
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 12:12 |
verslibre wrote:
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
verslibre wrote:
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
I know what eclectic means. I just think prog fusion is a better category for them. Being that it isn't one on here I'll reluctantly acquiese to eclectic or even crossover prog but I'm not too happy about it. |
You know, if you want them to be prog-fusion, and that's how you file them in your collection, there's nothing wrong with that. Just sayin'! |
If I want them to be? LOL. Dude, you are killing me! Do you seriously think I'm the only one who hears fusion in their music? Just because you don't doesn't mean it's not in there. I've heard enough fusion to detect it in their music. I'm sure others would agree. I also hear a little proto new age in there but not as much as fusion. Yeah, and you can file them under eclectic prog. Obviously this site agrees with you. |
I knew you would take my post the wrong way. I saw it coming a mile away.
I meant: If you think HTM is prog-fusion, don't concern yourself if other people (like myself) think they fit in another category.
Is that better? |
And I knew you would respond. I saw that coming a mile away.
Trust me I'm not losing any sleep over it. I just can't believe you don't hear any fusion in their music or maybe just not enough to qualify them as prog fusion like I do. Anyway, even jazz music archives has them as jazz related rock although I hear more fusion in them than jazz. For me Chicago or Steely Dan are much better examples of jazz related rock but I suppose it's something. Prog fusion would be best but that's not on here or there. Oh well.
Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - October 08 2020 at 12:15
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 18651
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 12:18 |
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
And I knew you would respond. I saw that coming a mile away.
Trust me I'm not losing any sleep over it. I just can't believe you don't hear any fusion in their music or maybe just not enough to qualify them as prog fusion like I do. Anyway, even jazz music archives has them as jazz related rock although I hear more fusion in them than jazz. For me Chicago or Steely Dan are much better examples of jazz related rock but I suppose it's something. |
Yeah, I responded to you, because it seemed necessary to clarify what I meant. Let's move on.
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65671
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 12:24 |
verslibre wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
verslibre wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Uli Roth, Michael Schenker, Randy Rhoads, Gary Moore, Steve Harris, all had far more to do with progressing heavy rock. |
That sounds like a different thread. |
Yeah, a thread about who prototyped prog metal.
Rush were a rock band who were most musically creative in the 70s/early 80s during the Prog era, took influence form bands as Yes and Genesis, and tried to write a few radio-friendly hits along the way. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Whatever works. I'm more interested in hearing sample clips that show how Rhoads and Harris had far more to do with progressing heavy rock. |
Sample clips ? C'mon, be serious. The "sample clips" are called albums and you can listen for yourself. I think you can even listen to them on the computer.
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
AFlowerKingCrimson
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18987
|
Posted: October 08 2020 at 12:31 |
verslibre wrote:
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
And I knew you would respond. I saw that coming a mile away.
Trust me I'm not losing any sleep over it. I just can't believe you don't hear any fusion in their music or maybe just not enough to qualify them as prog fusion like I do. Anyway, even jazz music archives has them as jazz related rock although I hear more fusion in them than jazz. For me Chicago or Steely Dan are much better examples of jazz related rock but I suppose it's something. |
Yeah, I responded to you, because it seemed necessary to clarify what I meant. Let's move on. |
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Did Rush influence Prog Metal?