The video address does work though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=howTnWZbO1M

I'd probably point a newb to Yes first. Yes made some easily digestible prog music while still being complex. I remember Roundabout in particular making a huge impression on me as well as almost the entirety of The Yes Album. 

Pink Floyd and Tull are good starter bands. 

If I was going to start someone off with Rush, it would be with either Permanent Waves, or Moving Pictures. Exit Stage Left would be a good choice as well. Fly By Night wouldn't be bad either. It's got a nice mix of more straight forward rock songs as well as some hints of the weirdness that would come on subsequent albums.

It would certainly be better to start with stuff that is easy to digest, of course, but don't stop there. Be adventurous. In the end it all depends on what kind of music the person likes the most.

 Something like The Yes Album, Dark Side of the Moon, Trick of the tail....If you go that route something like Moving Pictures would be a good one to check out. I know some would disagree & say go right to something like Topographic Oceans or Thick as a Brick but those can be a little much for someone just starting out. 

You've been a RUSH fan longer than I've been alive!   

Well said about YES, as well. I think that's also why I find them a great gateway. They were essentially mine, into classic symphonic prog bands, anyhow!

Is that supposed to make me feel good? 

That's entirely up to you, my friend .

Still, you have more context for prog as it happened than I do. For that, I'm humbled and respectful in all ways possible! I tell my father how envious I am that he saw YES on the CTTE and Relayer tours. YES was my introduction, so I'm probably very biased.

It obviously depends on the individual and their prior experience with music. Prog is so large that I have to believe that every single hearing person could find at least one prog album they like. You could recommend Soft Machine to a jazz fan, Banco to someone who's into classical music, Rush or Yes for classic rock fans, Kayo Dot for metalheads, Tangerine Dream for people who like ambient, Art  Zoyd for someone into avant-garde and improv, Tortoise for hip-hop and so on. Just find out one thing they generally like and go from there. The key is to find something timeless.

The only time I got someone truly hooked on rock was with Phallus Dei, F#A#∞ and Vision Creation Newsun. He had basically no experience with rock beforehand apart from ACDC, Aerosmith, etc. We still talk music to this day and he never felt the need to listen to more Yes after CttE, more Genesis after SEbtP or more ELP after the debut.

Yeah, I agree but I've noticed a lot of people just focus on one band, especially Rush and nobody else. I'm not saying all Rush fans are like this but many just seemed to be so obsessed with them they don't care about any other bands. 

I think age has something to do with it too. Younger fans seem to stick their noses up at Yes or Genesis or maybe just think of them as classic rock or pop bands or something and therefore gravitate towards Rush and Dream Theater and prog metal. At least that's been my observation. I remember talking to one(younger) guy at a show who was big into Rush but the only Yes he had was 90125. Well, no wonder. You start with that one and you might assume they weren't really prog. I told him to explore the earlier stuff but it possibly fell on deaf ears. His loss. 

Ironically, I'm still one of the newer ones to prog, at least within the context of much of the user base on this site. There's still so much to explore and this site gives me something new to sample every day. I only wish I had found this place 10 years before I did. 

And certainly nothing wrong with Yes as an introduction.  For me, my earliest prog was Yes, Rush, Tull, and if you believe that they were proto-prog, The Beatles.

Oh, and I'm envious of your dad too. I never got to see Yes in concert. 

I know what you are saying. I have run in to some Rush fans like that ( & i'm a big Rush fan) I think some  guys ( guys more than women) fall in to what I call the harder, louder, faster category. They tend to like heavy stuff and shy away from some of the softer more melodic aspects of band like Yes, Genesis, Tull, KC...

What was wrong with Geddy's voice in that period? He was past the high pitched shriek stage by that point.

Right on! That's part of the reason why I love this community; lots of perspectives and history in one spot. YES is the best!

that said...  Rush is a good entry point for new people to Rush.  Get it out of the way quickly.. weed them out quicly. if you are put off by silly hyper intellectualism by muso's no smarter than the guy who cleans your toilets at the office and often painfully bad lyrics. You need not apply further with prog hahaha.  

My first Prog music was Genesis, ELP, Enid, Camel, Greenslade, Rick Wakeman, PFM, Certain Yes music, Stackridge, Supertramp and the Nice...

Rush is awesome. Always loved them. Been a long time now!

Opeth? Pass. ;)

Well, maybe Yes and Tull etc are bands they just haven't been exposed to much or maybe their parents liked them. What I'm basically getting at here also is that there is a hip or "cool" factor. I'm not sure how much mellowness figures into it because they like Pink Floyd and not just because they are so obvious but because they are also seen as being cool. So there's the social approval/peer pressure factor which makes them decide to like certain bands(at least to some degree imo). 

I agree especially if they are open minded and can get past the fact that most of their fans(and thus those who show up at their concerts)are probably old enough to be their parents(if not grandparents). That is assuming the people getting into prog for the first time are in their twenties or younger(which actually might not be the case). 

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: SteveG wrote: Starting with Yes is probably safe too. Very complicated music for sure but very accessible IMO. I agree especially if they are open minded and can get past the fact that most of their fans(and thus those who show up at their concerts)are probably old enough to be their parents(if not grandparents). That is assuming the people getting into prog for the first time are in their twenties or younger(which actually might not be the case).

I don't think just recommending seemingly "accessible" prog will do the trick if you don't know who you're trying to convince. Lets say you have a friend into Velvet Underground and Sonic Youth - Yes would probably be completely wrong. They're not that great for people coming from the less perfectionistic -or darker music scenes. King Crimson Red among the classics could work better as a start - or perhaps something like Ege Bamyasi by Can... or other Krautrock-classics. That's the kind of approach that makes sense to me. In my experience extreme metallers tend respond more positively to Zeuhl, R.I.O or early Progressive Electronic than symphonic prog. So I agree with most of this post:   

You seriously think Rush lyrics are bad? I can honestly say I think this is the first time I ever heard anyone say that. I actually think quite the opposite. I think they are some of the best lyrics not just in prog but in music period. I would love to hear who you think has better and more intelligent lyrics. 

Lol

Dude, Peart's lyrics are awesome!

Also, Jon Anderson has stated several times it's more about the sound of the words than the actual meaning. Because of this, a lot of Yes lyrics sound like alphabet soup when you listen closely, lol.

of course I do...... and you do need to get out of the fishbowl more.  The notion that Peart's lyrics are cringeworthy is not a creation of my off center warped trollish mind but a real conversation point you'll find in serious discussions about Rush.

David hit the nail on the head earlier in the thread...  Rush is and forever will be a adolescent boy band.  And if you haven't got them by the time you are 25.. you likely won't. There is a reason for that.. it isn't the music for god's sake.. not Geddy's voice.. it is IMO (and yes others) it is the often ham-handed 'philosophy for loser teenage boys' that Peart was quite renowned for in their prog incarantion haha. Oh sure he matured as a lyricist as the years went by and Rush became AOR not prog.. but that is not the point of the thread is it.  

EXCUSE ME?

YES fans, of old, did the best acid, the longest serving grass and on occasion, the cleanest needle there was!

Oh, we also drank bottled water because one of the guys told us that pop was bad!

AND, we thought that medieval clothing, make up and knee high boots were awesome, and wore them, although if we did that at school the principle and the teachers would tell you to go home, shower and dress and then come to school!

The dope wasn't bad, the music was better, and the scene? Too much Clairol and Hair coloring for my tastes and the kisses tasted awful with all those chemicals!

we have posts by our beloved Pedro....  

While I am sure it is fascinating listening to Steve's tuna-boat memories of 1960s girls with bad hygiene and hairy armpits, returning to the subject I think you're better off fooling someone into liking prog. Don't even mention prog. Let them listen to 1970s Floyd or Tull, depending on their musical proclivities, and then ease them into something more outlandish. For god's sake don't just drop a VdGG or Henry Cow album on them out of nowhere. They could become mentally scarred and end up hating you.
 

SteveG wrote: The hippy chicks I hung with didn't even bath, let alone dye their hair or wear makeup!

You didn't complain. LOL!

  

Exactly. Post of the day as far as I'm concerned.  

I defy anyone to find me a lyricist who is more well read and has more intelligent and thought provoking lyrics than Peart. Can't do it because it can't be done.  The guy has read about a book day for the past fifty years. 

Though, I still think theirs is a weird sound, considering they're not symphonic prog like most prog bands even if you ended up getting into Rush you might have difficulties liking other ones that are softer. As others have said, getting into any type of music requires you to listen to many many bands all at once so as to expand your sound palette quicker.

I also crossed over from metal (into progressive electronics first!) and I never had an issue with Gedd's voice. Not one bit. Awesome singer.

There are some metal vocalists I could never get into, like King Diamond. Awful.

SteveG wrote: moshkito wrote: The dope wasn't bad, the music was better, and the scene? Too much Clairol and Hair coloring for my tastes and the kisses tasted awful with all those chemicals! You kids from the 70's and 80's had it much better then my g-g-generation. The hippy chicks I hung with didn't even bath, let alone dye their hair or wear makeup!

It's different for every generation. I simply think that this generation does not have the musical ability and lyrical flow to show that they have something that is outstanding and above the norm.

That's not to say that rap is nothing, for there are some very fine things in there, but considering what is behind it, and calling it  "music" is a bit scary for me!

From a "prog" standpoint, I would suggest Ian Anderson and Peter Gabriel are far better. Peter Sinfield is quite accomplished as well. I would consider any one of the three as poets, as opposed to Peart as just a lyricist with an occasional hard-on for Ayn Rand.

A certain member on here uses a line written by Peter Hammill from my very favourite verse all eras and genres included as his signature...

One has to start somewhere, and everyone hears things a bit differently. The more music the merrier. 

doompaul wrote: I must be in the minority. I completely love Geddy's 70s screeching vocals.

He sounds amazing on those records. On Hemispheres and Permanent Waves, he found the perfect middle.

This, however, doesn't mean Peart didn't have some cool stuff.

Good lord, have you not heard anything after 2112? 

Ditto. His voice from then is a part of what Rush was. 

I guess it depends on how new. I would think most people, even these days, would find out about prog through the older bands. I would guess someone even hears about Rush or Pink Floyd before they hear about Porcupine Tree or Dream Theater but I suppose it just depends. I think usually the classic bands are recommended to give an idea of what the genre is all about. Also, imo, it wouldn't make sense to tell someone to listen to Spock's Beard or the Flower Kings before hearing the bands that influenced them such as Yes or Genesis. It also wouldn't make sense to tell someone to listen to Porcupine Tree before they heard Pink Floyd or the other classic prog bands but again that's just my opinion. None of this is written in stone. I'm sure there are a lot of younger prog fans who heard a lot of prog metal bands and PT and other modern bands before they even heard classic prog and I bet some of them still haven't heard any classic prog and have no interest in them. Their loss.

I for one, didn't even know what prog rock was until I first heard to Pink Floyd and then King Crimson. Newer progressive rock bands, while they may be quite good, just don't have that success and status that classic 70s had. For every new fan of prog, I say listen to a lot of bands simultaneously--classic or modern--so as to find their preferred sound. They may then expand into more obscure stuff at their own pace.

I myself am also quite a new prog rock fan. I'd been a Pink Floyd fan for quite some time before delving deep into pure prog almost a year ago. I still have yet to fully listen to classic bands, but have been keeping tabs with modern bands as well (Dream Theater, Porcupine Tree, Opeth, Steven Wilson, Wobbler, The Flower Kings, Plini, etc).

I say leave them to explore the genre themselves using internet rankings and lists.

Rush to me along with Yes, Tull and Floyd was simply rock music that was different than FM radio rock like Sabbath, LZ, The Who. 

Even when Rush was releasing 2112 to PW......it was simply just great music. I also never had any issues with Ged's vocals.

During that period, you could not find a more prolific drummer that created so much excitement on stage. Neil progressed into a monster drummer and helped push Rush into its own genre....

Rush is essentially its own genre 

The ZZ Top song? 

Atavachron wrote: They merely adopted the prog.   We were born in it, molded by it--  I didn't hear pop until I was already a man by then it was nothing to me but deafening.

Whoa, whoa, whoa; who do you think you are coming in here and FREELY choosing bands to start with and like? What are you, some kind of human being, complete with freewill and personal taste?! 

I actually am not sure where most people who are new to prog start these days. I suppose it depends on what they are already familiar with. I would think many would probably start with Pink Floyd since most people are probably already at least somewhat familiar with them. 

I'd imagine most getting into Pink Floyd FIRST, regardless of whether the consensus is they constitute "progressive rock" or not. That's how it feels here in the North East USA, anyway.

That's true. I started where I started and that's where I started.

Isn't it crazy how you just start starting? I started with Yes .

Whether PF takes them to prog depends on two things. One ofcourse is they have to be familiar with Pink Floyd in the first place and be curious enough to want to explore further and look for other similar bands. The second is they have to have heard the term prog somehow(either through friends or relatives or through the internet). So basically they just have to add up these things in their head. Not everyone does though. I'm sure there's a lot of people who just think of PF as just classic rock and stop there. I have seen many articles online that don't even mention PF as one of the main prog bands so it just depends.

I'm a self starter who starts starting things. 

What does that mean, I WONDER?

 

Not necessarily. Although I had been listening to prog from about the mid '70s onward, I did not become aware of the terms "progressive rock", "prog", or even "art rock" until sometime during the '90s. I didn't really know what to call the music from such groups as Van der Graaf Generator. But that didn't stop me from getting into undeniably serious prog.

 

 

 

 

I really didn't like Rush in the seventies especially Hemispheres . Tom Sawyer did get me interested though.

My basis taste at that time as a teenager was 'tacky'. I didn't like anything blues/hard rock based. Add a few synths and my ears pricked up. Loved ELP and Rick Wakeman straight off the bat. Age does make a difference though I'm sure. As a 15 year old these were perfect. Taste changes as you get older and you appreciate different things so it depends on that as well.