Is Rush really a Prog band ? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

TheLastBaron View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 07 2009
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 206

Posted: March 27 2010 at 01:07

Is Rush a prog band? Does Elmer Fudd have trouble with the letter R?

" Men are not prisoners of fate, but prisoners of their own minds." - FDR

jaareli

Forum Newbie

Joined: February 27 2010
Location: Kaanuda
Status: Offline
Points: 6

Posted: March 27 2010 at 22:52

Certif1ed wrote:

A fair question, and I'd really need to familiarise myself more with the Rush albums I've only listened to on a cursory basis to give a fair answer.

On this one aspect, it seems to me that Metallica explored riffs to a greater extent, using riff inversions and fragments to produce something unlike anything else in metal at the time - but quite similar to King Crimson's approach, where Crimson wrote riff-based music - and I've yet to hear a metal band that successfully merges this into the genre outside of a purely technical approach, so Metallica remain unique in what they produced before their self-titled album.

could you give me an example of them doing this "riff inversion" thing? I'm curious as to what it is.

Biff Tannen View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 13 2010
Location: St. Louis, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 159

Posted: March 28 2010 at 10:19

Rush has always been at heart a hard rock band. They themselves have said this many times. They had a prog phase, but have never really been a full-fledged prog band, ala Yes, ELP, etc.

And they are absolutely not metal. Never have been, never will be.

"What are you looking at, butthead?"

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: March 29 2010 at 01:37

jaareli wrote:

could you give me an example of them doing this "riff inversion" thing? I'm curious as to what it is.

The very simplest (and earliest) example I can think of is "Seek and Destroy". In this song, the second riff is used as a kind of springboard for many of the other riffs, especially during the instrumental. I go into this technique in a little depth in the reviews I wrote, so won't repeat myself here.

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=186466

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=186642

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=186699

You can see this in several ways, of course, the most negative being as a very "cheap" way to write a song, by simply using the same riff all the way through and changing it a bit.

I think it's a lot cleverer than that, especially given Burton's background and style, and the fact that Metallica used this technique quite a lot on later albums to far greater effect. This wasn't just a lucky fluke of an idea - this was something Metallica repeatedly experimented with, and why they were so different to their peers.

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?

Edited by Certif1ed - March 29 2010 at 01:39

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

Biff Tannen View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 13 2010
Location: St. Louis, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 159

Posted: March 29 2010 at 09:59

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?

Because they have never done metal. The hardest songs they have ever done - "The Necromancer," "2112," "Cygnus X-1," etc. - were all hard rocking, but not metal.

Besides, even if those songs were metal, that doesn't make them an outright metal band. A band is usually defined according to genre by their core sound, by what they do most of the time. Hard rock has been the one constant throughout their entire career. Like I said, even if you want to call those hard rocking songs I mentioned earlier metal, I don't think less than 5 metal songs in a career that has lasted 35 years qualifies them as being a metal band.

And I didn't say anything about Iron Maiden, so what do they have to do with this discussion?

"What are you looking at, butthead?"

DaysBeforeTomorrow View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: September 25 2008
Location: Wyckoff, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 34

Posted: March 29 2010 at 10:03

I totally agree. Rush have never been metal, even if they may have had one or two very heavy songs in the past. Like Biff Tannen said, bands are defined by their "core sound" -- great way to put it.

And today, nobody would ever call Rush prog metal, so I hope the advocates of that stop saying it around here :-p. Dream Theater are prog metal, as are Trivium and Mind Key... but Rush are far from metal by today's standard.

OK, I think this thread has wasted enough time. How about switching to a new question, like will KISS still be going strong after Gene and Paul are dead and new guys are wearing their face makeup? :-p

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17863

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.

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

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.

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.

lazland

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13716

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!

DaysBeforeTomorrow View Drop Down

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

tarkus1980 View Drop Down

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."

ProgressiveAttic View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 05 2008
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 1243

Posted: May 10 2010 at 14:54

The Wrinkler wrote:

A Person wrote:

http://thecrazyiscatching.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/33-yesclassicblue_jpg.jpg

that was an epic answer

Rush is so prog that there is a Yes logo in a thread about them!

Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)

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

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17863

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.

presdoug

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8650

Posted: May 10 2010 at 19:45

You know what Rush really is?

Rush

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.

RUSHFANATIC63 View Drop Down

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]

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.