Can we put Rush in the super prog category?

 

To start with the negative reactions about Rush, I think one of the main reasons is that Rush is basically a rock and roll-oriented band, they have always put a lot of R&R into their music, especially Alex Lifeson. And that's different from Yes, Genesis, ELP, King Crimson and Pink Floyd, the (other?) 'supergroups', these are known for a more 'sophisticated' approach, an approach that appeals more to the progheads who tend to look at progressive rock as pure art: First Of Fifth, Awaken, Starless, Trilogy or Shine On You Crazy Diamond (classic symphonic rock) are totally different progrock than The Trees, A Farewell To Kings or The Spirit Of The Radio ('symphonic rock and roll'). I have the strong idea that the pure rock element in those abovementioned Rush compositions has led to a lot of contempt for this Canadian trio. Personally Rush (76-84 era) appealed to me because they succeeded to blend rock and roll with progressive ideas in a very fascinating and captivating way, this created a lot of tension in Rush their compositions  !

 

So, finally, is Rush a supergroup in comparison with the symphonic rock dinosaurs from The Seventies?

Here are six points to consider':

1) huge musical influence

2) a serie of essential albums

3) big sales/high chart positions

4) sold out tours

5) excellent stage show

6) great technical - and compositional skills

 

My answers:

1) yes but less than the symphonic rock dinosaurs

2) yes but less generally acclaimed than the symphonic rock dinosaurs

3) yes, even superior to other symphonic rock dinosaurs

4) yes, no doubt about that!

5) yes, very exciting and high-tec

6) yes, outstanding and innovative

 

                    My conclusion: RUSH IS A SUPERGROUP  !!!

It's kind of like comparing an apple to a corn field though.

Are you the apple of my eye or is it a field of dreams?????

 

One hell of a band though, all joking aside.