ATPS #15: The Other Big 4

JT

tszirmay wrote: I guess Weston was in too much of a Rush () and forgot , in his zeal, to research Uncle Frank who had many legends attached to him, some certainly unflattering but mostly universally known as a stickler for practice, having kept some of his musicians playing until they 1- bleed 2-drop or 3-faint . He put up with no "dinamoh-hums" . Frank took it so seriously, he actually put on a suit and tie and intellectually demolished the rather ridiculous censorship arguments vehiculated by Tipper (or is it Tippler ) Gore, in various government settings .

Damn right!!

Weston wrote: And if I may put my two cents in for Rush, I would put them 3rd on this list just under ELP or perhaps tied. (Not that any of this is a contest.) One needs only hear "Natural Science" to place them firmly in the prog universe. It's got odd time, several sub-sections, lots of weird synths and production effects, is over 9 minutes long, and compares life in a tide pool with all of human existence. What more does anyone need?Zappa? I love his music, but I don't think he took things very seriously. I think you're supposed to be overly pretentious to be considered true prog.

Zappa wasn't serious? gees... Zappa is one if the most strict composers, leader that I've ever known.. It's different what he did on stage on what he did on studio.

I chose Tull.

For decades Jethro Tull were my favorite band, closely tied with Yes .  Great rock.  Great prog.  Great folk.  Great jazz.  Just all around great.  And Anderson's stage presence blew most other acts away.  They could do no wrong. 

But all good things must come to and end, and lately it seems close to the end of my lionization (not quite the right word) of Tull. I stayed with them through Anderson's voice problems which have been steadily improving, but I don't think I can get excited about Tull much any more for other reasons.  The last straw may be the Live at Montreux DVD in which Anderson can barely be bothered to sing in time to the music. And in interviews and stage banter he pretty much dismisses the whole prog part of their history and has even hinted he doesn't much like rock, or at least not very loud music. 

But I have enough love for Tull to still pick them in this list.  Back in the day it was Tull and Yes tied for favorite, with ELP running a VERY close second.  They were the big three, like Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the big three of classical.

MovingPictures07 wrote: cacho wrote: [QUOTE=MovingPictures07] It's not that I just don't like them, my last words of my last post says it, I've never heard Rush to be related to prog! Even though having albums with 20 min songs, the band is not acknowledge as a prog band for most, well now that we're in PA we know... Even though Rush created some magnificent albums as you say (these are your words) and influenced many bands, Rush isn't a really representative of the genre, I really can't see them, okay I don't see Camel neither, neither Heep. Rush isn't a band you buy to know about prog, it's a band you want to know about hard rock, then you may discover they're prog. Please you're not gonna denie me this, I haven't denied yours. Well, this is exactly the expanding I needed on your views and I'm glad you explained it better now. Before, it simply sounded to me as: "Because I don't like Rush, they aren't one of the BIG bands.", for the most part.I see your point and I respect it, but I believe Rush is more tied to prog than you perceive. However, I'm not going to spend hours and hours convincing you of that. I don't care that much, and I'm glad that you have your own opinion and are willing to express it.If you want to get strict about bands that represent prog, here's how I saw it:The "BIGGER" 4 of the BIG 8: These are the biggest 4 of prog, in their primes pretty much summed up what prog was about, and easily can be related to by most people (in comparison to the rest of the genre).. they were the forerunners, despite whether you like their music or not, and all influenced in their own unique ways.Pink FloydKing CrimsonGenesisYesThe "LESSER" 4 of the BIG 8, but still up there: These are the next biggest 4 of prog, in their primes they also summed up their own unique way in influencing prog and other genres. However, when "prog" comes to peoples' minds, these might come after the previous 4 in terms of overall influence and prominence. Differences other than that however may be subjective and trivial.ELP (though they're the only ones that kinda fit right in between the two lines)RushFrank ZappaJethro TullI'm willing to expand on that if you don't understand. Now that I see your point of view more clearly, I'm willing to compromise with you and say that we simply disagree on the placement of Rush strictly in prog's realm.

You won't make it ... Here's another clarification, maybe stupid or closed minded but here goes. Since I was grown up with the classic prog (the big 4) I would(will) never have doubt that these are not prog bands. For the other 4 well there's the pt were comes my personal thoughts, my father(not Micky) as well as my brother are huge Zappa fans, I remember my father playing Zappa in England, and there were all my roots come from...Zappa was totally different to the big 4 he played me, Floyd, Genesis and Yes (well 3, he didn't play Crimson). So I really don't associate Zappa with prog, even though you can tell me he is by such caracteristics of music, I won't label Zappa as saying yeah that's prog. Really don't know what to call it, better say Avant-Garde or RIO. Even though being prog sub-genres and don't classifie him as prog, even though being.(the same discussion of Rush) Here is were you can tell me I'm close minded. Well I think the prog label are symphonic, electric, psychedlic and Folk. This is not something to discuss, please, this is how I categorise, divide my music, nobody will change that, it's not really cause being close minded, but I was born with those thoughts and still remain with them. Not saying that Magma, Marillion, etc, etc aren't prog, is that I don't label them as prog, my definition of prog is different, I don't know my definition but I know it when I hear it.

Hope this clarifies most of it.

TheRocinanteKid wrote: Rush are a Progressive Rock band. I don't see the debate here.   Rush are a band who have constantly progressed throughout their career. I know people who clearly seperate "Prog-Rock" from "Progressive-Rock" I'm going to take that stance in my explanation here.   Rush are a Progressive Rock band, as in throughout their career they have experimented in many different genres and as a huge fan I have to say mastered all of them. Their career is a Progression.   Rush have dabbled in Prog-Rock. Albums like 2112, A Farewell To Kings and Hemispheres are undenably Progressive Rock. That's why we have a Heavy Prog section here on the site I'd say, bands like Rush. There are very few bands who sound like Rush, that makes them all the more awesome in my opinion. Some would say everything Rush has put out... at least Fly By Night onwards... is Prog-Rock. Don't know if I agree and I don't dwell on it. I enjoy Rush music and although I do consider myself a Progressive Rock fan firstly I'm not going to reject a kick arse album like Signals or Counterparts because it doesn't fit the requirements to be a proper Prog-Rock album.   Rush is Progressive Rock.   Rush is Prog-Rock.

I agree completely with this.

I am, however, one of "those people" you mentioned that believes that nearly every album by Rush in some way is a piece of art exemplifying progressive rock or art rock. Despite that, I'm not willing to start a stupid arguement on that one, as it's one of my more seemingly controversial claims on this site.

Rush are a Progressive Rock band. I don't see the debate here.

easy boys.. .   this is supposed to be fun... don''t forget that 

cacho wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: ^Uh...whut? Rush are huge in the prog genre. They've influenced countless bands, and combined a hard rock and progressive style in a commercially successful manner. Someone who's just gotten into prog will almost certainly end up getting a Rush album before they get a Camel or Uriah Heep one.Moving Pictures #16, hereA Farewell To Kings #24Moonmadness #29Camel weren't ever huge in symphonic, though they are now more appreciated than they previously were. Conversely, Rush absolutely dominates the heavy progressive genre, has inspired lots of other bands. It's like saying Floyd isn't huge in the progressive genre. Huh? Floyd is, Rush not.. That's it. Get out the Heep and Camel stuff, cause in my last post I didn't put them in. Just cause the rankings, pfff, that's low. I will(would) never get a Rush album and would never recomend any. Wouldn't say that anyone who gets onto prog will get a Rush album, as far as I am concerned 50% or more thought that Rush were a hard rock band, also Heep I won't denie that, but not Camel. Certainly someone will get Camel albums if they're interested in symphonic prog like Genesis and Yes. Before getting a Rush one. Myself that I love 70's hard rock a la Deep Purple, Zeppelin, Sabbath and heavy prog like Black Widow, Atomic Rooster and Heep, don't like Rush, and I don't consider them as huge, cause I've never heard somebody saying prog with Rush.

Neither in this post nor your previous one have you provided ANY concrete evidence or backup for any of your claims. If you're going to be a Rush hater, fine. I didn't say you had to LIKE Rush. I really don't care if you do.

As a matter of fact, I don't like Pink Floyd. I think their music is simplistic, I think their albums are WAY overrated, and I simply don't like them. HOWEVER, I would never say that they are not big in prog and I recognize and admire their ability to create unique music that has gone on to be extremely innovative and influential.

Your closed-mindedness doesn't allow you to do the same for Rush.

If you're going to continue to argue, I'll continue to provide evidence. Show me aspects of the 1970s progressive movement, and I will show you that Rush satisfies nearly every single one of them (if not every, which I'm sure they would). Additionally, Rush has the advantage of opening the entirety of Canada and the United States to the prog scene that weren't quite as directly impacted as Britain (Kansas did similarly, but not NEAR to such a degree).

Most importantly and key to being called a BIG artist, Camel is UNKNOWN OUTSIDE OF PROG. My friend, who has been into progressive metal and rock for a few years, even didn't know of Camel until I told him. However, Rush reaches out to influence even more bands in the prog realm alone, let alone outside into a more classic rock setting and even reaching metal (Metallica was influenced by Rush).


Simply put: You didn't address absolutely anything worthwhile in my post. When you come up with a good argument, I'd be glad to debate it with you. However, until then, please keep your opinion, feel free to express it, but try to be more open-minded. Like I and TGM: Orb have said:

Rush created a unique hybrid of heavy progressive rock and later on with commercial success that has influenced many bands in rock, PROG (most importantly), and even metal.

EDIT: If you want the rest of my argument, refer to my last post, which I'm not even sure you read all the way through.


Edited by MovingPictures07 - May 11 2008 at 15:10

^

Uh...whut? Rush are huge in the prog genre. They've influenced countless bands, and combined a hard rock and progressive style in a commercially successful manner. Someone who's just gotten into prog will almost certainly end up getting a Rush album before they get a Camel or Uriah Heep one.

Moving Pictures #16, here
A Farewell To Kings #24

Moonmadness #29

Camel weren't ever huge in symphonic, though they are now more appreciated than they previously were. Conversely, Rush absolutely dominates the heavy progressive genre, has inspired lots of other bands. It's like saying Floyd isn't huge in the progressive genre.