Which Albums by Rush are real Prog Rock? And Why? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Caress of steel,farewell to kings and hemispheres, that,s prog or progressive rock these 3 are the gems

GrafHaarschnitt wrote:

I don´t see the problem. He obviously isn´t serious about it xD.

Edit: That was about cristis post.

It's well known around here that Barney is an angry, agressive a****le.

No problem for me saying it since I'm not really serious about it.

cstack3 wrote:

I see no beauty in their music, unlike Yes, King Crimson, Genesis etc.

Tears from 2112 and Losing It from Signals.

Edited by Rednight - November 25 2018 at 13:17

"It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno

cstack3 wrote:

Am I the only person on PA who is not totally in love with Rush?

I mean, they've done some good to near-great music, but Lifeson wasn't in the same league as Fripp, Howe, Hackett etc.

Also, Geddy Lee's voice can really be irritating. What is it that I am missing? I see no beauty in their music, unlike Yes, King Crimson, Genesis etc.

You don't have to be totally in love with any band. You confirm Rush has done good to near great music, to me that is more than enough to like a band a lot.

Whether Lifeson was in the same league as those mentioned is subjective. I've never been a huge fan of Fripp or Howe, Hackett is better than all of them.

Geddy's voice issue is a long in the tooth discussion, growing up I never had any issue with it and I suspect most of the prog/hard rock world does not either.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as the 3 you mention made magical music before Rush came into their own. Those bands are influences to Rush members and Rush music, that's all. I don't think you are missing anything other than you may not enjoy harder prog or Zeppelin styled prog rock, at least in the early years....

I don´t see the problem. He obviously isn´t serious about it xD.

Edit: That was about cristis post.

Edited by GrafHaarschnitt - November 25 2018 at 07:32

They're definitely not for everyone. Seems you either love Rush or you don't. I have the same issue with Porcupine Tree. I just can't get into 'em.

eBay

Mickey mouse dishes it out so he gets it back in spades...anybody who disagrees with him is a troll...I felt like shouting a bit...catharsis and all that...

M27Barney wrote:

miamiscot wrote:

Easy: 2112 to Moving Pictures.

THIS!
AND THE ASSERTION THAT GENESIS GOT BETTER AFTER W&W IS THE MOST LUDICROUS STATEMENT EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND. Micky is Donald Trump nailed on....

please stop using all caps. Are you screaming at us? All caps post are aggressive. So you disagree with someone, what's the big deal? So someone likes the trio Genesis more. I disagree as well.But there's no need to get all caps angry, throw insults etc.

someone_else wrote:

I'd say from Caress of Steel to Signals. With CoS they started to make 10+ minute songs and after Signals there were hardly any odd time signatures.

Yep. This works for me even though signals seems to have strong new wave tendencies as well.

If you plotted their perceived 'progginess' as a histogram, it would very much follow the classic, 'normal distribution' bell-shaped curve for much of their career. By-Tor' got things going on Fly By Night, and that style was built upon with Caress of Steel. The 2112 suite brought it up a notch more, followed by the more intricate and diverse A Farewell to Kings - Xanadu the obvious example. The wonderful Hemispheres was their prog peak for me, especially Side 1 and La Villa Strangiato. Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures maintained some of that, but by Signals that prog ambience was starting to fade, with maybe only Subdivisions providing an echo of those earlier days. After that, the style changed significantly and prog took a back seat, even though there were still gems to be found.

Snakes and Arrows and Clockwork Angels did provide a return to aspects of prog, as a coda to their career, although more on particular tracks than the whole album.

I'll concur with earlier comments regarding Rush not being considered 'prog' by many of us at the time we were discovering them, compared to the likes of the Big Six, and only retrospectively did that prog link show more. They were a complex and intelligent, long-format rock trio that countered the more traditional rock bands of the time, and they were a refreshing change to the rather tired styles of many classic rock bands in the late 70s for many of us.

“Living in their pools, they soon forget about the sea.”