Rush Retirement Rumors: Your Thoughts.

Genre classifications are equal points fickle and pointless, but classifying Rush as prog would depend on one's definition of prog (obviously). Certainly, no one would put them among the symphonic, keyboard driven groups like Genesis or Yes or the eclectic, experimental, jazzy groups like Gentle Giant or King Crimson, but as far as being placed on Progarchives overall, they certainly have a place somewhere in the heavy rock/metal categories. Personally, I tend to use a pretty strict definition of prog that would probably exclude Rush, but that has nothing to do with quality. Van Der Graaf Generator is my favorite group and I don't consider them to be prog either. 

^^ I don't think anyone has said they are not 'progressive' (have they?) Prog rock, like the snobbery that characterises many of its followers, is a spectrum, with It Bites at one end and a top hatted octupus playing the f***ing spoons on an ironing board at the other. Rush sit somewhere to the right of the centre point along that spectrum.

Modrigue wrote: However, the initial question was: "What are your thoughts on Rush possibly calling it a day?" Personally, I don't have any definitive opinion. I would like to see them live, and Clockwork Angels has its moments.

I never knew there was such a thing as "straight up avant-garde or avant-rock artists"...what is non-straight up avant-garde??

The question should have been : How much of a snob are you?

Without necessarily getting into the actual quality of Rush's music, I have to side with Magnum and Baldfriede here, Rush is definitely a relatively streamlined/mainstream act. Compared to RIO, krautrock, free jazz/improv, musique concrete, or straight up avant-garde or avant-rock artists, Rush is a straightforward rock act, with brief verse-chorus songs, catchy hooks, accessible sound, etc. NONE of these are criticisms, but positing Rush as "out-there" artists defying the standard norms of music in the 70's, an era of incredible innovation and experimentation, is false. They bridged hard rock/metal and space rock/prog, which deserves some recognition (hardly the only artists to do so of course), but they had a set sound that enabled commercial success. Even 2112 or Hemispheres (the songs themselves) mainly resort to conventional songwriting tactics, and these came long after side-length tracks had been done to death. By the standards of prog (not even counting actual experimental music) Rush is incredibly normal. 

Jeffro wrote: Blacksword wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Cristi wrote: BaldFriede wrote: They jumped on the prog rock train when it was almost out of the station. I call that "epigones". but epigone has such a negative connotation to it, an inferior creator, an imitator which in my opinion Rush has never been. But that's exactly my opinion of them. Had they added anything new and surprising I would not call them "epigones", but they didn't. At least not to my ears. I know they are very much loved on the American continent, but I simply can't warm up to them. They are way too streamlined for my taste. Their huge number of followers alone is proof for that; bands that go against the grain (which are those bands I prefer) have much less followers. Well I guess no one likes every band and that's fine, but I don't get how you think they did add anything new or surprising. I'd be the first to admit they started out sounding like a Zep tribute act, but by the time they made 2112 I can honestly say that no one else I'm aware of sounded like that. Even if you hate the sound.. This is true. To my knowledge, no one else sounded like Rush back then. By the band's own admission, their music was "weird". They had a large cult following and music critics, by and large, hated them.  If by "streamlined", she means mainstream, Calling Rush that is laughable. Until recently, they have been the epitome of not streamlined, not mainstream.

I took 'streamined' to mean she thought they were slick and polished, which they were. It wasn't until Neil loosened his sound after some jazz 'tuition' that they started to lose their metronomic style (and started writing less memorable music IMO) but I would argue that just because they were 'streamlined' they were still unique, progressive and innovative.

Blacksword wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Cristi wrote: BaldFriede wrote: They jumped on the prog rock train when it was almost out of the station. I call that "epigones". but epigone has such a negative connotation to it, an inferior creator, an imitator which in my opinion Rush has never been. But that's exactly my opinion of them. Had they added anything new and surprising I would not call them "epigones", but they didn't. At least not to my ears. I know they are very much loved on the American continent, but I simply can't warm up to them. They are way too streamlined for my taste. Their huge number of followers alone is proof for that; bands that go against the grain (which are those bands I prefer) have much less followers. Well I guess no one likes every band and that's fine, but I don't get how you think they did add anything new or surprising. I'd be the first to admit they started out sounding like a Zep tribute act, but by the time they made 2112 I can honestly say that no one else I'm aware of sounded like that. Even if you hate the sound..

Yes, they may be less innovative or complex than Yes or Gentle Giant. However, for me, they bring something new to the prog genre during the late 70's, when it was beginning to die. I personally consider 2112 as the prime example of progressive metal, influencing numerous future bands of the 80-90's, such as Dream Theater.

Concerning the 'bands that go against the grain' and 'less followers is better' arguments (the 'hipster' argument? ), things are more complex. Pink Floyd and Radiohead are both incredible and immensely creative bands and have both a huge number of followers. In the late 90's, techno, rap and britpop were popular, Radiohead 'went against the grain' with their innovative depressive and beautiful rock.


Edited by Modrigue - August 23 2016 at 11:51

Blacksword wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Cristi wrote: BaldFriede wrote: They jumped on the prog rock train when it was almost out of the station. I call that "epigones". but epigone has such a negative connotation to it, an inferior creator, an imitator which in my opinion Rush has never been. But that's exactly my opinion of them. Had they added anything new and surprising I would not call them "epigones", but they didn't. At least not to my ears. I know they are very much loved on the American continent, but I simply can't warm up to them. They are way too streamlined for my taste. Their huge number of followers alone is proof for that; bands that go against the grain (which are those bands I prefer) have much less followers. Well I guess no one likes every band and that's fine, but I don't get how you think they did add anything new or surprising. I'd be the first to admit they started out sounding like a Zep tribute act, but by the time they made 2112 I can honestly say that no one else I'm aware of sounded like that. Even if you hate the sound..

^ Now let's talk about The Fab Four and Frank Zappa, Catch.