| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
eugene 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 30 2005
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 2703
|
 Posted: July 29 2006 at 13:13 |
 Philйas wrote:
Am I the only person in the world who recognizes Test for Echo (which is a wonderful album) as the proggiest thing they've done since Moving Pictures?  |
Probably you're not. But I for one think that Test for Echo is dull, boring, repetitive, commercial exercise of a low quality, call it "prog" or otherwise.
|
|
carefulwiththataxe
|
 |
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 13:07 |
Am I the only person in the world who recognizes Test for Echo (which
is a wonderful album) as the proggiest thing they've done since Moving
Pictures?
|
|
eugene
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 30 2005
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 2703
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 12:16 |
erik neuteboom wrote:
According to my definitions I am always right  ! |
That's the second best phrase of the week, and it's true. 
|
|
carefulwiththataxe
|
|
erik neuteboom
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 11:58 |
My musical analysis on Rush between 1974 (their eponymous debut album) and 2003 (their latest effort Vapor Trails):
1974 (Rush) - 1976 (2112) : progressive hardrock
1977 (A Farewell To Kings) - 1981 (Moving Pictures) : symphonic rock and roll
1982 (Signals) - 1987 (Hold Your Fire) : high-tec midi-controlled prog rock
1989 (Presto) - 2003 (Vapor Trails) : prog related
...................................  ...........................! |
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 11:39 |
of course most of the bands here don't fall under that... so.... it continues...
I know that last statement is going to rankle some readers, so let
me spend a few minutes and describe the major players of the neo and
post-progressive trends. Neo-progressive rock was big in the 1980's and
emphasized pop song form and structure while de-emphasizing virtuosity,
eclecticism, and "deep thinking". Major proponents of the
neo-progressive style include Marillion; Pendragon; Pallas; IQ; and
Twelfth Night. Post-progressive rock, which initally flourished in the
early 1980's with the "rebirth" of King Crimson is still going strong
today. Excellent post-progressive bands include the Swedish band
Anglagard (Epilog, 1994); and the English bands Ozric Tentacles (The
Hidden Step, 2000); and Porcupine Tree (The Sky Moves Sideways, 1995).
Other contemporary bands include Flower Kings, Spocks Beard, and the
progressive metal group, Dream Theater.
In
addition, 1970's musical styles related to progressive rock worth
exploring include (1) electronica, e.g. Tangerine Dream (Rubycon,
1975); (2) progressive folk, e.g. The Strawbs (Hero and Heroine, 1974);
(3) Canterbury jazz-rock, e.g. Hatfield and the North (Hatfield and the
North, 1973); (4) progressive hard rock e.g. Kansas (Song for America,
1975);(5) progressive heavy metal, e.g. Rush (Hemispheres, 1978); (6)
Minimalism e.g. Terry Riley (Rainbow in Curved Air, 1969); (7)
Krautrock, e.g. Can (Tago Mago, 1971); (8) Chamber Prog, e.g. Magma
(Magma Live, 1975); and (9) Jazz Rock, e.g. Mahavishnu Orchestra (Birds
of Fire, 1973).
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 11:35 |
Ghost Rider wrote:
micky wrote:
Philéas wrote:
micky wrote:
well said big difference between Genesis and Rush, the only similarity
was the turn away from prog..... Rush did retain prog
sensiblilites, Genesis did not haha... .that's why I called
Rush's 80's stuff prog-related
|
I am once again bound to agree with micky. 
|
thanks... always nice to have someone agree with my 'out-there' views.... beats being tarred and feathered hahaha 
|
OK,
so Prog-Related it is.... you might not be wrong after all, though here
we'd have to go into the matter of what prog really means. However,
they definitely returned to the prog fold in the '90s, especially with
the utterly superb "Counterparts" - an album I like even more than
"Moving Pictures".
|
hmmm... what is prog and what is not.... here's what I think... this
definition has always been a guide for me.. might explain my....
'eccentric' views on prog hahaha I've posted this several times and
really think this definition nails it.
"Progressive Rock was an outgrowth of 1960's experimental rock and fuses
the looseness of rock with the rigid structure and discipline of
classical music, along with various jazz, folk, and in some instances,
neo-classical styles. Progressive Rock musicians exhibited both
individual and ensemble virtuosity and used instruments that were both
archaic e.g. lutes, harpsichords, and poised at the cutting edge of
1970’s technology, e.g. Moog and ARP synthesizers. Compositions were
lengthy and exhibited both harmonic and metric complexity; lyrics dealt
with matters relating to the spiritual quest and other “profound”
matters; and album cover art alternately depicted middle earth
fantasyscapes and futuristic imagery taken from science fiction. The
most significant works of progressive rock were recorded between
1969-1977, with the peak output occurring between 1971-1976. Although
primarily an English phenomenon, significant progressive rock groups
also originated out of Continental Europe, with a particularly fertile
scene in Italy. Finally, and most importantly progressive rock was
inextricably intertwined with the 1960’s counterculture, and as the
philosophical, social, and cultural underpinnings of the counterculture
faded out in the mid-late 1970’s, so too did progressive rock."
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 10:45 |
|
|
|
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 10:40 |
micky wrote:
thanks... always nice to have someone agree with my 'out-there' views.... beats being tarred and feathered hahaha
|
Well no problem! Since Rush's '80s albums are not prog, but made by a
band who had made prog earlier, they pretty much define the prog
related category.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 10:38 |
|
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 10:37 |
erik neuteboom wrote:
According to my definitions I am always right ! |
Oh you too? The same goes for me!  Of course I'm right, if you ask me. Other people tend to disagree though...
Edited by Philéas - July 29 2006 at 10:38
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 10:36 |
erik neuteboom wrote:
According to my definitions I am always right ! |
that's the spirit Erik hahah
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
erik neuteboom
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 09:58 |
According to my definitions I am always right !
|
|
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 09:39 |
micky wrote:
well said big difference between Genesis and Rush, the only similarity
was the turn away from prog..... Rush did retain prog
sensiblilites, Genesis did not haha... .that's why I called
Rush's 80's stuff prog-related
|
I am once again bound to agree with micky.
|
|
eugene
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 30 2005
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 2703
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 08:38 |
erik neuteboom wrote:
For me the super group definition is: progressive rock bands that combined quality (technical - and compositional skills) at a very high level with selling worldwide many albums (millions) like Yes, Genesis, ELP, King Crimson and Pink Floyd did in the Seventies and later ..........and Rush did from the Eighties !
Jethro Tull could also be one but Camel and VDGG not .... in my opinion. |
Well, this is A defnition, and according to your own definition - your are right! I agree. It is simple really - once a definition made, you just see (as objectively as you can) which band complies with it, and it's done - no arguments. All arguments here are the result of slightly diffrent definitions of the subject, hence pointless.
Whether the definition is correct ? - well, this is a different matter .
Edited by eugene - July 29 2006 at 08:39
|
|
carefulwiththataxe
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 08:07 |
Ghost Rider wrote:
Progger wrote:
|
Among the mentioned bands, only Pink Floyd have sold more than Rush, I think.
|
Probably true Rush's most successful period was the 80's when they
were not a prog band. Like Genesis they went the commercial route &
so those album sales do not count in my mind! [/QUOTE] I
think there is a huge difference between Rush's 'commercial' period and
what Genesis did in the Eighties. Maybe I'm speaking as a fan here, but
I don't really see many similarities. Rush have always retained their
prog sensibilities, while Genesis had no such qualms and went all the
way. [/QUOTE]
well said big difference between Genesis and Rush, the only similarity
was the turn away from prog..... Rush did retain prog
sensiblilites, Genesis did not haha... .that's why I called
Rush's 80's stuff prog-related
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
glass house
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 16 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 4986
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 07:00 |
erik neuteboom wrote:
For me the super group definition is: progressive rock bands that combined quality (technical - and compositional skills) at a very high level with selling worldwide many albums (millions) like Yes, Genesis, ELP, King Crimson and Pink Floyd did in the Seventies and later ..........and Rush did from the Eighties !
Jethro Tull could also be one but Camel and VDGG not .... in my opinion. |
Your definition : agree without the selling part, I don't care if a group sells a lot of records. Why not include VDGG in your definition? They do combine quality, technical and compositional skills!!!!!!!
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 05:49 |
Progger wrote:
|
Among the mentioned bands, only Pink Floyd have sold more than Rush, I think. [/QUOTE]
Probably true Rush's most successful period was the 80's when they were not a prog band. Like Genesis they went the commercial route & so those album sales do not count in my mind! [/QUOTE] I think there is a huge difference between Rush's 'commercial' period and what Genesis did in the Eighties. Maybe I'm speaking as a fan here, but I don't really see many similarities. Rush have always retained their prog sensibilities, while Genesis had no such qualms and went all the way.
|
|
Progger
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1188
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 05:46 |
[/QUOTE] Among the mentioned bands, only Pink Floyd have sold more than Rush, I think. [/QUOTE]
Probably true Rush's most successful period was the 80's when they were not a prog band. Like Genesis they went the commercial route & so those album sales do not count in my mind!
|
|
erik neuteboom
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 04:41 |
For me the super group definition is: progressive rock bands that combined quality (technical - and compositional skills) at a very high level with selling worldwide many albums (millions) like Yes, Genesis, ELP, King Crimson and Pink Floyd did in the Seventies and later ..........and Rush did from the Eighties !
Jethro Tull could also be one but Camel and VDGG not .... in my opinion.
|
|
Fassbinder
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
Posted: July 29 2006 at 00:43 |
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Can we put Rush in the super prog category?
