Can we put Rush in the super prog category?

It seems as though my initial point has been proven. Go back to page 4 and read my first post in the topic. 

There are the discussions that can reach constructive conclusions, and there are those that can't. This one is one of the latter, at least that's what my experience of discussing this subject tells me (which I also stated in my first post on page 5). 

Edited by Philéas - July 30 2006 at 18:58

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

These 11 pages has delivered many good posts so in my opinion it's worth to open a thread like this because you can notice how many progheads have a fine view on progrock discussions, I am glad that I decided to start it, thanks  !

Tony R wrote: I'm sorry mate I dont agree.Regardless of whether any "winning" arguments have been put forward on either "side",I am sure there are members who are prepared to change their perceptions based on discussions on this forum.

Well yes, but I wasn't referring to the whole forum, but to this topic alone. Rush is very polarized topic. I have considerable experience in discussing Rush with people who don't like them, and it has always led to heated arguments and the people disliking Rush disliking them even more, but also the people liking Rush liking them even more, just for the sake of it.

There are probably people who change their opinions on Rush in a discussion like this aswell, but unlike many other discussions, there will always be sort of a 50/50 split between supporters and antagonists of Rush, which eliminates the conclusion of the discussion by majority, which is also what makes this particular topic so hard to discuss. The topic is wheter or not Rush should be universally viewed as one of the greatest prog bands together with the likes of Yes, Genesis and King Crimson and a couple of others. For Rush to be mentioned together with the above mentioned bands and viewed as equally great, the majority of progheads worldwide have to agree. But as long as people's opinions on Rush remain as polarized as they are, the discussion won't reach an end any time soon. In the meantime we have to be satisfied with the fact that we at least can have whatever bands we want in our own personal "super prog category".

Please note that neither my original post nor this one was intended to cause any harm. Of course, it's never wrong to discuss anything, certainly not on a discussion forum. I was just trying to spare people on both sides some trouble. Harsh words have already been exchanged in this topic, and we wouldn't want it to turn into a flame war. Luckily, it hasn't, but at the time I first posted, it looked like it was going to.

Edited by Garion81 - July 30 2006 at 22:01

Blacksword wrote: If the criteria is musicianship, and creative songwriting, then yes! If it's album sales then possibly yes, also. I wouldn't be suprised if they had sold more albums over their career so far, than King Crimson or ELP. Remember ELP split in the late 70's, and didn't do anything until ELPowell which flopped. In that time Rush had released Permenant Waves, Moving Pictures, Signals, Grace Under Pressure all of which were top ten albums (I think) That was on the back of 2112 (which has gone platinum more than once) I think they have sold in excess of 45,000,000 albums. They are 'Premier League' as far as I'm concerned.

    
I don't know if I missed a post somewhere but I think I should point this out from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_(band)):
"Rush currently place fifth behind The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, KISS and Aerosmith for the most consecutive gold and platinum albums by a rock band[5]."

http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/artist.asp

Oh no, not again...

I am still proud for what Rush has reached but I hope their next album will contain a bit more elaborate compositions than Vapor Trails, Roll The Bones and Test For Echo (some exceptions there)!

Edited by erik neuteboom - August 03 2006 at 14:53

salmacis wrote: Agreed with Erik. It would be nice to have some more complex Rush material again, considering how prog rock is no longer the laughing stock it once was and they are namechecked by a host of new acts for their 70s/early 80s work- their most progressive. Also, the production needs to be a bit better than it was on 'Vapor Trails'. I don't think it was as bad as some people do (the rawness was better than the more clinical and very cold 80s production albums like 'Grace Under Pressure' had, imo), but it made for some relentless listening, nonetheless.

IT for a change... I do agree with you about the relentless listening - at least, that was my first impression of "Vapor Trails". This is one of the reasons why, as much as I think the album is much better than it usually gets credit for, I don't listen to it very often.