ATPS #15: The Other Big 4

With regard to Rush, having grown up in the 70s, I can tell you that initially no one thought of Rush as a prog band. They were a hard rock band. And their first few albums justify that label. There is nothing prog about them.

Rush then did become more progressive with 2112, Hemispheres, Farewell to Kings. I never thought of them as a group that totally became a progressive rock group, as they maintained a hard rock core, but the early prog influences of the BIG 5 certainly influenced Rush in the late 70s. As they entered the 80s they retained those prog influences, especially on stuff like Natural Science from Permanent Waves, but as the 80s wore on they became more of an AOR band with some prog influences, and moved in the same direction as Kansas. By the mid 80s they weren't really doing progressive rock as we knew it in the early 70s of course. So I have always been on the fence about thier progginess. They really are a band that really only had a 6-7 year period of prog in the late 70s early 80s. They certainly have been a gateway for many who had been exclusively into "hard rock" to get into prog, due to their arena friendly radio oriented style in the 80s where they won over huge number of fans. So you have to give them credit for attracting fans to prog, even though they were never fully a prog band like the big boys.

I would consider Renaissance, Gentle Giant, Hawkwind etc much more in the second tier of bands after the Big 5 before Rush, but there is no doubt they were an entryway into prog for many.

Dr. Prog wrote: With regard to Rush, having grown up in the 70s, I can tell you that initially no one thought of Rush as a prog band. They were a hard rock band. And their first few albums justify that label. There is nothing prog about them. Rush then did become more progressive with 2112, Hemispheres, Farewell to Kings. I never thought of them as a group that totally became a progressive rock group, as they maintained a hard rock core, but the early prog influences of the BIG 5 certainly influenced Rush in the late 70s. As they entered the 80s they retained those prog influences, especially on stuff like Natural Science from Permanent Waves, but as the 80s wore on they became more of an AOR band with some prog influences, and moved in the same direction as Kansas. By the mid 80s they weren't really doing progressive rock as we knew it in the early 70s of course. So I have always been on the fence about thier progginess. They really are a band that really only had a 6-7 year period of prog in the late 70s early 80s. They certainly have been a gateway for many who had been exclusively into "hard rock" to get into prog, due to their arena friendly radio oriented style in the 80s where they won over huge number of fans. So you have to give them credit for attracting fans to prog, even though they were never fully a prog band like the big boys. I would consider Renaissance, Gentle Giant, Hawkwind etc much more in the second tier of bands after the Big 5 before Rush, but there is no doubt they were an entryway into prog for many.

Funnily enough I was introduced to Rush in 1976 by a friend's brother who had spent some time in Canada and returned with a clutch of Rush LPs. He insisted I borrow 2112 as I was "into Prog Rock"..

Tony R wrote: Sorry StyL, accidently edited your post. Actually, I just added a / so your quote code would work, I thought I was editing my own post..

StyLaZyn wrote: cacho wrote: 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. One could argue the same of Tull. They have many albums which are not Prog, in the same vein Rush is not? How about the very first and then latter Genesis albums? When Rush wrote serious Prog, it was some of the best out there, in my tastes.

I do agree that Tull are not completly prog, as a WHOLE they're behind prog. But Tull is considered prog, and I do, cause they've released IMO and surely many others, one of the best prog albums ever. Influential or not, you're not gonna denie me that Thick as a Brick is one of the pinnacles of prog together with DSOTM, ITCOTCK, Fragile or CTTE, the Lamb or SEBTP..etc..

I can see that Rush wrote good prog material, but never released an album that reaches the standards of the albums mentioned before, IMHO.


For Movingpictures, sorry to continue but here's a little bit what I say before and I'll respond what you said later that I forgot..
Well my point was that Rush MAINLY isn't considered as a prog band, more like a hard rock band or even metal for some... the majority of people get into Rush not knowing they're prog if not that they are pretty damn good hard rock band. Then with PA or other info sites or friends, you discover they're prog.
You Said that Rush influence was high, and you named me a band or two. I'm surely the band/s you named me were metal or hard rock. So I'm pretty damn sure that my point is correct. They really don't represent prog as a whole. They may represent hard rock or heavy prog but prog as a whole, for what you said, no sir.

Please I'm waiting as you waited before, a good response on this. It's not that I wanna win this discussion I just wanna know. Get proofs, in some way, I do believe you of course, but let's expand ourselves to better discussion, if you want, I'm willing, not to fight, but to discuss.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Let this thread die! If you must continue the whole Rush is/isn't a big prog rock band, make a new thread. Otherwise let this poll fade into non-existence which starts within the next 1-2 pages on the forum

OK folks, let's put some historical perspective here, considering the four artists presented, before this thread is put under. 

Zappa's albums run the gamut of music.  You will find rock, prog, fusion, and any number of other genres (some previously unknown) in his catalog.  But he is not prog in the traditional sense (i.e., not typically grouped with ELP, Yes, KC, and whomever else you care to mention).

ELP is considered traditional prog, since they were one of the first bands working in what we would generally agree to be prog, along with Yes and KC and some other bands, yes even the Moody Blues.

Jethro Tull, while not perhaps initially considered prog, certainly dabbled in it on their early albums and became full-fledged members once TAAB was released.  I would consider this Tull's first prog album.  What happened afterwards is for another thread.

Rush is more difficult.  I hated the first Rush songs I heard, back around 1979.  You can't convince me that Working Man is prog, nor Fly By Night, nor any number of their early songs.  They were decidedly not prog in any then accepted sense.  I know this ecause the local FM-ROCK station had them in steady rotation, and believe me NO rock station was putting prog in the rotation at the time. As the band grew in skills, both songwriting and instrumentally, I could see how they would become to be conceived as prog.  For me this happened with Moving Pictures, though again this would have been more in the vein of a Zep type of transformation, where Zep moved from essentially being a really loud blues-based band (first album) to a band taking greater risks musically (say Houses of the Holy).  (Should add that Zep was also in steady rotation on said FM-ROCK station.)  Rush had that kind of progression.  So that is why I would not consider them a prog band in the traditional sense, no more than I would consider Led Zep a prog band.  Now Rush has had the good fortune of having considerably more longevity than Zep, so they have become viewed as a prog band.  And looking back, why not?  They have managed to run that gauntlet, to the point that I consider them, if not prog, then certainly 'intelligent' rock, or some variation thereof.  Which is what I think all of us who stumble onto this site are interested in.

Which, if you're still reading, was at least my reason for voting for ELP.

It's going to have to be ELP for me. Pictures At An Exhibition, Tarkus, Karn Evil 9, Fanfare For The Common Man, Trilogy. Prog masterpieces all of them. I just don't think the other four bands have five prog epic type pieces as good as those five.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!Let this thread die! If you must continue the whole Rush is/isn't a big prog rock band, make a new thread. Otherwise let this poll fade into non-existence which starts within the next 1-2 pages on the forum

Won't do it! Kidding.. Ok sorry, but I'm not in a mood of making a thread discussing Rush, since the majority of PA will throw me stones from the other half of the planet. Better keep it cool down on this thread, were the OP(you) is somewhat letting me do this, hehe.