Is Rush really a Prog band ? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Raff

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429

Posted: March 25 2010 at 06:43

ExittheLemming wrote:

The T wrote:

JROCHA wrote:

Yes they are, enough said

/thread.

By the way, are DT already legends?

or even atheist legends with private health care ? Confused

And on a low-carb, high-protein diet, don't forget Wink

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: March 25 2010 at 04:15

A fair question, and I'd really need to familiarise myself more with the Rush albums I've only listened to on a cursory basis to give a fair answer.

On this one aspect, it seems to me that Metallica explored riffs to a greater extent, using riff inversions and fragments to produce something unlike anything else in metal at the time - but quite similar to King Crimson's approach, where Crimson wrote riff-based music - and I've yet to hear a metal band that successfully merges this into the genre outside of a purely technical approach, so Metallica remain unique in what they produced before their self-titled album.

Edited by Certif1ed - March 25 2010 at 04:17

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: March 25 2010 at 03:11

A somewhat related question, how would you compare Rush's compositional approach to say Metallica's? It's vastly different of course, but the emphasis in both cases seems to be on the exploration of riffs.

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: March 25 2010 at 02:40

I can understand the question being asked - when listening to Rush, there are precious few times that you forget you're listening to a hard rock act - progressive or otherwise.

Rush are probably the classic example of what I was getting at when trying to decipher the difference (if there is one) between "Prog" and "Progressive".

There can be no doubt that they played progressive music.

But it's not the same kind of Progressive music as (early) Genesis, ELP, King Crimson, Gentle Giant et al - one could say it's in a different league, without insinuating that one is necessarily better than the other.

The early albums were primarily Hard Rock in the same vein as Led Zeppelin - with similar "progressive" tendencies, but nothing overall to suggest a "full-blown" Prog band.

The later albums were varied, and, while they contained a lot of attributes that we could consider "Prog", this whole approach of identifying the music by attributes is skewed - and we can probably blame Rush for this!

Back in the 1970s (I was "there" too!), we called Rush Progressive Metal. Others didn't, but my immediate circle did - so you kind of got the feeling that "everyone" did - and this kind of phenomenon is very common.

Progressive Metal is a good label for them - the music has a kind of metal core in its hard rock approach - riffs which are often more complex than you'd expect, longer acoustic passages, and elongated song structures, particularly in the instrumentals.

But it's a different overall approach to composition to early Genesis et al - so I'd say that Rush are NOT a Prog band, rather an early Progressive Metal band who sometimes ventured into Prog territory.

/dons flame-retardent suit

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420

Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:45

The T wrote:

JROCHA wrote:

Yes they are, enough said

/thread.

By the way, are DT already legends?

or even atheist legends with private health care ? Confused

Kashmir75

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 25 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1029

Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:41

lol, lets not open that can of worms again, shall we?

Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while...

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:35

JROCHA wrote:

Yes they are, enough said

/thread.

By the way, are DT already legends?

JROCHA

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 18 2007
Location: Oakland, KS
Status: Offline
Points: 1501

Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:22

Yes they are, enough said

Kashmir75

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 25 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1029

Posted: March 24 2010 at 21:03

rogerthat wrote:

Kashmir75 wrote:

People like to forget the word 'rock' in the genre progressive rock, don't they? Rock is just as much a part of the prog genre as the 'prog' part is.

Didn't the very idea of prog rock start with the intention of stretching rock into new unheard of places? Rush did just that.

Well, I am not going to dispute Rush's classification as prog, I have already expressed my dismay that this is even up for debate Confused

but in general, isn't stretching rock into new unheard of places what the first wave of prog rock bands did anyway? If it's taken to unheard of places, it will not sound like what is GENERALLY known as rock music. Stylistically, what Rush did is not much different from Blue Oyster Cult or Deep Purple in that sense, their progginess lies more in the approach to constructing songs like Jacob's Ladder.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to express. Prog started as a reaction to three chord rock, it wanted to take rock into new places.

Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while...

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: March 24 2010 at 20:40

Kashmir75 wrote:

People like to forget the word 'rock' in the genre progressive rock, don't they? Rock is just as much a part of the prog genre as the 'prog' part is.

Didn't the very idea of prog rock start with the intention of stretching rock into new unheard of places? Rush did just that.

Well, I am not going to dispute Rush's classification as prog, I have already expressed my dismay that this is even up for debate Confused

Kashmir75

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 25 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1029

Posted: March 24 2010 at 20:31

BaldFriede wrote:

Tony R wrote:

But the scene started in the UK, so with all due respect what it was called in Germany is irrelevant. You talk about a sampler which included Rush amongst Heavy Rock bands as if that settles the whole matter when in reality you are conflating marketing of the band with the reality of their music. Again Rush were very popular with Heavy Rock fans but that doesn't mean that they were just a Heavy Rock band.

The scene did NOT start in the UK; that's just another myth. It started in Germany at the same time. The only difference is that German bands did not make any albums before 1969. But many important German bands already existed in 1967.
And at least in 1973 there were several different names that existed for what today is called "progressive rock". Just take a look at the rock encyclopedia "Rock Dreams" with illustrations by Guy Peellaert, which came out in 1973, and you will find several different names for "progressive rock" in it.

People like to forget the word 'rock' in the genre progressive rock, don't they? Rock is just as much a part of the prog genre as the 'prog' part is.

Didn't the very idea of prog rock start with the intention of stretching rock into new unheard of places? Rush did just that.

Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while...

Kashmir75

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 25 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1029

Posted: March 24 2010 at 20:26

Are Rush prog? YES

Are Rush hard rock? YES

Why can't something be both? Why do we have to label everything? Back in the 70s, Rush were popular with progheads, and with Black Sabbath/Led Zep heads. Indeed, there was a lot more crossover between fandoms back then, not the continuous militant subdivisions Tongue

of fandom we see today.

It's all just rock music, after all. The way I see it, Rush is prog rock with the emphasis firmly on 'Rock', and Yes is prog rock with the emphasis on 'prog'.

Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while...

Zeromus218 View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: March 03 2010
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 33

Posted: March 24 2010 at 01:33

They are surely a prog band, but the problem is:

like for other bands (look magma for example), they may be fully liked or fully disliked, i personally fully dislike them, and for this thing i would be so happy if they weren't considered a prog band.

Rush... but they ARE a prog band.

DaysBeforeTomorrow View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: September 25 2008
Location: Wyckoff, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 34

Posted: March 23 2010 at 09:32

Absolutely Rush is a prog rock band.

Just because a band has hooks and melodies doesn't mean they aren't playing progressive rock.

Generally speaking, in the most basic description, and ignoring lyrical content and concept albums/themes, prog rock is music that routinely deviates from a standard 4|4 time signature, which is the typical standard timing of 90% of the world's pop and rock songs. The other 10% probably play in a 3|4 feel. But prog routinely plays in 5, 6, and 7, and not always over 4 or 8. Rush does this.

You don't have to write a 10 minute song or a concept album for it to be prog, though many prog bands do write these. For example, Green Day has written two concept albums now, and they're NOT prog.

Whether or not there are catchy hooks and big vocal stuff just gets into differences in the various sub-genres of prog.

Scott

Days Before Tomorrow

http://www.myspace.com/daysbeforetomorrow

Edited by DaysBeforeTomorrow - March 23 2010 at 09:33

XunknownX

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 02 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 158

Posted: March 22 2010 at 21:48

Yes, of course, why shouldn't they be, do you mean?

sigod

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 17 2004
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 2779

Posted: March 21 2010 at 17:29

Rush are NOT a prog band.

For them to be a prog band, they'd have to write long concept songs, or stretch ideas across more than one album, or play in odd time signatures, or have a song called Rivendell...or...or...oh bugger!

I must remind the right honourable gentleman that a monologue is not a decision.
- Clement Atlee, on Winston Churchill

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: March 21 2010 at 17:09

Catcher10 wrote:

Raff wrote:

Personally, I'd rather listen to any of Rush's so-called 'un-prog' albums than to the monstrosities some true-blue prog bands can inflict on the unsuspecting listener. While prog is one of the best musical forms known to man when it is good, bad prog can be nothing short of excruciating, and make you long for a well-made, three-minute pop song.

Gooner

Prog Reviewer

Joined: March 14 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 312

Posted: March 21 2010 at 16:50

5 words:

Hemispheres, Moving Pictures, Signals

Yes.

Tony R

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979

Posted: March 21 2010 at 16:23

lazland wrote:

ghost_of_morphy wrote:

Back in the Golden Age of Prog, us prog fans (at least the ones I knew) didn't really consider bands like Rush or Pink Floyd to be prog. But we liked them and eventually the consensual definition of prog widened to reflect that.

Sorry, but in the 70's us prog fans in dear old Blighty most certainly considered Rush & Floyd to be prog.

I think we have a winner! Star

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17863

Posted: March 21 2010 at 15:15

Is a

more proggy than a