Rush - Progressive Rock?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Blogs
Forum Description: Blogs, Editorials, Original articles posted by members
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35202
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 01:50
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Rush - Progressive Rock?
Posted By: progismylife
Subject: Rush - Progressive Rock?
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 14:32
|
Is Rush progressive rock? First off they are progressive rock in the sense that they have the necessary albums to merit their inclusion (Caress of Steel through to Moving Pictures). This is not what this article hopes to discuss. I am more concerned about the later years (Signals to Vapor Trails). It has been said that these albums are not progressive albums but have progressive songs (meaning that the band has a certain element to them that can be considered progressive but the band is not, in fact, progressive rock). I disagree. The 1980's Rush output is just as prog as the '70's output.For example, these albums may not have long songs with extended pieces in them but they do have a theme about them. It is not a concept album but rather an album that has one singular theme in all the songs (sort of lie Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd). Grace Under Pressure is as the album title suggests is about despair and troubled times. Signals is about signals sent out in society and life. Signals being about life and societies views of what is popular and makes you "cool", Chemistry about the signals sent in the body (science stuff). Power Windows is about how power can be and is corrupted. Now we come to what seems to be a weaker point in Rush's discography, Hold Your Fire. If you take a quick glance you cannot see anything behind the songs of this album. But once you look into the lyrics and keep the songs in context with one another, it is clearly seen that its theme is about life and aspects that come with that, Lock and Key being about the anger that dwells within us all and that we try to stifle that part of us behind lock and key. At this point in time Rush decided to move on and progress away from the synthesizer period. Most people consider the synthesizer period as a pop side of Rush but pop means what was popular at that time and does not have connotations that it is not progressive rock music, it is just progressive rock that happens to be popular (like Pink Floyd) . If Rush was concerned about popularity they would have done what the public would want from them, more synthesizer music. But, being a progressive rock band, they decided to once again go in a different direction. It marks another section of Rush. The music changed but the theme based albums did not. Roll the Bones is about chances and Counterparts is about, well, counterparts to life. Rush may have returned to their roots, but this is not regressing. They decided to make music that was more guitar oriented that included mainstream style (a bit). But it was not mostly mainstream style. They took what was popular at that time and made it their own. They even strayed away a bit (with the instrumental tracks on Roll the Bones and Counterparts). Clearly Rush is a progressive rock band by the way they changed musical style (a few times) and by their album content. If they stayed in the same style this would not be progressive rock since they would not be moving their music in different directions. And the fact that they have made many albums with theme based lyrics suggests that this is the work of a progressive rock band. Thanks to Easy Livin' for helping me edit this a bit. What do you guys think? |
Replies:
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 14:40
|
not bad Ben... I'll leave my feedback for another time.. this is
your stage.. not mine for my crackpot ideas on Rush hahahhaha.
I'd suggest something like Hugues EXCELLENT Jefferson Ariplane blog...
take a gander at that. That is the way to do a single group blog
subject. Tackle them album by album.. like any group worth it's
salt.. and jokes aside... Rush is... you can't pigeonhole them
and theri sound evolved over the years which is a great complement in
my book... regardless of how many people want Rush to revisit the 2112
years.. they have evolved past that. Use your blog to trace
that. I'd be curious to what you see and think. My two cents ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 15:23
Thanks micky. I'll be sure to post reviews of Rush albums in the future(that are probably going to go into a little more depth than the ones on PA). As well as on my blog. 
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 15:47
Ben - well done. As Micky wrote you could go more in depth - and knowing you a bit, you will in due time. I agree with what you write in general, but would like to add that the fact that Rush used a bit of pop influence on their more recent albums could be considered progressive as well. Didn't they also dare to incorporate reggae influences in songs like The Spirit of Radio? Using what is new or modern (or pop if you will) and blend it into your own creative output is definitely anything but regressive.  Brought to you by the letter A.  ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 16:03
my two cents... disect a theme.. not meerly a rehash of reviews. .pick a theme... like what I suggested.. the evolution in their sound.. and let that be the theme that runs through each album's 'review' Unlike a standard review.. no one is going to care what you personally think of the album... is it good..bad.. prog?.. yadda yadda... take a theme.. make it interesting. back off of the soapbox hahahha. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
progismylife wrote:Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 16:06
I'll probably do what you suggest. Starting with the debut all the way up to their newest album (but I don't have Vapor Trails  ) |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 16:13
you're not missing anything hahhahaha (3 posts is my limit without saying something about Rush  )
Talk with Tony and Raff as well.... they might have some good ideas as
well. That is a topic I find interesting.. but remember.. you
should as well or you'll lose interest. Personal experience
speaking there from real life.------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 16:14
Lose interest? Me and lose interest in Rush? But some good suggestions here and I'm working on one right now but I'll wait a while before I post it to make sure it works. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 16:15
hahah.. not the subject.. the topic you knucklehead  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 16:20
|
Good job. Nice read. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 16:24
|
Nice work Ben !
Rush has had such an amazing career so far one could write a thesis on the band's evolution throughout the years.
Still my favorite band after all this time !  ------------- "One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 16:28
|
I myself would have waited an astonishing essay on how Rush would actually not be progressive rock (or art rock, haha to micky) at all. otherwise nicely said.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 17:01
|
Well Progismylife, Rush is one of my favorite bands (since I bought the just released A Farewell To Kings in 1977) but from the album Presto I stopped buying Rush records because their music failed to keep my attention, in my opinion they turned from heavy progressive and symphonic prog to an innovative rock band, always trying to sound really progressive but not really my cup of tea. I have done my best to appreciate their work after Presto but unfortunately I am still waiting for an album on the level of Farewell To Kings or Moving Pictures, perhaps the new Rush album will delight me?
|
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 17:06
|
Erik you can call me Ben instead of progismylife (if you want to) and I hope the new album is like A Farewell to Kings too but also innovative, I would not like it if they just continued with one style and stayed that way. |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 17:13
|
While I wouldn't mind something as Prog as AFTK or Hemi, I am not holding my breath. I know enough about the band that if they do any reverting, it is in thier sound, not their writing style. They have in the past tried to move forward into new areas, but never leave their abilities in the shadows. In this way, they are innovative to themselves, finding new ideas within. They progress in this fashion. I will start a new thread tomorrow based on something that occured to me today while listening to Vapor Trails.
For the new record, expect them to be songwriters to satisfy themselves musically. -------------
|
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 17:22
Good points StyLaZyn and I can't wait to read the thread! 
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 17:26
A good summary, yes, well done. I must admit though, their late 80s and early 90s period is a problematic one for me- I'll offer my two cents.... I personally don't feel they 'sold out'- the music was perhaps more streamlined in some respects but lyrically, if anything, the band improved and didn't go down the bland ballad route- I think 'In Too Deep'(which is a guilty pleasure for me- it's soppy and AOR but I don't turn it off) and 'Invisible Touch' (which isn't...) by Genesis when I think of a prog band getting commercial- accessibility at all costs, little depth (imho of course). I don't even feel Yes went down the swanee marked 'commercial' in the same manner.
Certainly Signals is as good an album as most earlier ones- I think Losing It is one of the most mesmerising and proggiest things the band have ever recorded, for example, and Subdivisions is an all time favourite.
However, Grace Under Pressure is a bit patchy, to say the least. I love Distant Early Warning, Red Sector A and Between The Wheels, but the rest ranges from OK- Afterimage- to average- Kid Gloves- to awful, imho, with The Body Electric and especially Red Lenses (sounds like The Human League or one of those synth-pop new wave acts to my ears!). They seem to be unsure of the direction here, imo.
I feel that Power Windows is a big return to form. The production is very 80s and as such, sounds a little dated, but some of my favourite Rush tracks are there- The Big Money and Marathon, which is right up there in my favourites- especially, and even the weaker ones- Middletown Dreams and Emotion Detector- would probably be better than most of what was on the previous album. One of the stronger albums I've heard from a prog band in the 80s- ignore my lukewarm review as I've totally re-evaluated this one over the past few months.
It's with Hold Your Fire they lose me. This was the first Rush album I ever owned and it was definitely the worst introduction I could have had (the second album I bought, Caress Of Steel, was no improvement, imo). I personally feel Prime Mover and especially Time Stand Still are the nearest the band got to AOR, and I just feel indifferent to most of the material on it, I'm afraid. Probably my least favourite, to be honest.
Presto, despite dispensing with the excess of synths, is little better. So much unmemorable material, imho- only The Pass, um, passes muster for me. Geddy Lee has rightly criticised the clinical, bloodless production. This is another album I feel blights the perception of their later work being progressive rock, the tunes are fairly standard rock tunes for the most part.
Roll The Bones is a slight improvement, with Dreamline being the best song I've heard from them since Mystic Rhythms, but again it tails off around the middle and I lose interest- a touch of sameness creeps in, IMHO.
Counterparts I rate highly, though. The most diverse yet consistently excellent album I heard of theirs since Power Windows. The production is gutsier, with far less emphasis on synths and the compositions are tougher sounding. I'm not sure if this is a prog effort, but it's a very good album nevertheless.
Must admit, I never bought Test For Echo due to the poor reviews, but Vapor Trails I did have. I felt it was better than its reputation suggested, but again, this is not a prog album, imho. The compositions are arguably musically the most straight forward the band had done since their heavy rock debut, imho. The songs were often pretty strong- Earthshine and Secret Touch I liked, especially- but I feel personally, greater variety was necessary. Again though, not a sell out because this isn't pop material- as I hinted earlier, a lot of the time my personal perception of a sell out is a lyrical one as much as a musical one. And the lyrics have always prevented Rush from that category, imo.
For their next album, I'm obviously not expecting AFTK/Moving Pictures style music, but what I would like is greater compositional variety and obviously, a production which is less heavy going on the ears, allowing the music the space to breathe.
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 17:38
| As far as I'm concerned, there's never been any doubt that Rush are a progressive rock band. They have the long songs, the fantasy songs, the concept albums, the technical stuff. It's pretty straightforward to me. It's just a question of genre. |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 17:38
|
One thing to mention, it is my understanding that Rush, once writing Prog, continued to create "theme" albums, that is until Test For Echo. I remember this point being made about the band at the time of Counterparts, whose theme is obvious. So while the individual songs on an album may have different flavors, most noticeably on P/G, there was a common denominator. In this fashion, it is AOR with a Prog element. -------------
|
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 17:39
|
If you are interested I can try and make my blog a team blog to add similar stuff (doesn't have to be Rush related at all). http://masterliness.blogspot.com/ - http://masterliness.blogspot.com/ PM me if interested. And good points salmacis |
Posted By: martinprog77
Date Posted: March 08 2007 at 03:38
 .chopper you are 100000000000% right.------------- Nothing can last there are no second chances. Never give a day away. Always live for today. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: March 08 2007 at 04:01
|
Well, everyone should know by now I'm a big Rush fan (my nickname has nothing to do with the recently released movie, and everything with the legendary trio from Toronto), though if you look at my reviews you'll see I'm perfectly capable of being objective. However, I'd like to say just one thing to those who doubt Rush's progressiveness - are latter-day Porcupine Tree (a great band, and one I enjoy quite a lot), in spite of their longer tracks, so much proggier than Rush in terms of song structure? Do the fantasy-or sci-fi-related lyrical content or the length of the songs really make a band prog, rather than the approach to composition and the ability to reinvent themselves, to incorporate diverse influences into their music and reinterpret them, to never play it safe? Rush took a big risk with "Vapor Trails", and I think they should be respected for that - much more than those bands who don't seem to be able to do anything but endlessly reproduce their one successful album, or even imitate music that was authentically progressive 30 years ago. Waiting for Rush to release "Hemispheres #2" is, in my humble opinion, not only unrealistic, but not very flattering to the band and their unique outlook on music. |
Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: March 08 2007 at 08:02
| If I progress my musical style from pop to punk does that make me progressive rock? |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: March 08 2007 at 08:41
Point taken. But were you progressive rock before pop? (Like Genesis?)
Some might say that is regression!
 Or, if the punk style is difficult to play, and it challenges your abilities, and takes you into a new music writing style, you could be viewed as progressive, but not in the traditional progressive rock vein. Of course, punk isn't really rock, or is it? Nor is pop.
Whats this ambient progressive trance stuff anyway? -------------
|
Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 01:58
|
Rush prog? Of course! '70s Rush is the prog-metal prototype (others say Deep Purple/ Rainbow).
------------- https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay |
Posted By: SoundsofSeasons
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 19:50
|
If Rush isn't prog, exactly what is it? Surely you can't say they are mainstream or Pop/Rock just because of Vapor Trails? Look at Snakes and Arrows, it's not that mainstream considering it has 3 instrumentals, and songs like spindrift. Rush is a strange breed, but we love em that way. Don't sell them short by taking them out of a category they've worked hard to put themselves in. ------------- 1 Chronicles 13:7-9 Then David and all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets. |