Is Rush really a Prog band ?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=65907
Printed Date: December 12 2024 at 06:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is Rush really a Prog band ?
Posted By: Progdaybay
Subject: Is Rush really a Prog band ?
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 08:12
|
I am quite surprised to see a few Rush albums in the Top-100. I would not be surprised at all if it was a Rock compilations, but I am in the case of Prog... Can somebody make me see the light in that case ?? Tanx DB |
Replies:
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 08:18
| Rush are considered prog by just about every site, book or magazine you can name, so you should not be surprised to see them here. If you still have doubts, you could perhaps try listening to their albums from 2112 to Permanent Waves, which are universally considered the proggiest part of their output. They are also universally considered as a huge influence on the formation of progressive metal, and also on many other bands on the heavier end of the prog spectrum. That alone would guarantee them a place here. |
Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 08:19
| I never thought they really were progressive-a heavy metal band with progressive aspirations,that went really commercial later on. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 08:27
|
I don't see how anyone can listen to the Hemispheres album and deny that it is prog as all hell.
------------- 
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 08:31
Rush prog? Nah... Who would say SUCH a thing?  ...............  ............... |
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 08:56
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAKglc2loK4 - Rush? Prog? Who could think of such a thing! |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 08:56
|
Do bears sh1t in the woods?
Of course they do!
Is Rush a prog band?
( Fill in the blank.........) ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 09:35
|
Rush started life as a country and western band, called Lucifers Hayloft, before progressing into an R'n'B act, who notoriously toured the strip clubs, and burlesque bars of Canada. In the 90's they churned out 52 albums of banging New York House music, and were very popular on the east coast gay club scene..
Of course they're prog rock. What sort of music do you think they are??  ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Alberto Muņoz
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 10:24
|
Did Jennifer Lopez is a woman?
Yes.
Did Rush is a prog band?
YES!!!!!!!! -------------  |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 10:54
Well, I remember that when I was a kid Rush were considered to be hard rock here. There even was a hard rock sampler which was advertised on TV which had Rush on it too. Keep in mind that the sticker "progressive" did not exist back then; it oinly came up much later. But I was actually very sujrprised to find Rsh here when I joined.; I would have considered them to be "hard rock" too,. Let's put it like this: In my opinion either Deep Purple are a full-fledged prog band too and not just prog-related or Rush is just prog-related. The way it is right now is in my opinion a paradox, especially when you think of the early albums of Deep Purple. -------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Raff wrote:Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 10:57
I agree with you on DP, but this is a thorny subject here, and one I'd rather not resurrect. Anyway, when I first heard of Rush (it was when Permanent Waves was released), at least in Italy they were mentioned as a progressive rock band. Not that I really care about labels  . |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 11:44
|
I don't particularly care for labels either, but to listen to this band in all the different phases is to be absolutely sure that they are a progressive band who have had a massive influence on many other bands enjoyed on this site.
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:45
It's just music 
|
Posted By: CinemaZebra
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:57
|
Is Rush really a Prog band? Does Charlie Daniels play a mean fiddle?
------------- 
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:08
Is "Too Tall" Jones too tall? -------------
|
Posted By: Alberto Muņoz
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:10
|
Is Rush a prog band?
Is Peyton Manning a Quarterback? ------------- |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 14:02
Ok I just $h*t my pants several times reading the posts..GOD that's funny!!! 
Some are getting the terms "prog", "hard rock", heavy metal" confused. Heavy metal in the sense of DP, I think yes. Heavy metal in the sense of Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden...no.
They play a style of "hard rock"....yes. But to the definition of progressive rock as defined here in the PA, most certainly Rush are a prog band. All the attributes defined in this wonderful website are met by Rush with regard to playing style, writing/topics and use of instruments.
Ohh and long songs are there too.....  -------------   
|
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 14:13
|
Does the Pope sh*t in the wood?
Is the bear a Catholic? ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 14:19
Is Rush really a prog band?
 Ooooh yes!
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 14:42
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 15:20
The Stranglers also meet all the attributes; in some respect (complexity) they even overqualify, yet they are not in here. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 15:31
|
^ There are a lot not in here I would think some would say.
The Stranglers, heavy to punk and new wave?? I don't own anything by them...can't comment much though on them. -------------
|
Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 15:58
|
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 16:27
no they r a potato |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 16:34
A papaya is more progy than a potato!? (I thought it was with an 'e' on the end..no?)
 -------------
|
Posted By: Alberto Muņoz
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 16:38
|
nice way to change the thread ------------- |
Posted By: starchild
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 16:38
|
For a long time i thought Rush is considered to be in the same platform as bands like Yes, King Crimson or Genesis. So i was just checking DDD prog forum, where Rush isnt considered to be among the greats when it comes to Progressive Rock. Just wondering, is it the same with this place too?? if so, whats the reason? :)
|
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 16:46
Rush is a prog-hard-art-rock band and more...
------------- Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness. Emile M. Cioran |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 16:50
Yes, especially a thread started by someone with 2 posts, who mysteriously disappeared afterwards ... |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 16:52
 -------------
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 16:53
|
Indeed!
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:47
|
When did Deep Purple ever record anything like Hemispheres, 2112, Xanadu, Fountain Of Lamneth, Cygnus x-1, La Villa Strangiato, The Trees, Natural Science, Jacobs Ladder, The Camera Eye, Bytor & The Snow Dog? Compare and contrast Red Barchetta with Highway Star or Spirit Of Radio with Smoke On The Water... Some people continue to rewrite history and confuse "Prog Rock" with progressive music. Rush were Prog Rock, they were just harder edged than most. Even worse some people who weren't even 10 when Rush released A Farewell To Kings are lecturing us on what "certain people in the 70s were calling Prog and what they were calling Heavy Rock". How does that work? |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 19:36
 I HAD to post that in this thread.... ------------- 
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 19:42
when did Rush ever create a branch or prog...and define it...and inspired clones who are pillars of that sub-genre or even make do what took ELP years to attempt. To fuse classical and rock music on a grand (album length) scale. it isn't rewriting history... it is being smart enough to see it for what it is... and not be confused by popular labels and what OTHERS see a band as. Genesis prog? is that rewriting history... hah. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 00:46
|
Can someone give a definitive response: does Geddy Lee sh*t in the woods? (cymbal shot, audience cringes...)
But really, I was listening to some Rush the other night. I've had my doubts. But in my mind I've absolved them of all their sins. They are as proggy as anyone. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 01:02
|
Yes. ------------- 
|
Posted By: peart_lee_lifeson
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 01:11
| I can't believe this question is even being asked. Just go and listen to 2112, or Hemispheres, or A Farewell To Kings, or etc... If Rush is not a Prog band, then what is a prog band. Come on, seriously. But, I suppose it's understandable if you aren't that familiar with Rush. |
Posted By: The Wrinkler
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 01:27
that was an epic answer |
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 03:27
|
Are any prog bands really prog?
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 06:23
Strange but true, believe it or not. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 06:25
Indeed. I have to empathize with DT fans now...of all things, I never thought Rush being prog would be up for debate. |
Posted By: Ronnie Pilgrim
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 10:44
|
I would consider Rush a prog band. The use of electronically created sounds, the time changes, the stories and concepts contained in their lyrics, and the complexity of their music all add up to serious consideration for the prog label. Inspector 58
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 11:15
The way I see it is that bands are not Prog per se, music is. Rush certainly made music/albums that I consider to be examples of Prog and the band is commonly considered to be part of the progressive rock movement. And, of course, the band's music can be categorised in various ways (hard rock being an obvious one). ------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 12:10
|
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, Rush certainly influenced a lot of modern Prog. Again, with all due respect you were 7 years old when Rush released AFTK, so what do you know about the scene at that time? The fact that Rush appealed to Heavy Rock fans seems to confuse people. Rush played Prog with a hard edge and a focus on the "rock" aspect. For many rock fans they were the "acceptable" face of Prog. The fact that they chose a similar path to Genesis and moved away from traditional Prog should not be held against them. |
Posted By: idiotPrayer
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 13:33
| They were prog but then went un-prog (not saying they became bad though) |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 13:46
|
No but I listen to them happily all the same... (What frickin' difference does it make? ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
)Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 13:52
What is un-prog? Adding different instruments, sounds, themes is progressive.
Just because Genesis recorded Invisible Touch does not mean they are not prog, or Rush's Presto or Yes's 90125 and Big Generator. They are prog bands that went down the path of "traditional" hard rock with prog undertones on occasion.
I agree as a young boy of about 10 I did not know anything about Rush's Fly By Night, other than I liked the album cover and bought the LP. I liked the sound, lyrics and musicians......Today I fully understand where that influence came from. I don't think any kid understands prog.......
That's why we dub it......."thinking man's music" (and by man I mean adult...please no backlash from our awesome prog females)
 Prog understanding has made me appreciate the music of the 70's from these type of artists. -------------
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 14:31
the problem is...... is the standard for some.. is not the same standard held to others. That is the undertoe to threads like this... people aren't stupid and probably wonder why ..if not X..why Rush. Few bands that had any kind of lengthy career stayed with prog... and left prog. Three classic examples are Rush.. Genesis.. and Deep Purple. Rush ...of course they belong on the site.. are they a prog band.. who knows.. who really cares. The band themselves admit to tired of it.. in 1978 and wanting to move on. Yet fans of the group generally adore that early phase so the shoe still fits. Genesis.. well.. we all know about that group. They are here because we are the 'smart' ones... the others that think they are a pop group (the rest of the musical world) are the stupid ones. Are they a prog group? who knows ..who cares. They are here for the prog they did.. not for what came later... much like Rush.. though some like me.. think some of their (Rush) stuff is still prog.. but more in the vein of the dreaded AOR category. .which is still prog... think of it as Crossover. Which is exactly what AOR was when you cut through the crap. Then there are others like Deep Purple that released a string of 6 albums that fit most any notion of heavy prog ..as many or more than some recognized pillars of prog... are as.. if not more influential to prog than some (not traditional prog perhaps...but that is only one small branch of what prog is) and DP like others...turned away from prog when Ritchie siezed creative control of the group from Jon Lord who like Emerson was fascinated with fusing rock with high art (classical music). Yet unlike otherscontinue to have their albums.. and impact on prog ignored or dismissed as .. a hard rock band. Was Rush an AOR band.. was Genesis a pop band. Is Deep Purple a hard rock band. see what some are getting at... it is a whiff of the some bullsh*t that gets shoveled on this site. Lack of consistency.. which is fatal to a site that wants to (and should) be seen as serious site. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 14:32
| 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. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 14:43
 -------------
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 15:41
Well it makes a difference because this is a Prog Rock site and they need to be Prog Rock to be included here as a Prog Rock band! You do know where you are, don't you?
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 16:32
Is a..
 More progy than a
 ??
-------------
|
Posted By: 2112R
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 19:55
|
Lol man, Rush is what got me into Prog - They're best works personally are 2112, Caress of Steel, Hemispheres, Signals, Farewell to Kings -- All great and show true talent... ------------- "All (the naked man) means is the abstract man against the masses. The red star symbolizes any collectivist mentality." - Neil Peart |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 02:35
go to the list of attributes by which it is being decided whether a band is prog or not. the Stranglers fit perfectly. they even use polyphony, a highly advanced compositional technique that only very few prog bands are capable of (Gentle Giant, for example). their punk / new wave imaage is just that - an image. but apparently they are often judged by that imnage rather than by their music, even by members of the archives. an album like "Black and White" is a perfect prog album, in my opinion. and if you are not convinced by that, listen to "The Raven"; that should convince even hard non-believers -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 02:52
You behave as if kids are stupid. If a kid is interested in that kind of music (and I was via my brother, who is rten years older than I am) then they will quickly get a lot of knowledge aboiut it.. You should also read what I wrote more closely. I did explicitely mention that the term "progressive rock" was not used back then at all, at least not here. And if there was a TV-ad for a hard rock sampler which had Rush included (together with Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin and some other which I don't recall) it appears to me that this was how Rush were regarded here, don't you agree? Once again, no-one used the name "progressive rock" in the 70s; this term came up years later. Oh, and just to make sure I checked back with my brother, and he perfectly agrees with me. And he, as already said, is ten years older than I am. I also do not doubt that Rush are a prog band at all. I am not too fond of them, but that's another matter. De gustibus non est disputandum. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Jake Kobrin
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 02:53
|
You're all missing the deeper meaning of the thread. Are Rush a prog band? Yes. But are they really a prog band? Does Rush exist at all or are they some external manifestation of my imagination...
------------- http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Neil-Kobrin/244687105562746" rel="nofollow - SUPPORT MY FATHER AND BECOME A FAN Jacob Kobrin Illustration |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 03:00
|
^ The thing is.................I don't think the band give a toss what we label them, their music is what matters, not genre tagging which we humans seem to obsess about ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 03:53
 Who are those PA members who judged The Stranglers by their image?  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 04:02
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 05:05
Dean, there were a lot of te3rms for that kind of music at that time. "Future rock" was another one, fior example. And I am speaking of Germany, where the term "prtogressive rock" was definitely not used at that time. A term which was used in Germany was "Klassik rock", which translates as "Classical Rock". Bands like Genesis or Yes wweere summarized there. And there is a rock encyclopedia from the mid 70s which was sold in both the UK and Germany of which I have forgotten the name (I can ask my brother about it) in which about half a dozen terms were offered for that kind of music. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 05:38
| 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. |
Posted By: b_olariu
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 06:22
 is for sure a prog band
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 08:32
Slap me if you like (cos I've quoted this before) but I still chuckle at what's listed on Dean's poster for Monday 1st September - the ultimate drag act ladies and gentlemen, please welcome 'Closed !' (It's probably just me) ------------- 
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 08:54
|
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 09:31
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. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 14:55
Sorry, but in the 70's us prog fans in dear old Blighty most certainly considered Rush & Floyd to be prog. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 15:15
Is a
 more proggy than a
 ?? -------------
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 16:23
I think we have a winner!  |
Posted By: Gooner
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 16:50
|
5 words:
Hemispheres, Moving Pictures, Signals
Yes.
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 21 2010 at 17:09
------------- 
|
Posted By: sigod
Date 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 |
Posted By: XunknownX
Date Posted: March 22 2010 at 21:48
Yes, of course, why shouldn't they be, do you mean?
|
Posted By: DaysBeforeTomorrow
Date 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 - http://www.myspace.com/daysbeforetomorrow |
Posted By: Zeromus218
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date 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  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... |
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 20:31
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... |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 20:40
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 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. |
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 21:03
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... |
Posted By: JROCHA
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:22
| Yes they are, enough said |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:35
/thread. By the way, are DT already legends? -------------
|
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date 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... |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:45
or even atheist legends with private health care ? -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date 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. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date 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. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date 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. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: March 25 2010 at 06:43
And on a low-carb, high-protein diet, don't forget ! |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 25 2010 at 08:09
-------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 25 2010 at 15:17
Damn. Under these definition, we could even include bands like Dream Theater in progressive-metal! -------------
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: March 25 2010 at 15:31
 -------------
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: March 25 2010 at 15:44
Dude...that's awesome! I have NEVER in my 30+ yrs of listening to Rush ever compared them to Genesis, King Crimson or Gentle Giant....I think for some reason folks will bunch them in there because of the word "progressive" and because of the time frame 70's.
Prog metal back in the 70's I may agree....because they did play pretty hard compared to Genesis, KC and GG...
I always describe Rush as a band within its own genre, I do find it hard to categorize their music.......since it inlcudes Hard rock, Metal, Symphonic...even New wave........sounds Progressive to me
-------------
|
Posted By: DaysBeforeTomorrow
Date Posted: March 25 2010 at 15:45
|
Not to start a flame war or anything like that, but Rush are NOT prog metal. They don't even come close to metal. Dream Theater are the reining champions of prog metal. Other bands in that genre (or sub genre) would include Mind Key, Pagan's Mind, and possibly Trivium. Rush are more of a melodic prog band, or some people call it neo prog, because it has progressive moments with AOR influences. To call Rush a metal band -- or prog metal -- would be way out of touch with the evolution of hard rock and metal over the past 25 years. Prog metal has shredders ripping up technical solos -- Alex is fantastic but he's not a shredder. As for my background making these statements (to put it in perspective), I'm the guitar player in the melodic progressive rock band, Days Before Tomorrow, and we share far more in common with Rush and Marillion than with King Crimson. I also work in the music biz by day as the editor in chief of the online magazine MusicPlayers.com, where we talk regularly with members of these various bands. Just my humble opinion, of course :-). Scott http://www.myspace.com/daysbeforetomorrow (my band) http://www.musicplayers.com (my day job) |
Posted By: Evolver
Date Posted: March 25 2010 at 15:59
|
Rush is progressive.
Rush Limbaugh is not progressive. ------------- Trust me. I know what I'm doing. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 06:19
OK, now we need to define "metal".
Nowadays I'd suspect that some of the bona fide originators of the heavy metal genre could be described as "not even close to metal", if metal is only stuff like Fear Factory or Killswitch Engage.
Back in the day, it was heavy metal rock and roll - the rock and roll bit was still there.
Rush were as much a metal band as Judas Priest, Saxon, AC/DC and Motorhead - all very different takes on the genre, but metal nonetheless. I have a copy of Kerrang! issue #1 around somewhere...
Hmm - best not to get into this can of worms I think... this is just your opinion of where these bands are, in terms of genre.
Who cares if he's not a shredder? That's simply not important! Back then, Alex was one of the top tech guitarists. Not quite in the same league as the Holdsworths, Moores, Roths and Schenkers (technically speaking) - but top notch nonetheless.
To ignore the fact that Rush ARE a metal band is way out of touch with the evolution of hard rock and metal over the last 28 years (I pin the first metal track down to a band called Dust).
I don't care to say anything about my background - but it looks like you need to bone up on your history of heavy metal, Scott...
Try this thread; http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-metal/44034-history-heavy-metal-thread.html - http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-metal/44034-history-heavy-metal-thread.html
...and this one; http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-metal/44519-songs-define-metal.html - http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-metal/44519-songs-define-metal.html 
Indeed - I don't believe that's ever been up for question... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: DaysBeforeTomorrow
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 09:20
|
Wow, Certif1ed -- those links are a LOT to digest... you should publish a book with all that content! I was a teen in the mid and late 80s in the NY/NJ area and back then, we thought metal was Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, and Ozzy Ozzbourn, while "classic" metal was Motorhead and Black Sabbath. But during this important decade in Rush's career their music had a lot of keyboards, which back then were not a defining characteristic of metal music. Guest vocalists like 'Til Tuesday's Aimee Mann certainly don't add to the metal vibe, either :-p. I think that while it makes sense historically that Rush was grouped with metal bands back on their first 3-4 albums, they left that genre behind in the 80s and never returned to it. They just evolved into a different band from back then. But hey, can we perhaps agree that Rush is a fantastic, influential, inspiring band (for many people) that straddles the line between prog rock, metal, and classic rock? We can save the prog metal debate for another year (because I don't think I can handle it). :-) Scott |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 10:23
|
Keyboards in metal were just coming to the fore in the late 1970s/early 1980s - Dio had them, Diamond Head used them on Canterbury, Praying Mantis used them, Ozzy had them, Uriah Heep had them (Abominog is a strong metal album in true NWoBHM style, despite the keys)...
That gives me an idea for another thread to research - thanks!
(You're right - keyboards were considered a very "non-metal" thing back then, but that didn't stop bands using them - didn't Priest use them on some tracks? Then there was Rick Wakeman's famous outing on "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath", Blue Oyster Cult... I'll get on with the research) ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 10:27
They did indeed, especially on their first two albums. Actually, as I'm sure you know, guitarist Glenn Tipton learned to play the piano before he took up the guitar. Check "Epitaph" from Sad Wings of Destiny, which is basically piano and vocals. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 10:44
You missed the date range.....even at 25 yrs that only puts us at 1985...We were talking in the 70's not 80's. So I still can agree that Rush in the early to mid 70's could have been called a prog metal band. DT, Mind Key and the others you mentioned are prog metal from the 2000's......a bit of a time difference.
And in the context of other prog groups like Genesis, Yes, PF.....Rush were much harder than these. I would NOT like to see/hear Alex attempt to shred to the likes of Petrucci, does not fit the Rush music style/genre. -------------
|
Posted By: DaysBeforeTomorrow
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 11:02
| sh*t! I remember when 25 years ago meant the 70s. Ouch! You're so right. I definitely meant Rush pre-80s. :-p |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 11:41
|
I can remember when 25 years ago meant Bill Haley and The Comets.
...and no, they weren't Metal either.
...or Prog. ------------- What? |
Posted By: FusionKing
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 13:44
Yes, Rush is a prog band. They are also heavy.
|