Rush’s genre
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9620
Printed Date: February 15 2025 at 06:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Rush’s genre
Posted By: video vertigo
Subject: Rush’s genre
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 21:48
|
Rush is now in the art rock genre, when I first came onto this site I browsed by genre to find rush and could not find them, I was surprised when I browsed by artist name to find them in the Art rock category. While Rushi is artsy rock I would not expect to find them in the ranks with Styx and Supertramp and now Queen. Rush is a completely different breed, Is art rock the best choice for describing Rush? I would probably choose progressive metal. Certainly Rush started as prog metal and is now prog metal. Some artsy stuff between but mainly Rush is heavier and more likely to be found along with prog metal bands than art rock bands to me. Thoughts? ------------- "The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa |
Replies:
Posted By: Zac M
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 21:56
| They are so hard to put a label on................ |
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 22:06
|
Art Rock is the best spot for them. Sure they've done heavy stuff, almost Prog Metal at times. But really, they've done more Art Rock than Metal. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 23:20
|
Art rock is the best label for Rush. Though not like Styx or Queen, I can't think of any other suitable label. Rush is a breed of its own. |
Posted By: Anonymous2112
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 00:13
|
I say that they should be put under the genre of... Totally f**king awesome. I'm a big fan... ------------- And The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 00:23
| I think putting them under Art Rock is OK. They used to be Prog Metal (IMO, up to Permanent Waves), but what they do now is something rather different. Anyway, they're in a league of their own, as are many acts featured in the Art Rock section: not only Styx and Queen, but also Roger Waters. |
Posted By: R o V e R
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 00:33
I was thinking a lot about exactly the same thing, There is no category in progarchive to put the RUSH in it, Since we all agree the greatness and uniqueness of the RUSH We need to find something, like create a category call CLASSIC And put yes, e l p, floyd ext. in it, Anyway this is just a suggestion,
|
video vertigo wrote:Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 00:38
|
Rush are pretty hard to define.Like a few other posters have stated,they are a breed of their own. -------------  |
Posted By: Shane Wallace
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 02:11
|
i think art rock is right only because i donnot know where else to put
them, the combine so many genres anyway expecially over the span of their career ------------- To Seek the Sacred River Alph |
Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 03:37
|
Posted By: Bilek
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 05:49
|
Good point. Now I have a few words to say: Many prog bands do a totally different style of music, a kind of their own, that it is almost impossible to place them under a specific genre. I mentioned some of them in previous threads, and some agreed with me. To name a few: These four are perfect examples, because they moved from one genre to another since I first discovered progarchives (two years ago, not long after it first launched, I guess). King Crimson was in art-rock section at first! Can you believe it?!?!? Tangerine Dream first came in through Space rock, which was pretty logical, since there was no Electronic subgenre at the time. The same happened with Kraftwerk, this time in Krautrock (which, I believe, would have fitted TD more also, because of their first 10-12 albums...). When I first saw Zappa (I didn't look for, anyway) it was in a sub category simply called "Progressive Rock", probably opened for bands which could not fit in any specific genre, or worked in multiple genres, such as Wakeman, Gandalf, Jon Anderson etc... Most of them moved to art-rock after the rearrangement of the subgenres some time ago. This time art-rock became a place to lump bands which don't easily fit into any genre. Apart from the definition of art-rock, it includes bands (like Rush) which are neither symphonic, nor exactly prog-metal, but somehow heavy enough. This, I believe, creates confusion on some like video vertigo, because poppy, almost non-prog bands like Supertramp, Roxy Music are also there (what if King Crimson was still there IMHO, there should have been another sub-genre, "Heavy Prog", "Hard Prog", or "Progressive Hard Rock", and include bands like Rush, Kansas, Uriah Heep, Deep Purple (please don't make it another discussion subject!!!), and to an extent, Styx (just for the sake of their first five albums). I saw this subgenre at least in one other progrock site (and it probably included twice as much genres as progarchives!), and I believe it exists. Even particular works of some hard rock bands (Sabbath's Bloody Sabbath, Led Zeppelin's 4th, Alice Cooper's Welcome to My Nightmare albums etc.) might be considered under this sub-genre, and it's a totally different story whethter or not these individual albums should be included or not. I never considered Rush as a prog metal band, apart from their Vapor Trails album. Listen to the most prominent prog-metal bands (Savatage, DT,Queensryche, PoS, Symphony X...) and give heed to their heavy guitar lines, you'll know what I mean. These bands sometimes get heavier than Metallica, and I don't mean the songs like Mama Said or Nothing Else Matters! Rush has always been a pretty mild band, not to mention the heavy emphasis on synthesisers in their '80's works... Besides, there were no prog-metal in the mid '70's, when Rush began, at all. And there are several debates as to who the really progenitor of prog metal genre (and even heavy metal by itself) is: Rush, DP, Uriah Heep, even Black Sabbath or Zeppelin. Actually crediting mid'80's prog-metal acts (Queensryche, DT, Savatage) for the creation of this genre would be fair enough, but their influence from Rush etc. is obvious. Summary: The solution is adding the "Heavy Prog" (or whatever) subgenre, and moving Rush and their likes over there... ------------- Listen to Turkish psych/prog; you won't regret: Baris Manco,Erkin Koray,Cem Karaca,Mogollar,3 Hürel,Selda,Edip Akbayram,Fikret Kizilok,Ersen (and Dadaslar) (but stick with the '70's, and 'early 80's!) |
)
?!?!?) not to mention the extremely dubious Queen.Posted By: Publius
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 05:55
|
When you compare them next to the other prog metal bands they don't start seeming so prog metal...Rush and Opeth? Rush and DT? Rush and Pain Of Salvation? Hmm... ------------- I'm so prog, I clap in 9/8 |
Posted By: spectral
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 06:02
|
art rock is a good categorisation for them. I wouldn't call them prog-metal. they may have had elements in the past, but predominantly they're art rock. there will always be arguments over how to pigeonhole a band. but we have to face facts, some bands don't stick to one particular formula, hence, they are difficult to pigeonhole. art rock seems quite a vague categorisation, which probably suits Rush, as it is hard to pinpoint their precise sub-genre. ------------- "...misty halos made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine." |
Posted By: Infinity
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 06:19
Word to that dude!
------------- I can't remember what I said I lost my head. __________________________ |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 08:16
|
We should start a new Prog sub-genre for Rush... ...and call it the "THE PINNACLE"  |
Posted By: spectral
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 08:17
|
------------- "...misty halos made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine." |
Posted By: Single Coil
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 08:59
|
If they didn't invent prog-metal... who did? I mean, alot of hard rock and heavy metal fans got into prog rock by first getting into Rush, right? ------------- If it's worth playing, it's worth playing loud! |
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 09:25
I suppose if you look at Rush's 70s output, then it could be argued that for the time they were prog-metal, i.e. their overall sound was metal, but they incorporated prog ideas into that. However, I would say that prog-metal as we know it today really began in the late 80s, with bands like Fates Warning, Queensryche and Watchtower (Metallica and Iron Maiden were also doing proggy stuff around that time), and only really became recognised as a distinct genre with the release of Images And Words. |
Posted By: Bilek
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 11:33
|
Tony R: actually Pinnacle name can be given to Kansas' sub-genre, but since I argued Rush belongs to the same genre too (look at my previous post The problem is: how could we then fix Deep Purple and Uriah Heep into it ------------- Listen to Turkish psych/prog; you won't regret: Baris Manco,Erkin Koray,Cem Karaca,Mogollar,3 Hürel,Selda,Edip Akbayram,Fikret Kizilok,Ersen (and Dadaslar) (but stick with the '70's, and 'early 80's!) |
Posted By: Gedhead
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 12:02
|
I think Art Rock best suits them although they are, in the end (pardon the pun), beyond categorization. I have always considered Rush mold breakers so I guess it's appropriate that they are hard to fit into a particular category. Long live Rush.  |
Posted By: rushaholic
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 12:27
Happy to see fellow Rush fans expressing their opinions! I agree that they are unique and where to actually put them is a matter of opinion. Art rock is fine I guess. I don't really consider them prog-metal though. Maybe, as others have suggested, a kind of classic prog or something. Regardless, they are awesome. |
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 12:39
|
Well, RUsh started off as a Hard Rock band, then later involved into a Progressive Hard Rock, then in 80s, the synth, Prog, dance, pop, rock, metal, whatever you want to call it. Like most people said, Rush is in a breed of their own. |
Posted By: DavidInsabella
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 12:42
------------- Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be. 
|
Posted By: toothpick2112
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 12:42
| Maybe we can just call them in a new genre. We can call the genre "Rush Rock". |
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 12:47
|
Yep |
Posted By: Publius
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 12:50
|
That would make sense. On Windows Media Player Tag Editor, where you choose the genre, they have one called 'Primus' because they are unclassifiable. Just like Rush. Which is an odd coincidence as Geddy Lee is Les Claypool's Idol. ------------- I'm so prog, I clap in 9/8 |
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 13:09
The genres of progressive rock musicA planet where quite much progressive rock music played in earth. Can, Caravan, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull , King Crimson , Genesis, Magma, PFM, Pink Floyd, Rush, Marillion, Yes, the much-discussed newscomers Arena, IQ, Pendragon, Dream Theater, Porcupine Tree and many other bands come from there. One of the most defining characteristics of prog is the classification of bands and artists. There are various sub-genres of progressive rock (or "prog", as it is sometimes abbreviated). People can (and will) argue for hours about whether this or that band belongs in this or that sub-genre. This list below is just a simple outline of the characteristics of each sub-genre, and by NO means a strict guideline. Remember, this is not a definitive list. SUB-GENRES
|
Posted By: Cesar Inca
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 13:54
I agree! I like the "Progressive Hard Rock" label as it sounds and for what it hinhts at - it would be quite suitable for Rush and Kansas, just to name a couple of examples, although the reviewers for these two bands' albums should cpecify in which moments they get more art-rock oriented (e.g., Rush's 'Big Money', 'Red Sector A', Kansas' 'A Glimpse of Home'), more heavy rock-oriented (e.g., Rush's 'Anthem', Kansas' 'Lighning's Hand') or more overtly symphonic prog (e.g., Kansas' 'Song for America', 'Nobody's Home', 'Closet Chronicles', Rush's 'Xanadu'). But yes, I think the aforemantioned label would state things a bit clearer. Of course, there's no such thing as he perfect label, but we can reasonably create some who can be more clarifying than confusing. Regards. |
Posted By: plodder
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 14:15
|
Badges!! We don't need no stinking badges. Keep your labels and genres to yourselves. Rush are just a fantastic band. Stop trying to divide everything up into little boxes. Art rock, math rock blah blah blah. Call it what you want, it's all music to me. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/plodder/?chartstyle=basicrt10"> 
|
Posted By: Cesar Inca
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 15:22
|
So, Paco de Lucía is just a guitarist, not a Flamenco guitarist, right? If we drop labels and badges, how are we supposed to assimilate and enjoy, with the ehart and mind, the music provided by musicians? De Lucía's music shouts out its Flamenco label, doesn't it? Perceiving him as merely an un-badged guitarist would mean missing the point absolutely. Watkins plays piano and so did Tchaikovsky - shall we call them merely pianists, without regarding the former as a prog-fusion-new age musician and the latter as an academic chamber composer? Madonna and Peter Hammill write the lyrics to their own songs - shall we put them together in one single "catalogue" as songwriters so we avoid badges we allegedly don't need? Agitation Free and Premiata Forneria Marconi both do music - should we stay beyond the distinction between krautrock and symphonic prog? Oh, and shuold we change the name of this website, too? - its name bears a badge, too.
|
Posted By: plodder
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 15:26
|
Sorry. It's a pet peeve of mine. Carry on with your disection of everything. I'll just listen to the music instead. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/plodder/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 15:44
|
Queen did with their debut and more so with Queen II. Then Metallica re-invented it 6 years before "Images and Words", which is just an extension of what Metallica did. And that's being kind. Categories, schmategories - it's all prog! |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 18:58
So,that's Queen's genre-problem solved then! Queen are a prog-metal band if they've ever been prog................. With their 3rd album they invented Prog-Lite and more so with their 4th. Their 5th album invented Progressive p*p and their 6th album launched Progressive Decline!
|
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 19:10
|
A bit off topic, but still about Rush. One day in one of my classes this year, I was listening to Different Stages, and the guy next to me wanted to listen to my CD player. I reluctantly gave him my cd player, and the first song he listened to was Nobody's Hero. When the song was over, he turned to me and said, "Are these guys a gay band?" It made me so angry! -------------
|
Posted By: Bilek
Date Posted: August 08 2005 at 11:59
Thanks for your appreciation first. Second, we don't need to "create" a sub-genre, IMHO... Some forum member (Ivan, I suppose) objected this idea of mine saying "we don't create sub-genres, it is there or no" or whatever... I believe prog-hard rock is there since, at least, 1971 (DP's Fireball album), and at least one prog rock site lists it (I didn't check any other names than DP, and forgot the site, but surely Rush and Kansas is there) No need to subsegment a group into smaller parts, I believe one comprising sub-genre is enough! Regards... ------------- Listen to Turkish psych/prog; you won't regret: Baris Manco,Erkin Koray,Cem Karaca,Mogollar,3 Hürel,Selda,Edip Akbayram,Fikret Kizilok,Ersen (and Dadaslar) (but stick with the '70's, and 'early 80's!) |