Rush: Heaviest Prog Band of the 70s?

[bathory]

Budgie was heavier. Rush was pretty heavy too, but neither of them are really metal. Then again, there's so many sub genres of metal that they might fit into one.

 

Budgie and Rush ARE heavy metal. There's bands now that are so heavy that they make earlier bands seem tame. people forgot what heavy metal is..

 

I've talked to an old guy who tried to tell me foghat were heavy metal.

 

you talk to a 50 year old and he'll tell you that anything louder than the bee gees is metal!

Not this old guy...

 

yeah, the person I had in mind when I wrote that post is a friend of my dad's. for him, heavy metal is any band he liked in the 70s, and pretty much everything after 1980 he calls "anger music." he's a nice dude though, he saw the 2112 tour!

Wow he must be older than me or saw the 2112 tour in diapers . I am quite the opposite. I consider very little of what I listened to in the 70's to be heavy metal...

 

I think he's the exact same age, he just got lucky. rush played augusta on the 2112 tour (could've been the ATWAS tour, not entirely sure), which would've been a short drive for this dude at the time

[bathory]

Heavy Metal.

 

Think about it, what does it even mean?

 

[Narps]

Budgie was heavier. Rush was pretty heavy too, but neither of them are really metal. Then again, there's so many sub genres of metal that they might fit into one.

 

Budgie and Rush ARE heavy metal. There's bands now that are so heavy that they make earlier bands seem tame. people forgot what heavy metal is..

 

I've talked to an old guy who tried to tell me foghat were heavy metal.

 

you talk to a 50 year old and he'll tell you that anything louder than the bee gees is metal!

Not this old guy...

 

yeah, the person I had in mind when I wrote that post is a friend of my dad's. for him, heavy metal is any band he liked in the 70s, and pretty much everything after 1980 he calls "anger music." he's a nice dude though, he saw the 2112 tour!

Wow he must be older than me or saw the 2112 tour in diapers . I am quite the opposite. I consider very little of what I listened to in the 70's to be heavy metal...

 

I think he's the exact same age, he just got lucky. rush played augusta on the 2112 tour (could've been the ATWAS tour, not entirely sure), which would've been a short drive for this dude at the time

Of subject bathory if you are still around... My daughter is spending the weekend in Atlanta and is seeing Primus tonight. Thats Les Claypool's outfit correct? I am assuming they are good and she will enjoy them. She was at the same place last night and Snoop Dog was there. She texted me what should she do when a joint gets passed to her? Politely decline or what? Cool the relationship I still have with my children. I said do whatever you feel is the right thing to do and asked her if they do random drug testing where she works. Always gotta be practical and cover all the possible bases... Edited April 19, 2015 by Narpsberg

[MMCXII]

Budgie was heavier. Rush was pretty heavy too, but neither of them are really metal. Then again, there's so many sub genres of metal that they might fit into one.

 

Budgie and Rush ARE heavy metal. There's bands now that are so heavy that they make earlier bands seem tame. people forgot what heavy metal is..

 

I've talked to an old guy who tried to tell me foghat were heavy metal.

 

it seems like the 70s definition of heavy metal is too loose - you talk to a 50 year old and he'll tell you that anything louder than the bee gees is metal! and then some of the youngsters of today won't call it metal if it's softer than slayer. it gets weird and confusing

 

Heavy metal is blues based hard rock with distorted guitar. Pretty sure that's the original definition so why are we changing it through the years?? as far as I know that's what metal is, and always was. Youngsters need to listen to 50 year olds more because they were there when metal began dammit!!!!! Ok except for maybe that foghat guy.. Lol

[Fordgalaxy]

never saw rush as a metal band at all. they barely have a foot in hard rock for me, actually. although obviously they can slip into a little harder stuff occasionally.

 

I never saw Rush as progressive because I didn't know of, and hadn't even heard the term "progressive" as it relates to music when I started listening to Rush. They were and are a hard rock band that sometimes delves into metal. Not the shit that passes for metal these days, but metal as it used to be known. If you can't hear that, you've got some pre-conceived notions that can be overcome.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Fordgalaxy

[Stormtron]

Rush definitely had their metal moments and I'd say yeah they were the heaviest. Budgie is a top five band for me but I never thought they were really progressive. Absolutely metal though (Breadfan might be the first thrash song). Old Lucifer's Friend and Atomic Rooster might fit the early prog metal bill too depending on how loose your definition of metal is. Edited April 19, 2015 by Stormtron

[Xanadu]

never saw rush as a metal band at all. they barely have a foot in hard rock for me, actually. although obviously they can slip into a little harder stuff occasionally.

 

I never saw Rush as progressive because I didn't know of, and hadn't even heard the term "progressive" as it relates to music when I started listening to Rush. They were and are a hard rock band that sometimes delves into metal. Not the shit that passes for metal these days, but metal as it used to be known. If you can't hear that, you've got some pre-conceived notions that can be overcome.

 

Well, this then begs the question that I have pondered myself: what makes a band "progressive"? Long songs? Multiple time signatures? Deep lyrical content? Or some combination? Where do you actually draw the line?

[bluefox4000]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

[Narps]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Even when they first hit I wouldn't consider them metal any more than I would consider Zeppelin metal. Just blues based rock...

[Tombstone Mountain]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Clockwork Angels is metal my friend...it's metal to it's core. What is Headlong Flight? Easy listening? Soft Rock? Rock n Roll?

 

Metal!

[bluefox4000]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Even when they first hit I wouldn't consider them metal any more than I would consider Zeppelin metal. Just blues based rock...

 

I once heard someone say Rush was ALL Metel.............yea cause the Pass really shreds dude, lol

 

Mick

[bluefox4000]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Clockwork Angels is metal my friend...it's metal to it's core. What is Headlong Flight? Easy listening? Soft Rock? Rock n Roll?

 

Metal!

 

..........i give up.....sigh........sure. CA......."Yawns".....rah-freakin'-rah

 

Mick

[Narps]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Even when they first hit I wouldn't consider them metal any more than I would consider Zeppelin metal. Just blues based rock...

 

I once heard someone say Rush was ALL Metel.............yea cause the Pass really shreds dude, lol

 

Mick

Anyone who could possibly consider the 80's Rush metal would need a comfy couch and someone to listen...

[lifeson90]

never saw rush as a metal band at all. they barely have a foot in hard rock for me, actually. although obviously they can slip into a little harder stuff occasionally.

 

I never saw Rush as progressive because I didn't know of, and hadn't even heard the term "progressive" as it relates to music when I started listening to Rush. They were and are a hard rock band that sometimes delves into metal. Not the shit that passes for metal these days, but metal as it used to be known. If you can't hear that, you've got some pre-conceived notions that can be overcome.

 

nah i was around when so-called 'metal' was born and i never saw rush in that box then either. rush dont have one iota of metal in em for me and nobody could convince me otherwise.

 

like i said, they dip into hard rock occasionally i wouldn't rule that label out completely but apart from the progressive thing they could be the only band i can think of right now who fit into their very own esoteric category.

 

and I'm pretty sure that's partly why they so appealling.

[Segue Myles]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Clockwork Angels is metal my friend...it's metal to it's core. What is Headlong Flight? Easy listening? Soft Rock? Rock n Roll?

 

Metal!

 

There is nothing metal about CA at all. It is all about as heavy as an Alter Bridge album, and no where near as great.

 

Headlong Flight is no more metal than the likes of Bastille Day or Circumstances.

[Segue Myles]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Clockwork Angels is metal my friend...it's metal to it's core. What is Headlong Flight? Easy listening? Soft Rock? Rock n Roll?

 

Metal!

 

..........i give up.....sigh........sure. CA......."Yawns".....rah-freakin'-rah

 

Mick

 

CA fans treat that album like it is the greatest thing since the invention of the pop tart.

[bluefox4000]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Clockwork Angels is metal my friend...it's metal to it's core. What is Headlong Flight? Easy listening? Soft Rock? Rock n Roll?

 

Metal!

 

There is nothing metal about CA at all. It is all about as heavy as an Alter Bridge album, and no where near as great.

 

Headlong Flight is no more metal than the likes of Bastille Day or Circumstances.

 

YEA SEGUE!!!!!!

 

and less interesting then a nickelback album.

 

I don't know HOW ON EARTH they managed that, lol

 

Mick

[Segue Myles]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Clockwork Angels is metal my friend...it's metal to it's core. What is Headlong Flight? Easy listening? Soft Rock? Rock n Roll?

 

Metal!

 

There is nothing metal about CA at all. It is all about as heavy as an Alter Bridge album, and no where near as great.

 

Headlong Flight is no more metal than the likes of Bastille Day or Circumstances.

 

YEA SEGUE!!!!!!

 

and less interesting then a nickelback album.

 

I don't know HOW ON EARTH they managed that, lol

 

Mick

 

It doesn't seem to be aging well...seriously, three years on no one seems to be talking about it anymore, aside from the fanboy parade.

 

Not slating the album, but it just ain't that great. And having Segued on Hemispheres (the lyrics are starting to unravel themselves...my biggest beef), I can safely say that album is more metal than...Headlong Flight.

 

That is a good song, but for goodness sake, it is just basic hard rock! And all the best bits come from Bastille Day anyway.

[bluefox4000]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Clockwork Angels is metal my friend...it's metal to it's core. What is Headlong Flight? Easy listening? Soft Rock? Rock n Roll?

 

Metal!

 

There is nothing metal about CA at all. It is all about as heavy as an Alter Bridge album, and no where near as great.

 

Headlong Flight is no more metal than the likes of Bastille Day or Circumstances.

 

YEA SEGUE!!!!!!

 

and less interesting then a nickelback album.

 

I don't know HOW ON EARTH they managed that, lol

 

Mick

 

It doesn't seem to be aging well...seriously, three years on no one seems to be talking about it anymore, aside from the fanboy parade.

 

Not slating the album, but it just ain't that great. And having Segued on Hemispheres (the lyrics are starting to unravel themselves...my biggest beef), I can safely say that album is more metal than...Headlong Flight.

 

That is a good song, but for goodness sake, it is just basic hard rock! And all the best bits come from Bastille Day anyway.

 

i like 3 songs on CA........but they too are brought down by awful production. It just is not all that it's said to be.......not even close. Fan boys can carry the flag all they want.

 

Average album for any band.

 

BAD album for Rush.

 

Mick

[Segue Myles]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Clockwork Angels is metal my friend...it's metal to it's core. What is Headlong Flight? Easy listening? Soft Rock? Rock n Roll?

 

Metal!

 

There is nothing metal about CA at all. It is all about as heavy as an Alter Bridge album, and no where near as great.

 

Headlong Flight is no more metal than the likes of Bastille Day or Circumstances.

 

YEA SEGUE!!!!!!

 

and less interesting then a nickelback album.

 

I don't know HOW ON EARTH they managed that, lol

 

Mick

 

It doesn't seem to be aging well...seriously, three years on no one seems to be talking about it anymore, aside from the fanboy parade.

 

Not slating the album, but it just ain't that great. And having Segued on Hemispheres (the lyrics are starting to unravel themselves...my biggest beef), I can safely say that album is more metal than...Headlong Flight.

 

That is a good song, but for goodness sake, it is just basic hard rock! And all the best bits come from Bastille Day anyway.

 

i like 3 songs on CA........but they too are brought down by awful production. It just is not all that it's said to be.......not even close. Fan boys can carry the flag all they want.

 

Average album for any band.

 

BAD album for Rush.

 

Mick

 

I like a lot of the songs, I don't love any of them anymore. It is just...good. But this hard rock sound hasn't worked well for them since 1981 (and I am not even sure MP is hard rock). They tried to turn back to their original core sound, but the excitement and invention that led to songs like Xanadu or Natural Science just isn't there anymore. No biggie, but they should just stop. Now.

 

With the exception of VT (but considering that is not well looked upon, it is safe to say I am in the minority on that one).

 

The CA fanboys are gonna throw Toto and Presto in our faces and think that means they have won the argument. But I know hard rock, and CA is not a great example.

[Narps]

I never ever think of Rush as metal.....maybe when they first hit.......but now they wouldn't qualify at all in my book.

 

Mick

Clockwork Angels is metal my friend...it's metal to it's core. What is Headlong Flight? Easy listening? Soft Rock? Rock n Roll?

 

Metal!

 

There is nothing metal about CA at all. It is all about as heavy as an Alter Bridge album, and no where near as great.

 

Headlong Flight is no more metal than the likes of Bastille Day or Circumstances.

 

YEA SEGUE!!!!!!

 

and less interesting then a nickelback album.

 

I don't know HOW ON EARTH they managed that, lol

 

Mick

 

It doesn't seem to be aging well...seriously, three years on no one seems to be talking about it anymore, aside from the fanboy parade.

 

Not slating the album, but it just ain't that great. And having Segued on Hemispheres (the lyrics are starting to unravel themselves...my biggest beef), I can safely say that album is more metal than...Headlong Flight.

 

That is a good song, but for goodness sake, it is just basic hard rock! And all the best bits come from Bastille Day anyway.

 

i like 3 songs on CA........but they too are brought down by awful production. It just is not all that it's said to be.......not even close. Fan boys can carry the flag all they want.

 

Average album for any band.

 

BAD album for Rush.

 

Mick

 

I like a lot of the songs, I don't love any of them anymore. It is just...good. But this hard rock sound hasn't worked well for them since 1981 (and I am not even sure MP is hard rock). They tried to turn back to their original core sound, but the excitement and invention that led to songs like Xanadu or Natural Science just isn't there anymore. No biggie, but they should just stop. Now.

 

With the exception of VT (but considering that is not well looked upon, it is safe to say I am in the minority on that one).

 

The CA fanboys are gonna throw Toto and Presto in our faces and think that means they have won the argument. But I know hard rock, and CA is not a great example.

The production kills it for the most part. I think The Garden, Halo Effect, Headlong Flight, The Anarchist and Caravan are really good to excellent songs and the production doesn't seem to effect the first two I mentioned at least in my view. The rest of the tracks are hardly listenable at all. Poor songs and I don't think great production could help them at all... :) Edited April 19, 2015 by Narpsberg

[Tombstone Mountain]

It's a difficult call to make and certainly there is a fine line, in my mind at least, between Progressive Rock and Rock that is progressive. I believe it is a state of mind above anythIng else and is why some early Rush albums were consciously Prog Rock whilst some heavy rock bands were consciously progressive in their time signatures and instrumentation. When you look at it, an album like Hemispheres is consciously Prog Rock, it mirrors the format of bands like Genesis and Yes through Led Zep's more ambitious albums ( IV onwards). I think there is a definite difference between Judas Priest exploring their technique and chops,and later what Iron Maiden were doing in some of their long form tracks, and what Rush was doing CoS through Hemispheres. Even Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures are more steadfastly Prog than those Maiden and especially Queensryche albums where Prog and Metal seem to fuse and inform bands like Dream Theater. Then again an argument could be made that Dream Theater were as much influenced by Metallica than they were by Rush.

Confused? You will be...

 

This is the problem with putting labels on popular music.

[bathory]

Budgie was heavier. Rush was pretty heavy too, but neither of them are really metal. Then again, there's so many sub genres of metal that they might fit into one.

 

Budgie and Rush ARE heavy metal. There's bands now that are so heavy that they make earlier bands seem tame. people forgot what heavy metal is..

 

I've talked to an old guy who tried to tell me foghat were heavy metal.

 

it seems like the 70s definition of heavy metal is too loose - you talk to a 50 year old and he'll tell you that anything louder than the bee gees is metal! and then some of the youngsters of today won't call it metal if it's softer than slayer. it gets weird and confusing

 

Heavy metal is blues based hard rock with distorted guitar. Pretty sure that's the original definition so why are we changing it through the years?? as far as I know that's what metal is, and always was. Youngsters need to listen to 50 year olds more because they were there when metal began dammit!!!!! Ok except for maybe that foghat guy.. Lol

 

if you think jimi hendrix and steppenwolf are heavy metal, that's cool with me, man ;)

 

personally, I just feel like the 70s definition of heavy metal is too broad and allows pretty much anything to be considered metal. I think if you listen to modern metal you can easily trace most of it back to the following bands - black sabbath, judas priest, motorhead, iron maiden, metallica. those groups, imo, set the standard for metal whether you're a fan of them or not. even though maiden aren't particularly heavy, you hear their influence very clearly in a shitload of new music still. rush's impact on metal is pretty small outside of prog metal, which is obviously inspired by rush since rush were one of the first groups to blend "prog" with a strong hard rock sound.

Edited April 19, 2015 by bathory

[bathory]

never saw rush as a metal band at all. they barely have a foot in hard rock for me, actually. although obviously they can slip into a little harder stuff occasionally.

 

I never saw Rush as progressive because I didn't know of, and hadn't even heard the term "progressive" as it relates to music when I started listening to Rush. They were and are a hard rock band that sometimes delves into metal. Not the shit that passes for metal these days, but metal as it used to be known. If you can't hear that, you've got some pre-conceived notions that can be overcome.

 

what's the newest metal album you've heard?

[bathory]

as far as what's prog and what's not, I'd say rush are both "PROG" and "progressive," and I think there's a difference between the two.

 

PROG is what you see with steven wilson, mike portnoy project #56676465757, other new "revival" acts that are clearly trying to mimic the formula set by genesis, yes, ELP, etc.

 

progressive, like tony said, is more of a mindset. for example, I think a band like radiohead or even the melvins and faith no more could be labelled "progressive" because they explore new sounds and are very experimental. if we're just looking at the definition of "progressive," then of course radiohead or bjork or whatever is more progressive than any group whose sole purpose is rewriting close to the edge.

 

as far as rush goes, I think they are progressive in that they always explored new sounds up until about 1996, and the blending of hard rock and prog rock that they did in the 70s is definitely progressive. but I also think they're PROG, because a lot of their stuff was clearly a deliberate attempt at sounding like yes/genesis.

 

I'm sure none of this makes any sense. this genre shit is really up to the listener I suppose. "it's only rock n roll"