70s Rush...it's just my opinion of course

[EmotionDetector]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Mar 23 2009, 04:24 AM)

QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 22 2009, 07:26 PM) The first record had nothing to do with Prog.  Fly By Night had one song By-Tor that would be considered Prog.  Caress of Steel had 2 songs, though one was really just a long blues jam. Like I said, elements of Prog.  Most Prog bands don't write songs like Fly By Night or Closer To The Heart either. What is it you think "Prog" is?? Is it only LONG SONGS to you??   Don't Prog bands record SHORTER songs, some of them even straight-ahead numbers like "Fly by Night" and "Closer to the Heart"? In my opinion, you can't get any more "Proggy" than Yes, and they recorded "A Venture" and "Wonderous Stories" - two short songs which are very similar to the two songs you used as evidence that Rush are NOT Prog! The most blatantly "Prog Rock" groups have mixed shorter, straight-ahead (sometimes acoustical) pieces among their longer "epics."   Give it up.   This is exactly it. While 'lengthy' songs may be associated with the Progressive genre, it isn't the ONLY thing that makes up the genre.   Like GR said, there are many other Progressive bands who have put out songs that are 5 minutes or less. I don't think that writing a song that's less than 6 minutes automatically 'de-progs' a band.   By your definition, I don't think any band is progressive. Can you please show me a band that has made a career of only writing epics? I may be wrong, but I don't think there are any.   Sorry Buddy, but as you can tell, there aren't many Rush fans around here who will agree with your assessment. It is a far and away conclusion that Rush have always been a progressive band (outside of maybe the debut album).

[JPRushHed]

QUOTE (metaldad @ Mar 22 2009, 09:22 PM)

DON'T FEED THE TROLL.................

I'm not trolling at all.

 

To say that Rush were a "full blown" prog band is inaccurate IMO, and the band's as well. Sure, they had some songs here and there and a couple of half concept records. Prog publications can claim them all they want, if it helps them sell magazines. Rush has also appeared on a ton of Metal magazines and we all know they aren't metal either.

 

But you can't deny the following:

 

1.) Rush the 1st album had zero prog.

Enter Neil

2.) Fly By Night only had By-Tor.

 

So before Neil joined there were no signs of prog from Rush. After Peart, they dabbled in Prog for about a period of 3 years. AFTK-Hemispheres.

 

Things changed considerably with Permanent Waves & Moving Pictures. I don't consider those prog records at all, even if there were still elements of prog lingering.

 

So to say that a band thats been in existence for 40 years now who flirted with prog for 3-4 years is a full blown "Prog" act is inaccurate.

 

If I had to categorize Rush I would say they are a hard rock band that has explored several different sub genres.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 23 2009, 06:36 AM)

QUOTE (metaldad @ Mar 22 2009, 09:22 PM) DON'T FEED THE TROLL................. I'm not trolling at all.   To say that Rush were a "full blown" prog band is inaccurate IMO, and the band's as well. Sure, they had some songs here and there and a couple of half concept records. Prog publications can claim them all they want, if it helps them sell magazines. Rush has also appeared on a ton of Metal magazines and we all know they aren't metal either.   But you can't deny the following:   1.) Rush the 1st album had zero prog. Enter Neil 2.) Fly By Night only had By-Tor.   So before Neil joined there were no signs of prog from Rush. After Peart, they dabbled in Prog for about a period of 3 years. AFTK-Hemispheres.   Things changed considerably with Permanent Waves & Moving Pictures. I don't consider those prog records at all, even if there were still elements of prog lingering.   So to say that a band thats been in existence for 40 years now who flirted with prog for 3-4 years is a full blown "Prog" act is inaccurate.   If I had to categorize Rush I would say they are a hard rock band that has explored several different sub genres.

[JPRushHed]

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 23 2009, 08:20 AM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Mar 23 2009, 04:24 AM) QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 22 2009, 07:26 PM) The first record had nothing to do with Prog.  Fly By Night had one song By-Tor that would be considered Prog.  Caress of Steel had 2 songs, though one was really just a long blues jam. Like I said, elements of Prog.  Most Prog bands don't write songs like Fly By Night or Closer To The Heart either. What is it you think "Prog" is?? Is it only LONG SONGS to you??   Don't Prog bands record SHORTER songs, some of them even straight-ahead numbers like "Fly by Night" and "Closer to the Heart"? In my opinion, you can't get any more "Proggy" than Yes, and they recorded "A Venture" and "Wonderous Stories" - two short songs which are very similar to the two songs you used as evidence that Rush are NOT Prog! The most blatantly "Prog Rock" groups have mixed shorter, straight-ahead (sometimes acoustical) pieces among their longer "epics."   Give it up.   This is exactly it. While 'lengthy' songs may be associated with the Progressive genre, it isn't the ONLY thing that makes up the genre.   Like GR said, there are many other Progressive bands who have put out songs that are 5 minutes or less. I don't think that writing a song that's less than 6 minutes automatically 'de-progs' a band.   By your definition, I don't think any band is progressive. Can you please show me a band that has made a career of only writing epics? I may be wrong, but I don't think there are any.   Sorry Buddy, but as you can tell, there aren't many Rush fans around here who will agree with your assessment. It is a far and away conclusion that Rush have always been a progressive band (outside of maybe the debut album). Prog Rock & Progressive Band are two different things in my book.

[rushgoober]

I would say from 1982 onwards that the band really wasn't progressive rock much anymore, other than just hints of it, although they never really abandoned it entirely.

 

Then again, I'm of perhaps a minority opinion that progressive rock is really primarily a 70's phenomena. Yes, there was a neo-prog that started in the 80's and later a more progressive metal in the 90's and beyond, along with bands that were still trying to recapture a bygone era by sounding more like 70's prog, but none of it was really quite the same as 70's progressive rock, even though it all goes under the same general genre heading.

 

And regardless, if you look at more neo-prog bands like Marillion and IQ, and then prog metal bands like Queensryche or Dream Theater, etc., well Rush never really sounded anything like those bands from Signals onward, whereas many comparisons to 70's prog can be made from their 1975-1981 period.

 

[GeddyRulz]

[JPRushHed]

Goober,

 

Why do you consider Marillion neo-prog, but Rush prog? Just curious, because I see them as being much more prog than Rush. And what about Radiohead?

thanks

JP

 

[Presto-digitation]

Honestly this (prog) is a bit nebulous. While more specific than this example, it's a bit like defining or differentiating between hard rock and shades of metal...or is a band like Poison still metal, even though they're also glammy and poppy. Isn't it still distorted guitars and barre chords whether it's Whitesnake or Black Sabbath?

 

Ged, you say: Intricate arrangements with TONS of dramatic time and tempo changes; Well that could apply to Iron Maiden too and numerous bands that don't otherwise qualify as "prog." So your own definition suggests it's difficult to pin down.

 

That said I think the band got away from what we traditionally define as progressive. Let's face it, most of us do indeed refer to the 70s progressive movement more than the 80s and beyond. (Progressive has never died after all....Porcupine Tree being a good example). But I would argue that Rush got away from the more traditional definition of what constituted hard-core PROG and that might be what JP is getting at. You still see it show up in the funky time signatures, even as recently as Armor & Sword...and certainly in spots like Time & Motion or Driven. But I'd say they were more fluent and active in PROG then than now. Heck, you could even argue that they in some capacity became more new wave in the 80s than progressive.

 

But again, it's a bit nebulous...and the fact remains that the progressive earmarks remain in the band's blood even today. But I think it's been much reduced since the early 80s.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 23 2009, 07:14 AM)

Goober, Why do you consider Marillion neo-prog, but Rush prog?  Just curious, because I see them as being much more prog than Rush.  And what about Radiohead? thanks JP

Marillion were one of the first major bands of the neo-prog movement in the 80's. I was a fan briefly and had their first 3 or 4 albums.

 

Their sound was a bit more modern sounding sonically and production-wise than the 70's prog stuff, though it still had a lot of similarities. A lot of people at the time loved to compare them to Gabriel-era Genesis, but it just wasn't the same. It wasn't TOO far away from the same as it was only a few years past the 70's, but still.

 

Progressive rock? Undoubtedly. Though like I said previously, my opinion (which isn't always a popular one) is that 70's prog should be considered a somewhat separate genre from the neo-progressive rock of the 80's and beyond. It just seemed more like they were trying to recapture an era sonically and stylistically that they really couldn't quite pull off in the same way. It didn't come off as highly original, but pretty derivative, even if it was done relatively well. It was kind of like the psychedelic music of the 80's, of which there was a definitive sub-genre. Try as bands might, most of it sounded nothing like the late 60's stuff.

 

Rush were completely done with overt progressive rock before the neo-prog movement even started.

 

I'm not an expert on neo-prog as I lost interest mostly in prog post-1979, but all I can say here is I've heard enough of neo-prog music to know it didn't really sound like 70's prog, and I've heard tons of 70's prog. Rush most definitively fell into that genre. Yes, they were always still unique sounding, but the general signposts of the genre were still there in abundance in terms of a lot of longer songs, epic themes of science-fiction and existentialism, great instrumental complexity, radical time changes, keyboards and other exotic instrumentation, experimentation, etc. There was a specific sound back then that was more than just the instruments used though - it was the culture in which the music came about. That is very difficult to duplicate after an era has mostly passed. Marillion were trying to do that for years.

 

I can't speak too much about Radiohead. All I have of them is OK Computer which I think is awesome. Again though, the comparisons between them and 70's prog is remote, even though they fit in with what people refer to as contemporary prog. At least they weren't trying to sound like 70's prog at all, and they didn't, either stylistically or in terms of the instrumentation and technology employed.

 

Many people have tried to tell me things like, "You'll love this new psych band - it sounds just like a late 60's band!," or "You'll love this group, it sounds just like 70's prog!" Problem is, it NEVER does. That's not to put any of it down, it just always sounds different and much more modern.

[GeddyRulz]

[metaldad]

[JPRushHed]

One of the other big reasons I never considered Rush full blown prog, is the way keyboards were used. Most prog bands had much more prominent sounding keys in their music didn't they?

 

Then I listen to early Marillion and damn if that isn't prog to me...The lyrics, the keyboards, the vocals, the epic songs. Yet that gets labelled neo-prog.

 

[GeddyRulz]

QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 23 2009, 10:10 AM)

One of the other big reasons I never considered Rush full blown prog, is the way keyboards were used. Most prog bands had much more prominent sounding keys in their music didn't they?

Depends on the Prog band. Some Proggers really empasized the keys, like Yes and ELP. Others didn't.

 

QUOTE

Then I listen to early Marillion and damn if that isn't prog to me...The lyrics, the keyboards, the vocals, the epic songs.  Yet that gets labelled neo-prog.

 

Sure it sounds Prog to you... it is! "Neo-prog" is still Prog.

It's just labeled "neo" to distinguish it from the bands of the 70s Prog heyday.

 

 

[Presto-digitation]

[Pags]

I guess I get confused by the necessity to label any band as anything. Is it really that important? Rush is Prog. Rush is not prog. Rush is METAL. Rush is not METAL.

 

Sure, I guess there is a need for categorizing a band's music to a certain degree. But it's such a minor one, in my opinion. Rush touches upon lots of genres. Does it really matter how much of one vs. how much of another?

 

I think Rush is great. I put on their music, and it's pleasing to me. Isn't that enough?

 

[circumstantial tree]

Rush is too much of a hybrid sort of band within the "rock" umbrella.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (Pags @ Mar 23 2009, 10:24 AM)

I guess I get confused by the necessity to label any band as anything.  Is it really that important?  Rush is Prog.  Rush is not prog.  Rush is METAL.  Rush is not METAL. Sure, I guess there is a need for categorizing a band's music to a certain degree.  But it's such a minor one, in my opinion.  Rush touches upon lots of genres.  Does it really matter how much of one vs. how much of another? I think Rush is great.  I put on their music, and it's pleasing to me.  Isn't that enough?

Sure but that's not the point.

 

I agree with you about labels though...and that's the point I was making with Maiden. And again, people consider AC/DC hard rock but not metal....or Poison pop rock but not metal....and yet fundamentally they're all cut from the same cloth of loud distorted guitars and barre chords, guitar solos and crotch rock...so how different are they, really, outside our opinions of them?

 

We're a world of labelers for sure.

 

You could label Rush as prog, rock, and metal very easily...and they qualify for all of them and some others too, at times.

[EmotionDetector]

QUOTE (Pags @ Mar 23 2009, 10:24 AM)

I guess I get confused by the necessity to label any band as anything. Is it really that important? Rush is Prog. Rush is not prog. Rush is METAL. Rush is not METAL. Sure, I guess there is a need for categorizing a band's music to a certain degree. But it's such a minor one, in my opinion. Rush touches upon lots of genres. Does it really matter how much of one vs. how much of another? I think Rush is great. I put on their music, and it's pleasing to me. Isn't that enough?

Yes, it is enough!

 

However, categorizing bands into genres just comes with the territory, by which I mean: MUSIC! Every band is given some label...helps us find our way around the music stores.

 

You're right though...no matter what RUSH is, they are still my favourite band, and the greatest band of all-time IMO.

 

BTW, perhaps the easiest way to label Prog-rock bands is by whether or not they're in the RRHOF. Rush, Genesis, Yes, Queensryche, etc!

[Pags]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Mar 23 2009, 11:32 AM)

QUOTE (Pags @ Mar 23 2009, 10:24 AM) I guess I get confused by the necessity to label any band as anything.  Is it really that important?  Rush is Prog.  Rush is not prog.  Rush is METAL.  Rush is not METAL. Sure, I guess there is a need for categorizing a band's music to a certain degree.  But it's such a minor one, in my opinion.  Rush touches upon lots of genres.  Does it really matter how much of one vs. how much of another? I think Rush is great.  I put on their music, and it's pleasing to me.  Isn't that enough? Sure but that's not the point.   I agree with you about labels though...and that's the point I was making with Maiden. And again, people consider AC/DC hard rock but not metal....or Poison pop rock but not metal....and yet fundamentally they're all cut from the same cloth of loud distorted guitars and barre chords, guitar solos and crotch rock...so how different are they, really, outside our opinions of them?   We're a world of labelers for sure.   You could label Rush as prog, rock, and metal very easily...and they qualify for all of them and some others too, at times. I guess I get lost in the minutia of the subject, or the desire to drill down to such a depth on it. Perhaps I'm the one who's too aloof about it. But I'm very happy in being oblivious to these categories. I'd rather just jam.

[EmotionDetector]

QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Mar 23 2009, 10:32 AM)

Rush is too much of a hybrid sort of band within the "rock" umbrella.

 

That's actually the best way to put it. RUSH are such a weird animal because depending on what album we're talking about, they could fit in so many different categories.

 

That is what I love about the band though. Every album brings something new to the table, which is awesome IMO. Basically, it is what distinguishes Rush from every other band, and is what has essentially helped make them as unique as they are.

 

Of course, this is also what has made them a love 'em or hate 'em band.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 23 2009, 10:36 AM)

QUOTE (Pags @ Mar 23 2009, 10:24 AM) I guess I get confused by the necessity to label any band as anything.  Is it really that important?  Rush is Prog.  Rush is not prog.  Rush is METAL.  Rush is not METAL. Sure, I guess there is a need for categorizing a band's music to a certain degree.  But it's such a minor one, in my opinion.  Rush touches upon lots of genres.  Does it really matter how much of one vs. how much of another? I think Rush is great.  I put on their music, and it's pleasing to me.  Isn't that enough? Yes, it is enough!   However, categorizing bands into genres just comes with the territory, by which I mean: MUSIC! Every band is given some label...helps us find our way around the music stores.   You're right though...no matter what RUSH is, they are still my favourite band, and the greatest band of all-time IMO.   BTW, perhaps the easiest way to label Prog-rock bands is by whether or not they're in the RRHOF. Rush, Genesis, Yes, Queensryche, etc! LMAO..! Good point.

[Pags]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Mar 23 2009, 11:39 AM)

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 23 2009, 10:36 AM) QUOTE (Pags @ Mar 23 2009, 10:24 AM) I guess I get confused by the necessity to label any band as anything.  Is it really that important?  Rush is Prog.  Rush is not prog.  Rush is METAL.  Rush is not METAL. Sure, I guess there is a need for categorizing a band's music to a certain degree.  But it's such a minor one, in my opinion.  Rush touches upon lots of genres.  Does it really matter how much of one vs. how much of another? I think Rush is great.  I put on their music, and it's pleasing to me.  Isn't that enough? Yes, it is enough!   However, categorizing bands into genres just comes with the territory, by which I mean: MUSIC! Every band is given some label...helps us find our way around the music stores.   You're right though...no matter what RUSH is, they are still my favourite band, and the greatest band of all-time IMO.   BTW, perhaps the easiest way to label Prog-rock bands is by whether or not they're in the RRHOF. Rush, Genesis, Yes, Queensryche, etc! LMAO..! Good point. Absolutely.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 23 2009, 10:39 AM)

QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Mar 23 2009, 10:32 AM) Rush is too much of a hybrid sort of band within the "rock" umbrella.   That's actually the best way to put it. RUSH are such a weird animal because depending on what album we're talking about, they could fit in so many different categories.   That is what I love about the band though. Every album brings something new to the table, which is awesome IMO. Basically, it is what distinguishes Rush from every other band, and is what has essentially helped make them as unique as they are.   Of course, this is also what has made them a love 'em or hate 'em band. I agree with this too...which is why I simply refuse to label them as prog, even if that's what they're most noted as being. But that's hardly all they've been and again, I'd argue not what they've MOSTLY been either...just what they're most remembered as being. I think that's sort of what JP was getting at earlier on some level....that they're far more than just prog and historically not predominantly prog.

[Mara]

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 23 2009, 11:39 AM)

QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Mar 23 2009, 10:32 AM) Rush is too much of a hybrid sort of band within the "rock" umbrella.   That's actually the best way to put it. RUSH are such a weird animal because depending on what album we're talking about, they could fit in so many different categories.   That is what I love about the band though. Every album brings something new to the table, which is awesome IMO. Basically, it is what distinguishes Rush from every other band, and is what has essentially helped make them as unique as they are.   Of course, this is also what has made them a love 'em or hate 'em band. , except for the "love 'em or hate 'em" part. You'll never hear anyone complain that a new Rush album sounds just like the last six, or that one particular song sounds almost exactly like another one they did nine years previous. For a band with that many studio releases, it's pretty impressive. Even more impressive that all 3 members seem to be able to agree on the band's direction.

[EmotionDetector]

QUOTE (Mara @ Mar 23 2009, 10:43 AM)

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 23 2009, 11:39 AM) QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Mar 23 2009, 10:32 AM) Rush is too much of a hybrid sort of band within the "rock" umbrella.   That's actually the best way to put it. RUSH are such a weird animal because depending on what album we're talking about, they could fit in so many different categories.   That is what I love about the band though. Every album brings something new to the table, which is awesome IMO. Basically, it is what distinguishes Rush from every other band, and is what has essentially helped make them as unique as they are.   Of course, this is also what has made them a love 'em or hate 'em band. , except for the "love 'em or hate 'em" part. You'll never hear anyone complain that a new Rush album sounds just like the last six, or that one particular song sounds almost exactly like another one they did nine years previous. For a band with that many studio releases, it's pretty impressive. Even more impressive that all 3 members seem to be able to agree on the band's direction.   That's also what I've found strange. When you consider how every album is so different from the last, it's tough to understand how people who "hate" Rush can't find one thing they love within the catelog.   It's so diverse, that it could almost cater to everyone's tastes.