GeddyRulz Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 21 2009, 01:55 PM) The 80's were by far the most influential period with PeW & MP. Maybe the 80s deserve a fair shake, if we're calling those two albums 80s. (Which, sure, they are... by the strict definition of decades.) The truth is PeW and MP have about as much in common with the four 80s albums which followed them (those heavy keyboard albums) as they do with the four albums which preceeded them, maybe less. PeW and MP belong in their own "era," in my opinion. The two best albums, and dis-similar to those albums nearest them. They have the Proggy time and tempo changes of the earlier albums, but in short songs like the later albums. And no hyper use of keyboards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc4gd Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 If Rush didn't change over the years they would become boring. I'm glad they did change and continue to enjoy each era. (Actually, in many ways they did not change.) Does not matter what age, they are a legacy of our times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (jc4gd @ Mar 21 2009, 05:27 PM) If Rush didn't change over the years they would become boring. I'm glad they did change and continue to enjoy each era. (Actually, in many ways they did not change.) Does not matter what age, they are a legacy of our times. from another perspective, is it even possible for them to NOT have changed? for example, what band who did 70's prog music in the 70's continued making that same kind of prog into the 80's and 90's? nobody. EVERYBODY'S sound changed to some degree or another - it's inevitable to be influenced by the times and to evolve. it more becomes a question of how people like the directions they've evolved into... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPRushHed Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 21 2009, 07:29 PM) QUOTE (jc4gd @ Mar 21 2009, 05:27 PM) If Rush didn't change over the years they would become boring. I'm glad they did change and continue to enjoy each era. (Actually, in many ways they did not change.) Does not matter what age, they are a legacy of our times. from another perspective, is it even possible for them to NOT have changed? for example, what band who did 70's prog music in the 70's continued making that same kind of prog into the 80's and 90's? nobody. EVERYBODY'S sound changed to some degree or another - it's inevitable to be influenced by the times and to evolve. it more becomes a question of how people like the directions they've evolved into... First off, Rush were never really a prog band. Secondly, Rush don't have many contemporaries when it comes to length of career. Thirdly, I can't think of any band that has equaled Rush's 2 last records roughly 30 years into their career, prog or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCFIELDS Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 21 2009, 08:10 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 21 2009, 07:29 PM) QUOTE (jc4gd @ Mar 21 2009, 05:27 PM) If Rush didn't change over the years they would become boring. I'm glad they did change and continue to enjoy each era. (Actually, in many ways they did not change.) Does not matter what age, they are a legacy of our times. from another perspective, is it even possible for them to NOT have changed? for example, what band who did 70's prog music in the 70's continued making that same kind of prog into the 80's and 90's? nobody. EVERYBODY'S sound changed to some degree or another - it's inevitable to be influenced by the times and to evolve. it more becomes a question of how people like the directions they've evolved into... First off, Rush were never really a prog band. sure they were........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Mar 21 2009, 09:35 PM) QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 21 2009, 08:10 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 21 2009, 07:29 PM) QUOTE (jc4gd @ Mar 21 2009, 05:27 PM) If Rush didn't change over the years they would become boring. I'm glad they did change and continue to enjoy each era. (Actually, in many ways they did not change.) Does not matter what age, they are a legacy of our times. from another perspective, is it even possible for them to NOT have changed? for example, what band who did 70's prog music in the 70's continued making that same kind of prog into the 80's and 90's? nobody. EVERYBODY'S sound changed to some degree or another - it's inevitable to be influenced by the times and to evolve. it more becomes a question of how people like the directions they've evolved into... First off, Rush were never really a prog band. sure they were........ I have to go with the Newbie on this one. By-Tor and the Snowdog, The Necromancer, The Fountain of Lamneth, 2112, Xanadu, Cygnus X-1, Hemispheres, The Trees, La Villa Strangiato, Natural Science, The Camera Eye, Red Barchetta... those were all country songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 21 2009, 07:10 PM)QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 21 2009, 07:29 PM) QUOTE (jc4gd @ Mar 21 2009, 05:27 PM) If Rush didn't change over the years they would become boring. I'm glad they did change and continue to enjoy each era. (Actually, in many ways they did not change.) Does not matter what age, they are a legacy of our times. from another perspective, is it even possible for them to NOT have changed? for example, what band who did 70's prog music in the 70's continued making that same kind of prog into the 80's and 90's? nobody. EVERYBODY'S sound changed to some degree or another - it's inevitable to be influenced by the times and to evolve. it more becomes a question of how people like the directions they've evolved into... First off, Rush were never really a prog band. Secondly, Rush don't have many contemporaries when it comes to length of career. I don't know what progworld you come from, but I hate to be one to inform you that Caress of Steel through Hemispheres were progressive rock albums, and a lot of Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures was too, as well as some of Fly By Night. Check out the prog archives website sometime - those people know what they're talking about, and the question of Rush being prog in the 70's is not even up for debate. Rush do have some contemporaries when it comes to length of career, including bands who were prog or very proggy in the 60's and 70's - Yes, The Moody Blues, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Genesis - all of them made it into the 80's and 90's, and some beyond. Every one of those groups changed their sound over the years to some degree. QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 21 2009, 07:10 PM)Thirdly, I can't think of any band that has equaled Rush's 2 last records roughly 30 years into their career, prog or not. I'll give you that on S&A as I've never heard an album by a band 33 years after their first album make an album that good, but I thought VT was far and away their worst album, so I can't agree with you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Mar 21 2009, 09:07 PM) QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Mar 21 2009, 09:35 PM) QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 21 2009, 08:10 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 21 2009, 07:29 PM) QUOTE (jc4gd @ Mar 21 2009, 05:27 PM) If Rush didn't change over the years they would become boring. I'm glad they did change and continue to enjoy each era. (Actually, in many ways they did not change.) Does not matter what age, they are a legacy of our times. from another perspective, is it even possible for them to NOT have changed? for example, what band who did 70's prog music in the 70's continued making that same kind of prog into the 80's and 90's? nobody. EVERYBODY'S sound changed to some degree or another - it's inevitable to be influenced by the times and to evolve. it more becomes a question of how people like the directions they've evolved into... First off, Rush were never really a prog band. sure they were........ I have to go with the Newbie on this one. By-Tor and the Snowdog, The Necromancer, The Fountain of Lamneth, 2112, Xanadu, Cygnus X-1, Hemispheres, The Trees, La Villa Strangiato, Natural Science, The Camera Eye, Red Barchetta... those were all country songs. Really the only thing unusual about Rush and their progressive rock standing is how late in the game they started. By the time Caress of Steel came out in 1975, prog albums were a dying breed, and by the time of AFTK and Hemispheres, almost no one was making it when punk and disco and AOR were king. I'd be willing to bet if their 1975-1978 albums came out in 1970-1973 when prog was at its zenith, they would have had even more fame and acclaim then they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave @Lakeside Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 They progressed from 4/4 time and blues scale based rock. They're progressive rockers. Although there's enough straight ahead rock to allow them to be understood and appreciated by more than just other musicians (Analog Kid). Zappa used humor to get in the door of everyday music buyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPRushHed Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Rush had elements of prog early on but were never a full blown prog act. Is that a fair statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 22 2009, 11:37 AM) Rush had elements of prog early on but were never a full blown prog act. Is that a fair statement? If all we're discussing is "elements of" Prog, then they STILL DO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 22 2009, 09:37 AM) Rush had elements of prog early on but were never a full blown prog act. Is that a fair statement? Sorry, but They were full blown prog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanadu93 Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 22 2009, 12:34 AM) QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Mar 21 2009, 09:07 PM) QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Mar 21 2009, 09:35 PM) QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 21 2009, 08:10 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 21 2009, 07:29 PM) QUOTE (jc4gd @ Mar 21 2009, 05:27 PM) If Rush didn't change over the years they would become boring. I'm glad they did change and continue to enjoy each era. (Actually, in many ways they did not change.) Does not matter what age, they are a legacy of our times. from another perspective, is it even possible for them to NOT have changed? for example, what band who did 70's prog music in the 70's continued making that same kind of prog into the 80's and 90's? nobody. EVERYBODY'S sound changed to some degree or another - it's inevitable to be influenced by the times and to evolve. it more becomes a question of how people like the directions they've evolved into... First off, Rush were never really a prog band. sure they were........ I have to go with the Newbie on this one. By-Tor and the Snowdog, The Necromancer, The Fountain of Lamneth, 2112, Xanadu, Cygnus X-1, Hemispheres, The Trees, La Villa Strangiato, Natural Science, The Camera Eye, Red Barchetta... those were all country songs. Really the only thing unusual about Rush and their progressive rock standing is how late in the game they started. By the time Caress of Steel came out in 1975, prog albums were a dying breed, and by the time of AFTK and Hemispheres, almost no one was making it when punk and disco and AOR were king. I'd be willing to bet if their 1975-1978 albums came out in 1970-1973 when prog was at its zenith, they would have had even more fame and acclaim then they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 22 2009, 12:27 PM) QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 22 2009, 09:37 AM) Rush had elements of prog early on but were never a full blown prog act. Is that a fair statement? Sorry, but They were full blown prog. There you go, Newbie. This is the man who should know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (Xanadu93 @ Mar 22 2009, 12:32 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 22 2009, 12:34 AM) Really the only thing unusual about Rush and their progressive rock standing is how late in the game they started. By the time Caress of Steel came out in 1975, prog albums were a dying breed, and by the time of AFTK and Hemispheres, almost no one was making it when punk and disco and AOR were king. I'd be willing to bet if their 1975-1978 albums came out in 1970-1973 when prog was at its zenith, they would have had even more fame and acclaim then they did. X2 I've thought the same thing. Rush were chasing a dying genre; they were definitely late to the Prog Party. But if they DID have "fame and acclaim" with the Prog genre, who's to say they would've left it behind? Perhaps they would have kept at it longer than they should've (rather than change), and would've quickly become irrelevant; another... gulp... Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormtron Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Rush were definitely a prog band, they just rocked much harder than most others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ Mar 22 2009, 12:55 PM) Rush were definitely a prog band, they just rocked much harder than most others. And that's what I love them for... the mix of the two. They're progressive and HARD at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 21 2009, 07:29 PM) QUOTE (jc4gd @ Mar 21 2009, 05:27 PM) If Rush didn't change over the years they would become boring. I'm glad they did change and continue to enjoy each era. (Actually, in many ways they did not change.) Does not matter what age, they are a legacy of our times. from another perspective, is it even possible for them to NOT have changed? for example, what band who did 70's prog music in the 70's continued making that same kind of prog into the 80's and 90's? nobody. EVERYBODY'S sound changed to some degree or another - it's inevitable to be influenced by the times and to evolve. it more becomes a question of how people like the directions they've evolved into... This is a good point. But I suppose AC/DC is an example of a band staying about as close to roots as possible over 30+ years. Rush could be a lot more "samey" in that AC/DC vein than not. Rush is, in my estimation, quite the flip side of that....not just changing some via evolution but STRIVING for change as well. You're right, though, that everyone changes. Also not trying to goad AC/DC fans into an argument about their sound changing too, just FYI....just that they're a band known for their specific sound...that they don't do ballads or change things dramatically at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Mar 22 2009, 01:30 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 21 2009, 07:29 PM) QUOTE (jc4gd @ Mar 21 2009, 05:27 PM) If Rush didn't change over the years they would become boring. I'm glad they did change and continue to enjoy each era. (Actually, in many ways they did not change.) Does not matter what age, they are a legacy of our times. from another perspective, is it even possible for them to NOT have changed? for example, what band who did 70's prog music in the 70's continued making that same kind of prog into the 80's and 90's? nobody. EVERYBODY'S sound changed to some degree or another - it's inevitable to be influenced by the times and to evolve. it more becomes a question of how people like the directions they've evolved into... This is a good point. But I suppose AC/DC is an example of a band staying about as close to roots as possible over 30+ years. Rush could be a lot more "samey" in that AC/DC vein than not. Rush is, in my estimation, quite the flip side of that....not just changing some via evolution but STRIVING for change as well. You're right, though, that everyone changes. Also not trying to goad AC/DC fans into an argument about their sound changing too, just FYI....just that they're a band known for their specific sound...that they don't do ballads or change things dramatically at least. understood, but AC/DC were never prog, and i was referring specifically to prog bands. the rolling stones haven't exactly changed their sound dramatically over the decades either. it's different with groups that have always pretty much been straight ahead rock and roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPRushHed Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 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. The band members themselves have said they never considered themselves to be Prog, just hard rock. But I guess you guys know best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 22 2009, 05:26 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. The band members themselves have said they never considered themselves to be Prog, just hard rock. But I guess you guys know best... Ok, I give, Rush were NOT prog. Please do NOT click on this page from PROG ARCHIVES Please do NOT click on this page from The New Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Proessive Rock Please do NOT look at any of the following images: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GE0O-2ZsOCU/SbGVUUZYmAI/AAAAAAAAASM/vWv8wTUmSbE/s400/Classic+Rock003.jpg http://www.sonicbond.com/uploads/images_news/160.jpg http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e85/rushgoober6/rr.jpg http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e85/rushgoober6/rush.jpg http://www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk/images/news/2005/20050707_Qprog_lrg.jpg http://www.vicfirth.com/news/lackowski_12-02-08.jpg http://j.bdbphotos.com/pictures/B/8L/B8W9K4P_large.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutman Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 22 2009, 04:26 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. The band members themselves have said they never considered themselves to be Prog, just hard rock. But I guess you guys know best... It doesn't matter!! is How ever you look at them!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaldad Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 DON'T FEED THE TROLL................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 22 2009, 06:41 PM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Mar 22 2009, 01:30 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 21 2009, 07:29 PM) QUOTE (jc4gd @ Mar 21 2009, 05:27 PM) If Rush didn't change over the years they would become boring. I'm glad they did change and continue to enjoy each era. (Actually, in many ways they did not change.) Does not matter what age, they are a legacy of our times. from another perspective, is it even possible for them to NOT have changed? for example, what band who did 70's prog music in the 70's continued making that same kind of prog into the 80's and 90's? nobody. EVERYBODY'S sound changed to some degree or another - it's inevitable to be influenced by the times and to evolve. it more becomes a question of how people like the directions they've evolved into... This is a good point. But I suppose AC/DC is an example of a band staying about as close to roots as possible over 30+ years. Rush could be a lot more "samey" in that AC/DC vein than not. Rush is, in my estimation, quite the flip side of that....not just changing some via evolution but STRIVING for change as well. You're right, though, that everyone changes. Also not trying to goad AC/DC fans into an argument about their sound changing too, just FYI....just that they're a band known for their specific sound...that they don't do ballads or change things dramatically at least. understood, but AC/DC were never prog, and i was referring specifically to prog bands. the rolling stones haven't exactly changed their sound dramatically over the decades either. it's different with groups that have always pretty much been straight ahead rock and roll. Yeah, very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.