Jump to content

Rush- Metal or not?


Eel Yddeg
 Share

So?  

86 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Rush Metal?

    • Yes
      11
    • Some Songs, but not as a whole
      44
    • No
      31


Recommended Posts

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/rushs-geddy-lee-says-he-almost-produced-metallicas-master-of-puppets-album/

 

Lee admitted that he isn't much of a heavy metal fan. "I don't listen to a lot of metal," he said. "Even though there's an aspect of our sound that can be quite metal, I sort of attribute it more to early metal, in the way that [LED] ZEPPELIN were metal and in the way that BLACK SABBATH were metal, and BLUE CHEER were metal. And that's the sort of tradition of metal that we took on."

 

 

http://noisey.vice.com/blog/rush-geddy-lee-interview

 

You guys were almost contemporary with Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. Have you ever had a writing stage where you said, “Let’s just come up the heaviest thing we can possibly imagine?”

[Laughs] Well, every once in a while, we do seek the ultimate ‘heaviosity.’ That’s true. I know there were moments of Counterparts where we wanted to be very very heavy. But for us, it’s hard to stay heavy for an entire ten minute, twelve minute song, because we just get bored with it, and the dynamics seem to suffer after a while. So we invariably relent, and have some light and shade thrown in there with all the other heaviosity.

 

He describes his band exactly how I described Rush. Not metal as we know it now, but certainly they were in part metal as the seventies recognised it.

 

And their diverse sound and influence cannot be denied.

 

Those who argue that bands of the seventies referred to as metal should now have the label taken away are trying to rewrite history, which at one time was the modern day with all that was then understood about the genre current and up to date.

 

That metal changed and evolved is inevitable, but as Tony R said himself, Iron Maiden and others were classed as being part of the New Wave of metal (I know the NWOBHM mainly applied to British metal, but during the seventies most notable metal bends were British anyway). Rush were not restricted to any one genre in the seventies, but to deny at times they approached metal is both ignorant and short sighted. I wasn't there, I don't need to be reminded of that. But I also don't try to discredit the value of seeing things in their proper context.

 

I can't help but think that many who argue Rush weren't metal have a very basic understanding and respect for the genre at large.

 

Seventies metal was metal in the formative staged of development. We can argue that none of the bands were metal because they sound nothing like what came later, but if we just imagine what these bands sounded like in the face of their peers in the seventies, especially live, and forget what came later, it is clear Rush were one of those bands who contributed to the fast evolution of a genre that exploded in the eighties.

 

Besides, the earliest bands to be recognised as progenitors of heavy metal include the likes of The Kinks (You Really Got Me) and The Beatles (Helter Skelter), and the blues, which around the time Led Zeppelin blew up had become very loud and rebellious indeed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.blabbermo...-puppets-album/

 

Lee admitted that he isn't much of a heavy metal fan. "I don't listen to a lot of metal," he said. "Even though there's an aspect of our sound that can be quite metal, I sort of attribute it more to early metal, in the way that [LED] ZEPPELIN were metal and in the way that BLACK SABBATH were metal, and BLUE CHEER were metal. And that's the sort of tradition of metal that we took on."

 

 

http://noisey.vice.c...y-lee-interview

 

You guys were almost contemporary with Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. Have you ever had a writing stage where you said, “Let’s just come up the heaviest thing we can possibly imagine?”

[Laughs] Well, every once in a while, we do seek the ultimate ‘heaviosity.’ That’s true. I know there were moments of Counterparts where we wanted to be very very heavy. But for us, it’s hard to stay heavy for an entire ten minute, twelve minute song, because we just get bored with it, and the dynamics seem to suffer after a while. So we invariably relent, and have some light and shade thrown in there with all the other heaviosity.

 

He describes his band exactly how I described Rush. Not metal as we know it now, but certainly they were in part metal as the seventies recognised it.

 

And their diverse sound and influence cannot be denied.

 

Those who argue that bands of the seventies referred to as metal should now have the label taken away are trying to rewrite history, which at one time was the modern day with all that was then understood about the genre current and up to date.

 

That metal changed and evolved is inevitable, but as Tony R said himself, Iron Maiden and others were classed as being part of the New Wave of metal (I know the NWOBHM mainly applied to British metal, but during the seventies most notable metal bends were British anyway). Rush were not restricted to any one genre in the seventies, but to deny at times they approached metal is both ignorant and short sighted. I wasn't there, I don't need to be reminded of that. But I also don't try to discredit the value of seeing things in their proper context.

 

I can't help but think that many who argue Rush weren't metal have a very basic understanding and respect for the genre at large.

 

Seventies metal was metal in the formative staged of development. We can argue that none of the bands were metal because they sound nothing like what came later, but if we just imagine what these bands sounded like in the face of their peers in the seventies, especially live, and forget what came later, it is clear Rush were one of those bands who contributed to the fast evolution of a genre that exploded in the eighties.

 

Besides, the earliest bands to be recognised as progenitors of heavy metal include the likes of The Kinks (You Really Got Me) and The Beatles (Helter Skelter), and the blues, which around the time Led Zeppelin blew up had become very loud and rebellious indeed.

 

I took Ged's quote as saying they were not HM. Maybe by the definition that was applied in the 1970s they were. But by modern definitions of metal, a la Metallica, then no they were not. And Ged seems to state that he is not a fan of metal -- the quote was taken from an interview with Ged about Metallica.

 

To me it would be like calling the Beatles prog simply because of "A Day in the Life". While they influenced some of those bands, they were not prog. Nor were they country, even though they recorded "Act Naturally" and Ringo wrote "Don't Pass Me By". Nor were they metal because of "Helter Skelter" or "I Want You (she's so heavy)".

Edited by Wil1972
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.blabbermo...-puppets-album/

 

Lee admitted that he isn't much of a heavy metal fan. "I don't listen to a lot of metal," he said. "Even though there's an aspect of our sound that can be quite metal, I sort of attribute it more to early metal, in the way that [LED] ZEPPELIN were metal and in the way that BLACK SABBATH were metal, and BLUE CHEER were metal. And that's the sort of tradition of metal that we took on."

 

 

http://noisey.vice.c...y-lee-interview

 

You guys were almost contemporary with Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. Have you ever had a writing stage where you said, “Let’s just come up the heaviest thing we can possibly imagine?”

[Laughs] Well, every once in a while, we do seek the ultimate ‘heaviosity.’ That’s true. I know there were moments of Counterparts where we wanted to be very very heavy. But for us, it’s hard to stay heavy for an entire ten minute, twelve minute song, because we just get bored with it, and the dynamics seem to suffer after a while. So we invariably relent, and have some light and shade thrown in there with all the other heaviosity.

 

He describes his band exactly how I described Rush. Not metal as we know it now, but certainly they were in part metal as the seventies recognised it.

 

And their diverse sound and influence cannot be denied.

 

Those who argue that bands of the seventies referred to as metal should now have the label taken away are trying to rewrite history, which at one time was the modern day with all that was then understood about the genre current and up to date.

 

That metal changed and evolved is inevitable, but as Tony R said himself, Iron Maiden and others were classed as being part of the New Wave of metal (I know the NWOBHM mainly applied to British metal, but during the seventies most notable metal bends were British anyway). Rush were not restricted to any one genre in the seventies, but to deny at times they approached metal is both ignorant and short sighted. I wasn't there, I don't need to be reminded of that. But I also don't try to discredit the value of seeing things in their proper context.

 

I can't help but think that many who argue Rush weren't metal have a very basic understanding and respect for the genre at large.

 

Seventies metal was metal in the formative staged of development. We can argue that none of the bands were metal because they sound nothing like what came later, but if we just imagine what these bands sounded like in the face of their peers in the seventies, especially live, and forget what came later, it is clear Rush were one of those bands who contributed to the fast evolution of a genre that exploded in the eighties.

 

Besides, the earliest bands to be recognised as progenitors of heavy metal include the likes of The Kinks (You Really Got Me) and The Beatles (Helter Skelter), and the blues, which around the time Led Zeppelin blew up had become very loud and rebellious indeed.

 

I took Ged's quote as saying they were not HM. Maybe by the definition that was applied in the 1970s they were. But by modern definitions of metal, a la Metallica, then no they were not. And Ged seems to state that he is not a fan of metal -- the quote was taken from an interview with Ged about Metallica.

 

To me it would be like calling the Beatles prog simply because of "A Day in the Life". While they influenced some of those bands, they were not prog. Nor were they country, even though they recorded "Act Naturally" and Ringo wrote "Don't Pass Me By". Nor were they metal because of "Helter Skelter" or "I Want You (she's so heavy)".

 

He mentions that he agrees an aspect of their sound could be considered metal. I think considering the age of their work, the style of their work, and the influence of their work, the seventies albums deserve to be mentioned alongside the likes of early Judas Priest and Black Sabbath. Definitely agree that Led Zeppelin deserve the same credit as well.

 

Not full on metal, perhaps, but at least more credit than a mere footnote in the book of the history of heavy metal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this has been discussed in the "Top 100 Metal Albums"

 

Would you say Rush is a metal band, or not?

 

Personally, I wouldn't. Their sound is more hard rock with prog elements to me. They lost all heaviness once Signals rolled around.

 

However, some songs, IMO, are metal.

The following are songs I would consider to be metal.

Working Man

By-Tor and the Snow Dog (7/4 War Furor)

2112 Grand Finale

Cygnus X-1 (Part III)

Natural Science (Part II, Different Stages version)

BU2B

One Little Victory (Particularly the intro)

 

Post thoughts below. If they're not metal, feel free to post songs you'd say are.

 

Geez.

 

Not even one of Rush's songs are metal.

 

For f**k's sake.

 

Yes. I already raised the question what is metal? Its analogus to he question "what is jazz"? There are multiple ways to define it. Each Person has their own definition. No, Rush is by no means a Metal band but they do have songs that are very metallic and heavy in their construct. Heavy riffs, dark lyrical concepts, challenging musical constructs. Pretty metal if hou ask me.

Don't even try arguing with Bard. He's right as he always is.

 

On the 3rd day, Bard created Rush. On the 4th, Bard created metal. Given that, Rush couldn't possibly be metal.

 

Besides, Bard already said "geez" and "for f**k's sake" which trump any argument made.

 

Geez. For f**k's sake.

 

Oh hey. BTW. Know what else I was right about?

 

That Neil was retiring. :)

 

I see tons of metal heads moshing at Rush shows. Leather studs, headbangin', the whole nine yards.

 

Oh wait...I don't at all. :)

http://image.funscrape.com/images/h/heavy_metal-12978.jpg

Which one is you?

 

f***ing leather studs. They're fashion statements, not music.

 

 

Btw, back in your Great Proclamation Days of 'Rush is Retiring', you stated more than once that you wouldn't return to TRF after the R40 tour. Why did you go back on this?

1486663_10203346917983062_1144295043_n.jpg?oh=61754b61e2d002cab999ae48c47fcd2b&oe=57859070

 

Which one is me???

 

Which one is me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this has been discussed in the "Top 100 Metal Albums"

 

Would you say Rush is a metal band, or not?

 

Personally, I wouldn't. Their sound is more hard rock with prog elements to me. They lost all heaviness once Signals rolled around.

 

However, some songs, IMO, are metal.

The following are songs I would consider to be metal.

Working Man

By-Tor and the Snow Dog (7/4 War Furor)

2112 Grand Finale

Cygnus X-1 (Part III)

Natural Science (Part II, Different Stages version)

BU2B

One Little Victory (Particularly the intro)

 

Post thoughts below. If they're not metal, feel free to post songs you'd say are.

 

Geez.

 

Not even one of Rush's songs are metal.

 

For f**k's sake.

 

Yes. I already raised the question what is metal? Its analogus to he question "what is jazz"? There are multiple ways to define it. Each Person has their own definition. No, Rush is by no means a Metal band but they do have songs that are very metallic and heavy in their construct. Heavy riffs, dark lyrical concepts, challenging musical constructs. Pretty metal if hou ask me.

Don't even try arguing with Bard. He's right as he always is.

 

On the 3rd day, Bard created Rush. On the 4th, Bard created metal. Given that, Rush couldn't possibly be metal.

 

Besides, Bard already said "geez" and "for f**k's sake" which trump any argument made.

 

Geez. For f**k's sake.

 

Oh hey. BTW. Know what else I was right about?

 

That Neil was retiring. :)

 

I see tons of metal heads moshing at Rush shows. Leather studs, headbangin', the whole nine yards.

 

Oh wait...I don't at all. :)

http://image.funscrape.com/images/h/heavy_metal-12978.jpg

Which one is you?

 

f***ing leather studs. They're fashion statements, not music.

 

 

Btw, back in your Great Proclamation Days of 'Rush is Retiring', you stated more than once that you wouldn't return to TRF after the R40 tour. Why did you go back on this?

1486663_10203346917983062_1144295043_n.jpg?oh=61754b61e2d002cab999ae48c47fcd2b&oe=57859070

 

Which one is me???

 

Which one is me?

You were there that night???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush could never be defined, that's why there's this copout move to label them prog. But their musical styles have always been transitory, or akin to changing your underwear, it just happens out of reflex with them. There was a good five year period when Rush surely did dabble in what could be called the Metal of the era aka Sabbath, Rainbow, Deep Purple, but they never went the route of Slayer, obviously.

We got to see something pretty unique, a band evolve and mature intact and stay relevant. After Keith died, the Who put out two more very good albums, but they were done. Now they're a circus act, which some here wish fir Rush.

But back to the metal. Ive seen Priest, Sabbath, Ministry, Slayer, The Mentors, and fifty other metal bands that go from Dio to death metal and I have to say, every time I see Rush perform 2112 live, it makes me realize they can play as heavy as anyone.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush could never be defined, that's why there's this copout move to label them prog. But their musical styles have always been transitory, or akin to changing your underwear, it just happens out of reflex with them. There was a good five year period when Rush surely did dabble in what could be called the Metal of the era aka Sabbath, Rainbow, Deep Purple, but they never went the route of Slayer, obviously.

We got to see something pretty unique, a band evolve and mature intact and stay relevant. After Keith died, the Who put out two more very good albums, but they were done. Now they're a circus act, which some here wish fir Rush.

But back to the metal. Ive seen Priest, Sabbath, Ministry, Slayer, The Mentors, and fifty other metal bands that go from Dio to death metal and I have to say, every time I see Rush perform 2112 live, it makes me realize they can play as heavy as anyone.

 

100% in agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.blabbermo...-puppets-album/

 

Lee admitted that he isn't much of a heavy metal fan. "I don't listen to a lot of metal," he said. "Even though there's an aspect of our sound that can be quite metal, I sort of attribute it more to early metal, in the way that [LED] ZEPPELIN were metal and in the way that BLACK SABBATH were metal, and BLUE CHEER were metal. And that's the sort of tradition of metal that we took on."

 

 

http://noisey.vice.c...y-lee-interview

 

You guys were almost contemporary with Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. Have you ever had a writing stage where you said, “Let’s just come up the heaviest thing we can possibly imagine?”

[Laughs] Well, every once in a while, we do seek the ultimate ‘heaviosity.’ That’s true. I know there were moments of Counterparts where we wanted to be very very heavy. But for us, it’s hard to stay heavy for an entire ten minute, twelve minute song, because we just get bored with it, and the dynamics seem to suffer after a while. So we invariably relent, and have some light and shade thrown in there with all the other heaviosity.

 

He describes his band exactly how I described Rush. Not metal as we know it now, but certainly they were in part metal as the seventies recognised it.

 

And their diverse sound and influence cannot be denied.

 

Those who argue that bands of the seventies referred to as metal should now have the label taken away are trying to rewrite history, which at one time was the modern day with all that was then understood about the genre current and up to date.

 

That metal changed and evolved is inevitable, but as Tony R said himself, Iron Maiden and others were classed as being part of the New Wave of metal (I know the NWOBHM mainly applied to British metal, but during the seventies most notable metal bends were British anyway). Rush were not restricted to any one genre in the seventies, but to deny at times they approached metal is both ignorant and short sighted. I wasn't there, I don't need to be reminded of that. But I also don't try to discredit the value of seeing things in their proper context.

 

I can't help but think that many who argue Rush weren't metal have a very basic understanding and respect for the genre at large.

 

Seventies metal was metal in the formative staged of development. We can argue that none of the bands were metal because they sound nothing like what came later, but if we just imagine what these bands sounded like in the face of their peers in the seventies, especially live, and forget what came later, it is clear Rush were one of those bands who contributed to the fast evolution of a genre that exploded in the eighties.

 

Besides, the earliest bands to be recognised as progenitors of heavy metal include the likes of The Kinks (You Really Got Me) and The Beatles (Helter Skelter), and the blues, which around the time Led Zeppelin blew up had become very loud and rebellious indeed.

 

I took Ged's quote as saying they were not HM. Maybe by the definition that was applied in the 1970s they were. But by modern definitions of metal, a la Metallica, then no they were not. And Ged seems to state that he is not a fan of metal -- the quote was taken from an interview with Ged about Metallica.

 

To me it would be like calling the Beatles prog simply because of "A Day in the Life". While they influenced some of those bands, they were not prog. Nor were they country, even though they recorded "Act Naturally" and Ringo wrote "Don't Pass Me By". Nor were they metal because of "Helter Skelter" or "I Want You (she's so heavy)".

 

You Really Got Me isn't metal.

A Day In The Life a prog rock song? Nonsense. Just a typical psychedelic song. No characteristics of prog.

About Sabbath compared to Anthem or 2112, I have NO Idea how Rush could be compared to Sabbath. I've listened to all of Paranoid, and tracks like War Pigs, Iron Man, and Electric Funeral are definitely heavier than Anthem or 2112. Only the Grand Finale section of 2112 is metal, IMO.

And Fly By Night and Closer to the Heart aren't exceptions. They're pretty comparable to the rest of the work at the time. Listen to stuff like Xanadu, or A Passage to Bangkok, or Beneath Between and Behind, all typical with their sound at the time, and compare to Iron Man, or War Pigs, or Electric Funeral.

And about "They were metal at the time!" That argument doesn't stand. As I said, Queen were considered metal in the '70s.

And even though they had some metal songs, that doesn't mean they are metal. It's like calling Pink Floyd metal because of "The Nile Song" or "Ibiza Bar" or calling The Who country because of "Squeeze Box" or calling Queen disco because of Hot Space. A few metal songs does not a metal band make.

And just because they were influential on metal, doesn't mean they were metal themselves. It's like saying Sgt Peppers and Days of Future Passed are prog rock albums just because it was influential on the genre, even though none of the songs are remotely prog. Or like calling the classic blues of Robert Johnson rock and roll, as it was influential on it. Or calling Funk and Disco rap music, as they influenced it.

"It influenced it!" Is a weak argument.

Edited by Eel Yddeg
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.blabbermo...-puppets-album/

 

Lee admitted that he isn't much of a heavy metal fan. "I don't listen to a lot of metal," he said. "Even though there's an aspect of our sound that can be quite metal, I sort of attribute it more to early metal, in the way that [LED] ZEPPELIN were metal and in the way that BLACK SABBATH were metal, and BLUE CHEER were metal. And that's the sort of tradition of metal that we took on."

 

 

http://noisey.vice.c...y-lee-interview

 

You guys were almost contemporary with Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. Have you ever had a writing stage where you said, “Let’s just come up the heaviest thing we can possibly imagine?”

[Laughs] Well, every once in a while, we do seek the ultimate ‘heaviosity.’ That’s true. I know there were moments of Counterparts where we wanted to be very very heavy. But for us, it’s hard to stay heavy for an entire ten minute, twelve minute song, because we just get bored with it, and the dynamics seem to suffer after a while. So we invariably relent, and have some light and shade thrown in there with all the other heaviosity.

 

He describes his band exactly how I described Rush. Not metal as we know it now, but certainly they were in part metal as the seventies recognised it.

 

And their diverse sound and influence cannot be denied.

 

Those who argue that bands of the seventies referred to as metal should now have the label taken away are trying to rewrite history, which at one time was the modern day with all that was then understood about the genre current and up to date.

 

That metal changed and evolved is inevitable, but as Tony R said himself, Iron Maiden and others were classed as being part of the New Wave of metal (I know the NWOBHM mainly applied to British metal, but during the seventies most notable metal bends were British anyway). Rush were not restricted to any one genre in the seventies, but to deny at times they approached metal is both ignorant and short sighted. I wasn't there, I don't need to be reminded of that. But I also don't try to discredit the value of seeing things in their proper context.

 

I can't help but think that many who argue Rush weren't metal have a very basic understanding and respect for the genre at large.

 

Seventies metal was metal in the formative staged of development. We can argue that none of the bands were metal because they sound nothing like what came later, but if we just imagine what these bands sounded like in the face of their peers in the seventies, especially live, and forget what came later, it is clear Rush were one of those bands who contributed to the fast evolution of a genre that exploded in the eighties.

 

Besides, the earliest bands to be recognised as progenitors of heavy metal include the likes of The Kinks (You Really Got Me) and The Beatles (Helter Skelter), and the blues, which around the time Led Zeppelin blew up had become very loud and rebellious indeed.

 

I took Ged's quote as saying they were not HM. Maybe by the definition that was applied in the 1970s they were. But by modern definitions of metal, a la Metallica, then no they were not. And Ged seems to state that he is not a fan of metal -- the quote was taken from an interview with Ged about Metallica.

 

To me it would be like calling the Beatles prog simply because of "A Day in the Life". While they influenced some of those bands, they were not prog. Nor were they country, even though they recorded "Act Naturally" and Ringo wrote "Don't Pass Me By". Nor were they metal because of "Helter Skelter" or "I Want You (she's so heavy)".

 

A Day In The Life a prog rock song? Nonsense. Just a typical psychedelic song. No characteristics of prog.

 

It's like saying Sgt Peppers and Days of Future Passed are prog rock albums just because it was influential on the genre, even though none of the songs are remotely prog.

 

"A Day in the Life" Song by The Beatles from the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Released 1 June 1967 Recorded 19 and 20 January and

3 and 10 February 1967,

EMI Studios, London Genre

Length 5:35 Label

Writer Lennon–McCartney Producer George Martin

 

When it emerged, progressive rock music was called progressive pop.Upon release, the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds (1966) was called "the most progressive pop album ever" by British newspapers. Later, some would retroactively characterize the term as a milder form of progressive rock. Bob Dylan's poetry, the Mothers of Invention's album Freak Out! (1966), and the Beatles' album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), have all been mentioned as important in progressive rock's development.

Bill Bruford, a veteran of several progressive rock bands, said that Sgt. Pepper transformed both musicians' ideas of what was possible and audiences' ideas of what was acceptable in music. He believed that: "Without the Beatles, or someone else who had done what the Beatles did, it is fair to assume that there would have been no progressive rock."

 

I do agree with the rest of your post. And that was the point I was trying to make. Influence is not enough. But I did want to clarify that "A Day in the Life" does have characteristics of prog. But I wouldn't classify the Beatles as progressive in the sense that Yes or King Crimson were.

Edited by Wil1972
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were by the definitions of the time in 1974-76. Not since, and not ever by today's definitions.

 

I have always personally felt the Beatles were "progressive" ... in a way that even some of the prog bands were not, in that they were always exploring and trying new things and moving forward ... and in that sense, several rock bands are "progressive" in my mind. Rush to me is the purest definition of the word.

Some of the prog bands progressed in their growth to a point, but then settled into a defined sound and rarely pushed that sound beyond what they felt defined them. But otherwise they fit the popular definition of "progressive rock". But I am probably in the minority in that thinking.

Edited by Wil1972
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's not what prog rock is. Progressive rock, to me, is defined by songs that break the rules of traditional pop song structure (Intro-Verse-Chorus-Verse-Chorus-Bridge-Chorus-Outro) and simple, radio friendly melodies and chord progressions, instead using complex structures, melodies, and chord progression, that you won't find in your typical pop songs, as well as some of the following:

- heavy emphasis on keyboard instruments,

- unusual time signatures,

- frequently long song lengths,

- Fantasy oriented, or otherwise very "wordy" lyrics

- Heavy jazz or classical influences in form or structure (Not use of an orchestra, but in feel or form)

Sgt Peppers had none of this. All songs are normal length, have normal song structure, normal time signature, normal pop melodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who doesn't think that Rush are heavy metal (with a touch of Heavy Prog) is a revisionist douchebag.

 

You cannot rewrite history. Heavy Metal as a term dates back to the early 70s, whether metal is something different now is irrelevant. Why do you think Iron Maiden were termed "new wave of British Heavy Metal"? They could only be a "new wave" if something had gone before.

 

Jeez.

 

Amen brother!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who doesn't think that Rush are heavy metal (with a touch of Heavy Prog) is a revisionist douchebag.

 

You cannot rewrite history. Heavy Metal as a term dates back to the early 70s, whether metal is something different now is irrelevant. Why do you think Iron Maiden were termed "new wave of British Heavy Metal"? They could only be a "new wave" if something had gone before.

 

Jeez.

 

Amen brother!

Tony, why don't you post that picture of you taken in the Church of TonyR? You know, the one you used for an avatar a while back? :angel:

Edited by Lorraine
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who doesn't think that Rush are heavy metal (with a touch of Heavy Prog) is a revisionist douchebag.

 

You cannot rewrite history. Heavy Metal as a term dates back to the early 70s, whether metal is something different now is irrelevant. Why do you think Iron Maiden were termed "new wave of British Heavy Metal"? They could only be a "new wave" if something had gone before.

 

Jeez.

 

Amen brother!

 

I concur x1000.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are attempting to define bands and styles that are amalgams of earlier generations, and while eventually any genre will become clichéd and basically a parody of what once was, the trailblazers are the most difficult to pigeonhole because of just that" they were trailblazers and not following the "set rules" laid down by earlier bands ..

 

YES is progressive, in my mind, because Steve Howe brought bluegrass and country chops into the songs, Rick Wakeman did the incredible by being futuristic while retaining a true sense of classical, Chris Squire carried a bigger bottom than Jennifer Lopez, Jon Anderson brought an angelic and very emotional edge to the vibe, and Bill Bruford was about as natural and comfortable with timing and jazz chops as you will find .... Love Alan White too by the way ..

 

Ladies and gentlemen, YES

 

So then you;ve got bands that grew up listening to YES, taking everything from YES and nothing from what influenced YES, all the while thinking "We'll be prog"

 

So will the real prog band please stand up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who doesn't think that Rush are heavy metal (with a touch of Heavy Prog) is a revisionist douchebag.

 

You cannot rewrite history. Heavy Metal as a term dates back to the early 70s, whether metal is something different now is irrelevant. Why do you think Iron Maiden were termed "new wave of British Heavy Metal"? They could only be a "new wave" if something had gone before.

 

Jeez.

 

Amen brother!

 

I concur x1000.

Same.

 

Though I'm mainly smiling because of "revisionist douchebag". :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...