Seeing Neil back behind the old kit (or an exact replica thereof as the case may be) was almost worth the price of admission all by itself.
I admit I got goosebumps when I saw the black drumheads with the 2112 guy.
Seeing Neil back behind the old kit (or an exact replica thereof as the case may be) was almost worth the price of admission all by itself.
I admit I got goosebumps when I saw the black drumheads with the 2112 guy.
High Vibration Go On - R.I.P. Chris Squire
The music industry is in crisis, including the press. It's the same with the NME here- old bands on the front cover all the time. The new bands aren't pulling in the punters for any lasting amount of time. I'm sure that the new talent is out there but the industry's major players don't seem to be finding/pushing it.Originally Posted by Adrian
Bands like Rush never got the support of the press en masse, nor did they need it- they gained mass appeal (huge album sales and playing huge concert venues) by themselves. Same went for many a progressive group in the 70s.
Last edited by JJ88; 06-17-2015 at 11:09 AM.
I guess some people won't be happy unless the entire staff at RS - present and former - issues a letter of apology for not doing this earlier, and then requests drum lessons from Peart. And maybe also presents offers of fellatio.
Whatever.
I think it's pretty cool. It was a good article and Rush is a natural fit for RS as it exists today - which, despite attempts to stay current, is really about the pre-1995 era of rock music.
Also: if "Rolling Stone literally has no -- as in 0% -- relevancy to anything that matters in music anymore," then this would imply that Rush has no - as in 0% - relevance to anything that matters in music any more, since they just put them on the cover and did a story on them.
And some other people apparently aren't happy unless they are being combative.
[They are not considered a pure prog band by most who love prog, but are considered prog related]
That's simply not true. That's like saying Kansas(or even Genesis) weren't at one point pure prog either. These bands had a prog period but RUSH like other bands who were doing prog stuff explored other genres later but prog is a genre that they will always be a part of. And for what it's worth they are listed as "heavy prog" over on progarchives(not prog related). Here, I'll quote progarchives directly: "RUSH are a pioneering line-up of Seventies Progressive rock, who influenced many Prog, hard-rock and heavy metal bands. This Canadian band is composed of bassist, singer and keyboard player Geddy LEE, guitarist Alex LIFESON and renowned drummer Neil PEART." Also, they are listed as progressive rock (as well as hard rock and heavy metal) on wikipedia. Yet another example of where they are considered prog is from allmusic: "Beloved by millions and scorned by critics, one of the great prog-rock bands, possessing an instrumental acumen rivaled by few other groups. "
Whether I think they are prog or some of you guys don't is irrelevant. They are considered prog by many different sources as I have stated above. I personally don't think they were ever really heavy metal but they sometimes get that label too. The fact is they are considered prog even though they(like other prog bands)have done other things too.
Last edited by Digital_Man; 06-17-2015 at 12:49 PM.
Liking the article is being combative?
Rush is a hard rock band that has some prog influences.
What I don't understand is why so many threads on PE become arguments about whether "music X" or "band Y" is "progressive." If there is one thing that is obvious about commercial music, it is that labels and descriptions are extremely plastic and vague. They tend to cause more problems than they solve.
Music just...is.
Music doesn't need a label. It resists labels. Labels squash creativity. The only entities that benefit from labels and pigeonholing music are the people marketing and promoting recordings and performances.
My interpretation of "progressive music" is that it is (ironically) the one area of commercial music that could easily transcend niches and labels. Wasn't that the point of numerous bands back in the mid 1960's? They were tired of pigeonholing and labels. They were tired of feeling the pressure to stay within a box, to repeat the successes of their past hits (or other, similar bands' past hits), and to do what was expected by the public and by the labels. Because they wanted to "progress", they incorporated some classical music influences, or country and western influences, or jazz influences, or non-western influences, whatever new flavor of music they happened to stumble upon (or remember from their childhood), or anything else that their expanded minds could think of.
The interesting common denominator in so many creative people and bands is that there was generally very little plan. They didn't set out to create a new style of music. They just had a passion for playing and writing music. Each new piece broadened their view and encouraged them to try new things. They did what THEY wanted, not what the music label wanted or the fans seemed to want. Their music just flowed. Each band has it's own unique approach and spin. Rush is especially intriguing because of all of the changes and all of the similarities. They seem to be a good example of people just "being" and following their muse.
We all have choices in how we hear and relate to music. We can insist on forcing it into a box or we can just let it be and ask ourselves "do we like it?" The former seems to be wasteful and silly. The latter creates an open environment for expanding one's mind and enjoyment.
The human mind has a tendency to classify and to group things in similar or dissimilar categories. Lots of knowledge and other good things can come from that. But we can strangle the very thing we are intrigued with by too much labeling and classification. In biology, there is a constant debate between the "splitters" and the "lumpers" (whether an individual is its own unique species or if it is actually a variant of an existing species or genus). There are lots of lessons there.
But the best lesson I learned (back in 6th grade) was that the best way for me to learn and to enjoy was to resist the temptation to over-analyze the art I was focused on. Just let it do its thing. And then ask yourself: do i like it?
That's cool. Some people don't consider Pink Floyd to be prog either.
[Music doesn't need a label. It resists labels. ]
And yet if it wasn't for the "label" progressive rock you wouldn't be here in the first place. In fact none of us probably would.
If side-long epics about Fountains of Lamneth, futuristic dystopian societies and, um, whatever the hell Cygnus X-1 is about, filled with virtuoso playing and time sig shifts aren't Prog, then I don't know what is.
Sure, that was only one phase of their career. But the same goes for Yes, Genesis, etc.
High Vibration Go On - R.I.P. Chris Squire
Well, I said "is" not "was."
Rush had a period of time when they were strongly influenced by progressive rock (the 2nd half of the '70s), but as they grew and found their own sound, they developed their own thing with shorter more conventionally-structured songs with fewer contrasts within the song. If somebody want to solidly consider their post-Rutsey career to be prog - so be it. I think a lot of people on prog forums probably do. But I can also see the argument that they've mostly been closer to hard rock/arena rock.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Jump the shark gets used incorrectly...it means the moment something starts to go downhill...it's directly related to the Fonz on Happy Days, water skiing in an episode and jumping over a shark. It marked the exact moment the show started to decline among viewers. Rush never "jumped the shark" in my opinion. They made a couple of albums that I didn't care much for, but literally only a couple...Power Windows and Presto come to mind. This is just my opinion. Different Strokes jumped the shark when they added that little redheaded kid, Sam and his mom. Scooby Doo did it with the addition of Scrappy. I can understand someone that prefers more metal styled Rush saying that when they moved to using more synths, that they jumped the shark then...but I don't feel like they did...they just changed. As far as them being products of other progressive rock bands...they went way beyond influences here and there. I don't hear much Yes or Genesis or ELP in them...although they were no doubt influenced by them....I hear more Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in the earlier stuff and some Police styled things in the early 80s.
Last edited by Leibowitz; 06-17-2015 at 02:18 PM. Reason: Too many "maybes"
Exactly!
[but as they grew and found their own sound, they developed their own thing with shorter more conventionally-structured songs ]
And Genesis didn't? How someone could say that over all Genesis is a prog band but not RUSH is pretty absurd to me.
I agree with ScottBails here. It actually is possible for a band to belong to more than one genre. Imagine that!!!
If you'd like me to defend my opinion in more detail I will, but otherwise I'll just say that - yes - I do think that Rush can be more than one thing. It's just that, in their case, I think this happened more consecutively than simultaneously.
I don't know why Rush not being considered a progressive rock band is an idea that bothers some people so much. IMO much of what makes them special is how they transcended a lot of these genre categories. They always sound like Rush, even when the music and production styles are vastly different.
Anyway, I'll just reiterate that I think it's cool that they made the cover of RS and I really wish I could have been able to see them when they come through town next week!
[I don't know why Rush not being considered a progressive rock band is an idea that bothers some people so much.]
To me that's like saying Genesis are not considered a progressive rock band. Do you think Genesis aren't prog also?
Anyway, it doesn't bother me so much because it's just not true. They(RUSH)are considered a progressive rock band whether you or anyone else likes it or not(I've already cited examples of that).
Last edited by Digital_Man; 06-17-2015 at 03:04 PM.
Most people don't consider them to be a prog band. This appears to mostly be a symptom of prog boards.
Like I said, I can see both sides.
Proggers like the ones here can be a very judgmental group and somehow feel like only a certain ilk of bands are truly progressive.
But ask most people outside of the prog community if Rush is a prog band and they'll say yes.
Really? I hadn't noticed at all! (wink wink)
...and my experiences with people outside the prog community are just the opposite.
Are we at least both happy to see them getting some late-career recognition? I am. I'm in agreement that RS isn't what it once was but the actual article was very interesting, IMO. Wouldn't mind seeing something that good appear in Prog magazine.
I think they're prog. But, I can't reconcile that with the fact that they appeared on the cover of RS, which would tell me that they aren't, if history is any indicator.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
RS is coming to terms with the snub they've laid down on tons of bands now that some are aging. A true music journal would cover everything but hey... gotta sell magazines right? :P
That's only if they know what prog is and these days it seems like more and more people do. Ask them the same question about Genesis though.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks