Neo-classical intro, shifting time sigs throughout and pretentious lyrics. Oh, and a section featuring MiniMoog and temple blocks. Win!! Really, one of my favs- there's a lot packed into a few minutes here.
Neo-classical intro, shifting time sigs throughout and pretentious lyrics. Oh, and a section featuring MiniMoog and temple blocks. Win!! Really, one of my favs- there's a lot packed into a few minutes here.
Short, but progressive.
Yes. If you are going to throw Rush into that bin you may as well ad Kansas also.
Imo, Rush were a prog band at one point but eventually moved away from the stereotypical prog sound as did many bands in the eighties. The latest album apparently is a step back in that direction but I haven't heard it yet.
Last edited by Digital_Man; 07-19-2013 at 05:11 AM.
I'd say they meet the definition. However, I remember when I first heard them back in the mid-70's at a friend's house. I commented that the singer sounded like a "punk kid". Keep in mind that this was years before the term "punk" meant what it came to mean in the late 70's. My impression at the time was that he sounded like a teenager trying to come across as tough. I'm still not a big fan, but I like some of their stuff now.
It sounds like you're trolling here, but I'm not calling you a "troll" (what a stupid word). To me a troll is a little plastic, toy figure with flaming red (or green) hair. Ha! But you're obviously wrong about Rush. You're either putting us on and just having fun, or you're just ignorant about them.For another, to my knowledge they never did a song that wasnt in 4/4 and a major scale. They never used any unusual instruments. They never used any song form but ABABA. What was "progressive" about them?
I don't include Rush among all the biggies of the early 70s. I think Kansas was more prog than Rush in 1976 (imo). I don't consider 2112 a "prog epic." It's a rock opera, plain and simple. Side two comes nowhere close to symphonic prog. Rush were a hard/rock/heavy metal band in the mid 70s. Yeah, they progressed and got further away from "heavy metal." They progressed as musicians and composers. It was progressive (not "prog), yet very accessible. But somehow Rush got this label "thinking man's metal" affixed to them (as if they were the only heavy band that ever had intelligent lyrics and arrangements in the 70s). They even wrote songs about getting really, really stoned. The more I think about it, the more I realize they must've been strongly influenced by Black Sabbath. Shit, Sabbath were Rush before Rush (I can see that one going over real well with all the Rush fan boiz....). By the way, another heavy band that gets the "prog" label attached a lot is Kings X. Here we go again, a heavy band with some (some, not most) tricky arrangements and intelligent lyrics get called "prog." Because nerds like us like these groups they must be "prog."
You're missing Kansas (the band) who get lumped in with that same group of arena/aor bands. Just wanted go back to this for a second (it's a pet peeve of mine). Like I said in the previous post, to me Kansas was more symphonic/prog than Rush. But "Kansas - prog" is also a bone of contention for a lot of snobs, moreso than Rush being prog. It's because of their American, breadbasket, hayseed image. And yet, they were just as (or more) intelligent as Rush, and they were just as good as musicians and arrangers. I'm biased, I admit it but I really think it's true, Kansas' first 5-6 albums were more "prog" than Rush's.i always lumped them in with the conventional 'stadium' or 'FM rock' bands like Journey, Foreigner, Boston, Van Halen. Styx, and Christopher Cross.
Am I missing something?
Who cares?
There are only 2 types of music - that which you like & that which you dislike. Genres, like time, don't really exist.
WHen I was a kid, none of the other kids would think to link Rush to V.G.G., Gentle Giant, Soft Machine, King Crimson, et al. To those kids in junior high and high school, They were considered a metal band, always linked with van Halen, Ozzy,Black Sabbath, BÖC, et al.
That also helped explain their popularity--they cranked their amps up to 11.
"Neo," as in "Neo Progressive Rock," a sub-genre of Progressive Rock. As in, there's no expiration date.
Just making sure we're clear here.
Listen to this and then tell me Geddy has no range.
You would think, right?
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Glad this thread is stimulating discussion -- that was my goal.
I did not include Kansas because I agree there's a proggish element to early Kansas albums, particularly after Steve released Proto-Kaw. What I knew of Rush, what I'd heard on the radio and what's been playing on my Pandora channel, I did not hear that prog element. BTW it's interesting what Pandora associates with Rush. It isn't Soft Machine or Hatfield and the North. It's Led Zeppelin, Boston and Wishbone Ash.
[QUOTE=N_Singh;128919]WHen I was a kid, none of the other kids would think to link Rush to V.G.G., Gentle Giant, Soft Machine, King Crimson, et al. To those kids in junior high and high school, They were considered a metal band, always linked with van Halen, Ozzy,Black Sabbath, BÖC, et al.
[QUOTE] that was my experience as well
Yeah, I don't have the service, but Rush is commonly programmed as "Classic Rock" however that is programmed or flagged now. However, a classic rock format while playing "Closer to the Heart" won't play "Cygnus X-1."
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.
[QUOTE=Cats On Glue;128949][QUOTE=N_Singh;128919]WHen I was a kid, none of the other kids would think to link Rush to V.G.G., Gentle Giant, Soft Machine, King Crimson, et al. To those kids in junior high and high school, They were considered a metal band, always linked with van Halen, Ozzy,Black Sabbath, BÖC, et al.
+1 though I was teeneger and if I recall some of the Rush's earlier albums with prog tendencies were not that well knownthat was my experience as well
I'm not a big Rush fan; I respect them more than I actually like them (and I really did try to like them, boys and girls). I won't go into the reasons, that'd probably just piss fans off. But I do think there were often prog elements at play there. A buddy of mine who I consider to be a great drummer says that he learned how to play odd meters from listening to Rush. Of course, I think if he was my age (he's 15 years younger), he would've learned that from Collins with Genesis in the '70s. Actually, the proggiest moments from Rush reminds me of Genesis; I think they were fans.
But as someone said earlier, who cares if it's prog or rap or country or polka?! You either like it or you don't. There's aspects of Rush that I like (particularly Lifeson's rhythm guitar playing and chord voicings), but not enough for me to connect with them the way a lot of people here do. It's funny; I can acknowledge Rush's influence on a band like King's X, but I'd much rather listen to King's X. Different strokes...
Is Styx prog? (Don't answer ) No, I wouldn't put Rush in the category of prog as a main heading. They had some proggish overtones and could appeal to the same crowd. The same could be said, to a much lesser extent, of a band like Triumph or, as mentioned, Styx. Obviously Rush has a lot of progger fans as one might gather from reading this site. But at the end of the day I'd call them an intelligent hard rock band.
Rush is/was as prog as Pink Floyd.
What do you think their original intent was?
My own humble opinion is they just started off as a band emulating their own rock heroes, who seem to me to be middle of the road classic rock like Cream, The Who and clearly Led Zeppelin.
With the arrival of Neal though, they veered towards a merger with classic progressive rock...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_(band)After 2112, Rush retreated to the United Kingdom to record A Farewell to Kings (1977) and Hemispheres (1978) at Rockfield Studios in Wales. These albums saw the band members expanding the use of progressive elements in their music. "As our tastes got more obscure," Geddy Lee said in a recent interview, "we discovered more progressive rock-based bands like Yes, Van der Graaf Generator and King Crimson, and we were very inspired by those bands. They made us want to make our music more interesting and more complex and we tried to blend that with our own personalities to see what we could come up with that was indisputably us."
“Where words fail, music speaks.” - Hans Christian Anderson
I certainly think Rush qualifies as Prog. They've done things that weren't Prog either. Who cares! All of their albums have something interesting to offer. I'm a bit lenient on what bands qualify as prog. Pink Floyd, Moody Blues, Procol Harum are all prog bands to me. From my view, prog was built on the innovations of The Beatles, The Who, Cream, Hendrix and Dylan and I don't think any of those artists are prog just highly influential.
Bill
She'll be standing on the bar soon
With a fish head and a harpoon
and a fake beard plastered on her brow.
Bookmarks