Rush Vs. Porcupine Tree

verslibre wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: Mirror Image: Their 70's music is full-fledged prog, and it's not very good because they didn't have the talent to make that style of music. Their 80's music is prog too, but in a far lesser degree.I've evidently paid closer attention to Rush than you have, because they are not expansive (for prog), they are more about tightness. They are not diverse, as they have a very consistent (and certainly distinctive) sound. They have a 'melodic style' overall but were never focused on big, stand-out melodies, and it's self-evident that they aren't as dynamic. Oh, dear. As far as being "too" consistent, if you take 2112, Moving Pictures, Power Windows, Counterparts and Vapor Trails, you get a band that sounds like five different bands. I won't touch the remark about their alleged "lack" of talent.

The biggest change for them was when they switched from longer pieces to their tighter 80's sound. I wouldn't call them samey, just not as diverse (especially within a given album) as PT. For a band that has been around so long, it would be weird if they didn't have changes in their sound, so forgive me if their decision to toss some beefy alt rock into the mix for Counterparts and generally use less synthesizer in the 90's and on doesn't wow me.

They are a highly talented group, just not as much as the classic bands who were able to write extended pieces without dragging them out via monotonous riffage (in this way, Rush really did birth prog metal).

Mirror Image wrote: Finnforest wrote: Mirror Image wrote: Finnforest wrote: I think Rush had a better early career.  I think PT had a better later career.  Rush's first decade kills PT's first decade.  PT's second decade interests me more than Rush's 2nd/3rd/4th. From Hemispheres through Hold Your Fire is my favorite Rush period. I think Hemispheres was a farewell of sorts to the longer pieces, although really The Camera's Eye is their last longer piece, whereas Hold Your Fire is the band's final album of their 'synth period.' So we're looking at a total of seven albums in this period. I can't even think of one Porcupine Tree album I genuinely enjoy. Rush just hits me harder emotionally. Porcupine Tree are a talented bunch of musicians, but their music just leaves me cold and this goes for Steven Wilson in general. I may not like Porcupine Tree, but at least I didn't undermine their immense talent unlike some other members.   Agree PT are colder although I still find emotional connection primarily in their later albums.  This will probably be viewed with great scorn here, but I'd rather listen to Rush's debut or FBN than "Sky Moves Sideways" any day of the week.  Well, we're all different and there's no right/wrong answers here. I just find it strange that someone would even make a comment about Rush's talent. I mean really...WTF? Why is their musical ability even in question? They have proven themselves. I don't like early or later Rush, but as verslibre pointed out this band has gone through so many stylistic changes.

For the record I didn't questions their musical talent.  You may have been talking about someone else, but since you're replying to me it looks like I said that.  I didn't. 

I love Rush, at least what they once were.  Not a big fan of their latter career. 

Cool, thanks

Mirror Image wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: verslibre wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: Mirror Image: Their 70's music is full-fledged prog, and it's not very good because they didn't have the talent to make that style of music. Their 80's music is prog too, but in a far lesser degree.I've evidently paid closer attention to Rush than you have, because they are not expansive (for prog), they are more about tightness. They are not diverse, as they have a very consistent (and certainly distinctive) sound. They have a 'melodic style' overall but were never focused on big, stand-out melodies, and it's self-evident that they aren't as dynamic. Oh, dear. As far as being "too" consistent, if you take 2112, Moving Pictures, Power Windows, Counterparts and Vapor Trails, you get a band that sounds like five different bands. I won't touch the remark about their alleged "lack" of talent. The biggest change for them was when they switched from longer pieces to their tighter 80's sound. I wouldn't call them samey, just not as diverse (especially within a given album) as PT. For a band that has been around so long, it would be weird if they didn't have changes in their sound, so forgive me if their decision to toss some beefy alt rock into the mix for Counterparts and generally use less synthesizer in the 90's and on doesn't wow me. They are a highly talented group, just not as much as the classic bands who were able to write extended pieces without dragging them out via monotonous riffage (in this way, Rush really did birth prog metal). You still don't get it. They're as talented as Genesis, Pink Floyd, Yes, King Crimson, etc. They play in a completely different style and chose to play in this style because it's how they decided to make music. This doesn't make them lesser by any stretch of the imagination than any of these bands. Their epics jive in a completely different way and rely on a completely different vocabulary than the earlier classic bands. In doing things their own way, as any successful prog band has done, they forged their own unique signature sound. You're entitled to your opinions, but you seem to have such a narrow viewpoint of what Rush is and has meant to prog rock in general. They are prog rock legends. Deal with it!

Edited by ProgMetaller2112 - July 31 2014 at 00:02

Mirror Image wrote: ProgMetaller2112 wrote: Mirror Image wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: verslibre wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: Mirror Image: Their 70's music is full-fledged prog, and it's not very good because they didn't have the talent to make that style of music. Their 80's music is prog too, but in a far lesser degree.I've evidently paid closer attention to Rush than you have, because they are not expansive (for prog), they are more about tightness. They are not diverse, as they have a very consistent (and certainly distinctive) sound. They have a 'melodic style' overall but were never focused on big, stand-out melodies, and it's self-evident that they aren't as dynamic. Oh, dear. As far as being "too" consistent, if you take 2112, Moving Pictures, Power Windows, Counterparts and Vapor Trails, you get a band that sounds like five different bands. I won't touch the remark about their alleged "lack" of talent. The biggest change for them was when they switched from longer pieces to their tighter 80's sound. I wouldn't call them samey, just not as diverse (especially within a given album) as PT. For a band that has been around so long, it would be weird if they didn't have changes in their sound, so forgive me if their decision to toss some beefy alt rock into the mix for Counterparts and generally use less synthesizer in the 90's and on doesn't wow me. They are a highly talented group, just not as much as the classic bands who were able to write extended pieces without dragging them out via monotonous riffage (in this way, Rush really did birth prog metal). You still don't get it. They're as talented as Genesis, Pink Floyd, Yes, King Crimson, etc. They play in a completely different style and chose to play in this style because it's how they decided to make music. This doesn't make them lesser by any stretch of the imagination than any of these bands. Their epics jive in a completely different way and rely on a completely different vocabulary than the earlier classic bands. In doing things their own way, as any successful prog band has done, they forged their own unique signature sound. You're entitled to your opinions, but you seem to have such a narrow viewpoint of what Rush is and has meant to prog rock in general. They are prog rock legends. Deal with it!     . Mirror, there are too many snobs here on PA that don't accept certain styles and that's sad as it also sucks big time  The unfortunate thing is there are snobs in every musical forum. My philosophy is let them think what they want. There's a difference between established fact and one's own opinion and the fact remains that Rush are one of the greatest prog bands of all-time. Anyone who doesn't think Rush deserve all the accolades that continue to be thrown at them need to listen to their music without preconceived notions and on its own terms. I'm happy to accept someone that doesn't like Rush, but I won't accept someone discounting each members' musical ability. That's just foolish IMHO.

King Crimson776 wrote: Mirror Image: Their 70's music is full-fledged prog, and it's not very good because they didn't have the talent to make that style of music. Their 80's music is prog too, but in a far lesser degree. I've evidently paid closer attention to Rush than you have, because they are not expansive (for prog), they are more about tightness. They are not diverse, as they have a very consistent (and certainly distinctive) sound. They have a 'melodic style' overall but were never focused on big, stand-out melodies, and it's self-evident that they aren't as dynamic.

King Crimson776 wrote: As I've said, I didn't discount their musical ability (although Lifeson clearly shows his limitations in his early solos), just put it into perspective, because they are not in fact equally talented to King Crimson, Genesis etc. That they are "legends" doesn't even factor into this. I think many "legends" of music are garbage (whereas I like Rush, but find them overrated... you think this of Zappa, but you don't see me throwing a fit). I accept all styles of prog, including prog metal, by the way. I listen to prog metal quite a bit these days. Some of it has these great, soaring hooks that put pop music to shame.

Edited by Mirror Image - July 31 2014 at 09:38

I voted Rush because I prefer their style.  But I would agree partially with KC776 on the points that (a) Rush have been relatively conservative in terms of changing their style over the years and (b) PT are more expressive in the sense of using dynamics.  I find Rush do get a bit too focused on the hard edge without much of the soft for contrast.  This is not only in comparison to PT but some of the classic prog rock bands like Genesis, Gentle Giant, Yes, King Crimson.  But where they score over PT for me is the sheer spontaneity and energy in the way they perform, which is sorely missing in PT.  PT come across as rather cold and calculated to me.

Mirror Image wrote: ProgMetaller2112 wrote: Mirror Image wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: verslibre wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: Mirror Image: Their 70's music is full-fledged prog, and it's not very good because they didn't have the talent to make that style of music. Their 80's music is prog too, but in a far lesser degree.I've evidently paid closer attention to Rush than you have, because they are not expansive (for prog), they are more about tightness. They are not diverse, as they have a very consistent (and certainly distinctive) sound. They have a 'melodic style' overall but were never focused on big, stand-out melodies, and it's self-evident that they aren't as dynamic. Oh, dear. As far as being "too" consistent, if you take 2112, Moving Pictures, Power Windows, Counterparts and Vapor Trails, you get a band that sounds like five different bands. I won't touch the remark about their alleged "lack" of talent. The biggest change for them was when they switched from longer pieces to their tighter 80's sound. I wouldn't call them samey, just not as diverse (especially within a given album) as PT. For a band that has been around so long, it would be weird if they didn't have changes in their sound, so forgive me if their decision to toss some beefy alt rock into the mix for Counterparts and generally use less synthesizer in the 90's and on doesn't wow me. They are a highly talented group, just not as much as the classic bands who were able to write extended pieces without dragging them out via monotonous riffage (in this way, Rush really did birth prog metal). You still don't get it. They're as talented as Genesis, Pink Floyd, Yes, King Crimson, etc. They play in a completely different style and chose to play in this style because it's how they decided to make music. This doesn't make them lesser by any stretch of the imagination than any of these bands. Their epics jive in a completely different way and rely on a completely different vocabulary than the earlier classic bands. In doing things their own way, as any successful prog band has done, they forged their own unique signature sound. You're entitled to your opinions, but you seem to have such a narrow viewpoint of what Rush is and has meant to prog rock in general. They are prog rock legends. Deal with it!     . Mirror, there are too many snobs here on PA that don't accept certain styles and that's sad as it also sucks big time  The unfortunate thing is there are snobs in every musical forum. My philosophy is let them think what they want. There's a difference between established fact and one's own opinion and the fact remains that Rush are one of the greatest prog bands of all-time. Anyone who doesn't think Rush deserve all the accolades that continue to be thrown at them need to listen to their music without preconceived notions and on its own terms. I'm happy to accept someone that doesn't like Rush, but I won't accept someone discounting each members' musical ability. That's just foolish IMHO.

Wow. My intent of the polls is only to gauge who is popular among PA members. It does me make feel sad that this type of fighting over the groups exist. Not at any particular member but at the lack of tolerance of one band or genre over that of another. The diversity of different bands is what makes prog so exciting to me. No cookie cutter bands, for the most part, but a lack of tolerance just does not fit with this genre.


Edited by SteveG - July 31 2014 at 11:00

rushfan4 wrote: It is interesting that KC776 is from the US.  That negative feeling on Rush generally seems to come from the other side of the Atlantic.  There are plenty of fans there as well, but I find that there is some aversion to including them within the classic prog bands from the European contingent.

Fear not. They are adored in South America.