The proper category for Rush ?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=41135
Printed Date: August 07 2025 at 03:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The proper category for Rush ?
Posted By: Melomaniac
Subject: The proper category for Rush ?
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 14:19
|
Taken from the definition of Eclectic Prog :
"Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core."
I think this definition more than suits Rush's career, therefore Rush should be in this category.
Who else agrees ?
Thanks ! ------------- "One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio |
Replies:
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 14:22
|
Yes, but that would mean 1/4th of Heavy prog going away. Eclectic prog is what art rock was, and I don't know why all the art rock bands are in crossover. Rush should stay in heavy prog (unless more bands don't get added then it should just be put back into eclectic or crossover |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 14:27
|
Rush, however progressive they have made themselves out to be, always stayed radio friendly.
Crossover for me! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 14:34
Hmm, I have a hard time finding out what is radio friendly about, say, The Fountain of Lamneth, Xanadu, Cygnus X-1, La Villa Strangiato, Natural Science, The Camera Eye, etc...
 I mean, who else went from prog-metal (2112) to rap (Roll the Bones) with an almost new-wavish (Grace Under Pressure) sound in between ?
------------- "One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio |
schizoid_man77 wrote:Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 14:36
|
I get the distinct feeling that the Heavy Prog category was specifically created for a band exactly like Rush and therefore I don't have a problem with them being there. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 14:41
|
Well, if they remained the Zeppelin clones they were on their debut, I would agree, but come on, they evolved continually throughout their career... ------------- "One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio |
Posted By: Mellotron Storm
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 14:58
|
I don't mind saying that i'm a little confused by the whole thing.How does PAATOS end up in heavy prog? I can sort of see the "Eclectic " genre,and i can see how bands like KING CRIMSON,VDGG,GG and RUSH should be seperated from "Art Rock". I don't have any answers but there has to be a better way,no? ------------- "The wind is slowly tearing her apart" "Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN |
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 15:07
|
They have such an extensive career that you can say, they've fit in the three split up categories....
Right now there in the category that has there best albums representing the 'sub-genre', so we should stick with where they are. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 15:23
| Heavy Prog. No question about it. |
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 15:46
|
+1 ^
They've inspired hundreds of Prog Metal bands. I think there's nothing humilating in Heavy Prog for RUSH. Besides they are not Prog anymore for last 25 years or so 
|
Posted By: ian picken
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 16:11
Rush should have there own category known as RUSH PROG THE MASTERS. he he he ha ha ha 
|
Posted By: Progger
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 16:14
|
Stadium Rock.
They stopped being progressive in 1980.
|
Posted By: mattmacneil
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 16:14
|
I'd say they're like....a mix of Italian/Avant-Garde/Psychdelic Industrial Doom Folk Space Rap.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/mattmacneil/?chartstyle=red"> 
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 16:25
I agree - 80's and early 90s Rush is far from Heavy Prog. They've returned a bit to their heavy roots now, but Eclectic is a much better fit. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:02
 At last, someone who has seen the light ! I didn't expect less from you , Angelo !  ------------- "One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:11
Rush- Working man
Fly by night- Fly by night
Caress of Steel- (sadly enough for Rush, they did not get a single from thi album)
2112- A passage to bangkok, 2112 overture, temples of syrinx
A farewell to kings- closer to the heart
Hemispheres- The trees (easily they're most progressive singal)
Permanent waves- Spirit of Radio, Freewill
Moving pictures- Tom Sawyer, Red barchetta, Limelight
from then on was a hands down mainstream radio career.
Point is, yeah, Rush is very progressive, but never progressive enouh to turn there backs on radio. -------------
|
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:14
| Getting played on the radio doesn't make you not progressive. If that's the case, then Floyd isn't (I know how you feel on that Ian, but most of us don't share that opinion), also neither is Yes because I hear Roundabout all the time |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:19
|
No
I'm saying that Rush insnt like Yes, because Yes only had ONE signal (which they didnt even mean to make), then turned they're back on radio. While Rush always sticked with radio, therefore not as "hardcore prog" as Yes. -------------
|
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:21
| It's not that they turned their backs on radio, radio turned its back on them. If they were really hardcore prog they wouldn't have made Owner of a Lonely Heart. Rush never compromised; they made music that interested them instead of switching to pop for fear of punk. |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:26
80's rush is silly enough for me to pop, hold your fire
10 minuete songs were never acceptable on radio, strangely enough Yes made an album after roundabout chock full of crasssy long compositions. -------------
|
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:31
| 2112 got extensive radio airplay on the then-new FM radio, which helped to break the "3 minute ceiling" of AM radio songs. That's how Rush got famous (that and well-deserved live reputation). Spirit of Radio (which mocks radio and sellouts) came later. Working man didn't get played until 2112 broke the band. Ten minute songs did get played. DSOTM was played in its entirety. I'm sure CTTE got played. Sure, Hold Your Fire is terrible, but the rest Signals and Grace Under Pressure were as strong as their previous efforts, and the lyrics remain some of Neil's best. Just because Yes released Tales doesn't make them better. Personally I can't stand Tales; it is to Yes what Works is to ELP: a pompous show off album. |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:34
It's hard to miss. I'm rather tall so I simply bumped into the bulb...   ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:35
| As much as they belong there, heavy prog relies on Rush because the whole point of heavy prog is it's influence on prog metal. If Rush goes, then the whole subgenre needs to go. |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:35
Tales is beautiful, Wakeman left because Tales didnt show him off enough.
I'm not saying Rush is any less respectable because they got more radio airplay then Yes, but I dont believe they belong in a genre full of hardcore prog bands (except atomic rooster), when there is the crossover prog that easily suites Rush. Just read the description for crossover. -------------
|
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:37
|
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 17:40
|
good point -------------
|
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 20:09
| Haha, Rush owns the Heavy Prog top albums. We should just create a whole new subcategory called "Rush". |
Posted By: Hyperborea
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 20:23
|
2112 to Exit Stage Left, Rush were heavy metal/rock with long songs, that were broken up into smaller peices. Before 2112, i found them rock..completely lost interest after 1983...however, their new album is def more heavy than prog......if more than half their albums make them prog...Rush missed it. Sorry peeps....heavy metal or heavy rock......or sold out down the river after '83...until 2007 ------------- As i race o'er this beautiful sphere, Like a dog who is chasing his..... |
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 20:33
sorry, but I have to comment on this. Yes had "ONE" single? How about Owner of a Lonely Heart? I've Seen All Good People? Starship Trooper? They had plenty of other singles released as well (check out the discography). - Just to back-up the point that radio play "means nothing" about a band's progressiveness. ------------- 
|
Posted By: MajesterX
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 20:59
|
I could care less what Rush is called. Prog, Rock, Classic Rock, Hard Rock. I find the concept of dividing progressive rock into even MORE categories "hard prog, "eclectic prog" "crossover prog" to be stupid and appaling, especially when there are only like 3 bands in a certain genre. Why don't we come up with some fancy name for each band and make them their own genre then? Rush: progressive hard rock/ stadium rock. Yes: Symphonic mystic progresisve rock. ELP: Symphonic electronic hard progressive rock. Dream Theater: eclectic progressive virtuoso metal. This is certainly going to be untimate goal of progarchives now. What a terrible waste of time categories are. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 21:38
(sigh)
Starship trooper barely hit the top forty, and YOUR MOVE got minimal airplay in europe. Owner of a lonely heart is a whole other story in a whole other time period.
Read the rest of my debate with Jareyay, if you want the full reason why I posted that. -------------
|
Posted By: zachfive
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 22:27
|
Rush is progressive in anything they do. Counter tempo, time signatures, and as wikipedia states "Unpredictability of the musical direction is a core characteristic for progressive music." This is RUSH. Sure they may also fit in as Electric prog category, but their roots and the center of their music is plain ol' progressive rock. Also I dont think it matters about how much radio play a band receives, it should be about the music they produce and not the public ear or opinion. "One likes to believe In the freedom of music But glittering prizes And endless compromises Shatter the illusion Of integrity." |
Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 22:49
Hear, hear!
See above! ------------- https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay |
Posted By: dethics
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 01:06
They should've just left it at Art Rock seriously....
|
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 02:02
| They would fit fine in crossover (now, this does not mean that they weren't progressive, just more radio friendly!), but they fit too perfectly in heavy prog to be anything else. |
Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 08:29
Sounds very Art Rock to me mate.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 09:45
An interesting idea indeed! One word to describe Rush is definitely progressive, in the sense that they are not complacent. I have always felt calling them Art Rock was a misnomer, yet there had been no definitive category that suited them.
Good call Melo!
------------- 
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 09:54
I hardly call writing music for yourselves and your fans a radio sell-out.
If it falls into being cross-over, its not intentional.
-------------
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 10:01
|
"heavy prog" is the appropriate place for Rush
-------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 10:16
| Seriously people, Heavy Prog was invented for Rush... |
Posted By: White Shadow
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 11:52
------------- [signature] |
Posted By: White Shadow
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 15:14
------------- [signature] |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 15:45
|
I think it's impossible to keep everybody satisfied with a category for Rush, simply because they turned into a musical chameleon after their first album. I have followed Rush since 2112, in my opinion chronically they made Progressive Hardrock, Heavy Progressive, Art-rock, Eclectic Rock and Progressive Melodic Rock, good luck to everybody with the discussion, even the notorious Mr. Johan Opinion Cruijff would be too confused to give his opinion about The proper category for Rush !
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 15:49
| Zheul. |
Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 15:49
The band's evolution in itself, as you so rightly displayed it, is justification enough for the Eclectic Rock category.
Again, the quote from the eclectic prog definition : "Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core."
I think it couldn't be clearer than that. ------------- "One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio |
, good luck with everybody with the discussion Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 15:52
Five clappies for you!
In a way, I wish more bands would do this. It really takes great talent to change your music writing style and maintain interest. Rush certainly has succeeded there.
-------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 15:54
Rush would probably pwn that one too. ------------- What? |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 16:03
Well, StyLaZen, I have always had much respect for Rush but I have to admit that since Presto, their sound couldn't keep my attention. But every concert still remains a great musical experience, so was the splendid R30 tour (although I desperately needed two earplugs  ), the DVD is awesome and I also love to watch the enthousiasm of the Brasilian crowd during Live In Rio (not to forget to mention the excotic beauties that were caught in the camera eye ).
More Rush:
 October 1, 2004  |
Posted By: Bern
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 17:35
|
Let's put Genesis in ecclectic prog too. After all, they changed style over the course of their existence.
-------------  
RIP in bossa nova heaven. |
Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 17:48
I agree. They went from Symphonic prog to neo-prog to pop-prog. That's change enough for me ! ------------- "One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio |
Posted By: Bern
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 17:58
Well, my comment was actually meant to be sarcastic.  -------------
RIP in bossa nova heaven. |
Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 19:37
|
I don't know if Rush fits in any category, so art rock is the right one, that seems to be the 'misfit' category. Anyway who really cares how a band is categorised? They make great music thats enough for me, a genres just a name. ------------- 
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 19:38
Oh, you're a hoot, Bern. Wait...you are right! Genesis did also morph. -------------
|
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 20:55
Rush should be categorized as brilliant except their last three albums they should be categorized as hit and miss 
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 21:03
We could change its name to Zheul (Previously run by Magma) |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 22:13
|
All I know is, Rush belongs in awesome prog.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 22:16
| Heavy, man |
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 23:30
Art Rock.. now you're just making stuff up; there's no such thing!
|
Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 07:26
|
OMG they actually changed the name to eclectic prog and crossover prog in the front page! Didn't realize that. Makes much more sense this way though. -------------
|
Posted By: White Shadow
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 09:25
------------- [signature] |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 09:39
Not a bad idea actually... It could potentially increase the number of Magma fans. It's spelled Zeuhl though. |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 09:43
*Whereas Rush had a whole album signal. **As soon as you turn around, they are back on that damn radio! Why does a band have to eschew radio play to be considered more progressive? |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 09:46
You're thinking of Zeuhl, I'm talking about Zheul. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 10:09
Ah, sorry. Yeah, I think Zheul is an even better fit for Rush than Zeuhl. |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 10:14
 ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 10:17
Are you saying that you participate in a discussion, without even knowing what it is about??  ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 14:18
Wow, were an angry white shadow arent we
 Compare seventies Yes to eighties Yes...
Sure Rush did not have a hit until 2112, but have ALWAYS aimed for media attention
In an earlier post I sayed that radio attention does not make a band any less progressive
I think we need to shill out a bit, I know I may be a bit stubborn and closeminded, but a jerk I am not. -------------
|
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 14:26
| I've given up on all those genres 'post-this', 'eclectic that', 'Italian whatchamacallit', 'proto-something', 'neo-art-whatshisface', 'prog-semi-related'.... I have no idea how to categorize Rush. I'd categorize them as 'Rush rock'. |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 14:32
|
Besides mr. white shadow, I'm just saying because Rush is such a popular band (5th best selling in america btw), they belong in a subgenre with more popular bands, rather than smoke the competition with bands barely even heard of. -------------
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 14:38
| Schizoid, just because a band sells a lot of records doesn't mean that they necessarily have a "connection to popular music" as Crossover is defined (I assume that's the subgenre you're vouching for). |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 14:40
|
can't we just put them in "white funk"?
------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 14:45
| They could be Reggae, too. Spirit of the Radio? Vital Signs? |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 15:04
|
An excerpt from the Heavy Prog definition: "Heavy Prog defines progressive rock music that draws as much influence from hard rock as it does from classic progressive rock. In simple terms, it is a marriage of the guitar-based heavy blues of the late 1960s and 1970s - artists such as Cream, Led Zeppelin, and Black Sabbath - and the progressive/symphonic movement represented by King Crimson, Yes and Genesis." Only the first three Rush albums satisfy that. "Bands that represent Heavy Prog would include ATOMIC ROOSTER, URIAH HEEP, TEMPEST, BLACK WIDOW, DR. Z, WARHORSE, PAATOS, BIRTH CONTROL, TILES." That fits in pretty well with my conception of Heavy Prog (Atomic Rooster, Birth Control, Tempest, Captain Beyond), and I think Rush is a poor fit amongst those names. -------------   |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 16:56
|
Might as well chime in here.
Back in the late-70's/early-80's, the premier FM rock station in these woods, in terms of playlist, did not distinguish Rush from AC/DC, or Pink Floyd, or Ozzy Osborne, or any number of other rock bands for that matter. The point being that at the time Rush was at least by radio programmers considered a fairly mainstream AOR band.
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 18:26
|
High Tide are the archetypical band to represent Heacy Prog.
-------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: White Shadow
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 19:05
------------- [signature] |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 19:42
|
Rush havent sold as many albums as the following bands: Jethro Tull Yes Genesis Pink Floyd ELP So this stuff about popularity is not very well thought out. As for High Tide....just how influential were they for pity's sake? Everyone's entitled to an opinion but let's not be contraversial for the sake of an argument. @ White Shadow Let's not start calling people liars in the course of an argument either, unless you want to discover the quickest way out of here.. |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 19:48
Thank you he was hurting my opinions immensely
 But, like I said, Rush is the 5th best selling band behind, (in no order) Kiss, Aerosmith, The beatles and Bon Jovi (I'm not too sure about that last one). I'm sure in england the charts are much different. -------------
|
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 19:59
As for the personel attacks, thats completely fine, just shows who's the bigger man. As for the musical argument, yeah, Rush is against what Radio does to bands, but hell, whatever gets them more mainstream cred, (especially in the eighties, quite contradictory). Either way, I dont see what you mean by Rush trying to stay away from radio, Snakes and Arrows debuted at number 2 and the first song on the album was the singal.
Actually, because of thes debate, I have found Rush to be very hippocritical! After permanent waves and spirit of radio, Rush immediately went on to write they're most popular album ( by popular I dont mean most mainstream) moving pictures. And after that they shifted WITH radio to a more mellow synth rock sound that was popular in the mid eighties. AND in the nineties, they moved on once again to a more down to earth rock sound that was becoming popular in the nineties.
I'm sure we will agree or disagree on many topics on a more friendly note in the future, but I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I think we all need to look at Rush music wise more than song wise (yes, even me) -------------
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 20:02
|
No, they arent the 5th bestselling at all, they have the 5 th best haul of gold or platinum albums in the US. Genesis,Tull, Floyd,Yes and ELP have all outsold Rush in the US. It has nothing to do with "England" and everything to do with researching your "facts" before presenting them in argument. |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 20:03
|
Whoopsies -------------
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 20:06
You found Rush to be hippocritical? How? Did they say "we promise not to make albums that will sell very well" This is getting more and more puerile by the minute. This thread is getting boring very quickly. |
Posted By: Tony19
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 20:28
|
The proper category for Rush ?
Incredible?
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 20:40
|
Posted By: White Shadow
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 21:29
|
Where was the personal attack? I believe you've been saying stuff too, I didn't cry Admin Note. Warning issued. ------------- [signature] |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 21:42
|
I'm pretty sure I'm done with this thread, I seriously like this site, so I wont reply -------------
|
Posted By: White Shadow
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 21:55
------------- [signature] |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: August 25 2007 at 22:23
Do not mess with Rush, unless you want to get tonyrminated. 
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: August 26 2007 at 11:12
White funk? Reggae? Wow, they should be honored. Some Prog bands can't play different styles. What a great compliment to the band.  -------------
|
Posted By: Zitro
Date Posted: August 26 2007 at 12:10
| just "Art Rock" ... it's artistic and it's rock ... who cares? Enjoy the music! |
Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: August 26 2007 at 12:15
|
Shame what people can do to interesting threads... ------------- "One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 26 2007 at 12:51
|
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: August 26 2007 at 12:53
|
I think prog metal should have its own subgenre
------------- 
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: August 26 2007 at 15:39
It really could. -------------
|
Posted By: Big Ears
Date Posted: October 06 2007 at 05:20
| I've never thought of Rush as progressive. They are a heavy rock band. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 06 2007 at 05:43
I wonder what the use might be in resurrecting such threads ...Anyway, as one half of the HP thread, I can tell you one thing: Rush are in HP, and they're going to stay there. Period. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 06 2007 at 06:11
|
I feel very disappointed that the definition of Eclectic slipx from being understood so many times. How hard is it to realize that Eclectic is a genre of pure progressive bands, that evolved differently, but still maintained a fine level of art and prog rock? Is a band that played prog rock, then moved to pop and easy/weaker stuff equal to one that played combinations of rock, folk, jazz and such, all equally desirable for Prog Rock? Look, I'm (we're) not trying to shut doors on the Eclectic Genre as one being pretentious and artistic to the bone, but suggestions of bands that went from prog to pop (or bands that, simply, changed their style) can't be called characteristic for Eclectic. My opinion is, of course, that Rush is entitled to Heavy Prog, based on its classic (70s) music, which was fundamentally progressive and, in a large part, is great for the Heavy issue. ---- P.S.: Calling the three New Genres stupid or useless (I've seen a couple of posts here) is, just the same, of no effect. We haven't made these changes in one night, we've treated it seriously and we've given a better spotlight for any of the bands that were, previously, in the messy and over-weighted Art Rock. ------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 06 2007 at 06:37
Well, what if the band went through different forms of prog and then "sold out" (went pop/commercial)? In that case I would say that the pop phase can simply be discarded ... or else Genesis would have to be moved to Crossover, don't you think? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 06 2007 at 10:21
I can't say the pop phase needs to be discarded, in some cases it's an essential view on how a band "kept its cool" or "changed dramatically", after the classic 70s, but if that bands had such an impact and a true quality in its progressive taste, it's best to leave it in that certain genre, even considering the further changes. Regarding Genesis, it's in my opinion rather appalling to think of them so technically (prog + decay = Xover) when they indubitably WERE A PIVOTAL BAND IN SYMPHONIC PROG, the genre that now holds them. The same can be said with Rush, regarding its classic period and its heavy prog taste. What followed, even if it is a ruthless new music (and not one Rush didn't play well, till a certain point), can be considered of a secondary value. -------------
|
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: October 06 2007 at 10:42
|
I propose a new grouping - Prog Gods. A very elite section reserved for the BIG ONES, with respect to their influence, success (within the prog scene) , in effect the toppermost of the proggermost; to badly paraphrase John Lennon. Crimson, Floyd, Yes, Genesis, Tull, Marillion, Rush, Dream Theater, and some others who have earned a place as innovators or leaders in prog over the years. You many notice I leave Gentle Giant off the list. My fave prog group, & one of my faves, period. But maybe not as obvious an influence as the others. I'll duck now, and see if any bullets are coming my way ,,, ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |