Least Favourite of the "big seven"

micky wrote: Fassbinder wrote: [ Maybe Rush have written some very melodic and intricate music. In what I heard I didn't find too much intricacy. It was more like plain hard rock.   that is why we were trying to move Rush to Prog-Related actually.. You probably heard some samples of what they have been doing for the last 25 years.  Check out the 4 or so years that they actually did do some 'prog' music.  Remember.. we have groups in PR that as have as many or more traditional prog albums, and like Rush are more famous to the general music community as something other than a 'prog' band.

Edited by StyLaZyn - July 25 2007 at 15:08

R o V e R wrote: micky wrote: Fassbinder wrote: I don't see straight relationship between these two things. It might be a contradiction if I was in, say, Art Rock Team. But I'm not in a subgenre team. I listened to some Rush samples, wasn't impressed by them, and, as a result, never wanted to buy an album by this group.     no shame in that...  it's not like they are honestly an essential prog group that you have to know   they are essential

Jethro Tull is my least favorite among the bands listed.

ELP

I think i would rate them something like this:
1. King Crimson (for being THE most progressive group out of them all, with Robert Fripp, alias Mister Prog, at the wheel)
2. Pink Floyd (for the lyrics, spaceiness, emotion, originality)
3. Tull ( For their ability to rock while being extremely melodious and folky, plus ian anderson's lyrics are sometimes very good)
4. Yes (for some beautiful compositions such as Tales, plus instrumental excellence)
5. Rush (for their charming teenage rock music of the 70's)
6. Genesis (For some of the most beautiful "classic" prog, particularly on Selling england by the pound)
7. ELP (Well... for Tarkus, mainly. Really good, and a classic piece of keyboard bonanza)

Now, i am going to leave out the details of exactly how big the gap between spots 3 and 4, and, especially, 6 and 7, but i thought that i might make an effort to turn a "negative" thread into something more positive by pointing out what i like about each band instead of the opposite, which is really a lot easier.

StyLaZyn wrote: schizoid_man77 wrote: Fassbinder wrote: I don't see straight relationship between these two things. It might be a contradiction if I was in, say, Art Rock Team. But I'm not in a subgenre team. I listened to some Rush samples, wasn't impressed by them, and, as a result, never wanted to buy an album by this group.       I understand   I'd like to know why.  Most people that dislike the band can't handle Geddy Lee's voice.  The overall sound is displeasing.   Outside of this, Rush has written some excellent music. Very melodic and intricate. I can tell you as well, there music has taken some time to grow on me, and this is pretty much every release since Power Windows. But let it grow I did and I'm glad I did. It just took time to figure out.    Rush is an outstanding band as proven by their longevity and success. A myriad fans can't be wrong.

I don't give a damn about the voice. Rush's musical material simply is not original enough to interest me, at least not what I have heard of them, and I was sent a few examples after having uttered that the examples in the database don't impress me. None of these examples impressed me either. I personally think that the "hard rock" label with which they were marketed in Germany suits them best.


Edited by BaldFriede - July 27 2007 at 16:00

Tull