The proper category for Rush ?

dethics wrote: They should've just left it at Art Rock seriously....

Amen

Zheul.

erik neuteboom wrote: 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 King Salomon would be too confused to give his ordeal  !

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  ).

Edited by erik neuteboom - August 24 2007 at 16:03

Bern wrote: Let's put Genesis in ecclectic prog too. After all, they changed style over the course of their existence.

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.

Rush should be categorized as brilliant except their last three albums they should be categorized as hit and miss 

All I know is, Rush belongs in awesome prog.  

Kid-A wrote: I don't know if Rush fits in any category, so art rock is the right one, that seems to be the 'misfit' category.

Edited by Sckxyss - August 24 2007 at 23:31

schizoid_man77 wrote: White Shadow wrote: schizoid_man77 wrote: 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. Uhhhm, Have you ever listened to 90125 or Big Generator?  Granted, they're not fully pop, but they are clearly more "radio-friendly", to use that term that these fools have been using,  than anything Rush ever put out. I mean, it's not even close.  "Rhythm of Love" is just terrible.  And don't say it wasn;t intentional.  That's not even naive.  That's stupid.  Go listen to "In the city of Angels".  There was clear intent in their eighties stuff.   Read my other posts...   This is getting annoying, 90125 and he classic Yes period are on the oppositer ends of the musical cosmos, so shut up, and READ ALL MY POSTS BEFORE TRYING TO FOOLISHLY CONTRADICT ME

I read your other posts and I don't see why that would change what I said at all.  You say that Rush was always radio-friendly and then name a bunch of singles that they released, the majority of which weren't hits by the way, and that's supposed proove that their radio-friendly?  What band doesn't release singles? Holy sh*t, you know what , you're right, Rush sold out with "passage to Bangkok".  I see it now, they're not as progressive now because they released a single.  It all makes sense.  On top of that, after you name a bunch of singles that weren't hits you try to discredit someone that said Starship trooper was a hit by saying it "barely" broke the top 40.  That's way more than half the ones you mentioned did.  And what the hell do you mean by yes 80s is on the opposite side of the cosmos from 70s yes?  What difference does that make.  I could make the same comment about Rush.  I don't believe "Subdivisions" sounds anything like "The Necromancer" or "2112" but thats ok you can just excuse Yes for putting out popular material by saying that they were different in the 80's when no band stays the same over the years.  Yes has just as many hits as Rush.  "Roundabout", the aforementioned "Starship Trooper", "I've Seen All Good People", "Don't Kill the Whale", "Owner of a lonely Heart", "Rhythm of Love" are all hits.  Notice I only mentioned the hits and not just singles they released.  And lastly, why would it be foolish to contradict you?  What an ahole.  And I've read some other posts too by you.  You're just a jerk in general.  You're one of those people who measure a band's progressiveness based on how much they're on the radio and that's sad.  Why don't you lighten up and just listen to music for what it is and not how popular it is?