The proper category for Rush ?

Whoopsies

Where was the personal attack?  I believe  you've been saying stuff too, I didn't cry

Admin Note.
Warning issued.


Edited by Tony R - August 26 2007 at 14:46

schizoid_man77 wrote: I'm pretty sure I'm done with this thread, I seriously like this site, so I wont reply

Yeah, I know what you mean.  Watch what you say, they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, ohhhh fanatical, criminal.  Why don't you sign up your name, they'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, oh presentable, a Vegetable.  Ohhhhhh take take take it yea!

Shakespeare wrote: They could be Reggae, too. Spirit of the Radio? Vital Signs?

White funk? Reggae?

Wow, they should be honored. Some Prog bands can't play different styles. What a great compliment to the band. 

Shame what people can do to interesting threads...

I think prog metal should have its own subgenre

I've never thought of Rush as progressive. They are a heavy rock band.    

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.


Edited by Ricochet - October 06 2007 at 06:12

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Ricochet wrote: 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. 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?

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.