Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalsBass
I would like to ask everyone's opinion on the subject concerning the genre, Progressive Rock. I was talking to a friend of mine today, and he insisted that the band Rush, wasn't really a true traditional progressive rock band, like the most popular progressive rock bands were (for example), Genesis, and others. And that instead they should be labeled as, Technical Rock, or Heavy Metal. Instead of being labeled in the Progressive Rock genre. What is your opinion on the subject?
|
It's a fair point in many ways, but the best comeback to this sort of argument is that Progressive Rock is Progressive - so if it was like the music of Genesis, then it could arguably not be called Progressive...
The essence of Progressive music is not that it's complicated (many people say "complex", without a true understanding of what complex music is!), but that it is in someway organic, and much freer in form than non-Progressive music.
This last tag "freer in form" is the key - I once researched this topic fully, and, to spare the detail, found the root in a guy called Stan Kenton, around 1947, who produced and described what he called "Progressive Jazz". The essence was that the form of the music was broken down and made freer (not "free", which is nearly impossible) until the original musical styling was unrecognisable.
Keith Emerson later came along and described the music as turning itself upside down and inside out - which is kinda saying the same thing, and, since Keith was at the forefront of the Prog Rock music in 1968 (pre-Crimson!), I'd take his word for it.
So, if we look at Rush's material, perhaps tracks like 2112, or By-Tor and the Snow Dog, we see music that, formally, does not represent Classic Rock at all - where are the verses and choruses for a start?
After this, we can get nit-picky and waffle on about "complexity", time signatures and all the other stuff that Proggers love to bore us with - and find it all in Rush's music.
So Progressive they are, by any definition - never mind the hits - "We Can't Dance", anyone?
Then there's the question of the metal quotient.
Let's go back in time to 1976 (the year 2112 was released).
{
strange wibbly effect}
What did heavy metal fans have to listen to in 1976?
The Scorpions, Judas Priest and UFO.
...drums fingers...
What else could we call Rush?
Hard Rock?
What's the essential difference between Hard Rock and Heavy Metal prior to Metallica's "Kill 'Em All" genre redefinition in 1983?
Beats me - although I did devote a needlessly long thread to exploring the essence of Metal a while ago.
Maybe it's the difference between Bad Company and Judas Priest?
Bad Co = songs about makin' lurve, drinking, and other macho activities.
Judas Priest (circa 1976) = songs about dark things, similar in tone to Black Sabbath, but faster.
Rush didn't sing about makin' lurve much - and with a squeaky voice like that, you wouldn't (apologies for the lame gag, Rushfans - won't happen again).
The subject matter was very much in the realms of fantasy - but maybe a tad upbeat for metal, with all that milk and honeydew stuff?
The music was tight as you like though - which is more than can be said for the loose boogie of Bad Company. Boogie didn't really tighten up until AC/DC strutted their way stagefront - and are they rock or metal.
Don't. Even. Start.
Rush = Progressive Metal as it was in the 1970s - and they were the only ones doing what they did, so I think it's a fair claim.
For other 1970s Progressive Metal, check out "From The Fjords" by Legend.
If you can find a copy of this oh-so-rare-and-desirable LP, it will blow your mind completely. Listen to a sample (and read a cool review at the same time!);
http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/le...d-states).aspx