Rock/Metal/Prog Education Thread

[Necromancer]

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?

[Unknown Soldier]

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?

The majority of their 70`s output is definately prog rock. Calling them heavy metal is so far off the the radar, despite the fact that their early 70`s material does fall into the hard rock camp.

What is technical rock?......Perhaps any band that knows how to play their instruments really well and and play complex songs. A description which fits prog rock/prog metal pretty well.

[Necromancer]

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

The majority of their 70`s output is definately prog rock. Calling them heavy metal is so far off the the radar, despite the fact that their early 70`s material does fall into the hard rock camp.

What is technical rock?......Perhaps any band that knows how to play their instruments really well and and play complex songs. A description which fits prog rock/prog metal pretty well.

Here is his view on the subject.

"Bands are defined by their hits (as far as genres and public are concerned)....and RUSH's main hits are NOT progressive, they are just awesome hard rock songs".
"Yes!, Rush has some songs that I could consider Progressive, like for example La Villa, but overall, I see them as a very technical, legendary rock band....nothing more, nothing less, Rush is a Hard Rock Band".

Regardless of my opinion, I do see where he ^ is coming from. I myself, think that Rush is better classified in the Progressive Rock genre, they layed the blueprint to their style of progressive rock, with the album Caress Of Steel, which then went on to 2112. Isn't that progressive rock? more so, than heavy metal or hard rock.

[Unknown Soldier]

Originally Posted by VocalsBass

Here is his view on the subject.

"Bands are defined by their hits (as far as genres and public are concerned)....and RUSH's main hits are NOT progressive, they are just awesome hard rock songs".
"Yes!, Rush has some songs that I could consider Progressive, like for example La Villa, but overall, I see them as a very technical, legendary rock band....nothing more, nothing less, Rush is a Hard Rock Band".

Regardless of my opinion, I do see where he ^ is coming from. I myself, think that Rush is better classified in the Progressive Rock genre, they layed the blueprint to their style of progressive rock, with the album Caress Of Steel, which then went on to 2112. Isn't that progressive rock? more so, than heavy metal or hard rock.

Hits are not always represenative of a bands true sound........so I don`t think that statement holds true.

Some of the best known prog bands Yes, Pink Floyd and Kansas for example have had hits and songs that have been extremely easy on the ear, melodic and not really prog, but these bands are very representative of the prog genre.

[Necromancer]

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Hits are not always represenative of a bands true sound........so I don`t think that statement holds true.

Some of the best known prog bands Yes, Pink Floyd and Kansas for example have had hits and songs that have been extremely easy on the ear, melodic and not really prog, but these bands are very representative of the prog genre.

I agree, I've only seen Rush mentioned once in Wikipedia, or some other article pertaining to the subject progressive rock. The genre classification for Rush is, hard rock, progressive rock, & heavy metal. I agree with the Hard Rock, concerning early Rush, but progressive rock wins, for me personally.

[Unknown Soldier]

Originally Posted by VocalsBass

I agree, I've only seen Rush mentioned once in Wikipedia, or some other article pertaining to the subject progressive rock. The genre classification for Rush is, hard rock, progressive rock, & heavy metal. I agree with the Hard Rock, concerning early Rush, but progressive rock wins, for me personally.

A lot of bands get different genres, but its the genre that the band are known best for that normally dominates.

There are a number of bands though, that have shifted through different genres and can equally be recognized for these genres.

Jethro Tull- Blues Rock, Prog Rock and Folk Rock.

Are a great example, as they did all three equally well and are well known for these three styles.

[ddp]

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?

Rush is THE PROGRESSIVE ROCK band. Back in the day nobody called them that but looking back on them they are. Tons of songs in odd time signatures, long songs with tons of parts awesome playing it is all there.

Bands like Genesis and Yes were considered "Art Rock" when they came out and were even lumped in with acts like David Bowie (during his Ziggy period). They were in a different category.

[ddp]

Originally Posted by VocalsBass

Here is his view on the subject.

"Bands are defined by their hits (as far as genres and public are concerned)....and RUSH's main hits are NOT progressive, they are just awesome hard rock songs".
"Yes!, Rush has some songs that I could consider Progressive, like for example La Villa, but overall, I see them as a very technical, legendary rock band....nothing more, nothing less, Rush is a Hard Rock Band".

Regardless of my opinion, I do see where he ^ is coming from. I myself, think that Rush is better classified in the Progressive Rock genre, they layed the blueprint to their style of progressive rock, with the album Caress Of Steel, which then went on to 2112. Isn't that progressive rock? more so, than heavy metal or hard rock.

Huh?? Tom Saywer is a Prog rock classic. Tons of tricky riffs.

[Certif1ed]

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

[almauro]

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?

They're one of the first progressive hard rock bands. Look at them the same way Voivod and Coroner are labelled progressive thrash bands, Death and Atheist are progressive death metal bands, and Enslaved is a progressive black metal band. They're bound by their original genre. Rush started out as a loud bar band playing Zepplin riffs, came up with one of the greatest hard rock riffs with "Working Man", first toured with Kiss, even their most acclaimed epic 2112 is half a hard rock album. So technically, the dude excluding them from bands such as the original prog-rockers like Yes and Genesis is correct, he's just got the wrong terminology.