DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: WildRanger on January 18, 2019, 11:28:06 AM
-
Is Rush music more appealing and accessible than other classic prog rock bands as King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP, Jethro Tull, Camel and if so, why? What makes them more appealing to the wider public?
I would say that they have a bigger following than those prog bands and they sold more records during their prog phase. Many people don't have to be progheads to be big Rush fans.
What do you think?
-
They're basically a hard-rock band with proggy tendencies than an outright progressive band like the ones you mentioned so that alone makes them more likely to be accepted by a wider group of people. The fact that their personalities/egos never outshone their musical talent and that they were able to adapt to changing musical landscapes without giving up their "identity" also makes them have a bit more honesty and integrity which I and most of their other fans probably appreciate.
There's no way Rush has sold more records than Genesis or Yes though.
-
There's no way Rush has sold more records than Genesis or Yes though.
Rush albums from 1975-1981.(their prog era) sold more than Yes and Genesis prog-era albums.
-
Yeah, disregard the other 33 years of their music, they outsold them for 6 years in the 70s :lol
-
To whom?
-
The only one they don't outshine to me personally is YES, I like them equally. Rush has been brilliant at writing music that marries prog elements with mainstream accessible rock songs. Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures are both great examples of that, and they've continued to do so ever since then.
Even in their earlier days they managed to pull radio friendly songs out of the hat, such as Closer to the Heart, Fly by Night, Passage to Bangkok, The Trees etc.
It was nice to see them go out on a blaze of glory with Clockwork Angels. That album is a good representation of what they're all about.
-
Genesis beats all the other named bands combined in this specific category for me. The only one that is close is Yes, from whom "Going For The One" is a very spiritual and resonant album for me. I cry at "Evidence of Autumn"; I have never ever cried once for a Crimson tune, a Rush tune, or an ELP tune. If that's not one definition of "accessible" I don't know what is.
-
Is Rush music more appealing and accessible than other classic prog rock bands as King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP, Jethro Tull, Camel and if so, why?
I would say all of those bands (with the exception of Camel, whom I've never heard of) are equally accessible, but maybe I'm interpreting that word differently than you intended.
More appealing? More appealing to whom? Rush is more appealing to me than any of the other bands mentioned. Why? Opinions.
As far as album sales, here's what I could find from sources that appear to me to be relatively reliable:
Genesis: 21.5M in the U.S. and 100M worldwide.
Rush: 25M in the U.S. and 40M worldwide.
King Crimson: I couldn't find anything, but they apparently only had one album that even went gold in the U.S and UK, so I assume their overall sales pale in comparison to those of the other bands.
Yes: 13.5M in the U.S. I couldn't find a worldwide number, but what I did see suggests that the number is larger than Rush's 40M. Thus, I think the premise of the original post, while perhaps true in the U.S., isn't true for the entire world.
I cry at "Evidence of Autumn"
Glad to hear I'm not the only one, and it's not the only song on side 4 of TSL that has that effect.
-
Genesis beats all the other named bands combined in this specific category for me. The only one that is close is Yes, from whom "Going For The One" is a very spiritual and resonant album for me. I cry at "Evidence of Autumn"; I have never ever cried once for a Crimson tune, a Rush tune, or an ELP tune. If that's not one definition of "accessible" I don't know what is.
I cry at the mention of Genesis. ;D
-
My parents' generation must have done a shitload of drugs to have Genesis make 100m worldwide.
-
Genesis sold many albums post Gabriel when they went with a more pop oriented sound, but I doubt their truly prog albums sold that good.
-
Genesis sold many albums post Gabriel when they went with a more pop oriented sound, but I doubt their truly prog albums sold that good.
Based on what's on Wikipedia for Genesis's studio albums, the overwhelming majority of Genesis's album sales were for the self-titled album, Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance:
Gabriel Era (6 albums): 3 UK gold albums; 1 U.S. gold album
ATOTT through Abacab (5 albums): 1 UK platinum and 4 UK gold albums; 1 U.S. 2x platinum, 2 U.S. platinum and 2 U.S. gold albums
Post-Abacab (4 albums): total of 11x UK platinum and 14x U.S. platinum (Calling All Stations went gold in the UK)
There's additional information for France, Germany and Australia, but I'm not going into that sort of detail.
-
Genesis sold many albums post Gabriel when they went with a more pop oriented sound, but I doubt their truly prog albums sold that good.
Based on what's on Wikipedia for Genesis's studio albums, the overwhelming majority of Genesis's album sales were for the self-titled album, Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance:
Gabriel Era (6 albums): 3 UK gold albums; 1 U.S. gold album
ATOTT through Abacab (5 albums): 1 UK platinum and 4 UK gold albums; 1 U.S. 2x platinum, 2 U.S. platinum and 2 U.S. gold albums
Post-Abacab (4 albums): total of 11x UK platinum and 14x U.S. platinum (Calling All Stations went gold in the UK)
There's additional information for France, Germany and Australia, but I'm not going into that sort of detail.
Why you counted 80's Genesis albums if it was clearly their mainstream pop-rock (not prog rock) period, when they were far and away the most successful and totally different than Gabriel-era prog stuff?
-
As a member of some facebook group of rock fans I noticed there are a lot of hard rock and classic metal fans who love Rush and they don't care for King Crimson, Yes and Genesis. Among hard rock and classic metal fans Rush is obviously a much more popular band (and hard rock is the most popular form of rock music).
-
quote author=pg1067 link=topic=53317.msg2511614#msg2511614 date=1547849609]
Is Rush music more appealing and accessible than other classic prog rock bands as King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP, Jethro Tull, Camel and if so, why?
I would say all of those bands (with the exception of Camel, whom I've never heard of) are equally accessible, but maybe I'm interpreting that word differently than you intended.
More appealing? More appealing to whom? Rush is more appealing to me than any of the other bands mentioned. Why? Opinions.
As far as album sales, here's what I could find from sources that appear to me to be relatively reliable:
Genesis: 21.5M in the U.S. and 100M worldwide.
Rush: 25M in the U.S. and 40M worldwide.
King Crimson: I couldn't find anything, but they apparently only had one album that even went gold in the U.S and UK, so I assume their overall sales pale in comparison to those of the other bands.
Yes: 13.5M in the U.S. I couldn't find a worldwide number, but what I did see suggests that the number is larger than Rush's 40M. Thus, I think the premise of the original post, while perhaps true in the U.S., isn't true for the entire world.
I cry at "Evidence of Autumn"
Glad to hear I'm not the only one, and it's not the only song on side 4 of TSL that has that effect.
[/quote]
And Jethro Tull around 60 million worlwide.
-
As a member of some facebook group of rock fans I noticed there are a lot of hard rock and classic metal fans who love Rush and they don't care for King Crimson, Yes and Genesis. Among hard rock and classic metal fans Rush is obviously a much more popular band (and hard rock is the most popular form of rock music).
If it's so obvious, prove it.
-
As a member of some facebook group of rock fans I noticed there are a lot of hard rock and classic metal fans who love Rush and they don't care for King Crimson, Yes and Genesis. Among hard rock and classic metal fans Rush is obviously a much more popular band (and hard rock is the most popular form of rock music).
If it's so obvious, prove it.
Why do you task him with such things? It's like going up to the guy in the street shouting about aliens replacing Kennedy and saying "Yea? Tell me more about this theory"
-
I mean, the whole question is stupid. Rush has roots in hard rock.
-
As a member of some facebook group of rock fans I noticed there are a lot of hard rock and classic metal fans who love Rush and they don't care for King Crimson, Yes and Genesis. Among hard rock and classic metal fans Rush is obviously a much more popular band (and hard rock is the most popular form of rock music).
If it's so obvious, prove it.
Why do you task him with such things? It's like going up to the guy in the street shouting about aliens replacing Kennedy and saying "Yea? Tell me more about this theory"
Because asking him was better than watching the Patriots fumble away seven points. ;0. :)
-
To whom?
This is very good question! Now why did no-one else respond to it? 🤔
-
Why you counted 80's Genesis albums if it was clearly their mainstream pop-rock (not prog rock) period, when they were far and away the most successful and totally different than Gabriel-era prog stuff?
Read the comment to which I responded and you'll have the answer.
As a member of some facebook group of rock fans I noticed there are a lot of hard rock and classic metal fans who love Rush and they don't care for King Crimson, Yes and Genesis. Among hard rock and classic metal fans Rush is obviously a much more popular band (and hard rock is the most popular form of rock music).
Ummm...what? Citing the opinions of people on a Facebook as proof of ANYTHING is patently absurd. As far as "hard rock [being] the most popular form of rock music," you'd get a lot less grief around here if you'd stop stating ridiculous opinions as objective facts.
-
The real question would be the following though:
Is Rush more appalling than other classic prog rock bands?
-
The real question would be the following though:
Is Rush more appalling than other classic prog rock bands?
I think they might be appalled at this thread.
-
I agree with the premise. Rush's prog period certainly did better than that of their peers. From 2112-MP, which I would consider the end of their era, they were pretty damned popular. I suspect radio airplay had a lot to do with it. Yes is really the only contender, who certainly got a lot of airplay from Fragile and TYA, but very little until they went their more pop-oriented direction.
-
Is Rush music more appealing and accessible than other classic prog rock bands as King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP, Jethro Tull, Camel and if so, why?
Yes, because on the whole, it is more like non-prog music than any of those other bands.
I can't believe King Crimson or Camel were even part of this question.
-
Based on my personal research (sample size: just me), yes, because I like Rush but I have hardly bothered with other bands. Bands I like in the modern prog scene are not nfluenced by King Crimson or Yes or Genesis, so I never had the need to check out the original references.
-
Ummm...what? Citing the opinions of people on a Facebook as proof of ANYTHING is patently absurd. As far as "hard rock [being] the most popular form of rock music," you'd get a lot less grief around here if you'd stop stating ridiculous opinions as objective facts.
Hey, guess what these fans said on YouTube in the comments section?? :P :P
-
I can't believe King Crimson or Camel were even part of this question.
Why?
-
As a member of some facebook group of rock fans I noticed there are a lot of hard rock and classic metal fans who love Rush and they don't care for King Crimson, Yes and Genesis. Among hard rock and classic metal fans Rush is obviously a much more popular band (and hard rock is the most popular form of rock music).
Ummm...what? Citing the opinions of people on a Facebook as proof of ANYTHING is patently absurd. As far as "hard rock [being] the most popular form of rock music," you'd get a lot less grief around here if you'd stop stating ridiculous opinions as objective facts.
Why is it absurd?
And how can you deny that hard rock is the most popular form of rock music? And how can you deny that Rush much more appeals to hard rock and classic metal fans than King Crimson?
-
King Crimson is much more popular than Rush on RateYourMusic though.
Their album ITCOTKC is ranked #6 on the chart with average score 4.31, Red is ranked #38 with average score 4.22 and Larks' Tongues in Aspic is ranked #145 with average score 4.03. Highest ranked Rush album on RYM is Moving Pictures and its position on the chart is #229 (average score is 3.91) and their second ranked album Hemispheres is #459 (average score 3.90).
-
At the end of the 1970s prog bands had to adapt or die. While bands like Yes and Genesis had to adopt a new, simpler, more commercial 80s sound, Rush really didn't. Their songs got shorter, sure, but the arrangements got more complex, there's so many things all going on at once. Something short like Subdivisions is actually far more complex and involved than something long like Cygnus X1.
Rush didn't so much adapt as double-down. Some of their best music was made during those years. I'd say that their music was actually less accessible than what their contemporaries were doing in any given year. Signals or Grace Under Pressure are far more complex, proggy, unaccessible albums than, say, Genesis' self titled album or 90125.
-
At the end of the 1970s prog bands had to adapt or die. While bands like Yes and Genesis had to adopt a new, simpler, more commercial 80s sound, Rush really didn't. Their songs got shorter, sure, but the arrangements got more complex, there's so many things all going on at once. Something short like Subdivisions is actually far more complex and involved than something long like Cygnus X1.
Rush didn't so much adapt as double-down. Some of their best music was made during those years. I'd say that their music was actually less accessible than what their contemporaries were doing in any given year. Signals or Grace Under Pressure are far more complex, proggy, unaccessible albums than, say, Genesis' self titled album or 90125.
Albums like P/G and Power Windows feature lyrics that are darker than what Neil would usually write too IMHO (Red Sector A, Distant Early Warning, Manhattan Project and things)
-
As a member of some facebook group of rock fans I noticed there are a lot of hard rock and classic metal fans who love Rush and they don't care for King Crimson, Yes and Genesis. Among hard rock and classic metal fans Rush is obviously a much more popular band (and hard rock is the most popular form of rock music).
Ummm...what? Citing the opinions of people on a Facebook as proof of ANYTHING is patently absurd. As far as "hard rock [being] the most popular form of rock music," you'd get a lot less grief around here if you'd stop stating ridiculous opinions as objective facts.
Why is it absurd?
And how can you deny that hard rock is the most popular form of rock music? And how can you deny that Rush much more appeals to hard rock and classic metal fans than King Crimson?
It obviously depends on what you think is "hard rock", but other than AC/DC's "Back In Black" and Guns' "Appetite" - both bouyed by a single that is decidedly NOT hard rock - and Metallica's "Black Album" (about which most "hard rock" fans claimed they pussed out) when you start to look at the rock albums that have achieved Diamond status (10,000,000 sold) you're not conclusively in "hard rock" territory.
Hotel California - The Eagles (NEVER a hard rock band)
Hysteria - Def Leppard (Big knock? Most "hard rock" fans claim they pussed out)
Pyromania - Def Leppard (Big knock? Most "hard rock" fans claim they pussed out)
1984 - Van Halen (Big knock? Most "hard rock" fans claim they pussed out)
I - Van Halen (maybe I'll give you this one)
Born In The USA - Bruce Springsteen
Rumours - Fleetwood Mac
Sgt. Pepper - The Beatles
The Wall - Pink Floyd
Cracked Rear View - Hootie and the Blowfish
Slippery When Wet - Bon Jovi
REO Speedwagon - Hi Infidelity
Bat Out Of Hell - Meatloaf
Ten - Pearl Jam
The Stranger - Billy Joel
IV - Led Zeppelin (On the borderline; but I would vote "Not hard rock")
Boston - Boston
Dark Side Of The Moon - Pink Floyd
The Joshua Tree - U2
The White Album - The Beatles
Abbey Road - The Beatles
Purple Rain - Prince
-
Good arguments have never convinced WildRanger.
-
At the end of the 1970s prog bands had to adapt or die. While bands like Yes and Genesis had to adopt a new, simpler, more commercial 80s sound, Rush really didn't. Their songs got shorter, sure, but the arrangements got more complex, there's so many things all going on at once. Something short like Subdivisions is actually far more complex and involved than something long like Cygnus X1.
Rush didn't so much adapt as double-down. Some of their best music was made during those years. I'd say that their music was actually less accessible than what their contemporaries were doing in any given year. Signals or Grace Under Pressure are far more complex, proggy, unaccessible albums than, say, Genesis' self titled album or 90125.
I think there are elements of truth in your statement - particularly in the "secret" complexity of the 80's Rush material - but I'm not sure I agree with the last sentence. Abacab - released almost exactly in between Moving Pictures and Signals - is arguably their most "prog" of the Collins albums. What Genesis did that Rush didn't was allow for more variation on their albums. They would put a "That's All" in between the prog-opener and the 12-minute suite on side one.
-
I can't believe King Crimson or Camel were even part of this question.
Why?
Because of their lack of accessibility.
Don't get me wrong, I love both bands. But I'm not the average music fan.
-
As a member of some facebook group of rock fans I noticed there are a lot of hard rock and classic metal fans who love Rush and they don't care for King Crimson, Yes and Genesis. Among hard rock and classic metal fans Rush is obviously a much more popular band (and hard rock is the most popular form of rock music).
Ummm...what? Citing the opinions of people on a Facebook as proof of ANYTHING is patently absurd. As far as "hard rock [being] the most popular form of rock music," you'd get a lot less grief around here if you'd stop stating ridiculous opinions as objective facts.
Why is it absurd?
And how can you deny that hard rock is the most popular form of rock music? And how can you deny that Rush much more appeals to hard rock and classic metal fans than King Crimson?
It obviously depends on what you think is "hard rock", but other than AC/DC's "Back In Black" and Guns' "Appetite" - both bouyed by a single that is decidedly NOT hard rock - and Metallica's "Black Album" (about which most "hard rock" fans claimed they pussed out) when you start to look at the rock albums that have achieved Diamond status (10,000,000 sold) you're not conclusively in "hard rock" territory.
Hotel California - The Eagles (NEVER a hard rock band)
Hysteria - Def Leppard (Big knock? Most "hard rock" fans claim they pussed out)
Pyromania - Def Leppard (Big knock? Most "hard rock" fans claim they pussed out)
1984 - Van Halen (Big knock? Most "hard rock" fans claim they pussed out)
I - Van Halen (maybe I'll give you this one)
Born In The USA - Bruce Springsteen
Rumours - Fleetwood Mac
Sgt. Pepper - The Beatles
The Wall - Pink Floyd
Cracked Rear View - Hootie and the Blowfish
Slippery When Wet - Bon Jovi
REO Speedwagon - Hi Infidelity
Bat Out Of Hell - Meatloaf
Ten - Pearl Jam
The Stranger - Billy Joel
IV - Led Zeppelin (On the borderline; but I would vote "Not hard rock")
Boston - Boston
Dark Side Of The Moon - Pink Floyd
The Joshua Tree - U2
The White Album - The Beatles
Abbey Road - The Beatles
Purple Rain - Prince
Bolded albums are hard rock. Also add to that list any of the first 6 Led Zeppelin albums except III. Led Zeppelin primarily played hard rock, but they were more than just hard rock in the same way 70's Black Sabbath primarily played heavy metal, but their music was more than just metal. Led Zeppelin is the band who musically defined hard rock.
-
I can't believe King Crimson or Camel were even part of this question.
Why?
Because of their lack of accessibility.
Don't get me wrong, I love both bands. But I'm not the average music fan.
Yep, I have to agree here. Although 2112 is a very long Rush epic, it is much more accessible to the masses of rock fans than 21st Century Schizoid Man, which is a much more complex piece although being much shorter than 2112.
-
As a member of some facebook group of rock fans I noticed there are a lot of hard rock and classic metal fans who love Rush and they don't care for King Crimson, Yes and Genesis. Among hard rock and classic metal fans Rush is obviously a much more popular band (and hard rock is the most popular form of rock music).
Ummm...what? Citing the opinions of people on a Facebook as proof of ANYTHING is patently absurd. As far as "hard rock [being] the most popular form of rock music," you'd get a lot less grief around here if you'd stop stating ridiculous opinions as objective facts.
Why is it absurd?
And how can you deny that hard rock is the most popular form of rock music? And how can you deny that Rush much more appeals to hard rock and classic metal fans than King Crimson?
It obviously depends on what you think is "hard rock", but other than AC/DC's "Back In Black" and Guns' "Appetite" - both bouyed by a single that is decidedly NOT hard rock - and Metallica's "Black Album" (about which most "hard rock" fans claimed they pussed out) when you start to look at the rock albums that have achieved Diamond status (10,000,000 sold) you're not conclusively in "hard rock" territory.
Hotel California - The Eagles (NEVER a hard rock band)
Hysteria - Def Leppard (Big knock? Most "hard rock" fans claim they pussed out)
Pyromania - Def Leppard (Big knock? Most "hard rock" fans claim they pussed out)
1984 - Van Halen (Big knock? Most "hard rock" fans claim they pussed out)
I - Van Halen (maybe I'll give you this one)
Born In The USA - Bruce Springsteen
Rumours - Fleetwood Mac
Sgt. Pepper - The Beatles
The Wall - Pink Floyd
Cracked Rear View - Hootie and the Blowfish
Slippery When Wet - Bon Jovi
REO Speedwagon - Hi Infidelity
Bat Out Of Hell - Meatloaf
Ten - Pearl Jam
The Stranger - Billy Joel
IV - Led Zeppelin (On the borderline; but I would vote "Not hard rock")
Boston - Boston
Dark Side Of The Moon - Pink Floyd
The Joshua Tree - U2
The White Album - The Beatles
Abbey Road - The Beatles
Purple Rain - Prince
Bolded albums are hard rock. Also add to that list any of the first 6 Led Zeppelin albums except III. Led Zeppelin primarily played hard rock, but they were more than just hard rock in the same way 70's Black Sabbath primarily played heavy metal, but their music was more than just metal. Led Zeppelin is the band who musically defined hard rock.
I think I just got sucked into the "WildRanger" vortex. :)
I won't actually argue Led Zeppelin; it could go either way, and credibly so. No friggin' way on Boston, though.
-
Wait what songs on BIB and Appetite were "not hard rock"? Wtf? Every song on both of those records is a hard rock song.
-
Wait what songs on BIB and Appetite were "not hard rock"? Wtf? Every song on both of those records is a hard rock song.
I gave a pass to "You Shook Me All Night Long" and "Sweet Child O'Mine".
The point is still "what consitutes 'hard rock'?".
-
As a member of some facebook group of rock fans I noticed there are a lot of hard rock and classic metal fans who love Rush and they don't care for King Crimson, Yes and Genesis. Among hard rock and classic metal fans Rush is obviously a much more popular band (and hard rock is the most popular form of rock music).
Ummm...what? Citing the opinions of people on a Facebook as proof of ANYTHING is patently absurd. As far as "hard rock [being] the most popular form of rock music," you'd get a lot less grief around here if you'd stop stating ridiculous opinions as objective facts.
Why is it absurd?
Because Facebook is hardly a substitute for valid sampling of opinions.
And how can you deny that hard rock is the most popular form of rock music?
Because I've lived the majority of my life -- the last 35+ years -- as a fan of hard rock/heavy metal, and I've never been in the majority. You're the one who wants to make the assertion. What is your evidence "that hard rock is the most popular form of rock music"? And while you're citing your evidence, please provide a universally accepted definition of "hard rock" that clearly distinguishes it from non-"hard rock."
And how can you deny that Rush much more appeals to hard rock and classic metal fans than King Crimson?
I never have and never would deny that.
It obviously depends on what you think is "hard rock", but other than AC/DC's "Back In Black" and Guns' "Appetite" - both bouyed by a single that is decidedly NOT hard rock - and Metallica's "Black Album" (about which most "hard rock" fans claimed they pussed out) when you start to look at the rock albums that have achieved Diamond status (10,000,000 sold) you're not conclusively in "hard rock" territory.
What "decidedly NOT hard rock" single do you think "buoyed" Back in Black? The four singles from that album are "You Shook Me All Night Long," "Hells Bells," the title track and "Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution." I can't even conceive of a viable definition of "hard rock" that wouldn't include all of those songs. Moreover, none of those songs, by itself, "buoyed" that album.
As far as "Appetite," I assume you're talking about SCoM, but I don't see how that's not a "hard rock" song either (and, as was the case with BiB, it was one of several successful singles).
Otherwise, I agree with everything you wrote (except that there's "no friggin' way" that Boston's debut is not a "hard rock" album).
-
Look, I hear you. This is another case where I don't have to be right personally for the other guy to be wrong, and I CLEARLY think WildRanger is wrong.
Personally, I don't think YSMANL or SCOM are "hard rock" songs. They're songs by hard rock acts, no question, but the appeal of those songs are that they transcend. Having said that, if I'm wrong - or if the group just votes me off the island - I don't think it changes the lack of credibility that "hard rock is the most popular type of rock".
I'll fistfight you on Boston though. That's not a "hard rock" record. It's an awesome record, it's a genre-influencing record, but it's not a "hard rock" record. Can you have handclaps (like on "Let Me Take You Home Tonight") on a hard rock record? C'mon! :) :) :) (Though they are listed as "hard rock" on Wikipedia, and that's gospel, so...)
-
Boston is a great rock band, but not a hard rock band.
-
Look, I hear you. This is another case where I don't have to be right personally for the other guy to be wrong, and I CLEARLY think WildRanger is wrong.
Whether you, I or anyone else is right or wrong, it's pretty much a given that WildRanger is wrong.
Personally, I don't think YSMANL or SCOM are "hard rock" songs. They're songs by hard rock acts, no question, but the appeal of those songs are that they transcend.
I have to wonder what the definition of "hard rock" is that leads to those songs not being "hard rock" songs, but the second sentence here is more perplexing. "[T]he appeal of those songs [is] that they transcend"? Transcend what, and why does "transcending" make the songs appealing (or more or less so)? In the same sentence, it sounds like you're saying that they're not "hard rock" songs because they appeal to folks who aren't ordinarily fans of "hard rock" (which is what I assume you meant by "transcend"), but you also seem to be acknowledging that they are "hard rock" songs that are popular among folks who like "hard rock" and who ordinarily don't.
Having said that, if I'm wrong - or if the group just votes me off the island - I don't think it changes the lack of credibility that "hard rock is the most popular type of rock".
Completely concur.
I'll fistfight you on Boston though. That's not a "hard rock" record. It's an awesome record, it's a genre-influencing record, but it's not a "hard rock" record. Can you have handclaps (like on "Let Me Take You Home Tonight") on a hard rock record? C'mon! :) :) :) (Though they are listed as "hard rock" on Wikipedia, and that's gospel, so...)
Bring it on!
You say it's "genre-influencing" (and I agree), but which genre did it influence? I would say the "hard rock" (sub-)genre. Can you have handclaps on a hard rock record? Yes, you can, because they did, and I'd respond by saying that LMTYHT is a non-hard rock song on an otherwise "hard rock" album.
Certainly, "because Wikipedia says" isn't at all conclusive, but let's look at what Wikipedia says "hard rock" is.
"[A] loosely defined subgenre of rock music." I agree
"It is typified by a heavy use of aggressive vocals, distorted electric guitars, bass guitar, drums, and often accompanied with keyboards." That doesn't really help us because, if it did, then Bruce Springsteen or Tom Petty might be/have been "hard rock" artists, and they aren't/weren't.
"Hard rock is a form of loud, aggressive rock music. The electric guitar is often emphasised [sic], used with distortion and other effects, both as a rhythm instrument using repetitive riffs with a varying degree of complexity, and as a solo lead instrument. Drumming characteristically focuses on driving rhythms, strong bass drum and a backbeat on snare, sometimes using cymbals for emphasis. The bass guitar works in conjunction with the drums, occasionally playing riffs, but usually providing a backing for the rhythm and lead guitars. Vocals are often [but not always] growling, raspy, or involve screaming or wailing, sometimes in a high range, or even falsetto voice." I don't know that I'd call Boston "aggressive" (a loose term in its own right), and Brad Delp was never "growling" or "raspy," but this otherwise characterizes Boston's debut album. (and, harkening back to AC/DC, all of this describes YSMANL and SCOM to a "T").
-
I always thought of 'hard rock' as rock that flirted around on the borderline of metal; GnR would be hard rock, but not Boston. Just my perception. Of course back in the day people called Zeppelin metal
-
Ah, a debate over how to label music...this is new. :lol :lol
Excuse me while I grab a seat and enjoy this... :corn :corn
-
Ah, a debate over how to label music...this is new. :lol :lol
Excuse me while I grab a seat and enjoy this... :corn :corn
Is it really enjoyable though? Is it?
I also feel like Stadler arguing with Wildranger is dangerous and could create a literal black hole.
-
Ah, a debate over how to label music...this is new. :lol :lol
The question is, what kind of "new " is it.
really new
relatively new
kinda new
not so new
brand new
-
For the purposes of this discussion, "enjoy" is a relative term. :P
-
It's more of a "New Zoo Review."
-
Well, fill up the popcorn, because I'm not wearing any pants!
I have to wonder what the definition of "hard rock" is that leads to those songs not being "hard rock" songs, but the second sentence here is more perplexing. "[T]he appeal of those songs [is] that they transcend"? Transcend what, and why does "transcending" make the songs appealing (or more or less so)? In the same sentence, it sounds like you're saying that they're not "hard rock" songs because they appeal to folks who aren't ordinarily fans of "hard rock" (which is what I assume you meant by "transcend"), but you also seem to be acknowledging that they are "hard rock" songs that are popular among folks who like "hard rock" and who ordinarily don't.
It's like pornography; you know it when you see it. You had "transcend" right; they appealed to people that aren't ordinarily fans of "hard rock". I just think those songs rely more on melody and song structure than on riffage or rhythm. Both start with melodic guitar figures, not heavy, rhythm based riffs. The vocal lines are very melodic, and rely on longer, drawn out notes and harmonies as opposed to more staccato-type vocal lines.
You say it's "genre-influencing" (and I agree), but which genre did it influence? I would say the "hard rock" (sub-)genre. Can you have handclaps on a hard rock record? Yes, you can, because they did, and I'd respond by saying that LMTYHT is a non-hard rock song on an otherwise "hard rock" album.
...<snip>
"Hard rock is a form of loud, aggressive rock music. The electric guitar is often emphasised [sic], used with distortion and other effects, both as a rhythm instrument using repetitive riffs with a varying degree of complexity, and as a solo lead instrument. Drumming characteristically focuses on driving rhythms, strong bass drum and a backbeat on snare, sometimes using cymbals for emphasis. The bass guitar works in conjunction with the drums, occasionally playing riffs, but usually providing a backing for the rhythm and lead guitars. Vocals are often [but not always] growling, raspy, or involve screaming or wailing, sometimes in a high range, or even falsetto voice." I don't know that I'd call Boston "aggressive" (a loose term in its own right), and Brad Delp was never "growling" or "raspy," but this otherwise characterizes Boston's debut album. (and, harkening back to AC/DC, all of this describes YSMANL and SCOM to a "T").
I do say! :). Genre-influencing in the genre of melodic rock. Journey. Latter-day Styx. Def Leppard. Sammy Hagar solo. Much of what came out of LA in the mid-to-late 80's. Bon Jovi. Even Cheap Trick in certain ways. Brad Delp is a key part of the signature Boston sound and he is about as far from a "hard rock" singer as Björk. I think vocals have a big part of "hard rock" versus "rock" (or some other sub-genre of rock).
Look, I'm not really ready to die on this hill. If we want to say that Boston and Journey and Sam Hagar are hard rock, then fine, and certainly things change over time, but I think there's a gap in between, say, Boston, and METAL (Ozzy, Accept, Maiden, Priest). A gap occupied by the Guns'n'Roses, the AC/DCs, the Aerosmiths (phase one) of the world.
-
I'll fistfight you on Boston though. That's not a "hard rock" record. It's an awesome record, it's a genre-influencing record, but it's not a "hard rock" record. Can you have handclaps (like on "Let Me Take You Home Tonight") on a hard rock record? C'mon! :) :) :) (Though they are listed as "hard rock" on Wikipedia, and that's gospel, so...)
Then you can say that "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" is not a heavy metal record because it has handclaps, piano, organ, flute and bagpipes?
-
I'll fistfight you on Boston though. That's not a "hard rock" record. It's an awesome record, it's a genre-influencing record, but it's not a "hard rock" record. Can you have handclaps (like on "Let Me Take You Home Tonight") on a hard rock record? C'mon! :) :) :) (Though they are listed as "hard rock" on Wikipedia, and that's gospel, so...)
Then you can say that "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" is not a heavy metal record because it has handclaps, piano, organ, flute and bagpipes?
:omg: :omg:
Logic!
-
I'll fistfight you on Boston though. That's not a "hard rock" record. It's an awesome record, it's a genre-influencing record, but it's not a "hard rock" record. Can you have handclaps (like on "Let Me Take You Home Tonight") on a hard rock record? C'mon! :) :) :) (Though they are listed as "hard rock" on Wikipedia, and that's gospel, so...)
Then you can say that "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" is not a heavy metal record because it has handclaps, piano, organ, flute and bagpipes?
THe "handclaps" comment was slightly tongue in cheek - thus the three smileys - but as for SBS, certain songs might not be. "Spiral Architect", my favorite Sabbath tune by the way, isn't a "heavy metal song", but Sabbath is undoubtedly a metal band.
-
Ah, a debate over how to label music...this is new. :lol :lol
Excuse me while I grab a seat and enjoy this... :corn :corn
Is it really enjoyable though? Is it?
I also feel like Stadler arguing with Wildranger is dangerous and could create a literal black hole.
You may be right. I may be crazy.
-
I noticed there is a big overplap between Rush and Van Halen fans.
Isn't it surprising to you? Rush and VH are vastly different styles of rock music.
-
Ah shit here we go again
-
I noticed there is a big overplap between Rush and Van Halen fans.
Isn't it surprising to you? Rush and VH are vastly different styles of rock music.
Probably because they shared a manager.*
*that is probably not the reason.
-
To answer the thread title, the answer is, yes, because Rush is better
/thread
:corn
-
I noticed there is a big overplap between Rush and Van Halen fans.
Isn't it surprising to you? Rush and VH are vastly different styles of rock music.
Probably because they shared a manager.*
*that is probably not the reason.
They both had guitar* players that decided to play keyboards as well, and controversially at that?
They both had extremely polarizing singers?
They both had album titles that were a 'year'?
They both had album titles that could arguably be diving terms (or diving related)?
* "bass" is a guitar; even then, Geddy has been credited with guitar, on Fly By Night and A Farewell To Kings
-
I noticed there is a big overplap between Rush and Van Halen fans.
Isn't it surprising to you? Rush and VH are vastly different styles of rock music.
Probably because they shared a manager.*
*that is probably not the reason.
They both had guitar* players that decided to play keyboards as well, and controversially at that?
They both had extremely polarizing singers?
They both had album titles that were a 'year'?
They both had album titles that could arguably be diving terms (or diving related)?
* "bass" is a guitar; even then, Geddy has been credited with guitar, on Fly By Night and A Farewell To Kings
Heh, that’s a good point about the keyboards. They both drifted in that direction in the 80s and alienated some fans for sure.
Truthfully though, the reason there is overlap is probably more that they both first became prominent in the late 70s and early 80s and have shared a common platform on classic rock radio since.
-
To answer the thread title, the answer is, yes, because Rush is better
/thread
:corn
Prove it. ;D
-
I noticed there is a big overplap between Rush and Van Halen fans.
Is that so? Please provide a citation so that I can go check the data on that.
Isn't it surprising to you?
Not at all.
Rush and VH are vastly different styles of rock music.
Different? Sure. Vastly different? Not at all.
And, in any event, Yes and Metallica are vastly different, but there are a lot of folks who like both (just as there are a lot of folks who like neither or who like one and not the other).
Ah shit here we go again
Oh, come on, admit it. You missed him too! :biggrin:
They both had album titles that could arguably be diving terms (or diving related)?
Diver Down and....???
-
I can say with 100% certainty I did not miss these questions as if WR was magically transplanted onto planet Earth by aliens at the age of 21. :biggrin:
-
Ah shit here we go again
Why bring Whitesnake into this? :neverusethis:
-
Bro isn't it surprising that Motley Crue fans also like Whitesnake? Motley Crue partied so much harder than Whitesnake yet they share fans. Weird!
-
They both had album titles that could arguably be diving terms (or diving related)?
Diver Down and....???
Test for Echo?
-
Different? Sure. Vastly different? Not at all.
How? Musically they sound vastly different.
Compare Lifeson's and Eddie's guitar playing. They sound nothing alike.
-
Why bring Whitesnake into this? :neverusethis:
I suppose most Rush fans don't care for Whitesnake at all.
-
Different? Sure. Vastly different? Not at all.
How? Musically they are nothing alike.
They play rock. They have the same basic instrumentation and play rock music in mostly 4/4 time, songs share what is fundamentally the same structure: riff, verses, bridges, choruses, solos, bringing it back to the chorus at the end. They are absolutely very similar, only 'vastly different' when you start splitting hairs. They have recognizable, unique frontmen with unique, recognizable voices. They're two of the most successful rock bands in history, different styles but in the big picture very similar and under the same rock umbrella. Please don't make me start drinking again
-
They both had album titles that could arguably be diving terms (or diving related)?
Diver Down and....???
Test for Echo?
Permanent Waves?
-
Why bring Whitesnake into this? :neverusethis:
I suppose most Rush fans don't care for Whitesnake at all.
Big Rush fan and I like a good number of Whitesnake songs. Would expect a decent amount of overlap there as well.
-
Ah shit here we go again
Finally! :partyinpartyinyeah:
-
They both had album titles that could arguably be diving terms (or diving related)?
Diver Down and....???
Test For Echo. I know the band didn't mean it in that fashion, but still. Sonar is essentially predicated on a literal test for echo.
-
Essentially, if two bands have been played on the same corporate rock radio stations for 40 years, it shouldn’t be surprising that they might have some overlapping fans.
-
Why bring Whitesnake into this? :neverusethis:
I suppose most Rush fans don't care for Whitesnake at all.
Big Rush fan and I like a good number of Whitesnake songs. Would expect a decent amount of overlap there as well.
I view this through my lenses. I first heard of both bands in the early to mid-80's. We would have paper covers to our school books, and there were about five or 10 bands that seemed to show up on all the books, because they had cool logos. You'd get the "OZZY", with the lines through the z's; you'd get KISS with the lighting S's; you'd get AC/DC... and you'd get the flying wings of the VH logo, and the circle and star of the Rush logo. Again, I know it's me and my age group, but for me, both bands were touring arenas at that time and had hit songs/albums.
(It's a couple years later, but Whitesnake, with "Slide It In" in '84, fits right into that.)
-
"Trapper Keepers are still cool though, right?"
-
Why bring Whitesnake into this? :neverusethis:
I suppose most Rush fans don't care for Whitesnake at all.
Big Rush fan and I like a good number of Whitesnake songs. Would expect a decent amount of overlap there as well.
Huge fan of both. Don’t see why they would be mutually exclusive
-
Why bring Whitesnake into this? :neverusethis:
I suppose most Rush fans don't care for Whitesnake at all.
Big Rush fan and I like a good number of Whitesnake songs. Would expect a decent amount of overlap there as well.
I view this through my lenses. I first heard of both bands in the early to mid-80's. We would have paper covers to our school books, and there were about five or 10 bands that seemed to show up on all the books, because they had cool logos. You'd get the "OZZY", with the lines through the z's; you'd get KISS with the lighting S's; you'd get AC/DC... and you'd get the flying wings of the VH logo, and the circle and star of the Rush logo. Again, I know it's me and my age group, but for me, both bands were touring arenas at that time and had hit songs/albums.
(It's a couple years later, but Whitesnake, with "Slide It In" in '84, fits right into that.)
Another aspect that ties bands like Rush, VH, and Whitesnake is that those acts all featured prominent instrumentalists (Peart, EVH, Sykes/Vai) who would have appealed to the more musically inclined rock listener. Heck, Rush brought Mr. Big on tour with them several times, and I assume the thinking was similar (band of virtuosos even if they don’t play the same type of hard rock).
-
I can say with 100% certainty I did not miss these questions as if WR was magically transplanted onto planet Earth by aliens at the age of 21. :biggrin:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/zr9taMSZ5H9YLffh6fpSi0bWz9gJOf0FvtKTeHpDimKLQFPWJ8dcHQR8Gbr31EYd0HFr41UZ2Agh23z7uI5bAG_pHAKXp-0JezQlf4up24O8vrxWDFi7eXmKtA5VDtfAe8ZJ-wwGO7XvFU07feHGmzdlSQNKbO4tLu4)
-
I've seen every band mentioned, live. I am the missing link.
-
Different? Sure. Vastly different? Not at all.
How? Musically they sound vastly different.
Compare Lifeson's and Eddie's guitar playing. They sound nothing alike.
In their prime eras of popularity, both were hard rock bands that were, at the core, guitar, bass and drums. I'm not saying they were indistinguishable or anything, but "vastly different" and "they sound nothing alike" go too far.
And...wait for it...there are people on this planet who enjoy music that is vastly different. I enjoy Mussorgsky, Beethoven, Celine Dion, the Police, Metallica, UFO and the Beatles.
They both had album titles that could arguably be diving terms (or diving related)?
Diver Down and....???
Test For Echo. I know the band didn't mean it in that fashion, but still. Sonar is essentially predicated on a literal test for echo.
That's a heck of a stretch. I was actually thinking Grace under Pressure.
Essentially, if two bands have been played on the same corporate rock radio stations for 40 years, it shouldn’t be surprising that they might have some overlapping fans.
Exactly.
-
Use your "Signals" folks.
-
Heck, Rush brought Mr. Big on tour with them several times, and I assume the thinking was similar (band of virtuosos even if they don’t play the same type of hard rock).
I suspect it was more the label's decision than the bands, and the thinking was more along the lines of, "These two rock bands that are available at the same time, are both on the same radio playlists and are close enough. Looks like this would be a good tour."
-
"Trapper Keepers are still cool though, right?"
Hahahaha
-
They have recognizable, unique frontmen with unique, recognizable voices.
David Lee Roth is a pretty clown-ish frontman unlike Geddy Lee, who is very serious. Totally different types of frotmen.
-
They have recognizable, unique frontmen with unique, recognizable voices.
David Lee Roth is a pretty clown-ish frontman unlike Geddy Lee, who is very serious. Totally different types of frotmen.
Right. None of that invalidates what I said, which is that they are recognizable and unique. You are so bad at this omg
-
I noticed there is a big overplap between Rush and Van Halen fans.
Where? How?
Isn't it surprising to you?
No, not really to be honest.
Rush and VH are vastly different styles of rock music.
No, they're not.
-
I noticed there is a big overplap between Rush and Van Halen fans.
Where? How?
He caught a Rush fan sleeping with his Van Halen-loving girlfriend. That's the "big overlap". ;)
-
They are different but both popular. Fans can like different styles. What's the big whoop?
I want meatloaf tonight, tomorrow I'd like sushi.
-
Elite...you had me until the last one.
I see virtually zero similarities between Rush and VH... I mean, unless you want to draw similarities between ALL bands that use electric guitars, bass, drums, keyboards and vocals.
-
I noticed there is a big overplap between Rush and Van Halen fans.
Where? How?
He caught a Rush fan sleeping with his Van Halen-loving girlfriend. That's the "big overlap". ;)
This analogy doesn't work the other way though. Girl Rush fans? :lol
-
Elite...you had me until the last one.
I see virtually zero similarities between Rush and VH... I mean, unless you want to draw similarities between ALL bands that use electric guitars, bass, drums, keyboards and vocals.
Come on.. 'vastly different styles of rock music' when they both draw from the hard rock idiom from the late 60s and early 70s... Both bands adapted their sound roughly to what was going on in the contemporary rock scene. I can see how they're different, sure. To anyone not as invested in music though, they could be the same band with a different vocalist. Maybe remove some of Rush's epics for a more accurate comparison.
'Vastly different styles' is way too exaggerated to me.
-
They have recognizable, unique frontmen with unique, recognizable voices.
David Lee Roth is a pretty clown-ish frontman unlike Geddy Lee, who is very serious. Totally different types of frotmen.
Right. None of that invalidates what I said, which is that they are recognizable and unique. You are so bad at this omg
(https://lybio.net/wp-content/uploads/Antoine-Dodson-Bed-Intruder-Song.jpg)
-
I noticed there is a big overplap between Rush and Van Halen fans.
Where? How?
He caught a Rush fan sleeping with his Van Halen-loving girlfriend. That's the "big overlap". ;)
This analogy doesn't work the other way though. Girl Rush fans? :lol
Haha, I thought the same thing. Great minds.... :)
-
Elite...you had me until the last one.
I see virtually zero similarities between Rush and VH... I mean, unless you want to draw similarities between ALL bands that use electric guitars, bass, drums, keyboards and vocals.
Just in terms of guitar sound 1980s Alex and Eddie aren’t all that different. But I think the similarities are more in terms of the overall sound pallet (heavy rock, big drums, high pitched vocals). The actual songs aren’t similar (Rush don’t write about girls and parties, though they do sometimes write about cars). 1970s isn’t very much like VH, but it also isn’t very much like 1980s Rush.
-
Elite...you had me until the last one.
I see virtually zero similarities between Rush and VH... I mean, unless you want to draw similarities between ALL bands that use electric guitars, bass, drums, keyboards and vocals.
Come on.. 'vastly different styles of rock music' when they both draw from the hard rock idiom from the late 60s and early 70s... Both bands adapted their sound roughly to what was going on in the contemporary rock scene. I can see how they're different, sure. To anyone not as invested in music though, they could be the same band with a different vocalist. Maybe remove some of Rush's epics for a more accurate comparison.
'Vastly different styles' is way too exaggerated to me.
Elite, I'm with you on this one. You can tie some very specific lines back from both Rush and Van Halen to Led Zeppelin and Cream in particular. They certainly went in different directions over decades, but they are plants from the same garden.
-
Elite...you had me until the last one.
I see virtually zero similarities between Rush and VH... I mean, unless you want to draw similarities between ALL bands that use electric guitars, bass, drums, keyboards and vocals.
Come on.. 'vastly different styles of rock music' when they both draw from the hard rock idiom from the late 60s and early 70s... Both bands adapted their sound roughly to what was going on in the contemporary rock scene. I can see how they're different, sure. To anyone not as invested in music though, they could be the same band with a different vocalist. Maybe remove some of Rush's epics for a more accurate comparison.
'Vastly different styles' is way too exaggerated to me.
I still think they sound vastly different. Van Halen songs are mostly party-type hard rock tunes, while Rush are prog hard rock. And their lyrical themes are nothing alike. Just compare two songs from the same year (1978): The Trees and Running With the Devil. They have absolutely nothing in common.
And I also think that two hard rock bands can sound very different. For example compare Deep Purple and Van Halen. Or Aerosmith and Blue Oyster Cult.
-
Elite...you had me until the last one.
I see virtually zero similarities between Rush and VH... I mean, unless you want to draw similarities between ALL bands that use electric guitars, bass, drums, keyboards and vocals.
Come on.. 'vastly different styles of rock music' when they both draw from the hard rock idiom from the late 60s and early 70s... Both bands adapted their sound roughly to what was going on in the contemporary rock scene. I can see how they're different, sure. To anyone not as invested in music though, they could be the same band with a different vocalist. Maybe remove some of Rush's epics for a more accurate comparison.
'Vastly different styles' is way too exaggerated to me.
I still think they sound vastly different. Van Halen songs are mostly party-type hard rock tunes, while Rush are prog hard rock. And their lyrical themes are nothing alike. Just compare two songs from the same year (1978): The Trees and Running With the Devil. They have absolutely nothing in common.
And I also think that two hard rock bands can sound very different. For example compare Deep Purple and Van Halen. Or Aerosmith and Blue Oyster Cult.
It’s all a continuum really. Those 4 bands are closer to one end of the rock spectrum, with Rush being maybe a little further down one direction or another but all of them being a lot closer to each other than to a band like maybe Eagles or Tom Petty, but even they would be closer than say Nine Inch Nails or Radiohead, and even they would be closer than someone like Taylor Swift, but even she would be closer than Beyoncé and so on and so forth.
-
I don't care about Van Halen at all, so I'm hesitant to even try to make point (party because it's going to be futile anyway). Whatever man. On the big spectrum of all available music, all hard rock bands are the same musically. I didn't even bring up lyrics, that's your doing. Nice going by picking 'The Trees', you could have made it a bit more difficult for yourself by going with 'Working Man' for instance or 'Red Barchetta'.
Using your own trick of comparing two songs from the same year, let's do 'Between the Wheels' vs 'Jump', both 1984. See if you can spot the similarities. I can :)
-
Elite...you had me until the last one.
I see virtually zero similarities between Rush and VH... I mean, unless you want to draw similarities between ALL bands that use electric guitars, bass, drums, keyboards and vocals.
They both have band members named Alex. Both drummers played Ludwig drums at some point. :neverusethis:
-
Elite...you had me until the last one.
I see virtually zero similarities between Rush and VH... I mean, unless you want to draw similarities between ALL bands that use electric guitars, bass, drums, keyboards and vocals.
They both have band members named Alex. Both drummers played Ludwig drums at some point. :neverusethis:
Both have singers with the name Lee in them?
-
Van Halen songs are mostly . . . hard rock tunes, while Rush are . . . hard rock.
Exactly.
And their lyrical themes are nothing alike. Just compare two songs from the same year (1978): The Trees and Running With the Devil. They have absolutely nothing in common.
Yes, when you intentionally select two songs out of several hundred that are very dissimilar, the result should not be surprising. But how about Red Barchetta and Panama?
Or...let's play a game. See if you can spot the Rush lyrics (no cheating!):
(a) "Yeah, oh yeah. Ooh, said I, I'm coming back to look for you, ooh, said I'm, I'm going by the back door."
(b) "Well I been hustling here, I been hustling there, I been searching for about a week, and I started feeling this strange sensation, my knees are starting getting weak."
(c) "On every wall and place my fearsome name is heard."
(d) "Well, I see you standin' there with your finger in the air, everything we do you want to leave it up to you."
(e) "Everybody's looking for something, something to fill in the holes, we think a lot but don't talk much about it 'til things get out of control."
(f) "Better people, better food, and better beer!"
(g) "I've got a livin' that's rough, a future that's tough, you know what I mean, blankers and boasters, all the bluffers and posers, I'm not into that scene."
All that being said, it's certainly true that the two bands' most significant dissimilarity is lyrics, but you seem to be ignoring a great many similarities to emphasize the obvious differences. Moreover, going back to your original point, why is it surprising that a lot of people like musical artists that aren't complete clones of each other?
-
Rush and Van Halen are both in my top five favorite bands. I’ve never once thought to myself how two of my favorite bands are so vastly different. Of course they have a different sound, but both are kick ass rock/hard rock (whatever category they fall into).
-
Van Halen songs are mostly . . . hard rock tunes, while Rush are . . . hard rock.
Exactly.
And their lyrical themes are nothing alike. Just compare two songs from the same year (1978): The Trees and Running With the Devil. They have absolutely nothing in common.
Yes, when you intentionally select two songs out of several hundred that are very dissimilar, the result should not be surprising. But how about Red Barchetta and Panama?
Or...let's play a game. See if you can spot the Rush lyrics (no cheating!):
(a) "Yeah, oh yeah. Ooh, said I, I'm coming back to look for you, ooh, said I'm, I'm going by the back door."
(b) "Well I been hustling here, I been hustling there, I been searching for about a week, and I started feeling this strange sensation, my knees are starting getting weak."
(c) "On every wall and place my fearsome name is heard."
(d) "Well, I see you standin' there with your finger in the air, everything we do you want to leave it up to you."
(e) "Everybody's looking for something, something to fill in the holes, we think a lot but don't talk much about it 'til things get out of control."
(f) "Better people, better food, and better beer!"
(g) "I've got a livin' that's rough, a future that's tough, you know what I mean, blankers and boasters, all the bluffers and posers, I'm not into that scene."
All that being said, it's certainly true that the two bands' most significant dissimilarity is lyrics, but you seem to be ignoring a great many similarities to emphasize the obvious differences. Moreover, going back to your original point, why is it surprising that a lot of people like musical artists that aren't complete clones of each other?
Ha, this is easy for me, since Rush is my all time favorite band. On the other hand I personally don't care for most Van Halen with the exception of 5150, nor do I like David Lee Roth as a frontman or singer.
I also sort of see your point about Panama and Red Barchetta. Yes they are both about a car, however Rush's lyrics are much more evocative and poetic. They have more of a sense of nostalgia with a sense of longing for times long past. Panama has none of that, in my opinion. However, I am very biased, so take my opinion with a massive grain of salt.
-
Dude...you literally took all your examples from their ONE ALBUM where they were literally a Led Zeppelin clone.
I have to admit I’m giggling because I’m having a tough time believing that people actually believe this. I did some quick math and came to the fair approximation that I have listened to over 85,000 hours of music in my life. Listening to it studiously. I hear almost zero resemblance between VH and Rush beyond the basics I already mentioned. They sound about as much alike as Motley Crue and Primus.
-
Dude...you literally took all your examples from their ONE ALBUM where they were literally a Led Zeppelin clone.
I have to admit I’m giggling because I’m having a tough time believing that people actually believe this. I did some quick math and came to the fair approximation that I have listened to over 85,000 hours of music in my life. Listening to it studiously. I hear almost zero resemblance between VH and Rush beyond the basics I already mentioned. They sound about as much alike as Motley Crue and Primus.
Agreed!
-
Dude...you literally took all your examples from their ONE ALBUM where they were literally a Led Zeppelin clone.
I have to admit I’m giggling because I’m having a tough time believing that people actually believe this. I did some quick math and came to the fair approximation that I have listened to over 85,000 hours of music in my life. Listening to it studiously. I hear almost zero resemblance between VH and Rush beyond the basics I already mentioned. They sound about as much alike as Motley Crue and Primus.
With respect, the "studiously" seems to imply something more objective than just "I like it". I'm calling you on that. I am not saying that they are like Kiss and Aerosmith, but I think there are more similarities than we're admitting here, and I'm getting a whiff of condescension about that. Van Halen is one of the greatest rock bands in history. EVH is as innovative - if not more - than Neal was on drums. These are Mt. Rushmore players. I know the general consensus here is that Neal is one of the greatest lyricists in rock history, but the idea that Roth is simply "yeah, baby, baby, whooo, awww YEAH!" isn't accurate. There is almost always at least one or two songs on each VH album that dig deeper, and I've said many times that "A Different Kind Of Truth" is one of the best - one of my favorite - albums I own LYRICALLY.
These are fundamentally rock trios rooted in the British blues of the late 60's, early 70's. Look at the Feedback EP; THREE Yardbirds tunes (all from the Beck/Page era) and two Who tunes, including Summertime Blues. In the Sammy-era, there were only three covers played: A Apolitical Blues (Little Feat, off OU812), You Really Got Me (The Kinks, the live album) and Won't Get Fooled Again (The Who). Summertime Blues was a frequent cover through the Roth era into the early days of the Hagar era. EVH has widely stated that Clapton is his guy, with Page a close second. (Interestingly, both Lifeson and VH have cited Steve Hackett as an influence; EVH for the tapping, and Lifeson for his acoustic work).
I think the biggest problem here is perception: I don't think I'm saying anything controversial when I say that around these parts, "Van Halen" is considered a bunch of jackasses and "Rush" is considered to be admirable, straight up gentlemen.
-
Responding to the original question in the subject line:
I think so, at least for me. I honestly have never really cared for (at least very much) a lot of the "classic" prog bands like Genesis, King Crimson, YES, etc. Rush alluded me for a long time, and it wasn't until Test for Echo that I finally gave them a chance and liked what I heard (still kicking myself for not going to the Jones Beach show on the TFE tour, a friend kept pushing me, and I just wasn't into them enough at that point).
There's an accessibility factor in Rush's tunes that just appealed to my ear and pulled me in. And then I started appreciating a lot of their less accessible tunes. Because of that, I have retried with some of the bands I mentioned above, and it just doesn't hit me like Rush did.
At the end of the day, for me, the answer is YES, Rush is more appealing and accessible than other classic prog rock bands. That said, however, I think if you throw away the genre labels, it comes down to something just very basic - I dig Rush, I don't dig the other bands. Nothing wrong with that. :)
-
Dude...you literally took all your examples from their ONE ALBUM where they were literally a Led Zeppelin clone.
Actually not correct. But where else am I going to get stuff that comes close to the lyrical genius of DLR and Sammy?
As far as the comparison, all I'm saying is that there's a heck of a lot more in common than there is different, and I'd invite you to draw an analogy to a certain Rush lyric that you're particularly fond of.
-
Rush wrote a lot of very accessible commercially successful songs. I mean, there was a period in the 80's when they had 7 or 8 songs being played on a regular basis on most FM Rock Radio stations. King Crimson, yeah, no so much :lol
Yes had some commercial success as did Genesis but that only happened when they toned down the prog and brought more pop sensibilities to their sound.
-
Rush has a big appeal on prog metal fans, that's for sure. They're very beloved and popular among DT fans. Minority of DT and prog metal fans dislike Rush. It seems that other classic prog bands don't have the same appeal on them.
Besides Rush, King Crimson is also cited as a significant influence on prog metal, but prog metal fans are definitely not into them as they're into Rush. Rush is nowhere near as eclectic, experimental and "complicated" as King Crimson, thus they're easily more accessible.
-
Rush has a big appeal on prog metal fans, that's for sure. They're very beloved and popular among DT fans. Minority of DT and prog metal fans dislike Rush. It seems that other classic prog bands don't have the same appeal on them.
Besides Rush, King Crimson is also cited as a significant influence on prog metal, but prog metal fans are definitely not into them as they're into Rush. Rush is nowhere near as eclectic, experimental and "complicated" as King Crimson, thus they're easily more accessible.
I have no idea where you get some of the things you say.
-
'taint talk ?
-
These threads are gold :rollin
WildRanger, only you could come in, commenting after nearly a year, and ask if it's weird that there is a crossover in Rush/VH fans :lol :lol :lol I literally can't think of a better comeback.
In regards to your last post, I'm obviously a big prog/prog metal fan and I don't care for Rush. I've tried enough albums and YYZ is the only song that has ever done anything for me.
Your sweeping statements about how fans of certain bands feel about other bands are just off, way off!
You do entertain me though. I feel I understand why you ask the questions you do though. You are very literal in your interpretation and seek for everything to be proven as fact. That speaks volumes to me.
-
In regards to your last post, I'm obviously a big prog/prog metal fan and I don't care for Rush. I've tried enough albums and YYZ is the only song that has ever done anything for me.
Your sweeping statements about how fans of certain bands feel about other bands are just off, way off!
I didn't say ALL prog metal fans are more into Rush than other classic prog bands, but MOST of them. MOST and ALL is not the same.
Your case is in the minority. ;D
-
In regards to your last post, I'm obviously a big prog/prog metal fan and I don't care for Rush. I've tried enough albums and YYZ is the only song that has ever done anything for me.
Your sweeping statements about how fans of certain bands feel about other bands are just off, way off!
I didn't say ALL prog metal fans are more into Rush than other classic prog bands, but MOST of them. MOST and ALL is not the same.
Your case is in the minority. ;D
Please show proof/cite your sources
-
Ah shit here we go again
Goo Goo Goo Joob
-
Ah shit here we go again
Goo Goo Goo Joob
:lol
-
Watchmojo put Rush at #2 on their list of Top 10 prog rock bands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jWj7vhFMM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jWj7vhFMM)
So it means they are the second band from the prog rock genre popularity-wise, after Floyd.
They're more popular than Yes, Genesis, Tull, ELP, let alone King Crimson.
-
I'd say it means that one of the most notorious purveyors of clickbait on YouTube tossed some bands on a numbered list. And precisely no more than that.
To take a still questionable but far more objective measure than "watchmojo made a list," Genesis has more monthly listeners on Spotify than Rush.
-
I'd say it means that one of the most notorious purveyors of clickbait on YouTube tossed some bands on a numbered list. And precisely no more than that.
To take a still questionable but far more objective measure than "watchmojo made a list," Genesis has more monthly listeners on Spotify than Rush.
On the flip side, according to LastFM, Rush has an average of 3500 songs listened to per day and Genesis has an average of 3300 songs listened to per day, over the last 6 months.
-
To take a still questionable but far more objective measure than "watchmojo made a list," Genesis has more monthly listeners on Spotify than Rush.
Most streamed Genesis songs on Spotify are their hits from the 80's, from their pop-oriented and commercial era, not prog stuff as Supper's Ready, Firth of Fifth, The Musical Box or Dancing with the Moonlit Knight. So during the 80's they were much more commercial-sounding band than Rush and they weren't prog at all, unlike Rush who were quite proggy during their synth-era.
My point is that Rush prog classic albums (esp. 2112 and Moving Pictures) are far more recognized and widely listened among rock fans in general than prog-era Genesis albums(Foxtrot, Selling England, Lamb etc), that are only popular among progheads.
-
That's an arguable point, but watchmojo links go 0% of the way toward arguing it.
-
Watchmojo and their voters have as much credibility with Prog Rock as Eddie Trunk does with Technical Death Metal.
I used to watch their videos regularly, but jumped ship awhile back when it became clear their rankings and lists had less to do with the votes on their website polls, and more to do with who the producers wanted on the list.
Also they more or less stopped making Music based lists at least 3 years ago.
-
Watchmojo put Rush at #2 on their list of Top 10 prog rock bands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jWj7vhFMM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jWj7vhFMM)
So it means they are the second band from the prog rock genre popularity-wise, after Floyd
No, it doesn't.
Also, hi! First post in a month
-
Watchmojo put Rush at #2 on their list of Top 10 prog rock bands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jWj7vhFMM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jWj7vhFMM)
So it means they are the second band from the prog rock genre popularity-wise, after Floyd.
They're more popular than Yes, Genesis, Tull, ELP, let alone King Crimson.
What??! It means no such thing. I didn't watch the video, but the caption on the video says, "Join [us] as we count down our picks for the top 10 Progressive Rock Bands." This is just some random shlubs' opinion.
So during the 80's they were much more commercial-sounding band than Rush and they weren't prog at all, unlike Rush who were quite proggy during their synth-era.
Quite proggy? LOL...no.
My point is that Rush prog classic albums (esp. 2112 and Moving Pictures) are far more recognized and widely listened among rock fans in general than prog-era Genesis albums(Foxtrot, Selling England, Lamb etc), that are only popular among progheads.
That may or may not be true, but you have no evidence to support your assertion. And, if this was truly your point, why did you attempt to make it by citing and linking a video that is nothing more than the collective opinion of some rando website?
-
Well that's really interesting. This last page of this thread made me realize something that I've never really thought about. Genesis at their most commercial were still "proggier" than Rush's synth era. I mean seriously. Does Rush have anything as proggy as Domino, The Brazilian, Do The Neurotic, Home / 2nd Home, Me and Sarah Jane, Dodo / Lurker or Fading Lights in their synth era? No, they don't. Maybe Marathon or Mission sort of bring the prog. Man, I do love Rush's synth era, but I've never really thought of it as being very "proggy".
-
Red Lenses sort of feels like The Brazilian. The Weapon, Digital Man, and Countdown are all pretty synth-proggy too. I think Genesis just had the benefit of a full time keyboardist and 3 music writers whereas Rush had 2 music writers and Geddy splitting time between bass/keys.
-
Red Lenses sort of feels like The Brazilian. The Weapon, Digital Man, and Countdown are all pretty synth-proggy too. I think Genesis just had the benefit of a full time keyboardist and 3 music writers whereas Rush had 2 music writers and Geddy splitting time between bass/keys.
Mystic Rhythms, Manhattan Project, and Marathon are all pretty proggy. But I do think Genesis was more overtly prog throughout the 80s and 90s than Rush were.
-
Red Lenses sort of feels like The Brazilian. The Weapon, Digital Man, and Countdown are all pretty synth-proggy too. I think Genesis just had the benefit of a full time keyboardist and 3 music writers whereas Rush had 2 music writers and Geddy splitting time between bass/keys.
Look, I'm a big fan of both Rush and Genesis, throughout their career. I LIKE the later Rush catalogue; I like Hold Your Fire, for example, as well as Presto. I LIKE the later Genesis catalogue; Invisible Touch is one of my favorite Genesis albums, as is the self-titled.
Having said that, PURELY PROG, there is very little in the post Moving Pictures catalogue that is PROG. Rock, maybe even hard rock (which doesn't appear in the Genesis catalogue much if at all) but not prog. Rush rode a surge of popularity at the end of their career, but not to the level of Genesis, who has maintained a foot in the prog world as well as a foot in the pop world. They tour stadia without albums, and have for decades.
Rush may be more appealing and accessible than MOST other classic prog rock bands, but the number one in that category is Genesis.
-
Anticipating WildRanger's next post:
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WateryIlliterateAmericanavocet-size_restricted.gif)
-
I disagree with the assertion that Genesis is “more proggy”. They may have more extended jams and some longer pieces, but that doesn’t make them proggy.
I think the technical complexity of Rush’s synth period far outshines anything from the commercial period of Genesis. And considering that that level of complexity was not commonly being done in synthesized music, it was also pushing the genre forward, and thus “progressive”.
Even a song like Turn the Page (which I don’t even really like that much) has a greater level of complexity to my ears than any of the mentioned Genesis pieces that I actually enjoy more. Home/2nd Home for example.
-
Even a song like Turn the Page (which I don’t even really like that much) has a greater level of complexity to my ears than any of the mentioned Genesis pieces that I actually enjoy more.
I was gonna chime in on this, but I decided to disengage..
-
I disagree with the assertion that Genesis is “more proggy”. They may have more extended jams and some longer pieces, but that doesn’t make them proggy.
I think the technical complexity of Rush’s synth period far outshines anything from the commercial period of Genesis. And considering that that level of complexity was not commonly being done in synthesized music, it was also pushing the genre forward, and thus “progressive”.
Even a song like Turn the Page (which I don’t even really like that much) has a greater level of complexity to my ears than any of the mentioned Genesis pieces that I actually enjoy more. Home/2nd Home for example.
I think both of these (the technicality of 80s Rush and extend james/longer pieces of Genesis) qualify as proggy. I think I'd say some of those 80s/90s Genesis compositions were more in line with what Genesis did in the 70s than I would for 80s/70s Rush. But whether you consider either prog or not, both have enough elements of what I enjoy about prog to make me think of them as prog. Power Windows is to me pretty unabashedly a prog album, but then again so are Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance.
-
Rush may be more appealing and accessible than MOST other classic prog rock bands, but the number one in that category is Genesis.
Maybe Genesis are number one when it comes to their 80's commercial POP stuff. But 80's Genesis and 70's Genesis were like two different bands in the same way Nicks/Buckingham-era and Green-era Fleetwood Mac were.
-
Rush may be more appealing and accessible than MOST other classic prog rock bands, but the number one in that category is Genesis.
Maybe Genesis are number one when it comes to their 80's commercial POP stuff. But 80's Genesis and 70's Genesis were like two different bands in the same way Nicks/Buckingham-era and Green-era Fleetwood Mac were.
Same could be said about Rush. Bands evolve with what's popular at the time.
-
I disagree with the assertion that Genesis is “more proggy”. They may have more extended jams and some longer pieces, but that doesn’t make them proggy.
I think the technical complexity of Rush’s synth period far outshines anything from the commercial period of Genesis. And considering that that level of complexity was not commonly being done in synthesized music, it was also pushing the genre forward, and thus “progressive”.
Even a song like Turn the Page (which I don’t even really like that much) has a greater level of complexity to my ears than any of the mentioned Genesis pieces that I actually enjoy more. Home/2nd Home for example.
I respectfully disagree. Tony Banks was writing complicated, intricate pieces WELL into the "pop" phase of the band. Much like you say about Rush (and I don't really disagree), Banks had a way of making the complicated sound "easy". "Me And Sarah Jane" for example. "Anything She Does" is another; it's the only song from Invisible Touch never played live, because, as Banks has said on several occasions, it was too difficult.