Is Rush more appealing and accessible than other classic prog rock bands?

[WildRanger]

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?

[DTA]

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.

[WildRanger]

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.

[The Walrus]

Yeah, disregard the other 33 years of their music, they outsold them for 6 years in the 70s

[Adami]

To whom?

[Architeuthis]

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.

[Stadler]

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.

[pg1067]

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.

[TAC]

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.

[The Walrus]

My parents' generation must have done a shitload of drugs to have Genesis make 100m worldwide.

[Nekov]

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.

[pg1067]

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.

[WildRanger]

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?

[WildRanger]

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).

[ErHaO]

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.

[Stadler]

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.   

[Adami]

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"

[TAC]

I mean, the whole question is stupid. Rush has roots in hard rock.

[Stadler]

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. 

[Elite]

To whom?

This is very good question! Now why did no-one else respond to it? 🤔

[pg1067]

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.

[Elite]

The real question would be the following though:

Is Rush more appalling than other classic prog rock bands?

[pg1067]

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.

[El Barto]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[MoraWintersoul]

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.

[KevShmev]

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??

[WildRanger]

I can't believe King Crimson or Camel were even part of this question.

Why?

[WildRanger]

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?

[WildRanger]

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).

[The Curious Orange]

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.

[Max Kuehnau]

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)

[Stadler]

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

[Elite]

Good arguments have never convinced WildRanger.

[Stadler]

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.