RUSH!

[ahab]

so ok i used to listen to rush all the time and then something strange happened, they sort of floated out of my memory and I have recently just re-discovered them, its great! like a reunion tour in my head or something lol who else loves this band!?! pretty damn innovative I think, especially that 'tree's' song, i think it has to do a lot with the class struggle

[celtopunk]

I think you forgot about them as their music got "progressively" worse. I always admired them for thier fashion sense though.

http://halfass.com/images/rush.jpeg

[Phalanx]

Rush is alright, but they're one of those bands that I can only take a little of their music at a time.

All are really good at their instruments, but that doesn't necessarily make good music.

[SPK]

A lot of great bands right now are doing stuff with a clear art-rock influence: Mars Volta, Mew, Russian Circles; in a more pop vein, the Velvet Teen, Minus the Bear, and Muse. So I've been listening again to Rush and the big art-rock groups from way back, like Yes and Asia -- they were dissed pretty much nonstop for about 25 years, so they seem fresh again today.

[Rollo]

MODERN DAY WARRIOR MEAN MEAN STRIDE!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

TODAY`S TOM SAWYER MEAN MEAN PRIDE

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 01:21 pm
MODERN DAY WARRIOR MEAN MEAN STRIDE!
I always the line was "Mundane warrior..."

[Rollo]

It's definetely modern day warrior.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think celtopunk`s taking the piss because Rush is mundane

and fuck celtopunk for not continuing the song

[celtopunk]

I REALLY did think it was Mundane.

Kind of like "wrapped up like douche"


Anyway here it goes, my brother was always listening to rush:

Though his mind is not for rent
Dont put him down as arrogant

[Rollo]

You didn't use caps. Blasphemy.

[Epoche]

Rush is (was) great. Funny story about them....their first drummer, Rutsy I think his name was, wasn't good enough for Alex and Geddy to want to keep around, so they found Peart. You can tell a major difference in their sound after the first album with Rutsy.

Caress of Steel is one of my favorite albums of all time. And if you guys haven't heard Hemispheres, do listen to it. It is a very "philosophical" album. There is a story about Dionysus and Apollo in it.

[coda]

[....]

Today's Tom Sawyer
He gets high on you
And the space he invades
He gets by on you

no doubt that lyric was inspired by the big extra-curricular activity of the day ----getting stoned and standing for hours playing Space Invaders.

Kinda catchy tune, still.
Rush is a little too techno and electronic-y for me.. but it was very cool when it first came out --- a BIG Thing amongst the masses.

Hey, You might be better off skipping over Asia!! A half decent band from that genre (Asia, Foreigner, Journey, Styx, etc) is Kansas. The rest are tepid and very dated and is why they thankfully disappeared into relative obscurity. But Boy, are they fun to crack on!

[Rollo]

I LOVE getting stoned, putting tom sawyer on and playing space invaderz.

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 11:32 pm
Hey, You might be better off skipping over Asia!!
I've been listening to Asia again since I heard Heat of the Moment on the 40-Year-Old Virgin soundtrack. :lol:

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 03:49 am
Rush is (was) great. Funny story about them....their first drummer, Rutsy I think his name was, wasn't good enough for Alex and Geddy to want to keep around, so they found Peart. You can tell a major difference in their sound after the first album with Rutsy.

That's not funny though. Please try again.

I'll say this for them, no matter how many times they reinvent themselves they still manage to look like dorks.

[Rage]

I have started listening to Rush recently because I really like Coheed and Cambria. Co and Ca are pretty much like a 21st century Rush.

/,,/
Rock on!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Both suck monumental amounts of shit?

[which doctor]

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't RUSH an anti-communist band?

[Epoche]

I'll say this for them, no matter how many times they reinvent themselves they still manage to look like dorks.

I wonder about a man who goes to a concert to look at something.

Well, its too late for you then. The semioticists already got cha. I prefer a band that looks tough, personally, because its the muscles and boots that make me rock, dude. I wouldn't care if they were playing cazoos. (did I spell that right?)


but isn't RUSH an anti-communist band?

This is a complicated matter. The authors personality tends to permeate or flow over into the music and before we know it, if we don't like the guys, we don't like what they play. Doesn't that suck? Fortunately I got over that. Shawn Lane is a fat red-neck basstad' (new york accent there), so fat, he died. I don't like him, I don't think. And I couldn't hang out with him, I don't think. Because I am a philosopher and he is a fat bastard who burns the guitar like it was match....I still like him. That settles my relationship with ugly muscians of opposed philosophies, because I can promise you that we wouldn't agree on much.

Rush is one of the best pioneers of progressive rock, which should not be confused with ordinary rock...the "led zeppelein/black sabbath" rock. There is a major distinction in the anatomy of the music which separates them generically.

You can class Yes, Rush, and King Crimosn together as progressive popularities of the dawning seventies. Nobody else had as much force as these three bands for that type of music. There were more, but they were not "popular."

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 03:19 am

I'll say this for them, no matter how many times they reinvent themselves they still manage to look like dorks.

I wonder about a man who goes to a concert to look at something.

Well, its too late for you then. The semioticists already got cha. I prefer a band that looks tough, personally, because its the muscles and boots that make me rock, dude. I wouldn't care if they were playing cazoos. (did I spell that right?)

Oh you're questioning my sexuality, I'm hurt and will go away never to comment on this board again because you have slain me with your piercing words.

[kaaos_af]

ha ha meanwhile I'm here listening to a No Remorse record I found at a garage sale.. that song 'Deutschland' has the longest fade out (1 minute) in history.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 12:19 am

I'll say this for them, no matter how many times they reinvent themselves they still manage to look like dorks.

I wonder about a man who goes to a concert to look at something.

Well, its too late for you then. The semioticists already got cha. I prefer a band that looks tough, personally, because its the muscles and boots that make me rock, dude. I wouldn't care if they were playing cazoos. (did I spell that right?)


but isn't RUSH an anti-communist band?

This is a complicated matter. The authors personality tends to permeate or flow over into the music and before we know it, if we don't like the guys, we don't like what they play. Doesn't that suck? Fortunately I got over that. Shawn Lane is a fat red-neck basstad' (new york accent there), so fat, he died. I don't like him, I don't think. And I couldn't hang out with him, I don't think. Because I am a philosopher and he is a fat bastard who burns the guitar like it was match....I still like him. That settles my relationship with ugly muscians of opposed philosophies, because I can promise you that we wouldn't agree on much.

Rush is one of the best pioneers of progressive rock, which should not be confused with ordinary rock...the "led zeppelein/black sabbath" rock. There is a major distinction in the anatomy of the music which separates them generically.

You can class Yes, Rush, and King Crimosn together as progressive popularities of the dawning seventies. Nobody else had as much force as these three bands for that type of music. There were more, but they were not "popular."
Thank you, epoche, for this enlightening lesson on the history of popular music. By the way, I wouldn't be so quick to judge those three bands as the definitive "most popular" prog acts. I would say that Pink Floyd, Genesis, and Jethro Tull were arguably more popular than Yes, Rush, and King Crimson. Although perhaps the former three weren't quite so strictly "prog". Then again, neither were Rush and King Crimson... both are sometimes cited as "progressive metal".

Regardless, you suck. I don't think anybody here gives a fuck who were the pioneers of progressive rock. Rush is shit.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still haven't made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will. "


Rush is a pretty solid band. There have been better, but there have been many that are worse.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Epoche+December 07, 2006 12:19 am--> (Epoche @ December 07, 2006 12:19 am) Rush is one of the best pioneers of progressive rock, which should not be confused with ordinary rock...the "led zeppelein/black sabbath" rock. There is a major distinction in the anatomy of the music which separates them generically.
[/b]
Honestly, some of Led Zeppelin's songs are more "progressive" than "Closer To The Heart" and "Limelight", for example. And they are better too.


You can class Yes, Rush, and King Crimosn together as progressive popularities of the dawning seventies. Nobody else had as much force as these three bands for that type of music. There were more, but they were not "popular."

I can't see how King Crimson is more popular than Genesis...


Roseppelin (?)
Although perhaps the former three weren't quite so strictly "prog". Then again, neither were Rush and King Crimson... both are sometimes cited as "progressive metal".

Wait, are you saying that out of those bands, you think that the only "truly progressive" one is Yes? :huh:


Rush is shit.

They had their moments, though, so I'd say that while they are not amongst the "big" ones (not even the "big" prog ones), they can be considered decent, but their singer's voice doesn't make me want to listen to them. I guess that sums it up.

[Epoche]

Oh you're questioning my sexuality

No, I was responding in jest to a comment you made in jest. I know you aren't concerned with what a band wears...or at least I hope not. I was only trying to defend Rush. Back in those days you couldn't get a contract unless you dressed up like the Lord of the Rings, and I was only hoping that this isn't the reason why you like or dislike Rush.

You're sexuality is none of my business, frankly.


Honestly, some of Led Zeppelin's songs are more "progressive" than "Closer To The Heart" and "Limelight", for example. And they are better too.

Well yeah if you use those songs to compare. What I am refering to when I say progressive is the style of the song and the characteristics which separate it from ordinary rock. "Progressive," to me, means the complexity of the song. "Close to the Edge," for example, by Yes, is like a thirty minute song with several major melody changes and bridges, while the average song by Zeppelin is the basic patented form of rock-- a chorus, a melody, a segway, and that's it. Rush has the same progressive tendency-- several albums consist of one song throughout the entire side of the album. The "progressive" aspect of these examples is the fact that the anatomy of the songs are far more advanced. That is how the "progressive" genre is identified.


I can't see how King Crimson is more popular than Genesis...

Sorry, I completely forgot about Genesis and you are right, along with Penis. However I would wager that the early Genesis with Gabriel wasn't as popular as Crimson....but I don't think either or us is willing to check for statistics. Genesis hit their hot period at the dawn of the eighties when Collins began writing the material.

Also, Genesis fans should check out "Brand X". A jazz-fusion band that Collins played drums for after Genesis.

Pink Floyd I consider to be "pop" that is slightly progressive. Their biggest obstacle was Mason, the drummer, and Waters playing bass. Both of them are mediocre musicians. Floyd is one of those bands that is great as a whole...with no one musician being terribly talented.

Tull is great, thank you Penis, I forgot about them too. But if you compare "greatest hits" between Tull and Yes, for example, you will see that Tull is out numbered.


Although perhaps the former three weren't quite so strictly "prog". Then again, neither were Rush and King Crimson... both are sometimes cited as "progressive metal".

We'll just have to disagree on the definitions of "progressive" then. And "metal" is neither here nor there....it is simply the element of being distorted and has nothing to do with composition.


but their singer's voice

Unfortunate yes. The same with Yes. People don't feel cool while listening to a guy that sounds like a fairy when he sings. I look past that and don't pay much attention to the vocals in the first place.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 03:02 pm
"Close to the Edge," for example, by Yes, is like a thirty minute song with several major melody changes and bridges, while the average song by Zeppelin is the basic patented form of rock-- a chorus, a melody, a segway, and that's it.
You couldn't have picked a worst example. In first place, "CTTE" doesn't even last 19 minutes. It's also an extended pop song. Pay attention to the structure. It's much more "normal" than, say, the infamous "Stairway To Heaven".

My understanding of Rush's history (keep in mind I haven't listened that much from them so I can't confirm this) is that they "made a couple of hard rock-ish, albums, then they went proggish, then they started sucking" or so. The point is...uh, I forgot. Dammit. Maybe I'll continue this post later.


Rush has the same progressive tendency-- several albums consist of one song throughout the entire side of the album. The "progressive" aspect of these examples is the fact that the anatomy of the songs are far more advanced. That is how the "progressive" genre is identified.

I'm still not fully convinced by your definition of "prog". There's more to it than this, such as influences, "themes", and the supposed need for "good musicianship", amongst other clichés.

[The Grey Blur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0_ENgptnqs&NR

pwned

[celtopunk]

THat was funny