The above could be said of rock music in general, although my definition of prog-rock is pretty specific in that it's a hybrid of rock music combined with--usually--at least 2 of the following: avant-garde music, classical music, jazz, electronic music and occasionally world or folk styles, generally bypassing the "usual" rock influences of pop, blues, country and R&B. Rush hardly fits into this catagory as they're more a combination of hard rock with progressive rock, meaning they don't necessarily share the same influences as the original prog-rock groups, insomuch as they tried to incorporate the general feel of those artists after the pioneering work had already been done, if you catch my drift. The best prog is created by musicians with strong foundations and formal training in at least some of the genres they're trying to fuse together, while the weakest prog tends to be from rock and pop musicians attempting to sound like the above genres without any actual knowledge of how they work. Of course, I'm not suggesting that Rush has no understanding of music outside rock, but their music tends to evoke a sense that they're simply trying to emulate the earlier prog bands within a hard rock concept rather than trying to fuse any of the above genres in new or more interesting ways. Of course, I still like a lot of their music, I just think of it as more within the hard rock realm than prog.

i think it's hard to be young and enjoy rush.

i always hated rush: the singer has a horrible voice, and i don't care how virtuoso they are, their music is boring, unpassionate and soft.

i hate rush and i am happy to find a space where i can say it...rush sucks and neil peart sucks too.


i
i
i
i
i
i
i

Hang on now, pop, blues and R&B? While I've yet to hear a prog song with country in it, the other three I've heard on many occasions. Blues? Ask Gnidrolog. As for pop and R&B, pick up King Crimson's Three of a Perfect pair. R&B? Download the song "People".

Progressive music is extremely difficult to classify, due mostly to its unfaithfulness to any of the genres in which it may dabble. Some bands labeled as "progressive" stick to certain styles. These bands are most likely emulating their prog heroes. They can go no further than the band that they have emulated have gone, and therefore cease to be progressive until they can draw something new. While these bands chuff along with styles previously explored and discarded, there will always be another one pushing the limit with something alien, bizarre, exotic... different. It's called "progressive" for a reason.

I didn't say that progressive music is devoid of those influences, I just said that the primary distinguishing factor is the incorporation of the genres I mentioned; that they are essential elements, not exclusive.

You don't need to lecture me on prog. It's most of what I listen to in the rock world. I have about 900 records exclusively prog-related, and it's one of my all-time favorite styles of music. The term "progressive" itself has been misued so much as to mean absolutely nothing at this point in time, which is why we have the many subgenres like RIO, Kraut-Rock, Canturbery, Symphonic, Zeuhl, etc to sort them by intent and influence. However, no progressive rock artist is so "bizzare" or "unusual" as to be untraceable in influence; everything has roots in something else to one degree or other....the majority of German bands of the late '60s and early '70s were hugely influenced by experimental electronic composers; the bands from the area of Canterbury, England had a very pronounced psychedelic Jazz influence; the most successful Prog bands all tended to be influenced by European Romantic and Classical music, while the RIO bands were all interested in modern classical composers, and so on and so forth. Very few if any prog-rock bands or artists have contributed anything completely new to music, insomuch as they have found unique combinations of influence that create new aesthetic variations. Given the above, you should be able to get where I was coming from. Most, if not all, of the original progressive rock artists were all heavily influenced by classical music and jazz of one style or other, and were usually just adapting their principles, concepts, and methods to rock and roll. This isn't intended to put it down, as I love unique combinations of music, but to call something progressive rock is to essentially state that it's music that contains these influences. Anything else, you simply call "experimental rock", because Progressive Rock was a term meant to apply to a specific movement or rock with a specific area of influence. Modern prog is simply music that shares this same area of influence.

Well...I just disagree with most of what has been said on the negative side of Rush...for them to do what they did AT THE TIME that they did it is/was phenomenal...2112 is a masterpiece and Rush brought conceptual ideas into music when nobody (very few) was (were) even really considering it. The complexity of the lyrics and how they fit into the songs is very impressive.
The Priests Of The Temples Of Syrinx disproves any notion that Rush's music is " boring, unpassionate and soft "...

Furthermore, to say that Neil Peart 'sucks' is an open admission to 'not knowing what the fvck you are talking about'.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion...and if your opinion is that the earth is flat then your opinion is wrong.

The earth is not flat and Peart does not suck.

The End.

Um...Rush were second wave at best. Their prog-influenced work came in after 1975, a point in musical history when prog-rock was actually nearing it's last legs as a popular style, so this statement is rediculous. Stylisticly, Rush rests on the efforts of hundreds of earlier, and better prog groups.

This is like calling Dinosaur Jr one of the founding fathers of punk.

Me--- ---Quandammod

I think I'll stop trying to argue, if it's all right with you, sir.

That's gotta be the truest thing I've heard all day.

I'm not trying to be hostile or anything. This is a music discussion forum. Did you come here to listen to everyone agree with you? What fun would that be?

You're welcome to have your own tastes, I just enjoy disecting them. Also, I enjoy a wide variety of music, and I do like Rush, so don't take it personally. I just don't rank them as highly as some may, and I try to articulate my reasons for that as best I can.

I'm glad you enjoy prog-rock, and I hope you stick around.

You really should take into account where both of them are from. You might as well as insulted Canada, as well.

Rush started out as yet another Zeppelin clone, and not even a interesting one, but quickly changed course.

They put out some classic material up until Moving Pictures, afterwhich not so interesting. It was Jump the Shark time with Time Stand Still, and goodbye when they tried to cash in on Rap.

Back in the 2112 and Moving Pictures days, they were killer live.

They are still a good live, but I have seen them more then enough times; so, unless they release something of real interest...

The best thing about Rush to me, was Lee's bass playing. It's Lee's bass playing, which really shines on XYZ. While Peart is overrated, Alex Lifeson was really underrated.

Hemispheres was really underrated.