Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Neil Peart RIP

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    Keyboard player dressed as wizard - lacking

    Comment


      #52
      Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post
      Can we agree on "heavy prog rock," because if we go with "Canadian power trio" we're just going to hear from Anvil's lawyers.
      Triumph's as well.

      Comment


        #53
        Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
        But that's what I mean about "trappings", you're not talking about how the music sounds.

        That's before we get on to the fact that most of your checklist above applies to a wide range of heavy metal acts who aren't prog either.
        But those are pretty much the defining characteristics of prog rock. It's heavy rock music played by musicians who spend a lot of time on trying to be as classical as possible. I'm not sure why you're so offended by the genre label, it's meant as a descriptor not an insult.

        But even on your terms Rush sound a lot more like Yes or King Crimson than they sound like Black Sabbath or AC/DC

        Comment


          #54
          Their first - eponymous - album is Led Zep, made by nice people.

          Comment


            #55
            Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post

            Can we agree on "heavy prog rock," because if we go with "Canadian power trio" we're just going to hear from Anvil's lawyers.
            Originally posted by WOM View Post

            Triumph's as well.

            Anvil were a four piece for the majority of their career, weren't they? They certainly were on the few times I saw them live when they had a something of a profile in the early Eighties. I understand they may have been a trio when the movie was made about them but I've never seen it.

            Triumph certainly are/were a "Canuck Power Trio" but that's because as far as I am aware they were something of a spare Rush.

            Comment


              #56
              Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
              Anvil were a four piece for the majority of their career, weren't they? They certainly were on the few times I saw them live when they had a something of a profile in the early Eighties. I understand they may have been a trio when the movie was made about them but I've never seen it.

              TBH, you'd probably know better than me. I think I saw them in the early-80s, supporting either Motorhead or possibly Girlschool, and I thought that they were a three-piece then but it was a long time ago!

              Comment


                #57
                I think I saw them on Motorhead's 'Another Perfect Tour' in 1983 (though it may have been the Iron Fist tour a year earlier) and they were definitely a four piece then and the couple of other times I saw them in that era.

                Comment


                  #58
                  Hmmmmm, well the Motorhead gig was indeed on the Another Perfect Tour, er, tour, so I guess my memory is playing tricks on me.

                  Comment


                    #59
                    Since WOM mentioned the Chili Peppers



                    Obviously it's not ultimately up to Rush whether they're classified as prog rock or not. They shouldn't be reduced to that label, but I doubt it hasn't stuck for good at this point.

                    Comment


                      #60
                      On how to define prog rock, I would also take into account the literal meaning of progressive, beyond whatever trappings are associated with it. Alex Lifeson seems to be talking about a particular sound that he didn't think accurately described Rush, who were hard rock. But considered more as a mindset than a sound or particular lyrical subjects, I think the prog label definitely applies to Rush by their third and fourth albums.

                      For what it's worth, here's the short article on prog rock from Grove Music Online, i.e. the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, which is the standard reference in the Anglosphere.

                      A development of UK pop music that began in 1967 with the sonic exploration of the Beatles' Strawberry Fields Forever and the classical allusions of Procol Harum's A Whiter Shade of Pale, and continued as an active underground scene in many parts of Europe into the late 1990s. It was predicated on an achieved maturity of UK rock, divorced from American precursors, an ideology of free expression and a complementary striving for legitimation often founded on the appropriation of classical referents. Features include the escape from the format of the three-minute pop single, e.g. Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven and Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick, references and allusions to, and borrowings from, art music as in Emerson, Lake and Palmer's Pictures at an Exhibition or Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, and the integration of free jazz techniques shown in King Crimson's 21st-Century Schizoid Man and Van der Graaf Generator's Man-Erg. Lyrics often display a pretentious quasi-mystical quality, as in Yes's Awaken, and frequently eschew narrative, e.g. in Knots by Gentle Giant.
                      These experimental approaches were enabled by growing studio sophistication, a general shift from a working-class, dancing market to a student, listening market, and an economic boom, which gave the major labels the space to invest in artists and relax their hold over product and marketing. The struggle for legitimation frequently led to critical charges of pretentiousness. Punk was perceived in Britain as the necessary antidote.
                      The above is approaching it both as a set of musical decisions and as a mindset, i.e. maturation, free expression, striving for legitimation, escaping the 3-minute single, studio experimentation, and a more educated target audience. Even Rush would admit that their 70s albums could get pretentious.


                      Comment


                        #61
                        Debates about what is or isn’t prog is the most prog thing that ever progged.

                        Comment


                          #62
                          Originally posted by Bruno View Post
                          Even Rush would admit that their 70s albums could get pretentious.
                          That or they really are the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx. Who's to say?

                          Comment


                            #63
                            Well I for one can well believe that strumming a guitar could bring down an evil empire by sparking an intergalactic invasion.

                            Comment


                              #64
                              Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
                              Debates about what is or isn’t prog is the most prog thing that ever progged.
                              Hmm, the prog label has never struck me as being one that prog fans were particularly invested in, unlike say metal. Label debates happen across the spectrum anyway. Pop vs. rock, metal vs. not metal, classic rock vs. not, "what is alternative?", etc. To me it's interesting to cross-examine them (what they suggest, why they appeared) and boring to insist on them.

                              Comment


                                #65
                                I wasn't around in the late 60s/early 70s, so maybe at that time the "prog" label was more a badge of honor or something. I've always thought it had a slightly pejorative overtone. "Progressive rock" sounds pretentious and "prog rock" sounds kind of dorky, to me anyway. Genres are often saddled with their labels by writers and critics.

                                Comment


                                  #66
                                  Well, I’ve finally had a listen. Maybe if I’d heard them before 1977 I might have got into it. But now? Nope, I’m out.

                                  Comment


                                    #67
                                    So in sum, early Rush especially has some features consistent with the label as it's widely understood, but who really cares, the end.

                                    Comment


                                      #68
                                      Originally posted by Toby Gymshorts View Post

                                      No, no you wouldn't. He denounced all the Rayndian shite years ago, and was a committed socialist. Can we not?
                                      Apologies, that was meant to read a bit more past tense than it obviously did. Having said that, I didn't realised that he was an actual socialist later on, as nice a guy as he was.

                                      By the way, as far as Canadian power trios go, it's Rush, Nomeansno, Triumph.

                                      Comment


                                        #69
                                        Originally posted by Bordeaux Education View Post
                                        Having said that, I didn't realised that he was an actual socialist later on, as nice a guy as he was.
                                        Not sure that he was a socialist. As per Wiki:

                                        In 2005 he described himself as a "left-leaning libertarian", and is often cited as a libertarian celebrity. In July 2011, Peart reiterated those views, calling himself a "bleeding-heart libertarian".

                                        Comment


                                          #70
                                          ....and if you read anything he's written he's a socialist. What he called himself was as flexible as his own worldview.

                                          His "Libertarianism" would be unrecognisable to the "don't tread on me" crowd.

                                          Comment


                                            #71
                                            Originally posted by Toby Gymshorts View Post
                                            ....and if you read anything he's written he's a socialist. What he called himself was as flexible as his own worldview.

                                            His "Libertarianism" would be unrecognisable to the "don't tread on me" crowd.

                                            Fine. I haven't and if you have and his views are socialist I'm happy to accept your interpretation.

                                            Comment


                                              #72
                                              Two years.

                                              Still missed. RIP, Prof.

                                              Comment


                                                #73
                                                They've chosen the week of the anniversary to release these babies :

                                                Comment


                                                  #74
                                                  Oh, yeah, that's shit. But - and I know, I know - they're keeping the brand alive. Ugh. Then again, they're true to their word in that there's no more (Rush) music without Neil.

                                                  Still, If i had the money and space I'd definitely buy one.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #75
                                                    Oh, I'd get one like a shot. In fact, I think I know a group of people I might be able to persuade to get one.

                                                    The video that follows the one I posted is more detailed and gives the impression that Peart's drum fills are used as the sound for some of the bumpers.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X