Rush/Prog/etc.

[Lucas Bleicher <lbleicher@yahoo.com>]

Mark R. Leaman wrote:
 
> I alway endeavor to be correct when I label
> something. And we've got to call this stuff
> something; it can't all be RnR!

I think that the only problem with that label is with
the new "prog" bands of today, such as Anekdoten,
Änglagård, etc. As their style is based on something
that was being done in the seventies, then it's
strange to call them "progressive". But, as you said,
we have to call them something. So, if what was being
done in the seventies was called progressive, then if
their style is similar to that, so let's call them
prog too.

As for the seventies bands, I think it's fair to call
them progressive, because bands such as Gentle Giant,
King Crimson, Jethro Tull, etc, were surely making
rock musically richer. Lots said that they were
spoiling rock, which, for them, was a style that HAD
to be musically simple, but I really don't care about
that. If a band puts out good music, to me it's fine.
I really don't know why there are extremists that
bother so much with that (e.g. punk fans).

> King Crimson in the 80's and beyond, yeah. Their
> earlier stuff dips deep
> into Minstrel music (British Folk? Medieval?) and
> Jazz. Much like Tull.

Have you heard the three albuns with Bruford and John
Wetton? They are far from similar to Tull...
  
> For me, the 70's after 1976 belonged to Punk.

Yeah, but but before that the most creative
innovations came from prog rock. And although
listening to punk rock is fun (I like to play Ramones'
songs when I jam with my friends), we have to admit
that, musically, there's absolutely nothing new on the
style. I always was bothered when someone said that
the who was the first punk band, because the who,
musically, was infinite times superior to punk bands,
even on their simple songs. Which punk band has bass
lines such as The Who has?

> By the effect it has on you. No song has moved me
> more than Sunrise, and there's many many more. No 
> songs stimulate my imagination and intellect (as
> such) more than Townshend's. 

Yeah, but different people react different with songs.
Would it be wrong if some person was more stimulated
by a Tull song than by a Who song? It's a personal
thing. Both Tull and Who have songs that really
stimulates the imagination and intellect, but one
might prefer one or the other...

> Every band would have been better with Keith, even >
The Nelsons.

Well, I think that a band such as King Crimson would
be terribly awful with Keith Moon on drums. Bill
Bruford on The Who would be a disaster too, for that
matter. I used to think the same thing some time ago
(I kept imagining Keith Moon with Beatles, Keith Moon
with Jimi Hendrix, etc). Most hard rock bands would be
really better with Keith Moon on drums, but, on
different styles, the thing just wouldn't function
well.

> And so on. It's just hard for a song like Limelight
> to get you jumping around like I'm Free does (for
> instance), know what I mean?

You chose a bad example. Both bands have songs to jump
around (I'm Free, Bastille Day) or not (Limelight,
Tatoo)

> We can take it piece by piece...has ANY Rush album
> impressed you as much as Quad or WN or Tommy, or LAL
> for that matter?

"Hemispheres" and "Exit... Stage Left" did...

> These are essential Rock albums, and while it's to a
> slightly lessor degree I'd also kick SO and MG
> in there too. For a complete Rock collection, one
> MUST own these as surely as they should have Sgt.
> Pepper's or Exile On Main Street or PJ's Ten for
> that matter. I can't think of any Rush album which
> would fit in this catagory.

Now you've come to a personal matter. Although to me
it's pretty absurd to have a list of must-have rock
albums with an album from PJ and none from Rush, you
think it's alright. It's a matter of tastes. To me,
the notion that Pearl Jam is more important than Rush
on rock's history is kinda strange...

> Ah, you shouldn't have asked me that one. Because
> I'm sure, I have conviction on this, that The Who
> influenced Rock music more than any other single
> band.

Right, they probably did. I totally agree with you on
that.

>> different from that of Rush, which I also think is
>> original, and that wasn't being done by others on
>> their time.

> Rush has elements of bands like ELP (albeit with
> guitar instead of a keyboard) and Zeppelin, not to
> mention Derek And The Dominos (check out
> their almost martial version of Hendrix's Little
> Wing).

Now we don't agree. Maybe there could be some
similarities with ELP (both were called prog-rock,
there must be something similar), but Zeppelin? Rush
was influenced by Zeppelin on their first album which
is composed mainly of R&R numbers. After Peart joined
the band, their style was continually going to a very
different direction, so that after their first live
album, it's impossible to find any Zep influence. And
Derek and The Dominos???
Is there any similarity on any Zep, D&tD or even an
ELP song to Rush numbers such as The Trees or La Villa
Strangiato?

> Maybe, but I've heard no one do Moon's style at ALL
> and I have heard both Bruford and Peart covered.

The three guys were covered. That's expectable, they
were very influential drummers.

> I guess Mitch Mitchell came the closest to Keith,
> right off the top of my head, but he was a LOT
> sloppier.

It's not impossible to play Keith's style (and not
Peart or Bruford, for that matter). I've played with a
guy that could cover the three styles perfectly well.
What makes them important is not that they do what
no-other-man-on-earth can do, but that their style
influentiated thousands.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/