Blue Moon Top 100 Bands Artists - Full List of Artists (pg 287)

[HateUefaLoveCity]

Ain't nobody just like Rodri, makes me happy makes me feel this way

Kyle walker fast as fuck he gets the blues excited plays for city on the right and he hates man United

Cancelo woahhhh
Cancelo woahhhh
Hes solid at the back
He's flying in attack

When I see mahrez running down the wing, I just can't get enough I just can't get enough, he plays it to bernardo and switches it to Kev, I just can't get enough I just can't get enough, goes one on one and I fall in love and i just can't seem to get enough of du du du du du du du riyad mahrez

There's a couple

 

[ChicagoBlue]

He’s here
He’s there
He’s every fuckin where
Kyle Wal-ker (OR Super Kyle)
Kyle Wal-ker! (Super Kyle!)

Sometimes, the oldies are the best!

 

[OB1]

I would humbly suggest the last three are essential elements in making them that, that they themselves have often referred to their music as progressive, that many Rush fanatics would describe them that way, that everything from Fly By Night through Hemispheres is quite clearly prog as classically defined, that “La Villa Strangiato” was specifically written as a send up of their progressive past as an exclamation point before their change in direction (again their own words) and that Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures are more prog than King Crimson’s or Yes’s early 80s output.

Yes went AOR in the Early 80's.

Anyway, you are trying to have a debate about something that is not for debating.

Let me be quite clear, it does not matter how anyone else classifies Rush. They were a power trio when I got into them. All The Words' A Stage was my introduction to them and that is not a Prog album. They were a heavy rock band that composed some epic tracks.

The first time I saw Rush on their first UK tour (and I saw every UK tour) the audience was a rock not Prog audience, people were on their feet and rushing to the front, That was no Prog gig; it was quite different to the Yes gig I went to not too long after.

I've already said they did some proggy tracks but so many of their songs aren't. However, the simple fact is that I never thought of them as Prog so I can't go back and change that.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Got 3 of those. They’re all female and they’re all American……

Sleater-Kinney?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Sleater-Kinney?

Lucinda Williams, Nicole Atkins, Allison Moorer……

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Rush aren’t Prog. Prog doesn’t define them.
They’ve done prog-like stuff if you want a label on music but they’ve also done reggae if you want to go down that path. They’re a rock band.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Rush aren’t Prog. Prog doesn’t define them.
They’ve done prog-like stuff if you want a label on music but they’ve also done reggae if you want to go down that path. They’re a rock band.

Then so is every other band the crowd here is claiming are prog — Genesis, Yes and King Crimson.

Once again, despite protestations here, I cannot shake the sneaking suspicion I have that prog fans view prog as a “superior” genre musically to other hybrid forms of rock and roll. It’s “more complex”, “more difficult to play”, “more intellectual”, etc. etc.

The one case you could make — which no one has so far here — is that they tried to recreate their recorded sound live as opposed to improvising.

Would it help if Rush had been English? What if they dropped the periodic sense of humo(u)r they had? Maybe if they’d cycled through 63 members over 20 years? All those may have categorized them as prog I guess.

The very first band that shows up when you Google “prog bands” — at least in America (and I’m sure Canada) is fucking Rush.

My other sneaking suspicion is that this is a UK/North America thing, and since Rush never inflicted fucking “Abacab” on my country, they’ll probably always be more prog than Genesis to us. At least they didn’t completely sell out their roots, whether prog or not.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Yes went AOR in the Early 80's.

Anyway, you are trying to have a debate about something that is not for debating.

Let me be quite clear, it does not matter how anyone else classifies Rush. They were a power trio when I got into them. All The Words' A Stage was my introduction to them and that is not a Prog album. They were a heavy rock band that composed some epic tracks.

The first time I saw Rush on their first UK tour (and I saw every UK tour) the audience was a rock not Prog audience, people were on their feet and rushing to the front, That was no Prog gig; it was quite different to the Yes gig I went to not too long after.

I've already said they did some proggy tracks but so many of their songs aren't. However, the simple fact is that I never thought of them as Prog so I can't go back and change that.

ATWAS is a live album a quarter of which is off their first record, which isn’t prog for sure.

Look, in the end you’re right and it doesn’t matter to me really, except in that more than one poster has expressed a relative diffidence to less musically-sophisticated bands relative to “prog”.

But Rush apparently can’t hang in that elite company despite being together longer, being more prolific, selling more records than all but Genesis (who have been pop not prog for 40 years), demonstrating technical musicianship that IMO is near-equivalent if not better depending on instrument/artist and being called prog by themselves, their fans and generally speaking the musical press for their duration. That’s annoying to someone who loves them as much as I do (at least who loves 12 years of their output as much as I do).

 

[hilts]

I can work out the 15 but not the order this is tough

 

[hilts]

Ha ha I think I own or owned a minimum of a third of the records on that prog countdown on the other thread.

For me, my go to prog band as popularly defined is and always will be Rush. After that, Yes, assuming we don't count Pink Floyd as prog (which I don't). After that Genesis. Then KC.

Shit Kc and the sunshine band forgot them

Off to edit list:-)