Jump to content


Photo

Rush Heir Apparent?


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#21 stoopid

stoopid

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,253 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY

Posted 01 March 2017 - 01:50 PM

Rush Hair Apparent

 

Alex-Lifeson-Dave-Grohl.jpg

 

Umm.. no.   :P

 

As much as I respect Dave and the Foos for being a really solid (at times kick ass) rock band, they are definitely no Rush.  Zero innovation, musical chops from a guitarist standpoint aren't really there (good, not great), and drumming is more like Rush cover band caliber.

 

I think you were kidding anyway, but for reals.

 

Your Devin Townsend suggestion is more on par with a true Rush substitute, although one should argue he's consistently more metal than Rush ever were and certainly more than they ended up being in the last 25 years.


  • Three Eyes likes this
Putting the oOgEyMe back in Boogeymen.

#22 fenderjazz

fenderjazz

    Insert witty title here

  • Administrators
  • 5,124 posts
  • LocationNYC Area Suburbs

Posted 01 March 2017 - 02:40 PM

Umm.. no.   :P

 

As much as I respect Dave and the Foos for being a really solid (at times kick ass) rock band, they are definitely no Rush.  Zero innovation, musical chops from a guitarist standpoint aren't really there (good, not great), and drumming is more like Rush cover band caliber.

 

I think you were kidding anyway, but for reals.

 

Your Devin Townsend suggestion is more on par with a true Rush substitute, although one should argue he's consistently more metal than Rush ever were and certainly more than they ended up being in the last 25 years.

 

The Foo Fighters are something different, agree, though their love for Rush is acknowledged.  I do feel the Foos are the heir apparent to the hard rock throne.  They are the number one band in terms of still making hard rock music, getting mainstream airplay, being the top ticket.  They are the heir apparent to U2, AC/DC, Guns n Roses and Metallica as "America's biggest hard rock band".  Their Rush covers aren't bad of course, but they suffer vocally (as does just about every Rush cover).  Still, their exuberance, their love of playing and literally having open ended shows like they do make them heroes in my mind. They play every show until they are tired, sometimes yielding near 4 hour shows with covers, extended jams etc.  No encore ever, just play until they drop.



#23 stoopid

stoopid

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,253 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY

Posted 01 March 2017 - 03:20 PM

The Foo Fighters are something different, agree, though their love for Rush is acknowledged.  I do feel the Foos are the heir apparent to the hard rock throne.  They are the number one band in terms of still making hard rock music, getting mainstream airplay, being the top ticket.  They are the heir apparent to U2, AC/DC, Guns n Roses and Metallica as "America's biggest hard rock band".  Their Rush covers aren't bad of course, but they suffer vocally (as does just about every Rush cover).  Still, their exuberance, their love of playing and literally having open ended shows like they do make them heroes in my mind. They play every show until they are tired, sometimes yielding near 4 hour shows with covers, extended jams etc.  No encore ever, just play until they drop.

 

From a purely nuts and bolts perspective, as a musician, I disagree.  I've yet to meet a (serious) musician (not a teenage boy) who cites The Foos as their musical influence.  Even with a younger crowd, you still see Rush and many other bands referenced.  In 20 years I suspect Rush will still be on people's minds in the music world, and the fickle casual rock fan with have moved on to a couple dozen other Foo-like replacements.

 

There's a reason the Foos cover Rush - they are the students and Rush is their teacher.  Showing respect and admiration does not make them peers/equals.

 

There's a lot of shitty bands that draw big crowds.  I don't consider touring success a measure of greatness.  Metallica still draws and they are are far from their prime at this point.  if we were to measure greatness on a live show scale, Dream Theater and the complexity of their music pulled off live would take the crown in this Rush-like discussion.  But like Devin, they're mostly metal in a way Rush mostly was not, which is why I wouldn't consider them heir apparent.  Influenced by, but not Rush 2.0


Putting the oOgEyMe back in Boogeymen.

#24 scott14

scott14

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 571 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 01 March 2017 - 03:59 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think Mastodon might be the band to watch.  Their last four albums have all been experimental heavy prog rock, bending genres and time periods, shifting away from being strictly a metal band, and starting to incorporate some serious pop sensibility and melodic vocals into their music.  In terms of their evolution as a band I'd say they're somewhere around their Permanent Waves phase, tightening their songwriting and expanding their accessibility (not that they sound even remotely like Rush).

 

A few years ago I'd say vocals were their limitation, but with three vocalists in the band who've all been contentiously working on becoming better singers, they're starting to get pretty good even in that department.  The instrumental chops are there, all four members are excellent players, their songwriting has been improving and evolving steadily.  I'd also say another area where they mirror Rush is where each album is a total evolution from the last, unlike Opeth who seem stuck on one style for the past few albums.  I think their next album, Emperor Of Sand, produced by Brendan O'Brien, will be yet another step in their evolution.  Looking forward to its release on March 31, and I have tickets to see them at the Hammerstein Ballroom on May 11!


  • stoopid likes this

#25 fenderjazz

fenderjazz

    Insert witty title here

  • Administrators
  • 5,124 posts
  • LocationNYC Area Suburbs

Posted 01 March 2017 - 04:22 PM

I think that we all have different eras of Rush in mind when we choose our current "replacement" with a future in new tours and albums.  I think that's why it's such a complicated question that gets you so many different answers.  You're not going to find a band that hits it out of the park in all of the ways Rush did and does.  All bands evolve, but Rush's evolution went some pretty weird ways:

 

inception-1973 - Boogie Rock

Late 1974 - 1976 - Progressive metal

1977-1981 - Very progressive hard rock

1982-1984 - Progressive reggae/hard rock

1984-1989 - Keyboard era progressive synthpop

1990-1995 - Return of guitars to the forefront but progressive synthpop song structures

1996-1997 - Progressive hard rock

2002-2007 - Composite layered hard rock

2008-onward - Hard rock with elements from other eras


  • stoopid likes this

#26 scott14

scott14

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 571 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 01 March 2017 - 04:30 PM

I think that we all have different eras of Rush in mind when we choose our current "replacement" with a future in new tours and albums.  I think that's why it's such a complicated question that gets you so many different answers.  You're not going to find a band that hits it out of the park in all of the ways Rush did and does.  All bands evolve, but Rush's evolution went some pretty weird ways:

 

inception-1973 - Boogie Rock

Late 1974 - 1976 - Progressive metal

1977-1981 - Very progressive hard rock

1982-1984 - Progressive reggae/hard rock

1984-1989 - Keyboard era progressive synthpop

1990-1995 - Return of guitars to the forefront but progressive synthpop song structures

1996-1997 - Progressive hard rock

2002-2007 - Composite layered hard rock

2008-onward - Hard rock with elements from other eras

Which is why I like Mastodon for the heir apparent.  They've already cycled through at least 3 different stages of evolution, and showing no signs of stopping.  I'm predicting either this new album or their next after will be their Moving Pictures.  Crack The Skye by point of reference, prog rock tour de force that it is, was their 2112.  Mastodon is the only band right now on track to run a similar course as Rush did, in terms of musicianship and the ability to evolve, while being able to adhere to the fringes of mainstream accessibility.


  • fenderjazz likes this

#27 MrSkeptic

MrSkeptic

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,054 posts
  • LocationNorthwesterly

Posted 01 March 2017 - 08:54 PM

If they go the way of Opeth and get rid of the growly stuff, that would be a good thing, imo.


They said I could be anything, so I became a disappointment.

 

 


#28 scott14

scott14

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 571 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 02 March 2017 - 05:43 AM

If they go the way of Opeth and get rid of the growly stuff, that would be a good thing, imo.

Have you given their last album, Once More 'Round The Sun, a proper listen?  Lots of melodic vocals with sometimes almost pop-like hooks, and even the growly stuff has mellowed mostly to to some husky barking...   ;)



#29 MrSkeptic

MrSkeptic

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,054 posts
  • LocationNorthwesterly

Posted 02 March 2017 - 06:25 AM

Have you given their last album, Once More 'Round The Sun, a proper listen?  Lots of melodic vocals with sometimes almost pop-like hooks, and even the growly stuff has mellowed mostly to to some husky barking...   ;)

I haven't, but will.


They said I could be anything, so I became a disappointment.

 

 


#30 Valium

Valium

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,100 posts

Posted 02 March 2017 - 10:08 AM

GWAR, cause like Rush in the 70s they wear ludicrous outfits.


  • Three Eyes likes this

#31 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,732 posts

Posted 02 March 2017 - 12:47 PM

^ lol.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#32 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,732 posts

Posted 02 March 2017 - 01:08 PM

 

This almost sounds like One Direction-esque prog the more I listen to it. I don't mean that in a bad way either. I find combinations like this interesting. The chorus sounds a lot like the chorus of a recent pop song I can't recall the name of. I doubt prog-rock has received this commercial of a treatment since Yes's 90125.

 

And the singer looks refreshingly not ready for corporate rock prime-time. 


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#33 stoopid

stoopid

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,253 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY

Posted 02 March 2017 - 01:39 PM

And the singer looks refreshingly not ready for corporate rock prime-time. 

 

Haha true!

 

Previously mentioned Frost also incorporates a lot of pop elements into their music, but it remains distinctively progressive/innovative.

 

Haken are generally heavier than that one track.  I used it as an example of their Rushier moments (melodic), they have plenty of harder music nerd stuff too.

 

And if you like a small dose of dubstep in your prog :P :

 


Putting the oOgEyMe back in Boogeymen.

#34 sir clinksalot

sir clinksalot

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 591 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 06:05 PM

To me, so many "Prog" bands just fall into this formula of pretentiousness and a singer that sings in a very high voice. 

Like, by all means I should absolutely LOVE DT. I have all of their albums, just because as a fan of "Prog" I'm supposed to. But they never really did it for me. And sadly it seems like a lot of newer Prog bands are falling into that same trap. 

Yes, I know complaining about singers with a high voice on a Rush message board is kind of weird, but as was said above, Rush knew how to change with the times. As the boys have even said, there was never one musical style that was "Rush" and so many bands just don't seem to be able to do that and keep their integrity. 

 

I like the inclusion of Haken above, I've been a fan for awhile. As I said above, Haken, Frost* and The Dear Hunter are probably three of my favorite current "Prog" bands because they don't follow the set formula. 


  • Three Eyes likes this

- Gregg

 

For the latest Theme Park related news, check out my site: http://www.parkjourney.com/


#35 chemistry1973

chemistry1973

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,862 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:17 PM

Haken's drummer is so, so fucking great.



#36 chemistry1973

chemistry1973

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,862 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:31 PM

 

5:50. Heaven.



#37 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,732 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:30 PM

To me, so many "Prog" bands just fall into this formula of pretentiousness and a singer that sings in a very high voice. 

Like, by all means I should absolutely LOVE DT. I have all of their albums, just because as a fan of "Prog" I'm supposed to. But they never really did it for me. And sadly it seems like a lot of newer Prog bands are falling into that same trap.

 

I never understood why DT and similar prog-metal bands are compared to Rush as these bands tend to have completely different sounds and creative objectives. Sounds to me like prog-metal is an entrenched genre while Rush famously defied genres.

 

Rush arguably invented prog-metal with 2112 but there's a reason they're not regarded as a prog-metal band. They were already exploring new territory with their very next album. Imo, it would be more appropriate to compare DT and their like to Rush's 2112, not the actual band Rush.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#38 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,732 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:51 PM

Thinking about it, the only band that had as malleable a sound as Rush's over the course of their career at the major label level would be the Beatles. Look at the Beatles from '63 to '70 and Rush from '74 to '82 and tell me I'm wrong about that. That's how high the bar is to be Rush's heir apparent.


  • chemistry1973 likes this

Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#39 fenderjazz

fenderjazz

    Insert witty title here

  • Administrators
  • 5,124 posts
  • LocationNYC Area Suburbs

Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:52 PM

^^^

DT to me has the musicianship.  Musicianship is important, but still, you can take it any number of ways.  The vocals and bass ruin it for me.  Don't get me wrong, they are talented, but the bass is busy but lower in the mix and the singer is more light-metal than I like with this kind of music.

 

To me, the typical Rush "formula" would be a strong sense of urgency, a song that goes Rrrrrrraaaannggg! all the way through, with musical complexity, elongated solo section, atypical choices made, heavy arpeggios, lightning fast drum fills and absorbs some of the qualities of other music popular at the time.  They deviate from that "formula" often but ultimately they have been a product of their environment too.

 

I think the genre of prog is really an odd collection of people who don't necessarily sound like each other.  Rush's music is like the heaviest of Yes compositions (Heart of the Sunrise, Roundabout, etc) with more of an edge to it without sounding too metal.



#40 fenderjazz

fenderjazz

    Insert witty title here

  • Administrators
  • 5,124 posts
  • LocationNYC Area Suburbs

Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:54 PM

Thinking about it, the only band that had as malleable a sound as Rush's over the course of their career at the major label level would be the Beatles. Look at the Beatles from '63 to '70 and Rush from '74 to '82 and tell me I'm wrong about that. That's how high the bar is to be Rush's heir apparent.

 

But they still sounded like The Beatles and Rush.  That's the thing.  The character is still there.  The guy singing and playing "I Saw Her Standing There" is the same guy singing and playing "Helter Skelter" and "Eleanor Rigby".  It still sounds like him, bass and vocals.  Same for John, George and Ringo.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users