Was Rush the last stadium-level successful prog rock trio?

Indeed.

 

I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but as someone who was listening to lots of prog by the early 70s and someone who has been in prog (and fusion) bands since the mid 70s, the primary motivation wasn't to "progress rock in artistry and seriousness." The primary motivations were (a) that the musicians in question weren't only into rock; they had significant interests in other types of music, too, sometimes stemming from their education as musicians (private lessons and school instruction from a classical tradition, or jazz, etc.) and (b) the musicians in question found playing I-IV-V progressions in 4/4, verse-chorus-verse-chorus, etc. boring. They wanted to play music that they didn't find boring to play, something they'd find more challenging and fun, something that incorporated a bit of their other interests, too, but at the same time they were still rock fans, with a grounding/background in playing rock on their instruments. (Or for jazz fusion, they were more jazz fans with a grounding/background in playing jazz on their instruments; jazz fusion being the jazz flipside of progressive rock--it was made by jazz musicians with other significant musical interests who found it boring or too restrictive conceptually to play rhythm changes, trade fours, etc.)

 

A lot of comments people make about Rush's stylistic evolution makes me wonder if they're really familiar with Caress of Steel.

 

To clarify my earlier comment, what I mean is, Rush at heart was always a hard rock band. Throughout their 40-year career, hard rock was pretty much the one constant (even though the production of certain albums made it seemed to rock less); prog was not. To me, they were neither one of the originators of the genre nor a band that was prog for most or even the majority of their career. I would put prog in the second tier descriptors of Rush. Whenever someone asks me, "What are some examples of prog bands," I never think to mention Rush, because I think of them more as a hard rock band than a prog one.

Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to go listen to Caress of Steel for the 503rd time.

 

Wow, you and I just see them differently. For almost 40 years now, I've categorized 1970s Rush with bands like Yes, ELP, King Crimson, and Kansas, never with bands that epitomize hard rock to me, like Alice Cooper, Kiss, Van Halen, AC/DC and Aerosmith.

Far be it from me to rely on Wiki as a generally reliable source, but this description of classic Rush nails it to me, and is the very definition of 'progressive' as well:

"Rush is known for its musicianship, complex compositions, and eclectic lyrical motifs drawing heavily on science fiction, fantasy, and philosophy."

 

Prog trio anyone?........

 

Yeah, but SO much sequencing when they play live. At least the couple times I heard them (years ago), I honestly felt like the poor drummer and bass-player were kind of robotic, and it clear everything was played to a click-track.

Maybe that's just the norm these days. Great band, not saying otherwise (I've got 6-8 of their CD's, and my wife's a big fan). But 'live' at least, they don't feel like a real trio to me.

 

And Animals is often thought of as being Floyd's most 'proggy' album, of their entire output (or so I've read any number of times).

 

Lifeson was influenced by Andy Summers of The Police for awhile there, I would say. Rush is a hard band to pigeonhole. Lots of albums, lots of changes in there. Took me quite a while to get used to Geddy Lee's voice.

 

Ha! I was being a bit naughty when I referenced Muse, I find the whole thread a bit odd. I've never seen Muse or given them much time, but they do play stadiums, they are a trio, and they do throw in elements of prog to my ears.
Personally I love Rush, they were the first band I ever saw live, in Newcastle City Hall back in 1979. I followed them move up to arenas, but I'm glad I never had to go to a stadium. And I don't think of them as prog, they are just Rush, love 'em or hate 'em!
NP

 

I am assuming here that the OP actually meant "arena level" when he said "stadium level" and the answer there is, no, they were not. Marillion came well after Rush (formed 1979) and has played successfully at the arena level for some time. Unless the original poster actually literally meant "prog rock trio" in which case, there are so very few actual prog rock trios that timeliness (first, last, whatever) isn't really a relevant factor. Everyone in this thread needs to get out the house more often. Myself included!

 

While I hear what you are saying, Peart pretty much chucked the science fiction and fantasy stuff by the time the 80's started, so like their prog era, that stuff was only around for a small percentage of their history.

And it is worth saying that prog rock does not have the market cornered on musicianship.

 

Alt-J is as much a prog trio as they are anything else. I saw them play The Shrine Auditorium last summer. While not quite yet a stadium - it is the very same place that Bowie appeared the last time he was in LA, so very, very large.
This band is more Gentle Giant than they are Rush; incredible, pastoral harmonies abound. Plus the drummer rarely pounds away on 8th notes - in fact, I don't believe he even has cymbals in his set up, if so, few. Refreshing.
Really excellent band, that genuinely do it all themselves. A fresh sound, definitely worth investigation.

 

Sounds like that was written by someone who stopped listening to Rush after 1978. They became so much more than that.

To me, they were a hard rock band with "Prog" elements. They were "progressive" in that they were almost always moving forward. There really weren't any other bands that did what they did (and certainly not as successful as they did it.) I've always thought this band was an anomaly and pretty unique. They charted their own course.

When pinned down, Geddy has always said the Rush aesthetic was somewhat similar to The Who.

 

Based on this clip?
These guys sound like a rock band to me, but maybe I just have a skewed definition of what rock is. It was enjoyable but I din't find it really "out there" at all. But then I'm not one to get to hung up on definitions either.

 

Probly shouldn't have quoted me here....love Rush

 

You're absolutely correct. A hard rock band with prog leanings!

 

Alt-J is not Prog.

 

What in the hell is happening in this thread...?

 

Prog = Muse, Pink Floyd, Moody Blues, Rush, dont know about them being Prog. Definitely ELP, Genesis, King Crimson.
As to the point saw Muse at 2 stadiums , The Emirates Stadium ( Arsenal Soccer Stadium) and the Reading Festival,

 

What exactly are "prog leanings" ?

 

Flowing scarves and caftans.

 

One leg is a bit shorter than the other so that they walk in 7/8.

 

kimonos

 

I agree. Green Day has and never will be considered prog.