Are RUSH actually Prog?

verslibre wrote: Cristi wrote: verslibre wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: I understand there are MANY artists who probably shouldn't be here. I would like to see Santana, Chicago, Steely Dan and many others kicked off the site even though i love many albums from all three. Kick Steely Dan, change Vangelis to Crossover, and we're good!  Vangelis in crossover? Why? Progressive electronic is not right for that?  I wouldn't mind (better than Prog Related), but Vangelis also plays drums, bass, piano, organ, you name it. He's not just electronic.

verslibre wrote: Vangelis is Prog Related, while Alan Parsons Project is Crossover Prog. VANGELIS discography and reviews (progarchives.com)

nick_h_nz wrote: richardh wrote: Prog now has a much wider definition but in the seventies I don't remember them being considered ''prog'' but then neither were Pink Floyd!! Nowadays I would say everything they did from 1975-1978 easily fits the wider definition. After than it's more 'arty' and pop rock before they turned full circle back to being a straight hard rock band.  Progressive didn’t have the meaning then that we have instilled in it now, as is evidenced by the cuttings in the booklets for the Krimson 30th anniversary series, where several “progressive charts” are included. For example this one, dated 18 Dec 1971, listing “the week’s best-selling 15 progressive albums”. The artists? 1. Led Zeppelin 2. ELP 3. King Crimson 4. Yes 5. John Lennon 6. Rod Stewart 7. Isaac Hayes 8. Pink Floyd (someone refuting your suggestion that they weren’t considered prog) 9. Wings 10. The Who 11. Cat Steven’s 12. Commander Cody and his Lost Planet Airmen (who? Sounds prog, though! 😜) 13. Santana 14. “New Riders of the Purple Sage” - Various Artists 15= The Doors 15= Traffic Now there’s plenty there that is in PA as either prog or prog-related, but clearly progressive in the ‘70s meant something different than we think of it now.

Cristi wrote: SteveG wrote: Cristi wrote: verslibre wrote: Vangelis is Prog Related, while Alan Parsons Project is Crossover Prog. VANGELIS discography and reviews (progarchives.com) I say 70s APP qualifies for crossover. There are some prog moments in their 80s albums as well.  It's ironic that no one questions if Journey or APP are prog. And they're listed here under crossover pop, or whatever. some don't know Journey are on PA. Sure, they're under prog-related, but the albums before Steve Perry came, could easily be under heavy-prog if you ask me. There was even a JRF touch on those early albums.  If there ever was a band that had prog-related written all over them, it's Toto.

Yes, but with Journey, most people, even proggers, only know them by their pop hits. So, it would make more sense if they were questioned. And thanks for telling me that they are listed under pop related.

I'd like to know why GTR is even in the Archive. Pure pop. A couple ditties by Hackett and Howe won't cut it. 

nick_h_nz wrote: nick_h_nz wrote: richardh wrote: Prog now has a much wider definition but in the seventies I don't remember them being considered ''prog'' but then neither were Pink Floyd!! Nowadays I would say everything they did from 1975-1978 easily fits the wider definition. After than it's more 'arty' and pop rock before they turned full circle back to being a straight hard rock band.  Progressive didn’t have the meaning then that we have instilled in it now, as is evidenced by the cuttings in the booklets for the Krimson 30th anniversary series, where several “progressive charts” are included. For example this one, dated 18 Dec 1971, listing “the week’s best-selling 15 progressive albums”. The artists? 1. Led Zeppelin 2. ELP 3. King Crimson 4. Yes 5. John Lennon 6. Rod Stewart 7. Isaac Hayes 8. Pink Floyd (someone refuting your suggestion that they weren’t considered prog) 9. Wings 10. The Who 11. Cat Steven’s 12. Commander Cody and his Lost Planet Airmen (who? Sounds prog, though! 😜) 13. Santana 14. “New Riders of the Purple Sage” - Various Artists 15= The Doors 15= Traffic Now there’s plenty there that is in PA as either prog or prog-related, but clearly progressive in the ‘70s meant something different than we think of it now. Yes, I’m quoting myself, but it got swallowed up so quickly, due to how many replies this post is getting. And since it keeps getting brought up, I think it bears repeating. What progressive meant back then, is NOT we think it to mean now....

Neil Peart's hardly the only drummer to use a large kit! 

Neil graduated to a revolving kit. One side was acoustic, the other was electronic. He didn't use the entirety of the kit for every song in concert. In the studio, he only used what he needed, which was closer to the average rock drummer's kit with a few more bells and whistles. Some of you guys make it sound like he practically did a full-blown drum solo in every song.

Catcher10 wrote: verslibre wrote: Neil Peart's hardly the only drummer to use a large kit!  But he is probably the only one that actually uses the whole kit......I've never seen him with 3 snares and 8-10 toms.......But that's what they needed in a 3pc band to sound like they did.

What I said was that in a hypothetical web page that lists Prog records instead of artists, you could have TAAB and PP, two albums that helped define Prog, and maybe not the rest of JT's production, which is more Blues-based or Folk-based. Also, if for exampke Michael Buble' released a Prog album in, say, 2022, you could have that album listed on the website without having to issue Michael with a Prog artist'passport'. Rush could have their Proggier albums listed (and their poppier ones would be left out) and Threads like this oe would cease to exist. I think the web sitecshould showcase Prog music rather than bands who have at some point in their career been pkaying Progressive Rock.we could have Foxtrot and Nursery Cryme here but not Invisible Touch, which makes sense when you think about it.i hope I didn't make you hold your breath for too long! I was asleep.