Is Rush prog

Have we arrived at a consensus?

Not to be mean but a lot of so called prog isn't exactly progressive. A case in point would be neo-prog. Most (if not all of it) does not push boundaries or do anything truly progressive. It is mostly a rehash of older prog with a more contemporary (and even stripped down) element. Rush in the 70s and 80s weren't really doing anything that hadn't been done before. They were influenced by KC, Yes and Genesis but with a heavier element. So yeah Rush were prog but were they progressive in the literal sense of the word? Not so much imo.

I'd rather put most of what I listen to under the small p (adjective label) than the big P (noun/genre) label. I'm not a big fan of tons of generic/ stereotypical Prog. More so, I would put music I like under the art label, however.

Aside from having Prog genre albums, I think Rush's music progressed from album to album in that it changed and adapted with the times.

verslibre wrote: There's progressive in the literal sense of the word and there's capital "P" Prog, which is what most of the bands we listen to fall under.

They were "prog-rock" at one point, but coming after most of the major pioneer acts of the late 60s/early 70s, I wouldn't say they were "progressive".

David_D wrote: verslibre wrote: David_D wrote: verslibre wrote: There's progressive in the literal sense of the word and there's capital "P" Prog, which is what most of the bands we listen to fall under. Actually, "progressive" is just a word which can be and has been used in many different ways/meanings. Right, David, but remember, we're talking about music — specifically the music discussed and archived on this site. Context is everything. Right, and to me in this context, "progressive" is also just a part of the genre name "Progressive Rock".

Which takes us full circle to progressive (adj., relating to or characterized by interest in new ideas) and capital "P" you/know/what.

Well the OP used the shortened term ''prog'' in the thread title which I've always taken to mean 'of a style' rather than 'progressive' in terms of an idea. But I still think Rush represented a major shake up of the genre and moved it forward in the late seventies when the major bands like ELP and Yes were doing nothing new. So they were both imo. Many don't find their music elegant as such and the lack of a full time keyboard player might not have helped perhaps so that could be a reason why they are so often considered not as important. I've seen the weird backlash against them on here for a while and also online with some like Andy Edwards consider their fans to be 'zealots' (but to be fair he also raises this point about Pink Floyd fans as well). They seem though to have a very nice intellegent fanbase (from a distance) but I would say that wouldn't I? They also attract the slightly nerdy and very harmless rock fan who likes their sc-fi.

^ & ^^ I do wish Rush had somehow managed to keep the heavy, Hard Rock-punch of their earliest albums (Working Man in particular) into their Prog Rock-era. But people claiming that they are simply Hard Rock or Heavy Rock aren't listening properly. I know I don't need to tell any of you, but I'm gonna write it anyway: Those who actually listen will notice the band's growth and a willingness to change from album to album (up to point). They've got plenty of complexity and sophisticated compositions to match their relatively impressive playing as well. It should be enough for anyone to acknowledge them as "Prog enough". Rush surely sound unmistakably like themselves as well. That should count for something imo.

Personally I love less than an hour worth of Rush' music in total. But it's for similar reasons that I don't enjoy classic Yes as much as "everyone else" - or the fact that I don't like ELP at all. It's about preferences, not a measurement of progressiveness. We all have them, preferences I mean.

Andy Edwards is good fun, and he knows his stuff. But provoking certain fanbases is part of his business model, isn't it? I mean he usually make sure to tell viewers that he loves the bands he's got on his overrated this or that lists or whatever. Except for Van Morrison and his godawful Astral Weeks) - and I 100% agreed with him. My favorite video of his among the twenty or so I've seen. I think I even laughed out loud a couple of times.

^ I'm thinking more about that thick, crunchy and heavy riff sound. That kind of punch. Working Man is the closest I ever heard a Rush-riff resembling Doom Metal. I prefer the drum sound too, although the drummer is no Neil Peart:). It's meatier. One Little Victory, although very "Metal" has virtually nothing of the qualities I'm thinking of. It does have other qualities, and I don't mind the track though.

Sean Trane wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: Sure they are. Rush have probably recorded more Progressive Rock albums/material in total than Genesis. Genesis: 10 (from FGTR to Duke) Rush: 7 (from FBN to MP, plus maybe the last two)

I do think that's being more generous in regards to certain albums "in favour of" Genesis and less towards a few albums by Rush. But either way I just wrote "probably" and my point still comes across.