Is Rush prog

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Have we arrived at a consensus?

Logan wrote: I think Rush is progressive as the sound changed throughout the career, ...........

Suspicious topic and account, but... I think Rush is progressive as the sound changed throughout the career, and I would describe albums by Rush as Progressive Rock -- some more than others. I wouldn't call the debut Progressive Rock, but I would call Hemispheres (an album I have adored) Progressive Rock for shizz.

Nothing says snooty elitism from high atop the ivory tower like some comments on a progressive rock message board.

Come for the music, stay for the drama