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.