Is Rush prog

meAsoi wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ Untrue---   'Heavy Prog' as both a phrase and a subgenre in fact has street credibility, as compared to 'Eclectic' or 'Crossover Prog' which were developed specifically for ProgArchives.   And it was not "created by an individual or a few people who came up with it", it existed as a phrase well before it was used here at PA. Ah, the utterly contrived genre label "Heavy Prog" has somehow managed to earn itself a bit of street cred in the illustrious Prog Music Lounge Street, nestled within the cyber metropolis known as Progarchives. One can only marvel at how such an artificial concoction has found its way into the hearts (or perhaps just the playlists) of those who frequent this digital haven. It’s as if someone decided that mixing some acoustic guitar intros and short keys-driven atmospheric passages and other tricks into heavy riffing hard rock songs was a stroke of genius, and now we're all supposed to nod sagely and pretend it's not just another marketing ploy. Bravo, internet! You've done it again!

Actually they were heavy blues for years until at least the second record.   But then, all rock variations are blues-based, even Floyd, Tull, and of course Sabbath & Zep which were, I'm sorry to say, all blues bands until they weren't anymore.   Try telling that to someone who doesn't know rock history and they'd likely laugh at you.   But true nonetheless.

But that's a big part of progressive music, isn't it, the blend of musics that didn't get along with each other until someone got them to start talking.

meAsoi wrote: There's a difference between an artificial and an organic name for a genre.

Edited by David_D - 12 hours 7 minutes ago at 18:16