Thanks, I've always felt that way myself, but ours is the minority opinion on PA. 

Welcome to the forum by the way!

RUSH has always had that "hard rock with progressive elements added" vs being genuine progressive hard rock, if that makes sense; DESPITE having some pieces that may or may not constitute the latter. It's like crossover with rock/metal instead of pop.

They created hard rock with expanded scope in the late 70s; the multi-part side-long epics also helped them receive the progressive tag, just like the occasional sci-fi themes and complex concepts, and each one of them was a master of his instrument.

I accept them as a prog band for sure, but do not forget that this is just a way to classify a band. And the umbrella that progressive rock is, is quite vast!

In the late 70’s to 80’s, there was a huge amount of crossover between metal and prog fans. I was a massive fan of both.

hard rock + a bigger bangs of tricks = heavy prog. 

Personally, I don’t care whether or not something is prog. I only care if I like it. If you like Rush, does it really matter to you if they are prog or not? And if you don’t like Rush, why should it matter at all? 🤔

Hardly surprising, nor particularly relevant - as strange as it might seem to say that. But prog is pretty much a retrospective label, rather than a contemporary one. Very few, if any of the classic prog bands were called prog at the time. They might have featured on the Progressive Charts, but so did artists like Rod Stewart. Progressive was certainly not synonymous with what we now think of prog at the time. I’m not sure when Prog as a label was first used, but I am definitely not surprised to see that Rush were not described as such back then....

Progressive metal is more than just Rush influenced. Put any kind of experimentation or just going beyond the verse-chorus-verse pattern (for lack of a better word) on any metal subgenre, I will call that progressive.

How dare people like things you don't and vice versa . Such shrill indifference

twosteves wrote: well Getty and the others have said that Rush worshipped Yes---and they would have loved to do something as complex and intense as Relayer. So they do go into their bag of tricks to make it all sound complicated at times.I like some of the songs on all their albums but don't think they have a perfect album. Mostly for me they are a rock band filled with catchy hooks---verses and choruses. Which can be nice if you want some energetic music. Doesn't matter to me if they are prog prog. They aren't. But lots of bands here aren't. I do agree that the drummer has always been overrated---fast yes---but not a lot of swing---sort of cold.

Exactly. His drumming feels planned ahead. "This is where I put in my roll over all the toms", and he does. He doesn't seem to go with the flow as a drummer in my opinion should. Technically he is excellent though; no doubt about this.

This seems to be not always the case; there are apparently exceptions.

I'm talking exclusively about artists already admitted to PA. Can you provide example(s)?

There are many jazz-rock / fusion artists missing. The scope of the category isn't exhaustive and is reserved only for the MOST PROGRESSIVE artists that qualify therefore those who are more jazz oriented than rock are usually rejected. All of these artists are easily found on RYM or JMA so i assume the reason for this rule to prevent jazz artists who released a fusion album or two from being admitted (and some of them have well over 50 albums.) It took me many suggestions getting shot down before this made sense. Barbara is awesome whether she is here or not!

Like I said previously, I'm talking exclusively about artists who have already been admitted to PA. Barbara Dennerlein has NOT been admitted to PA but if she were, her entire discography would be listed. I own several of her albums and enjoy them hugely but have to agree with the genre team decision(s) that she does not warrant inclusion on PA. Such a decision does not diminish or undermine her music in the slightest

But Barbara is extremely progressive and innovative. She equipped her Hammond B-3 with MIDI-technology back when that technology just came up, she plays on pipe organs on a regular basis, she has done albums with extremely experimental tracks that border on prog electronic, she has played with orchestras and big bands. And her six albums from 1989-1999 have lots of very rocky tracks on them, even if there are also tracks on them that are clearly in the jazz-field.

This track, although having some jazz elements, nevertheless sounds more like a prog rock track that is outside of jazz-rock/fusion, even if there are some elements in it. But it is definitely a rock track:

pop + a bigger bangs of tricks = crossover prog. ?

sometimes 

Personally, I remain hopeful that we will admit the Uber talented Jason Donovan one day, owing to his exceptional proggy turn as that chap with the multi-coloured jacket, who also had the advantage of appearing in the world’s first concept album, namely The Six Books of Torah.

Regrettably, as you indicate, this would also lead to his stunning work with Kylie also being included, but she is nice to look at  

many jazz artists blurred many distinctions but overall they are still jazz artists that experiment.
It's an imperfect site but almost every biographical description i've encountered lists Barbara as a jazz artist, not a jazz-fusion artist. On the other hand there are many artists that i think SHOULD be here as well but they were rejected. oh well! Unforunately just a few crossover tracks isn't enough.

This is what the jazz archives say about her:

 

https://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/artist/barbara-dennerlein" rel="nofollow - https://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/artist/barbara-dennerlein

Her discography is at the end of the article. Mark that they list four of her albums as fusion.

But this discussion doesn't belong here.

No-one should turn their nose up at 'Proggy McNoggy'. I'm often accused of sarcasm but I have to bow to the master here. Kudos Steve

Never meant to say that all prog metal is Rush influenced, but is the same case as you mentioned. Rush went beyond the verse-chorus-verse patter, with a lot of experimentation. In any case, most prog rock fall into this category (again, not all cases are the same), and having no real definition for prog rock, makes things a little difficult to determine.

Rush is heavy prog, I agree with how they're classified here on PA. 

Gee, that Human Resources department must've been a hell of a place to work.

and they have a bag of tricks, too. 

They were Hard Rock, Heavy Prog and Prog Metal. I would say it would be super difficult for the latter two genres to not also be considered Hard Rock in general.

I am really glad to see so many younger music fans getting into progressive/prog rock, but one thing to understand is Progressive rock music started sometime in the late 60's early 70s. So all those bands if they continued into the 90s really were not doing much of anything PROGRESSIVE, but they are PROG. You can't judge these bands 25yrs into their careers.

What is very PROGRESSIVE about Rush and others is they crossed into other genres, they had to to survive the changing music scene, but still remaining true to their roots.

I've followed Rush since the first LP - the song "Working Man" was standard fare for cover bands in Chicago back in the day.  Nice & easy to play. 

I saw them onstage at Western Illinois University just after "Fly By Night" was released - they were very good for a three piece, but I wouldn't have categorized them as "prog" (whatever the hell "prog" means)

Clearly, they have evolved a great deal, and I need to listen to their catalog in more detail.  I would have always considered them "hard rock with prog elements" or something - however, I do respect everyone's opinion of them, I need to study them further.  

Not having Mellotrons, of course, is a major strike against the "Rush is Prog" argument! 

Please note my point about labeling a band 25yrs into their career, in the music making business.........You need to understand a band like this from the start. If you only listen to Genesis~Invisible Touch how on earth would you considered them a Prog/Progressive band?? You would not, and that would be the mistake on your part.

You need to fully understand where a band came from.

Easy answer = I don't listen to Genesis "Invisible Touch" at all!!  I don't think I've ever heard a note, except which would have come out of a radio speaker.  I pretty much closed them down after "Duke." 

Former Yes guitarist Peter Banks (with whom I had a brief correspondence when he was alive) despised the term "prog," and said they should just use another term.  I forget what he said they should use, I think it was the name "Dave!"  

underground pop? That's an oxymoron. How can one be both underground and mainstream in the same time? 

I just pointed out your "underground pop" expression made no sense. If you want to call Rush pop music, go ahead, I guess they are a popular band. 

If you don't think they're a prog rock band, again,  fine, but it seems you are annoyed that the rest of us think Rush is a progressive rock band. 

Oh well... 

prog is what?

is prog what?

is what prog?

well, it seems you do not know that an LOL emoticon means I'm trying to be funny, I'm joking. 

I'm glad you are here, you have brought some new energy to an ancient discussion on this forum! 

There are a few things about Rush that have never sat well with me:

a) Alex Lifeson is a fine guitarist for AOR, but I don't consider him to be in the same league as Fripp, Hackett and others in the genre.  I'm very demanding when it comes to guitar. 

b) Lee is an outstanding bassist, but his vocals don't really move me, and the lack of choral vocals disappoint me.  

c) No Mellotron.  Well, not much in the way of keyboards, really.   I consider sublime keyboards to be an essential ingredient of prog, which is why I bitch & moan so much about Yes these days - they fired Ollie Wakeman for Geoff Downes??  Ugh.

Drumming is amazing, lyrics are fantastic, and they have generated a huge fan base with an eclectic style, so I give them a ton of credit.  However, I just don't put them on the same pedestal as classic Yes, King Crimson, Genesis and so forth.  I like them, but I don't study their catalog like I do with works like TFTO or LTIA.  

thanks for pointing that out.

You forgot the obvious candidates for such threads in the past - Radiohead and Tool. 

I mean, it's the same thing as Prog vs. Progressive. Depends on if by "pop" you mean literally "popular" or as a style. And then there's the umbrella term of "popular" music.

It depends upon the period of recording, the LP etc. 

The more of an American blues influence, the less prog IMHO.  I'd say Rush, from this list. 

I've played in tons of progressive bands and this is literally it. Also, the last poster mentioning prog is a retrospective-driven genre. Add some odd meter choppy-chugs and add a synth lead where a guitar lead would go, then have the guitar play the last 1/4 bar with the synth, etc.

When you think about it, prog is meta-genre. There is rock, some of which is prog rock. There is metal, some of which is prog folk. There is folk, some of which is prog folk. There is pop, some of which is prog pop. There is jazz, some of which is prog jazz. There is hip hop, some of which is prog hip hop.

This site focuses on the rock side of things, which is why a lot of jazz that might be considered prog isn’t included, and which is why there’s no hip hop. But in terms of rock, most people would call Rush a prog band. If you don’t want to, that’s fine - but why get upset about others doing so?

There’s a lot of Rush that does very little for me, and which is not obviously prog at all, but their early albums, especially Caress-Hemispheres, are very hard to argue as not being prog. But even if you choose not to consider these albums as prog, again why get upset about others doing so?

When I listen to music, I don’t care about what others think about it. I don’t care what other people choose to categorise it as. Heck, I don’t even care about categorising it myself. My main way of labelling music is whether or not I like it. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Spot on regarding prog being meta.

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.

nicely and wisely put!

Indeed! The key being prog is an umbrella that unites some otherwise disparate genres. Which is why I always find it odd that people complain about what is in PA. If it’s here, someone at some stage has decided it has a place here, and is prog (or prog related) enough to be here. I’ve discovered lots of bands because they are in PA. It is the commonalities of prog across the genres that puts a band in PA. So just because they don’t seem like prog to you, does not mean they won’t be to someone else.

The prog umbrella definitely makes it easier to find interesting and enjoyable music, for me too.

Yes---exactly --depends on the period which is my point---Jethro Tull is fairly blues oriented---all the bands I mentioned are on this website I think.