Is Rush prog

^ No, probably not. But I'm not really familiar with it. I didn't even mention songlength, and it was hardly The Dark Elf's main point either. It's about the composition. If my two mentioned Pink Floyd tracks are both too similar to mainstream rock for you to "qualify" as Prog, there's not enough common ground for us to stand on to discuss this any further. Just like song length in itself, mass popularity isn't an argument about the actual music, and it will not confirm anything for you. You must listen to confirm things in regards to music.

^I spent like half an hour on my own reply, so your post saying basically the same in fewer words and more to the point snuck in between:)

David_D wrote: Animals and maybe Meddle are the only Floyd albums that really seem Prog to me. The rest of it is too psychedelic, melodic and similar to mainstream Rock, and the mass popularity of Floyd just confirms all this to me.

So Prog can't be Prog if it's too melodic (or too Psychedelic for that matter)? If too melodic disqualifies, where does that leave Prog Rock staples such as Epitaph, In the Court's title track - or Camel, or Renaissance? If Atom Heart Mother (a-f) or Shine On You Crazy Diamond (1-5 + 6-9) doesn't qualify as works of Progressive Rock, very little does. I find carefully and intelligently constructed works such as the latter one in particular, a lot more impressive than bands throwing a bunch of "weird timesignatures" within a tune that lacks both a head and a tail. There are many bands that do weird and unmelodic magnificently. I mean to me Prog doesn't really get much better than early Univers Zero or Art Zoyd. But there are others that I find to be inaccessible simply because they aren't that great at what they do.

Edited by Saperlipopette! - January 03 2025 at 23:28

Edited by David_D - January 03 2025 at 18:41

verslibre wrote: Jeffro wrote: While Rush's total output does not fall under the prog umbrella, if you don't think some of Rush's 70s music was prog then you need to have your ears checked. There's plenty of Genesis that's not prog. There's plenty of Floyd that's not prog. No one seems to trash those bands because of that. Rush, on the other hand, gets trashed all the time. Double standards at work. Floyd's sacred cow status really annoys me.

Well the Floyd cross many sub-genres, including psych/space in the first part of their career (Piper to OBC), then symphonic/eclectic in mid* career (DSOTM to TFC), and crossover in the Watersless era.

*The Wall is arguably heavy prog

Edited by Floydoid - January 01 2025 at 12:32

Jeffro wrote: While Rush's total output does not fall under the prog umbrella, if you don't think some of Rush's 70s music was prog then you need to have your ears checked. There's plenty of Genesis that's not prog. There's plenty of Floyd that's not prog. No one seems to trash those bands because of that. Rush, on the other hand, gets trashed all the time. Double standards at work.

Floyd's sacred cow status really annoys me.

^About the same as me it seems.    

^ They serve a purpose I guess. Although I personally just use Prog (or Progressive) Rock about all Symphonic Prog too.

David_D wrote: I reckon that if I knew more of the bands placed in Eclectic Prog, I would be better qualified to have an opinion about it, but GG, VdGG and KC look fine in there to me, as bands which can't be classified by one of the main Prog sub-genres.

Canterbury, Zeuhl, RIO/Avant, Jazz Rock Fusion... are all fine by me. But I think a lot of Progressive Rock bands should simply be "Progressive Rock". That is the most fitting main genre for GG, VdGG and KC. There's no need for Eclectic Prog at all.

Saperlipopette! wrote: David_D wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: I do agree that quite a few of these sub-genres that doesn't really exist outside of PA are silly. Heavy Prog isn't my biggest annoyance though. At least it make more sense to me than Crossover and Eclectic. In general, not so few of PA's "sub-genres" make definitely most sense to me when considered as sub-categories of progressive music, while Eclectic Prog is quite fine with me. I think of it as similar to RYM's tag "Progressive Rock", which is the only one RYM use for Progressive Rock albums that can't be classified by one of RYM's Prog sub-genres. Progressive Rock is simply put what everything lumped into Eclectic Prog is - and Progressive Rock is eclectic by nature. You can't be Progressive Rock unless you "blend elements from various musical sources". RYM gets it right while PA "invents a genre" and places prototypical/iconic Prog Rock bands such as GG, VdGG and KC in there. In my opinion it's misleading, and the genre-description doesn't really match the seemingly random bands they've decided should go there. Or rather, it matches almost every single band associated with Prog Rock.