Is Rush prog

Edited by David_D - December 30 2024 at 15:00

meAsoi wrote: I'm a newbie to this forum

meAsoi wrote: Legend has it that they invented "Eclectic Prog" in order to find a better place for King Crimson, who until then was in the Progarchives' Art Rock section, which was later removed, more precisely turned into "Crossover Prog."

Interesting that a newbie such as yourself knows more than I do about PA's inner workings and "legends".

Edited by David_D - December 30 2024 at 09:37

^ That's an ugly rumor...and mostly correct.

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.

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.

Hrychu wrote: Saperlip' wrote: Revisiting and revising history because of additional knowledge and a better overview - is often both good and nessecary. Nailed it! 💯

Everything but the spelling of necessary.

meAsoi wrote: It is a fact that back in the 1970s, Rush was considered to be a hard rock band. Although some might want to refer to Rush as "heavy prog" as absolute truth, one has to realise that this kind of categorisation cannot change how rock history really happened. "Heavy prog" is an artificial genre heading that did not exist at that time.  While personal interpretations of what the musical groupings mean are valid, they cannot rewrite history regarding what happened in progressive rock or remove the fact that certain labels, such as "heavy prog," did not exist at that time.

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. But many, maybe most isms, genres, styles or whatever have been given its names in retrospect. Historically artists had no idea that they were Baroque, or Rococo. Rewriting how history happened is obviously wrong. Revisiting and revising history because of additional knowledge and a better overview - is often both good and nessecary.

The Dark Elf wrote: The real question that should be asked, is Rush pwog?