Rush’s genre

Rush is now in the art rock genre, when I first came onto this site I browsed by genre to find rush and could not find them, I was surprised when I browsed by artist name to find them in the Art rock category.  While Rushi is artsy rock I would not expect to find them in the ranks with Styx and Supertramp and now Queen.  Rush is a completely different breed,

Is art rock the best choice for describing Rush?

I would probably choose progressive metal. Certainly Rush started as prog metal and is now prog metal.  Some artsy stuff between but mainly Rush is heavier and more likely to be found along with prog metal bands than art rock bands to me. 

Thoughts?

I say that they should be put under the genre of...

Totally f**king awesome.

I'm a big fan...

video vertigo wrote: Rush is now in the art rock genre, when I first came onto this site I browsed by genre to find rush and could not find them, I was surprised when I browsed by artist name to find them in the Art rock category.  While Rushi is artsy rock I would not expect to find them in the ranks with Styx and Supertramp and now Queen.  Rush is a completely different breed, Is art rock the best choice for describing Rush? I would probably choose progressive metal. Certainly Rush started as prog metal and is now prog metal.  Some artsy stuff between but mainly Rush is heavier and more likely to be found along with prog metal bands than art rock bands to me.  Thoughts?

I was thinking a lot about exactly the same thing,

There is no category in progarchive to put the RUSH in it,

Since we all agree the greatness and uniqueness of the RUSH

We need to find something, like create a category call CLASSIC

And put yes, e l p, floyd ext. in it,

Anyway this is just a suggestion,

Good point. Now I have a few words to say:

Many prog bands do a totally different style of music, a kind of their own, that it is almost impossible to place them under a specific genre. I mentioned some of them in previous threads, and some agreed with me. To name a few:
King Crimson
Tangerine Dream
Frank Zappa
Gong
...and many others I can't recall right now (I have limited time)

These four are perfect examples, because they moved from one genre to another since I first discovered progarchives (two years ago, not long after it first launched, I guess). King Crimson was in art-rock section at first! Can you believe it?!?!? Tangerine Dream first came in through Space rock, which was pretty logical, since there was no Electronic subgenre at the time. The same happened with Kraftwerk, this time in Krautrock (which, I believe, would have fitted TD more also, because of their first 10-12 albums...). When I first saw Zappa (I didn't look for, anyway) it was in a sub category simply called "Progressive Rock", probably opened for bands which could not fit in any specific genre, or worked in multiple genres, such as Wakeman, Gandalf, Jon Anderson etc... Most of them moved to art-rock after the rearrangement of the subgenres some time ago. This time art-rock became a place to lump bands which don't easily fit into any genre.

Apart from the definition of art-rock, it includes bands (like Rush) which are neither symphonic, nor exactly prog-metal, but somehow heavy enough. This, I believe, creates confusion on some like video vertigo, because poppy, almost non-prog bands like Supertramp, Roxy Music are also there (what if King Crimson was still there?!?!?) not to mention the extremely dubious Queen.

IMHO, there should have been another sub-genre, "Heavy Prog", "Hard Prog", or "Progressive Hard Rock", and include bands like Rush, Kansas, Uriah Heep, Deep Purple (please don't make it another discussion subject!!!), and to an extent, Styx (just for the sake of their first five albums). I saw this subgenre at least in one other progrock site (and it probably included twice as much genres as progarchives!), and I believe it exists. Even particular works of some hard rock bands (Sabbath's Bloody Sabbath, Led Zeppelin's 4th, Alice Cooper's Welcome to My Nightmare albums etc.) might be considered under this sub-genre, and it's a totally different story whethter or not these individual albums should be included or not.

I never considered Rush as a prog metal band, apart from their Vapor Trails album. Listen to the most prominent prog-metal bands (Savatage, DT,Queensryche, PoS, Symphony X...) and give heed to their heavy guitar lines, you'll know what I mean. These bands sometimes get heavier than Metallica, and I don't mean the songs like Mama Said or Nothing Else Matters! Rush has always been a pretty mild band, not to mention the heavy emphasis on synthesisers in their '80's works... Besides, there were no prog-metal in the mid '70's, when Rush began, at all. And there are several debates as to who the really progenitor of prog metal genre (and even heavy metal by itself) is: Rush, DP, Uriah Heep, even Black Sabbath or Zeppelin. Actually crediting mid'80's prog-metal acts (Queensryche, DT, Savatage) for the creation of this genre would be fair enough, but their influence from Rush etc. is obvious.

Summary: The solution is adding the "Heavy Prog" (or whatever) subgenre, and moving Rush and their likes over there...

art rock is a good categorisation for them.  I wouldn't call them prog-metal.  they may have had elements in the past, but predominantly they're art rock.

there will always be arguments over how to pigeonhole a band.  but we have to face facts, some bands don't stick to one particular formula, hence, they are difficult to pigeonhole.  art rock seems quite a vague categorisation, which probably suits Rush, as it is hard to pinpoint their precise sub-genre.

Tony R: actually Pinnacle name can be given to Kansas' sub-genre, but since I argued Rush belongs to the same genre too (look at my previous post) it shouldn't be a problem!

The problem is: how could we then fix Deep Purple and Uriah Heep into it