Is Rush really a Prog band ?

I would consider Rush a prog band. The use of electronically created sounds, the time changes, the stories and concepts contained in their lyrics, and the complexity of their music all add up to serious consideration for the prog label.

Edited by Ronnie Pilgrim - March 20 2010 at 10:45

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, Rush certainly influenced a lot of modern Prog. Again, with all due respect you were 7 years old when Rush released AFTK, so what do you know about the scene at that time?

The fact that Rush appealed to Heavy Rock fans seems to confuse people. Rush played Prog with a hard edge and a focus on the "rock" aspect. For many rock fans they were the "acceptable" face of Prog. The fact that they chose a similar path to Genesis and moved away from traditional Prog should not be held against them.

No but I listen to them happily all the same...

(What frickin' difference does it make? )

Catcher10 wrote: idiotPrayer wrote: They were prog but then went un-prog (not saying they became bad though)   What is un-prog? Adding different instruments, sounds, themes is progressive.   Just because Genesis recorded Invisible Touch does not mean they are not prog, or Rush's Presto or Yes's 90125 and Big Generator. They are prog bands that went down the path of "traditional" hard rock with prog undertones on occasion.

the problem is...... is the standard for some.. is not  the same standard held to others. That is the undertoe to threads like this...  people aren't stupid and probably wonder why ..if not X..why Rush.  Few bands that had any kind of lengthy career stayed with prog... and left prog.  Three classic examples are Rush.. Genesis.. and Deep Purple.

Rush ...of course they belong on the site.. are they a prog band.. who knows.. who really cares.  The band themselves admit to tired of it.. in 1978 and wanting to move on.  Yet fans of the group generally adore that early phase so the shoe still fits.

Genesis.. well.. we all know about that group.  They are here because we are the 'smart' ones... the others that think they are a pop group (the rest of the musical world) are the stupid ones. Are they a prog group? who knows ..who cares.  They are here for the prog they did.. not for what came later...  much like Rush.. though some like me.. think some of their (Rush) stuff is still prog.. but more in the vein of the dreaded AOR category. .which is still prog...  think of it as Crossover.  Which is exactly what AOR was when you cut through the crap.

 Then there are others like Deep Purple that released a string of 6 albums that fit most any notion of heavy prog ..as many or more than some recognized pillars of prog...  are as.. if not more influential to prog than some (not traditional prog perhaps...but that is only one small branch of what prog is)  and DP like others...turned away from prog when Ritchie siezed creative control of the group from Jon Lord who like Emerson was fascinated with fusing rock with high art (classical music). Yet  unlike otherscontinue to have their albums.. and impact on prog ignored or dismissed as .. a hard rock band. 

Was Rush an AOR band.. was Genesis a pop band.  Is Deep Purple a hard rock band. 

see what some are getting at...  it is a whiff of the some bullsh*t that gets shoveled on this site.  Lack of consistency.. which is fatal to a site that wants to (and should)  be seen as serious site.






Edited by micky - March 20 2010 at 14:46

Raff wrote: Personally, I'd rather listen to any of Rush's so-called 'un-prog' albums than to the monstrosities some true-blue prog bands can inflict on the unsuspecting listener. While prog is one of the best musical forms known to man when it is good, bad prog can be nothing short of excruciating, and make you long for a well-made, three-minute pop song.

Is a..

Catcher10 wrote: ^ There are a lot not in here I would think some would say.   The Stranglers, heavy to punk and new wave?? I don't own anything by them...can't comment much though on them.

go to the list of attributes by which it is being decided whether a band is prog or not. the Stranglers fit perfectly. they even use polyphony, a highly advanced compositional technique that only very few prog bands are capable of (Gentle Giant, for example). their punk / new wave imaage is just that - an image. but apparently they are often judged by that imnage rather than by their music, even by members of the archives. an album like "Black and White" is a perfect prog album, in my opinion. and if you are not convinced by that, listen to "The Raven"; that should convince even hard non-believers

You're all missing the deeper meaning of the thread.

Are Rush a prog band? Yes. But are they really a prog band? Does Rush exist at all or are they some external manifestation of my imagination...

BaldJean wrote: Catcher10 wrote: ^ There are a lot not in here I would think some would say.   The Stranglers, heavy to punk and new wave?? I don't own anything by them...can't comment much though on them. go to the list of attributes by which it is being decided whether a band is prog or not. the Stranglers fit perfectly. they even use polyphony, a highly advanced compositional technique that only very few prog bands are capable of (Gentle Giant, for example). their punk / new wave imaage is just that - an image. but apparently they are often judged by that imnage rather than by their music, even by members of the archives. an album like "Black and White" is a perfect prog album, in my opinion. and if you are not convinced by that, listen to "The Raven"; that should convince even hard non-believers

Dean wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Tony R wrote: When did Deep Purple ever record anything like Hemispheres, 2112, Xanadu, Fountain Of Lamneth, Cygnus x-1, La Villa Strangiato, The Trees, Natural Science, Jacobs Ladder, The Camera Eye, Bytor & The Snow Dog? Compare and contrast Red Barchetta with Highway Star or Spirit Of Radio with Smoke On The Water... Some people continue to rewrite history and confuse "Prog Rock" with progressive music. Rush were Prog Rock, they were just harder edged than most. Even worse some people who weren't even 10 when Rush released A Farewell To Kings are lecturing us on what "certain people in the 70s were calling Prog and what they were calling Heavy Rock". How does that work? You behave as if kids are stupid. If a kid is interested in that kind of music (and I was via my brother, who is rten years older than I am) then they will quickly get a lot of knowledge aboiut it.. You should also read what I wrote more closely. I did explicitely mention that the term "progressive rock" was not used back then at all, at least not here. And if there was a TV-ad for a hard rock sampler which had Rush included (together with Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin and some other which I don't recall) it appears to me that this was how Rush were regarded here, don't you agree? Once again, no-one used the name "progressive rock" in the 70s; this term came up years later. Oh, and just to make sure I checked back with my brother, and he perfectly agrees with me. And he,  as already said, is ten years older than I am. I also do not doubt that Rush are a prog band at all. I am not too fond of them, but that's another matter.  De gustibus non est disputandum. The term "Progressive Rock" was used extensively through-out the 1970s in the UK where the genre originated and even goes back as far as 1969 as this newsletter shows:

Dean, there were a lot of te3rms for that kind of music at that time. "Future rock" was another one, fior example. And I am speaking of Germany, where the term "prtogressive rock" was definitely not used at that time. A term which was used in Germany was "Klassik rock", which translates as "Classical Rock". Bands like Genesis or Yes wweere summarized there. And there is a rock encyclopedia from the mid 70s which was sold in both the UK and Germany of which I have forgotten the name (I can ask my brother about it) in which about half a dozen terms were offered for that kind of music.