Are RUSH actually Prog?

siLLy puPPy wrote: Lady Gaga is more prog than Rush

Un Amico wrote: I think after all the comments/posts here I would like to conclude that as far ss I am concerned it would be better to talk about Prog records instead of Prog bands. That way you vould have Thick as A Brick and A passion Play included here, but no other Tull album, eliminating all controversy or most of it antway...same with Rush, whol have now learned had a Prog period then went a different direction. It does not feel right to give an artist a 'Prog Passport' on the strength of only one or two albums. So my dear friends, I say Prog Music, Prog records, not bands.

SteveG wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: If we consider Genesis to be a prog act, even after a string of god-awful pop rock albums full of Vegas show tunes, then by that low bar Rush is prog as well. These debates are absolutely inane. Yes, but we all know (hopefully) that Genesis was a prog act, so to satisfy the OP, we would have to list all their prog albums and jettison the rest.  Hmm. That's not really a bad idea!

If it was decided to jettison the 'non-prog' albums by a particular artist, and Genesis as referenced here are an excellent example... can you imagine the arguments we'd have on here about which of their albums are actually prog, as opposed to whether an artist is considered to be proggy enough to be worthy of inclusion on this site?

cstack3 wrote: richardh wrote: Prog now has a much wider definition but in the seventies I don't remember them being considered ''prog'' but then neither were Pink Floyd!! 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.  I don't remember the term "prog" being used at all in the 1970's!  Then again, my recollection of that time period is a bit, shall we say, "clouded?"

I hear what your saying stoner, but I recall the term "underground" being used.

Progishness wrote: 'Progressive Rock' is the term I remember being used in the first half of the seventies, but it was broader in its compass than what we now call 'prog', as it seemed to be used to describe anything that was quality, intelligent rock music, as opposed to all the glam / soul / pop that was prevalent at the time.

I never hard the two words "progressive" and "rock" used together in the early 70s. I do recall that bands like Canned Heat and Ten Years After were called just "progressive". And their music had nothing to do with prog rock.

Edited by SteveG - May 03 2021 at 10:29

BaldFriede wrote: 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.

verslibre wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: I understand there are MANY artists who probably shouldn't be here. I would like to see Santana, Chicago, Steely Dan and many others kicked off the site even though i love many albums from all three. Kick Steely Dan, change Vangelis to Crossover, and we're good!

^Exactly - a topic which has been debated many times within these forums.

The Dark Elf wrote: "Underground pop": We have all these major hit singles and blockbuster albums....but we're far too cool to release them.