Are RUSH actually Prog?

Some of the time.

rogerthat wrote: Cristi wrote: rogerthat wrote: Cristi wrote: ^ dare i ask what's wrong with Steely Dan?  As a diehard Steely Dan fan, I don't hear it other than maybe one or two tracks each on Aja and Royal Scam.  Royal Scam has its fusion-like moments but even it isn't fusion through and through.  To riff on what BaldFriede said, if there is no place for Barbara Dennerlein in the jazz-fusion section of this website, I don't see how there is for Steely Dan. Yes, I know, if X then Y is not a good argument etc, I've been a collab too.  This is not an addition/suggestion argument.  I just don't hear a whole lot of prog in Steely Dan.  Which doesn't mean it isn't extremely sophisticated music.  But all sophisticated rock and rock related music isn't necessarily prog.  Would you make room for Fiona Apple here?  Didn't think so. is crossover prog or prog-related a better fit for them?  They were indeed in crossover prog before.

Edited by cstack3 - May 05 2021 at 21:44

Queen were as prog as Pink Floyd. For some people that means neither were prog. For some people that means both were prog. The idea that one is prog and one is not is strange to me, but seems to be fairly normal around here. Right up to Jazz, Queen were releasing prog albums. Their trajectory is somewhat similar to Genesis, in that they have a period where it is fairly clearly prog, and intermediate period where it’s a little more arguable, and then a period where they focused on a poppier sound, but still maintained the occasional proggy notes within their albums (even if they were far less obvious). From Queen to A Day at the Races would be, for me, that first period. News of the World and Jazz would be their Trick and Wind. And from The Game it’s all downhill as far as a prog fan is concerned. But just as a lot of prog fans still enjoy Genesis from the ‘80s pop and beyond, so do a lot of prog fans still enjoy Queen over this time period.

Cristi wrote: This thread is ridiculous in places, but I would not expect anything good from "Why X (band/artist) is on PA or is prog?"

They were for a while. Nothing else to say really that hasn't already been said.

Is there an issue?

nick_h_nz wrote: To me, suggesting Queen is not prog is no more or less ridiculous than asking if Rush were ever prog. They were, but both exist in the grey area that is outside what a lot of people consider prog, meaning some people will never consider them prog, and others will argue ‘till the cows come home that they are.

Edited by rogerthat - May 06 2021 at 09:08

Edited by Howlett - May 06 2021 at 09:53

rogerthat wrote: nick_h_nz wrote: To me, suggesting Queen is not prog is no more or less ridiculous than asking if Rush were ever prog. They were, but both exist in the grey area that is outside what a lot of people consider prog, meaning some people will never consider them prog, and others will argue ‘till the cows come home that they are. I don't see a parallel between Rush and Queen when it comes to prog.  Queen could be said to be prog in the same way you could say that about Beatles.  They had certain songs that seemed to scream prog but they could also completely change gears and NOT do prog at all.  Because that's just how eclectic they were. Whereas Rush definitely had a style oriented towards taking a riff and tossing it over in a hundred different ways which is the essence of prog.  2112, Xanadu, Cygnus 1 & 2, Trees, La Villa, Natural Science, Jacob's Ladder - I don't understand what argument could possibly be made against their being prog.  That they did have not so overwhelmingly prog songs like Entre Nous only puts them in a Genesis like basket.  Both bands could write songs with the prog quotient toned down but still in the style and signature identifiable as Genesis/Rush.   While, with Queen, if you took away Freddie's voice, you wouldn't know that Killer Queen, Death On Two Legs, Crazy Little Thing Called Love were all the same band.  Queen just had incredible range and I don't find it a controversial or debate worthy point as to whether they were prog because that matters about as much as arguing whether LZ or Who were.  These were all, along with Beatles, just the greatest rock bands ever.  It can hardly be mandatory to include every great rock band in the progarchives because they have some tenuous connection to prog and nor do people depend on progarchives to discover Queen/Who/LZ.

SteveG wrote: The hell with Rush. I want to know if prog is really prog. Give examples please.

The Dark Elf wrote: Wait...you are telling me that you don't immediately recognize a Queen song like Killer Queen or Death On Two Legs based on just Brian May's riffs? I don't need to hear Freddie Mercury singing on those first four albums to know its Queen.