Is Rush prog - Progressive Rock Music Forum

richardh wrote:

In the seventies the term 'prog' was a narrow corridor

The term ‘prog,’ in fact an abbreviation that has gained a good measure of new meaning, did not exist in the seventies, as progressive rock was a more narrowly defined genre with a limited number of bands recognized under that label. Even Pink Floyd wasn't considered progressive rock; rather, they were a psychedelic rock band. The term “progressive rock” emerged in the late 1960s as a way to describe a new wave of underground music that sought to push the boundaries of rock music through complex compositions, innovative instrumentation, and eclectic structure, often featuring medieval folk and classical music sounds. However, during the seventies, when progressive rock was in its heyday, the shorthand “prog,” a much broader category where one can put both Yes and Rush and Pink Floyd and Return to Forever and Tangerine Dream and Dream Theater, did not exist.

Edited by Mishkou - 16 hours 31 minutes ago at 01:28

^Uhh... no.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy

Mishkou wrote:

[Rush was a typical hard rock band at the time when they released Hemispheres. In the same league with Blue Öyster Cult, Rainbow, or UFO.

I really can only put this down to you coming from LA, where band categorisations may have been different, because what you are describing certainly wasn't my formative experience?

Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson

Jared wrote:

Mishkou wrote:

[Rush was a typical hard rock band at the time when they released Hemispheres. In the same league with Blue Öyster Cult, Rainbow, or UFO.

I really can only put this down to you coming from LA, where band categorisations may have been different, because what you are describing certainly wasn't my formative experience?

I, for one, absolutely agree with Mishkou. My formative experience as a West European rock music listener tells me that acoustic guitar intros and some atmospheric passages here and there featuring keyboards can be heard on the many albums of the 70s hard rock bands with a more artistic approach than, e.g., Kiss or AC/DC. Rush was regarded as a hard rock band in the same way as, for instance, Uriah Heep, Led Zeppelin, Blue Öyster Cult, Rainbow, and underrated UFO.

Of course, in the meantime, "prog" became a broad classification for various genres, so any slightly sophisticated hard rock band could be easily proclaimed as a heavy prog or prog-related band.

Cristi wrote:

There's a huge thread about this still active (and i bet this was discussed to death in the past)

https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=126250&PID=5889315

Indeed. I'm a newbie to this forum; however, I've already witnessed debates regarding the progressive classification of Rush before, on other web locations. Indeed, "Is Rush progressive rock?" isn't the first time such a question has arisen. Nevertheless, from what's being said, one could infer that, while this question might still recur at least in their time of high, Rush was never a progressive rock band but a hard rock band.

In the domain of progressive rock, there prevails an unequivocal consensus regarding the bands such as Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Yes, VdGG, and Genesis; despite their individual styles, they are universally regarded as paragons of the genre; however, with regard to Rush, this assertion does not really hold true.

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.

agree, fk genres

...but Rush is prog hehe

meAsoi wrote:

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.

That's not the point or purpose of such categories. They're not necessarily meant to be historic, but to provide clarity for those who are new to, or don't really know, progressive rock. They are descriptors, not genres.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy

verslibre wrote:

Saperlipopette! wrote:

^ I'm thinking more about that thick, crunchy and heavy riff sound. That kind of punch. Working Man is the closest I ever heard a Rush-riff resembling Doom Metal. I prefer the drum sound too, although the drummer is no Neil Peart:). It's meatier. One Little Victory, although very "Metal" has virtually nothing of the qualities I'm thinking of. It does have other qualities, and I don't mind the track though.

That's funny, because I prefer nothing from that first album. It's their wannabe phase. I tired of it because Alex tries to channel Page so hard. I'm glad they got past that. For thick, crunchy, heavy riffs, that's what Tony Iommi and a few other guys specialize in!

I'm not a fan, and I quite enjoy their wannabe phase. I see where you're coming from. It's ok.