Is Rush prog

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.

^Uhh... no.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Btw: Yes I know where to find those riffs. I love the sound of plenty "Heavy Prog" bands who successfully combined a more progressive approach to rock with the thick, crunchy riffs I much, much prefer. And I would like Rush more if that part wasn't lost somewhere underways. It's a preference. Like enjoying the taste of some food over some other food.

Edited by Saperlipopette! - December 28 2024 at 01:40

Hrychu wrote: an artificial genre heading that did not exist at that time music genres are artificial by definition

There's a difference between an artificial and an organic name for a genre. "Heavy Prog" is a typical artificial genre name created for the needs of this site in order to include hard rock bands like Rush and Uriah Heep in its database. It was apparently created by an individual or a few people who came up with it in favour of the classification system of this site; it wasn't arising from the 70s progressive or heavy music milieu. Unlike an organic name for a genre, such as progressive rock or hard rock, "heavy prog" does not carry any cultural weight outside of this site's needs.

Atavachron wrote: ^ Untrue---   'Heavy Prog' as both a phrase and a subgenre in fact has street credibility, as compared to 'Eclectic' or 'Crossover Prog' which were developed specifically for ProgArchives.   And it was not "created by an individual or a few people who came up with it", it existed as a phrase well before it was used here at PA.

Ah, the utterly contrived genre label "Heavy Prog" has somehow managed to earn itself a bit of street cred in the illustrious Prog Music Lounge Street, nestled within the cyber metropolis known as Progarchives. One can only marvel at how such an artificial concoction has found its way into the hearts (or perhaps just the playlists) of those who frequent this digital haven. It’s as if someone decided that mixing some acoustic guitar intros and short keys-driven atmospheric passages and other tricks into heavy riffing hard rock songs was a stroke of genius, and now we're all supposed to nod sagely and pretend it's not just another marketing ploy. Bravo, internet! You've done it again!