Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is Queen Prog Rock?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIs Queen Prog Rock?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
nancyrowina View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: December 29 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 49
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Is Queen Prog Rock?
    Posted: December 31 2004 at 11:39
I always thought "A Night At The Opera" sounded very progressive, the prophets song has to be.   
Confusion will be my epitaph, as I crawl a cracked and broken path, if we make it we can all sit back and laugh, but I fear tomorrow I'll be crying.
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 11:46

Uh-Oh!

That's a hornet's nest-stirring question if ever there was one  - but I totally agree.

I also think that "Queen II" and, to a lesser extent, "Queen" are both great prog albums.

Almost all the articles I have ever read about Queen have referred to their early material as "Bombastic, Operatic prog rock with a dash of Vaudeville" - and I would agree.

According to one close source (on this very forum!), however, Queen themselves did not consider themselves to be prog. Still - it's us who decide, eh?

Back to Top
Dan Bobrowski View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5243
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 12:20
I felt the early albums definitely had a strong prog flavor. Queen II was prog in every aspic. Ultimately and sadly, popularity had a stronger influence than creativity. I felt some of Innuendo was harkening back to those more creative days.   
Back to Top
Syzygy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 16 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 7003
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 12:23

The first 4 albums were definitely prog in all but name. They were always marketed as a kind of glam rock/hard rock hybrid, and had lots of hits and appeared on TOTP, which is probably why prog fans have never quite accepted them.

The world became a slightly duller place the day Freddie Mercury died.

'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute
to the already rich among us...'

Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom


Back to Top
Peter View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 13:50

No -- on the balance, not to me. Mostly well-executed radio-friendly pop, though I enjoyed much of their earlier output.

These types of questions (along with almost all reactions to art) are personal, subjective matters. As I've effectively said many times here, if you think that XTC, the Beatles, Zeppelin, the Who, Metallica, Radiohead, Weather Report or Queen belong on your own prog compilations, fine -- but don't expect to get all here to agree with your perceptions, or to arrive at some universally-accepted definition of "progressive rock."

Why is this issue (in one form or another) so important to so many people? Confused

There are hundreds of diverse artists to read about and review here, and those who aren't here -- for one reason or another -- can be found on other websites.Stern Smile



Edited by Peter
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
Back to Top
Joren View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 07 2004
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 6667
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 13:55
nope
Back to Top
Eddy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 22 2004
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 637
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 14:41
maybee some songs had prog qualities. but no way. queen is not prog. their still a great band!
Back to Top
threefates View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4215
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 14:49

Yep, even they didn't consider themselves prog... but back then when they played NYC they were always touted as Glitter-rock.. and they weren't really fond of that title either... However unlike Cert here... I never heard anyone refer to them as prog rock... not in this country anyway.  But I have heard this debate in different places over the last few years...

Just as with others... prog moments, does not a prog band make...

THIS IS ELP
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 16:12

They had prog moments on numerous albums. Queen were eclectic. They played with many styles, and in the early days often to very good effect. When the 70's drew to a close they became very poppy. Although I did like 'The works'

Brian May was a very taleneted musician, who made his own guitars

Sadly, his guitar sound was sh!t and he looks like Anita Dobson, but hey. You cant have eveything

Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Forum Guest Group
Forum Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 17:15
Originally posted by Peter Peter wrote:

No -- on the balance, not to me. Mostly well-executed radio-friendly pop, though I enjoyed much of their earlier output.

These types of questions (along with almost all reactions to art) are personal, subjective matters. As I've effectively said many times here, if you think that XTC, the Beatles, Zeppelin, the Who, Metallica, Radiohead, Weather Report or Queen belong on your own prog compilations, fine -- but don't expect to get all here to agree with your perceptions, or to arrive at some universally-accepted definition of "progressive rock."

Why is this issue (in one form or another) so important to so many people? Confused

There are hundreds of diverse artists to read about and review here, and those who aren't here -- for one reason or another -- can be found on other websites.Stern Smile

I think a lot of the bands you mentioned are mostly rock, but had touches of prog-inspired creativity. For example, the Beatles: on Sergeant Pepper's, much of the last half of the record was trippy and proggish. I think that is quite an arguable observation. Zeppelin were definitely rock, but Stairway to Heaven was an epic-like and storytelling piece. Both epics and storys-told are common to progressive music. The Who's Tommy album was progressive. Metallica's The Call of Ktulu off of Ride the Lightning  could be argued as progressive metal. Weather Report was probably more jazz-rock than prog-rock. I know that many others hold that view of Weather Report's music. But the question was Queen; Queen could be argued as both regular rock and prog-rock. They dabbled in prog, but most of their work was straight-up rock and roll. This opinion may be biased because I don't even really like Queen. That's my bit, take it or leave it.

Back to Top
Dan Bobrowski View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5243
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 17:25
On the whole, NO, QUEEN IS NOT PROG, but I would put the Prophet Song on a Prog Compiliation CD before anything by Dream Theater. Simply put, Queen, Queen II, Sheer Heart Attack and Day at the Races were prog, every thing else... NOT!
Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 17:34

Bicycle, fat-bottomed girls, hammer to fallAngryAngry

Who is responsible for f**king up this great band OF THE SEVENTIES?

They could have been a great Prog band but sold out.

The biggest sell-out of all times (and that includes PC!)

Dead

 




Back to Top
Pixel Pirate View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 11 2004
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 17:50
I think Queen from the very beginning tried to be everything and wound up as nothing. And I was a big fan of Queen in my youth but by stretching themselves soooo far in every possible direction they managed to kill any identity they might otherwise have been able to develop. I think.
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Back to Top
Pixel Pirate View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 11 2004
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2004 at 17:51
And as for the question: They were definitely not prog,just the odd proggy moment here and there,it was chiefly Brian May who had those leanings.
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Back to Top
Easy Livin View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 01 2005 at 08:04

I'm in the no camp.

Queen were (are?) very talented, and created very diverse music. Some of that music had prog qualities, especially on their earlier albums, but not nearly enough to make them a prog band.

If Queen were a prog rock band,  surely it follows that they were one of the biggest prog rock bands. That for me would not make sense, and would distort the whole genre.

There is a temptation at times to promote bands here as being prog, in order to get them onto the site. My concern is that if bands such as Queen (whose music I love) were here, the whole focus of site would change. Queen are still a huge band today, do we really want this site to be dominated by them and other such "marginally prog" bands? At present, the "biggest" bands on this site are Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, etc., all of whom help to define the genre. Queen do not do so.

Back to Top
Fitzcarraldo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1835
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 01 2005 at 08:28
Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

Bicycle, fat-bottomed girls, hammer to fallAngryAngry

Who is responsible for f**king up this great band OF THE SEVENTIES?

They could have been a great Prog band but sold out.

The biggest sell-out of all times (and that includes PC!)

Dead

 

Yes, I have to say I was disappointed at the direction the band took. Ironically, the first few LPs had "No synthesizers!" in the sleeve notes, and they were the albums that Prog fans like the most.

I bought the first three LPs at the time but, apart from 'Bohemian Rhapsody', did not care as much for "A Night At The Opera" when it came out and so stopped at "Sheer Heart Attack". I disposed of my LPs in the late 1970s, but a couple of years ago bought "Sheer Heart Attack" again on CD, and am toying with buying the first two albums again on CD.

On balance, I don't think that QUEEN belongs in the ProgArchives data base. Their early sound was proggish, but still more mainstream rock/pop in my opinion. The first three/four albums are great, nevertheless.

 

 

Back to Top
arcer View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 01 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1239
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 01 2005 at 10:52
I think Freddie would turn in his fabulously decorated
grave at the notion that Queen were prog
and personally I wouldn't say it either.
A fantastic band with some of the cleverest, campest
most arch pop/rock/hard rock songs ever made, but
never prog, not even in their most prog moments
(Queen II).
They were just incorporating the flavour of the times,
the sounds floating around (indeed it's interesting to
note that Brian May got Steve Howe to provide the
Spanish guitar on Innuendo - there's an inspirational
nod if ever the was one) but Queen were always the
most tasteful of magpies for me. A bit of Ebglish
music-hall, a smidgen of Noel Coward-esque
frippery, a wholesome dollop of Purple-esque hard
rock, a little sould, a little funk, some disco, some
opera, some Beatles-y pop, some folk pastiches.
I think May and Taylor (being the most rockist) may
have had some leanings towards prog and certainly
towards zepp but Mercury and Deacon always had
broader agendas (soul, funk, pop).
They were just a top band, who in my opinion, never
really lost it, they just mislaid the better bits on
occasion. All their albums have something
worthwhile on them (with the possible exception of
Hot Space - as very Freddie album)
Great, very influential and enormous fun but not prog
Back to Top
Rob The Good View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 17 2004
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 476
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 01 2005 at 20:55
I wouldn't say Queen were Prog, but in their time they were certainly progressive, which isn't necessarily the same thing: later Beatles work, and Jimi Hendrix, were progressive in that they were stretching the boundaries but they weren't Prog i.e. Genesis, KC & Yes
And Jesus said unto John, "come forth and receive eternal life..."
Unfortunately, John came fifth and was stuck with a toaster.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2005 at 00:07

In the sense they changed something in Rock since they appeared, I believe they were progressive (As an adjective that qualifies their approach towards music), they turned POP into  a decent genre to listen and of course they have a few songs that can be considered Prog'

But no I don't believe they are part of the Progressive Rock Genre.

Iván



Edited by ivan_2068
Back to Top
nancyrowina View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: December 29 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 49
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 05 2005 at 09:13
Originally posted by threefates threefates wrote:

Yep, even they didn't consider themselves prog... but back then when they played NYC they were always touted as Glitter-rock.. and they weren't really fond of that title either... However unlike Cert here... I never heard anyone refer to them as prog rock... not in this country anyway.  But I have heard this debate in different places over the last few years...

Just as with others... prog moments, does not a prog band make...

I read Freddi's biography, and apparently he liked the glitter rock thing, but the rest of the band didn't, and wanted to be a manly rock band.

I wouldn't say that they were a prog rock band, but they were experimental, and I think "A Night At The Opera" was one attempt at a prog rock type album.

they obviously are a band who are reluctant to be pigeon holed as anything but a "Rock" band, and they remain one of my favourite bands. 

Confusion will be my epitaph, as I crawl a cracked and broken path, if we make it we can all sit back and laugh, but I fear tomorrow I'll be crying.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.