Objection: Queen/prog-related on top 100 - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Masque

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 01 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 808

Topic: Objection: Queen/prog-related on top 100
Posted: April 15 2006 at 09:12

hey I`m now a groupie , thats cool

Masque

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 01 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 808

Posted: April 15 2006 at 09:11

Queen should be here but then again maybe they shouldn`t ? it all depends on how you see it ...

Joolz

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377

Posted: April 15 2006 at 09:04

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

The problem is that when the proto-prog/prog-related genres were introduced, everybody agreed that these albums (and reviews) would not be shown on the front page. Then afterwards, when people started to complain that their review didn't show on the front page, that was changed. I can understand that some people feel like they've been betrayed ...

IMO those albums/reviews clearly don't belong on the front page. I mean, this is a prog website and we spend much time and serious consideration on which bands are prog, and which are not. And then we throw them all together on the front page and list them in one big top 100? Why not make a top 100 pure-prog list and beneath that a top 10 proto-prog/prog-related list instead?

Hmmmmm, there seems to be several threads on this subject and lots of people have an opinion on it. Some are driven by the fact that their favourite band/category/whatever doesn't feature high enough etc etc .....

My viewpoint is this: I have joined this site because of a common love of Prog music. I want to learn, and communicate with others, about Prog music because that is the music I like most. It is not my position to tell the site owners what they should or should not do, but I will say this: the more they widen their remit by allowing more marginal items, the more the site will be devalued - in my eyes. If I had been around when those categories were introduced I would have argued against them, or at best argued the case for a very low-key thing. I don't object to making reference to non-Prog things, but please don't make a feature of them. At the moment, this site gives them equal status.

To me it is relatively simple: there is Prog; then there is the rest. Prog belongs here, the rest doesn't (except maybe as a reference). However, deciding what is Prog is definitely not simple, and I don't envy the decision makers, because when you are too close to something you often 'cannot see the wood for the trees'. Which is when muddy thinking occurs: I am sure that sooner or later, some bright spark, with a way with words and a very sharp mind, will convince enough of us that Sibelius (or Stravinsky or .....) was Prog .....

Sorry, started to rant, apologies!

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21151

Posted: April 15 2006 at 06:57

Ghost Rider wrote:

As to "A Night at the Opera" being in the Top 100, I cannot see how any album by any band present on this site can be barred from being included in that list. This wouldn't just be fair, IMHO.

The problem is that when the proto-prog/prog-related genres were introduced, everybody agreed that these albums (and reviews) would not be shown on the front page. Then afterwards, when people started to complain that their review didn't show on the front page, that was changed. I can understand that some people feel like they've been betrayed ...

Recently listened to:

Phil

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 17 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1881

Posted: April 15 2006 at 05:28

Evolver wrote:

If a band that isn't primarily prog puts out a great prog album, what's wrong with including it on the list? It's just a list anyway. It'll never actually prove that any non-prog band is better than Genesis. Get over it.

I agree that if a "non-prog" band put out an album that is "prog" then it deserves inclusion...the album that is, not the band's entire catalogue. I am coming to the view that each album should be viewed on its own merits, not each artist simplistically categorised as being either "in" or "out" of the archives. This might also overcome some of the comments on Genesis' later catalogue!

Small point - I find your comment "Get over it" though not directed at me here, to be rude and dismissive! I've seen it used before and I don't like it. Please think before you fire from the hip.

Raff

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429

Posted: April 15 2006 at 04:55

freebird wrote:

Some years ago I saw an interesting book at the dicount bookstore "History of Glam Rock" with Slade, Ziggy Stardust, Freddie Mercury & Queen. The book described Prog as the opposite of Glam, with Rick Wakeman as an flagrant example of Prog, his music - "Grandiose symphonic keyboard & piano compositions" (I immediately went out and bought a bunch of Wakeman Albums!!!) LOL

ha ha!

I don't think the author of that book was right, especially as he was putting a bunch of very different musicians in the same kettle. What would he have made, for instance, of Roxy Music? They are in PA under "Art Rock" (if I remember well), and I've seen them described as glam rock quite often. And what about Peter Gabriel? If everyone who dresses up on stage were to be defined as glam rock, even Kiss should be put in the same category.

Then, Queen are not listed under "Symphonic Prog" or any other such sacred category - they're under "Prog-RELATED", which means just that - a band or musician who has produced something which bears a relation to the music we all know and love. As to "A Night at the Opera" being in the Top 100, I cannot see how any album by any band present on this site can be barred from being included in that list. This wouldn't just be fair, IMHO.

That said, I'm not a big fan of Queen, outstanding musicians as they may be. Their inclusion in PA does not particularly bother me (even if seeing an album of theirs with George Michael in the Album list upset me just a little bit...), but I think there are bands more deserving of inclusion. One name for all: the mighty Led Zeppelin.

dagrush

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 537

Posted: April 15 2006 at 01:38

I consider art rock and prog related to be pretty much interchangeable, so I have no problem with it being in the top list.

soundspectrum View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 14 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 201

Posted: April 15 2006 at 01:18

again you guys confuse the term progressive as a sound rather than a work ethic. Queen definitly had this ethic and to say they arent prog is just crazy...PROG DOES NOT HAVE A SOUND

freebird

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 04 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 135

Posted: April 15 2006 at 01:02

Paulieg wrote:

Queen is glam rock. They should never, never be in the top 100 list. I take it as an insult to prog.

Some years ago I saw an interesting book at the dicount bookstore "History of Glam Rock" with Slade, Ziggy Stardust, Freddie Mercury & Queen. The book described Prog as the opposite of Glam, with Rick Wakeman as an flagrant example of Prog, his music - "Grandiose symphonic keyboard & piano compositions" (I immediately went out and bought a bunch of Wakeman Albums!!!) LOL

ha ha!

Evolver

Special Collaborator

Crossover & JR/F/Canterbury Teams

Joined: October 22 2005
Location: The Idiocracy
Status: Offline
Points: 5482

Posted: April 12 2006 at 07:48

If a band that isn't primarily prog puts out a great prog album, what's wrong with including it on the list? It's just a list anyway. It'll never actually prove that any non-prog band is better than Genesis. Get over it.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

Snow Dog

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995

Posted: April 12 2006 at 07:45

White Queen wrote:

^^^^^^^
I think we can all agree that We Will Rock You isn't a prog song, but neither are Abacab or Invisible Touch or Jesus He Knows Me, and Genesis stays on this site

I have to disagree here. I think that Abacab is a prog song. Not the others though.

chopper

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030

Posted: April 12 2006 at 07:37

goose wrote:

BebieM wrote:

Generally prog-related and proto-prog albums shouldn't count for the
top100 on the first page IMO. It's good to have them on the site to see
a) where prog came from and b) what bands border on being prog, but
that's it.

Couldn't agree more with that

Definitely. As much as I am a Beatles fan, their albums should not be in the PA Top 100. The same goes for Queen.

earlyprog

Collaborator

Neo / PSIKE / Heavy Teams

Joined: March 05 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 2133

Posted: April 12 2006 at 07:16

Joolz wrote:

Empathy wrote:

They are NOT in the top 100 of Prog. They are in the top 100 of prog-RELATED. As well they should be.

Actually - QUEEN II is currently at number 69 (a good place to be LOL) on the top 100 displayed on the home page!

#87: Queen 'A Night at the Opera'

Disastrous

Joolz

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377

Posted: April 12 2006 at 05:21

Empathy wrote:

They are NOT in the top 100 of Prog. They are in the top 100 of prog-RELATED. As well they should be.

Actually - QUEEN II is currently at number 69 (a good place to be LOL) on the top 100 displayed on the home page!

Empathy

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1864

Posted: April 02 2006 at 23:07

"Gay rock"?

Oh, for f**k's sake, people, GROW UP.

They are NOT in the top 100 of Prog. They are in the top 100 of prog-RELATED. As well they should be.

Edited by Empathy

Pure Brilliance:

cuncuna

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 29 2005
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 4318

Posted: April 02 2006 at 22:42

Paulieg wrote:

Queen is glam rock. They should never, never be in the top 100 list. I take it as an insult to prog.

Styx is an insult to prog; or Triumvirat. Queen was many things; slightly prog at the beggining; gay rock in the middle (not a bad thing; I don't like it, but gay people are totally entitled to have bands dedicating albums to them), glam rock from time to time, etc.

¡Beware of the Bee!

White Queen View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 218

Posted: April 02 2006 at 20:48

^^^^^^^
I think we can all agree that We Will Rock You isn't a prog song, but neither are Abacab or Invisible Touch or Jesus He Knows Me, and Genesis stays on this site

int_2375

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 20 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 159

Posted: April 02 2006 at 14:53

All I have to say is that if Queen is prog, I see no reason not to throw in Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Iron Maiden...

Of course I radther take out the bands like Queen than throw in more to be fair.

I can't imagine prog that is played at Highschool basketball games, but I've heard "We Will Rock You" at everyone I've been too... Look at that bands output.... 3 and 4 minute catchy pop songs, with a few exceptions like the Prophets Song and Bohemian Rhapsody... its innovative and interesting, and it was made during the 70's, but that does not make it prog.

earlyprog

Collaborator

Neo / PSIKE / Heavy Teams

Joined: March 05 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 2133

Posted: April 02 2006 at 14:45