QUEEN on progarchives

All those people reviewing QUEEN ALBUMS, (and giving them 3 4 5 stars!)  !  What's happening? Are these guys losing their time in finding Prog elements in albums which have more or less no prog elements?

Again, I'm not the Queen defender, but I try to be fair.

I gave A Day at the Races 4 stars, because I believe it deserves 4 stars it has great musical quality, excellent arrangements, versatility sound and exxcellent production, if gave them less  I would be being unfair with them and with myself.

A few months ago I gave also 4 stars to The Grand Illusion by STYX, despite the fact it isn't Progressive album, but it's good, and STYX is less Prog oriented than Queen.

I judge an album by the quality of the music, not by the genre even when I prefer Progressive Rock over any other genre, but this is not an obstacle to appreciate great music.

Everybody who knows me here knows I'm a stubborn purist, if you had asked before I would have said Queen should not be here (I think I did once), but they are part of Prog Archives now, and there's no way to take them out.

And to be honest, IMO they deserve more to be here than STYX, ASIA, Radiohead, Roxy Music, etc.

Iván

[/QUOTE]

I think at least 51% (or in younger bands cases 50% would be acceptable) of a bands albums should be prog for the band to be considered a prog band at all. Otherwise wouldnt it just be a rock or pop band producing a Prog album? [/QUOTE]

If this should be the case then what happens to bands like Genesis?  If I'm correct, there's really only 7 albums out of 15 that can be classified as prog.  that would ean less than half of their albums are prog!!  Does that mean Genesis shouldn't be included????

There is an inherent fallacy in the Queen vs. Radiohead argument.  Radiohead is a new band.  Thus, the question of whether they are prog is based on two questions: (i) what are their influences (if any) vis-a-vis prog, and (ii) do any of their albums have an internal consistency vis-a-vis the use of those elements of prog that are widely accepted to be important if not crucial to a classification as prog.  In these regards, while the band itself may not be prog as a whole - and certainly did not start out that way - I find it hard to believe that any knowledgeable progger could listen to Kid A and not come away believing it is prog.  It is certainly not pop or straight-forward rock.  And the qualities and elements that make this so are exactly what makes the album prog.

However, with Queen, we are going backward to a time when prog was in its heyday, with all the seminal bands - KC, PF, Yes, Genesis, ELP, VDGG, JT et al - at their peak (certainly "visibly" if not always musically).  Thus, if we ask the same questions, we get the following answers.  Queen was not, in any way, influenced by any of the prog bands ascendant during the heyday of prog: they were a rock band with glam tendencies, more heavily influenced by Zep, The Beatles (both harmonies and other), and other straight-forward rock and glam bands.  Yes, Brian May did some unique things with a guitar, and the production values beginning with SHA were amazing.  But those two things alone do not qualify Queen as prog.  As for "internal consistency of prog elements," here again Queen fails the test.  Yes, they played around with some quasi-prog elements, including occasional "symphonic" features.  But so did many bands who NONE of you would accept as being prog.  And even if Queen succeeded in producing a proggish song, it was certainly more by "accident" than by any conscious effort at being "prog."

Although it is not necessary for every band to make use of  every element of "prog" in order to be classified as such, some of the elements we all agree on are: use of non-standard time signatures; use of non-standard chord progressions; use of non-standard instruments; "symphonic" elements either vis-a-vis an "orchestral quality" to the arrangement or actual use of orchestra or keyboards to create a symphonic effect; extended compositions, usually including extended instrumental passages; use of the recording studio as an integral part of the overall "sound"; and, in some cases, use of a "concept" to tie together compositions that may not otherwise necessarily be connected.

Queen fails in almost all regards.  There is almost no use of non-standard time signatures.  There is minimal use of non-standard chord progressions.  There is minimal or no use of non-standard instruments.  There is minimal use of "symphonic" elements.  There are almost no extended compositions other than BR, PS and maybe half a dozen others spread over more than 10 albums.  There are very few if any extended instrumental passages.  There are no "concepts" that tie all the songs of an album together - certainly not in any coherent fashion (for comparison, although Supertramp's "Dreamer" is not a prog song, the overall concept of the album ties it in with the rest of the concept).  Indeed, the only element that Queen uses consistently (at least from SHA on) is the use of the recording studio as an integral element of the music.

As an aside, during the discussion re 10CC and XTC, at least one member argued that the main reason he felt that neither should be included was that neither one had many extended instrumental passages, which he considered an absolutely necessary element of prog.  Queen does not have this either.  So why are they prog?

As for the argument that not everything that Genesis or Yes or whoever did was prog, this is also a specious argument.  A group can start out as prog and then fall away (as Genesis and Yes did), but it is absolutely understood - by 99.99% of the prog-knowledgeable populace - that these groups are essentially prog groups.  A group can also start out as not prog (as The Church did) and then become prog in a very serious way that, again, the overwhelming majority of prog-heads would accept as prog.

Queen fits neither category.  They did not start out prog - truly, unquestionably, inherently and wholly prog - and then "fall away."  Neither did they start out not prog and then become prog - despite the proggy qualities of some of NATO and DATR (and maybe SHA and Queen II).

Finally, I have to wonder about this decision for a very obvious reason.  Queen has been around for a long time.  We have had at least three or four discussions about them over the past two years.  So Max and Rony had plenty of opportunity to add them long ago.  But they didn't.  And there was a reason for that.

Thus, the only conclusion I can draw is that they added Queen not because they truly believe that Queen is "prog," but because of the clamor of many members, and perhaps the feeling that if other prog sites included them, PA should too.  Both of these reasons are unacceptable.  Re members' clamor, that is all fine and dandy.  But compromising one's principles (in this case the clear belief that Queen is not prog) to satisfy the "mob" is the kind of capitulation that does more harm than good, and, as richardh and others have noted, is a "watershed" moment for the site.  As for other sites including Queen, this is also fine and dandy.  But PA is not other sites.  And other sites also include Zep and a host of other bands that no one here would accept as prog.  Does this mean that PA has to "follow the crowd?"  This, too, is a betrayal of one's principles, and can only be seen as a capitulation that is as inappropriate as it is weak-minded.

Max's contention that "PROGARCHIVES is prog and will always be PROG as a WHOLE guys!" gives little comfort.  Will always be prog "as a whole?"  What on God's earth does that mean?  Either it is prog or it is not.  If we keep "lowering the bar," then no matter how well-intentioned Max is, this site will, as one member so quaintly joked, have to be "rock archives."

Peace.

^ I consistently disagree with you politically, buy Maani what an excellent post, I agree wholeheartedly 

Silversaw wrote:

If this should be the case then what happens to bands like Genesis?  If I'm correct, there's really only 7 albums out of 15 that can be classified as prog.  that would ean less than half of their albums are prog!!  Does that mean Genesis shouldn't be included????

Please, don't compare Genesis with Queen to make your point, I with some doubts accept Queen, but Genesis has more than 50% totally prog:

1. Trespass
2. NC
3. Foxtrot
4. SEBTP
5. The Lamb
6. ATOTT
7. W&W

Two partially Prog (Even when I don't like them)

1. ATTW3
2. Duke

And only 6 non Prog:

1. FGTTR
2. Abacab
3. Genesis (Shapes)
4. Invissible Touch
5. We Can't Dance
6. CAS

So it's not the same case, most of Genesis Production is prog' and each one from Trespass to W&W arre among the most influential of the genre, which is not the case of Queen.

I believe Queen is OK as an Art Rock Band (even when I have doubts), but can never be compared with Genesis in Progressive atributes.

Iván

Totally agree with Maani. He explained with the most correct words what I and many on this forum are trying to say (but we can't because of our language):

He focused the most important things which defines the Concept of Progressive Rock, I think the "borderlines" or the "edges" of a music genre, and you people should agree, due to the fact you're all listeners of Prog Rock.

Queen music wasn't prog at this beginning, neither in the central nor in the final part of his history. Ok, now they are in Prog Archives, and we must accept it, but as a matter of fact, they are not Progressive Music. And Ivan, believe me, we can find some good music in lots of old and new bands, also if they aren' listed in the Archives, so why discriminate them(I mean:why not include them here?)? Queen is here, so doors are opened to many others rock band. Prog Archives WAS a website for prog music, a newbie could find here his musical identity in the world of prog. With no distinctions between genres, and with a Meltin' Pot, we have damaged the borderlines of our favourite kind of music. 

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN (FROM THE PURIST'S WRATH)   

___BYE___

And i forgot:

Two months ago I went to Queen concert here in Italy, in Rome, great event, (with Paul Rodgers), because I like Queen, ithey give me power and emotions, strength and love feelings, Freddie was not only a great frontman or singer, but first of all a great man. I only respect the musical genre's limits, and the borderlines of my beloved Prog.

___BYE___