QUEEN on progarchives

Hi.

I'm new and (already) old around here, at the same time. That's because this is my first and my last post. I really liked Progarchives. I was reading reviews here daily, browsing through forum topics - whatever was 'tasteful' enough (beside music itself) to stimulate my musical apetite.

But c'mon, folks! What about Queen on Progarchives? Queen doesn't belong here. I really like Queen, but this is not the right place for Queen... Why should they be here? I know, it's a matter of personal preference. Of course, it's only my oppinion that Queen is not prog at all. But not only Queen. There are some other bands on Progarchives which are not prog at all, if you ask me. None bothered me. But the presence of Queen here does. Why? Because someone seem to have the intention to extend the "prog" concept over new musical areas. Well, it's not much time left until we'll be able to read about some nice prog elements ABBA (or Britney Spears) included in their songs... C'mon... Are we re-designing the concept of prog, so it may fit every pop/rock song we ever heard? I mean... what is this? Does someone try to pretend that he / she / it developed some kind of... detector or a sort of supernatural capacity that allows this 'someone' to isolate and analyse all progressive or progressive-like songs? Let's get serious...

Farewell, Progarchives. It was really nice having you around all this time. And, as someone over here use to say: "keep on progging" - whatever that means...

MikeEnRegalia wrote: methalique wrote: Hi. I'm new and (already) old around here, at the same time. That's because this is my first and my last post. I really liked Progarchives. I was reading reviews here daily, browsing through forum topics - whatever was 'tasteful' enough (beside music itself) to stimulate my musical apetite. But c'mon, folks! What about Queen on Progarchives? Queen doesn't belong here. I really like Queen, but this is not the right place for Queen... Why should they be here? I know, it's a matter of personal preference. Of course, it's only my oppinion that Queen is not prog at all. But not only Queen. There are some other bands on Progarchives which are not prog at all, if you ask me. None bothered me. But the presence of Queen here does. Why? Because someone seem to have the intention to extend the "prog" concept over new musical areas. Well, it's not much time left until we'll be able to read about some nice prog elements ABBA (or Britney Spears) included in their songs... C'mon... Are we re-designing the concept of prog, so it may fit every pop/rock song we ever heard? I mean... what is this? Does someone try to pretend that he / she / it developed some kind of... detector or a sort of supernatural capacity that allows this 'someone' to isolate and analyse all progressive or progressive-like songs? Let's get serious... Farewell, Progarchives. It was really nice having you around all this time. And, as someone over here use to say: "keep on progging" - whatever that means... Quite a childish post - why should I - or anyone else - care for your opinion on music when you put Queen on the same level as Britney Spears?

He made some good points in my view.Queen were never a prog band but those that are fans of them are determined that they should be put here based on no real sensible criteria whatsoever except that they had some prog elements in one or two albums.Well that could extend to many bands in the seventies including Abba quite likely.Now they are just trying to justify the decision by saying that ''Well they are here so deal with it type responses''.There are those here that will never be able to accept that Queen are a prog band (me included).I will continue to say it whenever it suits me.I look forward to seeing who is up next.The word 'Who' and 'Next' could well be a clue!

richardh wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: methalique wrote: Hi. I'm new and (already) old around here, at the same time. That's because this is my first and my last post. I really liked Progarchives. I was reading reviews here daily, browsing through forum topics - whatever was 'tasteful' enough (beside music itself) to stimulate my musical apetite. But c'mon, folks! What about Queen on Progarchives? Queen doesn't belong here. I really like Queen, but this is not the right place for Queen... Why should they be here? I know, it's a matter of personal preference. Of course, it's only my oppinion that Queen is not prog at all. But not only Queen. There are some other bands on Progarchives which are not prog at all, if you ask me. None bothered me. But the presence of Queen here does. Why? Because someone seem to have the intention to extend the "prog" concept over new musical areas. Well, it's not much time left until we'll be able to read about some nice prog elements ABBA (or Britney Spears) included in their songs... C'mon... Are we re-designing the concept of prog, so it may fit every pop/rock song we ever heard? I mean... what is this? Does someone try to pretend that he / she / it developed some kind of... detector or a sort of supernatural capacity that allows this 'someone' to isolate and analyse all progressive or progressive-like songs? Let's get serious... Farewell, Progarchives. It was really nice having you around all this time. And, as someone over here use to say: "keep on progging" - whatever that means... Quite a childish post - why should I - or anyone else - care for your opinion on music when you put Queen on the same level as Britney Spears? He made some good points in my view.Queen were never a prog band but those that are fans of them are determined that they should be put here based on no real sensible criteria whatsoever except that they had some prog elements in one or two albums.Well that could extend to many bands in the seventies including Abba quite likely.Now they are just trying to justify the decision by saying that ''Well they are here so deal with it type responses''.There are those here that will never be able to accept that Queen are a prog band (me included).I will continue to say it whenever it suits me.I look forward to seeing who is up next.The word 'Who' and 'Next' could well be a clue!

Yes if Queen are included then surely The Who must be to! In truth though, neither should be included.

Tony R wrote: Two of my favourite bands are Led Zep and Deep Purple. I can certainly see that some might be tempted to include them,and there have been murmurings. Let's not do it.

I agree. One of the things I've noticed on this thread is the opinion that iif you don't want Queen on the Archives, somehow you don't like Queen!

Let me say this..I love Queen, but even so I stiill believe they don't belong here! I have all there albums so I'm not speaking out of ignorance.

Thanks God! Finally someone who understand what I and other people are trying to say on 6 page of this topic. What a wonderful band Queen are, but this is not the right place for them. Methalique, if you want to leave, I understand and totally agree with you. But IMHO, you won't find anrywhere else what you find here on Prog Archives. I can understand what your feelings are, when you open the site homepage and you find 6 (yes, I said 6) Queen albums reviews on A PROGRESSIVE MUSIC ARCHIVE. You must think it's a joke. We have all become mad. "Have I entered Rock Archives?" "What the Hell is goin' on?" " Let me see..Close To The Edge only 2 stars?" "A day at the races 5 stars?" "Oh my God!"  (yes guys see the last 50 reviews). The world is a strange place sometimes. But everyone has his own opinion, which should be respected.

"DE GUSTIBUS NON DISPUTANDUM EST"... as the latin used to say (everyone has his own ideas). Thanks to Maani, Richardh, and the other members who supported this idea, and the real MEANING of PROGRESSIVE ROCK.

___BYE___ 

Snow Dog:

Thank you for reminding me to add that.  I have always been, and continue to be, a huge Queen fan, especially from their debut through DATR.  Queen was one of the bands I first learned to drum to when I started playing drums.  And Killer Queen was one of the first pop songs I learned to play on piano.  I think their harmonies are in a pantheon that includes only The Beatles, Yes, Gentle Giant and 10CC.  NATO remains among my favorite rock albums in any genre, and comes very close to being a DID.  So I am no Queen-hater.

Glad I got that out of the way...

Peace.

Basic text of four reviews submitted to the main site by Trotsky (Martin Vengadesan) ...

I won't comment anymore except to say that we do need to sort out a way to avoid the anomaly of including large amounts of non-progressive music by bands that are excepted as prog (Any of the 10 or more Uriah Heep albums after High And Mighty would certainly qualify as well as the 80s pop albums by the likes of Genesis, Camel, PFM etc) ... while some great prog-rock is left off simply because the prog percentage of the group is too low ... I fully agree that less than 20% of Queen's overall output strikes me as prog but IMO that 20% happens to be too important to ignore ...

QUEEN - Queen

No band had a greater effect on my life as a music fan/musician than Queen. Back in 1986 I was a 13-year-old synth-pop fan who rated Ultravox and Orchestral Manouevres In The Dark as the best bands on the planet. However a chance encounter with the B-sides of Queen's Friends Will Be Friends and Who Wants To Live Forever singles (Seven Seas Of Rhye and Killer Queen respectively) convinced me that Queen's early work was worth listening to. When I spotted Queen and Queen II for sale at half-price, I snapped 'em up, and (after some teething problems) fell head over heels in love with Queen's brand of progressive rock.

Now I happen to believe that while Queen was a highly eclectic band that went through many phases, only 3 of the band's 15 albums qualify as genuine prog-rock albums. Thankfully all three of them (Queen, Queen II and A Night At The Opera) are real corkers. This first album came out in 1973 and sees a tearaway Brian May rocking out like there was no tomorrow. Coupled with Freddie Mercury's outstanding vocals and a solid bass/drum pairing of John Deacon and Roger Taylor, Queen's debut was a passionate affair that rode on the considerable songwriting skills of Mercury and May.

The light/heavy contrasts of Doing All Right, the semi-Arabic hints of Jesus (which explodes at one point in a raucous jam, the heavy blues-rock of Son And Daughter and Liar, the heart-breaking When The Night Comes Down, the glorious Great King Rat (surely one of May's greatest ever guitar performances) and the bona-fide multi dimensional fantasy epic My Fairy King (which has some lovely piano work from Mr. Mercury) are all songs that rank among Queen's most creative. Even though there are a couple of throwaways in Modern Times Rock'N'Roll (written and sung by Taylor (then going by Roger Meddows-Taylor) and an instrumental version of Seven Seas Of Rhye (which would be revisited in spectacular fashion on the next album), this record is still stunning alive, and is a wonderful slab of progressive hard-rock. ... 77% on the MPV scale

4 stars

QUEEN - Queen II

Not content with a scorching debut album, Queen returned in 1974 with a truly masterful album. The two sides of Queen II were subtitled Side White and Side Black, and the album was divided roughly along those lines with Brian May penning almost all of Side White (drummer Roger Taylor wrote and sang The Loser In The End) and Freddie Mercury enjoying all of Side Black to himself.

What this potentially divisive move did was produce an amazing album that brims over with great progressive music. From the opening beats of the instrumental Procession to the closing singalong that concludes the amazing fantasy single Seven Seas Of Rhye, Queen II will have you on the edge of your seat. May has two wonderful tunes in the hard-rocking Father To Son and the incredibly moving White Queen (As It Began) which has some tear-jerking moments on guitar. As if to counter the power of White Queen, he handles lead vocals for the first time in the charming but relatively forgettable Some Day One Day (You've never heard my song before, the music was too loud" he sings) before The Loser In The End closes Side White.

Mercury's side goes even further, with some of Queen's greatest ever songs. The ultra-agressive fantasy metal piece Ogre Battle fairly takes one's breath away with amazing vocals, lyrics and powerful guitar-riffing from May. It's followed by the harpischord driven curiousity The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke which segues into a really beautiful but incredibly brief piano ballad Nevermore. All this is then topped by The March Of The Black Queen (which I believe stands alongside My Fairy King, Father To Son, The Prophet's Song and Bohemian Rhapsody as Queen's great prog epics). A dark-piano driven multi-part piece, it has all the hallmarks, fantasy lyrics, outstanding harmony vocals, twists and turns that range from storming hard rock to music hall choruses (dance with the devil, beat with the band, ahh!) . Funny How Love Is provides a little bit of light relief before the glorious Seven Seas Of Rhye (which offers a lesson in how to do a prog masterpiece in less then 3 minutes) closes one of the outstanding, underrated albums in prog. ... 93% on the MPV scale

5 stars

QUEEN - Sheer Heart Attack

I have to say that from a progressive rock point of view, I do consider Sheer Heart Attack to be inferior to both the album that preceeded it (Queen II) and the one that followed (A Night At The Opera).

Perhaps it is an unfair judgement, for Sheer Heart Attack has a wide eclectic range of songs, most of them excellent, and quite a few of them with a counterpart on either Queen II (compare Lily Of The Valley to Nevermore) or A Night At The Opera (the music hall vibe of Bring Back That Leroy Brown is echoed in Seaside Rendezvous and Lazin On A Sunday Afternoon, while Flick Of The Wrist and Death On Two Legs have many things in common).

Nonetheless despite containing the two brilliant quasi-fantasy pieces In The Lap Of The Gods and In the Lap Of The Gods ... Revisited, a trio of searing rock work-outs (Brighton Rock, Now I'm Here and Stone Cold Crazy), the unbelievably clever and infectious Mercury-penned hit single Killer Queen and my favourite Brian May and Roger Taylor lead vocals (She Makes Me and Tenement Funster respectively), I must repeat my belief that Sheer Heart Attack isn't an essential prog-rock experience in the way that Queen, Queen II and A Night At The Opera are. It's still a great rock album though and I can't see any classic rock fan failing to enjoy this one. ... 67% on the MPV scale

3 stars

QUEEN - A Night At The Opera

Ah! This is it. The album which contains both Freddie's piece de resistance (Bohemian Rhapsody which is surely destined to go down as the most progressive chart-topper in history) and the amazing Brian May epic The Prophet's Song. Anyone who listens to these two wonderful epics will certainly baulk at questioning Queen's prog credentials.

The whole band is in outstanding form on this career-defining album and the playing on the two afore-mentioned epics is really a thing of beauty. May's controlled aggression in The Prophet's Song is as spectacular as Mercury's songwriting in Bohemian Rhapsody is inventive and ambitious. They are two of the greatest prog songs I've ever heard and on the basis of this two tracks alone, A Night At The Opera is worth owning.

Amazingly, the rest of the album is a fascinating diverse collection of theatrical hard rock (Sweet Lady and Death On Two Legs), folkish ballads ('39 and Love Of My Life), music-hall (Lazing On A Sunday Afternoon, Seaside Rendezvous and Good Company) and piano-pop (You're My Best Friend). While Roger Taylor's I'm In Love With My Car isn't one of my favourite tracks it doesn't stop this album from a fantastic experience that somehow manages to project an impression of being  interwoven musically (although I can't put my finger on too many examples).

While I still believe Queen II to be the group's greatest prog acheivement, this is a very, very close second. ... 90% on the MPV scale
5 stars

maani wrote: Cert: I am not as famliliar with Queen II as I am with NATO, with which I am extremely familiar.  In this regard, you are either blindly fanatical, or deaf: "Death on Two Legs."  An excellent song, but there is very little about it that is "prog." "Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon."  No more prog than The Beatles' Honey Pie, of which it is almost a direct rip-off. "I'm in Love With My Car."  Not a single prog element in it. "You're My Best Friend."  Straightforward (and not very good) rock song, not an ounce of prog. "'39."  Cute, and the banjo adds a nice touch.  But prog?  I don't think so. "Sweet Lady."  As straightforward as straigthforward rock gets.  Not prog. "Seaside Rendezvous."  Like "Lazing," a cute Honey Pie-like song.  But no more prog than that. "Prophet's Song."  Prog without question. "Love of My Life."  Standard (and arguably sappy) rock ballad.  Not an iota of prog. "Good Company."  Like '39, nice banjo touch.  But prog?  I think not. "Bohemian Rhapsody."  Unarguably prog. So how, exactly, do you qualify this album - as a whole - as prog? Peace.

It's the concept.

You take the album as one whole thing - analysing the individual songs is as fruitless as analysing individual tracks by, say Tangerine Dream.

It's a Night At The Opera - if you've ever been to an evening of operatic highlights that's been skillfully put together, you can enjoy songs from one opera juxtaposed against songs from another and still have a continual feel to the evening.

It is an incredibly progressive idea to start from this viewpoint - and to end with the English national anthem played by May is just inspired beyond belief! Especially as it's recently been used as the English national anthem - May playing it on the roof of Buckingham Palace.

I'll do a full analysis when I come to review the album, but to my ears, there is no question that the entire album is prog, and I don't think I'm being particularly fanatical - or alone.

I've just reviewed Queen (the debut), and surprised myself - I always thought it was a bit proggy but overall just a hard/glam rock album. Having listened analytically and intently for the first time (I usually just enjoy it!), I note that it is a fine prog album.

Check it out - referring to my notes if you don't hear the prog. My notes are done "on the fly", as I listen. I wish I could afford the time to break each track down, as I know I missed loads of stuff - it's so condensed!

Certif1ed wrote: maani wrote: (...)  I think their harmonies are in a pantheon that includes only The Beatles, Yes, Gentle Giant and 10CC.  (...) I just noticed this. I'm sorry, but Queen's harmonies are so superior to Yes's awful efforts that I could not compare the two - (IMO until I can bring myself to analyse Yes, whose music I dislike intensely - mainly due to the appalling vocal harmonies which are like a cheap version of Crosby, Stills and Nash) - and go way beyond the Beatles. The Beatles were highly imaginative and broke new ground, but Uriah Heep seized on a particular choral aspect that Queen exploited to the full. UH were inspired, and wrote great textural layers. Queen (May, Mercury and Taylor) were pure geniuses of the vocal harmony and wrote not only layers, but swirling, swooping dive-bombing open harmonies and soft, anguished close harmonies. I'm not sure about 10CC - I never really paid enough attention to them, but Gentle Giant are indeed worthy competitors.

 I disagreed with you on many occasions, but I agree 100% with what you said here. Queen rule when it comes to harmonies, especially - but not only - vocals. They are much better than the Beatles or even Yes in that particular aspect.