QUEEN on progarchives

SirPsycho388 wrote: I think bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple should be added to the archives before Queen! If bands like Queen are allowed into the archives, then it stretches the limits of true prog... there are tons of bands who write very creatively and wander into prog territory, but that doesn't mean they're a prog band!

Of course not sir...because prog bands do not exist....hahaha, I'd love to go into my theory deeper, but it's late and I must get to bed......

But I will say this...what in the world is prog???..........I ask this simple question because, many of you act as if prog rock is a pure art form, and it is most certainly not...prog rock is a mixture of already pre-existing forms ie, classical, jazz, and of course rock.....also prog extends into many other genres as well....what is "TRUE PROG".......see this is why I HATE labeling and categorization, because it's unproductive......and I will not say that Queen in more prog than Led Zeppelin (although I BELIEVE THEM TO BE)....saying a statement like that gets us no where.

.....by the way Led Zeppelin never wrote a Bohemian Rhapsody!!!!..........( I love Led Zeppelin, so please save your hate responses for someone else)

oh one more thing.....I keep seeing this phrase all over the place.." If bands like Queen are allowed............"....what in the world does that mean??.......what is a band like Queen?..you guys act as if we just added the backstreet boys. Anyone with common sense would be delighted to welcome Queen...they are a PHENOMENAL BAND.....PERIOD!

SirPsycho388 wrote: I think bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple should be added to the archives before Queen! If bands like Queen are allowed into the archives, then it stretches the limits of true prog... there are tons of bands who write very creatively and wander into prog territory, but that doesn't mean they're a prog band!

True,but its falling on deaf ears here.

Adding Queen to Progarchives surely extends the limits of this site. But should it be so? Progarchives are about progressive rock, not rock music in general. In my opinion, this site benefits from this - it makes it unique.

Many of non-prog groups have written some amount of music that can be called progressive or at least semi-progressive. As it was said many times in this thread, I guess if PA should develop by including such groups they should be placed in a separate category, Queen among them.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: M@X wrote: QUEEN @ PROGRESSOR, GROUND N SKY, PROGNOSIS, GERP and now in PROGARCHIVES Queen (UK) - 1975 - "A Night at the Opera" Doubtless, "A Night at the Opera" by the legendary Queen is one of the greatest Progressive Hard Rock albums ever created in the history of Rock. More than the half of the songs contain real Progressive arrangements, and two of these songs I can call as full progressive compositions (incidentally, most prog-heads know it well, and I hope, will agree with my opinion). The both gem-pieces were placed on the LP's side B - the first and the pre-last. The Prophet's Song and A Bohemian's Rhapsody are unique proto-prog-metallic pieces based on high energy complex hard rock with lots of shifts, very good lyrics, and great varied polymorphic opera-like vocal harmonies. Source: http://www.progressor.net/review/q.html#queen_1975 PROGRESSOR is for me ,  one the TOP prog reviewer in the small (and opened-mind ) PROG community. The main difference between the two "fractions" seems to be the question if "proto-prog" deserves to be called progressive: Some (including me and that review) say that although it's lacking some prog elements and is therefore called "proto-prog", it still IS progressive. The others (including maani) say that the elements that this music lacks are so vital to prog, that it may not be called prog, although it features many other elements found in progressive music.

Putting aside the question itself of whether QUEEN's music is, or is not, Progressive Rock, the term proto-Prog would not be the right term to use even if one is of the opinion that their music is Progressive Rock. As I mentioned to Trouserpress, the prefix proto- would imply that QUEEN's music was around at the beginning of the Progressive Rock era, which it most certainly was not (their first album came out in 1973, after many of the seminal albums from Progressive Rock bands). QUEEN's music is most certainly not proto-PROG. One could perhaps use the term proto-Prog to describe e.g. WISHBONE ASH's early music, or URIAH HEEP's early music, but not QUEEN's music.

proto-

[From Greek prōtos ; ultimately related to pro (see pro²)]

If one wanted to come up with a term for bands that play music that has an almost-Progressive Rock sound, then a better term would be 'quasi-Prog' or 'pseudo-Prog':

quasi [kwáy zī, kwáy sī, kwzi]

[15th century. Via Old French from Latin , ‘as if’, from quam ‘as’ + si ‘if’.]

pseudo-

[From Greek pseudēs , from pseudein ‘to lie’, of unknown origin]

proglover:

In trying to make the case for Queen but against Zep, you say, "Led Zeppelin never wrote a Bohemian Rhapsody."  Yes, but by the same logic, I could argue that Queen never wrote a 21st Century Schizoid Man, a Close to the Edge, a Watcher of the Skies, a Thick as a Brick, or even a Metropolis, etc.

Peace.

maani wrote: proglover: In trying to make the case for Queen but against Zep, you say, "Led Zeppelin never wrote a Bohemian Rhapsody."  Yes, but by the same logic, I could argue that Queen never wrote a 21st Century Schizoid Man, a Close to the Edge, a Watcher of the Skies, a Thick as a Brick, or even a Metropolis, etc. Peace.

True...very very true.....My statement about Led Zeppelin never writing a Bohemian Rhapsody was in reference to a member saying that Zeppelin should be on the site BEFORE Queen.....In my humble opinion, I believe that Queen is more prog than Zeppelin....I was also making reference to the text book structure of Bohemian Rhapsody......but once again, what is TRUE prog? ......I don't think anyone could give a definitive answer.

Most of the songs that you mentioned are 20 plus minute epics....and TRUE Queen never wrote a 20 minute epic, but then again that wasn't what they were about......then again Gentle Giant never wrote a 20 minute epic either....but the one thing that many Queen songs have in common with those 20 minute epics, is that both pushed the limits of ordinary rock music....and ladies and gentlemen, once again, I beg and plead....Queen is certainly not an ordinary rock band.

Just an addendum to my previous post: in another thread someone has mentioned that the prefix 'pseudo-' may be taken by some to mean 'fake' rather than 'similar to', and he would prefer the prefix 'quasi-'. Although the intention of 'pseudo-' here is not to mean 'fake', I take the point and therefore suggest 'Progressive pop or quasi-Prog' as the title of the second category (if people don't want to have 'Progressive pop' as a separate, third category, that is).

Fitzcarraldo wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I agree, I just picked up the word from the review. How about one category "Proto-Prog/Influenced-Prog" for bands that played early forms  (prototypes) of prog like early 60s psychedelic bands and/or influenced prog like the Beatles or Miles Davis, and another category "Progressive-Pop/Pseudo-Prog" for bands like Queen/Zeppelin/Sabbath ?   Mike, personally I would prefer the term 'Prog precursor' or 'Prog-influenced' to the term 'Influenced-Prog' (purely on English semantic and grammatical grounds ). The second category is perhaps a little more problematic to name, as LED ZEPPELIN and BLACK SABBATH are not 'progressive pop' by a long shot and I wonder if some would object to them being put into the same basket as progressive/imaginative pop groups such as 10CC. Just to be awkward (well, to try and be constructructive, actually) I personally would prefer the term 'progressive pop' (or Tony Banks' term 'imaginative pop' which I have fixed on because I find it quite evocative) to be reserved for the more commerical-sounding bands such as QUEEN, 10CC, ELO and SUPERTRAMP, to name a few. I would rather put LED ZEP and BLACK SABBATH into a different basket to 10CC. That's my preference, even if it appears to make the issue more complex. I suppose what  I'm saying is that there ought really to be three categories (++ ducks as the buns start flying over ++). However, if people prefer to keep it down to two categories, then how about 'Progressive pop or pseudo-Prog' (Jeez, I'm discussing the impact of a slash on the sensibilities of fans! ). Do you follow my reasoning and does it sound reasonable?

By "Influenced-Prog" I didn't mean the same as "Proto-Prog", but rather "Bands-Which-Influenced-Prog". Maybe you know a shorter phrase that fits? These two "genres" are not necessarily connected musically, but they're both in the same timeframe (60's).

Your reasoning sounds reasonable ... I'll do what M@x suggested and create a poll listing the various genres.

BTW: of course I would separate the genres - I only grouped the similar genres like it is done in the top 100 list and similar pages. Here's how I would separate them - I'd appreciate any suggestions for better suited names:

• Proto Prog/Prog Precursers
  The Nice, 60's psychedelic bands
• Bands-that-influenced-prog
  The Beatles, Miles Davis
  
• Progressive/Imaginative-Pop
  Queen, 10cc
• Pseudo-Prog/Quasi-Prog/Prog-Influenced
  Led Zeppelin/Deep Purple/Black Sabbath

NetsNJFan wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Proto Prog/Prog Precursers The Nice, 60's psychedelic bands Bands-that-influenced-prog The Beatles, Miles Davis Progressive/Imaginative-Pop Queen, 10cc Pseudo-Prog/Quasi-Prog/Prog-Influenced Led Zeppelin/Deep Purple/Black Sabbath dude the NICE are pure prog, not proto-prog

Ok, then which bands would you call proto-prog? I'm not an expert on early prog, I'm just collecting pieces from different posts here ...