Objection: Queen/prog-related on top 100

It's really undermining the credibility of this prog site that the main page has a top 100 list that includes prog-related bands like Queen. If/when some of these bands enter top 20 or 10 I can only foresee the adverse effect it will have on the marketing of this site to lovers of prog. Make individual top lists for each genre. I really cannot see the purpose of showing a composite top 100 on the main page - or can you?

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

opera_guy wrote: You can view the top 100 bands by genre, and why is it an insult Queen much better and more unique and innovative that 90% of the other bands on this site.

Because they aren't prog, and this is the progarchives. Doesn't matter how unique and innovative they are, they just aren't prog.

Edited by Kid-A

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

Don't worry, they won't stay in the top 100 for long.  There's always people like you to give them bad reviews just because they aren't progressive enough.
 

How is Queen not progressive?  They were very original used dozens of different styles, complex harmonies, over-the-top arrangements.  Just because they have a hard-rock aesthetic doesn't mean they aren't "prog."  Last time I check it was Progressive Rock.  A band doesn't have to use moogs and mellotrons to be "prog."

opera_guy wrote: How is Queen not progressive?  They were very original used dozens of different styles, complex harmonies, over-the-top arrangements.  Just because they have a hard-rock aesthetic doesn't mean they aren't "prog."  Last time I check it was Progressive Rock.  A band doesn't have to use moogs and mellotrons to be "prog."

I just don't feel Queen's main attributes are coming from "the progressive rock genre."  Queen was very progressive in their vocal harmonies and May's guitar tone was beautiful.  I guess it's all subjective when it comes down to it.  I didn't mean to insult anyone and am sorry if I did.  I still don't consider Queen "Progressive Rock." 

Edited by Paulieg

R_DeNIRO wrote: The only "progressive thing" that Queen made was Bohemian Rhapsody. Definitively they aren't prog in any way; don't deserve be in the top 100.

Christ, how much '70s Queen have you actually heard? I can appreciate most people's objections, but not with such a grossly misinformed example.

opera_guy wrote: You can view the top 100 bands by genre, .

I must have missed something - how do I view the top 100 by genre?

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

 QUOTE - "It's really undermining the credibility of this prog site that the main page has a top 100 list that includes prog-related bands like Queen. If/when some of these bands enter top 20 or 10 I can only foresee the adverse effect it will have on the marketing of this site to lovers of prog. Make individual top lists for each genre. I really cannot see the purpose of showing a composite top 100 on the main page - or can you?"

 

i agree queen had glam rock leanings in the early years, many groups dressed up in amazing costumes and were labelled glam rock if you like, but queen were much more sophisticated than their contemporaries and if you've ever listened to their early albums (especially queen II) the so-called  "prog elements" are there. queen were a fine group, were considered a progressive group in the early 70's  and well deserve their place in prog archives!!! i bet many grumblers on this thread have never even heard queen.

Edited by mystic fred

This is a bit like the thread I started weeks ago.

 

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20313& amp;KW=queen

Edited by Snow Dog