Queen.....WHY THE HELL NOT?!?!?!

Make no mistake I am not folding by any stretch of the imagination. Queen should still be on this site, and Pink Floyd is not as Progressive as people think....Just ask Peter Banks

Proglover wrote: However I was not so found of Tony R's response.....what exactly have I been cured off??

Aggressive posts,of course!

The media turned on Yes,ELP and Genesis.

By this time ELP were more like a vaudeville act than a serious band.

One could level this accusation,up to a point,against Queen.I feel the 1st two albums would qualify them for a spot on these archives, and one or two songs from SHA and ANATO.However the bulk of their output is not Prog Rock or even "progressive" IMO,especially as they drifted towards Stadium Rock excess in the early 80's.

You cannot expect a band to be included here just because it leaned occasionally (weighed against their whole output) towards Prog Rock.There are bands on this site who, I feel, should not be here-Styx and Tiles spring to mind.Unfortunately for you Proglover,Max gets to decide what is and isnt prog rock around here and he's obviously not a fan of Queen....

Certif1ed wrote: Proglover wrote: Make no mistake I am not folding by any stretch of the imagination. Queen should still be on this site, and Pink Floyd is not as Progressive as people think....Just ask Peter Banks I could care less what Peter Banks think - Pink Floyd are, in fact, more progressive than most people think - even people that find them progressive. BTW, Bluetailfly, It is not true to say that their music is blues based any more than it is true to say that any other prog rock band's music is blues based. Floyd started as a blues band, it's true, and have paid homage to their roots in many songs - not least "Seamus", but to say that their music is "primarily blues based" is to either misunderstand blues, or to misunderstand its prevalence in most rock music.   I must say that the arguments on personal style are very boring - can't we just talk about the MUSIC?

Not to once again stir the pot....but it is quite freightening the responses I am getting back about Floyd. Can't we agree to disagree??....Peter Banks and I don't believe that Floyd is as Progressive as many think, and you do....that's fine. Why are you guys taking it so personally??....It's a forum, where we discuss our feelings and opinions. That's all I want to do. And when someone says I lose credibility for thinking the way I do, it causes me to lose all faith in America......I mean under the law the Ku Klux Klan can say and believe whatever they want and we support their right to it, but I can't say that I dont think that Pink Floyd is progressive without getting my head chopped off??.....I will lay off the personal attacks if I am allowed to express my opinion freely without being attacked. Thanks guys, that's all I ask.

Welcome to a real discussion forum!!!

Tip: Good debating avoids personal attacks 

Proglover wrote: Tony R wrote: The media turned on Yes,ELP and Genesis. By this time ELP were more like a vaudeville act than a serious band. One could level this accusation,up to a point,against Queen.I feel the 1st two albums would qualify them for a spot on these archives, and one or two songs from SHA and ANATO.However the bulk of their output is not Prog Rock or even "progressive" IMO,especially as they drifted towards Stadium Rock excess in the early 80's. You cannot expect a band to be included here just because it leaned occasionally (weighed against their whole output) towards Prog Rock.There are bands on this site who, I feel, should not be here-Styx and Tiles spring to mind.Unfortunately for you Proglover,Max gets to decide what is and isnt prog rock around here and he's obviously not a fan of Queen.... Actually I would disagree.....I would say that atleast the first 5 albums by Queen are certainly more than just rock albums. MAYBE they aren't prog, but they CERTAINLY aren't just rock. Certainly rock is in their but it is distributed with many other different genres. Isn't that what prog is all about? As far as vaudeville acts go, I would perhaps label Queen a vaudeville act. You say that Queen drifted towards Stadium rock....well to a point I agree and to a point I disagree. If you are saying that they became more commercial in the 80s, well my response is..."who didn't?".....did not Yes and Genesis and Gentle Giant and ELP sell out in the 80s, infact they sold out in the late 70s mostly. This is one example of double standards that I was talking about. You can't say that Queen can't be on this site when some bands on the site are guilty of the same things. I would definitely place Queen's 70s work as art, and well crafted music that was certainly more than just rock. As far as the stadium thing goes...yes it is true Queen sold out stadiums, but that's only because they got so popular that the venues that they played needed to be bigger. I don't think that Queen actively sort to be a stadium act, however they didn't look twice either, but then again what band would if they got the chance to play to larger audiences? (however they did actively seek to change their sound in the 80s...that I agree to) If we are punishing Queen because of their popularity thats unfair. Lets not forget that YES sold out stadiums too.....and infact in 1979 when punk and disco were at its height YES still sold out every place they played. And lets not forget that in the early 70s YES were the biggest band around, infact at one time they were even more popular than Led Zeppelin and that's saying ALOT. Do I believe that Queen's work diminished in the 80s?...YES I DO...but then again I believe that the work of YES, Gentle Giant, ELP, Jethro Tull, and Genesis diminished in the 80s too!!

Good post Proglover.

danbo wrote: I'm a huge QUEEN fan. Saw them three times in the 70's, before they went too far to the left. The first four have progability and should be here. I still support a "PROG ALBUMS BY NON-PROG BANDS" section of the archive. LED ZEPPELIN have a couple of PROG albums and those discs should be here. It's not about "all or none" just the proggy stuff.

THANK YOU!!!!!! ...........You are the only person to see my view of things......Thank God that I'm not in a world alone. May the heavens be praised!! I think you also make an excellent point.....this is somewhat the danger in catogorizing and labeling and excluding......I believe that music is music, but I feel that we run into trouble when we draw lines in the sand, and to an extent become elitist...like our classical and jazz brothers and sisters. I would be a liar if I said I didn't believe that there is to a certain extent, some elitism, but when we are sooo elitist that we become bias and prejudice I think we begin to lose sight of things....As I stated before, if the site were truly serious about show casing progressive music, I believe that, yes indeed, there should be a section on the site where prog albums by "non-prog" bands should appear. I think it would be ok to do so. I don't think that we would lose credibility at all.....If there is one thing that we have been taught throughtout prog history....prog music is in no way dependent on a particular band. That is to say, prog music exists outside of and not chained to certain groups whom we have deemed "progressive". I have a DVD on Genesis, and they interview Phil Collins and he basically says what I am saying...basically that progressive music was something that Genesis DID, but that's not all Genesis IS. People have a way of limiting others, by placing labels on them..we put Genesis in a BOX, and that box was "PROGRESSIVE"....and we expected them to uphold the label that we placed on them. And as I stated before, take someone like Robert Fripp who openly has stated that he DISLIKES the term progressive to describing his music.....Robert Fripp will tell you, that King Crimson's music is NOT "progressive".  If the BANDS themselves were "progressive", everything by YES, Gentle Giant, ELP, Genesis, and Jethro Tull would be progressive. But that's not the case. Infact these bands made the choice to abandon their progressive ways. So therefore, I'd like to suggest, that there are NO progressive BANDS on this site, but rather the site is full of bands who played progressive MUSIC. For example I don't think that Genesis was a progressive rock band..but I think they played at one time in their career progressive music.......does that make sense?? Music exists outside of a particular band, therefore if Queen or Led Zeppelin made an album that was progressive, then THOSE albums should be on the site. It is more important to look at the music and NOT at the band. So with those comments I would like to apologize for my remarks about Pink Floyd...while I still don't regard them as being a "Progressive Band", they most certainly wrote progressive MUSIC ...I hope all that makes sense and I wasn't just rambling.

danbo wrote: I'm a huge QUEEN fan.

You're huge whoever you like!