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.

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

You can't hear glamour. Queen made incredible innovative music, That's all that counts.

White Queen wrote: 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.

I happen to like Queens first five releases.  Just because I feel they are more glam than prog and don't feel they belong in the "Top 100 Progressive Releases Of ALL Time" doesn't mean I'd give them a bad review.  Now if it was "The Top 100 Glam Rock Releases Of All Time" I'd vote them in the top 10 at least. 

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." 

I'm sick of Queen discussion...

nevertheless, I'll add something:

Paulieg is right that Queen is glam rock. Every possible musical website lists them as such (apart form our beloved archives!!!)
Of course they have progressive moments, but this doesn't mean we'll have to endure their presence in top 100!!!

Achim Reichel is not even in the archives, and many Krautrock greats cannot find a place in top 100!!! (I'm not sure if there's any!)

Solution: Keep "prog related" and possibly "proto-prog" bands away from top 100 which will result in another problem, many greats' exclusion from the list, such as Moody Blues, Peter Gabriel, Deep Purple etc. Hey, what the heck is other genres for

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?

BebieM wrote: Generally prog-related and proto-prog albums shouldn't count for the top100 on the first page IMO. It's good to have them on the site to see a) where prog came from and b) what bands border on being prog, but that's it.

Exactly. Perhaps the administrators of this site should consider restructuring the site so that the main page allows you to enter either the (pure) prog portion of the site or the proto-prog and prog-related portion of the site. Also consider which of these segments the site wants to target. Targetting all segments most likely will result in fewer "customers" (us the prog lovers) who will find other sources on the internet.

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.

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

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

Just because something is glam rock dosn't mean it can't be progressive. Glam rock was more of alook and way bands presented themselves, the genre has little to do with actual music.

Queen deserves to be on PA.And if they have enough good prog and/or prog related moments to be in the top 100,then why not?

Same thing applies to Deep Purple,Uriah Heep,Styx,Magnum ect...

earlyprog wrote: 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?

I certainly have missed something I now know how to view the top 100 by genre Well, newbee...!

All I have to say is that if Queen is prog, I see no reason not to throw in Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Iron Maiden...

Of course I radther take out the bands like Queen than throw in more to be fair.

I can't imagine prog that is played at Highschool basketball games, but I've heard "We Will Rock You" at everyone I've been too...  Look at that bands output.... 3 and 4 minute catchy pop songs, with a few exceptions like the Prophets Song and Bohemian Rhapsody... its innovative and interesting, and it was made during the 70's, but that does not make it prog.

Joolz wrote: Empathy wrote: They are NOT in the top 100 of Prog. They are in the top 100 of prog-RELATED. As well they should be. Actually - QUEEN II is currently at number 69 (a good place to be LOL) on the top 100 displayed on the home page!

#87: Queen 'A Night at the Opera'

Disastrous

goose wrote: BebieM wrote: Generally prog-related and proto-prog albums shouldn't count for the top100 on the first page IMO. It's good to have them on the site to see a) where prog came from and b) what bands border on being prog, but that's it.  Couldn't agree more with that

Definitely. As much as I am a Beatles fan, their albums should not be in the PA Top 100. The same goes for Queen.

White Queen wrote: ^^^^^^^ I think we can all agree that We Will Rock You isn't a prog song, but neither are Abacab or Invisible Touch or Jesus He Knows Me, and Genesis stays on this site

I have to disagree here. I think that Abacab is a prog song. Not the others though.

freebird wrote: Some years ago I saw an interesting book at the dicount bookstore "History of Glam Rock" with Slade, Ziggy Stardust, Freddie Mercury & Queen. The book described Prog as the opposite of Glam, with Rick Wakeman as an flagrant example of Prog, his music - "Grandiose symphonic keyboard & piano compositions" (I immediately went out and bought a bunch of Wakeman Albums!!!)    ha ha!

I don't think the author of that book was right, especially as he was putting a bunch of very different musicians in the same kettle. What would he have made, for instance, of Roxy Music? They are in PA under "Art Rock" (if I remember well), and I've seen them described as glam rock quite often. And what about Peter Gabriel? If everyone who dresses up on stage were to be defined as glam rock, even Kiss should be put in the same category.

Then, Queen are not listed under "Symphonic Prog" or any other such sacred category - they're under "Prog-RELATED", which means just that - a band or musician who has produced something which bears a relation to the music we all know and love. As to "A Night at the Opera" being in the Top 100, I cannot see how any album by any band present on this site can be barred from being included in that list. This wouldn't just be fair, IMHO.

That said, I'm not a big fan of Queen, outstanding musicians as they may be. Their inclusion in PA does not particularly bother me (even if seeing an album of theirs with George Michael in the Album list upset me just a little bit...), but I think there are bands more deserving of inclusion. One name for all: the mighty Led Zeppelin.

Evolver wrote: If a band that isn't primarily prog puts out a great prog album, what's wrong with including it on the list?  It's just a list anyway.  It'll never actually prove that any non-prog band is better than Genesis.  Get over it.

Small point - I find your comment "Get over it" though not directed at me here, to be rude and dismissive! I've seen it used before and I don't like it. Please think before you fire from the hip.

Ghost Rider wrote: As to "A Night at the Opera" being in the Top 100, I cannot see how any album by any band present on this site can be barred from being included in that list. This wouldn't just be fair, IMHO.

The problem is that when the proto-prog/prog-related genres were introduced, everybody agreed that these albums (and reviews) would not be shown on the front page. Then afterwards, when people started to complain that their review didn't show on the front page, that was changed. I can understand that some people feel like they've been betrayed ...

IMO those albums/reviews clearly don't belong on the front page. I mean, this is a prog website and we spend much time and serious consideration on which bands are prog, and which are not. And then we throw them all together on the front page and list them in one big top 100? Why not make a top 100 pure-prog list and beneath that a top 10 proto-prog/prog-related list instead?