So, Queen is *officially* on progarchives!

This defines a revolutionary step in the development of the website. Radiohead was just a preparation, it seems!

I am a huge Queen & Freddie fan, but Queen presence on progarchives is more than dubious. And, note, even "Jazz" (1978), on which there's not a trace of prog is included! I think first two albums by Queen are decent prog ... but even "Sheer Heart Attack" and "A Night at The Opera" are debatable. What is next? Freddie Mercury as art rock? Brian May?

Some people have already remarked (and I support them) that progarchives should have a section for "shady" or "borderline" bands (music), when it is unclear whether they write prog or not. Bands such as Queen, Styx, Radiohead, Supertramp, The Mars Volta should be placed there. People will still review their albums just as those of any other prog band, but at least (almost) everyone will be comfortable with this solution and this will end constant squabbles ...

I constantly argue with my friends over what's prog and what's not. They tend to listen to rock and the borderline bands ... and I decided for myself to not define the place of these borderline bands and indeed classify them as borderline!

It's like a cloud -- you certainly know where the centre and bulk of it is, but where does the cloud end?

A correction: now that I reflected on it, I think "Sheer Heart Attack" is debatable as prog, but "A Night At The Opera" might be an essential art rock (prog) creation by Queen.

If they are going to have Queen here, then all their albums should be listed, the same as all the other bands here!

Personally I have NEVER described Queen as Prog, and I won't start now.

Trouserpress wrote: I'm very pleased by this move. That is all.

i could say it better, so i wont.

agree.

I always thought that Queen is not a Progressive Rock band in the whole sense of the word, even when I agree that has more Prog oriented albums than Styx or Radiohead, but I don't disagree with their inclusion because they were revolutionary in many aspects and that's one of the charactaristics of Prog'.

Iván

Snow Dog wrote: If they are going to have Queen here, then all their albums should be listed, the same as all the other bands here! Personally I have NEVER described Queen as Prog, and I won't start now.

You are right. Because if now we start selecting prog albums it will wreak havoc on progarchives. It's pretty clear where classical ELP ends ... but at least one of their later albums includes prog elements ... And where to stop listing GENESIS albums? Which albums to drop? I think "Calling All Stations" is prog whereas "We Can't Dance" is proggish pop. 

And, as I said before, Queen is just a borderline band ... it belongs to neither prog nor rock, in my view. 

Really. A daft move. I can hear people laughing at the credibility of the site already.

So let's open the door to every band of any type.  Wishbone Ash is more proggie, so is Spooky Tooth. Why haven't we got that section that I've long called for, that permits the odd one or two albums by bands which fits a tight description of prog, without having the lot. Queen's discography does not have the majority of albums in the prog category - glam rock (as they rightly said last Sunday on Top Gear) and rock pop.

^Let me laugh loud

prog music wouldnt be where it is now or where it was in the 70 without Miles Davis, Terry Riley and Ravi Shankar.

nimrodel wrote: i can honestly say that the prog music wouldnt be where it is now or where it was in the 70 without queen.

I'm incredulous at that statement..WHAT?????? Are you serious?????? I'm sorry I, I........pour me drink someone please!

philippe wrote: ^Let me laugh loud prog music wouldnt be where it is now or where it was in the 70 without Miles Davis, Terry Riley and Ravi Shankar.

You can add them, I wouldn't mind their addition. Adding Miles Davis would not mean that every Jazz artist can be included, and adding Queen doesn't mean that every Glam Rock artist can be included. I don't see a problem ...

Snow Dog wrote: nimrodel wrote: i can honestly say that the prog music wouldnt be where it is now or where it was in the 70 without queen. I'm incredulous at that statement..WHAT?????? Are you serious?????? I'm sorry I, I........pour me drink someone please!

*pouring a drink for you*

nimrodel wrote: i can honestly say that the prog music wouldnt be where it is now or where it was in the 70 without queen.

Sorry, but I have to ask your reasons and for examples, because I don't agree at all - I worked from 1972 to 1976 in one of the bigger UK university's Ent Groups - who had the now current President of Warner Records as it chair. Queen became increasingly influential in the rock pop scene yes, but prog.....................

nimrodel wrote: Snow Dog wrote: nimrodel wrote: i can honestly say that the prog music wouldnt be where it is now or where it was in the 70 without queen. I'm incredulous at that statement..WHAT?????? Are you serious?????? I'm sorry I, I........pour me drink someone please! *pouring a drink for you*

cheers, skol, salute.......thats better!

Snow Dog wrote: nimrodel wrote: Snow Dog wrote: nimrodel wrote: i can honestly say that the prog music wouldnt be where it is now or where it was in the 70 without queen. I'm incredulous at that statement..WHAT?????? Are you serious?????? I'm sorry I, I........pour me drink someone please! *pouring a drink for you* cheers, skol, salute.......thats better!

that was guinnes you wanted?

lets say KIPPISTÄ like we finss do.

Ed_The_Dead wrote: GIVE ME MAIDEN!!!!!!!!!!!! IF QUEEN ARE IN, SO DO MAIDEN DESSERVE IT!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, I'd say Maiden are more prog than Queen  "Seventh Son" and "Brave New World" are pretty good proggish metal.

I am against Maiden being on progarchives, of course, although I like them very much. But if Queen's here anyway ...  

^ Queen is just a bad exemple that we don't need to follow

i do not know many songs of queen:

only we will rock you, radio gaga, we are the champions, and obviously bohemian rhapsody.

if many of their songs are like bohemian rhapsody, then this would proudly justify their presence here.

I think anyone against Queen being here are on a losing battle. This is from our own archives

Art Rock
A name that is used to refer to early explorative work that had roots in popular music.Very structured and even adventurous, sometimes hard or heavy, sometimes mellow, strong melodies, good hooks are an integral part of most of the material. Bands in this category can and have produced material falling into other categories as well. There may be moments of outright progressive rock but with more of a pop influence and certainly a tendency towards shorter songs.

To me it begs the question, is Art Rock really Prog?

Snow Dog wrote: To me it begs the question, is Art Rock really Prog?

IMO a lot of people are abusing the Queen discussion because they have a problem with that definition.

Snow Dog wrote: I think anyone against Queen being here are on a losing battle. This is from our own archives Art Rock A name that is used to refer to early explorative work that had roots in popular music.Very structured and even adventurous, sometimes hard or heavy, sometimes mellow, strong melodies, good hooks are an integral part of most of the material. Bands in this category can and have produced material falling into other categories as well. There may be moments of outright progressive rock but with more of a pop influence and certainly a tendency towards shorter songs.   To me it begs the question, is Art Rock really Prog?

Art rock is whatever does not fit in any other genre ...

Snow Dog wrote: I think anyone against Queen being here are on a losing battle. This is from our own archives Art Rock A name that is used to refer to early explorative work that had roots in popular music.Very structured and even adventurous, sometimes hard or heavy, sometimes mellow, strong melodies, good hooks are an integral part of most of the material. Bands in this category can and have produced material falling into other categories as well. There may be moments of outright progressive rock but with more of a pop influence and certainly a tendency towards shorter songs.   To me it begs the question, is Art Rock really Prog?

Except Queen was originally called a Glam Rock band

Dick Heath wrote: Except Queen was originally called a Glam Rock band

That may be true ... but they were a very advanced Glam Rock band, at least on Queen II. later they decided to get more popular and became more rock/pop with every album.

Arteum wrote: Art rock is whatever does not fit in any other genre ...

I thought that was Fusion ...

Dick Heath wrote: Snow Dog wrote: I think anyone against Queen being here are on a losing battle. This is from our own archives Art Rock A name that is used to refer to early explorative work that had roots in popular music.Very structured and even adventurous, sometimes hard or heavy, sometimes mellow, strong melodies, good hooks are an integral part of most of the material. Bands in this category can and have produced material falling into other categories as well. There may be moments of outright progressive rock but with more of a pop influence and certainly a tendency towards shorter songs.   To me it begs the question, is Art Rock really Prog? Except Queen was originally called a Glam Rock band

They were described as such, true, but it was just the pigeonholing of the day. Mind you, they certainly looked Glam!

Dick Heath wrote: Really. A daft move. I can hear people laughing at the credibility of the site already. So let's open the door to every band of any type.  Wishbone Ash is more proggie, so is Spooky Tooth. Why haven't we got that section that I've long called for, that permits the odd one or two albums by bands which fits a tight description of prog, without having the lot. Queen's discography does not have the majority of albums in the prog category - glam rock (as they rightly said last Sunday on Top Gear) and rock pop.

I am not sure if the reasoning of the admins is not to include real prog bands even if they are obscure like Nima and Merge but lately with Radiohead some of the Metal bands and now Queen I wonder if it is just something to stir up controversy? I see no reason why Queen should be here.  If they are prog so are Deep Purple who brought their elements to the table long before Mercury May and co did.  A place like Progressive Ears includes a lot of people from the old days I wouldn't have considered Prog like Jimi Henedrix but they balance it with new fresh prog bands being added right away.  I cannot review some of the best new prog I have heard here because the admins don't agree with me that they belong here (Nima and Merge, Greg Howard and Spiraling among them. Yes I have followed the steps presented to adding new bands).

Just gives me more of an excuse to spend less and less time here

I found it quite annoying when our prog fans write this :

"Because this band is listed here , I want to leave progarchives ..."

 I think this is a CHILDY reaction

I always thought that PROG PEOPLE we more opened mind then the POP Music Boys , I always thought that we were different  in many aspect of our life !

I was wrong ....

It' up to you ... to leave or to stay !

But believe me , if you leave you will come back

M@X wrote: I found it quite annoying when our prog fans write this : "Because this band is listed here , I want to leave progarchives ..."  I think this is a CHILDY reaction   I always thought that PROG PEOPLE we more opened mind then the POP Music Boys , I always thought that we were different  in many aspect of our life ! I was wrong .... It' up to you ... to leave or to stay ! But believe me , if you leave you will come back

Though... with Queen here I see absolutely no reason for the Residents to remain unlisted. Retrovertigo sent you a biography - why no movement?

Just a reminder that the reviews section should NOT be used to discuss whether or not Queen should have been listed on the site.

All reviews which consist only of comments of this nature will be deleted. Reviews which discuss the content of albums, but also talk in more than passing terms about whether they should be here, may be edited.

This of course goes for all reviews, not just Queen!

M@X wrote: I found it quite annoying when our prog fans write this : "Because this band is listed here , I want to leave progarchives ..."  I think this is a CHILDY reaction   I

Where in my note did I say that?  I said the direction of the site in terms of the bands added is a reason for me to spend less time here.

I can say it is just as annoying to be ignored also.

I agree with most of you saying Queen is not a prog band.

I also agree with mailto:M@x - M@x that taking it so personally is childish.

I will not spend much time on Queen in this site cause IMO they did very few good things after "A day at the races" and even their best work is not more than 3 stars. Yet, I do'nt care that much they are here and do admit they have some progish elements. For me Supertramp and Styx are less proggier than Queen and they are here for a while now.

I feel like MIKENREGGALIA that if you include a band in the archives you should include all of their discography. I think the idea of borderline bands is a good idea.

I would claim that Deep purple, David Bowie, Kate Bush, Talking heads and Jefferson airplane (they are folk prog for sure) should all be included here for some of their works is realy prog and will interest some of us.

neither Queen nor any other artist I mentioned is an essential to prog but some are essential for rock music. So let it be .....

Ehi, come on, leaving PROG ARCHIVES is a childy reaction, but everyone in this forum should be more serious: as someone already said, if we have QUEEN we must have LED ZEPPELIN , DEEP PURPLE (never heard their first two albums? Very progressive....), BLACK SABBATH!

This is discrimination!

Please people, apart from all the things like "THIS AIN'T ART ROCK!"   or "QUEEN IS GLAM ROCK!" , let's be more serious! it's a matter of fact that Queen isn't PROG. Anyway, all has already been said by other users, but YOU, YOU, big Queen fan who are reading this post, think about QUEEN IN PROGARCHIVES!

If i were you, I would have been offended because of this decision. QUEEN, the most representative band of ROCK MUSIC, put in PROG ARCHIVES!  

PLEASE THINK OF IT.

___BYE___

Easy Livin wrote: Just a reminder that the reviews section should NOT be used to discuss whether or not Queen should have been listed on the site. All reviews which consist only of comments of this nature will be deleted. Reviews which discuss the content of albums, but also talk in more than passing terms about whether they should be here, may be edited. This of course goes for all reviews, not just Queen!

There is one out there now you can nab EL.  I hate that people do that too.

So this is it....? Queen on Progarchives...I must tell you I do not like this one bit. And I have nothing against Queen, I mean they are one very good band with what can be THE ( or one of) best singers in music in general...but you got to understand, good music does not make a band to be prog, or their music to be considerated prog...Why had you to put Queen? It was a little too much with Radiohead ( band which I love...OK Computer? Bast album from the 90´) but it is not prog!!! Just because one or two song sound a little bit like prog does not make them prog...you wouldn´t put King Crimson in a Blues website because they play Prozak Blues!!!

But this is not the worst...there is a poll which askes if Coldplay should be in this website...COLDPLAY!?!??!! ARE YOU f**kING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!

ok I have said it...I don´t know...I know they won´t take Queen out of the website...but...a...yo que se, hagan lo que quieran che!

prog on...not Queen on!

M@X wrote: I found it quite annoying when our prog fans write this : "Because this band is listed here , I want to leave progarchives ..."  I think this is a CHILDY reaction   I always thought that PROG PEOPLE we more opened mind then the POP Music Boys , I always thought that we were different  in many aspect of our life ! I was wrong .... It' up to you ... to leave or to stay ! But believe me , if you leave you will come back

Off course prog rock shouldn't exist in a complete isolation. Forgive me if I'm targeted about this so called childy reaction. However don't misunderstand my words. I've only entended to say that the day where iron Maiden and a part of the classic heavy metal scene will be included in the archives, the site will lost his signification for true fans of progressive music (I apply the term in its most generous dimension). Why do we put a seat of honour for classic (but absolutely not prog) bands as Queen despite that we are much to see about  bands accepted by everyone and not yet added. The early history of prog music dosen't include Queen, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and others. If you have properly read and heard about the musical roots of progressive rock you will be convinced about these following influences, free jazz, "world", modern classical music and psychedelic rock. Queen made a kind of ironic/ rock opera on the basis of pop, commercial, propagenda music. A wide range of progressive bands are musically against the architecture of common rock n' roll music and conceptually against the musical business exploitation. The central interest is music and an obvious taste for extensive exploration and fusion between musical philosophies from everywhere.

omri wrote: I feel like MIKENREGGALIA that if you include a band in the archives you should include all of their discography.

You mean, like Snow Dog, surely?

Dick Heath wrote: Really. A daft move. I can hear people laughing at the credibility of the site already. So let's open the door to every band of any type.  Wishbone Ash is more proggie, so is Spooky Tooth. Why haven't we got that section that I've long called for, that permits the odd one or two albums by bands which fits a tight description of prog, without having the lot. Queen's discography does not have the majority of albums in the prog category - glam rock (as they rightly said last Sunday on Top Gear) and rock pop.

Yes. And I Am Laughing

M@X wrote: I found it quite annoying when our prog fans write this : "Because this band is listed here , I want to leave progarchives ..."  I think this is a CHILDY reaction   I always thought that PROG PEOPLE we more opened mind then the POP Music Boys , I always thought that we were different  in many aspect of our life ! I was wrong ....

Its not like we are not opended mind people...but just beacuse you say Queen should be here and some of us don´t, doesn´t makes us closed mind people,right? I mean woulndt we be more closed mind if we blindy agree to everything you say? If we can´t say what we think about Queen being here...then what can we say? Ever thought about that? But...it is true that some have a so what CHILDY reaction...still...QUEEN SHOULD NOT BE HERE!!!!!!!!

philippe wrote: Off course prog rock shouldn't exist in a complete isolation. Forgive me if I'm targeted about this so called childy reaction. However don't misunderstand my words. I've only entended to say that the day where iron Maiden and a part of the classic heavy metal scene whill be included in the archives, the site will lost his signification for true fans of progressive music (I apply the term in its most generous dimension). Why do we put a seat of honour for classic (but absolutely not prog) bands as Queen despite that we are much to see about  bands accepted by everyone and not yet added. The early history of prog music dosen't include Queen, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and others. If you have properly read and heard about the musical roots of progressive rock you will be convinced about these following influences, free jazz, "world", modern classical music and psychedelic rock. Queen made a kind of ironic/ rock opera on the basis of pop, commercial, propagenda music. A wide range of progressive bands are musically against the architecture of common rock n' roll music and conceptually against the musical business exploitation. The central interest is music and an obvious taste for extensive exploration and fusion between musical philosophies from everywhere.

I endorse most of what Philippe says.It is though we are being drawn to include bands that may or may not have been an influence on the development Prog Rock.

So how about a sub-section called "Non-Prog Artists Who Have Influenced The Development of Prog Rock" and include a list of albums that might be of interest to archivists and collectors.

I have a bit of deja-vu here. We had a similar situation when Radiohead were added. That all settled down quickly, and the reviews of their albums are down to a trickle. Likewise, many people (me included!) feared the addition of Roxy Music would distort the site, yet their presence has barely sent a ripple through the review pages, and they are rarely discussed in the forum now.

After the initial surge of interest and reviews, Queen will settle down and find their place on the periphery of the site. The established "core" bands will always prevail.

Let's not over-react here, prog will always be the prime focus of the site.

I'll just continue with adding albums, let me know when the curtain falls and Queen is removed again, untill then I asume they have made the cut. cheers.

As far as I'm conserned this new open door policy can have a very positive effect on PA.

more bands in the archives means more people coming to the archives. maybe they come in as Queen/Radiohead/Elton John fans, but if we do our work porperly, they will leave the site as progholes.

If only to save one soul from a progless life it's worth it.

prog on, and keep an open mind

If you don't want a band to be added, or you opose to a band than ignore it's excistens on the site, and surf around it, you don't have to like Queen, and you don't have to visit their page, and you don't have to review the albums, but there are people here who regard Queen as progressive (I am one of those silly boys). For a band to be added, i suppose the general rule that they have released at least one progressive album still aply's.

To inform you all, Queen has made 6 progressive albums, from which 2 are from the first till the last note fully progressive, the other four are as progressive as the best progressive rush albums, and the rest still has some prog sensibilities. I am not in doubt about there inclusion. the only thing i doubt is some peoples biased opinions.

forget the queen hits, and listen to the good stuff.

Queen II. bombastic pomp prog, the first progressive metal album IMO
Fash gordon, not a perfect album, but full out Space progressive rock
A Night At The Opera, can anyone say Prophet Song, Bohemian Rhapsody, or lazing on a sunday afternoon, to name but three excamples from this amazingly great album.

I'll send some mp3's to mailto:M@X - M@X so he can add them if he likes.

any suggestions which mp3's to add.

I suggest.

Queen I - My Fairy King
Queen II - March Of The Black Queen
A Night At the Opera - Prophet song
Innuendo - Innuendo.

any other recommendations??

tuxon wrote: Queen I - My Fairy King Queen II - March Of The Black Queen A Night At the Opera - Prophet song Innuendo - Innuendo.   any other recommendations??

yeah,Fat Bottomed Girls,We Will Rock You and Radio Ga Ga

I've been saying for the longest time:

INCLUDE BORDERLINE PROG ARTISTS IN THE VARIUOUS ARTISTS SECTION!!!!!!

Tony R wrote: tuxon wrote: Queen I - My Fairy King Queen II - March Of The Black Queen A Night At the Opera - Prophet song Innuendo - Innuendo.   any other recommendations?? yeah,Fat Bottomed Girls,We Will Rock You and Radio Ga Ga

Radio GaGa is one of their most progressive songs, if only you people would hear it

consider RadioGaGa added, any more?

Queen are on this site... but why are aren't Maiden? They maid far more progressive stuff than Freddie and his band... Just becouse Maiden are thought to be one of the main  heavy metal bands in history doesn't mean they have less right to be here then Queen (One of the main rock bands in history)!!!      

Damn, I feel like I'm lonely with this idea... but... well... I'll keep on fighting!!!

Arteum wrote: So, Queen is *officially* on progarchives! This defines a revolutionary step in the development of the website. Radiohead was just a preparation, it seems! I am a huge Queen & Freddie fan, but Queen presence on progarchives is more than dubious. And, note, even "Jazz" (1978), on which there's not a trace of prog is included! I think first two albums by Queen are decent prog ... but even "Sheer Heart Attack" and "A Night at The Opera" are debatable. What is next? Freddie Mercury as art rock? Brian May? Some people have already remarked (and I support them) that progarchives should have a section for "shady" or "borderline" bands (music), when it is unclear whether they write prog or not. Bands such as Queen, Styx, Radiohead, Supertramp, The Mars Volta should be placed there. People will still review their albums just as those of any other prog band, but at least (almost) everyone will be comfortable with this solution and this will end constant squabbles ... I constantly argue with my friends over what's prog and what's not. They tend to listen to rock and the borderline bands ... and I decided for myself to not define the place of these borderline bands and indeed classify them as borderline! It's like a cloud -- you certainly know where the centre and bulk of it is, but where does the cloud end? A correction: now that I reflected on it, I think "Sheer Heart Attack" is debatable as prog, but "A Night At The Opera" might be an essential art rock (prog) creation by Queen.

Exactly, and I have been perhaps the loudest, lonliest voice in pushing for such a new category, or official, highly-visible admission that some of the bands and albums here are of dubious prog standing (but yet of interest to prog fans.

Well said -- "progressive rock" is a very subjective term, and that is the root of our never-ending "problem."

gdub411 wrote: Queen is NOT prog. Next thing you know, they'll include Radiohead.

Queen is not progressive but I don't care the habitual thing for me in the page continues being of my interest I Will avoid to see things related to queen

Add Syd Barrett

M@X wrote: I found it quite annoying when our prog fans write this : "Because this band is listed here , I want to leave progarchives ..."  I think this is a CHILDY reaction   I always thought that PROG PEOPLE we more opened mind then the POP Music Boys , I always thought that we were different  in many aspect of our life ! I was wrong .... It' up to you ... to leave or to stay ! But believe me , if you leave you will come back

 So true ... It's really stupid to believe that adding a band like Queen could diminish the value of this site in any way ... it can only get better. It's funny that people seem to react to the inclusion of a band like it meant that the band is supposed to replace their favorite band. It's just another band in the archives, and how it is rated is entirely up to you (all the visitors of this website). Radiohead was added, and it didn't score high as far as average rating is concerned. It didn't do any harm, did it?

tuxon wrote: I'll just continue with adding albums, let me know when the curtain falls and Queen is removed again, untill then I asume they have made the cut. cheers.   As far as I'm conserned this new open door policy can have a very positive effect on PA. more bands in the archives means more people coming to the archives. maybe they come in as Queen/Radiohead/Elton John fans, but if we do our work porperly, they will leave the site as progholes. If only to save one soul from a progless life it's worth it.

Thats exactly what happend to me, and now I'm a  proghole, and happy to be one.

thank you PA for changing me from a progless life to a proghole.

I say they arnt prog, but deserve to be on this site, for thier prog elements and for what Tuxon has said.

NO QUEEN!

So we have Queen and No Satriani? This site loses me more and more by the day!!

omri wrote: I feel like MIKENREGGALIA that if you include a band in the archives you should include all of their discography. I think the idea of borderline bands is a good idea. I would claim that Deep purple, David Bowie, Kate Bush, Talking heads and Jefferson airplane (they are folk prog for sure) should all be included here for some of their works is realy prog and will interest some of us.

Thanks - of the bands you mentioned I only know Deep Purple well. As far as I know, a band can now be added if one of their albums is progressive (as a rule of thumb, the decision remains with the admins). I guess that means that 90% of one of their albums has to be progressive. I don't see that with Deep Purple - at least not with their work in the 70's ...

Big deal! Queen in ProgArchives! So what? I do not understand all the fuss about it. They are not prog? So what ? Neither are many bands already included in PA. I, personally, am not interested to discuss Queen here, or to read the reviews of their albums, as I was in my childhood huge fan of Queen and know almost all of their works by heart, so I shall be skipping any piece of information about Queen here. As I am skipping many other bands and reviews about them. There is enormous amount of information of great interest to me on this site, and there are many things here which I do not like or am just not interested in. There are many people here whose opinions are interesting to read, and there are hundreds of idiots - just to laugh at, or to simply ignore. If I start to protest against all the stupidities I run across in day-by-day life, I'd be running out of steam tomorrow. My advice - calm down, relax and enjoy what you like, and hell with Queen, or, rather, heaven with them........

Speaking personally, I am mortally opposed to Queen's inclusion on the site.  And for the first time, I not only disagree with Max, but feel that his post was unhelpful at best, and dismissive at worst.

We have all discussed that there are bands who influenced prog (often referred to as "proto-prog") or had proggy elements, but were not "prog" as defined - or at very least understood - vis-a-vis Prog Archives.  The Beatles, Zep, perhaps Queen (who were actually "late in the game" even if they had some proggy elements) and others have always been included in that discussion.

However, despite the members who felt Queen deserved a place here, it was basically understood that they were not "prog" as defined by Max.  And let me make this clear.  Max himself stated to me that in order for a band to be included on Prog Archives, at least one album had to be completely prog.  Not rock with proggy elements, not half the album prog and the other half rock.  This is how Supertramp "slipped" through: because Max considers Crime of the Century to be a completely prog album (though I would have to argue with Dreamer, which is a fairly standard rock song).

None of Queen's albums are completely prog.  Although Queen I and II have what I have coined "progressive sensibilities," and maybe even some progressive elements, neither of those albums is entirely prog: at best one-half of each has such sensibilities or elements.  Indeed, if any of Queen's albums comes closest to being "fully" prog, it is probably Night at the Opera or Day at the Races.  Yet even with those two, not every song is prog, nor is there any "connecting" feature of the songs that would allow for the possible acceptance of the non-prog songs within a "conceptual" framework.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but if Queen is prog, then so is 10CC, and even moreso XTC.  Indeed, 10CC's "How Dare You" is as wholly prog as any of Queen's albums, and XTC's "English Settlement" and "Mummer" are more prog than anything Queen did, with the possible exception of Bohemian Rhapsody and Prophet Song.

Don't get me wrong.  I am no longer arguing for the inclusion of 10CC or XTC, because while I disagree with it, Max and Rony's decision is final, and I accept it.  Yet their decision was also final re Queen.  Yet here we are.

Queen was not a "seminal" band, nor were they a major influence on any prog band; entering the picture in 1973, which is late in the prog game, they could not have been either.  They are a rock band that occasionally included prog elements in some of their songs.

Their inclusion on the site as a prog band is incomprehensible and inappropriate.

I will not leave the site over it.  But I, like others, consider less an "open-mindedness" than a "death knell" for a site calling itself Prog Archives.

Peace.

tuxon wrote: any suggestions which mp3's to add. I suggest. Queen I - My Fairy King Queen II - March Of The Black Queen A Night At the Opera - Prophet song Innuendo - Innuendo. any other recommendations??

How about Mustapha and In the Lap of the Gods? That would cover two more albums.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: omri wrote: I feel like MIKENREGGALIA that if you include a band in the archives you should include all of their discography. I think the idea of borderline bands is a good idea. I would claim that Deep purple, David Bowie, Kate Bush, Talking heads and Jefferson airplane (they are folk prog for sure) should all be included here for some of their works is realy prog and will interest some of us. Thanks - of the bands you mentioned I only know Deep Purple well. As far as I know, a band can now be added if one of their albums is progressive (as a rule of thumb, the decision remains with the admins). I guess that means that 90% of one of their albums has to be progressive. I don't see that with Deep Purple - at least not with their work in the 70's ...

As to Deep Purple - I am quite happy not to have them in PA. I know their works very well indeed, and really like many of their albums (own all of them in my collection). Great musicians! Ritchie Blackmore was my idol-guitarist since the age of 14. However, lately I am practically not listening to any of this stuff, except for one album Deep Purple 1969 with awesome composition called "April". Probably this one can be considered as progressive, and also some solo works of their keyboardist Jon Lord.

I think I'll send some 10 songs to choose from tomorow, that should suffice.

which version of Lap of the gods do you prefer, I find them both very good

I consider myself a purist and as the older members here know I'm almost always against the inclusion of this semi or barely Prog' bands, but just reviewed a Queen album (Of course expressing my opinion about them not being 100% prog').

To be honest with myself, I always found SOME prog' elements in early Queen's music and a extarordinaire capacity to blend different genres, so in tgis case I will give the band the benefit of the doubt and review some Queen albums that even when not 100% (or near that percentage) prog' formed part of my childhood and gave us good music.

But PLEASE don't use this inclusion as an excuse to include ELO or similar bands.

Iván

Snow Dog wrote: Queen at the Beeb is in the wrong place, it was released in the 90's

wrong snow blind it was released in 1989, or was it 1988 I'm all confused now

tuxon wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Queen at the Beeb is in the wrong place, it was released in the 90's wrong snow blind it was released in 1989, or was it 1988 I'm all confused now

yeah....yeah...well it wasn't 73 so there "Tux"!< sticking tongue out at you.

Snow Dog wrote: tuxon wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Queen at the Beeb is in the wrong place, it was released in the 90's wrong snow blind it was released in 1989, or was it 1988 I'm all confused now yeah....yeah...well it wasn't 73 so there "Tux"!< sticking tongue out at you.

why at me?

stick it right back at you 

Ok it WAS 89

QUEEN AT THE BEEB

Click http://www.pemcom.demon.co.uk/queen/xxxxbeeb.html - here for track listing

Synopsis

CD of two sets of 1973 BBC sessions, released in the UK (LP/CD) in 1989 and in the USA (picture disc and CD) in 1994 or so.

Yes I know

I didn't submitted it, I was planning on asking mailto:M@X - M@X to change the date, the rest of the information is accurate enough I think (didn't check it very intense)

Queen in Nuce will be issued as 1967/8, to show those unfaithfull people that Queen excisted for some years prior to their debut album

Smile

ivan_2068 wrote: I consider myself a purist and as the older members here know I'm almost always against the inclusion of this semi or barely Prog' bands, but just reviewed a Queen album (Of course expressing my opinion about them not being 100% prog'). To be honest with myself, I always found SOME prog' elements in early Queen's music and a extarordinaire capacity to blend different genres, so in tgis case I will give the band the benefit of the doubt and review some Queen albums that even when not 100% (or near that percentage) prog' formed part of my childhood and gave us good music. But PLEASE don't use this inclusion as an excuse to include ELO or similar bands. Iván

Thanks for your clear thougts IVAN !!!

Always appreciated !

I think progarchives are undergoing the same evolutionary process the prog itself was following.  With the inclusion of Radiohead we were in 1978 (still not bad), but with the inclusion of Queen we're somewhere in 1981. Next we'll have Iron Maiden, Dawid Bowie and we'll be in 1985. 

Well, waiting for the nineties

richardh wrote: This is plain silly.Queen never were  a prog band or an art rock band.They have never been referred to as a prog band.Deep Purple and Black Sabbath had stronger cases for being included and they are NOT prog either.This has really pee'd me off. At some point this will cease to be a prog site and become a general rock site.

When they turn the pages of history
When these days have passed long ago
Will they read of us with sadness
For the seeds that we let grow
We turned our gaze
From the castles in the distance
Eyes cast down
On the path of least resistance

As much as I like Queen up to and including 'Day At The Races', they are not a prog band and shouldn't be in the archives. The Alice Cooper Group has a stronger claim to prog than Queen!!!!

Ivan:

You say: "To be honest with myself, I always found SOME prog' elements in early Queen's music and a extarordinaire capacity to blend different genres, so in tgis case I will give the band the benefit of the doubt and review some Queen albums that even when not 100% (or near that percentage) prog' formed part of my childhood and gave us good music.  But PLEASE don't use this inclusion as an excuse to include ELO or similar bands."  (Emphasis mine)

But this is exactly the problem.  Suppose Max gets a huge number of requests to have ELO included.  Then in they come.  And what do you mean "or similar bands?"  Your "similar bands" may not be someone else's.

And therein lies the problem...

I'm not defending the case of Queen Maani, as I said there are only SOME elements of Prog in their music, I nelieve they shouldn't have been included, but they are here, lets try to accept it.

As you remember I was one of the most stubborn (Old and arrogant as someone called me recently ) members against the inclusion of Radiohead, band that even being good (Because they are) have IMO less prog elements tha Queen, but had to accept it.

I understand your concern and share it, if many mainstream bands with a few proggy elements continue being included, we may loose the reason to be here and that is to talk about Prog' Music.

But in the case of Queen we're not the only ones Maani, all this prestigious sites (Not as good as ours IMO have included them, most of this sites with some reservations and mentioning that they are not 100% Progressive.

1. Progreviews: http://www.progreviews.com/reviews/display.php?rev=que-anato - http://www.progreviews.com/reviews/display.php?rev=que-anato }
2. Gibraltar (GEPR): http://www.gepr.net/qfram.html - http://www.gepr.net/qfram.html
3. Progressor added A Night at the Opera: http://www.progressor.net/review/q.html - http://www.progressor.net/review/q.html
4. Progressive Ears also: http://www.progressiveears.com/asp/reviews.asp?albumID=2399& amp; amp; amp; amp;bhcp=1 - http://www.progressiveears.com/asp/reviews.asp?albumID=2399& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp;bhcp=1
5. Progressive World Net: http://www.progressiveworld.net/queen.html - http://www.progressiveworld.net/queen.html

All of them members of The Progressive Rock WebRing, so there's no damage to our reputation YET. Hope this doesn't change.

Iván

richardh wrote: This is plain silly.Queen never were  a prog band or an art rock band.They have never been referred to as a prog band.Deep Purple and Black Sabbath had stronger cases for being included and they are NOT prog either.This has really pee'd me off. At some point this will cease to be a prog site and become a general rock site.

AGREED!!!!!

The problem is that although they incorporated some prog elements into their music they still remain outside of the prog genre and never really wanted to be in it despite the very camp attempt at prog in Bohemian Rhapsody.They are too big.Freddie Mercury is too big a cultural icon (as well as a gay icon,although thats incidental).Very few people recognise or have talked about them as a prog band.I am extremely dissapointed with the decision.There were also a load of less succesfull bands and artists in the seventies that had stronger connections with prog.Even after sleeping on it I reckon this is a crap decision.

If 2 or 3 Queen albums get into the Top Ten on the front page ,then I'm out of here.I am very happy with what I've gained in knowledge from this website,but I think the inclusion of Queen is a watershed moment and that the site is going to lose its focus.It may well be downhill from now on.

richardh wrote: The problem is that although they incorporated some prog elements into their music they still remain outside of the prog genre and never really wanted to be in it despite the very camp attempt at prog in Bohemian Rhapsody.They are too big.Freddie Mercury is too big a cultural icon (as well as a gay icon,although thats incidental).Very few people recognise or have talked about them as a prog band.I am extremely dissapointed with the decision.There were also a load of less succesfull bands and artists in the seventies that had stronger connections with prog.Even after sleeping on it I reckon this is a crap decision. If 2 or 3 Queen albums get into the Top Ten on the front page ,then I'm out of here.I am very happy with what I've gained in knowledge from this website,but I think the inclusion of Queen is a watershed moment and that the site is going to lose its focus.It may well be downhill from now on.

Overreacting a little, mebbe? What about Asia? Early Queen far out-progs 'em, yet I see no petition to have them removed. And as for being "too big"... that's just pathetic. Progressive doesn't HAVE to be synonymous with obscure. Take it on the chin and carry on regardless, sir. As Ivan's pointed out, we're hardly the only prestigious prog site to give Queen a mention.

richardh wrote: If 2 or 3 Queen albums get into the Top Ten on the front page ,then I'm out of here.I am very happy with what I've gained in knowledge from this website,but I think the inclusion of Queen is a watershed moment and that the site is going to lose its focus.It may well be downhill from now on.

That's extremely unlikely ... I can't understand why everyone is so concerned that whenever a new band is added, it might compete with the greatest prog bands of all time? In terms of "chart position", Queen are not a threat.

Dick Heath wrote: Thought about it and now nominating the Who, the most representative band in Rock IMHO

On the grounds that only one album has to be prog(or in queens case somewhat prog), its a valid move. Tommy, and Who's Next are both much proggier than anything Queen has ever done (yes I have listened to virtually every queen album, but I never bothered with flash gordon or from heaven). Elton Johns Goodbye Yellow Brick Road is equally proggy to A Night At The Opera IMO. I think at least 51% (or in younger bands cases 50% would be acceptable) of a bands albums should be prog for the band to be considered a prog band at all. Otherwise wouldnt it just be a rock or pop band producing a Prog album? I like all music not just prog, but if I come to a site called Progarchives and I want to look for material I havent heard I would expect it to be PROG!!!!!! The first time I visited prog archives I downloaded a bunch of samples from bands I havent heard or bands I knew a bit about but never really heard. One of the mp3s I acquired was Sole Survivor by Asia, and yes after listening I seriously questioned the credibility of the site. I accredited thier inclusion to thier lineup comprised entirely of ex-prog musicians. Now I'll be honest for a second, If Queen was on the site last august when I first discovered the site I would not have taken it seriously. I almost didnt take it seriously because Pink Floyd was included(who I have now decided are prog). If people come to your website wanting to listen to prog and getting PLAIN OL' ROCK AND ROLL, they are not going to return in all likelyhood. I think a lot of bands inclusion need to be re-considered.

Oh, and as to the "proggier than radiohead" argument, I disagree. out of the six Radiohead albums three are prog (OK Computer, Kid A, Amnesiac) thats 50% of thier total output. Id only consider two Queen albums on which the majority of the songs are prog (Queen II, A Night At The Opera)  out of 12 albums (if I remember Correctly), which would be about 17%.

Right and one last thing, I do believe that Supertramps COTC is in fact 100% prog, yes even standard pop/rock song dreamer because its contextual to the rest of the album, it is after all a concept album. But I guess Supertramp isnt really a prog band.

Of the currently posted reviews (i.e., not just ratings), here is how it stands:

Queen I - 5 reviews; all 5 remark in some way that it or Queen are not prog

Queen II - 4 reviews; 2 say it is prog, 2 question the appellation

SHA - 3 reviews; 1 says it is prog, 2 question the appellation

NATO - 1 review; says it is prog

DATR - 1 review; questions the appellation

Thus, of a total of 14 written reviews, 10 question the appellation of "prog" to either the album or Queen or both, and only 4 state categorically that the album or Queen are prog.

Not exactly an overwhelming support here.

Also, the fact that Queen is on a number of other prog websites is irrelevant: Prog Archives is not those websites.  If Prog Archives simply wanted to "go with the pack," it would have added not just Queen but many, many other bands that ALL of you would be shouting down.

Peace.

AH AH AH watch Prog Archives homepage!

All those people reviewing QUEEN ALBUMS, (and giving them 3 4 5 stars!)  ! 

What's happening? Are these guys losing their time in finding Prog elements in albums which have more or less no prog elements?

It's so insane, firstly Radiohead, then Queen.. I need a lot of time to appreciate these choices.

And please, you, Queen fan, don't try to find prog elements in those albums, don't feel forced to show other people HOW PROG QUEEN ARE! As MAANI said, only one or two songs have these elements, and this doesn't JUSTIFY the inclusion in ROCK ARCHIVES.. EHM .. OPS.. EXCUSE ME.. I MEANT PROG ARCHIVES..  

___BYE___

Sorry to labour the point, but just a reminder.

DO NOT DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT QUEEN SHOULD BE IN THE ARCHIVES,  IN REVIEWS.

By all means mention whether you think the ALBUM you are reviewing is prog or not, but please try to segregate forum discussion from album reviews.

Thanks.