Queen as progressive band?

^^^ I would qualify that a bit in the sense that when Genesis, Yes, Gentle Giant shift time signatures or motives, there is a sense of a strong underlying vocabulary, if I might call it that, that binds it together.  While Queen's lengthy pieces are more pastiche-like.  However, circa 2012, a pastiche approach to putting together a prog rock songs is quite pervasive so it is not really a disqualification, rather, just to say, that I don't quite consider Queen II as prog as Fragile or SEBTP (and what is more prog or less prog is itself a very subjective and undefinable notion) but there are many albums even from the 70s that it casts in the shade.  

Edited by rogerthat - March 18 2012 at 22:40

NickHall wrote: rogerthat wrote: NickHall wrote: I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you. But what are those ground rules?  The fact that LZ and Who are in here as proto prog and Queen as prog related shows that there really are no rigid tenets on what is prog, as The Dark Elf rightly argued.  This website tries to maintain some consistency in its inclusions but that's all.  If I told you that Bjork is considered crossover prog in PA...   (something that I agree with, by the way) Oh, and by the way, welcome to prog v/s progressive.   LZ, Who, Queen were far, far more PROGRESSIVE than many bands that get called PROG.  At what point do we suggest that even the music being progressive is not enough to call it prog because it's too far removed from any generally held notions of prog?  These three bands that you happened to mention firmly live up to the ROCK part of prog rock.  So you may choose to believe or not to believe someone, but it's hardly such a ludicrous suggestion.  I suspect the fact that these three bands are already part of the classic rock canon accounts for much of your resistance to the idea that they may have something to do with prog.  If so, I meet your Queen and Who with Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull, also classic rock staples. If there are no rigid tenets on what is prog, then why is there such a site? Why not call it ‘Music Archives’?  It seems to me that there is no point in a defining something as a genre if it then dreams up excuses to include everything and anything . I’m all for not having barriers of any kind then there won’t be an argument about who is in or out. But we’ll have to re-name the site.

Why should the absence of rigid tenets stop people from following the general idea?  Everybody has a general idea of prog that broadly converges and that is enough.  There will be bands about which people disagree as to whether they are prog but there is really no need to rigidly interpret what is prog for the sole purpose of obstructing such exceptions.  Any music genre that evolves with time cannot be defined rigidly; only a broad understanding of its nature is possible.

Words are always inadequate to describe complex emotions and thoughts, leaving much room for manoeuvre  for those looking to disagree, and can of course be worked both ways, rendering any discussion meaningless in any way other than grammar,  I don’t care to do that, it’s mere nit-picking for its own sake, and tiresome in the extreme. As for inclusions, prog archives includes everything and anything, finding justification in all kinds of obscure sub-classifications that bring us back to no genre at all

NickHall wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: NickHall wrote: I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.   My, what a shallow sandbox you play in. It is far too confining, First, equating prog to a church is rather farcical, given there is not a set dogma or tenets in stone associated with progressive rock, There are many bands, like Jethro Tull for instance,  who have progressive albums (Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, Minstrel in the Gallery, Songs From the Wood), and albums that are altogether not progressive (This Was, Benefit, War Child, Too Old to Rock and Roll, etc.), and still other albums (Stand Up, Aqualung, Heavy Horses, Stormwatch, etc.) which, depending on my mood, I could argue for or against progressivity in the rock sphere. The fact that not every Tull album was progressive does not make the albums that were indeed progressive something else altogether, and even in specific albums there are songs that are progressive while others are not. The same could be said of other "progressive bands" like Yes and Genesis.   There is no "drawing a line" with a band like Jethro Tull, just as there is no line-drawing regarding Queen. They did what they wanted, when the hell they wanted, and were not confined to some dogmatic adherence to a specific set of rules. Your rules. Whatever they are.   Perhaps you should elucidate as to what you consider "the rules", You keep making  imperious statements that have no basis of fact. Repeating an opinion does not an argument make. It's your thinking that isn't clear enough. I personally just like music and don't like rules or prejudice against forms of music I don't necessarily like. I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.

NickHall wrote: I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.

But what are those ground rules?  The fact that LZ and Who are in here as proto prog and Queen as prog related shows that there really are no rigid tenets on what is prog, as The Dark Elf rightly argued.  This website tries to maintain some consistency in its inclusions but that's all.  If I told you that Bjork is considered crossover prog in PA...   (something that I agree with, by the way)

Oh, and by the way, welcome to prog v/s progressive.   LZ, Who, Queen were far, far more PROGRESSIVE than many bands that get called PROG.  At what point do we suggest that even the music being progressive is not enough to call it prog because it's too far removed from any generally held notions of prog?  These three bands that you happened to mention firmly live up to the ROCK part of prog rock.  So you may choose to believe or not to believe someone, but it's hardly such a ludicrous suggestion.  I suspect the fact that these three bands are already part of the classic rock canon accounts for much of your resistance to the idea that they may have something to do with prog.  If so, I meet your Queen and Who with Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull, also classic rock staples.


Edited by rogerthat - March 14 2012 at 05:37

moshkito wrote: However, the 20th century has been about breaking apart all music, regardless of its anything ...

NickHall wrote: I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.

In that case, like Mr.John Casey, I shall proclaim in protest that let there be no church for prog. 

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.

but sticking on the thread's question I think we can't answer "yes". 

I'm not argue that Queen are prog-related, and I'm not calling them a prog band overall. But the first five albums are prog, even with pop songs on them. And not vice versa (i.e. not a pop albums with prog songs on them).