| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
aapatsos 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226
|
 Posted: August 14 2006 at 10:04 |
one of the best Queen songs ever...
Now you realise from whom SOAD were influenced... 
|
 |
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
Posted: August 14 2006 at 12:28 |
 toolis wrote:
sorry you can't argue my case... |
I'm sorry but, like Ivan says, you have no case. But then again, if you have no case, of course he can't argue it.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: August 14 2006 at 18:54 |
toolis wrote:
so the problem is that Queen instead of writing epics (irrelevant to being prog or not)
Epic is a term bad applied to long tracks, epic means much more. The term was taken from the Movie mostly the famous 1950's pictures by Cecil B De Mills, they were long (Most of them) but the term goes further an Epic has to be related to historic, religious or warrior issues, so a song IMO doesn't need to be long to be an Epic, I believe for example that Can-Utility and the Coastliners is a small epic.
Queen didn't had epics (Neither many long songs) and even when it's not mandatory for Symphonic bands to have Epics and long songs, an average of 12 tracks in 40 minutes is not common in Prog.
But this is only ONE of MANY characteristics that Queen doesn't have.
they presented all these elements of different genres spread to 10 tracks instead of three even though the total time of their albums is the same to all other 'prog bands'
You are mixing apples and oranges:
- If you blend multiple genres with Rock in one track, you probably are playing a Progressive song even when not all the bands that blend more than one genre are Prog, but this is one of the main characteristics of Prog, if you don't have it, you are not Prog.
- If you play different genres in different songs, you're nothing but versatile, this is not a blend or mixture of genres, just the capacity of playing different genres of music, Queen did this.
and that instead of keyboards had a looot of piano (you can't argue with that...)
Queen is a band that based their sound mainly in the vocals of Freddie plus the guitar of Brian May and an elaborate choral arrangement, piano (No synths) were only some extra ornament.
playing classical themes
Queen never had a Classical structure, they added some complex choral arrangements and orchestration but this doesn't make them Prog, Paul Mauriat, James Last and Ray Coniff played with full Orchestras and were nothing but Muzac even when one of them performed ELP songs (Heard Lucky Man by one of them and almost induced me to vomit).
and you fail to recognise the 'anti-commercial' Queen of the '73-'79 period but insist on the 80's when basically many bands that are considered prog in here went pop...
In first place I don't care for post "A Day At The Races Queen" or even mentioned it, News of the world had some moments but nothing else and Jazz is only Pop, but even in their early years Queen was a commercial band, lets see:
- Queen I: An eclectic Rock album "Keep Yourself Alive" is simply a Rock song; "Doing all Right" is a piano intro with guitar riffs (Excellent BTW), ballad structure and again piano closing good track with some Prog moments; "Great King Rat" is just Hard Rock with a lot of wah wah guitar; "My Fairy King" is a 100% Prog track but closer to Medieval Folk than to Symphonic; "Liar" is close to Metal; "The Night Comes Down" another weak Rock track with no Prog relation; "Modern Times Rock & Roll" has to be one of the worst Queen tracks a little mediocre Rock track; "Son & Daughter" is a controversial song for those days but nothing special 5 years later, they sounded like Led Zeppelin wannabes; "Jesus", I correct myself, this is the worst track of the album, Brian May sounds awful and "Seven Seas of Rye" is nothing special either, good song but plain Rock.
- Queen II: It's too long and boring to check song by song so lets say this is their most Prog album, but closer to some sort of operatic Hard Rock than to Symphonic, genre with which has absolutely no relation.
- Sheer Heart Attack: Great album but even heavier than the previous, absolutely no relation with Symphonic and again closer to Hard Rock than to Prog.
- A Night at the Opera: Wonderful album, well balanced, very eclectic and versatile, but no relation with Symphonic, "Death on Two Legs", "I'm in Love with my Car" and Sweet Lady" are pure hard rock, "Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon", "Seaside Rendezvous" and "Good Company" is almost Vaudeville or Music Hall tracks; "You're my Best Friend" is a simple tune enhanced by the incredible vocals of Freddie as well as "39"; "Prophet's Song" is a real Art Rock track, very heavy, obscure but again no connection with Symphonic; Bohemian Rhapsody is also a hard rock track with an extravagant operatic intermezzo and moments of Power Ballad; "God Save the Queen" is just a joke. Excellent album, deserves 4 stars (According to our guidelines because it's not a Prog album) but 5 stars in Rock history, despite this credentials, again NOT A SINGLE SYMPHONIC INSTANT.
- A Day at the Races: I rated this album with 4 stars, but again not a single Symphonic moment, if you want more info, check my review because I'm tired of writing . Just say that the closest they get to Symphonic is "Teo Torriate" a traditional Japanese track but due to their ethnic sound could be qualified as Prog Folk material, but only related because at the end is just a ballad. Before you mention it, no, not even "Millionaire Waltz" is Symphonic because they don't blend styles, just play a Vienna like Waltz with Rock instruments. Simply love this album, it was part of my youth but I can't find the slightest Symphonic connection.
All this albums are ESSENTIALLY commercial, great music of course but commercial and their latest albums get poppier each time.
So again; Where in hell can you find the Symphonic sound?
THIS IS LAME...
No, it's not lame, because I'm talking about musical influences and not about personal tastes I can say it's a fact (At least from my perspective and experience) and I guess most people would agree.
sorry you can't argue my case...
Sorry...What case????????
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: August 14 2006 at 21:41 |
Hmm....
As the person who argued most vociferously not include Queen on PA (and in fact all but left the site over that debate), I will say only this:
If Queen is re-categorized as Symphonic Prog, I will create and introduce into PA a powerful virus that will change the Yes page into the Barry Manilow page, the Genesis page into the Lionel Ritchie page, the King Crimson page into the George Michael page, the Dream Theater page into the Britney Spears page, and the Pink Floyd page into the Kenny G page - just to name a few!
Peace. (or maybe not...)
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: August 14 2006 at 22:53 |
maani wrote:
Hmm....
As the person who argued most vociferously not include Queen on PA (and in fact all but left the site over that debate), I will say only this:
If Queen is re-categorized as Symphonic Prog, I will create and introduce into PA a powerful virus that will change the Yes page into the Barry Manilow page, the Genesis page into the Lionel Ritchie page, the King Crimson page into the George Michael page, the Dream Theater page into the Britney Spears page, and the Pink Floyd page into the Kenny G page - just to name a few!
Peace. (or maybe not...) |
Don't need for virtual terroruism Maani
While this team is in charge of Symphonic, Queen won't pass into our beloved genre.
I believe they are OK in Prog Related, they had their proggy moments and a few really Prog songs, but not enough to pass that barrier.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Online
Points: 20250
|
Posted: August 15 2006 at 03:31 |
maani wrote:
Hmm....
As the person who argued most vociferously not include Queen on PA (and in fact all but left the site over that debate), I will say only this:
If Queen is re-categorized as Symphonic Prog, I will create and introduce into PA a powerful virus that will change the Yes page into the Barry Manilow page, the Genesis page into the Lionel Ritchie page, the King Crimson page into the George Michael page, the Dream Theater page into the Britney Spears page, and the Pink Floyd page into the Kenny G page - just to name a few!
Peace. (or maybe not...) |
And I, Sir, will be your first supporter in this matter
GG page into Celine Dion
and VdGG into Mariah Carey
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
toolis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 26 2006
Location: MacedoniaGreece
Status: Offline
Points: 1678
|
Posted: August 15 2006 at 04:06 |
Philéas wrote:
toolis wrote:
sorry you can't argue my case... |
I'm sorry but, like Ivan says, you have no case. But then again, if you have no case, of course he can't argue it.
|
i'm afraid i'm going to need a stronger arguement my friend...
Edited by toolis - August 15 2006 at 04:15
|
|
toolis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 26 2006
Location: MacedoniaGreece
Status: Offline
Points: 1678
|
Posted: August 15 2006 at 05:16 |
|
first of all, i would like to thank Ivan for not ignoring my opinion and fairly took a lot of time of his own and eloquently argued with me...
additionaly, i want to apologise about the "LAME" thing.. nobody's opinion is lame.. terribly sorry, i got carried away...
now, about the Queen been prog issue...let's forget the arguement whether Queen are Symph,i obviously didn't convince anyone and you are probably right... technicalities and definitions aside.. i have been listening to prog for only 10 years, but from the first time i listened to early Queen, i said to myself: "now,
that's what i call good prog..."
i mean, their sound is unique, they all are excellent players, they have all these different styles from track to track, they really progressed from album to album, and, let's face it, the essence of their music, the diathesis their music emits, if you like, is absolutely progressive....
apart from that, it's really unfair for Queen to be under the 'prog related' category, given that IMHO, their music is far more progressive and really closer to other bands considered prog... and i'm pretty sure that all of you agree that compared to many of the bands/artists that you oppose being in the PA, Queen are more progressive...
i don't know what else to say.. it's not that the world will stop turning if Queen remain 'prog related' not that if they go 'X prog' i will finally go to sleep.. it's sth i strongly believe and i wanted to know your thought pattern you followed and placed Queen there...
i think, i'll finish my coffee and go 'kill' "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" with my guitar...
be back soon.. apparently...
Edited by toolis - August 15 2006 at 06:31
|
|
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
Posted: August 15 2006 at 09:42 |
toolis wrote:
i'm afraid i'm going to need a stronger arguement my friend... |
It wasn't an arguement, just a comment in general  
toolis wrote:
i mean, their sound is unique, they all are excellent players, they
have all these different styles from track to track, they really
progressed from album to album, and, let's face it, the essence of
their music, the diathesis their music emits, if you like, is
absolutely progressive....
apart from that, it's really unfair for Queen to be under the 'prog
related' category, given that IMHO, their music is far more progressive
and really closer to other bands considered prog... and i'm pretty sure
that all of you agree that compared to many of the bands/artists that
you oppose being in the PA, Queen are more progressive...
|
Yes, Queen were progressive in their own right, but progressive and
Prog are not the same thing. Prog is a style of music, and a band can
be progressive without being prog. A good example is Rage Against the
Machine. Progressive, but very, very far from Prog.
Furthermore, I don't think it's unjust at all to have Queen in Prog
Related. The category was created to house bands just like Queen.
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: August 15 2006 at 19:11 |
|
|
|
toolis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 26 2006
Location: MacedoniaGreece
Status: Offline
Points: 1678
|
Posted: August 16 2006 at 09:25 |
maani wrote:
Ivan and Sean:
[IMG]height=17 alt=Hug src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley31.gif" width=45 align=absMiddle>
Peace. |
huh?
|
|
richardh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28059
|
Posted: August 18 2006 at 02:41 |
|
I would put Queen into a new sub genre 'glam prog' (..or preferably out the site altogether...even The Sweet were proggier)
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 18 2006 at 08:38 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Queen Symphonic????? |
You know, I would say that about almost every rock band filed under symphonic - except The Enid.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
They have some relation with Prog as they have with Blues, Pop and Classic Rock, |
Don't forget Opera, early 1900s popular music idioms, and, of course, please don't forget Prog Rock itself - even their very first album shows more than just signs of being influenced by the overblown pomposity of Prog Rock - and the varied influences, richly complex harmonies, time changes etc all add up to music well within Prog Rock's remit.
Glam is what they looked like, Rock is what they sounded like, but Prog Rock is what they played - even though it upsets a lot of ostriches to think that.
They're not my favourite band - but it beggars belief that there are still people who question the status of Queen, who blatantly - even cheekily - out-progged many prog bands.
/rant (not aimed at you personally, of course, Ivan - it just developed like that in this post!).
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
they are outstanding but they never released a Symphonic track, not even Bohemian Rhapsody which is a Rock song with some stravaganzas. |
Actually, Bohemian Rhapsody goes many miles beyond the standard rock song - it is, indeed, a true Rhapsody.
Yes, it's got an intro - but a very intricate one with a cappella harmonies in a blend of simple classical and barbershop, but it breaks down almost instantly. When the piano line joins, it is playing something completely different to the vocals, and then when Freddie takes a lead line, it's not the first verse, but a continuation of the multi-threaded introduction.
The "first verse" is completely different in structure to the "second" - if separate verses can truly be marked out - and where is the chorus?
Answer: There isn't one.
Just unfolding material that develops crazily with new ideas being thrown into the mix all the time.
I''l save the rest for a review - but standard Rock Song BH most definitely ain't.
It's more elegant a composition than almost anything else a rock band produced in 1975, and both structurally and musically it's way beyond the capabilities of most Prog Rock bands - in terms of composition.
I'd bet that Gentle Giant wish they'd written it - it's in the same league.
But I agree - I would never call it symphonic.
richardh wrote:
I would put Queen into a new sub genre 'glam prog' (..or preferably out the site altogether...even The Sweet were proggier) |
Not even close.
The Sweet vs Queen - Blockbuster vs Bohemian Rhapsody?
Good joke, Richard 
Edited by Certif1ed - August 18 2006 at 13:08
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
toolis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 26 2006
Location: MacedoniaGreece
Status: Offline
Points: 1678
|
Posted: August 18 2006 at 13:51 |
|
sniff... a tear runs down my cheek... at last, an ally... thank you my friend, Certif1ed... thank you...
as Freddie would say: "You're my best friend"...
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 18 2006 at 16:49 |
I don't want to spoil the friendship at this delicate, nebulous phase, but I was actually agreeing with Ivan that Queen shouldn't be filed under symphonic...
But they're definitely Prog.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: August 18 2006 at 16:58 |
maani wrote:
Hmm....
As the person who argued most vociferously not include Queen on PA
(and in fact all but left the site over that debate), I will say
only this:
If Queen is re-categorized as Symphonic Prog, I will create and
introduce into PA a powerful virus that will change the
Yes page into the Barry Manilow page, the Genesis page into
the Lionel Ritchie page, the King Crimson page into the George
Michael page, the Dream Theater page into the Britney Spears page, and
the Pink Floyd page into the Kenny G page - just to name a few!
Peace. (or maybe not...) |
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: August 18 2006 at 19:17 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Queen Symphonic????? |
You know, I would say that about almost every rock band filed under symphonic - except The Enid.
Potato, Patata...at the end is the same, we both agreed many times that the words Symphonic and classical have different meanings than the ones we use them for, but all the Prog community gets them and it's enough.}
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
They have some relation with Prog as they have with Blues, Pop and Classic Rock, |
Don't forget Opera, early 1900s popular music idioms, and, of course, please don't forget Prog Rock itself - even their very first album shows more than just signs of being influenced by the overblown pomposity of Prog Rock - and the varied influences, richly complex harmonies, time changes etc all add up to music well within Prog Rock's remit.
If youcheck out my previous pósts, probably the word that I repeated more in this thread is OPERA and if you read the first line of my quote which I have bolded, the PROG genre is the first one I mention.
Glam is what they looked like, Rock is what they sounded like, but Prog Rock is what they played - even though it upsets a lot of ostriches to think that.
Never mentioned Glam, they sounded as Rock, but they played Prog, Rock, Blues, Musical, Vaudeville or Music Hall style, etc.
They're not my favourite band - but it beggars belief that there are still people who question the status of Queen, who blatantly - even cheekily - out-progged many prog bands.
Queen outprogged many bands, but this is not a conytest, IMO they don't fit in any other sub-genre other than Prog Related, because they had some Prog moments but not a 100% Prog band.
/rant (not aimed at you personally, of course, Ivan - it just developed like that in this post!).
I know, I never asked to remove them from Prog Related, but I insist they are not remotely Symphonic.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
they are outstanding but they never released a Symphonic track, not even Bohemian Rhapsody which is a Rock song with some stravaganzas. |
Actually, Bohemian Rhapsody goes many miles beyond the standard rock song - it is, indeed, a true Rhapsody.
Going beyond doesn't necesarilly mean Progressive Rock, and much less Symphonic
Yes, it's got an intro - but a very intricate one with a cappella harmonies in a blend of simple classical and barbershop, but it breaks down almost instantly. When the piano line joins, it is playing something completely different to the vocals, and then when Freddie takes a lead line, it's not the first verse, but a continuation of the multi-threaded introduction.
Agree totally
The "first verse" is completely different in structure to the "second" - if separate verses can truly be marked out - and where is the chorus?
Answer: There isn't one.
Just unfolding material that develops crazily with new ideas being thrown into the mix all the time.
I''l save the rest for a review - but standard Rock Song BH most definitely ain't.
It's more elegant a composition than almost anything else a rock band produced in 1975, and both structurally and musically it's way beyond the capabilities of most Prog Rock bands - in terms of composition.
I'd bet that Gentle Giant wish they'd written it - it's in the same league.
Honestly I like Bohemian Rhapsody more than Gentle Giant, but stoill I believe it's a rock track with operatic stravaganza that ends into a power ballad.
But I agree - I would never call it symphonic.
Neither do I.
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
toolis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 26 2006
Location: MacedoniaGreece
Status: Offline
Points: 1678
|
Posted: August 20 2006 at 01:34 |
|
so, i guess the bottom line is that Queen are definitely not symph prog and that for most (well, all but two) people have only prog elements in their music, hence 'prog related' is the most suitable genre for them..
i'll stand by my opinion and continue to consider Queen as "Prog Monsters"... maybe i'm right, maybe you're wrong... who knows...
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 20 2006 at 17:37 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Honestly I like Bohemian Rhapsody more than Gentle Giant, but stoill I believe it's a rock track with operatic stravaganza that ends into a power ballad.
|
No - it's not a standard rock track by any stretch of the imagination, as my analysis shows.
To complicate matteres a little, given the subject of this thread, Rhapsodies fall under the remit of Symphonic, as symphonic composers also composed Rhapsodies and would schedule them into the same programmes.
And it emphatically does not end with a ballad, power or otherwise. A ballad is a completely different form.
I must admit, I would prefer to listen to Gentle Giant than Bohemian Rhapsody - but only because I've heard the latter soooo many times
Queen II still gives me goosebumps with its pure progginess, tho'
Edited by Certif1ed - August 20 2006 at 17:40
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: August 21 2006 at 02:33 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Honestly I like Bohemian Rhapsody more than Gentle Giant, but still I believe it's a rock track with operatic stravaganza that ends into a power ballad.
|
No - it's not a standard rock track by any stretch of the imagination, as my analysis shows.
Standard no way, I agree with you and never said it Cert, it's complex, but still IMO it's mainly Rock with an Operatic interlude.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 21 2006 at 02:34
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Queen?Prog Related?
