Queen as progressive band?

 I was thinking about Queen since yesterday was Freddie Mercury's Bday and was wondering what was the general consensus among prog enthusiasts regarding Queen? I for one have always been a pretty big fan of Queen especially their early material from their self titled debut album right on up to The Game and even some of the later pop hits on Its a Kind of Magic, Innuendo, The Miracle etc. My argument would be their lyricism obviously especially on Queen and Queen II dealing with many of the same themes as some of their contemporary Prog acts ie: fantasy, romanticism etc...Their groundbreaking use of intensely over-dubbed choruses and whatnot also was progressive in its use of studio technology much in the same way other groups were stretching the recording process and pushing the bounds of the technology of the day. And of course the stunning musicianship of Brian May, thunderous drumming of Roger Taylor, the quiet dependable and precise playing of John Deacon (one of the great underappreciated bassists IMO), and the sheer magnetic stage presence of Freddie Mercury arguably one of the greatest singers and performers of all time. I understand their commercial success and radio hit leanings might be a turnoff for many of you so I was curious as to everyones thoughts. I absolutely adore them to be honest. How about you?

It's the overdubbing..... they did sh*t loads of it, probably more than any other band in the world. Queen II is just drenched in thick vocal harmonies that sound like 100+ vocalists, they're splattered everywhere, in all corners of that album. And this continues into songs like Somebody to Love, Bicycle Race, and of course, Bohemian Rhapsody.

It's not to everyone's taste, but it was certainly progressive (particularly if you listen in quadrophonic.... it's like having four choirs screaming at you from different directions, in a good way!)

 I wasnt aware that Queen II was released in the quadrophonic format. That is interesting to me.

Flimbau wrote:  I wasnt aware that Queen II was released in the quadrophonic format. That is interesting to me.

It may not have been officially..... but my brother's car stereo system separates audio into right and left and front and back, and while some albums still sounded just stereo, Queen II definitely had vocals and guitar parts coming out of all four areas independently.

It was the latest CD remaster (2011), with bonus tracks. Perhaps that is a quadrophonic mix, or surround mix.

i would put queen in the 70's as a rock band, the first 2 albums maybe prog but the game onwards more of a pop/rock band.......and i love em

lazland wrote: I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.

 I think its pretty hard to find any band that put an album out without at least one "rubbish" song or "fillers". I dont see why Queen should be singled out as being less than a stellar band given their massive output throughout the duration of their career and the amount of great songs they wrote as a whole. Just because they wrote a few songs that werent up to snuff hardly demeans them.

Wish You Were Here, maybe ? Jokes apart it's not question of weaker tracks in a good album. Queen's fillers are very bad, not just weaker. 

Ill give you that on Wish you Were Here. What in your opinion represents a "very bad" song from that era of Queens output?

topographicbroadways wrote: Just because a band is original and talented doesn't immediately make the Prog Rock. They were progressive yes. I guess they can be prog related (they already are aren't they?). But cmon. They were a great rock band. That's it

My thoughts exactly. We're sometime guilty of acting like an over zealous border patrol here on PA (and insist that everyone entering is subjected to a full cavity body search for Prog credentials)