Queen as progressive band?

Queen (1973)
Keep Yourself Alive - not prog
Doing All Right - somewhat prog
Great King Rat - prog
My Fairy King - definitely prog
Liar - prog
The Night Comes Down - not prog
Modern Times Rock'n'Roll - not prog
Son and Daughter - live version is prog but I'm not sure about the album one
Jesus - not prog
Seven Seas of Rhye... - not prog

Is that album prog overall? Rather yes. Let's say it's semi-prog, but it's more than prog-related.

---------------------------

Queen II (1974) — all prog except for The Loser In The End and maybe Ogre Battle

---------------------------

Sheer Heart Attack (1974)
Brighton Rock - half prog, half metal
Killer Queen - pop, but the production with retro sound is somewhat proggish. Let's say it's prog-related
Tenement Funster - not prog itself, but it's a part of long bunch of tracks, which is prog itself
Flick of the Wrist - prog
Lily of the Valley - prog
Now I'm Here - not prog
In the Lap of the Gods - prog
Stone Cold Crazy - not prog itself, but it's connected with previous track
Dear Friends - ? (for me it's prog)
Misfire - for that album, it's prog
Bring Back That Leroy Brown - for that album, it's prog
She Makes Me (Stormtrooper in Stilettos) - not prog
In The Lap of the Gods... Revisited - not prog

Is it prog overall? Well, there's a lot of pop tunes, but prog is still prevails here.

---------------------------

A Night at the Opera (1975)
Death on two Legs (Dedicated to...... - somewhat prog, somewhat not
Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon - prog
I'm in Love with My Car - not prog
You're My Best Friend - not prog
'39 - not prog
Sweet Lady - not prog
Seaside Rendezvous - prog
The Prophet's Song - prog
Love of My Life - prog (at least for me)
Good Company - prog
Bohemian Rhapsody - prog
God Save the Queen - prog

Again, there's some pop tracks, but overall it's a prog album

---------------------------

A Day at the Races (1976)
Tie Your Mother Down - intro is prog, the rest is not
You Take My Breath Away - prog
Long Away - not prog
The Millionaire Waltz - prog
You and I - prog
Somebody to Love - prog
White Man - not prog
Good Old-Fashioned Lover Boy - just as Killer Queen — it's a simple pop song but with very prog production
Drowse - not prog
Teo Torriatte (Let Us Cling Together) - outro is prog, the rest is not.

Let's call it 'semi-prog' overall. But it still would be a prog album for me.

---------------------------

News of the World (1977)
We Will Rock You - not prog
We Are the Champions - not prog
Sheer Heart Attack - not prog
All Dead, All Dead - some prog flavour during the guitar solo, but... it's not a prog song
Spread Your Wings - not prog
Fight From the Inside - not prog
Get Down, Make Love - prog
Sleeping on the Sidewalk - not prog
Who Needs You - a pop song, but very unusual. Let it be 'semi-prog'
It's Late - the only 100% prog song here
My Melancholy Blues - even if it's reminiscent to some early Queen songs, it wouldn't be prog here.

So would it be a prog album? For me, it's not.

---------------------------

Jazz (1978)
Mustapha, Bicycle Race and Dreamer's Ball are prog, the rest is not. So this is not a prog album.

---------------------------

The Miracle (1989)
Party - not prog
Khashoggi's Ship - not prog
The Miracle - a pop song with non-convential song structure (heavy guitar solo after three verses and then a brand-new tempo and melody), so it's prog. Let's call it 'pop prog'.
I Want It All - not prog
The Invisible Man - not prog
Breakthru - prog intro, the rest is not prog
Rain Must Fall - a very unusual sound for Queen. Though it's arguable if I'll call this song prog.
Scandal - 'pop prog' again?
My Baby Does Me - not prog
Was It All Worth It - the only unarguable prog song on this album

Is that album prog overall? No, but it's a large step towards prog after The Works and A Kind of Magic.

---------------------------

Innuendo (1991)
Innuendo - definitely prog
I'm Going Slightly Mad - not prog, but it's what I call 'art rock'
Headlong - not prog
I Can't Live With You - not prog
Don't Try So Hard - prog
Ride The Willd Wind - ehm... I'd call this one prog, but I know, it's very arguable
All God's People - prog
These Are The Days Of Our Lives - 'pop prog', for me
Delilah - not prog
The Hitman - not prog
Bijou - prog
The Show Must Go On - for me, prog (at least, unusual song structure with melody changes is here)

Is this a full-prog album? Not. But there's still a lot of prog things. I'd call it 'prog related'.


Edited by ole-the-first - March 08 2012 at 15:39

Yeah, Queen II is a full prog album.

And with those five albums Queen are more prog than half of prog-related bands on PA, like Black Sabbath or Led Zeppelin (which I've never considered 'prog' except for Sabbath's 'Sabotage' and Zeppelin's 'In Through the Outdoor' and a few songs from other albums).

Edited by ole-the-first - March 08 2012 at 16:04

Queen played too many various genres to be considered any genre unambiguously.

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.

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

 

Edited by moshkito - March 12 2012 at 10:46

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.

I should also point out that you have now veered from your earlier position in saying it is just your opinion.  In a response earlier to Pedro, you said, "Nice speech, but doesn't change the FACT that it's not prog".  Er, it's not something factual and at any rate, Queen are not so unrelated to prog.  And that's not up to you, the website says that they are prog related and that classification is widely accepted by the members, as far as I know.  

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.

The Dark Elf wrote: 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.   You blithely ignored the legitimate comparisons between Tull and Queen as far as their output. Some albums are very prog, some not as much, others not at all, yet I don't think many posters here would consider Tull "on the outside looking in", because it's a daft proposition. This type of rigid and specious thinking makes the old adage "can't tell the forests from the trees" appropriate here.   As Rogerthat pointed out, Progarchives  has clearly labeled Queen as "Prog-related". I can live with that, and obviously the "devotees" whom you allegedly speak for do not hold to your stilted convictions. And as far as Zeppelin and The Who, I don't believe anyone here would argue the point that Quadrophenia is a progressive rock album, or that songs like "Kashmir", "No Quarter", "Achilles Last Stand" or "In The Light" are prog.   Your argument, or rather your personal opinion, does not hold water, nor does it reflect most of the members of this forum who have posted on the subject. Radical fundamentalism is bad in prog as it is in politics.