Queen's Genre Tag
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=103460
Printed Date: December 18 2024 at 03:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Queen's Genre Tag
Posted By: Necrotica
Subject: Queen's Genre Tag
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 07:30
| I can definitely understand why Queen would be considered prog-related on the site considering the more poppy and arena rock-oriented side of the band. However, I'd certainly be inclined to consider them eclectic prog as well because of their multitude of styles and overall variety. It's an interesting thing to bring up, because if Queen only made their first 4 albums and nothing after that, I'd imagine they'd be considered a full-fledged prog band on the site. I think the same would go for Journey's first three albums as well. It's just a bit interesting to see how entire discographies can affect the way a band is labelled on different websites. |
Replies:
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 07:43
|
I disagree. Queen were never a prog band - even during those early releases. They, like thousands of their contemporaries, flirted around with the notion that you can stretch and experiment with the rock genre, but they never made a genuine prog album imo. They were a hard rock act with theatrical tendencies much thanks to Freddie. Also, in order for a band to be included in a proper prog sub on PA (both proto and related are not prog) it has to have at least one fully fledged prog album under it's belt. Queen, like Bowie, never produced that. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 08:12
| I agree with Guldbamsen, they were never a prog band. |
Posted By: GKR
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 08:14
|
As much as I love Queen, I agree with you guys. ------------- - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 10:40
|
Hmmm...Queen II. Let's see, mythological creatures and legends? Check. Wildly fluctuating time signatures, even to the point of using two time signatures simultaneously? Check. Some pieces played in a classical mode? Check. Conceptual in nature (Side White and Side Black)? Check. The use of odd instruments not often played on rock albums like a harpsichord, string piano and stylophone? Check. Extended instrumentals and songs seguing into the next one? Check. The use of literary and fine art allusions, like on "White Queen" (referring to a Robert Graves book) and "The Fairy Fellers Master-Stroke" (a painting by Richard Dadd in the Tate Gallery)? Check. I would suggest that this album in 1974 was in line with what we now in hindsight refer to as "Prog" artists were doing at the time. Like Genesis (The Lamb, with relatively short songs strung together), Tull (War Child, no song over 5:30), Procol Harum (Exotic Birds and Fruit), Supertramp (Crime of the Century), ELO (Eldorado), or Traffic (where the Eagle Flies), for instance. Then again, it is much like what Zeppelin, The Who, Deep Purple, Frank Zappa, Robin Trower, Blue Öyster Cult, David Bowie, Roxy Music and Black Sabbath were doing as well -- much of it what could be considered prog. Which leads me to the theory that there was no such thing as "prog" at the time, but merely insanely talented bands having the uncommon (and once in a lifetime) leeway to do whatever the hell they wanted to do whenever the hell they wanted to do it without much interference from record companies. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 12:32
Too late now!  ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 14:38
It's too late indeed.....but then there are other bands like The Who and Zep who were never really prog either yet they get listed here as prog related and people argue about which of their songs are the 'proggiest'. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 15:29
|
There's one difference Doc, I actually listen to Zep and the Who. ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 15:40
Prog related and proto prog are not prog. I thought we'd been over this? You may find acts in both of those subs who did some prog tunes but never a full album. Bowie did Width of a Circle fx just like Zep did Achilles Last Stand. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
dr wu23 wrote:Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 15:42
And I'm sure that, like me, there wasn't a different designation in the early 70s for Zep and the Who as opposed to Tull, Yes, Genesis and ELP. To me, they were all "rock" and I listened to all of them without putting them into fancy little boxes. You put In the Court of the Crimson King on the turntable, then came Floyd, then Sabbath, then Yes, then Tull, etc. I don't think I ever heard, "Oh, I'm sorry, I don't listen to Zeppelin, I only listen to P-R-A-A-A-W-G."  Now, pass the damn joint, don't bogart it. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 15:48
|
I think it works much the same way today. It's only on here people use these boxes - at least I hope so. The boxes here are only there as navigational tools, nothing more. When I'm with friends and we're listening to music there are perhaps two boxes: weird sh*t and banana-flavoured. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: July 28 2015 at 15:54
^ ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: August 06 2015 at 13:34
|
I think that early Queen albums could be easily viewed as heavy prog. At least they're no less proggy than Uriah Heep stuff for example. ------------- This night wounds time. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: August 07 2015 at 03:34
|
Queen at their heydays (let's forget their mediocre 80s albums)? Rock. p.s. Same as The Rolling Stones, The Who, Bruce Springsteen and E-Street Band and so on.
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: August 07 2015 at 03:40
e.g. The Who has all of that but they're also still to be Rock.
|
Posted By: GKR
Date Posted: August 07 2015 at 06:36
|
Isnt progressive rock also somethign that was built up later? I mean, like some comments above, people back then did not necessarily separate JT from LZ. But then, 20 years later, we saw that this made sense and the artists itself re0think their music and say "oh, yeah, perhaps we were doing something like 'prog' ". In this way, except if I miss something, Queen never saw itself as a progressive rock band. Am I right? ------------- - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 08 2015 at 10:27
|
Prog reated is fine for Queen based on their overall output, but Queen II is certainly a prog album IMO. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: August 08 2015 at 11:34
Explain in detail ..no less than 250 words why Queen 2 is prog. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 08 2015 at 12:30
No! Dark Elf's justification is near as damn it the same as mine, so I'll not duplicate. Besides, Freddie sometimes wore tights! What more do you need? A flute and cod piece?!  I heard that Gentle Giant used to support Queen in the early days. I'm not offering that up as some of prog justification for Queen being prog of course, but an interesting factoid nonethless..  ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: August 25 2015 at 12:31
|
The prog versus everything else thing was a consequence of pop culture. As Ian Gillan (prog? Not prog?) explained in an interview in ... '85 I think, pop fans could whizz off and see Purple or Marc Bolan and there was no hassle man. But in the 80s if you wnated to go see Adam And The Ants one week and Iron maiden the next you had to go in disguise. Really, the awareness of style and cultural identity (kind of tribal) determined one aspect (the fans' view of what is and what should probably not be.) The bands - "insanely talented" (yes!).... made music while the rest of the world got into fashion etc. |
Posted By: TheLionOfPrague
Date Posted: September 05 2015 at 15:27
|
Queen's music is much more elaborated and experimental than Rolling Stones, The Who or your typical rock band (AC/DC, Kiss, etc.) ------------- I shook my head and smiled a whisper knowing all about the place |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: September 05 2015 at 17:17
elaborated yes... but experimental??  In a pastiche way, then!! |
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 09 2015 at 07:21
| Queen is more prog than some bands classified here as prog. Some of their tracks were certainly and are prog in my opinion. |
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 09 2015 at 07:51
|
this is an example of prog more than most bands on here. Queen - The Prophets Song |
Posted By: AZF
Date Posted: September 09 2015 at 08:06
|
I can accept Queen as having Prog flavours on their first few albums, but accept as much that they ran away from Prog as fast as they could in the 80's. (Despite releasing the "Flash" soundtrack which is one of my favourite albums!
|
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 09 2015 at 09:10
|
Again as pointed out on Maiden...they are prog related and not full blown prog rock...whatever that means. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: September 09 2015 at 19:07
|
Queen is just as progressive as Zeppelin. ------------- http://fryingpanmedia.com |
Posted By: TheLionOfPrague
Date Posted: September 10 2015 at 21:52
Much more. Zepp doesn't really have very prog songs. No Quarter and a few others come to mind, but they don't have many prog elements. The March of the Black Queen, My Fairy King, Innuendo, The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke, Millonaire Waltz, etc. is more prog than anything Led Zeppelin did.
True. But the same can be said about Yes, Genesis, etc.
I'm not saying they were a very experimental band, they were certainly more than your average rock band. Some songs were pretty unique, like Seaside Rendezvous, Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon, Bring Back That Leroy Brown, etc. You don't hear stuff like that on most mainstream bands. ------------- I shook my head and smiled a whisper knowing all about the place |
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 03:58
A todos mis amigos muy dulces 
|
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:04
|
I dedicate this to a dear friend of mine, Yoshiyuki <3 Queen (Freddie Mercury & Montserrat Caballé)-la japonaise  |
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:08
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:11
And now listen and respect! 
|
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:18
| tum ta tum ta ta tum tum ta di di dum ta ta :) |
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:21
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:24
tag Queen whatever you might or want to perceive them to be, to me they were/are extraordinary.  A lot of great bands cannot be compared to others because they are unique like no other great and Queen is certainly one of them to me.
|
Posted By: TheLionOfPrague
Date Posted: October 08 2015 at 19:36
Absolutely, one of the best bands of all time. ------------- I shook my head and smiled a whisper knowing all about the place |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 08 2015 at 20:43
|
Agreed, rock bands didn't get any better. Plus as we all saw from LiveAid, their bite was as mean as their bark, unlike so many of their peers. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Necrotica
Date Posted: January 25 2016 at 15:16
|
I know this thread was a while back, but... This is my question then: if Queen are only considered prog related because they never made one full-fledged prog album, then how did Kansas make it as a full-fledged prog band? Despite their prog elements, they always had a poppy side to their records. Leftoverture had Carry On Wayward Son, Point of Know Return had Dust in the Wind and quite a few other pop rock songs, Masque had It Takes a Woman's Love, etc. Just a bit curious about that one. ------------- Take me down, to the underground Won't you take me down, to the underground Why oh why, there is no light And if I can't sleep, can you hold my life https://www.youtube.com/@CocoonMasterBrendan-wh3sd |
Posted By: TheLionOfPrague
Date Posted: January 25 2016 at 20:02
And Selling England by the Pound has "I Know What I Like" and it still is one of the masterpieces of prog. I think Queen maybe lacked a few things that are kinda trademark of prog. The music was very complex, creative and was influenced by stuff like opera and vaudeville, but at the same time they never made really long songs and didn't have much instrumental pieces that you'd find in most classical prog. I think I'd put them in crossover prog like Radiohead and Moody Blues. ------------- I shook my head and smiled a whisper knowing all about the place |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: February 26 2016 at 05:11
|
Queen were highly versatile and varied. They sounded appealing and were suitable for the radio. Prog elements I assume to mean complexity and sophistication. Queen had that. As for Zeppelin - from You Shook Me to the Rain Song. A burning heavy blues cover to one of the more complex bits of composition on guitar out there. I suppose by prog elements we mean how much like classical music can a prog band get and still stay fashionable. As for running from prog - well it wasn't really a thing then; not as defined as it is now. Defined? Wll we've now got to the point where we think it's a thing but still dunno what it is. But hey, ya got be relevant for the kids. Those mega audiences Yes had in 78 and 79 weren't buying records after that. Times had changed and instead you at least had bands such as Asia priming teens (such as me) for the bigger Yes stuff (with which I was far more familiar and preferred much more). Back to the topic. Queen, like most artists, had a business to run - sell records and concert tickets. They were very successful. Against that are whether on likes what one hears, and why. |