Objection: Queen/prog-related on top 100
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=21099
Printed Date: November 27 2024 at 08:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Objection: Queen/prog-related on top 100
Posted By: earlyprog
Subject: Objection: Queen/prog-related on top 100
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 10:00
| It's really undermining the credibility of this prog site that the main page has a top 100 list that includes prog-related bands like Queen. If/when some of these bands enter top 20 or 10 I can only foresee the adverse effect it will have on the marketing of this site to lovers of prog. Make individual top lists for each genre. I really cannot see the purpose of showing a composite top 100 on the main page - or can you? |
Replies:
Posted By: kebjourman
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 10:06
| i like the idea of individual lists for each genre. |
Posted By: Paulieg
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 10:09
Queen is glam rock. They should never, never be in the top 100 list. I take it as an insult to prog.
|
Posted By: opera_guy
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 10:28
| You can view the top 100 bands by genre, and why is it an insult Queen much better and more unique and innovative that 90% of the other bands on this site. |
Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 10:50
|
Because they aren't prog, and this is the progarchives. Doesn't matter how unique and innovative they are, they just aren't prog. ------------- 
|
opera_guy wrote:Posted By: Winter Wine
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 11:03
|
You can't hear glamour. Queen made incredible innovative music, That's all that counts. ------------- My computer's broke |
Posted By: White Queen
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 11:04
Don't worry, they won't stay in the top 100 for long. There's always people like you to give them bad reviews just because they aren't progressive enough. |
Posted By: Paulieg
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 11:10
|
I happen to like Queens first five releases. Just because I feel they are more glam than prog and don't feel they belong in the "Top 100 Progressive Releases Of ALL Time" doesn't mean I'd give them a bad review. Now if it was "The Top 100 Glam Rock Releases Of All Time" I'd vote them in the top 10 at least. |
Posted By: opera_guy
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 11:18
|
How is Queen not progressive? They were very original used dozens of different styles, complex harmonies, over-the-top arrangements. Just because they have a hard-rock aesthetic doesn't mean they aren't "prog." Last time I check it was Progressive Rock. A band doesn't have to use moogs and mellotrons to be "prog." |
Posted By: R_DeNIRO
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 11:35
|
The only "progressive thing" that Queen made was Bohemian Rhapsody. Definitively they aren't prog in any way; don't deserve be in the top 100. ------------- We were always be much human than we whish to be. |
Posted By: Paulieg
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 11:35
I just don't feel Queen's main attributes are coming from "the progressive rock genre." Queen was very progressive in their vocal harmonies and May's guitar tone was beautiful. I guess it's all subjective when it comes down to it. I didn't mean to insult anyone and am sorry if I did. I still don't consider Queen "Progressive Rock." |
Posted By: Bilek
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 12:08
|
I'm sick of Queen discussion... nevertheless, I'll add something: Paulieg is right that Queen is glam rock. Every possible musical website lists them as such (apart form our beloved archives!!!) Achim Reichel is not even in the archives, and many Krautrock greats cannot find a place in top 100!!! (I'm not sure if there's any!) Solution: Keep "prog related" and possibly "proto-prog" bands away from top 100 ------------- Listen to Turkish psych/prog; you won't regret: Baris Manco,Erkin Koray,Cem Karaca,Mogollar,3 Hürel,Selda,Edip Akbayram,Fikret Kizilok,Ersen (and Dadaslar) (but stick with the '70's, and 'early 80's!) |
Posted By: Duncan
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 12:20
Christ, how much '70s Queen have you actually heard? I can appreciate most people's objections, but not with such a grossly misinformed example. |
Posted By: BebieM
Date Posted: April 01 2006 at 13:04
| Generally prog-related and proto-prog albums shouldn't count for the top100 on the first page IMO. It's good to have them on the site to see a) where prog came from and b) what bands border on being prog, but that's it. |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 05:51
|
I must have missed something - how do I view the top 100 by genre? |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 06:01
|
Exactly. Perhaps the administrators of this site should consider restructuring the site so that the main page allows you to enter either the (pure) prog portion of the site or the proto-prog and prog-related portion of the site. Also consider which of these segments the site wants to target. Targetting all segments most likely will result in fewer "customers" (us the prog lovers) who will find other sources on the internet. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 06:33
|
QUOTE - "It's really undermining the credibility of this prog site that the main page has a top 100 list that includes prog-related bands like Queen. If/when some of these bands enter top 20 or 10 I can only foresee the adverse effect it will have on the marketing of this site to lovers of prog. Make individual top lists for each genre. I really cannot see the purpose of showing a composite top 100 on the main page - or can you?"
i agree queen had glam rock leanings in the early years, many groups dressed up in amazing costumes and were labelled glam rock if you like, but queen were much more sophisticated than their contemporaries and if you've ever listened to their early albums (especially queen II) the so-called "prog elements" are there. queen were a fine group, were considered a progressive group in the early 70's and well deserve their place in prog archives!!! i bet many grumblers on this thread have never even heard queen. -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 07:27
| I now see that I shouldn't have mentioned Queen when I started this thread. It was intended as a much more general discussion. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 07:40
|
This is a bit like the thread I started weeks ago.
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20313&KW=queen - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20313& amp;KW=queen ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 10:46
|
Just because something is glam rock dosn't mean it can't be progressive. Glam rock was more of alook and way bands presented themselves, the genre has little to do with actual music. -------------  
|
Posted By: The Rock
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 10:54
|
Queen deserves to be on PA.And if they have enough good prog and/or prog related moments to be in the top 100,then why not? Same thing applies to Deep Purple,Uriah Heep,Styx,Magnum ect...
------------- What's gonna come out of my mouth is gonna come out of my soul."Skip Prokop" |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 11:55
Couldn't agree more with that 
|
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 14:45
I certainly have missed something |
Well, newbee...!Posted By: int_2375
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 14:53
|
All I have to say is that if Queen is prog, I see no reason not to throw in Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Iron Maiden... Of course I radther take out the bands like Queen than throw in more to be fair. I can't imagine prog that is played at Highschool basketball games, but I've heard "We Will Rock You" at everyone I've been too... Look at that bands output.... 3 and 4 minute catchy pop songs, with a few exceptions like the Prophets Song and Bohemian Rhapsody... its innovative and interesting, and it was made during the 70's, but that does not make it prog. |
Posted By: White Queen
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 20:48
|
^^^^^^^ I think we can all agree that We Will Rock You isn't a prog song, but neither are Abacab or Invisible Touch or Jesus He Knows Me, and Genesis stays on this site  |
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 22:42
Styx is an insult to prog; or Triumvirat. Queen was many things; slightly prog at the beggining; gay rock in the middle (not a bad thing; I don't like it, but gay people are totally entitled to have bands dedicating albums to them), glam rock from time to time, etc. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 23:07
|
"Gay rock"? Oh, for f**k's sake, people, GROW UP. They are NOT in the top 100 of Prog. They are in the top 100 of prog-RELATED. As well they should be. ------------- Pure Brilliance: 
|
Posted By: Joolz
Date Posted: April 12 2006 at 05:21
Actually - QUEEN II is currently at number 69 (a good place to be LOL) on the top 100 displayed on the home page! |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: April 12 2006 at 07:16
|
#87: Queen 'A Night at the Opera' Disastrous |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 12 2006 at 07:37
|
Definitely. As much as I am a Beatles fan, their albums should not be in the PA Top 100. The same goes for Queen. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 12 2006 at 07:45
|
I have to disagree here. I think that Abacab is a prog song. Not the others though. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Evolver
Date Posted: April 12 2006 at 07:48
|
If a band that isn't primarily prog puts out a great prog album, what's wrong with including it on the list? It's just a list anyway. It'll never actually prove that any non-prog band is better than Genesis. Get over it. ------------- Trust me. I know what I'm doing. |
Posted By: freebird
Date Posted: April 15 2006 at 01:02
 ha ha!
|
Posted By: soundspectrum
Date Posted: April 15 2006 at 01:18
| again you guys confuse the term progressive as a sound rather than a work ethic. Queen definitly had this ethic and to say they arent prog is just crazy...PROG DOES NOT HAVE A SOUND |
Posted By: dagrush
Date Posted: April 15 2006 at 01:38
|
I consider art rock and prog related to be pretty much interchangeable, so I have no problem with it being in the top list.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/omgwtfdagrush/"> 
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: April 15 2006 at 04:55
|
I don't think the author of that book was right, especially as he was putting a bunch of very different musicians in the same kettle. What would he have made, for instance, of Roxy Music? They are in PA under "Art Rock" (if I remember well), and I've seen them described as glam rock quite often. And what about Peter Gabriel? If everyone who dresses up on stage were to be defined as glam rock, even Kiss should be put in the same category. Then, Queen are not listed under "Symphonic Prog" or any other such sacred category - they're under "Prog-RELATED", which means just that - a band or musician who has produced something which bears a relation to the music we all know and love. As to "A Night at the Opera" being in the Top 100, I cannot see how any album by any band present on this site can be barred from being included in that list. This wouldn't just be fair, IMHO. That said, I'm not a big fan of Queen, outstanding musicians as they may be. Their inclusion in PA does not particularly bother me (even if seeing an album of theirs with George Michael in the Album list upset me just a little bit... |
Posted By: Phil
Date Posted: April 15 2006 at 05:28
|
Small point - I find your comment "Get over it" though not directed at me here, to be rude and dismissive! I've seen it used before and I don't like it. Please think before you fire from the hip. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 15 2006 at 06:57
The problem is that when the proto-prog/prog-related genres were introduced, everybody agreed that these albums (and reviews) would not be shown on the front page. Then afterwards, when people started to complain that their review didn't show on the front page, that was changed. I can understand that some people feel like they've been betrayed ... IMO those albums/reviews clearly don't belong on the front page. I mean, this is a prog website and we spend much time and serious consideration on which bands are prog, and which are not. And then we throw them all together on the front page and list them in one big top 100? Why not make a top 100 pure-prog list and beneath that a top 10 proto-prog/prog-related list instead? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Joolz
Date Posted: April 15 2006 at 09:04
Hmmmmm, there seems to be several threads on this subject and lots of people have an opinion on it. Some are driven by the fact that their favourite band/category/whatever doesn't feature high enough etc etc ..... My viewpoint is this: I have joined this site because of a common love of Prog music. I want to learn, and communicate with others, about Prog music because that is the music I like most. It is not my position to tell the site owners what they should or should not do, but I will say this: the more they widen their remit by allowing more marginal items, the more the site will be devalued - in my eyes. If I had been around when those categories were introduced I would have argued against them, or at best argued the case for a very low-key thing. I don't object to making reference to non-Prog things, but please don't make a feature of them. At the moment, this site gives them equal status. To me it is relatively simple: there is Prog; then there is the rest. Prog belongs here, the rest doesn't (except maybe as a reference). However, deciding what is Prog is definitely not simple, and I don't envy the decision makers, because when you are too close to something you often 'cannot see the wood for the trees'. Which is when muddy thinking occurs: I am sure that sooner or later, some bright spark, with a way with words and a very sharp mind, will convince enough of us that Sibelius (or Stravinsky or .....) was Prog ..... Sorry, started to rant, apologies! |
Posted By: Masque
Date Posted: April 15 2006 at 09:11
Queen should be here but then again maybe they shouldn`t ? it all depends on how you see it ... 
|
Posted By: Masque
Date Posted: April 15 2006 at 09:12
hey I`m now a groupie , thats cool 
|