Queen: Part II

Blacksword:

On a personal note (not officialy), I could not disagree more.  I have owned Queen's first six albums since day 1, and love them all.  And I have been a prog fanatic since 1968, and was "there" for the release of In the Court, and everything that followed in prog rock.

In this regard, I never, ever considered anything by Queen "prog" until certain elements on Sheer Heart Attack, and even those are spotty.  It was not until Night at the Opera that the band displayed anything that could legitimately be classified as "prog."

Queen I and Queen II are excellent rock albums with nice proto-prog touches.  Brian's guitar is certainly a "unique" touch, and the albums have some interesting not-quite-standard arrangements.  But they are not, by any means, prog.

Peace.

Well If Queen Isn't Prog, Then Kiss isn't Prog either,

neither can David Bowie, Elton John, 10CC, The Sweet, Mud, AC/DC, Gary Glitter, The Eagles, Chicago, The Golden Earring, and many more be considered prog.

However If Queen Is Prog, Then Kiss still isn't Prog,

But David Bowie, 10CC, and chicago, could be considered prog aswel.

And that's where the trouble begins.

 

 

I think the moderators have an (important) task of keeping this site as prog-orrientated as possible, At a certain point when all prog-bands are included there will be included the borderline cases, they then pave the way for bands with progsensibilities, once they are included there will be bands with faint similarities to those bands who will be included aswel, in the end all music will have found it's way to this site.

 

It seems to me that, as is currently the case, the moderators need to redefine progmusic. so those borderline cases won't get in, and they may find that they've included all bands that can be considered prog. THERE IS NO NEED TO EXPAND just for expanding, there is a point when you've covered it all.

 

As is suggested in earlier threads there may be room for an additional subgenre (populair-prog or alternative prog) but it isn't necesary. The format of this site is great, but with to many borderline cases I'm afraid we will lose the essence of this site.

 

Just a thought. Isn't it possible to create a page where all those borderline cases get a mention, without actualy including them in the archive, just a small summary, explanation why they aren't considered prog and a link to the bands homepage.  

tuxon:

Will you marry me?

Actually, your post should be required reading for every member on the site, as it makes a few points that are vital to the continued integrity of the site, and the impossible job that I - and even moreso Max and Rony - have in trying to maintain that integrity.

I'm practically in tears with gratitude...

Peace.

miscellaneous category for landmark, classics, and
semi classics that were produced during a bands
progressive era, removing the pop or overtly
experimental jazz from the already accepted artists.
And if lower mongolia had a prog band in 1856 that
no one ever heard of and those that did found it
rubbish dont put them on the site. However if ireland
had 10 bands that produced some sort of
progressive music only say Horslips and Fruupp
were of high ranking, give us Horslips and Fruupp
and dont worry about the smalz. If Twisted Angular
Fishermen made an album or career out of living off
Genesis or Yes-cloning dump um, only the best
Genesis, Yes clones for the kids. If a band cant
figure out if they want to be melodic or complex in
one song, shifting tempos 20 times in 5 minutes
and sounds like Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, King
Crimson, Gentle Giant, Rush and the Blue Magoos,
dump em! There stuck in childhood fantasies and
are not the brains you want to be feeding you if you
are to progress. You cant have it all in 5 minutes and
you dont really want it!

Quality not Quantity!!!

==============
keep on rockin in the free world

Edited by DallasBryan

Easy Livin wrote: maani wrote: tuxon: Will you marry me? Maani, you two timer, I'll never trust you again! You promised.... (I've sold the ring you gave me!)

...One ring to find them all, and IN THE DARKNESS BIND THEM!....

Uh oh -- looks like there's dirty work afoot....

Edited by Peter

I was stretching the definition a little further each album

But still, listen to the mentioned songs'in the same order as i put them down and you'll see what I mean (I think)

Queen were not a prog band EVER.Blatant goalpost moving!

Now even Queen appears here?Nothing against them but prog?

RADIO GA GA RADIO GU GU .....

Tuxon's compartmentalizing of their catalog was an excellent read, and yeah, I definitely consider them prog too. Seems to be the minority opinion tho'...