QUEEN on progarchives

tuxon wrote: IMO Queen passes that test gloriously with their first four albums

mike wrote: Ok ... now do the same with the progressive albums - Queen I & II.

He said first four! How many more times is this gonna happen Mike???

Tony R wrote: 1. Brighton Rock (5:08) 2. Killer Queen (2:57) 3. Tenement Funster (2:48) 4. Flick of the Wrist (3:46) 5. Lily of the Valley (1:43) 6. Now I'm Here (4:10) 7. In the Lap of the Gods (3:20) 8. Stone Cold Crazy (2:12) 9. Dear Friends (1:07) 10. Misfire (1:50) 11. Bring Back That Leroy Brown (2:13) 12. She Makes Me (Stormtrooper in Stilettoes) (4:08) 13. In the Lap of the Gods...Revisited (3:42) 1. Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to...) (3:43) 2. Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon (1:08) 3. I'm in Love With My Car (3:05) 4. You're My Best Friend (2:50) 5. '39 (3:25) 6. Sweet Lady (4:01) 7. Seaside Rendezvous (2:13) 8. Prophet's Song (8:17) 9. Love of My Life (3:38) 10. Good Company (3:26) 11. Bohemian Rhapsody (5:55) Wow! Two albums chocked full of prog!!! Not!!! What's the aural equivalent of rose-tinted glasses?

Ok ... now do the same with the progressive albums - Queen I & II.

richardh wrote: The problem is that Queen were not a prog band though..they just had some prog influences..and thats all.

That's a difference of opinion, i doubt i can sway you to think otherwise, and I assume you know all queen albums, so your opinion is probably based on something, as is mine.

But that doesn't change the fact, that I will not go as far as to go and include bands that have a vague resemblens to Queen, or have IMO only faint progressive influences. i regard each band as a sole entity, regarding the music they make, and comparing that with what i understand to be progressive rock, if they pass that test, with at least one full progressive album, and some progressiveness along the line in other albums, I think that is sufficient for me, and for the site.

If the aim is to be the most accurate and complete website regarding progressive rock, you can't neglect bands like Queen and Supertramp and their ilk, those are genuine progressive rock bands, that indeed on many albums border on mainstream rock, or even are just mainstream (Genesis excample), but to exclude them would be a mistake in my book.

anyway, i respect your opinion regarding Queen not being progressive in your eyes, but i happen to think otherwise.

The problem is that Queen were not a prog band though..they just had some prog influences..and thats all.

tuxon wrote: richardh wrote: If we didn't have the label of 'progressive rock' then this site would have no point! Do we really want it to be a general pop/rock site? If so then carry on letting bands in like Queen,Deep Purple,Black Sabbath etc in.When that happens then this site will cease to be unique or interesting as far as I'm concerned. who mentioned deep purple or black Sabbath, or etc. (don't know that last band, or is it an abreviation of Cetera from chicago). The added band is called Queen, which has no relation to either Black sabbath or Chicago, The fact that Queen was a progressive rock band in their early days (according to some) doesn't mean that Britney Spears or Engelbert humperdick are progressive. The statement is Queen is prog, there's no mention of David Bowie, Beatles, 10CC, Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson or whoever in my posts concerning the IMO overly progressive nature of Queens early years. (and some faint progressive moments on later albums). The funny thing is (IMO) it's those people opposed to Queens inclusion, will only accept Queen if a complete new genre is introduced which would provide access to mentioned bands

Deep Purple and Black Sabbath were prog bands in their early days.But they are widely regarded now as 'Heavy Rock' or 'Heavy Metal'.Queen was no ordinary band so discussion about whether they are prog is perfectly valid.Also the inclusion of Queen means that many pop rock legends are next in line.We could be having exactly the same discussion about Purple or Sabbath quite soon I suspect.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Proglover wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Proglover wrote: James Hill wrote: I love Queen.They are part of my youth but I think we are reaching to call them prog.Led Zeppilin also has symphonic parts like Queen but I wouldnt call them prog either.This also applies to Uriah Heep or Deep Purple.Just because they dabble dosnt make them prog. That's my point..............QUEEN IS NOT a progressive band.......BUT.....they wrote progressive MUSIC..... Likewise....Yes, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, ELP, Jethro Tull, Genesis....are NOT progressive bands, but wrote progressive music.....that is my point! Yes they are! You're not understanding my arguement.........there's no reason arguing because anything I say you guys are going to trash anyway...so moving on! Your list just seems a little odd - I agree on every band except Gentle Giant and King Crimson. I'm not aware of extended non-prog phases of these bands ... but I'm not an expert on them.

My point is music is music.....and we are behaving like dinosaurs.....we are still kneeling at a shrine (in our own glass bubbles), while many of those who started the genre have moved on.......prog rock was somthing they DID, but that's not all they ARE.....I don't like catogorization, and labeling....I think it's destructive and unproductive.

Robert Fripp HATES the term progressive to describe his music.....Fripp will tell you that he IS NOT progressive. Gentle Giant gave up being progressive and began doing commercial music....one of the members said...:I don't know if pressure to change the band's direction came from outside or within the band"........these bands choose to disregard prog rock....that is my point....these are bands who at one time wrote prog music and then MOVED ON.....it is wrong to keep these bands in boxes...and then it is a slap in the face when we behave like we've been stabbed in the back when they change styles......the Artist owes you nothing....and that is truth. Music is the over arching focus.......you can deny and deny and deny all you want.....BUT Queen did write progressive music.

richardh wrote: Proglover you suggested earlier that anyone that doesn't agree with the inclusion of Queen is 'narrow minded'.I have a problem with that way of thinking.We are having a debate about the inclusion of Queen.Some of us need to express our feelings about this especially as it as come as a shock after all these years to discover that they are now 'prog'...supposedly.You are only adding fuel to the fire.Bearing in mind that you have already got your way and Queen are now included,what have you got to grumble about anyway?

If you don't agree that Queen should not be here....then you HAVE EVERY RIGHT to that opinion.....that's not why I have the problem....However what I find offensive, is HOW people are reacting to their inclusion....believing that Queen is not prog is FINE...... however, acting as if they just killed your mother, is overreacting......saying that the site loses credibility is offensive to me......saying that Queen disgraces the site hurts me, and is downright offensive.....opinion or not..

Like I said....if you believe that Queen is not prog, that's ok...you have that right....but all of these strong, angry, reactions are very disturbing to me.

Proglover wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Proglover wrote: James Hill wrote: I love Queen.They are part of my youth but I think we are reaching to call them prog.Led Zeppilin also has symphonic parts like Queen but I wouldnt call them prog either.This also applies to Uriah Heep or Deep Purple.Just because they dabble dosnt make them prog. That's my point..............QUEEN IS NOT a progressive band.......BUT.....they wrote progressive MUSIC..... Likewise....Yes, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, ELP, Jethro Tull, Genesis....are NOT progressive bands, but wrote progressive music.....that is my point! Yes they are! You're not understanding my arguement.........there's no reason arguing because anything I say you guys are going to trash anyway...so moving on!

Your list just seems a little odd - I agree on every band except Gentle Giant and King Crimson. I'm not aware of extended non-prog phases of these bands ... but I'm not an expert on them.

Snow Dog wrote: Proglover wrote: James Hill wrote: I love Queen.They are part of my youth but I think we are reaching to call them prog.Led Zeppilin also has symphonic parts like Queen but I wouldnt call them prog either.This also applies to Uriah Heep or Deep Purple.Just because they dabble dosnt make them prog. That's my point..............QUEEN IS NOT a progressive band.......BUT.....they wrote progressive MUSIC..... Likewise....Yes, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, ELP, Jethro Tull, Genesis....are NOT progressive bands, but wrote progressive music.....that is my point! Yes they are!

You're not understanding my arguement.........there's no reason arguing because anything I say you guys are going to trash anyway...so moving on!