Is Queen II a progressive album?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ ok, got you. But the fact that I'm trying to move the discussion about the "progressiveness" from the artist to the album level doesn't have anything to do with the word "progressive" per se. Or in other words: It is still off topic.

I don't get you. The meaning of "progressive" is absolutely crucial to this topic.

The thread's question is "Is Queen II a progressive album?"

We can establish that it is an album by Queen, and their second. (That is a matter of fact.)

Is it "progressive?" That is a matter of opinion, because "progressive" is OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

Artist or album level, it doesn't matter. Until you define "progressive," you will merely get an exchange of opinions, with each opinion determined by each person's individual notion of "progressive."

(You will prove nothing, but merely ascertain the majority opinion of those who see fit to answer.)

For the record, Q2 is much more akin to metal than prog in my book, but then, you believe that metal can be prog, while I think that metal and prog are two very different things.

You hear "prog metal," I hear metal with keyboards.

Do you see the problem? We (and not just you and I, but all of us here) cannot even agree on the meaning or boundaries of the term you are using, so all that I can say is: I don't regard it as a "progressive" album, whereas you (likely) do. We are no further ahead. In the end, there is no right or wrong (or objective "truth") on this matter, only the opportunity to find out the opinions of those who respond, and whether the majority opinion is "yes" or "no." 

Much like the polls which ask "who is the best drummer" you prove nothing (except the relative popularity of a given opinion among those who choose to respond). 

I'm not trying to be difficult, or irritate you Mike, but the term of reference central to your question is UNDEFINED --  it's an unknown quantity.

In the 1800s, whales were commonly thought to be fish. To establish whether they are fish or mammals, people first had to agree upon the respective defining qualities of fish and mammals. With those qualities firmly established, naturalists could then prove that a whale is in fact a mammal. First, you attain consensus on the precise meanings of the terms of reference, then -- and only then -- can you prove whether or not something meets the established criteria.

Here though, we are dealing with art, not science. (I can PROVE that a whale gives milk, bears live young, is warm-blooded, and has lungs to breathe air, and is thus, by established definition, a mammal.) Our interpretation of art, and our response to it, is an individual, subjective thing.

Who is the "best" guitarist? Define and agree upon what constitutes "best." (impossible, as it's an intangible matter of taste, of emotion)

Is this album progressive? Define and agree upon what constitutes "progressive." (again, impossible, as it's a matter of taste and perception)

A painting makes you cry, but it makes me laugh. Which reaction is "right?" (They BOTH are!)

A song gives you pleasure, but it gives me pain. Both reactions are "true."

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ the everlasting "What is progressive" discussion ... is not the topic here.

My point is that the concept of "progressive" re music is highly subjective, and therefore, in order to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not an album is "progressive," we must first agree upon the notion of "progressive." (But people DON'T agree on that.)

If you ask me "are you a good man?," I must find out just what "good" means to you, before I can meaningfully answer you.

First, clarify the terms of reference. Language, and art, unlike (for example) math or science, is open to interpretation by the individual.

"Progressive" is a matter of opinion, not verifiable fact.

To truly communicate, we must speak the same language!

      The Ogre Battle is heavy metal. The rest of the black side is prog.

       From Father to Son is Prog, the rest of the white side is not.

        I've said.

Peter Rideout wrote: What's a "progressive" album? (seriously!)

I believe that the album is the unit that we should talk about when judging the progressiveness of an artist/band. We can talk about single tracks, groups of albums from a certain period of time or the complete discography of an artist, but IMO a single album is the only meaningful unit.

Are Genesis are progressive band? Tough question. Is Selling England by the Pound a progressive album? Much easier!

Edit: To answer your "question": I think that a "progressive" album is an album which contains mostly progressive songs/tracks.

SHEER MAGIC!

What's a "progressive" album?

(seriously!)