Queen - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Topic: Queen
Posted: June 13 2005 at 15:32

It is not a mistake to include Radiohead.

One day you will discover this

DavidInsabella View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317

Posted: June 12 2005 at 06:39

The comparrisons to Queen's inclusion and that of Radiohead, Styx, Roxymusic, etc. doesn't honestly make me concider adding Queen to the site, it just makes me think Radiohead and Styx should be removed. Of course I don't see that happening, and it's just my opinion, but I thought it was a mistake and I don't think a similar mistake should be made. IMO.

Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.

DavidInsabella View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317

Posted: June 12 2005 at 06:34

Joren wrote:

Yes, but Radiohead's inclusion, IMHO is a MISTAKE. I don't think Queen is prog. It's just radio-friendly classic rock with a prog edge, just like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple.

Agreed.

Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.

barbs

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 04 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 562

Posted: June 12 2005 at 06:28

Is this less to do with wether Queen or Radiohead or Blackfeather are added to the site or to do with how broad or not the 'definition' of what progressive rock is now in order to incorporate these bands (or not). 6 billion people on the planet and in the next 5 or 10 years there is going to be a plethora of groups and fans pushing for theirfav bands inclusion. Imagine prog rock taking off major big time in India and China and DT becomes the top band there. Some of you are of course

right now

Assuming there is a democratic concensus here: there are philosophical arguments about aspects of music and what prog really is all over the place in this stream and if we could identify and clarify firstly which ones we would like to debate about and then maybe through some kind of 'democratic' fashion we could embrace a charter or mission statement that has been democratically debated and then constructed by the senior collaborators of this site that all the members agree when they join defines the criteria, then that would effectively settle it. An album would not get in unless it rated highly enough on the criteria.

Now if that is what is done now, well fine but then, maybe it comes down to the fact that it doesn't matter what anyone says, someone is going to make a decision about it and everyone just has to suck it an see, so to speak.

Eternity

Hammill

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 09 2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 400

Posted: June 12 2005 at 05:30

as i mentioned in my previous post with the 20 greatest acts of the 70s i support the opinion that queen had always been progressive in their career. progressive doesn't mean to write long songs with difficult parts. progressive is not a group because it has a high level of technique. progressive for me means innovative. just listen carefully to queen and see how many styles of music they change in their songs. don't forget that queen was the group that intoduced these great chorus in their songs and paved the way for groups like domine/nightwish/savatage/blind guardian/ therion and many more. ask anyone you want to and he will say to you that queen is one of the most difficult groups to cover. i heard once a tribute album to queen and i laughed my a** off. thank god for queen!

russellk

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782

Posted: June 12 2005 at 04:24

I find it bizarre that the administrators of a site would want to exclude
progressive music on the grounds that more(!) people might want to visit
the site as a result.

Equally bizarre is the notion that someone familiar with Queen II might
visit the site and leave unsatisfied, convinced that their understanding of
progressive rock is fundamentally flawed.

Surely the simple solution is to include here all progressive albums. Why
not exclude albums that are not progressive, even if they are issued by
progressive outfits? Whatever the merits of Spirit of Eden, Talk Talk's first
album is not progressive by anyone's definition of the word. Why should it
be here in any form other than simply as a part of a band's discography?

I guess these arguments help us re-examine our attitudes to music in
general. Personally I think Orbital's In Sides album (1996) is pure
progressive music, but I'm not even going to suggest its inclusion.

Or will I?

Mharo

Forum Groupie

Joined: June 04 2005
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 75

Posted: June 12 2005 at 03:06

I know this topic is old, but I'm a big fan of Queen, and I was introduced to Prog because of Queen, so I'd really like to see them in the Archives.

Perhaps the problem is that Queen never lost a member of the band. A lot of people (incluiding myself) accept the poppier releases of Genesis and Yes ('accept' means not throwing the band away only because of them) because they had gone through very important lineup changes (the loss of Gabriel and Hackett, and the loss of Wakeman, Bruford and Howe).
Queen, on the other hand, it's probably not so well regarded because when they went pop, it was a decision by all of it members, with no-one leaving for artistic differences. Perhaps if we invent some fifth member who left just before 'The Game', we will think better of the first albums, the ones with the "classic lineup".
I believe they parted ways with producer Roy Thomas Baker around the time they went pop, though I'm not sure. Anyway I think that their first LPs should definately be included in the archives. Even if they need a big "All the later albums are not considered Prog" sign below the LP name.

Inferno

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 30 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 152

Posted: April 16 2005 at 15:52

" Yes I do think that if we do add these well-known bands that we lose the whole underground culture of Progressive rock. This site is supposed to represent that culture. Yet to justify that it would attract people who are ignorant to other bands than just the popular bands would be a little presumptuos. "

Someone wrote that in this Thread. I thought that the ProgArchives site was to help people discover things about Progressive Rock. So is it a bad thing to include Queen in it, even tho there will be more people that ignore prog. It will only open their mind to prog.

Yet again, maybe the whole Archives site is only for a little clic that would want everybody to praise their music but not everybody listening to them as it would lose it's "underground" culture and feeling!

Snow Dog

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995

Posted: April 16 2005 at 10:03

As is Kayleigh

tuxon

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 21 2004
Location: plugged-in
Status: Offline
Points: 5502

Posted: April 16 2005 at 09:57

Let us not forget Radio GaGa as a progressive classic

I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Martinyesman View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: September 03 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 7

Posted: April 16 2005 at 09:49

I totally agree that Queen should be included as a prog band, as all their albums up to 'A Day At The Races' include a lot of proggy material, and some of their later songs like 'Princes Of The Universe' and 'Innuendo' have undeniable progressive influences. I'm also surprised that Magnum are not included in the archive, as their first two albums are bona fide prog classics, and their musical development is not dissimilar to Saga, who are included.

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: April 16 2005 at 08:39

con safo wrote:

Yea but genesis released alot more full out prog albums than Queen did. And even their later more commcercial efforts had prog elements... i can find little to none in Queens more commercial albums.

The number of prog albums a band released is irrelevant - there are bands in the archives with only one or two albums. So Queen released more prog albums than those bands...

There is prog stuff to be found even in Queen's more "commercial" albums - but it's as hard to find as any of the prog on some of Genesis' later albums.

I'm not trying to crucify anyone - it's just that I find these arguments to be fundamentally flawed

goose

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097

Posted: April 15 2005 at 19:43

Crimson Prince wrote:

Because the work of art is the albu, not just the most popular song. Releasing a single is a very commercial move. Led Zeppelin started Swan Song because Atlantic was always asking for a single. Singles get you on the radio, which means you sell out.

Oh come on! If an album has already been written, selecting a song off it does nothing to sell out the art of it! If a band's writing with an aim to be heard on the radio then that can (does?) become an issue but it's hardly fair to say any band with a single out has sold out even a bit.

Easy Livin View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585

Posted: April 15 2005 at 14:35

Moribund wrote:

Moribund,

That is a sweeping and somewhat unfair assumption. Many of us here love the music of Queen, and are very familiar wiht their albums. It's not a question of being biased, or even about liking or not liking Queen, it is only about our opinions on whether or not they were ever a prog band.

Moribund

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 21 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 210

Posted: April 15 2005 at 01:59

I feel a lot of these comments are made by people who just have an impression of Queen based on their knowledge of the singles. If anyone who hasn't heard early Queen feels so inclined (in the name of research) to go and listen to Queen II or Sheer Heart Attack, please come back and give us your (less-biased) impressions. I'm intrigued by the notion of only including a band's prog albums then stopping (perhaps with the sign-off "here there no longer be dragons..." or suchlike. Could be unworkable in practice though as there would be suggestions to remove transitional albums (Genesis to Revelation/Giant for a Day) from bands no-one would argue are prog. If the criterion "output was mostly non-prog" was adopted, someone would have to make a judgement which would probably spark more rage again! Personally I feel it is an honour and a legacy to prog-rock to include bands that felt inspired to work within its definitions - indeed to CONTRIBUTE to its devlopment as I believe Queen (viz complex vocal arrangements/polyphonic guitar scoring) did to a small extent.

There again, I can see a point to leaving them off - this is a stimulating thread on the nature of prog with a fair bit of life left in it!

New Progressive Rock Live show now touring UK theatres!
www.masterpiecestheconcert.co.uk

con safo

Prog Reviewer

Joined: March 17 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1230

Posted: April 14 2005 at 13:41

Alot of the time its not the bands consent, but the record labels.. without singles records dont get exposure, withiout exposure record labels dont make $$$$$$$$, which is the name of the game when it comes to the music industry.

Guests

Forum Guest Group

Posted: April 14 2005 at 13:33

tuxon wrote:

Why is releasing a single considered a sell-out?

Asiostygius View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: April 14 2005
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 12

Posted: April 14 2005 at 13:05

James Lee wrote:

You're not wrong. You're not the first to say it, maybe not even the first this week. They're one of the perennial top contenders for inclusion on the site...and many people feel that they belong here more than dozens of bands already listed. I personally wouldn't mind seeing them listed one bit...Queen II is one of my favorite examples of early hard rock-flavored prog, right up there with Rush.

The argument against them (as far as I understand) is that the overall output of the band is not prog, and that they belong with other bands who dabbled in prog but didn't make it their focus. Is that accurate, naysayers?

I agreed. Why not include only the 5 first albums on the site?? Surely those albums have some or most (Queen II) prog material. Several bands on the site have worse albums by prog standarts...so why not the inclusion of Queen?

con safo

Prog Reviewer

Joined: March 17 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1230

Posted: April 14 2005 at 12:51

Certif1ed wrote:

con safo wrote:

The amount of generic rock they did, especially in the latter part of their career would NOT fit into the archives. I do agree some of their earlier stuff has alot of prog elements, but they did alot of commercial albums that would just seem silly on a prog site.

Explain Genesis then...

Yea but genesis released alot more full out prog albums than Queen did. And even their later more commcercial efforts had prog elements... i can find little to none in Queens more commercial albums.

I'm not an expert on Queen so dont crucify me.. but this is what i gather from what ive heard.

Edited by con safo

Forgotten Son View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356

Posted: April 14 2005 at 12:47

Certif1ed wrote:

Explain Genesis then...

He's got you there