Queen: Another Look

Certif1ed wrote: maani wrote: Cert: You can't really be serious?!  DT's Metropolis is not prog?  Then tell me exactly what it is.  Because it is not just "metal."  Heck, even many of the people who have ho-hum feelings (or worse) about "prog-metal" acknowledge that Metropolis is prog. Peace. I've reviewed it - and while it could be progressive (I don't really think so - there are so few original ideas on there), it's definitely not prog rock - it's in no way organic enough, and lacks real variety, in the same way the average Journey or Foreigner album lacks real variety. It's quite the reverse of organic, in fact.  Packed full of cliches, and "ideas" going off on tangents instead of truly developing - or progressing, it's as far from prog as Def Leppard - and the songwriting skills are not on a par with Leppard. Queen II, OTOH, is crammed full with developing ideas AND the songwriting skills are of an outstanding quality. The latter is probably why some proggers find it hard to accept Queen as prog, in the same way that many question DSOTM or Marillion. Sheer, blinkered ignorance, IMO. So while many people might see "Metropolis" as prog, I see the Emporer's new clothes...

I'd have to say I agree with the sentiments here- I'm one of those people with 'ho hum feelings about prog metal', and don't hear much that's progressive in it; most of the bands I have heard do not grab my attention because the songwriting is pretty weak, and the songs are mainly excuses for virtuosity, without concentrating on anything else. I love instrumental virtuosity, but I think it only really works if there's a well crafted song behind it- otherwise I remember nothing about it and it leaves my head the minute after. All of the best 70s prog bands- Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, Camel, Caravan, even ELP (at their best anyway) etc- knew about this- there is always a supremely crafted song amongst the solos of their best work. To me, Queen II is a perfect example of what I like in progressive rock- superb craftmanship in songwriting AND musicianship- I hear a song like 'Father To Son', 'The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke', 'Seven Seas Of Rhye' and 'March Of The Black Queen' and it fully satisfies my demands for prog rock, as it is as musically adept as any of the bands featured here (in fact more so than some...) and also as challenging.

Also, I reckon this 'more prog albums than non prog albums' rule is frankly ridiculous- you'd have virtually no bands left; the only ones I can think of offhand that adhere to this rule are often fairly obscure or long gone bands like Fruupp, Gryphon, Happy The Man, High Tide etc, or one off bands like Czar, Spring, Fields... There are few bands that are popular in prog, bar King Crimson and Rush maybe, that have consistently produced progressive rock all their careers.

maani wrote: Ruglish: I have not suggested that I agree with all the bands that are on the site.  It is not my site, and I have not made the choices.  I may agree that Uriah Heep should never have been added - just as I have argued that Supertramp and others don't belong here either. But that is not the topic here. Proglover: 49 songs in your (not so humble or objective) opinion.  Not in mine. Peace.

Sorry for going off topic.  I'm fairly new here, just trying to feel my way around this forum.

maani wrote: . Re the "more prog" or even "solid core" criterion, Queen fails completely here.  They are certainly not "more prog than non-prog" by anyone's standards - even the most rabid Queen-is-prog fan.  They have perhaps a dozen, maybe two dozen, "prog" songs spread out over more than ten albums (consider that most "prog" groups have that many spread over one to three albums).  Yet they would even fail the "solid core" criterion, since even taking Queen through DATR, there is simply not enough "prog" to qualify them. True, Genesis may have "lost it" after ATTWT (or Duke or Abacab, or whichever album one decides is the first "non-prog" album), and thus may not qualify under a strict "more prog than non-prog" criterion.  But using a "solid core" criterion, there is no question that they (and others who may have "sloughed off" for periods, including Yes) would qualify as "prog." Peace.

OK, so we're basically not arguing over whether Queen played prog, but whether they played enough of it to qualify.  You think they don't, other people (including myself) do.  Cool.  Agree to disagree.

Just out of curiosity, what 100 percent prog album qualified Uriah Heep for the archives?  I love the band, but Salisbury has exactly one prog track on it (which fills half the album), and Look at Yourself has a couple, which add up to about half the album as well.  After that, they pretty much stopped playing prog altogether.

Also, wouldn't, under the one 100 percent prog album definition, Black Sabbath quailify with Sabotage?  Or, an even better example of an arguably prog release from a decidedly non-prog band, The Who with Quadrophenia?  Queen, as you said, spread out their prog over 10 albums, and didn't just release one experimental album.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I always thought that Rush were more Prog Metal than Art Rock.

I agree. Of all the given subgenres that one fits them best. The only problem is they played it long before the genre ever existed. Proto Prog Metal maybe?

I think the Art Rock description found on this site fits Queen like a rubber glove.

"A name that is used to refer to early explorative work that had roots in popular music.Very structured and even adventurous, sometimes hard or heavy, sometimes mellow, strong melodies, good hooks are an integral part of most of the material. Bands in this category can and have produced material falling into other categories as well. There may be moments of outright progressive rock but with more of a pop influence and certainly a tendency towards shorter songs."

To put it in my own words: "Proggish non-prog"

This definition also makes it clear the that the Art Rock genre cannot be considered as a true prog-subgenre like for instance Neo Prog is. It is the place for prog-related bands by definition. I do not consider Supertramp prog but I consider it Art Rock, same as Queen (and ELO).

The inclusion of these kind of bands into the archives is fine by me. While not being prog these bands can still be interesting for many proglovers. Proggers who don't know Queen can now learn here that Queen II is their proggiest album, for instance and check it out.

But what to do with Rush, or Steve Hackett? Do they fit the Art Rock description?

Cert:

You can't really be serious?!  DT's Metropolis is not prog?  Then tell me exactly what it is.  Because it is not just "metal."  Heck, even many of the people who have ho-hum feelings (or worse) about "prog-metal" acknowledge that Metropolis is prog.

Peace.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: maani wrote: (...) I maintain that Queen fails in both regards.  Re the "one album" criterion, Queen does not have any album that is truly and wholly prog.  Queen II - that is prog! And both Dream Theater and Meshuggah have yet to make a prog album. Let's not bang on about Queen, eh? Haven't you had enough - or do you want some more? You enjoy flying in the face of public opinion, don't you? Ever read "Enema of the State"?

You're looking a bit flushed, Cert!

maani wrote: (...) I maintain that Queen fails in both regards.  Re the "one album" criterion, Queen does not have any album that is truly and wholly prog.

Queen II - that is prog!

And both Dream Theater and Meshuggah have yet to make a prog album.

Let's not bang on about Queen, eh? Haven't you had enough - or do you want some more?