Queen.....WHY THE HELL NOT?!?!?!

No need to get confused just 'coz you're crap at debating Tony...

Tony R wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Tony R wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I must say that the arguments on personal style are very boring - can't we just talk about the MUSIC? Certif1ed wrote: Tip: Good debating avoids personal attacks  No need to get confused just 'coz you're crap at debating Tony... Don't take away my personal attacks,they're all I've got!!! And I'm very good at them...........

no, your not

danbo wrote: I'm a huge QUEEN fan. Saw them three times in the 70's, before they went too far to the left. The first four have progability and should be here. I still support a "PROG ALBUMS BY NON-PROG BANDS" section of the archive. LED ZEPPELIN have a couple of PROG albums and those discs should be here. It's not about "all or none" just the proggy stuff.

THANK YOU!!!!!! ...........You are the only person to see my view of things......Thank God that I'm not in a world alone. May the heavens be praised!! I think you also make an excellent point.....this is somewhat the danger in catogorizing and labeling and excluding......I believe that music is music, but I feel that we run into trouble when we draw lines in the sand, and to an extent become elitist...like our classical and jazz brothers and sisters. I would be a liar if I said I didn't believe that there is to a certain extent, some elitism, but when we are sooo elitist that we become bias and prejudice I think we begin to lose sight of things....As I stated before, if the site were truly serious about show casing progressive music, I believe that, yes indeed, there should be a section on the site where prog albums by "non-prog" bands should appear. I think it would be ok to do so. I don't think that we would lose credibility at all.....If there is one thing that we have been taught throughtout prog history....prog music is in no way dependent on a particular band. That is to say, prog music exists outside of and not chained to certain groups whom we have deemed "progressive". I have a DVD on Genesis, and they interview Phil Collins and he basically says what I am saying...basically that progressive music was something that Genesis DID, but that's not all Genesis IS. People have a way of limiting others, by placing labels on them..we put Genesis in a BOX, and that box was "PROGRESSIVE"....and we expected them to uphold the label that we placed on them. And as I stated before, take someone like Robert Fripp who openly has stated that he DISLIKES the term progressive to describing his music.....Robert Fripp will tell you, that King Crimson's music is NOT "progressive".  If the BANDS themselves were "progressive", everything by YES, Gentle Giant, ELP, Genesis, and Jethro Tull would be progressive. But that's not the case. Infact these bands made the choice to abandon their progressive ways. So therefore, I'd like to suggest, that there are NO progressive BANDS on this site, but rather the site is full of bands who played progressive MUSIC. For example I don't think that Genesis was a progressive rock band..but I think they played at one time in their career progressive music.......does that make sense?? Music exists outside of a particular band, therefore if Queen or Led Zeppelin made an album that was progressive, then THOSE albums should be on the site. It is more important to look at the music and NOT at the band. So with those comments I would like to apologize for my remarks about Pink Floyd...while I still don't regard them as being a "Progressive Band", they most certainly wrote progressive MUSIC ...I hope all that makes sense and I wasn't just rambling.

I must say, that I feel that Queen is an example of a band that is a victim of it's own commercial success. Let the truth be told, with the exception of Bohemian Rhapsody, Queen's BEST work, no one ever heard on a mass level, because those particular songs WERE NOT COMMERCIAL.....while other songs such as 'We Will Rock You', and I dare say "We Are The Champions' were poster songs for the band, and those songs certainly did not represent Queen's best work.

And once again let me state for the record, and truly without any regard to other's opinions (because I feel so strongly about this), it to downright DUMB to keep Queen away from this site because of the media attention they received, or their commercial success....ummm, or ANY OTHER reason that people are NOT saying.....and I think you get my drift. Based on some of the criteria that you guys are giving as to why Queen should not be on this site, I think in doing so you could also strike half of your progressive rock heros from this site as well.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FREDDIE MERCURY AND PETER GABRIEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........two great front men, I certainly see the similarities...does anyone else?