QUEEN on progarchives

Ehi, come on, leaving PROG ARCHIVES is a childy reaction, but everyone in this forum should be more serious: as someone already said, if we have QUEEN we must have LED ZEPPELIN , DEEP PURPLE (never heard their first two albums? Very progressive....), BLACK SABBATH!

This is discrimination!

Please people, apart from all the things like "THIS AIN'T ART ROCK!"   or "QUEEN IS GLAM ROCK!" , let's be more serious! it's a matter of fact that Queen isn't PROG. Anyway, all has already been said by other users, but YOU, YOU, big Queen fan who are reading this post, think about QUEEN IN PROGARCHIVES!

If i were you, I would have been offended because of this decision. QUEEN, the most representative band of ROCK MUSIC, put in PROG ARCHIVES!  

PLEASE THINK OF IT.

___BYE___

So this is it....? Queen on Progarchives...I must tell you I do not like this one bit. And I have nothing against Queen, I mean they are one very good band with what can be THE ( or one of) best singers in music in general...but you got to understand, good music does not make a band to be prog, or their music to be considerated prog...Why had you to put Queen? It was a little too much with Radiohead ( band which I love...OK Computer? Bast album from the 90´) but it is not prog!!! Just because one or two song sound a little bit like prog does not make them prog...you wouldn´t put King Crimson in a Blues website because they play Prozak Blues!!!

But this is not the worst...there is a poll which askes if Coldplay should be in this website...COLDPLAY!?!??!! ARE YOU f**kING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!

ok I have said it...I don´t know...I know they won´t take Queen out of the website...but...a...yo que se, hagan lo que quieran che!

prog on...not Queen on!

M@X wrote: I found it quite annoying when our prog fans write this : "Because this band is listed here , I want to leave progarchives ..."  I think this is a CHILDY reaction   I always thought that PROG PEOPLE we more opened mind then the POP Music Boys , I always thought that we were different  in many aspect of our life ! I was wrong .... It' up to you ... to leave or to stay ! But believe me , if you leave you will come back

Off course prog rock shouldn't exist in a complete isolation. Forgive me if I'm targeted about this so called childy reaction. However don't misunderstand my words. I've only entended to say that the day where iron Maiden and a part of the classic heavy metal scene will be included in the archives, the site will lost his signification for true fans of progressive music (I apply the term in its most generous dimension). Why do we put a seat of honour for classic (but absolutely not prog) bands as Queen despite that we are much to see about  bands accepted by everyone and not yet added. The early history of prog music dosen't include Queen, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and others. If you have properly read and heard about the musical roots of progressive rock you will be convinced about these following influences, free jazz, "world", modern classical music and psychedelic rock. Queen made a kind of ironic/ rock opera on the basis of pop, commercial, propagenda music. A wide range of progressive bands are musically against the architecture of common rock n' roll music and conceptually against the musical business exploitation. The central interest is music and an obvious taste for extensive exploration and fusion between musical philosophies from everywhere.

Edited by philippe

Dick Heath wrote: Really. A daft move. I can hear people laughing at the credibility of the site already. So let's open the door to every band of any type.  Wishbone Ash is more proggie, so is Spooky Tooth. Why haven't we got that section that I've long called for, that permits the odd one or two albums by bands which fits a tight description of prog, without having the lot. Queen's discography does not have the majority of albums in the prog category - glam rock (as they rightly said last Sunday on Top Gear) and rock pop.

Yes. And I Am Laughing

philippe wrote: Off course prog rock shouldn't exist in a complete isolation. Forgive me if I'm targeted about this so called childy reaction. However don't misunderstand my words. I've only entended to say that the day where iron Maiden and a part of the classic heavy metal scene whill be included in the archives, the site will lost his signification for true fans of progressive music (I apply the term in its most generous dimension). Why do we put a seat of honour for classic (but absolutely not prog) bands as Queen despite that we are much to see about  bands accepted by everyone and not yet added. The early history of prog music dosen't include Queen, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and others. If you have properly read and heard about the musical roots of progressive rock you will be convinced about these following influences, free jazz, "world", modern classical music and psychedelic rock. Queen made a kind of ironic/ rock opera on the basis of pop, commercial, propagenda music. A wide range of progressive bands are musically against the architecture of common rock n' roll music and conceptually against the musical business exploitation. The central interest is music and an obvious taste for extensive exploration and fusion between musical philosophies from everywhere.

I endorse most of what Philippe says.It is though we are being drawn to include bands that may or may not have been an influence on the development Prog Rock.

So how about a sub-section called "Non-Prog Artists Who Have Influenced The Development of Prog Rock" and include a list of albums that might be of interest to archivists and collectors.

 

I'll just continue with adding albums, let me know when the curtain falls and Queen is removed again, untill then I asume they have made the cut. cheers.

 

As far as I'm conserned this new open door policy can have a very positive effect on PA.

more bands in the archives means more people coming to the archives. maybe they come in as Queen/Radiohead/Elton John fans, but if we do our work porperly, they will leave the site as progholes.

If only to save one soul from a progless life it's worth it.

prog on, and keep an open mind

If you don't want a band to be added, or you opose to a band than ignore it's excistens on the site, and surf around it, you don't have to like Queen, and you don't have to visit their page, and you don't have to review the albums, but there are people here who regard Queen as progressive (I am one of those silly boys). For a band to be added, i suppose the general rule that they have released at least one progressive album still aply's.

To inform you all, Queen has made 6 progressive albums, from which 2 are from the first till the last note fully progressive, the other four are as progressive as the best progressive rush albums, and the rest still has some prog sensibilities. I am not in doubt about there inclusion. the only thing i doubt is some peoples biased opinions.

forget the queen hits, and listen to the good stuff.

Queen II. bombastic pomp prog, the first progressive metal album IMO
Fash gordon, not a perfect album, but full out Space progressive rock
A Night At The Opera, can anyone say Prophet Song, Bohemian Rhapsody, or lazing on a sunday afternoon, to name but three excamples from this amazingly great album.

I'll send some mp3's to M@X so he can add them if he likes.

any suggestions which mp3's to add.

I suggest.

Queen I - My Fairy King
Queen II - March Of The Black Queen
A Night At the Opera - Prophet song
Innuendo - Innuendo.

 

any other recommendations??

I've been saying for the longest time:

INCLUDE BORDERLINE PROG ARTISTS IN THE VARIUOUS ARTISTS SECTION!!!!!!

I agree that we need a 'various' section in which all artists considered borderline or recommended listening for prog heads need to go.

I'll also agree with some of you saying that if Queen is on this site than Iron Maiden needs to be as well. Honestly, Maiden had so many more tendencies towards prog than Queen ever had. Personally, I find this odd that Queen is even considered an Art Rock band or even a band worthy enough of induction into the archives.

Queen is NOT prog. Next thing you know, they'll include Radiohead.

Arteum wrote: So, Queen is *officially* on progarchives! This defines a revolutionary step in the development of the website. Radiohead was just a preparation, it seems! I am a huge Queen & Freddie fan, but Queen presence on progarchives is more than dubious. And, note, even "Jazz" (1978), on which there's not a trace of prog is included! I think first two albums by Queen are decent prog ... but even "Sheer Heart Attack" and "A Night at The Opera" are debatable. What is next? Freddie Mercury as art rock? Brian May? Some people have already remarked (and I support them) that progarchives should have a section for "shady" or "borderline" bands (music), when it is unclear whether they write prog or not. Bands such as Queen, Styx, Radiohead, Supertramp, The Mars Volta should be placed there. People will still review their albums just as those of any other prog band, but at least (almost) everyone will be comfortable with this solution and this will end constant squabbles ... I constantly argue with my friends over what's prog and what's not. They tend to listen to rock and the borderline bands ... and I decided for myself to not define the place of these borderline bands and indeed classify them as borderline! It's like a cloud -- you certainly know where the centre and bulk of it is, but where does the cloud end? A correction: now that I reflected on it, I think "Sheer Heart Attack" is debatable as prog, but "A Night At The Opera" might be an essential art rock (prog) creation by Queen.

Exactly, and I have been perhaps the loudest, lonliest voice in pushing for such a new category, or official, highly-visible admission that some of the bands and albums here are of dubious prog standing (but yet of interest to prog fans.

Well said -- "progressive rock" is a very subjective term, and that is the root of our never-ending "problem."