Add Syd Barrett

tuxon wrote: 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.

Thats exactly what happend to me, and now I'm a  proghole, and happy to be one.

thank you PA for changing me from a progless life to a proghole.

I say they arnt prog, but deserve to be on this site, for thier prog elements and for what Tuxon has said.

omri wrote: I feel like MIKENREGGALIA that if you include a band in the archives you should include all of their discography. I think the idea of borderline bands is a good idea. I would claim that Deep purple, David Bowie, Kate Bush, Talking heads and Jefferson airplane (they are folk prog for sure) should all be included here for some of their works is realy prog and will interest some of us.

Thanks - of the bands you mentioned I only know Deep Purple well. As far as I know, a band can now be added if one of their albums is progressive (as a rule of thumb, the decision remains with the admins). I guess that means that 90% of one of their albums has to be progressive. I don't see that with Deep Purple - at least not with their work in the 70's ...

Speaking personally, I am mortally opposed to Queen's inclusion on the site.  And for the first time, I not only disagree with Max, but feel that his post was unhelpful at best, and dismissive at worst.

We have all discussed that there are bands who influenced prog (often referred to as "proto-prog") or had proggy elements, but were not "prog" as defined - or at very least understood - vis-a-vis Prog Archives.  The Beatles, Zep, perhaps Queen (who were actually "late in the game" even if they had some proggy elements) and others have always been included in that discussion.

However, despite the members who felt Queen deserved a place here, it was basically understood that they were not "prog" as defined by Max.  And let me make this clear.  Max himself stated to me that in order for a band to be included on Prog Archives, at least one album had to be completely prog.  Not rock with proggy elements, not half the album prog and the other half rock.  This is how Supertramp "slipped" through: because Max considers Crime of the Century to be a completely prog album (though I would have to argue with Dreamer, which is a fairly standard rock song).

None of Queen's albums are completely prog.  Although Queen I and II have what I have coined "progressive sensibilities," and maybe even some progressive elements, neither of those albums is entirely prog: at best one-half of each has such sensibilities or elements.  Indeed, if any of Queen's albums comes closest to being "fully" prog, it is probably Night at the Opera or Day at the Races.  Yet even with those two, not every song is prog, nor is there any "connecting" feature of the songs that would allow for the possible acceptance of the non-prog songs within a "conceptual" framework.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but if Queen is prog, then so is 10CC, and even moreso XTC.  Indeed, 10CC's "How Dare You" is as wholly prog as any of Queen's albums, and XTC's "English Settlement" and "Mummer" are more prog than anything Queen did, with the possible exception of Bohemian Rhapsody and Prophet Song.

Don't get me wrong.  I am no longer arguing for the inclusion of 10CC or XTC, because while I disagree with it, Max and Rony's decision is final, and I accept it.  Yet their decision was also final re Queen.  Yet here we are.

Queen was not a "seminal" band, nor were they a major influence on any prog band; entering the picture in 1973, which is late in the prog game, they could not have been either.  They are a rock band that occasionally included prog elements in some of their songs.

Their inclusion on the site as a prog band is incomprehensible and inappropriate.

I will not leave the site over it.  But I, like others, consider less an "open-mindedness" than a "death knell" for a site calling itself Prog Archives.

Peace.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: omri wrote: I feel like MIKENREGGALIA that if you include a band in the archives you should include all of their discography. I think the idea of borderline bands is a good idea. I would claim that Deep purple, David Bowie, Kate Bush, Talking heads and Jefferson airplane (they are folk prog for sure) should all be included here for some of their works is realy prog and will interest some of us. Thanks - of the bands you mentioned I only know Deep Purple well. As far as I know, a band can now be added if one of their albums is progressive (as a rule of thumb, the decision remains with the admins). I guess that means that 90% of one of their albums has to be progressive. I don't see that with Deep Purple - at least not with their work in the 70's ...

As to Deep Purple - I am quite happy not to have them in PA. I know their works very well indeed, and really like many of their albums (own all of them in my collection). Great musicians! Ritchie Blackmore was my idol-guitarist since the age of 14. However, lately I am practically not listening to any of this stuff, except for one album Deep Purple 1969 with awesome composition called "April". Probably this one can be considered as progressive, and also some solo works of their keyboardist Jon Lord.

Snow Dog wrote: Queen at the Beeb is in the wrong place, it was released in the 90's

wrong snow blind it was released in 1989, or was it 1988 I'm all confused now

Snow Dog wrote: tuxon wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Queen at the Beeb is in the wrong place, it was released in the 90's wrong snow blind it was released in 1989, or was it 1988 I'm all confused now yeah....yeah...well it wasn't 73 so there "Tux"!< sticking tongue out at you.

why at me?

stick it right back at you 

Yes I know

I didn't submitted it, I was planning on asking M@X to change the date, the rest of the information is accurate enough I think (didn't check it very intense)

Queen in Nuce will be issued as 1967/8, to show those unfaithfull people that Queen excisted for some years prior to their debut album

Smile

I think progarchives are undergoing the same evolutionary process the prog itself was following.  With the inclusion of Radiohead we were in 1978 (still not bad), but with the inclusion of Queen we're somewhere in 1981. Next we'll have Iron Maiden, Dawid Bowie and we'll be in 1985. 

Well, waiting for the nineties