QUEEN on progarchives

CrazyDiamond wrote: MikeEnRegalie wrote                            The others were brilliant as well - musicians don't have to be virtuosos to deserve being called brilliant. Your opinion, but mine is different. I never said I was against non-virtuoso musicians, but those one (especially in the LAST albums, but also in the early one) don't have to be called AMAZING. AMAZING, on this site, is neither John Deacon nor Roger Taylor. They are.. GOOD (if you want) IMHO. ___BYE___

Crazy Diamond, I do think that Queen's musicians were amazing in one sense: they all were talented multi-instrumentalists, they all could sing (BTW, Freddie Mercury was one of the greatest rock'n'roll singers of all time) and they all were good composers. Yes, their last albums were mediocre in all senses (which includes their musicianship), but I think nobody would tell that Alan White is a great drummer listening to "Big Generator". Thanks for your opinion, and keep on shining on, Crazy Diamond.

You didn't understand what I tried to say. Sorry.

So in your opinion queen's career and yes career have the same prog consistency. Uhm, have you heard about an album, with a green cover, called "close to the edge"? you should check it out. Very nice.

___BYE___

Eetu Pellonpää wrote: Trouserpress wrote: What on Earth is that in your avatar? It's been bugging me for ages!! It's Krtek (mole), czech cartoon character! I saw the cartoons as a kid from TV, and I re-found them on video last year from the discount shelf. The character probably doesn't describe my personality, but it measures some characteristics I honor; kindness, forgiveness etc. And most importantly he just looks so funny!

Surpsised and very glad to hear Krtek made it all the way to Finland! I also used to watch the series as a kid.

CrazyDiamond wrote: Nothing, only to underline his way of mocking my nick. Do you understand now?

But there's no need to use national stereotypes, man, it's unjust and hurtful.

CrazyDiamond wrote: Also mocking my nick is unjust and hurtful, don't you think? I was only explaining my ideas, there was no need to mock me, please read the whole post before asking strange questions, mate.

Agreed, he shouldn't have mocked your nick, but it doesn't make your responding in kind fair.

Anyway, sorry for hijacking the topic, everyone, signing off. 

Aside from the should they/shouldn't they debate, just to say there are some excellent reviews coming in for Queen just now (and not all of them praising the albums by any means). Very focused and well written. I've had to deal with surprisingly few.

Congratulations and thanks to those contributing!

Yes, they supported them, but this doesn't mean that they were inspired by their music or followers of it. Who cares if they supported Yes and Pink Floyd?

ehm..ok 90125 is not prog at his best, but find a Queen album at the same level of Close to the Edge, Fragile, Relayer. I'm not trying to do a competition (there's no need  ), but you're taking the worst part of a band like Yes, without considering their most important works.

___BYE___

Not true, maani.

Queen II and ANATO are pure prog albums - and not IMO, humble or otherwise.

Those two albums alone justify Queen's place in the archives.

The fact that Queen had the same beginnings as Genesis and Pink Floyd, and came from the same circuits means a lot - and you should care, Crazy Diamond. It may not put them in the same musical bracket - obviously Yes and Pink Floyd are very different musically, but so are Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant, ELP, etc. - but it gives them the same roots.

90125 is not the only or worst example of Yes not "doing prog", as every Yes fan knows. BG.

Yes's first albums are classic psych pop/rock, with heavy bass, Beatles covers and Crosby Stills and Nash imitation harmonies (badly done and out of tune) and not prog in the slightest - unlike Floyd and Queen. Yes developed a very narrow style - I don't like what they did, and the more I listen to them, the more I don't really think they were all that progressive.

Genesis' first album is happy folky music and most Genesis fans discount it. Trespass -> W&W constitutes 5 years of music making out of 36. That's not a very good ratio.

Queen's first album is outrageously OTT rock (for the time), with prog pretensions all over the place, which came from their 20-minute epic jams as Smile. It's quite obvious to me that Queen's debut is far more proggy than either Genesis' or Yes, debuts, and that Queen II is a blatant all-out, all guns blazing prog album. It has 7-part vocal harmonies and complex guitar structures all over the place, the music develops thematic material and borrows stylistically from other genres, and comes out sounding completely original and yet, somehow accessible - for starters. No-one sounds like Queen, except, from one angle, the Darkness...

Accessible isn't a crime either - both Floyd and Camel are very accessible.

All the "anti" arguments so far are flimsy and based on opinion alone - conveniently ignoring the facts, which speak for themselves.

maani wrote: Cert: I am not as famliliar with Queen II as I am with NATO, with which I am extremely familiar.  In this regard, you are either blindly fanatical, or deaf: ... "Bohemian Rhapsody."  Unarguably prog. So how, exactly, do you qualify this album - as a whole - as prog? Peace.

Given that opinion on Bohemian Rhapsody, you should listen to Queen II again. I agree that NATO is arguably not very progressive, but Queen II is.