 maani wrote:
You go a long way to proving threefates' (and my) point when you note that "Consistency of approach" is (among other critical factors) what makes a band prog. But that's just it: Queen never approached their composition, arrangement or production from a prog perspective. Rather, their approach was (as Gedhead so quaintly put it) "rock with a twist." Yes, they used some progressive elements in some songs, and a few songs were full-on prog. But simply using progressive elements - especially when the approach was not prog - does not make the songs (much less the album) prog.
I would describe their approach as "diversity is king." Their '70s output, starting with A Night at the Opera, is characterized by a deliberate juxtaposition of vastly different styles on one record. Prog is one of the musical styles they've played with, and they've returned to it again and again over the course of their 20-year history.
As for your comment that "One prog album does not a prog band make," I completely agree. However, that is the criterion by which Max and Rony include new groups on the site: that the group has made at least one truly, wholly prog album. Yet even here, Queen II (which most "Queen is prog" members here argue is their most prog album) is not "truly, wholly" prog. There are at least two songs that are not prog, and one that barely straddles the line.
Agreed. But under that criteria, ELP does not qualify for the site. Every album they've done contains at least one "Lucky Man" and/or at least one "The Sheriff."
By your own admission, 8 out of 11 tracks on Queen II are prog. With all due respect, I think we're just splitting hairs on this particular point.
As for NATO, here is what I said about that in another thread:
"Death on Two Legs." An excellent song, but there is very little about it that is "prog."
"Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon." No more prog than The Beatles' Honey Pie, of which it is almost a direct rip-off.
"I'm in Love With My Car." Not a single prog element in it.
"You're My Best Friend." Straightforward (and not very good) rock song, not an ounce of prog.
"'39." Cute, and the banjo adds a nice touch. But prog? I don't think so.
"Sweet Lady." As straightforward as straigthtforward rock gets. Not prog.
"Seaside Rendezvous." Like "Lazing," a cute Honey Pie-like song. But no more prog than that.
"Prophet's Song." Prog without question.
"Love of My Life." Standard (and arguably sappy) rock ballad. Not an iota of prog.
"Good Company." Like '39, nice banjo touch. But prog? I think not.
"Bohemian Rhapsody." Unarguably prog.
You forgot "God Save the Queen" 
And here, from the same thread, was my response to the Radiohead vs. Queen argument, as well as other general comments re Queen:
"There is an inherent fallacy in the Queen vs. Radiohead argument. Radiohead is a new band. Thus, the question of whether they are prog is based on two questions: (i) what are their influences (if any) vis-a-vis prog, and (ii) do any of their albums have an internal consistency vis-a-vis the use of those elements of prog that are widely accepted to be important if not crucial to a classification as prog. In these regards, while the band itself may not be prog as a whole - and certainly did not start out that way - I find it hard to believe that any knowledgeable progger could listen to Kid A and not come away believing it is prog. It is certainly not pop or straight-forward rock. And the qualities and elements that make this so are exactly what makes the album prog.
So, is criteria for inclusion then '100 percent prog album' and so on, or 'certainly not pop or straight-forward rock?'
Actually, I don't think Kid A is prog. You'd have a much better chance of convincing me that OK Computer is, however. But I do agree that Queen/Radiohead comparisons are apples/oranges type stuff (even though I'd made it myself in another thread ), mainly because Radiohead are still going, and Queen is defunct.
"Queen was not, in any way, influenced by any of the prog bands ascendant during the heyday of prog: they were a rock band with glam tendencies, more heavily influenced by Zep, The Beatles (both harmonies and other), and other straight-forward rock and glam bands. Yes, Brian May did some unique things with a guitar, and the production values beginning with SHA were amazing. But those two things alone do not qualify Queen as prog.
They were influenced by other musicians as well, but more importantly, other genres of music. Country, jazz, pop, rock, opera, funk. It may not necessarily qualify them as prog, but their list of influences is much longer than hard rock and glam rock bands of the early '70s.
As for "internal consistency of prog elements," here again Queen fails the test. Yes, they played around with some quasi-prog elements, including occasional "symphonic" features. But so did many bands who NONE of you would accept as being prog. And even if Queen succeeded in producing a proggish song, it was certainly more by "accident" than by any conscious effort at being "prog."
You'd be surprised what some people are prepared to accept as prog . But which specific bands are you talking about?
And even if Queen succeeded in producing a proggish song, it was certainly more by "accident" than by any conscious effort at being "prog."
I'm sure that the vocal harmonies and counterpoints of "Bo-Rap" got there purely by accident. And so did the flamenco section on "Innuendo," as well as polyrythmic phrases on "March of the Black Queen."
Now, I'm not claiming that the things I listed are common in Queen's body of work. But they did use them, I would suspect quite consciously, and consistently. Notice the three examples I gave are from beginning, middle and end of their career.
"Although it is not necessary for every band to make use of every element of "prog" in order to be classified as such, some of the elements we all agree on are: use of non-standard time signatures; use of non-standard chord progressions; use of non-standard instruments; "symphonic" elements either vis-a-vis an "orchestral quality" to the arrangement or actual use of orchestra or keyboards to create a symphonic effect; extended compositions, usually including extended instrumental passages; use of the recording studio as an integral part of the overall "sound"; and, in some cases, use of a "concept" to tie together compositions that may not otherwise necessarily be connected.
OK, this is interesting. Non-standard time signatures: Check (Innuendo, March of the Black Queen, and if 3/4 is considered non-standard, Bicycle Race and Millionaire Waltz).
Non-standard chord progressions. What is considered non-standard? Would seem to be songs like "Mustapha," for example, or the aforementioned "Innuendo" use some chord progressions that are slightly off-kilter, no?
Non-standard instruments: Not really, but Brian May has done some pretty neat tricks with his guitar. "Good Company" alone qualifies as a non-standard use of a standard instrument.
Symphonic elements: Basically none. Here are a few more bands that don't have that 'symphonic' quality to them: Henry Cow, Magma, Rush. 'Symphonic' quality is only a defining characteristc of symphonic prog. Other types of prog (Art Rock, for instance) can do without.
Extended compositions with long instrumental passages:
a. What is exactly meant by extended? "Bohemian Rhapsody," "Innuendo," "March of the Black Queen" and "Brighton Rock" are close to or over 6 minutes long. ("Bicycle Race," on the other hand, is 3.5, but is pretty amazing prog nevertheless.) They obviously didn't make epics. Neither did Gentle Giant.
b. OK, you got me. Queen certainly gets an D+ at the most on the extended instrumental composition angle. Jeff Beck-influenced "Bijou" is probably the only one that qualifies. But in Queen's defense, we're talking about Art Rock here, not symphonic or RIO. (Ahem, Asia is on the site, ahem).
Use of a recording studio - Check with a bullet.
Overall concept - Actually, Queen II is a loose concept album. White Side/Black Side, based on chess.
A Night at the Opera and Jazz, on the other hand, I would argue, are examples of an anti-concept concept album -- concept here being 'anything goes,' not a single song sounding like another.
So, most of the things you listed as criteria for defining prog are obviously present in Queen's body of work. Basically, I think we're arguing over degrees of progginess here. Where you see minimal use of non-standard time signatures and chord progressions, I see enough for the band to qualify.
I can't seem to shake the feeling that it's the diversity of their body of work that makes most people say they wouldn't qualify as prog. Here's a qustion: If Queen made only Queen II, Night at the Opera and Innuendo, would they then be prog? Or at least Art Rock?
I think we're basically shortchanging Queen because we can't exactly pin them down.
As an aside, however: Threefates wrote earlier that people who insist that Queen is prog do it because they like prog, they like Queen, and therefore make the connection Queen=prog, even though no such connection, she believes, exists. But riddle me this: Why shouldn't we, prog fans, claim borderline, Art Rock bands as our own? Spread the meme: Queen is prog! Maybe we can get non-prog Queen fans to listen to early Yes and Genesis? Or maybe at least Flower Kings or Tool?
I'm being facetious, of course, but I don't like musical purists. I'm a newby on the site, but it seems that there's a pretty large group of people here who think that prog is defined by the presence of Mike Portnoy, another group who believe that the last true prog album was "Lamb," and a select few who seem to think Mike Patton invented progressive rock. I'm personally for more inclusion on this site, of bands with an obvious progressive pedigree ('minimal' though it may be), like Queen. I mean, you know, Uriah Heep is in the archives. What gives? Salisbury is their only progressive album, and even then only the title track really qualifies. It seems you either allow only bands that everybody would agree are prog (King Crimson through Mars Volta), or you allow bands that are questionable.
Those were my positions. They have not changed.
Peace.
Peace be onto you as well. | /PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Queen: Another Look
Topic Options
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
List just one Talk and forget the other?
(Yes I know it was originally a classical piece
)
