Bands which are here for no reason

maani, even if the final say rests with the site's Webmasters, I don't think it does any harm for forum members to mention those bands listed in the Archives that they think are not part of the Progressive Rock genre, providing it's done respectfully. I hink such information may be of use to readers who are not familiar with those bands.

Fitzcarraldo:

You are, of course, correct, and I thank you for the chastisement.  Members should always feel free to express their opinions about the site, even (and perhaps especially) when they disagree with something here.  And, as you infer, the webmasters may just reconsider the inclusion/exclusion of a particular band, so it is always worth mentioning.

James:

As I've noted before, simply using "progressive sensibilities" to create songs is not enough to warrant a "progressive" label, which should only apply to those who use such progressive sensibilities as the primary approach to their writing and style over an extended period of time.  Were we to include every band that has written a "progressive" song (or even one "accidental" progressive album in a long career), we'd have to start with The Beatles and include virtually everyone, including the Monkees (and I'm not kidding...)  Needless to say, this would be a fruitless, self-defeating effort.

However, I might agree with you re Sonic Youth, who are really "punk" and "post-punk" with electronic and "progressive" elements.  They might qualify for a subgenre of prog, and I would support that.

Re Zorn, we've had this discussion before on the site.  Personally, I think we are already on a "slippery slope" by including bands like Brand X, Bruford's solo work, etc. - music which doesn't simply "bridge" prog rock and jazz, but goes "over the line" more often than not.  If we then include Zorn (among many others), we will be sliding down that slippery slope for a long time into God only knows what...

More discussion on this is welcomed.

Peace.

maani, as usual you are right on target- plenty of bands have at least competant prog 'touches' here and there but not a whole career of it(remember the Eagles' "'Journey Of The Sorcerer"?). I debated proposing Talk Talk for a long time for similar reasons.

I've never listened to Uriah Heep, except for the little radio play they got on classic rock station, but it didn't strike me as prog. 

What I wonder about is Styx...I can see the rationale, but if they've earned serious consideration here then shouldn't (for instance) Queen be here as well?

I'm a latecomer to these forums, so this may have already been addressed.

james-lee

Ah, but Maani. you have neglected Queen I and II, which are almost pure prog - more so than either "Night..." or "Day...". "Innuendo" should not be overlooked, as at least the title track is a return to form. In between, Queen crowbarred many nice little prog touches on their albums, whilst pandering obsequiously (and tongue-in-cheek!) to their new pop-friends.

I agree that it was not the thrust of their career after 1977 (News of the World) - but I do think that the 1st 5 took a prog approach, which is a significant number. Both Day at the Races and Night at the Opera are concept albums - and I and II almost are.

Although Fish-era Marillion are my favourites, I find it hard to classify anything after the first 4 albums as prog. Even "Clutching at Straws" seems to live up its own title and wanders away from the prog enclave. Yet no-one would argue that Marillion are prog

In short, Queen are a band in a million, who deserve a special little corner in the archives, IMO. Certainly more than Styx, Heep or Harem.

Having gone out and purchased Heep's "Demons and Wizards" and "The Magician's Birthday", I have listened to both carefully, and really think that bands like Rainbow, Deep Purple, Budgie, Praying Mantis, Diamond Head and the Scorpions produced more prog than either album. All fit neatly into the same broad category - all at the prog end of heavy rock, but not prog per se, with the possible exceptions of Diamond Head and Budgie.

Spot on once again Ivan. Better that bands who some of us at least consider to be prog are included, than to run the risk of excluding ones who should be here.

I for example to not feel acts such as Zappa or Magma are prog, but I respect without hesitation the fact that others feel they are, and thus are worthy of inclusion. PH and UH on the other hand for me have more than enough prog to them to warrant their inclusion.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that Queen cited Uirah Heep as one of their influences, so the similarities mentioned by Certif1ed are understandable.

However, "The Prophet's Song" on "A Night At the Opera" is about as proggy as you can get, with many time changes. Listen to it and enjoy!

If you see my last post, I don't mention those two songs from A Night at the Opera, because I believe both have some progressive elements, but two songs don't make a genre and I strongly disagree with Queen I and II being Prog', I believe both are classic rock with the particular sound of Queen.

Synths do not a prog band make, or you'd have just about every 1980's electro band in the archives

Of course not Certif1ed, but if a band has at least all the elements I mention plus others I omit, you have to accept is mainly prog, in the case of UH, I believe they play early Progressive Metal with some symphonic parts (July Morning, Circle of Hands, etc.).

By the way, some prog sites as GEPR mention Queen (Art Rock) and Uriah Heep (Prog Metal), on the other hand Progressor mentions both as Prog Metal (Interesting approach from the good Uzbekistan page in the case of Queen).

I also believe both must be mentioned here.

Iván

VB:

When pigs fly...

Peace.

I'll have to agree to disagree there, Ivan - I simply cannot understand why you do not find the first 2 Queen albums to be prog! Simply listen to "The Fairy King" on Queen I and "Seven Seas of Rhye" on Queen II - both fine prog tracks.

I carried out the following research this morning:

I listened to "Demons and Wizards" and heard a straightforward rock album with great music and naff lyrics. I heard no baroque keyboards - just simple chords and 4/4 times the whole way through, apart from one section which appeared to move into 6/4. Very effective, and great heavy rock reminiscent of Deep Purple (although not nearly as progressive) but hardly baroque. The guitar solos are mainly blues scales and bluff. There is no classical structuring of any form here - it's all basic rock format.

Then I listened to Queen I, which is pure prog - there was more prog in "The Fairy King" than the entirity of "Demons and Wizards". The lyrics are very clever and cover a range of themes including fantasy. There are time changes and texture changes and even style changes within songs - and awesome operatic vocals! The piano playing is mainly quasi-classical rather than pure rock. The guitar solos tend towards blues scales, but have a heavier emphasis on melody, with use of layered harmonies that incorporate 6ths and other intervals that aren't normally found in classic rock (discounting Hendrix who had a passion for 11ths and 13ths and Deep Purple who had a thing for baroque constructions).

Then I listened to "The Magician's Birthday". The title track is fairly proggy, I'll concede, but the overlay of quasi-orchestral material was simply repeated 4 times. The guitar solo was almost entirely bluff, which belongs in the rock realm. Most of the music is in 4/4 again, with few time or texture changes save from acoustic guitar to rock format - a fairly typical rock structure. All songs in typical verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure, with the odd bridge in some songs. All great rock with mostly naff lyrics (although a great vocalist!). There was some basic rock/boogie piano playing. Structures still in the rock realm, but with more of a tendency to elongate bridge passages.

Lastly I listened to "A Day at the Races" and "A Night at the Opera" back to back, and heard classic rock on the surface with hugely progressive undertones - not one track could be said to be outside prog territory, IMO. "Teo Torriate" is not as simplistic as you might think, with several subtle changes, use of a koto and singing in Japanese. On the surface it sounds like a stadium chant. Peel away the layers of ingenuity that were Queen's trademark, however, and you have a different animal. Every track on "A Night at the Opera" is so cleverly orchestrated as to give the impression of something simple and straightforward - apart from "The Prophet's Song" and "Bohemian Rahpsody" which are gleefully overdone. May's guitars are incredibly orchestrated - not one note of bluff in there. Structures lean towards conventional songs, with verses and choruses, but the bridges tend to be elaborate and there is the tendency to introduce brand new thematic material by way of surprise. "Bohemian Rhapsody" particularly eschews the conventions by exaggerating the tendencies for elaboration and introduction of new material - in other words, sending themselves up.

All the tracks you mentioned, Ivan, do not flow simply - that is just the amazing craft of Queen giving an illusion. Many songs go off at incredible tangents and have some special feature that pushes the envelope quite radically - "Sweet Lady" particularly goes into some wierd time signatures. I would respectfully suggest that you haven't listened deeply enough to any of the tracks you mentioned. Note that Mercury plays a harpsichord - a baroque keyboard - on this album.

I can believe that Queen were inspired by Uriah Heep in their vocal arrangements - but Queen take them to a whole new level with tape loops and true, clear classical harmonic structures and progressions rather than simple 3rds and 6ths as UH do.

My conclusions.

Uriah Heep = Classic Rock with slightly progressive leanings and definite progressive pretensions. Identifiable style, but slightly reminiscent of Deep Purple and other classic rock bands. On the whole UH use a single rock style - but I have noted that other sites include them as prog, so who am I to disagree . Heep deserve a place here. They do have nice Roger Dean covers...

Queen = On the surface, very cleverly orchestrated classic rock. Underneath, time changes, wide palette of textures and styles taking inspiration from a huge variety of source material - musically and lyrically, notably woven into a single "Queen" sound. It's difficult to pinpoint who Queen sound like, because, like other prog bands, they just sound like themselves. Pure prog dressed down as stadium rock. Genius - and should be included in the archives (I can see the "What are Queen doing in the archives" posts already...). Queen's covers are just a bit too rock'n'roll really