Queen?Prog Related? |
Post Reply | Page <123 |
Certif1ed wrote: Actually, not all the Prog community "gets them" - that is a generalisation of the "I've always believed this, therefore everyone does" type - hence this discussion. If the term was so clear-cut, everyone would know what it meant. Actually Certified, in this case I insist thatthe whole community recignizes the term SAymphonic, there are more han 100 Prog sites in the net and ALL OF THEM include the word the SYMPHONIC to describe a sub-genre or category and bands like Yes, Genesis or ELP are in most of them
And the pronunication is not the issue here It's not just pronuciation Cert Potato is English and Patata is Spanish, two different languages that seems sometimes we are talking.
As Erik has already intimated in his re-labelling suggestions, it's time for change - and we should use the terms where they have proper meaning rather than in some loose and haphazard fashion that only leads to confusion. The term Symphonic is not a fashion, it0's solid as a rock in the Prog community, there are others that have changed and Prog Archives tries to keep with times.
Art Rock, for example, is not bands like Roxy Music and their ilk - no matter who the term was first applied to. The two terms already have serviceable meanings, and there's no need to pollute them. The definition on this site agrees, on the whole, with my take: "Art Rock This was the original name of progressive rock music." ...but then gets horribly confused: We now use this within the umbrella of Prog or Progressive Rock as category that is used to refer to explorative works by bands that cross different genres or have an experimental nature that is not specific to one genre. Some of these bands may have had roots in other prog categories in their early years but later became more AOR or mainstream or vise versa starting out mainstream then becoming prog. These bands are considered primarily to be prog bands." See how confused and vague this description is? (with apologies to the author, who I know put a lot of work into it). You should visit the Collaborators section Cert, there is a new definition of the Art Rock category waitting for feedback, we know things are changing and we all are trying to keep.
Likewise symphonic. Using the word in the way this site uses it, Queen are without a doubt symphonic in their early works - and some of their later material. "In this specific case the main characteristic is the influence of Classical music (...) using normally more complex structure than other related sub-genres (cut unnecessary uncomplimentary reference to Neo-Prog)" Opera is part of the Classical repertoire. Queen used very complex structures - and frequently on Queen I, II and ANATO. This description - the main characteristic makes Gentle Giant Symphonic beyond question. Gentle Giant has also Medieval Folk influences, even the Folk team leaded by Sean Trane asked for it, a poll was done in this section and most of the voting members (Ariound 80%) decided they were not Symphonic.
Let's go back and look at Toolis' earlier post: Proportion of material is not important for classification - you know that, Ivan. If it was, then we would be considering Genesis for eviction... Yes it's important, we try to appreciate if a band is mainly Symphonic or Fusion depending in the number of albums that they released in that gemnre, take King Crimson for example, they were in Symphonic but out oftheir more than ten albums only their two first ones were Symphonic. It was a simple option, due to this fact we decided that they are not mainly Symphonic, so you see, it's a ptoportion thing also.
"Bohemian Rhapsody", as a single example, mixes up the styles, as does "Prophet's Song" - Queen did mix and match, but it depends how pedantic you want to be about it. If you take the hard line route, then you could make the same argument about almost any Prog band - take ELP (I wish someone would...) Already mentioned that Prophet's Song is a 100% Prog track, but you forgot to quote that part opf my posts.
I've never had this hangup for complex time sigs, and I don't think it's a qualifier - just a characteristic, as in free jazz and even complex electronica and pop music - so not really an important issue. Again you forgot to quote that I mentioned this wasn't dseterminant, only one of many characteristics From Genesis to the Revelation is full of beautiful piano, Richard Clayderman plays piano, but this doesn't make the Genes9is debut and Mr Clayderman Symphonic.
The phrase clearly states "keyboards", so "synths" are not a pre-requisite for a symphonic sound. Also mentioned that when I said thattheir albums had piano., but still I believe Queen is more a vocal and guitar oriented band.
The "no synths" phrase is actually a bit of a lie, if you think about it - an electric guitar makes a synthesised sound. I wouldn't call Queen liers, everybody knows what you refer to whentalking about Synths, and guitar isn't unles you trefer to MIDI guitar.
We kbnow that guitar produces a sinthetized sound strictly, but that's not what we're talking about when speaking of synths in Prog or Rock, unless not 99% of the people
And multiple tape loops give a synthetic sound equal to any synth band of the time - half the time Brian May's orchestrated guitar combined with the complex hamonies in the vocal parts make a thick wall of sound that is most certainly "lush". Yes Cert, we know you are an expert, but 99% of the people isn't and 99% of the people here understan other thing when the word Synths is used.
Come on, man! On their early albums you have Sci-fi themes all over the place, and only the occasional love song. Genesis and ELP weren't above doing Love songs either. Genesis had an ocasional love somng, ELP had a lot more (Lake was an expert on this) but Queen, better check their songs I find them simpler, that's my opinion.
You're saying that about Queen's early albums? Queen II doesn't sound commercial to me - and releasing "Bohemian Rhapsody" as a single was a very daring move at the time - it was way too long and complex for radio play. It only achieved success because Kenny Everett gave it such a hammering. Cert, Queen music always was commercial, created for the massivepublic and accepted for them, this is not bad Dark Side of the Mon was a commercial album, but in this case all Queen albums are mpstly based in Rock with SOME vocal arrangements and some eclectic songs.
Wrong again, Ivan - ANATO (for example) has more than one song over 4 minutes, and number of songs is not the issue here. Seems you like to partially quote what I say Cert, read my posts, Isaid that time isn't too important, but Prog bands with 12 or 14 tracks per LP are not common.
Now you look confused - saying that "Using Orchestral arrangements or Operatic vocal extravaganzas is not Classical" may be correct - indeed, it's the biggest problem I have with the classification of "Symphonic Prog", but since it's the argument you use to define a band as symphonic, you can't make an exception for Queen. That was a typying error, instead of Orchestral Arrangements aren't necesarilly Rock, should had said that Orchestral arrangements aren't necesarilly PROG.
I don't understand the reference to Genesis - you're saying Genesis song structures were pure rock? It's the same typying mistake Micky, I was pretending to say:
" Using Orchestral arrangements or Operatic vocal extravaganzas iare not necesarilly Classical, the structure of Genesis songs was pure PROG and Queen in cases as Somebody to Love just Blues."
Sorry fopr the mistake, I will send myself to detention .
That is not true. "Somebody to Love" is not a blues song either. Cert, IMO is mostly a Blues structured and inspired track with some Gospel influences.
- hence I fleshed it out a little - but it was a good one and deserved better than a trashing based on simple opinions that do not appear to be founded in reality. Well, I don't believe he has a case, the vast majority ofthis forum believes he didn't have a case and the also vast majority of¨Prog sites and Prog luiterature that consider Queen a marginally Prog or semi Prog band agree. Again Certified and you know this, there are no strict rules or laws carved in stone, just with a bit of common sense and agreement between the members we almost always reach an agreement before we even ask the question.
Queen was accepted against the majority opposition of the members of the forum, and I'm glad they were, I was even happier when added to Prog Related because IMHO there's where they belong.
And the interlude is not really Operatic - it comes from operettas. The influence is clearly more Gilbert and Sullivan than Wagner - and that is not splitting hairs. That's your problem Certified, you worry aboput sutile differemnces that most people won't even care, we all know that Queen is not Opera in the exact sense as La Boheme or La Traviatta, but it's inspured in them as Operetta is also inspired in Opera (Even the name is dericvative).
To use the term opera correctly, the whole thing is a mini-opera (or operetta) - it even has an elaborate and theatrical music video to go with it. Thanks for the lesson Cert, but as I told you before, most of us are not so exquisite, we stay witrh rougher and more common terms.
The fact that it's performed by a Rock band only underlines my point about Prog Rock in general. I do believe Queen is related to Prog, that's a fact, but again remember the example of the Disco version of the Fifth Symphony of Beethoven, it was clearly inspired in Classical music (In every sense) but it was just bare DISCO. /edit - apologies on behalf of my browser for the formatting issues - I guess that's what comes of using the latest and greatest Don't worry about sutile things, the last thing we care about is the format of the posts, people who used old Mac versions had a problem alligning theirposyts to the right and never crossing he centerof the screen.
As always it was a pleasure discussing for you, I know you want te exact technical terms, I understand your point, but I stay with a coloquial language that is accepted by MOST of the Prog community.
Iván
|
toolis wrote: i strongly suggest that you put Queen under the Symphonic Prog genre... |
Arrrghus wrote:
NO!!!! They should be in art rock. |
toolis wrote:
|
Post Reply | Page <123 |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |