Queen as progressive band?

Manuel wrote: I liked and found Queen to be a very progressive band, up until "A Day At The Races". After that, some magic was lost, at least for me, and I lost interest in their music. I think they are all fantastic musicians and composers, but they took a more commercial approach after a great, promising beginning.

Queen's debut album was not progressive as such, though it contains progressive material - such as Liar, with My Fairy King hinting at what was to come. It is more of a straightforward rock album with a hard edge. But let me make it clear - Queen's debut album is better than any album Led Zeppelin ever made. Queen II is without doubt a prog album, and the most progressive album Queen ever produced. It is quasi-conceptual, and contains brilliant progressive songs - Father to Son, Ogre Battle and the epic March of the Black Queen. One cannot speak of "fillers" in this album. The Fairy Feller's Masterstroke segues into Black Queen through Nevermore - a short but magnificent song beautiful on its own or as part of the three mentioned songs. It is a world away from songs such as Do You Think It's Alright or Miracle Cure from Tommy; or Stop and Bring The Boys Back Home from The Wall.

Sheer Heart Attack was far more accessible than the previous two albums, but even without epic songs or themes there are still progressive elements to be found - massive harmony vocals throughout, use of delay in guitar solos, etc. A Night at the Opera brings everything together. The hard edge of Queen is polished, Queen II's extravagance is refined, whilst keeping it as accessible (not commercial) as Sheer Heart Attack. It is a varied album with a wide influence, but The Prophet's Song and Bohemian Rhapsody stands out. Brian May pioneered the use of delay to create Bell, cannon and counterpoint effects in a live take in the former. Much has been said about Bohemian Rhapsody. All I need to add is that Queen achieved in 6 minutes with this song that it took Pink Floyd 23 to do with Echoes. Could they have made it 3-4 times longer? Yes. Was it necessary? No.

The follow-up, A Day at The Races, is pretty much a companion album to its predecessor. How do you follow up a great album without massive disappointment? This way. The rest of the band's catalog is pretty much straightforward rock, until the (supposed to be) last album - Innuendo. Very much like A Night at the Opera in its varied content, it also contains massive songs such as the title-track, The Show Must Go On, and the psychedelic I'm Going Slightly Mad. But unlike the first albums, the band makes use of synthesizers, giving the music a much deeper range. I've always believed that had the likes of Led Zeppelin released Innuendo (song) 20 years earlier, it would be regarded as the greatest song of all time. 

Queen will never be considered a progressive band such as Pink Floyd, King Crimson or Yes, but they pushed boundaries back a great deal, and were without doubt musical pioneers. Queen were the masters of vocal harmonies and arrangements. Other band's didn't do the same simply because the couldn't. The same goes for May's guitar arrangements - Procession, Good Company, etc. Furthermore, didn't other progressive bands also abandon their earlier progressive sounds? Owner of a Lonely Heart? Another Brick in the Wall Part 2? 

Progressive at first? Definitely. Progressive at the end? Yes. Progressive as such? Not enough. Brilliant, though.

Edited by Brolloks - September 26 2011 at 12:50

I think one has to take the term "progressive band" with a grain of salt, particularly in the 1970s. Queen had their progressive albums (Queen II, certainly, and A Night at the Opera in part as well), but I don't believe the band ever strived to achieve and maintain the title of "progressive band". The title simply was not important or relevant at the time. Like Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, each of whom had their progressive moments (or whole albums) in the 1970s, Queen and these other great rock bands did whatever the hell they wanted in that decade, unhindered by classifications and stratified genres that became more important later on.

^ Indeed.

tamijo wrote: What Dark Elf. said and....    Allmost every band from the 70's got a bit of prog, in them, as what we today call prog., was what everyone was dooing back then. A bit of wierd sound effect, some symphonic elements here and there, stereo running from one speeker to the other.   Would i consider Queen to be basicly a prog band overall : NO ! I consider them to be a  (hard) Rock band, as i do with Roling Stones, 10cc, Alice Cooper, Uriah Heep, Dire Straight. Van Hales, Deep P, Led Z. ect ect.   Loads of great music i do not think of as prog., even if they had the "some proggy elements" in the 70's.  And im afraid if we are not carefull, every band that was just a tiny bit "unmainsteam" in the 70's, will be considered a classic prog. band, to the point where there is nothing proggy left about prog.   If Queen is prog, why is Frankie goes to Hollywood not prog ? None of them have odd times nor any real style fussion, Is it just that they was from another time, or we dont like them as much, factualy they hold as many prog elements on the Pleasure Dome, as queen does on the Opera.

Frankie Goes To Hollywood had a bit of a prog thing going mainly thanks to Trevor Horn who more or less moulded their sound.

agree with Was It All Worth It and Innuendo being Queen's 'later' proggy tracks.  definitely worth a listen to, if you're into their early stuff.

First five Queen albums are definitely prog. If not 'pure' prog, but heavy or crossover prog.

But after that they started to write more pop-oriented music, so their albums from 1977 to 1986 are even not 'prog-related', just pop/rock. 1989 album 'The Miracle' is a pop album too, but that's where Queen started to return to their prog roots, and following album 'Innuendo' have a very strong prog feeling.


Edited by ole-the-first - January 26 2012 at 04:28

octopus-4 wrote: ole-the-first wrote: First five Queen albums are definitely prog. If not 'pure' prog, but heavy or crossover prog. But after that they started to write more pop-oriented music, so their albums from 1977 to 1986 are even not 'prog-related', just pop/rock. 1989 album 'The Miracle' is a pop album too, but that's where Queen started to return to their prog roots, and following album 'Innuendo' have a very strong prog feeling. And Steve Howe as guest, too

Surprisingly or not, Queen had a lot of connections with prog bands at all.

In early 1970's they were an opening act for Genesis and Yes. And in 1986 Fish joined Queen on their show in Mannheim, Germany.

Adam Lambert for prog-related.  

Brolloks wrote: But let me make it clear - Queen's debut album is better than any album Led Zeppelin ever made.

No. As much as I like Queen's debut, it will never be in the same league as Led Zeppelin IV. Plus - in my humble opinion - Led Zep I, II, and III are much better than Queen's first album. Saying this, I - of course - try to reflect on the years they were recorded.
But back to the question: Is Queen a progressive band? No.