Queen.....WHY THE HELL NOT?!?!?!

yeah, im absolutley agree, the first 4 queen's albums are absolutley prog, and queen I is a masterpiece of prog, songs like doing all right or my fairy king are complex, with great vocals arrengements.

Trouserpress wrote: Dreamer wrote: Queen is great, but not prog. What a devastatingly helpful addition to this debate. Thank you so much.

sorry, maybe i should explain a bit:

I think queen is one of the best rock bands, in my opinion a legendary band. I also think that QueenII is on the progressive side. However, my arguement against them is that they produced progressive music for a (relatively) short amount of time. It seems to me like Queen did not have to workk hard to produce its progressive music, but simply preferred not to, in order to produce the amazing arena rock/straight rock that they are most famous for.

In other words, I think that the progressive stage queen went through was only a "finding thier sound" stage. Similar stage as to what Yes did with thier debut and "time and a word", Rush did with "Rush" and many other bands went through. That leads me to think that the "progressive queen" was only a temparory thing, soon passed away.

I still think Queen's albums are great, but I dont think the whole collection should be on a Prog website.

Just my opinion though, hope i made it clear

salmacis wrote: Which brings me back to Queen; there are certainly progressive albums, but that really only applies to about 4 of their albums, which would leave about 10 or so other, totally non-prog albums that would bring with them much protest.

It's pretty much the same with Genesis - less than 33% of their output is prog, but you don't hear any protests:

1970-1975 Some of the best prog ever.

1976-1980 Some good prog.

1981-2005 No Prog.

Queen was also a flagship of '70s prog,

What an odd idea? Not in the 70's , they were heard and seen as a good & successful glam rock band by their 3rd album release. Other glam rock bands: Bowie, Bebop Deluxe, T Rex, Sweet ( and we can go a bit too far and bring in Gary Glitter and Mud). And no, glam rock wasn't seen/heard as part of prog rock at that time.

but most people started knowing about them already with Bohemian Rhapsody, which IS prog, and often voted one of the best songs ever, all categories.

Hate to tell you that when Night at the opera was first released we thought Queen were taking the piss wrt Bohemian Rhapsody - it's always been over the top and Queen have said this. And note: for almost  decade 10cc I'm Not In Love was voted the No. 1 song, and then LZ's Stairway To Heaven  - inclusion in the  soundtrack of a successful youth movie does marvels for publicity and renown (but passing thought: what the f888 was a rock tune doing in a movie about Robin Hood...............?)

Can someone please explain to me, WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH, Queen is not on this damn site?!?!?!?!?!.........It's almost a complete insult. Perhaps a better question should be...why the hell are bands like Roxy Music, Uriah Heep, Styx, Weather Report, Traffic, SuperTramp, Hawkwind, and Asia on this site and Queen excluded?!?!?!?

I listen to some of the above mentioned bands, and I think to myself...ummm this is prog?????????????? When including bands like Weather Report, you are blurring boundaries, which normally I would approve of, but there can't be a double standard. Weather Report, for all intensive purposes is JAZZ.......go to a store, and look for weather report, and they won't be in the pop/ rock section, but they will be in jazz. But...look for Gentle Giant, Genesis, YES, King Crimson, ELP, Jethro Tull, so on and so forth, you will find them under rock. Infact, Bill Bruford's solo efforts are under JAZZ......so if you are going to make exceptions to the rules based on your whims, then you have to examine more closely. Why not include Miles Davis on this site...certainly he was one of the starters of fusion....all im saying, is that the inclusion of some bands and the exclusion of others follows NO LOGIC.

Then there are bands like Uriah Heep (who I detest by the way).....where I can't find one inkling of progressive anything. I listened to an album of theirs, and my thought was...wow this is pretty much STANDARD rock music. I personally don't understand why there is this huge road block for Queen, when HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE bands like Styx are placed in this site. Queen is ten times the band Styx was. Someone, who was really big into Styx, once said to me...."hey, if you like Queen, then you'll like Styx".....and I've listened to Styx, and I absoultely disagree.

Now not to start a complete progressive riot.....but I still STRUGGLE with the idea that Pink Floyd and the Moody Blues are progressive. Certainly there are some Queen "tunes" which to me are more progressive than Pink Floyd or Moody Blues. I'm sorry people, but I just dont see them as being progressive. So come on Queen fans, let us fight with conviction to get this amazingly talented band on this site.

oh by the way.....as a side note, am I the only one who sees a resemblance in the front man characteristics of Freddie Mercury and Peter Gabriel??....Both were AMAZING front men. Let me know what you think.

Why is everyone skirting the fact I mentioned earlier that they recorded "Fat Bottomed Girls"? In my mind, that's it. They blew it. No prog for you.

No, butt seriously, I mean, anyone who would record that, I really doubt their prog senisibility. They may have stumbled into the prog borderlands at some point, but then they stumbled right out.

Snow Dog wrote: Ok this one again! Ok I'm a Queen fan but I will not fight to get them on this site.

Agreed!!! Actually almost everything from Queen up to and including Jazz! is excellent (except the dreaded News From The World album), can be proggish but then we should get in 10CC also.