Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 34567 17> |
| Author | |
richardh 
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: February 18 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 27956 |
 Posted: July 29 2005 at 20:51 |
|
This is plain silly.Queen never were a prog band or an art rock band.They have never been referred to as a prog band.Deep Purple and Black Sabbath had stronger cases for being included and they are NOT prog either.This has really pee'd me off.
 At some point this will cease to be a prog site and become a general rock site.
|
|
 |
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: July 16 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 11979 |
Posted: July 29 2005 at 20:56 |
|
When they turn the pages of history
|
|
|
|
|
Progger
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: April 26 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1188 |
Posted: July 29 2005 at 20:58 |
|
As much as I like Queen up to and including 'Day At The Races', they are not a prog band and shouldn't be in the archives. The Alice Cooper Group has a stronger claim to prog than Queen!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Vingatondooda
Forum Newbie 
Joined: May 28 2005 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Posted: July 29 2005 at 21:26 |
|
If everyone that visits this site could delete bands that fall outside of their own limited definition of what belongs here there would be few bands remaining. The great strength of the prog archives is the opportunity to expand personal musical boundaries; in short, educate. I hope that the UPA continues to grow in scope.
If you don't like Queen that's okay. I don't either. That doesn't mean I do not enjoy reading well written articles by people who actually have something to tell me about them, or explain why they think they are the greatest band since Bill Hailey and The Comets. Radiohead, Vanilla Fudge and even Queen belong here...because there are here now. Now...bring on Warpig! |
|
|
if you are listening
in the moon’s shadow is a rock glistening? Have your fields gone fallow? |
|
|
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator Joined: January 30 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2632 |
Posted: July 29 2005 at 22:20 |
|
Ivan: You say: "To be honest with myself, I always found SOME prog' elements in early Queen's music and a extarordinaire capacity to blend different genres, so in tgis case I will give the band the benefit of the doubt and review some Queen albums that even when not 100% (or near that percentage) prog' formed part of my childhood and gave us good music. But PLEASE don't use this inclusion as an excuse to include ELO or similar bands." (Emphasis mine) But this is exactly the problem. Suppose Max gets a huge number of requests to have ELO included. Then in they come. And what do you mean "or similar bands?" Your "similar bands" may not be someone else's. And therein lies the problem... |
|
|
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator Joined: January 30 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2632 |
Posted: July 29 2005 at 22:22 |
|
I have opened a poll (in Non-Prog polls) on this. Feel free to vote. I don't expect it to change anything, but I'd be interested to see what the overall feeling is.
|
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: July 29 2005 at 23:43 |
|
I'm not defending the case of Queen Maani, as I said there are only SOME elements of Prog in their music, I nelieve they shouldn't have been included, but they are here, lets try to accept it. As you remember I was one of the most stubborn (Old and arrogant as someone called me recently I understand your concern and share it, if many mainstream bands with a few proggy elements continue being included, we may loose the reason to be here and that is to talk about Prog' Music. But in the case of Queen we're not the only ones Maani, all this prestigious sites (Not as good as ours IMO have included them, most of this sites with some reservations and mentioning that they are not 100% Progressive.
All of them members of The Progressive Rock WebRing, so there's no damage to our reputation YET. Hope this doesn't change. Iván Edited by ivan_2068 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2005 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 12600 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 02:16 |
|
AGREED!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
cobb
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 10 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1149 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 02:24 |
|
What's the big deal?
Most of us who were buying prog in the infancy days were also buying the Queen albums in their infancy days. Their change of direction is no different to Genesis. Watch out for another Uriah Heep thread- I'm sure it won't be long. as an afterthought, Queen were booed off stage the first time they came to Australia and never came back. Edited by cobb |
|
|
|
|
richardh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 18 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 27956 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 04:48 |
|
The problem is that although they incorporated some prog elements into their music they still remain outside of the prog genre and never really wanted to be in it despite the very camp attempt at prog in Bohemian Rhapsody.They are too big.Freddie Mercury is too big a cultural icon (as well as a gay icon,although thats incidental).Very few people recognise or have talked about them as a prog band.I am extremely dissapointed with the decision.There were also a load of less succesfull bands and artists in the seventies that had stronger connections with prog.Even after sleeping on it I reckon this is a crap decision. If 2 or 3 Queen albums get into the Top Ten on the front page ,then I'm out of here.I am very happy with what I've gained in knowledge from this website,but I think the inclusion of Queen is a watershed moment and that the site is going to lose its focus.It may well be downhill from now on.
|
|
|
|
|
The Hemulen
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 31 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 5964 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 04:56 |
Overreacting a little, mebbe? What about Asia? Early Queen far
out-progs 'em, yet I see no petition to have them removed. And as for
being "too big"... that's just pathetic. Progressive doesn't HAVE to be
synonymous with obscure. Take it on the chin and carry on regardless,
sir. As Ivan's pointed out, we're hardly the only prestigious prog site
to give Queen a mention. |
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21134 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 05:00 |
That's extremely unlikely ... I can't understand why everyone is so concerned that whenever a new band is added, it might compete with the greatest prog bands of all time? In terms of "chart position", Queen are not a threat. |
|
|
|
|
Carpetcrawler
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 30 2005 Location: Switzerland Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 07:18 |
|
Hi together, great site here!
Well, the problem maybe is that it's very difficult to put Queen in any genres. If you watch the whole discography, you got Hard/Classic/ Stadium/Prog/Artrock and Pop with some Beat, Punk and even Jazz influences. Of course things like A Kind Of Magic isn't prog...but is Invisible Touch? is Division Bell? I personally think it's a good decision and think Queen I and Queen II to be prog, Sheer Heart Attack - Day At the Races Classic/Hard etc. Rock with some Prog influences, Works, Miracle & Innuendo to be Pop/Rock with prog influences too. Btw, Live at wembley 86 is missing. |
|
|
There is no dark side of the moon. Matter of fact there's all dark!
|
|
|
|
|
Hangedman
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 03 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1261 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 09:53 |
|
On the grounds that only one album has to be prog(or in queens case somewhat prog), its a valid move. Tommy, and Who's Next are both much proggier than anything Queen has ever done (yes I have listened to virtually every queen album, but I never bothered with flash gordon or from heaven). Elton Johns Goodbye Yellow Brick Road is equally proggy to A Night At The Opera IMO. I think at least 51% (or in younger bands cases 50% would be acceptable) of a bands albums should be prog for the band to be considered a prog band at all. Otherwise wouldnt it just be a rock or pop band producing a Prog album? I like all music not just prog, but if I come to a site called Progarchives and I want to look for material I havent heard I would expect it to be PROG!!!!!! The first time I visited prog archives I downloaded a bunch of samples from bands I havent heard or bands I knew a bit about but never really heard. One of the mp3s I acquired was Sole Survivor by Asia, and yes after listening I seriously questioned the credibility of the site. I accredited thier inclusion to thier lineup comprised entirely of ex-prog musicians. Now I'll be honest for a second, If Queen was on the site last august when I first discovered the site I would not have taken it seriously. I almost didnt take it seriously because Pink Floyd was included(who I have now decided are prog). If people come to your website wanting to listen to prog and getting PLAIN OL' ROCK AND ROLL, they are not going to return in all likelyhood. I think a lot of bands inclusion need to be re-considered. Oh, and as to the "proggier than radiohead" argument, I disagree. out of the six Radiohead albums three are prog (OK Computer, Kid A, Amnesiac) thats 50% of thier total output. Id only consider two Queen albums on which the majority of the songs are prog (Queen II, A Night At The Opera) out of 12 albums (if I remember Correctly), which would be about 17%. Right and one last thing, I do believe that Supertramps COTC is in fact 100% prog, yes even standard pop/rock song dreamer because its contextual to the rest of the album, it is after all a concept album. But I guess Supertramp isnt really a prog band. |
|
|
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator Joined: January 30 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2632 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 09:55 |
|
Of the currently posted reviews (i.e., not just ratings), here is how it stands: Queen I - 5 reviews; all 5 remark in some way that it or Queen are not prog Queen II - 4 reviews; 2 say it is prog, 2 question the appellation SHA - 3 reviews; 1 says it is prog, 2 question the appellation NATO - 1 review; says it is prog DATR - 1 review; questions the appellation Thus, of a total of 14 written reviews, 10 question the appellation of "prog" to either the album or Queen or both, and only 4 state categorically that the album or Queen are prog. Not exactly an overwhelming support here. Also, the fact that Queen is on a number of other prog websites is irrelevant: Prog Archives is not those websites. If Prog Archives simply wanted to "go with the pack," it would have added not just Queen but many, many other bands that ALL of you would be shouting down. Peace. |
|
|
|
|
Carpetcrawler
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 30 2005 Location: Switzerland Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 10:23 |
??? (sorry, don't see two reviews questing the appellation..) Of those 4 reviews you read, the first says 'This album is a pure masterpiece man. The album just flows straight the way through (...) March Of The Black Queen - A true prog masterpiece in every sense of the word - 5 stars' the second says 'A naive experiment, a trully prog jewel - 4 stars' the third reviewer doesn't write if it's prog or not, but gives it 5 stars. the forth 'This is probably Queen's most proggressive, experimental and heaviest album - 4 stars' I didn't go through all the other reviews of the other albums.. Edited by Carpetcrawler |
|
|
There is no dark side of the moon. Matter of fact there's all dark!
|
|
|
|
|
CrazyDiamond
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2005 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 466 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 10:53 |
|
AH AH AH watch Prog Archives homepage! All those people reviewing QUEEN ALBUMS, (and giving them 3 4 5 stars!) ! What's happening? Are these guys losing their time in finding Prog elements in albums which have more or less no prog elements? It's so insane, firstly Radiohead, then Queen.. I need a lot of time to appreciate these choices. And please, you, Queen fan, don't try to find prog elements in those albums, don't feel forced to show other people HOW PROG QUEEN ARE! As MAANI said, only one or two songs have these elements, and this doesn't JUSTIFY the inclusion in ROCK ARCHIVES.. EHM .. OPS.. EXCUSE ME.. I MEANT PROG ARCHIVES.. ___BYE___ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carpetcrawler
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 30 2005 Location: Switzerland Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 11:02 |
|
Your opinion, CrazyDiamond...
but there's quite much more than one or two songs having prog elements. and don't get excited so much over that...if Queen stays here in progarchives.com...just ignore em...if the mods decide to kick em out, be happy. BTW, I don't think that Radiohead are prog, but I just ignore it. |
|
|
There is no dark side of the moon. Matter of fact there's all dark!
|
|
|
|
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: February 21 2004 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 15585 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 12:25 |
|
Sorry to labour the point, but just a reminder. DO NOT DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT QUEEN SHOULD BE IN THE ARCHIVES, IN REVIEWS. By all means mention whether you think the ALBUM you are reviewing is prog or not, but please try to segregate forum discussion from album reviews. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 23 2005 Location: The Tardis Status: Offline Points: 8543 |
Posted: July 30 2005 at 12:32 |
|
I love Queen. Probably the best classic rock band of all time. I would consider their first four albums to have quite a few prog elements, and consider Queen II and A Night at the Opera to be full blown progressive rock albums. Starting with a Day at the Races and continuing on, the influence of prog on their music started becoming less and less, although the Flash Gordon soundtrack definitely has some very proggy instrumental work. That being said, I really think it's a toss up as to whether to include Queen in the archives or not. I generally consider them more of a classic rock band with some prog tendencies. But no matter what you call them, they were a great band and I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms about Queen being included here.
|
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 34567 17> |
| 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 |
QUEEN on progarchives
Topic Options
richardh wrote:
) members against the inclusion of Radiohead, band that even being good (Because they are) have IMO less prog elements tha Queen, but had to accept it.