Queen: Another Look

Queen was definitely a POP BAND. But they did have elements of prog in their music. I just don't think of Bo Rap as an "ordinary" pop song, nor "Innuendo", nor many other songs in their catalog (I know Queen VERY WELL). Anyway, they' re not "straight prog".

Certif1ed wrote: porter wrote: Queen was definitely a POP BAND. Wrong. They were definitely a POPULAR band, later in their career. But they did have elements of prog in their music. I just don't think of Bo Rap as an "ordinary" pop song, nor "Innuendo", nor many other songs in their catalog (I know Queen VERY WELL). Anyway, they' re not "straight prog". And who is? Just about every "classic" prog band produced some non prog. Are we talking ratios? (This is a trap).

hey don't kill me!!! I'm a newbie!!!

just kidding...you're right, it's just that I can't consider them as a prog band, I don't know why...they have something that doesn't fit the term "prog"...

just to be clear: I LOVE QUEEN....

Sorry old chap - it's just that the avatar you've chosen has been used by quite a few in the past, and so seems familiar to me.

Don't take it personally - I'm always like this.

I may be crusty and cynical on the outside, but that's nothing compared to the inside...

Threefates, Radiohead had one album with touches of prog -- "OK Computer -- while Queen put out at least half a dozen with a bunch of songs that can't be called anything other than prog.  Consistency of approach makes them more progressive in my book.  Plus, Queen's proggiest albums -- Queen II and Innuendo -- are more complex and more intricate than OK Computer in their own right.

All IMHO, of course.

As for labeling bands I like prog -- I like Zeppelin, for example, or Metallica, and don't think they're progressive (although certainly they have prog touches -- "Battle of Evermore" wouldn't be out of place on a Yes or -- dare I say?:), ELP album, and "And Justice for All" is more progressive than all of Dream Theater's oevre put together).

You can certainly find a lot of prog elements in a lot of bands' music (especially when we're talking about '70s classic rock).  Uriah Heep (which for some reason is listed on this site?), Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Sabbath -- hell, if you look hard enough, "Free Bird" is a multi-part composition with a nice crescendo.

What I think sets Queen apart is the fact that they had put out many truly progressive songs, with untraditional structures, lots of modulation, some counterpoint and quite a few odd meters, and the fact that they've done it consistently over 20 years. 

My personal rule of thumb is: One prog (or with some touches of prog) album does not a prog band make.  For example, Sabbath's "Sabotage" is a progressive album, but it's really the only one that can truly be called that.  Uriah Heep have half a prog album under their belts -- the title track off of "Salisbury."  Consistency, however, should be rewarded.

So to recap: I do hear a lot of truly progressive songs in Queen's body of work.  Queen's sound, however, is so diverse that it's hard to pick out a dominant style.  "We are the Champions" and "We Will Rock You" might be glam, but they've done jazz, country, gospel, rock, pop, heavy metal, disco and a bunch of other things.  But then again, bands that are undisputedly progressive have done stuff that would be hard to call prog -- "Are you Ready Eddie?" anyone?  Or Tull's "Teacher?"  Or "More Fool Me"?  Or, ahem, Asia's entire body of work?

And be careful with Bowie -- his electronic experimentation in the trilogy of "Low," "Lodger" and "Heroes" is pretty interesting.  I don't personally call it prog (to be honest with you, Krautrock and full-on electronic music, like, say, Tangerine Dream, aren't prog to my mind), but a lot of people do consider it to be progressive.

Ruglish:

You go a long way to proving threefates' (and my) point when you note that "Consistency of approach" is (among other critical factors) what makes a band prog.  But that's just it: Queen never approached their composition, arrangement or production from a prog perspective. Rather, their approach was (as Gedhead so quaintly put it) "rock with a twist."  Yes, they used some progressive elements in some songs, and a few songs were full-on prog.  But simply using progressive elements - especially when the approach was not prog - does not make the songs (much less the album) prog.

As for your comment that "One prog album does not a prog band make," I completely agree.  However, that is the criterion by which Max and Rony include new groups on the site: that the group has made at least one truly, wholly prog album.  Yet even here, Queen II (which most "Queen is prog" members here argue is their most prog album) is not "truly, wholly" prog.  There are at least two songs that are not prog, and one that barely straddles the line.

As for NATO, here is what I said about that in another thread:

"Death on Two Legs."  An excellent song, but there is very little about it that is "prog."
"Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon."  No more prog than The Beatles' Honey Pie, of which it is almost a direct rip-off.
"I'm in Love With My Car."  Not a single prog element in it.
"You're My Best Friend."  Straightforward (and not very good) rock song, not an ounce of prog.
"'39."  Cute, and the banjo adds a nice touch.  But prog?  I don't think so.
"Sweet Lady."  As straightforward as straigthtforward rock gets.  Not prog.
"Seaside Rendezvous."  Like "Lazing," a cute Honey Pie-like song.  But no more prog than that.
"Prophet's Song."  Prog without question.
"Love of My Life."  Standard (and arguably sappy) rock ballad.  Not an iota of prog.
"Good Company."  Like '39, nice banjo touch.  But prog?  I think not.
"Bohemian Rhapsody."  Unarguably prog.

And here, from the same thread, was my response to the Radiohead vs. Queen argument, as well as other general comments re Queen:

"There is an inherent fallacy in the Queen vs. Radiohead argument.  Radiohead is a new band.  Thus, the question of whether they are prog is based on two questions: (i) what are their influences (if any) vis-a-vis prog, and (ii) do any of their albums have an internal consistency vis-a-vis the use of those elements of prog that are widely accepted to be important if not crucial to a classification as prog.  In these regards, while the band itself may not be prog as a whole - and certainly did not start out that way - I find it hard to believe that any knowledgeable progger could listen to Kid A and not come away believing it is prog.  It is certainly not pop or straight-forward rock.  And the qualities and elements that make this so are exactly what makes the album prog.

"However, with Queen, we are going backward to a time when prog was in its heyday, with all the seminal bands - KC, PF, Yes, Genesis, ELP, VDGG, JT et al - at their peak (certainly "visibly" if not always musically).  Thus, if we ask the same questions, we get the following answers.

"Queen was not, in any way, influenced by any of the prog bands ascendant during the heyday of prog: they were a rock band with glam tendencies, more heavily influenced by Zep, The Beatles (both harmonies and other), and other straight-forward rock and glam bands.  Yes, Brian May did some unique things with a guitar, and the production values beginning with SHA were amazing.  But those two things alone do not qualify Queen as prog.  As for "internal consistency of prog elements," here again Queen fails the test.  Yes, they played around with some quasi-prog elements, including occasional "symphonic" features.  But so did many bands who NONE of you would accept as being prog.  And even if Queen succeeded in producing a proggish song, it was certainly more by "accident" than by any conscious effort at being "prog."

"Although it is not necessary for every band to make use of  every element of "prog" in order to be classified as such, some of the elements we all agree on are: use of non-standard time signatures; use of non-standard chord progressions; use of non-standard instruments; "symphonic" elements either vis-a-vis an "orchestral quality" to the arrangement or actual use of orchestra or keyboards to create a symphonic effect; extended compositions, usually including extended instrumental passages; use of the recording studio as an integral part of the overall "sound"; and, in some cases, use of a "concept" to tie together compositions that may not otherwise necessarily be connected.

"Queen fails in almost all regards.  There is almost no use of non-standard time signatures.  There is minimal use of non-standard chord progressions.  There is minimal or no use of non-standard instruments.  There is minimal use of "symphonic" elements.  There are almost no extended compositions other than BR, PS and maybe half a dozen others spread over more than 10 albums.  There are very few if any extended instrumental passages.  There are no "concepts" that tie all the songs of an album together - certainly not in any coherent fashion (for comparison, although Supertramp's "Dreamer" is not a prog song, the overall concept of the album ties it in with the rest of the concept).  Indeed, the only element that Queen uses consistently (at least from SHA on) is the use of the recording studio as an integral element of the music.

"As an aside, during the discussion re 10CC and XTC, at least one member argued that the main reason he felt that neither should be included was that neither one had many extended instrumental passages, which he considered an absolutely necessary element of prog.  Queen does not have this either.  So why are they prog?"

Those were my positions.  They have not changed.

Peace.