There's a similar thread which asks if Queen are a prog band. I think that a question on the album level makes more sense ...

discuss!

BTW: I think that Queen II is a very progressive album, artistically it is on the same level as the other genre "benchmarks" of the 70s.

YES IS IT .AND IT IS THE MOST PROGRESSIVE ALBUM  QUEEN EVER MADE.

Empathy wrote: I was just listening to Queen II the other day, and it really struck me how uneven the "proginess" on that album is. Everytime I hear "The March of the Black Queen" (neo-classical prog masterpiece) seque into "Funny How Love Is" (Phil Spector-esque "wall of sound", with painfully trite lyrics), it completely baffles me. I'd say it's largely progressive, with the following exceptions: Some Day One Day, Loser in the End, and Funny How Love Is

Fair comment, but wouldn't you agree that many ELP albums are peppered with 'non prog' songs?

I think Queen II is arguably their most 'proggy' album, there are some tracks on there that I would regard as`pure prog, but I wouldn't say that about most of their albums. Great band, nonetheless.

Empathy wrote: "Funny How Love Is" (Phil Spector-esque "wall of sound", with painfully trite lyrics), it completely baffles me.

'Funny How Love is' is one of my favourite Queen songs and because of the way they recorded it I can't listen to 'March of the Black Queen' without it, The sudden contrast in sound, mood and style is very uplifting, Actually, you could say that for most of the album!!

But yes, I very much think the first two Queen albums are very strong progressive rock albums. 'A Night at the Opera' has huge prog influences but I wouldn't say it's a fully progressive album, Some may disagree though.

Queen are excellent, No mater what genre they are put under, They're one of the greatest bands ever.

Winter Wine wrote: Empathy wrote: "Funny How Love Is" (Phil Spector-esque "wall of sound", with painfully trite lyrics), it completely baffles me.  'Funny How Love is' is one of my favourite Queen songs and because of the way they recorded it I can't listen to 'March of the Black Queen' without it, The sudden contrast in sound, mood and style is very uplifting, Actually, you could say that for most of the album!! But yes, I very much think the first two Queen albums are very strong progressive rock albums. 'A Night at the Opera' has huge prog influences but I wouldn't say it's a fully progressive album, Some may disagree though. Queen are excellent, No mater what genre they are put under, They're one of the greatest bands ever.

I cant listen to 'March..' without it being preceeded by 'Nevermore'  A beautiful song which is like an intro into 'MOTBQ'

I dont like 'Funny how love is' much, though..

Blacksword wrote: Winter Wine wrote: Empathy wrote: "Funny How Love Is" (Phil Spector-esque "wall of sound", with painfully trite lyrics), it completely baffles me.  'Funny How Love is' is one of my favourite Queen songs and because of the way they recorded it I can't listen to 'March of the Black Queen' without it, The sudden contrast in sound, mood and style is very uplifting, Actually, you could say that for most of the album!! But yes, I very much think the first two Queen albums are very strong progressive rock albums. 'A Night at the Opera' has huge prog influences but I wouldn't say it's a fully progressive album, Some may disagree though. Queen are excellent, No mater what genre they are put under, They're one of the greatest bands ever. I cant listen to 'March..' without it being preceeded by 'Nevermore'  A beautiful song which is like an intro into 'MOTBQ' I dont like 'Funny how love is' much, though..

Really? That's a bit odd to me!

There's a lot of emotion in those short two tracks, They're both excellent really. Queen II is an all round masterpiece in general.

Empathy wrote: Blacksword wrote: Fair comment, but wouldn't you agree that many ELP albums are peppered with 'non prog' songs? I've actually managed to steer clear of ELP thus far, believe it or not.

Well done!  

Seek a download of 'Jeremy ender' or 'Are you Ready Eddie' and you'll see what I mean.

What's a "progressive" album?

(seriously!)

The album is so good.

Does it really matter is it prog or not?

SHEER MAGIC!

ElwoodHerring wrote: Empathy wrote: ElwoodHerring wrote: Been searching for a good copy of the painting: I reckon this is the best one available: http://artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=10876 - http://artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=10876 The painting is incredibly detailed, even the best jpeg doesn't do it justice. It's obvious why Freddie was inspired to write the song after seeing this masterpiece! Maybe I haven't looked hard enough... but I don't see a satyr peering under a Lady's gown. I must admit I can't either, but... who cares? Great song, great album, great art! What more can you ask for?

Thanks for the links to the excellent info, ElwoodHerring!

I've loved that song for 20 years and only just reached a better understanding of it today ... these are the reasons I love helping out with this site!

And btw, to get back on track, yes Queen II is a progressive rock album ...

Peter Rideout wrote: What's a "progressive" album? (seriously!)

I believe that the album is the unit that we should talk about when judging the progressiveness of an artist/band. We can talk about single tracks, groups of albums from a certain period of time or the complete discography of an artist, but IMO a single album is the only meaningful unit.

Are Genesis are progressive band? Tough question. Is Selling England by the Pound a progressive album? Much easier!

Edit: To answer your "question": I think that a "progressive" album is an album which contains mostly progressive songs/tracks.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Peter Rideout wrote: What's a "progressive" album? (seriously!) I believe that the album is the unit that we should talk about when judging the progressiveness of an artist/band. We can talk about single tracks, groups of albums from a certain period of time or the complete discography of an artist, but IMO a single album is the only meaningful unit. Are Genesis are progressive band? Tough question. Is Selling England by the Pound a progressive album? Much easier! Edit: To answer your "question": I think that a "progressive" album is an album which contains mostly progressive songs/tracks.

Just as "apple sauce" is sauce made from apples, eh?

(Good thing I know what an "apple" is....)

Try to squirm out from under the issue, will you?

Oh no you don't! Take this!

Squish! (Mmmm... apple sauce!)

      The Ogre Battle is heavy metal. The rest of the black side is prog.

       From Father to Son is Prog, the rest of the white side is not.

        I've said.

Tormato wrote:           The Ogre Battle is heavy metal. The rest of the black side is prog.        From Father to Son is Prog, the rest of the white side is not.         I've said.

I think 'White Queen: As it began' is rather prog..

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ the everlasting "What is progressive" discussion ... is not the topic here.

My point is that the concept of "progressive" re music is highly subjective, and therefore, in order to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not an album is "progressive," we must first agree upon the notion of "progressive." (But people DON'T agree on that.)

If you ask me "are you a good man?," I must find out just what "good" means to you, before I can meaningfully answer you.

First, clarify the terms of reference. Language, and art, unlike (for example) math or science, is open to interpretation by the individual.

"Progressive" is a matter of opinion, not verifiable fact.

To truly communicate, we must speak the same language!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ ok, got you. But the fact that I'm trying to move the discussion about the "progressiveness" from the artist to the album level doesn't have anything to do with the word "progressive" per se. Or in other words: It is still off topic.

I don't get you. The meaning of "progressive" is absolutely crucial to this topic.

The thread's question is "Is Queen II a progressive album?"

We can establish that it is an album by Queen, and their second. (That is a matter of fact.)

Is it "progressive?" That is a matter of opinion, because "progressive" is OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

Artist or album level, it doesn't matter. Until you define "progressive," you will merely get an exchange of opinions, with each opinion determined by each person's individual notion of "progressive."

(You will prove nothing, but merely ascertain the majority opinion of those who see fit to answer.)

For the record, Q2 is much more akin to metal than prog in my book, but then, you believe that metal can be prog, while I think that metal and prog are two very different things.

You hear "prog metal," I hear metal with keyboards.

Do you see the problem? We (and not just you and I, but all of us here) cannot even agree on the meaning or boundaries of the term you are using, so all that I can say is: I don't regard it as a "progressive" album, whereas you (likely) do. We are no further ahead. In the end, there is no right or wrong (or objective "truth") on this matter, only the opportunity to find out the opinions of those who respond, and whether the majority opinion is "yes" or "no." 

Much like the polls which ask "who is the best drummer" you prove nothing (except the relative popularity of a given opinion among those who choose to respond). 

I'm not trying to be difficult, or irritate you Mike, but the term of reference central to your question is UNDEFINED --  it's an unknown quantity.

In the 1800s, whales were commonly thought to be fish. To establish whether they are fish or mammals, people first had to agree upon the respective defining qualities of fish and mammals. With those qualities firmly established, naturalists could then prove that a whale is in fact a mammal. First, you attain consensus on the precise meanings of the terms of reference, then -- and only then -- can you prove whether or not something meets the established criteria.

Here though, we are dealing with art, not science. (I can PROVE that a whale gives milk, bears live young, is warm-blooded, and has lungs to breathe air, and is thus, by established definition, a mammal.) Our interpretation of art, and our response to it, is an individual, subjective thing.

Who is the "best" guitarist? Define and agree upon what constitutes "best." (impossible, as it's an intangible matter of taste, of emotion)

Is this album progressive? Define and agree upon what constitutes "progressive." (again, impossible, as it's a matter of taste and perception)

A painting makes you cry, but it makes me laugh. Which reaction is "right?" (They BOTH are!)

A song gives you pleasure, but it gives me pain. Both reactions are "true."

Peter Rideout wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ ok, got you. But the fact that I'm trying to move the discussion about the "progressiveness" from the artist to the album level doesn't have anything to do with the word "progressive" per se. Or in other words: It is still off topic. I don't get you. The meaning of "progressive" is absolutely crucial to this topic. The thread's question is "Is Queen II a progressive album?"

No - the question is "Is Queen II a progressive album?", as opposed to "Is Queen a progressive band?". For both these questions it is important to define the word "progressive", as is for any other music related question in this forum ... and that's why I say that it is off topic in this thread, and should be discussed in a thread "What does progressive mean?", which there are plenty of already.

Peter Rideout wrote: We can establish that it is an album by Queen, and their second. (That is a matter of fact.) Is it "progressive?" That is a matter of opinion, because "progressive" is OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. Artist or album level, it doesn't matter. Until you define "progressive," you will merely get an exchange of opinions, with each opinion determined by each person's individual notion of "progressive." (You will prove nothing, but merely ascertain the majority opinion of those who see fit to answer.)

It DOES matter whether you discuss the artist or one specific album. It does matter whether you discuss Close to the Edge or the entire Yes discography. It matters whether you discuss Queen II or all Queen albums including Hot Space.

BTW: I don't want to "prove" anything ... these matters can't be proven (or disproven), as they are not clearly defined. Perhaps it would make sense to you if I asked "Do you think that Queen II is a progressive album?"?

Peter Rideout wrote: For the record, Q2 is much more akin to metal than prog in my book, but then, you believe that metal can be prog, while I think that metal and prog are two very different things. You hear "prog metal," I hear metal with keyboards. Do you see the problem? We (and not just you and I, but all of us here) cannot even agree on the meaning or boundaries of the term you are using, so all that I can say is: I don't regard it as a "progressive" album, whereas you (likely) do. We are no further ahead. In the end, there is no right or wrong (or objective "truth") on this matter, only the opportunity to find out the opinions of those who respond, and whether the majority opinion is "yes" or "no."  Much like the polls which ask "who is the best drummer" you prove nothing (except the relative popularity of a given opinion among those who choose to respond).  I'm not trying to be difficult, or irritate you Mike, but the term of reference central to your question is UNDEFINED --  it's an unknown quantity.

So is life. That doesn't mean that we can't talk about it.

Peter Rideout wrote: In the 1800s, whales were commonly thought to be fish. To establish whether they are fish or mammals, people first had to agree upon the respective defining qualities of fish and mammals. With those qualities firmly established, naturalists could then prove that a whale is in fact a mammal. First, you attain consensus on the precise meanings of the terms of reference, then -- and only then -- can you prove whether or not something meets the established criteria. Here though, we are dealing with art, not science. (I can PROVE that a whale gives milk, bears live young, is warm-blooded, and has lungs to breathe air, and is thus, by established definition, a mammal.) Our interpretation of art, and our response to it, is an individual, subjective thing. Who is the "best" guitarist? Define and agree upon what constitutes "best." (impossible, as it's an intangible matter of taste, of emotion) Is this album progressive? Define and agree upon what constitutes "progressive." (again, impossible, as it's a matter of taste and perception)

These questions are really just asking for opinions. Do we have to add "IMO" to each of our sentences here? It should be implicitly clear that anything beyond facts here is only an opinion. The result of any "best" poll is only a majority based suggestion, and everybody knows that - no need to spell it out IMO.

Peter Rideout wrote:   A painting makes you cry, but it makes me laugh. Which reaction is "right?" (They BOTH are!) A song gives you pleasure, but it gives me pain. Both reactions are "true."

Sure. So if we proceed with this poll we will in the end have determined if generally people would (or would not) call Queen II "progressive".