Queen?Prog Related?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27129
Printed Date: November 25 2024 at 07:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Queen?Prog Related?
Posted By: toolis
Subject: Queen?Prog Related?
Date Posted: August 09 2006 at 12:19
i strongly suggest that you put Queen under the Symphonic Prog genre...
|
Replies:
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 10 2006 at 07:39
|
Why? There was a lot of debate about Queen when they were first added and I think they're in the correct genre. How much of Queen's output can be classified as symphonic prog?
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 10 2006 at 08:22
None, even Queen II is not really symphonic as a whole. But I still think that it's more progressive than many of the albums in the symphonic prog genre ...
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 02:54
ok, i won't argue with what kind of prog Queen are... but prog related? IMHO, from Queen II to Jazz, their music could only be characterized as PROGRESSIVE ROCK...
progression? tech? innovation? which adjective that we use for any 70's prog rock monster doesn't fit?
|
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 02:55
So then why symphonic?
-------------
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 02:58
 toolis wrote:
i strongly suggest that you put Queen under the Symphonic Prog genre... |
Hold on a sec! If there's someone who can put anything under the Symph Prog genre, it's us of the Symph Prog team (aka the Three dread Horsemen). The boss (aka Ivan the Terrible) should be back here by the beginning of next week, and you are most welcome to try and suggest it to him. I think he might leave you in one piece, though I wouldn't count too much on that.... 
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 03:04
Cygnus X-2 wrote:
So then why symphonic?
|
i said ok about the 'symphonic' thing... but not prog related... i don't know who decides about this... maybe, i'm wrong, but to me Queen feel like prog...any prog...
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 06:30
toolis wrote:
ok, i won't argue with what kind of prog Queen are... but prog related? IMHO, from Queen II to Jazz, their music could only be characterized as PROGRESSIVE ROCK...
progression? tech? innovation? which adjective that we use for any 70's prog rock monster doesn't fit?
|
I don't know Queen II which seems to be the album people quote as their most prog but I don't see anything in their other albums that qualify as prog. They may be innovative and ANATO has progressive elements in some songs but can you seriously say that "Jazz" is progressive rock? Is Fat Bottomed Girls prog?
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 06:33
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 07:35
OK Mike, I'll start saving my pennies.
I do have a copy of Jazz though and nobody will ever convince me that it's progressive rock.
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 07:35
|
is 'progressive' a different approach of rock or just a stiff term, anyway?
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 09:57
chopper wrote:
OK Mike, I'll start saving my pennies.
I do have a copy of Jazz though and nobody will ever convince me that it's progressive rock. |
It is not prog. None of the Queen album can be called prog, just songs here and there.
The last good Queen album is Jazz.
I am in the process of writing reviews of 10 CC albums , which I consider Queen's closest rivals and I draw up lots of similarities with their respective careers/discographies until 81, when Mercury did his coming out
>>> the first three 10CC albums reviews are in. Check out next week for the following three.
-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 09:59
|
Ivan is back... I can only imagine the fit he would have, should he get wind of the proposal of moving Queen to Symphonic!
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 11:21
|
Can I suggest a glass of water and a quiet lie down in a darkened room?
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 01:58
The main characteristics of Symphonic are the ones that defined all Progressive Rock: (There's nothing 100% new under the sun) which among others are:
Mixture of elements from different genres.
Complex time signatures.
Lush keyboards.
Explorative and intelligent lyrics, in some cases close to fantasy literature, Sci Fi and even political issues.
Non commercial approach
Longer format of songs
In this specific case the main characteristic is the influence of Classical music....
i rest my case....
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 02:19
|
Queen Symphonic?????
They have some relation with Prog as they have with Blues, Pop and Classic Rock, they are outstanding but they never released a Symphonic track, not even Bohemian Rhapsody which is a Rock song with some stravaganzas.
Their music is great, maybe too good for Prog Related, but they are not Symphonic that's why I don't want The Who to be added, I don't want to see them as related.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 09:50
Queen had many Prog tendencies in their music between their eponymous
debut and A Day at the Races, though not enough to be included in any
other category than Prog Related. There's nothing symphonic about them
really, if there is one "real" Prog sub genre they would fit into it
would be Art Rock, but even that is quite a long stretch.
I'm not even sure that Queen had enough relations to the Progressive
Rock movement to be included as Prog Related. Until anyone proves
otherwise, I'd like to see them out all together. Don't get me wrong
though, I really love them, but they don't really belong here.
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 17:05
Philéas wrote:
Queen had many Prog tendencies in their music between their eponymous debut and A Day at the Races, though not enough to be included in any other category than Prog Related. There's nothing symphonic about them really, if there is one "real" Prog sub genre they would fit into it would be Art Rock, but even that is quite a long stretch.
I'm not even sure that Queen had enough relations to the Progressive Rock movement to be included as Prog Related. Until anyone proves otherwise, I'd like to see them out all together. Don't get me wrong though, I really love them, but they don't really belong here. |
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 18:06
toolis wrote:
The main characteristics of Symphonic are the ones that defined all Progressive Rock: (There's nothing 100% new under the sun) which among others are:
Mixture of elements from different genres: I don't think so, they were eclectic but most of their material is pure Rock with soime Orchestral or vocal arrangements, but the main structure was basically Rock, they also played diffeent genres like Blues and even some Ragtime but rarely mixed them, the most you can say it's that they were versatile.
Complex time signatures. In a few cases but not common in them either.
Lush keyboards For God's sake, they rarely used piano and until Jazz (I believe) they included proudly a phrase "No Synths used in this album".
Explorative and intelligent lyrics, in some cases close to fantasy literature, Sci Fi and even political issues. Intelligent yes but excplorative no way, mostly Love songs with good arrangements.
Non commercial approach Oh man, Queen is the commercial band for excelence, their approach was totally commercial, good music but you can't close your eyes.
Longer format of songs Hey man, they have an average of 10 songs per album in LP format (40 to 45 minutes) , their average was 4 minutes at the most being that they used to have one longer song
In this specific case the main characteristic is the influence of Classical music.... : Using Orchestral arrangements or Operatic vocal extravaganzas is not Classical, the structure of Genesis songs was pure Rock and in cases as S0omebody to Love just Blues.
i rest my case....
Sorry, you don't have a case.
Iván
|
-------------
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: August 14 2006 at 03:22
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
toolis wrote:
The main characteristics of Symphonic are the ones that defined all Progressive Rock: (There's nothing 100% new under the sun) which among others are: Mixture of elements from different genres: I don't think so, they were eclectic but most of their material is pure Rock with soime Orchestral or vocal arrangements, but the main structure was basically Rock, they also played diffeent genres like Blues and even some Ragtime but rarely mixed them, the most you can say it's that they were versatile.
Complex time signatures. In a few cases but not common in them either.
Lush keyboards For God's sake, they rarely used piano and until Jazz (I believe) they included proudly a phrase "No Synths used in this album". Explorative and intelligent lyrics, in some cases close to fantasy literature, Sci Fi and even political issues. Intelligent yes but excplorative no way, mostly Love songs with good arrangements.Non commercial approach Oh man, Queen is the commercial band for excelence, their approach was totally commercial, good music but you can't close your eyes.Longer format of songs Hey man, they have an average of 10 songs per album in LP format (40 to 45 minutes) , their average was 4 minutes at the most being that they used to have one longer songIn this specific case the main characteristic is the influence of Classical music.... : Using Orchestral arrangements or Operatic vocal extravaganzas is not Classical, the structure of Genesis songs was pure Rock and in cases as S0omebody to Love just Blues.i rest my case....
Sorry, you don't have a case.
Iván
|
|
so the problem is that Queen instead of writing epics (irrelevant to being prog or not) they presented all these elements of different genres spread to 10 tracks instead of three even though the total time of their albums is the same to all other 'prog bands' and that instead of keyboards had a looot of piano (you can't argue with that...) playing classical themes and you fail to recognise the 'anti-commercial' Queen of the '73-'79 period but insist on the 80's when basically many bands that are considered prog in here went pop...
THIS IS LAME...
sorry you can't argue my case...
|
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: August 14 2006 at 10:04
|
one of the best Queen songs ever...
Now you realise from whom SOAD were influenced...  |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 14 2006 at 12:28
toolis wrote:
sorry you can't argue my case... |
I'm sorry but, like Ivan says, you have no case. But then again, if you have no case, of course he can't argue it.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 14 2006 at 18:54
toolis wrote:
so the problem is that Queen instead of writing epics (irrelevant to being prog or not)
Epic is a term bad applied to long tracks, epic means much more. The term was taken from the Movie mostly the famous 1950's pictures by Cecil B De Mills, they were long (Most of them) but the term goes further an Epic has to be related to historic, religious or warrior issues, so a song IMO doesn't need to be long to be an Epic, I believe for example that Can-Utility and the Coastliners is a small epic.
Queen didn't had epics (Neither many long songs) and even when it's not mandatory for Symphonic bands to have Epics and long songs, an average of 12 tracks in 40 minutes is not common in Prog.
But this is only ONE of MANY characteristics that Queen doesn't have.
they presented all these elements of different genres spread to 10 tracks instead of three even though the total time of their albums is the same to all other 'prog bands'
You are mixing apples and oranges:
- If you blend multiple genres with Rock in one track, you probably are playing a Progressive song even when not all the bands that blend more than one genre are Prog, but this is one of the main characteristics of Prog, if you don't have it, you are not Prog.
- If you play different genres in different songs, you're nothing but versatile, this is not a blend or mixture of genres, just the capacity of playing different genres of music, Queen did this.
and that instead of keyboards had a looot of piano (you can't argue with that...)
Queen is a band that based their sound mainly in the vocals of Freddie plus the guitar of Brian May and an elaborate choral arrangement, piano (No synths) were only some extra ornament.
playing classical themes
Queen never had a Classical structure, they added some complex choral arrangements and orchestration but this doesn't make them Prog, Paul Mauriat, James Last and Ray Coniff played with full Orchestras and were nothing but Muzac even when one of them performed ELP songs (Heard Lucky Man by one of them and almost induced me to vomit).
and you fail to recognise the 'anti-commercial' Queen of the '73-'79 period but insist on the 80's when basically many bands that are considered prog in here went pop...
In first place I don't care for post "A Day At The Races Queen" or even mentioned it, News of the world had some moments but nothing else and Jazz is only Pop, but even in their early years Queen was a commercial band, lets see:
- Queen I: An eclectic Rock album "Keep Yourself Alive" is simply a Rock song; "Doing all Right" is a piano intro with guitar riffs (Excellent BTW), ballad structure and again piano closing good track with some Prog moments; "Great King Rat" is just Hard Rock with a lot of wah wah guitar; "My Fairy King" is a 100% Prog track but closer to Medieval Folk than to Symphonic; "Liar" is close to Metal; "The Night Comes Down" another weak Rock track with no Prog relation; "Modern Times Rock & Roll" has to be one of the worst Queen tracks a little mediocre Rock track; "Son & Daughter" is a controversial song for those days but nothing special 5 years later, they sounded like Led Zeppelin wannabes; "Jesus", I correct myself, this is the worst track of the album, Brian May sounds awful and "Seven Seas of Rye" is nothing special either, good song but plain Rock.
- Queen II: It's too long and boring to check song by song so lets say this is their most Prog album, but closer to some sort of operatic Hard Rock than to Symphonic, genre with which has absolutely no relation.
- Sheer Heart Attack: Great album but even heavier than the previous, absolutely no relation with Symphonic and again closer to Hard Rock than to Prog.
- A Night at the Opera: Wonderful album, well balanced, very eclectic and versatile, but no relation with Symphonic, "Death on Two Legs", "I'm in Love with my Car" and Sweet Lady" are pure hard rock, "Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon", "Seaside Rendezvous" and "Good Company" is almost Vaudeville or Music Hall tracks; "You're my Best Friend" is a simple tune enhanced by the incredible vocals of Freddie as well as "39"; "Prophet's Song" is a real Art Rock track, very heavy, obscure but again no connection with Symphonic; Bohemian Rhapsody is also a hard rock track with an extravagant operatic intermezzo and moments of Power Ballad; "God Save the Queen" is just a joke. Excellent album, deserves 4 stars (According to our guidelines because it's not a Prog album) but 5 stars in Rock history, despite this credentials, again NOT A SINGLE SYMPHONIC INSTANT.
- A Day at the Races: I rated this album with 4 stars, but again not a single Symphonic moment, if you want more info, check my review because I'm tired of writing . Just say that the closest they get to Symphonic is "Teo Torriate" a traditional Japanese track but due to their ethnic sound could be qualified as Prog Folk material, but only related because at the end is just a ballad. Before you mention it, no, not even "Millionaire Waltz" is Symphonic because they don't blend styles, just play a Vienna like Waltz with Rock instruments. Simply love this album, it was part of my youth but I can't find the slightest Symphonic connection.
All this albums are ESSENTIALLY commercial, great music of course but commercial and their latest albums get poppier each time.
So again; Where in hell can you find the Symphonic sound?
THIS IS LAME...
No, it's not lame, because I'm talking about musical influences and not about personal tastes I can say it's a fact (At least from my perspective and experience) and I guess most people would agree.
sorry you can't argue my case...
Sorry...What case????????
Iván
|
-------------
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: August 14 2006 at 21:41
|
Hmm....
As the person who argued most vociferously not include Queen on PA (and in fact all but left the site over that debate), I will say only this:
If Queen is re-categorized as Symphonic Prog, I will create and introduce into PA a powerful virus that will change the Yes page into the Barry Manilow page, the Genesis page into the Lionel Ritchie page, the King Crimson page into the George Michael page, the Dream Theater page into the Britney Spears page, and the Pink Floyd page into the Kenny G page - just to name a few!
Peace. (or maybe not...)
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 14 2006 at 22:53
maani wrote:
Hmm....
As the person who argued most vociferously not include Queen on PA (and in fact all but left the site over that debate), I will say only this:
If Queen is re-categorized as Symphonic Prog, I will create and introduce into PA a powerful virus that will change the Yes page into the Barry Manilow page, the Genesis page into the Lionel Ritchie page, the King Crimson page into the George Michael page, the Dream Theater page into the Britney Spears page, and the Pink Floyd page into the Kenny G page - just to name a few!
Peace. (or maybe not...) |
Don't need for virtual terroruism Maani
While this team is in charge of Symphonic, Queen won't pass into our beloved genre.
I believe they are OK in Prog Related, they had their proggy moments and a few really Prog songs, but not enough to pass that barrier.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 15 2006 at 03:31
maani wrote:
Hmm....
As the person who argued most vociferously not include Queen on PA (and in fact all but left the site over that debate), I will say only this:
If Queen is re-categorized as Symphonic Prog, I will create and introduce into PA a powerful virus that will change the Yes page into the Barry Manilow page, the Genesis page into the Lionel Ritchie page, the King Crimson page into the George Michael page, the Dream Theater page into the Britney Spears page, and the Pink Floyd page into the Kenny G page - just to name a few!
Peace. (or maybe not...) |
And I, Sir, will be your first supporter in this matter
GG page into Celine Dion
and VdGG into Mariah Carey
-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: August 15 2006 at 04:06
Philéas wrote:
toolis wrote:
sorry you can't argue my case... |
I'm sorry but, like Ivan says, you have no case. But then again, if you have no case, of course he can't argue it.
|
i'm afraid i'm going to need a stronger arguement my friend...
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: August 15 2006 at 05:16
first of all, i would like to thank Ivan for not ignoring my opinion and fairly took a lot of time of his own and eloquently argued with me...
additionaly, i want to apologise about the "LAME" thing.. nobody's opinion is lame.. terribly sorry, i got carried away...
now, about the Queen been prog issue...let's forget the arguement whether Queen are Symph,i obviously didn't convince anyone and you are probably right... technicalities and definitions aside.. i have been listening to prog for only 10 years, but from the first time i listened to early Queen, i said to myself: "now,
that's what i call good prog..."
i mean, their sound is unique, they all are excellent players, they have all these different styles from track to track, they really progressed from album to album, and, let's face it, the essence of their music, the diathesis their music emits, if you like, is absolutely progressive....
apart from that, it's really unfair for Queen to be under the 'prog related' category, given that IMHO, their music is far more progressive and really closer to other bands considered prog... and i'm pretty sure that all of you agree that compared to many of the bands/artists that you oppose being in the PA, Queen are more progressive...
i don't know what else to say.. it's not that the world will stop turning if Queen remain 'prog related' not that if they go 'X prog' i will finally go to sleep.. it's sth i strongly believe and i wanted to know your thought pattern you followed and placed Queen there...
i think, i'll finish my coffee and go 'kill' "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" with my guitar...
be back soon.. apparently...
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 15 2006 at 09:42
toolis wrote:
i'm afraid i'm going to need a stronger arguement my friend... |
It wasn't an arguement, just a comment in general  
toolis wrote:
i mean, their sound is unique, they all are excellent players, they
have all these different styles from track to track, they really
progressed from album to album, and, let's face it, the essence of
their music, the diathesis their music emits, if you like, is
absolutely progressive....
apart from that, it's really unfair for Queen to be under the 'prog
related' category, given that IMHO, their music is far more progressive
and really closer to other bands considered prog... and i'm pretty sure
that all of you agree that compared to many of the bands/artists that
you oppose being in the PA, Queen are more progressive...
|
Yes, Queen were progressive in their own right, but progressive and
Prog are not the same thing. Prog is a style of music, and a band can
be progressive without being prog. A good example is Rage Against the
Machine. Progressive, but very, very far from Prog.
Furthermore, I don't think it's unjust at all to have Queen in Prog
Related. The category was created to house bands just like Queen.
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: August 15 2006 at 19:11
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: August 16 2006 at 09:25
maani wrote:
Ivan and Sean:
[IMG]height=17 alt=Hug src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley31.gif" width=45 align=absMiddle>
Peace. |
huh?
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: August 18 2006 at 02:41
|
I would put Queen into a new sub genre 'glam prog' (..or preferably out the site altogether...even The Sweet were proggier)
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 18 2006 at 08:38
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Queen Symphonic????? |
You know, I would say that about almost every rock band filed under symphonic - except The Enid.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
They have some relation with Prog as they have with Blues, Pop and Classic Rock, |
Don't forget Opera, early 1900s popular music idioms, and, of course, please don't forget Prog Rock itself - even their very first album shows more than just signs of being influenced by the overblown pomposity of Prog Rock - and the varied influences, richly complex harmonies, time changes etc all add up to music well within Prog Rock's remit.
Glam is what they looked like, Rock is what they sounded like, but Prog Rock is what they played - even though it upsets a lot of ostriches to think that.
They're not my favourite band - but it beggars belief that there are still people who question the status of Queen, who blatantly - even cheekily - out-progged many prog bands.
/rant (not aimed at you personally, of course, Ivan - it just developed like that in this post!).
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
they are outstanding but they never released a Symphonic track, not even Bohemian Rhapsody which is a Rock song with some stravaganzas. |
Actually, Bohemian Rhapsody goes many miles beyond the standard rock song - it is, indeed, a true Rhapsody.
Yes, it's got an intro - but a very intricate one with a cappella harmonies in a blend of simple classical and barbershop, but it breaks down almost instantly. When the piano line joins, it is playing something completely different to the vocals, and then when Freddie takes a lead line, it's not the first verse, but a continuation of the multi-threaded introduction.
The "first verse" is completely different in structure to the "second" - if separate verses can truly be marked out - and where is the chorus?
Answer: There isn't one.
Just unfolding material that develops crazily with new ideas being thrown into the mix all the time.
I''l save the rest for a review - but standard Rock Song BH most definitely ain't.
It's more elegant a composition than almost anything else a rock band produced in 1975, and both structurally and musically it's way beyond the capabilities of most Prog Rock bands - in terms of composition.
I'd bet that Gentle Giant wish they'd written it - it's in the same league.
But I agree - I would never call it symphonic.
richardh wrote:
I would put Queen into a new sub genre 'glam prog' (..or preferably out the site altogether...even The Sweet were proggier) |
Not even close.
The Sweet vs Queen - Blockbuster vs Bohemian Rhapsody?
Good joke, Richard
-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: August 18 2006 at 13:51
sniff... a tear runs down my cheek... at last, an ally... thank you my friend, Certif1ed... thank you...
as Freddie would say: "You're my best friend"...
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 18 2006 at 16:49
I don't want to spoil the friendship at this delicate, nebulous phase, but I was actually agreeing with Ivan that Queen shouldn't be filed under symphonic...
But they're definitely Prog.
-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: August 18 2006 at 16:58
maani wrote:
Hmm....
As the person who argued most vociferously not include Queen on PA
(and in fact all but left the site over that debate), I will say
only this:
If Queen is re-categorized as Symphonic Prog, I will create and
introduce into PA a powerful virus that will change the
Yes page into the Barry Manilow page, the Genesis page into
the Lionel Ritchie page, the King Crimson page into the George
Michael page, the Dream Theater page into the Britney Spears page, and
the Pink Floyd page into the Kenny G page - just to name a few!
Peace. (or maybe not...) |
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 18 2006 at 19:17
Certif1ed wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Queen Symphonic????? |
You know, I would say that about almost every rock band filed under symphonic - except The Enid.
Potato, Patata...at the end is the same, we both agreed many times that the words Symphonic and classical have different meanings than the ones we use them for, but all the Prog community gets them and it's enough.}
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
They have some relation with Prog as they have with Blues, Pop and Classic Rock, |
Don't forget Opera, early 1900s popular music idioms, and, of course, please don't forget Prog Rock itself - even their very first album shows more than just signs of being influenced by the overblown pomposity of Prog Rock - and the varied influences, richly complex harmonies, time changes etc all add up to music well within Prog Rock's remit.
If youcheck out my previous pósts, probably the word that I repeated more in this thread is OPERA and if you read the first line of my quote which I have bolded, the PROG genre is the first one I mention.
Glam is what they looked like, Rock is what they sounded like, but Prog Rock is what they played - even though it upsets a lot of ostriches to think that.
Never mentioned Glam, they sounded as Rock, but they played Prog, Rock, Blues, Musical, Vaudeville or Music Hall style, etc.
They're not my favourite band - but it beggars belief that there are still people who question the status of Queen, who blatantly - even cheekily - out-progged many prog bands.
Queen outprogged many bands, but this is not a conytest, IMO they don't fit in any other sub-genre other than Prog Related, because they had some Prog moments but not a 100% Prog band.
/rant (not aimed at you personally, of course, Ivan - it just developed like that in this post!).
I know, I never asked to remove them from Prog Related, but I insist they are not remotely Symphonic.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
they are outstanding but they never released a Symphonic track, not even Bohemian Rhapsody which is a Rock song with some stravaganzas. |
Actually, Bohemian Rhapsody goes many miles beyond the standard rock song - it is, indeed, a true Rhapsody.
Going beyond doesn't necesarilly mean Progressive Rock, and much less Symphonic
Yes, it's got an intro - but a very intricate one with a cappella harmonies in a blend of simple classical and barbershop, but it breaks down almost instantly. When the piano line joins, it is playing something completely different to the vocals, and then when Freddie takes a lead line, it's not the first verse, but a continuation of the multi-threaded introduction.
Agree totally
The "first verse" is completely different in structure to the "second" - if separate verses can truly be marked out - and where is the chorus?
Answer: There isn't one.
Just unfolding material that develops crazily with new ideas being thrown into the mix all the time.
I''l save the rest for a review - but standard Rock Song BH most definitely ain't.
It's more elegant a composition than almost anything else a rock band produced in 1975, and both structurally and musically it's way beyond the capabilities of most Prog Rock bands - in terms of composition.
I'd bet that Gentle Giant wish they'd written it - it's in the same league.
Honestly I like Bohemian Rhapsody more than Gentle Giant, but stoill I believe it's a rock track with operatic stravaganza that ends into a power ballad.
But I agree - I would never call it symphonic.
Neither do I.
Iván
|
-------------
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: August 20 2006 at 01:34
so, i guess the bottom line is that Queen are definitely not symph prog and that for most (well, all but two) people have only prog elements in their music, hence 'prog related' is the most suitable genre for them..
i'll stand by my opinion and continue to consider Queen as "Prog Monsters"... maybe i'm right, maybe you're wrong... who knows...
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 20 2006 at 17:37
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Honestly I like Bohemian Rhapsody more than Gentle Giant, but stoill I believe it's a rock track with operatic stravaganza that ends into a power ballad.
|
No - it's not a standard rock track by any stretch of the imagination, as my analysis shows.
To complicate matteres a little, given the subject of this thread, Rhapsodies fall under the remit of Symphonic, as symphonic composers also composed Rhapsodies and would schedule them into the same programmes.
And it emphatically does not end with a ballad, power or otherwise. A ballad is a completely different form.
I must admit, I would prefer to listen to Gentle Giant than Bohemian Rhapsody - but only because I've heard the latter soooo many times
Queen II still gives me goosebumps with its pure progginess, tho'
-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 21 2006 at 02:33
Certif1ed wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Honestly I like Bohemian Rhapsody more than Gentle Giant, but still I believe it's a rock track with operatic stravaganza that ends into a power ballad.
|
No - it's not a standard rock track by any stretch of the imagination, as my analysis shows.
Standard no way, I agree with you and never said it Cert, it's complex, but still IMO it's mainly Rock with an Operatic interlude.
Iván
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 21 2006 at 03:17
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Potato, Patata...at the end is the same, we both agreed many times that the words Symphonic and classical have different meanings than the ones we use them for, but all the Prog community gets them and it's enough.}
Actually, not all the Prog community "gets them" - that is a generalisation of the "I've always believed this, therefore everyone does" type - hence this discussion. If the term was so clear-cut, everyone would know what it meant.
And the pronunication is not the issue here
As Erik has already intimated in his re-labelling suggestions, it's time for change - and we should use the terms where they have proper meaning rather than in some loose and haphazard fashion that only leads to confusion.
Art Rock, for example, is not bands like Roxy Music and their ilk - no matter who the term was first applied to. The two terms already have serviceable meanings, and there's no need to pollute them.
The definition on this site agrees, on the whole, with my take:
"Art Rock
This was the original name of progressive rock music."
...but then gets horribly confused:
We now use this within the umbrella of Prog or Progressive Rock as category that is used to refer to explorative works by bands that cross different genres or have an experimental nature that is not specific to one genre. Some of these bands may have had roots in other prog categories in their early years but later became more AOR or mainstream or vise versa starting out mainstream then becoming prog. These bands are considered primarily to be prog bands."
See how confused and vague this description is? (with apologies to the author, who I know put a lot of work into it).
Likewise symphonic.
Using the word in the way this site uses it, Queen are without a doubt symphonic in their early works - and some of their later material.
"In this specific case the main characteristic is the influence of Classical music (...) using normally more complex structure than other related sub-genres (cut unnecessary uncomplimentary reference to Neo-Prog)"
Opera is part of the Classical repertoire.
Queen used very complex structures - and frequently on Queen I, II and ANATO.
This description - the main characteristic makes Gentle Giant Symphonic beyond question.
Let's go back and look at Toolis' earlier post:
toolis wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
toolis wrote:
The main characteristics of Symphonic are the ones that defined all Progressive Rock: (There's nothing 100% new under the sun) which among others are: Mixture of elements from different genres: I don't think so, they were eclectic but most of their material is pure Rock with soime Orchestral or vocal arrangements, but the main structure was basically Rock, they also played diffeent genres like Blues and even some Ragtime but rarely mixed them, the most you can say it's that they were versatile. |
Proportion of material is not important for classification - you know that, Ivan. If it was, then we would be considering Genesis for eviction...
"Bohemian Rhapsody", as a single example, mixes up the styles, as does "Prophet's Song" - Queen did mix and match, but it depends how pedantic you want to be about it. If you take the hard line route, then you could make the same argument about almost any Prog band - take ELP (I wish someone would...)
toolis wrote:
Complex time signatures. In a few cases but not common in them either.
|
|
I've never had this hangup for complex time sigs, and I don't think it's a qualifier - just a characteristic, as in free jazz and even complex electronica and pop music - so not really an important issue. [/quote>
| | | | | | toolis wrote:
Explorative and intelligent lyrics, in some cases close to fantasy literature, Sci Fi and even political issues. Intelligent yes but excplorative no way, mostly Love songs with good arrangements. |
Come on, man! On their early albums you have Sci-fi themes all over the place, and only the occasional love song. Genesis and ELP weren't above doing Love songs either.
And the lyrics are very deep and explorative - whatever makes you think they're not?
[QUOTE=toolis style=vertical-align: text-bottom; /> toolis alt=Originally posted by toolis>
Lush keyboards For God's sake, they rarely used piano and until Jazz (I believe) they included proudly a phrase No Synths used in this album |
No - there's piano all over their early work, e.g. Seven Seas of Rye (on their debut, and Freddie played as well as many Prog Rockers - if not better than a lot of them.
The phrase clearly states keyboards, so synths are not a pre-requisite for a symphonic sound.
The no synths phrase is actually a bit of a lie, if you think about it - an electric guitar makes a synthesised sound.
And multiple tape loops give a synthetic sound equal to any synth band of the time - half the time Brian May's orchestrated guitar combined with the complex hamonies in the vocal parts make a thick wall of sound that is most certainly lush.
[QUOTE=toolis style=vertical-align: text-bottom; /> toolis>
Lush keyboards For God's sake, they rarely used piano and until Jazz (I believe) they included proudly a phrase No Synths used in this album |
No - there's piano all over their early work, e.g. Seven Seas of Rye (on their debut, and Freddie played as well as many Prog Rockers - if not better than a lot of them.
The phrase clearly states keyboards, so synths are not a pre-requisite for a symphonic sound.
The no synths phrase is actually a bit of a lie, if you think about it - an electric guitar makes a synthesised sound.
And multiple tape loops give a synthetic sound equal to any synth band of the time - half the time Brian May's orchestrated guitar combined with the complex hamonies in the vocal parts make a thick wall of sound that is most certainly lush.
[QUOTE=toolis wrote:
Explorative and intelligent lyrics, in some cases close to fantasy literature, Sci Fi and even political issues. Intelligent yes but excplorative no way, mostly Love songs with good arrangements. |
Come on, man! On their early albums you have Sci-fi themes all over the place, and only the occasional love song. Genesis and ELP weren't above doing Love songs either.
And the lyrics are very deep and explorative - whatever makes you think they're not?
[QUOTE=toolis wrote:
Non commercial approach Oh man, Queen is the commercial band for excelence, their approach was totally commercial, good music but you can't close your eyes. |
