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.

He , I like Queen, but let's keep this site clean. I'm still puzzled about Meshuggah.

Bye        

Proglover wrote: 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.

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.

Once they did "Fat Bottomed Girls," that was it, no Prog Archives for them! 

I was going to agree with you until you started disputing Pink Floyd

I was even going to let you get away with daring to suggest that Hawkwind might not be all that proggy...

Drattit.

I still agree - but the case has got to be made a sight better than that, in order to get people agreeing that one of the biggest stadium rock bands of all time could be considered a prog band.

Yes, they produced more and better prog than many so-called prog bands - but they're more famous for the non-prog stuff.

Go on... apply that argument to Genesis

I do think that Queen should be included, though Uriah Heep are by far the most progressive of the 70s heavy rock bands; just check out 'Salisbury' and then say that they aren't progressive...and also, I think it's almost a certainty that Uriah Heep were a big influence on Queen- multi layered harmonies, a pop sensibility, flamboyant frontman, fanciful lyrics...sound familiar? Therefore I think its odd to detest Uriah Heep when Queen do a similar job. Similarly with Styx, though its more likely that Styx were inspired by Queen, and as much as I love them, I admit the vocals are an acquired taste.

Hawkwind are part of the 'space rock' category, and I think their inclusion is unarguable, as would most fans of the genre, I believe, as they were a genuinely progressive band who pushed many boundaries in their day.

Asia and Supertramp I guess you could argue about, but Traffic were often perceived as perhaps the first 'progressive rock' band.

I think also that jazz rock should be here as well, and yes, certainly Miles Davis could be included but there's something hugely problematic with that, and that is that there were about a hundred pure jazz albums that bear no relation to progressive rock or fusion in any way. This would open the floodgates to lots of protests about 'jazz albums shouldn't be here- they aren't prog' and 'if Miles Davis' jazz albums are here, what about Mingus, Coltrane et al'.

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.

The "Prog music lounge" is for discussing bands who have been included in the Archives. Bands who have not been included, including those whom people feel should be included, should be discussed in the "non-prog music lounge" until such time as the are added.

Queen have been discussed many times already by the way.

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.

Okay, I one one of the biggest Queen fans out there, and I'm not just talking about their 70's material, but everything they released (except perhaps the Hot Space album...everyone makes mistakes).  Certainly their second offering "Queen II" could be considered somewhat of a prog album, but if you take into account what prog music is all about, I really don't see Queen fitting in too well!!

I see the arguement between Uriah Heep and Styx and Floyd, and for one second I can't imagine how Queen fits into this?  I also love Heep, but one only needs to listen to things like "Salisbury" and "July Morning" to see that Heep were 10 times proggier than Queen ever was.  Floyd???  Not prog???  Then I must have lost my mind somewhere along the way, because I can't name a Floyd album (MAYBE Momentary Lapse or Division Bell) that isn't prog.  As for Styx, I also love most of what they have done, but they had at least settled into being an art rock band which is at least a cousin to prog!!!  Listen to Styx's "Crystal Ball" and see what it takes to be a great art rock band!!!!

Back to the subject...Queen is probably one of the most important bands of the last 30 years, and this is not an opinion, this can be backed up by any number of facts.  The most impressive being that Queen have stolen the number one slot from the Beatles as being the most charted band in Europe!!!!!!!!  However, Queen are still not a prog band, just a simple hard rock / pop rock band.  They were the best at what they did and that's that...do I want to see Queen on this site???  Nope, that's what the Queen sites are for, I'll stick to those!!!!

glass house wrote: I'm still puzzled about Meshuggah.

So am I. I don't know what to make of them.

I won't fight for them, mostly I enjoy them as a fantastic fun standart rock band with lots of different styles of music, all played in a distintive Queen sound.

Reasons in favor of Queens inclusion.

1. some albums have very a progressive approach.
    Queen I, Queen II, Sheer Heartattack, A Night At The Opera, A Day At The Races, Flash Gordon, The Miracle, Innuendo

2. all albums have at least one or two progressive (semi-progressive) songs.
    It's Late, More Of That Jazz, Play The Game, Save Me, Body Language, Radio GaGa, It's A Hard Life, Who Wants To Live Forever, One Vision.

3. Brian's guitar, freddie's piano, and the symphonised sound they produce.

4. They were influenced by progressive rock bands and had several influences on current progressive bands (Yes's Trevor Rabin, A.C.T. and more)

Reasons against Queen's inclusion.

Very commercial music, usualy quite simple songs (but who said prog rock had to be complicated), Queen said themselves they are not prog (but so does R. Fripp).

Overall their first couple, and their last two (living Freddie) albums are quite if not overly progressive, but their more commercial output, may scare people from including them.

I'll leave it to the powers that be, I would be happy to see them on the site, if not it's ok with me since I do not count them among the most important progressive bands anyway.
when included, I will issue some reviews

Yes, I suppose the Genesis argument is valid, but the main difference is that absolutely no-one would question that their early stuff is progressive, though there are many people who would argue that nothing Queen ever did is; I'm not one of these anti-Queen people, though...

Ok People....I read all your responses......and ONCE AGAIN...they are filled with DOUBLE STANDARDS..........you can't say that Queen shouldn't be on this site, because of this reason, when bands like Genesis, YES, and ELP are guilty of the same things. Like I said...if you are going to set up rules, then you have to abide by them.....I mean, to be quite honest if the site were SERIOUS, about actually show-casing PROGRESSIVE ROCK music..then please for goodness sakes, get albums like 'Love Beach', "Big Generator", "90125", "Talk", "Civilian", "Giant For a Day", "And Then There Were Three" (And every other Genesis POP album), OFF THE SITE!!! ...cause they AIN'T PROG.

And I find it funny, that people use Queen's big commercial success as a reason why they shouldn't be on the site, when some of your biggest Prog heros are GUILTY of selling out to commercialism...ie YES, Gentle Giant, Genesis, ELP, the list goes on and on. Hypocrisy I tell ya!! And lets not forget the HUGE commercial success of Pink Floyd..hell, "Dark Side of the Moon" was more than an album, it was part of the culture of the youth of that time.

Also, here we have Robert Fripp, who openly hates and challenges the use of the term Prog to describe his music, and yet you so openly claim him for this site.

Overall, there were quite a few close minded responses, and as I said DOUBLE STANDARDS!! Oh and by the way, anyone who calls Queen a hard rock band is DELUSIONAL....have you listened to Queen??????? ...if anything, and I say this with the utmost respect, Queen is sort of a vaudeville act...kinda hard to catorgorize. There are so many different styles of music on ONE Queen album that you leave saying, what the hell are they, and what are they trying to say???

AND no one mentioned the similarities between Freddie Mercury and Peter Gabriel.

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

Certif1ed wrote: 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.

Couldn't be more true. The fraction of prog albums in a band’s total production is really a ridiculous measure, given what happened to Genesis. Genesis was the flagship of '70s prog, but the general public may not have started knowing them until airplay of Land of Confusion and after Phil Collins’ solo success. Queen was also a flagship of '70s prog, 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. I think that it is the early commercial success (only two years after their debut) and media attention that more than anything else keeps Queen away from this site.

I must say, that I feel that Queen is an example of a band that is a victim of it's own commercial success. Let the truth be told, with the exception of Bohemian Rhapsody, Queen's BEST work, no one ever heard on a mass level, because those particular songs WERE NOT COMMERCIAL.....while other songs such as 'We Will Rock You', and I dare say "We Are The Champions' were poster songs for the band, and those songs certainly did not represent Queen's best work.

And once again let me state for the record, and truly without any regard to other's opinions (because I feel so strongly about this), it to downright DUMB to keep Queen away from this site because of the media attention they received, or their commercial success....ummm, or ANY OTHER reason that people are NOT saying.....and I think you get my drift. Based on some of the criteria that you guys are giving as to why Queen should not be on this site, I think in doing so you could also strike half of your progressive rock heros from this site as well.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FREDDIE MERCURY AND PETER GABRIEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........two great front men, I certainly see the similarities...does anyone else?

Proglover wrote: 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.

Don't really

Your a Queen fan then; a Freddy man ,do not ever compare that posturing primadonna with Gabriel,Secondly You detest the great Uriah Heep with the best rock vocalist ever and you come on here expounding your garbage.Queen emulated and loved Uriah Heeps vocal harmonies so much they copied them, read their history.Have your opinion, but tread wearily on here or else the slaughtering sycthe awaits you.Uriah Heep you detest; then book yourself into your nearest priory to get some serious help.This tape for you will self destruct in 5 seconds   not.!!

Incidentally, what version of Uriah Heep have you heard??  there is only one with David Byron and Ken Hensley between 1970 to 76. The rest doesn't matter.

Trouserpress wrote: Biggles wrote: Please explain to me how "Echoes," "Atom Heart Mother Suite," and "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" are not prog. Likewise could you please explain to me how albums like "Queen II", "A Night at the Opera" and "Sheer Heart Attack" aren't prog?

Did I ever say they weren't?

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.

bluetailfly wrote: 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.

^ i'm not sure you did that on purpose but it is funny!!!(fat bottomed.....butt)

There were plenty of Queen song prior to FBG that were not prog (in fact the vast majority of the albums ANATO, ADATR, NFTW and Jazz! songs ) but were full-blown pop, very clever pop.

Funny that FBG (and Bicycle Race) came out a few years before Freddy did his coming out! I was starting to wonder why they called themselves Queen by the time this album came out. Great poster too! Jazz! is IMHO their better album after Queen II.

Where queen completely lost it was with the following The Game. That was disc BS and the following one made me puke!!! If Queen is not in the PA , it is probably mostly due to those albums.

In either case , there are much proggier groups that still not included.

Someone suggested that PA were running out of space. Is this so mailto:M@X - M@X ?

bluetailfly wrote: 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.

Doesn't humour belong in music?

Sean Trane wrote: 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.

News OF The World is a great album. Even MORE so if you skip the first two tracks.

ShrinkingViolet wrote: Pink Floyd are more prog than Queen will ever be. They are for sure no way on God's green earth prog...perhaps a bit at the start of their career but they aren't prog...enough said oh and as for Uriah Heep....Queen doesn't even begin to compare to the excellence of the mighty Heep ya nut case .

Depends how you compare them.

Queen certainly wrote more prog than Uriah Heep, and were more accomplished musicians.

Whether they were taking the p*** or not, the music speaks for itself - VERY high quality, technically speaking.

Whether you like it or not makes no difference to the high technical quality - you might just as well say that you don't like Mozart.

Dick Heath wrote: trailrunner wrote: 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...............?)

I think the label "Bogus Pomp" fit's Bohemian Rhapsody more than the Zappa tune of that name ... Bohemian Rhapsody is great, but I wouldn't call it prog.

Queen II is prog, but that's one album out of more than a dozen others which aren't progressive.

Trouserpress wrote: Biggles wrote: Trouserpress wrote: Biggles wrote: Please explain to me how "Echoes," "Atom Heart Mother Suite," and "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" are not prog. Likewise could you please explain to me how albums like "Queen II", "A Night at the Opera" and "Sheer Heart Attack" aren't prog? Did I ever say they weren't? Nope. Just doing a gentle parry. I would never question Floyd's status as a prog band and the chap who did so hasn't helped his case. I do however think Queen ought to be acknowledged as rather a proggy band.

Actually, I think quite a good argument can be made for why Pink Floyd is not prog rock in the classic sense of the term. Because I am time pressed at the moment, I will only propose that Pink Floyd is not prog for two reasons: (1) their aesthetic is nihilistic and (2) there music is primarily blues-based (and I don't mean that as a negative criticism at all).

Now I know there's all these sub-genres, but I submit that Pink Floyd is not a primary example of a prog rock band.

WOW...I guess I made alot of people angry with my post. Gee, I guess I should keep my mouth shut and stop spewing the "garbage" (as one member said) from my mouth........HAHAHAHA...YEAH RIGHT!!!!............PISS OFF!!..........There is no reason to apologize or feel guilty for my feelings, and I refuse to do so.....NOW IT'S MY TURN TO FIGHT BACK!!!!!!!!. First off.........any one who calls Uriah Heep a GREAT band is CRAZY and out of their minds. Let me give you guys a little education....YES is a great prog band, Gentle Giant is a great prog band, ELP and King Crimson are great prog bands, Jethro Tull and Genesis are great prog bands,  Frank Zappa is a f**kING GENIUS.......URIAH HEEP?!?!?!?!?!?!...........not in your wildest dreams.....Uriah Heep couldn't lace Gentle Giant's shoes......PERIOD!!!! I listened to an album of Uriah today...and admittedly the vocals were excellent, but you CAN NOT compare them to YES or ELP or King Crimson.....

Secondly, my feelings about Pink Floyd are MY FEELINGS, and I am entitled to those feelings. I refuse to bow and worship at their feet when there are tons of bands who SMOKE them musically and technically. You think that I'm the ONLY ONE who doubts whether or not Pink Floyd is truly progressive???????????..........Get a clue people.

Thirdly...when people stupidly say.."I like Queen, but lets keep this site clean".......what the f**k does that mean?!?!?!?!.....I don't get that at all. Fourthly, the person who called Freddie Mercury a posturing primadonna, and basically suggested that its an insult to compare him to Peter Gabriel is an idiot. That comment is soooo loaded with biased, and prejudice feelings that it is ridiculous. Its amazing how someone can get torn apart for simply expressing their views...this is just like all you FOOLS who went on that PUNK site like dumbasses and started bashing punk......what is your problem????????? Prog Fans need to GET OVER THEMSELVES...PERIOD. You are no better because you listen to prog music.

Oh yeah and the guy who is HARPING on Fat Bottomed Gilrs....GET OVER IT!!....Why dont you concentrate on all the crappy albums your progressive rock heros made.

Easy Livin wrote: The "Prog music lounge" is for discussing bands who have been included in the Archives. Bands who have not been included, including those whom people feel should be included, should be discussed in the "non-prog music lounge" until such time as the are added. Queen have been discussed many times already by the way.

My apologies, as you'll see I should have said this thread should be in the "Bands and albums" section.

Here's a link to the guidelines, which I've now re-read myself!

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7859 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7859

Proglover wrote: Oh yeah and the guy who is HARPING on Fat Bottomed Gilrs....GET OVER IT!!....Why dont you concentrate on all the crappy albums your progressive rock heros made.

Hey, I'm that guy, and I can't get over it, it's that bad, it's beyond bad. Even Yes and Genesis and ELP and on and on never consciously created a complete piece of crap like that. I'm not getting over it, so you better get over my not getting over it, bub!   

bluetailfly wrote: Proglover wrote: Oh yeah and the guy who is HARPING on Fat Bottomed Gilrs....GET OVER IT!!....Why dont you concentrate on all the crappy albums your progressive rock heros made. Hey, I'm that guy, and I can't get over it, it's that bad, it's beyond bad. Even Yes and Genesis and ELP and on and on never consciously created a complete piece of crap like that. I'm not getting over it, so you better get over my not getting over it, bub!

If you noticed, I NEVER defended Fat Bottomed Girls.....I too think its a horrible song.......but my point was, that should be NO reason not to include atleast the first 4 or five albums by Queen on this site.........and if you are going to talk about CONSCIOUSLY creating crap.....look at all your progressive rock heros who CONSCIOUSLY made the decision to SELL OUT, and be COMMERCIAL, and write BAD ALBUMS.....hey, Fat Bottomed Girls is ONE bad song on a relatively GOOD Album.....name one good thing about "Civilian" by Gentle Giant and "Then There Were Three...." by Genesis......I certainly can't. SO DEAL WITH THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Can you all stop bashing Fat Bottomed Girls.

My girlfriend is crying now, and I have to make it up to her, and I don't have the energie man

Fragile wrote: Proglover wrote: WOW...I guess I made alot of people angry with my post. Gee, I guess I should keep my mouth shut and stop spewing the "garbage" (as one member said) from my mouth........HAHAHAHA...YEAH RIGHT!!!!............PISS OFF!!..........There is no reason to apologize or feel guilty for my feelings, and I refuse to do so.....NOW IT'S MY TURN TO FIGHT BACK!!!!!!!!. First off.........any one who calls Uriah Heep a GREAT band is CRAZY and out of their minds. Let me give you guys a little education....YES is a great prog band, Gentle Giant is a great prog band, ELP and King Crimson are great prog bands, Jethro Tull and Genesis are great prog bands,  Frank Zappa is a f**kING GENIUS.......URIAH HEEP?!?!?!?!?!?!...........not in your wildest dreams.....Uriah Heep couldn't lace Gentle Giant's shoes......PERIOD!!!! I listened to an album of Uriah today...and admittedly the vocals were excellent, but you CAN NOT compare them to YES or ELP or King Crimson..... Secondly, my feelings about Pink Floyd are MY FEELINGS, and I am entitled to those feelings. I refuse to bow and worship at their feet when there are tons of bands who SMOKE them musically and technically. You think that I'm the ONLY ONE who doubts whether or not Pink Floyd is truly progressive???????????..........Get a clue people. Thirdly...when people stupidly say.."I like Queen, but lets keep this site clean".......what the f**k does that mean?!?!?!?!.....I don't get that at all. Fourthly, the person who called Freddie Mercury a posturing primadonna, and basically suggested that its an insult to compare him to Peter Gabriel is an idiot. That comment is soooo loaded with biased, and prejudice feelings that it is ridiculous. Its amazing how someone can get torn apart for simply expressing their views...this is just like all you FOOLS who went on that PUNK site like dumbasses and started bashing punk......what is your problem????????? Prog Fans need to GET OVER THEMSELVES...PERIOD. You are no better because you listen to prog music. Oh yeah and the guy who is HARPING on Fat Bottomed Gilrs....GET OVER IT!!....Why dont you concentrate on all the crappy albums your progressive rock heros made. Where were you torn apart you were simply told some of the facts of life You were the one dismissing Uriah Heep.Comparing Mercury to Gabriel well if you really believe that good luck to you.Freddie had a unique singing voice but one I can listen in small doses.But if the only way you can get a point across is by the use of expletives and perambulating into insults then perhaps you should' look at yourself' for you are the person trying to ram your very subjective points down other's throats.Whilst I think your comments on Uriah heep are miles out theyr'e yours and I don't recall them being compared to Yes and ELP.Uriah Heep were a great rock band with a propensity to prog on some tunes.Try swallowing an iceberg oh and another thing most of the people on here do not need enforced education from anyone.

First off JERK.....in regards to Freddie and Peter I was making reference to their showmanship, which of course no one got. BOTH were theatrical and had amazing showmanship. THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!!! I was not suggesting that Freddie was BETTER than Peter Gabriel....I was trying to be a peace maker in the midst of a consciously heated post that I knew would get people angry, and make some sort of connection even with those who disagreed with me...and as far as Freddie is concerned.....have some damn respect for the dead....It is absolutely disgraceful.

SECONDLY, why the hell shouldn't I dismiss Uriah Heep....IN MY OPINION THEY ARE NOT GREAT...PERIOD!!!!!!! And when you use words like "great"......you are applying a certain standard of excellence, which would automatically place them in direct reflection to those prog bands who were the pioneers of the genre, and Uriah Heep DOES NOT MATCH UP.

And no....wrong AGAIN, I was not trying to ram my opinion down anyone's throat....so lets get it straight.......I wanted someone to give me a GOOD reason why they weren't on the site, AND I HAVE YET TO RECEIVE A GOOD ANSWER.....and instead i got people insulting Freddie Mercury which once again is f**king disgusting.....and criticizing me for having a mind and speaking my opinions. I react to what I have been giving...if you are going to make stupid offensive comments expect me to respond in turn.

Proglover wrote: 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.

You lost all you credibility here... I mean, with fisrt that kind of annoying message yelling to add Queen, then those kind of lame arguments. Man, please...

Also, just check out even a little bit, and you'll find half of this forum section are topic asking to add Queen, so no need to start another one...

Proglover wrote: Fragile wrote: Proglover wrote: WOW...I guess I made alot of people angry with my post. Gee, I guess I should keep my mouth shut and stop spewing the "garbage" (as one member said) from my mouth........HAHAHAHA...YEAH RIGHT!!!!............PISS OFF!!..........There is no reason to apologize or feel guilty for my feelings, and I refuse to do so.....NOW IT'S MY TURN TO FIGHT BACK!!!!!!!!. First off.........any one who calls Uriah Heep a GREAT band is CRAZY and out of their minds. Let me give you guys a little education....YES is a great prog band, Gentle Giant is a great prog band, ELP and King Crimson are great prog bands, Jethro Tull and Genesis are great prog bands,  Frank Zappa is a f**kING GENIUS.......URIAH HEEP?!?!?!?!?!?!...........not in your wildest dreams.....Uriah Heep couldn't lace Gentle Giant's shoes......PERIOD!!!! I listened to an album of Uriah today...and admittedly the vocals were excellent, but you CAN NOT compare them to YES or ELP or King Crimson..... Secondly, my feelings about Pink Floyd are MY FEELINGS, and I am entitled to those feelings. I refuse to bow and worship at their feet when there are tons of bands who SMOKE them musically and technically. You think that I'm the ONLY ONE who doubts whether or not Pink Floyd is truly progressive???????????..........Get a clue people. Thirdly...when people stupidly say.."I like Queen, but lets keep this site clean".......what the f**k does that mean?!?!?!?!.....I don't get that at all. Fourthly, the person who called Freddie Mercury a posturing primadonna, and basically suggested that its an insult to compare him to Peter Gabriel is an idiot. That comment is soooo loaded with biased, and prejudice feelings that it is ridiculous. Its amazing how someone can get torn apart for simply expressing their views...this is just like all you FOOLS who went on that PUNK site like dumbasses and started bashing punk......what is your problem????????? Prog Fans need to GET OVER THEMSELVES...PERIOD. You are no better because you listen to prog music. Oh yeah and the guy who is HARPING on Fat Bottomed Gilrs....GET OVER IT!!....Why dont you concentrate on all the crappy albums your progressive rock heros made. Where were you torn apart you were simply told some of the facts of life You were the one dismissing Uriah Heep.Comparing Mercury to Gabriel well if you really believe that good luck to you.Freddie had a unique singing voice but one I can listen in small doses.But if the only way you can get a point across is by the use of expletives and perambulating into insults then perhaps you should' look at yourself' for you are the person trying to ram your very subjective points down other's throats.Whilst I think your comments on Uriah heep are miles out theyr'e yours and I don't recall them being compared to Yes and ELP.Uriah Heep were a great rock band with a propensity to prog on some tunes.Try swallowing an iceberg oh and another thing most of the people on here do not need enforced education from anyone.     First off JERK.....in regards to Freddie and Peter I was making reference to their showmanship, which of course no one got. BOTH were theatrical and had amazing showmanship. THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!!! I was not suggesting that Freddie was BETTER than Peter Gabriel....I was trying to be a peace maker in the midst of a consciously heated post that I knew would get people angry, and make some sort of connection even with those who disagreed with me...and as far as Freddie is concerned.....have some damn respect for the dead....It is absolutely disgraceful. SECONDLY, why the hell shouldn't I dismiss Uriah Heep....IN MY OPINION THEY ARE NOT GREAT...PERIOD!!!!!!! And when you use words like "great"......you are applying a certain standard of excellence, which would automatically place them in direct reflection to those prog bands who were the pioneers of the genre, and Uriah Heep DOES NOT MATCH UP. And no....wrong AGAIN, I was not trying to ram my opinion down anyone's throat....so lets get it straight.......I wanted someone to give me a GOOD reason why they weren't on the site, AND I HAVE YET TO RECEIVE A GOOD ANSWER.....and instead i got people insulting Freddie Mercury which once again is f**king disgusting.....and criticizing me for having a mind and speaking my opinions. I react to what I have been giving...if you are going to make stupid offensive comments expect me to respond in turn.

may I say I don't like your tone, and method of arguing

tuxon wrote: Proglover wrote: Fragile wrote: Proglover wrote: WOW...I guess I made alot of people angry with my post. Gee, I guess I should keep my mouth shut and stop spewing the "garbage" (as one member said) from my mouth........HAHAHAHA...YEAH RIGHT!!!!............PISS OFF!!..........There is no reason to apologize or feel guilty for my feelings, and I refuse to do so.....NOW IT'S MY TURN TO FIGHT BACK!!!!!!!!. First off.........any one who calls Uriah Heep a GREAT band is CRAZY and out of their minds. Let me give you guys a little education....YES is a great prog band, Gentle Giant is a great prog band, ELP and King Crimson are great prog bands, Jethro Tull and Genesis are great prog bands,  Frank Zappa is a f**kING GENIUS.......URIAH HEEP?!?!?!?!?!?!...........not in your wildest dreams.....Uriah Heep couldn't lace Gentle Giant's shoes......PERIOD!!!! I listened to an album of Uriah today...and admittedly the vocals were excellent, but you CAN NOT compare them to YES or ELP or King Crimson..... Secondly, my feelings about Pink Floyd are MY FEELINGS, and I am entitled to those feelings. I refuse to bow and worship at their feet when there are tons of bands who SMOKE them musically and technically. You think that I'm the ONLY ONE who doubts whether or not Pink Floyd is truly progressive???????????..........Get a clue people. Thirdly...when people stupidly say.."I like Queen, but lets keep this site clean".......what the f**k does that mean?!?!?!?!.....I don't get that at all. Fourthly, the person who called Freddie Mercury a posturing primadonna, and basically suggested that its an insult to compare him to Peter Gabriel is an idiot. That comment is soooo loaded with biased, and prejudice feelings that it is ridiculous. Its amazing how someone can get torn apart for simply expressing their views...this is just like all you FOOLS who went on that PUNK site like dumbasses and started bashing punk......what is your problem????????? Prog Fans need to GET OVER THEMSELVES...PERIOD. You are no better because you listen to prog music. Oh yeah and the guy who is HARPING on Fat Bottomed Gilrs....GET OVER IT!!....Why dont you concentrate on all the crappy albums your progressive rock heros made. Where were you torn apart you were simply told some of the facts of life You were the one dismissing Uriah Heep.Comparing Mercury to Gabriel well if you really believe that good luck to you.Freddie had a unique singing voice but one I can listen in small doses.But if the only way you can get a point across is by the use of expletives and perambulating into insults then perhaps you should' look at yourself' for you are the person trying to ram your very subjective points down other's throats.Whilst I think your comments on Uriah heep are miles out theyr'e yours and I don't recall them being compared to Yes and ELP.Uriah Heep were a great rock band with a propensity to prog on some tunes.Try swallowing an iceberg oh and another thing most of the people on here do not need enforced education from anyone.     First off JERK.....in regards to Freddie and Peter I was making reference to their showmanship, which of course no one got. BOTH were theatrical and had amazing showmanship. THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!!! I was not suggesting that Freddie was BETTER than Peter Gabriel....I was trying to be a peace maker in the midst of a consciously heated post that I knew would get people angry, and make some sort of connection even with those who disagreed with me...and as far as Freddie is concerned.....have some damn respect for the dead....It is absolutely disgraceful. SECONDLY, why the hell shouldn't I dismiss Uriah Heep....IN MY OPINION THEY ARE NOT GREAT...PERIOD!!!!!!! And when you use words like "great"......you are applying a certain standard of excellence, which would automatically place them in direct reflection to those prog bands who were the pioneers of the genre, and Uriah Heep DOES NOT MATCH UP. And no....wrong AGAIN, I was not trying to ram my opinion down anyone's throat....so lets get it straight.......I wanted someone to give me a GOOD reason why they weren't on the site, AND I HAVE YET TO RECEIVE A GOOD ANSWER.....and instead i got people insulting Freddie Mercury which once again is f**king disgusting.....and criticizing me for having a mind and speaking my opinions. I react to what I have been giving...if you are going to make stupid offensive comments expect me to respond in turn. may I say I don't like your tone, and method of arguing

You can say and think whatever the hell you want

Borealis wrote: Proglover wrote: 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. You lost all you credibility here... I mean, with fisrt that kind of annoying message yelling to add Queen, then those kind of lame arguments. Man, please... Also, just check out even a little bit, and you'll find half of this forum section are topic asking to add Queen, so no need to start another one...

CREDIBILITY??????????......HAHAHA, and I suppose YOU have credibility because you think Pink Floyd in Proegressive?????????...............Get over yourself!!

And first off.....I wasn't yelling to get Queen on the site......NOW Im yelling yes...cause now Im pissed off...........God Forbid I have an opinion, God forbid I live in America and think I have the right to express myself.....And whatever hidden bias you people have against Queen, you need to get over it.....I dont know...was it beacause Freddie was gay???.....I mean not to imply anything, but Im trying to figure out the strong response. Im not one to sit back and let people attack me, so as long as responses like this continue...expect me to respond IN TURN......thanks.

Oh dear !!!a rather over expressive, loud, abrasive, American. Well whoopee for Mr oversensitive let's hear your pearls.Why don't you roar out in a galvanic stentorian haze whilst bombasting the Universe with your heavy duty retorts..But hey, I'm a very ameniable guy what is a Jerk????? Is this new? is it English? Or is it just part of your mannerisms? You could always just bludgeon your way through your posts like some runaway freight train.Ever heard of exchanging views without lambasting others, methinks not.But you have fun.

Fragile wrote: Oh dear !!!a rather over expressive, loud, abrasive, American. Well whoopee for Mr oversensitive let's hear your pearls.Why don't you roar out in a galvanic stentorian haze whilst bombasting the Universe with your heavy duty retorts..But hey, I'm a very ameniable guy what is a Jerk????? Is this new? is it English? Or is it just part of your mannerisms? You could always just bludgeon your way through your posts like some runaway freight train.Ever heard of exchanging views without lambasting others, methinks not.But you have fun.

Why point out that he's an American? That's rather bigoted thinking. I'm an American and I take offense to that. I wouldn't derogativly identify you by nationality, I find that offensive.

Proglover wrote: And first off.....I wasn't yelling to get Queen on the site......NOW Im yelling yes...cause now Im pissed off...........God Forbid I have an opinion, God forbid I live in America and think I have the right to express myself.....And whatever hidden bias you people have against Queen, you need to get over it.....I dont know...was it beacause Freddie was gay???.....I mean not to imply anything, but Im trying to figure out the strong response. Im not one to sit back and let people attack me, so as long as responses like this continue...expect me to respond IN TURN......thanks.

Everyone has the right to express themselves just as everyone has the right to be stupid.You abuse both these rights in equal measure.Well at least you are consistent.

I shouldnt be harsh because you probably only learned to read and write recently and are now so over-excited with the concept that you now believe you should write as much as possible,regardless of quality,just in case this new found skill disappears overnight.

Well good luck to you.

Tony R wrote: Proglover wrote: And first off.....I wasn't yelling to get Queen on the site......NOW Im yelling yes...cause now Im pissed off...........God Forbid I have an opinion, God forbid I live in America and think I have the right to express myself.....And whatever hidden bias you people have against Queen, you need to get over it.....I dont know...was it beacause Freddie was gay???.....I mean not to imply anything, but Im trying to figure out the strong response. Im not one to sit back and let people attack me, so as long as responses like this continue...expect me to respond IN TURN......thanks. Everyone has the right to express themselves just as everyone has the right to be stupid.You abuse both these rights in equal measure.Well at least you are consistent. I shouldnt be harsh because you probably only learned to read and write recently and are now so over-excited with the concept that you now believe you should write as much as possible,regardless of quality,just in case this new found skill disappears overnight. Well good luck to you.

I find it funny....how I express my opinion which I have every right to do.....THEN, I am bashed over the head for doing so........then I defend myself.....and now I'm the bad guy......

I am trying really hard to be as calm as humanly possible.....I dont want to make enemies, but I refuse to be attacked in this manner. It is quite rude and disgusting. I regret I ever started this post. If I would have known that I would have received such close minded and hateful responses I would have chosen another topic. Obviously Queen is a sore subject with you guys. I still stand by opinions and I do not apologize for them. They are my beliefs and I shall hold on to them with conviction.

Proglover wrote: Tony R wrote: Proglover wrote: And first off.....I wasn't yelling to get Queen on the site......NOW Im yelling yes...cause now Im pissed off...........God Forbid I have an opinion, God forbid I live in America and think I have the right to express myself.....And whatever hidden bias you people have against Queen, you need to get over it.....I dont know...was it beacause Freddie was gay???.....I mean not to imply anything, but Im trying to figure out the strong response. Im not one to sit back and let people attack me, so as long as responses like this continue...expect me to respond IN TURN......thanks. Everyone has the right to express themselves just as everyone has the right to be stupid.You abuse both these rights in equal measure.Well at least you are consistent. I shouldnt be harsh because you probably only learned to read and write recently and are now so over-excited with the concept that you now believe you should write as much as possible,regardless of quality,just in case this new found skill disappears overnight. Well good luck to you. I find it funny....how I express my opinion which I have every right to do.....THEN, I am bashed over the head for doing so........then I defend myself.....and now I'm the bad guy...... I am trying really hard to be as calm as humanly possible.....I dont want to make enemies, but I refuse to be attacked in this manner. It is quite rude and disgusting. I regret I ever started this post. If I would have known that I would have received such close minded and hateful responses I would have chosen another topic. Obviously Queen is a sore subject with you guys. I still stand by opinions and I do not apologize for them. They are my beliefs and I shall hold on to them with conviction.

Cool,I counted eight lines without a single over-the-top reaction to another forum member.And the word "regret" too.

Congratulations,you've been cured.

Thank you Fragile.....I respect and admire the way that you responded. I can do nothing but thank you.

However I was not so found of Tony R's response.....what exactly have I been cured off??

Make no mistake I am not folding by any stretch of the imagination. Queen should still be on this site, and Pink Floyd is not as Progressive as people think....Just ask Peter Banks

Proglover wrote: However I was not so found of Tony R's response.....what exactly have I been cured off??

Aggressive posts,of course!

Fragile wrote: To an extent I would agree with you on Floyd they are not full blown prog and they were ever the media's favourites over here in the U.K. when they turned so vehemently on Yes especially around 1975.I would endorse anyone who believes a band should be on here but some of the bands being forwarded is just plain silly.For me Wishbone Ash should be on here alone for 'Argus' and their 1st two albums are superb works too.

This is news to me.......they turned on YES???.....why?...what happened?...Or am I misreading what you wrote?

The media turned on Yes,ELP and Genesis.

By this time ELP were more like a vaudeville act than a serious band.

One could level this accusation,up to a point,against Queen.I feel the 1st two albums would qualify them for a spot on these archives, and one or two songs from SHA and ANATO.However the bulk of their output is not Prog Rock or even "progressive" IMO,especially as they drifted towards Stadium Rock excess in the early 80's.

You cannot expect a band to be included here just because it leaned occasionally (weighed against their whole output) towards Prog Rock.There are bands on this site who, I feel, should not be here-Styx and Tiles spring to mind.Unfortunately for you Proglover,Max gets to decide what is and isnt prog rock around here and he's obviously not a fan of Queen....

Proglover wrote: Make no mistake I am not folding by any stretch of the imagination. Queen should still be on this site, and Pink Floyd is not as Progressive as people think....Just ask Peter Banks

I could care less what Peter Banks think - Pink Floyd are, in fact, more progressive than most people think - even people that find them progressive.

BTW, Bluetailfly, It is not true to say that their music is blues based any more than it is true to say that any other prog rock band's music is blues based.

Floyd started as a blues band, it's true, and have paid homage to their roots in many songs - not least "Seamus", but to say that their music is "primarily blues based" is to either misunderstand blues, or to misunderstand its prevalence in most rock music.

I must say that the arguments on personal style are very boring - can't we just talk about the MUSIC?

Tony R wrote: The media turned on Yes,ELP and Genesis. By this time ELP were more like a vaudeville act than a serious band. One could level this accusation,up to a point,against Queen.I feel the 1st two albums would qualify them for a spot on these archives, and one or two songs from SHA and ANATO.However the bulk of their output is not Prog Rock or even "progressive" IMO,especially as they drifted towards Stadium Rock excess in the early 80's. You cannot expect a band to be included here just because it leaned occasionally (weighed against their whole output) towards Prog Rock.There are bands on this site who, I feel, should not be here-Styx and Tiles spring to mind.Unfortunately for you Proglover,Max gets to decide what is and isnt prog rock around here and he's obviously not a fan of Queen....

Actually I would disagree.....I would say that atleast the first 5 albums by Queen are certainly more than just rock albums. MAYBE they aren't prog, but they CERTAINLY aren't just rock. Certainly rock is in their but it is distributed with many other different genres. Isn't that what prog is all about? As far as vaudeville acts go, I would perhaps label Queen a vaudeville act. You say that Queen drifted towards Stadium rock....well to a point I agree and to a point I disagree. If you are saying that they became more commercial in the 80s, well my response is..."who didn't?".....did not Yes and Genesis and Gentle Giant and ELP sell out in the 80s, infact they sold out in the late 70s mostly. This is one example of double standards that I was talking about. You can't say that Queen can't be on this site when some bands on the site are guilty of the same things. I would definitely place Queen's 70s work as art, and well crafted music that was certainly more than just rock. As far as the stadium thing goes...yes it is true Queen sold out stadiums, but that's only because they got so popular that the venues that they played needed to be bigger. I don't think that Queen actively sort to be a stadium act, however they didn't look twice either, but then again what band would if they got the chance to play to larger audiences? (however they did actively seek to change their sound in the 80s...that I agree to)

If we are punishing Queen because of their popularity thats unfair. Lets not forget that YES sold out stadiums too.....and infact in 1979 when punk and disco were at its height YES still sold out every place they played. And lets not forget that in the early 70s YES were the biggest band around, infact at one time they were even more popular than Led Zeppelin and that's saying ALOT. Do I believe that Queen's work diminished in the 80s?...YES I DO...but then again I believe that the work of YES, Gentle Giant, ELP, Jethro Tull, and Genesis diminished in the 80s too!!

Certif1ed wrote: Proglover wrote: Make no mistake I am not folding by any stretch of the imagination. Queen should still be on this site, and Pink Floyd is not as Progressive as people think....Just ask Peter Banks I could care less what Peter Banks think - Pink Floyd are, in fact, more progressive than most people think - even people that find them progressive. BTW, Bluetailfly, It is not true to say that their music is blues based any more than it is true to say that any other prog rock band's music is blues based. Floyd started as a blues band, it's true, and have paid homage to their roots in many songs - not least "Seamus", but to say that their music is "primarily blues based" is to either misunderstand blues, or to misunderstand its prevalence in most rock music.   I must say that the arguments on personal style are very boring - can't we just talk about the MUSIC?

Not to once again stir the pot....but it is quite freightening the responses I am getting back about Floyd. Can't we agree to disagree??....Peter Banks and I don't believe that Floyd is as Progressive as many think, and you do....that's fine. Why are you guys taking it so personally??....It's a forum, where we discuss our feelings and opinions. That's all I want to do. And when someone says I lose credibility for thinking the way I do, it causes me to lose all faith in America......I mean under the law the Ku Klux Klan can say and believe whatever they want and we support their right to it, but I can't say that I dont think that Pink Floyd is progressive without getting my head chopped off??.....I will lay off the personal attacks if I am allowed to express my opinion freely without being attacked. Thanks guys, that's all I ask.

Well, you have the right to claim Pink Floyd is not progressive, but they also have the right to argue with you about it.

BTW, Pink Floyd are progressive.

Welcome to a real discussion forum!!!

Tip: Good debating avoids personal attacks 

Proglover wrote: Tony R wrote: The media turned on Yes,ELP and Genesis. By this time ELP were more like a vaudeville act than a serious band. One could level this accusation,up to a point,against Queen.I feel the 1st two albums would qualify them for a spot on these archives, and one or two songs from SHA and ANATO.However the bulk of their output is not Prog Rock or even "progressive" IMO,especially as they drifted towards Stadium Rock excess in the early 80's. You cannot expect a band to be included here just because it leaned occasionally (weighed against their whole output) towards Prog Rock.There are bands on this site who, I feel, should not be here-Styx and Tiles spring to mind.Unfortunately for you Proglover,Max gets to decide what is and isnt prog rock around here and he's obviously not a fan of Queen.... Actually I would disagree.....I would say that atleast the first 5 albums by Queen are certainly more than just rock albums. MAYBE they aren't prog, but they CERTAINLY aren't just rock. Certainly rock is in their but it is distributed with many other different genres. Isn't that what prog is all about? As far as vaudeville acts go, I would perhaps label Queen a vaudeville act. You say that Queen drifted towards Stadium rock....well to a point I agree and to a point I disagree. If you are saying that they became more commercial in the 80s, well my response is..."who didn't?".....did not Yes and Genesis and Gentle Giant and ELP sell out in the 80s, infact they sold out in the late 70s mostly. This is one example of double standards that I was talking about. You can't say that Queen can't be on this site when some bands on the site are guilty of the same things. I would definitely place Queen's 70s work as art, and well crafted music that was certainly more than just rock. As far as the stadium thing goes...yes it is true Queen sold out stadiums, but that's only because they got so popular that the venues that they played needed to be bigger. I don't think that Queen actively sort to be a stadium act, however they didn't look twice either, but then again what band would if they got the chance to play to larger audiences? (however they did actively seek to change their sound in the 80s...that I agree to) If we are punishing Queen because of their popularity thats unfair. Lets not forget that YES sold out stadiums too.....and infact in 1979 when punk and disco were at its height YES still sold out every place they played. And lets not forget that in the early 70s YES were the biggest band around, infact at one time they were even more popular than Led Zeppelin and that's saying ALOT. Do I believe that Queen's work diminished in the 80s?...YES I DO...but then again I believe that the work of YES, Gentle Giant, ELP, Jethro Tull, and Genesis diminished in the 80s too!!

Good post Proglover.

I'm a huge QUEEN fan. Saw them three times in the 70's, before they went too far to the left.

The first four have progability and should be here. I still support a "PROG ALBUMS BY NON-PROG BANDS" section of the archive.

LED ZEPPELIN have a couple of PROG albums and those discs should be here.

It's not about "all or none" just the proggy stuff.

danbo wrote: I'm a huge QUEEN fan. Saw them three times in the 70's, before they went too far to the left. The first four have progability and should be here. I still support a "PROG ALBUMS BY NON-PROG BANDS" section of the archive. LED ZEPPELIN have a couple of PROG albums and those discs should be here. It's not about "all or none" just the proggy stuff.

THANK YOU!!!!!! ...........You are the only person to see my view of things......Thank God that I'm not in a world alone. May the heavens be praised!! I think you also make an excellent point.....this is somewhat the danger in catogorizing and labeling and excluding......I believe that music is music, but I feel that we run into trouble when we draw lines in the sand, and to an extent become elitist...like our classical and jazz brothers and sisters. I would be a liar if I said I didn't believe that there is to a certain extent, some elitism, but when we are sooo elitist that we become bias and prejudice I think we begin to lose sight of things....As I stated before, if the site were truly serious about show casing progressive music, I believe that, yes indeed, there should be a section on the site where prog albums by "non-prog" bands should appear. I think it would be ok to do so. I don't think that we would lose credibility at all.....If there is one thing that we have been taught throughtout prog history....prog music is in no way dependent on a particular band. That is to say, prog music exists outside of and not chained to certain groups whom we have deemed "progressive". I have a DVD on Genesis, and they interview Phil Collins and he basically says what I am saying...basically that progressive music was something that Genesis DID, but that's not all Genesis IS. People have a way of limiting others, by placing labels on them..we put Genesis in a BOX, and that box was "PROGRESSIVE"....and we expected them to uphold the label that we placed on them. And as I stated before, take someone like Robert Fripp who openly has stated that he DISLIKES the term progressive to describing his music.....Robert Fripp will tell you, that King Crimson's music is NOT "progressive".  If the BANDS themselves were "progressive", everything by YES, Gentle Giant, ELP, Genesis, and Jethro Tull would be progressive. But that's not the case. Infact these bands made the choice to abandon their progressive ways. So therefore, I'd like to suggest, that there are NO progressive BANDS on this site, but rather the site is full of bands who played progressive MUSIC. For example I don't think that Genesis was a progressive rock band..but I think they played at one time in their career progressive music.......does that make sense?? Music exists outside of a particular band, therefore if Queen or Led Zeppelin made an album that was progressive, then THOSE albums should be on the site. It is more important to look at the music and NOT at the band. So with those comments I would like to apologize for my remarks about Pink Floyd...while I still don't regard them as being a "Progressive Band", they most certainly wrote progressive MUSIC ...I hope all that makes sense and I wasn't just rambling.

Tony R wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I must say that the arguments on personal style are very boring - can't we just talk about the MUSIC? Certif1ed wrote: Tip: Good debating avoids personal attacks

No need to get confused just 'coz you're crap at debating Tony...

danbo wrote: I'm a huge QUEEN fan.

You're huge whoever you like!

Certif1ed wrote: Tony R wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I must say that the arguments on personal style are very boring - can't we just talk about the MUSIC? Certif1ed wrote: Tip: Good debating avoids personal attacks  No need to get confused just 'coz you're crap at debating Tony...

Don't take away my personal attacks,they're all I've got!!!

And I'm very good at them...........

Certif1ed wrote: No need to get confused just 'coz you're crap at debating Tony...

Who needs to be good at debating when you're good at fighting?!

Tony R wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Tony R wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I must say that the arguments on personal style are very boring - can't we just talk about the MUSIC? Certif1ed wrote: Tip: Good debating avoids personal attacks  No need to get confused just 'coz you're crap at debating Tony... Don't take away my personal attacks,they're all I've got!!! And I'm very good at them...........

no, your not

tuxon wrote: Tony R wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Tony R wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I must say that the arguments on personal style are very boring - can't we just talk about the MUSIC? Certif1ed wrote: Tip: Good debating avoids personal attacks  No need to get confused just 'coz you're crap at debating Tony... Don't take away my personal attacks,they're all I've got!!! And I'm very good at them........... no, your not

Yes I am you creepy little f**kwit !

Tony R wrote: tuxon wrote: Tony R wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Tony R wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I must say that the arguments on personal style are very boring - can't we just talk about the MUSIC? Certif1ed wrote: Tip: Good debating avoids personal attacks  No need to get confused just 'coz you're crap at debating Tony... Don't take away my personal attacks,they're all I've got!!! And I'm very good at them........... no, your not Yes I am you creepy little f**kwit !

I'm not little, just not very tall

BTW it's kwikfit

Fool always jumpin' never happy where you land
Fool got my bus'ness make your living where you can
Hurry down the highway
Hurry down the road
Hurry past the people starin'
Hurry hurry hurry hurry

Leave on time leave on time
Never got your ticket but you leave on time
Leave on time leave on time
Gonna get your ticket but you leave on time
Leave on time leave on time
Put it in your pocket but you never can tell

Leave on time leave on time
Shake that rattle gotta leave on time
Leave on time leave on time
Fight your battle but you leave on time
Leave on time leave on time
Never got a minute no you never got a minute
no you never never got oh no matter

Fool got no bus'ness hangin' round and tellin' lies
Fool you got no reasons but you got no compromise
Stampin' on the ceilin' hammering on the walls
Gotta get out gotta get out gotta get
Oh you know I'm goin' crazy

Leave on time leave on time
Gotta get ahead but you leave on time
Leave on time leave on time
Gotta head on ahead but you leave on time
Leave on time leave on time
You're runnin' in the red but you never can tell

Honey honey where's my money where's my money
Wanna get away wanna get away
Leave ya leave ya leave ya

Leave on time leave on time
Gotta get rich gonna leave on time
Leave on time leave on time
But you can't take it with you when you leave on time

Leave on time leave on time
Got to keep yourself alive gotta leave on time
Gotta leave on time leave on time
Dead on time
'You're Dead'

pretty progressive if you'd ask me

Mad The Swine

Been here before a long time ago
But this time I wear no sandals
Ages past I gave all you people
Food and water

Three feet tall so very small I'm no trouble
I bring thunder lightning sun and the rain
For all the people in the land

A message of love
I bring you from up above
All good children gather around
Come join your hands and sing along

They call me mad the swine
I guess I'm mad the swine
I've come to save you save you
Mad the swine
Mad the swine
So all you people gather around
Hold out your hands and praise the Lord

I woke up on the water just as before
I'll help the meek and the mild and believers and the blind
And all the creatures great and small
Let me take you to the river without a ford
Oh and then one day you realise
You're all the same we've been in life
All I've come to say just like before

They call me mad the swine
I'm mad the swine
I've come to save you save you
Mad the swine
Mad the swine
So all you people gather around
Hold out your hands and praise the Lord
Ooh

Oh now
So all you people gather around
Hold out your hands and praise the Lord
Don't ever fail me

Mad the swine
Mad the swine
I've come to save you save you
Oh now
Mad the swine
Mad the swine
So all you people gather around
Hold out your hands and praise the Lord
Hands and praise the Lord
Praise the Lord
I'll get down on my knees and praise the Lord

(Freddie Mercury/Smile)

(From Queen in Nuce - material that the band recorded as Smile before they released their 1st album as Queen).

http://www.progarchives.com/submitband.asp - http://www.progarchives.com/submitband.asp

Have fun !

if someone want to add QUEEN, we are opened mind on this one

Use this : http://www.progarchives.com/submitband.asp - http://www.progarchives.com/submitband.asp

Thanks

Snow Dog wrote: I may give it a go if no one else bothers!

Hey don't fly beneath my wings, I'm giving it time to sink in, but if you really want to, be fast, be accurate and be good

Proglover wrote: Someone please take this for me.....I dont have the time right now to write the history and such....I sent a little bit of information but I know they want more and they seem kinda impatient about it....so, ummm.....please......... I'm going to be away for the whole weekend...so please help me out guys....thanks so much

I don't seem to have the ability to edit the history - but I'll gladly take it on if I get the necessary permissions - or am I just having a blond moment?? mailto:M@X - M@X ???