Good reasoning:

I don't think Queen are prog, therefore they're not.

Deep.

Dragon Phoenix wrote: Those opposed to Queen: what is your definition of Art Rock?

Rush

And why the f**k did you add greenday to a 10/10 song list?

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

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

I don't know what you mean by "straight prog". They are listed under Art Rock, which in itself is already implying that these bands are not as progressive as the Symphonic Prog Rock bands.

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

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

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

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

Queen are a sort of unique case -- they've never done a "full-on" prog album, but almost always put several geniunely prog songs on every record.  Most of Queen II (esp. the black side), "Brighton Rock" off of Sheer Heart Attack, "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "The Prophet's Song" from A Night at the Opera, "The Millionnaire Waltz" off of A Day at the Races, "Mustafa" and "Bicycle Race" off of Jazz, "Princes of the Universe" off of A Kind of Magic, "Innuendo," "'Bijou," "Hitman" and "All God's People" off of Innuendo.  (I haven't listened to their debut album in years, but I remember at least "Jesus" as being pretty interesting).  So by the end of their 20-year career, they've made enough world-class prog to fill about 2 albums. 

Personally, I think the consistency of approach alone is enough to warrant their inclusion.

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

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

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

Queen are not a progressive rock band.  They may have had some prog related moments.. but thats all there was.  For some reason here, we have the need to just make every band we like a prog band... that way it keeps are preferences all within a genre I guess... but claiming it to be does not make it so...

And I'll accept Radiohead eons ahead of Queen... thats just way off the mark.

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

All IMHO, of course.

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

You can find prog moments in nearly every band out there if you look hard enough.. and sorry but I find a lot more prog moments in Radiohead's The Bends or Hail to the Thief.. than on any Queen album.  Queen were glam rock.. ans David Bowie was at one time.... seems pretty simple to me.  BTW.. I don't find Radiohead prog either....

Elements of prog... do not a prog band make.  Diluting the genre also isn't the politically correct thing to do... IMHO...

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

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

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

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

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

Ruglish:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those were my positions.  They have not changed.

Peace.

I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could listen to Queen's entire discography (especially their first five albums)  and NOT hear the progressive elements in their music.....

And for anyone to suggest that Queen was a POP band, or just an ordinary rock band, is a slap in the face for true music. Freddie Mercury was a melodic genius.....and his compositions are extremely tight. As a composition major, I marvel at the exquisite technique of his writing. He was a BRILLIANT song writer...and to suggest that Queen was an ordinary rock band is disgusting.

Here is what you have to do....define what progressive rock music is. If you can give me one definition of prog rock which embodies all the aspects of every single band on this site, and one that would exclude Queen....then I will agree with you, Queen should not be on the site.....But I dont think it can be done.....YOU can not give a definition of prog rock which applies to all the bands on this site, and one which would exclude Queen....what this really boils down to is politics, bias, unfair double standards, semantics, labeling/categorization, elitism, and cult shrine worship.

.....oh by the way...since when is vaudeville POP????????????????????

Think of it like this: If your definition of prog is electronics, keyboards, and really long drawn out suites  then Queen is not prog. But if you think of prog as music with complex layered melodies, then Queen is prog and should be here.

Proglover wrote: Here is what you have to do....define what progressive rock music is. If you can give me one definition of prog rock which embodies all the aspects of every single band on this site, and one that would exclude Queen....then I will agree with you, Queen should not be on the site.....But I dont think it can be done.....YOU can not give a definition of prog rock which applies to all the bands on this site, and one which would exclude Queen....what this really boils down to is politics, bias, unfair double standards, semantics, labeling/categorization, elitism, and cult shrine worship. .....oh by the way...since when is vaudeville POP????????????????????

Ehi can you define jazz exactly? Yes it's true, music has no limits, but I won't classify Metallica under the label of "jazz". Or I won't put Miles Davis under "metal". So, also if Queen are on Prog Archives, they are not progressive, you should put them under Glam Rock / Pop / Rock simply. You might say: "So if they're not prog, why are they here?" and the answer would be:

"mah. I don't know."    or   "??????????????????????????????????????????????????"  

___BYE___

Gedhead wrote: Dragon Phoenix wrote: Those opposed to Queen: what is your definition of Art Rock? Art Rock:  a genre of rock music into which it is silly to include a band like Queen

First off that is NOT a definition of Art Rock.....and I assume that you are one of those who are under the belief that Queen was just another pop/rock band.......completely wrong. I respect others opinions.......but this goes beyond opinions....You don't write songs like......

1. White Queen (As It Began)
2. Ogre Battle
3. The Fairy Feller's Master-Stroke
4. Nevermore
5. The March of the Black Queen
6. Seven Seas of Rhye
7. Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon
8. You're My Best Friend
9. The Prophet's Song
10. Love of My Lifw
11. Good Company
12. Bohemian Rhapsody
13. Seaside Rendezvous
14. Death on Two Legs
15. Brighton Rock
16. Killer Queen
17. Lily of The Valley
18. In the Lap of the Gods
19. Flick of the Wrist
20. Dear Friends
21. Bring Back that Leroy Brown
22. In The Lap of The Gods.....revisited
23. You Take My Breath Away
24. The Millionaire Waltz
25. Somebody to Love
26. Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy
27. Teo Torriatte
28. Great Rat King
29. My Fairy King
30. Liar
31. The Night Comes Down
32. Jesus
33. Doing All Right
34. Mustapha
35. Jealousy
36. Bicycle Race
37. Let Me Entertain You
38. Don't Stop Me Now
39. Dreamers Ball
40. My Melancholy Blues
41. Sleeping On The Sidewalk
42. Who Needs You
43. It's Late
44. All Dead, All Dead
45. Get Down, Make Love
46. Innuendo
47. Crazy Little Thing Called Love
48. Don't try Suicide
49. Play The Game

..........and be called an ordinary rock band!!!!!!!.....it is purely ridiculous

CrazyDiamond wrote: Proglover wrote: Here is what you have to do....define what progressive rock music is. If you can give me one definition of prog rock which embodies all the aspects of every single band on this site, and one that would exclude Queen....then I will agree with you, Queen should not be on the site.....But I dont think it can be done.....YOU can not give a definition of prog rock which applies to all the bands on this site, and one which would exclude Queen....what this really boils down to is politics, bias, unfair double standards, semantics, labeling/categorization, elitism, and cult shrine worship. .....oh by the way...since when is vaudeville POP???????????????????? Ehi can you define jazz exactly? Yes it's true, music has no limits, but I won't classify Metallica under the label of "jazz". Or I won't put Miles Davis under "metal". So, also if Queen are on Prog Archives, they are not progressive, you should put them under Glam Rock / Pop / Rock simply. You might say: "So if they're not prog, why are they here?" and the answer would be: "mah. I don't know."    or   "??????????????????????????????????????????????????"   ___BYE___

Don't you think that your comparison of Miles Davis to Metallica is a BIT MORE outlandish and outrageous than my comparison of Queen and progressive rock??????

frenchie wrote: i thought this site had "more prog releases than non prog releases" and "at least one major 100% prog album" policies to be accepted into the site Queen has neither of these

I beg to differ............I consider Queen II to be a 100% prog album. .......and as far as the "more prog releases than non prog releases".....I think thats somewhat of a silly proposition....with all due respect to the creators of this site....I respect you all greatly!!

But since we are on the topic.....I consider Queen's first FIVE albums to be progressive......those FIVE albums make up more than HALF their 70s career. Only two more albums would be released in the 70s and even those last two have progressive elemensts......We must not forget that Queen were late bloomers so to speak....their fisrt album was in 1973......many of our prog heros had already been turning out prog albums by that point. Lets not punish Queen for being late bloomers.

And then we hit the 1980s...........well ladies and gentlemen, as far as the 80s are concerned, everything is far game!!...almost ALL of the prog bands from the 70s became more commercial during the 80s.....and the only reason why Queen "may have" more non prog albums than prog albums (which by the way I highly doubt).....is becase Queen retained their popular status through the 80s while alot of prog bands died out. Seems to me you guys are being unfair to Queen based of matters of fate.

frenchie wrote: i thought this site had "more prog releases than non prog releases" and "at least one major 100% prog album" policies to be accepted into the site Queen has neither of these

Wow, more prog releases than non-prog releases?  Get rid of Genesis pronto! 

Prog releases: 7

When I hear prog metal, I hear music that is not prog rock.

This argument is stale, and very silly.

frenchie wrote: i thought this site had "more prog releases than non prog releases" and "at least one major 100% prog album" policies to be accepted into the site Queen has neither of these

"Queen II" is a 100% prog album, IMO, and "Queen" isn't far behind.

As for the first argument, Genesis don't fit that either.

I want to reiterate that you are all proceeding from false assumption.  The rule of thumb on the site is not "more prog than non-prog releases."  The criterion for inclusion on the site is simply that the band has produced at least one album that is truly and wholly prog.  The "more prog than non-prog release" idea was my suggestion because I felt that the "one album" criterion was far too "lenient" - and still do.  And although, as some have suggested, even the "more prog" idea has its flaws (since, for example, it is a subjective matter which Genesis album becomes the first "non-prog" release), I would suggest that at least a "solid core" of a band's works must be considered "prog" in order to be included.  This would maintain most if not all of the groups that some people () would question - like Genesis.

In this regard, I maintain that Queen fails in both regards.  Re the "one album" criterion, Queen does not have any album that is truly and wholly prog.  Yes, Queen II comes close.  Yet there are at least two songs on it that are not prog in any respect, and one that barely straddles the line.  Even ELP (who some people have claimed do not have a wholly prog album due to the appearance of songs like Jeremy Bender and The Sheriff) has its interpretation of Pictures.

Re the "more prog" or even "solid core" criterion, Queen fails completely here.  They are certainly not "more prog than non-prog" by anyone's standards - even the most rabid Queen-is-prog fan.  They have perhaps a dozen, maybe two dozen, "prog" songs spread out over more than ten albums (consider that most "prog" groups have that many spread over one to three albums).  Yet they would even fail the "solid core" criterion, since even taking Queen through DATR, there is simply not enough "prog" to qualify them.

True, Genesis may have "lost it" after ATTWT (or Duke or Abacab, or whichever album one decides is the first "non-prog" album), and thus may not qualify under a strict "more prog than non-prog" criterion.  But using a "solid core" criterion, there is no question that they (and others who may have "sloughed off" for periods, including Yes) would qualify as "prog."

Peace.

maani wrote: In this regard, I maintain that Queen fails in both regards.  Re the "one album" criterion, Queen does not have any album that is truly and wholly prog.  Yes, Queen II comes close.  Yet there are at least two songs on it that are not prog in any respect, and one that barely straddles the line.  Even ELP (who some people have claimed do not have a wholly prog album due to the appearance of songs like Jeremy Bender and The Sheriff) has its interpretation of Pictures.

Complete with their cover of B Bumble and the Stinger's "Nutrocker". (Yes I know it was originally a classical piece)

maani wrote: (...) I maintain that Queen fails in both regards.  Re the "one album" criterion, Queen does not have any album that is truly and wholly prog.

Queen II - that is prog!

And both Dream Theater and Meshuggah have yet to make a prog album.

Let's not bang on about Queen, eh? Haven't you had enough - or do you want some more?

Certif1ed wrote: maani wrote: (...) I maintain that Queen fails in both regards.  Re the "one album" criterion, Queen does not have any album that is truly and wholly prog.  Queen II - that is prog! And both Dream Theater and Meshuggah have yet to make a prog album. Let's not bang on about Queen, eh? Haven't you had enough - or do you want some more?

You enjoy flying in the face of public opinion, don't you?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: maani wrote: (...) I maintain that Queen fails in both regards.  Re the "one album" criterion, Queen does not have any album that is truly and wholly prog.  Queen II - that is prog! And both Dream Theater and Meshuggah have yet to make a prog album. Let's not bang on about Queen, eh? Haven't you had enough - or do you want some more? You enjoy flying in the face of public opinion, don't you?

Ever read "Enemy of the State"?

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: maani wrote: (...) I maintain that Queen fails in both regards.  Re the "one album" criterion, Queen does not have any album that is truly and wholly prog.  Queen II - that is prog! And both Dream Theater and Meshuggah have yet to make a prog album. Let's not bang on about Queen, eh? Haven't you had enough - or do you want some more? You enjoy flying in the face of public opinion, don't you? Ever read "Enema of the State"?

You're looking a bit flushed, Cert!

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: maani wrote: (...) I maintain that Queen fails in both regards.  Re the "one album" criterion, Queen does not have any album that is truly and wholly prog.  Queen II - that is prog! And both Dream Theater and Meshuggah have yet to make a prog album. Let's not bang on about Queen, eh? Haven't you had enough - or do you want some more? You enjoy flying in the face of public opinion, don't you? Ever read "Enemy of the State"?

I only know the Illinois Enema Bandit.

Cert:

You can't really be serious?!  DT's Metropolis is not prog?  Then tell me exactly what it is.  Because it is not just "metal."  Heck, even many of the people who have ho-hum feelings (or worse) about "prog-metal" acknowledge that Metropolis is prog.

Peace.

maani wrote: I want to reiterate that you are all proceeding from false assumption.  The rule of thumb on the site is not "more prog than non-prog releases."  The criterion for inclusion on the site is simply that the band has produced at least one album that is truly and wholly prog.  The "more prog than non-prog release" idea was my suggestion because I felt that the "one album" criterion was far too "lenient" - and still do.  And although, as some have suggested, even the "more prog" idea has its flaws (since, for example, it is a subjective matter which Genesis album becomes the first "non-prog" release), I would suggest that at least a "solid core" of a band's works must be considered "prog" in order to be included.  This would maintain most if not all of the groups that some people () would question - like Genesis. In this regard, I maintain that Queen fails in both regards.  Re the "one album" criterion, Queen does not have any album that is truly and wholly prog.  Yes, Queen II comes close.  Yet there are at least two songs on it that are not prog in any respect, and one that barely straddles the line.  Even ELP (who some people have claimed do not have a wholly prog album due to the appearance of songs like Jeremy Bender and The Sheriff) has its interpretation of Pictures. Re the "more prog" or even "solid core" criterion, Queen fails completely here.  They are certainly not "more prog than non-prog" by anyone's standards - even the most rabid Queen-is-prog fan.  They have perhaps a dozen, maybe two dozen, "prog" songs spread out over more than ten albums (consider that most "prog" groups have that many spread over one to three albums).  Yet they would even fail the "solid core" criterion, since even taking Queen through DATR, there is simply not enough "prog" to qualify them. True, Genesis may have "lost it" after ATTWT (or Duke or Abacab, or whichever album one decides is the first "non-prog" album), and thus may not qualify under a strict "more prog than non-prog" criterion.  But using a "solid core" criterion, there is no question that they (and others who may have "sloughed off" for periods, including Yes) would qualify as "prog." Peace.

 you say a dozen??......"maybe" two dozen?????????????????.......I counted 49 songs that I consider prog my friend.......when a band writes 49 songs with progressive influences, it's not just a one time thing maani.

I think the Art Rock description found on this site fits Queen like a rubber glove.

"A name that is used to refer to early explorative work that had roots in popular music.Very structured and even adventurous, sometimes hard or heavy, sometimes mellow, strong melodies, good hooks are an integral part of most of the material. Bands in this category can and have produced material falling into other categories as well. There may be moments of outright progressive rock but with more of a pop influence and certainly a tendency towards shorter songs."

To put it in my own words: "Proggish non-prog"

This definition also makes it clear the that the Art Rock genre cannot be considered as a true prog-subgenre like for instance Neo Prog is. It is the place for prog-related bands by definition. I do not consider Supertramp prog but I consider it Art Rock, same as Queen (and ELO).

The inclusion of these kind of bands into the archives is fine by me. While not being prog these bands can still be interesting for many proglovers. Proggers who don't know Queen can now learn here that Queen II is their proggiest album, for instance and check it out.

But what to do with Rush, or Steve Hackett? Do they fit the Art Rock description?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I always thought that Rush were more Prog Metal than Art Rock.

I agree. Of all the given subgenres that one fits them best. The only problem is they played it long before the genre ever existed. Proto Prog Metal maybe?

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH QUEEN?

THEY WERE A GREAT BAND, AND THE FIRST ALBUMS WERE VERY PROG. BUT ANYWAY, IF HERE NOBODY LIKES QUEEN, JUST DON'T TALK ABOUT THEM!!!!!!

maani wrote: . Re the "more prog" or even "solid core" criterion, Queen fails completely here.  They are certainly not "more prog than non-prog" by anyone's standards - even the most rabid Queen-is-prog fan.  They have perhaps a dozen, maybe two dozen, "prog" songs spread out over more than ten albums (consider that most "prog" groups have that many spread over one to three albums).  Yet they would even fail the "solid core" criterion, since even taking Queen through DATR, there is simply not enough "prog" to qualify them. True, Genesis may have "lost it" after ATTWT (or Duke or Abacab, or whichever album one decides is the first "non-prog" album), and thus may not qualify under a strict "more prog than non-prog" criterion.  But using a "solid core" criterion, there is no question that they (and others who may have "sloughed off" for periods, including Yes) would qualify as "prog." Peace.

OK, so we're basically not arguing over whether Queen played prog, but whether they played enough of it to qualify.  You think they don't, other people (including myself) do.  Cool.  Agree to disagree.

Just out of curiosity, what 100 percent prog album qualified Uriah Heep for the archives?  I love the band, but Salisbury has exactly one prog track on it (which fills half the album), and Look at Yourself has a couple, which add up to about half the album as well.  After that, they pretty much stopped playing prog altogether.

Also, wouldn't, under the one 100 percent prog album definition, Black Sabbath quailify with Sabotage?  Or, an even better example of an arguably prog release from a decidedly non-prog band, The Who with Quadrophenia?  Queen, as you said, spread out their prog over 10 albums, and didn't just release one experimental album.

Ruglish:

I have not suggested that I agree with all the bands that are on the site.  It is not my site, and I have not made the choices.  I may agree that Uriah Heep should never have been added - just as I have argued that Supertramp and others don't belong here either.

But that is not the topic here.

Proglover:

49 songs in your (not so humble or objective) opinion.  Not in mine.

Peace.

maani wrote: Ruglish: I have not suggested that I agree with all the bands that are on the site.  It is not my site, and I have not made the choices.  I may agree that Uriah Heep should never have been added - just as I have argued that Supertramp and others don't belong here either. But that is not the topic here. Proglover: 49 songs in your (not so humble or objective) opinion.  Not in mine. Peace.

Sorry for going off topic.  I'm fairly new here, just trying to feel my way around this forum.

maani wrote: Cert: You can't really be serious?!  DT's Metropolis is not prog?  Then tell me exactly what it is.  Because it is not just "metal."  Heck, even many of the people who have ho-hum feelings (or worse) about "prog-metal" acknowledge that Metropolis is prog. Peace.

I've reviewed it - and while it could be progressive (I don't really think so - there are so few original ideas on there), it's definitely not prog rock - it's in no way organic enough, and lacks real variety, in the same way the average Journey or Foreigner album lacks real variety. It's quite the reverse of organic, in fact.  Packed full of cliches, and "ideas" going off on tangents instead of truly developing - or progressing, it's as far from prog as Def Leppard - and the songwriting skills are not on a par with Leppard.

Queen II, OTOH, is crammed full with developing ideas AND the songwriting skills are of an outstanding quality. The latter is probably why some proggers find it hard to accept Queen as prog, in the same way that many question DSOTM or Marillion. Sheer, blinkered ignorance, IMO.

So while many people might see "Metropolis" as prog, I see the Emporer's new clothes...

Certif1ed wrote: maani wrote: Cert: You can't really be serious?!  DT's Metropolis is not prog?  Then tell me exactly what it is.  Because it is not just "metal."  Heck, even many of the people who have ho-hum feelings (or worse) about "prog-metal" acknowledge that Metropolis is prog. Peace. I've reviewed it - and while it could be progressive (I don't really think so - there are so few original ideas on there), it's definitely not prog rock - it's in no way organic enough, and lacks real variety, in the same way the average Journey or Foreigner album lacks real variety. It's quite the reverse of organic, in fact.  Packed full of cliches, and "ideas" going off on tangents instead of truly developing - or progressing, it's as far from prog as Def Leppard - and the songwriting skills are not on a par with Leppard. Queen II, OTOH, is crammed full with developing ideas AND the songwriting skills are of an outstanding quality. The latter is probably why some proggers find it hard to accept Queen as prog, in the same way that many question DSOTM or Marillion. Sheer, blinkered ignorance, IMO. So while many people might see "Metropolis" as prog, I see the Emporer's new clothes...

I'd have to say I agree with the sentiments here- I'm one of those people with 'ho hum feelings about prog metal', and don't hear much that's progressive in it; most of the bands I have heard do not grab my attention because the songwriting is pretty weak, and the songs are mainly excuses for virtuosity, without concentrating on anything else. I love instrumental virtuosity, but I think it only really works if there's a well crafted song behind it- otherwise I remember nothing about it and it leaves my head the minute after. All of the best 70s prog bands- Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, Camel, Caravan, even ELP (at their best anyway) etc- knew about this- there is always a supremely crafted song amongst the solos of their best work. To me, Queen II is a perfect example of what I like in progressive rock- superb craftmanship in songwriting AND musicianship- I hear a song like 'Father To Son', 'The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke', 'Seven Seas Of Rhye' and 'March Of The Black Queen' and it fully satisfies my demands for prog rock, as it is as musically adept as any of the bands featured here (in fact more so than some...) and also as challenging.

Also, I reckon this 'more prog albums than non prog albums' rule is frankly ridiculous- you'd have virtually no bands left; the only ones I can think of offhand that adhere to this rule are often fairly obscure or long gone bands like Fruupp, Gryphon, Happy The Man, High Tide etc, or one off bands like Czar, Spring, Fields... There are few bands that are popular in prog, bar King Crimson and Rush maybe, that have consistently produced progressive rock all their careers.