Popular Prog Albums that Aren't Really Prog

I don't have a problem with artists like David Bowie and Queen being in the Prog-related sub-genre, as they are also considered glam rock.  There is an argument out there whether glam rock part of progressive rock, but in reality, some glam rock bands were formed in retaliation to prog rock, so that argument doesn't always hold water.  However, there are glam bands that are prog, as in Roxy Music for example.  RM's music was very progressive in their earlier years, and Bowie definitely ventures close to prog in some cases. 

Edited by TCat - September 09 2019 at 10:57

Cristi wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: Cristi wrote: richardh wrote: Queen II. Sorry but this is not a prog album! who said it was?  Not I, and I definitely agree it's not prog! I sense a few members having an issue with this assertion. I love Queen and here on PA they're under prog-related. So i don't see any problem.

It's not a problem to me even if some people so see Queen II as a Prog album. There are albums in Prog Related that are Prog to me, and there are acts that have been moved from prog Related into Prog categories.   One shouldn;t see out categorisations as monolithic, immutable, infallible or definitive.   We have an issue of complete discographies under a category instead of categorising individual albums, which I don't like, a lack of multitagging which is also a limitation that I don't like, and we have individuals who make the calls who bring their own biases (that is unavoidable).

Rateyourmusic tags the album Queen II as Hard Rock, Glam Rock and
Progressive Rock, Art Rock.

I have seen various writers, also in the forum, refer to it as a Prog album, and some who say that it's partially Prog. Sometimes Prog can be in the ear of the behearer, people expect different quotients, make different associations, have different parameters/ working definitions. I like it when we can appreciate different perspectives even if we disagree and avoid dogmatic statements and overly black-and-white thinking (that's my liberal, non-absolutist philosophy). It's good to keep an open mind, just not so open that one's brains fall out, as the saying goes.

In PA, I'll just choose the earliest review that was made, but various reviews speak of prog and progressive credentials of the album: See http://www.progarchives.com/album-reviews.asp?id=8207

sarmento... wrote: it´s quite difficult to establish the marks that defines the borders of the so-called progressive rock territory. Even in its shady, unprecised boundaries, we´ll find masterpieces that could force us to review some concepts. Regarding the context of this release and the content of this album, I can do nothing but giving a standing ovation for this newcomers to the prog sanctuary. Precise instrumental works, fabulous vocal harmonies, bold musical structures, and NO SYNTHS (as they proudly announces)...What else do we need to regard this effort as a rock album which attempted to go on through new and yet unexplored directions (especially, for a glam-rock pop group). Take White Queen, for example, candid guitar work, fabulous percussion...Or, as a "master-stroke", let´s give a chance to this March of The Black Queen. The pop music would never be the same after this. For those who consider the glamourous Night at The Opera as a milestone, the perfect seed is here. In the days when Queen have something more to do thant entertain the whole world. A naive experiment, a trully prog jewel.

As for Kind of Blue, while it ranks high and is progressive in a sense, I've never heard of anyone who called it Progressive Rock (I have heard many who were confused by its addition to PA and why it would be in top 100 Prog albums list, as it isn't Prog, so then one has to explain how the lists are generated and complete discography policies, and the fact that artists get categorised here as opposed to individual albums). It's "modal jazz", and not even a "progressive jazz" album. Of course Miles Davis was included in JRF for his late 60s through mid 70s "electric Miles" albums, and were it not for our complete discography policy, Kind of Blue would not be at the site.

As for David Bowie, to me he's great in Prog Related and I'd be happy enough with his Berlin trilogy, as well as various other music pieces by him, in Crossover.

A lot of Progressive Electronic and JRF would not be considered Prog by various purists. I wouldn't call Zeit Prog myself, but that has no impact on my enjoyment of the album, and I'm glad that so much variety is covered in PA.

Dark Side of the Moon has been mentioned, and I hadn't considered it to be Prog proper, but many call it a masterpiece of Prog (I'd say a masterpiece of rock, which I see as a bigger accolade even if it's not an album I turn to much anymore).

As for regressive Progressive Rock/ retro Prog, or gorP (backwards prog) as I like to call it, Progressive Rock (noun) need not be progressive (adjective) to be considered part of the Prog genre.

I don't consider myself to be a fan of Prog, but there's a lot of music under that umbrella that I love. A huge amount of what I like in PA I might not consider strictly Prog or primarily Prog, or use the Prog word to describe it (some of it is more like progressive music and lacks a rock element, even if it has some relation to rock music).


Edited by Logan - September 09 2019 at 12:47

A problem I've had is that I think we often tend to talk too much of bands and artists as Prog, rather than individual albums and individual pieces. I use Prog as shorthand for Progressive Rock, so I would not consider Kind of Blue to be Prog. Davis was always progressive to my knowledge, and I think later albums of his should be included in our JRF category. From a purist standpoint, I wouldn't use the term Prog for him.

Pink Floyd = Psych/ Experimental Rock early on later on it progressed in different directions. On the whole, I am fine with calling Pink Floyd a Prog band, or an Art Rock band, but one can get much more descriptive on the album level going through Psychedelic Rock, Experimental/ Experimental Rock, Space Rock, Art Rock, Progressive Rock, Musique concrete, Concept Album Rock, "New Age"....

Edited by Logan - September 09 2019 at 13:08

Logan wrote: A problem I've had is that I think we often tend to talk too much of bands and artists as Prog, rather than individual albums and individual pieces. I use Prog as shorthand for Progressive Rock, so I would not consider Kind of Blue to be Prog. Davis was always progressive to my knowledge, and I think later albums of his should be included in our JRF category. From a purist standpoint, I wouldn't use the term Prog for him. Pink Floyd = Psych/ Experimental Rock early on later on it progressed in different directions. On the whole, I am fine with calling Pink Floyd a Prog band, or an Art Rock band, but one can get much more descriptive on the album level going through Psychedelic Rock, Experimental/ Experimental Rock, Space Rock, Art Rock, Progressive Rock, Musique concrete, Concept Album Rock, "New Age"....

Logan wrote: That said, I wouldn't have thought it was going downhill, but feel terrible if my comments are thought to have played a part in lessening the value of this thread. I often think I should stop posting altogether.

Edited by Cristi - September 09 2019 at 15:41

Cristi wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: Cristi wrote: richardh wrote: Queen II. Sorry but this is not a prog album! who said it was?  Not I, and I definitely agree it's not prog! I sense a few members having an issue with this assertion. I love Queen and here on PA they're under prog-related. So i don't see any problem.

Welp my IQ isn’t high enough to partake in this discussion any longer

It's not complicated. Jazz is Jazz. Metal is Metal. And Prog is Prog.

miamiscot wrote: It's not complicated. Jazz is Jazz. Metal is Metal. And Prog is Prog. I hope that helps.