Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Queen as progressive band?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedQueen as progressive band?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
Author
Message
octopus-4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams

Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 13320
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2012 at 13:49
Ok, let's say that Ride the wild wind is a good song...what about the other three? The only thing that I can say "against" the Queen is their discontinuity. At least one weak song or fillers in every album, together with masterpieces. It's a band that I love, but I have always thougth that this was their defect. Less visible in the first albums, but more evident from album to album.

I'm with you about 1971-1977 (I add Jazz to the list), but I'm not 100% sure that we can speak of more than prog-related. 
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.
My poor home recorded stuff at https://yellingxoanon.bandcamp.com
Back to Top
ole-the-first View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 03 2012
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 1534
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2012 at 15:39
Queen (1973)
Keep Yourself Alive - not prog
Doing All Right - somewhat prog
Great King Rat - prog
My Fairy King - definitely prog
Liar - prog
The Night Comes Down - not prog
Modern Times Rock'n'Roll - not prog
Son and Daughter - live version is prog but I'm not sure about the album one
Jesus - not prog
Seven Seas of Rhye... - not prog

Is that album prog overall? Rather yes. Let's say it's semi-prog, but it's more than prog-related.

---------------------------

Queen II (1974) — all prog except for The Loser In The End and maybe Ogre Battle

---------------------------

Sheer Heart Attack (1974)
Brighton Rock - half prog, half metal
Killer Queen - pop, but the production with retro sound is somewhat proggish. Let's say it's prog-related
Tenement Funster - not prog itself, but it's a part of long bunch of tracks, which is prog itself
Flick of the Wrist - prog
Lily of the Valley - prog
Now I'm Here - not prog
In the Lap of the Gods - prog
Stone Cold Crazy - not prog itself, but it's connected with previous track
Dear Friends - ? (for me it's prog)
Misfire - for that album, it's prog
Bring Back That Leroy Brown - for that album, it's prog
She Makes Me (Stormtrooper in Stilettos) - not prog
In The Lap of the Gods... Revisited - not prog

Is it prog overall? Well, there's a lot of pop tunes, but prog is still prevails here.

---------------------------

A Night at the Opera (1975)
Death on two Legs (Dedicated to...... - somewhat prog, somewhat not
Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon - prog
I'm in Love with My Car - not prog
You're My Best Friend - not prog
'39 - not prog
Sweet Lady - not prog
Seaside Rendezvous - prog
The Prophet's Song - prog
Love of My Life - prog (at least for me)
Good Company - prog
Bohemian Rhapsody - prog
God Save the Queen - prog

Again, there's some pop tracks, but overall it's a prog album

---------------------------

A Day at the Races (1976)
Tie Your Mother Down - intro is prog, the rest is not
You Take My Breath Away - prog
Long Away - not prog
The Millionaire Waltz - prog
You and I - prog
Somebody to Love - prog
White Man - not prog
Good Old-Fashioned Lover Boy - just as Killer Queen — it's a simple pop song but with very prog production
Drowse - not prog
Teo Torriatte (Let Us Cling Together) - outro is prog, the rest is not.

Let's call it 'semi-prog' overall. But it still would be a prog album for me.

---------------------------

News of the World (1977)
We Will Rock You - not prog
We Are the Champions - not prog
Sheer Heart Attack - not prog
All Dead, All Dead - some prog flavour during the guitar solo, but... it's not a prog song
Spread Your Wings - not prog
Fight From the Inside - not prog
Get Down, Make Love - prog
Sleeping on the Sidewalk - not prog
Who Needs You - a pop song, but very unusual. Let it be 'semi-prog'
It's Late - the only 100% prog song here
My Melancholy Blues - even if it's reminiscent to some early Queen songs, it wouldn't be prog here.

So would it be a prog album? For me, it's not.

---------------------------

Jazz (1978)
Mustapha, Bicycle Race and Dreamer's Ball are prog, the rest is not. So this is not a prog album.

---------------------------

The Miracle (1989)
Party - not prog
Khashoggi's Ship - not prog
The Miracle - a pop song with non-convential song structure (heavy guitar solo after three verses and then a brand-new tempo and melody), so it's prog. Let's call it 'pop prog'.
I Want It All - not prog
The Invisible Man - not prog
Breakthru - prog intro, the rest is not prog
Rain Must Fall - a very unusual sound for Queen. Though it's arguable if I'll call this song prog.
Scandal - 'pop prog' again?
My Baby Does Me - not prog
Was It All Worth It - the only unarguable prog song on this album

Is that album prog overall? No, but it's a large step towards prog after The Works and A Kind of Magic.

---------------------------

Innuendo (1991)
Innuendo - definitely prog
I'm Going Slightly Mad - not prog, but it's what I call 'art rock'
Headlong - not prog
I Can't Live With You - not prog
Don't Try So Hard - prog
Ride The Willd Wind - ehm... I'd call this one prog, but I know, it's very arguable
All God's People - prog
These Are The Days Of Our Lives - 'pop prog', for me
Delilah - not prog
The Hitman - not prog
Bijou - prog
The Show Must Go On - for me, prog (at least, unusual song structure with melody changes is here)

Is this a full-prog album? Not. But there's still a lot of prog things. I'd call it 'prog related'.


Edited by ole-the-first - March 08 2012 at 15:39
Back to Top
octopus-4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams

Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 13320
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2012 at 15:47
semi-prog, but it's more than prog-related.
lot of pop tunes, but prog is still prevails here
some pop tracks, but overall it's a prog album
Let's call it 'semi-prog' overall
So would it be a prog album? For me, it's not.
Mustapha, Bicycle Race and Dreamer's Ball are prog, the rest is not. So this is not a prog album
prog overall? No, but it's a large step towards prog
Is this a full-prog album? Not. But there's still a lot of prog things. I'd call it 'prog related'.

Do you see any "full prog album" here? 
This is why I say "related". There's some prog but I don't think Queen have ever considered themselves as prog.
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.
My poor home recorded stuff at https://yellingxoanon.bandcamp.com
Back to Top
ole-the-first View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 03 2012
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 1534
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2012 at 15:49
Yeah, Queen II is a full prog album.
Back to Top
ole-the-first View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 03 2012
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 1534
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2012 at 15:51
I'm not argue that Queen are prog-related, and I'm not calling them a prog band overall. But the first five albums are prog, even with pop songs on them. And not vice versa (i.e. not a pop albums with prog songs on them).
Back to Top
ole-the-first View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 03 2012
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 1534
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2012 at 16:01
And with those five albums Queen are more prog than half of prog-related bands on PA, like Black Sabbath or Led Zeppelin (which I've never considered 'prog' except for Sabbath's 'Sabotage' and Zeppelin's 'In Through the Outdoor' and a few songs from other albums).

Edited by ole-the-first - March 08 2012 at 16:04
Back to Top
octopus-4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams

Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 13320
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2012 at 16:08
but sticking on the thread's question I think we can't answer "yes". 
Said so, the only Queen track that I'm used to skip is Delilah, I can resist even to Don't Loose Your Head and I feel an unconditional love for Jazz.
As I have written before, their defect is just the discontinuity which has caused some tracks to be recorded instead of forgotten into a closet, but they are well balanced by a huge number of masterpieces.

I would avoid comparing bands. As somebody has written, we have Tori Amos as prog and Kate Bush is related, even Vangelis is only related and I think he's totally prog. After Aphrodite's child he made Jazz-rock, Progressive Electronic, Avant and even something psychedelic. We may start discussions of this kind about a lot of bands and artists and we'll always find something controversial. You are Russian and probably know Senmuth. He's in Experimental and his side project NeNasty has been rejected. 

Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.
My poor home recorded stuff at https://yellingxoanon.bandcamp.com
Back to Top
ole-the-first View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 03 2012
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 1534
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2012 at 16:17
Queen played too many various genres to be considered any genre unambiguously.
Back to Top
NickHall View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2011
Location: Chingford
Status: Offline
Points: 144
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 09 2012 at 06:00
I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12609
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 09 2012 at 20:46
Originally posted by NickHall NickHall wrote:

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.
 
My, what a shallow sandbox you play in. It is far too confining, First, equating prog to a church is rather farcical, given there is not a set dogma or tenets in stone associated with progressive rock, There are many bands, like Jethro Tull for instance,  who have progressive albums (Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, Minstrel in the Gallery, Songs From the Wood), and albums that are altogether not progressive (This Was, Benefit, War Child, Too Old to Rock and Roll, etc.), and still other albums (Stand Up, Aqualung, Heavy Horses, Stormwatch, etc.) which, depending on my mood, I could argue for or against progressivity in the rock sphere. The fact that not every Tull album was progressive does not make the albums that were indeed progressive something else altogether, and even in specific albums there are songs that are progressive while others are not. The same could be said of other "progressive bands" like Yes and Genesis.
 
There is no "drawing a line" with a band like Jethro Tull, just as there is no line-drawing regarding Queen. They did what they wanted, when the hell they wanted, and were not confined to some dogmatic adherence to a specific set of rules. Your rules. Whatever they are.
 
Perhaps you should elucidate as to what you consider "the rules", You keep making  imperious statements that have no basis of fact. Repeating an opinion does not an argument make.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 10 2012 at 00:19
Originally posted by NickHall NickHall wrote:

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.


In that case, like Mr.John Casey, I shall proclaim in protest that let there be no church for prog.  LOL
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16045
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 12 2012 at 10:17
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by NickHall NickHall wrote:

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.


In that case, like Mr.John Casey, I shall proclaim in protest that let there be no church for prog.  LOL
 
Agreed.
 
Specially when we're petty, overgrown little babies fighting for our own chocolate bar, and not willing or conceiding other folks opinions on the matter.
 
In tne end, this just shows why the "definition" of progressive music is so messed up. We can't even agree on anything on it, so we know how to define it. Not to mention that some parts of the definition are "opinion" and not a reality of the music and its creators.
 
However, the 20th century has been about breaking apart all music, regardless of its anything ... so us saying that something it not progressive, or prog, is like saying ... we don't even care for the 20th century and what brought us to this point in music! ... nice  ... keep ignoring your wife and children to see where it gets you!
 
This is one of the big, hard, and very difficult things for PA or anyone else to work on and with. With an output of so many pieces that are considered "progressive" this band should be able to get the credit it also deserves as very original and creative, in a very progressive manner, even if its medium was popular music and song. I have no issue accepting those bands into the mix. They deserve it on musicianship alone, a lot more than any Metallica wannabe or lookalike deserves to in my book and they are getting yet another metal-prog definition of some sort.


Edited by moshkito - March 12 2012 at 10:46
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 12 2012 at 11:21
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

However, the 20th century has been about breaking apart all music, regardless of its anything ...

Ah, but 20th century is already so...well, 20th century.  They already decided modernist overreach is bad for us.  But they forgot to give us an alternative solution instead, leaving post modern confusion in its wake.
Back to Top
NickHall View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2011
Location: Chingford
Status: Offline
Points: 144
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 14 2012 at 05:29
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by NickHall NickHall wrote:

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.
 
My, what a shallow sandbox you play in. It is far too confining, First, equating prog to a church is rather farcical, given there is not a set dogma or tenets in stone associated with progressive rock, There are many bands, like Jethro Tull for instance,  who have progressive albums (Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, Minstrel in the Gallery, Songs From the Wood), and albums that are altogether not progressive (This Was, Benefit, War Child, Too Old to Rock and Roll, etc.), and still other albums (Stand Up, Aqualung, Heavy Horses, Stormwatch, etc.) which, depending on my mood, I could argue for or against progressivity in the rock sphere. The fact that not every Tull album was progressive does not make the albums that were indeed progressive something else altogether, and even in specific albums there are songs that are progressive while others are not. The same could be said of other "progressive bands" like Yes and Genesis.
 
There is no "drawing a line" with a band like Jethro Tull, just as there is no line-drawing regarding Queen. They did what they wanted, when the hell they wanted, and were not confined to some dogmatic adherence to a specific set of rules. Your rules. Whatever they are.
 
Perhaps you should elucidate as to what you consider "the rules", You keep making  imperious statements that have no basis of fact. Repeating an opinion does not an argument make.
It's your thinking that isn't clear enough. I personally just like music and don't like rules or prejudice against forms of music I don't necessarily like. I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 14 2012 at 05:36
Originally posted by NickHall NickHall wrote:

I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.


But what are those ground rules?  The fact that LZ and Who are in here as proto prog and Queen as prog related shows that there really are no rigid tenets on what is prog, as The Dark Elf rightly argued.  This website tries to maintain some consistency in its inclusions but that's all.  If I told you that Bjork is considered crossover prog in PA... Tongue  (something that I agree with, by the way)

Oh, and by the way, welcome to prog v/s progressive. Wink  LZ, Who, Queen were far, far more PROGRESSIVE than many bands that get called PROG.  At what point do we suggest that even the music being progressive is not enough to call it prog because it's too far removed from any generally held notions of prog?  These three bands that you happened to mention firmly live up to the ROCK part of prog rock.  So you may choose to believe or not to believe someone, but it's hardly such a ludicrous suggestion.  I suspect the fact that these three bands are already part of the classic rock canon accounts for much of your resistance to the idea that they may have something to do with prog.  If so, I meet your Queen and Who with Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull, also classic rock staples.


Edited by rogerthat - March 14 2012 at 05:37
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 14 2012 at 05:42
I should also point out that you have now veered from your earlier position in saying it is just your opinion.  In a response earlier to Pedro, you said, "Nice speech, but doesn't change the FACT that it's not prog".  Er, it's not something factual and at any rate, Queen are not so unrelated to prog.  And that's not up to you, the website says that they are prog related and that classification is widely accepted by the members, as far as I know.  
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12609
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 14 2012 at 21:52
Originally posted by NickHall NickHall wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by NickHall NickHall wrote:

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.
 
My, what a shallow sandbox you play in. It is far too confining, First, equating prog to a church is rather farcical, given there is not a set dogma or tenets in stone associated with progressive rock, There are many bands, like Jethro Tull for instance,  who have progressive albums (Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, Minstrel in the Gallery, Songs From the Wood), and albums that are altogether not progressive (This Was, Benefit, War Child, Too Old to Rock and Roll, etc.), and still other albums (Stand Up, Aqualung, Heavy Horses, Stormwatch, etc.) which, depending on my mood, I could argue for or against progressivity in the rock sphere. The fact that not every Tull album was progressive does not make the albums that were indeed progressive something else altogether, and even in specific albums there are songs that are progressive while others are not. The same could be said of other "progressive bands" like Yes and Genesis.
 
There is no "drawing a line" with a band like Jethro Tull, just as there is no line-drawing regarding Queen. They did what they wanted, when the hell they wanted, and were not confined to some dogmatic adherence to a specific set of rules. Your rules. Whatever they are.
 
Perhaps you should elucidate as to what you consider "the rules", You keep making  imperious statements that have no basis of fact. Repeating an opinion does not an argument make.
It's your thinking that isn't clear enough. I personally just like music and don't like rules or prejudice against forms of music I don't necessarily like. I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.
 
You blithely ignored the legitimate comparisons between Tull and Queen as far as their output. Some albums are very prog, some not as much, others not at all, yet I don't think many posters here would consider Tull "on the outside looking in", because it's a daft proposition. This type of rigid and specious thinking makes the old adage "can't tell the forests from the trees" appropriate here.
 
As Rogerthat pointed out, Progarchives  has clearly labeled Queen as "Prog-related". I can live with that, and obviously the "devotees" whom you allegedly speak for do not hold to your stilted convictions. And as far as Zeppelin and The Who, I don't believe anyone here would argue the point that Quadrophenia is a progressive rock album, or that songs like "Kashmir", "No Quarter", "Achilles Last Stand" or "In The Light" are prog.
 
Your argument, or rather your personal opinion, does not hold water, nor does it reflect most of the members of this forum who have posted on the subject. Radical fundamentalism is bad in prog as it is in politics.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
NickHall View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2011
Location: Chingford
Status: Offline
Points: 144
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 18 2012 at 07:33
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by NickHall NickHall wrote:

I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.


But what are those ground rules?  The fact that LZ and Who are in here as proto prog and Queen as prog related shows that there really are no rigid tenets on what is prog, as The Dark Elf rightly argued.  This website tries to maintain some consistency in its inclusions but that's all.  If I told you that Bjork is considered crossover prog in PA... Tongue  (something that I agree with, by the way)

Oh, and by the way, welcome to prog v/s progressive. Wink  LZ, Who, Queen were far, far more PROGRESSIVE than many bands that get called PROG.  At what point do we suggest that even the music being progressive is not enough to call it prog because it's too far removed from any generally held notions of prog?  These three bands that you happened to mention firmly live up to the ROCK part of prog rock.  So you may choose to believe or not to believe someone, but it's hardly such a ludicrous suggestion.  I suspect the fact that these three bands are already part of the classic rock canon accounts for much of your resistance to the idea that they may have something to do with prog.  If so, I meet your Queen and Who with Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull, also classic rock staples.

If there are no rigid tenets on what is prog, then why is there such a site? Why not call it ‘Music Archives’?  It seems to me that there is no point in a defining something as a genre if it then dreams up excuses to include everything and anything . I’m all for not having barriers of any kind then there won’t be an argument about who is in or out. But we’ll have to re-name the site.

Back to Top
NickHall View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2011
Location: Chingford
Status: Offline
Points: 144
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 18 2012 at 07:34
Words are always inadequate to describe complex emotions and thoughts, leaving much room for manoeuvre  for those looking to disagree, and can of course be worked both ways, rendering any discussion meaningless in any way other than grammar,  I don’t care to do that, it’s mere nit-picking for its own sake, and tiresome in the extreme. As for inclusions, prog archives includes everything and anything, finding justification in all kinds of obscure sub-classifications that bring us back to no genre at all
Back to Top
NickHall View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2011
Location: Chingford
Status: Offline
Points: 144
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 18 2012 at 07:36
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by NickHall NickHall wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by NickHall NickHall wrote:

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.
 
My, what a shallow sandbox you play in. It is far too confining, First, equating prog to a church is rather farcical, given there is not a set dogma or tenets in stone associated with progressive rock, There are many bands, like Jethro Tull for instance,  who have progressive albums (Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, Minstrel in the Gallery, Songs From the Wood), and albums that are altogether not progressive (This Was, Benefit, War Child, Too Old to Rock and Roll, etc.), and still other albums (Stand Up, Aqualung, Heavy Horses, Stormwatch, etc.) which, depending on my mood, I could argue for or against progressivity in the rock sphere. The fact that not every Tull album was progressive does not make the albums that were indeed progressive something else altogether, and even in specific albums there are songs that are progressive while others are not. The same could be said of other "progressive bands" like Yes and Genesis.
 
There is no "drawing a line" with a band like Jethro Tull, just as there is no line-drawing regarding Queen. They did what they wanted, when the hell they wanted, and were not confined to some dogmatic adherence to a specific set of rules. Your rules. Whatever they are.
 
Perhaps you should elucidate as to what you consider "the rules", You keep making  imperious statements that have no basis of fact. Repeating an opinion does not an argument make.
It's your thinking that isn't clear enough. I personally just like music and don't like rules or prejudice against forms of music I don't necessarily like. I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.
 
You blithely ignored the legitimate comparisons between Tull and Queen as far as their output. Some albums are very prog, some not as much, others not at all, yet I don't think many posters here would consider Tull "on the outside looking in", because it's a daft proposition. This type of rigid and specious thinking makes the old adage "can't tell the forests from the trees" appropriate here.
 
As Rogerthat pointed out, Progarchives  has clearly labeled Queen as "Prog-related". I can live with that, and obviously the "devotees" whom you allegedly speak for do not hold to your stilted convictions. And as far as Zeppelin and The Who, I don't believe anyone here would argue the point that Quadrophenia is a progressive rock album, or that songs like "Kashmir", "No Quarter", "Achilles Last Stand" or "In The Light" are prog.
 
Your argument, or rather your personal opinion, does not hold water, nor does it reflect most of the members of this forum who have posted on the subject. Radical fundamentalism is bad in prog as it is in politics.

Tull and Queen are two vastly different kettles of fish, and I like both. As for rigid thinking, you’re still missing the point – I’m not the one saying that there should be inclusions/exclusions, members of prog archives are. All I’m saying is that if there is such a genre, then by its very nature there has to be inclusions/exclusions, otherwise there IS no genre.

It’s not a case of my argument not holding water, you don’t even have a bucket.

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.121 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.