Uh-Oh!

That's a hornet's nest-stirring question if ever there was one  - but I totally agree.

I also think that "Queen II" and, to a lesser extent, "Queen" are both great prog albums.

Almost all the articles I have ever read about Queen have referred to their early material as "Bombastic, Operatic prog rock with a dash of Vaudeville" - and I would agree.

According to one close source (on this very forum!), however, Queen themselves did not consider themselves to be prog. Still - it's us who decide, eh?

The first 4 albums were definitely prog in all but name. They were always marketed as a kind of glam rock/hard rock hybrid, and had lots of hits and appeared on TOTP, which is probably why prog fans have never quite accepted them.

The world became a slightly duller place the day Freddie Mercury died.

No -- on the balance, not to me. Mostly well-executed radio-friendly pop, though I enjoyed much of their earlier output.

These types of questions (along with almost all reactions to art) are personal, subjective matters. As I've effectively said many times here, if you think that XTC, the Beatles, Zeppelin, the Who, Metallica, Radiohead, Weather Report or Queen belong on your own prog compilations, fine -- but don't expect to get all here to agree with your perceptions, or to arrive at some universally-accepted definition of "progressive rock."

Why is this issue (in one form or another) so important to so many people?

There are hundreds of diverse artists to read about and review here, and those who aren't here -- for one reason or another -- can be found on other websites.

Yep, even they didn't consider themselves prog... but back then when they played NYC they were always touted as Glitter-rock.. and they weren't really fond of that title either... However unlike Cert here... I never heard anyone refer to them as prog rock... not in this country anyway.  But I have heard this debate in different places over the last few years...

Just as with others... prog moments, does not a prog band make...

They had prog moments on numerous albums. Queen were eclectic. They played with many styles, and in the early days often to very good effect. When the 70's drew to a close they became very poppy. Although I did like 'The works'

Brian May was a very taleneted musician, who made his own guitars

Sadly, his guitar sound was sh!t and he looks like Anita Dobson, but hey. You cant have eveything

Peter wrote: No -- on the balance, not to me. Mostly well-executed radio-friendly pop, though I enjoyed much of their earlier output. These types of questions (along with almost all reactions to art) are personal, subjective matters. As I've effectively said many times here, if you think that XTC, the Beatles, Zeppelin, the Who, Metallica, Radiohead, Weather Report or Queen belong on your own prog compilations, fine -- but don't expect to get all here to agree with your perceptions, or to arrive at some universally-accepted definition of "progressive rock." Why is this issue (in one form or another) so important to so many people? There are hundreds of diverse artists to read about and review here, and those who aren't here -- for one reason or another -- can be found on other websites.

I think a lot of the bands you mentioned are mostly rock, but had touches of prog-inspired creativity. For example, the Beatles: on Sergeant Pepper's, much of the last half of the record was trippy and proggish. I think that is quite an arguable observation. Zeppelin were definitely rock, but Stairway to Heaven was an epic-like and storytelling piece. Both epics and storys-told are common to progressive music. The Who's Tommy album was progressive. Metallica's The Call of Ktulu off of Ride the Lightning  could be argued as progressive metal. Weather Report was probably more jazz-rock than prog-rock. I know that many others hold that view of Weather Report's music. But the question was Queen; Queen could be argued as both regular rock and prog-rock. They dabbled in prog, but most of their work was straight-up rock and roll. This opinion may be biased because I don't even really like Queen. That's my bit, take it or leave it.

Bicycle, fat-bottomed girls, hammer to fall

Who is responsible for f**king up this great band OF THE SEVENTIES?

They could have been a great Prog band but sold out.

The biggest sell-out of all times (and that includes PC!)

I'm in the no camp.

Queen were (are?) very talented, and created very diverse music. Some of that music had prog qualities, especially on their earlier albums, but not nearly enough to make them a prog band.

If Queen were a prog rock band,  surely it follows that they were one of the biggest prog rock bands. That for me would not make sense, and would distort the whole genre.

There is a temptation at times to promote bands here as being prog, in order to get them onto the site. My concern is that if bands such as Queen (whose music I love) were here, the whole focus of site would change. Queen are still a huge band today, do we really want this site to be dominated by them and other such "marginally prog" bands? At present, the "biggest" bands on this site are Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, etc., all of whom help to define the genre. Queen do not do so.

Reed Lover wrote: Bicycle, fat-bottomed girls, hammer to fall Who is responsible for f**king up this great band OF THE SEVENTIES? They could have been a great Prog band but sold out. The biggest sell-out of all times (and that includes PC!)

Yes, I have to say I was disappointed at the direction the band took. Ironically, the first few LPs had "No synthesizers!" in the sleeve notes, and they were the albums that Prog fans like the most.

I bought the first three LPs at the time but, apart from 'Bohemian Rhapsody', did not care as much for "A Night At The Opera" when it came out and so stopped at "Sheer Heart Attack". I disposed of my LPs in the late 1970s, but a couple of years ago bought "Sheer Heart Attack" again on CD, and am toying with buying the first two albums again on CD.

On balance, I don't think that QUEEN belongs in the ProgArchives data base. Their early sound was proggish, but still more mainstream rock/pop in my opinion. The first three/four albums are great, nevertheless.

In the sense they changed something in Rock since they appeared, I believe they were progressive (As an adjective that qualifies their approach towards music), they turned POP into  a decent genre to listen and of course they have a few songs that can be considered Prog'

But no I don't believe they are part of the Progressive Rock Genre.

Iván

threefates wrote: Yep, even they didn't consider themselves prog... but back then when they played NYC they were always touted as Glitter-rock.. and they weren't really fond of that title either... However unlike Cert here... I never heard anyone refer to them as prog rock... not in this country anyway.  But I have heard this debate in different places over the last few years... Just as with others... prog moments, does not a prog band make...

I read Freddi's biography, and apparently he liked the glitter rock thing, but the rest of the band didn't, and wanted to be a manly rock band.

I wouldn't say that they were a prog rock band, but they were experimental, and I think "A Night At The Opera" was one attempt at a prog rock type album.

they obviously are a band who are reluctant to be pigeon holed as anything but a "Rock" band, and they remain one of my favourite bands. 

A simple thought: Why don't create an "almost prog" archive? There are many bands that can fit in there... By example, Zeppelin has two or three songs that can be catalogued as prog, mostly the ones that are influenced by Tolkien. Another guy that I belived it's some kind of progressive in one album is Billy Paul, war of the gods. Also Stomu Yamatza in Go - Live in Paris (I didn´t chech this band in the archive, BTW).