Print Page | Close Window

Queen as progressive band?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=81022
Printed Date: October 30 2014 at 09:46
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Queen as progressive band?
Posted By: Flimbau
Subject: Queen as progressive band?
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 12:07
 I was thinking about Queen since yesterday was Freddie Mercury's Bday and was wondering what was the general consensus among prog enthusiasts regarding Queen? I for one have always been a pretty big fan of Queen especially their early material from their self titled debut album right on up to The Game and even some of the later pop hits on Its a Kind of Magic, Innuendo, The Miracle etc. My argument would be their lyricism obviously especially on Queen and Queen II dealing with many of the same themes as some of their contemporary Prog acts ie: fantasy, romanticism etc...Their groundbreaking use of intensely over-dubbed choruses and whatnot also was progressive in its use of studio technology much in the same way other groups were stretching the recording process and pushing the bounds of the technology of the day. And of course the stunning musicianship of Brian May, thunderous drumming of Roger Taylor, the quiet dependable and precise playing of John Deacon (one of the great underappreciated bassists IMO), and the sheer magnetic stage presence of Freddie Mercury arguably one of the greatest singers and performers of all time. I understand their commercial success and radio hit leanings might be a turnoff for many of you so I was curious as to everyones thoughts. I absolutely adore them to be honest. How about you?

Interesting postscript: I am a graduate of an Audio Engineering program with a focus in studio/music production and actually got my hands on a few pro tools files of a few Queen master tracks and its really amazing to see how many vocal over dubs recorded in different ways go into creating the well known Queen sound. Most of Brian Mays guitar sounds alone are composed of like 2-3 amplifiers recorded simultaneously with an additional 3-4 room mics and stereo delays. Given the nature of analog recording and the limitations of mixing consoles this was pretty revolutionary for its day.



Replies:
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 12:57
Much like you I'm a big Queen fan up to Jazz. The Game had some good songs but marked the biggest change in their career and I don't care much for anything else after that.
 
Queen II is my favourite but I also love the debut, Sheer Heart Attack, At The Opera and At The Races (and Live Killers is a stunning live double, too bad they didn't release any proper live album earlier, which BTW it's something I have always been surprised about, since live albums were very popular at the time and Queen were more than famous enough to afford releasing one).
 
They do not belong to the standard definition of prog but they certainly fit in my open-minded definition!
 


Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 13:27

It's the overdubbing..... they did sh*t loads of it, probably more than any other band in the world. Queen II is just drenched in thick vocal harmonies that sound like 100+ vocalists, they're splattered everywhere, in all corners of that album. And this continues into songs like Somebody to Love, Bicycle Race, and of course, Bohemian Rhapsody.

It's not to everyone's taste, but it was certainly progressive (particularly if you listen in quadrophonic.... it's like having four choirs screaming at you from different directions, in a good way!)



-------------
http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">



Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 13:35
I liked and found Queen to be a very progressive band, up until "A Day At The Races". After that, some magic was lost, at least for me, and I lost interest in their music. I think they are all fantastic musicians and composers, but they took a more commercial approach after a great, promising beginning.


Posted By: Flimbau
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 13:37
 I wasnt aware that Queen II was released in the quadrophonic format. That is interesting to me.


Posted By: Evolver
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 13:37
Originally posted by Manuel Manuel wrote:

I liked and found Queen to be a very progressive band, up until "A Day At The Races". After that, some magic was lost, at least for me, and I lost interest in their music. I think they are all fantastic musicians and composers, but they took a more commercial approach after a great, promising beginning.
Same here. "A Day At the Races" was big big disappointment.  After that, there were moments of glory, but no really good albums.

-------------
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.


Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 13:42

Originally posted by Flimbau Flimbau wrote:

 I wasnt aware that Queen II was released in the quadrophonic format. That is interesting to me.

It may not have been officially..... but my brother's car stereo system separates audio into right and left and front and back, and while some albums still sounded just stereo, Queen II definitely had vocals and guitar parts coming out of all four areas independently.

It was the latest CD remaster (2011), with bonus tracks. Perhaps that is a quadrophonic mix, or surround mix.



-------------
http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">



Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 13:42
I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.

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


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: pool2000
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 13:54
i would put queen in the 70's as a rock band, the first 2 albums maybe prog but the game onwards more of a pop/rock band.......and i love em

-------------
queen, genesis, pink floyd, spock's beard, transatlantic, pendragon, peter gabriel, supertramp, unitopia, the watch, the lens, IQ, camel, nektar, big big train, dream theater, galahad.


Posted By: TheLastBaron
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 14:32
Definetly proto prog with debut through a day at the races. Queen 2 is my personal favorite, a lot of tempo and stylistic changes in march of the black queen. And though its a bit of a tangent, I love bohemian rhapsody but find Prophets Song to be A night at the opera's best track, pure epic grandoisity!!

-------------
" Men are not prisoners of fate, but prisoners of their own minds." - FDR


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 14:37
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.
I was about to write something similar. I don't think there's any Queen album without at least one rubbish track or skippable fillers.


-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 14:41
Originally posted by TheLastBaron TheLastBaron wrote:

Definetly proto prog with debut through a day at the races. Queen 2 is my personal favorite, a lot of tempo and stylistic changes in march of the black queen. And though its a bit of a tangent, I love bohemian rhapsody but find Prophets Song to be A night at the opera's best track, pure epic grandoisity!!


Proto-prog in the mid-70s?


Posted By: Flimbau
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 14:50
 I think its pretty hard to find any band that put an album out without at least one "rubbish" song or "fillers". I dont see why Queen should be singled out as being less than a stellar band given their massive output throughout the duration of their career and the amount of great songs they wrote as a whole. Just because they wrote a few songs that werent up to snuff hardly demeans them.

-------------
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."

from The Sayings of Muad'Dib by the Princess Irulan


Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 14:52
Just because a band is original and talented doesn't immediately make the Prog Rock. They were progressive yes. I guess they can be prog related (they already are aren't they?). But cmon. They were a great rock band. That's it

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


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 14:52
Wish You Were Here, maybe ? Jokes apart it's not question of weaker tracks in a good album. Queen's fillers are very bad, not just weaker. 

-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: unforgivable74
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 14:58
'Innuendo' and 'Was It All Worth It?' were two 'later' proggy tracks. Also, the 20 minute 'drone' that closes the 'Made In Heaven' album is wonderful but very sad. Remnants of a life but nothing remains.

In general, I think Queen had 'progressive' in their musical arsenal but chose in later years not to pursue it.

-------------
Laughs as I clean my teeth, laughs as I rub at my eyes.


Posted By: Flimbau
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 14:59
Ill give you that on Wish you Were Here. What in your opinion represents a "very bad" song from that era of Queens output?

-------------
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."

from The Sayings of Muad'Dib by the Princess Irulan


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 15:11
The only studio album I have is Flash Gordon. Reading the reviews I should perhaps consider QueenII but lack of keyboards puts me off. This a small taster of what Queen could have been
btw I love the film


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 16:08
Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

Just because a band is original and talented doesn't immediately make the Prog Rock. They were progressive yes. I guess they can be prog related (they already are aren't they?). But cmon. They were a great rock band. That's it


My thoughts exactly. We're sometime guilty of acting like an over zealous border patrol here on PA (and insist that everyone entering is subjected to a full cavity body search for Prog credentials)




-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: friso
Date Posted: September 07 2011 at 17:46
Well.. it's sure get's sophisticated and Bohemian Rhapsody is perhaps the most famous progressive epic, albeit a very short and dense one.


Posted By: prog4evr
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 22:07
Originally posted by pool2000 pool2000 wrote:

... i would put queen in the 70's as a rock band, the first 2 albums maybe prog but the game onwards more of a pop/rock band...
Agreed - good analysis...


Posted By: akaBona
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 03:07
just an average rock band ... prog rock status makes me Big smile


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 14:06
Originally posted by akaBona akaBona wrote:

just an average rock band ... prog rock status makes me Big smile
yep there was nothing remotely 'average' about Queen ,prog or not prog. They had the ability to be anything. Perhaps like a lot of seventies bands they just went with the pop flow at the end of that decade but even then they were exceptional and no one release was like another.


Posted By: Battlepriest
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 15:41
By my take, they are as much a prog band as Uriah Heep or Atomic Rooster (both of whom I consider to be prog, but barely so). They're a whole league more prog rock than Tori Amos, Nine Inch Nails or Robert Plant. I think the root of the classification problems is the concept of "100% progressive". Few albums, and fewer albums live up to that extreme standard.


Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 16:28
Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

Just because a band is original and talented doesn't immediately make the Prog Rock. They were progressive yes. I guess they can be prog related (they already are aren't they?). But cmon. They were a great rock band. That's it


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 16:38
Hi,
 
When you go back and listen to it today, you can see how good they were, and ... fairly distinctive, though not necessarily original. When the first album came out, the radio blurb sent around was trying to compare them to Led Zeppelin, which they were not ... they never got into "blues" per se, or "rock'n'roll" as it were ... they were about themselves and their work, and that is something that as time goes by, you can appreciate more and more and more ... there aren't that many "distinctive" bands out there ... right or wrong ... and Queen did stand out and it would not have done so if it were simply Freddie Mercury ... the whole band was involved and very active in their work.
 
And it shows! And for goodness sakes, they were not as pretentious as some bands are telling you they play "progressive" music! You don't need to be pretentious when you are GOOD!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 03:20
^ good comments


Posted By: wjohnd
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 03:28

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.

yup...total agreement with you on that.

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


Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 03:34
this band is some ways similar to Queen with blending glam rock, folk rock, hard rock and sometimes lenghty songs does that make Mott the Hoople prog then





several songs longer then the longest queen song and to me unmistacenle variant of heavy prog, but also with originality

this song is also proto progish




-------------
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 04:43
I see no issue in calling Queen PR if Tori is crossover. Tongue  The problem might simply be that Queen was and is already very well known as one of the top hard rock acts of the 70s and reclassifying them for the sake of this website seems superfluous.  As for being progressive, I think Sparks should get some of the credit that is generally reserved for Queen because they did this whole glam rock with faux-operatic vocals thing, AND anticipated New Wave, AND did it a whole lot more effectively than Queen.  As much as I like Queen, most of their memorable tracks are pastiches.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 05:45
They did rock in a way which had never been done before, May's overdubs, orchestrations, the way he managed to mimic a whole lot of other instruments with his guitar, together with Mercury's melodical sensitivity made their rock unique. They were innovative and that's enough for me to qualify even if they did not do the standard prog of the time.
 
And although Deacon and Taylor provided strong contributions they contributed to the more pop-rock feel, had they had a proggier bassist and drummer and a proper keyboardist things might have been different, although the leading personalities were May and Mercury so probably not much.
 
Prog rock is frequently defined as rock which incorporates elements from other styles such as classical or jazz. In the case of Queen those other styles were cabaret music, big band music, lullabies or whatever, and ok their songs were not very long and they did not frequently change time signatures within the same song, so what? they just had their own approach to making innovative rock.
 
Nowadays some have no problem calling Opeth prog, by the same token I have no problem considering Queen progressive rock, at least until A Night At The Opera.
 


Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 05:49
10cc is also prog 

-------------
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world


Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 06:28
Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

10cc is also prog 


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


http://superdensecrushloadfactor.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - Superdensecrushloadfactor


Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 07:20
Queen on RateYourMusic:

http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Pop%2fRock/" rel="nofollow - Pop/Rock , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Hard+Rock/" rel="nofollow - Hard Rock , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Rock/" rel="nofollow - Rock , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Glam+Rock/" rel="nofollow - Glam Rock , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Pop/" rel="nofollow - Pop , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Soundtracks/" rel="nofollow - Soundtracks , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Disco/" rel="nofollow - Disco , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Film+Score/" rel="nofollow - Film Score , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Art+Rock/" rel="nofollow - Art Rock , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Film+Soundtrack/" rel="nofollow - Film Soundtrack , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Progressive+Rock/" rel="nofollow - Progressive Rock , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Symphonic+Rock/" rel="nofollow - Symphonic Rock , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Synth+Pop/" rel="nofollow - Synth Pop , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Funk+Rock/" rel="nofollow - Funk Rock , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Piano+Rock/" rel="nofollow - Piano Rock , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Christmas+Music/" rel="nofollow - Christmas Music , http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Rock+Opera/" rel="nofollow - Rock Opera

I'd say that's fair.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 07:49
^ They could conceivably come up with a genre description for every rock song ever written but it wouldn't make Queen any more Progressive Rock than eclectic.

BTW I love Queen but don't feel the need to qualify their credentials of excellence as being 'Prog' to legitimise their worth


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 07:55
Queen never, you know, really rocked me. Tongue

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


Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 07:58
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

^ They could conceivably come up with a genre description for every rock song ever written but it wouldn't make Queen any more Progressive Rock than eclectic.



I don't understand, you say that RYM is trying to sell Queen as a Progressive Rock act? Because I don't see that at all.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 08:03
^ No. I inferred from your post that you consider such a wide diversity of classifications of their music from 3rd parties as conclusive evidence of Queen being unadulterated 'Progressive Rock'

It's not the first time I've misunderstood you is it? Embarrassed


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 08:13
LOL  Hug


Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 10:50

I really don't care how you label them, they were an astonishing band, one of the best ever. They were sort of an operatic rock band evolving with their time. And if some people tell they lost their "bite" after the game, they should listen to songs like "innuendo", "is this the world we created", "tear it up", "gimme the prize", "who wants to live forever", "was it all worth it", "scandal", "I can't live with you", "don't try so hard", "the hitman", "the show must go on". They all showcase some tremendous musicianship and exceptional vocals, of course.



-------------
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)


Posted By: criticdrummer94
Date Posted: September 12 2011 at 08:09
How I always called Queen was this: "A great rock band that could be the 70s Beatles(Pink Floyd is also a contender) with progressive elements." It was the 70s most of the great rock acts of the 70s had Progressive elements in their music

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

MY IDOLS


Posted By: catfood03
Date Posted: September 13 2011 at 21:14
A lot of comments I'm reading about Queen having a lot of filler tracks on each album.  For those who think so, what are such tracks for you?

I only own the first five (I've got the Amazon box set vol.2 in my shopping cart, so will be getting albums 6 through 10 soon)

Queen (debut).
I love, love this album and listen to it all the way through most times.  Only "The Night Comes Down/Modern Times Rock N Roll" is a slight dip in the flow.

Queen II
Same as above. "Some Day One Day" is okay, but I never skip it.

Sheer Heart Attack
I rarely listen to this one. Just can't get into it. So no comment.

A Night At the Opera
No filler. A perfect album from start to finish and somewhere in my top 20 albums of all time!

A Day At the Races
Near perfect, like the first two albums. Most songs are good to my ears. "You and I" bores me a bit.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 06:52
^ Really surprised you don't like Sheer Heart Attack. For me it's their one 'no flaws perfect  5 star album'


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: catfood03
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 07:00
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

^ Really surprised you don't like Sheer Heart Attack. For me it's their one 'no flaws perfect  5 star album'


I think I'll give it another try after I am completely worn-out with the other four. Most people have good things to say about it, plus it has "Killer Queen" which means I'll be reaching for the CD again sooner than later.

For some reason it didn't grab me on the first and second spins, maybe it'll be a grower for me.


Posted By: awaken77
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 07:16
Queen is as progressive as Deep Purple or Uriah Heep:: they are not prog in general sense, but have some outstanding tracks (which can be called "prog" ) , and also had influence to some prog musicians

p.s Innuendo is prog song, also one seasoned prog musician played "Spanish guitar" interlude in it



Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 07:25
^ they have loads of 'outstanding tracks' most of which are not remotely prog (and I love em allWink)

-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 10:34
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

^ they have loads of 'outstanding tracks' most of which are not remotely prog (and I love em allWink)
 
Very true. They also have many tracks covering pretty much all abums which are prog. I love Innuendo but it's not the first progressive recording they made since 1976 as many seem to think (imho of course)


Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 10:54
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:



BTW I love Queen but don't feel the need to qualify their credentials of excellence as being 'Prog' to legitimise their worth


Yes, so true. I hate seeing it everywhere on here. Especially with The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. Who needs to be so elitist that they have to qualify everything they like as Prog in some way? grrr


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


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 10:58
Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:

Sheer Heart Attack
I rarely listen to this one. Just can't get into it. So no comment.
 
Indeed you should give it another try, i find it great. Flick of the Wrist, Lilly Of The Valley and the 2 In The Lap Of The Gods are some of their most non-famous songs and soooo good !


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 11:03
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:

Sheer Heart Attack
I rarely listen to this one. Just can't get into it. So no comment.
 
Indeed you should give it another try, i find it great. Flick of the Wrist, Lilly Of The Valley and the 2 In The Lap Of The Gods are some of their most non-famous songs and soooo good !


Agree. It's a very strange album, and so it took me a long time to get into it, but now it's among my favorites.


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


Posted By: FunkyHomoSapien
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 13:27
Progressive in terms of worst possible taste maybe


Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 13:47
Originally posted by FunkyHomoSapien FunkyHomoSapien wrote:

Progressive in terms of worst possible taste maybe


Join me again next week on "Lets Make No f**king Sense", where I will be waxing an Owl.


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


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 15:05
Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

Originally posted by FunkyHomoSapien FunkyHomoSapien wrote:

Progressive in terms of worst possible taste maybe


Join me again next week on "Lets Make No f**king Sense", where I will be waxing an Owl.
LOL


Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 17:54
One of my favorite zombie horses is back to eat our brains. So I will get my favorite whacking stick to beat it as I have before...

...With all the nonsense that passes muster in crossover, Queen not passing as at least that, is a bit of a stain to the sites credibility. 


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


Posted By: jean-marie
Date Posted: September 15 2011 at 18:07
Not always but Queen has some realy prog pieces, it's a fact, love that band

-------------
FAIS QUE TON REVE SOIT PLUS LONG QUE LA NUIT HAVE YOUR DREAM LASTING LONGER THAN THE NIGHT


Posted By: FunkyHomoSapien
Date Posted: September 16 2011 at 06:03
Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

Originally posted by FunkyHomoSapien FunkyHomoSapien wrote:

Progressive in terms of worst possible taste maybe


Join me again next week on "Lets Make No f**king Sense", where I will be waxing an Owl.
Thanks for the offer of membership but I have to decline; hope you guys enjoy your wallow in the wax


Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: September 17 2011 at 00:01
Originally posted by jean-marie jean-marie wrote:

Not always but [insert prog band of choice] has some realy prog pieces, it's a fact, love that band


fixed


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


Posted By: DiamondDog
Date Posted: September 18 2011 at 03:01
Originally posted by FunkyHomoSapien FunkyHomoSapien wrote:

Progressive in terms of worst possible taste maybe
Surely you realise that bad taste goes with the territory? Queen are too intelligent not to know that themselves - it's deliberate, Freddie being provocative as usual.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 17:16
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I see no issue in calling Queen PR if Tori is crossover. Tongue  The problem might simply be that Queen was and is already very well known as one of the top hard rock acts of the 70s and reclassifying them for the sake of this website seems superfluous.  As for being progressive, I think Sparks should get some of the credit that is generally reserved for Queen because they did this whole glam rock with faux-operatic vocals thing, AND anticipated New Wave, AND did it a whole lot more effectively than Queen.  As much as I like Queen, most of their memorable tracks are pastiches.
 
Kimono My House ... and yeah ... both bands are very good! But 10CC would get the vocal credits before both of these!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 17:19
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

^ They could conceivably come up with a genre description for every rock song ever written but it wouldn't make Queen any more Progressive Rock than eclectic.

BTW I love Queen but don't feel the need to qualify their credentials of excellence as being 'Prog' to legitimise their worth
 
Yeah ... and I'm sure they wouldn't need Prog Archives to tell them what their music was about, either!
 
A proggier bassist? ... wow ... how many Chris Squire clones do we need? ... good Frupcking gracious ... that is more pretentious than a lot of other comments here! ... and they say we're pretentious! No wonder with comments like that!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Evolver
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 18:41
Originally posted by Manuel Manuel wrote:

I liked and found Queen to be a very progressive band, up until "A Day At The Races". After that, some magic was lost, at least for me, and I lost interest in their music. I think they are all fantastic musicians and composers, but they took a more commercial approach after a great, promising beginning.
 
This.


-------------
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.


Posted By: TheLionOfPrague
Date Posted: September 22 2011 at 20:51
Originally posted by lucas lucas wrote:

I really don't care how you label them, they were an astonishing band, one of the best ever. 

Agree with that.


Originally posted by lucas lucas wrote:

They were sort of an operatic rock band evolving with their time. And if some people tell they lost their "bite" after the game, they should listen to songs like "innuendo", "is this the world we created", "tear it up", "gimme the prize", "who wants to live forever", "was it all worth it", "scandal", "I can't live with you", "don't try so hard", "the hitman", "the show must go on". They all showcase some tremendous musicianship and exceptional vocals, of course.




But after "Jazz" they lost their touch, untill "Innuendo" at least, those songs you named are great, but nothing compared to their seventies stuff like Boh Rhap, March Of The Black Queen, Master Stroke, Millonaire Waltz, etc.


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


Posted By: Brolloks
Date Posted: September 26 2011 at 12:45

Queen's debut album was not progressive as such, though it contains progressive material - such as Liar, with My Fairy King hinting at what was to come. It is more of a straightforward rock album with a hard edge. But let me make it clear - Queen's debut album is better than any album Led Zeppelin ever made. Queen II is without doubt a prog album, and the most progressive album Queen ever produced. It is quasi-conceptual, and contains brilliant progressive songs - Father to Son, Ogre Battle and the epic March of the Black Queen. One cannot speak of "fillers" in this album. The Fairy Feller's Masterstroke segues into Black Queen through Nevermore - a short but magnificent song beautiful on its own or as part of the three mentioned songs. It is a world away from songs such as Do You Think It's Alright or Miracle Cure from Tommy; or Stop and Bring The Boys Back Home from The Wall.


Sheer Heart Attack was far more accessible than the previous two albums, but even without epic songs or themes there are still progressive elements to be found - massive harmony vocals throughout, use of delay in guitar solos, etc. A Night at the Opera brings everything together. The hard edge of Queen is polished, Queen II's extravagance is refined, whilst keeping it as accessible (not commercial) as Sheer Heart Attack. It is a varied album with a wide influence, but The Prophet's Song and Bohemian Rhapsody stands out. Brian May pioneered the use of delay to create Bell, cannon and counterpoint effects in a live take in the former. Much has been said about Bohemian Rhapsody. All I need to add is that Queen achieved in 6 minutes with this song that it took Pink Floyd 23 to do with Echoes. Could they have made it 3-4 times longer? Yes. Was it necessary? No.

The follow-up, A Day at The Races, is pretty much a companion album to its predecessor. How do you follow up a great album without massive disappointment? This way. The rest of the band's catalog is pretty much straightforward rock, until the (supposed to be) last album - Innuendo. Very much like A Night at the Opera in its varied content, it also contains massive songs such as the title-track, The Show Must Go On, and the psychedelic I'm Going Slightly Mad. But unlike the first albums, the band makes use of synthesizers, giving the music a much deeper range. I've always believed that had the likes of Led Zeppelin released Innuendo (song) 20 years earlier, it would be regarded as the greatest song of all time. 


Queen will never be considered a progressive band such as Pink Floyd, King Crimson or Yes, but they pushed boundaries back a great deal, and were without doubt musical pioneers. Queen were the masters of vocal harmonies and arrangements. Other band's didn't do the same simply because the couldn't. The same goes for May's guitar arrangements - Procession, Good Company, etc. Furthermore, didn't other progressive bands also abandon their earlier progressive sounds? Owner of a Lonely Heart? Another Brick in the Wall Part 2


Progressive at first? Definitely. Progressive at the end? Yes. Progressive as such? Not enough. Brilliant, though.



Posted By: Neue regel
Date Posted: September 27 2011 at 03:35
Queen II is one of the finest examples of Pomp-Prog rock ever. Imo.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Neue_regel_" rel="nofollow - Neue Regel's Last.Fm


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 27 2011 at 08:53
I think one has to take the term "progressive band" with a grain of salt, particularly in the 1970s. Queen had their progressive albums (Queen II, certainly, and A Night at the Opera in part as well), but I don't believe the band ever strived to achieve and maintain the title of "progressive band". The title simply was not important or relevant at the time. Like Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, each of whom had their progressive moments (or whole albums) in the 1970s, Queen and these other great rock bands did whatever the hell they wanted in that decade, unhindered by classifications and stratified genres that became more important later on.
 
The urge to label artists has become almost a mania, and I am unconvinced that this is a good idea. Pink Floyd was a psychedelic band, as well as a hard rock band, as well as a progressive band. Tull was a blues rock band, a progressive band, a hard rock band, and a folk rock band. Zeppelin was blues rock, hard rock and folk rock with a dabbling of progressive rock on Houses of the Holy and Physical Graffiti. The same can be said of Queen's approach to multi-genre albums (including British burlesque, heavy metal and one notable tune composed in rhapsodic form).
 
And this is one of the sterling examples of why rock music in the 1970s maintains its legendary status (at least among the truly innovative and important performers, throwing in the likes of David Bowie as well). Their diversity was the hallmark of their greatness. They cannot be so easily pigeon-holed into comfortable little containers with a one-size-fits-all title and an expiration date.


-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: September 27 2011 at 14:02
^ great post


Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: September 27 2011 at 16:23
^ Indeed.


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 28 2011 at 06:08
What Dark Elf. said and.... 
 
Allmost every band from the 70's got a bit of prog, in them, as what we today call prog., was what everyone was dooing back then. A bit of wierd sound effect, some symphonic elements here and there, stereo running from one speeker to the other.
 
Would i consider Queen to be basicly a prog band overall : NO !
I consider them to be a  (hard) Rock band, as i do with Roling Stones, 10cc, Alice Cooper, Uriah Heep, Dire Straight.
Van Hales, Deep P, Led Z. ect ect.
 
Loads of great music i do not think of as prog., even if they had the "some proggy elements" in the 70's. 
And im afraid if we are not carefull, every band that was just a tiny bit "unmainsteam" in the 70's, will be considered
a classic prog. band, to the point where there is nothing proggy left about prog.
 
If Queen is prog, why is Frankie goes to Hollywood not prog ? None of them have odd times nor any real style fussion, Is it just that they was from another time, or we dont like them as much, factualy they hold as many prog elements on the Pleasure Dome, as queen does on the Opera.  
 


-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: September 28 2011 at 14:42
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

What Dark Elf. said and.... 
 
Allmost every band from the 70's got a bit of prog, in them, as what we today call prog., was what everyone was dooing back then. A bit of wierd sound effect, some symphonic elements here and there, stereo running from one speeker to the other.
 
Would i consider Queen to be basicly a prog band overall : NO !
I consider them to be a  (hard) Rock band, as i do with Roling Stones, 10cc, Alice Cooper, Uriah Heep, Dire Straight.
Van Hales, Deep P, Led Z. ect ect.
 
Loads of great music i do not think of as prog., even if they had the "some proggy elements" in the 70's. 
And im afraid if we are not carefull, every band that was just a tiny bit "unmainsteam" in the 70's, will be considered
a classic prog. band, to the point where there is nothing proggy left about prog.
 
If Queen is prog, why is Frankie goes to Hollywood not prog ? None of them have odd times nor any real style fussion, Is it just that they was from another time, or we dont like them as much, factualy they hold as many prog elements on the Pleasure Dome, as queen does on the Opera.  
 
Frankie Goes To Hollywood had a bit of a prog thing going mainly thanks to Trevor Horn who more or less moulded their sound.
 
For me Tubeway Army - Replicas was a prog album. I still regard it as such and won't be told otherwiseTongue
 


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 28 2011 at 17:01
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

 
Frankie Goes To Hollywood had a bit of a prog thing going mainly thanks to Trevor Horn who more or less moulded their sound.
 
A bit of prog, Yes - but not a prog band ! ,
Stravinsky was a bit Jazzy at times (late of course) , but he is not a Jazz-Fussion artist.
 
Regarding Tubeway Army - Replicas, i think its considered Proggy Wave in some circles, but i dont know the album myself. 


-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: areyouxp
Date Posted: December 27 2011 at 01:57
agree with Was It All Worth It and Innuendo being Queen's 'later' proggy tracks.  definitely worth a listen to, if you're into their early stuff.


Posted By: geneyesontle
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 19:35
Originally posted by Manuel Manuel wrote:

I liked and found Queen to be a very progressive band, up until "A Day At The Races". After that, some magic was lost, at least for me, and I lost interest in their music. I think they are all fantastic musicians and composers, but they took a more commercial approach after a great, promising beginning.
 
I agree with you.


Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 04:27
First five Queen albums are definitely prog. If not 'pure' prog, but heavy or crossover prog.

But after that they started to write more pop-oriented music, so their albums from 1977 to 1986 are even not 'prog-related', just pop/rock. 1989 album 'The Miracle' is a pop album too, but that's where Queen started to return to their prog roots, and following album 'Innuendo' have a very strong prog feeling.


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 04:29
Originally posted by ole-the-first ole-the-first wrote:

First five Queen albums are definitely prog. If not 'pure' prog, but heavy or crossover prog.

But after that they started to write more pop-oriented music, so their albums from 1977 to 1986 are even not 'prog-related', just pop/rock. 1989 album 'The Miracle' is a pop album too, but that's where Queen started to return to their prog roots, and following album 'Innuendo' have a very strong prog feeling.
And Steve Howe as guest, too


-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 04:41
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by ole-the-first ole-the-first wrote:

First five Queen albums are definitely prog. If not 'pure' prog, but heavy or crossover prog.

But after that they started to write more pop-oriented music, so their albums from 1977 to 1986 are even not 'prog-related', just pop/rock. 1989 album 'The Miracle' is a pop album too, but that's where Queen started to return to their prog roots, and following album 'Innuendo' have a very strong prog feeling.
And Steve Howe as guest, too


Surprisingly or not, Queen had a lot of connections with prog bands at all.

In early 1970's they were an opening act for Genesis and Yes. And in 1986 Fish joined Queen on their show in Mannheim, Germany.


Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: January 31 2012 at 17:52
I am a fan of Queen until Day at the Races. Anything passed that is quite bad. Even though I feel Queen and Queen II have large gap where emotion and passion should be placed, they are very solid musical albums. Sheer Heart Attack is good. A Night at the Opera is one of my favourite albums and A Day at the Races is very good. News of the World is quite bland, Jazz is just bad except for having 2 entertaining songs (Big Bottom Girls, Bicycle Race). And everybody knows about 80s queen. Overall, queen is like every band from the 70s era that survived into the 90s: They were good until the 80s, then they sucked.

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


Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: February 04 2012 at 07:31
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/adam-lambert-queen-tour-freddie-mercury-287102" rel="nofollow - Adam Lambert for prog-related.  Tongue

-------------
http://epignosis.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Listen to the new Epignosis album for free- it's good for your health


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: February 04 2012 at 12:20
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/queen-tap-american-idol-singer-adam-lambert-for-summer-tour/" rel="nofollow - http://ultimateclassicrock.com/queen-tap-american-idol-singer-adam-lambert-for-summer-tour/

Dead


-------------
      


Posted By: Guzzman
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 11:04
Originally posted by Brolloks Brolloks wrote:

But let me make it clear - Queen's debut album is better than any album Led Zeppelin ever made.
No. As much as I like Queen's debut, it will never be in the same league as Led Zeppelin IV. Plus - in my humble opinion - Led Zep I, II, and III are much better than Queen's first album. Saying this, I - of course - try to reflect on the years they were recorded.
But back to the question: Is Queen a progressive band? No.




-------------
"We've got to get in to get out"


Posted By: Lizzy
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 13:40
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/queen-tap-american-idol-singer-adam-lambert-for-summer-tour/" rel="nofollow - http://ultimateclassicrock.com/queen-tap-american-idol-singer-adam-lambert-for-summer-tour/

Dead

Adam Bolton (inside joke) denied this on his Twitter, but it would not surprise me if this is just testing the public's reaction and we'll eventually get to see such an abomination materialise.

Also, Greatest Hits 3 yesterday's most popular album on PA? Ermm


-------------
Property of Queen Productions...


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 13:56
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.
I was about to write something similar. I don't think there's any Queen album without at least one rubbish track or skippable fillers.

Interesting. I have never found it so.


-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 13:59
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.
I was about to write something similar. I don't think there's any Queen album without at least one rubbish track or skippable fillers.

Interesting. I have never found it so.
Well, I've been quoted Big smile.  just to say it more clearly...I love Jazz but it has "More of That Jazz"....A Kind of Magic has "Don't Loose Your Head"...Innuendo has "Delilah" ....and so on


-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 14:05
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.
I was about to write something similar. I don't think there's any Queen album without at least one rubbish track or skippable fillers.

Interesting. I have never found it so.
Well, I've been quoted Big smile.  just to say it more clearly...I love Jazz but it has "More of That Jazz"....A Kind of Magic has "Don't Loose Your Head"...Innuendo has "Delilah" ....and so on

More Of That Jazz is brilliant. I thought yiou were talking about all the albums though.

Don't Lose your Head is Ok too.

Not keen on cat songs either But it isn't a bad song just because I don't like it. Or you. Or Laz.


-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 14:20
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.
I was about to write something similar. I don't think there's any Queen album without at least one rubbish track or skippable fillers.

Interesting. I have never found it so.
Well, I've been quoted Big smile.  just to say it more clearly...I love Jazz but it has "More of That Jazz"....A Kind of Magic has "Don't Loose Your Head"...Innuendo has "Delilah" ....and so on

I'd agree that Delilah and Don't Lose Your Head are terrible, but More of That jazz is a great hard rocker with inimitable Roger Taylor's vocals.


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 14:29
^They are not terrible.

-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 14:32
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

^They are not terrible.

Well, that was just mine personal opinion.


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 14:36
Originally posted by ole-the-first ole-the-first wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.
I was about to write something similar. I don't think there's any Queen album without at least one rubbish track or skippable fillers.

Interesting. I have never found it so.
Well, I've been quoted Big smile.  just to say it more clearly...I love Jazz but it has "More of That Jazz"....A Kind of Magic has "Don't Loose Your Head"...Innuendo has "Delilah" ....and so on

I'd agree that Delilah and Don't Lose Your Head are terrible, but More of That jazz is a great hard rocker with inimitable Roger Taylor's vocals.
However the sense of that mine old post was that Queen would have been better with shorter albums full of masterpieces than with all the fillers. More of that jazz is not terrible, but is a filler.  


-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 14:51
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by ole-the-first ole-the-first wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.
I was about to write something similar. I don't think there's any Queen album without at least one rubbish track or skippable fillers.

Interesting. I have never found it so.
Well, I've been quoted Big smile.  just to say it more clearly...I love Jazz but it has "More of That Jazz"....A Kind of Magic has "Don't Loose Your Head"...Innuendo has "Delilah" ....and so on

I'd agree that Delilah and Don't Lose Your Head are terrible, but More of That jazz is a great hard rocker with inimitable Roger Taylor's vocals.
However the sense of that mine old post was that Queen would have been better with shorter albums full of masterpieces than with all the fillers. More of that jazz is not terrible, but is a filler.  

Yeah, I'd agree that there's fillers on most of Queen's albums, but More of That Jazz for me is not a filler. Songs like Fun It and In Only Seven Days are much better candidates to be called 'fillers'.


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 14:52
Originally posted by ole-the-first ole-the-first wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by ole-the-first ole-the-first wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.
I was about to write something similar. I don't think there's any Queen album without at least one rubbish track or skippable fillers.

Interesting. I have never found it so.
Well, I've been quoted Big smile.  just to say it more clearly...I love Jazz but it has "More of That Jazz"....A Kind of Magic has "Don't Loose Your Head"...Innuendo has "Delilah" ....and so on

I'd agree that Delilah and Don't Lose Your Head are terrible, but More of That jazz is a great hard rocker with inimitable Roger Taylor's vocals.
However the sense of that mine old post was that Queen would have been better with shorter albums full of masterpieces than with all the fillers. More of that jazz is not terrible, but is a filler.  

Yeah, I'd agree that there's fillers on most of Queen's albums, but More of That Jazz for me is not a filler. Songs like Fun It and In Only Seven Days are much better candidates to be called 'fillers'.
Them too...


-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 17:39
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.
I was about to write something similar. I don't think there's any Queen album without at least one rubbish track or skippable fillers.

Interesting. I have never found it so.
 
There is no filler on A Night at the Opera. I have analyzed this with a team of experts.


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


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 23:29
Probably also "A Day At The Races" has no fillers. I think they have started from Jazz

-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: Slaughternalia
Date Posted: February 05 2012 at 23:34
Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I think that any album which includes their hits is a great album. Unfortunately, for me, I found that every single album they did also contained some atrocious rubbish.
I was about to write something similar. I don't think there's any Queen album without at least one rubbish track or skippable fillers.

Interesting. I have never found it so.
 
There is no filler on A Night at the Opera. I have analyzed this with a team of experts.
Don't get me wrong, I like the album, but I'm In Love With My Car? Come on. Practically unlistenable


-------------
I'm so mad that you enjoy a certain combination of noises that I don't


Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: February 06 2012 at 07:57
I enjoyed 'I'm in Love with My Car'. It was a huge live hit, so this is obviously not a filler.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: February 06 2012 at 16:04

Like so many others I really love Queen up to A Day At The Races, after that they made many great songs but no album that can be called trully great, and even less if we limit ourselves to the scope of prog.

As good as it is from a democratical point of view that in a band they let all the members contribute, the main problem were the songs by Roger Taylor. No fillers for me in Queen I, but The Loser In The End in Queen II, Tenement Funster in SHA, I'm In Love With My Car in ANATO or Drowse in ADATR, are consistently the weaker songs in those otherwise masterpieces. Roger was a rocker and that's fine, but it would have been nice if Brian and Freddy would have developed and arranged his ideas more (much more even than what they did I mean). They didn't care because they never aimed at being a prog band.
 
John Deacon had a pop soul but at least he was more inspired than Roger, his songs might not be prog but at least they were very good pop-rock songs.
 
Finally, just let me say that from Jazz I love Dead On Time, what a guitar raid !


Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: February 06 2012 at 18:00
I'd completely disagree with you in your point about Taylor's songs. For me, Taylor is a very talented and inspired musician and I love his songs a lot (and Tenement Funster is one of my fav Queen's tracks ever). So attitude to his songs is just a matter of taste.

And Taylor's solo stuff is great. Far better than Mercury's solo curiosity called 'Mr. Bad Guy'.


Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: February 06 2012 at 18:45
Originally posted by ole-the-first ole-the-first wrote:

I enjoyed 'I'm in Love with My Car'. It was a huge live hit, so this is obviously not a filler.
 
Indeed. Now the first cut of "Seven Seas of Rhye", that was filler.


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


Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: February 07 2012 at 03:15
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

 
John Deacon had a pop soul but at least he was more inspired than Roger, his songs might not be prog but at least they were very good pop-rock songs.
 
Finally, just let me say that from Jazz I love Dead On Time, what a guitar raid !
 
In Only Seven Days and Who Needs You were pure Deacon filler for me. Mercury had his share too - remember Keep Passing Open Wndows, Delilah and Don't Try So Hard? Not great. Maybe I'm just not keen on pop?
 
Dead On Time however - yep that was a great rock-out indeed Wink


Posted By: JeanFrame
Date Posted: March 05 2012 at 05:54
Queen were/are excellent musicians, and made many fine records, but I can't personally see them as 'progressive'. "Bohemian Rhapsody" had some elements of Prog, but it wasn't really typical of the body of their work. More a mix of metal and pop IMO.


Posted By: catfood03
Date Posted: March 05 2012 at 06:58
I can barely sit through Jazz, which sounded like mostly filler. I am interested in picking up The Game though, because I like the "hits" on that record. Could anyone tell me if they think it is better than its predecessor?         


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: March 05 2012 at 16:09
Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:

I can barely sit through Jazz, which sounded like mostly filler. I am interested in picking up The Game though, because I like the "hits" on that record. Could anyone tell me if they think it is better than its predecessor?         
 
What do you mean "if they think it is better than its predecessor?"
You mean what did the Queen guys themselves think?
If so I have no idea, bands rarely criticize their own records, their last is always the best...
I personally enjoy Jazz more (The Game has some good parts but much less interesting than Jazz IMHO).
 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk