Queen
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5062
Printed Date: April 28 2025 at 10:35
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Queen
Posted By: Moribund
Subject: Queen
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 05:25
I am baffled at the absence of Queen from this site. The fact that their music became markedly commercial and unprog from the mid 70's onwards is undeniable, but this is no less a reason to dismiss them as to dimiss Genesis for doing the same some 5 years later. The first four albums are undeniably prog (certainly Art Rock if not Symphonic Prog) and isn't Bohemian Rhapsody arguably the most definably prog sounding track to have ever made number one in the UK singles chart (a distincion later to be challenged by Paranoid Android)? I am not making a particular play for including them, but comenting on what seems a conspicuous absence from a band whose first four albums seem to belong very comfortably within the genre. Now tell me I'm wrong...
|
Replies:
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 05:53
|
You're not wrong. You're not the first to say it, maybe not even the first this week. The argument against them (as far as I understand) is that the overall output of the band is not prog, and that they belong with other bands who dabbled in prog but didn't make it their focus. Is that accurate, naysayers? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi"> 
|
They're one of the perennial top contenders for inclusion on the site...and many people feel that they belong here more than dozens of bands already listed. I personally wouldn't mind seeing them listed one bit...Queen II is one of my favorite examples of early hard rock-flavored prog, right up there with Rush. Posted By: bumheed7
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 05:53
totally agree. i feel they are more prog than radiohead, anyway ------------- Good Morning Carpark Fans 
|
Moribund wrote:Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 06:02
| Yes, but Radiohead's inclusion, IMHO is a MISTAKE. I don't think Queen is prog. It's just radio-friendly classic rock with a prog edge, just like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 06:23
| I think the sheer theatricality of Queen's output is reason alone for their inclusion. Also, the diversity of styles they draw from make another good argument for their case. I challenge anyone to listen to A Night at the Opera and not agree that it's one of the finest art rock albums of all time. |
Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 06:32
|
Fat bottomed girls make the world go round very prog... |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 07:11
|
Queen arn't prog I can accept their Debut,'Queen 11' & 'Sheer heart attack' albums as great albums with acceptable progggy type material,'A night at the opera'album, has some great tracks but the album is then totally destroyed by the tragic 'Bohemian Rhapsody' track...O god do i hate that track.After this album Queen are pants
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 09:57
|
Bohemian Rhapsody is a fantastic track - just overplayed! I like all of Queen's output, and consider the 1st 5 albums to be pretty much pure prog, albeit coming from a glam rock type of angle. Innuendo is back in character, but all their albums have something progressive going on. I can understand why they wouldn't be contenders for the archives - but to say that they're more prog than Radiohead is ignorance. Queen never came out with anything near the progressiveness of "Kid A" or "Amnesiac", both of which have more in common with Can than almost anything else. On the other hand, if the only objection is output ratio, then don't forget that Genesis have spent less of their time producing prog than pop/rock music. |
Posted By: John Gargo
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 09:59
|
Queen are one of the greatest bands ever.... even when they went commercial in the 80s, there were still creating high quality music that completely trumps everything else that was mainstream. INNUENDO, their last album, has some fantastic proggish flourishes, which means they've done something that Genesis hasn't... they've gone back to their roots. Fantastic band... I think it's a travesty that they're not on here. |
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 10:11
|
it's hard to find a band that put more Symphonic into their Rock than they did. then again, ELO did too...but that's another touchy topic. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: Dan Bobrowski
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 10:57
|
The Prophet Song gets included in every Prog Compilation I've made. Queen II was seriously drenched in progressive tendencies and a great defining statement. I still say, "What's the problem adding ONLY those albums by a band that ARE prog?" Do we have to add their entire output? I think, "NO" would be the correct answer to that. How many bands have been influenced by Freddie and the band? I've heard plenty of prog that has strong ties to Queen... Relayer, IZZ, Salem Hill, Kaipa, Ritual... The Queen stamp is all over them.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 11:02
O God lets all commercial shall we.Commercialism was one of the things that helped destroy prog in the first place. Yeh to the first 3 queen albums but i'm afraid
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 11:15
|
I couldn't agree more with the points raised here; Queen are a FANTASTIC band that have progressive tendencies all over their work- 'Queen II' is their proggiest album, as mentioned, and in my opinion, one of the greatest albums ever made. Just listen to 'Ogre Battle' or 'March Of The Black Queen' to see how heavy and proggy they got. Even the hit single 'Seven Seas Of Rhye' is a magnificently overblown 3 minutes... 'A Night At The Opera' is wildly ambitious; almost a compendium of popular music in the 20th century with dancehall music, jazz pop, heavy rock, 60s pop tunes and mega pomp-prog (check out 'The Prophet's Song'). 'Innuendo' is a magnificent track, and for prog fiends, has Steve Howe on 'wandering minstrel guitar' playing an excellent flamenco section- it also has an instrumental mid section to die for and Freddie Mercury delivers an astonishing vocal. Sure- nothing the band did in the '80s was prog in the slightest, but you could say the same about Genesis or Yes inb the main. I'd love to see the band represented here and would gladly write the biography for their entry.
|
Posted By: Vince
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 11:52
|
I agree that Queen should be featured here, like many of you. I always felt that Queen was a style on its own, a little bit like Pink Floyd. And I also think that Queen was one of the most influencial rock bands. ------------- "The mind is like a parachute: it doesn't work until it's opened"... Frank Zappa. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 11:57
Innuendo!!!! You going slightly mad.
|
Posted By: Guillermo
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 13:01
|
Yes. Queen should be included in this website. But I lost in the ELO poll I posted two months ago... ------------- Avatar: Photo of Solar Eclipse, Mexico City, July 1991. A great experience to see. Maybe once in a lifetime. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 13:09
That one isn't - but neither is "Owner of a Lonely Heart". "The Prophet's Song", as has been observed, is pure symphonic prog with touches of Queen "magic" (and no synths!). BTW, like "Money", Paranoid Android is partly in 7/4 time - and the "Rain Down" coda is not unlike the symphonic prog of Barclay James Harvest, replete with 4-part harmonies and counter-calls. It's a prog track for the 1990s and beyond alright! |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 14:03
|
Speaking personally (not "officially"), I competely disagree. First, I do not consider either Queen I or Queen II "prog" in any way, shape or form. They are rock albums with some interesting quasi-prog elements, but they are not prog - certainly not as whole albums. As for Sheer Heart Attack, some songs have some "prog sensibilities," but the album as a whole is definitely not prog: it is rock. Re Night at the Opera, I would agree that perhaps Prophet's Song and Bohemian Rhapsody border true "prog." But, again, the album as a whole is not prog. Same goes for Day at the Races, which has a couple of "proggy" tracks, but is not, by any means, a "prog album." Nothing after that was even closely "prog." Peace.
|
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 14:22
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 15:09
 Amen to that, Lucas. |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 15:11
|
We've been through this discussion numerous times. see also http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3159&KW=queen+the+works - Queen II. Where I stand is simple, Some of these bands are included, others aren't. I don't really care whether they are included or not, but if they are included
------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 15:32
Yeah - God forbid a prog band should sell any singles and go, like, on a complete breadhead trip... You seem to forget that even prog bands sold singles in their attempts to sell out;
Now that's going commercial! |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 16:57
|
I've always been against Queen's inclusion on the site. I do accept that some of their earlier tracks might be considered prog, but I don't think they ever made a prog album as such. I've said it before, but I do feel we shoudl be more careful about including major bands such as Queen than we might be about more obscure bands. To include a band such as Queen would inevitably attract a lot of people to the site who don't necessarily appreciate prog as such. I don't mean to sound elitist there, I just fear it could end up pulling the site away from true prog. I find it interesting by the way that several of the posts here say Queen should be included because they are good, very good, "I love them", etc. I'm sure many of us would agree with that without hesitation, but it does not in itself mean they should be included on this site. The jsutification should not be how good they are, but how prog they are. |
Posted By: Titan
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 18:39
|
easy livin: but progarchives dont include only pure prog bands For example: Talk Talk - so why not Queen ? I love Queen but i want them to put here because QI,QII,SHA,Opera have a lot of prog inside.... |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 18:45
DON'T WE KNOW THE STUPIDITY OF IT ALL.
|
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 18:50
|
Why is releasing a single considered a sell-out? ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: April 11 2005 at 21:07
|
KE9- selling singles is NOT selling out. I view it as a way for a larger mass of people to hear the bands that we/I love. And sometimes, the band had no say in singles release- it was the record company. Besides, many friends of mine were brought into bands such as Genesis and ELP from hearing a single in the first place, before I even met them or recomended that band's music to them. |
Posted By: Trotsky
Date Posted: April 12 2005 at 01:34
|
At this rate, it's likely that the prog/not prog debate will rage for some time to come ... as long as there are grey areas (Queen, Styx, Radiohead, etc) there will be heated arguments on both sides. I'm speaking as someone who's a hard-core prog fan who's been a little confused by just one or two of the bands listed here. Personally I consider Queen to be the band that introduced me to prog even if almost nothing after their 4th album is progressive. For me, the "proggy-ness" of tunes like My Fairy King, March Of The Black Queen, Ogre Battle, Seven Seas Of Rhye, Brighton Rock, The Prophet's Song, Bohemian Rhapsody and yes Innuendo is indisputable (as it is for Styx's Come Sail Away, Radiohead's Paranoid Android, Deep Purple's April, Elton John's Funeral for A Friend and even Poco's Crazy Eyes). I think Tomorrow is a great psych band with almost no prog hallmarks aside from having Yes man Steve Howe on board. I think it's a little tough that the US psych-era bands It's A Beautfiul Day and Vanilla Fudge are here, but their counterparts Spirit and Iron Butterfly aren't. I consider all 4 bands to have a similar degree of proggyness myself ... And what are we going to do about the Aussie band Blackfeather? They released a brilliant bona-fide prog album At The Mountain Of Madness in 1971, but then had a drastic shift of direction and personnel and started having pop/rock hits under the same name ... surely that one album belongs here ... but the rest doesn't ... Ultimately though, I am still content however to leave it in the hands of the powers that be ... who have done a generally fantastic job so far ... my suggestion (and I know it's been made before) would be that we have a sub-section featuring progressive songs/albums by acts not deemed progressive ... but obviously that's going to take time, and we shouldn't expect mailto:M@x - M@x and Maani to start working on this kind of thing when the main site is still undergoing changes ... maybe we can ask them what we can do to help in the event a "semi-prog" section ever shows up? Cheers!
------------- "Death to Utopia! Death to faith! Death to love! Death to hope?" thunders the 20th century. "Surrender, you pathetic dreamer.” "No" replies the unhumbled optimist "You are only the present." |
Posted By: Soulman
Date Posted: April 12 2005 at 02:13
|
I take it again, that this posting will be another caucus meeting in
attempts of evoking the powers that be on this site to add Queen as it
is democratic to the interest of prog fans. I come to this site looking for progressive rock music; therefore, I am hoping that this site will include bands that are represent the progressive rock genre. Yet this genre in itself isn't really spread so thin, so there needs to be more debate on what progressive rock will be on this site. My guess is that Progarchives is trying to represent all of Prog to its fullest (especially when you Fusion, despite some of its tendencies towards jazz.) I would say that Queen, even though they made attempts to appeal to alot of people by being flamboyant and having poppy melodies, they still attempted to do something really creative for the Rock Genre of music. I think that should be Progarchives defintion for progessive rock, because it can't be all Yes, ELP, and Gentle Giant all the way. Queen should definetely be on this site, despite the fact they don't live up to a much more progressive band. Pop-Prog lives...I mean all of you seem to acknowledge Spock's Beard in some way. |
Posted By: arkitek
Date Posted: April 12 2005 at 02:22
well said! |
thinking they know prog because they have one queen album clogging up "main discussions" with pointless queen topics, a bit like some of the ELP topics.Posted By: Soulman
Date Posted: April 12 2005 at 02:37
Yes I do think that if we do add these well-known bands that we lose the whole underground culture of Progressive rock. This site is supposed to represent that culture. Yet to justify that it would attract people who are ignorant to other bands than just the popular bands would be a little presumptuos. I think some people on this site are worried about other people using the term "Prog Rock" in vain, but I for one am more concerned about having this site really represent progressive rock in its entirety, not exclude certain things because it will have a negative side affect on the community. Simply said, Prog Rock is more than your special little teddy bear.  |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 12 2005 at 02:58
|
This is why I am not against Queen's inclusion - Maani is wrong, Queen didn't just have prog sensibilities - they wrote full-blown prog. Without wishing to upset Uriah Heep fans (I do think they're a great band, so look away if this is likely to offend - it's nothing but the truth!),the obvious comparison between the two bands reveals that Queen were far more progressive in their early years, wrote more prog tunes and far less standard rock than UH - in fact, the only two other major differences I can think of are that Queen didn't have a Hammond or Roger Dean doing the album covers... I'm only making this comparison to justify my opinions on Queen, not to question UH's credentials! |
Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: April 12 2005 at 03:07
|
I don't think Radiohead is prog, but STILL I think they are more prog than Queen. The only prog song I've heard from Queen is Bohemian Rhapsody, the rest is just classic rock. |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: April 12 2005 at 03:58
|
The inclusion or exclusion of Queen from the Archives is likely to be one of those arguments which run & run and has the potential to cause even more division than the long running Radiohead debate (I for one fully support Radiohead's inclusion - I feel they are truly progressive rock, even if I am not keen on their post-OK Computer output).
Queen began as a high quality hard rock outfit, and slowly but surely began to include symphonic elements within their songwriting - aided no end by Mercury's theatrical sensibilities. 'The Prophet Song' is always cited as true prog-rock, and for good reason; in the context of this debate however, I don't personally think they warrant inclusion, as I believe their overall prog-rock output was too small. One of the great 'Classic Rock' bands certainly, but not progressive rock... But what is progressive rock, anyway? 
What about those Mellotrons, eh? ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: April 12 2005 at 04:19
|
So one might say that Queen belongs more with those 70s AOR bands like ELO, Boston, Styx, Journey, etc.? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: terramystic
Date Posted: April 12 2005 at 04:37
|
They're somewhere between art rock and AOR but they mixed a lot of styles... Some of similar bands are already included: Ambrosia, Roxy Music, Styx... If art rock is a subgenre of prog then I see no reason why not to include QUEEN! There is also another needful inclusion - KATE BUSH! |
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: April 13 2005 at 12:52
|
------------- "Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood) |
Posted By: slipperman
Date Posted: April 14 2005 at 08:27
|
Yes, artrock does belong under the prog umbrella. Queen were artrock, they were truly progressive, (but maybe not exactly "prog", if you get what I mean). They certainly belong on this site. Albums 'Queen' through 'Jazz' are all highly innovative and/or adventurous, a really wonderful band. ------------- ...it is real...it is Rael... |
Posted By: PROGMAN
Date Posted: April 14 2005 at 08:50
|
Some felt the same way as KRAFTWERK not being Prog look Where Thay are Added Now!! It's Possible that Queen and ELO could be added as well. I Still Don't Understand Why FAMILY isn't in the Archives.
------------- CYMRU AM BYTH 
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 14 2005 at 12:32
|
For what its worth (nothing?) Queen aint Prog ( to my understanding anyway) and shouldnt be included. Class act though. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: con safo
Date Posted: April 14 2005 at 12:37
|
The amount of generic rock they did, especially in the latter part of their career would NOT fit into the archives. I do agree some of their earlier stuff has alot of prog elements, but they did alot of commercial albums that would just seem silly on a prog site. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 14 2005 at 12:45
|
Explain Genesis then... |
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: April 14 2005 at 12:47
He's got you there |
Posted By: con safo
Date Posted: April 14 2005 at 12:51
Yea but genesis released alot more full out prog albums than Queen did. And even their later more commcercial efforts had prog elements... i can find little to none in Queens more commercial albums. I'm not an expert on Queen so dont crucify me.. but this is what i gather from what ive heard. -------------
|
Posted By: Asiostygius
Date Posted: April 14 2005 at 13:05
I agreed. Why not include only the 5 first albums on the site?? Surely those albums have some or most (Queen II) prog material. Several bands on the site have worse albums by prog standarts...so why not the inclusion of Queen? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 14 2005 at 13:33
|
Because the work of art is the albu, not just the most popular song. Releasing a single is a very commercial move. Led Zeppelin started Swan Song because Atlantic was always asking for a single. Singles get you on the radio, which means you sell out. |
Posted By: con safo
Date Posted: April 14 2005 at 13:41
|
Alot of the time its not the bands consent, but the record labels.. without singles records dont get exposure, withiout exposure record labels dont make $$$$$$$$, which is the name of the game when it comes to the music industry. -------------
|
Posted By: Moribund
Date Posted: April 15 2005 at 01:59
|
I feel a lot of these comments are made by people who just have an impression of Queen based on their knowledge of the singles. If anyone who hasn't heard early Queen feels so inclined (in the name of research) to go and listen to Queen II or Sheer Heart Attack, please come back and give us your (less-biased) impressions. I'm intrigued by the notion of only including a band's prog albums then stopping (perhaps with the sign-off "here there no longer be dragons..." or suchlike. Could be unworkable in practice though as there would be suggestions to remove transitional albums (Genesis to Revelation/Giant for a Day) from bands no-one would argue are prog. If the criterion "output was mostly non-prog" was adopted, someone would have to make a judgement which would probably spark more rage again! Personally I feel it is an honour and a legacy to prog-rock to include bands that felt inspired to work within its definitions - indeed to CONTRIBUTE to its devlopment as I believe Queen (viz complex vocal arrangements/polyphonic guitar scoring) did to a small extent. There again, I can see a point to leaving them off - this is a stimulating thread on the nature of prog with a fair bit of life left in it! ------------- New Progressive Rock Live show now touring UK theatres! www.masterpiecestheconcert.co.uk |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: April 15 2005 at 14:35
Moribund, That is a sweeping and somewhat unfair assumption. Many of us here love the music of Queen, and are very familiar wiht their albums. It's not a question of being biased, or even about liking or not liking Queen, it is only about our opinions on whether or not they were ever a prog band. |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 15 2005 at 19:43
Oh come on! If an album has already been written, selecting a song off it does nothing to sell out the art of it! If a band's writing with an aim to be heard on the radio then that can (does?) become an issue but it's hardly fair to say any band with a single out has sold out even a bit. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 16 2005 at 08:39
|
The number of prog albums a band released is irrelevant - there are bands in the archives with only one or two albums. So Queen released more prog albums than those bands... There is prog stuff to be found even in Queen's more "commercial" albums - but it's as hard to find as any of the prog on some of Genesis' later albums. I'm not trying to crucify anyone - it's just that I find these arguments to be fundamentally flawed |
Posted By: Martinyesman
Date Posted: April 16 2005 at 09:49
|
I totally agree that Queen should be included as a prog band, as all their albums up to 'A Day At The Races' include a lot of proggy material, and some of their later songs like 'Princes Of The Universe' and 'Innuendo' have undeniable progressive influences. I'm also surprised that Magnum are not included in the archive, as their first two albums are bona fide prog classics, and their musical development is not dissimilar to Saga, who are included.
|
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: April 16 2005 at 09:57
|
Let us not forget Radio GaGa as a progressive classic ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 16 2005 at 10:03
|
As is Kayleigh ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Inferno
Date Posted: April 16 2005 at 15:52
|
"
Yes I do think that if we do add these well-known bands that we lose
the whole underground culture of Progressive rock. This site is
supposed to represent that culture. Yet to justify that it would
attract people who are ignorant to other bands than just the popular
bands would be a little presumptuos. " Someone wrote that in this Thread. I thought that the ProgArchives site was to help people discover things about Progressive Rock. So is it a bad thing to include Queen in it, even tho there will be more people that ignore prog. It will only open their mind to prog. Yet again, maybe the whole Archives site is only for a little clic that would want everybody to praise their music but not everybody listening to them as it would lose it's "underground" culture and feeling! |
Posted By: Mharo
Date Posted: June 12 2005 at 03:06
|
I know this topic is old, but I'm a big fan of Queen, and I was
introduced to Prog because of Queen, so I'd really like to see them in
the Archives. Perhaps the problem is that Queen never lost a member of the band. A lot of people (incluiding myself) accept the poppier releases of Genesis and Yes ('accept' means not throwing the band away only because of them) because they had gone through very important lineup changes (the loss of Gabriel and Hackett, and the loss of Wakeman, Bruford and Howe). Queen, on the other hand, it's probably not so well regarded because when they went pop, it was a decision by all of it members, with no-one leaving for artistic differences. Perhaps if we invent some fifth member who left just before 'The Game', we will think better of the first albums, the ones with the "classic lineup". I believe they parted ways with producer Roy Thomas Baker around the time they went pop, though I'm not sure. Anyway I think that their first LPs should definately be included in the archives. Even if they need a big "All the later albums are not considered Prog" sign below the LP name. |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: June 12 2005 at 04:24
|
I find it bizarre that the administrators of a site would want to exclude
progressive music on the grounds that more(!) people might want to visit the site as a result. Equally bizarre is the notion that someone familiar with Queen II might visit the site and leave unsatisfied, convinced that their understanding of progressive rock is fundamentally flawed. Surely the simple solution is to include here all progressive albums. Why not exclude albums that are not progressive, even if they are issued by progressive outfits? Whatever the merits of Spirit of Eden, Talk Talk's first album is not progressive by anyone's definition of the word. Why should it be here in any form other than simply as a part of a band's discography? I guess these arguments help us re-examine our attitudes to music in general. Personally I think Orbital's In Sides album (1996) is pure progressive music, but I'm not even going to suggest its inclusion. Or will I? |
Posted By: Hammill
Date Posted: June 12 2005 at 05:30
|
as i mentioned in my previous post with the 20 greatest acts of
the 70s i support the opinion that queen had always been progressive in
their career. progressive doesn't mean to write long songs with
difficult parts. progressive is not a group because it has a high
level of technique. progressive for me means innovative. just listen
carefully to queen and see how many styles of music they change in
their songs. don't forget that queen was the group that intoduced these
great chorus in their songs and paved the way for groups like
domine/nightwish/savatage/blind guardian/ therion and many more. ask
anyone you want to and he will say to you that queen is one of the most
difficult groups to cover. i heard once a tribute album to queen and i
laughed my a** off. thank god for queen!
------------- 
|
Posted By: barbs
Date Posted: June 12 2005 at 06:28
|
Is this less to do with wether Queen or Radiohead or Blackfeather are added to the site or to do with how broad or not the 'definition' of what progressive rock is now in order to incorporate these bands (or not). 6 billion people on the planet and in the next 5 or 10 years there is going to be a plethora of groups and fans pushing for theirfav bands inclusion. Imagine prog rock taking off major big time in India and China and DT becomes the top band there. Some of you are of course right nowAssuming there is a democratic concensus here: there are philosophical arguments about aspects of music and what prog really is all over the place in this stream and if we could identify and clarify firstly which ones we would like to debate about and then maybe through some kind of 'democratic' fashion we could embrace a charter or mission statement that has been democratically debated and then constructed by the senior collaborators of this site that all the members agree when they join defines the criteria, then that would effectively settle it. An album would not get in unless it rated highly enough on the criteria. Now if that is what is done now, well fine but then, maybe it comes down to the fact that it doesn't matter what anyone says, someone is going to make a decision about it and everyone just has to suck it an see, so to speak.  ------------- Eternity |
Posted By: DavidInsabella
Date Posted: June 12 2005 at 06:34
------------- Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be. 
|
Posted By: DavidInsabella
Date Posted: June 12 2005 at 06:39
|
The comparrisons to Queen's inclusion and that of Radiohead, Styx, Roxymusic, etc. doesn't honestly make me concider adding Queen to the site, it just makes me think Radiohead and Styx should be removed. Of course I don't see that happening, and it's just my opinion, but I thought it was a mistake and I don't think a similar mistake should be made. IMO. ------------- Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 13 2005 at 15:32
|
It is not a mistake to include Radiohead. One day you will discover this |
