Let’s say that "Bohemian Rhapsody" is a great clever trick, and I say this as an admirer of Queen... In reality, if we think of "Progressive Rock," the epic suites of Genesis, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Yes, etc., Bohemian Rhapsody comes out defeated... Defeated from a purely compositional and technical standpoint... Mercury’s genius was to take a "certain prog" (traces of Van Der Graaf Generator and Uriah Heep), but to embed it within a "song," a mini-suite, that unlike the "progressive colleagues" wouldn’t just slide into 10-minute instrumental escapades, complete with orchestras, synth parades, or ear-splitting drum solos... He tried to channel it within the "song form," with a clearly defined, melodic, and singable refrain...
The rest of the album is still of high quality... The merit of Queen was to have fused together glam, progressive, hard rock, metal (in a nascent form), jazz, blues, and classical music, but above all a kind of "show music," "cabaret," anticipating even (I would dare say) symphonic, gothic, operatic metal that today has become the norm... They were the only ones who, by changing style within each album, stubbornly "out of the ordinary," did not sink with the PUNK jolt, but rather could still afford great audiences and legions of new teenagers over the course of two decades, decades so different from each other... Undoubtedly, it’s thanks to Freddie, but also to the biting guitar style of that (not exceptional) guitarist, Brian May, the monolithic yet funky bass lines of Deacon, and the very understated (yet functional to the melodies) rhythm of Taylor... Where the great prog groups got lost in a self-referentiality and a logorrhea that by the end of the '70s had almost nauseated listeners, Queen learned from them the art of "showmanship," and demonstrated that although they were technically less gifted (apart from the voice, of course) than the greats of the past, they could give the impression of an educated, different, yet entertaining music that was never boring...
Regards
