The Beatles deserve to be here because...

And you made this a new thread because.........

Yup, I also think its great Beatles are here!

I think this subject has been done to death now.

i lopve these people on this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are here because they fit this category:

Proto-Prog
Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock. The late 60's was a predominately experimental period for music. These bands were moving in a stream that eventually led to prog. The influence could have come from new sophisticated forms of writing and playing music, recording techniques, new instruments and vocal harmonies to name a few. Some of these bands became progressive rock bands themselves others did not.

 

and I disagree the Doors do belong in the is Category as do Jefferson Airplane, Spirit and other bands that were highly experimental in that time.

You know how much Led Zeppelin sounds like The Beatles... laugh.

Miles Davis was a pioneer, mixing jazz with rock, he is progressive. LETS PUT HIM ON THE SITE!! Just kidding.

Prog-rock is not everything that is original and fresh, that's not how it works.

If you want to argue that Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart Club is progressive I'm not going to stop you, but I personally disagree with most of the Beatles' work being prog-rock in the conservative sense, which is what most people are after anyways.

After so many decades of these bands being thought of as 'rock n roll bands', people are now deciding Deep Purple, Queen, Styx, The Beatles and so forth are now prog-rock. Where the hell have you people been if you are really correct? After all this time!!! Prog-rock is a style of music, as is classic rock. I'll tell you what prog-rock isn't; everything experimental and never done before.

ChadFromCanada wrote: Mixing jazz with rock is called jazz fusion, which we have a section for.  So yes, let's put Miles on the site.

I agree, this site is lacking in the fusion department

Actually no one is saying they are prog bands.  Neither the Proto-Prog or the prog related descriptions say that.  I know because  I wrote them and they were pinstakinly analised by the rest of the collabs before they were placed in the site.  I wrote prog related even though I opposed its inception.  You can argue all you want that the Beatles are not prog and I will actually agree with you BUT you can't say that the events, bands, artists, and the environment within the music industry in the late '60's did not make a pathway to prog and the Beatles were a big part of it.  I find nothing wrong with adding a category for these bands at all.

The Ryan wrote: After so many decades of these bands being thought of as 'rock n roll bands', people are now deciding Deep Purple, Queen, Styx, The Beatles and so forth are now prog-rock. Where the hell have you people been if you are really correct?

That's an excellent point.  If the Beatles are really prog, or proto-prog - whatever - split hairs and make excuses for their inclusion if you want - why did it take so long for them to be included?

Because, maybe they aren't really prog!

Heh...I was thinking  Chuck Berry myself!