| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
jammun 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
 Posted: December 24 2008 at 15:56 |
It appears I voted on this one a while ago, since "You have already voted in this poll" is the message. I would assume I voted for The Beatles. If you want the answer to the chicken/egg conundrum, the answer is The Beatles. Let me say it loudly: WITHOUT THE BEATLES NOTHING THAT CAME AFTER WOULD EXIST. Phil Spector would still be trotting out wall-of-sound girl groups, the Beach Boys would still be in love with their cars and surfing, The Who would still be doing James Brown covers, and the Rolling Stones would still be an obscure R&B wanna-be.
|
 |
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 24 2008 at 16:46 |
 jammun wrote:
It appears I voted on this one a while ago, since "You have already voted in this poll" is the message. I would assume I voted for The Beatles. If you want the answer to the chicken/egg conundrum, the answer is The Beatles. Let me say it loudly: WITHOUT THE BEATLES NOTHING THAT CAME AFTER WOULD EXIST. Phil Spector would still be trotting out wall-of-sound girl groups, the Beach Boys would still be in love with their cars and surfing, The Who would still be doing James Brown covers, and the Rolling Stones would still be an obscure R&B wanna-be. |
Utter nonsense, and a real slap in the face to all those innovative bands.. without everything that came before the Beatles, they might not have existed, and in fact there's a much stronger case for that.
|
|
Mandrakeroot
Forum Senior Member
Italian Prog Specialist
Joined: March 01 2006
Location: San Foca, Friûl
Status: Offline
Points: 5851
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 11:09 |
L Z... LE ZE... LED ZEP... LED ZEPP... LED ZEPPE... LED ZEPPELI... LED ZEPPELIN!
Edited by Mandrakeroot - December 26 2008 at 11:11
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 14:44 |
Atavachron wrote:
jammun wrote:
It appears I voted on this one a while ago, since "You have already voted in this poll" is the message. I would assume I voted for The Beatles. If you want the answer to the chicken/egg conundrum, the answer is The Beatles. Let me say it loudly: WITHOUT THE BEATLES NOTHING THAT CAME AFTER WOULD EXIST. Phil Spector would still be trotting out wall-of-sound girl groups, the Beach Boys would still be in love with their cars and surfing, The Who would still be doing James Brown covers, and the Rolling Stones would still be an obscure R&B wanna-be. |
Utter nonsense, and a real slap in the face to all those innovative bands.. without everything that came before the Beatles, they might not have existed, and in fact there's a much stronger case for that.
|
I'm not trying to dis any of the other bands. I'm speaking from the business point of view. It was The Beatles who were the original goose that laid the golden egg. I have my doubts that record companies would have fallen over themselves to sign all the other bands had the economic incentive not existed. Think about it: after The Beatles' success, just about any British band with a pulse suddenly had a record contract and a global audience. I don't think that would have happened without The Beatles is all I'm saying.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 15:38 |
|
I hear you and it may be the case but I doubt it; the psychedelic rock movement started in the U.S., not Britain (though it was close and the two scenes certainly influenced each other) -- we know Prog was born mainly of psych [the Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Byrds, Big Brother&the Holding Co. and in England the Nice and Pink Floyd ] as it began incorporating all sorts of musics into the mostly spaced-out scene , so it follows that the biggest early influence on the development of what later would be termed 'Art' or 'Progressive' rock was in fact an American one. That leaves the Beatles largely out of the Underground Rock equation as these bands began rejecting the simple and melodious drivel of the Fab Four. Just because George Martin was an arranger who knew how to score for an orchestra doesn't make the Beatles the biggest influence on Prog.
The Beatles may have been the goose that used the golden egg to their advantage as master songsmiths, but you can't tell me the Beatles were responsible for Prog, it just doesn't add up. Responsible for much in rock's evolution during the 1960s, perhaps as you say even providing a platform for many acts, but not Prog which was almost the antithesis of the Beatles' rudimentary music.
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 16:32 |
Again, I don't argue the musical side of it. I just saying that following The Beatles economic success, the record company execs were falling all over themselves to sign any rock band that might be able to produce even 10% of the revenue The Beatles were generating. It's funny you mention a couple of San Francisco bands, which let's face it no one outside of Northern California had ever heard of until said record company execs began signing any SF band with a pulse because they (execs) thought they could make some big-time money. For every Jefferson Airplane there was a Blue Cheer. Same thing happened with grunge. It was a regional thing until Nirvana (and record company) struck pay dirt with Nevermind, at which point the execs moved in and, yes, signed any Seattle band with a pulse.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 17:10 |
|
OK
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 20:35 |
OK. However, not being one to ever let a sleeping dog lie, here are the Billboard Top 5 from December of '63 and '64.
01. Sugar Shack » Jimmy Gilmer & The Fireballs 02. Surfin' U.S.A. » Beach Boys 03. The End Of The World » Skeeter Davis 04. Rhythm Of The Rain » Cascades 05. He's So Fine » Chiffons
01. I Want To Hold Your Hand » Beatles
02. She Loves You » Beatles
03. Hello, Dolly! » Louis Armstrong
04. Oh, Pretty Woman » Roy Orbison
05. I Get Around » Beach Boys
I'm assuming we'd agree on the most influential??
Edited:
Keith Moon was a huge surf music kinda guy. If the Beatles hadn't got there first (to number one) I'm guessing it would've been The Who.
Edited by jammun - December 26 2008 at 20:57
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 21:00 |
|
but you're assuming chart position equals most influential; the top 3 Billboard albums for '64 is the Hello Dolly soundtrack, a Peter, Paul & Mary record, and a release by jazz trumpeter Al Hirt... what do we derive from this? Not a lot. The pop market is what it is, and represents how many units were sold that year, no more no less.
BTW, Blue Cheer hardly road the coattails of Airplane, they were one of the early true heavy rock bands -
"The band's sound was something of a departure from the music that had
been coming out of the Bay Area: Blue Cheer's three musicians played
heavy blues-rock, and played it very loud."
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 21:31 |
I have no respect for chart position, else I would never have heard prog (maybe Lucky Man and Roundabout excepted, ok), except to possibly make a point . Well as before, I'm just saying it was The Beatles fortunate position as a huge money maker for their record company that much that we know became possible, in terms of record execs being tempted to take that chance on some obscure local band, and in fact being willing to sink what was at the time considerable money into bands that had (in FZ's terms), "no commercial potential". Take a look at how it goes lately.
Sad really, the business side of it, but that goes back to my original statement. It's all changed now of course, the AM radio in a car isn't the assumed playback device. But I can assure you, as a budding teenage consumer of music in 1963, had it not been for The Beatles I would not have heard a single note of prog. That's just history. Or I think it is. I'm just thinking about how it happened.
We can construct an alternate version where the Stones or Kinks or Yardbirds or some other band broke through, but history says it was The Beatles who showed up and changed the course of music, from what it was to what it is.
As an droll side note, Hermans Hermit's recorded a pretty good version of The End of the World.
|
|
Chelsea
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 10 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 21:43 |
Atavachron wrote:
I hear you and it may be the case but I doubt it; the psychedelic rock movement started in the U.S., not Britain (though it was close and the two scenes certainly influenced each other) -- we know Prog was born mainly of psych [the Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Byrds, Big Brother&the Holding Co. and in England the Nice and Pink Floyd ] as it began incorporating all sorts of musics into the mostly spaced-out scene , so it follows that the biggest early influence on the development of what later would be termed 'Art' or 'Progressive' rock was in fact an American one. That leaves the Beatles largely out of the Underground Rock equation as these bands began rejecting the simple and melodious drivel of the Fab Four. Just because George Martin was an arranger who knew how to score for an orchestra doesn't make the Beatles the biggest influence on Prog.
The Beatles may have been the goose that used the golden egg to their advantage as master songsmiths, but you can't tell me the Beatles were responsible for Prog, it just doesn't add up. Responsible for much in rock's evolution during the 1960s, perhaps as you say even providing a platform for many acts, but not Prog which was almost the antithesis of the Beatles' rudimentary music.
|
Wow I don't agree with anything you said.
The Beatles in mixing pop and classical techniques, and cross-fertilising them with Indian and electronic music, the Beatles refreshed and revitalised western harmony. They also transformed the recording studio from a dull box where you recaptured your live sound, into a musical laboratory, of exciting and completely new sounds.
Jefferson Airplane, Byrds, Big Brother&the Holding Co. and in England the Nice and Pink Floyd all were influenced by the Beatles. The Beatles broke the boundaries in Pop Music and Rock Music with the groundbreaking "Tomorrow Never Knows" and the first pop song to emulate non western form in structure in instrumentation and structure in "Love You To". This in April of 1966 recorded predates all the bands mentioned above. All those bands in 1966 were still using drums and guitars. The Beatles went further they were using Classical Indian Music and using classical avant techniques. Exept for the Byrds all those bands made their mark in 1967. The Beatles tracks in 1966 were early Art-Rock songs. The Beatles from Rubber Soul to Abbey Road were hardly rudimentary music. Go listen to time signatures the Beatles were using on tracks like "Happiness is a Warm Gun". So not to be harsh get your facts straight
Edited by Chelsea - December 26 2008 at 21:54
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 21:52 |
jammun wrote:
I have no respect for chart position, else I would never have heard prog (maybe Lucky Man and Roundabout excepted, ok), except to possibly make a point. Well as before, I'm just saying it was The Beatles fortunate position as a huge money maker for their record company that much that we know became possible, in terms of record execs being tempted to take that chance on some obscure local band, and in fact being willing to sink what was at the time considerable money into bands that had (in FZ's terms), "no commercial potential". Take a look at how it goes lately.
Sad really, the business side of it, but that goes back to my original statement. It's all changed now of course, the AM radio in a car isn't the assumed playback device. But I can assure you, as a budding teenage consumer of music in 1963, had it not been for The Beatles I would not have heard a single note of prog. That's just history. Or I think it is. I'm just thinking about how it happened.
We can construct an alternate version where the Stones or Kinks or Yardbirds or some other band broke through, but history says it was The Beatles who showed up and changed the course of music, from what it was to what it is.
As an droll side note, Hermans Hermit's recorded a pretty good version of The End of the World.
|
I don't quite understand your reasoning: if you hadn't been exposed to
the Beatles you would never had noticed Yes, ELP or Jethro Tull? Well
that's fine, but those bands still would have existed and been heard by
many others, Beatles or not. Beatles may have been the 'leaders' of
the British Invasion but they weren't the cause
of it, and certainly not the impetus for Prog becoming a pop medium
(which it did briefly in the early 70s). It's like saying without
Jackson Pollock you wouldn't have modern abstract art, but it was a
gradual evolution, one artist influencing another and so on.
|
|
Chelsea
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 10 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 21:58 |
Atavachron wrote:
jammun wrote:
I have no respect for chart position, else I would never have heard prog (maybe Lucky Man and Roundabout excepted, ok), except to possibly make a point. Well as before, I'm just saying it was The Beatles fortunate position as a huge money maker for their record company that much that we know became possible, in terms of record execs being tempted to take that chance on some obscure local band, and in fact being willing to sink what was at the time considerable money into bands that had (in FZ's terms), "no commercial potential". Take a look at how it goes lately.
Sad really, the business side of it, but that goes back to my original statement. It's all changed now of course, the AM radio in a car isn't the assumed playback device. But I can assure you, as a budding teenage consumer of music in 1963, had it not been for The Beatles I would not have heard a single note of prog. That's just history. Or I think it is. I'm just thinking about how it happened.
We can construct an alternate version where the Stones or Kinks or Yardbirds or some other band broke through, but history says it was The Beatles who showed up and changed the course of music, from what it was to what it is.
As an droll side note, Hermans Hermit's recorded a pretty good version of The End of the World.
|
I don't quite understand your reasoning: if you hadn't been exposed to the Beatles you would never had noticed Yes, ELP or Jethro Tull? Well that's fine, but those bands still would have existed and been heard by many others, Beatles or not. Beatles may have been the 'leaders' of the British Invasion but they weren't the cause of it, and certainly not the impetus for Prog becoming a pop medium (which it did briefly in the early 70s). It's like saying without Jackson Pollock you wouldn't have modern abstract art, but it was a gradual evolution, one artist influencing another and so on.
|
The Beatles did start the British Invasion in America. Where do you get your information? Have you heard of albums like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road certainly helped the impetus for Prog becoming a pop medium (which it did briefly in the early 70s).
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:02 |
Chelsea wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
I hear you and it may be the case but I doubt it; the psychedelic rock movement started in the U.S., not Britain (though it was close and the two scenes certainly influenced each other) -- we know Prog was born mainly of psych [the Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Byrds, Big Brother&the Holding Co. and in England the Nice and Pink Floyd ] as it began incorporating all sorts of musics into the mostly spaced-out scene , so it follows that the biggest early influence on the development of what later would be termed 'Art' or 'Progressive' rock was in fact an American one. That leaves the Beatles largely out of the Underground Rock equation as these bands began rejecting the simple and melodious drivel of the Fab Four. Just because George Martin was an arranger who knew how to score for an orchestra doesn't make the Beatles the biggest influence on Prog.
The Beatles may have been the goose that used the golden egg to their advantage as master songsmiths, but you can't tell me the Beatles were responsible for Prog, it just doesn't add up. Responsible for much in rock's evolution during the 1960s, perhaps as you say even providing a platform for many acts, but not Prog which was almost the antithesis of the Beatles' rudimentary music.
|
Wow I don't agree with anything you said.
The Beatles in mixing pop and classical techniques, and cross-fertilising them with Indian and electronic music, the Beatles refreshed and revitalised western harmony. They also transformed the recording studio from a dull box where you recaptured your live sound, into a musical laboratory, of exciting and completely new sounds.
Jefferson Airplane, Byrds, Big Brother&the Holding Co. and in England the Nice and Pink Floyd all were influenced by the Beatles. The Beatles broke the boundaries in Pop Music and Rock Music with the groundbreaking "Tomorrow Never Knows" and the first pop song to emulate non western form in structure in instrumentation and structure. This in April of 1966 recorded predates all the bands mentioned above. All those bands in 1966 were still using drums and guitars. The Beatles went further they were using Classical Indian Music and using classical avant techniques. Exept for the Byrds all those bands made their mark in 1967. So not to be harsh get your facts straight. The Beatles tracks in 1966 were early Art-Rock songs. |
'Tomorrow Never Knows' gets far too much credit, it's one song - barely a song, really - and shows no aspects of what Prog musicians would later do.. in fact it would appear to have had virtually no influence on the music the prog artist would later create, getting as far away from the hallucinogenic drone of such a cut as possible. Facts? How about musicologic evidence? I see very little of any of the Beatles material in Prog other than an obvious general impact on the earliest versions of it, as Yes's early work or pre-Crims GG&F. But Yes and KC went on very soon to reject that influence in favor of something that would turn the Beatle sound inside out -- I'll say it again: Prog was a rebellion against and movement away form the pop/psych malaise that had engulfed popular music. If anything, the Beatles were a prime example of what to dismantle and completely change.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:09 |
Chelsea wrote:
The Beatles did start the British Invasion in America. Where do you get your information? Have you heard of albums like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road certainly helped the impetus for Prog becoming a pop medium (which it did briefly in the early 70s). |
of course, I hear it all the time and it's both unlikely and tiresome. Do we know how music history would've gone without any band? No. But to say unequivocally that the Prog era was due to the Beatles is not only suspect, but also shortsighted.
|
|
Chelsea
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 10 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:13 |
Atavachron wrote:
Chelsea wrote:
The Beatles did start the British Invasion in America. Where do you get your information? Have you heard of albums like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road certainly helped the impetus for Prog becoming a pop medium (which it did briefly in the early 70s). |
of course, I hear it all the time and it's both unlikely and tiresome. Do we know how music history would've gone without any band? No. But to say unequivocally that the Prog era was due to the Beatles is not only suspect, but also shortsighted.
|
Let me lay some hard core facts for you and not some revisionist history. Let's get this straight no one is giving all the credit to the Beatles but not giving any credit to the Beatles now is showing ignorance.
I don't care who did what first it's about influence. Since you want to go there let me bring some points
The Beatles dabbled in a lot of things and that's why they are influential to many bands because they translated it with Pop music which by the way is a form of music like Jazz or Rock Music. They did not stick to one sound.
The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" backward collages, drone, looping, distorted voices through leslie speakers, mellotron with a upfront bass and drum what predates the Silver Apples and Nick Drake by two years. A good ten years before Kraftwerk got into high gear. I don't care if you think the Silver Apples were more interesting. That is based on opinion not fact. This is about influence. "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Strawberry Fields Forever" is a lot more influential than some unknown band that came out two years after the fact.
I like King Crimson and being into jazz music I hear it. King Crimson formed in part after hearing Sgt Pepper which contains a couple of so-called fusions that were never heard in pop music namely unique fusion of classical Indian music with western string arrangement on "Within You Without You" or the Avant Orchestration and Psychedelia of "A Day in the Life".
The Beatles were not a derititive blues band. It must be a coincidence what six months after "Taxman" was released that your hear that distorted dominant 7 # 9 chord on "Purple Haze". Everone started using guitars through leslie speakers after the Beatles used it. I hear backward guitars and drums on "Are You Experienced" after the Beatles used it on Revolver. Then Hendrix would pair "Tomorrow Never Knows" with "Uranus Rock". Then Hendrix would play the title track of Sgt Pepper three day after it came out in nod to the Beatles adopting his style.
The Beatles were certainly a progressive band. They tied it with melody driven music. Like so what. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is oft cited as a critical moment in prog's evolution, The Beatles had already moved into progressive territory with Revolver's “Tomorrow Never Knows” and by incorporating Eastern influences into their music, though, of course, the pairing of McCartney's vocal with strings in “Yesterday” preceded those developments too. Obviously “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” “Strawberry Fields Forever,” and “A Day in the Life” exerted a profound influence on The Beatles' contemporaries and the next wave of progressive rock artists.
the Beatles already were recording Progressive Rock with songs like "Strawberry Fields Forever", "A Day in the Life" and "Within You Without You" all recorded before Procol Harum. The Beatles were to varied to be classed as one genre. Some that are Proto-Prog IMO the early Art-Rock of "Tomorrow Never Knows" , "Eleanor Rigby" and "Love You To" off Revolver.
Strawberry Fields Forever" is at least Proto-Prog. With its use of mellotron, Indian scales and two separate versions of one song into one. Strawberry Fields Forever" uses diminished chords that are common with jazz music. It changes time signatures often 4/4, 6/8, 3/4, 2/4. Hardly simple stuff..
"Happiness Is a Warm Gun" for example include a Balkan rhythm and a polyrhythm in different sections. Were they influenced by jazz?
"A Day in the Life", "I am the Walrus", "Within You, Without You", Strawberry Fields"... They were able to draw from diverse sources, like Indian classical music "Within You" uses a raga-like form that contains major and minor thirds in different octaves, kind of a combination of mixolydian and Dorian modalities.
Mind you I never said the Beatles invented Progressive Rock. We are talking about influence. Well, that's answering "The Sex Pistols created Punk" when the thread is about Iggy Pop and the Stooges...
Really now you are getting absurd with your comments. Keith Richards said we would have never made it without the Beatles. There would be no bands like us without the Beatles. Jimmy Page
Edited by Chelsea - December 26 2008 at 22:16
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:14 |
Atavachron wrote:
jammun wrote:
I have no respect for chart position, else I would never have heard prog (maybe Lucky Man and Roundabout excepted, ok), except to possibly make a point. Well as before, I'm just saying it was The Beatles fortunate position as a huge money maker for their record company that much that we know became possible, in terms of record execs being tempted to take that chance on some obscure local band, and in fact being willing to sink what was at the time considerable money into bands that had (in FZ's terms), "no commercial potential". Take a look at how it goes lately.
Sad really, the business side of it, but that goes back to my original statement. It's all changed now of course, the AM radio in a car isn't the assumed playback device. But I can assure you, as a budding teenage consumer of music in 1963, had it not been for The Beatles I would not have heard a single note of prog. That's just history. Or I think it is. I'm just thinking about how it happened.
We can construct an alternate version where the Stones or Kinks or Yardbirds or some other band broke through, but history says it was The Beatles who showed up and changed the course of music, from what it was to what it is.
As an droll side note, Hermans Hermit's recorded a pretty good version of The End of the World.
|
I don't quite understand your reasoning: if you hadn't been exposed to the Beatles you would never had noticed Yes, ELP or Jethro Tull? Well that's fine, but those bands still would have existed and been heard by many others, Beatles or not. Beatles may have been the 'leaders' of the British Invasion but they weren't the cause of it, and certainly not the impetus for Prog becoming a pop medium (which it did briefly in the early 70s). It's like saying without Jackson Pollock you wouldn't have modern abstract art, but it was a gradual evolution, one artist influencing another and so on.
|
Sorry that this is difficult to express. What I am saying, is that if The Beatles had not happened (as a huge $ generating for their record company, let's forgo the music side of it for now), the other bands yes would have existed but would not have had any takers, record company-wise, or if they did, it would have been purely regional, i.e., do you think anyone in the U.S., which is where the huge sales were, would have ever heard JT without the Beatles providing the impetus for some record company to take a risk on JT?
|
|
Chelsea
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 10 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:25 |
jammun wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
jammun wrote:
I have no respect for chart position, else I would never have heard prog (maybe Lucky Man and Roundabout excepted, ok), except to possibly make a point. Well as before, I'm just saying it was The Beatles fortunate position as a huge money maker for their record company that much that we know became possible, in terms of record execs being tempted to take that chance on some obscure local band, and in fact being willing to sink what was at the time considerable money into bands that had (in FZ's terms), "no commercial potential". Take a look at how it goes lately.
Sad really, the business side of it, but that goes back to my original statement. It's all changed now of course, the AM radio in a car isn't the assumed playback device. But I can assure you, as a budding teenage consumer of music in 1963, had it not been for The Beatles I would not have heard a single note of prog. That's just history. Or I think it is. I'm just thinking about how it happened.
We can construct an alternate version where the Stones or Kinks or Yardbirds or some other band broke through, but history says it was The Beatles who showed up and changed the course of music, from what it was to what it is.
As an droll side note, Hermans Hermit's recorded a pretty good version of The End of the World.
|
I don't quite understand your reasoning: if you hadn't been exposed to the Beatles you would never had noticed Yes, ELP or Jethro Tull? Well that's fine, but those bands still would have existed and been heard by many others, Beatles or not. Beatles may have been the 'leaders' of the British Invasion but they weren't the cause of it, and certainly not the impetus for Prog becoming a pop medium (which it did briefly in the early 70s). It's like saying without Jackson Pollock you wouldn't have modern abstract art, but it was a gradual evolution, one artist influencing another and so on.
|
Sorry that this is difficult to express. What I am saying, is that if The Beatles had not happened (as a huge $ generating for their record company, let's forgo the music side of it for now), the other bands yes would have existed but would not have had any takers, record company-wise, or if they did, it would have been purely regional, i.e., do you think anyone in the U.S., which is where the huge sales were, would have ever heard JT without the Beatles providing the impetus for some record company to take a risk on JT?
|
Wow they were many bands influenced just by the Beatles Ed Sullivan Show like King Crimson Adrian Belew and in England like Pink Floyd, Phill Collins and Brian May of Queen. There would be no King Crimson without the Beatles being progressive.
Robert Fripp on hearing the Beatles Sgt Pepper
Robert Fripp- When I was 20, I worked at a hotel in a dance orchestra, playing weddings, bar-mitzvahs, dancing, cabaret. I drove home and I was also at college at the time. Then I put on the radio (Radio Luxemburg) and I heard this music. It was terrifying. I had no idea what it was. Then it kept going. Then there was this enormous whine note of strings. Then there was this colossal piano chord. I discovered later that I'd come in half-way through Sgt. Pepper, played continuously. My life was never the same again.
Anyone who knows King Crimson Adrian Belew's favorite band is "The Beatles"
Robert Fripp- wanted King Crimson to emulate the Beatles' proclivity for packing many strands of meaning into a song, so that a record could stand up to repeated listening: "The Beatles achieve probably better than anyone the ability to make you tap your foot first time round, dig the words sixth time round, and get into the guitar slowly panning the twentieth time." Fripp wished Crimson could "achieve entertainment on as many levels as that. ]
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:28 |
Chelsea wrote:
[
Mind you I never said the Beatles invented Progressive Rock. We are talking about influence.
Well, that's answering "The Sex Pistols created Punk" when the thread is about Iggy Pop and the Stooges...
Really now you are getting absurd with your comments. Keith Richards said we would have never made it without the Beatles. There would be no bands like us without the Beatles. Jimmy Page |
no I fundamentally disagree.. "Keith Richards said it" ? Well if a player as influential to Prog as Keith Richards said it than it must be true.
|
|
Chelsea
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 10 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:34 |
Atavachron wrote:
Chelsea wrote:
[
Mind you I never said the Beatles invented Progressive Rock. We are talking about influence.
Well, that's answering "The Sex Pistols created Punk" when the thread is about Iggy Pop and the Stooges...
Really now you are getting absurd with your comments. Keith Richards said we would have never made it without the Beatles. There would be no bands like us without the Beatles. Jimmy Page |
no I fundamentally disagree.. "Keith Richards said it" ? Well if a player as influential to Prog as Keith Richards said it than it must be true.
|
Keith Richards said it. Well I was talking about the British Invasion not Progressive Rock in that comment. If you don't think the Beatles were not progressive at times then my friend what else can I say. This is more of a dislike for the Beatles for you if you really can't see the difference between "Love You To" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" compared to the Doors doing "The End' in breaking boundaries in Rock Music.
Edited by Chelsea - December 26 2008 at 22:37
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
