| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Atavachron 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
 Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:35 |
 Chelsea wrote:
[
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.
- Absolute hogwash, pure speculation, and of no evidentiary value
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.
oh not this AGAIN.. that Fripp being an impressionable young musician who liked hearing something new means it was that moment that led to KC's work is pure speculation.. you know who else loved the Beatles? Ozzy Osbourne. Does this mean the Beatles were responsible for occult-minded heavy metal? Please tell me it does because that would be terrific.
Anyone who knows King Crimson Adrian Belew's favorite band is "The Beatles"
Again, what does this have to do with anything?
|
Edited by Atavachron - December 26 2008 at 22:36
|
 |
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:36 |
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.
|
If Keith Richards said it, it may as well be gospel. Hasn't it been scientfically established that only Keith Richards and cockroaches will survive a nuclear war 
Edited by jammun - December 26 2008 at 22:39
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:38 |
jammun wrote:
If Keith Richards said it, it may as well be gospel. Hasn't it been established that only Keith Richards and cockroaches will survive a nuclear war |
and fruitcake 
|
|
Gooner
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 14 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 312
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:38 |
My vote is for THE ZOMBIES and DEEP PURPLE. 
|
|
Chelsea
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 10 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:39 |
jammun wrote:
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.
|
If Keith Richards said it, it may as well be gospel. Hasn't it been scientfically established that only Keith Richards and cockroaches will survive a nuclear war |
Again 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
|
|
MovingPictures07
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Beasty Heart
Status: Offline
Points: 32181
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:40 |
|
I never could get into the Beatles.
Led Zeppelin, on the other hand, are pretty good. I sparingly listen to them anymore though.
|
|
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:40 |
Yes, forgot the fruitcake, which fortunately I saw none of this year
|
|
Chelsea
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 10 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:44 |
Atavachron wrote:
Chelsea wrote:
[
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.
- Absolute hogwash, pure speculation, and of no evidentiary value
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.
oh not this AGAIN.. that Fripp being an impressionable young musician who liked hearing something new means it was that moment that led to KC's work is pure speculation.. you know who else loved the Beatles? Ozzy Osbourne. Does this mean the Beatles were responsible for occult-minded heavy metal? Please tell me it does because that would be terrific.
Anyone who knows King Crimson Adrian Belew's favorite band is "The Beatles"
Again, what does this have to do with anything?
|
|
You have made no valid points just utter disregard for the influence the Beatles had on music. The Beatles being able to be progressive was the reason why Robert Fripp went into Rock Music. I know it hurts you but give credit where it's due. Ozzy Osbourne favorite Beatles tracks were songs like "I Want You (She's So Heavy).
Edited by Chelsea - December 26 2008 at 22:45
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:47 |
Chelsea wrote:
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. |
on the contrary, and it has nothing to do with like or dislike, does it? And I don't see your point about the Doors-- the Doors had an equal 'influence' on Psych rock progressing in a more theatrical direction, and were equally non-influential to Prog as the Beatles. Do you not think it's possible the early proggers were doing something wholly unique in its musicianship and modern fusions, something the Beatles could never have done? Do you think it's possible it was their unique background in music? That it was Fripp's, Emerson's and Banks' firm foundation in classical, jazz and other musics that led to Prog, and much less to do with the artificial novelty of what the Beatles were doing?
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:53 |
Chelsea wrote:
You have made no valid points just utter disregard for the influence the Beatles had on music. The Beatles being able to be progressive was the reason why Robert Fripp went into Rock Music.
oh of course, Fripp would've just kept playing his staid classical guitar for the rest of his life and never would've realized he wanted to do more without hearing a few songs or albums.
I know it hurts you but give credit where it's due.
maybe, but I could say the same of you. I know it hurts you to think
independently and consider the chance that the quotes we read and myths
that develop may be misleading.
|
Edited by Atavachron - December 26 2008 at 22:57
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 23:05 |
I apologize. My original statement regarding this was pretty vague and perhaps harsh and prone to misinterpretation. My point was that The Beatles established a new economic viability of rock and roll ( the previous establish-ator, i.e., Elvis, was making sh*tty movies at the time). The record companies jumped on-board with those Mop Tops willy-nilly, for better and worse. There are undoubtedly countless threads on the forum here regarding the good points/bad points of pret' much every Beatles song save Anna (just one more thing girl).
Call me a Marxist, i was just trying to say that econonmically there was a whole lotta good music that I don't think would have heard the light of day had it not been for those Liverpudlians.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 23:11 |
|
^ no apologies necessary, jammun, I think you handled it rather well
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: December 26 2008 at 23:45 |
Atavachron wrote:
^ no apologies necessary, jammun, I think you handled it rather well
|
Thanks, Atavachron, I mean no harm. I am only exploring my life here. And my life is the music that has been its soundtrack..
Now the other side of this poll is Zep, which is whole 'nother story, and not a bad one altogether.
|
|
ModernRocker79
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 02 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Posted: December 27 2008 at 07:41 |
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. |
Just before the Beatles broke in the US in 1964, the number one album in the US was "The Singing Nun." Music was very regimented, predictible, etc. Within a couple of years, we had Jimi Hendrix, the Doors, and all the great music of the late 60's. If you look at the progression of the Beatles albums from Please Please Me in 1963, which reflected early 60's music but with some hints of complexity to come (e.g. the song Please Please Me), all the way through Rubber Soul in late 65 up to Revolver in 1966, the increase in complexity and the level of innovation in just three years is absoloutely amazing, and I don't think has been duplicated since. Think about music today - has it really changed in the past three years? Ten years? Fifteen years? Not really IMHO. The last real seismic shift in rock music at least was when Nirvana broke in 1991. Listen to the Beatles songs Misery and Tomorrow Never Knows and you can't believe that they are even from the same band, and yet they were recorded just three years apart.
Jagger admits the Beatles were the reason they started writing their songs and Pet Sounds would never have happened without Rubber Soul. Pete Townsend admits the Beatles admits every rock band had to write their music because the of the Beatles success.
|
|
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
Posted: December 27 2008 at 07:50 |
|
Led Zeppelin please.
|
|
ModernRocker79
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 02 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Posted: December 27 2008 at 08:40 |
Led Zeppelin was a band that copied many of their hit songs from other bands because Jimmy Page stole a bunch of songs.
The Beatles, changed the course of rock history and popular music.
Edited by ModernRocker79 - December 27 2008 at 08:41
|
|
ModernRocker79
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 02 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Posted: December 27 2008 at 09:30 |
Atavachron wrote:
Chelsea wrote:
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. |
on the contrary, and it has nothing to do with like or dislike, does it? And I don't see your point about the Doors-- the Doors had an equal 'influence' on Psych rock progressing in a more theatrical direction, and were equally non-influential to Prog as the Beatles.
Do you not think it's possible the early proggers were doing something wholly unique in its musicianship and modern fusions, something the Beatles could never have done? Do you think it's possible it was their unique background in music? That it was Fripp's, Emerson's and Banks' firm foundation in classical, jazz and other musics that led to Prog, and much less to do with the artificial novelty of what the Beatles were doing?
|
You know Rock Music is just a fusion of music from the past? Really it's your opinion not really a good one claiming artificial novelty of what the Beatles were doing. That is an insult to someone like Harrison when you hear actually incorporating sitar-based music or Classical Indian Music in which at the time no one was really doing in Rock Music with "Love You To" and "Within You Without You".
As great as Yes and King Crimson are they were combining genres already well established of the past into like Progressive Rock. It’s still not what you call a Modern Fusion it’s still old styles being mixed into something new. The Beatles certainly were combining genres that were less known and creating something new maybe Art-Rock or Proto-Prog or even worse for you “Psychedelic Pop or Avant Pop.
Talk about music that is actually what you call modern fusions.
'"Tomorrow Never Knows" Musically, it is drone like, with a strongly syncopated, repetitive drum-beat, looping is considered to be among the earliest precursors of Modern Electronica. Much of Modern Music is based on those principles. Ironic that King Crimson basically paid tribute to this song when they based "Tomorrow Never Knew Thela".
Another point just because the Beatles were not underground does not mean they were not progressive. In many ways they were more detached in what people were doing in late 1965-1967. Last time I checked The Doors, Jefferson Airplane or basically anyone else in 1966 were not using reverse guitar, processed vocals and looped tape effects. Nor were they using tamboura as a drone instrument, atonal sounding orchestras, using the mellotron in a trippy way, songs with just strings and vocals, using tape loops like sampling as a musical backdrop. I hear strong Classical Influences in Avant ”Tomorrow Never Knows", Indian, "Love You To" and "Within You Without You" and Classical "For No One" and "She Leaving Home". I could be wrong but the time signature changes that are on “Good Morning, Good Morning” were constantly changing another proggy feature.
Cut to the chase
Maybe the first Art-Rock Song- "Tomorrow Never Knows
Indo-Prog- the first of that kind "Love You To" and Within You Without You"
Progressive Rock - "Sgt Pepper Reprise/ A Day in the Life"
|
|
AlbertMond
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 27 2008
Location: Namibia
Status: Offline
Points: 139
|
Posted: December 28 2008 at 00:25 |
|
While Led Zeppelin was an amazing band, I have to say that I prefer The Beatles. While Zeppelin helped pioneer heavy metal, hard rock and modern folk, The Beatles did that and more. To The Beatles credit are vast amounts of influence over such genres as Rock, Psychedelic Rock, Avant-Rock, Hard Rock, Folk Rock, Early Heavy Metal, influence on Punk and pretty much every other facet of Rock.
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17510
|
Posted: December 31 2008 at 13:33 |
Hi,
The Beatles appeared at a time when things were changing ... but they were not immune to the external influences either ... you can listen to the Live in Hamburg stuff (ohh ... you would have to be familier with the bootlegs of the time maybe???) ... and see their influences.
By the time they did Sgt Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour, you can see that they are bored with "pop songs" ... and want to do something else. And the rest of their catalogue reflects that ... an attempt to make music that is much more meaningful to them than just a mere pop song.
You can see this in the movie "Let It Be" ... that needs to be taken off the hands of two jerks and released! You can see the boredom and the desire to do something else ...
That left the door open ... for many other bands ... and the club scene, that Jimmy Page, John Mayall and so many others came out of, simply made it harder and stronger as a statement about what it meant -- not only to them - but others around them as well.
Music, and most arts ... are not accidental ... rarely are they completely out there without an event, or series of events that surround it ... and The Beatles had travelled enough to realize that there was more to music than just what they did. Bands like Led Zeppelin, and I will not trash them as I happen to like them a lot and Bonzo is one of the top 3 rock drummers of all time ... realized and learned early on that it was not about Willie Dixon or Blueberry Hill ... it was about them and their expression ... and this is the difference ... the new music, the new world ... and the old ways ...
It is silly to compare apples and oranges ... they both are good and healthy ... but to say one is better than the other?
|
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
|
Posted: January 04 2009 at 01:54 |
Love 'em both, but they are worlds apart. I see no point in choosing, as I think making such a choice (or poll) is just plain silly. Why the heck would I have to choose either the Beatles or Led Zep? I have both bands' entire output, but the albums suit entirely different musical moods!
You can have some blueberry pie, or some apple pie, or some of both -- with neopolitan ice cream too, if you wish! 
Often in life, kiddywinks, the best answer is " all of the above." 
Now: your right leg, or your left?
Edited by Peter - January 04 2009 at 02:34
|
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
