The Beatles, The Who...why not?

Ancestors, yes.

Prog, No.

The Beatles were progressive and experimental - and maybe wrote three or so truly progressive tracks. Without them, Western music may not have evolved as it has - indeed, prog may not have been born.

But the parents of punks back in 1977 generally did not consider themselves punks!

Pepper was very experimental - widely acknowledged to be the first album to use the recording studio as an instrument.

The White Album had a couple of experimental tracks, one using a tape collage. Stockhausen used tape collages back in the 1940s - was he prog?

Tommy was a "Rock Opera". It did not adhere to operatic forms generally, except for the fact that it had music in it.

It's a grey question which is oft argued over, but the first prog album is widely held to be "In The Court Of The Crimson King". Compare that to anything the Beatles or the Who put together, and that is why the latter are not in the archives, IMO.

Certif1ed hits the nail on the head. In my opinion Sgt. Pepper's and The White Album were progressive (lower case "p") but not Progressive (upper case "p").

When we talk about "progressive rock" / "prog rock", we're talking about a specific genre which, in my opinion, definitely does not include certain progressive rock music. Perhaps Dick Heath could explain it more eloquently than that - he's a stickler for the definition of Progressive Rock  - but maybe we ought to start writing "Progressive Rock" instead of "progressive rock" to emphasize the distinction.

Does prog deserves to be a sacred term? No. It's about experimentation. About pushing the limits of sounds

I really see two different definitions of prog':

1. Progressive as an adjective to qualify a band that pushes the limits of sounds and boundaries, if we are talking about this definition, I may admit that The Who and The Beatles were progressive bands, because they created music that was ahead of their time.
2. Progressive Rock as a GENRE born in the late 60's with specific characteristics that would be long (and futile) to describe, in this case I don't believe any of the above mentioned is a progressive Rock Band.

I believe both are Classic Rock Bands that released a couple of albums that can be considered part of the progressive rock genre, being more specific:

Sgt. Pepper’s and Abbey Road by The Beatles

Tommy and Quadrophenia by The Who.

PS: After answering this thread I read the post by The Analog Kid and to be honest he said almost exactly the same I did, but before me.

Menswear:

Certifi1ed takes a very similar position to me.  However, I will get a bit more detailed.

"Prog" (the genre) was born as a result of the development of what I call "progressive sensibilities."  These "sensibilities" developed over time.

Many artists may have "stumbled upon" progressive sensibilities, in which case they may have written an "accidental" "prog" song or two.  Some artists may have originally "stumbled upon" these sensibilities, and then chosen to apply them - consciously - to a song or two (or three).  However, I would not classify any of these artists as "prog" (genre) groups.  It is only when an artist applies "progressive sensibilities" as a conscious approach to their overall (i.e., primary) composition and style - as a whole - that I would qualify them as "prog" artists.

Few if any members on this site would argue against Sgt. Pepper being the seminal "proto-prog" album: i.e., the first album created through a "progressive sensibilities" approach (even if not every single song was flat-out "proto-prog").  And The Beatles went on to write at least three further songs that same year - I Am The Walrus, Strawberry Fields Forever and Blue Jay Way - which were "proto-prog" in their approach.  However, this does not make The Beatles a "prog" band: it makes them a band that applied "progressive sensibilities" to a number of compositions - but not to their style as a whole, as a primary objective in their writing.

The same would hold true for The Who, Procol Harum, Vanilla Fudge, and quite a few other bands that have been bandied about as "progressive," and ripe for inclusion on this site.

As influential as Sgt. Pepper was (and it was), The Beatles are not likely to be added to this site anytime soon.  And note that it is not necessary for a band to "begin life" as a "prog" band for them to be included, or even to end their career as a "prog" band.  What is necessary is that the approach and style they took in the creation of the majority of their work reflects the application of "progressive sensibilities" as a primary focus over an extended period of time.

Clearly, The Beatles et all do not meet this criterion.

Peace.

The Beatles cannot be considered prog in my view.The Who have greater claims ...but then we would also have to consider Led Zep,Black Sabbath and before you know we'll debating whether The Rolling Stones should be in!! Lets not get silly about this.I would argue that of the 'mega selling' rock acts only these should be regarded as prog:

ELP

Yes

Genesis

King Crimson

Rush

Jethro Tull

Pink Floyd

Kansas

The likes of Led Zep,The Who,Queen etc were NEVER considered prog and there is only the most tenous of arguments that makes them prog.People please stop trying to reinvent music understanding and history.I like these bands but not for one minute do I think they should be included on this site!

richardh wrote: The likes of Led Zep,The Who,Queen etc were NEVER considered prog and there is only the most tenous of arguments that makes them prog.People please stop trying to reinvent music understanding and history.I like these bands but not for one minute do I think they should be included on this site!

Thank you!!  that's what i was trying to say in the other poll but i couldnt say it wise and clear as you did

i just belive if we guys continue like that we will end up adding all have-anything-to-do-with-rock bands from 1950 to 1980. I dont have a clear definiton for prog rock, i just feel the music, and when a band is prog i feel they are prog. Maybe you guys will kill me if i said that the last works of Genisis/collins are not that prog to me

maani wrote: In this regard, there is no question that under both Gabriel and Collins, the majority of Genesis' work was "prog." Peace.

Just to be a tad controversial; if we ignore "Genesis to Revelation" (borderline prog), then only the period 1970-1980 (Trespass to Duke) spawned prog albums for Genesis. From 1981 - 2004, we've seen precious little but pop. Therefore the majority of Genesis' work is pop - so maybe Genesis aren't strictly prog...?

/Cert ducks and runs quickly from the ensuing shower of unmentionable objects

i think that we are including a lot of bands to the prog realm, just beacuse they produced 1 RECORD that sounds progressive to is time... The beatles are the most influential band EVER, but being progressive is not something they had in mind, really. the who? is not bad at all, very classic rock, but again, not progressive, perhaps TOMMY sounds a little bit prog, but is a ROCK OPERA, that´s all.

peace