Oh right, we need a reason. Hrmm, well other than the obvious, it seems that if we're going to have a bunch of bands who paved the way for the psychedelic and progressive nature, we should put the Beatles in there since they were doing a lot of avant garde stuff in the latter half of the 60s. I'd suggest putting "Tomorrow", Steve Howe's band in there too.

Just something to think about.

Gaston

Cool Avatar

horza wrote: beatles ? proto prog ? one day ALL bands will be in here

Well, at least their album Revolver served as an inspiration for a swedish prog band about 30 years later.

horza wrote: beatles ? proto prog ? one day ALL bands will be in here

Nei, we still won't let ABBA in

 I think every single band in history is prog. All but "The ramones".

 May I then suggest "Los angeles azules" as "Progressive cumbia" ?     (A latin tropical band. Think of cha cha cha, although it´s not exactly that)

 Michael bolton is Prog.....

 Keep wondering around and in a few months you´ll find The Beatles in this site as "Proto-pop-metal-hardcore-rap-soul-R&B-electronic-PROG band". Vocabulary can be extended as much as it is convenient.

 This way, We can add Ashley Simpson as "Proto-pop-crap-prog-artist"

I Cant read it!

a hint: Steve Lukather, Simon Phillips.

horza wrote: Toto ??

exactly. I was only joking about adding them though ... Mindfields is a very nice AOR album, not more.

Cygnus X-1 wrote: would you consider hendrix progressive? I mean he basically created many guitar methods that are used commonly etc etc. He was very pyschadellic. Any opnions on him? As for the Beatles then yes i think they should be proto-prog but just for st pepper

The White Album is also quite nice ...

horza wrote: i like Toto

Listen to two samples from that album:

http://www.stevelukather.net/Album.aspx?id=20 - http://www.stevelukather.net/Album.aspx?id=20

I like Dorothy!

.....and the Good Witch!

Cygnus X-1 wrote:

As for the Beatles then yes i think they should be proto-prog but just for st pepper

Sorry Cygnus, but you can't add a band for only one album, and even worst when the album has songs as She's Leaving Home or With a Little Help of My Friiends that have absolutely no relation with Prog'

I've seen the rules change:

1. First it was a requirement to be included the Archives, that most of the output of a band was Prog, most of the output of The Beatles is Rock or POP.
2. Then the rules changed to at least one 100% Prog' album, well, not even the overrated Sgt Pepper is 100% Prog'.
3. If you want to change the rules again, what will it be? One Prog song? Two Prog' songs?. Then let's add Toto because Child's Anthem is Prog related, even when 99.9% of their music is plain POP.

We can't satisfy everybody, Prog Archives has a good name already, but we are the only place in the Prog' Web Ring that includes Super Furry Animals, Radiohead and at leas ten Death, Dark, Doom or Suicide Metal bands that have no relation with Prog'.

I love Meatloaf's music, I believe Jim Steinman at the piano has a very Progressive sound, Meatloaf and Mrs. Loud have probably the best voices in the market, but I would be insane if I asked to include him.

The Piano at I don't Like Mondays by Bob Geldoff and the Boomtown Rats is very Prog related and the song has dramatic changes, plus the fact that Geldoff was part of The Wall movie and even sung at Gilmour's concerts, but again would be madness to ask for his inclusion.

The Rolling Stones released Their Satanic Majesties Request, which IMO is 100% closer than anything The Beatles did to Prog (Yes, it's inspired in Sgt Peppers, but it's better developed), there's not a single POP track or ballad in this excellent album which is 100% Psychedelic with clear touches of Prog' in songs as She's a Rainbow, but if I asked to include them, all the members would laugh at me (with valid reasons).

The Beatles are an icon of Rock/POP, why in hell should we include them as a second class Prog' band? (They are not in a Prog' level as Yes, Genesis, ELP, King Crimson or Pink Floyd).I don't believe they would like this.

Believe me, The Who are closer to Prog' than The Beatles, at least Quadrophenia and part of Tommy are very Progressive, but I would also disagree with their inclusion.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Cygnus X-1 wrote: As for the Beatles then yes i think they should be proto-prog but just for st pepper Sorry Cygnus, but you can't add a band for only one album, and even worst when the album has songs as She's Leaving Home or With a Little Help of My Friiends that have absolutely no relation with Prog' I've seen the rules change: First it was a requirement to be included the Archives, that most of the output of a band was Prog, most of the output of The Beatles is Rock or POP. Then the rules changed to at least one 100% Prog' album, well, not even the overrated Sgt Pepper is 100% Prog'. If you want to change the rules again, what will it be? One Prog song? Two Prog' songs?. Then let's add Toto because Child's Anthem is Prog related, even when 99.9% of their music is plain POP. We can't satisfy everybody, Prog Archives has a good name already, but we are the only place in the Prog' Web Ring that includes Super Furry Animals, Radiohead and at leas ten Death, Dark, Doom or Suicide Metal bands that have no relation with Prog'. I love Meatloaf's music, I believe Jim Steinman at the piano has a very Progressive sound, Meatloaf and Mrs. Loud have probably the best voices in the market, but I would be insane if I asked to include him. The Piano at I don't Like Mondays by Bob Geldoff and the Boomtown Rats is very Prog related and the song has dramatic changes, plus the fact that Geldoff was part of The Wall movie and even sung at Gilmour's concerts, but again would be madness to ask for his inclusion. The Rolling Stones released Their Satanic Majesties Request, which IMO is 100% closer than anything The Beatles did to Prog (Yes, it's inspired in Sgt Peppers, but it's better developed), there's not a single POP track or ballad in this excellent album which is 100% Psychedelic with clear touches of Prog' in songs as She's a Rainbow, but if I asked to include them, all the members would laugh at me (with valid reasons). The Beatles are an icon of Rock/POP, why in hell should we include them as a second class Prog' band? (They are not in a Prog' level as Yes, Genesis, ELP, King Crimson or Pink Floyd).I don't believe they would like this. Believe me, The Who are closer to Prog' than The Beatles, at least Quadrophenia and part of Tommy are very Progressive, but I would also disagree with their inclusion. Iván

Ivan, surely the definition of 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.") means that bands can be added to this genre without having made a strictly "prog" album. We're talking about influence on prog - The Beatles beat most other bands on that count.

chopper wrote: Ivan, surely the definition of 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.") means that bands can be added to this genre without having made a strictly "prog" album. We're talking about influence on prog - The Beatles beat most other bands on that count.

No Chopper that's not the meaning of Proto:

Main Entry: prot- Variant(s): or proto- Function: combining form Etymology: Middle English protho-, from Middle French, from Late Latin proto-, from Greek prOt-, prOto-, from prOtos; akin to Greek pro before -- more at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/for - FOR 1 a : first in time <protohistory> b : beginning : giving rise to <protoplanet> 2 : parent substance of a (specified) substance <protactinium> 3 : first formed : primary <protoxylem> 4 capitalized : relating to or constituting the recorded or assumed language that is ancestral to a language or to a group of related languages or dialects <Proto-Indo-European>

None of the definitions could define The Beatles as Proto Prog:

1. First in time, beginning: The Beatles were not the first in time to make something related with Prog', not even the beginers of Psychedelia, they made only one partially psyche album (Sgt Peppers) but long after a lot of bands worked this genre.
2. Parent or being of thesame substance of Prog': No, The Beatles were never related to Prog, they were mainly a Pop/Rock band.
3. Frst formed Prog': Again not, they don't even have an album that is 100% Prog' or 100% Psychedelic, even Sgt Peppers has a lot of POP, ballads and blues.
4. Ancestral to Prog': Well, every band before Prog' is ancestral to the genre, because all started even before Rock with Jazz and Blues.

If we assume that The Beatles are Proto Prog' because they influenced the genre, we would have to add Elvis Presley, Bill Halley and Chuck Berry, because everything that lead to Prog' started with them, and this would be ridiculous.

IMO Proto Prog is a band who did music that is close and would develope into Progressive Rock (If they followed the correct path), but  after Sgt Peppers The Beatles returned to their old pop/rock formula with albims like Let it Be.

Iván

Chopper wrote:

Oh well. I took that definition from this very web site, so if it's wrong then you need to tell m@x or someone.

I've been here more almopst two years and I learned not to believe in every description of genres or sub-genres included here, as someone mentioned before (on other thread) thre Neo Prog definition is taken from Wikipedia, the most inaccurate and mediocre source of information on the net.

Other definitions are made by well intentioned collaborators that are wrong, a couple of times I included inaccurate info that I had to correct after being published, sending a  PM  to Max and telling him oof my mistake (And I'm a neurotic that double checks all the information I provide), because the guy is really busy with this site and doesn't have time to double check all the info provided.

He gives some of us a lot of trust but we are humans are sometimes we can be wrong.

A few months ago only two or three persons to do all the job, just recently he named some special collaborators for determined jobs, because it was impossible to keep the track of a site with thousand of visitors per day and a whole bunch of members and reviewers.

Chopper wrote:

they opened the door for prog by retiring to the studio and pushing back the boundaries of music with tracks like "Tomorrow never knows". A number of top prog bands were heavily influenced by them (Yes covered them on their first album, early Genesis were influenced by them, King Crimson and VdGG have quoted them as influences).

Prog means Progressive ROCK, so this genre was influenced by every Rock band formed before the genre was born, and The Beatles are one of them, this doesn't mean we should add The Mamas and the Papas for their very complex vocal harmonies or Chuck Berry for his revolutionary guitar technique.

There was for example a great and unfairly forgotten band called Sweetwater (Opened Woodstock), who not only had a revolutionary vocal technique but also used Orchestral instrumentation, plus violins, keyboards, etc, but they are not Prog related or Proto Prog, they pushed the boundaries also but they were not the direct and main influence of Prog the same as The Beatles.

Proto means almost or pre, almost Prog' or Pre Prog' and The Beatles just don't fit in that category.

It's also important to remember that The Beatles influenced, POP, Rock, Hard Rock and Blues bands so in that case they should be included in the websites dedicated to those genres, and that's ridiculous.

Iván

Snow Dog wrote: As we are guided by definitions on this site, Beatles are Proto Prog. The Prog part is more important than the rock part, so we don't need Elvis here. Thats just plain silly.

Agree, for the same reason in The Beatles their POP/Rock component is far most important than the Prog part, so we don't need them here. That's just plain silly.

From........I don't know 10 or 12 albums only one has a couple of complex psychedelic songs, that's not enough for me and not enough for almost every prog site.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Snow Dog wrote: As we are guided by definitions on this site, Beatles are Proto Prog. The Prog part is more important than the rock part, so we don't need Elvis here. Thats just plain silly. Agree, for the same reason in The Beatles their POP/Rock component is far most important than the Prog part, so we don't need them here. That's just plain silly. From I don't know 10 or 12 albums only one g¿has a couple of complex psychedelic songs, that's not enough for me and not enought for almost every prog site. Iván

Not sure that I agree with the Beatles belong here either. But they certainly were a major influence on the progression of music in general. Wether this applies to Prog in particular I'm not so sure, and I would err on the side lof caution and say NO!!

Hey I'm agreeing with you for once.

Truly a watershed moment!

Of course we can agree Snow Dog, nobody can deny The Beatles were a major influence for al Rock and Pop, even Prog' has SOME Beatles influence, but not enough to be considered Proto Prog'.

Not even Prog' related......well IMO there's not such a thing as Prog' related, music is prog or it is not Prog', as simple as that, we have enough dealing with Art Rock.

Iván

Seyo wrote: A simple question: Why THE BEATLES and why not THE YARDBIRDS, THE BEACH BOYS, THE BYRDS, THE ROLLING STONES, THE KINKS... ?

The Beach Boys maybe (for Pet Sounds) and if you can find a prog band who say they were influenced by The Stones or The Kinks, them as well.

I agree that the Beatles are basically pop, but we can not denay the high impact they had in some of the major prog bands. Many of them pointed to the Beatles as one of their most important influences (e.g. Genesis).

OK, just a few of their albums can be catalogued as proto-prog, and not even all the songs contained in those albums. But then, let's think about YES, for example, who edited their last prog album back in 1977... If you take a look at their discography page you can find lots of pop albums there, but nobody hesitates to classify them as a prog band... Or ELP, with 5 non-prog albums after BSSurgery... Barclay James Harvest, for me a rock band that composed some symphonic tunes in their very beggining... and on and on... Also, these bands include some tunes in their prog abums that I would not classify as prog, and still I wouldn't dare to say those albums are not prog.

On the other hand, the proto-prog period was so short, so you can not expect a proto-prog band to edit 10 albums. It was just a time of changes, from pop to prog... and who symbolizes that better than the Beatles?

So I don't think this proposal of including the Beatles in the archives can be measured in terms of "a number of albums". I guess that if they had started playing in 1966, with Revolver, everybody would agree in classifying them as proto-prog. But what is wrong in having edited pop albums before? Just think that they were able to move from easy-listening pop to something close to prog... For me this is more meritorious than doing exactly the opposite, as many prog bands did.

chopper wrote: Seyo wrote: A simple question: Why THE BEATLES and why not THE YARDBIRDS, THE BEACH BOYS, THE BYRDS, THE ROLLING STONES, THE KINKS... ? The Beach Boys maybe (for Pet Sounds) and if you can find a prog band who say they were influenced by The Stones or The Kinks, them as well.

Hi again Chopper, Their Satanic Majesties Request by the Rolling Stones was IMO closer to Prog than anything The Beatles ever released, but you can't judge a band for an album, much less for a couple of songs in one album.

Iván

Please, keep the Beatles out of the prog archives. Once the Beatles are in, you may as well change the name to the Good Rock Archives.

I love the Beatles very, very much, but this is a prog rock website; it's ludicrous to include every strain of music that influenced prog as well. The site would then have to start admitting classical composers and jazz artists, because they've influenced prog as much as the Beatles have.

As for this proto-prog defense, this loop hole needs to be seriously tightened up. I mean using that argument almost every band who uses more than three chords per song should be admitted. The Doors, BOC, The Who --- that's rock, that's good 'ol classic rock. Rock can be inventive, complex, and powerful and still not be prog.

I'm very concerned about this, very concerned...

Seyo wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: chopper wrote: Seyo wrote: A simple question: Why THE BEATLES and why not THE YARDBIRDS, THE BEACH BOYS, THE BYRDS, THE ROLLING STONES, THE KINKS... ? The Beach Boys maybe (for Pet Sounds) and if you can find a prog band who say they were influenced by The Stones or The Kinks, them as well. Hi again Chopper, Their Satanic Majesties Request by the Rolling Stones was IMO closer to Prog than anything The Beatles ever released, but you can't judge a band for an album, much less for a couple of songs in one album. Iván OK Chopper, and who can say that some prog bands were NOT influenced by the Stones or the Kinks... it does not really matter what some prog musicians claim or admit to have listened or been influenced by! Of course, everything may influence anyone...

Good Pöint Seyo

Beatles, Zappa, Dylan,  Psychedelia or Prog' would have never existed as we know them without Chuck Berry, his music has influenced everybody, but any not insane person wouldn't dream to think he's Proto Prog because of this.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: chopper wrote: Seyo wrote: A simple question: Why THE BEATLES and why not THE YARDBIRDS, THE BEACH BOYS, THE BYRDS, THE ROLLING STONES, THE KINKS... ? The Beach Boys maybe (for Pet Sounds) and if you can find a prog band who say they were influenced by The Stones or The Kinks, them as well. Hi again Chopper, Their Satanic Majesties Request by the Rolling Stones was IMO closer to Prog than anything The Beatles ever released, but you can't judge a band for an album, much less for a couple of songs in one album. Iván

"Satanic Majesties" close to prog? Hmmm... I don't know. I swear the more these prog categorization discussions continue, the more I think this website should have limited itself to the golden age of prog...period (with maybe a separte link to neo-prog bands), but none of this prog-metal, metal-metal Queensryche, Iron Maiden, and even stuff like Porcupine Tree, which I really like. I think this website should just focus on the genre of prog as it became defined once the phase was essentially over.

This proto-prog category has the capability irreparably diffusing this website's true focus, which is golden age prog--sixties and seventies (with the later output of those bands).