...They were pioneers.  Every other band that did ANYTHING prog related like sgt peppers or magical mystery was just copying or were inspired by the Beatles, therefore bands like The Doors, rolling stones and led zeppelin should NOT be here, they did not pioneer prog like the beatles did.

Hence, Proto-Prog

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

Kid-A wrote: And you made this a new thread because.........

Just in case you didn't see the one with 14 pages already.

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.

The Lost Chord wrote: ...They were pioneers.  Every other band that did ANYTHING prog related like sgt peppers or magical mystery was just copying or were inspired by the Beatles, therefore bands like The Doors, rolling stones and led zeppelin should NOT be here, they did not pioneer prog like the beatles did.

IMO The Doors and Led Zeppelin, both in their own way, were pioneers too.

Many of so called heavy prog bands were influenced by LZ. I don't think Led Zeppelin are less progressive than, for example, guitar-driven Italian acts like GARYBALDI and I TEOREMI.

For Mr. Lost Chord:

I will be arrogant enough to excerpt my review here so that you may read it:

The nature of a term like “progressive rock” is that it is, as music, malleable and perpetually in change. The term “progressive rock” began to be used by writers in 1968, to denote the progressive impulse of the music of the Byrds, The Band, Procol Harum, The Beatles andThe Nice. Progressive rock did not have the narrow distinction now attributed to it until much later.

What was most engaging about Sgt Pepper was that it spoke about ordinary people: Billy Shears, Mr. Kite or Rita Meter Maid. Often they were doing things that were viewed as quite extraordinary: starting a band, leaving home or committing suicide, a theme that would become prevalent in heavy metal.

Through their narrative the Beatles began to question the materialistic framework of western society and the assumptions through which we lived out lives. They did this through laying to rest any notions about the ability of power, money and fame to truly liberate people. In the height of the Warhol sixties, they also questioned the consumerist aspect of pop art, laying themselves to rest and creating art out of a vision of common man going about a day in the life.

There would have been no Supper’s Ready or "show that never ends" without Sergeant Pepper’s. It all began here, in the uncompromising vision of The Beatles to re-create themselves through the lens of their own vision.

moonlapse wrote: ken4musiq wrote: There would have been no Supper’s Ready or "show that never ends" without Sergeant Pepper’s. How can you possibly know or prove that?

The narrative is a part of the times but The Beatles gave it its impetus. Both of these pieces reference Sgt Pepper's. The presupposition of Supper's Ready is that two peope are sitting down to eat while this cosmological event unfolds around them.  The notion that cosomological events happen in real time to real people is implicit in Sgt Pepper's. Sgt Pepper taught the band to play in one day, "twenty years ago today"  this feat evidences a type of cosmological magic associated with the band, a magic that takes place in a sense of eternal "dayness."  Within You and Without You is another example.  Many writers see it as the focal point of the album. In the song we can have something more, love peace contentment,  if we want it in the "here and now."

Sgt Peppers like KE 9 was to be a performance vehicle for the band. Karnevil 9 references Mr. Kite when Sinfield speaks of all those show people like the gypsy queen, performing amazing tricks.  This  may have satired Emerson's stage antics.

The idea of Karnevil 9 is a show that preserves a past of lost innocense. This was the innocense that Sgt Pepper spoke of that was part of the 1960s mod generation and the desire for post war youth to make sense of their world. By 1973 the innocense was fading and you can see it in the music.  Dark Side, Brain Salad Surgery and Selling England all speak to something that has been lost, maybe not to be regained.

The beatles had the biggest impact because they where the most commercial of the experimental bands

Alas King Crimson sounds nothing like The beatles

Lindsay Lohan wrote: The beatles had the biggest impact because they where the most commercial of the experimental bands Alas King Crimson sounds nothing like The beatles

Youve mentioned this several times but because Dream Theater sounds nothing like Yes does this mean that Yes had no influence on DT? Of course they did.

sleeper wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: The beatles had the biggest impact because they where the most commercial of the experimental bands Alas King Crimson sounds nothing like The beatles Youve mentioned this several times but because Dream Theater sounds nothing like Yes does this mean that Yes had no influence on DT? Of course they did.

Certainly DT sounds very much like YES and they are both bands of outstanding solo musicians. I'm just saying that some prog artists where perhaps influences but many others where not.

Marcelo Xanadu wrote: Ha... so then should be right put Chuck Berry in the archives!

STOP IT ALREADY !!!

Read the definition of proto-prog, take 10 minutes to think about it, and then SHUT THE  UP !!

Lindsay Lohan wrote: sleeper wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: The beatles had the biggest impact because they where the most commercial of the experimental bands Alas King Crimson sounds nothing like The beatles Youve mentioned this several times but because Dream Theater sounds nothing like Yes does this mean that Yes had no influence on DT? Of course they did. Certainly DT sounds very much like YES and they are both bands of outstanding solo musicians. I'm just saying that some prog artists where perhaps influences but many others where not.

Ironically, when King Crimson's fiurst album was reviewed in the NY Tims, the reviewer siad it sounded like the Beatles.  A big part of it was the longer song structures, but they both had a common precursor in Bob Dylan. 

For the life of me I cannot hear the influence of Yes on DT, and this has puzzled me.  It is strange how different ears pick up different things,since for you the influence is apparent.  The ironic thing is that I can hear everything but Yes.

Proto-Prog definition
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.

Please tell me how The Beatles do not fall into that description.

The Wizard wrote: Proto-Prog definition 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. Please tell me how The Beatles do not fall into that description.

Nice!... love em or hate em, as for me, and for almost all the progheads here, The Beatles is a welcome addition!