The Prog Side of The Beatles

They are not Prog Rock or what we define regularly as Prog. Their usage of the mellotron was superb , inventive/creative, and influenced part of the birth of Prog. King Crimson in 69' used to rehearse "Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds" so I attribute their overall influence in the elements/ideas they came up with, (along with George Martin) to produce something unique within a song by using effects and unlike many others who attempted to catch up with The Beatles during the rat race when many bands were trying to sound like Sgt. Pepper. For a while it was almost insulting. It was an influential album, but too many artists were simply out-right copying the style. The Beatles late 60's material presented an idea to combine influences from other styles that were not Rock. The way in which The Beatles produced that as an end product, it became evident to most internationally known artists that they were surrounding the melody unlike anyone before them. The choice to use a sitar, a French Horn, or string quartet to enhance the vocal, creating a style that couldn't always be catagorized as Pop. Maybe years later..it was, but not in 67' when people first heard Sgt. Pepper. What happened later is not any motive on behalf of The Beatles. When it was first released, it felt very strange to people and they were drawn in by it's intensity of sound. That's why it influenced Progressive Rock. It was mainly  an aspect to the actual style that produced new ideas in Prog. It was a premature stage .

There's nothing wrong with including a great non-prog song.  Most prog bands have the odd non-prog song.

If I were to compile a Beatles prog album, it might be

I heard a guy say once that "I want you/she's so heavy" is pure prog. Not sure if I agree with that although it could be considered proto. THe closest the Beatles came to typical prog imo was probably "a day in the life." TO be honest I don't think they did all that much that was similar to the later prog. Although they were very experimental at times I wouldn't really call them prog. That being said they did get the ball rolling and are important in the development of adventurous music that led directly to prog.

A Day in the Life though

I don't know why people want to call The Beatles a progressive rock band.  They did some 'progressive things' with some of their music  and expanded the horizons of what could be done with pop and rock in the studio.

dr wu23 wrote: Guldbamsen moved the thread to the Proto prog forum.....and rightly so since The Beatles are not a prog rock band and are indeed listed here under the Proto prog heading.

Guldbamsen

Thanks. I used of part of your post to explain mine!! I know your opinion clearly. I living with "Progressive" music and fortunately my family (my wife and my children) understand me.I love Beatles but they are not a Prog Rock band (IMO). Thanks again for your time and answer.

musitron wrote: Hi. Many of us (PA fans) love or like beatles. I start with them when I was 13-14 years old( Now I am 45). I agree with you my friend but IMO they never been a Prog Rock band or they never start Prog Rock Genre. As you said I think They are " just a psychedelic pop rock band "   No. I said " they were much more than just a psychedelic pop rock band "   But I think at 45 you are still too young to understand the impact of the Beatles on the prog and music in general.

Tom Ozric wrote: I'll admit, I'm not a huge fan of The Beatles, but however you look at things, Bruford said it perfectly. They may not be Prog per se, but surely innovative, adventurous and influential - everything a Prog band is

Well said and good quote my friend. All Hail Bartley Butsford!!!