The Beatles. Here. Why?

wow...why is this such a big deal.

for this site to be deemed complete we haev to have the roots of the genre evident and they are beginning to be with the proto/prog-related subgenres. i'm sorry if you don't agree just don't worry about it and move on with your life--after all extending the archives isn't going to hurt it in any way--you'll stil have your conventional prog waiting for you here.

the only thing i'm moderately worried about by adding such a hugely popular band to the site is the fact that reviews for their albums will clog the home page for awhile--other than that the add was a fine add whether you agree or not. i think it's been stated on the thread that they were not added as a progressive rock band, but merely a band that is prog-related or proto-prog...a band that influenced prog enough to be deemed a spot in the archives. if you have a problem with it then just don't pay attention to it--you're few picky picks are still here waiting for you to shut up about the beatles being added and go back to them.

Phil wrote: Excuse me while I laugh myself silly!!!!!!!!! ps don't get me wrong - I like these bands (well I'm a bit so-so about ELO....), its just that they aren't progressive!!!!

Nobody says that the Beatles are a prog rock band. But of course they made some progressive albums ... you may laugh all you want, but I'm sure that most prog rock artists would agree with us (collabs) here.

[/QUOTE]

Now that the Beatles are here, they will quickly run to the top of the album list.  Isn't that what they always did.   But I think that it is important and a noted change that people are coming to realize that the Beatles are proto-prog and what we call proto-prog actually starts much earlier than scholars like Macan have led us to believe. I love the Beatles like everyone or most do, but I have often gotten in trouble for saying that in the final laundry, the Beatles will not come out looking any better than many of the contemporararies.

What The Bealtes were able to do is craft a pop song, over and over again, that consisted of multiple hooks, as in She Loves You or Can't Buy Me Love. That's pretty powerful stuff but The Brill Building songwriters did the same thing and more sophisticated.  (I might just feel that way 'cause i'm a NYer.)  But there integrated songwriting on Abbey Road was certainly a harbinger of things to come.

Do people realize that it is Mariah Carey who has been outselling the Beatles over the last twenty years?

The Miracle wrote: I see no problem with it, since they are added as proto prog... They definitely did have a huge influence on prog, as they did on all other major rock genres, really. Proto prog is for bands that influenced prog, and were not (by modern standards) "prog". And keep in mind, that during their times, they were the most progressive thing ever!

Progressive yes. Prog no. Get rid of Proto Prog and Prog Related is what I say.

Manunkind wrote: Tony R wrote: Flip_Stone wrote: Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick.  Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog.  They were very innovative, original, and influential.  They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days.  But that does NOT make them progressive!! The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant.  I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive.  Even their early stuff isn't progressive.  It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then.  It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness. Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here.  Yeah dude, they're progressive.  NOT! Please read my other posts.In fact read the whole thread!! They havent been added as a Progressive Rock band! Since there is a proto-prog category, The Beatles have to be in it.

Well wouldn't Mozart be considered for the proto prog catagory? Proto Prog and Prog Related just flat out need to be removed. There is no need for those so called sub genres to be included. Those catagories are too broad and therefore offer no merit.

Tony R wrote: Flip_Stone wrote: Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick.  Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog.  They were very innovative, original, and influential.  They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days.  But that does NOT make them progressive!! The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant.  I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive.  Even their early stuff isn't progressive.  It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then.  It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness. Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here.  Yeah dude, they're progressive.  NOT! Please read my other posts.In fact read the whole thread!! They havent been added as a Progressive Rock band!

Since there is a proto-prog category, The Beatles have to be in it.

Flip_Stone wrote: Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick.  Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog.  They were very innovative, original, and influential.  They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days.  But that does NOT make them progressive!! The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant.  I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive.  Even their early stuff isn't progressive.  It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then.  It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness. Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here.  Yeah dude, they're progressive.  NOT!

Actually, in a sense of propelling music in a different direction they were progressive, but they are NOT prog. Marillion and Arena aren't progressive but ARE prog. There is the  difference.

Tony...is this a progressive history site or a site where we can find lots of information about progressive rock bands.? Wouldn't we be including all of the rock pioneers then, such as Elvis and Buddy Holly? How far back in history do we go? Perhaps we should include great classical and jazz musicians. Do we not draw a line somewhere?

Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick.  Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog.  They were very innovative, original, and influential.  They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days.  But that does NOT make them progressive!!

The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant.  I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive.  Even their early stuff isn't progressive.  It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then.  It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness.

Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here.  Yeah dude, they're progressive.  NOT!

gdub411 wrote: John Gargo wrote: So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives.  I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added. This is exactly what I was worried about as well another one's comment about changing the sites name to something other than the word Progressive. It is slipping away from us and the floodgates of mediocre bands are about to come crashing in. We need to dam with flood before this site is totally ruined.

I'd hardly call the Beatles mediochre.

And they're Prog-Related/Proto-Prog - there was no Prog Rock before them and they're largely responsible for helping to bring it about.

ALL pop/rock music is related to the Beatles. They're welcome at every party.

bluetailfly wrote: I would just like to add my opinion into the fray here: Look, if you're going to add the Beatles and the Doors et al., then change the name of the website. Clearly, the focus of the website has moved out and beyond progressive rock.

Please read my post.

This isnt Rocket Science you know!