The Beatles. Here. Why?

[QUOTE=altaeria]

How about each album review gets both of these:

(1)  a  STAR RATING  of 1 to 5  for overall quality (like we already have)

(2)  a  PROG-OMETER rating of  1 to 5  for overall "prog" feel.

Granted, it's still very subjective -- but, heck, it'll be a little more FUN ... and, over time, it just might help to properly balance out the general "prog status" (if you will) of each album.

example:

1 prog-ometer star = basically Pop with  little-to-no  progressive elements (Genesis Invisible Touch)

2 prog-ometer stars = Pop or Hard Rock (etc) with extensive Prog moments (Yes 90125)

3 prog-ometer stars = Prog in an easy-to-label sense... mostly derivative  (Starcastle first album)

4 prog-ometer stars = Original, truly progressive... but not completely groundbreaking  (UK Danger Money)

5 prog-ometer stars = Wow...where did THAT come from?!  (Close to the Edge, Tarkus, Inner Mounting Flame)

That's a great idea; a Prog-ometer for "progressiveness".  At least that might help separate the true prog. bands (King Crimson, Genesis, Gentle Giant, etc.) from the semi-prog bands (Styx) from the non-prog. bands (Beatles).  With the new trend of including every band under the sun, the existing star rating system is no longer useful.  The above addition would correct that.

 

 

 

Edited by Flip_Stone

I've said all I needed to say.  You know, we both actually agree that The Beatles shouldn't be in the archive.  All I was really saying is that people should have been more polite when disagreeing with the people who own the website.  It's like a big 'f**k You' to those who offer us this great resource, one that I visit every day and have learned so much from.  Just sticking up for them is all... 

moonlapse wrote: Yeah, so what you are saying is the site should be inclusive...and only include those who agree with the owners.  Haha

Actually, YES, that is what I'm saying.  Want to have more input?  Why not offer to share the hosting costs for the site then?  Oh, you're not in any rush to do so I see...  how surprising.

Ok so there's 2,277 bands in the archives.  So let's add Linkin Park too - hey that collaboration with Jay-Z was something else!  I mean what's another band, when there's so many to choose from?

Absurd examples... the true sign of someone who has nothing to say.

While the owners have the right to make the decisions, it doesn't mean that all their decisions are right.

This is your opinion... there is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to such an issue... it all comes down to personal taste.

I'm sure most of us appreciate the work they put into this site.  But that doesn't mean we have to agree with everything they do.  I mean, the site is what it is due in part to this forum and the people who post reviews, who have no other connection to the site other than being a member.  So, shouldn't they be allowed to voice an opinion?

I was specifically referring to people who said stuff like "RIP Prog Archives" or 'This site is a joke."  I wonder why they're still posting here if they think that.

I guess you'd rather have us lie, and say we agree, or say nothing (which is pretty much akin to lying).

Nothing wrong with politely expressing your opinion... I saw very few people politely disagree in this thread.  I saw a lot or pompous ridicule and insults.

And, I guess you've never criticized your local professional sports team's owner or GM for trading away that 1st round draft choice for a washed up veteran to make the playoffs?  Hey, you don't like the trade?  Go somewhere else!  Move to another city!  Better yet, buy your own sports team, and pay those high salaries!  A sports franchise is pretty expensive to maintain, not to mention all the effort that goes into to running it.  And this is the thanks they get for trying to improve the team!!!

Again, a silly example... It's easier to visit another site than it is to move to another city.  Stupid argument?  Yeah, well so was your analogy.

Give me a break!

I apologize if the inclusion of the Beatles into a website is enough of an act to drive you into hysterics.  I actually don't agree with adding The Beatles to Prog Archives, but it is not my call to make, and it certainly isn't the end of the world.  Relax!!

Certif1ed wrote: chopper wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Certifiable wrote: ] Snow Dog wrote: I see that many consider Sgt Pepper to be a concept album......it isn't. Er... yes it is! The entire thing is one huge concept/package, including the rumours that surrounded it. We'll have to disagree on this one then. Sorry, Snow Dog is correct here. Sgt Pepper was originally conceived as being a concert by a Beatles "alter-ego" band, hence it starts off with sounds of an orchestra warming up and the title track flows straight into "With a little help from my friends". After that, as Lennon has said, they got fed up with the idea and it became an normal album of songs. There is a half-hearted attempt to complete the concept with the reprise of the title track but there is no continuing theme linking the songs. As you say, it started out as a concept album in the musical sense, even though the full concept was never fully realised - as you also point out. "With a Little Help From My Friends" is arguably sung by Billy Shears, who we are introduced to at the end of the first track. But it's by no means a "normal album of songs" - there's too much variety, even compared to "Revolver" for that. That doesn't mean it's not a concept album though - I tried to indicate that the concept is also in the packaging (with the cut-outs) and the rumours (Paul Is Dead - the flowers on the front allegedly spell Paul?). The songs were all conceptualised and written slowly and carefully in the studio - something the Beatles had never had the luxury to do before - and the tracks all run into each other, something the guys built on with the medlies on "Abbey Road". The Beatles presented themselves with this radical new image - the colourful uniforms and 'taches, as if they were enacting this alter-ego - that's a concept. Musically, we're given music that strays very far from the standard rock format - here is a concept for you - the concept that Rock music doesn't have to be 100% rock. The whole concept of Sgt Pepper was taken up by so many bands - the Stones and Zappa both poked fun at it, while "Good Morning" pokes fun at the Beach Boys (the animal noises = "Pet Sounds ) - and how many times has that cover been imitated? The whole album is a mess of concepts, some followed-through, some not. It's still a concept album - or more accurately, an album of concepts - a work of art of sorts.

I agree there is a kind of "concept" of sorts behind it (the alter-ego band). What I meant by a "normal album of songs" is that it's not what I normally think of as a concept album along the lines of Snow, Olias, Lamb Lies Down etc where all the tracks make up a story or continuing theme.

I don't agree that "the tracks all run into each other". Some do, some don't.

It's still a work of genius (although I think Revolver is better).

^ that's a good way of putting it - "they started the whole idea to progress". Of course they weren't the first or the only ones with that idea, but they were part of the "progressive movement".

John Gargo wrote: I am of the opinion that the site should be inclusive rather than exclusive.  Now with that out of the way... I think people need to relax... this is a website meant for your personal entertainment.  The very fabric of progressive rock will not tear due to the addition of The Beatles in this site.  Take a look at this statistic...  2,277 That's the number of bands in the database.  I'm sure there are others here that you wouldn't consider prog as well, but the vast majority of them are.  Some people don't think bands like Supertramp should be included... Well OK, then don't visit that section of the forum.  Hell, I've heard people argue that Kansas shouldn't be here as well, and others who say that prog metal is rubbish and shouldn't be here either. Bottom line - everyone has their own definitons of prog rock and they will obviously be different than this site.  It reflects the opinion of the founding members.  You don't agree with it?  Well then go start your own website and pay the hosting fees.  All of you people who are saying stuff like "RIP PROG ARCHIVES" are real dicks in my eyes... The owners of this site are providing you with this archive and this is the thanks you give them?  A site with this much traffic cannot be very cheap to maintain, not to mention the effort that goes into building and moderating it. ProgLucky and m@X , I feel sorry for you guys.  Then again, you probably would have guessed that you would be eventually be dealing with such thankless dicks when starting a progressive rock website.  Keep up the good work.

Yeah, so what you are saying is the site should be inclusive...and only include those who agree with the owners.  Haha

Ok so there's 2,277 bands in the archives.  So let's add Linkin Park too - hey that collaboration with Jay-Z was something else!  I mean what's another band, when there's so many to choose from?

While the owners have the right to make the decisions, it doesn't mean that all their decisions are right.

I'm sure most of us appreciate the work they put into this site.  But that doesn't mean we have to agree with everything they do.  I mean, the site is what it is due in part to this forum and the people who post reviews, who have no other connection to the site other than being a member.  So, shouldn't they be allowed to voice an opinion?

I guess you'd rather have us lie, and say we agree, or say nothing (which is pretty much akin to lying).

And, I guess you've never criticized your local professional sports team's owner or GM for trading away that 1st round draft choice for a washed up veteran to make the playoffs?  Hey, you don't like the trade?  Go somewhere else!  Move to another city!  Better yet, buy your own sports team, and pay those high salaries!  A sports franchise is pretty expensive to maintain, not to mention all the effort that goes into to running it.  And this is the thanks they get for trying to improve the team!!!

Give me a break!

Lord Qwerty just noticed the Beatles were now on progarchives. He was about to ask if anyone else had noticed, then he saw this rather long thread that only started the other day (?!) and thought better of it.

Oh, and Lord Qwerty likes the Beatles very much.

 

ooh ooh -- I got another idea for this!!

 

How about each album review gets both of these:

(1)  a  STAR RATING  of 1 to 5  for overall quality (like we already have)

(2)  a  PROG-OMETER rating of  1 to 5  for overall "prog" feel.

Granted, it's still very subjective -- but, heck, it'll be a little more FUN ... and, over time, it just might help to properly balance out the general "prog status" (if you will) of each album.

example:

1 prog-ometer star = basically Pop with  little-to-no  progressive elements (Genesis Invisible Touch)

2 prog-ometer stars = Pop or Hard Rock (etc) with extensive Prog moments (Yes 90125)

3 prog-ometer stars = Prog in an easy-to-label sense... mostly derivative  (Starcastle first album)

4 prog-ometer stars = Original, truly progressive... but not completely groundbreaking  (UK Danger Money)

5 prog-ometer stars = Wow...where did THAT come from?!  (Close to the Edge, Tarkus, Inner Mounting Flame)

 

If you're a true prog fan... you should also be able to distinguish "personal taste" vs. "appreciation".

You may score King Crimson's LIZARD as 5 on the prog-ometer (recognition of the effort), but only 3 on the overall quality score (which tends to be based on personal enjoyment).

 

Does this make any sense?

C'mom... It'll be FUN, dagnabbit!!

No other band could invoke this much emotion one way or another than The Beatles.

I'm waiting for The Who In PA now...