The Beatles. Here. Why?

NotAProghead wrote: Man With Hat wrote: I miss the days when i first signed up...nice and progressive. None of this proto-prog or prog related stuff. .... I find this to be the biggest mistake the archives have ever made. Queen was one thing...Deep Purple another. Even though The Beatles have more progressive moments then either of these two bands, they still do not deserve to be here. While i do not think the inclusion will ruin the site (as others have alluded to), it certainly doesn't better it, in any sense of the word. Why the site becomes worse because of metioned band inclusion? Everyone is free to choose true prog bands according to his (her) preferences. It's not an obligation to visit "The Beatles" or "Queen" sections.  I think there are bigger problems, for example the endless flood of DTSOM, ITCOTKC, "Close To The Edge" etc reviews (but it's a subject of other threads).

I never said it became worse (and if it came off that way i apologize). It just doesn't make it better.

Man With Hat wrote: I miss the days when i first signed up...nice and progressive. None of this proto-prog or prog related stuff. .... I find this to be the biggest mistake the archives have ever made. Queen was one thing...Deep Purple another. Even though The Beatles have more progressive moments then either of these two bands, they still do not deserve to be here. While i do not think the inclusion will ruin the site (as others have alluded to), it certainly doesn't better it, in any sense of the word.

Why the site becomes worse because of metioned band inclusion?

Everyone is free to choose true prog bands according to his (her) preferences. It's not an obligation to visit "The Beatles" or "Queen" sections. 

I think there are bigger problems, for example the endless flood of DTSOM, ITCOTKC, "Close To The Edge" etc reviews (but it's a subject of other threads).

Sigh...

I guess it was envitable...

I miss the days when i first signed up...nice and progressive. None of this proto-prog or prog related stuff. But hey i dont run the site nor to i have any influence here, thus the only thing i can do is bitch and complain (which i will do by the way). I find this to be the biggest mistake the archives have ever made. Queen was one thing...Deep Purple another. Even though The Beatles have more progressive moments then either of these two bands, they still do not deserve to be here. While i do not think the inclusion will ruin the site (as others have alluded to), it certainly doesn't better it, in any sense of the word.

But again i have no say here, i just want to express my distain for this move on PA's part. This is my opinion and that is all i have to say about this fact.

I just miss the good old days...and only wish i could have enjoyed them more.

Flip_Stone wrote: No matter how you categorize The Beatles (Proto-Prog, Prog-Related, Prog-nogog) they aren't prog. and never will be.  It's stupid to associate them at all with prog. music. The Beatles are 1960's rock / pop-rock Even if the Beatles had a few songs considered prog., the majority of their songs would still overwhelmingly be rock/pop (~ 99%).  Including bands like the Beatles (no matter how good of a rock/pop band they were) only diminishes and confuses the real prog. bands, especially for new people to prog.

That's a good argument... NOT!!!

For the first point, the Beatles are Proto-Prog and that is a fact. Why do you think they're not?

For the second, yes, the Beatles wrote pop and rock music in the 1960s, but it was so much more than most others were doing. It was, in fact, Proto Prog.

For the 3rd, what is Prog - to validate what you're saying.

How do the Beatles diminish and confuse the "real" prog bands - they're Proto Prog - what's wrong with that?

Did you read the bio on this site

Asyte2c00 wrote: The Beatles are classic britpop, NOT prog rock.   They are completely irrelevant.  Its one thing if the Moody Blues are in the archives because most of the their albums (i.e. the classic sevens) house progressive nuaces and enegender an ethereal quality unmatched by fellow britpop bands (early-the Who, The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, ect...).    Beatles are not prog

The term "Britpop" didn't even exist back then, so that's nonsense.

I know I don't even need to say this as these are absolute facts, but The Beatles are not irrelevant, completely or otherwise, and they were certainly far more progressive than the Moody Blues, who wrote ballads with orchestra. The Beatles used an orchestra too...

They are one of, if not the most relevant bands in history.

Did you read the Bio on this site?

That goes some way to answering this question.

Why are the Beatles not Prog?

What is Prog?

Enjoy the debate

samhob wrote: As simply as this: Imagine at the beggining of this website someone telling "we want the beatles on progarchives", everyone would laugh... But evolution is there, beatles is not prog, not proto whatever, face it, muse isnt prog too. what shall we be waiting for now ? U2 ? Bob Marley ?( why not a new category : prog reggae), oasis ? nirvana (they have a solo of more than 30 seconds on one album : they are prog).... Or simply renaming this website : rockarchives? I think most of progarchives visitors doesnt agree with these new "prog" bands as the beatles recently. If we care, it is because we love this website and we want it to stay as good as it is ... Sorry for my english, hope somebody did understand me, bye :)

Muse is quite correctly in the 'prog related' category although I agree they are not 'prog'.

But The Beatles are so massively important to prog they have to be here.No question in my mind whatsoever.Do people not want to know where prog came from originally?

Greg W wrote: Garion81 wrote: Greg W wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: [QUOTE=NotAProghead] I wonder why THE BEATLES addition upsets many site visitors. Tons of Marillion, Yes and Dream Theater clones are progressive, while THE BEATLES, who changed the face of music like no one before and after them, are not progressive enough to be mentioned on this site. I refuse to understand such logic! They play prog music, but aren't necessarily progressive.     I am sorry but that is not a well thought out statement since prog is just a shortened label to mean progressive rock. So when you say prog that is what you mean. The problem we have here is that people only want to say progressive music must follow a pattern in their own way of thinking. I tend to look at the groups such as the Beatles and compare it to what was around them at the time rather than try to compare them to what came after them.  It is not fair to do so any other way.  If you read the description of Proto-porg as it is listed here it says: "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". I think the Beatles fit into this category nicely.  However albums such as this should not be here:   Under those rules you might as well yank out most of the music from 1980 forward as well as some 70's bands to boot. Most were simply not experimental and just emulating their favorite bands/artists. No, I think Prog means something else. It is more about feel. Progressive or experimental....you pick the term. I care not. Prog means to emulate the style of the bands that gave roots to the progressive rock movement. At least to me it does.

Greg that was the definiton of PROTO-PROG not progressive rock.

The Beatles are classic britpop, NOT prog rock.

They are completely irrelevant.  Its one thing if the Moody Blues are in the archives because most of the their albums (i.e. the classic sevens) house progressive nuaces and enegender an ethereal quality unmatched by fellow britpop bands (early-the Who, The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, ect...). 

Beatles are not prog

No matter how you categorize The Beatles (Proto-Prog, Prog-Related, Prog-nogog) they aren't prog. and never will be.  It's stupid to associate them at all with prog. music.

The Beatles are 1960's rock / pop-rock

Even if the Beatles had a few songs considered prog., the majority of their songs would still overwhelmingly be rock/pop (~ 99%). 

Including bands like the Beatles (no matter how good of a rock/pop band they were) only diminishes and confuses the real prog. bands, especially for new people to prog.