| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
BebieM 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 01 2004
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 854
|
 Topic: The Beatles. Here. Why?
Posted: March 15 2006 at 10:44 |
Sorry to bring this one up again.
I don't have any doubt that the Beatles influenced a whole lot of bands and gave a new dimension to rock music.
Yet, looking at their music only I find it OK, maybe even good, but
nothing that great to get excited about. And really nothing that great
to call it the best band ever.
So, I mean the Beatles started it all, but didn't it get soo much
better afterwards? Yes and KC in my opinion are miles ahead of them.
Am I too young (17) too fully appreciate them? 
(btw, I'm not saying anything against their inclusion on the archives, don't get me wrong!)
|
 |
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: March 15 2006 at 01:39 |
Proto-Prog is a pretty clear term, and The Beatles being a very big influence on the genre theres no reason why Deep Purple should be mentioned here and not them, and Proto-Prog dosent really mean prog anyway, just the music that preceeded it, its good for this site, it is to help people learn more about progs history and influences.
That being the case, maybe we should add some neo-romantic/impressionist composers and jazz virtuosos to the archives? 
j/k
Edited by boo boo
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: March 09 2006 at 07:19 |
 RoyalJelly wrote:
I hate to resuscitate this tired topic once again, but I found such an
interesting quote today, I had to reproduce it here. If anyone had any
doubts of the importance of the Beatle's influence on the main creators of
progressive rock, this may dispell them:
"The multiplicity of levels evident in Beatles music continued to be an
ideal that haunted Fripp in composing Lizard, even if he wasn't interested
in copying the Beatles' style per se. "The only thing that worries me," he
said, "is that perhaps it [Lizard] won't be given enough of a chance. We've
made it so that the 24th time things'll really begin to go Zap. At the same
time, when the album starts it should really hit you, so that you'll think
perhaps there's something worth getting into." The problem here - I said
something like this already - is that the Beatles managed to make their
music likeable and infectious and seductive and entrancing on the first
hearing; by the twenty-fourth hearing you were into the subtleties, but
you listened to it twenty-four times because you wanted to."
from Eric Tamm's book on Fripp |
Interesting quote. I'd also like to add this one from VdGG's David Jackson - " I remember vividly Sgt Pepper coming out - there was this incredible buzz of sheer disbelief. Wherever you went people would be playing it.Suddenly with this astonishing music anything seemed possible" I think people are missing two things in this debate about the Beatles on ProgArchives - 1) the impact the Beatles had on music at the time. You may think Sgt Pepper is just a normal pop album now, but only people who are old enough will be aware of the effect it had in 1967 (see above quote). 2) the Beatles are here not because they are a prog band but because of their influence on prog. This is my last word on the subject. Possibly.
|
|
RoyalJelly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 29 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 582
|
Posted: March 09 2006 at 05:36 |
|
I hate to resuscitate this tired topic once again, but I found such an
interesting quote today, I had to reproduce it here. If anyone had any
doubts of the importance of the Beatle's influence on the main creators of
progressive rock, this may dispell them:
"The multiplicity of levels evident in Beatles music continued to be an
ideal that haunted Fripp in composing Lizard, even if he wasn't interested
in copying the Beatles' style per se. "The only thing that worries me," he
said, "is that perhaps it [Lizard] won't be given enough of a chance. We've
made it so that the 24th time things'll really begin to go Zap. At the same
time, when the album starts it should really hit you, so that you'll think
perhaps there's something worth getting into." The problem here - I said
something like this already - is that the Beatles managed to make their
music likeable and infectious and seductive and entrancing on the first
hearing; by the twenty-fourth hearing you were into the subtleties, but
you listened to it twenty-four times because you wanted to."
from Eric Tamm's book on Fripp
|
|
earlyprog
Collaborator
Neo / PSIKE / Heavy Teams
Joined: March 05 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 2133
|
Posted: March 06 2006 at 15:04 |
|
I see proto-prog bands as bands that added ingredients to the mix that eventually became prog rock. I therefore basically agree that Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine are largely proto-prog albums. But what about the use of 12-string guitar on many tracks on A Hard Day's Night and the use of Sitar on Rubber Soul. Shouldn't that be considered proto-prog as well? Why this focus on albums rather than individual tracks anyway? And which ingredients did The White Album and Abbey Road add to the prog melting pot? The double album concept? The longer tracks?
|
|
RoyalJelly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 29 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 582
|
Posted: March 06 2006 at 08:29 |
|
If anything is contributing to making this site tedious and unserious,
it's not the inclusion of the Beatles, which is an obvious step, but the
multitudes of whiners who not only can't appreciate facts of historical
development, but insist on limiting the definition of prog to bands which
observe a narrow set of prog clichés, not including ones that actually
create new forms by defying conventions. There's a remarkable sense of
ungratefulness toward the very band that made the progressive music
possible that we all profess to love, which is something like a
psychoanalyst rejecting the discoveries of Freud. One can only attribute it
to a genuine ignorance of the importance of the role the Beatle's played in
pushing the limits of rock and pop at every turn, and making it possible
for rock to be taken at all seriously as art, and not merely entertainment.
If you want to bitch about the inclusion of ELO or STYX, be my guest, but
as for this topic, you've had your say, we've all heard the anti-arguments,
so time to get over it...
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: March 06 2006 at 07:34 |
earlyprog wrote:
If Sgt Pepper is a proto-prog album (and probably Revolver) then why not Magical Mystery Tour??. |
Why not indeed.
|
|
CandyAppleRed
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 25 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 166
|
Posted: March 05 2006 at 16:42 |
Ok I don't normally post potentially inflamatory posts, but I consider the Beatles to be one of the most overrated bands in history, and McCartney is a writer of nursery rhymes.
Sorry folks, this is not a troll posting, but I can't stand them and they shouldn't be here.
|
|
earlyprog
Collaborator
Neo / PSIKE / Heavy Teams
Joined: March 05 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 2133
|
Posted: March 05 2006 at 15:56 |
|
If Sgt Pepper is a proto-prog album (and probably Revolver) then why not Magical Mystery Tour??.
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: March 05 2006 at 13:13 |
earlyprog wrote:
I think everyone agree that The Beatles did no make any proto-prog albums.
|
No we don't. I think we're saying that Sgt Pepper is a proto-prog album (and probably Revolver).
|
|
earlyprog
Collaborator
Neo / PSIKE / Heavy Teams
Joined: March 05 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 2133
|
Posted: March 05 2006 at 11:55 |
I think everyone agree that The Beatles did no make any proto-prog albums. However you will find proto-prog elements in their music and you might even consider a few of their songs to be proto-prog. I especially think George Harrison added that flavour to their later music.
|
|
The Miracle
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 29 2005
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 28427
|
Posted: February 18 2006 at 17:33 |
|
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: February 18 2006 at 17:32 |
|
|
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Posted: February 18 2006 at 17:28 |
I agree with everyone 
|
|
omri
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 1250
|
Posted: February 18 2006 at 17:25 |
I did not bother to read all the 15 pages of posts so I probably missed things but I had to support Gdub on this one.
Unlike Gdub, I do'nt like the beatles, I think it will take less than a full hand to count the number of songs they wrote that are worth hearing. Sgt. pepper may have some proggy elements but it is not a full prog album (the same with "Abbey road" - thse two are the only albums can be hardly concidered as prog related). Therefore according to the rules that was declared many times (I remember the discussion about including Supertramp) they should not be here.
For me Talking heads, Steely dan, Lou Reed, Jeferson airplane, Japan and many others should be included way before the beatles.
I agree that including pop bands will bring here many un progy fellows and this will change the site to another ordinary music site and that will be a shame for those who are here to find new interesting and exciting music.
|
|
omri
|
|
moonlapse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 15 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: February 18 2006 at 10:55 |
TheProgtologist wrote:
John Gargo wrote:
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...  |
I agree with that John.
Some people are pretty ungrateful. |
Guys, I still have to politely disagree with you
You're still assuming that because A (they got pretty p****d at the
Beatles inclusion) then B must be true (they're ungrateful for the work
being done on this site). You don't know that.
Have you ever had a disagreement with your wife, or girlfriend, that
was a little more than polite disagreement? Did that mean that you
didn't appreciate them for the other things they do for you?
They are probably concerned that it's going to open the floodgates and
dilute this fairly unique site (well I think it is unique) with
questionable additions. And, maybe they really do feel that it
will be the end of the site as we know it, and it will simply become a
rock resource rather than prog.
Whatever it is, there's a reason they reacted as strongly as they
did. Overreaction - maybe. But, who among us hasn't done
that?
And, sometimes polite disagreement just isn't enough to get your point across.
Given a few days or a week or two, whatever, cooler heads will probably
prevail. And only time will tell the eventual direction of the
site.
Cheers.
|
|
horza
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 31 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2530
|
Posted: February 18 2006 at 05:47 |
|
|
|
Originally posted by darkshade:
Calling Mike Portnoy a bad drummer is like calling Stephen Hawking an idiot.
|
|
martinprog77
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 31 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2523
|
Posted: February 18 2006 at 05:13 |
THEY ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE ROCK BUT THEY MADE MUSIC 30 YEARS AHEAD THAT EVERYBODY ELSE BACK IN THE I 60'.OK THEY MAY NOT BE PROGRESSIVE ROCK BUT THEY MADE REALLY COOL MUSIC
|
|
valravennz
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: March 20 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 2546
|
Posted: February 18 2006 at 03:48 |
|
Hmmm - well I wondered when adding the Beatles would happen! But it opens a small can of worms. If the Beatles are here then there are lots of other groups who could be considered "Proto-prog" who should also be added to the site. I refer to groups such as The Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Bob Dylan, The Animals, The Yardbyrds, The Grateful Dead, The Velvet Underground, Love, Marc Bolan and Tyrannosaurus Rex, and even The Beach Boys!!. There are probably quite a few others that are deserving of inclusion in this catagory. So how about it?!?
|
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence"
- Robert Fripp
|
|
AngleofRepose
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 01 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 173
|
Posted: February 17 2006 at 23:29 |
|
There are plenty of adds on this website, and adding the Beatles will
certainly increase traffic. It's in the economic interests of the owners of
this site to add the Beatles. Harping on them for adding this disgrace is
fine by me.
I am thankful that literally thousands of people have contributed to this
site and that there exists such a superb resource (slowly being bogged
down) for discovering proggressive music. And site starters, way to create
such an accessible and information rich interface to learn about bands.
This was tangential, as long threads tend to be. Returning to the issue at
hand:
People don't want the Beatles here for a simple reason. They are not prog
(as admitted by the pro-Beatlers) and many people come here to find
prog bands.
All other arguments and justifications are infinitesimally less important. If
you come here for a rock encyclopedia then you're better off. But not if
you come for prog music.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Beatles. Here. Why?
