Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Beatles Prog?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedBeatles Prog?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Floydman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: November 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 67 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Beatles Prog?
    Posted: June 12 2010 at 21:45
Originally posted by himtroy himtroy wrote:

I think people give Sgt Pepper way too much credit.  There was much crazier music going on at the time.  Piper at the Gates of Dawn was recorded in the same studio on the same dates.  And Piper is miles beyond Sgt Peppers in terms of progressiveness, psychedelia, originality, and in my opinion quality.
 
Well to be factual the Beatles started recording "Strawberry Fields Forever" the real start of the Sgt Pepper sessions in Nov of 66 which was nearly three months earlier than  Piper at the Gates of Dawn started it's recording sessions. As it  is the Beatles psychedelic uses as a studio instrument for example like loops, varispeeding, and backward tape which was on songs like  "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Tomorrow Never Knows"  was already a different style than say Brian Wilson or Phil Spector. How do you define how progressive is a band when the Beatles were recording full blown raga sounds in "Within You Without You" or creating soundscapes with loops and samples while Pink Floyd and the Doors were still using basic rock instruments?  A song like "Blue Jay Way" or "Only a Northern Song" are psychedelic without a use of a guitar.


Edited by Floydman - June 12 2010 at 22:07
Back to Top
CyberDiablo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 08 2010
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 09 2010 at 11:54
Also they have invented heavy metal! (listen: helter skelter)
Music is some kind of art.
-- Anonymous
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 09 2010 at 10:49
Originally posted by CyberDiablo CyberDiablo wrote:

This is stupid. The Beatles were too many things. Let's just say "Rock" (no-matter pop or symphonic or progressive), leave this here and walk away. 

It's a good idea. I'd apply the "progressive" tag with no questions though, specially for their work in the albums after -and including- "Revolver". But "symphonic" they are not. And it's not just a personal opinion. 

They were a great band anyway. 
Back to Top
CyberDiablo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 08 2010
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 09 2010 at 09:16
This is stupid. The Beatles were too many things. Let's just say "Rock" (no-matter pop or symphonic or progressive), leave this here and walk away. 
Music is some kind of art.
-- Anonymous
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 09 2010 at 06:40
Originally posted by Conor Fynes Conor Fynes wrote:

Originally posted by himtroy himtroy wrote:

I think people give Sgt Pepper way too much credit.  There was much crazier music going on at the time.  Piper at the Gates of Dawn was recorded in the same studio on the same dates.  And Piper is miles beyond Sgt Peppers in terms of progressiveness, psychedelia, originality, and in my opinion quality.
Sgt. Peppers is so highly regarded because it is a pop album, but it flows basically seamlessly. It also incorperates a load of difference influences and styles.
 
Not it doesn't really, only the first 2 tracks are joined and then the theme reprise into "A Day in the Life". It was going to be that way but they lost interest after the first 2 tracks.
Back to Top
Progist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 28 2010
Location: Norfolk UK
Status: Offline
Points: 251 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 09 2010 at 04:19
Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:

Originally posted by Progist Progist wrote:

Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:

Originally posted by Progist Progist wrote:

Originally posted by Malve87 Malve87 wrote:

Originally posted by Progist Progist wrote:

To be honest, Sgt Pepper is still mostly a pop album, 


Yes, but there's that little thing called "A day in the life" which...you know...LOL


Yeah I know. As I said there are a couple of tracks, but the album is generally poppy 4/4 simple tunes stuff. When I'm 64, A Little Help, Lovely Rita etc. A Day In The Life achieves what it does mainly through production technique. I'm still not sure I would cal it Prog? Certainly not in intent anyway.

I do not believe Sgt Peppers is a poppy album, neither Beatles were a pop band.

A day in the life is clearly a Prog tune. You must try again.


LOL, if I must then I will have another try at A Day In The Life Big smile

I don't really accept that the Beatles weren't a pop band? Listen to their first 5 albums!

There is more 50īs rock there than pop I think. What do you believe? Whatīs pop for you? 


I think that the first 2 0r 3 albums have covers of older music that influenced the Beatles, this includes 50's R&R, & soul. Also tracks written by The Beatles, which are more pop orientated. Help & With The Beatles & Rubber Soul are pretty much pop albums. The first experimentation comes on Revolver, which is still predominantly pop, as is Sgt. Pepper. Yes, there are some tracks on those 2 albums that could be described as Proto-Prog, or symphonic (loosely speaking). After that, the music becomes more what I would call Art-Rock for a couple of albums, back to basic rock - blues-rock for Let It Be and back to pop (with a symphonic element) for Abbey Road. Obviously, these are only my opinions, and not a universal truth.

It would take a long time to explain what I think Pop means, as it involves a lot more than just music. Maybe I will have a go one day? Not now though Confused
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 23:32
Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:


Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:


Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

 
Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:

Sgt. Peppers was the first album to mix symphonyc with rock.Approve 
Confused
Your definition of "symphonic" needs to be revised it seems... A few strings here and there don't make something symphonic.

Ok, then Sgt Peppers ia not a symphonic rock album...excuse me for my audacity.Confused

You are excused. 
It is not. 

Thanks, wise man.
Then I must recognize that is not an album with orchestral works and more complex structure and, of course, it wasnīt a work in which Beatles went some steps above in their musical structures.
Whichever similarity to symphonic and orchestral sounds listening to Sgt Peppers is nothing more than a sound illusion. Right.
Hey man, really you are a wizard!! You did it! ConfusedClap


If you knew a little about what the word "symphonic" and "symphony" and why it was used for some rock bands as Yes, you would understand.

I have no time now. It's late and i'm posting through my phone. Tomorrow maybe. Try wikipedia or, better, some actual site about symphonic music and symphonic rock and you'll see. Just understand that strings and orchestras DO NOT MAKE music "symphonic".

It's not an ilusion. You're just applying the wrong terms, that's all.
Back to Top
SergiUriah View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 03 2009
Location: I donīt know
Status: Offline
Points: 453 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 22:33
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

 
Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:


Sgt. Peppers was the first album to mix symphonyc with rock.Approve 


Confused

Your definition of "symphonic" needs to be revised it seems... A few strings here and there don't make something symphonic.

Ok, then Sgt Peppers ia not a symphonic rock album...excuse me for my audacity.Confused

You are excused. 

It is not. 

Thanks, wise man.

Then I must recognize that is not an album with orchestral works and more complex structure and, of course, it wasnīt a work in which Beatles went some steps above in their musical structures.

Whichever similarity to symphonic and orchestral sounds listening to Sgt Peppers is nothing more than a sound illusion. Right.

Hey man, really you are a wizard!! You did it! ConfusedClap


Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 21:41
Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

 
Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:


Sgt. Peppers was the first album to mix symphonyc with rock.Approve 


Confused

Your definition of "symphonic" needs to be revised it seems... A few strings here and there don't make something symphonic.

Ok, then Sgt Peppers ia not a symphonic rock album...excuse me for my audacity.Confused

You are excused. 

It is not. 
Back to Top
SergiUriah View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 03 2009
Location: I donīt know
Status: Offline
Points: 453 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 21:15
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

 
Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:


Sgt. Peppers was the first album to mix symphonyc with rock.Approve 


Confused

Your definition of "symphonic" needs to be revised it seems... A few strings here and there don't make something symphonic.

Ok, then Sgt Peppers ia not a symphonic rock album...excuse me for my audacity.Confused


Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 20:59
 
Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:


Sgt. Peppers was the first album to mix symphonyc with rock.Approve 


Confused

Your definition of "symphonic" needs to be revised it seems... A few strings here and there don't make something symphonic.
Back to Top
WalterDigsTunes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 11 2007
Location: SanDiegoTijuana
Status: Offline
Points: 4373 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 20:49
Venn Diagrams rule. Just sayin'.
Back to Top
Conor Fynes View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 11 2009
Location: Vancouver, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 3196 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 20:47
Originally posted by UndercoverBoy UndercoverBoy wrote:

The Beatles were Pop, but that doesn't mean it's bad.  In my controversial opinion, pretty much all rock music is Pop, as in Popular Music.  Zeuhl may be an exception.
'Genres' are just used to describe music. 'Pop' is generally thought to be catchy and upbeat. Not all rock is like that, and if metal is considered a sub-genre of rock, especially not so.
Back to Top
SergiUriah View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 03 2009
Location: I donīt know
Status: Offline
Points: 453 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 20:39
I think they made popular the term Rock, nothing more.

Is for that they were, are and will be a ROCK band, the best ever. 

Piper At...is not a good comparison, neither the whole career of the Pink. 


Back to Top
UndercoverBoy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 5148 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 18:32
The Beatles were Pop, but that doesn't mean it's bad.  In my controversial opinion, pretty much all rock music is Pop, as in Popular Music.  Zeuhl may be an exception.
Back to Top
Conor Fynes View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 11 2009
Location: Vancouver, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 3196 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 18:28
Originally posted by himtroy himtroy wrote:

I think people give Sgt Pepper way too much credit.  There was much crazier music going on at the time.  Piper at the Gates of Dawn was recorded in the same studio on the same dates.  And Piper is miles beyond Sgt Peppers in terms of progressiveness, psychedelia, originality, and in my opinion quality.
Sgt. Peppers is so highly regarded because it is a pop album, but it flows basically seamlessly. It also incorperates a load of difference influences and styles.
Back to Top
CyberDiablo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 08 2010
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 15:37
Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:

Rock - Pop better. Evil SmileSmile

oooooooookaaaaaaaay.... (with a sarcastic tone) Wink
Music is some kind of art.
-- Anonymous
Back to Top
SergiUriah View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 03 2009
Location: I donīt know
Status: Offline
Points: 453 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 15:04
Rock - Pop better. Evil SmileSmile


Back to Top
CyberDiablo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 08 2010
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 14:53
Neither pop nor rock. It's pop rock! (So?)
Music is some kind of art.
-- Anonymous
Back to Top
SergiUriah View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 03 2009
Location: I donīt know
Status: Offline
Points: 453 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 14:31
Originally posted by Progist Progist wrote:

Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:

Originally posted by Progist Progist wrote:

Originally posted by Malve87 Malve87 wrote:

Originally posted by Progist Progist wrote:

To be honest, Sgt Pepper is still mostly a pop album, 


Yes, but there's that little thing called "A day in the life" which...you know...LOL


Yeah I know. As I said there are a couple of tracks, but the album is generally poppy 4/4 simple tunes stuff. When I'm 64, A Little Help, Lovely Rita etc. A Day In The Life achieves what it does mainly through production technique. I'm still not sure I would cal it Prog? Certainly not in intent anyway.

I do not believe Sgt Peppers is a poppy album, neither Beatles were a pop band.

A day in the life is clearly a Prog tune. You must try again.


LOL, if I must then I will have another try at A Day In The Life Big smile

I don't really accept that the Beatles weren't a pop band? Listen to their first 5 albums!

There is more 50īs rock there than pop I think. What do you believe? Whatīs pop for you? 


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.129 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.