The Beatles invented Prog Rock - discuss

chopper wrote: I have to respond to that last post from proglover. 1) "if you ask me Zappa achieved much more than the Beatles" - okay, let's have some examples that compare with the list of Beatles achievements in the first post of this thread. 2) you prefer a number of bands to The Beatles, that's fine, but the fact is they are generally recognised as the greatest band ever. I mean, I prefer a number of football teams to Chelsea, but I can't deny that they were the best team in the country last season. The evidence is there! 3) Oh, and didn't Frank Zappa once rip off the cover of Sgt Pepper for one of his albums?

Ok...first of, as I stated before what is achievement????????...........It doesn't matter how long your list of achievements are, sometimes the greatest achievements are those not seen to the public, or printed in Rolling Stone Magazine.....Zappa was a MUSICIAN first and foremost.....NOT A ROCK STAR, NOT A POP STAR like the Beatles but a MUSICIAN FIRST!!!.....that within itself is achievement enough considering the horrendous commercialism which has plagued music since the 70s.

His Discography is an achievement......Zappa wrote AN ENORMOUS amount of music. It's quite scary actually.

HE OUTLASTED THE BEATLES!!!.......He was writing albums in the 60s, 70s, 80, and early 90s right up to his death, while the Beatles dissolved in late 1969 early 1970.

The Man (Zappa that is)...has the respect of those not only in the Jazz world but also in the Classical world. Mainly because he wrote Classical and Jazz music. His orchestral works were performed by Pierre Boulez one of the top figures in 20th century classical music. Zappa's name appears in an encyclopdeia of classical musicians....I have yet to see McCartney or Lennon in that encyclopdeia.

Zappa's discipline rubbed onto his band, making them the TIGHTEST band in HISTORY....I've never, ever heard a band sound so good live. I listen to live Albums of Zappa, and I say to myself.."they must have been tampered with, because his live performances are too damn perfect."

When alot of prog bands gave way to the pressure of commercialism, Zappa remained true and strong and never went the route of commercialism.

And to top this one off......YES it is true, Zappa did "rip off" as you say, the cover for the Beatles Sgt Pepper ablum......But, it was in an attempt to poke fun at the Beatles, it was a parody. Zappa was not paying homage to the Beatles....no no no, he was MAKING FUN OF THEM!!

Proglover:

"How the heck can you influence anyone when you're light years ahead of them?"  Have you ever heard of Miles Davis?  And he's just one of many.  He was light years ahead of everyone of his time, yet he influenced more jazz musicians (and certainly trumpeters) than any musician of his, or maybe any other, time.

Zappa "outlasted" The Beatles?  Hmmm...in 100 years, let's see how many Zappa songs are still being listened to, as opposed to how many Beatles songs are.  The "greatness" of an artist - and particularly a rock band, since the genre is, even at 40+, relatively "new" - is not in how long a group lasts during its own time, or even how many songs it writes or are played on the radio during that time.  True "greateness" will be determined by who "stands the test of time" - who will be remembered 30, 50, 100, 200 years hence, and how much of their music will still be listened to, much less considered "relevant."  In this case, while Zappa may well claim a stake in history for his inventiveness and creativity, he will be little more than a footnote compared to The Beatles.

As for Zappa and drugs, let's just say that I spent a couple of years in a social circle with Moonunit Zappa, and I can assure you that what you think you know is false.

As for Zappa firing musicians for drug use, this was only true if he found them using drugs when they were rehearsing, recording or performing.  However, when they were outside Zappa's "domain," they were free to do as they wished.  Indeed, if what you are saying were true, then Zappa would never have hired (among others) Jimmy Carl Black (a heroin user) or George Duke, Aynsley Dunbar, Howard Kaylan, Ian Underwood or numerous other musicians who smoked pot regularly, and some of whom were well-known acid-users.

Before you make authoritative broad-brush statements, you ought to consider that it just might possibly be that someone else knows more than you do about these things.

Peace.

maani wrote: Proglover: "How the heck can you influence anyone when you're light years ahead of them?"  Have you ever heard of Miles Davis?  And he's just one of many.  He was light years ahead of everyone of his time, yet he influenced more jazz musicians (and certainly trumpeters) than any musician of his, or maybe any other, time. Zappa "outlasted" The Beatles?  Hmmm...in 100 years, let's see how many Zappa songs are still being listened to, as opposed to how many Beatles songs are.  The "greatness" of an artist - and particularly a rock band, since the genre is, even at 40+, relatively "new" - is not in how long a group lasts during its own time, or even how many songs it writes or are played on the radio during that time.  True "greateness" will be determined by who "stands the test of time" - who will be remembered 30, 50, 100, 200 years hence, and how much of their music will still be listened to, much less considered "relevant."  In this case, while Zappa may well claim a stake in history for his inventiveness and creativity, he will be little more than a footnote compared to The Beatles. As for Zappa and drugs, let's just say that I spent a couple of years in a social circle with Moonunit Zappa, and I can assure you that what you think you know is false. As for Zappa firing musicians for drug use, this was only true if he found them using drugs when they were rehearsing, recording or performing.  However, when they were outside Zappa's "domain," they were free to do as they wished.  Indeed, if what you are saying were true, then Zappa would never have hired (among others) Jimmy Carl Black (a heroin user) or George Duke, Aynsley Dunbar, Howard Kaylan, Ian Underwood or numerous other musicians who smoked pot regularly, and some of whom were well-known acid-users. Before you make authoritative broad-brush statements, you ought to consider that it just might possibly be that someone else knows more than you do about these things. Peace.

Once again I reiterate.....YOU CAN FIND ZAPPA'S NAME IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CLASSICAL MUSICIANS.......I've yet to see either McCartney or Lennon's name is such a book. If you wanna talk about outlasting..lets talk about it. I don't care what the general public thinks, I don't care what some new "hip" rock magazine has said, I don't care about the storytales and fables that have been rammed down our throats since the begiining of time, telling us that the Beatles are the greatest band in the world.....NOT IN MY WORLD BUDDY!!........You know what, I would bet, that more people know alot more Beatles songs than Mozart Symphonies, but if you are telling me that the Beatles are greater than Mozart, I will LAUGH IN YOUR FACE. HELL....I'm sure that kids in this generation know more Britney Spears songs than Beatles songs.....WOW, that's really a measure of greatest..."how many songs do I know by a particular band"......silly quite silly. Have you TALKED to kids today....most kids I talk to HATE the Beatles.....they hate anything that's not in their generation...(I do realize that is one huge generalization....but you get my drift).........You guys are talking about FAKE, SUPERFICIAL nonsense.....geee....how many Beatles songs are played on the radio compared to Zapps songs...wow guys that doesn't impress me, and I know it wouldn't impress Zappa...HELL, Zappa NEVER got his songs played on the radio even when he was alive. Zappa wasn't about all that trite trivial garbage.

Now it regards to his drug use or lack thereof.....HAVE YOU EVER READ HIS autobiography or ANY book written about Zappa????????...............This is a portion taken directly from his autobiography.....read it carefully guys

"The Drug Question comes up all the time in interviews because people refuse to believe that I DON'T use them. There seems to be a consensus in America- since so many people, in all walks of life, use drugs-that a person can't possibly be 'normal' if he doesn't use them. If I tell them I don't do drugs, they look at me like I'm crazy and question me about it. Between 1962 and 1968, on maybe ten occasions, I experienced the 'joys' of marijuana. It gave me a sore throat and made me sleepy. I couldn't understand why people liked it so much."............

Now unless you wanna call Zappa a LIAR....that's your call. And as far as moonunit is concerned oh my dear dear friend maani, wasn't Latoya Jackson who said a whole bunch of garbage in regards to her family, and wasn't it Latoya Jackson who claimed that she WROTE 'Thriller' when everyone and their mother knows damn well Rod Temperton wrote that song...so kids, and their stories.......I don't care what moonunit said......If I didnt hear it from the horses mouth I ain't buying

Shack Man wrote: for f**k's sake nobody cares

HAHAHAHAHAHA, right you are my annoyed friend

maani wrote: Proglover: Your near-maniacal fanaticism makes you hopeless with regard to understanding or accepting one jot or tittle of what is being said.  I'm glad you like Zappa.  He's great.  He broke barriers.  He was a super guitarist.  He had a unique approach to composition and arrangement.  But guess what?  He was just a human being. Get over yourself.  You sound almost certifiable.  (Unlike Certified, who I know to be quite sensible). Peace.

OH GOOD LORD.....forgive me if I don't BOW to your OPINIONS......forgive me if I don't abandon my beliefs and follow yours like a little lamb... I'm sorry I have a brain and can think for myself. Perhaps you should GET OVER YOURSELF!!

AND ON ANOTHER NOTE!!!!!!..............WHAT EXACTLY AM I NOT GETTING!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!............I have already said a millions times...I LIKE THE BEATLES!!!!!!!..............I ADMIRE THE BEATLES......I RESPECT THE BEATLES.....BUT IN MY OPINION FRANK ZAPPA IS BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.................IN MY OPINION.......so get off my back.....and secondly I NEVER attacked you personally......please DO NOT make this personal simply because I REFUSE to succomb to your way of thinking......Sorry I don't jerk off at the shrine of the Beatles....not my cup of tea buddy......Do not call me names when you dont know me....uncool man, very uncool.....if you want to discuss like a mature grown-up then do so, but don't you dare attack me personally...I'm sick and tired of the personal attacks on this site. You don't know me.....Yes i am very passionate about what I believe......Frank Zappa is a Genius and Queen is prog......in fact I dont even know why Im responding.....I could care less what you thinka bout me....infact I sh*t on your opinion of me.

And thirdly may I just point out, that you guys just love to look at the world through a Caucasian point of view.....I mean lets face facts...the Beatles were not everything to everyone.....

To WHITE people.....the Beatles were god.......for Black people.....ummmm....not so much!!!!!!!!

I know you guys rule the world and everything, but just because the "master race" says the Beatles were the greatest band in the world, doesn't mean it's true.

In the 60s......for black people it wasn't about the Beatles....infact, who gave a sh*t about the Beatles when there was Motown. Luther Vandros (God rest his soul) once said....."what ever the Beatles meant to those screaming teenagers, that's what MoTown meant to me"

Infact the only thing to RIVAL the Beatles in the 60s was MoTown!!!!!!......

So in your world the Beatles rule supreme, but dont you dare impose that on my mind.

i am sorry, the beatles were a pop band, basic chords, add a few pound of drugs, a hippie with a sitar, nothing to write home about.

i respect them for what they did at the time, but prog, no.         good, well, if you like pop.

prog is obviously prog. beatles are obviously not.