Beatles should be proto-prog

I agree that the Beatles are basically pop, but we can not denay the high impact they had in some of the major prog bands. Many of them pointed to the Beatles as one of their most important influences (e.g. Genesis).

OK, just a few of their albums can be catalogued as proto-prog, and not even all the songs contained in those albums. But then, let's think about YES, for example, who edited their last prog album back in 1977... If you take a look at their discography page you can find lots of pop albums there, but nobody hesitates to classify them as a prog band... Or ELP, with 5 non-prog albums after BSSurgery... Barclay James Harvest, for me a rock band that composed some symphonic tunes in their very beggining... and on and on... Also, these bands include some tunes in their prog abums that I would not classify as prog, and still I wouldn't dare to say those albums are not prog.

On the other hand, the proto-prog period was so short, so you can not expect a proto-prog band to edit 10 albums. It was just a time of changes, from pop to prog... and who symbolizes that better than the Beatles?

So I don't think this proposal of including the Beatles in the archives can be measured in terms of "a number of albums". I guess that if they had started playing in 1966, with Revolver, everybody would agree in classifying them as proto-prog. But what is wrong in having edited pop albums before? Just think that they were able to move from easy-listening pop to something close to prog... For me this is more meritorious than doing exactly the opposite, as many prog bands did.

Please, keep the Beatles out of the prog archives. Once the Beatles are in, you may as well change the name to the Good Rock Archives.

I love the Beatles very, very much, but this is a prog rock website; it's ludicrous to include every strain of music that influenced prog as well. The site would then have to start admitting classical composers and jazz artists, because they've influenced prog as much as the Beatles have.

As for this proto-prog defense, this loop hole needs to be seriously tightened up. I mean using that argument almost every band who uses more than three chords per song should be admitted. The Doors, BOC, The Who --- that's rock, that's good 'ol classic rock. Rock can be inventive, complex, and powerful and still not be prog.

I'm very concerned about this, very concerned...

Seyo wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: chopper wrote: Seyo wrote: A simple question: Why THE BEATLES and why not THE YARDBIRDS, THE BEACH BOYS, THE BYRDS, THE ROLLING STONES, THE KINKS... ? The Beach Boys maybe (for Pet Sounds) and if you can find a prog band who say they were influenced by The Stones or The Kinks, them as well. Hi again Chopper, Their Satanic Majesties Request by the Rolling Stones was IMO closer to Prog than anything The Beatles ever released, but you can't judge a band for an album, much less for a couple of songs in one album. Iván OK Chopper, and who can say that some prog bands were NOT influenced by the Stones or the Kinks... it does not really matter what some prog musicians claim or admit to have listened or been influenced by! Of course, everything may influence anyone...

Good Pöint Seyo

Beatles, Zappa, Dylan,  Psychedelia or Prog' would have never existed as we know them without Chuck Berry, his music has influenced everybody, but any not insane person wouldn't dream to think he's Proto Prog because of this.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: chopper wrote: Ivan, surely the definition of proto-prog ("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.") means that bands can be added to this genre without having made a strictly "prog" album. We're talking about influence on prog - The Beatles beat most other bands on that count. No Chopper that's not the meaning of Proto: Main Entry: prot- Variant(s): or proto- Function: combining form Etymology: Middle English protho-, from Middle French, from Late Latin proto-, from Greek prOt-, prOto-, from prOtos; akin to Greek pro before -- more at FOR 1 a : first in time <protohistory> b : beginning : giving rise to <protoplanet> 2 : parent substance of a (specified) substance <protactinium> 3 : first formed : primary <protoxylem> 4 capitalized : relating to or constituting the recorded or assumed language that is ancestral to a language or to a group of related languages or dialects <Proto-Indo-European> None of the definitions could define The Beatles as Proto Prog: First in time, beginning: The Beatles were not the first in time to make something related with Prog', not even the beginers of Psychedelia, they made only one partially psyche album (Sgt Peppers) but long after a lot of bands worked this genre. Parent or being of thesame substance of Prog': No, The Beatles were never related to Prog, they were mainly a Pop/Rock band. Frst formed Prog': Again not, they don't even have an album that is 100% Prog' or 100% Psychedelic, even Sgt Peppers has a lot of POP, ballads and blues. Ancestral to Prog': Well, every band before Prog' is ancestral to the genre, because all started even before Rock with Jazz and Blues. If we assume that The Beatles are Proto Prog' because they influenced the genre, we would have to add Elvis Presley, Bill Halley and Chuck Berry, because everything that lead to Prog' started with them, and this would be ridiculous. IMO Proto Prog is a band who did music that is close and would develope into Progressive Rock (If they followed the correct path), but  after Sgt Peppers The Beatles returned to their old pop/rock formula with albims like Let it Be. Iván

Ivan, you are forgetting Abbey Road, which has one whole side with a lot of proggy tendencies and of course I Want You (She's So Heavy) which is just as 'proto-proggish' as any of the proto-prog bands on this website.

All though they are an incredible band and they were very inspiring, they shouldn't be in the archives. Now don't get me wrong. If it wasn't for the Beatles, I probably wouldn't listening to prog rock or have anything to do with this website. It was my first introduction to "oldies" and classic rock. From there, my musical interest has bloomed and now I love Genesis and Pink Floyd and other such marvelous bands. And besides, I think some people would either take it as a joke or as an insult.