THE BEATLES IN PROGARCHIVES

I think they should NOT be included...

there are bands which are much closer to prog than Fab-Four (like Led zeppelin) but still even they are not included...

Abbey Road can be called a "Proto-Prog" album.. but what about other albums? They all are not prog in any case

Dima, with your point of view Queen and Deep Purple shouldn`t be in progarchivea and they are in

This comes up time and time again.

So much so, that maybe they should be included in proto-prog or prog-related.

As you say, without the Beatles' experimentation it's possible that Prog as we know it might not exist. One word: Revolver.

It's not that odd - there are other prog sites that include the Fab 4.

There's already a Poll (click the word "Poll" ) - maybe with current *progressive* attitudes towards prog and related, this could be made to swing with enough new votes. There are quite a surprising number in agreement already.

They might not be full-blown Prog, but related?

Definitely.

Probably 10-50, off the top of my head... and I don't see why they shouldn't all be in proto or related or something.

Obviously we don't want the site to become AllMusic.com or anything, but if it's related to prog, then we want to know about it!

Dick Heath wrote: As a reminder, the Beatles were always seen and heard as the great absorbers of other people's music, with the ability to render it in an apparently unique/individual way.

And that differs from Prog Rock how?

ELP -> Grieg, Mussorgsky...

Renaissance -> Beethoven, Bach...

Barclay James Harvest -> Moody Blues

Yes -> Crosby, Stills and Nash

...you see where this is going

(Some fun intended).

Certif1ed wrote: Probably 10-50, off the top of my head... and I don't see why they shouldn't all be in proto or related or something. Obviously we don't want the site to become AllMusic.com or anything, but if it's related to prog, then we want to know about it! Dick Heath wrote: As a reminder, the Beatles were always seen and heard as the great absorbers of other people's music, with the ability to render it in an apparently unique/individual way. And that differs from Prog Rock how? ELP -> Grieg, Mussorgsky... Renaissance -> Beethoven, Bach... Barclay James Harvest -> Moody Blues Yes -> Crosby, Stills and Nash ...you see where this is going (Some fun intended).

 

In the spirit of your response. Taking Tamla Motown minor hits and giving them a Liverpool sound, or letting Ringo loose on Carl Perkins rockabilly doesn't make progressive rock..............Helter Skelter is basic rock. Bungalow Bill is a nursery rhyme out of the British Edwardian musical hall. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da is a classic example of picking up on reggae on hearing it in the W Indies, and making it their own. But these tunes aren't prog rock - too simple song structures and too short, for the majority of tunes on the later albums. Ideas  and extrapolations of the Beatles' approach to latter day compositions and arrangements,  had the influences.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!..... .......................................no

I think we've been here loads of times before. The Beatles are obviously not a prog-rock band in the strictest sense, however they did have a massive influence on a lot of prog bands (Yes is an obvious example, also Gentle Giant have said what a huge impact Sgt Pepper had on them as well as other musicians of the time). In my opinion songs such as "Tomorrow Never Knows" opened up the way for prog, mainly in the way it was recorded rather than the song itself (which consists of one chord). Their use of studio techniques (don't forget it was 4-track in those days) really changed the way a lot of band looked at recording.
They should have a place in prog-related.

And whats all that "if this band is here, then yea.. we have to add this one"   we'll wake up tomorrow and see Mariah Carey in the damn archives if this keeps going

Isn't there a strike three rule in PA?

The Beatles as many bands have been rejected (As Prog) at least 5  times, at least I seen 10 polls and 20 threads at the end most people decide they are not Prog.

I agree that if a band releases new stuff that may be Prog' ok let's try again, but The Beatles haven't released anything new in 34 years, so why insist?

Once a band is not accepted ok, lets move but don't force us to go over and over in the same issue.

Strike one, two three and OUT!!!!!!!!!!

Iván

BTW:

Poll Question: Are Beatles Prog? Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics Yes 21 [12.80%] No 97 [59.15%] Not their early 60s stuff, but maybe later 26 [15.85%] Some songs are and some aren’t 20 [12.20%]

Edited by ivan_2068

Defiantly not. Thats like saying the Who

is prog too.