The Beatles. Here. Why?

[QUOTE=MikeEnRegalia]

Phil wrote: Excuse me while I laugh myself silly!!!!!!!!! ps don't get me wrong - I like these bands (well I'm a bit so-so about ELO....), its just that they aren't progressive!!!!

Nobody says that the Beatles are a prog rock band. But of course they made some progressive albums ... you may laugh all you want, but I'm sure that most prog rock artists would agree with us (collabs) here.

[/QUOTE]

 

Now that the Beatles are here, they will quickly run to the top of the album list.  Isn't that what they always did.   But I think that it is important and a noted change that people are coming to realize that the Beatles are proto-prog and what we call proto-prog actually starts much earlier than scholars like Macan have led us to believe. I love the Beatles like everyone or most do, but I have often gotten in trouble for saying that in the final laundry, the Beatles will not come out looking any better than many of the contemporararies.

What The Bealtes were able to do is craft a pop song, over and over again, that consisted of multiple hooks, as in She Loves You or Can't Buy Me Love. That's pretty powerful stuff but The Brill Building songwriters did the same thing and more sophisticated.  (I might just feel that way 'cause i'm a NYer.)  But there integrated songwriting on Abbey Road was certainly a harbinger of things to come.

Do people realize that it is Mariah Carey who has been outselling the Beatles over the last twenty years?

wow...why is this such a big deal.

for this site to be deemed complete we haev to have the roots of the genre evident and they are beginning to be with the proto/prog-related subgenres. i'm sorry if you don't agree just don't worry about it and move on with your life--after all extending the archives isn't going to hurt it in any way--you'll stil have your conventional prog waiting for you here.

the only thing i'm moderately worried about by adding such a hugely popular band to the site is the fact that reviews for their albums will clog the home page for awhile--other than that the add was a fine add whether you agree or not. i think it's been stated on the thread that they were not added as a progressive rock band, but merely a band that is prog-related or proto-prog...a band that influenced prog enough to be deemed a spot in the archives. if you have a problem with it then just don't pay attention to it--you're few picky picks are still here waiting for you to shut up about the beatles being added and go back to them.

I cant believe how closed minded some of the people here are, The Beatles had a direct influence on the progression of Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis and just about every other prog band of the early 70's. Without The Beatles half of the bands that we idolise here wouldn't have developed as fast as they did, some may not have developed at all to what we now consider prog rock. The Beatles are the single most important band to the development of prog, to not include them in Proto-prog would be stupid.

And for the benefit of those that do not seem to want to take it in:

Proto-prog/Prog-related are not Prog rock!

These bands, IMO, should be those that showed either strong progressive tendencies on many of their records or had direct influence on the beginning of prog rock in the case of Proto-prog. I also believe that a close watch should be kept on these 2 categories to prevent silly additions but at the moment I haven't seen any additions that I would take issue with.

does anybody realize that people are being ridiculous about this?

the fact is that the beatles were loads better and more influential to prog than all of the bands you guys are using to make points (David Bowie, Jerry Rafferty, A Flock of Seagulls, etc)

the beatles are here to stay and they belong here at least as a prog influence (which is all they are). whether or not you agree is not a reason to bleed all over the forums.

the only thing i would suggets is to possibly not let proto-prog/prog related albums clog up the top 100 list by eliminating them from teh competition possibly. but i don't really pay attention to the top 100 list so it wouldn't bother me--i just am not looking foward to reading the numerous beatles hate threads and "WHAT? Beatles beats Genesis!?!?!" threads that are bound to be posted if and when this occurs...

 

I don't understand the big deal.  What does it really matter whether or not they're on this site?  Just because some people here think they aren't progressive doesn't stop others from thinking otherwise.  Honestly, I wouldn't consider them progressive, but that doesn't stop me from allowing others to do so.  In the long run, does it even matter?  People should try to be more tolerant of opinions that aren't their own.

The problem with this site is a lot of people here take the whole definition of prog too literally.

eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?

I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance.

king volta wrote: does anybody realize that people are being ridiculous about this? the fact is that the beatles were loads better and more influential to prog than all of the bands you guys are using to make points (David Bowie, Jerry Rafferty, A Flock of Seagulls, etc) the beatles are here to stay and they belong here at least as a prog influence (which is all they are). whether or not you agree is not a reason to bleed all over the forums. the only thing i would suggets is to possibly not let proto-prog/prog related albums clog up the top 100 list by eliminating them from teh competition possibly. but i don't really pay attention to the top 100 list so it wouldn't bother me--i just am not looking foward to reading the numerous beatles hate threads and "WHAT? Beatles beats Genesis!?!?!" threads that are bound to be posted if and when this occurs...

  Not only that, But I fear now the battle won't be Close to the Edge or SEBTP anymore. Give it a few weeks and the Beatles will assault the Top 100 list with their non prog lps.

 

BebieM wrote: Proto-prog albums should not count for the top100 list then. Even though we might not care too much about the list, it'd still be wrong, the beatles never made a great truly prog album. And it's misleading people that are new to prog.

i will say that when i arrived at this site for the first time, teh top 100 was where i started looking for prog. i don't think it'd be wrong if things like "The White Album" (which IS a masterpiece adn the most "progressive" album by nature that the Beatles ever produced) were up there--it'd just be misleading to newcomers which is why i think maybe pro=related/proto=prog should maybe be disqualified for a spot in the top 100--but i mean the top 250, 500--i think they could be allowed in there. Really  I wouldn't wory at all if the beatles plagued the top 100 because i mean things like jethro tull, genesis, yes, pink floyd, van der graff, rush, etc would still be up there--newcomers would see the bands they haven't heard of and hopefully look there before what they've heard...

i dunno though--i think proto-prog is a good idea and helps this site in terms of completion, i'm just not sure how far proto=prog should develop in terms of with the rest of the site...i'm really not looking foward to the plague of beatles hate threads coming on...

Greg W wrote: sleeper wrote: IProto-prog/Prog-related are not Prog rock! ....and therefore do not belong on our fair site. Everything else you wrote is pointless.

so your saying that despite the fact that the beatles were probably the most important influence on the development of prog they dont belong here, well it looks like the people that own this site dont agree with you.

TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet.

Yes...when it comes to music I am an elitist and whether you admit it or not...so are you. That is why we are all here...isn't it?