The Beatles. Here. Why?

[QUOTE=altaeria]

How about each album review gets both of these:

(1)  a  STAR RATING  of 1 to 5  for overall quality (like we already have)

(2)  a  PROG-OMETER rating of  1 to 5  for overall "prog" feel.

Granted, it's still very subjective -- but, heck, it'll be a little more FUN ... and, over time, it just might help to properly balance out the general "prog status" (if you will) of each album.

example:

1 prog-ometer star = basically Pop with  little-to-no  progressive elements (Genesis Invisible Touch)

2 prog-ometer stars = Pop or Hard Rock (etc) with extensive Prog moments (Yes 90125)

3 prog-ometer stars = Prog in an easy-to-label sense... mostly derivative  (Starcastle first album)

4 prog-ometer stars = Original, truly progressive... but not completely groundbreaking  (UK Danger Money)

5 prog-ometer stars = Wow...where did THAT come from?!  (Close to the Edge, Tarkus, Inner Mounting Flame)

That's a great idea; a Prog-ometer for "progressiveness".  At least that might help separate the true prog. bands (King Crimson, Genesis, Gentle Giant, etc.) from the semi-prog bands (Styx) from the non-prog. bands (Beatles).  With the new trend of including every band under the sun, the existing star rating system is no longer useful.  The above addition would correct that.

 

 

 

Edited by Flip_Stone

There are plenty of adds on this website, and adding the Beatles will
certainly increase traffic. It's in the economic interests of the owners of
this site to add the Beatles. Harping on them for adding this disgrace is
fine by me.

I am thankful that literally thousands of people have contributed to this
site and that there exists such a superb resource (slowly being bogged
down) for discovering proggressive music. And site starters, way to create
such an accessible and information rich interface to learn about bands.

This was tangential, as long threads tend to be. Returning to the issue at
hand:

People don't want the Beatles here for a simple reason. They are not prog
(as admitted by the pro-Beatlers) and many people come here to find
prog bands.

All other arguments and justifications are infinitesimally less important. If
you come here for a rock encyclopedia then you're better off. But not if
you come for prog music.

THEY ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE ROCK BUT THEY MADE MUSIC 30 YEARS AHEAD  THAT EVERYBODY ELSE BACK IN THE          I 60'.OK THEY MAY NOT BE PROGRESSIVE ROCK BUT  THEY MADE REALLY COOL MUSIC

TheProgtologist wrote: John Gargo wrote: I've said all I needed to say.  You know, we both actually agree that The Beatles shouldn't be in the archive.  All I was really saying is that people should have been more polite when disagreeing with the people who own the website.  It's like a big 'f**k You' to those who offer us this great resource, one that I visit every day and have learned so much from.  Just sticking up for them is all...  I agree with that John. Some people are pretty ungrateful.

Guys, I still have to politely disagree with you

You're still assuming that because A (they got pretty p****d at the Beatles inclusion) then B must be true (they're ungrateful for the work being done on this site).  You don't know that.

Have you ever had a disagreement with your wife, or girlfriend, that was a little more than polite disagreement?  Did that mean that you didn't appreciate them for the other things they do for you?

They are probably concerned that it's going to open the floodgates and dilute this fairly unique site (well I think it is unique) with questionable additions.  And, maybe they really do feel that it will be the end of the site as we know it, and it will simply become a rock resource rather than prog.

Whatever it is, there's a reason they reacted as strongly as they did.  Overreaction - maybe.  But, who among us hasn't done that?

And, sometimes polite disagreement just isn't enough to get your point across.

Given a few days or a week or two, whatever, cooler heads will probably prevail.  And only time will tell the eventual direction of the site.

Cheers.

I agree with everyone

^Isn't that the same thing?

earlyprog wrote: I think everyone agree that The Beatles did no make any proto-prog albums.

No we don't. I think we're saying that Sgt Pepper is a proto-prog album (and probably Revolver).

Ok I don't normally post potentially inflamatory posts, but I consider the Beatles to be one of the most overrated bands in history, and McCartney is a writer of nursery rhymes.

Sorry folks, this is not a troll posting, but I can't stand them and they shouldn't be here.

     If anything is contributing to making this site tedious and unserious,
it's not the inclusion of the Beatles, which is an obvious step, but the
multitudes of whiners who not only can't appreciate facts of historical
development, but insist on limiting the definition of prog to bands which
observe a narrow set of prog clichés, not including ones that actually
create new forms by defying conventions. There's a remarkable sense of
ungratefulness toward the very band that made the progressive music
possible that we all profess to love, which is something like a
psychoanalyst rejecting the discoveries of Freud. One can only attribute it
to a genuine ignorance of the importance of the role the Beatle's played in
pushing the limits of rock and pop at every turn, and making it possible
for rock to be taken at all seriously as art, and not merely entertainment.
If you want to bitch about the inclusion of ELO or STYX, be my guest, but
as for this topic, you've had your say, we've all heard the anti-arguments,
so time to get over it...

     I hate to resuscitate this tired topic once again, but I found such an
interesting quote today, I had to reproduce it here. If anyone had any
doubts of the importance of the Beatle's influence on the main creators of
progressive rock, this may dispell them:

"The multiplicity of levels evident in Beatles music continued to be an
ideal that haunted Fripp in composing Lizard, even if he wasn't interested
in copying the Beatles' style per se. "The only thing that worries me," he
said, "is that perhaps it [Lizard] won't be given enough of a chance. We've
made it so that the 24th time things'll really begin to go Zap. At the same
time, when the album starts it should really hit you, so that you'll think
perhaps there's something worth getting into." The problem here - I said
something like this already - is that the Beatles managed to make their
music likeable and infectious and seductive and entrancing on the first
hearing; by the twenty-fourth hearing you were into the subtleties, but
you listened to it twenty-four times because you wanted to."

from Eric Tamm's book on Fripp