Are Beatles Prog?

The Topic would be more interesting and accurate if it read:

Topic: Are Beatles crap?

I find them almost entirely trivial and unlistenable.I understand and endorse their importance to modern music as I do Elvis, but come on:

She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah??? Great bit of prog that!

Or later stuff:

I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together
See how they run like pigs from a gun see how they fly
I'm crying

Sitting on a cornflake waiting for the van to come
Corporation teeshirt, stupid bloody Tuesday
Man you been a naughty boy. You let your face grow long
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen
I am the walrus, goo goo goo joob

Even Jon anderson on a bad day couldnt come up with that drivel

goo goo goo joob ????????????????????????

zappa123 wrote: I think that most of you missed the point here.Maybe they are not really """prog""" like we define our music-the music that we like.But they certaintly were progressive and ahead of most of the groups if not everyone.

I think that is the point most people are making - that prog is not the same as progressive. The title of this thread uses the term prog, which the Beatles ain't, but no-one except the Reed-meister would disagree that they were one of the most progressive song-writing groups ever.

There's really not much on "Revolver" that's anything other than great, great pop/rock music. Obviously, "Tomorrow Never Knows" is a wonderful piece of experimentation with backwards tape, and the Indian influences on "Love You To" and the string arrangement on "Eleanor Rigby" are superb - but the latter are all simple song structures, and the former is a kind of jam around a single riff - so only a bit progressive, really.

Sgt. Pepper kicked off a whole load of "Concept album" imitators, including the Stones "Satanic Majesties Request", the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" and the Pretty Things "S F Sorrow", but even those three gems don't fit into the category of prog - although I'd quite like to see the Pretty Things get talked about a bit more... Apart from "Day in A Life" and "Being For The Benefit of Mr Kite" (probably the most "proggy" song the Fab 4 ever wrote), this album is chock full of great pop/rock songs, some with progressive arrangements (although many music-hall or vaudeville fans might argue that it had all been done a couple of generations previously...). The most progressive thing about Pepper, IMO, was the use of the recording studio as an integral instrument.

There's really not much that's progressive on the White Album, Mystery Tour or Abbey Road either - I'd make the same case. "Strawberry Fields" is a great pop/rock song with cool studio effects and a nice arrangement - but it's verse/chorus (etc), is pop song length, and has nothing that we would identify with the genre of prog. Even "Revolution #9", widely cited as the Beatles' most proggy piece isn't prog at all, of course - it's a tape collage. If we decided that tape collages were prog, then why isn't Karlheinz Stockhausen in the archives? And what about Edgar Varese, who was quite an influence on Frank Zappa?

As a final consideration, listen to ABBA The Album, which has some amazing string arrangements, a full suite on side 2, songs which stretch longer than the 3-4 minutes of most Beatles songs, and nice symphonic touches - and decide if the Beatles created an album that is significantly more "proggy".

Actually, you said

Reed Lover wrote: The Topic would be more interesting and accurate if it read: Topic: Are Beatles crap? I find them almost entirely trivial and unlistenable.I understand and endorse their importance to modern music as I do Elvis, but come on: She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah??? Great bit of prog that! Or later stuff: I am he as you are he as you are me And we are all together See how they run like pigs from a gun see how they fly I'm crying Sitting on a cornflake waiting for the van to come Corporation teeshirt, stupid bloody Tuesday Man you been a naughty boy. You let your face grow long I am the eggman, they are the eggmen I am the walrus, goo goo goo joob Even Jon anderson on a bad day couldnt come up with that drivel goo goo goo joob ????????????????????????

...to me, that looks like you are saying that, in your opinion, the Fab 4 were crap.

...and anyway - you missed the point!

I was taking the piss!

Actually I think I am the Walrus was f##ken brilliant Dweeb Flubber. I doubt it was supposed to mean anything....perhaps lots of topics that meant something to John alone. I just think it was just another trip down acid lane myself.

Still the imagery he describes is fantastic. Fantastic imagery songs are apparently not your cup of tea judging from some of your other posts.

I can play Mary Had a Little Lamb on the telephone

for those who are curious..3818 333 888 3## 3818 333 55337.

talented...aren't I?

goose wrote: 3818 333 888 3## 3818 333 553327!

no...I am pretty sure there is only 5 notes at the end!

c'mon admit it goosey...you tried it on your phone just now...didn't ya?

The advantage the beatles have is all the reasons the common person (even a tone deaf one) can appreciate them.

Great song Writng

Great collaberations

Great Concepts/Concept album

Great singles

Fabulous musicianship

I'm not saying these are the reasons i like the beatles(and thats just there later stuff if any) but these are reasons i'v heard come up a million times in one or another way.