Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto?

SteveG wrote: Dean wrote:   Feel free to question what is 'written in stone'. But at least be prepared for some level of rebuttal and don't be too shocked or defensive when it arrives (which it most surely will). In my experience those who question how we do things around here often don't actually know how we do things around here, and that's kinda nutty. Assumptions make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'mptions' (or something like that). Just to clear the air, your original response was not futile and indeed was quite informative, and you have made some good points in the above noted post. I do indeed read past posts but as I've said, they mean me little to me but if you and a small hand full are the ones deciding what's Proto, Prog Related, etc, then my questions certainly are fruitless and that's said without prejudice. It's just the way it is, as they say.

Guldbamsen wrote: Well Paul always said that Sgt Pepper was a reaction to Pet Sounds that came out the year before. I'd say The Beach Boys were very progressive, but rock? Nah....more like progressive pop. Since I joined the admin team I've also been part of the prog related and proto 'teams', so in the end this lands on my doorstep if any collabs decide to suggest them for proto or related. My take on it is that we should include them, if we were a progressive pop site, no question about that, but we're not. As for the influence factor, then I guess you'll find a fair few prog acts who felt influenced by them, but then again you'll find just as many claiming Stockhausen, Varese and Shostakovich to have been the main factors of inspiration - all of which were incredibly progressive for their day. Should we start including these as well?

As a retired recording engineer, I can only give a technically based answer of why the Beach Boys should be considered Proto Prog but it is sufficient enough for me to place them in that category. But first I think it is worth noting who (and by who, I'm happy to refer to Brian Wilson for the sake of simplicity) they actually and greatly influenced as opposed to Stockhausen, Varese and Shostakovich as their influences were purely musical and did not directly impact the most influential Rock Music group of the 20th Century. If they did, I think anyone would be hard pressed to come up with a percentage of influence on the Beatles of more than 5%. But I digress.

I put forward Wilson's work in Pet Sounds in that he took disparate (a new word for me) recording practices that were redundant like Phil Spector's ambient and mechanically enhanced echo laden multi instrumental all in one take 'Wall of Sound' approach and, using many of Spector's studio musicians as well as supplementing them with those more classically trained, he recorded 'snatches' of music in musical suites which he would later edit together, over dub vocals or additional musical instruments and made California's Gold Star studios 'his instrument', which in no way was lost on the Beatles and George Martin prior to their recording of Rubber Soul. The fact that Wilson also used non musical instruments such as partially filled Seltzer bottles for percussion with treated studio harmonics was also not lost on the Beatles either.

If Proto Prog is really supposed to mean the prototypical forerunner and inspiration for the late 60's prog that follows, then I think that Pet Sounds and the Beach Boys meet that criteria.      








Edited by SteveG - September 08 2014 at 15:27

Help me Rhonda, yeah 

Dean wrote: ... Rubber Soul was recorded before Pet Sounds, it influenced Pet Sounds.

chopper wrote: Dean wrote: ... Rubber Soul was recorded before Pet Sounds, it influenced Pet Sounds. He probably meant Revolver.

^Fair enough David, But the topic is proto prog, not prog.

 For those too short sighted too see my error and comment on my post anyway, I've restated it below with the offending error corrected:

"As a retired recording engineer, I can only give a technically based answer of why the Beach Boys should be considered Proto Prog but it is sufficient enough for me to place them in that category. But first I think it is worth noting who (and by who, I'm happy to refer to Brian Wilson for the sake of simplicity) they actually and greatly influenced as opposed to Stockhausen, Varese and Shostakovich as their influences were purely musical and did not directly impact the most influential Rock Music group of the 20th Century. If they did, I think anyone would be hard pressed to come up with a percentage of influence on the Beatles of more than 5%. But I digress.

I put forward Wilson's work in Pet Sounds in that he took disparate (a new word for me) recording practices that were redundant like Phil Spector's ambient and mechanically enhanced echo laden multi instrumental all in one take 'Wall of Sound' approach and, using many of Spector's studio musicians as well as supplementing them with those more classically trained, he recorded 'snatches' of music in musical suites which he would later edit together, over dub vocals or additional musical instruments and made California's Gold Star studios 'his instrument', which in no way was lost on the Beatles and George Martin prior to their recording of Revolver. The fact that Wilson also used non musical instruments such as partially filled Seltzer bottles for percussion with treated studio harmonics was also not lost on the Beatles either.

If Proto Prog is really supposed to mean the prototypical forerunner and inspiration for the late 60's prog that follows, then I think that Pet Sounds and the Beach Boys meet that criteria."   

Addendum: Rubber Soul inspired the Beach Boys to make an album without throw away tracks, in other words a full album of quality songs. Rubber Soul was still engineered by the old school staid Norman Smith, not wunderkind Geoff Emerick and studio experiments were an album away. That album being Revolver to be exact.  





Edited by SteveG - September 09 2014 at 09:09

I read you the first time

There is a distinction between progressive music and prog rock. This is why we are not called Progressive Music Archives.
The influences and different avenues that ultimately fuelled prog rock are so far reaching that it is impossible to list all those artists who were forerunners. Jazz for example is quite possibly the biggest influence on prog bands who incorporated improv into the mix - and then I'm not even mentioning the overt heirtaker to the jazz legacy: fusion. Something that many a prog band fiddled about with from KC to Yes. So why don't we have Thelonious Monk, Albert Ayler and Bird up in this mother? They were at the very forefront of improvisation in music and have on many occasions been mentioned as inspiration to prog musicians.
The answer is that we have to draw the line somewhere. The Beach Boys were and have always been considered a pop band - just as Ayler, Bird and Monk were linked to jazz. We can't re-write music history on the back bone of hindsight and a continous effort to blur lines.

Padraic wrote: These categories are more trouble than they're worth.  That's my opinion.

These catagories can not be a trouble per se.

Very nice post Holy Steve. Thanks man.

Svetonio wrote: Padraic wrote: These categories are more trouble than they're worth.  That's my opinion. These catagories can not be a trouble per se.