Joined: March 12 2005
Location: Neurotica
Status: Offline
Points: 166178
Posted: April 26 2017 at 13:12
no.
Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
Joined: October 07 2016
Location: Silver spring m
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Posted: April 27 2017 at 10:11
The problem is - what your definition of progressive is. I think that sometimes gets lost in
peoples eyes.
Sure by modern standards this doesn't define a prog rock album, but at the time- and it turned the world upside down and helped redefine what music and an album could be. Any album that helps redefine the course of music or art and is against the prototypical stereotypes of the time and inspires others to exceed its greatness as much as this has - should at least get a nod as being progressive.
I don't think anyone here is dismissing the legacy of Pepper nor it's progressive tendencies, but the question is whether not it's a prog album. I certainly don't think it is. A progressive release that spans baroque pop, psych, vaudeville and big lush orchestral sweeps? Sure. The Beach Boys made an album the year before that you can attach the same characteristics to ( Pet Sounds which inspired ze Beatles to make Pepper according to Macca).
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: April 27 2017 at 16:49
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Catcher10 wrote:
Come on Ivan, the album has been out since 1967...more than enough time to pick a side.
In the last 10 years I saw the definition of Prog change so much, that I don't know anymore.
10 years ago I would had said NO, but today.......
very true my friend.. very true.. it is called maturity. 10-15 years ago the internet heavyweights like you and me were dictating what was and was not. You here and me on that other site before you convinced me to join you over here.
Today...there is no answer .. only different interpretations of what it is.. thus there is no right or wrong answer.. thus the winning answer.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: April 27 2017 at 23:37
micky wrote:
very true my friend.. very true.. it is called maturity. 10-15 years ago the internet heavyweights like you and me were dictating what was and was not. You here and me on that other site before you convinced me to join you over here.
Today...there is no answer .. only different interpretations of what it is.. thus there is no right or wrong answer.. thus the winning answer.
Is it Prog?
who gives a f**k...
That's true.
That's why today I stick to say if something is Symphonic or not, if "KC and The Sunshine Band" or "Van Mc'Coy and the Soul City Symphony" are added to Avant Garde, I wouldn't say a word.
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Posted: April 28 2017 at 04:32
Catcher10 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
^And the Beatles!
Boring response.....U would have got had u said Lady Gaga
Boring but true. The Beatles were the most influential rock band in history. They were the ones that first made long playing LPs filled with musical value and not just filler. They wrote their own songs instead of using the past practice of using outside songwriters and influenced every other major artist to do the same. They made the recording studio part of the composition of the music and changed forever the role of the recording studio in rock music. They evolved radically in a short time and forced every other major recording artist at the time to do the same.
These few examples are credentials that Lady Gaga, Madonna and Michael Jackson will never own. It's time to give the Beatles their due, Jose, as many of the prog and non pro artist that you enjoy today would not exist if the Beatles had not come first. Cold fact.
Edited by SteveG - April 28 2017 at 04:34
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17845
Posted: April 28 2017 at 09:59
SteveG wrote:
Catcher10 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
^And the Beatles!
Boring response.....U would have got had u said Lady Gaga
Boring but true. The Beatles were the most influential rock band in history. They were the ones that first made long playing LPs filled with musical value and not just filler. They wrote their own songs instead of using the past practice of using outside songwriters and influenced every other major artist to do the same. They made the recording studio part of the composition of the music and changed forever the role of the recording studio in rock music. They evolved radically in a short time and forced every other major recording artist at the time to do the same.
These few examples are credentials that Lady Gaga, Madonna and Michael Jackson will never own. It's time to give the Beatles their due, Jose, as many of the prog and non pro artist that you enjoy today would not exist if the Beatles had not come first. Cold fact.
The only cold fact is they gave up after 10 years...cold fact. Also have no real argument with most of what you state, clearly influential to the music world. But I give no credit to the statement "had they not existed your fav bands would not exist..." Well I have a ton of fav bands so you are saying I would have no musical experience in my life.......horse sh*t!
Bands that came after still would have found their creative juice, what some of these bands did was to copy what the Beatles were doing, that's all. All new bands copy in some way an old band they like...
Almost all bands in that era lived in the studio when recording, not just the Beatles, all music at that time had that something extra special because music was recorded live as a group, not sampled and pieced together as it is now on a computer.
I don't get the "wrote their own songs part", most bands I enjoy that were recording in the mid to late 60s wrote their own music. Remember these early British bands were influenced by the American R&B movement and also they enjoyed that 60's counterculture movement, they came on at the right time.
When I think about the music that was being created during that time, they were in a nice niche....but. Once '68 hit their music style was boring and too much teenage pop elements, too clean....It was not hard/metal enough like Zeppelin, Cream, The Who or Jimi nor psychedelic/experimental enough like the Floyd, KC, CAN or Tangerine Dream. To me this new music wave that was happening was leaving them behind or they were not progressive enough to evolve and adjust, although it seems to me they saw the writing on the wall.
I mean the people who like the music of Wings in the 70's, are just the grown up people who liked the Beatles music as teenagers in the 60's.
I will get red ink for my post, whatever ....It's my view and I love it!! I will go to my grave knowing full well that my musical life was not missing anything, by not including the Beatles in my collection.....Hell, they commanded the FM radio waves so why waste money and buy their albums, I heard their krapp for free!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.137 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is Sgt Pepper Prog?
Topic Options
SteveG wrote:
.
....It's my view and I love it!! I will go to my grave knowing full well that my musical life was not missing anything, by not including the Beatles in my collection.....Hell, they commanded the FM radio waves so why waste money and buy their albums, I heard their krapp for free! 
