The Beatles invented Prog Rock - discuss

Rob The Plant wrote: I'm with the Love lovers. Awesome band, and comingf back to topic- prog before the Beatles.

Loves debut is just as prog as revolver. that said not very.

Certif1ed wrote: The Beatles led the evolution of rock music for 5 years, and to say they were crap musicians is to miss several points, as they (apart from Ringo) certainly weren't crap rock musicians by any stretch of th imagination.

I am REALLY sick of people calling Ringo a crap musician.  I mean, I've only heard his output from his time from the Beatles, and yes, his technique is simplistic, but I think people miss one big thing about him.  The biggest thing when you look at Mr. Starr is that he almost always serves the song.  If he hadn't played what he did on Come Together, then would it have been as memorable a song as it is?  Ringo always had a great ear for serving the song, and no where is it more evident than in their early work.  He rarely does any over-technical fill when they were in their popier years, and the sounds fine to my ears.  I've never felt or said to myself, "man, I wish Ringo would kick off a nice roll around the set, or throw in some Swiss-Tripelets.  If I've ever thought that about anyone, it's Nick Mason, but that's something entirley diferent.  As big a  fan of highly-skilled playing as I am, especially when it comes to drums, Ringo will always be the godfather of the "Less is More" style of drumming, and he managed to do it in one of the bigest bands in the history of Rock music.  That I applaud him for.

alan_pfeifer wrote: Certif1ed wrote: The Beatles led the evolution of rock music for 5 years, and to say they were crap musicians is to miss several points, as they (apart from Ringo) certainly weren't crap rock musicians by any stretch of th imagination. I am REALLY sick of people calling Ringo a crap musician.  I mean, I've only heard his output from his time from the Beatles, and yes, his technique is simplistic, but I think people miss one big thing about him.  The biggest thing when you look at Mr. Starr is that he almost always serves the song.  If he hadn't played what he did on Come Together, then would it have been as memorable a song as it is?  Ringo always had a great ear for serving the song, and no where is it more evident than in their early work.  He rarely does any over-technical fill when they were in their popier years, and the sounds fine to my ears.  I've never felt or said to myself, "man, I wish Ringo would kick off a nice roll around the set, or throw in some Swiss-Tripelets.  If I've ever thought that about anyone, it's Nick Mason, but that's something entirley diferent.  As big a  fan of highly-skilled playing as I am, especially when it comes to drums, Ringo will always be the godfather of the "Less is More" style of drumming, and he managed to do it in one of the bigest bands in the history of Rock music.  That I applaud him for.

But drummers are just guys who hang around with musicians

Seriously - when asked if he thought Ringo was the best drummer in the world, John Lennon said "He isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles".

But I do agree with what you're saying - Ringo did the job and he did it well. The "Less is more" philosophy is sadly too often overlooked - except in pop music, where they're currently doing their best to disprove it...

I most certainly agree with those who say the Bealtes contributed greatly to the populization of prog. I think Sgt. Peppers, The White Album, Revolver, and Abbey Road are the best examples of this. George Harrison really brought in the cultural element with his fantastic songs like "Love You To" and "Within You and Without You". I think that the sitar would be a great prog instrument were it used more. It may be one of the most, if not the most, difficult instruments to play but it's certainly on the proggish side. All of the brass on Revolver gives the album a prog fealing, in my opinion. The Beatles shouldn't be added to the archives by any means, but I think they should be recognized for their contribution to the progression of prog.

Can we kill off this idea of the Beatles "Producing the first concept album". I assume Moribund is referring to Sgt. Pepper. Whereas there was an original concept behind it of an imaginary band playing the songs and they would all be linked together, they got bored with the idea after the first two songs and couldn't be a*rsed to finish it off. It's only the reprise of Sgt Pepper before A Day In the Life that gives it a concept album "feel".

Having said that, the Beatles certainly revolutionised recording (I agree with the person who said that this was largely down to George Martin (and some drugs)) and paved the way for major advancements in the music world.

I agree with the thoughts that The Beatles were revolutionary in their use of the studio, but this was as much George Martin's doing as it was John, Paul, George, or Ringo.  What really surprises me is that every time I hear this "first progressive" argument, it always revolves around the same groups.  I feel as though the progressive movement was evolutionary, and would not be what it became without all of the groups involved.  What bugs me though is that I always hear Beatles, Beach Boys, King Crimson, Zappa, Love, Nice, and Syd-era Floyd as being responsible.

The bands that don't get mentioned?  The Red Krayola, The Pretty Things, and most importantly...Touch.  This band (Touch) gets no mention in these conversations at all, even though their lone album influenced Jon Anderson, Tony Banks, and Kansas.

Odd24:

Most is in 4/4.  However, the middle section ("When I hold you, in my arms...") switches to 6/8. 

All:

The question is not whether Zappa et al were creating progressive music before The Beatles; the question is: who were those who became the seminal progressive bands listening to and being influenced by?  Yes, "intellectuals" like Fripp certainly knew Zappa.  But most bands were listening to mostly other "mainstream" bands, the "biggest" one of which would have been The Beatles.  Indeed, the first three "mainstream prog bands - Pink Floyd, Moody Blues and King Crimson - all admit to being influenced by The Beatles to one degree or another.  True, they may also have been influenced by others, but The Beatles were at very least the main if not primary influence.

Re Sgt. Pepper, The Beatles were actually creating proto-prog long before it.  Certainly much of Revolver is proto-prog, including She Said, Think For Yourself, Eleanor Rigby and, most obviously, Tomorrow Never Knows.  However, one could arguably go back to Norwegian Wood, which - although in a standard time signature and using a fairly straightforward chord progression - is decidedly "minimalist" for rock, and incorportes both sitar and harmonium.

However, The Beatles' most progressive stuff is found on Magical Mystery Tour: Strawberry Fields, Blue Jay Way, I Am The Walrus.  And then some of The White Album (Yer Blues, I'm So Tired, Everybody's Got Something to Hide, Happiness is a Warm Gun, et al).  And of course some of Abbey Road.

Re their "revolutionary" studio techniques, they were nothing of the sort - though they had never been applied to rock before.  The truth is (and this comes directly from Paul McCartney and George Martin) that The Beatles were listening to Les Paul, and George Martin, Paul and John were all very influenced by what Les was doing with recording technology.  After all, Les had been using "studio tricks" (including splitting tracks, looping and using backward guitar) since the mid-50s.  The Beatles (who played two of Les' songs when they were just a skiffle group on the streets of Liverpool) incorporated Les' techniques in their production.  (As an aside, when Les won the Audio Engineering Society Lifetime Achievement Award, it was George Martin who handed it to him.  And then, as a joke (but a serious one), when Martin won it, they had Les hand it to him!)

Yes, Zappa and other preceded The Beatles re creating "progressive" rock.  However, because they were the biggest "mainstream" band, The Beatles were a main if not primary influence on most if not all of those who became the standard-bearers of prog.

Peace.

I think that to understand why prog came about when it did and how it did it's more than just the Beatles it's more than any individual band.

For a start you have to look at the cultural influence, it's no co-incidence that the release of both Sgt Pepper's, Floyd's debut et al it was the year of the summer of Love and psychadelia was hitting full swing.

So in my opinoin prog was coming as the idea of longer drug influenced songs and the will to show of musical skill and be more complex was taking a grip on many of the artists.

Many of the prime movers in the prog world of the late 60s/early 70s were all around at the time and doing some far out stuff as it was. But few of them got a great deal of recognition. This is where the Beatles come in because as a well established band their divergence from the standard pop rock forumla bouight light to a new approach. This therefore allows those who do similar things to come to the fore because their ideas and works become more acceptable.

I think it is fair to say that without the Beatles prog may have been a smaller and less developed genre, but it would have still begun. The fact is that if they didn't do it someone else would have done.

So yes I suppose I would say the Beatles were among the first (whether or not they were THE first is debatable) but not the inventors for the inventor was the atmosphere in the music world at the time. Just as in 1977 people had grown tired of the old guard and wanted something frwsh so too I feel that the liberated youth of the 60s also wanted something further away than the three minute pop songs hence psychadelia and then its more refined and developed cousin: prog.

Weel so I think anyway.

Proglover:

Define "ahead."

The request is rhetorical.  Yes, Zappa was influenced by Edgar Varese and Karlheinz Stockhausen, just to mention two.  And he incorporated other genres into his music before they did.

But you make a fundamental error here.  The Beatles had little interest in that sort of "progressiveness."  Their music progressed far more "naturally" - or "organically," if you prefer.  Sure, Zappa was using all sorts of oddball and bizarre (for rock) ideas and influences, but that doesn't mean he was "ahead" of The Beatles in any way.  It simply means he had different influences, and took his music in a different direction.  And I repeat that, with the exception of GG and KC (and, perhaps to a lesser degree, JT) the other seminal prog groups - PF, MB, VDGG, Yes, Genesis, ELP - were influenced by The Beatles and/or others, but not Zappa.  And even KC and GG admit to Beatles influence as well.

And by the way, if you really believe that hogwash about Zappa never doing drugs, I have about seven dozen bridges to sell you!

Peace.

Proglover wrote: Sorry Guys....Zappa was lightyears ahead of the Beatles...AND HE NEVER DID DRUGS!!!!!!!!!!! The Sgt. Pepper Album was considered the foundation of prog because it was a concept album.....however I doubt whether it was the FIRST concept album. Also the Beatles were not the ONLY band to come over from England during the British invasion. Yes, it is true the Beatles brought with them alot of influences that would later influence prog music, but so did those other bands which came from England around the same time...the only difference is, the Beatles were more popular. I do honor and respect the Beatles for their place in rock history. They proved that rock bands could write their own music.....and that's saying something.....but that being said, once again Frank Zappa was a MILLION YEARS ahead of the Beatles and I must once again reiterate...HE NEVER DID DRUGS!!!

Pardon me for repeating myself, but Sgt Pepper is NOT a concept album. The Beatles have said that is started off that way but they couldn't be bothered to finish it. It's just a collection of songs. If there is a link between them then I can't see it.