The Beatles. Here. Why?

       Now before I kick this off on my tangent, which I will do, let me first say I love the Beatles very much. They were a great band and Lord Paul and John Lennon are indeed an incomparable song writing force. While I generally disregard their very early stuff as boyband pop rubbish, you could see the fellows mature with each suceeding lp. Help was where it actually started getting interesting, even though it was still pop.

       From that stage forward, the Beatles propelled their music forward, always experimenting and maturing with every great lp. Indeed , they seem to keep up with the times and were always at the fore front when style and tastes in popular  music were evolving. However, they were never the 1st to change. They just had enough good sense to realize when change was needed. Well that, and their own maturing tastes in music as well.

     Bob Dylan and the Byrds preceded the Beatles Rubber Soul when it came to folk rock. Pink Floyd and the whole underground psychedelic scene was alive for a good year before the Beatles showed up on the scene with Sargeant Peppers. Now I realize that Revolver was released in 66, but I believe it was late 66 compared to the beginning of 66 for the psychedelic underground. I have read that the Beatles even attended these affairs, but whether or not that is true has never been confirmed.

     So the Beatles have always had the good sense to change with the times. Also, lets not forget that George Martin had a strong influence on their experimental side of things. If it were not for him, you probably would have seen more lps like Let It Be( a good standard rock lp) rather than Sargeant Peppers. Also, only a hand full of songs are truly psychedelic, or progressive. I would say most of their music on any lp is still pop, with the possible exception of Sgt Peppers.

    Now if you are saying that they were progressive...i.e...innovative and experimental...fine, but the Beatles are NOT prog. I feel so strongly about that that I have decided to come out of my self exile to state that as such. Quite simply they do not belong here as well as a bunch of other eye brow raising proto-prog and prog related material that has been recently added here. This was the last straw straw for me  so I decided to speak up. Normally I really don't give a rat's ass who you add here but now I feel the integrity of this site has been undermined.

    Pretty much now, you guys may as well add in any act you like..The Doors, Steely Dan, Journey, LEd Zeppelin or UFO...I'm sure it is only a matter of time now. Soon the archives will be flooded full of pop bands that have had some progressive infuences and the weight of the crappy material will send the archives crashing down like a house of cards. It is time we we drew a line in the sand and save the archives integrity. Inclusive isn't always a good thing...I vote for more strict rules and a better sense of exclusiveness.

You callaborators really screwed this one up.

 

gdub411 wrote:        Now before I kick this off on my tangent, which I will do, let me first say I love the Beatles very much. They were a great band and Lord Paul and John Lennon are indeed an incomparable song writing force. While I generally disregard their very early stuff as boyband pop rubbish, you could see the fellows mature with each suceeding lp. Help was where it actually started getting interesting, even though it was still pop.        From that stage forward, the Beatles propelled their music forward, always experimenting and maturing with every great lp. Indeed , they seem to keep up with the times and were always at the fore front when style and tastes in popular  music were evolving. However, they were never the 1st to change. They just had enough good sense to realize when change was needed. Well that, and their own maturing tastes in music as well.      Bob Dylan and the Byrds preceded the Beatles Rubber Soul when it came to folk rock. Pink Floyd and the whole underground psychedelic scene was alive for a good year before the Beatles showed up on the scene with Sargeant Peppers. Now I realize that Revolver was released in 66, but I believe it was late 66 compared to the beginning of 66 for the psychedelic underground. I have read that the Beatles even attended these affairs, but whether or not that is true has never been confirmed.      So the Beatles have always had the good sense to change with the times. Also, lets not forget that George Martin had a strong influence on their experimental side of things. If it were not for him, you probably would have seen more lps like Let It Be( a good standard rock lp) rather than Sargeant Peppers. Also, only a hand full of songs are truly psychedelic, or progressive. I would say most of their music on any lp is still pop, with the possible exception of Sgt Peppers.     Now if you are saying that they were progressive...i.e...innovative and experimental...fine, but the Beatles are NOT prog. I feel so strongly about that that I have decided to come out of my self exile to state that as such. Quite simply they do not belong here as well as a bunch of other eye brow raising proto-prog and prog related material that has been recently added here. This was the last straw straw for me  so I decided to speak up. Normally I really don't give a rat's ass who you add here but now I feel the integrity of this site has been undermined.     Pretty much now, you guys may as well add in any act you like..The Doors, Steely Dan, Journey, LEd Zeppelin or UFO...I'm sure it is only a matter of time now. Soon the archives will be flooded full of pop bands that have had some progressive infuences and the weight of the crappy material will send the archives crashing down like a house of cards. It is time we we drew a line in the sand and save the archives integrity. Inclusive isn't always a good thing...I vote for more strict rules and a better sense of exclusiveness. You callaborators really screwed this one up.

I have to agree with you. This is abolute b*ll*cks. I just made a post on the Deep Purple thread about how a martian could come down to earth, look at PA to find out about prog music, and hey, he gets to listen to Deep Purple, ELO, and Supertramp! Well now he can listen to "Love Me Do" as well!!

Excuse me while I laugh myself silly!!!!!!!!!
ps don't get me wrong - I like these bands (well I'm a bit so-so about ELO....), its just that they aren't progressive!!!!

Phil wrote: Excuse me while I laugh myself silly!!!!!!!!! ps don't get me wrong - I like these bands (well I'm a bit so-so about ELO....), its just that they aren't progressive!!!!

Nobody says that the Beatles are a prog rock band. But of course they made some progressive albums ... you may laugh all you want, but I'm sure that most prog rock artists would agree with us (collabs) here.

Phil wrote: gdub411 wrote:        Now before I kick this off on my tangent, which I will do, let me first say I love the Beatles very much. They were a great band and Lord Paul and John Lennon are indeed an incomparable song writing force. While I generally disregard their very early stuff as boyband pop rubbish, you could see the fellows mature with each suceeding lp. Help was where it actually started getting interesting, even though it was still pop.        From that stage forward, the Beatles propelled their music forward, always experimenting and maturing with every great lp. Indeed , they seem to keep up with the times and were always at the fore front when style and tastes in popular  music were evolving. However, they were never the 1st to change. They just had enough good sense to realize when change was needed. Well that, and their own maturing tastes in music as well.      Bob Dylan and the Byrds preceded the Beatles Rubber Soul when it came to folk rock. Pink Floyd and the whole underground psychedelic scene was alive for a good year before the Beatles showed up on the scene with Sargeant Peppers. Now I realize that Revolver was released in 66, but I believe it was late 66 compared to the beginning of 66 for the psychedelic underground. I have read that the Beatles even attended these affairs, but whether or not that is true has never been confirmed.      So the Beatles have always had the good sense to change with the times. Also, lets not forget that George Martin had a strong influence on their experimental side of things. If it were not for him, you probably would have seen more lps like Let It Be( a good standard rock lp) rather than Sargeant Peppers. Also, only a hand full of songs are truly psychedelic, or progressive. I would say most of their music on any lp is still pop, with the possible exception of Sgt Peppers.     Now if you are saying that they were progressive...i.e...innovative and experimental...fine, but the Beatles are NOT prog. I feel so strongly about that that I have decided to come out of my self exile to state that as such. Quite simply they do not belong here as well as a bunch of other eye brow raising proto-prog and prog related material that has been recently added here. This was the last straw straw for me  so I decided to speak up. Normally I really don't give a rat's ass who you add here but now I feel the integrity of this site has been undermined.     Pretty much now, you guys may as well add in any act you like..The Doors, Steely Dan, Journey, LEd Zeppelin or UFO...I'm sure it is only a matter of time now. Soon the archives will be flooded full of pop bands that have had some progressive infuences and the weight of the crappy material will send the archives crashing down like a house of cards. It is time we we drew a line in the sand and save the archives integrity. Inclusive isn't always a good thing...I vote for more strict rules and a better sense of exclusiveness. You callaborators really screwed this one up.   I have to agree with you. This is abolute b*ll*cks. I just made a post on the Deep Purple thread about how a martian could come down to earth, look at PA to find out about prog music, and hey, he gets to listen to Deep Purple, ELO, and Supertramp! Well now he can listen to "Love Me Do" as well!!

 Right, that does it. I suspected you earthlings had been cheating me with regard to this 'progressive rock' thing all along. Next time I'm coming back with an armada.

 

Supertramp is prog.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Nobody says that the Beatles are a prog rock band. But of course they made some progressive albums. I'm sure that most prog rock artists would agree with us (collabs) here.

Well we all know the Beatles were an innovative band that helped moved the trend, but I argue that some of that innovativeness came from just having a good sense of where the public music tastes were going in the 60's. The Beatles didn't invent folk rock or even pychedelia. They just popularized it.

^ But on their later albums they made some songs that weren't about popularity at all. The whole White Album could even be called a very early manifestation of "Proto-RIO". We can only speculate on how progressive their albums would have gotten in the 70s if they had not split the band.

I just reviewed Abbey Road from The Beatles, pure as a test for me to proove myself that I can handle my huge frustrations that Max has ordered to add The Beatles to Prog Archives while I am still waiting for a justified The Doors addition. I am proud at myself  but it was a tough  job  ..!

It is getting more and more difficult to fathom the difficulty that even well-respected long-term members are having grasping the idea of Proto-Prog and Prog-Related.

We intend to be the NUMBER ONE Prog Rock reference resource on the internet. That means that we will chronicle the development of Prog Rock from its roots upwards and thus include bands that were both important in its development and were musically progressive.We get dozens of threads which start "who were the first Prog band" or "which bands influenced Prog bands the most". Now the archive will show the answers to these questions and more.

I do not care if any other Prog Rock site includes them or not. We are Prog Archives and we need to be leaders not followers.

Imagine a site about Human Evolution not including apes.....

Tony R wrote: It is getting more and more difficult to fathom the difficulty that even well-respected long-term members are having grasping the idea of Proto-Prog and Prog-Related. We intend to be the NUMBER ONE Prog Rock reference resource on the internet. That means that we will chronicle the development of Prog Rock from its roots upwards and thus include bands that were both important in its development and were musically progressive.We get dozens of threads which start "who were the first Prog band" or "which bands influenced Prog bands the most". Now the archive will show the answers to these questions and more. I do not care if any other Prog Rock site includes them or not. We are Prog Archives and we need to be leaders not followers. Imagine a site about Human Evolution not including apes.....

Oh I read this song and dance before from you Tony. This is your standard answer whenever this comes up. Max has programmed the Tony R program quite well even though its responses are quite repetative.

I say we add Jerry Rafferty, and Steve Miller, and a Flock of Seagulls next(please don't.)