The Beatles. Here. Why?

Greg W wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: NotAProghead wrote: I wonder why THE BEATLES addition upsets many site visitors. Tons of Marillion, Yes and Dream Theater clones are progressive, while THE BEATLES, who changed the face of music like no one before and after them, are not progressive enough to be mentioned on this site. I refuse to understand such logic! They play prog music, but aren't necessarily progressive.

 I am sorry but that is not a well thought out statement since prog is just a shortened label to mean progressive rock. So when you say prog that is what you mean. The problem we have here is that people only want to say progressive music must follow a pattern in their own way of thinking. I tend to look at the groups such as the Beatles and compare it to what was around them at the time rather than try to compare them to what came after them.  It is not fair to do so any other way.  If you read the description of Proto-porg as it is listed here it says:

"Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock. The late 60's was a predominately experimental period for music. These bands were moving in a stream that eventually led to prog. The influence could have come from new sophisticated forms of writing and playing music, recording techniques, new instruments and vocal harmonies to name a few. Some of these bands became progressive rock bands themselves others did not".

I think the Beatles fit into this category nicely.  However albums such as this should not be here:

Various Genres
(Boxset / Compilation, 2002)
Avg: 5.00/5
from 1 ratings

VARIOUS ARTISTS "THE STARSOUND ORCHESTRA Plays The Hits Made Famous By THE BEATLES"
Review (Permanent link) by NELNOMEDELPROG
Posted 2:30:19 PM EST, 2/15/2006

   REALLY: 4,72 (ESSENTIAL!!! Masterpiece of Prog Music!!! ESSENTIAL IN EVERY DISCOGRAPHY!!!)

Best "Tribute Album" dedicated to the largest band of all times. Here the Starsound Orchestra succeeded to give back Prog the songs of The Beatles (of them a lot the are!). The more succeeded? "Let It Be", "Eleanor Rigby", "Michelle", "Yellow Submarine", "A Hard Day's Night", Come Together" and "Yesterday. Here a "Tribute Album" really original for every fan of The Beatles

@Garion:

What I meant was that progressiveness (innovation) is not a requirement for a piece of music to be categorized as "prog". I know that prog is short for progressive, but both "prog rock" and "progressive rock" are phrases that describe a genre. Not all progressive (innovative) rock music  belongs to that genre.

Garion81 wrote: Greg W wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: [QUOTE=NotAProghead] I wonder why THE BEATLES addition upsets many site visitors. Tons of Marillion, Yes and Dream Theater clones are progressive, while THE BEATLES, who changed the face of music like no one before and after them, are not progressive enough to be mentioned on this site. I refuse to understand such logic! They play prog music, but aren't necessarily progressive.

 I am sorry but that is not a well thought out statement since prog is just a shortened label to mean progressive rock. So when you say prog that is what you mean. The problem we have here is that people only want to say progressive music must follow a pattern in their own way of thinking. I tend to look at the groups such as the Beatles and compare it to what was around them at the time rather than try to compare them to what came after them.  It is not fair to do so any other way.  If you read the description of Proto-porg as it is listed here it says:

"Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock. The late 60's was a predominately experimental period for music. These bands were moving in a stream that eventually led to prog. The influence could have come from new sophisticated forms of writing and playing music, recording techniques, new instruments and vocal harmonies to name a few. Some of these bands became progressive rock bands themselves others did not".

I think the Beatles fit into this category nicely.  However albums such as this should not be here:

Under those rules you might as well yank out most of the music from 1980 forward as well as some 70's bands to boot. Most were simply not experimental and just emulating their favorite bands/artists. No, I think Prog means something else. It is more about feel.

Progressive or experimental....you pick the term. I care not.

Prog means to emulate the style of the bands that gave roots to the progressive rock movement. At least to me it does.

Greg W wrote: Prog means to emulate the style of the bands that gave roots to the progressive rock movement. At least to me it does.

You have a point there. But I'd like to think that good prog bands try to add their own input to their influences ... even if it is "just" their musicianship and sincerity (like Wobbler do).

And to get back to the topic: I'm totally sure that the Beatles did exactly that - they started as a pop band and their music became more complex and ambitioned. So although they aren't based on prog, they did what the prog bands did.

Chicapah wrote: Please clarify then.  If not for the Beatles experimentation what band or individual could best be described as the true forerunner of progressive?  Certainly not Brian Wilson.  And keep it in the rock era so keep Stravinsky out of this!

Once again you are giving credit to the Beatles for inventing all these new styles. All they did was popularize them. Folk rock...Dylan and The Byrds.

Psychedelia...The London Underground Movement.

Those were some of the true innovators.

and for Mike..

1. Taxman ( a simple rocker...excellent tune, though. Great lyrics. One of Harrison's best)
2. Eleanor Rigby ( definite prog rock influences here. Brilliant tune)
3. I'm only sleeping . (Good tune. Not prog.)
4. Love you to ( one of Harrison's songs with the sitar. Kind of proggy)
5. Here there and everywhere (sigh...sometimes Paul makes such drek. Definitely not prog)
6. Yellow submarine ( dumb song, but sort of proggy.)
7. She said she said ( Good tune. A song about an LSD trip John had had with a big movie star..Peter Fonds maybe?. Not sure if I would label this as prog)
8. Good day sunshine ( another simple rocker. No prog here.)
9. And your bird can sing . ( One of John's weaker tunes. Not prog)
10. For no one( Awesome tune with some awesome lyrics. One of Paul's best. Not prog.)
11. Dr Robert ( A tune about Dr Robert giving out some "magical pills. Not prog)
12. I want to tell you ( A standard rocker from Paul. Not prog)
13. Got to get you into my life (another standard rocker from Lord Paul. Not prog)
14. Tomorrow never knows (Great tune. Very Psychedelic and I suppose progressive for its time. )

So 4 songs out of 14 I would label as progressive rock. That is the problem with most Beatles lps. I would hardly call Revolver a progressive rock lp.