Are Beatles Prog?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2142
Printed Date: January 10 2025 at 00:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Are Beatles Prog?
Posted By: Gaston
Subject: Are Beatles Prog?
Date Posted: November 14 2004 at 16:40
|
If so or if not, why?
Gaston -------------  
It's the same guy. Great minds think alike. |
Replies:
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: November 14 2004 at 16:48
Where are the symphonic musical passages, the carefully- honed musicianship the 5 minute keyboard and guitar solos. Besides the drummer isn't an egomaniac who split the group. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Bryan
Date Posted: November 14 2004 at 16:50
| They've had some prog moments, but not enough to get listed in here. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: November 14 2004 at 16:52
|
The Beatles were a great pop band. |
Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: November 14 2004 at 17:01
| Ring around the rosie.... |
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: November 14 2004 at 17:08
....a pocket full of poseurs! -------------
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: November 14 2004 at 17:16
|
Saying the Beatles are prog is like saying that Robert Johnson is rock and roll; not technically, but without them it might never have happened. Every single autobiography I've read from the classic prog musicians mention that they got into music because of the Beatles (even Zappa!). They took a trendy jukebox teen genre and gave it artistic credibility, worldwide awareness, and a sense that different (and sometimes exotic) musical influences should be sought out and incorporated into the style. They also were some of the first musicians to have a hit with a Mellotron and make a concept album ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi"> 
|
Posted By: frenchie
Date Posted: November 14 2004 at 19:31
|
you raise a valid point. prog or not, they dont belong on this site. ------------- The Worthless Recluse 
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: November 14 2004 at 20:40
|
No.
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Prog owes them a debt, as James said (Posted By: Velvetclown
Date Posted: November 15 2004 at 02:27
|
George Martin made The Beatles sound progressive and Yoko Oh-Noo didnīt. ------------- Billy Connolly Dream Theater Terry Gilliam Hagen Quartet Jethro Tull Mike Keneally |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 15 2004 at 05:20
|
But you're right. The Beatles were hugely progressive, but not prog. Compare any Beatles album to any pre 3-man Genesis album and, if you have ears, you will understand
|
Reed Lover wrote:Posted By: philippe
Date Posted: November 15 2004 at 05:35
 ...thus everything which emerged during that period is prog! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Man Erg
Date Posted: November 15 2004 at 05:49
|
NO. Not Prog
They were a Rock 'n' Roll band a Folk Rock band a Psychedelic band but never a Prog Rock band. And before anybody mentions side 2? of Abbey Road, that was a 'rock' medley.The closest any of the Beatles got to prog was Ringo's appearance in Frank Zappa's 200 Motels 
------------- 
Do 'The Stanley' otherwise I'll thrash you with some rhubarb. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 15 2004 at 09:06
|
Don't forget "Yellow Submarine" - it's got silly lyrics telling a silly story, a silly voice, and a silly "symphonic" section (i, so it's obviously a silly prog song. But Ringo got all egotistical and split the band up over musical differences - he wanted to do a follow-up called blue aeroplane, and a concept album about Rolls-Royces, featuring a song about a Yellow Rolls-Royce, a psychedelic Rolls-Royce (in honour of John...) and a Pink Rolls-Royce with 6 wheels and a chauffeur who says "Yes, bi'lady"... They got back together shortly after he came down from the sugar cubes and everyone reminded him that drummers couldn't split bands because of musical differences - he'd have to come up with something more realistic. Before he'd had time to think of anything (being a drummer), John brought in Yoko...
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: November 15 2004 at 11:41
|
I think it's funny that William Friedkin was the Yoko Ono of Genesis. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: November 15 2004 at 11:51
Thanks Cert, but i've known I'm always right for a very long time! You old concert penis You! -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 15 2004 at 14:15
|
Thanks Cert, but i've known I'm always right for a very long time! [/QUOTE] Right as in Aryan? |
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: November 15 2004 at 14:35
|
Ya boo-underhand tactics. You are a con Cert penis!
-------------
|
Posted By: DallasBryan
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 00:08
|
yes, all the big bands turned to psycedelics around
65-67, there music became psycedelic and progressive thats the formula to true progressive music, talent, intelligence and mind alteration! |
Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 07:30
|
NO! Reason: "I wanna hold your ha-a-and "She loves me yeah yeah yeah" ET CETERA |
Posted By: Azrael2112
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 08:25
|
Just listen to Sgt. Pepper...alot of prog here and there, but I'd say some
stuff was and some stuff wasn't. ------------- http://www.flywithjet.com"> 
|
Posted By: zappa123
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 10:22
|
I think that most of you missed the point here.Maybe they are not really """prog""" like we define our music-the music that we like.But they certaintly were progressive and ahead of most of the groups if not everyone.And I'm not talking of Love me do and other pop songs.Rubber soul was just a beginning but on Revolver,Sgt.pepper,Magical mystery tour,White album you can find a lot of progressive material.For me songs like A day in the life,Strawbery fields forever,Lucy in the sky with diamonds were progressive masterpieces--like it or not. What the hell--I think that the Beatles were the greatest progressive band of all times.I'm a huge Zappa-genesis-Yes-Crimson-ELP fan but I have to admit that. |
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 10:30
|
The Topic would be more interesting and accurate if it read: Topic: Are Beatles crap? I find them almost entirely trivial and unlistenable.I understand and endorse their importance to modern music as I do Elvis, but come on: She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah??? Great bit of prog that! Or later stuff: I am he as you are he as you are me Even Jon anderson on a bad day couldnt come up with that drivel goo goo goo joob ???????????????????????? -------------
|
Posted By: Sweetnighter
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 11:18
|
the beatles are not prog.
------------- I bleed coffee. When I don't drink coffee, my veins run dry, and I shrivel up and die. "Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso? Is that like the bank of Italian soccer death or something?" -my girlfriend |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 12:04
I think that is the point most people are making - that prog is not the same as progressive. The title of this thread uses the term prog, which the Beatles ain't, but no-one except the Reed-meister would disagree that they were one of the most progressive song-writing groups ever. There's really not much on "Revolver" that's anything other than great, great pop/rock music. Obviously, "Tomorrow Never Knows" is a wonderful piece of experimentation with backwards tape, and the Indian influences on "Love You To" and the string arrangement on "Eleanor Rigby" are superb - but the latter are all simple song structures, and the former is a kind of jam around a single riff - so only a bit progressive, really. Sgt. Pepper kicked off a whole load of "Concept album" imitators, including the Stones "Satanic Majesties Request", the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" and the Pretty Things "S F Sorrow", but even those three gems don't fit into the category of prog - although I'd quite like to see the Pretty Things get talked about a bit more... Apart from "Day in A Life" and "Being For The Benefit of Mr Kite" (probably the most "proggy" song the Fab 4 ever wrote), this album is chock full of great pop/rock songs, some with progressive arrangements (although many music-hall or vaudeville fans might argue that it had all been done a couple of generations previously...). The most progressive thing about Pepper, IMO, was the use of the recording studio as an integral instrument. There's really not much that's progressive on the White Album, Mystery Tour or Abbey Road either - I'd make the same case. "Strawberry Fields" is a great pop/rock song with cool studio effects and a nice arrangement - but it's verse/chorus (etc), is pop song length, and has nothing that we would identify with the genre of prog. Even "Revolution #9", widely cited as the Beatles' most proggy piece isn't prog at all, of course - it's a tape collage. If we decided that tape collages were prog, then why isn't Karlheinz Stockhausen in the archives? And what about Edgar Varese, who was quite an influence on Frank Zappa? As a final consideration, listen to ABBA The Album, which has some amazing string arrangements, a full suite on side 2, songs which stretch longer than the 3-4 minutes of most Beatles songs, and nice symphonic touches - and decide if the Beatles created an album that is significantly more "proggy".
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 12:13
|
but no-one except the Reed-meister would disagree that they were one of the most progressive song-writing groups ever.
Come on Con Cert penis! I was only arguing that they were not "prog rock" I would have discussed the rest of your erm...sermon to the masses but I nodded off during your analysis of Eleanor Rigby when I realised you weren't offering bread and jam.....
-------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 12:43
|
Actually, you said
...to me, that looks like you are saying that, in your opinion, the Fab 4 were crap.
...and anyway - you missed the point!
I was taking the piss!
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 13:15
Yes i know, I was too. I went to the bog just as you got to the interesting bit! You great Pianist you! -------------
|
Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 13:24
|
Actually I think I am the Walrus was f##ken brilliant Dweeb Flubber. I doubt it was supposed to mean anything....perhaps lots of topics that meant something to John alone. I just think it was just another trip down acid lane myself. Still the imagery he describes is fantastic. Fantastic imagery songs are apparently not your cup of tea judging from some of your other posts. |
Posted By: threefates
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 13:26
|
Having prog moments don't make you prog tho.. otherwise.. the Monkees were also prog... ------------- THIS IS ELP 
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 13:31
| Didn't the Beach Boys' concept album come before Sgt. Peppers? Not that it's particularly relevenat either way |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 13:39
|
You may be right, goose - Dick Heath'll know fer sure! I may be a pianist, Reed, but I prefer that to playing the pink oboe, which is obviously your calling in life... |
Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 14:08
|
I can play Mary Had a Little Lamb on the telephone for those who are curious..3818 333 888 3## 3818 333 55337. talented...aren't I? |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 14:22
| 3818 333 888 3## 3818 333 553327! |
Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 14:26
|
no...I am pretty sure there is only 5 notes at the end! c'mon admit it goosey...you tried it on your phone just now...didn't ya? |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 14:27
|
Of courseI did! Scratch one of the 3s then, but there's definitely a 2! |
Posted By: Wizard/TRueStar
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 14:29
|
The advantage the beatles have is all the reasons the common person (even a tone deaf one) can appreciate them. Great song Writng Great collaberations Great Concepts/Concept album Great singles Fabulous musicianship I'm not saying these are the reasons i like the beatles(and thats just there later stuff if any) but these are reasons i'v heard come up a million times in one or another way. |
Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 14:30
maybe....I'll try it...it's not like I ever put alot of thought to it |
Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 14:33
| ok I tried it and I am not sure...they're both very close...I still think its 55337 |
Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 14:35
|
Leave it to a bunch of progholes to debate Mary Had a Little Lamb on the telephone
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 14:56
|
in fact I'd even add a 3 at the beginning of the last.... errr.... phrase before the 55: 3818 333 888 3## 3818 333 355327 come on we need some more contributors, this is vital for the prog world! |
Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 15:05
|
actually I think you're right...on the 6 numbers...not seven...what is the last line Her fleece's white as snow(that would be 5) or is it Her fleece is as white as snow(in which case it would be 6) if those are the exact lyrics or not...god I do not want to look this up on the internet. or is it Whose..or Who's why are we talking about this again?. |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 15:15
|
I thought it was "her fleece was white as snow" why are we talking about it? I don't know why you're talking about it but I'm talking about it because I can't be bothered to go and do anything else for a while |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 24 2004 at 18:04
|
No - you've all got it wrong; the correct words are; Mary had a little lamb She also had a bear You often saw her little lamb You never saw her bare... |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 04:21
|
Is that from the Simpsons? I know I've heard it somewhere before... |
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 04:49
|
No you're all wrong! It is: Mary had a little lamb, its fleece was white as snow whenever she went round Certy's house the lamb refused to go!
-------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 05:25
|
No - I remember now, it goes;
Mary had a little skirt A split ran up the sides And every time she moved her legs The boys could see her thighs.
Mary had another skirt A split ran up the front But she never wore that one... |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 05:32
| haha |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 07:52
|
Mary had a little lamb The doctors all agreed it was gynaecologically impossible...? |
Posted By: zappa123
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 09:20
I agree with most that you said--but I disagree with the lenghts of the songs that you mentioned.I don't think that long tracks are necessary to be progressive.If they are,we can delete a lot of groups here on progarchives.Because there are a lot of groups with 15 or 20 songs on LP.And they fit here.Like strawberry fields forewer was a pop/rock song.Yes it was.but it was made in 67/68.So at that time this was a progressive song in comparsion with the music that existed then.They invented a lot of stuff that was copied by a lot of groups later--and from that point of view I think they were progressive. Pet sounds(1966) was made before Sgt.pepper(1967).Actualy a lot of music lovers and critics think that without Pet sounds wouldnt be sgt.pepper.I don't know.Maybe that is a thing for new topic--but not here on progarchives. |
Posted By: zappa123
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 09:28
|
Nobody is saying that they are prog.Even ELP weren't entirely prog all the time.I think that Lucky man ,Jeremy bender the sherif,From the beginning,Are you redy eddy were more like pop/rock and they still are the prog giants. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 10:34
Yeah - I agree they were progressive, but to be "prog" is something different; It's widely accepted that ITCOTCK is the first prog album, proper. The difference I usually work with is not so much song length, symphonic nature, frequent time-changes or any of those other helpful indicators (although I would think that a prediliction for writing standard song-structure material does not make a prog band), but I like to use a more generalised phrase; Rock music establishes itself immediately for what it is, and gives few surprises. Prog music takes you on a journey into the unknown. In the Beatles' case, the distinction is quite subtle, particularly with either "...Pepper" or "The Beatles" (aka TWA), but if you take their output on a song-by-song basis and compare any of their albums with ITCOTCK on a similar basis, it's quite obvious why King Crimson are a prog band and the Fab 4 aren't. The bulk of the Beatles' output pushes boundaries, but just doesn't reach out to the extremes like, for example, Yes or Frank Zappa I would agree that many bands in the archives would become redundant, given my generalisation - but it's up to the admins of this site who gets included - I'm sure I would agree with you on many bands that shouldn't, but hey, it's all in the mix, as they say.
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 12:29
|
[QUOTE=Certif1ed
Yeah - I agree they were progressive, but to be "prog" is something different; It's widely accepted that ITCOTCK is the first prog album, proper. The difference I usually work with is not so much song length, symphonic nature, frequent time-changes or any of those other helpful indicators (although I would think that a prediliction for writing standard song-structure material does not make a prog band), but I like to use a more generalised phrase; Rock music establishes itself immediately for what it is, and gives few surprises. Prog music takes you on a journey into the unknown. In the Beatles' case, the distinction is quite subtle, particularly with either "...Pepper" or "The Beatles" (aka TWA), but if you take their output on a song-by-song basis and compare any of their albums with ITCOTCK on a similar basis, it's quite obvious why King Crimson are a prog band and the Fab 4 aren't. The bulk of the Beatles' output pushes boundaries, but just doesn't reach out to the extremes like, for example, Yes or Frank Zappa I would agree that many bands in the archives would become redundant, given my generalisation - but it's up to the admins of this site who gets included - I'm sure I would agree with you on many bands that shouldn't, but hey, it's all in the mix, as they say.
Ok there is real problem with comparing everything that came before ITCOTCK to ITCOTCK. One can find a relative trail of experimentation that ended up with prog (although it was never called that or separated from any other form of rock until much later). I certainly feel 1967 was a significant year in the movement into much more sophisticated rock songs and albums. Drugs would be a part of it but also the forced will of some these artists towards longer studio time and creative effort. The Beatles Sgt. Peppers was the first giant step in that direction. On top of that, the use of multi track recording (a first) and George Martin producing it changed the sound of rock forever. Other notable things were Cream. You can listen to Sunshine of Your Love and not hear the standard blues/rock/pop track. Certainly, we could say they were a progressive blues/rock band as would be a successor Led Zeppelin. San Francisco in the period 1967-9 certainly aided this progression. Jefferson Airplane started taking months instead of days to produce their albums despite RCA pressuring them. Some of that music would be seen as psychedelic certainly but also sophisticated in parts to be an elder relation to prog. I don't really need to mention Frank Zappa do I? You can't change any of these elements and many others I have missed to arrive at the right set of circumstances that ITCOTCK could be produced and none of them are less important than the other. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 15:46
You're absolutely right that the dividing line is a bit hazy, and the choice of ITCOTCK could be boiled down to one of consensus. However, to look at the examples you given; The experimental music that led up to prog was known as psychedelia. This is typified by the jam sessions that ended up being recorded - especially in the case of, say the Grateful Dead. The Beatles were very clever, and incorporated aspects of psychedelia in their music - but never released jam sessions themselves - only perfectly constructed songs. The Cream were wonderfully progressive - but within the field of blues. To hear a Cream track is to hear blues with some wonderful improvisation and some really cool twists and turns. Likewise Led Zeppelin, who took things a bit further - with the use of violin bows, keyboards, etc - but didn't really escape the "Rock band" shackles, primarily because the music would always return to the starting point - song structures elongated to breaking point, you might say. The Jefferson Airplane I'm not too sure about, as I'm only really familiar with Surrealistic Pillow, and Zappa was in a world of his very own! A lot of people would agree that Zappa was prog - but which of his albums was his first prog album? And can we really consider the bulk of his output to be prog? Don't forget, we are distinguishing between prog rock as a genre, and progressive music. If we were to include all progressive music, then where is Beethoven? Mozart? Monterverdi? Don't tell me they were "Classical" - if they'd had electric guitars and mellotrons... In The Court is truly outstanding as an album, and a landmark, in that when you listen to it, you do not think you are listening to blues, pop, psychedelia, hard rock or any other genre of the time - simply its own new genre, incorporating a far wider range of influences than almost anything previously in the world of rock, including the improvised feel of psychedelia. The biggest difference was that this new prog music was tightly structured, yet still allowed for the improvisation, so that the jams didn't have to stretch out into all-night noodle fests, as the pieces carried an almost classical like rigidity, where desired. The Verse/Chorus (or, indeed, any traditional rock) structure was becoming buried into new and technically imaginative - and challenging strutures more closely resembling jazz - but not necessarily going into the same realms as say, Miles Davis or the fusion-meisters. And that's where it gets hazy /end waffle mode /start waffle-making routine - maple syrup, anyone? |
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 17:38
I bet you keep score dont you! -------------
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: November 25 2004 at 19:40
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 26 2004 at 06:17
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: November 26 2004 at 11:58
You took the question out of context. The whole paragraph was the point. Yes the Question should be another thread. Nice Font btw it looked like christmas. |
Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: November 26 2004 at 16:47
Sure they were progressive as a rock or popband (woops, I accidentaly typed poopband, really |
Posted By: zappa123
Date Posted: November 28 2004 at 09:32
That's what I was saying.I never said they are prog--but progressive.That was my point.So because of that I wrote "you missed the point",IMO. |
Posted By: CRIMSONFROST
Date Posted: July 20 2005 at 10:15
|
NO BECAUSE THEY ARE CRAP POP CANDYFLOSS YUCK ------------- Scott c Wills |
Posted By: Olympus
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 02:27
|
A couple are kinda' progy. ------------- "Let's get the hell away from this Eerie-ass piece of work so we can get on with the rest of our eerie-ass day" |
Posted By: Steve
Date Posted: September 20 2005 at 11:44
|
The
trouble is people want to put labels on everything. The Beatles
were of course a Progressive band in the sense that from just 1962 to
1970 there is a massive shift in the style of the music they produced,
in fact if they did not change the way that they did, they probably
woudn't have lasted beyond 1965. This site on the other hand celebrates a style of music that covers a certain brand of music that came from psychedelia and 'progressed' into the music we all love. But if you're honest it hasn't really progressed a great deal since. I am a great fan myself, I wouldn't be a member of this site otherwise but it all revolves around the word 'Progressive', any music that is progressive in the literal sense can be deemed progressive. It boils down to the musicianship, virtuoso musicians playing complex and engaging music that we can really enjoy. Do we really need to say that this band is prog and this band isn't, it doesn't really matter. ------------- See The Swan Fly High |
Posted By: Prodigal
Date Posted: September 20 2005 at 15:27
| Just some of their late stuff is kind of prog. |
Posted By: Wolf Spider
Date Posted: September 20 2005 at 15:32
|
No god damn it! They are not prog, not ever grass smoking band of the 60`s/70`s is prog ------------- http://www.lastfm.pl/user/tomash33 - Last.fm |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 20 2005 at 15:37
|
As some of you will know I am a huge Beatles fan. They certainly help
to pave the way for prog by giving up touring and concentrating on
studio work. Tracks like "Tomorrow Never Knows" are important stepping
stones on the road to prog. They were also one of the first bands to
use a Mellotron. However, they only belong on this site in a "roots of
prog" section as they are not prog. And the person who sl*gged off "I am the walrus" should read Ian MacDonald's book "Revolution In The Head" to find the true meaning behind this protest song. |
Posted By: Philrod
Date Posted: September 20 2005 at 16:59
|
No, but like it or not, this is the most important band ever! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Philrod/?chartstyle=Geldropdown-small"> 
|
Posted By: BePinkTheater
Date Posted: September 20 2005 at 17:26
|
Beautifully put They opened the door, and peered in a little bit, but never went all the way inside. However, i will state that the album "Magical Mystery Tour" is true prog and i belive this should be listed as the first moment of true prog( November 27th 1967, almost a full year before ITCOTKC which this site procalims as the first true prog album0 but.. to each his own, i dont get worked up about such detatials ------------- I can strangle a canary in a tin can and it would be really original, but that wouldn't save it from sounding like utter sh*t. -Stone Beard |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 20 2005 at 17:47
Good point, although I don't count MMT as a real Beatles album as it wasn't originally released as such in the UK. It's an EP with some singles stuck on side 2. I would go even further and say "Tomorrow Never Knows" is the beginning of prog and that was 1966. |
Posted By: BePinkTheater
Date Posted: September 20 2005 at 17:58
|
Very true, but never the less i would call it an album.
Is that the only reason why it is nto considered progs birthdate? just cause its not a realy album? ------------- I can strangle a canary in a tin can and it would be really original, but that wouldn't save it from sounding like utter sh*t. -Stone Beard |
Posted By: MANTICORE
Date Posted: September 21 2005 at 14:47
|
 some glorious moments Of PROG..!!I Think that they would have to occupy a place in Progarchives
-------------  |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 21 2005 at 15:44
Could be - I think it tends to get overlooked in the UK as it wasn't an official album. Perhaps we could use the MMT EP instead, but Strawberry Fields Forever was recorded quite a while before that. I still think it goes back earlier than that (1966 - Pet Sounds and Tomorrow Never Knows). |
Posted By: magog
Date Posted: September 22 2005 at 12:06
| I don't know...but I ask myself: are Back streets boys prog? |
Posted By: rockandrail
Date Posted: September 22 2005 at 12:15
|
What about "I want you - so heavy" and Abbey Road's side 2? ------------- Pierre R, the man who lost his signature |
Posted By: eriksalkeld
Date Posted: October 10 2005 at 22:58
|
I think The Beatles should be included as proto-prog. I don't think any prog band from the early 70's or late 60's have not been influenced by them, i'm sure all prog giants we love will refer to the beatles if they are asked for their roots. Of course they aren't prog, deep purple or moody blues are not either. Proto-prog bands are those that directly settled the bases for what we now call PROGRESSIVE ROCK. Also, from a more intimate point of view, each member was so authentic with what they composed. We all know how they were: Paul, George, Ringo and specially John, each had a way of being and thinking quite unique, ideas that escaped to music standards and different life lines. Comercial success was never their main driving force, an example of that is that they stopped performing live in 1966 and they didn't mind for the money (well, at that point i'm sure the beatles were already richer than A. Onassis himself, but that's not the point i want to reach). Now, this is surely the attitude that most prog rockers are looking for, this authenticity in being, doing and thinking is what Peter Gabriel, Peter Hammill, Jon Anderson and all those characters we admire had (have) as engine for creating what they have. Those are some reasons I have for THE BEATLES to be included as PROTO-PROG, and only as that. I could write more but my english can't go that far.
http://www.progressiverock.com/timeline.asp?sYear=1967 - http://www.progressiverock.com/timeline.asp?sYear=1967 Extremely important albums regarding to prog rock roots: ------------- Autenticidad, actitud, pluralidad, espiritu e inteligencia, si es prog bien, si no, tambien. |
Posted By: eduardossc
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 08:21
|
Yes they are prog, they are the father of progressive rock in the purest of the senses. ...If you are a Beatles hardcore fan, of course |
Posted By: Losendos
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 08:46
|
Some prog moments particularly second side of abbey road Mainly pop though Moody blues are also mainly pop and they got in ------------- How wonderful to be so profound |
Posted By: krusty
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 08:53
|
No, they were a 60's pop band, only of interest to those who were around at the same time. Virtuoso musicians = No Experimental / Inventive = No Energy or Soul = No Why does anybody who wasn't around when they were, like them? I know i don't... and I don't think of them as prog either. Glad i got that of my chest  ------------- http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=309" rel="nofollow - Humanism |
Posted By: eduardossc
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 09:01
|
"I wanna hold your hand" and "baby you can drive my car" are Prog.
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 09:13
|
I hope you meant this as a joke, otherwise it's the biggest crock I've read in my short time on this forum. Virtuoso musicians - no, they're not up to the standards of your average prog musician, but does that mean you can't make good music? Experimental/inventive - come on, listen to "Tomorrow never knows" as just one example of many I could list. Energy or soul - try "Twist and shout", "I'm down" etc etc. I was around when they were, but I was only 9 when they split up, so I don't remember much of them at the time. To say "Why does anybody who wasn't around when they were, like them?" is a disservice to the most influential band of all time. Where would prog music be if The Beatles hadn't retired to the studio to make Revolver and Sgt. Pepper? I agree with you that they are not prog, but as I said before they certainly opened the door for prog music. |
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 09:15
I think some of their songs are psychedelic pop.  Most are just 60's pop.
|
Posted By: RoyalJelly
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 09:23
|
Listen carefully to "Strawberry Fields", "I Am the Walrus", or "A
Day in the Life", and tell me that was not much more progressive in its day then the stylistic recyclings of a Dream Theater. The classical structures in rock songs originated there (and in Zappa, & Beach Boy's "Pet Sounds"), there's mellotron, "All You Need is Love" is in 7/8, and "Abbey Road" is the first rockalbum with synthesizer, listen to the epic song cycle of side 2 of that one! Prog are not, there'd be no progarchives without them, and we'd be chatting on www.skifflearchives.com or something. |
Posted By: Progcupine
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 09:29
|
Come On!!, Beattles are NOT prog, they are POP. The music of the beattles were the answer to Rock, easy listening music for people who didnīt want to spend too much time thinking about music. Anyway, I accept they were great and some songs are classics, but letīs be serious, songs like "yellow submarine" are as simple as they could be, this kind of songs were ok for children but not for real music lovers who like more complex music. If beattles are prog, Rolling Stones are heavy metal!!
------------- ..Youīre not alone... |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 09:38
It became clear that as EMI/Capitol Records were making vast profits for Beatles album sales, then the boys could have more studio freedom and could be indulged (I believe Dylan was getting similar space before with Columbia Records, with popular success). However, by the mid 60's their mentor George Martin and producer would often suggest the inclusion of unusual session musicians to augment/make special some very good pop tunes. In part it is the studio freedom, rather being forced within a few hours of studio time to make 30 minutes of tunes for their first albums, that looked very attractive to other bands.
You look at the early prog bands and they either: a) had mentors, who had faith enough to support a band, including paying for studio time - e.g. Touch, Genesis, Supertramp - correct me, but I guess Gentle Giant as well. b) had to go through an apprenticeship by being on the road, and working damn hard in rehearsals (to be readily for the road), e.g. Yes, King Crimson, and had to go through a couple of albums before reaching a matured state - The Yes Album was the third yes album, ITCOCK followed on from The Cheerful Insanity of Giles, Giles and Fripp album - indeed the belatedly released album The Boomsbury Tapes album indicates a large repertoise being built up and worked upon in the year before ITCOCK was released - ex Fairport singer Julie Dyble, tried out several songs, for which Greg Lake's voice is now more familar. Indeed, from Trespass to Selling England, Genesis also had to tread this path. c) had been already successful, therefore assumedly gained some wealth and could afford to invest one's own money, e.g. Renaissance as the other Yardbirds spin-out band (LZ being the better known). |
Posted By: DEzerov
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 09:52
FYI....I've seen Yes 10 times (since 1972, I might add), the Moody Blues 4X, ELPalmer/Powell 3X, Weather Report, Jethro Tull, Todd Rundgren's Utopia, Starcastle, Genesis, Herbie Hancock, Stanley Clarke/Al Dimeola/Jean-Luc Ponty, Kansas.........shall I continue? BTW, I'm 47.......... I'd say I qualify as a real music lover who likes more complex music. Are we on the same page? I ADORE Yellow submarine!!!!! Listen carefully to the effects used there and in many other BEATLES tunes........ Please don't define my tastes or synaptic make-up. Some songs were pop, some were blues, some were rock, some were psyche, some proto-prog, some even country (thanks, Ringo)....but most importantly...... The Beatles were/are the Beatles. ------------- The moon is made by some lame cooper and you can see the idiot has no idea about moons at all - Nikolay Gogol |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 09:53
|
All the tunes listen here were part of the Beatle's psychedelic catalogue - btw you left out Baby Your'e A Rich Man and most of the tune on the double ep Magical Mystery Tour. And how much had this progressed from West Coast psychedelia, one of the sources of Beatles' inspiration? Remembering many people believe the Beatles were the greatest absorbers of other's music, having the ability to reconstruct it with a particular British/Liverpudlian sound - listen how they reinvented Tamla Motown in the early day, then Dylan in Rubber Soul? Zappa in his autobiography expresses his anger (true or false, I can't be sure) it took a British band, i.e the Beatles, to show American youth what American music was about, i.e. pop and rock. as to synthesisers - bloody hell they were a rich band, EMI studios too were rich because of Beatle profit, so why shouldn't they indulge in a Moog - but too often you have to think 'is that a Moog or some other early electronic keyboard playing' on a Beatles' track, it was a bit too gimmicky, a piano substitute. It took the likes of Wendy Carlos to demonstrate the full potential, colours and range of the Moog. Moog playing on later Beartles albums is as limited as you hear on Lothar and Hand People's first album. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 10:36
easy listening music for people who didnīt want to spend too much time thinking about music. NO WAY! songs like "yellow submarine" are as simple as they could be, this kind of songs were ok for children That's just one song from their catalogue of over 200! At least learn to spell their name correctly! |
Posted By: eduardossc
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 10:42
|
When The Beatles are regarded as Progressive rock artists, all those endless arguments and complaints about Prog bands making pop after their 7th album will loose all sense. Also, Prog will become much more undefined than it is already. I think that if the Beatles had ever made something relatively similar to prog back in the 60īs, they would have made at least one true progressive rock song as single artists. But neither did one. Instead, they kept writing simplistic massive music like "Imagine". |
Posted By: krusty
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 11:38
O man! What an excelent post.. Artist's such as David Bowie and Madona have done exactly the same thing, constantly taking underground elements and reinventing themselfs to stay current. They are NOT innovators but imitators. ------------- http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=309" rel="nofollow - Humanism |
Posted By: Gronostay
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 11:49
|
Strawberries Fields... Of Course the are, but after 66/67 |
Posted By: RoyalJelly
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 11:49
Did everyone forget "Revolution no.9"?...want to tell us THAT is pop music, from a pop band? An 8'20 dreamscape soundcollage? Of course, some label-slinging critic will come along and say, "No, but that's 'avant-garde'"! Some of the stuff on the White Album sounds like punk ("Helter Skelter"). The point is that the Beatles were not thinking in terms of labels, but drawing from various influences and creating distinctly new MUSIC, which even Leonard Bernstein would cite as proof that pop music has to be taken seriously - before the Beatles, it wasn't. They were all about expanding possibilities and destroying limits in popular music. "Progressive" didn't always exist, it emerged out of pop music, Yes and Genesis and ELP were million sellers in their day, "Roundabout" was a no. 1 AM radio hit. When critics started to define "progressive" as being a specific style, turning it into a marketing category, that's when the original progressive impulse died, the bands lost their explorative spirit and worried more about record sales (the same way that the hippie/psychedelia movement died when the media caught onto it and marketed it, same with punk). The other argument doesn't hold water...the later Genesis can't be called anything but commercial pop music, we won't even go into some of the unspeakable tripe produced by a solo Tony Banks, et al. Does that in any way invalidate "Supper's Ready"? In a nutshell: A) The Beatles were not prog, but B) there wouldn't be prog without them. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 11:52
Oh yes, well said sir! |
Posted By: eduardossc
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 12:15
| Ok, the Beatles are prog. "21st century schizoid man" is not much more complex and bizarre than "Iīm the walrus" and "Yellow submarine" |
Posted By: DEzerov
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 12:36
Hmmm................Old Rain (PFM), Yesterdays (Yes), I Talk to the Wind (KC), Still... You Turn Me On (ELP) and Imagine all end up on my mellow compilations, when ever I burn a CD for relaxing..... Ever heard Paul McCartney's Rockestra Theme from Back to the Egg? Gary Brooker, David Gilmour, Morris Pert guested (all proggers) + many others (Townsend, Kenney Jones,John Bonham)? Don't suppose you have............oh well......... I almost forgot..........The drummer in the Plastic Ono Band and on early George Harrison albums....who was that? Hey....doesn't he play with some prog band now..........how long has he been there? Wots his name....I fergit? ------------- The moon is made by some lame cooper and you can see the idiot has no idea about moons at all - Nikolay Gogol |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 13:22
Another well known prog band drummer also played on an early George Harrison album, although his contribution apparently did not make it to the final mix. |
Posted By: Pr@gmatic
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 14:42
Agreed. Still, I  The Beatles.
|
Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 14:58
|
Of course the Beatles are prog. They invented the whole thing. King Crimson just ripped them off is all. I mean c'mon...Bill Bruford couldn't hold a candle to Ringo's dynamic drumming and Robert Fripp is an amateur compared to the late great George Harrison. I mean listen to Love Me Do and tell me how a song with such storyline lyrics, its constant tempo changes with all the strange time signatures couldn't be prog. The best part of it is their non repetiveness in their complex lyrics... I mean....Love Love Me DO You Know I Love You I'll Always Be True So please.....Love Me DO......absolute geniuses at work here fellows.
and the Rolling Stones are of course heavy metal...Under My Thumb proves it all. I mean they may as well be saying ...We're Heavy Metal, We're Heavy Metal.....Yeeeaahhhhh!!(thats a scream by the by) |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 15:14
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. |
Posted By: Pr@gmatic
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 15:22
|
^ Kinda funny though. |
Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: October 11 2005 at 15:25
Oh...another overly stuffy elitist Brit.... |
...how surprising...sink back into the decadent mire you crawled out of Clapper.