The Beatles
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23654
Printed Date: February 17 2025 at 11:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Beatles
Posted By: Sacred 22
Subject: The Beatles
Date Posted: May 21 2006 at 18:19
|
I'm curious as to what you think. I do not see the Beatles as a Progressive Rock band at all. To me they are nothing more than a pop band. I'm sure this will stir many opinions. If we are to include the Beatles here, then why not the Stones or The Dave Clark Five for that matter. I am just wondering where to draw the line. |
Replies:
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 21 2006 at 18:20
|
I don't see the relevance of this poll - nobody says that they're a prog band. BTW: Does anybody else get that strange feeling of Deja-Vu?  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: Dalkaen
Date Posted: May 21 2006 at 18:24
| No, but they were certainly an influence upon it. As well as an influence on pretty much... everything. |
Posted By: eddietrooper
Date Posted: May 21 2006 at 18:41
| I think we all agree that they were not prog. I understand their inclusion as Proto-prog as they were a big influence on prog bands, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea. Many of the reviews of Beatles' albums on this site are biased because people are rating them for their progressiviness, so their earlier work get very low ratings just because thery were not prog at all. That's not fair. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 21 2006 at 18:43
|
"Nothing more than a pop band" But what a pop band! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: May 21 2006 at 23:53
I agree they have influenced many bands but then so have many of the Jazz greats, Blues greats, and even country music has had some influence on prog rock (example: Steve Howe).
Then there is the classical music influences. Look at it this way. If for example Sgt. Pepper gets enough votes in it's favor then it could quite possibly become the greatest "prog" album here at Prog Archives.com. I'm not saying it's a bad album, but it certainly is not Prog.
Proto prog could just as easily be Bob Dylan, or Miles Davis. I think you know what I mean.
|
Dalkaen wrote:Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 00:00
| Nein, but Dalkaen hit it on the spot. |
Posted By: T.Rox
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 05:15
Isn't the whole rating thing with all the albums based on their fit into a prog music collection?
The Beatles ... not prog but extremely influencial ... and "She Loves Me Yeah Yeah Yeah" should not rate a mention for it's value in a prog collection ... and that is MHO ------------- "Without prog, life would be a mistake." ...with apologies to Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 07:56
Yes, we've been here loads of times. The Beatles are here under proto-prog because of their influence on prog (as quoted by Yes and Gentle Giant amongst others). Nobody is saying they are a prog band.
|
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 09:01
|
The Beatles is no a Prog Band or Proto-Prog Band. But The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks, The Cream, Jimy Hendrix are most important bands/ artists for the born of Prog!!!------------- 
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 09:20
| ^ Yes, that's why they're in proto-prog! |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 13:13
|
the beatles are not a prog band.
the beatles are a proto prog band! -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 17:01
Hammonds, Mellotrons, sitars and string arrangements, sampling and changing the course of Rock music forever not good enough for you?
 ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 18:28
i don't think the beatles should be considered a prog group overall, they have been included in PA for just a few key albums they made near the end of their career such as "abbey road". i think many bands included in PA may have only made one or two albums that could be described as prog, then changed direction one way or another. i guess for the sake of argument ALL their albums have been listed for completeness, then someone points to one of their non-prog albums and says "THAT AIN'T PROG!!". this is a no win situation! if PA only included albums which they considered true prog, everyone will be saying "..BUT WHERE'S ******??"  ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 18:54
Thanks for another opportunity to scream that The Beatles are one of the most overrated bands  ! But using Mellotron, Hammond and sophisticated recording possibilities doesn't mean that The Beatles were a progrock band, at their best they came close to a progressive pop band. But I admit that The Fab Four had a huge impact on lots of bands and musicians, almost everybody who grew up with the music from the Sixties mentions The Beatles as their main source of inspiration, even those from my favorite band Genesis .. ...
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: May 23 2006 at 06:08
|
Surely they were among the first band in experimenting new sonorities (the already mentioned Mellotron, Hammond, Moog and sitar among the others) and new recording devices and methodologies (double tracking, slowing and speeding capstans, reverse tapes, out-of-phase stereo recording and so on)
They were not the first, nor maybe the most experimental proto-proggers, but they have undoubtedly been the most famous ones! And they DID influence 90% of modern musicians and experimentators...so I think they fit in well with the "proto-prog" label! ------------- A flower? 
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: May 24 2006 at 16:42
|
The Beatles are my first love, and always will be my favorite band, but I can't classify them as prog. They also weren't "just a pop band." Actually, they defy an overall classification. Their early stuff was pop, but it defied the convention of the times. When that became the norm, they changed. They laid the groundwork for just about everything that was to follow. If they had stayed together, they may have done some full blown prog albums. Who knows? ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: tdreamer
Date Posted: May 24 2006 at 16:53
| Voted no. Influential and innovative on their later albums but definetly not prog . |
Posted By: ANDREW
Date Posted: May 24 2006 at 17:53
| NO. |
Posted By: Guzzman
Date Posted: May 27 2006 at 06:55
The Beatles most definetly weren't a Prog Band, at least according to the definitons of Prog on this side (and those definitions really are to the point ). And it has been said before, that they were very influential. From todays point of view a lot of their stuff might sound just like Pop (meaning nothing less than popular), but at their time they were progressive in the sense that they didn't stick to conventions.As I wrote in another thread, there are critics who say, that the early works of Pink Floyd don't sound any more progressive than a violin sonata from the 19th century played on a hammond organ. Looking back from today that may be right, but who would question that they are one of the best, most influential bands in the history of Prog? ------------- "We've got to get in to get out" |