Sgt Pepper And Abbey Road on the top 100
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=25856
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 14:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Sgt Pepper And Abbey Road on the top 100
Posted By: Lota
Subject: Sgt Pepper And Abbey Road on the top 100
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 18:54
I think is fantastic having 2 Beatles Albums in the top 100, well they deserve it. Way to go ------------- And In The End, The Love You Take, Is Equal To The Love You Make |
Replies:
Posted By: Syntharachnid
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 19:00
Hurrah!
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: mgallard
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 19:13
Actually I find it surprising (silly) that The Beatles are in a prog site, but I guess there are a lot of groups that are complicated to classify, a group that really was prog at that time was Procol Harum, but Beatles, ha! then let's put anyone in the PA's  . Beatles as prog is an obvious error.Mogens |
Posted By: MuzikLuva
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 19:37
It appears you aren't really familiar with their work! Listen to Magical Mystery Tour, Sgt. Pepper, Revolver and Abbey Road and you will see where Prog got its roots. If they hadn't experimented the way they did or if they didn't push the envelope, chances are sites like this wouldn't exist today as there might no be Progressive music. Look how many of the Progressive artists credit The Beatles for influencing them. How many Progressive artists have covered their material? |
mgallard wrote:Posted By: R_DeNIRO
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 19:39
|
I'm agree with mgallard. Beatles are not prog in any way, It's silly have them in the top 100. ------------- We were always be much human than we whish to be. |
Posted By: Phil
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 20:09
|
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 20:14
|
The Beatles showed that rock music could have artistic capabilities. If you don't believe me, get the latest issue of Mojo. -------------  
|
Posted By: Phil
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 20:21
|
Posted By: MajesterX
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 20:23
|
I think the Beatles are OK here in terms on proto-prog, but all proto-prog and Prog-related should stay out of the top 100 in my opinion
------------- 
|
Posted By: Borealis
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 20:25
|
^ I believe Captain Beefheart and The Velvet Underground were the one who proved rock to have artistic value.
If you want my opinion, Beatles mainly showed to rest of the world the financial potential of music... ------------- Vive le Québec libre!... |
Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 20:57
|
I think White album and Abbey Road are definately proto prog, I think it is streatching it a bit to include Sgt. Pepper and Mystery Tour but OK. But the rest of their catalogue doesn't belong on this site, its funny that Miles Davis isn't on this site because a lot of his work isn't prog but yet the Beatles are? it doesn't make sense,. I have suggested that their be a new category called Select Albums, and just have the prog albums from borderline bands such as Beatles etc. Basically just their prog is included on this site while the rest isn't. Some of the Collabs think its a good idea, but its whether the 'big cheese' of the website likes it. ------------- |
Posted By: Mad Bass Player
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 21:18
|
The Beatles are really great, definetly a highly creative band. They really pushed the bondaries on pop music. They were definetly somewhat progressive. But are they progressive enough to be called prog rock? Or even progressive enough to be on the top 100? I leaning towards no. They're a great proto prog band, but should proto prog even be included on the top 100? ------------- "Mister Fripp, your music is quite different than everything else out there. In one word, how would you describe it?" "Progressive.... yeah, that's it..." |
Posted By: Losendos
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 21:30
|
I like the idea because these albums were pretty prog for the time and no doubt inspired the bands that became legends. Apparently Lennon became quite depressed when the trailblazing banner was passed to other bands. I'd have problems with an album like Let it Be, The white album or Revolver being in the top 100 because in my judgement they are not prog enough ------------- How wonderful to be so profound |
Posted By: HeirToRuin
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 23:06
|
I'm not sure how someone can NOT classifying Sgt Pepper at a minimum as a progressive album. Was it not one of the first of its kind? ------------- ARTEMIA - http://www.reverbnation.com/artemiamusic" rel="nofollow - http://www.reverbnation.com/artemiamusic L.i.E. - http://www.reverbnati |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 23:24
Yeah, because beautiful, intelligent, challenging music, the likes of which had never been heard before, has always been a guaranteed payday.  Who do you think opened the door for Beefheart and the Underground anyway? ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: dagrush
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 23:26
|
Boo! Hiss! Various disparaging remarks! (It's not that I don't find the Beatles to be prog, I do, I just don't like what I've heard) ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/omgwtfdagrush/"> 
|
Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 03:22
      ------------- "The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa |
Posted By: Ounamahl
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 04:18
|
Why in hell everybody's stressing the top100?....
------------- This is an electrified fairytale |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 06:18
The Beatles are not categorized "as prog" here ... the problem (bug) is that the top 100 list includes the two genres we have for non-prog bands (prog-related/proto-prog). If only I had access to the script files ... it would take me just a few minutes to fix it.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 07:44
|
It's extremely poor marketing by ProgArchives to show a top list on the front page that includes proto-prog and certain prog-related artists.
In effect, ProgArchives looses the real prog rock lovers and attracts mainstream music lovers. I wonder if it adds up to winning or loosing more visitors? But they will definitely loose visitors from their target group.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 07:47
hahhaha... damn right.... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 07:51
there are some, myself included, that differentiate between progressive rock and 'progressive' rock. The former being a movement spawned by the Beatles and others.. the latter..what is considered prog-related here.... music that incorporates elements of what made prog..prog.. but not prog by itself. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 09:15
| I agree with whoever it was who said proto-prog and prog-related should not be included in the Top 100. We are in a position where (however unlikely) The Beatles' debut album could be the number one prog album! |
Posted By: man@arms
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 10:20
| The Beatles were progressive for their time and prog-rock as we know it would not exist if not for them. That being said, they should not be included in the top 100 because the Beatles simply aren't as prog as King Crimson or Yes or even ELP. Sgt Pepper, Abbey Road, the White Album and Revolver are all landmark albums and progressive for their era, but not progressive enough to be called prog-rock. I mean in 1967 alone Pink Floyd released 'Piper at the Gates of Dawn' and the Moody Blues released 'Days of Future Passed', both of which are actually more progressive than 'Abbey Road' which came out two years later. |
Posted By: mgallard
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 12:04
|
Now this thread has been moved out of the prog section, enough said, kick the Beatles out of the Prog Top 100 list, yeah, now that we are at it, out of the Top 500 too. Mogens |
Posted By: dralan
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 13:01
I got an idea. Why dont we say 'Revolver' and everything they did after that can legitamately be called "prog-related", and that proto-prog and prog-related should be allowed in the top 100. AND if you dont have anything positive to say about the Beatles then you are banned from the website
If you consider "progressive" to mean music that is "progressing" from that which has come before it then the Beatles probably made more "progress" in popular music than anyone else.
|
Posted By: mgallard
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 13:04
Ooops, hahaha, I'm on the ban list then... hmmm... fast... let's see... The Beatles have a good name, I like bugs.  Mogens |
Posted By: Borealis
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 18:36
|
^ There's surely a lot of things good to says about Beatles... uh, I think there's some great Beatles T-shirts model out there, but I can't says the same about a lot of bands... ------------- Vive le Québec libre!... |
Posted By: Guzzman
Date Posted: July 09 2006 at 06:41
|
It really is a problem, that proto-prog/prog-related bands aren't banned from the Top 100/500. Although I'm a fan of Deep Purple it makes me shiver to imagine "In Rock" entering the Top 100 or even one of the best (if not the best) live-albums of all times, "Made in Japan".
------------- "We've got to get in to get out" |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: July 09 2006 at 11:06
Oh my, I think that may be a bit extreme. They just need to be sent to the "All You Need Is Love" reeducation center. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: mgallard
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 00:04
One thing I find irritating is Beatle fans attributing Beatles the creation of everything from toothpaste to evey single form of modern rock style... I dissent, I think Prog came from other bands of the time maybe influenced a bit by the idea of experimenting, I admit a bit of ignorance in the depth and scope of the music of that time, but I think that of the records of the time Procol Harum's 1967 self-titled debut and the following 1968 "Shine of Brightly", they'd use Classical influences in their melodies, "In Held Twas in I" is 18 minutes long (!), parts sound as proto-70's Genesis... and so on. I'd vote for them as the creators of prog, together with The Moody Blues and if anything The Beatles were imitations of them in that sense. But that last part is just a supposition waiting to be blasted (of course) by the Beatle extremist-fans , but I'd appreciate any insights and facts to disprove it (have the complete Beatles collection, so reference songs previous to 1967 if you are to prove anything.Greetings Mogens http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=ADFEAEE47819DC4BA97120C59E3956CCB07CCD0CD64FFF9C0D005354D4BA3E068E027BFD66DD848EC39E21F135A8E027BB580FD3CCA257FDD6633A3789E9B60045&sql=33:nyq8b594psck - |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 00:12
|
I believ Prog owes a lot to the Beatles, but also to Chuck Berry and Little Richard, that doesn't mean we should include them.
Yes Beatles are here and Abbey Road is 100% Proto Prog, but I agree with the opinion that Prog Related and Proto Prog should never reach our top list, Imagine if Kilroy was Here would ever reach in the top 20
.Even when I never read the top list.
 Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 00:46
I don't think you necessarily have to be a Beatles fan to appreciate how vast their influence is. But, you need proof. "Rubber Soul" 1965. On "Norwegian Wood" they began to use diffrent instrumentation and played with time signatures. The harmonies throughout the album were different than what had been done, and almost dissonant at times. The whole approach to the project was progressive, compared to what had been done up to this point. Many artists point to this album as an influence. Brian Wilson sites it as an inspiration for "Pet Sounds." "Revolver" 1966. "Elanor Rigby" is practically a chamber music piece with vocals. "I'm Only Sleeping" with alternate tunings, time signature, and backward tapes. "Love You Too" incorporates Indian Music with rock. "Tomorrow Never Knows" could possibly be the first true prog song. I hope that helps. I know we Beatle freaks can be pretty rabid, but you can't be blind to the scope of their importance. Look at the sheer volume of writings on them. Why do you think people want to spend so much time studying this? They are not just one of the most important groups in rock (perhaps the most important), they are one of the most important groups in the history of music itself. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 02:38
YEAH YEAH YEAH!!!!
 http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/B000002UAU/ref=dp_image_text_0/026-1648932-8184431?ie=UTF8">  http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/B000002UB3/ref=dp_image_text_0/026-1648932-8184431?ie=UTF8"> -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: mgallard
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 09:10
Importance of The Beatles? There is no discussion there, but what I find irritating is trying to eliminate any post-Beatles creativity, the typical comment from the B-fans, "Ah, the Beatles did that first". Thanks for the examples, I've listened to them and there's no argument, they were quite experimental, but all the examples up until "Tomorrow Never Knows" are just that, experimental rock, fixed beat, standard song structure, I think it's quite a stretch to call them prog in the sense we currently "understand" Prog rock. Now TNK is a bit closer, but still I think it's not prog (has a fixed beat for example, there are very interesting elements there, in general they were very innovative I like it), I can clearly hear ELO and Michael Penn and so many others in each song, the influence is clear, but where does Procol Harum's "In held Twas I" come from? Yes, there are sitars, everyone at the time was all into Indian stuff, thanks, I guess, to the drugs and/or The Beatles, but the complex interlaced structure, 18 minutes long (that can be attributed to Sgt. Peppers, I think), the strong classical & blues influence, surely not all had been done by The B's before Harum, or what do you think? I just find that the leap in the real prog direction is too large to attribute it to The Beatles, if anything there must be someone in between that is the real originator of prog. Who was that? Other than Procol Harum I mean. Regards Mogens |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 10:20
There's no such thing as the "real originator of prog". You will find the origins of prog among the bands listed in the proto-prog subgenre.
The Beatles is one of the artists. Procol Harum another. Each of these proto-prog artists contributed to prog. What they did was just to implement original ideas into music.
One day Harrriuson said, "John this new song of yours, Norwegian Wood, why not add a sitar?" and when Matthew Fisher wanted to get involved in songwriting, Procol Harum go the idea that they could do an extended piece which ended up 18 min long. But others had done long pieces before them. It just turned out as one of the first symphonic prog epics (The Nice's Ars longa vita brevis may be regarded as the first as it was released before In Held in the UK).
|
Posted By: mgallard
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 18:09
|
There you go! The Nice, those are really seminal. I'll check out the Proto Prog section and learn a bit (I need to). I still don't think The Beatles really did much for the Prog rock genre, based on the examples provided. And when are they getting kicked out of the top 500 Prog albums? Greetings Mogens |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 19:31
Exactly! You can't look for one creator. It was something that was being built up to. The Beatles opened the door of possibility. The torch was then passed on. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: September 16 2006 at 04:26
| Probably my two favorite Beatles albums and not coincidentally because they are their two "proggiest." The white album is great too but I don't hear much prog influence in it as it's good for what it is but it's more of an eclectic rock album. Pepper and Abbey are much more adventurous(for the most part)and thus more interesting to me. If I had to choose mayb Abbey but it's a tough choice since both are really great. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: September 19 2006 at 02:44
|
Since this site is moving away from "pure" Prog Rock and towards Progressive Music, having the Beatles in the Top 100 shows the mature attitude of many reviewers - and is as it should be, IMNSHO.
We shouldn't disregard the importance of Proto-Prog on the genre(s) of Progressive Rock. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |