OK King Crimson may have been the first to recognise, refine and launch, but here's a quick list to agree/disagee/disprove/snarl at/laugh at:-

The Beatles were the first to:-

1. Use the studio as a writing tool
2. Use the LP as an artform
3. Use multitrack recording creatively
4. DI the bass
5. Use exotic & orchestral instruments creatively
6. Produce the first concept album
7. Use a moog synthesiser
8. Use feedback creatively
9. Use many FX and unusual recording techniques (vari-speed, voices thru Leslie Cab, flanging)
10. Use musique concrete techniques

All yours Ladies & Gentlemen..............................

Moribund wrote: OK King Crimson may have been the first to recognise, refine and launch, but here's a quick list to agree/disagee/disprove/snarl at/laugh at:- The Beatles were the first to:- Use the studio as a writing tool Use the LP as an artform Use multitrack recording creatively DI the bass Use exotic & orchestral instruments creatively Produce the first concept album Use a moog synthesiser Use feedback creatively Use many FX and unusual recording techniques (vari-speed, voices thru Leslie Cab, flanging) Use musique concrete techniques All yours Ladies & Gentlemen..............................

Just one thing,even though Lennon & McCartney were probably the greatest song writers ever,they,together with George & ringo were crap musicians...Everything is owed to George Martin,without him they would have not been the great sussess they ended up as.

George Martin was the man behind every technique,he judged the way the album was to be produced,the way the effects were to be used,even the one who encouraged them to use Moog & Hammond.

For the time he pushed the studio as a recreational area as far forward as possible...

All yours

Nobody invented the progressive rock, but the Beatles deserves credit.

They were the most famous "beat" band (and rock ´n roll band)at that time, but they weren´t satisfied with the music they were doing, so they experimented lots of things, trying to make their music richer. And they achieved their goal. They simply could keep doing I Wanna Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, Help, and etc, but they changed their style and they, without a doubt, made psychedelic and progressive rock reach to the great audience. Without Beatles, the psychedelic and progressive rock would need a lot of more time to reach the mass audience and probably wouldn´t achieve so much success as they did. 

The Beatles led the evolution of rock music for 5 years, and to say they were crap musicians is to miss several points, as they (apart from Ringo) certainly weren't crap rock musicians by any stretch of th imagination.

Not one item on that top 10 list is actually true - for a start, musique concrete was "invented" many decades previously, and many composers and jazz bands have used "exotic" instrumentation, and the Moog was invented long before the Beatles got their hands on it. However, reword it to "The Beatles were the first rock band to..." and it becomes a bit more accurate.

Progressive rock was the culmination of many, many styles - the Beatles certainly played their part in its evolution, but so did the Byrds, the Nice, Pink Floyd and arguably John Mayall, Miles Davis and Rakhmaninov, among others.

To adequately discuss this subject would require far more time - but I think those are the bare bones.

Hendrix, Zappa, and Barrett were doing their thing long before the Beatles. The thing is, at the time, the Beatles were considered the greatest band in the world, and when you already have an 'in' band being experimental, why bother giving credit to obscure (at the time) bands who are tons more creative? I would even go so far as to credit the Beach Boys as coming up with the idea of blending classical instrumentation and pop song structures before the Beatles... except I dislike the Beach Boys with a passion. I'm a huge Beatles fan, I even own the obscure stuff from the early sixties... I just don't think they were as creative as many people make them out to be, especially when people credit them as inventing progressive rock.  As I said, there were far more inventive bands at the time.

Rob The Plant wrote: Sgt Pepper came out in '67, Love put out an album in '66, The Floyd also put out their first album in '67. As said previously- Zappa was doing stuff well before the Beatles, as was Beefheart of course, and it is said that Beefheart is Prog. The Beatles were certainly not anything near prog until Sgt Pepper, so they are obviously not the founding fathers of prog. Thank god they moved away from what they did in their first 2 albums though.

I think Love are one of the great overlooked.

Despite (or because of) the amounts of china white and brown sugar, Arthur Lee was incredibly inventive - and both Floyd and Lennon/McCartney seem to have felt the influence.

Da Capo has one of the earliest long tracks on it - "Revelations" occupies an entire side.

Rob The Plant wrote: I'm with the Love lovers. Awesome band, and comingf back to topic- prog before the Beatles.

Loves debut is just as prog as revolver. that said not very.

Certif1ed wrote: The Beatles led the evolution of rock music for 5 years, and to say they were crap musicians is to miss several points, as they (apart from Ringo) certainly weren't crap rock musicians by any stretch of th imagination.

I am REALLY sick of people calling Ringo a crap musician.  I mean, I've only heard his output from his time from the Beatles, and yes, his technique is simplistic, but I think people miss one big thing about him.  The biggest thing when you look at Mr. Starr is that he almost always serves the song.  If he hadn't played what he did on Come Together, then would it have been as memorable a song as it is?  Ringo always had a great ear for serving the song, and no where is it more evident than in their early work.  He rarely does any over-technical fill when they were in their popier years, and the sounds fine to my ears.  I've never felt or said to myself, "man, I wish Ringo would kick off a nice roll around the set, or throw in some Swiss-Tripelets.  If I've ever thought that about anyone, it's Nick Mason, but that's something entirley diferent.  As big a  fan of highly-skilled playing as I am, especially when it comes to drums, Ringo will always be the godfather of the "Less is More" style of drumming, and he managed to do it in one of the bigest bands in the history of Rock music.  That I applaud him for.

Ok, I admit The Beatles are influential to almost every genre, but as Joren tells us with illustrations, Zappa was doing proto prog' when The Beatles were singing Yellow Submarine back in 1966.

Iván

alan_pfeifer wrote: Certif1ed wrote: The Beatles led the evolution of rock music for 5 years, and to say they were crap musicians is to miss several points, as they (apart from Ringo) certainly weren't crap rock musicians by any stretch of th imagination. I am REALLY sick of people calling Ringo a crap musician.  I mean, I've only heard his output from his time from the Beatles, and yes, his technique is simplistic, but I think people miss one big thing about him.  The biggest thing when you look at Mr. Starr is that he almost always serves the song.  If he hadn't played what he did on Come Together, then would it have been as memorable a song as it is?  Ringo always had a great ear for serving the song, and no where is it more evident than in their early work.  He rarely does any over-technical fill when they were in their popier years, and the sounds fine to my ears.  I've never felt or said to myself, "man, I wish Ringo would kick off a nice roll around the set, or throw in some Swiss-Tripelets.  If I've ever thought that about anyone, it's Nick Mason, but that's something entirley diferent.  As big a  fan of highly-skilled playing as I am, especially when it comes to drums, Ringo will always be the godfather of the "Less is More" style of drumming, and he managed to do it in one of the bigest bands in the history of Rock music.  That I applaud him for.

But drummers are just guys who hang around with musicians

Seriously - when asked if he thought Ringo was the best drummer in the world, John Lennon said "He isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles".

But I do agree with what you're saying - Ringo did the job and he did it well. The "Less is more" philosophy is sadly too often overlooked - except in pop music, where they're currently doing their best to disprove it...

Lets face it, you cannot deny the fact that the beatles had an influence on progressive rock. They may not have invented it but they sure did contribute many elements of the musicical genre. they did things that no other band had done before, just like zappa and floyd. And they deserve just as much credit as them.

alan_pfeifer wrote: Certif1ed wrote: The Beatles led the evolution of rock music for 5 years, and to say they were crap musicians is to miss several points, as they (apart from Ringo) certainly weren't crap rock musicians by any stretch of th imagination. I am REALLY sick of people calling Ringo a crap musician.  I mean, I've only heard his output from his time from the Beatles, and yes, his technique is simplistic, but I think people miss one big thing about him.  The biggest thing when you look at Mr. Starr is that he almost always serves the song.  If he hadn't played what he did on Come Together, then would it have been as memorable a song as it is?  Ringo always had a great ear for serving the song, and no where is it more evident than in their early work.  He rarely does any over-technical fill when they were in their popier years, and the sounds fine to my ears.  I've never felt or said to myself, "man, I wish Ringo would kick off a nice roll around the set, or throw in some Swiss-Tripelets.  If I've ever thought that about anyone, it's Nick Mason, but that's something entirley diferent.  As big a  fan of highly-skilled playing as I am, especially when it comes to drums, Ringo will always be the godfather of the "Less is More" style of drumming, and he managed to do it in one of the bigest bands in the history of Rock music.  That I applaud him for.

I believe he is also known for being the "human metronome". Never off the beat, never.

Can anyone tell me what time signature the Beatles' "Hapiness is a warm gun" is in? Sounds like a regular Gentle Giant song to me...

Odd24:

Most is in 4/4.  However, the middle section ("When I hold you, in my arms...") switches to 6/8. 

All:

The question is not whether Zappa et al were creating progressive music before The Beatles; the question is: who were those who became the seminal progressive bands listening to and being influenced by?  Yes, "intellectuals" like Fripp certainly knew Zappa.  But most bands were listening to mostly other "mainstream" bands, the "biggest" one of which would have been The Beatles.  Indeed, the first three "mainstream prog bands - Pink Floyd, Moody Blues and King Crimson - all admit to being influenced by The Beatles to one degree or another.  True, they may also have been influenced by others, but The Beatles were at very least the main if not primary influence.

Re Sgt. Pepper, The Beatles were actually creating proto-prog long before it.  Certainly much of Revolver is proto-prog, including She Said, Think For Yourself, Eleanor Rigby and, most obviously, Tomorrow Never Knows.  However, one could arguably go back to Norwegian Wood, which - although in a standard time signature and using a fairly straightforward chord progression - is decidedly "minimalist" for rock, and incorportes both sitar and harmonium.

However, The Beatles' most progressive stuff is found on Magical Mystery Tour: Strawberry Fields, Blue Jay Way, I Am The Walrus.  And then some of The White Album (Yer Blues, I'm So Tired, Everybody's Got Something to Hide, Happiness is a Warm Gun, et al).  And of course some of Abbey Road.

Re their "revolutionary" studio techniques, they were nothing of the sort - though they had never been applied to rock before.  The truth is (and this comes directly from Paul McCartney and George Martin) that The Beatles were listening to Les Paul, and George Martin, Paul and John were all very influenced by what Les was doing with recording technology.  After all, Les had been using "studio tricks" (including splitting tracks, looping and using backward guitar) since the mid-50s.  The Beatles (who played two of Les' songs when they were just a skiffle group on the streets of Liverpool) incorporated Les' techniques in their production.  (As an aside, when Les won the Audio Engineering Society Lifetime Achievement Award, it was George Martin who handed it to him.  And then, as a joke (but a serious one), when Martin won it, they had Les hand it to him!)

Yes, Zappa and other preceded The Beatles re creating "progressive" rock.  However, because they were the biggest "mainstream" band, The Beatles were a main if not primary influence on most if not all of those who became the standard-bearers of prog.

Peace.

AtomHeartMother wrote: alan_pfeifer wrote: Certif1ed wrote: The Beatles led the evolution of rock music for 5 years, and to say they were crap musicians is to miss several points, as they (apart from Ringo) certainly weren't crap rock musicians by any stretch of th imagination. I am REALLY sick of people calling Ringo a crap musician.  I mean, I've only heard his output from his time from the Beatles, and yes, his technique is simplistic, but I think people miss one big thing about him.  The biggest thing when you look at Mr. Starr is that he almost always serves the song.  If he hadn't played what he did on Come Together, then would it have been as memorable a song as it is?  Ringo always had a great ear for serving the song, and no where is it more evident than in their early work.  He rarely does any over-technical fill when they were in their popier years, and the sounds fine to my ears.  I've never felt or said to myself, "man, I wish Ringo would kick off a nice roll around the set, or throw in some Swiss-Tripelets.  If I've ever thought that about anyone, it's Nick Mason, but that's something entirley diferent.  As big a  fan of highly-skilled playing as I am, especially when it comes to drums, Ringo will always be the godfather of the "Less is More" style of drumming, and he managed to do it in one of the bigest bands in the history of Rock music.  That I applaud him for. I believe he is also known for being the "human metronome". Never off the beat, never.

The great thing about ringo is not only that he keeps a perfect beat, but he has such a good sound and can keep up with the rest of the band while playing great beats. Just because he dosn't smash up his kit like kieth moon dosn't mean he isn't a talented musician.

Sorry Guys....Zappa was lightyears ahead of the Beatles...AND HE NEVER DID DRUGS!!!!!!!!!!!

The Sgt. Pepper Album was considered the foundation of prog because it was a concept album.....however I doubt whether it was the FIRST concept album.

Also the Beatles were not the ONLY band to come over from England during the British invasion. Yes, it is true the Beatles brought with them alot of influences that would later influence prog music, but so did those other bands which came from England around the same time...the only difference is, the Beatles were more popular.

I do honor and respect the Beatles for their place in rock history. They proved that rock bands could write their own music.....and that's saying something.....but that being said, once again Frank Zappa was a MILLION YEARS ahead of the Beatles and I must once again reiterate...HE NEVER DID DRUGS!!!

Proglover:

Define "ahead."

The request is rhetorical.  Yes, Zappa was influenced by Edgar Varese and Karlheinz Stockhausen, just to mention two.  And he incorporated other genres into his music before they did.

But you make a fundamental error here.  The Beatles had little interest in that sort of "progressiveness."  Their music progressed far more "naturally" - or "organically," if you prefer.  Sure, Zappa was using all sorts of oddball and bizarre (for rock) ideas and influences, but that doesn't mean he was "ahead" of The Beatles in any way.  It simply means he had different influences, and took his music in a different direction.  And I repeat that, with the exception of GG and KC (and, perhaps to a lesser degree, JT) the other seminal prog groups - PF, MB, VDGG, Yes, Genesis, ELP - were influenced by The Beatles and/or others, but not Zappa.  And even KC and GG admit to Beatles influence as well.

And by the way, if you really believe that hogwash about Zappa never doing drugs, I have about seven dozen bridges to sell you!

Peace.

Proglover wrote: Sorry Guys....Zappa was lightyears ahead of the Beatles...AND HE NEVER DID DRUGS!!!!!!!!!!! The Sgt. Pepper Album was considered the foundation of prog because it was a concept album.....however I doubt whether it was the FIRST concept album. Also the Beatles were not the ONLY band to come over from England during the British invasion. Yes, it is true the Beatles brought with them alot of influences that would later influence prog music, but so did those other bands which came from England around the same time...the only difference is, the Beatles were more popular. I do honor and respect the Beatles for their place in rock history. They proved that rock bands could write their own music.....and that's saying something.....but that being said, once again Frank Zappa was a MILLION YEARS ahead of the Beatles and I must once again reiterate...HE NEVER DID DRUGS!!!

Pardon me for repeating myself, but Sgt Pepper is NOT a concept album. The Beatles have said that is started off that way but they couldn't be bothered to finish it. It's just a collection of songs. If there is a link between them then I can't see it.

Odd24 wrote: Can anyone tell me what time signature the Beatles' "Hapiness is a warm gun" is in? Sounds like a regular Gentle Giant song to me...

I think there's a bit where it goes into 6/8 but Ringo carries on in 4/4. The most complicated song (time signature-wise) they ever recorded. What about the "Mother Superior jump the gun" bit? isn't that in bars of 9 and 10?

IMHO, there were two THE BEATLES bands: the first made two minute pop songs better than anybody, and the other one (which started with "Revolver") clearly researched for new ideas, although most of those ideas were not fully developed. So, the "second Beatles band" are one of the "partners in crime", along with Zappa, Love, and lots of other bands which helped to develop prog-rock. So who started prog-rock? I don't know. I'm afraid that someday we will be discussing why prog-rock died...

A personnal note: few weeks ago, I was heavily criticized for calling Queen's musicians as amazing... If they're not, can we use the term "musician" to The Beatles's members? Of course Lennon & McCartney were fantastic songwriters, McCartney was a talented multi-instrumentalist and Harrison was a good guitar player - but as instrumentalist, they were in general below the standards.

It wasn't the Beatles that invented Prog, but :

James Prog

This article is about the Scottish engineer and inventor.

---

James Prog (January 19, 1736–August 19, 1819) was a Scottish mathematician and engineer whose improvements to the prog-steam-engine were a key stage in the Musical Revolution.

He was born in Greenock, Scotland, and lived and worked in Birmingham, England. He was a key member of the Lunar Society a then famous Prog-Steam-Band. Many of his papers and compositions are in Birmingham Central Library.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt#Timeline -

< =text/> //

[edit]

 

chopper:

Right you are.  I had forgotten that the "mother superior" section is alternating bars of 9 and 10.

Peace.

maani wrote: Proglover: Define "ahead." The request is rhetorical.  Yes, Zappa was influenced by Edgar Varese and Karlheinz Stockhausen, just to mention two.  And he incorporated other genres into his music before they did. But you make a fundamental error here.  The Beatles had little interest in that sort of "progressiveness."  Their music progressed far more "naturally" - or "organically," if you prefer.  Sure, Zappa was using all sorts of oddball and bizarre (for rock) ideas and influences, but that doesn't mean he was "ahead" of The Beatles in any way.  It simply means he had different influences, and took his music in a different direction.  And I repeat that, with the exception of GG and KC (and, perhaps to a lesser degree, JT) the other seminal prog groups - PF, MB, VDGG, Yes, Genesis, ELP - were influenced by The Beatles and/or others, but not Zappa.  And even KC and GG admit to Beatles influence as well. And by the way, if you really believe that hogwash about Zappa never doing drugs, I have about seven dozen bridges to sell you! Peace.

WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BELIEVE THAT ZAPPA NEVER DID DRUGS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?..................OH WAIT A MINUTE...I THINK HE DID TRY SMOKING SOMETHING ONCE......AND IT MADE HIS THROAT HURT..AND HE NEVER TRIED IT AGAIN.....THE MAN FIRED PEOPLE IN HIS BAND WHEN HE FOUND OUT THEY WERE DOING DRUGS........HE OPENLY AND PUBLICALLY DENOUNCED DRUG USE......SORRY MAANI BUT YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!.........Now, ok let me catch my breath......my comments about Zappa being light years ahead of the Beatles was in reference to his experimentation, his genius in composition, the tightness of his band....he went places with his music that the Beatles could only dream of.....FIRST off, all due respect to the Beatles but from a technical standpoint, they weren't great musicians by any stretch of the imagination.....from a technical standpoint Zappa's band wiped the floor with them, from a compositional standpoint, Zappa wrote complex, sophisticated, intricate music that once again the Beatles could never do because, number one they didn't have the mind for it, and two, they did not have the technical skill to pull it off......AND ONCE AGAIN............ZAPPA DID NOT DO DRUGS.....GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!

Proglover wrote: maani wrote: Proglover: Define "ahead." The request is rhetorical.  Yes, Zappa was influenced by Edgar Varese and Karlheinz Stockhausen, just to mention two.  And he incorporated other genres into his music before they did. But you make a fundamental error here.  The Beatles had little interest in that sort of "progressiveness."  Their music progressed far more "naturally" - or "organically," if you prefer.  Sure, Zappa was using all sorts of oddball and bizarre (for rock) ideas and influences, but that doesn't mean he was "ahead" of The Beatles in any way.  It simply means he had different influences, and took his music in a different direction.  And I repeat that, with the exception of GG and KC (and, perhaps to a lesser degree, JT) the other seminal prog groups - PF, MB, VDGG, Yes, Genesis, ELP - were influenced by The Beatles and/or others, but not Zappa.  And even KC and GG admit to Beatles influence as well. And by the way, if you really believe that hogwash about Zappa never doing drugs, I have about seven dozen bridges to sell you! Peace. WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BELIEVE THAT ZAPPA NEVER DID DRUGS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?..................OH WAIT A MINUTE...I THINK HE DID TRY SMOKING SOMETHING ONCE......AND IT MADE HIS THROAT HURT..AND HE NEVER TRIED IT AGAIN.....THE MAN FIRED PEOPLE IN HIS BAND WHEN HE FOUND OUT THEY WERE DOING DRUGS........HE OPENLY AND PUBLICALLY DENOUNCED DRUG USE......SORRY MAANI BUT YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!.........Now, ok let me catch my breath......my comments about Zappa being light years ahead of the Beatles was in reference to his experimentation, his genius in composition, the tightness of his band....he went places with his music that the Beatles could only dream of.....FIRST off, all due respect to the Beatles but from a technical standpoint, they weren't great musicians by any stretch of the imagination.....from a technical standpoint Zappa's band wiped the floor with them, from a compositional standpoint, Zappa wrote complex, sophisticated, intricate music that once again the Beatles could never do because, number one they didn't have the mind for it, and two, they did not have the technical skill to pull it off......AND ONCE AGAIN............ZAPPA DID NOT DO DRUGS.....GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!

BUT

For all his skills and virtuosity, Zappa could not write songs that touched as many people as the Beatles did.

He could not write songs that went straight into folklore, and he could not bite his tongue, but he HAD to express himself ALL the time.

This is not to belittle the great man's work, but really, one cannot compare Zappa to the Beatles and come out saying that one is better than the other in any degree of certainty.

The Beatles were the greatest rock band on the planet ever, and Lennon/McCartney were an unparalleled songwriting duo - Simon and Garfunkel not too far behind.

Zappa was the greatest rock composer ever. But he didn't change the world of rock music like the Beatles did.

The two are polar opposites - why even try to compare them?

i dont enjoy beatles'

prefare 'black sabbath or led zeppelin'

[/QUOTE]

The great thing about ringo is not only that he keeps a perfect beat, but he has such a good sound and can keep up with the rest of the band while playing great beats. Just because he dosn't smash up his kit like kieth moon dosn't mean he isn't a talented musician.

[/QUOTE]

thank you.

Certif1ed wrote: Proglover wrote: maani wrote: Proglover: Define "ahead." The request is rhetorical.  Yes, Zappa was influenced by Edgar Varese and Karlheinz Stockhausen, just to mention two.  And he incorporated other genres into his music before they did. But you make a fundamental error here.  The Beatles had little interest in that sort of "progressiveness."  Their music progressed far more "naturally" - or "organically," if you prefer.  Sure, Zappa was using all sorts of oddball and bizarre (for rock) ideas and influences, but that doesn't mean he was "ahead" of The Beatles in any way.  It simply means he had different influences, and took his music in a different direction.  And I repeat that, with the exception of GG and KC (and, perhaps to a lesser degree, JT) the other seminal prog groups - PF, MB, VDGG, Yes, Genesis, ELP - were influenced by The Beatles and/or others, but not Zappa.  And even KC and GG admit to Beatles influence as well. And by the way, if you really believe that hogwash about Zappa never doing drugs, I have about seven dozen bridges to sell you! Peace. WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BELIEVE THAT ZAPPA NEVER DID DRUGS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?..................OH WAIT A MINUTE...I THINK HE DID TRY SMOKING SOMETHING ONCE......AND IT MADE HIS THROAT HURT..AND HE NEVER TRIED IT AGAIN.....THE MAN FIRED PEOPLE IN HIS BAND WHEN HE FOUND OUT THEY WERE DOING DRUGS........HE OPENLY AND PUBLICALLY DENOUNCED DRUG USE......SORRY MAANI BUT YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!.........Now, ok let me catch my breath......my comments about Zappa being light years ahead of the Beatles was in reference to his experimentation, his genius in composition, the tightness of his band....he went places with his music that the Beatles could only dream of.....FIRST off, all due respect to the Beatles but from a technical standpoint, they weren't great musicians by any stretch of the imagination.....from a technical standpoint Zappa's band wiped the floor with them, from a compositional standpoint, Zappa wrote complex, sophisticated, intricate music that once again the Beatles could never do because, number one they didn't have the mind for it, and two, they did not have the technical skill to pull it off......AND ONCE AGAIN............ZAPPA DID NOT DO DRUGS.....GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! BUT For all his skills and virtuosity, Zappa could not write songs that touched as many people as the Beatles did. He could not write songs that went straight into folklore, and he could not bite his tongue, but he HAD to express himself ALL the time. This is not to belittle the great man's work, but really, one cannot compare Zappa to the Beatles and come out saying that one is better than the other in any degree of certainty. The Beatles were the greatest rock band on the planet ever, and Lennon/McCartney were an unparalleled songwriting duo - Simon and Garfunkel not too far behind. Zappa was the greatest rock composer ever. But he didn't change the world of rock music like the Beatles did. The two are polar opposites - why even try to compare them?

I dont think that was Zappa's goal....I wouldn't say that Zappa COULDN'T write songs like that...I believe he CHOSE not to.....that wasn't what Zappa was about. His philosophy on music was COMPLETELY different......and YES of course the Beatles influenced more people than Frank Zappa.....and that's because Zappa was so "OUT THERE" and AHEAD OF EVERYONE ELSE......how the heck can you influence someone when you are lightyears ahead of EVERYONE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!........and influence must be taken with a grain of salt.....Zappa was never about influencing people because he couldn't care less!!!....I mean lets be honest some bands were influenced by KISS.....so, once again influence means nothing to me.

Secondly what's wrong with not biting your tongue????.....what's wrong with ALWAYS expressing yourself???.....I'll answer that.....NOTHING!!!....hee hee.

Thirdly the Beatles are an IMPORTANT band in the history of rock and yes they did break alot of ground and broke down barriers....BUT, the Beatles ARE NOT the greatest rock band ever on planet earth.....In my humble opinion.

frenchie wrote: i like the beatles a lot but all of my friends (and probably most of my teenage generation) do not see them as a phoenomenom or as good songwriters. The whole 62-66 period is all happy and poppy and sounds samey. it only got slightly more interesting in the latter years with more realistic and depressing stuff. I have a few of their albums and they are great, and me and my friends appreciate that at the time they were the best songwriters and had such a major influence (and still do). same with elvis, but they really cant compare to the modern stuff we listen to! overall brilliant band... but us new kids cant see why they are given so much praise. maybe they just didnt age well or something! but their influence will never die or be forgotten! the only thing is, if i or anyone else says a view like this we get sl*gged off, when it is very valid!

Regardless of time, age or era, The Beatles have put forth some of the best songwriting that ever was or has since been.  There are no artists with more classic and timeless songs.  And the beatles are also the most covered band of all time.  Decade after decade their songs continue to be covered over and over by old and new artists.  This is hardly music that was only 'good for it's time'

There's a difference between art rock and prog (though prog is part of the art rock genre). The Beatles were art rock but not prog- there.

BTW, about Ringo, I think his drumming on "Day in the Life" is amazing (not technically which I couldn't care less about, but feeling...ly)

"Sorry Guys....Zappa was lightyears ahead of the Beatles...AND HE NEVER DID DRUGS!!!!!!!!!!!"

OK, let's compare the ten achievements of The Beatles as listed in Moribunds original post with the ground-breaking achievements of Zappa.

Er...

Not that I have anything against Zappa, I just can't agree with this statement.

.......ummmm......Cert, I beg to differ. I believe that Freddie Mercury was just as much the song writer as Lennon and McCartney. I believe Freddie was a melodic genius.

.......You wanna talk about great song writers......Elton John, Billy Joel, Cat Stevens, Jim Croce.

I respect the Beatles a GREAT deal and I admire their place in rock history....but the Beatles just don't touch me the way they touch you...that's all.

Personally I can name ten bands right now that I think are BETTER than the Beatles (and I'll exclude Zappa to prove my point)....Gentle GIant, King Crimson, YES, Queen, Gong, Premiata Forneria Marconi, Mahavushnu Orchestra, Genesis, Emerson Lake and Palmer, and Colossuem II.

And when I say that Zappa was ahead of the Beatles, Im not trying to discredit the Beatles....Zappa was ahead of EVERYONE!!!

and what is achievement really??????????.........if you ask me Zappa achieved much more than the Beatles and he outlasted them too!!.....I don't place my stock in record sales, or popularity, or what Rolling Stone Magazine says...that stuff is superficial, trite, and trivial. Zappa was never about that stuff and I respect him alot because of it. Zappa was a TRUE musician. AND YES, I still maintain that ZAPPA was ahead of the beatles MUSCIALLY, and COMPOSITIONALLY.

For the record I never said that I DID NOT LIKE THE BEATLES....I do like them, and I think they wrote great songs, and I do think that their music is of HIGH QUALITY......BUT...THEY AIN'T ZAPPA!!!!!!!!!!!

oh by the way........"I realy, really admire (Zappa). He's atleast trying to do something different with the form. It's incredible how he has his band as tight as a real orchestra. I'm very impressed by the kind of discipline he can bring to rock that NOBODY ELSE CAN SEEM TO BRING TO IT"..............that my friends is a quote from JOHN LENNON.....hahaha, deal with it!!

And yes it is true that bands like YES were influenced by the Beatles, but Rick Wakeman is quoted as saying....."We in England were really interested in what some Americans were doing, like FRANK ZAPPA, he seemed to be ahead us in many ways"

I have to respond to that last post from proglover.

1) "if you ask me Zappa achieved much more than the Beatles" - okay, let's have some examples that compare with the list of Beatles achievements in the first post of this thread.

2) you prefer a number of bands to The Beatles, that's fine, but the fact is they are generally recognised as the greatest band ever. I mean, I prefer a number of football teams to Chelsea, but I can't deny that they were the best team in the country last season. The evidence is there!

3) Oh, and didn't Frank Zappa once rip off the cover of Sgt Pepper for one of his albums?

BigHairyMonster wrote: (...) The bands that don't get mentioned?  The Red Krayola, The Pretty Things, and most importantly...Touch.  This band (Touch) gets no mention in these conversations at all, even though their lone album influenced Jon Anderson, Tony Banks, and Kansas.

You need to speak with Dick Heath - he mentions Touch quite frequently, and The Pretty Things get discussed once in a while.

I'm not familiar with The Red Krayola, though - maybe a new thread on these more obscure pre-prog bands is in order?

chopper wrote: I have to respond to that last post from proglover. 1) "if you ask me Zappa achieved much more than the Beatles" - okay, let's have some examples that compare with the list of Beatles achievements in the first post of this thread. 2) you prefer a number of bands to The Beatles, that's fine, but the fact is they are generally recognised as the greatest band ever. I mean, I prefer a number of football teams to Chelsea, but I can't deny that they were the best team in the country last season. The evidence is there! 3) Oh, and didn't Frank Zappa once rip off the cover of Sgt Pepper for one of his albums?

Ok...first of, as I stated before what is achievement????????...........It doesn't matter how long your list of achievements are, sometimes the greatest achievements are those not seen to the public, or printed in Rolling Stone Magazine.....Zappa was a MUSICIAN first and foremost.....NOT A ROCK STAR, NOT A POP STAR like the Beatles but a MUSICIAN FIRST!!!.....that within itself is achievement enough considering the horrendous commercialism which has plagued music since the 70s.

His Discography is an achievement......Zappa wrote AN ENORMOUS amount of music. It's quite scary actually.

HE OUTLASTED THE BEATLES!!!.......He was writing albums in the 60s, 70s, 80, and early 90s right up to his death, while the Beatles dissolved in late 1969 early 1970.

The Man (Zappa that is)...has the respect of those not only in the Jazz world but also in the Classical world. Mainly because he wrote Classical and Jazz music. His orchestral works were performed by Pierre Boulez one of the top figures in 20th century classical music. Zappa's name appears in an encyclopdeia of classical musicians....I have yet to see McCartney or Lennon in that encyclopdeia.

Zappa's discipline rubbed onto his band, making them the TIGHTEST band in HISTORY....I've never, ever heard a band sound so good live. I listen to live Albums of Zappa, and I say to myself.."they must have been tampered with, because his live performances are too damn perfect."

When alot of prog bands gave way to the pressure of commercialism, Zappa remained true and strong and never went the route of commercialism.

And to top this one off......YES it is true, Zappa did "rip off" as you say, the cover for the Beatles Sgt Pepper ablum......But, it was in an attempt to poke fun at the Beatles, it was a parody. Zappa was not paying homage to the Beatles....no no no, he was MAKING FUN OF THEM!!

Certif1ed wrote: Proglover wrote: .......ummmm......Cert, I beg to differ. I believe that Freddie Mercury was just as much the song writer as Lennon and McCartney. I believe Freddie was a melodic genius. Very true indeed. It doesn't change my statement that there have been very few, however - so I don't think we differ at all on this .   .......You wanna talk about great song writers......Elton John, Billy Joel, Cat Stevens, Jim Croce. None of them up there with Lennon and McCartney - or Mercury (IMO). I respect the Beatles a GREAT deal and I admire their place in rock history....but the Beatles just don't touch me the way they touch you...that's all. That's fair enough, but you cannot ignore the impact they had on the world that is still resonating through music in general. Personally I can name ten bands right now that I think are BETTER than the Beatles (and I'll exclude Zappa to prove my point)....Gentle GIant, King Crimson, YES, Queen, Gong, Premiata Forneria Marconi, Mahavushnu Orchestra, Genesis, Emerson Lake and Palmer, and Colossuem II. Hmm. All prog bands. That says a lot for your taste - and also quite a bit about how you appreciate music for what it is, as opposed to how much you like it. I'd be interested in your opinion on ABBA. And when I say that Zappa was ahead of the Beatles, Im not trying to discredit the Beatles....Zappa was ahead of EVERYONE!!! Only in certain ways! In others, the Beatles were the ones who were ahead of everyone - if you think about it. and what is achievement really??????????......... What if there were no such thing as a hypothetical question if you ask me Zappa achieved much more than the Beatles and he outlasted them too!!.....I Can't argue with the outlasting bit, but on the achivements side, Beethoven produced less than Mozart - but who was the most accomplished composer?  don't place my stock in record sales, or popularity, or what Rolling Stone Magazine says...that stuff is superficial, trite, and trivial. Zappa was never about that stuff and I respect him alot because of it. Zappa was a TRUE musician. AND YES, I still maintain that ZAPPA was ahead of the beatles MUSCIALLY, and COMPOSITIONALLY. That's debatable, as you do not justify your points on Zappa, merely state them, but I've made my point. For the record I never said that I DID NOT LIKE THE BEATLES....I do like them, and I think they wrote great songs, and I do think that their music is of HIGH QUALITY......BUT...THEY AIN'T ZAPPA!!!!!!!!!!! oh by the way........"I realy, really admire (Zappa). He's atleast trying to do something different with the form. It's incredible how he has his band as tight as a real orchestra. I'm very impressed by the kind of discipline he can bring to rock that NOBODY ELSE CAN SEEM TO BRING TO IT"..............that my friends is a quote from JOHN LENNON.....hahaha, deal with it!! A great artist always pays respect to other great artists And yes it is true that bands like YES were influenced by the Beatles, but Rick Wakeman is quoted as saying....."We in England were really interested in what some Americans were doing, like FRANK ZAPPA, he seemed to be ahead us in many ways" And so do other, not quite as great artists...

Ummm.....HAHAHAHA.....I HATE ABBA.....Umm we are talking about the group that did 'Dancing Queen' right???...if so, then yeah...I don't like them. They might be excellent musicians I don't know....but  a song like 'Dancing Queen' just hurts me to no end...HAHA

Ummmm I think there would be alot of people to take issue with your Beethoven and Mozart comment. I love both Beethoven and Mozart.....but whose the most accomplished composer?????????............some WOULD say Mozart.....some WOULD say Beethoven. that's somewhat of an opinion-based answer.

Once again I would just like to state that I DO ADMIRE THE BEATLES, and I would never ever try to discredit them and not recognize the huge impact they made on rock music and popular music in general, and I will be one of the first people to openly and publically admit...YES THE BEATLES DID INFLUENCE MORE PEOPLE THAN ZAPPA......but once again, I reiterate, Zappa's music was so "weird" and "underground" and "out there", who could he really influence?....How can you influence anyone when you're not even in the same gaxlaxy as everyone else?????????

The Beatles were a GREAT band, due to their influence and importance in History and they wrote great songs along the way.......which I enjoy....but for me that's where it ends. No disrespect. Zappa, was an artist and musician of high caliber.....and with all due repect, Zappa had more musical talent in one strand of his hair than all four Beatles combined. If you are trying to convince me that Zappa's musical GENIUS was on the same level as McCartney's and Lennon's musical TALENT, then you aren't going to get very far with me. .....(I still love you guys though....try not to be too harsh in your responses....hee hee)

chopper wrote: All I can say is - if there was a vote for the top 100 songs of all time, who would have the most entries - The Beatles or Frank Zappa?

Yeah, I see your point, but how does that prove which one had more influence on progressive rock?

Proglover:

"How the heck can you influence anyone when you're light years ahead of them?"  Have you ever heard of Miles Davis?  And he's just one of many.  He was light years ahead of everyone of his time, yet he influenced more jazz musicians (and certainly trumpeters) than any musician of his, or maybe any other, time.

Zappa "outlasted" The Beatles?  Hmmm...in 100 years, let's see how many Zappa songs are still being listened to, as opposed to how many Beatles songs are.  The "greatness" of an artist - and particularly a rock band, since the genre is, even at 40+, relatively "new" - is not in how long a group lasts during its own time, or even how many songs it writes or are played on the radio during that time.  True "greateness" will be determined by who "stands the test of time" - who will be remembered 30, 50, 100, 200 years hence, and how much of their music will still be listened to, much less considered "relevant."  In this case, while Zappa may well claim a stake in history for his inventiveness and creativity, he will be little more than a footnote compared to The Beatles.

As for Zappa and drugs, let's just say that I spent a couple of years in a social circle with Moonunit Zappa, and I can assure you that what you think you know is false.

As for Zappa firing musicians for drug use, this was only true if he found them using drugs when they were rehearsing, recording or performing.  However, when they were outside Zappa's "domain," they were free to do as they wished.  Indeed, if what you are saying were true, then Zappa would never have hired (among others) Jimmy Carl Black (a heroin user) or George Duke, Aynsley Dunbar, Howard Kaylan, Ian Underwood or numerous other musicians who smoked pot regularly, and some of whom were well-known acid-users.

Before you make authoritative broad-brush statements, you ought to consider that it just might possibly be that someone else knows more than you do about these things.

Peace.

chopper wrote: All I can say is - if there was a vote for the top 100 songs of all time, who would have the most entries - The Beatles or Frank Zappa?

That means nothing in my eyes...sorry.

maani wrote: Proglover: "How the heck can you influence anyone when you're light years ahead of them?"  Have you ever heard of Miles Davis?  And he's just one of many.  He was light years ahead of everyone of his time, yet he influenced more jazz musicians (and certainly trumpeters) than any musician of his, or maybe any other, time. Zappa "outlasted" The Beatles?  Hmmm...in 100 years, let's see how many Zappa songs are still being listened to, as opposed to how many Beatles songs are.  The "greatness" of an artist - and particularly a rock band, since the genre is, even at 40+, relatively "new" - is not in how long a group lasts during its own time, or even how many songs it writes or are played on the radio during that time.  True "greateness" will be determined by who "stands the test of time" - who will be remembered 30, 50, 100, 200 years hence, and how much of their music will still be listened to, much less considered "relevant."  In this case, while Zappa may well claim a stake in history for his inventiveness and creativity, he will be little more than a footnote compared to The Beatles. As for Zappa and drugs, let's just say that I spent a couple of years in a social circle with Moonunit Zappa, and I can assure you that what you think you know is false. As for Zappa firing musicians for drug use, this was only true if he found them using drugs when they were rehearsing, recording or performing.  However, when they were outside Zappa's "domain," they were free to do as they wished.  Indeed, if what you are saying were true, then Zappa would never have hired (among others) Jimmy Carl Black (a heroin user) or George Duke, Aynsley Dunbar, Howard Kaylan, Ian Underwood or numerous other musicians who smoked pot regularly, and some of whom were well-known acid-users. Before you make authoritative broad-brush statements, you ought to consider that it just might possibly be that someone else knows more than you do about these things. Peace.

Once again I reiterate.....YOU CAN FIND ZAPPA'S NAME IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CLASSICAL MUSICIANS.......I've yet to see either McCartney or Lennon's name is such a book. If you wanna talk about outlasting..lets talk about it. I don't care what the general public thinks, I don't care what some new "hip" rock magazine has said, I don't care about the storytales and fables that have been rammed down our throats since the begiining of time, telling us that the Beatles are the greatest band in the world.....NOT IN MY WORLD BUDDY!!........You know what, I would bet, that more people know alot more Beatles songs than Mozart Symphonies, but if you are telling me that the Beatles are greater than Mozart, I will LAUGH IN YOUR FACE. HELL....I'm sure that kids in this generation know more Britney Spears songs than Beatles songs.....WOW, that's really a measure of greatest..."how many songs do I know by a particular band"......silly quite silly. Have you TALKED to kids today....most kids I talk to HATE the Beatles.....they hate anything that's not in their generation...(I do realize that is one huge generalization....but you get my drift).........You guys are talking about FAKE, SUPERFICIAL nonsense.....geee....how many Beatles songs are played on the radio compared to Zapps songs...wow guys that doesn't impress me, and I know it wouldn't impress Zappa...HELL, Zappa NEVER got his songs played on the radio even when he was alive. Zappa wasn't about all that trite trivial garbage.

Now it regards to his drug use or lack thereof.....HAVE YOU EVER READ HIS autobiography or ANY book written about Zappa????????...............This is a portion taken directly from his autobiography.....read it carefully guys

"The Drug Question comes up all the time in interviews because people refuse to believe that I DON'T use them. There seems to be a consensus in America- since so many people, in all walks of life, use drugs-that a person can't possibly be 'normal' if he doesn't use them. If I tell them I don't do drugs, they look at me like I'm crazy and question me about it. Between 1962 and 1968, on maybe ten occasions, I experienced the 'joys' of marijuana. It gave me a sore throat and made me sleepy. I couldn't understand why people liked it so much."............

Now unless you wanna call Zappa a LIAR....that's your call. And as far as moonunit is concerned oh my dear dear friend maani, wasn't Latoya Jackson who said a whole bunch of garbage in regards to her family, and wasn't it Latoya Jackson who claimed that she WROTE 'Thriller' when everyone and their mother knows damn well Rod Temperton wrote that song...so kids, and their stories.......I don't care what moonunit said......If I didnt hear it from the horses mouth I ain't buying

for f**k's sake nobody cares

Shack Man wrote: for f**k's sake nobody cares

HAHAHAHAHAHA, right you are my annoyed friend

Proglover:

Your near-maniacal fanaticism makes you hopeless with regard to understanding or accepting one jot or tittle of what is being said.  I'm glad you like Zappa.  He's great.  He broke barriers.  He was a super guitarist.  He had a unique approach to composition and arrangement.  But guess what?  He was just a human being.

Get over yourself.  You sound almost certifiable.  (Unlike Certified, who I know to be quite sensible).

Peace.

maani wrote: Proglover: Your near-maniacal fanaticism makes you hopeless with regard to understanding or accepting one jot or tittle of what is being said.  I'm glad you like Zappa.  He's great.  He broke barriers.  He was a super guitarist.  He had a unique approach to composition and arrangement.  But guess what?  He was just a human being. Get over yourself.  You sound almost certifiable.  (Unlike Certified, who I know to be quite sensible). Peace.

OH GOOD LORD.....forgive me if I don't BOW to your OPINIONS......forgive me if I don't abandon my beliefs and follow yours like a little lamb... I'm sorry I have a brain and can think for myself. Perhaps you should GET OVER YOURSELF!!

AND ON ANOTHER NOTE!!!!!!..............WHAT EXACTLY AM I NOT GETTING!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!............I have already said a millions times...I LIKE THE BEATLES!!!!!!!..............I ADMIRE THE BEATLES......I RESPECT THE BEATLES.....BUT IN MY OPINION FRANK ZAPPA IS BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.................IN MY OPINION.......so get off my back.....and secondly I NEVER attacked you personally......please DO NOT make this personal simply because I REFUSE to succomb to your way of thinking......Sorry I don't jerk off at the shrine of the Beatles....not my cup of tea buddy......Do not call me names when you dont know me....uncool man, very uncool.....if you want to discuss like a mature grown-up then do so, but don't you dare attack me personally...I'm sick and tired of the personal attacks on this site. You don't know me.....Yes i am very passionate about what I believe......Frank Zappa is a Genius and Queen is prog......in fact I dont even know why Im responding.....I could care less what you thinka bout me....infact I sh*t on your opinion of me.

NetsNJFan wrote: Proglover to deny that The Beatles are the most influential and important rock band ever is silly.  I barely like them but I recognize their extreme power over Rock Music, a power never before or after matched.

I NEVER DENIED IT!!!!!!!!!!..............I SWEAR I NEVER DENIED IT..............OH MY GOD.....YOU PEOPLE DON'T LISTEN...........I respect the Beatles and I like the Beatles..........but i'm not going to lick their balls because YOU guys say I HAVE to.

And thirdly may I just point out, that you guys just love to look at the world through a Caucasian point of view.....I mean lets face facts...the Beatles were not everything to everyone.....

To WHITE people.....the Beatles were god.......for Black people.....ummmm....not so much!!!!!!!!

I know you guys rule the world and everything, but just because the "master race" says the Beatles were the greatest band in the world, doesn't mean it's true.

In the 60s......for black people it wasn't about the Beatles....infact, who gave a sh*t about the Beatles when there was Motown. Luther Vandros (God rest his soul) once said....."what ever the Beatles meant to those screaming teenagers, that's what MoTown meant to me"

Infact the only thing to RIVAL the Beatles in the 60s was MoTown!!!!!!......

So in your world the Beatles rule supreme, but dont you dare impose that on my mind.

i am sorry, the beatles were a pop band, basic chords, add a few pound of drugs, a hippie with a sitar, nothing to write home about.

i respect them for what they did at the time, but prog, no.         good, well, if you like pop.

prog is obviously prog. beatles are obviously not.

This discussion has detriorated into a upper case rant from proglover, so I'm leaving it with an extract from Mojo Magazines' Top 100 Albums of All Time

3 - Revolver

19 - The Beatles

24 - Abbey Road

27 - Rubber Soul

51 - Sgt. Pepper

55 - We're only in it for the money

63 - With The Beatles

81 - A Hard Days Night

89 - Hot Rats

'nuff said.

chopper wrote: This discussion has detriorated into a upper case rant from proglover, so I'm leaving it with an extract from Mojo Magazines' Top 100 Albums of All Time 3 - Revolver 19 - The Beatles 24 - Abbey Road 27 - Rubber Soul 51 - Sgt. Pepper 55 - We're only in it for the money 63 - With The Beatles 81 - A Hard Days Night 89 - Hot Rats 'nuff said.

Well when I'm personally attacked what else do you want me to do.....I'm not going to bend over and just take it. So if you don't want me to rant, then don't ATTACK ME....PERIOD.....AND ONCE AGAIN......I COULD CARELESS WHAT A ROCK MAGAZINE SAYS......IT'S SUPERFICIAL GARBAGE.

Les Claypool is an average bass player with some good ideas and a nifty sound.

...can anyone say off-topic

They set the groundwork for prog by breaking out of the rock and roll boundaries of the time. I also say as much was George Martin as it was the others.

From the stuff I read, a lot of what George Martin did was just to keep Lennon and MacCartney happy. Lennon never liked his voice and always pushed for different effects. MacCartney had a habit of hearing a sound and wanting it in a song, like the piccolo trumpet in "Penny Lane". Both kept on about how they wanted to hear something different. It was Martin that had the idea to use take a steam calliope tape, cut into small lengths, mixed up and spliced back together in random order for "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite". (or was it "Strawberry Fields"?)

Don't forget that proto-prog is the new technology that evolved in the 60's covering everything from novel ideas/philosophy (such as the concept album, long tunes, tunes interconnected without intermissions, mixing of styles, addition of new instruments, sound effects), over novel techniques (new instruments, recording technology) to the final product: the prog tune.