I don't agree with the NO! If we define progressive as in "in the style of progressive rock giants like Yes, Genesis, etc", well, it's quite impossible as The Beatles' Revolver was released in 1966. Also, it's not symphonic or anything like that. But there's no question that it's groundbreaking, it was extremely important for rock, and if we just go for the meaning of the word , it IS progressive.

 

Actually, it's the perfect example of pure "Proto-prog".

 

... as much as I love the pavillion-rhyming band, especially its sea-creature era, I have to agree. The Beatles' work was so groundbreaking. And influential. The other band, while superb, was on the receiving end of the influence transaction...

 

From what I've heard in rock music (there may be oscure things I haven't), I agree 100%.

 

THANK YOU!  Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I think the fact that Beatles BEGAN as a mere pop act blinds alot of people to the truth: that what they ultimately became was one of the most, if not THE most influencial rock artists of all time. Even bands like Yes and Genesis were influenced by them,, for Christ's sake.

 

But what impresses me to this day, is that there were no computers doing the manipulation.  There was no ProTools, etc.  Tomorrow is all the Beatles and George Martin sitting in a studio somewhere, playing the music, then actually creating tape loops out of real (reel) tape, splicing and dicing, adding distortion, etc.  On probably a four-track machine.  sh*t, I have a 16-track digital recorder in my little workshop here at home and I can't even make a decent recording of Love Me Do! 

 

The larger point is that without the Beatles, and their experimentation, and the resulting commercial success, I seriously doubt the record companies at the time would have risked investment in what we now view as truly progressive bands of the time (e.g., King Crimson). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prog, no.

 

The techniques used to make "TMK" (some of which are also used on "Rain", "She Said, She Said" and "I'm Only Sleeping") are blindingly progressive and way ahead of their time - but ultimately, the fab 4 did indeed make something more akin to modern dance music than Prog Rock with "TMK".

 

There is a thriving Progressive Dance set of genres, based on exactly this sort of methodology - except using the far easier to use computer/sampler based setup. The difficulty in these genres is sorting out the few really creative artists (and there are some!) from the copy and paste merchants.

 

I agree with the above sentiment that the Beatles blazed the experimental trail - because they were in the enviable position in which they could, both talent/creative wise and financially, and happened to be in exactly the right place at the right time - the music scene(s) practically demanded it of them, and their output bridged many gaps. Of course, you couldn't please every Rolling Stone fan...

 

While Revolver was the album that changed everything, and Sgt Pepper the only one that could possibly top it, Rubber Soul was the album that kicked it all off and started rock music's advancement from pure entertainment to something altogether more "serious". "Octopus' Garden" aside, of course...

 

Of the tracks on "Revolver", I'd say that "Eleanor Rigby" is probably closest to Prog Rock - I mean, a pop/rock song set only for "classical" instruments but still feels like a Beatles' song, telling a complete story that is dark and completely outside of popular culture, that pulses with alive rhythms and yet maintains the feeling of a string quartet with finely harmonised voices is just something else!

 

Oh, I don't know. I envision Deadheads dancing to it when on their mind altering drugs.

 

 

Which means Eno was paying his tribute to this song

 

If you go through nearly every band in the world, all their music has progressed  from the beginning, i thought prog rock was more than that?

 

 

I completely disagree that all music should be described as progressive in the way that prog rock is considered. However, i find that many bands who are covered with the name prog rock (or it's many guises) are far from prog, and it seems to be a way for underhand tactics from certain record companies to obtain music from the masses and make them pay outrages prices.

 

 

This is progessive for rock music in 1966 recording wise in it's recording techinque like the use of vocals through a leslie speaker. Musically it's a new type of musique concrete in how it uses tape loops that makes a swirling soundscape much like in modern music.  You add the beat of  this song then you have nothing like it before so this song is progressive certainly.

 

Strawberry Fields Forever could be the first song that the Beatles did that could be considered prog-rock. Both songs were different and progressive in different genres in my honest opinion.

 

They played skiffle as The Quarrymen followed by rock'n'roll, R&B and then pop. They possibly introduced rock with Revolver.

 

To be more precise, I see "A Hard Day's Night" as their (the?) first true pop album but also as the album that launched proto-prog (obviously in contrast with Certif1ed's opinion, see above). Most notably it  introduced Harrison's 12-string, later used in excess by many prog acts. AHDN cracked open the US market thus mading a huge impact on the development of music, soon to turn into more proggier stuff. AHDN also departed from music with the typical breaks or semi-breaks.

 

"Tomorrow Never Knows" is progressive as it changed the way musicians would approach and write music. It brought more freedom into the process of writing music. One aspect of proto-prog which is often overlooked is that it also has to do with how the psychology surrounding the music changed - Tomorrow Never Knows had that effect on music and it "exploded" into new genres, including prog.

 

If you've ever heard Setting Sun by the Chemical Brothers you'll know how close Tomorrow Never Knows is to dance music.

 

A Hard Days Night  was a important album for The Byrds and folk rock in America.  Folk was creeping into their work and it was more focused on Beatles For Sale , I' m A Loser  and What  You're Doing.  Also A  Hard Days Night  had no covers.

 

I'd agree with that.

 

Delia Derbyshire's electronic realisation of Ron Grainer's composition is truly mind-blowing, given when it was made - you're right, it was 1963.

 

The album "An Electric Storm" that she worked on with David Vorhaus in the group "White Noise" is decades ahead of it's time - the opening track is the basis of bands like Portishead and other Trip-Hop acts, and the rest almost defies description.

 

Delia was one of the first proggers

 

You forgot some major points about Tomorrow Never Knows is more of the blueprint for more of the modern dance forms like Acid House or Psychedelic Techno. The repetitive drumming, hypnotic and droning bassline and the swirling soundscapes created by tape loops or samples.  Plus listen to that drum sound. Of course there was experimental music outside of rock in 1963 doing great things but we are talking about progressive rock not progressive music outside the rock frame.

(From previous page)

 

Certif1ed wrote: ....ultimately, the fab 4 did indeed make something more akin to modern dance music than Prog Rock with "TMK".   There is a thriving Progressive Dance set of genres, based on exactly this sort of methodology - except using the far easier to use computer/sampler based setup. The difficulty in these genres is sorting out the few really creative artists (and there are some!) from the copy and paste merchants.

 

 

Sorry,  Certified I have to say I do respect your opinion and knowledge. I am in a prog-band when I first heard this song on the radio I said what is this and who is the band. Then the woman on the radio said it was the Beatles let's say I was suprised.

 

 

Hook line and sinker, you poor progholes.

 

Jesus -- some of you wrote veritable essays on this obviously bogus, supremely silly subject!

 

 

Hi Cert! Too much time on your hands, & no one to talk to? You could have talked to me....

 

What the heck - it's an interesting topic, whether purposefully or not.

 

 

I thought it was a proghole wind-up as soon as I read it -- that's why I checked into the poster.

 

 

Carry on -- here's a new, meaty topic to wax scholarly upon: do you think "Twinkle Twinkle" is prog? I mean, it's got Jon Anderson-like lyrics, a science fiction / nature of the universe theme....

The most important music of the 20th Century. The records which have shaped the music we hear today, from trance to trip hop, from big beat to Basement Jaxx. Everything starts with these...

1) The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" (EMI 1966)
(Revolver L.P.)

Every idea ever used in dance music exists in this song. The first track recorded for the epochal Revolver L.P., Tomorrow Never Knows (the title lifted from the Tibetan Book of the Dead) was an acid-soaked masterpiece of prime psychedelia. Distorted guitars, Lennon's treated vocals, endless overdubs and the backwards drum loops all prefigure in some way the idea of sampling technology, while the group's interest in transcendental meditation - letting yourself be transported, disorientated, tripped out lies at the heart of everyone's club experiences. Recorded amazingly, only three years after the saccharine pop of She Loves You, this is untouchable genius.

The Chemical Brothers, The Beta Band

One minor point I don't hear any backward drum loops in this song. Strawberry Fields Forever has it.  Though I understand what there saying I am not in total agreement with their veiw of the song.

 

 I can't agree more with that.

Phil Collins cover of this song is quite good as well on his first solo album.

 

Well, there is a rumour that Mozart wrote "Twinkle Twinkle" aged 5...

 

However, the fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia states that the melody is a French tune, published in 1761 (co-incidentally, the same year in which Wolfie celebrated his 5th birthday...).  The only certain Mozart connection is that he wrote a set of variations on the tune several years later. The lyrics were penned by Ann and Jane Taylor, and published in 1806 http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2113.html - http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2113.html . I must admit, the quality of the lyrical content does seem around the same level as Mr Andersons...

 

As for Modern Dance Music, I think that Mr Garten would be able to illuminate the proggy tendencies of *some* of it. I'd recommend the album "Peel Sessions" by the Orb as a starter.

2. In my day the Beatles were said to be the great absorbers and spottersof musical trends, but admittedly they could seemingly without effort come up with beatlesque forms of others' music. This is true with psychedelia, for example Great Society's great psychedelic anthem White Rabbit was written and being played publically in 1965. A year for popular music was a bloody long time for change to happen.

3. If you think Phil Collins's version of TNK is 'quite good', check out Phil Manzanera's 801, Wayne Krantz, and/or Dave Fuiczynski's versions.

 

I disagree with point 1 and 2 entirely.  Rock and Roll on a whole started by absorbing existing styles like country and blues into something new which became Rock and Roll.  Rubber Soul in 1965 already shows traces of psychedelic rock  with the sitar drones and dreamy vocals of  "Norwegian Wood".  "Nowhere Man" is basically psychedelic pop and  "The Word" lyrically and it's extended organ drones is proto-psychedelic rock. 

 

"Tomorrow Never Knows" uses Indian Music and avant/ musique concrete that certainly invents something new in rock music and pop music in general.  The first track recorded for the epochal Revolver L.P., Tomorrow Never Knows (the title lifted from the Tibetan Book of the Dead) was an acid-soaked masterpiece of prime psychedelia. Distorted guitars, Lennon's treated vocals, endless overdubs and the backwards drum loops all prefigure in some way the idea of sampling technology, while the group's interest in transcendental meditation - letting yourself be transported, disorientated, tripped out lies at the heart of everyone's club experiences. Recorded amazingly, only three years after the saccharine pop of She Loves You, this is untouchable genius.

 

 

 

Pete

 

I increasingly think we/I have a problem with the semantically challeged.