we were discussing at work whether or not the Beatles would have started to make "prog" albums in the early 70's like many contemporaries did. I for one see it going either way. Let It Be was throwback, but the masterpieces like Sgt Peppers and MMT led the way for prog. The sum of what those for did on solo albums suggests that they wouldnt have, but with studio wizardry and the way those 4 made music, I think we missed out on maybe an even better prog masterpeice than DSOTM. I dunno, do you guys think they'd have gone there?

 

now playing - family- best of..

 

 And of course the mothers of us all would have changed the world (and many diapers in the process) no matter what.

 

But judging by the later solo efforts of all of the former Beatles, I would say not. (Of course, that depends upon your definition of "prog.")

 

 

Look at sixties Pink Floyd. Or Yes, for that matter. Both, in the late 60s, were playing psychedelic music. By the dawn of the seventies, both had morphed into prog. 

The Beatles kind of already were prog. If Sgt Pepper, or The White Album isn't progressive, then what the heck is? 

If you look at another of their contemporaries, The Who, we have a band which went from Mod rockers, to psychedelia, to rock operas, to disco-ish (the Who are You? era), in the space of a decade. 

So its hard to predict where the Beatles may have gone. One of the most rewarding aspects of following a band's career, is to see how they have changed over the years (unless its someone like AC/DC, who release the same record every time!). Be careful what you wish for, though. It's better the Beatles ending when they did, rather than possibly turning into AOR tryhards had they survived into the 80s!

 

I seem to remember John saying it as well.  It's been a while but did both John and Paul record a song on their solo stuff against the other?  Wish I could remember which songs they were.

 

Either way, for the Beatles to have stayed together, they would have had to get along which would have made them more cooperative at least.  Considering the different style each member went after the break up, they would have had to be prog just to stay in key with each other.

"Teddy Boy," for one, is a jab at Lennon.

I'm not sure that is right ... all you have to do is catch the "Let It Be" film, and then listen to Abbey Road, and you know that there is a lot more here than meets the eye, and while they were no longer seeing eye to eye with each other, in the end, they did have a really good understanding and desire to do things with music ... that otherwise might not have been done.

 

However, I do believe, more now than ever, that it was the person of George Martin that helped make their music "bigger" than it really was, specially when all 4 of them on their own ... were not really that good by comparison. Some nice things ... so what?

 

I would think that people like John might have wanted to be around Europe a little more, but he was not musically unawares of what was going on around him and was not exactly insulated in his own world, which is ... what got him in the end ... his desire to be free, even though he was a Beatle! And he had already said in many interviews that he could not be just a person and enjoy life like everyone else.

 

I thought John had the best potential for doing some new and nice things ... however, again, I think he was trapped amidst a lot of people that were not trustworthy and were milking him for his fame and money ... instead of challenging him intelectually and musically. In many ways, Yoko was really good for this, even if considered somewhat naively so, but we have to start somewhere and knowing who you are and what you like and want to do, is one of the first signs for it all. Sadly, he didn't survive it all ...

 

Beyond that, The Beatles were nice and extremely progressive from Sgt Peppers on, although radio did not like it, but when Sgt Peppers hit it big in NY and London, small town and the rest of the world had no choice ... sort of like they had a revolution forced down their throats and a lot of people didn't care for it, or like it! ... and it became the "generation gap" at the time! So, is that progressive? ... depends on where you are mate!

 

You people are funny as someone like Leonard Bernstein compared their songs to Schubert. The Beatles were pop, they were experimental, they wrote kiddie songs, drug songs and country songs. The Beatles were a band who were not restriced to rock music and hell yeah they were progressive at times.

 

King Crimson's Adrian Belew:
http://crawdaddy.wolfgangsvault.com/...ian-Belew.html - http://crawdaddy.wolfgangsvault.com/...ian-Belew.html

Quote:
Crawdaddy!: Your early influences were the Beatles?
Belew: Oh yeah, absolutely, as a drummer and a singer and a songwriter, and then as a guitarist as well. They were, for me, the whole library of [music] education. I studied their records so hard, from a production standpoint. You know—why did they use these saxophones and what are the harmonies they’re using here, and what is that bass part there and why is this there? It was more than just enjoying them, but of course I enjoyed them too.
Crawdaddy!: Do you have a favorite Beatles album?
Belew: Revolver remains my favorite because that’s the first one where I felt that they stepped outside the normal four-piece band and started experimenting in the studio. That album introduces a lot of things that are firsts. Things like Indian music and orchestras playing with the band and backwards guitar, a lot of things that I still really love.

Crawdaddy!: Your playing style kind of turns pop on its head.
Belew: Well, the idea [in the Bears] was not to write just another 10 or 12 pop songs. We looked at a specific area of, I guess, what would be called avant-garde pop, which the Beatles did. Our examples were songs which were a little more off the wall than the straightforward ones—the “I Am the Walrus” and “Strawberry Fields” or any number of songs that the Beatles did once they really cut loose and began to explore. They were very experimental themselves.
Crawdaddy!: Yeah, I’ve always felt that the Beatles became the first successful prog-rock band. I don’t think many mainstream Beatle fans feel that way, but some of the White Album stuff, and Magical Mystery Tour—it’s very proggy for its time, in my opinion.
Belew: Yes, there is so much in their music that is very avant-garde. Experimental songs, which first began as 20-minute jams, that a prog-rock band might do. I’m thinking of “Helter Skelter”, which I just read was originally a 27-minute jam! They edited that down to a three-and-a-half minute song!