Beatles
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5792
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 17:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Beatles
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Beatles
Date Posted: May 02 2005 at 23:15
|
Beatles Voting time chaps, chapesses & other creatures Vote YA or NAY to the Beatles being respectfully placed in the Prog archives as a progressive act. From say 'Revolver' to 'Let it be' You taking note max/maani?
|
Replies:
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: May 02 2005 at 23:17
NO IT'S POP MUSIC!!
|
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: May 02 2005 at 23:20
What do you mean by Other Creatures? I don't think that they are 100% prog, they are very progressive in that they made the industry what it is today, but they aren't progressive rock per se. Maybe like 63% prog. I would like to see them here, maybe not as a progressive group, maybe in a category called "Those Who Inspired Progressive Rock" or maybe "The Creators". ------------- 
|
Karnevil9 wrote:
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: May 02 2005 at 23:27
I'd maybe go for that.....but i still don't think they are progressive rock. But we have a not of non prog bands here. Like Dream Theater |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 02 2005 at 23:39
|
Ok..You look on the back of the Vinyl issue of Pink Floyds 'Ummagumma' album...Under the catalogue number you will see printed ''Filed under Popular music'' Pop music is short for popular music.. Pink floyd pop too then
|
Posted By: Bryan
Date Posted: May 02 2005 at 23:40
| Haven't we done this before about 10 million times? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 02 2005 at 23:41
Obviously not prog in the same vein as ELP or Yes etc...but prog for def
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 02 2005 at 23:41
| I would say yes, but it is one thing to say they influenced prog rock (hell, the term didn't really exist 'til '68 or '69) and it's another to label them as a prog band (given the definition we have here). But if you want to take the term progressive literally, they progressed more than anybody else. It's really hit or miss. A real coin toss. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 02 2005 at 23:42
|
Yes we have & im getting tired of it too Lets hope this pole seales the coffin
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 00:15
Well, I'm new here and I missed out in the earlier debates on this. Glad you put this poll in Karny. This should wrap it up. I about busted a nut laughing when I saw your post on the influence poll starting off with "Here we go again!" Making me feel like I'm reopening old wounds, huh? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 01:21
Well welcome to the forum anyway...Youll bust more than a nut on here i'll tell you..It's bloody hard work sometimes.
|
Posted By: Chris_McGowan
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 03:07
|
First of all, to marktheshark, I want to let you know that the phrase
"bust a nut" usually means the same as "getting your rocks off", or, in
plainest terms, to ejaculate. The phrase you were searching for
was, I'm guessing, "busted a gut". Anyway, regarding the issue of the Beatles' inclusion within the canon of progressive rock bands... Progressive rock has come to be an umbrella term for various genres of music: art rock, symphonic, zeuhl, krautrock, etc. Unfortunately, most people have come to identify the term "progressive rock" exclusively with symphonic prog. This leads these people to identify bands like Yes and Emerson, Lake & Palmer as progressive rock, while maligning other truly progressive acts such as the Beatles, or say, Dream Theater, which was also mentioned in this thread. No one is arguing that the early Beatles era, producing songs such as "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "Eight Days a Week", should be recognized as progressive. Brilliant music in its own right, yes; not progressive, however. It is an unassailable fact, however, that the Beatles' later work, with its unparalleled exploration of musical frontiers is by anyone's definition, art rock or experimental. thus earning the Beatles a place among other art rock bands on ProgArchives. Of course, many progressive rock fans are loath to acknowledge the Beatles as a progressive act since they are ubiquitous across so many genres of music. Well, there's a reason that the Beatles are so revered among most of the musical community; they explored and broke down musical boundaries in so many ways that their influence over any given genre of music is incalculable. Given the Beatles' experimentalism and their willingness to stray from the beaten path in a musical sense, it is not only reasonable to grant them a place among bands such as Gentle Giant and Pink Floyd...it is petty and asinine *not* to include them. And to all opposed: sounds like sour grapes to me. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 04:11
|
Ok sour grape #1 Beatles.....no ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: PROGMAN
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 04:24
|
Yes Karny I reckon they are not 100%Prog but should be added for obvious reasons. Sgt. Pepper anyone? ------------- CYMRU AM BYTH 
|
Posted By: ProgRockerJDS
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 04:38
|
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 04:39
|
Respectfully spoken about in a special page, yes! Reviewing all their albums maybe not! But from Revolver onwards, I would recommend (if need be ) that every proghead listens to those album! ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: firth_of_Fifth
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 05:38
|
I've argued about this before. The Beatles should be added. Without a doubt. Even all their albums. If bands today could write an album nearly half as good as a hard days night...i'll eat my hat! But I must also add, The zombies should also be added...In 1964 they released She's not there' The chord changes and musicianship is ahead of it's time by a few years. The music has a very classical feel. Then you hear an album like Odessy and Oracle. Simply one of thee best albums of all time. What say anyone else? I mean If Argent can make the archives. Why can't The Zombies?? ------------- http://www.myspace.com/chrisblackwell" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/chrisblackwell |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 05:52
|
Sgt Pepper anyone?????????????? what? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 10:23
Oops on the nut phrase. You're right it was gut I mean't to use. Too many beers last night. As for everything else you said, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Progressive rock has been sub-divided into different genres. I can remember back in the late 70s when "new-wave" started hitting, people who didn't like that label were often referring it as progressive rock. I never really agreed with that, in fact I thought it was laughable (bust a GUT!). I couldn't see Talking Heads, Souxie and the Banshees etc as prog. Although there was some sort of meshing between the two such as Robert Fripp collaborating with Deborah Harry. |
Posted By: yarstruly
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 11:34
|
Definitely an influence & inspiration! Prog to me from Relayer (or even half of Rubber Soul) onward.... ------------- Facebook hashtags: #100greatestprogrockchallenge #scottssongbysong #scottsspotlight |
Posted By: Jaja Brasil
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 12:07
|
Posted By: Gloryscene
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 12:24
|
My view is the Beatles were heavily influential to many bands and still are today and i guess any innovative, forward thinking music is progressive in it's own way. BUT i just can't get my head around grouping them within the same vein as Yes, Genesis, ELP, Camel, Rush etc. But then there are so many different types of bands recognised on this site where do you start to draw the line and should one been drawn in the first place??!? ------------- "The Beautiful Ally Of Your Own Gravediggers" www.gloryscene.co.uk |
Posted By: con safo
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 12:43
|
They definitely deserve their place in the archives. They were one of the original 'pioneers' of prog, and although they may not be playing mellotrons or moogs, they have alot of aspects of the genre in their music. Without them i dont think prog could have gotten as big as its been, or even exist ! Their early albums are quite boring, but anything after Rubber Soul is nirvana. YESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Friamannen
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 12:59
Agree totally with you. Especially the part about people only synonymizing "progressive rock" with "symphonic rock". |
Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 13:14
| no. |
Posted By: philippe
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 13:38
Are you crazy?? IF THE BEATLES ARE PROG, I'M THE QUEEN OF KEKELAND!! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 13:47
|
Can o' worms.... No, unless/until the Archives formally expands its focus to include such "influenced prog, prog-like, liked by prog fans and/or small "p" progressive," etc artists. ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: walrus
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 13:59
|
Please welcome.. the Queen of Kekeland...... In my point of view, the Beatles still today, are the one of the most progressives groups in world music. even more than almost all the bands in the archives...But they didnt made prog music. If the Beatles deserve been in the archives is a personal subject.. ------------- you and whose army? |
Posted By: yarstruly
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 14:37
Actually they did use mellotrons (Strawberry Fields Forever) & Moogs (Various Abbey Road Tunes)...they were among the 1st to use either... ------------- Facebook hashtags: #100greatestprogrockchallenge #scottssongbysong #scottsspotlight |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 14:46
|
...and among the first to mix indian, classical and experimental influences with rock.
That makes a lot! |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 14:59
First group to use a moog synthesizer? Grab your socks! It's Hey, Hey Were The Monkees! 1967 on their Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn and Jones Ltd album. How's that? |
Posted By: yarstruly
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 15:05
I said among the first  ------------- Facebook hashtags: #100greatestprogrockchallenge #scottssongbysong #scottsspotlight |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 15:18
|
A definite no as far as I am concerned. I have the greatest respect for their mausic and their achievements. I love their album sand singles a lot. There is no doubt they were a major influence on many prog and non-prog bands alike. They were never a prog band though. The Beatles are already very well catered for on the web, there is no need or benefit in adding them here, it would simply distort the site. The Beatles were undoubtedly a major band, they were not though a major prog band. AsPeter says, it's a can of worms. |
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 17:34
|
They were 100% progressive, before the word was even invented. They were a hard rocking band since their Hamburg days Ergo: they were progrock. And don't you dare disagree with me ... |
Posted By: The Prognaut
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 17:35
|
I wanted to vote "NO", but the "Piss off Karney" option was more than tempting! BTW, The Beatles just don't belong to the archives, sorry.
------------- break the circle reset my head wake the sleepwalker and i'll wake the dead |
Posted By: Yanns
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 17:42
| Yeah, they should be here. True, only Revolver on was "prog" (or at least the beginnings of it.) But every album should be included as well. But they should not be panned by prog lovers. |
Posted By: Yams
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 17:46
| No. Stop stretching the meaning of Progressive Rock. |
Posted By: Anthemof2112
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 20:31
|
As much as I love the Beatles, I just don;t think they had enough elements to be considered "prog." Is being strange like in "Blue Jay Way" enough to be considered prog? I respectivley have to say no. ------------- Keep on Rocking in the free world. |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 21:15
|
All: Yes, we've had this discussion before. Here is the quick answer. According to Max (who is the final arbiter here), in order to qualify for the site, a band need only have one album that is prog. However, that entire album must be prog, as ultimately defined by Max and Rony. In this regard, even Sgt. Pepper would not qualify, since although some (maybe even most) of it is prog - or at very least "proto-prog" - some of it is not. Personally, I do not consider most of it prog, or necessarily even proto-prog (which does not detract whatsoever from its greatness or influence). From my own personal perspective, although The Beatles were certainly experimental, and brought quite a few new ideas and sounds to rock, even their most "prog" stuff is ultimately "proto-prog" - though unquestionably highly influential. We can agree to disagree here, but I would include the following songs as at very least "proto-prog" - and my list goes back even further than anything mentioned thus far (note that I am using the American album chronology here): Rubber Soul Yesterday & Today Revolver Sgt. Pepper Magical Mystery Tour The Beatles Yellow Submarine Abbey Road The Beatles were unquestionably, unarguably the most influential group of all time (and, with the exception of Frank Zappa, the most experimental until prog began in earnest). However, they are not "prog" themselves. Indeed, they probably belong in a pantheon unto themselves. Let's not burden them with having "founded" any particular genre. Peace. |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 21:38
I would probably put Rain on that list too. Mainly for the edgy guitar chord progressions and Paul and Ringo's stop and go unison at the end. |
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 22:15
|
I am glad to see this poll has evened out. The Beatles must be kept out of the archives! Then we can move on, and get rid of Dream Theater. I'd even trade the Beatles for Dream Theater in the archives. |
Posted By: alan_pfeifer
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 22:19
|
I feel like a broken record: Various Artists. |
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: May 03 2005 at 23:38
not a horrible idea |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 04 2005 at 02:12
|
IT HAS'NT EVENED OUT AT ALL SOME TWATS BANGED THE NEGATIVE VOTES UP.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 04 2005 at 02:17
Ah well get mailto:m@x - m@x & Rony to get real & include them
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: May 04 2005 at 02:19
| NO.It would be misleading to include The Beatles in here.But yes they did have an influence on a lot of prog bands thats for sure. |
Posted By: lunaticviolist
Date Posted: May 04 2005 at 02:39
|
What the hell! They're not prog, but put 'em in the archives just so we can end this discussion and move on! ------------- My recent purchases: 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 04 2005 at 02:46
Yeh put em in. If you want me to pick i can easily go through the archives & exclude some band that are not prog as much as people make out the Beatles arn't
|
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: May 04 2005 at 16:11
good point karny |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 04 2005 at 16:24
I'm afraid he's true, for one time. |