What bothers you in Prog Music? ( Pet Peeves )

it's you who does not get it. your statements are subjunctive and as such totally meaningless. "can you imagine what music Mozart would have written had he not died at age 35"? "can you imagine how the football match between the Raiders and the Chiefs would have ended had the Raiders' fullback not fumbled that long pass from their quarterback in the last minute of the match"? "can you imagine how WW2 would have continued if the Germans had not been defeated at Stalingrad"?

questions like these are absolutely meaningless; anything can be concluded from a false premise.

and please, don't hurt my eyes by using "your" instead of "you're"

Then really you have no objective reasoning to back up your opinions. You are uninformed but wish to make blanket statements regarding something you have nothing but the most basic knowledge. To use your own analogy, it would be equally senseless for you to offer comparative opinions on different classical composers.

The Beatles paid for their brilliance by being forced to live most of the 1960s in a bubble. They were the first truly "modern" band in the sense they were mobbed, hounded, chased and had constant media scrutiny. They had to quit touring in 1966 because they literally could not hear what they were playing in concert. One would think that by 1970, they had had quite enough of being "Beatles", and wished to be recognized in their own right. By the end, Paul and John both wanted to be leaders and George was tired of only being allotted 2 tracks per album. Watching the tensions rising on the Let It Be documentary, it is simple to see the band had run its course. They put aside their differences and agreed to let George Martin produce the splendid Abbey Road, then called it quits.

Catcher10 wrote: And yes I agree that some bands should have quit long ago, ie Yes!! LOL But the members still had discipline to keep going as a band with whoever wanted to make music.  I will say the Beatles went out on top, good decision by them. If they had so much material as individual artists, it was not that good or it was against what was happening in the 70's....It did not work.

Again, your lack of information regarding the 1960s AND the 1970s is quite profound. The Beatles solo released many gems. George Harrison's All Things Must Pass is perhaps one of the best albums of the 1970s, and Concert for Bangladesh and Living in the Material World are also really good and important artifacts of the 1970s. John Lennon released the great John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band album, then Imagine, then got stoned out of his mind for about three years, retired for 5 more and then released the critically acclaimed Double Fantasy in 1980 before being murdered. Paul McCartney was quite good throughout the 1970s before going over the pop deep-end like Phil Collins -- his early solo work like on Ram and the first few Wings albums (Red Rose Speedway, Band on the Run, etc.) were highly regarded. Hell, even Ringo had a few singles ("It Don't Come Easy", "Back of Boogaloo") and good albums in him (1973's Ringo, and Goodnight Vienna).

Catcher10 wrote: Your only telling me Lennon had better chemistry with Yoko than with the other 3.....so he was done with Beatles before the 9yrs. But as a band in the mid 70's I think they would have died an ugly death, better for them and your love of them that what happened, happened....for whatever reason.