Did the Beatles really Invent Prog? Or not?

SteveG wrote: ^I always considered When I'm Sixty Four as the Beatles anti-psychedelic song. Or, as Greg would say 'granny music'.

Atavachron wrote: ^ But it was also a weird and wonderful homage to that kind of song; both a trippy imitation and funny lambasting which was very much a part of the Psych approach (Doors, Janis, Floyd occasionally) .  I think McCartney described trying to imitate Sinatra.

Just to reiterate why I think When I'm Sixty Four is a pastiche. Not because of the dance hall music, which is accurate, but because of Macca's vocal parody. I believe that he was trying to sound like a teenage McCartney due the obvious speeding up of his recorded vocal track. He was, by his own admission, 'trying to sound younger', and the effect is corny.

Edited by SteveG - July 09 2015 at 11:11

Svetonio wrote: Friday13th wrote: Well Strawberry Fields IS strange in a good way even to modern ears now. "Strawberry fields...nothing is real." The notes hit on those words are chromatic and dissonant, and not to mention the outro. That doesn't mean no one had done that sort of thing before or that you could say "HERE! THE BIRTH OF PROG!" Psychedelic/Baroque pop had many comparable examples since '66. Good Vibrations was released earlier and is equally radical for its time, so to arbitrarily put a stake on Strawberry Fields doesn't work for me. Strawberry Fields Forever is 'haunting' (strange-in-a-good-way, but not for everybody at that time) nothing less than e.g. Entangled by Genesis in 70s since we know how big difference in the equipment, technology of recording etc. actually is between 60s and middle of 70s, even in the case when The Beatles use that Indian harp (i.e. swarmandal, Hindustani Classical music instrument) to underline that haunting atmosphere.   Regarding Psychedelic and Baroque pop the tags, both tags are not quite suitable for Strawberry Fields Forever. Tomorow Never Knows is the great psych, and we could even describe that one as 'progressive psychedelia' aswell, but it's a 'psychedelic experience', not that haunting, pastoral and moony atmosphere of Strawbery Fields Forever. The Beatles' songs like Yesterday and (or) Eleanor Rigby, simply due to that usage of the strings, were called Baroque pop. By the other bands, as an example of Baroque pop, I'd like to mention Walk Away Renee (1966) by NYC band The Left Banke. So everybody can hear that Baroque pop have nothing to do with Strawberry Fields Forever, i.e. SFF is not something derived from Baroque pop. In lack of the term 'Symphonic rock' that will be coined some years later, Strawberry Fields Forever used to be and still to be wrongly tagged as a "Psych" and "Baroque pop", although both tags never ever work well for Strawberry Fields Forever  because Strawberry Fields Forever  already was something else, a new subgenre; The Beatles were move ahead.  And that's it. Just born English Symphonic rock.

Nope, the Beatles weren't a prog band. Saying they invented prog is like saying the Beatles' mothers made the Beatle's music because they gave birth to the Beatles. People make that argument because "they came before" anything else, but really anything that comes prior to something is technically a precursor of said something.

Just beause they laid ground for things to come, doesn't mean they did the things to come. They didn't write King Crimson's first album (which I think really is the first prog album. You could listen to that back to back with a prog album from mid-70s and there's no difference. However most albums up to 1970 have that "proto-prog" sound.), King Crimson did.

To me, the argument that the Beatles should be credited for prog is just as valid (I should say Invalid, actually) as saying the people who gave King Crimson their instruments should be credited for it as well. One thing wouldn't have happened without the other. But no, the Beatles weren't a prog band. Pivotal in prog/rock history? Sure. Prog? Nah. Related at best.

Also, to me Deep Purple sounds more prog than the Beatles. But I don't think either of them were prog.

Cooee! My Sweet Grumpies,

The Beatles are indeed prog, We tend to forget that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released in 1967 plus the white album the Beatles, was released in 1968! Before any other prog band. They were prog, I believe this to be true, they did not only path the way for others into progressive music, they actually were progressive.

The Beatles have odder key note times compared to most bands that call themselves prog rock.

For instance, Taxman in the beginning That song counts at a different tempo than the song actually starts in? Isn’t this prog to you?

Happiness is a Warm Gun- they use the polyrhythm if that not prog at the time? Strawberry Fields Forever- Mellotron obvious a prog instrument

To me The Whole second side of Abbey Road is progressive rock

Happiness Is a Warm Gun" for example include a Balkan rhythm and a polyrhythm in different sections.

All below here, is what I read, not written by me but I wish I did thus quote:

"A Day in the Life", "I am the Walrus", "Within You, Without You", Strawberry Fields"... not really blues tunes, They were able to draw from diverse sources, like Classical Indian "Within You" uses a raga-like form that contains both major and minor thirds in different octaves, kind of a combination of mixolydian and Dorian modalities. Lennon used forms similar to Tibetan chants. McCartney and Lennon were both versed in the same types of cadencies cycles that had evolved from Dixieland and Tin Pan Alley, the pop music of the previous era (and also a primary underpinning for jazz).

"Tomorrow Never Knows" is a very early Art-Rock song that was recorded even before the Velvet Underground. The song is influenced by Avant music and its weird sounds are produced by tape loops/samples with looped effects. The song uses an upfront drum 'n' bass sound with the looped effects not unlike many forms of Modern Music.

"Love You To" is a true use of Classical Indian Music in instrumentation, style and rhythm. There is nothing like it in rock music before this. Songs like "Eight Miles High", "Norwegian Wood and "See My Friends" are nothing like this.

 Big hugs to you all! xxx mhwoaahhxxxxx

NutterAlert wrote: ^   The Beatles were more prog than Genesis

This is prog:

Kati wrote: Cooee! My Sweet Grumpies, The Beatles are indeed prog, We tend to forget that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released in 1967 plus the white album the Beatles, was released in 1968! Before any other prog band. They were prog, I believe this to be true, they did not only path the way for others into progressive music, they actually were progressive. The Beatles have odder key note times compared to most bands that call themselves prog rock. For instance, Taxman in the beginning That song counts at a different tempo than the song actually starts in? Isn’t this prog to you? Happiness is a Warm Gun- they use the polyrhythm if that not prog at the time? Strawberry Fields Forever- Mellotron obvious a prog instrument To me The Whole second side of Abbey Road is progressive rock Happiness Is a Warm Gun" for example include a Balkan rhythm and a polyrhythm in different sections. All below here, is what I read, not written by me but I wish I did thus quote: "A Day in the Life", "I am the Walrus", "Within You, Without You", Strawberry Fields"... not really blues tunes, They were able to draw from diverse sources, like Classical Indian "Within You" uses a raga-like form that contains both major and minor thirds in different octaves, kind of a combination of mixolydian and Dorian modalities. Lennon used forms similar to Tibetan chants. McCartney and Lennon were both versed in the same types of cadencies cycles that had evolved from Dixieland and Tin Pan Alley, the pop music of the previous era (and also a primary underpinning for jazz). "Tomorrow Never Knows" is a very early Art-Rock song that was recorded even before the Velvet Underground. The song is influenced by Avant music and its weird sounds are produced by tape loops/samples with looped effects. The song uses an upfront drum 'n' bass sound with the looped effects not unlike many forms of Modern Music. "Love You To" is a true use of Classical Indian Music in instrumentation, style and rhythm. There is nothing like it in rock music before this. Songs like "Eight Miles High", "Norwegian Wood and "See My Friends" are nothing like this.  Big hugs to you all! xxx mhwoaahhxxxxx

Good Lord!!
Sonia has to be made boss of progarchives. Anyone disagree?
We are not worthy!

odinalcatraz wrote: Kati wrote: Cooee! My Sweet Grumpies, The Beatles are indeed prog, We tend to forget that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released in 1967 plus the white album the Beatles, was released in 1968! Before any other prog band. They were prog, I believe this to be true, they did not only path the way for others into progressive music, they actually were progressive. The Beatles have odder key note times compared to most bands that call themselves prog rock. For instance, Taxman in the beginning That song counts at a different tempo than the song actually starts in? Isn’t this prog to you? Happiness is a Warm Gun- they use the polyrhythm if that not prog at the time? Strawberry Fields Forever- Mellotron obvious a prog instrument To me The Whole second side of Abbey Road is progressive rock Happiness Is a Warm Gun" for example include a Balkan rhythm and a polyrhythm in different sections. All below here, is what I read, not written by me but I wish I did thus quote: "A Day in the Life", "I am the Walrus", "Within You, Without You", Strawberry Fields"... not really blues tunes, They were able to draw from diverse sources, like Classical Indian "Within You" uses a raga-like form that contains both major and minor thirds in different octaves, kind of a combination of mixolydian and Dorian modalities. Lennon used forms similar to Tibetan chants. McCartney and Lennon were both versed in the same types of cadencies cycles that had evolved from Dixieland and Tin Pan Alley, the pop music of the previous era (and also a primary underpinning for jazz). "Tomorrow Never Knows" is a very early Art-Rock song that was recorded even before the Velvet Underground. The song is influenced by Avant music and its weird sounds are produced by tape loops/samples with looped effects. The song uses an upfront drum 'n' bass sound with the looped effects not unlike many forms of Modern Music. "Love You To" is a true use of Classical Indian Music in instrumentation, style and rhythm. There is nothing like it in rock music before this. Songs like "Eight Miles High", "Norwegian Wood and "See My Friends" are nothing like this.  Big hugs to you all! xxx mhwoaahhxxxxx Good Lord!! Sonia has to be made boss of progarchives. Anyone disagree? We are not worthy!

samus88 wrote: Nope, the Beatles weren't a prog band. Saying they invented prog is like saying the Beatles' mothers made the Beatle's music because they gave birth to the Beatles. People make that argument because "they came before" anything else, but really anything that comes prior to something is technically a precursor of said something. Just beause they laid ground for things to come, doesn't mean they did the things to come. They didn't write King Crimson's first album (which I think really is the first prog album. You could listen to that back to back with a prog album from mid-70s and there's no difference. However most albums up to 1970 have that "proto-prog" sound.), King Crimson did. To me, the argument that the Beatles should be credited for prog is just as valid (I should say Invalid, actually) as saying the people who gave King Crimson their instruments should be credited for it as well. One thing wouldn't have happened without the other. But no, the Beatles weren't a prog band. Pivotal in prog/rock history? Sure. Prog? Nah. Related at best. Also, to me Deep Purple sounds more prog than the Beatles. But I don't think either of them were prog.

Kati wrote: "To me The Whole second side of Abbey Road is progressive rock"

Edited by SteveG - July 10 2015 at 08:42