Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
What bothers you in Prog Music? ( Pet Peeves ) |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 5678> |
| Author | ||||
Cag71 
Forum Newbie 
Joined: June 03 2018 Location: Planet Earth Status: Offline Points: 32 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: June 05 2018 at 09:41 |
|||
|
Weak vocals. Cheesy lyrics - in fact, cheesiness full stop. Drum machines. Or when an artist goes commercial, and crosses over into more mainstream genres.
|
||||
 |
||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member 
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17511 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 05 2018 at 10:25 |
|||
Your post made me laugh  .......Thanks for that!Feb. 24, 1964 Visually they are a nightmare, tight, dandified Edwardian-Beatnik suits and great pudding bowls of hair. Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody. Their lyrics (punctuated by nutty shouts of "yeah, yeah, yeah") are a catastrophe, a preposterous farrago of Valentine-card romantic sentiments…. The big question in the music business at the moment is, will the Beatles last? The odds are that, in the words of another era, they're too hot not to cool down, and a cooled-down Beatle is hard to picture. It is also hard to imagine any other field in which they could apply their talents, and so the odds are that they will fade away, as most adults confidently predict. But the odds in show business have a way of being broken, and the Beatles have more showmanship than any group in years; they might just think up a new field for themselves. After all, they have done it already. - Feb. 10, 1964 The Beatles' vocal quality can be described as hoarsely incoherent, with the minimal enunciation necessary to communicate the schematic texts. Two theories were offered in at least one household to explain the Beatles' popularity. The specialist said: "We haven't had an idol in a few years. The Beatles are different, and we have to get rid of our excess energy somehow." The other theory is that the longer parents object with such high dudgeon, the longer children will squeal so hysterically. Feb. 11, 1964 With their bizarre shrubbery, the Beatles are obviously a press agent's dream combo. Not even their mothers would claim that they sing well. But the hirsute thickets they affect make them rememberable, and they project a certain kittenish charm which drives the immature, shall we say, ape. What bothers you in Prog Music? ( Pet Peeves ).....Defending bands that are not prog, on a Prog Rock website!
 |
||||
  
|
||||
|
||||
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20523 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 05 2018 at 11:18 |
|||
|
^
 The Beatles are proto prog Jose! Which I suppose means that they're pre prog. Or almost prog or sorta prog...ah never mind, you win.
Edited by SteveG - June 05 2018 at 11:25 |
||||
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Jeffro
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 2064 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 05 2018 at 11:29 |
|||
|
I can't imagine not being able to find something in the entire Beatles catalog to like. There is so much there to discover. If someone doesn't want to worship at the altar of the Beatles, by all means don't but to dismiss the entire band? Don't get it.
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: February 01 2011 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 12758 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 05 2018 at 18:10 |
|||
I guess the words perspective and context are alien to you. The critics you mentioned didn't understand rock music, and evidently you belong with Theodore Strongin from the NY Times, who was born in 1918 and probably adored opera. I also bet he complained about them crazy hopped-up jazz cats smoking that reefer and playing bop in the '50s. How embarrassing for you to even post this inanity, particularly when some constipated old fart from the LA Times complained more about the Beatles' hair than their music. Plain dumb. As far as the Beatles and prog, why don't you ask Robert Fripp what influence they had in him creating prog in King Crimson -- do you think In the Court of the Crimson King just came to him out of thin air? Roger Waters pulled his car off the road to listen to Sgt. Peppers in its entirety when it was first played on the radio in 1967, and David Gilmour claimed there would be no Pink Floyd without the Beatles. Steve Hackett and Peter Gabriel both list the Beatles as direct influences (and Gabriel has covered Beatles' tunes in his career). Steve Howe said, "The Beatles came along and we suddenly had much more interesting chords than you had before." Rick Wakeman did an entire tribute album to The Beatles. Ian Anderson claims that The Beatles shaped his vision for recording. Or to put it more simply, Greg Lake said, "The Beatles had a huge influence on everybody." They got it, you don't.
 Catcher10 wrote:What bothers you in Prog Music? ( Pet Peeves ) .....Defending bands that are not prog, on a Prog Rock website! As I said previously, you are uninformed. Laughably so. You haven't a clue regarding how The Beatles were instrumental in the formation of what now is referred to as Prog. In fact, you are so obviously uninformed you are unaware that The Beatles are listed as Proto-Prog on ProgArchives. |
||||
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
||||
|
||||
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 64520 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 05 2018 at 18:52 |
|||
On the flip-side (not that this has any relevance to this discussion) they had some truly horrible cuts in the early days - - |
||||
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
||||
|
||||
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 64520 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 05 2018 at 19:05 |
|||
What's interesting is that those critiques are largely accurate for 1964-- the band didn't really show any clear, unique talents for modern songwriting until a good year later, IMO. They certainly had something, and most young people could hear that, but if closely listened to as simply a young rock band rather than 'The Beatles', they were no better, even worse than, contemporaries as Simon & Garfunkel, the Everlys, Beach Boys, Dylan, etc. It was pure will and survival (with a little help from Mr. Martin) that allowed them to continue on to become great. |
||||
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
||||
|
||||
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20523 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 06 2018 at 04:13 |
|||
|
^ I agree that the Beatles were just above average musically when they started but don't you think it's amazing that they progressed from say "Love Me Do" to "Strawberry Fields Forever"?
Edited by SteveG - June 06 2018 at 04:13 |
||||
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
||||
|
||||
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 13 2005 Location: Essex, UK Status: Offline Points: 19957 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 06 2018 at 04:26 |
|||
And in less time than it takes some bands to record one album.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17511 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 06 2018 at 13:20 |
|||
Really?? So any band listed as proto-prog is prog?? How biased of a belief is that! Clearly shows again that your mind is closed to what is such a highly subjective premise. How many bands that are really prog are NOT listed on this site, but since the Beatles are listed on this site all other arguments are worthless. Again......thanks for that post, I laughed even harder.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
noni
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1092 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 06 2018 at 15:48 |
|||
I've made several real prog bands recommendation on here and still has not been included. One being Ryan Yard's music. Both Symphonic and Crossover in style..
 |
||||
|
||||
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: February 01 2011 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 12758 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 06 2018 at 17:48 |
|||
My "mind is closed to what is such a highly subjective premise"? "Bias"...are you serious? It's obvious you fail to see the irony of such an absurd statement. The Beatles were voted onto this site by a group of PA contributors; therefore, they can be discussed along with every other band specifically chosen by PA. Sorry if you cannot comprehend a fundamental tenet of the forum you are posting on. Evidently, you make your little posts but don't venture further on this site. Knowledge can be a scary thing. But since fear of the unknown seems to be holding you back, here is part of PA's definition of the sub-genre "Proto-prog": These bands normally were formed and released albums before Progressive Rock had completely developed (there are some rare Proto Prog bands from the early 70's, because the genre didn't expanded to all the Continents simultaneously). The common elements in all these bands is that they developed one or more elements of Prog, and even when not completely defined as part of the genre, they are without any doubt, an important stage in the evolution of Progressive Rock. So, the delineation between what is "prog" and what is "proto-prog" is fairly fluid. Giles, Giles and Fripp are considered "Proto-prog", but put the same musicians in King Crimson a year later and they're suddenly "Prog". Deep Purple, whose greatest successes came in the 70s are listed as "Proto-prog", whereas The Moody Blues albums from the 60s are considered "Prog". Basically, the "Proto-prog" definition includes nearly all bands who recorded the bulk of their albums before the Fall of 1969 B.C. (Before Crimson). I can't explain it any better, and I can't teach comprehension skills. Your mind is a closed book, and therefore more of a paper weight than a knowledge tool. |
||||
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
||||
|
||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17511 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 07 2018 at 09:34 |
|||
|
OMG.......I have been on this site, registered since 2009, was a lurker for 2 yrs before that. I have read ALL the definitions of genres and know where to find the list of bands and have used that area since then to understand why a band is listed here. I use it to understand their attributes of why they are considered prog...
As they say, "talk to the hand!" Go tell it to someone new to this site or to the progressive rock genre. The very idea of how, why, who is listed on this site has been in debate since I first clicked on this site over 10yrs ago. If you are only going to take into consideration who the PA contributors chose to list on this site as a prog band, of any sub genre then yes, your mind is closed to only this site which is sad  .In the general music scene the Beatles are not considered proto/early/sorta or pre-prog.....at best you can label them maybe pop-psychadelic after they spit out their bubblegum. I am more than confident that my record collection and music collection in its entirety shows I have no fears of any music, I am not limited in my scope of simply what is listed here on PA or only listen to prog, that is non-sense. Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that....
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Larkstongue41
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 07 2015 Location: Eastern Canada Status: Offline Points: 1360 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 07 2018 at 10:17 |
|||
|
Nobody in their right mind would claim the Beatles were not proto-prog. And even if they weren't, they still belong up there with folks like Stravinsky and Schoenberg as far as musical influence in the 20th century goes.
Some people have trouble with the concept of taste. Edited by Larkstongue41 - June 07 2018 at 10:22 |
||||
|
"Larks' tongues. Wrens' livers. Chaffinch brains. Jaguars' earlobes. Wolf nipple chips. Get 'em while they're hot. They're lovely. Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar."
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hrychu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 03 2013 Location: poland? Status: Offline Points: 4202 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 07 2018 at 10:26 |
|||
|
What bothers me in Prog music? Hmmm... can't think of anything... oh I got something! Nad Sylvan's voice for instance.
|
||||
|
“On the day of my creation, I fell in love with education. And overcoming all frustration, a teacher I became.”
— Ernest Vong |
||||
|
||||
|
jiminyCrikett
Forum Newbie
Joined: March 05 2018 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 39 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 07 2018 at 12:45 |
|||
|
If anyone is including Frank Bornemann or Peter Hammill in the list of bad singers then I have to tell you that you're missing out!
Complexity just to be complex is definitely my biggest pet peeve, songs need to build towards something and thats why Yes and Genesis are still kings here!
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: February 01 2011 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 12758 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 07 2018 at 21:28 |
|||
for someone who claimed, quote/unquote: "I don't LISTEN to the Beatles, never have. My parents never did, my wife never did," I am rather surprised by your sudden vast wellspring of Beatles knowledge that allows you to make inane pronouncements like, "In the general music scene the Beatles are not considered proto/early/sorta or pre-prog.....at best you can label them maybe pop-psychadelic after they spit out their bubblegum." Please, share with us your in-depth research regarding the "general music scene" and how they view the development of prog without the influence of The Beatles. I have already provided direct quotes from several important prog musicians who insist The Beatles were not just an influence, but a main impetus for them to create the music they did. But I will aid you further in sweeping the cobwebs from the rickety recesses of your stratified musical mind. Let's see, the "general music scene"...hmmm...how about Wikipedia? That's about as general as one can get. Oh, would you look at that, The Beatles are listed in Wiki as a Proto-prog band. And hey, they list a bibliography including a book by Doyle Green entitled, Rock, Counterculture and Avant Garde, 1966-1970: How The Beatles, Frank Zappa and The Velvet Underground Defined an Era, in which Green states the proto-prog label can be used for "the later Beatles, Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd, Soft Machine and the United States of America." Paul Hegerty and Martin Halliwell in their book Beyond and Before: Progressive Rock since the 1960s,identify The Beatles as one of the 1960s bands that should be viewed "not merely as precursors of prog but as essential developments of progressiveness in its early days." Not popular enough? How about popmatters.com, who had an article on March 6, 2013 titled "1967 and the Prog-Rock Progenitors" that features The Beatles prominently as a progenitor of prog. Not cosmopolitan enough? How about a New Yorker Magazine article from June 19, 2017 titled "The Persistence of Prog", where the author quotes, “If you don't like progressive rock, blame it on the Beatles.” Too liberal? How about the conservative National Review? An article from June 15, 2107 titled "Prog Rock: A Noble but Failed Experiment", makes the statement that "bands such as Peter Gabriel–era Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, and Emerson, Lake & Palmer led rock down a bizarre sonic detour first mapped out by the Beach Boys on Pet Sounds and the Beatles on Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band." How about a non-musical take? Even the UrbanDictionary.com when defining "Prog" makes the bold statement "While arguable, the first Prog band is technically believed by Prog fans to be the Beatles." I won't go that far, but proto-prog works fine for me. I mean, really, it's rather embarrassing for you to persist when you are fighting a duel with a wet noodle.
Funny you should mention Parliament/Funkadelic, who were definitely progressive in the 1970s. George Clinton was influenced by Jimi Hendrix, Frank Zappa, James Brown, Sly Stone and...The Beatles. In fact, Clinton loved The Beatles. Here's an interview for you: Here is an excerpt: Clinton stated: "The Beatles' 'Yellow Submarine'; that always inspires me when I get to playin'. Sly's (Stone) stuff...Curtis Mayfield, all that. You know I worked at Motown. But when I want to get inspired, I always listen to the Beatles' sh*t. That'll always wake your ass up." George Clinton's love of the Beatles is well known, and he has stated in past interviews how it totally changed some of the ways he made and performed music. But by all means, keep floating your baseless opinions about the empty ether. I find it amusing to keep pointing out how little you truly know about the subject.
|
||||
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
||||
|
||||
|
Mascodagama
Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 5111 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 08 2018 at 02:09 |
|||
|
Maybe we should rename this thread "The Official Beatles sh*t Fight 2018".
Edited by Mascodagama - June 08 2018 at 06:36 |
||||
|
Soldato of the Pan Head Mafia. We'll make you an offer you can't listen to.
Bandcamp Profile |
||||
|
||||
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20523 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 08 2018 at 04:04 |
|||
|
^ A shame as they're two cool people.
Anyhow, perhaps we transfer this thread to the Steve Hoffman Music Forum where every other thread seems to be about the Beatles!
Edited by SteveG - June 08 2018 at 04:08 |
||||
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
||||
|
||||
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20491 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: June 08 2018 at 12:24 |
|||
|
^.....^...LOL...........
er...who is Steve Hoffman...? Edited by dr wu23 - June 08 2018 at 12:27 |
||||
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 5678> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options