I think it's obvious that DOFP was intended to be and was written/recorded as one continuous story.

 

Woody Guthrie was simply ahead of his time in more ways than one.

 

Ok, that will be the next poll!

 

 

 

 

 

And Days Of Future Past is not a prog-rock album in my book (a couple of orchestrations and recurrent themes do not make prog-rock, otherwise the aformentioned musicals would be prog-rock albums as they had also both). So you have my answer.

funny - i was going to mention musical soundtracks - but that's kind of cheating

I would give a chance to Carmina Burana

 

Since we are supposed to be talking about prog rock on this site then the likes of Vivaldi and West Side story would not qualify (though if Miles Davis or Pentangle count as rock then I suppose anything can).

 

Wow. Quite an outlier view of the Beatles' influence. Most everyone else would say it could hardly be overrated: musicians, critics, and fans.

Please, if you will, allow me at least a few moments to explain myself before you shout me down...  The albums 'progressive' nature can be hard for modern ears to detect.  It may sound less than remarkable and noteworthy at first.  But one must approach it with ears tuned to the context of its time in order to understand its progressive nature.   To a much lesser extent, I find this to be true of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon".  When teenagers hear that album, I have to explain what a sonic "difference maker" it was, how incredibly it "stood out" from the soundscape of popular recorded music at the time.  Some of the innovative ways sounds were used musically in DSotM are now rather commonplace across multiple genres of very popular music.

 

And if the progressive musical nature of the Pet Sounds album is elusive, the manner in which it qualifies as a unified whole (concept) album is doubly so.  But that doesn't mean that it was any less uniquely and conceptually bound together at the time of its release.

 

Although it is true that Brian himself didn't see it as a collection of songs intended to tell a linear story, within the context of where rock and roll albums were at that time, he did intend it to be viewed as a unified conceptual artistic statement from start to finish, a cohesive unit, an inter-related collection of miniature sonic art pieces, each worthy of exhibition together (with absolutely no filler and no throwaways).

 

It was an entire album to be held together not by a single plotline like the day in the life of an average man... nor was it to be held together by a simplistic motif like every song being about water or love... 

 

Rather it was to be a collection of sonic gems integrally interconnected conceptually by a systematic approach to exploring relational themes in lyrics, using the studio as a complex instrument, expanding the instrumentation and tonal color used in popular rock music, and the introduction of unconventional vocal harmonies and atypical chord progressions, etc.

 

This would be the album to prod Paul McCartney to strive for the songs to be conceptually interrelated and perhaps even for John Lennon and George Martin to increasingly paint sounds with a wider variety of psych tonal colors on Sgt. Peppers. 

 

As usual, if the Beatles weren't the first to the party, they were certainly early adopters whose attendance heralded the subsequent rush of arriving multitudes (many of whom probably mistakenly thought the Beatles were the hosts of the party in the first place).

 

So Sgt. Peppers both reflected and paved the way (popularized) the concept of "art rock", rock music to listen to seriously, and very obviously hinted toward how very "hip" it would soon become to create "concept albums".

 

Since Pet Sounds wasn't an available choice, I'll select its closest companion.  Sgt. Peppers.

 

OK.  Thanks for waiting.  You may begin 'shouting me down' now. 

 

What exactly is the "concept" of Pet Sounds?

 

progpositivity wrote: OK.  Thanks for waiting.  You may begin 'shouting me down' now.

-------------
...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...

My two cents would be that Pet Sounds doesn't quite cut it as an out-and-out concept album, but that what musical and emotional uniformity there is on the record comes close, and I agree with the conclusions of most musicologists that the album did much to open the door to full on concept albums in pop and rock, and within a year even.

 

You could have saved yourself some trouble by reading the rest of this thread.  I pointed this out on page 3.

Don't know what that proves, since Van der Graaf Generator also rejects the label.

Yeah but Zappa probably only rejected it as being progressive rock because that genre label designation sorta' freaked him out. 

 

A bit of a stretch?  Perhaps.  It appears you will think so.  In any event, here goes.  I've italicized the paragraph below which explains the manner in which I considered Pet Sounds to be a concept album of sorts.

 

 

So Pet Sounds introduced many people to the very concept of the rock album as a synergistic vehicle (with the whole album experience being greater than the sum of the individual song experiences), one which showcased rock and roll music as art.  With this concept, Pet Sounds set the stage for the Beatles to release Sgt. Pepper which further set the stage for a plethora of conceptual art rock albums to ensue.  

 

But I do understand your perspective.  If one limits themselves to a more strict (and commonly used) definition for 'concept album', one which has a specific story line, recurring characters, etc., then Pet Sounds doesn't qualify as a concept album.