Beatles Prog?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=68027
Printed Date: May 29 2024 at 11:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Beatles Prog?
Posted By: SergiUriah
Subject: Beatles Prog?
Date Posted: June 04 2010 at 18:57
|
Any relation btw this 2? Thanks. ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/">  |
Replies:
Posted By: Tarquin Underspoon
Date Posted: June 04 2010 at 19:12
|
Well, uh, all their albums are definitely proto-prog as far back as Sgt. Pepper, and some will argue Revolver. That's a relation. ------------- "WAAAAAAOOOOOUGH! WAAAAAAAUUUUGGHHHH!! WAAAAAOOOO!!!" -The Great Gig in the Sky |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 04 2010 at 20:17
|
I think the same. Aaaand, that Sgt. Peppers was a primary influence to King Crimsonīs first work. ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 03:10
Could "Tomorrow Never Knows" be the first and father of Classic Prog??? ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: Progist
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 03:53
To be honest, Sgt Pepper is still mostly a pop album, save a couple of tracks that could be classed proto-prog at a stretch. I'm pretty certain that Please Please Me or Yesterday aren't prog records though 
|
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 04:11
|
Just we are talking about Sgt. Peppers, and other songs from the fab4. Besides...Nektar is pop-prog, there are many bands with a poppy spirit in their career. Though being proto-prog, Beatles were clearly the roots to follow for many of the new bands of Classic Rock as KC, YES, Camel... Sgt. Peppers was the first album to mix symphonyc with rock.  ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: Wiktor Hatif
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 05:20
|
yep, lots of prog elements there. They were also revolutionary with the sound - Revolution #9 and the whole Abbey Road album (Alan Parsons himself worked on it).
------------- "Ffffaaahhh, seeko baaaaaa Neeeeee toe, kare lo yeahhh Sa sa sa sa saa! Fssss Drrrrrrrrr bo ki! Rapateeka! do go taaaam Rapateeka! do go tchaa" - "Atom Heart Mother" Pink Floyd/Ron Geesin |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 05:28
Yes, Wiktor. Many thanks for the remembering. Abbey Road final mix is an excellent prog element, with the epic Opus in Golden Slumbers. ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Wiktor Hatif wrote:Posted By: ProgBob
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 06:16
I think this raises some interesting questions. What exactly is pop? And are pop and prog mutually exclusive? It could be argued that even if you want to call the Beatles pop, there were elements of musical sophistication that could be described as 'progressive' in the true sense of the word, taken in the context of the times. ------------- Bob |
Posted By: Malve87
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 06:20
Yes, but there's that little thing called "A day in the life" which...you know... ------------- ] 
|
Posted By: yanch
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 06:37
|
Proto-prog for sure/ As mentioned earlier: "Tomorrow Never Knows," "A Day in the Life," Within You Without You," "Revolution #9," I'd even say that "Dear Prudence" has elements of psychedelic/Space rock. I've always felt that the Beatles opened the paths to just about every category of rock.
|
Posted By: Wiktor Hatif
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 08:15
Exactly, and stating the different is just being ignorant or childishly rebelled. This is fact, period. ------------- "Ffffaaahhh, seeko baaaaaa Neeeeee toe, kare lo yeahhh Sa sa sa sa saa! Fssss Drrrrrrrrr bo ki! Rapateeka! do go taaaam Rapateeka! do go tchaa" - "Atom Heart Mother" Pink Floyd/Ron Geesin |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 09:20
So, Revolver doesn't count? Elanor Rigby, and all that? |
Posted By: Wiktor Hatif
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 10:23
|
and what about "Days Of Future Passed" by The Moody Blues from 1967 ? That was faaaar more symphonic than Sgt. Peppers :)
------------- "Ffffaaahhh, seeko baaaaaa Neeeeee toe, kare lo yeahhh Sa sa sa sa saa! Fssss Drrrrrrrrr bo ki! Rapateeka! do go taaaam Rapateeka! do go tchaa" - "Atom Heart Mother" Pink Floyd/Ron Geesin |
Posted By: refugee
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 10:46
Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! Not prog
? Of course Beatles started as a pop/rock band, but what they did later had an immense impact on prog. The song I mentioned could even fit in on Lizard. ------------- He say nothing is quite what it seems; I say nothing is nothing (Peter Hammill) |
Posted By: Malve87
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 12:03
"Yesterday" ? ------------- ]
|
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 15:33
I mean to say the whole album. Eleaanor Rigby is not rock, Tomorrow Never Knows yes, and singles as Rain or Paperback Writer... But Sgt. Peppers showed the way to many bands in the 70s and of course to KC too. I think so. ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 18:34
|
I think people give Sgt Pepper way too much credit. There was much crazier music going on at the time. Piper at the Gates of Dawn was recorded in the same studio on the same dates. And Piper is miles beyond Sgt Peppers in terms of progressiveness, psychedelia, originality, and in my opinion quality. ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: Tarquin Underspoon
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 20:46
I have to admit this is true (and it is also true of Moody Blues and Procol Harum, some will argue). Also, I'm frankly surprised at the number of these conversations that go by without citing Pet Sounds. Yeah, yeah, roll your eyes, people, but I've been listening to it a lot lately, and on the whole, it is far more "progressive" in nature than most of Sgt. Pepper or Revolver or what have you. I would say Pet Sounds is a highly influential and tragically overlooked record in the proto-prog community. Give it a spin, you'll hear what I mean. ------------- "WAAAAAAOOOOOUGH! WAAAAAAAUUUUGGHHHH!! WAAAAAOOOO!!!" -The Great Gig in the Sky |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 23:34
I donīt think so. Even they are Pink Floyd. Piper At The...is a psychedelia album, but it is no miles beyond in those characteristics. That first album has not prog elements as clear at in the next albums. Psychedelia is more effective in Peppers than in PF album, there exists a line and tones that carry you far away in your mind at Beatles album. And, overall, the red album from Beatles has more more more more more...originality than Pinf Floydīs one. Of course. There is more difference and colours among the songs, and the album is amazing. Pinf Floyds Piper...is a good album, but you can see is the first one. Beatles had a road walked, and the production is awesome too. Thereīs many differences btw then. In my opinion. And talking about Pet Sounds, I canīt hear the prog elements there.  ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: Tarquin Underspoon
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 23:47
I suppose it's very subtle. It's more about instrumentation, song structure...that type of thing, which was a jarring departure for the 1960s music fan at the time. ------------- "WAAAAAAOOOOOUGH! WAAAAAAAUUUUGGHHHH!! WAAAAAOOOO!!!" -The Great Gig in the Sky |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 03:29
There is a more worked musical line over the album, you got the reason, and you can appreciate more shades, different touches, thatīs sure. ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: Paulieg
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 07:40
What the heck? Both Yellow Submarine and especially the artsy Magical Mystery Tour predated the over-rated, in my opinion, Sgt. Pepper's. They included movies. This was a very progressive concept too. Revolver and Magical Mystery Tour are my favorite mid period Beatles albums, and the added symphonic elements, provided by the genuisly eccentric John Lennon on especially "Magical Mystery Tour," are simply genius. I love the Beatles from Revolver to the very artsy Abby Road. I think The Beatles had a major impact on the progressive rock scene and they didn't have multi-tracking past a few takes, maybe 4 track then? Also, all the symphonic sounds are mosly played with real instruments by mostly John, he did have a mellotron he played wonderously, starting with revolver or the E.P.'s, not sure. I'm sure George Martin had help from an Orchestra, RPO. I'm speaking in reference to The E.P. "Magical Mystery Tour." They didn't have a Moog or Taurus Pedals, and especially, all the new technology now. I consider "The Beatles," post "Revolver" or even starting with "Revolver", a proto art rock band. If they made a few more albums, without Yoko involved , post Abby Road, I think we would be talking about a full on art rock band that started as pure pop rock and blues. Mr. Lennon used a moog, mellotron, and other keyboards that were then available and the tracking has grown enourmously since then. People need to realize, these early progressive rock inspiring bands didn't have near the technology, at the time, to produce horns, etc, from a keyboard and tracking was basically one take until the mid 60's a la mono, which makes these aforementioned bands, all the more amazing. Yes, I agree the Moody Blues "Days of Future Past," gets overlooked as a proto-prog release just a bit too much and really it's a full on Symphonic Progressive Rock album, in my opinion and not all pop inspired. Songs like the "Nights in White Satin" suite are artsy/symphonic/progressive, and the poetry and using the Philharmonic Orchestra are all very progressive ideals. Zappa, I love too, but I don't find his first mother's release progressive just because it has an extended length, for the times, song called "The Return of the Son of Monster Magnet," or because it's the first Double concept kinda, album. Now Hot Rats is a different story, but I believe that came out in 70, and it was very jazz rock fusion orientated. The Great Wazoo is good too, but too late. I love Apostrophe, but this is the mid 70's time-period. So, I still hold camp that King Crimson's ITCOTCK was the first full on progressive/art rock album. I believe "The Beatles," were more of an influence than Zappa at the time and it started, for real, with the "Magical Mystery Tour" release, that's what I call the start of proto art rock. I feel The Moody Blues had the biggest impact on Symphonic Prog, for the time. In conclusion, I feel "The Beatles," should be included in "Art Rock," or a new sub-genre, I know it's all we need, more confusion, but Proto Art rock, I feel, should be a sub-genre, and the Beatles, I believe, started it with "Magical Mystery Tour." 
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 11:00
Pet Sounds was a big influence on The Beatles and helped to spur them on to greater things. |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 16:14
|
Well, I remember reading about that, even they made Rubber Soul before. The Beatles sailed, inevitablement , to Revolver, MMT and Sgt. Peppers. They were always over ther rest. The real fact that took them into proto prog roads was the eagerness of Lennon to experiment with their music. ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: Progist
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 08:40
Yeah I know. As I said there are a couple of tracks, but the album is generally poppy 4/4 simple tunes stuff. When I'm 64, A Little Help, Lovely Rita etc. A Day In The Life achieves what it does mainly through production technique. I'm still not sure I would cal it Prog? Certainly not in intent anyway. ------------- 
|
Posted By: rod65
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 11:37
| I think most of their albums post-Revolver had progressive elements, and consider the wonderful suite of songs on side two of Abbey Road to be one of the first and best prog epics. |
Posted By: TheLastBaron
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 12:26
|
I would agree that these was stuff at the same time as peppers that was more progressive but lets consider the following elements of The Beatles that made them important to the birth of prog, not to say that they where more important than any other band but that they did have a role in progs formation. Songwriting: The Beatles wrote their own songs. this is a huge deal for music but also for prog, The Beatles had some cryptic sh*t, wrote stories in the lyrics and moved beyond simple boy wants girl or life is hard stuff, a huge part of prog. mix of styles: the beatles experimented with various sytles and blended them with the pop of thier day, again something that is a staple of prog. finally the biggest thing would be the studio is an instrument in itself, evident on sgt. peppers. the beatles experimented with recording techniques and were able to create interesting unique sounds with different in studio effects, this is a huge influence on what a group of musicians could do with a record, moving music beyond mere entertainment and into more of an art, not to say that it never was art, it always has been, but this definitely emphasized that point. ------------- " Men are not prisoners of fate, but prisoners of their own minds." - FDR |
Posted By: Malve87
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 12:27
Well...4/4 time signature's not a problem in prog, Pink Floyd wouldn't be prog for that, anyway "A day In The Life" has a strong prog element in its structure; it's divided in 3 specific sections, you've got the first sung by John and then after the orchestral climax Paul's bit and then John again...it's not a suite ok, but somehow this was very innovative. Anyway the "White album" for sure had a huge influence with certain songs... ------------- ]
|
Posted By: rod65
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 12:35
I think your observation of studio as instrument is excellent, and really gets to the heart of prog.
|
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 14:27
I do not believe Sgt Peppers is a poppy album, neither Beatles were a pop band. A day in the life is clearly a Prog tune. You must try again. ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: Malve87
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 14:36
by the way, "Electric Ladyland" was one of the first albums in which the studio was used "as an instrument" IMO ------------- ]
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 17:09
|
Posted By: Malve87
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 17:24
yep. Every member of the beatles cut pieces of tapes at home and then they went to Abbey Road and used the ones they liked. ------------- ]
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 06:35
| The studio was quite literally used as an instrument in "Tomorrow Never Knows". The various tapes were threaded onto machines and wound by hand and pencil. The actual track was then recorded "live" in the studio. Quite an achievement when you think about it. |
Posted By: Progist
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 09:59
LOL, if I must then I will have another try at A Day In The Life  I don't really accept that the Beatles weren't a pop band? Listen to their first 5 albums! -------------
|
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 10:55
| Even though they arent 'prog' prog, they have been one of the most progressive groups (in terms of the latter half of their career.) |
Posted By: CyberDiablo
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 12:24
|
In my opinion Sgt. Pepper's was the least pop album of the Beatles. It was rather psychedelic, but if you pull out 3 5 6 7 8 and 13 (too long names didn't want to type lol) the album would turn into a middle-quality pop rock album. But it sure has proto-prog (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Day_in_the_Life#Song_structure - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Day_in_the_Life#Song_structure ). The other albums? Meh. They were only a pop band before 1966. |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 13:04
|
can we agree that the Beatles after 1966 are proto-prog, and before then just pop? |
Posted By: CyberDiablo
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 13:12
Hmmm.... Yep! Exactly! |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 14:31
There is more 50īs rock there than pop I think. What do you believe? Whatīs pop for you? ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: CyberDiablo
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 14:53
|
Neither pop nor rock. It's pop rock! (So?)
------------- Music is some kind of art. -- Anonymous |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 15:04
Rock - Pop better.   ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: CyberDiablo
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 15:37
oooooooookaaaaaaaay.... (with a sarcastic tone)  ------------- Music is some kind of art. -- Anonymous |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 18:28
|
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 18:32
| The Beatles were Pop, but that doesn't mean it's bad. In my controversial opinion, pretty much all rock music is Pop, as in Popular Music. Zeuhl may be an exception. |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 20:39
|
I think they made popular the term Rock, nothing more. Is for that they were, are and will be a ROCK band, the best ever. Piper At...is not a good comparison, neither the whole career of the Pink. ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 20:47
'Genres' are just used to describe music. 'Pop' is generally thought to be catchy and upbeat. Not all rock is like that, and if metal is considered a sub-genre of rock, especially not so.
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 20:49
|
Venn Diagrams rule. Just sayin'. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 20:59
Your definition of "symphonic" needs to be revised it seems... A few strings here and there don't make something symphonic. ------------- 
|
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 21:15
Ok, then Sgt Peppers ia not a symphonic rock album...excuse me for my audacity. ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 21:41
You are excused. It is not. -------------
|
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 22:33
Thanks, wise man. Then I must recognize that is not an album with orchestral works and more complex structure and, of course, it wasnīt a work in which Beatles went some steps above in their musical structures. Whichever similarity to symphonic and orchestral sounds listening to Sgt Peppers is nothing more than a sound illusion. Right. Hey man, really you are a wizard!! You did it!  ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 23:32
If you knew a little about what the word "symphonic" and "symphony" and why it was used for some rock bands as Yes, you would understand. I have no time now. It's late and i'm posting through my phone. Tomorrow maybe. Try wikipedia or, better, some actual site about symphonic music and symphonic rock and you'll see. Just understand that strings and orchestras DO NOT MAKE music "symphonic". It's not an ilusion. You're just applying the wrong terms, that's all. -------------
|
Posted By: Progist
Date Posted: June 09 2010 at 04:19
I think that the first 2 0r 3 albums have covers of older music that influenced the Beatles, this includes 50's R&R, & soul. Also tracks written by The Beatles, which are more pop orientated. Help & With The Beatles & Rubber Soul are pretty much pop albums. The first experimentation comes on Revolver, which is still predominantly pop, as is Sgt. Pepper. Yes, there are some tracks on those 2 albums that could be described as Proto-Prog, or symphonic (loosely speaking). After that, the music becomes more what I would call Art-Rock for a couple of albums, back to basic rock - blues-rock for Let It Be and back to pop (with a symphonic element) for Abbey Road. Obviously, these are only my opinions, and not a universal truth. It would take a long time to explain what I think Pop means, as it involves a lot more than just music. Maybe I will have a go one day? Not now though -------------
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: June 09 2010 at 06:40
Not it doesn't really, only the first 2 tracks are joined and then the theme reprise into "A Day in the Life". It was going to be that way but they lost interest after the first 2 tracks.
|
Posted By: CyberDiablo
Date Posted: June 09 2010 at 09:16
|
This is stupid. The Beatles were too many things. Let's just say "Rock" (no-matter pop or symphonic or progressive), leave this here and walk away.
------------- Music is some kind of art. -- Anonymous |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 09 2010 at 10:49
It's a good idea. I'd apply the "progressive" tag with no questions though, specially for their work in the albums after -and including- "Revolver". But "symphonic" they are not. And it's not just a personal opinion. They were a great band anyway. -------------
|
Posted By: CyberDiablo
Date Posted: June 09 2010 at 11:54
|
Also they have invented heavy metal! (listen: helter skelter)
------------- Music is some kind of art. -- Anonymous |
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: June 12 2010 at 21:45
Well to be factual the Beatles started recording "Strawberry Fields Forever" the real start of the Sgt Pepper sessions in Nov of 66 which was nearly three months earlier than Piper at the Gates of Dawn started it's recording sessions. As it is the Beatles psychedelic uses as a studio instrument for example like loops, varispeeding, and backward tape which was on songs like "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" was already a different style than say Brian Wilson or Phil Spector. How do you define how progressive is a band when the Beatles were recording full blown raga sounds in "Within You Without You" or creating soundscapes with loops and samples while Pink Floyd and the Doors were still using basic rock instruments? A song like "Blue Jay Way" or "Only a Northern Song" are psychedelic without a use of a guitar.
|