Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=99582
Printed Date: April 27 2024 at 02:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto?
Posted By: SteveG
Subject: Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto?
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 08:41
| Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto Prog because of Brian Wilson's employment of suite like movements and sophisticated lush musical arrangements for Pet Sounds? |
Replies:
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 08:58
|
Have you tried searching the forums before asking? This is not exactly a new question.... http://www.progarchives.com/google-search-results.asp?cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=beach+boys&cx=partner-pub-0447992028883143%3Abrdi7c3wepz&sa=submit&siteurl=www.progarchives.com%2F&ref=&ss=" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/google-search-results.asp?cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=beach+boys&cx=partner-pub-0447992028883143%3Abrdi7c3wepz&sa=submit&siteurl=www.progarchives.com%2F&ref=&ss= A few good reasons to say 'no' are listed here: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=87814" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=87814
------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 09:27
|
Angelo wrote:Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 10:24
|
The Beach Boys music hasn't magically changed and neither has people's perceptions of it. Nor should we disregard or ignore what has been said in the past. As I said in the past, Pet Sounds has some of the prerequisites for Proto-Prog but does that make it Proto Prog? (Yeah, it was a rhetorical question). It could be viewed as being Proto Art Rock as it has far more in common with the flavour of Art Rock that didn't crossover into Progressive Rock territory, so from that perspective it was certainly far more influential on those Art Rock artists - I'm not sure it ever influenced Progressive Rock directly. Just to clarify - not all Art Rock is Prog Rock, here at the PA some Art Rock that doesn't quite qualify as Prog we put into Prog Related and some we ignore completely (Velvet Underground anyone?) - this would make Proto Art Rock kinda Proto Prog Related, so therefore would not qualify as Proto Prog. Hence a "no" from me. ------------- What? |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 10:53
I would tend to lean more upon the subject of SMILE. Not the Brian Wilson release. The Beach Boys release which enters the areas of Avant-Garde. The songwriting contains elements of what existed on Pet Sounds, but more progressed or modern...even timeless. Regarding this concept of writing and understanding how the album should sound in it's entirety prior to recording it was evident sometimes in the music of The Beatles. Smile was bizzare and completely loony in various sections and can't be attributed to an influence over an abundance of musicians that wrote Progressive Rock in the 70's because the album was never officially released. However...many famous musicians had the bootleg tapes in the 70's and so I could be wrong.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 16:22
|
Posted By: Mirror Image
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 16:27
|
No and it's as simple as that really. ------------- “Music is enough for a lifetime but a lifetime is not enough for music.” - Sergei Rachmaninov |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 16:42
| ^I don't always understand Dean but I do appreciate now that he generally supplies an intelligent well thought out answer to my questions, so thanks MI. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 19:07
I stated that the music hasn't changed and neither has people's perceptions of it. I did not state that people's perceptions are unchanging. People's perceptions (including my own) do change, but there is invariable a reason for that change, some new evidence or outlook that caused the re-appraisal. So now I ask directly: What could have possibly occurred in the past two years to have changed people's perception of a 48 year old album? I am permitted to state my opinion however futile that may be, and yes I know this perennial topic will be raised again and again along with the all the other bands that don't fit here (but people really really think they should) like the Yardbirds, the Grateful Dead, the Velvet Underground, XTC and Stratovarious, and I know that no one has ever had their opinion changed during an internet forum discussion, and I know that everyone (including me) thinks their opinion is better than everyone else's, and I know that people's perceptions once formed are damn difficult to change, and I know that if I keep asking the same question I'm going to get the same answer every time, (unless it's the 'are we there yet?' car-journey mantra). And (believe it or not) I do not have a problem with people questioning anything, in fact I positively encourage it, but I have huge problem with people being completely dismissive of anything. Feel free to question what is 'written in stone'. But at least be prepared for some level of rebuttal and don't be too shocked or defensive when it arrives (which it most surely will). In my experience those who question how we do things around here often don't actually know how we do things around here, and that's kinda nutty. Assumptions make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'mptions' (or something like that). The thing is with all these perennial topics - no one ever brings anything new to the table - no one ever seems to have read any of the earlier posts on the subject or have done any research on why a band is rejected - all they do is repeat the same "pro" points that have been said before and assume that people will now magically agree with them... waiting for people's perception to change of its own volition seems a very strange process to me. ------------- What? |
Posted By: KingCrInuYasha
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 21:25
|
Not really. Like the Velvet Underground and Judas Priest, the Beach Boys had some stuff that either had some prog elements or influence progressive rock in one way or another, but not enough to merit a full on inclusion. Their prog period only lasted about two years - with Pet Sounds and The Smile Sessions - but quickly faded once Brian Wilson stopped being the sole dominant force of the group.
But that's just me basing it on the criteria the site uses. ------------- He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball! |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 22:13
|
And we'll have prog, prog, prog Till my daddy takes the T-bird away... [Insert Robert Fripp lead] ...I'm picking up prog vibrations, Prog's giving me ex-ci-tations. Ummm...no. Definitely not. ------------- ...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... |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 09:32
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 09:51
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA3Welk7ru4" rel="nofollow - Of course that the Beach Boys ought to be in PA' Proto Prog / Prog Related section. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 10:26
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 10:49
Actually, that's enough for Proto Prog / Prog Related section. Those albums are prog. Also, especialy with Pet Sounds, The Beach Boys did exerts very strong influence to many prog musicians who were just started their careers. A same thing is with The Grateful Dead who are not in Proto Prog / Prog Related section yet although The Dead were released at least two full prog albums - Blues For Allah and Terrapin Station + they were one of two or three the most important bands of 60's Psychedelia movement - actually the most important movement for the birth of Progressive rock. The Steve Miller Band also ought to be here because of their first two albums from 1968 - "the milestones of the progressive rock genre" as Nick Logan and Bob Woffinden wrote about Sailor and Children of the Future in The illustrated NME Encyclopedia of Rock (1977) as well - together with e.g. the same year released Music In A Doll's House by Family. Steve Miller left the prog genre later on, what means that The Steve Miller Band would not to be in a full PA' prog section, but have to be in PA' Proto Prog / Prog Related section without a question. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 10:55
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 11:23
|
Well Paul always said that Sgt Pepper was a reaction to Pet Sounds that came out the year before. I'd say The Beach Boys were very progressive, but rock? Nah....more like progressive pop. Since I joined the admin team I've also been part of the prog related and proto 'teams', so in the end this lands on my doorstep if any collabs decide to suggest them for proto or related. My take on it is that we should include them, if we were a progressive pop site, no question about that, but we're not. As for the influence factor, then I guess you'll find a fair few prog acts who felt influenced by them, but then again you'll find just as many claiming Stockhausen, Varese and Shostakovich to have been the main factors of inspiration - all of which were incredibly progressive for their day. Should we start including these as well? ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 18:19
My little Progger girl..... |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 21:28
------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: Aussie-Byrd-Brother
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 22:34
|
As a big fan of numerous albums from the various Beach Boys periods, even right up to that plastic sounding self titled album 1985 album, I can safely say there is very little other that sporadic moments scattered across a few albums that would suggest prog-related. An inventive, PROGRESSIVE, daring and experimental pop unit in a few spots no doubt, especially on `Pet Sounds', `Smiley Smile' and parts of the superb `Surf's Up' album, but that's as far as I'd go. But what a charming and impossibly melodic group of individuals, I'm a very proud owner of most of their discs  I'd love to think The Byrds would have a spot on the Archives, but they're in exactly the same boat as the Beach Boys on this occasion. |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 09:36
|
Even though I 'grew up' with bands like The Beach Boys (being an old fart..) I have never been a big fan. I do like many of their singles but never got into the albums overall though I do own Pet Sounds and a singles compilation.
Proto Prog..? Not in my opinion and all the various reasons have already been given above and elsewhere.
------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 19:45
For the record. I am not one of those small handful who decides what is Proto or Prog Related, nor am I on one of the several teams that decide the "etc.". However, I was once on an "etc." team and for many years I was on the Admin team (along with Angelo who first responded to this thread). One of the responsibilities of the Admin team is to decided the Proto and Prog Related additions. If you were not aware, Proto Prog and Prog Related suggestions are treated as a special case here at the PA and fall under the domain of the Admins, it is they alone who decide whether a band should be added or not. Adding a band to either of those two categories is not a simple matter of ticking all the boxes on a crib-sheet or having the popular support of a select few members, a band can have all the right credentials to be added and still be rejected by the Admins. I could explain the reasons for that in great detail but I suspect that would be a waste of my time. However, I will explain the suggestion process one more time just in case anyone has missed one of the many other occasions where I have explained it:
(full details http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73146&PID=3942761#3942761" rel="nofollow - here ) What this means is that anyone suggesting a band for either of those categories has to convince an SC to propose the band to the Admin team. Just to make that interesting if the proposal is successful the Admin team will then dump the mechanics of adding the band (such as writing the biography and adding the entire discography) back onto the SC who proposed them. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 23:10
|
Whether or not they should, it's a fine argument because they straddled the fence of pop and art so early and interestingly. For or against doesn't really matter, the impact Brian Wilson's vision and production genius will always be there for us to admire.
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 15:24
As a retired recording engineer, I can only give a technically based answer of why the Beach Boys should be considered Proto Prog but it is sufficient enough for me to place them in that category. But first I think it is worth noting who (and by who, I'm happy to refer to Brian Wilson for the sake of simplicity) they actually and greatly influenced as opposed to Stockhausen, Varese and Shostakovich as their influences were purely musical and did not directly impact the most influential Rock Music group of the 20th Century. If they did, I think anyone would be hard pressed to come up with a percentage of influence on the Beatles of more than 5%. But I digress. I put forward Wilson's work in Pet Sounds in that he took disparate (a new word for me) recording practices that were redundant like Phil Spector's ambient and mechanically enhanced echo laden multi instrumental all in one take 'Wall of Sound' approach and, using many of Spector's studio musicians as well as supplementing them with those more classically trained, he recorded 'snatches' of music in musical suites which he would later edit together, over dub vocals or additional musical instruments and made California's Gold Star studios 'his instrument', which in no way was lost on the Beatles and George Martin prior to their recording of Rubber Soul. The fact that Wilson also used non musical instruments such as partially filled Seltzer bottles for percussion with treated studio harmonics was also not lost on the Beatles either. If Proto Prog is really supposed to mean the prototypical forerunner and inspiration for the late 60's prog that follows, then I think that Pet Sounds and the Beach Boys meet that criteria. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 18:23
|
... Rubber Soul was recorded before Pet Sounds, it influenced Pet Sounds. ------------- What? |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 18:56
| Help me Rhonda, yeah |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 23:44
Exactly
 |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 05:43
He probably meant Revolver.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 06:13
Chronologically that is all he could have meant, but Pet Sounds was still influenced by Rubber Soul, which was the first Beatles album where they had full creative control in the studio. ------------- What? |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 08:13
You probably meant that he meant Sgt. Pepper
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 08:31
|
I actually agree with most of what you say Steve, but I don't arrive at the same conclusion. I think The Beach Boys were instrumental in pushing both recording techniques and the general 'sound' of a contemporary pop band forth, but I see no proof of that crystallising in the approach of any early prog band to be perfectly honest. They may have influenced The Beatles a great deal, but then again, The Beatles were never a prog band either. Anyways, if the closest their influences on prog rock ever got were The Beatles, a band who is listed as proto here on PA, then the link is too vague to support an inclusion. We're talking proto-proto prog if anything. The Beach Boys were a mixture of psychedelic, baroque and elaborate pop in the end. Incredibly progressive but not rock nor part of that scene. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 08:40
|
^Fair enough David, But the topic is proto prog, not prog. For those too short sighted too see my error and comment on my post anyway, I've restated it below with the offending error corrected: "As a retired recording engineer, I can only give a technically based answer of why the Beach Boys should be considered Proto Prog but it is sufficient enough for me to place them in that category. But first I think it is worth noting who (and by who, I'm happy to refer to Brian Wilson for the sake of simplicity) they actually and greatly influenced as opposed to Stockhausen, Varese and Shostakovich as their influences were purely musical and did not directly impact the most influential Rock Music group of the 20th Century. If they did, I think anyone would be hard pressed to come up with a percentage of influence on the Beatles of more than 5%. But I digress. I put forward Wilson's work in Pet Sounds in that he took disparate (a new word for me) recording practices that were redundant like Phil Spector's ambient and mechanically enhanced echo laden multi instrumental all in one take 'Wall of Sound' approach and, using many of Spector's studio musicians as well as supplementing them with those more classically trained, he recorded 'snatches' of music in musical suites which he would later edit together, over dub vocals or additional musical instruments and made California's Gold Star studios 'his instrument', which in no way was lost on the Beatles and George Martin prior to their recording of Revolver. The fact that Wilson also used non musical instruments such as partially filled Seltzer bottles for percussion with treated studio harmonics was also not lost on the Beatles either. If Proto Prog is really supposed to mean the prototypical forerunner and inspiration for the late 60's prog that follows, then I think that Pet Sounds and the Beach Boys meet that criteria." Addendum: Rubber Soul inspired the Beach Boys to make an album without throw away tracks, in other words a full album of quality songs. Rubber Soul was still engineered by the old school staid Norman Smith, not wunderkind Geoff Emerick and studio experiments were an album away. That album being Revolver to be exact. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 08:53
| These categories are more trouble than they're worth. That's my opinion. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 09:02
I read you the first time  There is a distinction between progressive music and prog rock. This is why we are not called Progressive Music Archives. The influences and different avenues that ultimately fuelled prog rock are so far reaching that it is impossible to list all those artists who were forerunners. Jazz for example is quite possibly the biggest influence on prog bands who incorporated improv into the mix - and then I'm not even mentioning the overt heirtaker to the jazz legacy: fusion. Something that many a prog band fiddled about with from KC to Yes. So why don't we have Thelonious Monk, Albert Ayler and Bird up in this mother? They were at the very forefront of improvisation in music and have on many occasions been mentioned as inspiration to prog musicians. The answer is that we have to draw the line somewhere. The Beach Boys were and have always been considered a pop band - just as Ayler, Bird and Monk were linked to jazz. We can't re-write music history on the back bone of hindsight and a continous effort to blur lines. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 09:19
|
I'll draw a line/distinction as well, one that doesn't often come up in threads like this: The question, "Should X be considered Prog? (or proto-prog or....)" has a couple of different dimensions in the context of this site. The first dimension approaches the question from this angle: "what should be the case in my opinion? what would I do if I were in charge of a site like this?". This, however, is a different question than what I will call the second dimension of this question, "what should ProgArchives do?" Not a lot of people really understand what ProgArchives does, and how it does it, so a question that takes this stance usually draws a lot of fire from longstanding collaborators and admins who are tired of continually defending "what ProgArchives does". I say that when such questions come up, why not shift the focus back to the first question - we're all free to speak our minds, but just because so-and-so would have done things a certain way doesn't mean that view needs to be viewed as a challenge to ProgArchives that needs to be shot down and defended against. The Beach Boys question has been asked and answered many times, and their exclusion from the site is by no means an "oversight" on anybody's part; it's a considered decision that took a lot of things into account, in accordance with the site's guidelines, decided by people who adhered to those guidelines. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean there's nothing left to discuss. It's still interesting to talk about, and differing opinions aren't necessarily off the mark - if you're talking about creating your own set of guidelines. But the guidelines here are pretty much set. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 10:44
These catagories can not be a trouble per se. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 10:54
No I didn't.
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 11:04
|
Very nice post Holy Steve. Thanks man. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 11:07
I try never to assume anything. If you say Rubber Soul then I am going to take it you mean Rubber Soul and not another Beatles album. If that is short-sighted of me then...   ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 11:10
The trouble with catagories is spelling. These categories are more trouble than they are worth. ------------- What? |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 12:15
Revolver was recorded prior to the release of Pet Sounds in the UK. The Beatles may have had an acetate before its release but there's no evidence that Pet Sounds influenced Revolver. Pepper for sure.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 12:35
The Beatles would have had access to the USA release and/or any pre-release promo, but you are essentially correct, there simply was insufficient time for it to have influenced the Revolver sessions in any significant way.
------------- What? |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 12:45
|
Quick sidebar here, not to derail the topic, but I have a question about Pet Sounds. Now, I wasn't born until 1969, but as early as the late 70s I was very interested in music and was reading a lot of books about music and bands, whatever I could get my hands on. I was of course aware of the Beach Boys, and was aware of all their early hits (Help Me Rhonda, California Girls, etc etc), even though I wasn't a fan, but I SWEAR I never even HEARD MENTION of Pet Sounds until it arrived on CD with great fanfare. It seemed like overnight it had gone from an obscure poor-selling cult album to some major release in the history of Western civilization. I was like whaaa? Where did this sh*t come from? It seemed to me to be a case of instant historical revisionism - some hype after-the-fact that people have since accepted as truth. My question then is to the people who were there at the time: in terms of popular culture, how big a deal was Pet Sounds REALLY, at the time? I'm not saying my point of view has any factual basis at all, beyond what I personally experienced in my early years -- and yet I find it very strange that in my almost fanatical thirst for information about music, somehow I had never even heard of this album until the CD came out. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 12:52
From a Rolling Stone article: "McCartney had heard the album before it was released, at a listening party in London in May 1966, and was blown away." |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 12:55
|
"..and in one feverish night, completely re-did the Revolver album in response...." ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 13:03
Well the article claimed "Here, There, and Everywhere" (my parents wedding song ) was influenced by it, but I agree that most of Revolver was in the can and it was Sgt. Pepper that was the prime recipient of the influence. |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 14:09
|
And the Rolling Stones' reference to these claims is who? Paul McCartney? I think not.
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 14:15
Jeez, I don't know, I just Googled it. No one cares enough to research this in-depth or anything. |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 14:39
 That's nice.  ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 15:02
|
Glad I could stir up this debate. If for nothing else, it may have brought Pet Sounds more into the limelight but Dean, minus his eye glasses, is still correct. Pet Sounds was only released one month prior to Revolver but having realized my error, I didn't want to play 'dirty pool' and conveniently change the already erroneous Rubber Soul to the correct Sgt. Pepper's. It was what it was, blind men be damned. I'm used to the consequences from my opponent from an innocent mistake by now. For the record, McCartney did state that God Only Knows "was the best song ever written" and it was indeed the inspiration for Here, There And Everywhere. Pet Sounds influence was more correctly directed at St. Pepper's as Brian Wilson stated his intention for Pet Sounds, while not a concept, was "A teenage symphony to God". An idea that stuck in Sir Paul's head. While there is no direct musical influence of Pet Sounds on Sgt. Pepper's, McCartney was fixated with Wilson's bass guitar arrangements, particularly in having the studio player starting off a song in a key of G when the song itself was in C and other variants that led to Paul's developing a lead bass style. (see The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions By Mark Lewisohn Published 1988. PM interview) Most of the time things are researched. Occasionally errors are made that are sadly compounded by the blind, deaf and you know what. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 18:29
|
"The Beach Boys brought expansions in harmony, instrumentation (and therefore timbre), duration, rhythm, and the use of recording technology. Of these elements, the first and last were the most important in clearing a pathway toward the development of progressive rock" Bill Martin, Listening to the Future: The Time of Progressive Rock, 1968-1978 (Dec.1998)  |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 18:44
|
As a blues rock purist, it's always hard to escape the fact that errors, innocent as they are, are still 'nobodies fault but mine'. It's the fact that the rest of the arguement gets thrown out of the pram that ticks me off, so I'll post my position again with the Sgt. Pepper's comparison: "As a retired recording engineer, I can only give a technically based answer of why the Beach Boys should be considered Proto Prog but it is sufficient enough for me to place them in that category. But first I think it is worth noting who (and by who, I'm happy to refer to Brian Wilson for the sake of simplicity) they actually and greatly influenced as opposed to Stockhausen, Varese and Shostakovich as their influences were purely musical and did not directly impact the most influential Rock Music group of the 20th Century. If they did, I think anyone would be hard pressed to come up with a percentage of influence on the Beatles of more than 5%. But I digress. I put forward Wilson's work in Pet Sounds in that he took disparate recording practices that were redundant like Phil Spector's ambient and mechanically enhanced echo laden multi instrumental all in one live take 'Wall of Sound' approach and, using many of Spector's studio musicians as well as supplementing them with those more classically trained, he recorded 'snatches' of music in musical suites which he would later edit together, over dub vocals or additional musical instruments and made California's Gold Star studios 'his instrument', which in no way was lost on the Beatles and George Martin prior to their recording of Sgt. Pepper's. The fact that Wilson also used non musical instruments such as partially filled Seltzer bottles for percussion with treated studio harmonics was also not lost on the Beatles either. If Proto Prog is really supposed to mean the prototypical forerunner and inspiration for the late 60's prog that follows, then I think that Pet Sounds and the Beach Boys meet that criteria." It may do little at this point, but it least it sets my intention straight and hopefully people can no longer be concerned with what album influenced what other album and when and return focus back to Pet Sounds and it's technical influence on the Beatles starting with the song Here, There and Everywhere through to Sgt. Pepper's. |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 19:12
|
I agree. In a perfect world, I would be more inclusive and bands like Beach Boys would probably be a no-brainer. But as I said on the prior page, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of adding them to this site. Because it's not a perfect world here. Being more inclusive would require a lot more work and we're stretched really thin here as it is. I haven't seen my own family in weeks. ....... (joke) Also, I wouldn't get too upset over the tiny error in your earlier post and everyone's alleged harping on it. I saw it as a tangential conversation that I don't think was trying to topple your whole argument, it was just something else to talk about, those little dorky details that music nuts like us like to go on about. Your argument is sound - it's just that the implementation of it would not be practical. That's my own opinion and not necessarily the site's position, but there it is. In the interest of full disclosure, I know the Beach Boys have a ton of admirers, but I personally am not one of them. But enough people acknowledge their importance that I can respect that. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 19:17
|
^Wise words well received Steve. And the funny thing is, is that I don't even like the Beach Boys! |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 19:31
LETS SEE U TRY TO MAKE A TEENAGE SYMPHONIE TO GOD IN 1966 I don't either, really.  ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 22:19
|
^ Doesn't matter, at least many here have the integrity to see past musical taste. When I first got here in '06, the very thought of even considering the Boys was blasphemous. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 09 2014 at 23:56
|
A factual error does not throw an entire argument out of the window, the error was obviously a mistake but it would have been wrong to have assumed which album SteveG was referring to. To assume is to make an ass of u and me. I'd like to remind SteveG of a post from June of this year:
Peace out
------------- What? |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 08:08
I'll echo Guldbamsen - no one is arguing the influence on The Beatles, but The Beatles were not a prog rock band. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 09:24
It may not throw an entire arguement out of the window, but it does give good fodder for you're not considering the arguement and making one liners like 'Rubber Soul was released before Pet Sounds" which, while true, would make the arguement about the technical achievements of Pet Sounds superfluous to you and therefore, as usual, dodge the issue and retreat back into the comfort of past archival posts and long standing practices. The proof is simply your lack of comment of the technical arguement in the post. But I'll state again that ultimately the fault is mine to begin with, not yours. I don't want to continue to split hairs over this as I have now clarified my position using Sgt. Pepper's to correctly bolster my technical argument. But with still no reaction forthcoming so I'll use a musical/historical one to put my point across. This extract is from the definitive biography of the Beatles titled Shout by Philip Norman first published in 1981. It is his description of the Beatles coping with competition from two Beatles post Revolver albums "After Revolver, every ceative mind in pop was awakening tot he possibilities of an album that was not just a compendedium of past hits but a self-contained on a definate theme, it's tracks working interdependently like movements in a ical concerto. The two post Revolver productions from across the Atlantic that had taken the Beatles ideas several notches further on were largely responsible for driving them back into the studio. One was the Beach Boys Pet Sounds, an almost Mozartian montage of mulidubbed harmonies and counterpoint, recorded almost single-handedly by Brian Wilson while the rest of the band were out on tour.The second even sharper goad was Freak-Out by the new California group called the Mothers Of Invention: one of the first ever "double Albums", pungent with inconoclatic wit of their leader Frank Zappa, and embellished with quasi-comical sound efects and scraps of conversation. The beatles had originally meant their anwser to Pet Sounds and Freak-Out to be an album in the most literal sense, each track a snap shot of Livepool as they remembered it from childhood." Now how is possible that of the two albums most (and by all accounts solely) responsible for the Beatles to competatively respond to in order to produce Sgt. Peppers, one is considered a full blown Avant/ Progressive Rock work while the other does not merit a nod in PA's Proto Prog catagory with it's "almost Mozartian montage of multidubbed harmonies and counterpoint? Mr. Gorbechov,.. tear..down..this..wall! |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 12:52
| Perfect Beings, #5 on this year's album chart, obvious they have been listening to some Beachboys' music. You can hear it all over their album. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 14:12
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 14:23
|
Your first post asks "Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto Prog?" The argument in favor needs to demonstrate influence on progressive rock artists. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 14:41
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 14:59
Stop right there. We don't do "proto-proto-prog". |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 15:01
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 15:02
Yes, it's turtles all the way down. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 15:05
|
^Now if we can just figure out what happened before the Big bang...
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 18:47
To clear the air, this is my philosophy for any post I make on the internet
So if you want to cast aspersions about my lack of response to your argument I will take them on the chin and move on. My one-liner was a tad more than Rubber Soul was released before Pet Sounds - it also contained another generally accepted 'fact', Rubber Soul influenced Pet Sounds. And that is germane when discussing who influenced who and when. The central point of your argument is Wilson's use of the "studio as an instrument", a phrase that we hear often in regard to The Beatles and can be traced back through Joe Meek, Phil Spector and Tom Dowd to Les Paul who pioneered studio overdubbing. And therein lies the problem - this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_recording_technology" rel="nofollow - first attributed to The Beatles on Rubber Soul in 1965 and progressed further during the Revolver sessions, which we have already determined was more-or-less "in the can" by the time Pet Sounds was released. I still maintain (as per my post in the SMiLE thread back in June) that Pet Sounds influenced some of Revolver, but not by any significant degree and probably just on the one accepted track (Here, There and Everywhere) - [no back-tracking from me there]. What also cannot be disputed (because Paul McCartney has acknowledged it), is that Pet Sounds inspired The Beatles to produce Sgt Pepper's. How much of the studio techniques that Wilson employed were aped by The Beatles and the Abbey Road Engineers is a matter of conjecture, I suspect it was more a parallel development and exploration by artistically gifted people given a free-run in a studio. As yourself has stated, none of this "influence" was in music, though there are "Beach-Boys" references in a couple of Beatles songs (starting with Girl from Rubber Soul) - they were incredibly eclectic in the truest sense of the word and pulled musical influences from practically every piece of music they'd ever heard regardless of genre or style and that is a reflection of their background in music and what they grew-up listening to. This practically defines everything about The Beatles and goes a long way to explain why the seemingly simple "Beat" tunes they were writing in the early 60s surprised later musicologists when they tried to meticulously analyse them [ref: Theodor W. Adorno]. This eclecticism extended to the sound of the instruments and playing techniques - they'd hear something they liked the sound of and wanted to replicate it in their own way, McCartney's switch to the Rick bass was an example of that.
We don't have album tagging so an artist is placed in a category that is the best for their entire body of work and not a single album, Zappa cannot be pinned to a single genre or category but we have to pick one and his placement in RIO/Avant-Prog is not for Freak Out! alone. Many "proto" artists reside in other subgenres here. Inspiring is not influencing - this is not a subtle distinction nor is it splitting-hairs over word definitions. For the sake of comparison an album that is influenced by another artist or album will show some sonic or musical evidence of that influence, an album that is inspired by another artist or album will have no such sonic or musical evidence. At their peak The Beatles were without rival, the rivalry and competition with other bands is overstated and exaggerated (more to bolster the careers of their "rivals" than The Beatles themselves), other bands may have seen themselves as serious contenders but in reality there was simply no competition. Even in the field of artistic creation I suspect that the "rivals" put more effort into trying to catch-up with The Beatles (erm Their Satanic Majesties Request) than the Beatles ever did in trying to better what someone else had already done. But that is not to say The Beatles were not inspired by what they heard to push themselves and their own creations. Pet Sounds and Freak Out! didn't goad them back into the studio, that's being over melodramatic and just a little "creative journalism" on the part of Mr Norman.
There does appear to be a number of misconceptions about Proto Prog as we use it here at the Prog Archives (as opposed to how other people use it elsewhere). For the purposes of the PA Proto Prog is a category that collates the embryonic beginnings of Progressive Rock and not its influences (neither direct nor indirect) nor what inspired it. Proto Prog is not a list of bands that influenced the early Prog bands (that would be a somewhat daft and meaningless category).
------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 19:18
|
^Not an attack, just an observation. Printed words that yeild no
response. But it is my subjective opinion and you have the right to
resent it or view it as false. The only one that knows the truth is you,
so you are correct in your criticism. As for Rubber Soul being some sort of vanguard of studio recording, that to me is laughable. As I stated, the album was praised for it's Dylan like song developments and overall song quality, not it's sonic quality which was still very much in line with previous Beatles recordings in regards to Microphone placement and types, recording volume, EQ ing and the like. There is nothing sonically remarkable about Rubber Soul compared to Help or A Hard Day's Night. My quandry with the Proto Prog catagory is if the Proto Prog groups did not influence any future Prog groups, why have the catagory and if the criteria is that they influenced future Progressive Rock groups then how does one prove it? The only substantial way to prove one musical artist's influence over another is through vocal and musical mimicry, not by the instruments they used or how many guitar players they had. In other words, if the Beatles are Proto Prog then who sounds like them? Who did Lucy In The Sky part 2. or I AM the Walrus (Again). Hendrix is listed as Proto Prog but who the hell sounds like him and exactly why is he Proto Prog? Again, I've never heard Yes do something that sounds like Purple Haze or Are You Experienced. Thank God. Which brings us back to Pet Sounds. Who sounds like the Beach Boys doing Sloop John B. or Wouldn't It be Nice? The same answer as the rest. Nobody. So how come the're not Proto Prog. They seem to fit the same criteria.Which is still as vague when I started out this comparison. Perhaps it because Proto has had it's day |
Posted By: ProgFather
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 20:05
|
No, at least not until "Love You" ....where Brian plays the farty synths and sings "Solar System" I reserve the right to add humor to my second post, BTW. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 10 2014 at 20:05
Eh? There are more polite ways of requesting a response from me (or anyone).
No one ever claimed it was a vanguard of studio recording. Unfortunately the appropriate Wikipedia link will not embed into a post, go to Wikipedia and search "The Beatles' recording technology" - failing that, the cited reference is Lewisohn - The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions p. 54
That isn't a written criteria. The word "influence" does not appear in http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=37" rel="nofollow - our genre definition of Proto Prog . As I said: "There does appear to be a number of misconceptions about Proto Prog as we use it here at the Prog Archives"
The influence of The Beatles is evident in many of the early Prog albums, but doing Lucy In The Sky part 2 would be a pastiche not an influence. But as I said: "For the purposes of the PA Proto Prog is a category that collates the embryonic beginnings of Progressive Rock and not its influences (neither direct nor indirect) nor what inspired it. Proto Prog is not a list of bands that influenced the early Prog bands (that would be a somewhat daft and meaningless category). "
I think the Proto Prog category had its day about ten years ago. Adding bands now is superfluous. ------------- What? |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: September 11 2014 at 05:09
|
Influence on the progressive rock movement - including its earliest form, proto prog - does not render the music proto prog. Beatles and Hendrix are proto prog because they actually played long sections of music that was prog rock but not yet fully developed to song long or even album long prog rock. For instance, Beatles could be labelled proto crossover prog, proto raga prog etc. Hendrix played space rock (7th Stone), as did the Beatles (Flying), a prog rock genre. I cannot think of any Beach Boys song that represents proto 'insert prog rock genre'. Well perhaps something on Smiley Smile. However, the Beach Boys I think did contribute to the earliedst stage of the development of progressive rock, namely the Ideation phase and perhaps even the conceptualization stage. But they never entered the development stage as the bands listed as proto prog on PA. Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper freed the minds of the musicians (ideation stage) including Robert Fripp and the rest is history. Technology in its broadest sense (studio technique, song writing skills, instruments, management) surely was the input to the development of prog rock, but if the output - the music - does not sound like prog it cannot even be labelled proto prog.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 11 2014 at 08:47
Good Vibrations was recorded at 17 different sessions and four different recording studios. It ws edited together to form a multi part song suite with an intro, verse, chorus, repeat of verse and chorus, and (for the time) a lenthy instrumental break and final chorus while sporting lyrics that today are dated but were quite hip in 1966 with the added psychedelic embelishment of an Electro-Theremin. (see Revolver: How the Beatles Reimagined Rock 'n' Roll by Robert Rodridguez) This song is psychedelic enough for me and is as proto as anything else stated and warrants the band's placement in that catogory. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 11 2014 at 09:18
|
[Originally quoted by Dean] Proto Prog is not about influence. I think the Proto Prog category had its day about ten years ago. Adding bands now is superfluous. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Proto
Proto Prog not being about influence is fine, you stated that twice as this will help many members that believed that it was based on influence as you can see from the posts in this thread. Adding the Beach Boys then for their work on Good Vibrations, based on it's heavy nod to psychedelia and suite like song construction, would not be superfluous then but simply correct. Refer to post above to EarlyProg. |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: September 11 2014 at 11:47
|
Are you this guy?
------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 11 2014 at 11:57
|
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 11 2014 at 17:02
 I'm actually this guy Tapfret. Why don't you Private Pessage me so I can have you over for dinner. Then you could meet my friends and jam. The're a lot of fun too."Doing the right thing is never superfluous." |
Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: September 12 2014 at 02:40
|
If the Beatles are, then yes. Whatever the reasoning was for them, go with that. 'Smile' is certainly more progressive than any Beatles album. The counter would be that the Beatles have a greater amount of proto prog music. I think it's inane to deny the place of Pet Sounds, Smile, Surf's Up and various other BB moments in the development of prog just because it would mean adding all those fluffy early BB albums. The Beatles had those too.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 12 2014 at 03:32
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 12 2014 at 03:46
LOL, if you're not their fan, then you should start this thread with The Steve Miller Band in the title of the thread. Because they were a Progressive rock band in the late sixties; I mean, when our beloved genre already existed as such. But somehow The Steve Miller Band are not in Proto Prog / Prog-Related section yet although they were released two full prog albums (the two of the milestones of the prog genre, actually) in 1968. Even Pink Floyd stolen from them some very interesting riffs..  |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 12 2014 at 03:48
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 12 2014 at 08:58
|
Interrestingly, Jim DeRogatis difinitive book (by anyone's standards)
titled Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock,
published 2003, lists the Beach Boys as first in the book as a
psychedelic American rock group with particular emphasis on the song Good
Vibrations (the use of the Electro-Therimin, psychedelic lyrics, choral and organ break, etc.) along with a description of the experimental approach to the
ill fated Smile album. While that album went defunct for a number of
well know reasons, DeRogatis does expand on the salvaged Smiley Smile. "Some of the songs that had been on Smile were recorded for Smiley Smile in different versions "Heroes and Villians, Wonderful. Wind Chimes and Vegetables, while a few new tracks were freshly recorded and tacked on ( the best is Brian's With Me Tonight; the worst being She's Going Bald. The harmoney vocals hold the spotlight through out and the result is not unlike what Hendrix called "a psychedelic barbershop quartet". He meant it as an insult but it's an Intruiging concept nonetheless and takes nothing away from the psychedelic intent of the Smiley Smile album, and indeed supports it." Early Experimental Psychedelic Rock=Proto Prog Smiley Smile=Proto Prog. "Doing the right thing is never superfluous." |
Posted By: NYSPORTSFAN
Date Posted: September 13 2014 at 15:16
|
I think we all respect Brian Wilson but they are not proto-prog IMO. Pet Sounds while progressive has hardly has any rock elements, Smile was not released until way after the fact and Smiley Smile is disjointed. Another fact is The Beach Boys relied heavily on another musicians to play their instrumental parts. The comparison to The Beatles fails miserably as they were doing the heavy hitting with Rubber Soul, Revolver, Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane, Sgt. Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album and Abbey Road. Another point is let's look at Revolver diversity which The Beach Boys never even approached on one album and of course is progressive. There is nothing in the Beach Boys catalog as progressive or innovative as "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Strawberry Fields Forever" "Taxman' proto hard rock/funk, "Love You To" World Music, "Eleanor Rigby" classical, "For No One (Lieder/Art Song), "I'm Only Sleeping" psych/folk, "She Said She Said" Acid Rock", "And Your Bird Can Sing" Power Pop/ Twin Guitar Leads, "Yellow Submarine" Psych Novelty Song", "Got to Get You Into My Life" psych/soul and "Tomorrow Never Knows" basically invents a couple of genres IMO. When someone says The Beach Boys are proto-prog please give me a break. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 13 2014 at 19:49
|
The Beach Boys were progressive as far as surf music goes, and they took the California beach sound to its utter limits. However, I would never mistake them for a proto-prog rock band. ------------- ...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... |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 13 2014 at 21:21
"Smile" was never released except as a nostalgic semi-official 'collectors release' years later (unless you mean Brian Wilson Presents Smile), but the session tapes Wilson had made for "Smile" were circulating not long after recording began. Smiley Smile is indeed disjointed. So what? What does that have to do with being or not being protoprog? It was among the first American avantgarde rock albums in history. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: NYSPORTSFAN
Date Posted: September 14 2014 at 06:13
With your premise I guess The Velvet Underground should be proto-prog as their first couple of albums were avant-garde/rock albums and minimalistic? |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 14 2014 at 10:39
Imo, The Velvet Underground should be in Avant Prog section. The Velvet Underground in PA could be a nice counterpart of ex-Yugoslavian post-punk group http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJIdPODFsZs" rel="nofollow - Šarlo Akrobata who are http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3696" rel="nofollow - already in PA as Avant Prog act as well. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 14 2014 at 11:06
------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 14 2014 at 12:23
"Doing the right thing is never superfluous." |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 14 2014 at 15:02
I'm sorry, Steve, but claiming Good Vibrations is proto-prog is almost as ridiculous as saying Velvet Underground was prog. Almost. Good Vibrations is surf music with a theremin thrown in. That doesn't constitute proto-prog. ------------- ...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... |
Posted By: iluvmarillion
Date Posted: September 14 2014 at 20:22
| Is the influence and contribution of The Beach Boys to popular music in the last half of the 20th century somehow diminished because we don't classify The Beach Boys in the proto rock section of this site. I don't think so. Just as The Kinks and The Small Faces aren't classified here either, but all are fantastic bands who have influenced the sounds of a lot of prog rock bands here. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 14 2014 at 21:15
There is no 'premise' and I have no agenda. Artists are not added to PA because they compare well with other artists deemed progressive. The Beach Boys were a rock band that was, or became, an art-rock band. If that bothers you, tough. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: September 14 2014 at 22:22
No, because they are more experimental than avantgarde, and minimalistic is the opposite of prog.
If that's what Good Vibrations seems like to you, music might not be your thing. A Day in the Life is pop with an orchestral climax plastered on (actually, that's more accurate than what you said, seeing as Good Vibrations isn't surf music at all).
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 15 2014 at 00:42
|
^ I think arguing for 'Good Vibrations' as progressive or even protoprog is tenuous at best. What I would say is that it appears on Smiley Smile, an otherwise unhinged and thoroughly irreverent album.
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 15 2014 at 01:10
|
When I was a little kid who just started to listen to rock music, going to concerts and buy LPs, in the mid-seventies, almost all of that was prog. At local fm radio back then I'd hear very often a song that I quite liked, and I thought that it's a prog song. Sometime later, when I decided to find and buy LP with that song, I was very disappointed when I've been told that the band is not prog band, and that song is "not prog song". The band was called the Beach Boys, and that song was Good Vibrations. However, Good Vibrations is still to be par excellence prog song for me. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 15 2014 at 02:35
Thanks for that Svetonio, very well put Sometimes we forget that our own personal vision isn't quite the same as everyone else's because how we arrived at that view is by our own path of experience that no one else has trod. Good Vibrations doesn't stop being a great song just because it isn't a Prog or Proto-Prog song and no one can make you dislike something you quite liked just by disagreeing with your own personal image of what fits into a particular genre or category of music. There is no reason to be disappointed when people disagree with your opinion.  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: September 15 2014 at 03:40
|
I think Holland is more art pop proggish anyway :-) beaks of eagles... ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: September 15 2014 at 04:43
|
A friend of mine who doesn't like much prog, and also hadn't ever heard the Beach Boys (or at least didn't remember anything by them), was like "eh, I don't like prog very much" when I played it for him. This is after me playing prog here and there for him. The song seemed basically in line with what I'd been playing. He never made such a comment with the Beatles, even A Day in the Life. When I first started listening to prog, I never thought the Beach Boys (who I'd always known) were related to it. It was only later, after listening substantially to them with an unbiased ear that I realized they had some embryonic prog elements. My friend, who had no pre-conceived idea of them, saw the similarities immediately.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 15 2014 at 06:13
|
Beyond this very good discussion, the elephant in the room is the question of whether the Beach Boys should be seriously considered for Proto. In practical terms, particularly for the Admin team who would decide,
would be whether the stated material is enough. There is no doubt they were
a rock band and even more so a Popular rock band (to the chagrin
of many rock 'n roll purists at the time) who began diverging from
their less ambitious pack of peers, much like the Beatles though less successfully. I see the Beach Boys as protoprog, support their addition and have since the day I arrived but this is not a push by me for them to be added. I have too much respect for the other opinions here and it would be a bitter pill to swallow for many. But it is interesting to see some support where there used to be little. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 15 2014 at 09:45
To say that Good Vibrations is nothing more than surf music with a Theremin would be like saying that Folk Rock is simply Folk music played on an electric guitar. For the record I will state that I personally don't care for the Beach Boys, early Beatles or the voice of Bob Dylan but I do care about the truth, so I have to use these artists in my post. The 60's is often thought simply as a time of change. That is incorrect. It was a time of people changing. To get back to folk rock which for all intents and puposes was partially created by Dylan by performing at the staid 1965 Newport Folk Festival with an electric band to back up his new musical approach. This caused an incrededible uproar in the folk circles of the time, but the point is that Dylan recognised that he had to put a 4/4 beat under his songs and create a rhythm section with bass and drums. He also knew that going rock was going to involve placing a middle eight section in his songs to be played by either electric guitar or keyboards. For his electric Newport band, he brought in electric blues guitarist Mike Bloomfield to back him and solo. The Byrds had already perfected this folk rock concept with the hit Mr. Tambourine Man. (Incidentally writen by Dylan.) Dylan followed suit and Folk Music and Folk Rock became seperate entities, forever. The Beatles who get so much credit for innovation, and rightly so, were also highly influenced by outside musical sources. They did not invent Rock 'n' Roll but picked up it's mantle and moved forward. Their first big influence was Mr. Dylan and his newly introspective songwriting, that tickled John Lennon's fancy the most. it came out on songs like "You've got to hide your love away", "Ticket to ride" and later on, but musicaly hidden, on "Help. It was with this growth that The Beatles started to expand their bounderies to include new musical themes and lyrics, as well as changing personal and social factors, that brought us all the way up from Meet The Beatles to Sgt. Pepper's. Brian Wilson was also seeking change. Surf Music was a south California music genre that developed in the late 1950's with the magical Dick Dale and his signature sounding "wet'' reverb Fender Mustang guitar that went on influence other surf music instrumental groups of the early 60's like the Ventures. If you've ever heard the song "Wipe Out" by The Surfaris with it's incessant rhythm, you know what Surf Music sounds like. Wilson and the Beach Boys used this template along with the multi part harmony vocals of 50's group The Four Freshman to make up the Beach Boy's surf sound. With Pet Sounds, Wison wanted to go past the surf sound and it's themes of surfer girls and hot rods. For Pet Sounds he brought in a outside lyricist because he wanted someone to flesh out his more personal lyrics along with a more sophisticated way of composing that would employ more sophisticated arrangements and sessions musicians. He would also employ very different musical instruments in place of the stardard surf music combo of two guitars, bass and drums. While utilizing those instruments he would supplant them with organ, piano, tympani, sleigh bells, clarinet, bass clarinet, tenor and saprono saxophone, trumpet, trumbone, flutes, cello, violins, violas, vibraphone, glockenspiel, French horn, English horn and most strangely, harpsichord. He would also use the Theremin for the first time on any recorded Rock song. ("I know there's am answer" was the song.) Pet Sounds was so removed from Surf Music that record company Capital was shocked by it and fellow Beach Boy co-founder and co-leader Mike Love was so disgusted by Wilson's change in musical direction that he called the new music on Pet Sounds Brian's "Ego Music". The Beach Boys' fans were disappointed by the album as well and it was the first poor selling BB's album of the 60's in America. Simply put, Pet Sounds was no longer Surf Music. It was something else for it's time. Pop by today's standards, it was almost without musical category when it was released in 1966. And so was the hit "Good Vibrations" that immidiately followed it. The twangy Dick Dale inspired manic tempo'ed music about hot rods, Woody's and making out at the Drive-in was gone. Like Folk Rock splitting away from Folk, Pet Sounds had split away from Surf. (But the Pet Sounds split off involved the lyrics as well as the music, so it went further off than Folk Rock from Folk Music.) So much, that a group called the Beatles, that were so heavily insipred by the lyrics of Bob Dylan and were on their own musical exploration, took notice. The elephant in the room is still the question about if the Beach Boys are Proto Prog, but it's nice to get the facts out in order to answer that question. *Edited at 1630 hrs to add more instruments to Pet Sounds' recording sessions and correct spelling of 'theremin'.
|