| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
moonlapse 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 15 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
 Posted: February 15 2006 at 20:09 |
 king volta wrote:
way to turn my point inside out...perhaps i'd do teh
same to you and make you feel like a dumbass if i felt up to it.
and i'm not a mean person.
i will say that what i meant by "have an open-mind" was to accept that they are here for reason.
and when i said "deal with the collabs decision" that's exactly what
i meant. approach their decision (which i doubt they will change just
because you don't agree with it) with a more open-mind--form their side
of the spectrum.
they had a choice to make, and this was their decision, accept this
decision with an open-mind as to why it was made. i'm not saying, as
you put it, be a conformist and accept everything that's done on this
site no matter what. i assure i disagree with some aspects of the site,
but you don't see me whining about them do you? no.
you know why? because i feel there are betters things to do, and
music to discover. whether or not you feel the same is, of course, up
to you. |
You want to make me feel like a dumbass, go ahead 
You conflict yourself.
You say have an open mind about the Beatles and accept they are here for a reason.
Then, you say don't be a conformist by accepting everything that's done
on the site. Well, ok, that's what I'm doing by posting here.
So, what's the problem? Or, should I only disagree with things you think I should disagree with?
Or is it just because I posted about something I disagreed with, and you don't do that?
And, I know they won't change their decision. Which is their right. THAT I can agree with. Fine.
And, I won't change my opinion, which is also my right.
Cheers 
|
 |
Figglesnout
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1455
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 20:15 |
...you're still missing the point but it's okay.
i understand you don't like the beatles being here and that's just hunky-dory.
but not reason to throw things in my face.
they are here adn here to stay, whether or not you or i agree/disagree with them being here.
so on that note i'm not going to post in this useless thread anymore.
adios.
|
|
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
|
moonlapse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 15 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 20:26 |
|
Please don't say I'm throwing things in your face. Because I'm
not. I'm just making a point by refuting your logic. Maybe
you just can't back up your logic? I don't know. Anyway
we'll leave it at that.
Useless thread - that is 9 pages long already!
|
|
The Miracle
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 29 2005
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 28427
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 20:31 |
Wow - this thread is fast
Yet it doesn't change anything - they will stay here...
|
|
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46843
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 20:33 |
wow! Maybe my comparing the Moodies and Beatles last night got
them the one accolade missing from their illustrustrious resume....
inclusion in Prog Archives hahahhaha.
Since L O S T is coming on soon.. I'll just toss out my two cents,
though in the previous 9 pages it has probably already been brought
up...
Since this site is also about educating us about prog as well as
discussing it, the Beatles inclusion is a no brainer. If the term
'progressive rock' was in use then... it would have been applied to the
Beatles. That plus if you don't understand and appreciate the
Beatles contribuation to 'progressing' music... then you cannot
understand what progressive rock was all about.
A big thumbs up for the Beatles inclusion from Micky. 
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
The-Bullet
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 23 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 401
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 20:57 |
Tony R wrote:
That means that we will chronicle the development of Prog Rock from its roots upwards and thus include bands that were both important in its development and were musically progressive.We get dozens of threads which start "who were the first Prog band" or "which bands influenced Prog bands the most". Now the archive will show the answers to these questions and more.
Imagine a site about Human Evolution not including apes..... |
Certif1ed wrote:
And they're Prog-Related/Proto-Prog - there was no Prog Rock before them and they're largely responsible for helping to bring it about.
ALL pop/rock music is related to the Beatles. They're welcome at every party.  |
BebieM wrote:
Proto-prog albums should not count for the top100 list then. Even
though we might not care too much about the list, it'd still be wrong,
the beatles never made a great truly prog album. And it's misleading
people that are new to prog.
|
These three post sum up my views on this.I feel The Beatles were a great band who should be in the proto-prog section. Their reviews should continue but the scores should not count towards the PA most popular titles list (imo)
|
"Why say it cannot be done.....they'd be better doing pop songs?"
|
|
honganji
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 21 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 571
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 21:01 |
I don't think The Beatles is progressive rock at all. 
Supertramp temporarily made progressive rock albums. I agree with the opinions that Supertramp is progressive.
Early ELO made strange rock albums. I think this is one of a kind of progressive rock.
Early Deep Purple also tried to make new music. I think this challenge was progressive.
Early Ambrosia tried to make progressive pop/rock.
Late 60s and 70s Miles Davis produced many progressive rock albums. Those were already not jazz.
Also Early YMO was progressive. If they were not so popular in 1980s, they might be regarded as an undergroud electronics virtuoso. Unfortunately they became popular as a techno pop band.
As these examples I suggested, there are many bands/artists putting on the border of progressive rock and other genre. However The Beatles is apparently different. At least, in my opinion. If this group is put into progressive rock, what kind of rock must be called ''not progressive rock'' ?
A lot of Prog Archives users may not be able to agree with me, but I do want to say. ''The Beatles is not good selection in this site.''  If the Beatles is progressive rock, The Tigers, The Spiders, Golden Cups etc (GS groups in Japan in 1960s) may be also progressive rock. 
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21768
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 21:16 |
|
^ The Beatles are not Prog Rock, we all agree on that. What's the problem?
|
|
|
|
moonlapse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 15 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 21:20 |
honganji wrote:
If this group is put into progressive rock, what kind of rock must be called ''not progressive rock'' ? |
Hey, let's add Green Day!!!
|
|
AngleofRepose
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 01 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 173
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 21:28 |
|
It comes down to what PA frequenters are looking for in the website.
If you want to come here to expand your prog rock collection, get a sense
of progressive rock and discuss prog then you don't want the Beatles. In
this case the site wouldn't single-handedly offer a perfect knowledge of
proggressive music.
If you want an all-encompassing encyclopedia and history of proggressive
music you want the Beatles, even if the knowledge is nearly
misleading, harder to sift through and understanding takes more
attention to detail.
|
|
ken4musiq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 22:30 |
micky wrote:
wow! Maybe my comparing the Moodies and Beatles last night got them the one accolade missing from their illustrustrious resume.... inclusion in Prog Archives hahahhaha.
Since L O S T is coming on soon.. I'll just toss out my two cents, though in the previous 9 pages it has probably already been brought up...
Since this site is also about educating us about prog as well as discussing it, the Beatles inclusion is a no brainer. If the term 'progressive rock' was in use then... it would have been applied to the Beatles. That plus if you don't understand and appreciate the Beatles contribuation to 'progressing' music... then you cannot understand what progressive rock was all about.
A big thumbs up for the Beatles inclusion from Micky.
|
Oh, Mickey you disappoint me. The term was in use then and it was applied to The Beatles. I guess you don't believe a word I say.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46843
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 23:03 |
ken4musiq wrote:
micky wrote:
wow! Maybe my comparing the
Moodies and Beatles last night got them the one accolade missing from
their illustrustrious resume.... inclusion in Prog Archives hahahhaha.
Since
L O S T is coming on soon.. I'll just toss out my two cents, though in
the previous 9 pages it has probably already been brought up...
Since this site is also about educating us about prog as well as discussing it, the Beatles inclusion is a no brainer. If the term 'progressive rock' was in use then... it would have been applied to the Beatles.
That plus if you don't understand and appreciate the Beatles
contribuation to 'progressing' music... then you cannot understand what
progressive rock was all about.
A big thumbs up for the Beatles inclusion from Micky.
|
Oh, Mickey you disappoint me. The term was in use then and it was applied to The Beatles. I guess you don't believe a word I say. |
hahahah I would worry less about me disappointing you and worry more about being consistant in your posts hahahahha
ken4musiq wrote:
<>King Crimson was compared to the Beatles in their heyday; they were
the Beatles with jazz. The idea the King Crimson emerged on the scene
and suddenly there was progressive rock is a misnomer. It was years
before these bands, Yes, Gensis, ELP were exclusively designated as
progressive rock.
|
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
ChadFromCanada
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 12 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 293
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 23:05 |
What I'm wondering, is if Meet the Beatles! is an actual album. Because it's not included in the archives.
Oh, and my stance on the Beatles being added, at first, I thought "What
in the heck?", but Tony R's response was enough to make me realize what
they mean for the site.
I would have put them under prog related though .
Or maybe create a new section for placing bands in that were vital to the roots of progressive music.
|
|
Legoman
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 21 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 306
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 23:30 |
Obviously we are all lossing much sleep over this and it hasn't even been an entire day yet.
Now... if you look at the term Proto-Prog, it is obviously a term
referring to beginning prog, classic prog, pre-prog, all of that.
These are the bands that made albums that inspired prog bands like King
Crimson and the like. But... the thing is... that not all of the
Beatles albums ARE prog. No doubt Sergent Pepper's
is the first concept album. Everyone can agree with that.
But almost none of their other albums are prog! AT ALL! I
mean, at think point (like others have said before me) you'd might as
well add The Doors because Morrison Hotel had a concept behind it!
-_-
I really REALLY thought that the world of Prog was a sacred and perfect world before this and now, upon adding a band (But mainly albums like Help! and Meet The Beatles)
will only progress into adding more and more classic rock stuff.
Just because all prog metal artists find Van Halen to be their idle
doesn't make him prog so... what is the logic here? I simple KNOW
for a fact that this site is going to become overrun with more and more
classic rock CRAP before the year is out and Sergent Pepper's
is going to be in the top 10 albums before not too long. It is a
real depressing thing you site regulaters have done to
ProgArchieve. I mean, you might have well have taken my first
born daughters virginity also! It would be the same kick in the
crouch.
Another thing. Just as I suspected people have already begun giving 5 star ratings on EVERY Beatles album. Seriously. To the people that do that. When was the last time you even LISTENED to some of those Beatles albums. Obviously they are not all as good as Close to the Edge or Darkside of the Moon... but are you guys even familiar with those albums anymore anyway?
ONE LAST POINT! PLEASE READ!
Pretty soon, pretty much invariably, whenever anyone googles The
Beatles they are going to find ProgArchieves in the top 5
results. (I say this because with less common bands I get
ProgArchieves as THE first result.) I'm not saying that this is
going to happen soon but, also, within a year, it might. And,
just think about it. Do we really want all of those dumb
teenagers who just discovered music, outside of GREENDAY!!! that is, to
come onto our forums and post on how they think their special Emo band
is sort of prog? I know I don't and I fear the gradual degress
into decadence of this site.
This addition can not be good for this site. And I dread the changes.
|
|
Drew
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2005
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 12600
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 00:10 |
I just dont want the time to come when The Beatles kick out a great album on the top 100 list
|
|
|
|
calvin
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 28 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 58
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 01:31 |
|
|
|
Pafnutij
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: Russian Federation
Status: Offline
Points: 415
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 02:58 |
This site has made me hate the Beatles
Edited by Pafnutij
|
|
BiGi
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 01 2005
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 848
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 03:01 |
Phil wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Phil wrote:
Excuse me while I laugh myself silly!!!!!!!!!ps don't get me wrong - I like these bands (well I'm a bit so-so about ELO....), its just that they aren't progressive!!!! |
Nobody says that the Beatles are a prog rock band. But of course
they made some progressive albums ... you may laugh all you want, but
I'm sure that most prog rock artists would agree with us (collabs) here. |
So
then Mike, this martian comes down to earth to find out all about
progressive music, he logs onto PA and he picks a few artistes at
random:
The Beatles
ELO
Deep Purple
Supertramp
..what sort of a view do you think he gets of what prog rock is? ...do
I make my point?? It's just that if you spread the net too far, it
becomes meaningless. You folks are thinking that only "good" music is
"prog" music and vice-versa.....
|
Here we go again with the definition of what "progressive" really means...a really hard task...and definitely prone to subjective points of view!
|
A flower?
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 03:35 |
Legoman wrote:
(...)
Now... if you look at the term Proto-Prog, it is obviously a term referring to beginning prog, classic prog, pre-prog, all of that. These are the bands that made albums that inspired prog bands like King Crimson and the like. But... the thing is... that not all of the Beatles albums ARE prog. No doubt Sergent Pepper's is the first concept album. Everyone can agree with that. But almost none of their other albums are prog!
(...)
|
There are fairly clear cases for "Abbey Road", "Revolver", "Magical Mystery Tour" and to some extent "Rubber Soul" and "The Beatles".
That's 5 out of 12 official albums, including "Sgt Pepper" (and one EP), making a nearly 50% clear prog-related case.
If you look at their career in terms of years (1963-1970), then consider that they released progressive material from around 1965 ("Rubber Soul"), and the argument is even more compelling - that's 5 years out of 7, or more than 60% of the time they were creating music.
Genesis on the other hand only managed less than 30% - their career was from 1969 - present, and they only released Prog Rock from 1970-1980 - if you include "Duke" - which many proggers don't. That's 10 years, out of 37. If, as many proggers do, you discount everything after Gabriel left, then that's only 5 years - exactly the same time as the Beatles, but a far, far lower percentage of their career.
So the Beatles are at least as Prog as Genesis by that logic.
Edited by Certif1ed
|
|
Chipiron
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 05 2005
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 780
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 03:42 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Legoman wrote:
(...)
Now... if you look at the term Proto-Prog, it is obviously a term referring to beginning prog, classic prog, pre-prog, all of that. These are the bands that made albums that inspired prog bands like King Crimson and the like. But... the thing is... that not all of the Beatles albums ARE prog. No doubt Sergent Pepper's is the first concept album. Everyone can agree with that. But almost none of their other albums are prog!
(...)
|
There are fairly clear cases for "Abbey Road", "Revolver", "Magical Mystery Tour" and to some extent "Rubber Soul" and "The Beatles".
That's 5 out of 12 official albums, including "Sgt Pepper" (and one EP), making a nearly 50% clear prog-related case.
If you look at their career in terms of years (1963-1970), then consider that they released progressive material from around 1965 ("Rubber Soul"), and the argument is even more compelling - that's 5 years out of 7, or more than 60% of the time they were creating music.
Genesis on the other hand only managed less than 30% - their career was from 1969 - present, and they only released Prog Rock from 1970-1980 - if you include "Duke" - which many proggers don't. That's 10 years, out of 37. If, as many proggers do, you discount everything after Gabriel left, then that's only 5 years - exactly the same time as the Beatles, but a far, far lower percentage of their career.
So the Beatles are at least as Prog as Genesis by that logic.
|
Well... then,why not limit the reviews and scores to the "prog" albums of each band and just "list" the others? I know it'd be a lot of work for PA people, but I think It might be worth it... maybe 
|
|
[IMG]http://www.belderrain.es/GIFs/tora.gif">
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Beatles. Here. Why?
