Did the Beatles really Invent Prog? Or not?

They did not invent it, but they made the commercial path for it.

odinalcatraz wrote: SteveG wrote: samus88 wrote: Nope, the Beatles weren't a prog band. Saying they invented prog is like saying the Beatles' mothers made the Beatle's music because they gave birth to the Beatles. People make that argument because "they came before" anything else, but really anything that comes prior to something is technically a precursor of said something. Just beause they laid ground for things to come, doesn't mean they did the things to come. They didn't write King Crimson's first album (which I think really is the first prog album. You could listen to that back to back with a prog album from mid-70s and there's no difference. However most albums up to 1970 have that "proto-prog" sound.), King Crimson did. To me, the argument that the Beatles should be credited for prog is just as valid (I should say Invalid, actually) as saying the people who gave King Crimson their instruments should be credited for it as well. One thing wouldn't have happened without the other. But no, the Beatles weren't a prog band. Pivotal in prog/rock history? Sure. Prog? Nah. Related at best. Also, to me Deep Purple sounds more prog than the Beatles. But I don't think either of them were prog. Kati wrote: "To me The Whole second side of Abbey Road is progressive rock"     And sometimes people who are the forerunners also turn out to be the runners. Facts about King Crims. (Altho' Fripp could be wrong) Let’s start at the top. King Crimson are generally accepted as one of the pre-eminent prog bands with releases like In The Court Of The Crimson King, In The Wake of Poseidon and Lizard. Robert Fripp has made no secret of the fact that hearing the orchestral grandeur of A Day In The Life, arguably the most iconic track on Sgt. Pepper, was “incredibly powerful.” He once said that “something opened up” when he heard it on the radio. As early as 1969, Crimson were covering Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds at rehearsals. Though perhaps the band’s most overt acknowledgement came a year later, when Happy Family – one of Lizard’s most enduring songs – bemoaned the messy break-up of The Beatles. Fast forward to 2000’s live album Heavy ConstruKction and you’ll find Tomorrow Never Knew Thela, which fuses Thela Hun Ginjeet with John Lennon’s Sgt. Pepper precursor, Tomorrow Never Knows. This wasn’t all Fripp’s doing either. Guitarist Adrian Belew was a huge fan of The Beatles’ Revolver/Sgt. Pepper period.

It could be that Floyd, Mclaughlin, Justin Hayward or Bill Bruford are also mistaken:
Other debts of gratitude from the land of prog have come from Pink Floyd. In particular, the clutch of singles that immediately followed Sgt. Pepper. The lyrics of Apples And Oranges quote the title track at one point (“Thought you might like to know”), while Paintbox carries the tangible scent of A Day In The Life. It was a fascination that reached its ultimate form of expression in the sweeping orchestral sections of Atom Heart Mother. Perhaps most striking of all is Floyd’s appropriation of Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds on 1968’s Point Me At The Sky.

Meanwhile, The Moody Blues were busy creating late ‘60s concept works like In Search Of The Lost Chord and On The Threshold Of A Dream. “The Beatles were the leaders in everything,” Justin Hayward said recently. “Whatever they did, people followed. And we started to empathise with that.”

There are plenty of further examples. John McLaughlin revealed that he flipped out when he first heard Sgt. Pepper. US composer Carla Bley spent three years in a quest “to match” the album with 1971’s avant-jazz opera,

THIS is what I have always said:
Bill Bruford, a man who knows a thing or two about prog, once opined that, “Without The Beatles, or someone else who had done what The Beatles did, it is fair to assume that there would have been no progressive rock.”

^No argument here. I wouldn't try if I could.

Friday13th wrote: Svetonio wrote: Friday13th wrote: Well Strawberry Fields IS strange in a good way even to modern ears now. "Strawberry fields...nothing is real." The notes hit on those words are chromatic and dissonant, and not to mention the outro. That doesn't mean no one had done that sort of thing before or that you could say "HERE! THE BIRTH OF PROG!" Psychedelic/Baroque pop had many comparable examples since '66. Good Vibrations was released earlier and is equally radical for its time, so to arbitrarily put a stake on Strawberry Fields doesn't work for me. Strawberry Fields Forever is 'haunting' (strange-in-a-good-way, but not for everybody at that time) nothing less than e.g. Entangled by Genesis in 70s since we know how big difference in the equipment, technology of recording etc. actually is between 60s and middle of 70s, even in the case when The Beatles use that Indian harp (i.e. swarmandal, Hindustani Classical music instrument) to underline that haunting atmosphere.   Regarding Psychedelic and Baroque pop the tags, both tags are not quite suitable for Strawberry Fields Forever. Tomorow Never Knows is the great psych, and we could even describe that one as 'progressive psychedelia' aswell, but it's a 'psychedelic experience', not that haunting, pastoral and moony atmosphere of Strawbery Fields Forever. The Beatles' songs like Yesterday and (or) Eleanor Rigby, simply due to that usage of the strings, were called Baroque pop. By the other bands, as an example of Baroque pop, I'd like to mention Walk Away Renee (1966) by NYC band The Left Banke. So everybody can hear that Baroque pop have nothing to do with Strawberry Fields Forever, i.e. SFF is not something derived from Baroque pop. In lack of the term 'Symphonic rock' that will be coined some years later, Strawberry Fields Forever used to be and still to be wrongly tagged as a "Psych" and "Baroque pop", although both tags never ever work well for Strawberry Fields Forever  because Strawberry Fields Forever  already was something else, a new subgenre; The Beatles were move ahead.  And that's it. Just born English Symphonic rock. I love The Left Banke! "Pretty Ballerina" is one of my all time favorite songs. I don't say SFF is baroque pop as a derogatory term. If there were a "Baroque Pop Archives" I would be an equally proud and opinionated member  I also understand why you say SFF took that kind of music to the next level since I agree. I just don't agree that that is where you draw the line for where psychedelic rock/baroque pop ends and symphonic prog begins. To me it's still the former though admittedly at one of its most sophisticated peaks. "A Day in a Life" I think is more clearly distinct from a psychedelic rock/baroque pop tag.  It's really just a difference in boundaries. My boundaries for what constitutes as prog are smaller than yours, whereas my boundaries for what counts as psychedelic rock/baroque pop are wider. All are awesome genres and it doesn't diminish their value. Fair enough?  I've also never heard an actual prog artist specifically single out "Strawberry Fields Forever" as the most influential on prog. Robert Fripp on the other hand HAS specifically mentioned "A Day in the Life" as the big moment. Sgt. Pepper's is usually mentioned by most prog artists, and I can only assume it's due to that epic final track.

LOL! I do like the statements by Mr Fripp, since he is the leader of my all time favourite foreigner prog band.

Interesting. I think "Mr. Kite" is squarely in the psychedelic realm. "A Day in the Life" is frightening though, which is something that psychedelic rock just isn't and baroque pop is rarely. 

@Friday13th: There's definitely many reasons why ADITL is the highlight of Sgt. Pepper's and it's dark lyrics are part of it, but the "I'd love to turn you on" phrase is what puts it squarely in the psych rock canon. It's not always about the music in Psych rock. But it helps.

Edited by SteveG - July 10 2015 at 09:51

samus88 wrote: So because Fripp was a fan of St Pepper's that makes it prog? The only argument you should make is based on the music itself. RPI has lots of classical influences, does that make classical music prog rock as well? I don't think any of the Beatles albums are prog rock. Of course this is sujective, but to reply to my post quoting Fripp on the relevance of St Pepper's is redundant. Everyone knows how important that album is, but that doesn't make it prog in and of itself.

Edited by Kati - July 10 2015 at 10:59

samus88 wrote: Don't take it personally and you'll be fine.

history nerd wrote: it bloomed out of the zeitgeist

history nerd wrote: Bah, Prog was not and never needed to be invented. It was not the product of some great men with a vision. No, it was formed by many people more or less independently, it bloomed out of the zeitgeist. A time and place where certain ideas and certain influences coalesced into a unique and distinguishable sound... When we look back we might label this or that Prog, but the artists did not set out with such grand and noble intentions. They played the music that the culture of their day created. It should then be no surprise that the Beatles, despite having made their name in earlier trends would be caught up in the spirit of the time. And we should all be happy they did!