THE BEATLES?

Jim Garten wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Progressive = YES, absolutely! Prog Rock = Possibly "Being For the Benefit of Mr Kite!" or even "Day in the Life", but nothing else - including "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Revolution #9".   (IMHO) Take one late '60s newbie hippy, give him far too many hallucinogenic drugs whilst telling him he's a very, very, very clever man indeed, lock him in a recording studio overnight with a retarded simian, who just happens to be similarly drug enhanced, throw away anything good that happens to be recorded, then play the remainder backwards and allow retarded simian 2 to mix the remainder (with a great deal of its bodily effluvia), and voila: Revolution #9! Erm - not my favorite track on 'The White Album' And as for 'Oh Bla Di Oh Bla Da' or whatever they called it....... ***door slams, and from within the sound of insane ranting can be heard with the muffled crashing of breaking furniture***

Couldn't agree more, old chap - and as for "Rocky Racoon..."

/ducks and runs to avoid missiles from ardent RR fans...

Take two tracks and play them one after another.

I'd recommend "Being For the Benefit of Mr Kite!", then "Can-Utility and the Coast-Liners".

The Beatles track introduces new ideas, suddenly throwing suprises, but generally painting the picture of the lyrics in an absolute sense - e.g. Of course, Henry the horse dances the Waltz"... onwards. Here, a surreal waltz is used to portray the circus scene. Little imagination is required.

The Genesis track evolves in a more seamless way - growing and progressing smoothly, painting a far more abstract picture from which the listener can create a more personal voyage through the music. The lyrics do fit the music very well, but you'd be fairly hard pushed to explain why.

That's a difference

[QUOTE=Blacksword]They were a progressive band, but not really a prog 'rock' band. They were progressive in the respect that they applied their imagination to their craft to make imaginative, inovative music which didn't sound like anything else at the time.[/QUOTE]

Exactly!

Original and essential (as were/are lots of bands & artists), but NOT PROG ROCK!

  How are you defining "progressive?" The Beatles were "progressive" as in evolving and taking their music to new places, but not "prog rock" as in belonging on a compilation with classic Yes, Genesis, Crimson, etc.

(My unshakable opinion.)

richardh wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Progressive = YES, absolutely! Prog Rock = Possibly "Being For the Benefit of Mr Kite!" or even "Day in the Life", but nothing else - including "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Revolution #9".   (IMHO) I agree with that

I do as well...the Beatles were progressive for sure, but they have nothing to do with the genre progressive Rock (I explained it in the "Difference between Prog and progressive" (or similar) thread)

Blacksword wrote: They were a progressive band, but not really a prog 'rock' band. They were progressive in the respect that they applied their imagination to their craft to make imaginative, inovative music which didn't sound like anything else at the time.

I agree. The term Prog to me means a specific kind of music,something which is clearly defined by certain trademarks,like Reggae or Country & Western,not someone who just happen to sound a bit different from the herd. Beatles had none of the trademarks of Prog,so they're not a Prog band. Without long,epic tracks,unusual/tricky time signatures,long instrumental parts,sections leading into each other like in classical music,I don't think it can be call Prog.