Pink Floyd vs. Yes

You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that only complex music can be prog.

To call Pink Floyd "pop" is utterly ludicrous, even if it does say "File under Popular" on the back of the original pressings of "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" and "Saucerful of Secrets".

For a start, PF sound nothing like Britney Spears - do they?

I have never listened to Yes and thought "Wow, I can't play that". It's pretty simple really.

Not only that, but it says (in full):

File under Popular : Pop groups.

...but back then, anything that wasn't blues, jazz, folk or classical was pop. Which includes Yes.

You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that only complex music can be prog.

That's a different argument. Pink Floyd is basically a psych-rock group. The fact that PF recorded side-length pieces doesn't really change that. The proggiest they got was Wish You Were Here.

Certif1ed wrote: You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that only complex music can be prog. To call Pink Floyd "pop" is utterly ludicrous, even if it does say "File under Popular" on the back of the original pressings of "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" and "Saucerful of Secrets". For a start, PF sound nothing like Britney Spears - do they? I have never listened to Yes and thought "Wow, I can't play that". It's pretty simple really.

I agree with that and take it one step further is to say they are just Rock is not true either.  I am not  a huge fan of either Yes or Pink Floyd but they are both prog bands hands down.

I would say that Pink Floyd is the victor here, probably because they are indeed my utmost favorite band. But, as it was mentioned, since its hard to compare such different bands, my criteria is based on how many great albums they produced. For Floyd: Piper At The Gates of Dawn, Meddle, Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, The Wall, The Division Bell. For Yes: The Yes Album, Fragile, Close to the Edge, Tales from Topographic Oceans, Relayer, Going for the One. Tales and Going for the One are very loosely great, but it will make up for Piper being counted. Floyd wins either way, 7 to 6 or 6 to 4.

While Rick Wright may not have been the most talented keyboardist out there, he does he what he was asked to do. Dave was the centerpiece in Floyd's work, Rick wasn't expected to make a big permofance. (Hes definately capable of interesting works, EG: Love Scene 4, Great Gig in the Sky, Sysyphus Pt. 2, Summer 68, both his solo projects, etc.) Plus, He adds such great atmosphere to Floyd, perhaps the biggest contributor to the "Floyd" sound. (Just look at the difference between The Final Cut and The Wall... he wasn't given a lot of elbow space on the Wall, and look at the difference! ...and look at the difference between Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell also) And BTW, Shine On You Crazy Diamond Part 9 has always been my favorite keyboard solo ever, anyway you cut it.

Also, IMO, David Gilmour is hands down the greatest guitarist in prog.

dropForge wrote: You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that only complex music can be prog. That's a different argument. Pink Floyd is basically a psych-rock group. The fact that PF recorded side-length pieces doesn't really change that. The proggiest they got was Wish You Were Here.

No it isn't.

The respondent said "Simple, PF plays nothing more than a bit more complicated pop, except for the psychadelic stuff on albums like meddle. Yes's compositions are more complex, changing(and PF is a master of not changing their tunes throughout the song, like in Dogs) , individually virtuous (can't say I've listened to PF and said: 'wow, I can't play that!' while I've had that many times with Yes), and sounding like a whole."

Clearly this response is trying to claim that prog=complex music, ergo Pink Floyd are not prog - an assumption which is codswallop at best.

Even your claim that PF are basically a psych-rock group is erroneous, and your generalisms do not back your argument up.

Consider "Piper at the Gates of Dawn".

You hear a psychedelic album, end of story.

I hear an album which ranges through many different styles - you cannot tell from the first 5 minutes what the rest of the album will sound like (my favourite yardstick for measuring progginess). There is a unity in terms of the sounds and the ways in which thematic material is set up, then broken down or electronically enhanced in the various songs.

There may be simple song structures in some pieces - but the boundaries are pushed hard. In others, you may easily observe a psychedelic jam - but what makes these pieces stand out as prog compared to other "pure" psychedelic bands is that the jams are structured. Don't get confused and start thinking that I mean the improvisations are structured or that I'm implying that Syd was some kind or natural structuralist; that's not true.

Piper is, for me, the ultimate proto-prog album - if not the very first full-blown prog album.

Every album from Ummagumma to The Wall progresses naturally throughout, giving an improvised feel - another measure of a true prog album.