Pink Floyd Progressive Rock?

Not all progressive rock is symphonic.

Johnnytuba wrote: Noted, I will check the search function next time......

Welcome to the archives, by the the way. 

Beware of the bananas.

Scratchy wrote: Johnnytuba wrote: Kashmir75 wrote: I have a friend from uni who denies that Floyd (a band he loves) are prog rock (a term he disdains). He also loves Radiohead and refuses to associate them with the genre. Both of these bands created previously unheard of sounds and ideas, if that isn't prog, then what is?  I honestly had never heard anything like Kid A before that album came out. Same with DSOTM.  I can actually see why Sabbath are on the Archives. They did a great deal of experimenting with their sound in later albums. But they are still first and foremost, metal pioneers, not prog per se. But I love Sabbath and don't really care if they're prog or not. I don't, in general, give a toss whether something is prog or not. I only care if I like the band or not. I don't care if a band is prog or not either.  I also only care if I like the band or not.  Regardless, I feel that this is all only a matter of opinion I assume you also like bands that have a much narrower / formulaic / generic style as I do as well.I also come back to Prog eventually though & always go for bands that have an open minded ,you could say, progressive element to their music (including Sabbath to a certain extent). In more modern times Radiohead are one of the main forces behind breaking down barriers between Prog & the previously more biased punk associations of indie / alternative rock & vis-versa which still exists today & is a good thing in my opinion.There has been alot of so called alternative musicians and music fans that are not so worried about the almost fascist dividing lines between genres & fuse together different styles including Prog.Some admit their Prog associations while there are still others that hold true to the views generally formed in the late '70's & passed through on to newer musicians / audiences.   It is hoped that there will still be an audience for Progressive or the more expansive forms of music continue to develope, which have been under pressure, at certain periods, but seems to be very healthy at the moment - may it continue.The general media will always prefer music styles that they can commercially control more easily  - punk-pop (now power pop ??) & indie pop are two recent sub genres that have gathered alot of support from certain sectors of the media this can be applied to.   Saying you don't really care what music it is, as long as you like it is being slighty ignorant of the commercial forces that exist within music.There are some kinds of music that just demand support because they ascue these commercial forces.

I was exposed to the music of Tangerine Dream back in 1971. During that time period many avant-garde fans that listened to 20th century composers would sometimes give Ummagumma a spin for good measure. Many kids my age would light candles, do other things, and sit in a circle like hippie wanna be's enjoying the fruits of Ummagumma. The album was respected in 2 different social circles. I thought of the album as a experimental adventure with avant-garde and others felt it was a record to trip on. The experimental adventure crowd brought the Pink Floyd band into prog classification while others of my generation used it for drug endulgence or thought it was just too weird for any classification at all. The experimental electronic styles of Pink Floyd and many others crossed into the prog area with bands like Eloy. So it's really the crossover concept that we are talking about when we consider early Floyd relative to prog.

Bonnek wrote: That is the strangest question I have ever seen so far on this forum. If Pink Floyd is not prog then what am I doing here Reasons? Innovation, originality, space, progressing song development, bombast, big concepts,  excellent musicianship and general awesomeness. Yeah sure, they're not symphonic twideledoo like ELP but symphonic prog is just one of the 22 subs on PA.

I have to agree with this. The twideledoo seems to get more credit. Sort of like, the more notes you play the closer you are to becoming full fledged prog. It is a misconception to a degree by some folks as they prefer gymnastics in playing. This is okay within itself just as long as the person does not reflect a macho attitude about it however that reflection is present in a good percentage of the music world anyway so, what can you do?  As I continue to tie myself in knots, I must add that too many notes are not always of the best intensions. Syd Barrett basically taught Roger Waters the concept of when not to play. It was an important rule based around the development of their music. 

Really, WHAT is the point of this thread. I personally hate threads like that.

I'm glad some people on here can also differenciate between Progressive Rock, Symphonic Rock, Virtuoso music & Instrumental Rock.Prog uses & sometimes combines all of the latter three, but none of the latter three define what progressive rock is.To be Prog you have to let your musical imaginations fly & break out of all musical classifications  & be non-formuliac.

Tsevir Leirbag wrote: Really, WHAT is the point of this thread. I personally hate threads like that. Pink Floyd IS a progressive band. My favorite progressive band. Have you ever listened to Animals, Meddle or Atom Heart Mother? It doesn't look so. And come on... Wish You Were Here, not progressive? You got to be kidding!

Pink Floyd are considered prog rock because they are prog rock. They aren't symphonic like Genesis, Yes or ELP. They're neither Eclectic like King Crimson, Van Der Graaf Generator or Gentle Giant, but that doesn't make them not prog rock. Seriously, how could you ever listen to Echoes, Saucerful of Secrets or even Welcome to the Machine without calling it prog!? It's mad.

Edited by Silverbeard McStarr - December 18 2009 at 10:20

Tsevir Leirbag wrote: Johnnytuba wrote: Tsevir Leirbag wrote: Really, WHAT is the point of this thread. I personally hate threads like that. Pink Floyd IS a progressive band. My favorite progressive band. Have you ever listened to Animals, Meddle or Atom Heart Mother? It doesn't look so. And come on... Wish You Were Here, not progressive? You got to be kidding! The point of this thread is to discuss how Pink Floyd is Progressive Rock.  If you don't like threads like this than don't post in it.  Of course you want to defend your favorite band, which I understand completely, however, it is irrational for me to make posts about music to which I haven't thoroughly listened to.  I have given PF many chances in my day, listened to all their albums many times, and I do agree that they have progressive tendencies.  However, other than shine on you crazy diamond, I do not understand why WYWH is rated to high above a lot of prog albums that are simply better.   So before any one else decides to get offended over a generally harmless post, understand that I made this post out of sheer curiosity and not inexperience.    Yeah, you're right about that... But really, if you've listened to Animals, Meddle and Atom Heart and you still don't find them progressive, then I'm really sorry for you. Wish You Were Here is not their most progressive album, but search, and search, and you'll find the light