Is Pink Floyd the most influential prog rock band?

Harry Hood wrote: Pink Floyd were just the most accessible and marketable prog band. Hell, they only ever wrote two full prog albums (Wish You Were Here and Animals), the rest were just pop/rock albums with unique production. They were basically the Radiohead of the 70's.

micky wrote: Andy ...how about ....Genesis... both Floyd AND Genesis were considered Art Rock bands...  thus by extrapolation... prog bands.  The only people who don't consider Floyd prog.. are those that don't consider Genesis prog because they don't know the jack crap about the  genre...  and of course the 'complexity crew' that think if it ain't complex.. it ain't prog. Which is a load of bullsh*t if I've ever heard it.

I would say Floyd is more influential in rock in general, but Crimson is probably more influential, or just as much as Floyd, in prog

Floyd were an essential part of, if not the first band in the Progressive music scene in the late 1960s (and "everyone" called it the Progressive music scene!), so Floyd can easily be argued to be the first Prog band.

It actually depends on how important would you consider alternative rock nowadays in the music scene.......


Peace.

SouthSideoftheSky wrote:   My point of view on this matter has already been defended by some others but I would like to add some thoughts. Is Pink Floyd the most influential prog rock band? I would have to say No, but not because they were not influential, but because they were not a prog rock band. I always thought that Pink Floyd was an extremely influential psychedelic rock band with an enormous influence ON prog rock. Just like The Beatles, The Who, The Moody Blues, Deep Purple and some others, Pink Floyd surely contributed to the creation of prog rock which would make them either proto-prog or prog-related. Or am I wrong?   Pink Floyd’s first album came out already in 1967, the same year as Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s album (another factor that was an important influence on prog rock without being prog itself). I thought that prog rock began first in 1969/70 with King Crimson’s debut album, Renaissance’ debut album and then in the early 70’s with bands like Yes, Genesis and ELP(?) By that time Pink Floyd had released many albums already and most importantly, I think, they were already famous before prog rock even started. Maybe later on Pink Floyd was influenced back by prog bands just like The Who probably were when they did Quadrophenia in 1973. But the fact that The Who was influenced by prog bands and came close to prog later on doesn’t make them a “genuine” prog band does it? So, even if Pink Floyd influenced many prog bands in the late 60’s and then were influenced themselves by prog bands in the 70’s doesn’t make them a prog band. They had an influence on non-prog bands too right?   The Moody Blues is another band that I think was very influential on prog but without being prog themselves. The Moodies had success already in 1967 with their debut. This album, Days Of Future Past, as well as the subsequent ones were very influential on prog, but were they really prog?   Maybe Jethro Tull could prove me wrong because I do consider them prog even if they had success with their two first albums that weren’t really prog. Am I being inconsistent in considering JT prog but not Moody Blues and Pink Floyd? I don’t know.

This would be my post as well. Fantastic summarizing.

I'm glad you posted it for me.

Considering Kraftwerk are categorized as "Progressive Electronic" on here... I'd say they are easily as influential as PF - not on the progressive scene obviously, but on the general music scene.

Haven't read all the posts so excuse me if this has already been said.
Floyd probably were the most influential band to get progressive rock in the mainstream public eye and accepted as an alternate music to pure pop or rock. However I certainly do not think they were the most influential prog band musically and artistically....I'd have to go with Yes, Crimson, Genesis & Gentle Giant.

topofsm wrote: Well I do see Pink Floyd as truly progressive, but I can understand why people wouldn't think that way.   However, I think they are definetely the most influential prog band. Not influential to prog fans, but the most overall influential prog band. No other prog band has influenced more fans of music then these guys.

Influenced in what way?...to expose prog rock to a wider audience or influence future bands in a particular musical style...I agree with former but disagree with the latter.

CCVP wrote: I know that this topic will be quite controversial, but i have gathered some arguments that convinced me that Pink Floyd is possibly the most influential band of progressive rock. 1st: its the only progressive rock band to be listed in the top selling bands / artists of the world that did not changed substantially their style throughout their career, unlike Genesis. 2nd: when punk emerged, Pink Floyd was one of the main bands to be directly attacked by the punks as they were one of the main progressive rock bands. 3rd: unlike the other big progressive rock giants like Yes, Genesis, ELP, King Crimson, Jethro Tull and Gentle Giant, their influence reaches far beyond prog rock. For example, are dance versions of Run Like Hell, Comfortably Numb and Another Brick in the Wall pt2. Besides, On the Run is still played as a techno song by some DJs. 4th: Pink Floyd influenced many pop and pop rock bands, something that the progressive bands said above could not do so broadly, specially if you only consider their progressive periods. 5th: Among progressive rock bands, their reach is even bigger: they were capable to influence bands since the 70's until today and, unlike the many Yes, Genesis and ELP "clones", the Floydian clones or Floydian influenced bands usually get better grades here at the archives and sound much more original (that counting the 70's alone). Today their reach on prog rock have become even greater: they were an influence from space rock / psychedelic rock to extreme progressive metal metal, passing through many other genres of prog in between. 6th: their line up change were important to consolidate the style of the band. Besides, compared to the other bands listed here as essential progressive rock bands, their line-up change was minimal. To reinforce that, a small list of Pink Floyd-influenced bands : Dream theater, Pain of Salvation, Eloy, Negative Zone, Riverside, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Pulsar and Violeta de Outono. Now, people from PA, DISSCUSS!

first of all: Pink Floyd DID change their style substantially. while the early albums were very psychedelic the latter ones lost that psychedelic touch, and they became the big epic makers. the turning point probably was "Dark Side of the Moon", though the process was a gradual one. It is probably because of the gradual nature of style change that you don't realize it, but compare their early albums to their latter ones, and you will get the drift. the more this epic style evolved the worse they became; "Animals" is already quite boring, and I never understood the high rating of that album.
2nd: what the punks really attacked was the lack of spirit, which became obvious in many prog rock bands in the middle of the 70s; they were just going through the motions. Pink Floyd only was a prominent name; they certainly were not influential for the development of Punk. Van der Graaf Generator had a lot more influence there. Pink Floyd were also, compared to other prog bands, pretty simple in their musical structure, especially harmonically. so they don't have much of an influence their either. they did have a great influence on the development of sounds though; actually sounds were their biig forte. however, for their latter albums they forgot about that forte and replaced "sounds" with "sound", meaning "acoustical endeavours" with "perfection and sterility". they did what they sung about themselves in the song "Wish You Were Here".
3rd: there have been dance versions of songs from lot of other prog bands, not only Pink Floyd. even Gentle Giant have been mistreated that way; there was a post about it somewhere in the forum. anyway, "dance version" is a pretty misleading term; I actually believe that some of the originals are a lot more danceable than these so-called "dance versions". adding a heavy 4/4 beat only makes the dance more monotonous, which sadly applies to the moronic masses. dance is an art form.
as to the Floydian clones: I am not quite sure which bands you refer to. the only one that really comes to my mind is Eloy. but that's probably because Pink Floyd are not one of my favorite bands at all; I like some of their old albums, especially "Ummagumma" and ""Meddle", perhaps to a certain extent "Wish You Were Here"", but most of the stuff which is awed by many simply leaves me cold. I am not too fond of neo-prog though and try to avoid it; perhaps some of the clones can be found there. Dream Theater, however, are definitely not Floyd clones; they have a completely different approach to music.

so, after contradicting all your arguments, let us take a look at what the real influence of Pink Floyd was. as Certif1ed already mentioned, they were an influence on the Krautrock scene. that influence is a bit coincidental though. using drugs (and whatever Waters may say today, Pink Floyd did use drugs) will lead to this kind of, in lack of a better word for it, "fraying out" of music which is typical for some of the early Pink Floyd music as well as for early Karutrock..
their strive towards sound perfection, which I mentioned before, definitely also was a big influence, though in my opinion not a positive one. it led to the sterility of most of the newer music.
so yes, they were influential, but not the way CVVP means


Edited by BaldJean - September 09 2008 at 05:30