Pink Floyd Progressive Rock?

progkidjoel wrote: RoyFairbank wrote: isten to the depth of the musical moods, textures and artistic patience - there is nothing formulaic If there is nothing 'formulaic' about Pink Floyd and their music, then why do they have concept albums? Why do they have lyrics? Why do they write music, rather than just randomly jam?

Dean 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.  I keep promising myself not to get involved with these kinds of threads, but it's so difficult not to.   However, rather than get embroiled again (and in an attempt not to break my promises), I'll repost the answer I gave to this same question 2½ years ago (so please bear in mind it was written in reply to someone else, so ignore the last paragraph):   darqdean, back in June 2007 wrote: I rate every album in the top 10 highly - I do think that perhaps Genesis may be a little over represented, but I don't care that much because I've liked each of those since they were originally released and anyhow, I'm quite good at mentally skipping those and noticing that VdGG are in the top 20, along with PFM and Dream Theatre - hey I can look further down and see Riverside and Porcupine Tree and think - cool, that's really good going for albums that have only been released a few years - so I know that all is well with the world and the entire universe isn't going to disappear up Roger Water's backside.   In 1975 when Wish You Were Here was released we really didn't give a flying duck about how Prog it was, all we were interested in then was damn fine music recorded by a damn fine bands and Pink Floyd produced the goods so we were happy. We were so happy in fact that we bought it in sufficient numbers to get it to #1 in the album charts (sorry, but we didn't have the cash to do that with Close to the Edge or Selling England by the Pound, but you know, it was the seventies, in the UK we had strikes, power cuts and rising unemployment to worry about, the USA had it's own problems to deal with, students were rioting in France - well, you get the picture).   Pink Floyd have done it all - they have charted the course from psychedelic-pop through space-rock and mad improvisations to symphonic, ethereal, jazzy-pop, heavy-rock, latin-themed music, folk-music and pure progressive-rock covering every subject under the sun in linear concepts, abstract concepts, emotional concepts and reaccuring concepts. And everytime they did this they created their own rules (for other others to take or discard as they wished). Pink Floyd may not have written THE rules on prog, but they showed everyone how it should be done, and (horrors!) even made a bit of money doing it.   To me that is what progressive means - not long compositions, layering, wierd time-signatures and clever lyrics (though Floyd all did those in abundance, and in many cases they were one of the first bands to do them)   On this site I have read pages of arguments on how X is prog but Y is not, or how band Z made some prog albums and then made some non-prog albums, and to be honest it is all just opinion. A band is either a prog band or it isn't and if a prog band makes a non-prog album, then so what? what does that mater? what does it prove?   I've been listening to Wish You Were Here for 32 years and it still astounds and astonishes me. I would like to hope that we will be saying the same thing about Porcupine Tree and Pain of Salvation in 30 years time. (honestly, I do, and I think we will).   You say it isn't prog. I disagree: WYWH is a very cynical album about the music industry, something that Roger Waters started in 1969 with Cymbaline and again in 1972 with Free Four, (and has carried on with for the rest of his career). But cynicism, being a negative emotion, is never an easy starting point, yet Floyd managed to make the music carry this sentiment without being completely contemptuous of what they were trying to say, because I find that the music is strangely optimistic (ref: the title track) - a conterpoint to the lyrics - that's a fairly progressive concept isn't it.   I'm sorry if WYWH isn't prog enough for you, but let us have this discussion in 2039 and see if you think the same. (I'll be 82 by then, so I might just permit you to shout, but only so as I can hear you)   We are just two lost souls Swiming in a fish bowl, year after year Running over the same old ground. What have we found? The same old fears.   Wish You Were Here.

If you have to ask, they are. 

Johnnytuba wrote: doKCtor Diamond wrote: If you have to ask, they are.  Why are these questions never asked of bands that are derivative or strictly adhere to genre? Those traits are inherently not progressive!  The early prog/art rock bands weren't thinking of wether their music conformed to someone's anal definition of a genre, it was about expanding the definition of music,  it was groundbreaking.  Of course Pink Floyd, Mothers of Invention, Jethro Tull,  & Traffic are progressive but are bands like The Flower Kings or Spock's Beard truly "progressive".  By the way I like both of those bands but I think their "Progresssive" status is more in question for such discussions.  That is an excellent point!  Early progressive bands weren't striving to be progressive but to push the envelope and create different music.  Newer progressive bands have the idea in their heads of what prog should be and try to put their own spin on it (sometimes unsuccessfully).  So basically, while older bands played prog to expand the boundaries of music, (I am sure back then the word progressive music wasn't as popular as it is today) todays supposed prog bands are already working with the same formulas of the past.....this is very interesting...does anyone else have anything to say about this?

Sometimes I've said that formulaic Prog is the enemy of progressive rock.

It is an excellent point.  I would actually say that quite a few of the early bands were striving to be progressive (adjective) in that they were also striving to experiment and  push the boundaries of rock music (move from rock conventions).  However, in the early days, it wasn't about trying to be Prog (as a genre).  It was a progressive approach to music (one hardly needs to be groundbreaking to be progressive -- it's more about innovation than origination -- moving forward, evolving, than re-inventing the wheel).  Bands and artists were being unconventional in exploring the possibilities (part of that involved the fusion of different styles to create a new hybrid).  When Prog becomes generic (bands merely following established Prog conventions and trying to BE Prog rather than have a progressive approach to developing music) it ceases to be truly progressive.

It's true that many modern bands, and copycats from the "classic" progressive rock era, are not really progressive (adjective), and in fact regressive, but they still make Prog as it's commonly understood.  A band needn't be Progressive Rock to be progressive rock. 

I think we need to keep progressing as well as a community that values progressive music to encourage and accept bands under the fold that do not follow what are now commonly accept as typical Prog conventions to support that spirit of innovation and experimentation and the breaking of boundaries, or at least the expansion of them/ the going against convention, to highly unconventional/ non-generic music.

The breaking free from genre rules is important when considering the early innovators and I hope we can always expand to accept artists that do not fit the mould. This has happened with the adoption of new categories and allowing in many artists/ bands that a Prog purist would scoff at.  While it is important for this site to highlight bands that are "Prog conventional" there's also room for those that do not fit typical Prog expectations.

As for Pink Floyd, generally I do not find the band's music as quintessentially Prog (genre) as with various others, but I think it progressive and apt for the archives. I do put it under the progressive rock umbrella and consider it part of that movement. Of course some Pink Floyd albums I think of as more Prog, and those are not the most popular ones.  "Atom Heart Mother" is my favourite PF album, and I find it typically Proggier than "Dark Side of the Moon", for instance.

Different people have different opinions of what Progressive Rock means -- to some it really equates to pretentious, bombastic and drawn out music replete with noodly bits.  For me, I don't even like using the term and think first about how well the music could fit the categories under the prog umbrella, and if it doesn't fit yet I think it suitably progressive for such a site, then might consider new categories (or subcategories) -- thereby pigeonholing it and reinforcing more conventions for a new category -- haha (making new boxes to box music in and force a fit).  That atypical music can be much more of a struggle to find its way here can be a shame.

TODDLER 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 idea is to pick them apart and figure out just what percentage of their music is defined progressive by those who feel they have higher musical standards which in turn brings sour expectations. I remember being around the jazz crowd of musicians when they would gather at a party. I still remember all those awful insulting statements about Soft Machine and Passport. As if to say, they can't cut the role of a real good jazz player. I mean, I'm not complaining about these types of jazz fans. I'm a bit confused myself. We all know there are not many who compare to John Coltrane but, it seems quite harsh to make fun of Soft Machine and Passport just because they don't play enough outside the melody type stuff or because they are not completely universal like Coltrane is. A rather cruel thrust indeed. Let alone Pink Floyd.

Some very perceptive posts here certainly. The analogy with the 'purist' jazz crowd that you make is quite illuminating, as I have always felt that there is an element within PA who would exhibit exactly the same dismissive reaction to music that did not comply with their own very woolly and outdated criteria for a measure of 'Proginess' i.e. that bears no resemblance to the classic prog of the gatefold 70's so it can't be prog, Prog Metal is really just plain vanilla metal by people with roomier pants etc

It seems a no-brainer that there has to be something inherently 'prudish' about purists of any phenomenon. You get the same sorts of response to those who are asked to defend their objections to pornography e.g. I don't have to define it, I know it when I see it etc blah yakkitty  ditto

The only threat to the liberal arts from censorship is not from prohibitive government controls, but that of many of its consumers.

Why WYWH is a top prog album?

PF is always prog.

nordwind wrote:  Most definitely Pink Floyd are 100 % prog ! If you don't think Sabbath are prog listen to "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" & some of the jazz fusion on "Never Say Die" courtesy of Bill Ward !

Quite frankly, I've been listening to progressive rock since the early 70s and have always considered Pink Floyd as progressive.  I never really had any doubt about it.  They just seemed to fit into that category all along for me, that's all.  But, it's definately interesting to read everyone's opinions, and yes it has got me to thinking, but it my mind, they're still prog.  I can't think of them any other way.  I always considered them one of the prog pioneers and it really depends on which album you are listening to as far as which sub-genre they fit into.

Man Overboard wrote: If Waters' compositions aren't progressive rock at its most elegant and subtle (cue Waters' scream), then we've just lost our heads about the whole business really.

When I read the title of this topic, this was the exact thought that came into my mind. As much as I enojy reading the arguments brought by everyone to this discussion, I think it all comes down to this: there is no discussion, really.


Edited by Camel666 - February 15 2010 at 08:03