Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 456 |
| Author | |||||||||
Floydoid 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: April 02 2007 Location: Planet Prog Status: Offline Points: 921 |
 Posted: November 02 2008 at 10:40 |
||||||||
I so hate people who come out with pretentious BS like that. I've always maintained that the film of the Wall is not a movie in the conventional sense - it's more like the video of the album, and it certainly helps if you're familiar with the album before viewing the movie. Maybe PF, the Beatles and Queen do get over-rated, but no-one can dispute their respective influences on popular music and popular culture across 3 decades (the 60's, 70's & 80's). |
|||||||||
|
'We're going to need a bigger swear jar.'
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
ModernRocker79
Forum Groupie 
Joined: November 02 2008 Status: Offline Points: 62 |
Posted: November 02 2008 at 10:48 |
||||||||
|
I never thought "Pipers at the Gates of Dawn" as Prog. I think the Beatles "A Day in the Life" or "Eleanor Rigby" as Prog or more influential to Progressive Rock. The time signatures of the Beatles "Happiness as A Warm Gun" as very Progressive. I really think honestly Pink Floyd gets way too much credit. I think the Beatles in certain songs were more progressive than say "Pipers at the Gates Of Dawn". Then there is the Moody Blues and Frank Zappa who really influential also.
Don't get me wrong I like Pink Floyd but Prog-Rock is a King Crimson and Yes invented genre with the Beatles, Zappa and the Moody Blues as main early influences.
Edited by ModernRocker79 - November 02 2008 at 10:50 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Floydoid
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 02 2007 Location: Planet Prog Status: Offline Points: 921 |
Posted: November 02 2008 at 10:58 |
||||||||
|
Piper sure isn't prog, but a classic psychedelic rock album... for true Floydian prog listen to either Atom Heart, or the studio sides of Ummagumma.
|
|||||||||
|
'We're going to need a bigger swear jar.'
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
ModernRocker79
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 02 2008 Status: Offline Points: 62 |
Posted: November 02 2008 at 11:16 |
||||||||
Don't get me wrong Pink Floyd is certainly one of the most influential rock acts period. I think Pink Floyd was not really Prog on Piper. I have not listened to Atom Heat Mother but I certainly think Pink Floyd are Progressive Rock just not in 1967.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator 
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: November 02 2008 at 17:51 |
||||||||
|
Piper and Saucerful couldn't be Prog Rock because Prog Rock didn't exist then - they were Psychedelic Rock, though Saucerful laid some of the foundations of Prog. It could be argued that Hendrix and The Beatles were as influenced by Pink Floyd as they Floyd were by them - certainly Hendrix, Lennon and McCartney were all attendees of Floyd gigs at the UFO club in 1967. While both Sgt Pepper and Piper were recorded in the Abbey Road studios at roughly the same time and the Floyd were permitted an ‘audience’ with the Fab Four during the Lovely Rita studio sessions, it is unlikely that song had any influence on the Piper sessions particularily and like the rest of us, they wouldn’t have heard the whole album until after its release - far too late to influence any of the material on Piper. Following on with Ummagumma, More, Atom Heart Mother, Meddle and Obscured By Clouds they experimented in Psyche/Space, Advant Garde/Experimental, Symphonic, Electronic, Heavy Rock and Folk - in nearly all these they were at the forefront of those early Prog developments. Whether they were more experimental than the Beatles or King Crimson is irrelevant – whether Floyd did those first or not is equally irrelevant - it wasn't a competition to see who could out do the other, they all fed off each other.
Sure Floyd never stepped out and made a 100% Symphonic album, but at that time, neither did anyone else – the Atom Heart Mother Suite was recorded when Yes were doing Time and a Word and Genesis were recording Trespass; the only bands who were recording remotely symphonic pieces at that time were The Nice and ELP. There were no predefined and neatly pigeon-holed progressive subgenres back then, even in the rarefied atmosphere of With Dark Side of the Moon they made a breakthrough into the Mainstream (that is now euphemistically known as Classic Rock - but it sure as hell wasn't known as that then), they were still Progressive Rock, compared to anything else released in 1973 DSotM is still closer to Passion Play or Selling England By The Pound than any "Classic Rock" album of that era (... Follow-up albums Wish You Were Here and Animals built on the foundations they pioneered through the early 70s and expanded the format they created with Obscured and DSotM. They may have been heading away from what we now consider to be Progressive Rock, but then so was everybody else... Animals is contemporary to Wind and Wuthering (arguably Genesis's last throw of the Prog dice), Going For The One (maybe the first Yes album to stray from the pure symphonic track since T&W) and Gentle Giant's Missing Piece (no comment). (They were all still Prog Rock of the day - just not of today or of 1972 With The Wall they produced their first real Art Rock album, (DSotM has some Art Rock leanings - but don't confuse stage-shows, theatrics and inflatable pigs with Art Rock), an album that stands alongside any Progressive 'concept' album you care to name. Reflecting the era in which it was produced, it is dark, bleak and very negative - hardly "hit" material, yet due to the era in which it was released, it was. Aside from the obvious hit-single and the back-lit standing atop the wall guitar solo moment from Comfortably Numb, it is not the Stadium Rock of Fleetwood Mac, Heart or KISS. Again, compare The Wall against anything else released in 1979 - you will struggle to find a more Progressive album that achieved any measure of success at the time. (Actually, even as a devout Floyd fan, I prefer Tangerine Dream's Force Majeure, Fripp's Exposure, Hackett's Spectral Mornings and Hammill's pH7 from that year, but none of those albums were particularly popular then and that does not detract from the Progressiveness of The Wall - it's just my personal preference). The Final Cut is essentially a Roger Waters solo album that bears comparison to Radio KAOS and Amused To Death and by the same virtue, A Momentary Lapse of Reason is essentially a David Gilmour solo album akin to his eponymous album and About Face. With The Division Bell in my opinion they recaptured some of the 'magic' of the earlier period, but again it is a product of its time (1994 was hardly the pinnacle of Prog ) and of the legacy Floyd created (and to some extend were force to live up to) rather than being anything forward looking, ground breaking or dare I say, progressive (with a small "p"). Whether either of their last two albums are Prog or not is not really relevant in relation to a whole career spanning 14 studio albums.
So, carry on arguing away, I'm more than happy with Floyds rightful place in the history of Progressive Rock.
Edited by Dean - November 02 2008 at 19:12 |
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Angelo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: May 07 2006 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 13239 |
Posted: November 02 2008 at 19:26 |
||||||||
|
I couldn't agree more, but next time at this at the end of your long posts, Dean:
|
|||||||||
|
ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: November 02 2008 at 19:37 |
||||||||
|
^ I thought that with posts of more than 50 words the
 was implicit 
|
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: November 02 2008 at 22:11 |
||||||||
|
What emerges from Dean's elaborate post
 is that Pink Floyd were arguably not as prog as the well-known prog bands - Genesis, EL&P, Yes, Tull and so on - during the height of the genre's success, around 72-73 that is, which may be the only reason why whether they are prog or not is repeatedly debated because their discography as a whole surely does not lack prog material. Again, I have used arguably because the attribute "not prog" indicates a tendency of expecting Floyd to sound like prog of a certain kind ( that is, like Genesis, Yes, EL&P, etc) and not just prog in general, which they certainly were even as of 1973.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Roj
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 02 2008 Location: Manchester, UK Status: Offline Points: 3126 |
Posted: November 03 2008 at 04:27 |
||||||||
|
If Pink Floyd are prog then I'm a Dutchman.
Kind Regards,
Thijs van Leer.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008 Location: Lŕ, sui monti. Status: Offline Points: 10837 |
Posted: November 03 2008 at 09:23 |
||||||||
|
At the very end, the problem is not if the progressive rock fans think Pink Floyd is or isn't a progressive band.
The problem is: must we stone the author of the article which spawns this thread? |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: November 04 2008 at 03:03 |
||||||||
Just because the label wasn't used, it doesn't mean that Prog Rock didn't exist (this is like saying that the wax cylinder couldn't be called a record, because shellac/vinyl records hadn't been invented!) - indeed, among rock musicians, there was a thriving Progressive Music scene, and much of the music was developing in ways that would later be called Prog Rock by the media and fans.
"Piper..." actually laid more foundations for Prog than Saucerful, which merely built on the groundwork that Piper had laid down. Saucerful was the more influential, but there's nothing on that album that in essence wasn't on Piper.
All of which was exposed on Piper - these were simply developments of the ideas they'd already presented - Ummagumma is the most advanced experiment, and yet the most despised by fans and band alike (I happen to think that the studio sides are brilliant).
The latter albums don't really develop very much - More and OBC particularly are fairly static revisits of existing material. AMH is interesting, but very stodgy - and the experimentation is mostly performed by Ron Geesin, with Alan Parsons probably playing an important role in the overall development, just as he did on DSOTM.
Of those albums (following Ummagumma), then, only Meddle shows any real advance or experimentation, when compared to the progressive might of Piper (or even Saucerful).
Moody Blues - and a swathe of other bands that, on the surface, might appear to be "purely" psychedelic. The Psychedelic scene crossed over with the Progressive scene, and there's a surprising amount of "symphonic" music that was being produced before 1969/ITCOTCK.
Indeed - "progressive" was fashionable, and bands simply became progressive. Some even played Prog. Canterbury was a strongly jazz-influenced scene, and Ladbroke Grove was mainly heavy (it's where Motorhead originated, after all!).
Again, there was still a thriving progressive element in 1973 - it was a fantastic year for music, and there were stacks of albums that could be considered progressive, even in the more traditional fields of rock - so-called Art Rock and even many areas of Glam and Heavy Rock had progressive moments; Sabbath's "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath", for example, or Bowie's "Hunky Dory".
I rather think that these built on DSoTM and Meddle respectively - I'm not convinced that OBC contributed much to Floyd's development, but Animals, particularly, is a stunning example of Progressive rock, especially given that it was released in 1977, amid the Punk revolution.
I'm not at all keen on "The Wall", just as I don't really like "The Lamb...", but both are landmarks in Prog - The Wall, particularly, is much closer to being a Rock Opera than the likes of Tommy, or other pretenders to the Rock Opera throne.
[/quote]
...so is The Wall
I can't stand anything they released after The Final Cut, and I'm not sure about the latter - and I don't hear anything progressive in any of them,
As you say, though, this doesn't matter.
Floyd contributed at least as much to defining what Prog is as Genesis, Tull, Crimson et al - if only in terms of influence (but there's so much more than that, of course).
You often read comparisons to Floyd - but you cannot compare Floyd to anyone else. They are unique.
Incomparable.
The very definition of a Progressive Rock band.
|
|||||||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Roj
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 02 2008 Location: Manchester, UK Status: Offline Points: 3126 |
Posted: November 04 2008 at 03:55 |
||||||||
|
^ Well put, Certif1ed. You have pretty much said all that needs saying
 .
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
paganinio
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 07 2008 Status: Offline Points: 1327 |
Posted: November 07 2008 at 05:46 |
||||||||
1. I dislike Pink Floyd. I gave Wish You Were Here a 3/5 stars (that's only 60%), and that's the highest PF will ever get from me. 2. I love prog. 3. Therefore, Pink Floyd cannot and are not prog........Wait a minute. That's not true. I mean, there are metalheads out there who only like the post-Judas Priest type of metal, metal that does not sound like blues. And I just happen to be the type of progheads who only like "newer" prog bands. Dream Theater etc. Pink Floyd is too old to be called "progressive" IMO. But age may not be the only reason why I dislike Pink Floyd, since I don't dislike King Crimson and Frank Zappa that much. simply put, Saying Pink Floyd isn't prog is like saying Black Sabbath isn't metal. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 16 2008 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 15745 |
Posted: November 08 2008 at 11:16 |
||||||||
|
Dean couldn't have said it better, could you?
Still I agree with some of the quotes Certified did. Those 2 posts I think should be posted somewhere. They're a very good help for some intro to Prog, even if it's quite closed to Floyd only. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
crimson87
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 03 2008 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 1818 |
Posted: November 08 2008 at 12:49 |
||||||||
But I don't get it . Pink floyd is old , so it ain't progressive? For me is quite the opposite , Pink Floyd is old so it had much more space to be progressive , much more boundaries to be broken.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Floydoid
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 02 2007 Location: Planet Prog Status: Offline Points: 921 |
Posted: November 08 2008 at 15:32 |
||||||||
|
Quite right crimson, Floyd were there in the formative years of prog, i.e 1969-1975, along with King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, ELP, all of whom were in their heyday. Whether you regard PF as prog or not now is irrelevant, they were certainly regarded as prog back then... and probably more innovative than any other band in that era.
Edited by Floydoid - November 08 2008 at 15:32 |
|||||||||
|
'We're going to need a bigger swear jar.'
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 456 |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
'Pink Floyd not prog'???
Topic Options
crimson87 wrote:
... Lynyrd Skynyrd, Alice Cooper, Steve Miller??? someone help me out here!) or any mainstream Rock album (Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Razamanaz, Free's Heartbreaker)
)