Pink Floyd Progressive Rock?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=63596
Printed Date: May 20 2025 at 15:50
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Pink Floyd Progressive Rock?
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Subject: Pink Floyd Progressive Rock?
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 17:10
|
Hello fellow proggers, I have a friend at work who enjoys prog as much as I do. We both are consistently asking each other why Pink Floyd is considered progressive rock. I am also wondering why Wish You Were Here is number 3 on the all time prog album list when I don't find it progressive at all. Just to clarify, I think Pink Floyd is a great band even though they are not my favorite. This isn't meant to flame the band, but why do you think they would be considered prog, and why is Wish you Were Here rated so high on a prog rock album list when it clrealy isn't progressive. .......and another thing, I enjoy reading reviews on this site quite a bit, but it pains me to see reviews of albums for Black Sabbath. Innovators of Heavy Metal, yes, progressive rock? no. Input anyone. ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
Replies:
Posted By: LandofLein
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 17:25
|
I'll leave the arguments for Pink Floyd to the collaborators and people who can explain it better than me, I just want to let you know that Black Sabbath is under prog related
http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=38 - http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=38
|
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 17:27
|
^yeah I feel the same. We can just say one word each to explain. Concepts ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 17:30
I am aware of Black Sabbath in prog related, I am just curious as to why some non-prog (IMO) bands slip through and end up on this site. I've loved black sabbath for decades but I never would have considered them prog. Prog-related does not necessarily translate to prog itself. But what about Pink Floyd? ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
LandofLein wrote:Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 17:36
|
I believe that Pink Floyd are here in Progressive rock, because with their earlier albums they were pioneers in psychedelic and space rock, which are branches of progressive rock. The later on concept albums probably also contributed, since in the area of rock, concept albums tend to land under the progressive label, although this doesn't mean that it is an all inclusive progressive rock characteristic. Tracks like Atom Heart Mother clocking in at 24 minutes, A Saucerful of Secrets at 12 minutes, Echoes at 23 minutes, etc... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 17:37
well put, well put. ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 17:43
|
Now, as far as why Wish You Were Here is the 3rd highest ranked album on the site. That I can't explain. Personally, I think that it is an excellent album, and I suppose that many others must think the same way, since the rating is based on the reviews, but I wouldn't consider it to be the 3rd best prog album ever (I have not reviewed it by the way). I might not even consider it the 3rd best Pink Floyd album. -------------
|
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 17:47
|
Pink Floyd are considered progressive rock because they have an uncountable number of songs that a rock, and they are dynamically progressive and innovative. I can name a good few, like Echoes, Shine On, Atom Heart Mother, Breathe... sh*t loads. Seriously, if anything they defined what Spacey prog rock actually is.
------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 18:03
| I like Pink Floyd a lot, but they never hit me as a prog band in the sense that King Crimson, Gentle Giant or ELP are. I guess the definition of prog has expanded, but back in the day Crimson or ELP was what I called prog rock. |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 18:15
That's how I feel about it too, except obviously I don't have the "back in the day" experience.  I just never saw Pink Floyd as a band that is definitive of progressive rock. If you have an expansive definition of what "progressive" is (which is good, so long as it is backed by some sort of rationality), then I can see them being in it---but I would never say that on a "progressive scale" that they are any higher than low-medium. ------------- 
|
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 18:21
|
I think for me I entered progressive rock knowing that Floyd already had been established as a prog group there's a lot of characteristics so never thought twice.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 18:42
|
Hell, they fathered progressive rock! They were one of the first underground rock groups and probably the first to bring prog to the mainstream ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 18:46
|
To understand why bands like Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath are on this site, we need to look at the various categories, and understand how each is different. Psychadelic Space Rock is not quite the same as Symphonic. The descriptions for each category should speak for themselves. ------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 18:48
|
^....and they do.Well except for heavy prog which is a bit to ambiguous
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 18:48
|
Tangerine Dream is considered progressive rock. Black Sabbath is considered prog-related. The Mars Volta are considered progressive rock. I disagree with all 3 of these statements. But life goes on doesn't it?!?! So stop b*tchin' about it!   Nah, just kidding. I understand what you're saying. Pink Floyd never screams prog like ELP, Yes, Gentle Giant, Yes, etc. but I still ultimately consider them a prog band. I think Wish You Were Here is pure prog rock, but it is debatable I guess. I think their extended song structures, instrumental passages, and space rock sound warrant a progressive rock label, but that's just my opinion. -Jeff ------------- 
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 18:53
|
^I don't understand how you can say that about the volta.I'll even go as far as saying Volta's progressive tendencys are more obvious then Floyd's (in terms of characteristics) ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 18:53
|
Is Pink Floyd a Progressive Band? Pink Floyd is not only a progressive band, its the only progressive band. Read the lyrics of Pink Floyd and compare to the fantasy stories of Genesis and Yes Listen to the depth of the musical moods, textures and artistic patience - there is nothing formulaic Think about the political and philosophical weight behind the Floyd's material. There is no one else like Floyd. Wish You Were Here was not their best work (that being Animals or the Final Cut in this posters opinion) but even it has a moral force that clearly distinguishes it from other acts which to their credit and our enjoyment consider rock and roll a form of artistic expression. |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 18:55
I think we better stay away from this forum for a while.I don't think our statements are going to be well received lol ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 19:19
The biggest problem is that Pink Floyd is (was, actually) commercially successful. I think Pink Floyd and most bands/artists influenced by them (that I listen to) are actually 100% progressive, like Steven Wilson, Opeth and Arjen Lucassen, but the fact that they sold over 200 million albums make them sound way too mainstream when compared to bands like King Crimson, Genesis, Yes and even ELP, which sold much less then the multi-platinum space rock masters. But anyway, this is one of those things that are mainly "IMO, THEY ROCK/SUCK, THEREFORE THEY ARE/AREN'T PROGRESSIVE." -------------   
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 19:30
 How could they possibly progressive if they don't know how to use bananas properly? Which is of course banana pudding with the vaniller wafers if they don't eat their meat. I might add as tip to Johnnytuba, this has been discussed ad nauseous. Try the search function, this site has been around for a few years now and believe me, it has come up. Just a friendly nudge there. Hang out here long enough and you will experience thread deja vu doo doo. I first got into prog back in '78, had many acquaintances that were into prog. There wasn't ever any doubt or discussion about it. Your challenge now: come up with a thread topic that hasn't been discussed, or join the bar fight under Just For Fun.  By the way CCVP those bananas are giving my computer a hard time. But I agree, commercial success and being progressive rock are not necessarily mutually exclusive (unless you are Genesis ).------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 19:31
Your first statement is a bold one, very, very bold. Everyone on here has a different opinion of who the ONLY progressive band is. Me, I like too many of them make such a statement. As for Floyd, I do not doubt the progressive tendencies in SOME of their music, but its just not enough for me to hold them up there with Acts such as Yes, Rush, Genesis, ELP, PFM....I guess Floyd doesn't really excite me like they used to... ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 19:34
Noted, I will check the search function next time...... ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
Posted By: Scratchy
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 20:01
|
Although I can see where you are coming from, I also think you are fundamently missing the point of what progressive rock is.Not all of Wish You Were Here is particularly progressive but I find Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Part I-V) a very progressive track as it uses different soundscapes / techniques to form that flued forward moving sound.There are changes timings,changing atmospheres, the guitars (inc. bass) change from the stripped down blues to gentle arpeggios.The ambient sections you could say are similar to ambient post-rock.All these combinations I would regard as definately progressive.Wish You Were Here(track) - you could say is folk rock or even progressive folk rock? Welcome to the Machine you could say is lite Industrial / space (prog),Have a Cigar is a combination of Gilmours stripped down blues guitar, funk, jazz, atmospheric (space) keyboards & quite bluesy atonal vocals.Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Part VI-IX) is quite similar to the opening track but has a funky interlude.Overall the album is progressive (with the opener & closer definately) although you could call the middle tracks fusion rock.
Yes, Rush, Genesis, ELP, PFM you mentioned as archetypal progressive rock bands - there again not all the output by these artists I would regard as that progressive.The main problem that you seem to have is that progressive rock is a firmly generic form of music, like the majority of other types of music.At the time of release of Wish You Were Here ('75), Pink Floyd had quite a different sound than most other that were branded into the Progressive Rock (genre ???).They have also influenced other bands who are not known to be progressive in loads of different genres.The difference in their sound is that they only take a certain sound of the Floyd that fits into that particular genre & don't have the wide range & fluidity that the Floyd possessed.
The Division Bell album I would consider soft atmospheric rock / instrumental rock, perhaps with a little progressive overtone.You could say that the Floyd gradually became less progressive since The Animals album even.You could say the Wall was a combination of more generic sounding (shorter) tracks, but still covered a lot of ground musically which gave it an overall progressive effect, but if you break down the album to individual tracks they are not particularly progressive (although the overtones are still there in some tracks).
|
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 20:19
|
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. ------------- Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while... |
Posted By: SgtPepper67
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 20:24
|
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition there's the answer... But actually, I don't need to see how would they fit in any definition of prog rock cos to me Pink Floyd is one of the bands who defined what progressive rock is, just like Genesis, Yes, ELP or King Crimson. ------------- 
In the end the love you take is equal to the love you made... |
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 20:27
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 ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 20:52
|
Take any Pink Floyd album -- well the main studio ones -- and consider it in the context of other music at the time it was released. Each of the album holds up well when compared to other 'legit' prog releases at the time, or in the case of their earlier work the more psychedelic tendencies of comparable bands at the time. I suppose 'back in the day' I didn't consider them prog, but the same holds true for a number of bands (Rush comes immediately to mind). Hindsight however is 20-20. I do remember the first time I heard some of Dark Side of the Moon, at a record store in LA. I bought it immediately. I found it compared favorably with Trilogy and Close to the Edge. Proggy enough for me. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 20:56
|
^ For the longest time, I didn't think Rush were a prog band, either. They sounded like a slightly more experimental Zep-style hard rock band to me. Then the Hemispheres era, and the later Moving Pictures/Signals stuff, etc, came along. No doubt about it, PROG! ------------- Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while... |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 20:59
Any of the answers help you at all? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 21:08
| @ the OP: yes. |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 21:14
|
My god people, lets just admit that without Pink Floyd prog would've never gained the impressive musicianship it includes today. So many bands we love are influenced by them, and I love Pink Floyd myself. Why even question this? When you do more than one track over 20 mins and are not prog, you're just boring! ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 21:30
wow you have to be a real veteran Floyd fan to think TFC is their best.. that's comparable to a Zep fan liking Coda best (which I assure you a few old timer Zep fanatics do) |
Posted By: Scratchy
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 22:05
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.
|
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 22:22
Well, Wish you were Here is the 3rd highest ranked album on this site, because quiet simply it is one of the most beloved albums by the reviewers. It has even reached number 1 at some points, and it will surely reach number one on many more occasions in the future. I myself do love this album, it is my favourite from Pink Floyd, and it might just as well be my very favourite album, it's just beautiful. As for Floyd being prog, well, sure they aren't as bombastic and virtuous as other archetipical prog bands, but as stated before, it is surely because of their concept albums, their extended tracks, their instrumental passages, their psychedelic-experimenting beginnings, and the innovative albums they released (even though they lack the odd time signatures and tempo changes). |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 22:27
| Someone who'll come along and say Shine On You Crazy Diamond isn't the least bit prog hasn't a clue what he's talking about sorry. Thread dismissed. |
Posted By: Evan
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 02:18
|
Pink Floyd is prog in the same way that London Calling era The Clash is punk. Its not a textbook example (while at the same time its not completely alien), but it has historically been considered part of the movement and, as such, in a very Orwellian way they are definitely prog because of it. |
Posted By: theBox
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 02:45
|
1. I DO consider PF prog, if only for AHM. Meddle and WYWH. 2. While I don't agree at all with the "all-inclusive" policy of the site, I can see how this works for a large number of people here, so... 3. Could we please at least cut down on the METAL, guys??? (half joking)  ------------- |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 02:49
compared to most other prog sites, this place is conservative |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 02:57
Thats a pretty naive statement. How many Genesis or Yes songs have you actually listened to?
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?
Many bands have the same lyrical characteristics, but this does not make them progressive, or the only progressive band.
True that there is no one else like PF, but that does not make them progressive. I agree about WYWH, and I find it funny that a lot of prog fans think they're most mainstream albums are their best
I semi-agree about the moral force on the album, but that really is down to opinion. I get a bigger emotional reaction from Opeth than I do Floyd, but that doesn't mean Opeth are more emotive or that Floyd aren't emotionally charged - Its purely opinion based. ------------- 
|
Posted By: theBox
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 03:13
Yes, but in most other sites, reviews are not open to anyone, so the number of reviews of "controversial" album/artists is kept to a minimum. Yes, I know that the same is true for "non-controversial" artists, but there are MANY times that I visit this site, only to see that the "front page" has nothing but prog-related or metal reviews.... ------------- |
Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 03:15
|
I got into prog about five years ago, but I got into Pink Floyd in the early 70s. Three things about Wish You Were Here which I'd consider prog are: 1. It's a concept album 2. It includes a long piece divided into two multi-part halves 3. It includes various sound effects throughout (glasses, laughter, footsteps, radio tuning, etc) But my favourite albums are Ummagumma & Atom Heart Mother ------------- rotten hound of the burnie crew |
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 03:38
| Not all progressive rock is symphonic. |
Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 03:46
only about 25% of the listed Top 100 prog albums are by bands classed as Symphonic Prog ------------- rotten hound of the burnie crew |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 05:20
Welcome to the archives, by the the way. Beware of the bananas. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: LonesomeTwin
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 10:40
|
Are they punk? No, the anger is internal, not exernal (but see Animals for exceptions to rules) Are they a 'pop group'. Yes, they had an Xmas #1 ffs. Are they prog? Yes. They play music outside 4/4 occasionally, they make a track last as long as it needs to and keyboards are an integral part of the sound. HTH?
------------- I always had a deep respect I mean that most sincere |
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 16:46
I don't think it is ignorant to say that. Some people won't even give non-prog music a second look, or vice versa. It is ok to not care about what genre of music it is as long as it appeals to you. That being said, I am glad to see all of the responses. I knew some people would get upset over this, but all in all, its a matter of opinion ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
Posted By: kis-ka
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 06:00
music, like every thing in life that we like is a matter of taste ------------- most men think they are Gods-most women are atheists |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 08:44
|
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. |
Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 12:25
|
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. |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 13:16
 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.
|
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 14:40
|
I don't feel that Pink Floyd is overly progressive, but they are a very good psychedelic rock band that in some ways crosses over into progressive music. And that small amount that they do cross over with seemed to be apparent pretty early for prog.
EDIT: Sorry about the triple post, my computer kind of just froze and went crazy.
|
Posted By: Tsevir Leirbag
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 16:01
|
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! ------------- Les mains, les pieds balancés Sur tant de mers, tant de planchers, Un marin mort, Il dormira - Paul Éluard |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 16:36
There are many people who really like TFC. I'm one of those and it's easily among my top 5 albums ever, but I'm a pretty big fan. Now on the topic: I think Pink Floyd is prog without a single doubt. Their music is innovative, experimental and very often conceptual. They might be not as complicated as Yes or a band like that, but IMO complexity is not important for a band to be prog. Songs like "Echoes" and "Atom Heart Mother" are progressive without a doubt, as they feature many changes (both in mood and musicality), experimentalism and they feature things like reprises to make it feel like one big thing. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Scratchy
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 19:58
|
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.
Psychedelic music only has to have an element of distorted music (which shadows the effect what you would her if under a psychedelic drug).Avant-garde music is generally non-formuliac but it generally keeps within it's eschewed form unless it also becomes progressive as well - if you know what I mean.Anybody else have a better way of differentiating the differences ??? Perhaps there are other genres which get confused in with what Prog is about as well (Pomp rock ???).
|
Posted By: Scratchy
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 20:06
|
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 21:15
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. ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 21:18
|
MY GOD!!!!! If Pink Floyd wasn't prog, then what were they? Hmm? ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Silverbeard McStarr
Date Posted: December 18 2009 at 02:24
| 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. |
Posted By: Tsevir Leirbag
Date Posted: December 18 2009 at 16:31
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  ------------- Les mains, les pieds balancés Sur tant de mers, tant de planchers, Un marin mort, Il dormira - Paul Éluard |
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Date Posted: December 18 2009 at 18:47
I will keep searching...however, I am too far engrossed in Italian Symphonic Prog right now to give anything else a listen to. ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
Posted By: Takeshi Kovacs
Date Posted: December 18 2009 at 19:04
|
Pink Floyd are the epitome of a progressive rock band to me. There are people on this forum who are far more eloquent, and better qualified to explain why, but in the end it comes down to personal taste and perception for me.
-------------  Open the gates of the city wide....
Check out my music taste: http://www.last.fm/user/TakeshiKovacs/ |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 18 2009 at 19:23
Are you serious? 'formulaic' does not mean the music/albums/lyrics are structured.- Anyway, during the first five or so years practically all they did was randomly jam.
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 18 2009 at 20:07
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):
------------- What? |
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Date Posted: December 18 2009 at 20:52
Very Nicely thought out, too bad I was 2 years too late. Even though Pink Floyd has "done it all", I think I may have a different idea of what prog is. For me, Gentle Giant is what I think progressive music is all about, but at the same time, the genre of prog spans so many sub-genres, I feel certain bands get wrongly called progressive, and no I don't mean Pink Floyd. On a different note, thank you to everyone who replied to this thread. I really enjoyed reading your responses and it helped me shed more light on Pink Floyds music. I still don't think they will ever break into my top ten, but only time will tell. ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 19 2009 at 05:05
|
^ another point to bear in mind is that WYWH was Floyd's 9th album - Gentle Giant's 9th was The Missing Piece. ------------- What? |
Posted By: doKCtor Diamond
Date Posted: December 19 2009 at 11:47
|
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.
|
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Date Posted: December 19 2009 at 12:56
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? ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 19 2009 at 15:11
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. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: December 19 2009 at 20:46
 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.
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: December 19 2009 at 21:12
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: nordwind
Date Posted: December 21 2009 at 19:49
|
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 ! ------------- Jazz isn't dead.......it just smells funny. Frank Zappa / Live in New York |
Posted By: varmando
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 12:37
|
Why WYWH is a top prog album?
The Answer is easy: Because many of the Prog fans think is one of the best Prog albums.
And Im sure that in the future...50 or 100 years in the future..when someone will talk about
the old prog music...they will talk about WYWH, I really dont think they will talk about Italian
symphonic prog.
1.- Some people think that: The most unknown, strange or non-commercial music is the best.
A= Wrong, there is a lot of good commercial stuff. (The Beatles, PF, Queen, etc)
2.- Some people think that Progressive means: Symphonic, virtuosity or even metal, etc.
A= Wrong, they're just part of some prog subgenres.
3.- Some people think that Pink Floyd can be classified.
A= Wrong again, PF is Psychedelic (The Piper) PF is prog (Atom,WYWH,Meddle,etc),
PF is Space (WYWH again) PF is Art Rock (DSOTW, The Wall), PF is symphonic
(Atom, part of the Wall too), PF is Rock Pop (part of the Wall, part of Momentary and
part of The Division Bell), songs from DSOTM are considered blues-rock and
jazz fusion y Obscured by clouds is considered folk-rock and sof-rock in many songs.
So, what the hell is PF??
A= One of the best Bands in History ------------- best ass : b........ |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 12:43
|
Bubblegum pop I think. Oh sugar, honey honey... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 13:03
|
PF is always prog.
enough said. -------------  |
Posted By: slidesandbends
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 15:07
|
guys guys guys, lets do a couple tests and see if pink floyd has enough prog points. 1. virtuosity ok, gilmour is a blues guy, and anyone who plays guitar knows he probably can't go nuts on the nylon strings or write anything like close to the edge. however, its fair to point out that wright was a jazz snob; one virtuoso for sure. 1/4 points 2. lyrics anyone who doesn't acknowledge the progessive tendencies of this music (lyrically) is idiotic. 4/4. 3.Complexity As i said, only one real virtuoso here; and PF music can be easily replicated (tonically). However, lets give it up for "the great gig in the sky" "dogs" and "echoes" for showing PF's really creative and ambitious (prog) side. 2/4 4. Effect on future PROG ACTS UNDENIABLE pink floyd=prog, prog, prog.
|
Posted By: Johnnytuba
Date Posted: December 24 2009 at 09:37
I love Sabbath, always have, but I will never consider them Prog. Innovators of a sound? Yes. Prog? No Prog Related? Probably. For the record, once again, I make sure to listen to music before I make posts about it. So I have listened to Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Never Say Die a lot, I just don't see them as prog. Prog Related, Probably. ------------- "The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow. Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go. |
Posted By: LeStaf
Date Posted: January 11 2010 at 13:40
|
To my ears, Pink Floyd is progressive rock. But their style comes from an evolution of psychedelic rock more grounded in the LSD fasion in the late 60's. The music itself is of course usually on slower tempo than most bands, but the construction of the melodies is inspired from folk, folk rock, modern expiremental classic, and strange tobbaco or... whatever it was. Pink Floyd is a music of atmospheres, strange feelings, in between ethered dream and altered reality. This expands the band's appreciation way beyond the progressive rock listeners and maybe why it is so considered. Pink Floyd's style is absolutely unique, and that's why many are reluctant to class this band as a progressive rock band. You can hear a single note played by Dave Gilmour, and you know who's playing. Wish you were here is very much atmosphere oriented and in my opinion one of the band's most achieved. But it's global concept, the long moody phrases of Shine on You Crazy Diamond and the lyric style places it as a typical Pink Floyd work, though almost all in a rather slow mood. should it be in the top 10? Not for me. But I can understand many people consider it so. Frankly, it's a lot easier for me to claim that Pink Floyd is a progressive rock band than Saga or Asia, for example.------------- LeStaff |
Posted By: TCat
Date Posted: February 14 2010 at 22:48
| 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. |
Posted By: Man Overboard
Date Posted: February 14 2010 at 23:22
|
Among many incredible albums penned primarily by Roger Waters, The Final Cut stands out as an incredibly underrated and well-executed record. I can hardly see how people even consider the post-Waters material to be "Pink Floyd", considering the number of outside songwriters, scrapped and scrapped again failures of 'songs', and meetings about how it doesn't sound like Pink Floyd that plagued their productions. Just a cash-in from those that rode Waters' coattails to stardom. 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. ------------- https://soundcloud.com/erin-susan-jennings" rel="nofollow - Bedroom guitarist". Composer, Arranger, Producer. Perfection may not exist, but I may still choose to serve Perfection. Commissions considered. |
Posted By: Camel666
Date Posted: February 15 2010 at 08:02
|
Posted By: Pedulla63
Date Posted: February 15 2010 at 08:36
|
Early Pink Floyd is progressive to me. The newer stuff (which I also like) uses standard rock structure like 1. Intro 2. Verse 3. Chorus 4. Verse 5. Chorus 6. Guitar solo 7. Verse 8. Chorus 9. Ending A good amount of Yes and Asia are similar. Progressive Rock/Metal to me is when the song constantly evolves without being bound to a generic structure, like shown above. Early Floyd strays from this more. |
Posted By: Hopix
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 16:05
|
How are they not prog? They were as innovative and creative as it gets for their time. They helped create new genres of PROG such as the aforementioned space and psychedelic rock. And their albums and individual tracks range from heavily synth based, soft, melancholic, riffs ect.
|
Posted By: Rottenhat
Date Posted: March 06 2010 at 16:06
|
Nick Masons drumming as a bit of a problem to me. Not that he is bad, but he lacks a bit of the jazzy drumming I would like in a prog band. The Jam section on 'Money' is a good example, it kinda falls flat and sounds heavy handed. That track needs Robert Wyatt, :) ------------- Language is a virus from outer space. -William S. Burroughs |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 06 2010 at 22:37
I would say some or even a lot of their music is not prog rock, but they are PROGRESSIVE rock..in keeping with the current fashion on PA. Yes, they may have a lot of straight up rock songs and lot more of those than any other prog rock band (why is that a problem by the way) but to add to what Dean pointed out in the previous page, they arrived before Genesis, Yes, ELP, Gentle Giant and still had The Wall left in the tank in '79. I don't listen to prog rock because it's prog rock but because there is much inventive music in this genre and if you want an inventive band, you can't do much better than Pink Floyd.  I don't know whether this answers the question, so I should say that I don't particularly care if they are prog rock or not but they have enough songs that can safely be called prog - Astronomy Domine (cmon, it was '67), Saucerful of Secrets, Set controls to the heart of the sun, Atom Heart Mother Suite, Echoes, Dogs, Sheep... and more - to settle the issue anyway. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: March 06 2010 at 23:04
| I always thought of them as more of a psychedelic rock band. Obviously Barrett era is heavily psychedelic, after that it was a psych band continuously going towards more standard rock (with some exceptions). And obviously there were some progressive tendencies since psych and prog rock have many crossover traits. |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 00:17
|
The term progressive rock stems from the post-Woodstock explosion of new bands that now included musicians who wanted to stretch beyond the simple pop psychedelia that permeated the nascent rock scene. The conservatory trained instrumentalists wanted to enter the rock medium and cash in on the huge following that they may incur (money, fame, groupies etc...) . The Wakemans , Emersons and company vaulted the 3 minute songs into epic compositions , full of inventive explorations fueled by the immense technological advances (namely synthesizers) of the time. In that sense , Floyd was progressive in relation to pre 1970 rock bands and kept the formula going into the future. Obviously the term progressive is not really valid anymore , as every possible style has been recorded already. ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 05:29
|
I don't understand anyone who says that Wish You Were Here is not Progressive Rock ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 02:16
Do you ever ask them how they came to that conclusion? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: DavetheSlave
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 05:28
|
Maybe one of the answers is a simple one - back in the early 70's a number of bands broke away from the pop music mould and created music that we had never heard before. Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, ELP, Pink Floyd, Grand Funk Railroad, LZepp, Yes, Genesis etc etc. That was a magic time to be a music lover. The fact that then the music was ground breaking makes it prog as per then standards. Listening to DSOTM or WYWH was a very different experience then than it could possibly be now.
There is no reason why a "prog standard setting" band then should not be considered as prog today - those bands were the cornerstone of much that we hold as brilliant today. Without those cornerstones I don't know what we would be listening to today as prog music lovers. ------------- I'm a normal psychopath |
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 11:45
"Nothing is formulaic" , oh man it seems you been absolutely cheated. 
Evrything since Atom Heart Mother is purely formulaic, i think they even have the mathematical equation for building these tiny gloomy musical houses ad nauseam.
Wish you were here is bad and The Dark Side of the Moon is a cliche craft all over the disc.
Is no surprising is hit radio friendly.
About philosophical deepness dont make me laugh. Does any of the members make a new school system or they just take them to expensive english private schools as every other wealthy englishman does?
Another brick in the wall? Yeah especialy if you are in the builders team.
And what about sacking barret and then talking about madness from the comfortably numb view in their quiet sofas?
Yes so deep, they are really an institution od deepness.The cunning deepnes of the hipocrites.
The Monkees are more deep than the Floyds.
|
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 11:53
|
Floyds inventors of psychedelia and space rock? No way man. When did the Floys do space rock? Why they are in same section of Ozrics? Hawkwind?! Space rock is not about wild spacy psychedelic rock. Im missing somthing? |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 13:45
Just ears really. I'm not a massive Floyd fan but any artist who is capable of inventing what are now deemed clichés that have been copied and mutated forever hence is a true litmus test of originality. The signature sounds of psychedelic music were freshly minted by Floyd (and others) on Piper at the Gates of Dawn and Saucerful of Secrets. Ozric Tentacles appear to have formed circa 1985 so must have been active as a ground breaking psyche band with no recorded output since 1967 ? Pink Floyd minus talent = Hawkwind. Space Rock = Interstellar Overdrive (BTW the worst track on Piper IMO) Some of the best lyrics of any genre of music are contained on Dark Side of the Moon, but yes, by that stage the music was pretty much plain vanilla rock. (but why is good rock music deemed less worthy than very bad Progressive Rock ?) It appears the lunatic is not just confined to the grass... -------------
|
Posted By: elder08
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 13:56
|
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 14:02
Hawkwind, no talent, yeah right! You too seem to lack ears of any functional variety! ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 14:53
Pardon ? -------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 15:18
|
It's not as if Hawkwind covered Pink Floyd on their first album or anything as obvious as that...
...oh wait...
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 16:17
Lets all gang up on Hawkwind, Anybody else? The talentless bunch of PF coverband type people that they are!  ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 17:17
------------- What? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 17:44
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 12 2010 at 05:35
OK, this misses the point so wildly it must be deliberate - congratulations on a great troll!
I particularly like the point about the Monkees - their work with Frank Zappa on "Head" is astonishing.
It's true - Floyd didn't invent psychedelia.
Not sure about Space Rock - that kinda evolved from psych, with a little help from Sun-Ra, Zappa and a few others - but I'm hard pressed to think of a Spacey Rock album released before "Piper..." (not that there aren't any, but 1966 was quite short on them).
Floyd (obviously) wrote and played a form of Space Rock - and equally obviously, they did not sound like the Ozrics. Their influence on Hawkwind (not to mention much Krautrock, later British, European and American psych is also patently obvious - but, of course, there were other bands at the time.
er... Space Rock IS largely about wild spacy psychedelic rock isn't it? If not, what IS it all about?
...or is this just another funny troll?
It's not April, yet, is it? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |