PINK FLOYD | PROG OR NOT PROG?
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 09. 2022
- Pink Floyd have been described as 'prog-lite' by Rolling Stone magazine and some argue they're not prog at all. Here I look at both sides of the argument. Prog or not prog ? That is the question.
If you like my channel and appreciate the work that goes into my videos, please support my channel. You can -
Become a Patron! - Be part of a Classic Rock Community!
There is a fine body of work on there now. / classicrock
Make a one-time donation!
Help me to make more videos or buy stuff to annoy my wife with and unbox on my channel: www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Gift me something to unbox from my Amazon Wish List: www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/...
Buy me a coffee.
All that talk is thirsty work: ko-fi.com/classicalbum
Like the Facebook page:
I add stuff on a daily basis: / 1968rock
All music used in my videos come from the Free Music Archive: freemusicarchive.org/
#pinkfloyd #prog #classicalbum - Hudba
I'm a big prog fan and Pink Floyd is my favorite band ever, but I would say that Pink Floyd has *some* prog songs but is not a prog band.
To me, the difference lies in improvisation or, let's say, melodic freedom. A lot of the biggest prog tracks by the biggest prog acts are actually very composed, where even live, the solos and instrumental breaks will not stray too far away from what's on the record (think Tarkus, Close To The Edge, 21 Century Schizoid Man). The live performance will be an act of trying to replicate the record as closely as possible.
Aside from a handful of exception, Pink Floyd wasn't doing that at all. The songs, even the longest ones, do include jumps from one atmosphere to another, but within each, Wright, Gilmour and sometimes even Mason improvised quite a bit (think Echoes obviously, but also Embryo, Any Colour You Like and even Money). Sometimes, some tracks show more of that "discipline" that's crucial to what I perceive as prog: Time is one of them, as is Dogs but the biggest example for me is the first half of Shine On You Crazy Diamond. That's as prog as Pink Floyd ever got. The rest has more freedom and honestly, that's why I like it even more than prog.
The problem probably happened when the got the massive chart success with dark side, as after that they were probably told “don’t upset the apple cart by going too unaccessible and experimental on us and keep it so accessible that a David Bowie or Roxy fan will still buy your albums and keep you at number 1 for ages!” By executives at EMI, so they concentrated on just being easier to listen to after that to make a lot of money and chase chart figures after this!!!!
Sorry “they” doing this on an iphone have only just read it back after posting it, and cannot be arsed typing it out all over again!!!!
A 'Rock' band with distinctly proggish and psychedelic flavourings would be my take.Ditto Yes and Genesis....just too unique for any distinct catagerisations,way too enigmatic for pigeonholery i'd vouchsafe.
Pink Floyd, like other great bands, is a category of its own.
Which other great bands?
thare in a league of thare own
A well reasoned counter-argument. Floyd does tick all the prog boxes, but do so in a very unique, transcendent way, which gives prog-hating music critics fits of confusion. In addition to prog, I hear Dark Side of the Moon (especially) as ambient, experimental and avant-garde, very sophisticated stuff that defied categorization at the time.
What I always loved about Pink Floyd was that they never locked themselves to a single genre. Their music could variously be described as prog, psychedelic rock, space rock, folk rock, classic rock, pop rock, and surely other categories as well.
I will say that they were definitely "progressive" with their approach to writing music, and certain tracks like "Echoes" do fit the classic definition of prog rock.
Was Pink Floyd prog? Yes, but they were also so much more.
Maybe a new term needed...'Akashic rock' works for me.Reaching deep into the unfathomable,cosmic realms of Jon Andersons lysergically expanded hippocampus,where battleships confide certain confidences to this most august of minstrels.Howe definitely culpable but Wakeman is a meat and potatoes progger i'd venture.Rock really covers all bases.
Yes, PF predate prog rock and began as a part of the psych scene. Their music was much more drug oriented than most prog bands. Their music is more folk, blues, eastern and jazz based and contains virtually none of the classical sounds that many prog bands specialize in. They also do not go off on sidetrips of self-indulgent displays of technical virtuosity. Which lead me to the fact that PF is, first and foremost, a psych/space rock band because they are more into "feel" than technique. I do agree that a new term needs to be applied when, in the 70's, they applied a more theatrical/cinematic approach under the reign of Mr. Waters. Even so, albums such as Wish You Were Here and Animals are fundamentally head trip albums, meticulously made to enhance the drug experience along with countercultural messages.
Of course they are prog. I think you nailed it when you said that there are people who say they hate ‘prog’, but do like Pink Floyd. So they prefer to call PF ‘classic rock’ instead. Rather than there being a certain 70s prog sound I think all these 70s progressive rock bands or prog scenes like the Canterbury one are all quite distinct from each other. Many unique sounding bands.
I think some of the 'Canterbury troupes' would fit into the prog category-Caravan-Camel-Hatfield etc.All good stuff,more so even than Crimson who l'd deem Art-Rock.A band l can't seem to embrace.Too linear and bloodless for my lugs.
“The metaphorical cat among the metaphorical pigeons” = great line!
And great video, as always.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I agree with you ... "Dogs" is way more prog than let's say "Owner of a lonely heart" from Yes (who are considered as one of the Big 4 of prog) or compare "Have a cigar" and "Closer to the heart" from Rush ... I find that they are both musicaly in the same realm ... And the guy says that Floyd hasn't got jazz ... I would say that "The Great Gig in the Sky" is pure cabaret jazz improv, but in the 70's ... I can't even classify the song "Atom Heart Mother" as anything else but prog ... The think is that you cannot put Floyd's carrear as a monolithic block (and thank god) ... albums like "Pipper at the gates of dawn", "Meddle", "Animals" and "The Final Cut" are worlds apart from one another and could all have been written by different bands (like "From Genesis to revelation", Selling England by the pound", "Abacad" and "We can't dance" from Genesis)
As a non Native English speaker with a reasonable command of that language, I immensely enjoy the quality of your speach !
Needless to say, it is a rare commodity on the internet thèse days.
I share your opinion about Pink Floyd being some sort of prog music , keeping in mind that it is difficult to be completely assertive since the very définition of "prog" is by substance a bit vague.
Since you seem to be able to tackle difficult subjects (albeit essential), let me suggest another one: is ELO prog?
Thank you for all the fine stuff you deliver to us meek CZcams watchers !
Pierre
What is "21st Century Schizoid Man" is not angry and spiky? What is "Atom Heart Mother" if not jarring and mashed up between multiple genres? What is "I've Seen All Good People" if not political? What is "Fuck Everyone and Run" if not all of these things? Good lord. That's some astonishingly choosy reasoning. You are 100% right. Pink Floyd is indeed progressive, if often in a more accessible way than some other bands.
Personally, I think Animals is their most PROGIEST! album if there is such a word. I think there are many who would not say they were prog, especially in relation to Yes, Genesis and Crimson but I would say there is quite a good bit of PROG! elements in their music and I would have to agree with you on this one Barry and say yes they are.
I think Wish You Were Here is a purer example.
Yeah, I think Animals is the only Floyd album which is proggy in a musical sense. Lyrically, it's perhaps their most grounded, dealing with politics and all.
However, with the majority of their other albums, I think it's mostly their lyrics that put them somewhat in the prog genre. At least in the sense that they always
had a conceptual theme running throughout.
I've been a Floyd fan since '80 and for many years I'd never really considered them as prog since they're sound is so distinguished.
But in time, I've had a change in opinion about that mainly because of Richard Wright and his nifty, strange and yet classical style of play. Then there's the long, epic compositions they were well-known for as were many famous prog.
I get they were far more psychedelic than most prog bands but I do believe Floyd is prog in their own special way.
To me Pink Floyd do fits into the Prog genre. But I do understand people would say psychedelic and avantgarde. Prog doesn't have be about fairies and wizards in my opinion. The musical exploration, epic tracks and surprising structures are there.
If Pink Floyd isn't progressive what is? Even Yes and Genesis and yes the greatest band in the world Rush had their commercial periods which to me Pink Floyd had their moments. Especially with Gilmour. I don't see how someone can say they aren't progressive. They have many different concepts that the albums are trying to encompass. Maybe not the "jarring" time changes but Pink Floyd is one of the fathers of prog to me. Love seeing the Rush 89- 07 box set in the background.
I always thought of Floyd as more psychedelic than prog. And pre dark side they certainly had an experimental side too. I think that WYWH and Animals were the most prog records they’ve ever done. Although they definitely had the subject matter, song length, and experimentation I feel that they didn’t have the overarching virtuosity that their contemporaries, I’m not saying this is negative at all lol. Floyd’s progressive nature came from space, ambience, and experimentation as opposed to rapid changing time signatures, long virtuosic instrumental passages, obvious influences from jazz and classical, etc. I just always found them spacier and more psychedelic than true “prog rock”. But I also see how one could categorize them as so, just my personal thoughts. Dave Gilmour for my money is the most emotive guitarist I’ve ever heard, by a mile, with the exception of maybe Jimi. What I love about Gilmour is that his playing has a massive blues influence but in the context of PF’s music and his soloing, it doesn’t sound like blues at all. It becomes a completely original style, those long sustained notes, perfect bends, uncanny guitar tones. Love the spacey clean side of his playing too which I feel often goes overlooked. Perfect use of delay, reverb, and just a touch of modulation to add to it. Brilliant band and brilliant player.
Floyd is my specialty, been listening since 79, and love all the eras. While they touch on prog, they as a whole are not. Even when they were considered psych, they weren't even normal psych. I mean Astronomy Domine, and Interstellar Overdrive are kind of something else. I have always liked to call them space rock up until around Meddle, and from there, Floyd is just Floyd. They are their own beast.
In the early 70's, "progressive rock" was a very loose term encompassing all kinds of musical exploration. It was more an idea of breaking out of conventional forms than a set-in-stone guideline. Pink Floyd was progressive in that it created its own landscape far removed from most heavy rock or pop bands. Many bands dabbled in this genre to lesser or greater degrees. Even Queen and Roxy Music have traces of progressive rock in their early output. Pink Floyd were a progressive rock band but not as overtly so as others. They were on a spiral arm of the progressive galaxy but still within the galaxy.
Pink floyd ? About as prog as the beatles . Both bands beyond categorisation which makes the music stand up in 2023 to any other band purely on art alone. In fact as they progressed each album pushed them in different directions pushed walls over and kept the fans on their toes. Utterly fantastic .
Your best video yet! My definition of Floyd is "A blues band who use a lot of echo". Totally agree with you. Of course Pink Floyd are prog for the reasons you clearly give. Nick Mason struggled to play certain songs ('Mother', 'Two Suns in the Sunset", etc.) so they got in other drummers, but it's not just about 100mph Fripperesque(?) noodling (I love KC by the way). Deep Purple have "punk" and "jazz" elements in just one song 'Speed King'. Camel have been my favourite band for many years and too often they are ignored. They also have a bluesy side like Floyd ('Mother Road'), but they can play speedy jazz-rock too ('Lunar Sea').
The Pink Floyd made music.
If they are not Prog then no one is!
Yes, you did a fine job going through all the relevant points, particularly that those that want to exclude PF from Prog have a very narrow definition of Prog and are generally not fans of Prog (with their strict definition formed expressly for the purpose of dismissing it), but like PF. Thanks for going through this (yet again). But in the end I think it is a very silly argument. Pink Floyd is one of the defining bands of progressive rock, they are basically one of its creators. If PF are not Prog, then there is no Prog. There is no one style or sound that defines Prog. Too often, it seems, people spout off specific characteristics of some Prog music (long songs, fantasy concepts and lyrics, technically complicated instrumental passages, etc.) as requirements, when those are just techniques or approaches some musicians use to achieve their own ideas for the progression of rock music beyond the standard format and structures of classic rock, which is what Prog is all about, but there are many different ways to go about that, and that is why Prog can take so many different forms and styles. I did a piece dealing with this several years back on my BB Chronicles blog (bbchron.blogspot.com) for those interested.
Having read through all the comments, I dare say that your comment is the one that explained it the best.
I used to put pink Floyd on the fringes of prog - but having gone all in on prog in the last twenty years I would have to say yes they are and generally for the reasons you say. It used to irk me that the music press always poopoos prog. It’s like unless it’s four on the floor then it somehow isn’t worthy. Well that sucks and I love the fact that these numpties just don’t get it. Ultimately as others have said it doesn’t matter - it’s great music - and the same goes for Genesis, King Crimson and Yes etc.
I think that they have many progressive elements between Atom Heart Mother and Animals. The early records are psychedelic and after Animals certainly not prog (in fact Animals is theirs last album I love) Nice and interesting discussion...
I've gone back and forth on this over the years, but I've come down on the side of Pink Floyd being prog. A band doesn't have to sound like Yes or King Crimson or ELP or early Genesis to be prog. We were talking about Kansas just the other day; a band I believe is unquestionably prog, but they don't sound like most UK prog bands. Like Floyd, they're prog in their own way, but still prog. Floyd pushes that envelope even farther than classic Kansas -- they have even less of the sound we traditionally associate with prog -- but they are still inside that envelope, IMO. If Jethro Tull is a prog band, and I believe they are, then so too is Pink Floyd.
I really liked this video, but then I'm an academic so I like these kinds of discussions (I am a beard stroker - also I have a beard, so I am one both literally and figuratively). I agree with your point about his argument being constricting. I argue that for a few years (the 1980s) Rush was a New Wave band (or at least trying to be one). His argument, I think, shows how prescriptive labels can be. Labels like "prog rock" should be a way to conceptualize a group of tropes and characteristics rather than a set of rules or a checklist that we cross off. Connotation rather then denotation.
Pink Floyd up until The Wall played what we used call 'head music' or in earlier times 'acid rock'. Was fortunate to see them on Saturday June 28th, 1975 at Ivor Wynne Stadium in Hamilton Ontario Canada. It was a magical evening with everything going for it, beautiful weather, a well behaved crowd(although Roger was not in love with us) and the band was in top form. Check it out on you tube and hear for yourself.
Great video and I generally agreed with everything you said.
For me personally, Pink Floyd post Syd Barrett was definitely was definitely a Prog band. Certainly unique within this genre, but weren't the greatest Prog bands all unique (see Genesis, Yes, Tull & most definitely King Crimson)!?
I would argue that Pink Floyd ceased to be Prog after Rodger Waters jumped ship 🤔
Echoes and Shine On are prog epics; as far as "jarring time signatures", how many bands had a best selling single written in 7/4 (even if the guitar solo had to be in 4 for Gilmour)? I'd say that the more Richard Wright was involved, the proggier Floyd was.
Pink Floyd for the most part went beyond Prog......And then some!!
In a class of their own!
Pink Floyd started as a psychedelic band and was perceived as such, only after 2-3 albums it became more and more "prog" and after some albums more pop elements begun to enter into their music. As someone wrote in the comments - the prog genre had many unique sounding bands.
they didn't even turn pop, actually....... they only started hiring producers who brought them that mainstream sound/production...... but the songwriting was still very interesting...... even albums like "Momentary Lapse" or "Division Bell" had a lot of interesting moments...... PF never sold out...... it's only their sound was changing with times (like with most great bands)
Floyd are Proggiest from Atom Heart Mother through to Animals, leaving out Obscured by Clouds. Just the way i feel about those five particular albums.
I'd mention the wall as well
If king crimson’s 1st album is prog (and it universally is), then you know my answer.
I think it is simply ridiculous that anyone would not classify PF as Progressive Rock.
One of the best description of prog that I have heard is that "You don't/can't dance to prog", and that is almost the perfect description of PF.
I think if we try to fit Pink Floyd's music into categorization boxes, we just need a box with the name Pink Floyd...Btw nice video.
When it comes down to it, what does it matter if I have them up on the shelf with Yes and Genesis rather than the Led Zep and Black Sabbath shelf?
I've been told that my Bow Wow Wow is NOT new wave but rather surfer rock. He doesn't get to determine where they are on my shelf.
Pink Floyd certainly produced some classic 'progressive' music. 'Atom Heart Mother' (title track) in particular comes to mind. During the years I was heavily into prog though - roughly '72 to '74 - I didn't think of Pink Floyd as a 'progressive' band so much as a band that included progressive rock in its total sonic palette. In that sense they were a living argument against the hard categories favoured by rock journalists (who seemed to like to categorize music more than listen to it). I felt the same way about Jethro Tull. By '72 or so there was still a lot of blues-based rock everywhere, but rock music as a whole was also splintering off in several directions at once: progressive, metal, glam, electronic, latin rock, fusion, krautrock, singer-songwriter, country rock, and so on. What made Pink Floyd unique and enduring (they never really 'fell out' of fashion, basically because they aways existed outside of fashionable trends in music) was that they couldn't as easily be pigeonholed as could most of their contemporaries.
From my perspective, when my dad first played Dogs for me at age 13, it was honestly unlike anything else I had heard up to that point (there were very few tracks I knew divorced from the radio). Not long after, it led me to other eras of Floyd before opening me up to other bands such as ELP, King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, etc. So to answer your question, you can maybe argue the degree of how progressive Pink Floyd are, but you can't NOT call them a prog band.
Totally agree with all your arguments
I always felt they fell under edges of the Prog umbrella. Some bands dabble within a few genres that defy strict definitions, if that doesn't describe Prog then I don't know what does. Now, what's everyones thoughts on Fusion?
As always, I totally agree with you. Who is this fool who fails to understand the simple meaning of the word 'progressive'. Och, maybe you're just baiting us? Anyhoo, thanks again. Love your work. P
At age 77, I have heard, sung, and played many types, styles, and forms of music from classical, and religious or church music, to probably every type of "pop" music including show tunes from Broadway musicals, movie themes and occasionally listened to some jazz. I remember the "big band" music of the forties and early 50s and enjoyed attending Glenn Miller Band show in Tallahassee (yes, that band has musicians from my age to to the early 20's and they play the old "standards" that all early "rock'n'rollers" learned and eventually probably partially incorporated some "licks" in their early rock & roll songs. Those early rock songs had roots in country, the blues, even classical orchestra music, and every other possible genre, including islands, native American chants, african - any type of music could end up incorporated into the various and varied styles of "rock n' roll". It's not that much of a stretch to say that The Beatles could probably be classified or categorized as the original "prog" band because they took those American blues songs, the show tunes, dabs of American country/western, and what some of their peers in Liverpool, London, and Hamburg were doing and built a repertoire of over 1,000 songs as a base from which they then began composing their own original ballads and "hard" rock'n'roll music. They "processed" those riffs, rythmns, and harmonies and "progressed" from a form of "copycating" to composing originals with different tempos, adding more sophisticated nuances and over a short span of 10 years completely changed the genre of popular music, with George Martin encouraging and facilitating the incorporation of any instrument or sound they could imagine, using innovations in the studio like multi-tracking, slowing down or speeding up segments, recording and reversing tapes of guitars, utilizing unique instrument such as George's sitar - he and Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones had been experimenting with sitars and George subsequently befriended and learned from & played with Ravi Shankar, thus opening the genre of rock to virtually any instrument in the world. They were "progressive" even before thy added psychedelic into the mix! Remeber that as a group, the Beatles hadn't become a worldwide phenomenon until coming to the USA in 1964. They toured Japan in 1996, becoming the first Western rock band to perform in the country. The Beatles toured Germany, Japan and the Philippines between 24 June and 4 July 1966. The thirteen concerts comprised the first stage of a world tour that ended with the band's final tour of the United States, in August 1966. The Beatles officially broke up in April of 1970. Since Ringo was actually the oldest (born July 7, 1940), none of the Beatles had yet turned 30 years old! For the reason why, I suggest the following link: www.cnn.com/2021/10/11/entertainment/paul-mccartney-john-lennon-beatles-split-scli-intl/index.html
While I have never heard them referred to as "progressive", their compositions and performances have inflenced generations for at least the past 60 years. If that's not "progressive" I don't know what is.
Interesting, most folks declaring Floyd as “not prog” seem to do so derisively to belittle them amongst the likes of Crimson, Yes, and Genesis. Funny to see it declared instead as a compliment. We love our tidy little boxes for everything.
my fav prog band of all time so for me yes they are prog,it was genesis who turned into a pop band later on
Pink Floyd have more in common with Elgar or Vaughn Williams than ELP or Yes.
See 'Granchester Meadows' or almost all of 'Meddle' or 'Atom Heart Mother'.
Yes, Richard Wright was probably the proggiest and most musical Floydian. Check out the excellent Broken China although that could be the 'Remember A Day b side' expanded into a concept album. David Gilmour dislikes the term and on being awarded 'prog guitarist of the year' said he was aware it wasn't quite the accolade many in the room thought or similar. Waters is as prog and slightly more than say someone like Pete Townshend. Not much though. Mason is the perfect fit for Floyd but not technically prog rock enough either. Floyd are in a league of their own along with The Who. An eclectic musical career covering, psychedelia, folk, jazz, space, ambient, art, hard & symphonic rock, conceptual, operatic, risky political commentary even soul & funk jams! They pioneered prog rock and outgrew it. They have remained relevant to this day throughout musical changes..
Pink Floyd got me into prog.
I'm 57, and I don't remember a time when Pink Floyd wasn't considered prog. Sounds to me like the author of the article in question is just trying to be different and coming off a little bit silly. Reminds me of an article I saw a few years ago by someone who declared The Final Cut was Pink Floyd's true and greatest musical masterpiece.
As much as I love Final Cut, and I really do love it, it is not their musical masterpiece. Lyrically, it might one of Roger's best works, and atmospherically, it's stunning, but it is not their masterpiece, especially not their musical masterpiece.
Good discussion and I don't disagree with any off your points. I think that Pink Floyd has many prog elements as do Jethro Tull and Rush but I consider none of these bands strictly prog like some might Crimson, Yes, or Genesis. Rush is hard rock with many prog elements, Tull is hard rock with folk, prog, and theatric elements. Pink Floyd, tough to put in a single genre like Zeppelin. Maybe Floyd are classic rock with psych, space rock, folk, and theatrical elements. Oh yes, and prog. To me they are in their own category. Are Zeppelin prog because of Achilles Last Stand, In the Light, and Carouselambra? Probably not but those are proggy songs.
Hello.My comment here is much the same on recent Kansas question and my response.It all depends how its actually played.Loosen it all up and give it some beans it changes the whole sound.Syd Barret had that sorted.But lets for the sake of argument use "Dark Side of the moon".That could possibly be replayed in a much more heavy sound.You can take any track and punk it up.The Pixies were arguably the band that combined "prog" and "punk rock" to superb sounds.
Without venturing an opinion about "are they or are they not prog" I'll just say I think it's often a positive sign when you can't say what genre a band belongs to. Usually the bands that instigate this kind of debate are the ones I find interesting.
Brilliantly said.
extraordinary
i love pink floyd, but i remember when i listened to them for the first time the only other band i could compare them to was led zeppelin, years later i started to get into yes, king crimson and camel and honestly they reminded me a lot more to queen's early albums (my favorite band) than to the long jammy and guitar centric works of floyd and zeppelin
There's prog, rock, psychodelia, blues, jazz, heavy metal and country and then there's Pink Floyd.
When I was a teen in the 70s, and first loved Pink Floyd, they were indeed considered Progressive, and lumped in with the likes of Yes and King Crimson (which I also loved, and still do), even though their music was not as complex. I think it was the fact that they made concept albums that did it, where the whole thing would be considered a suite of music. But then Henry Cow was considered prog rock, too. This was understandable, as HC used rock instrumentation, and played lengthy, complex music with shifting time signatures, trademarks of prog. In hindsight, I think I'd still consider PF a prog rock band, but wouldn't call Henry Cow prog rock at all. I think they existed outside that framework, to the extent that very little of what they did could be called rock.
Just my ten cents-worth...
Are they prog? Yes.
Are they JUST prog? No.
It sounds to me as though the writer you're responding to is one of these people who uses the term 'prog' in order to give a name to their pain. This methodology generally has more to do with politics than with musicality (most dismissals of ELP tend to boil down to the fact that some of their fans were middle-class) and tends to reveal more about the critic than their subject - a hallmark of weak criticism.
As with the gothic tradition, it seems best to approach prog as more of a mode than a genre, a particular gear that some musicians enter at stages of their career when they find it helpful. Only a few bands stay in that gear throughout their careers. For example, Tull's A Passion Play and Warchild are clearly prog; A and Broadsword probably aren't; The Zealot Gene probably is. Rather than asking 'Is Pink Floyd prog?' we should perhaps be asking 'Which Pink Floyd albums/songs bear elements of the prog tradition, and which of these are essential to their appeal?' By that metric things like 'Echoes' and The Wall can be seen as contributions to the tradition; other Floyd work perhaps less so.
Alternatively we could try to crowd-source a new term, defined by what a genre is rather than what it isn't. The label 'prog,' shoe-horns Yes, Caravan, Marillion, Berlin-era David Bowie and Coheed & Cambria into one critical category which has for decades now been used primarily to explain what punk wasn't. Given that a lot of the really striking aspects of the great prog works involve very consciously unpicking the listener's basic expectations of the traditional rock song, I've sometimes wondered if 'textual rock' or 'deconstructivist rock' might be better labels. Of course, good luck getting them trending...
I Don't Like Categories, they use to say T Rex was a bubblegum band. Blah Blah Blah. They are a progressive band so I agree with you.
Cool shirt
I take it that the Rush cd is to say what real prog is haha, Floyd is sort of Prog music but the ideas are certainly Prog, mind David is without doubt blues, bending the first note and leaving spaces in between a solo
Of course!
You are absolutely correct. I couldn't agree with you more.
I think Floyd have never fully been in the category of atypical Progressive rock. Take Early Genesis, YES and Caravan as examples. Elements for sure, but Floyd to me have started off as Psychadelic band which then diluted out into Proggressive style song structures with and then into smooth and easy stuctured songs with less time/section changes. (take Atom Heart and Echos as examples of the progressive perfect examples of 'anyhting goes' and compare to how Shine on's smooth polished songs are structured).
Their wall album is the clearer exception being a double concept with a selection box of ideas and styles, this was more the exception than the norm (especially with how much Waters wanted to head this project).
I dont see much on or past Dark side of the moon that has many changes in song key changes and structure to have them still classed as prog band at this point. But theres definately plenty of prog elements in their carrer to note.
The band themselves in interviews over the years, if I am not wrong, have said that they fit in the prog genre.
Isn't "Dogs" the longest track on the album??!! Anyway, I like "lean prog". Can't the right artists twist minimalistic ideas into progressive music? I'd say so. The musicianship may not be mind blowing, but it's still sharp and disciplined. As I'm writing this, "Future Games" by Fleetwood Mac comes to mind. Progressive song? Or mellow jam band song?
I think you summed it up when you said Pink Floyd had a lot less fiddly bits.
The article in question is very dated. In 2008 when Byers wrote the article prog was still very much out of favor and perhaps the most maligned genre. One might be tempted to only listen to it in secret. It's been somewhat rehabilitated by the public if not all critics. What that article shows is little more than a smug "expert" showing off his musical knowledge and little else. Byers hasn't written an article for the Guardian since 2009 which is of great benefit to us all.
Nice one! 😂
Rather arrogant to say I like it and because I dont like prog its not prog.
I usually get annoyed when Dark Side is touted as a prog classic as its not, in my opinion, their most 'prog' album that for me is probably either Atom Heart Mother or Wish you Were Here possibly Animals. However from Piper through to Division Bell (although FInal Cut and Momentary Lapse could arguably be considered as solo Waters and Solo Gilmour) I dont think you could say that each album sounds just like the one before or the one after, therefore there has to have been some degree of change or maybe progression? Long form compositions by themselves dont necessarily define prog, however I think their use of instrumentation and their arrangements place them solidly in the Pink Floyd were a Progressive Rock band descripition.
Miles Davis = Progressive Jazz
They, at the very least, have prog elements. Personally I would say that they are prog. The writer of the article seems to be rationalizing his love of one band versus prog as a whole.
The Floyd is above all labels.
My feeling is there are some influential bands/artists who create the foundations of a genre without being in it. To me, Pink Floyd created prog but aren't prog themselves. I'd say the same, broadly, about e.g. Led Zep and heavy metal, and the (to me underrated) Siouxsie and the Banshees and Goth.
I've always considered Floyd to be "prog-lite". That is to say, musically speaking, they played fairly conventional music in a mostly bluesy vein, and none of the musicians
had anything approaching a virtuoso level of skill when it came to performing on their chosen instruments.
But what they did have was a grand sense of the conceptual which was complemented with lyrics that explored often heavy and introspective themes.
And when you put these two things together, you end up with a commercial sound. After all, if you want to present music that "makes you think" to a mainstream audience,
it helps greatly if your words are glued to songs that are catchy, straightforward and not too complicated so as to distract from THE MESSAGE.
Other prog bands didn't seem too concerned with this. ELP, King Crimson and Yes, etc, they did whatever the hell they wanted, and if something turned out to be successful,
hey, what a nice surprise. But they were going to do whatever they were doing regardless.
Floyd, I think, were far more concerned with making money. At least until Dark Side. And it's easy to see how the band sort of fell apart immediately after they achieved
their ultra success. They were no longer a strong unit of musicians. They became a vehicle for Waters to preach his ideas.
And having achieved such monstrous success meant that they could release pretty much anything, and it would sell. And it did.
That's not to say that their music is bad. I love Floyd as much as anyone else. But they neither had the skill or the inclination to create "true" prog music the way their
contemporaries did. Which is fine. Not every band has to show off its prowess.
The Floyd, for whatever reason, had a large success in French speaking countries during the early years, especially France and Belgium. I really wanna know how that happened. Was EMI France just really good at promoting them?
Richard Wright does have a bit of a Bill Evans style about him, I think.
They are equal parts prog and rock, literally "Prog Rock"
i absolutly agree with you .why do people want to put music into boxes
Absolutely is prog. People who say that floyd is not
Prog have only listened to a quarter of their catalog
Always a pleasure....i'd say no....
I love Gilmour's guitar playing and Waters compositions like most of The Wall, but sorry, to me other bands like Crimson, Jethro Tull and Genesis can be called prog, not PF
Absolutely listen to wywh
Atom Heart Mother is prog imo, Echoes maybe, Saucerful of Secrets...yes prog....
If I had to put them in a certain musical box, then it would be Prog.
My personal label for them is Ambient Rock.
Isn't that what they play in Tesco's while I'm doing my shopping?
@@classicalbum 😁😂 Haha. Maybe.
Conceptual art rock w/ psych leanings and proggy and poppy/jazzy at times also…atmospheric was also an apt description. The need for some to box and categorize is mostly useless, great music is great music and doesn’t require tags.
What I think is always assumed but incorrectly so is that any of these early 'prog' bands set out to write music that was 'prog'. As happens with all rock movements the term was applied to them despite the fact that they were all doing their own thing. The only common idea was their disregard for Rock or pop conventions of the time. Hence they were writing music that often progressed beyond those restraints of form, tempo and so on but sometimes did not. So Pink Floyd are not 'prog' but they were labelled prog at the time and they did write some prog rock.
I think that Rolling Stone journalist is mixing up prog rock with one of its subgenres, symphonic rock.
If we need to put them in a tidy compartment: Pink Floyd were, for the most part "space rock", just like Hawkwind, even if those two bands were quite different.
I've always felt Gong were exploring more or less similar sonic textures (before they went fusion), even if they were filed under "Canterbury scene".
Also, one just needs to look at the circle of PF's "extended family" of collaborators, associates and protégés: Robert Wyatt, Kate Bush...that's a prog rock circle.
My personal view is - yes they are , most definitely. Like you , the big 4 ( for me ) Floyd , Genesis , Yes , Jethro Tull , all different to each other but most definitely prog.
I can only assume that people who think prog bands are derived from romantic music have no idea what romantic music actually sounds like. Lot of jazz in all the main prog bands, even Genesis. Most they are listening to the lyrics I think.
Seems to me they gave themselves over to prog in their formative years then tamed it to a highly successful commercial product that gave them a global audience.
The problem is we human beings need to attach labels to everything to make 'others' comfortable or allegedly more knowledgeable about something. If Floyd isnt Prog then I am actually an intellectual Emu typing on a keyboard
They tap into it for sure. But I'd offer that Led Zeppelin dives into the Proggy pool also... maybe even deeper than Floyd at times. Led Zeppelin liked their wizards and fairies a bit more than Pink Floyd.
Most must journalists are hardly different than someone who doesn't speak French writing about French poetry. They may like or hate the way it sounds, but have no idea what it's really all about.
Perfect analogy!
They were early in their career, and up to and including W.Y.W.Here. But the Wall is a pure rock album and I would suggest it is difficult for it to be seen otherwise.
Johnny Rotten hates Pink Floyd, ergo they are prog.
I thought they began the thing....arguably. just my opine. Their approach seems to be. Just call it Art Rock or a band that helped create Concept album medium.
I have never understood the compulsion of some music fans or critics to place bands in specific categories or genres . In a lot of cases , these bands have songs and albums that roam all over the stylistic map . Ultimately , as long as you like what you’re hearing , who cares ? Don’t get so wound up about categorizing it , just enjoy it for what it is , great music
Cheers !.
Oh by the way, which one’s Prog? I don’t really think of them as Prague… But I won’t put any energy into arguing against it.
I was just listening through some Kansas… Apparently they’re also sitting in Schrödinger’s Cat Box.
Once again… Do you ever notice how much Roger Waters screams in the Pink Floyd?
If Pink Floyd isn’t “prog”, then they’re better than prog
Ive heard Pink Floyd described as Lean Prog
Edit: you heard it too
Prog "purists" also don't consider them prog, and they're wrong. They think that because they're not virtuosos like the likes of ... name any musician who play with extreme technical dexterity and obligatory odd time signatures.
I bet these are the same people who think progressive/math metal is progressive rock, lol.