• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

How are Pink Floyd considered PROG rock?

M

MidnightRunner

Mar 21, 2021
199
250
#1
I think one of the reasons why Pink Floyd cannot be prog is that they have a mass appeal and they had a huge mainstream success (the run of albums DSOTM - The Wall), in fact they're among the biggest rock bands in general. So how are they PROG? Prog is supposed to be 'niche' music (or in other words, music not for the masses) and PF played stadiums.

Also PF lack virtuoso instrumental playing, they have no odd time signatures in their songs and they don't have complex compositions and arrangements and their music is not influenced by classical or jazz music.

What would you say? Why are they considered prog?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boomhowertx, pc and Watchootognbout
#3
MidnightRunner said:
I think one of the reasons why Pink Floyd cannot be prog is that they have a mass appeal and they had a huge mainstream success (the run of albums DSOTM - The Wall), in fact they're among the biggest rock bands in general. So how are they PROG? Prog is supposed to be 'niche' music (or in other words, music not for the masses) and PF played stadiums.

Also PF lack virtuoso instrumental playing, they have no odd time signatures in their songs and they don't have complex compositions and arrangements and their music is not influenced by classical or jazz music.

What would you say? Why are they considered prog?
Click to expand...
If those are your requirements, no not Prog. But their stuff done prior to DSOTM is a different story. That stuff is not mainstream sell in any way
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWessels, bassmike2010, texasgreg and 13 others
#4
Not sure if 'Prog Rock' applies to PF but Have a Cigar certainly features some interesting time signature changes. And Money, for as simple as it seems, also
features an interesting time signature. Plus Shine on You Crazy Diamond has some interesting timings.

I always thought of Progressive Rock as rock music that doesn't fit the 4 chord 4/4 pop oriented mold. So maybe PF does qualify. Not sure.

But a virtuoso, per the definition I've always subscribed to, is someone who can instantly interpret what's in their mind through their hands on the instrument. It doesn't have to be a classically trained musician or jazz savant. But someone who knows his instrument and music theory & relativity to the point of instantaneous interpretation. I'd say David Gilmour and Roger Waters might qualify within their field of music.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JPDsma, leftybass54, Mickey666 and 25 others
#9
FRoss6788 said:
I've always considered Floyd to be one of the first prog groups ever.
Their music, especially early on, was always pretty exploratory. The songs often didn't adhere to the typical framework of pop songs.
I don't think you can say because a band became popular they lose their prog status.
Click to expand...
They were never prog; they emerged at the start of the psychedelic era, as did many bands who may have had, as their music evolved, been labeled as such. Back then, the term ‘progressive’ was a vague, nebulous one, not a strict rule codified genre. Generally speaking, the Canterbury scene with all the bands related to Soft Machine(who I always regarded as ‘jazz-rock’ and not prog or even fusion)was the fountainhead of the prog identity, and all that emerged well after Floyd had established themselves. But those bands drew as much inspiration from 50’s American jazz concepts as they did from European classical.
Some might allow the Moody Blues or Procol Harum to sqeak by as nascent Prog, but for me, the turning point was King Crimson. There was classically influenced stuff at that point, like The Nice, and the then-unknown Yes was still sorting themselves out from a Vanilla Fudge wanna-be outfit, but Floyd, if anything, was already taking a voyage to outer(and inner)space with actually a minimum of chord changes and not a whole lot of showing off of childhood music lesson results. VDGG were far ahead in that game.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JPDsma, eeLALlen, bassmike2010 and 7 others
#11
HelpImaRock said:
Because "progressive rock" doesn't mean one thing. It's rock that doesn't fit into the 3 minute pop song format. You could call Zep's "Achilles' Last Stand" prog if you wanted. IMO, if you can nail down progressive rock to something more specific, then it's stopped progressing.
Click to expand...
Going beyond a 3 minute pop song format doesn’t mean anything in particular, and doesn’t designate anything as ‘prog’.
 
#16
HelpImaRock said:
It means "not fit for popular radio consumption". Since it isn't jazz or classical, they had to call it something. It's a big umbrella.
Click to expand...
So, is Iron Butterfly prog? Vanilla Fudge? Tim Buckley? Dylan’s “Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands”? Butterfield Blues Band’s “East West”? Love’s “Forever Changes”?
 
  • Like
Reactions: texasgreg and Tom Kinter
#17
Michedelic said:
So, is Iron Butterfly prog? Vanilla Fudge? Tim Buckley? Dylan’s “Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands”? Butterfield Blues Band’s “East West”? Love’s “Forever Changes”?
Click to expand...

Yes. The term before prog was "Psychedelic Rock" which Vanilla Fudge tipified. "Acid Rock" was another term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leftybass54, Mickey666, texasgreg and 2 others

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back