How are Pink Floyd considered PROG rock?

[micguy]

Isn't it funny how the typical progression always seems to be a move toward radio-friendliness and not away?

I think it's perfectly normal for a good band. A lot of people think/complain that this means the band "sold out". Honestly, I don't think there are many bands that start out with the premise that they want to always appeal to smaller and smaller audiences. Most bands want people to like their music (and they want to eat, and live in a place with heat - stuff like that). Over time, if they're good, the band gets better at writing catchy songs, more people "find" them, and...they become more popular - some of that is the band's doing, some of it is the audience's. I don't see a single thing wrong with that.

If you start any other kind of business, and it succeeds, it's success. In music, for some folks, I think they're just complaining that now they have to pay more money for tickets, and sit further from the band in a larger venue - they liked it better when they were one of very few fans of the band. The band didn't "sell out", your taste in music just got "justified" by lots of other people agreeing with you. If you want to be a fan of an up and coming band that hasn't become popular yet, there are scads of then, and there's never been a better time to find new bands.

If you're a musician, and you don't want to be bothered by large audiences, there is a solution. Play jazz. Preferably modern jazz. That'll do it.

 

[micguy]

Also you need to realize that rock groups (with the exception of the Beatles) make/made their money in concert tours.

The money was initially in selling albums - the label funded your tours to promote sales of the album (and singles). People generally didn't make their money off of tours. Then the labels figured out how to not let you have any money from your albums (they took it all - they still do), so people got clever at structuring tours so they could make money off of them. Now, if you sign with a label, they will take all your album and touring money (and merchandise). Basically, if you sign a contract now, you're not rich, you're almost automatically in trouble financially.

 

[evil dewars]

Let's consider that run of hugely successful and highly commercial albums mentioned earlier.

Pink Floyd released Darkside of the Moon in 1973. The album had groundbreaking, experimental music featuring songs, primarily related to insanity, the likes of which no one had ever heard before. It's mainstream appeal propelled to the billboard charts.

1975 saw an obvious attempt to parlay that unexpected hit into superstardom with Wish You Were Here; an album consisting of a nine part elegy to an acid casualty, a seven minute song about struggling with success and two songs about despising the music industry.

In 1977, to prove how much they loved sex, drugs and rock and roll, Pink Floyd released Animals. A surefire smash that offered pop fans five songs; a ten minute ode to sheep, 13 total minutes of songs about pigs and a 17 minute ditty relating most of humanity to dogs.

To remove all doubt regarding their bona fides, in 1979 these hooligans dropped a double album's worth of songs about World War II, post industrial Great Britain, a disillusioned rock star with mommy issues and his self imposed exile from society.

Darkside of the Moon would remain on the charts for another nine years before dropping from Billboard in 1988, a staggering 741 week run.

 

[jmac]

IMO, Pink Floyd has too many female fans to be considered Prog.

 

[joelns]

Ah, the human need to label everything. Does it really matter?

 

[Coolhandjjl]

Before the ‘Prog’ term came about, wasn’t it called ‘Art Rock’? King Crimson, Yes, Tull, PF, ELP, Genesis, etc

 

[ProbablyTooLoud]

Doing a project right now called Progtology.

 

[Ric5]

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?

these songs are progressive rock:

Pink Floyd - Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun - YouTube

Careful with That Axe, Eugene - Pink Floyd - Live at Pompeii - YouTube

Pink Floyd - One Of These Days (Live At Pompeii) 1972 - YouTube

Pink Floyd - Echoes / Live at Pompeii ( full ) - YouTube

Pink Floyd - Astronomy Domine 1970 - YouTube

PINK FLOYD: Cirrus Minor (Remastered/ 1080p) - YouTube

Some of the early stuff with Syd was very pop-ish, some of the stuff was psychedelic, and some was progressive. Dark side of the moon and the wall are more mainstream rock.

 

[Astronaut]

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?

Ahahahahah! “It’s supposed to be niche”
Best definition of any genre.

 

[Jeff Scott]

That poll means 3x more people find PF prog than Genesis

Sad, isn't it. Particularly that it shows most have never heard the "real" (IMO+E) Genesis.

 

[red_rhino]

they have no odd time signatures in their songs

The entire premise of your argument loses credibility with that single statement. Go back and listen to Money.

Saying that odd times are a requirement or an indication of progressive rock is like saying your password must have at least 8 characters and contain at least one special character and one number. It's not a checklist. (Pretty sure that Dave Brubeck's "Take Five" wasn't considered prog rock. Pretty, pretty, pretty sure.)

 

[retslock]

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?

Musical labels are pretty much useless unless you know well, the source from which they come and understand their context intimately. Otherwise your just kicking words around that may not make much sense to another’s point of view.
What is jazz?
It’s something different to almost everyone you ask; trad, dixieland, bebop, cool, progressive, avant garde. Jazz is many different things as is rock.
What is Prog Rock? - rock, whatever that really is, that seeks to progress from where it is and has been. PF fits that definition.
I know I’m being literal here but the point is, labels are not absolute. They have different contexts.

 

[red_rhino]

What is jazz?

Jazz is when you make the same mistake twice so that it sounded intentional.

 

[GodsLove66]

If MASS APPEAL disqualifies a band as being Prog then we can’t consider Yes, Genesis, ELP, Rush or even KING CRIMSON Prog anymore!!!! What kind of stupid are you sir?!?

 

[lokikallas]

I think they are prog as far as they were willing to try anything. No options were off the table. The long songs, epic arrangements and odd instrumentation were all prog rock staples. Yes they had some hits, but that’s because they wrote good songs.

 

[bmusic]

I don’t have time to read this whole thread, which strikes me as being kind of prog-like in that

1) it goes on too long, and
2) includes a lot of musicians falling over each other trying to show how much they know.

I’m not a fan of prog. I liked Phil Collins Genesis and Trevor Horn-produced Yes, in their day.

But if I were tasked with trying to explain how Floyd was prog-like, I would point to a kind of cinematic approach to songcraft. Compositions that take their time setting the mood, develop in ways that deviate from the pop mainstream, and take you on a long journey.

But what do I know?

 

[bobalu]

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?

Where are you getting your "definition" of PROG rock? Also, your statement of ".. they lack virtuoso instrumental playing" is hilarious!

 

[jamro217]

I always thought that Progressive rock was a combination of rock and classical. Like fusion is a combination of jazz and rock. ELP, Yes, Focus, PFM, even Deep Purple (Jon Lord was classically trained) had that classical strand running through their work. I never thought of Pink Floyd as progressive as much as psychedelic rock. Splitting hairs, maybe. Hope this helps.

 

[Lackey]

Good God, the inanity!

Prog or not, who cares. But why pick on a band with long songs and hits in 7/4 and flatly declare they are not.

 

[StatesideRambler]

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?

It’s disingenuous to judge music of fifty years ago by recent standards.

The music that was recorded in 1959 by Mikes Davis, Dave Brubeck, Charles Mingus, et al. was progressive, far from the contemporary mainstream. But we got used to it. A decade or so later that was true of Pink Floyd, Yes, King Crimson, and others. We’ve had fifty years to become accustomed to prog rock so it doesn’t sound far out the way it first did. Make a note of what you consider progressive today then revisit it several decades from now. It’ll sound ordinary, if not mundane by then.