How are Pink Floyd considered PROG rock?

[Titch]

In philosophical terminology, progress means to move and develop from its simplest to complex. From lower form of being to higher form of being. From basic to advanced.
All this must be applied to the given object or phenomenon in regards to its given conditions accordingly.
To simply apply it to one part of Pink Floyd's historical development, indeed, the history of musical development as a whole, is to lapse into subjective idealism.
During the whole existence of Pink Floyd there has been masses of followers and fans. Some have stayed the length of time of their existence whilst others have favoured certain periods and not others. This is neither good or bad but more of a reflection of the quantity and quality of Pink Floyd's music and their fan base.
Popularity is a measure of quantity.
Musicianship and its implementation is a measure of quality.
It is not uncommon for people to confuse the two aspects, which I believe is why you find yourself asking the question you have.

 

[FRoss6788]

In philosophical terminology, progress means to move and develop from its simplest to complex. From lower form of being to higher for of being. From basic to advanced.
All this must be applied to the given object or phenomenon in regards to its given conditions accordingly.
To simply apply it to one part of Pink Floyd's historical development is to lapse into subjective idealism.
During the whole existence of Pink Floyd there has been masses of followers and fans. Some have stayed the length of time of their existence whilst others have favoured certain periods and not others.
This, however is quite irrelevant to the nature of prog rock and more to do with the quantity and quality of Pink Floyd's music and their fan base.

 

[Mili]

Yes I agree, David Gilmour and Richard Wright aren't virtuosos. They are better than that...

 

[Bassique]

If you listen to The Dark Side of The Moon or The Wall, both sounds pretty unique for their time. That is enough criteria to label them as progressive rock I think.

Same argument gets thrown in about Kansas too, people claim they cant be prog cuz they had 2 multi platinum albums and are generally called art rock or arena rock(hate that term ). But I think just the fact their first 3 albums had so much diversity in the music can easily make them fall under the prog genre. Anyway thinking too much about labels is silly anyway.

 

[Jeff Scott]

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

Add Eclipse (first thing to come to mind beside Money).

 

[Thumpin6string]

7/4, but yes.

Actually we are both wrong. It is in 7/8 time and 4/4 at the guitar solo.

 

[maxschrek]

If Pink Floyd isn't prog then neither is Rush.

It isn't about musicianship, it's about music.

 

[Jazz Ad]

As said by several already, the whole argument is nonsensical.
Progressive music is defined by 2 main factors : Songs made of different parts that progress from one into the other and a will to extend whatever genre you play beyond its boundaries.
Pink Floyd not only has both but was a pillar in the definition of progressive rock.

Virtuosity, sales or whatever other factor you want to cram into the discussion are irrelevant, although to assess that Pink Floyd songs lack complexity and doesn't use odd time signatures means you didn't listen to them a lot before making a judgment.

 

[Marc DLarosa]

OK, after reading the first three pages, and then posting (sorry for skipping so much), I'll ask this... Heavy Metal has come a long way, and gotten "heavier." By todays "standards", does this make Black Sabbath a pop band, in comparison?

And... does the intro to Boston's "Long Time" (Foreplay), make them a Prog band?

Just asking...

 

[prowla]

It must be annoying when bands don't fit into one specific box, but then again, prog is partly about intermingling styles and trying to define it is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
There is certainly some evolution/overlap between psychedelia and prog, with The Moody Blues and The Beatles being early pioneers of Prog and 70's bands like Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, ELP, Uriah Heep, and others following on to become the more definitive statements.
Other bands ventured into prog too, for example Deep Purple's Concerto, Black Sabbath's War Pigs, and elements of Led Zeppelin's explorations over a wide range of styles; some of Elton John and David Bowie's stuff is out there too.
Chart success isn't a disqualifier either; Tubular Bells, War Of The Worlds, and Jesus Christ Superstar are prog, probably Sky's work and also Variations On A Theme are in the mix.
What is "prog" has (ahem) progressed over the years, with Rush, Dream Theater, Mars Volta most notably dragging it along by the scruff of the neck off at interesting tangents.
Back to Pink Floyd's work, the thought-provoking explorations of societal (dis)function in their lyrics (albeit somewhat lower-sixth in Roger Waters words), concept albums, time signatures, atypical chord sequences, pioneering synth and effects work, and suchlike certainly aligns with my perception of what prog is.

 

[doran.dragic]

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?

I think the reason is that the people want a quick black and white answer.

Yes, they are a prog band, no they are not! It's like when we talk about people. Somebody might say MidnightRunner is a god guy and somebody else would say no he's a bad guy. A correct way to look at this would be to look at all of the good things you did and al of the bad things and consider their impact.

Another part of the question is what defines progressive rock. Is it music that is more complicated that the rest or are there specific genre criteria (for you it is odd meter, complex compositions, virtuosity). Opinions might differ because the times also changed.

 

[halcyo]

Assigning genres/talking about music is like dancing about architecture.

“Progressive” just means that the artist is more interested in surprising the listener, exploring unique/unusual ideas, taking the time to go deeper into a musical expression than the genres of music more typified by doing “the expected” in order to be more catchy.

There’s no rule that a “progressive” band can’t have some catchier hit songs though, and most of the famous ones obviously did.

 

[Phaidrus]

Careful with that axe, @MidnightRunner

 

[BunchyMutt]

I do apologize for Bon Jovi, Poison, el at.

Thank you. Was that too hard? That's all we were ever asking from you boomers.

 

[BunchyMutt]

It's not your fault a few took a left turn back there.

We don't know that for sure though

 

[Fernando Costa]

Pink Floyd is a popular rock band with a prog flavor. This explains its success, its popular appeal, and its huge audience. But also bands like Genesis, Yes, ELP, essentially prog bands, and a few more were also popular and very successful. It means that prog, rock, pop, etc., are labels when it comes to success. Success doesn't depend on the genre, so I don't agree at all that being part of a "niche" or "ghetto" is a characteristic of prog bands.

 

[Durham52]

Another prog band from the 70's that are still making music, Italia's Premiata Forneria Marconi (PFM)
Just because there hasn't been much music posted in 11 pages. (Very strange....)

 

[aguacateojos]

Actually we are both wrong. It is in 7/8 time and 4/4 at the guitar solo.

I disagree. I hear the quarter note getting the beat, not the eighth note. Their music is heavily influenced by Blues and this tune is an example of that swung eighth note feel.

And sure, the solo is in 4/4, but I guess I came in with the assumption that everyone already knew that it changes meter there and then back to 7/4 for the outro. I should have been more specific.

 

[TTA]

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?

Pink floyd is pink floyd. Rock, classic rock, prog… psycadelic… they fit it all for me. But the label does not matter for me. For me these days… there are two genres… stuff i like… and stuff i dont like.

genre does help buyers find the albums in a store however.

 

[sometimes]

I don't know if anyone else said this yet, but like Neil Young is sometimes called The Godfather/Grandfather of Grunge, I think Pink Floyd is that to post rock. Bands like Sigur Ros, Explosions In The Sky, Radiohead, and Mogwai. The period after Syd Barrett (which I also really like) and before Dark Side of the Moon is my favorite and the most applicable to this idea. They both use extended instrumentation with sparse or no vocals. I think that's one of the reasons bands like Mogwai and Sigur Ros struck such a chord with me, since I've always liked the Pompeii movie (not the hideous remastered version with all the dated architectural CGI in the 90s though)