How are Pink Floyd considered PROG rock?

[Yogi Bear]

That is because most people only know the Phil Collins fronted era of Genesis, which was massively commercial.

Which is criminally unfortunate on two parts. Obviously the Gabriel era led genesis is most known to be the proggiest (I love made up words). But, A Trick of the Tail and Wind & Wuthering we’re far from commercial successes and fantastic in their own rights. I would also say up to We Can’t Dance, which is utter tripe, their recordings still had nods to their prog past.

As far as PF… labels are labels. Who cares. But, I still consider Animals to be a prog masterpiece- for whatever that’s worth.

 

[GeorgesEric]

Maybe the differences in opinions are created by whether one treats the word progressive as a noun or as an adverb.

 

[Phaidrus]

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.

Pink Floyd have certainly quite a bit more to offer than "prog flavor". They are arguably the epitome of Prog. There would be no Aphex Twin and no The Orb, to name just two more recent instances, without PF. And Antonioni's Zabriskie Point would be a silent film.

 

[RichardW]

they have no odd time signatures in their songs

Have you heard Money?

I've never understood the "progressive" label. Progressive over what?

 

[MtManiac]

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 your problem is your definition of prog rock.

There’s no requirement for any style of music to not be popular, but Floyd, Yes, and Rush are all undeniably prog pioneers and were (are) widely popular.

There is *nothing* wrong with a band being commercially successful, especially while progressing the evolution of rock/popular music. I mean, you have to make a living, and great that you get to do that while doing something you love and are good at, but screw you if you’re too good at it? That makes no sense.

 

[MidnightRunner]

And Rush wasn't even in the ballpark when Genesis and Yes were in their heyday. To me they were Canada's Yes clones who managed to make it on the benefit of their own talents, despite borrowing heavily from that sound.

How? 2112 sounds nothing like Yes. Yes is rooted in classical music, Rush is rooted in hard rock. Different styles.

 

[MidnightRunner]

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.

But compare them to Larks Tongues in Aspic by King Crimson and you will see they are very accessible material, they have a mass apeal. There is a reason why Larks is not a multiplatinum album, but The Wall and DSOTM are: Larks is inaccessible music to the masses, unlike those two PF albums.

 

[MidnightRunner]

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

In terms of complexity Rush music beats Pink Floyd music by a long shot.

 

[brianrost]

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.

1. Yes, ELP and Genesis played stadiums and had mainstream success even if not for as long a period of time.

2. PF recorded with an orchestra (Atom Heart Mother)

3. PF were early adopters of synths, sequencers and mellotrons.

4. PF recorded concept albums.

5. If people consider the Moody Blues and Rush prog, than PF certainly can be considered prog.

Besides, what do you call a band plays music like this?

 

[Jeff Scott]

...what do you call a band plays music like this?

Bizzaro?

 

[LBS-bass]

How? 2112 sounds nothing like Yes. Yes is rooted in classical music, Rush is rooted in hard rock. Different styles.

If you weren't there, you won't know.

I talked about this extensively in another thread about Rush. Let's just say that by the time Rush came along, the high-pitched male vocal with a busy, trebly Rickenbacker-type bass sound was a formula that other bands were attempting to copy with mixed levels of success, only because of the enormous success Yes had.

Record companies wanted to recreate that magic, and many clones came out around the same time to see if they could deliver the goods. Most of them faded. Rush had these basic sonic elements, but also the creative integrity and vision to develop their own thing, which is why they didn't fade. They also had a huge leg up due to Canadian Content laws, which almost guaranteed them airplay in their native land. But we're in the weeds now.

I have huge respect for Rush, but if they hadn't fit a formula record executives were looking for in the 70's they might have had a more difficult time getting noticed.

 

[MichelD]

As I mentioned earlier, my friends and listened to all the pre DSOTM albums in the late 1960s-early 1970s.

At 20 I met my future wife while travelling abroad and went to Germany with her and met her friends. They were confirmed Pink Floyd fans too and had Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, Meddle. They'd had a cat named "Pink Floyd" and you know those little plastic things we used to put in 45 RPm records to play on LP turntables? They called those "Pink Floyds" too because there was no name for them.

I don't like to categorize things, but Pink Floyd obviously did not grow out of the R&B, Rock and roll, blues, or Country-based roots of rock music (Beatles, Stones,etc.). It was more of an English art-school "What can we create that hasn't been heard before?" concept. Prog-Rock? Well it was a progression towards something other than the roots-based rock we'd had before, so the definition is apt I suppose.

 

[jbhaugh]

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 haven't read every comment but surely someone has pointed out that "Money", one of their most famous songs, is mostly in 7/4.

Also, as far as your comment that prog music is "niche", Rush is one of the most successful rock bands around and no one is going to argue against their prog cred.

 

[BadSanta1281]

I don't remember us trying to pigeonhole bands into specific genres back in the 70's, other than Soul, Country, Jazz, Folk, etc.

It was more like "Hey, listen to this. This is cool."

 

[Rip Van Dan]

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.

I remember Bill Graham being the promoter of just about every big Concert in the late 60's and in the 70's. He did all the arrangements and paid performers a flat fee to perform. He started with shows at the Fillmore and some free concerts in LA (not sure it was LA) to begin with. He'd found a way to make money from free concerts early on, I presume from ad revenues.

I recall on one of the Who Concerts in the SF Bay area that he promoted, the word got out that the Who was the highest paid Concert group on the circuit, rumored to have been paid $200,000 for a single performance (that's equivalent to about $1.4 million now). That would mean making far more money from touring than from their records because they could make a million dollars (equivalent to about $7.2 million now) in 5 performances whereas they would need to sell at least a million records to make that from their recording earnings if the rumors were true. Presuming they weren't, there was still a lot of money to be had quickly by touring. That money was the big reason they toured so rigorously for so many years.

Then along came Led Zeppelin and they decided they wanted a very big slice of the door instead of a straight performance amount. That blew the lid off Concert incomes and quickly became the standard arrangement. That is also a big reason why ticket prices went through the roof. But it did ensure that there would be a large pool of top-selling artists touring each year and why they have so many venues to include in their tours. The recording industry was/is not very good to them and this really turned the tables on them.

It gave top performers a chance to make really great money instead of forcing them into almost slavery conditions to the record label by giving them nice advances and then recouping all of that and more in recording fees, promotional fees, etc. That advances/fees trap ended up with some pretty great recording artists just barely getting by, being in debt to the recording company and depending upon album advances to keep alive. "You owe us a bunch of money but I tell you what, we can give you an advance on your next album" And then of course there were plenty of instances of unpaid royalties by labels too.

And of course, if any TB'er has the opportunity to sign with a label, read the contract very closely and have your lawyer go over it. One of the big traps is publishing rights. Don't give those away. You can ask Paul McCartney about that trap.

 

[MidnightRunner]

Also, as far as your comment that prog music is "niche", Rush is one of the most successful rock bands around and no one is going to argue against their prog cred.

Come on. They're not that popular as you indicate. They've sold only 40 million albums during 40 years of their career, Pink Floyd have sold over 200 million.

 

[MidnightRunner]

Come on. They're not that popular as you indicate. They've sold only 40 million albums during 40 years of their career, Pink Floyd have sold over 200 million.

Also they weren't a band who was capable of filling the stadiums, only arenas.

 

[DJ Bebop]

Come on. They're not that popular as you indicate. They've sold only 40 million albums during 40 years of their career, Pink Floyd have sold over 200 million.

Trouble is, some of those Pink Floyd fans are dead now.

Rush can catch up.

 

[FRoss6788]

Also they weren't a band who was capable of filling the stadiums, only arenas.

That's funny, they filled a stadium in Sao Paulo to 60,000 one night and 40,000 the next in Rio to finish their Vapor Trails tour.
In case you weren't aware, those are stadiums...

 

[MidnightRunner]

That's funny, they filled a stadium in Sao Paulo to 60,000 one night and 40,000 the next in Rio to finish their Vapor Trails tour.
In case you weren't aware, those are stadiums...

Yep, that's South America, a specific region. It's not hard to attract the large crowds there.