How are Pink Floyd considered PROG rock?

[ELDUB22lws]

Pink Floyd is a perfect example of one of the original Prog Rock Bands. People tend to think of Prog rock as virtuosos and complex music, but Prog came out of the Psychedelic era, and the earliest Prog rock bands, which included Pink Floyd, the original Genesis, Jefferson Airplane, Moody Blues, Yes, and so many more, were known for their Symphonic Rock focus. "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" is a semi-pop album, but after they lost Syd Barrett, "A Saucerful of Secrets" is a 100% Prog album. From there, they developed their own sound. Live at Pompeii is one of the greatest Prog performances of the early 70s. They ooze creativity and thinking outside the box. Watching that show, you see the greatness that would be DSotM just permeating their performance.
Let's put it this way: I think that everyone can agree that "Xanadu" by Rush is a paragon of Prog. Floyd had a different mindset to making music, but the long song format, the creative washes, the symphonic elements, and the focus on the instrumental were all in the same vein. And it is definitely no stretch at all to think that Floyd influenced the later, hard-core Prog band's thinking about "painting with sound".

 

[Marlon Carbone]

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.

Both Rush and Yes had platinum albums. I think this means they had some measure of mass appeal. So, that doesn't rule out Rush, Yes, or PF.

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.

I've only recently (like the last 10 years) become a fan of PF. I could never listen to them in my youth because they just sounded too stoned out and niche to me. So, that doesn't rule out PF either.

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.

I think it could be argued that David Gilmour is, indeed, a virtuoso. He has incredible phrasing and a very emotional way of playing that does set him in the upper echelon of players.

"Money" goes back and forth from 7/4 to 4/4. "Welcome to the Machine" uses 7/4 in the bridge. The verse of "Moither" uses 5/8. "Two Suns in the Sunset" uses 9/8.

Their songs have very rich and deep compositions and arrangements. I don't know what you mean by that. Have you actually ever listened to any PF? Certainly you can hear other influences in their music. I mean... Great Gig is a perfect example of mixing Classical, Soul, and Rock into a single song.

 

[Berniez40]

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?

Well let's see--Gilmour bends notes in tune--better than almost anybody--known and tested---not my opinion-----virtuoso by any definition---Odd time signatures---"Money" from DSOTM is in7/4---pretty odd if you ask me-----"Niche Music---not for the masses..." Okay--how about the Soundtrack to "More"--yeah how much more obscure than a French Film film you have probably never heard of can you get? --Barbet--the maker of said film said-----"...when I heard them--it was like nothing else I had ever heard before...I had to have them for my movies' soundtrack. "-----That's Niche from Niece if you ask me. ("More" could technically be considered their 3rd album after Saucer Full of Secrets.)I could go on and on---but really I think you get the point. They practically invented prog rock as they wandered about---desperately trying to find a direction after the departure of Syd Barrett----and that is a whole other story all its own as they say.

 

[Ron Aguiar]

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?

Certainly I believe they are prog, more because they stretched the awareness of listeners tan because of any arbitrary structural basis such as time signatures or heavily altered chords /progressions. The same arguments about mainstream AKA selling out or popularity has been made across multiple musical genres- people said George Benson couldn't be considered a "Jazz Guitarist" because be sold out and became popular, same with the punks and Green Day or the Metal Heads and Metallica. just my $0.02

 

[singhighplaylow]

why is everyone so caught up in comparison. This band is that band isn't. PF is by all means Prog Rock. Appealing to the masses does not eliminate a band from the Prog Rock category. If you use this as a metric then Punk Rock would become the ultimate defining genre of Prog Rock. Odd and constantly evolving time signatures, use of instruments not readily known by most musicians (even less with the lay person), abstract song structure, lyrics based around mythical creatures, space, conspiracy theory, or any other topic that is rarely explored. Given that as a definition for Prog Rock, Pink Floyd is without a doubt Prog Rock, along with many other bands both listed and unlisted on this thread....Rush anyone?

 

[j_zuilkowski]

I think hindsight is a pox on things like this.

Back in 1972 you were zoning out to Close to the Edge with a candle in a wine bottle, grooving along.

In 1973 it was Dark side.

Now we have the benefit of looking backward and seeing Darkside after it became the new normal. It wasn't when it was released.

Something to consider.

 

[GreyEagle]

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.

I hafta contest your viewpoints, although I respect them.
By your definition of popularity vs prog rock you'd exclude King Crimson (which went VERY progressive after G. Lake joined ELP (another popular prog rock group). Pink Floyd was quite 'progressive in their earlier years, but even the later material holds glimpses of their musical skills (yeah, "The Wall was massively known for one or two 'hits' from the collection. But the work itself is a progressive concept/structure (IMHO). Time signature as a factor in 'Floyd' - "Money" is an example of a song that has a unique time signature AND was a hit. I don't follow mainstream or am I influenced by popularity; but sometimes a great song/piece of music is grasped by the public in general and I don't see that as an invalidating factor.

 

[tri2bob]

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?

Obviously you are a younger person. I was in my 20's when they hit the FM charts, which was a radical thing back in those days. You just weren't there it seems. As far as today goes, who cares what you classify them as. They did something no one had done before and an incredible influential band. Labels are for people who live in a box.

 

[wildrice]

One of these days I’m going to cut you into little pieces

 

[brianrost]

Can is not prog rock. ELO is not prog rock.

This is why the OP argues PF is not prog rock. Because he said so.

I saw Zappa/Mothers on that list, I've never heard them called prog before. Maybe because Zappa can't be categorized...jazz-fusion, modern classical-art music, doo-wop, blues rock, electronic music are all present in his catalog.

I also could never figure out why Jethro Tull was considered prog. After all, TAAB was a satire of prog rock, as was Passion Play. Their first three albums were pretty solidly in the blues-rock vein.

Playing with an orchestra...how about Deep Purple?



Spooky Tooth?



Phil Lesh?

What do you think about this...Mono is usually pegged as post-rock whatever the f*** that is.



Wait, is bluegrass band Balsam Range really prog? Is there such a thing as proggrass?



Here's some music in search of a label...dig those titles, King Crimson must have heard this!!! First performed in concert 1948, record released in 1952.









Labels are useless...

 

[JLJBass]

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've heard them referred to as "Art Rock" which makes more sense than prog rock. I never considered them to be in the same style as bands like Yes, King Crimson, etc., so for me, they're not prog rock. But what do I know?

 

[Buffalo Man]

Maybe, but I lean towards they always have been a flavorful evolution of psychedelic rock. thats a tough one. Barrett was probably the pioneer of it all. From Pink Floyd’s earlier and lesser known “Scream Thy Last Scream Old Woman In A Casket” to Sid Barrett’s very own “Opel” album (which was groundbreaking and in and of itself a lesser known gem of musical history”. Alas, I digress and conclude there is no label you can attach to Pink Floyd. They are their own entity.

 

[WG Plum]

Ned Lagin and Phil Lesh's Sea Stones is electronic/experimental and it is AWESOME.

 

[Matty4Strings]

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?

Rush, Yes and Tool have played stadium gigs and were all hugely successful and they are Prog Royalty.
That said, they just seem oddly out of place when you even just say their names together:
Yes, Pink Floyd, Rush, Tool.. Yeah.. I'm not seeing it.

I agree that they also lack the technical characteristics that are commonly associated with Progressive music
like math rock and intricate, complicated synchronized runs, fills and changes.

 

[ChaZam]

To heck with pigeon holing music into certain genres.
If I like it I listen to it.

 

[Wibble666]

prog rock came about as a section in the vinyl record store, you had bands like the rolling stones and the who in the rock section and progressive for all those other weird bands that didn't quite fit in, it was more of a catch all type labeling system so that every album had somewhere to be filed away.

 

[turf3]

prog rock came about as a section in the vinyl record store, you had bands like the rolling stones and the who in the rock section and progressive for all those other weird bands that didn't quite fit in, it was more of a catch all type labeling system so that every album had somewhere to be filed away.

Were you there? I was. The section "Rock" included everything from Pat Boone to Uriah Heep to Pink Floyd to Zappa to Bill Haley.

I'll say it again, I spent thousands of hours from say 1975 to 1985 listening to, buying records, and performing music from the genre that is now called "prog" and I never, not once, heard the term "prog". It is an after-the-fact creation, and therefore trying to argue over exactly how many Syd Barretts can dance on the head of a pin engraved "Prog Versus Non Prog" is a big waste of time. I will also tell you that those of us who were there and were listening, were perfectly happy going from the Beatles to Floyd to Lightnin' Hopkins to Hendrix to Pat Travers to the Dead to the Stones to Crimson. Y'all kids can come in and try to shove our music into little boxes shaped like Procrustes' bed, but it doesn't work that way.

 

[Berniez40]

I think hindsight is a pox on things like this.

Back in 1972 you were zoning out to Close to the Edge with a candle in a wine bottle, grooving along.

In 1973 it was Dark side.

Now we have the benefit of looking backward and seeing Darkside after it became the new normal. It wasn't when it was released.

Something to consider.

Indeed---Historical context is so important. Without it--you get book banning, as well as innocent little pigeon holes, such as this one, that miss the mark.

 

[Doctor Intrepid]

Floyd's music is highly conceptual, they had songs more than 10 minutes long and odd time signature. They are Prog rock in my books for sure.

 

[Matty4Strings]

Indeed---Historical context is so important. Without it--you get book banning, as well as innocent little pigeon holes, such as this one, that miss the mark.

I guess you could refer to it as pigeon holing. But, I think that puts a negative spin on what is really just the name of a sub-genre. Pop rock, hard rock, soft rock, southern rock, etc all seem to have their place and seem to be fairly appropriate most of the time for the bands that fit the bill..