How are Pink Floyd considered PROG rock?

[evil dewars]

Here's a South American band from the 70s; maybe more rock than prog, but great nonetheless...

This is great! Very mid-western 70s - James Gang / Grand Funk vibes to me then those wild organs and horns kick in and it gets all early Alice Cooper. Love it!

Of course I don't understand the lyrics but the music is fantastic, do you have any other recommendations?

 

[Beeflin]

If progressive rock is defined as rock & roll based music which goes significantly beyond the genre of pop singles, I think Pink Floyd thoroughly deserve to be included no matter how slow, conventional or unskilful their instrumental playing is. They definitely caused and inspired a huge development of rock-based music and how many chords or time signatures they know, or how fast they can shred, is neither here nor there. The same surely applies to Camel and Barclay James Harvest.

 

[tim gueguen]

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,

Are you saying you never heard the term progressive rock back then? Prog is just a shortening of the term.

To put the popularity question to rest once and for all Emerson, Lake, and Palmer have sold an estimated 48 million albums worldwide. Yes has sold at least 30 million albums worldwide. Whether a group is popular or not has nothing to do with them being a progressive rock band.

 

[StereoPlayer]

Sorry if posted before.

 

[Matty4Strings]

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.

Of Floyd's gamut of songs, I'm only aware of Have A Cigar as having an uneven time signature. I am not so thoroughly versed in all of their music to know what the others would be. But as far as Cigar goes, I recall someone in a Floyd documentary, it may have been Gilmour or maybe the studio engineer saying that Gilmour didn't feel comfortable soloing over that time. So, they switched it up to 4/4 for the guitar solo section which carries on to the fade out of the song. I don't believe Roy Harper singing the song had anything to do with the time signature.. That was just that neither Waters or Gilmour were happy with what they were able to do with the vocal and Harper happened to be at the same studio at the time. So they "borrowed" him.. Sorry for the long-windedness. loll

 

[Lothian]

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?

So, when or if a prog band becomes successful, it's no longer prog? I'm sure Marillion would like to know about that ;-)
That said, I believe Pink Floyd has prog elements, chief amongst which the concept album...

 

[wildrice]

Of Floyd's gamut of songs, I'm only aware of Have A Cigar as having an uneven time signature. I am not so thoroughly versed in all of their music to know what the others would be. But as far as Cigar goes, I recall someone in a Floyd documentary, it may have been Gilmour or maybe the studio engineer saying that Gilmour didn't feel comfortable soloing over that time. So, they switched it up to 4/4 for the guitar solo section which carries on to the fade out of the song. I don't believe Roy Harper singing the song had anything to do with the time signature.. That was just that neither Waters or Gilmour were happy with what they were able to do with the vocal and Harper happened to be at the same studio at the time. So they "borrowed" him.. Sorry for the long-windedness. loll

You might be mistaking Have A Cigar with Money. HAC is 4/4 throughout, whereas Money is 7/4 and 4/4 on the guitar solo.

 

[Matty4Strings]

You might be mistaking Have A Cigar with Money. HAC is 4/4 throughout, whereas Money is 7/4 and 4/4 on the guitar solo.

Bingo! Yep.. that's the one! loll
So then, other than Money, are there many others with uneven time? I couldn't think of any and wouldn't think there could be many, especially from Meddle thru to The Wall (or The Final Cut which is essentially a Waters record anyway).

 

[BassyBill]

Sounds like a case of genre obsession, perhaps?

Pink Floyd’s music was / is just their music. Nor more, no less. Call it “prog” if you want to. Or not. It really does not matter one iota what anybody calls it.

 

[Michael - NYC]

As a guitar/bass player - I think David Gilmour is Incredible. His solos and use of effects is next-level. For me, their music was: Psychedelic Rock. Very heady and atmospheric. Listen to Animals with headphones = Epic.

 

[wildrice]

Bingo! Yep.. that's the one! loll
So then, other than Money, are there many others with uneven time? I couldn't think of any and wouldn't think there could be many, especially from Meddle thru to The Wall (or The Final Cut which is essentially a Waters record anyway).

There are several sections of songs on The Wall that aren’t in common time (e.g. Bring the Boys Back Home has polyrhythmic 4/4 and 12/8 signatures). Two Suns in the Sunset on the Final Cut has 9/8, 4/4, 7/8, and 3/8 sections.

 

[Matty4Strings]

There are several sections of songs on The Wall that aren’t in common time (e.g. Bring the Boys Back Home has polyrhythmic 4/4 and 12/8 signatures). Two Suns in the Sunset on the Final Cut has 9/8, 4/4, 7/8, and 3/8 sections.

That's not surprising that there would be a handful throughout the many songs on their records.. and some of those signatures actually have a familiar feel to them, where you can actually feel the "1." And as the rule, 4/4 is the common time to MosT Floyd songs. Whereas, with "Prog Bands" like ELP, Yes, Rush, Tool.. 4/4 is the exception to the rule.. where they might throw you a bone every now and again with a song or a section that you don't need third year calculus to find the top of the beat.. loll

 

[Berniez40]

So to paraphrase a once famous president --"That all depends on what your definition of 'Prog' is"....I personally hate the pigeon holes--because similar to A-Holes---this world has too many of them, and though dimensions vary---they all stink. For instance----the OP wrote:

"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?"

Whereas many of us older folk might remember the term of "Progressive" getting attached to all forms of music---even C&W--"Progressive Country?"--(actually used on Poco, Loggins and Messina, and many others)--Of course it was used for a loose label as a catch all for all forms of contemporary (at the time) forms of music that opened new borders and differed from their predecessors. (Progressive Jazz/Jazz Fusion-----Progressive Rock---our current debacle---Progressive Country--- (Even early Eagles songs such as "Take It Easy" fell into this catch all) --


Later--the earlier part of this century--after "Progressive Rock" had been out for over 30 years, and had by that time it's own set of "established norms" we got more "Informed" Pre-Fab definition pigeon holes suitable for argument such as this 2008 article from The Guardian.
School of rock: Why Pink Floyd were not prog rock

So Prog or not by anyone's definition, there is no doubt that-- "The Pink Floyd Sound", "The Pink Floyd", or just "Pink Floyd" are a musical force to be reckoned with who may very well have carved their own niche.

 

[Matty4Strings]

So Prog or not by anyone's definition, there is no doubt that-- "The Pink Floyd Sound", "The Pink Floyd", or just "Pink Floyd" are a musical force to be reckoned with who may very well have carved their own niche.

This is how I always felt about Pink Floyd... that they invented their Own Sound, their Own Sub-Genre... Floyd.
Like Hendrix, too.. There just isn't anyone else that really makes their sound. They are islands unto themselves.

 

[dasherf17]

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?

They're a heck of a lot closer to prog than heavy metal...I've seen the reference somewhere...
Oh, and the Beatles were considered country...

 

[5StringBlues]

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

Careful with that axe, Eugene.

 

[Whitebeard]

"Prog." was not a genre when the bands that are considered the originators of what subsequently became known as prog. wrote, played and recorded their original compositions. They were simply creating music that they heard in their heads and wanted to play. That said, any "rules" that have been created/established to frame what can or cannot be considered "prog" have nothing to do with what the originators were doing which was just making music. A subjective art form. I say that from firsthand experience. Enjoy!

 

[Berniez40]

"Prog." was not a genre when the bands that are considered the originators of what subsequently became known as prog. wrote, played and recorded their original compositions. They were simply creating music that they heard in their heads and wanted to play. That said, any "rules" that have been created/established to frame what can or cannot be considered "prog" have nothing to do with what the originators were doing which was just making music. A subjective art form. I say that from firsthand experience. Enjoy!

Agreed---see above extension of this very argument.

 

[Michael Favata]

Progressive rock (NOT “Prog” rock never heard that term in the 70s) were bands like Genesis and Yes and King Crimson and others. They usually were identified by odd time signatures and a thematic “concept” album. Odd album art. Lyrics that were intellectual. Deep. Lol. You often would think what the hell are they talking about! In some cases only years later did I learn what the song was about. They were intellectuals who read books and had a higher education it seemed.

And yes virtuoso musicians. Not that the rock guys were not virtuosos but it just seemed the Progressive rock musicians were schooled in classical music, maybe they were maybe they weren’t but it seemed that way, and they brought that complex sensibility to the music structure. It was required.

And as far as popularity is concerned. In the beginning they were niche music bands for people looking for something different in addition to rock music. In my city neighborhood it was the “rich” kids in the suburbs who were more likely to listen to Progressive rock than us poor city kids. We were in to Zeppelin and Sabbath and hard rock and they were listening to something different. I came to like it.

Genesis’ “Foxtrot” and “Selling England By the Pound” is a far cry from say “Invisible Touch” or “We Can’t Dance.” So then it becomes about evolution. And can “We Can’t Dance” be considered Progressive rock just because “Genesis” made it? I don’t think so.

So I guess bottom line is not who the band was but what the music was. Bands who once may have been considered progressive rock evolved to be popular and not make progressive rock often. And eventually some Progressive rock did become popular, like Yes.

And finally at least from my friends perspective, I’m 61 years old, Pink Floyd was never progressive rock. In their early days we may have labeled them as psychedelic rock. Conceptual. The “Piper at The Gates” and “Umma Gumma” is a far cry from “Meddle” and even farther from “Dark Side” and “Wish you Were Here” which for me and my friends we just thought of as rock. But even though we didn’t think of Floyd as Progressive rock they always carried that conceptual album idea with them. For us what that meant was when you put Floyd on you sat down and fired one up, put on Side A, and listened. Then you got up and got another beer and fired up another one and put on side B.
That’s what we did and how we saw things anyway.
Maybe that was just us…

 

[heynorm]

When we first played album cuts on FM radio in 1968 it was called progressive rock, free-form, underground. We still used that term through at least the mid-70’s. It was all over the road, including Pink Floyd.