Right on point. It is a label that is now regressive, because newer bands only get to wear that label if they're making music with specific influential and perhaps outdated elements.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
How are Pink Floyd considered PROG rock?
- Thread starter MidnightRunner
- Start date
That would imply that the TB regular is both uneducated and unable to think for themselves
So many paradigms to accept
Progressive Rock is a giant umbrella term that is broken down into other boxes like Krautrock, Avant-garde, etc......one of those boxes is Symphonic Prog and is the domain that bands like Yes, 70s Genesis, Dream Theatre, Marrillion, etc lay in. A lot of people assume that Symphonic Prog is the start and end to all things Prog and use it as a Prog barometer
It implies that many of them only heard the later Genesis. I think that's not inaccurate to most people.
The first thing that comes to mind for many people when they think of that band is ABACAB, not Foxtrot.
I mean, their music was pretty progressive when it first came out, yeah? Shrug Emoji
...or any thing, the way some folks toss around the term
This really gets down to a semantic issue: "Progressive rock" as a phrase means (at least) one thing as a logical understanding of the definitions of those two words when combined. But it -- and its shortened form "prog-rock" -- has come to mean something else entirely, because it now represents a genre of music that may have actually been "progressive" at one time, but now if it is, it only is due to coincidence. "Prog-Rock" the genre is not by definition rock that is progressive; now it's just music that conforms to the tropes that grew out of the original bands that were considered "progressive" ~40-odd years ago.
I completely understand how "prog rock" came to be "exactly this". I disagree with the narrowing of the term because it goes entirely against the spirit of "progressive".
You can really sort of split it out. People who say "prog rock" are generally thinking of it in narrower terms. They won't want to hear jazz influences, for example. They might be younger. They might be more into Dream Theater than Yes. They probably don't think "Foxtrot" when you mention Genesis, and might be surprised to know that Peter Gabriel was ever in that band (unless they've done a deeper dive into the history of the genre).
Those of us who were listening in the 70's are probably less inclined to use that label.
I'm old but not that old. I also don't like Dream Theater.
I think Pink Floyd is definitely Prog. Something that wasn't mentioned so far that I could see - concept albums. DSOTM, Meddle, WYWH, Animals, The Wall - all concept albums. By virtue of that alone, I consider them Prog.
Okay, with The Wall I can agree that Floyd was proggy.
"Progressive rock, or prog rock, is a subgenre of rock music that emphasizes ambitious compositions, experimentation, concept-driven lyrics, and musical virtuosity." - Masterclass.com (what come up first in a search on Progressive Rock) seems to think that "conceptual" (at least with respect to lyrics) is a key component of prog rock, not something that sets you outside of it.
Pink Floyd was definitely concept driven, ambitious and experimental.
We can argue all day (many have) about whether David Gilmour is a virtuoso, but can probably reach consensus that Roger Waters isn't a bit quicker. Even given that, I'd say definitely prog.
Progressive rock didn’t start out as a genre. It started with people like the Beatles experimenting and going beyond the formulaic AM radio fare to explore new sounds. Pink Floyd started out doing very improvisational pieces bordering on the avant-garde. They became better songwriters over their albums, but they always features new sounds and textures. Check out “Saucerful of Secrets” and their earlier stuff.
I think the large, umbrella term for prog or progressive these days is just music that doesn’t have a definitive label so people just lazily call it prog. Weather or not it is terrible or good, it gets lumped into this genre that has never really had a definition. I also think that this really muddies the water of this genre.
Just one example, and I’m not trying to bash or shame this band, it’s just the first modernish “prog” band that came to mind that dilutes the prog-waters, is The Mars Volta.
Sans De-Loused (great album, what happed!?) with Flea laying down some absolutely sick lines, their albums are just sprawling, “concept” ridden piles of poop. But hey, ten minutes of birds chirping must make it “prog” right lol.
So now we put a band like The Mars Volta into the same category as King Crimson, Genesis, Pink Floyd, etc.??? What a shame this is for this genre of music. The Mars Volta cannot and never will be a spark compared to the infernos of King Crimson, Genesis or Pink Floyd (progressive or not depending on your opinion), but are now compared to these greats that were pioneering this musical progression. Truly sad.
Long-story-short, in my opinion Pink Floyd are definitely a Progressive Rock band. If the massive umbrella of prog can house the likes of The Mars Volta, than Pink Floyd and King Crimson paid for, built and then renovated that house.
Just one example, and I’m not trying to bash or shame this band, it’s just the first modernish “prog” band that came to mind that dilutes the prog-waters, is The Mars Volta.
Sans De-Loused (great album, what happed!?) with Flea laying down some absolutely sick lines, their albums are just sprawling, “concept” ridden piles of poop. But hey, ten minutes of birds chirping must make it “prog” right lol.
So now we put a band like The Mars Volta into the same category as King Crimson, Genesis, Pink Floyd, etc.??? What a shame this is for this genre of music. The Mars Volta cannot and never will be a spark compared to the infernos of King Crimson, Genesis or Pink Floyd (progressive or not depending on your opinion), but are now compared to these greats that were pioneering this musical progression. Truly sad.
Long-story-short, in my opinion Pink Floyd are definitely a Progressive Rock band. If the massive umbrella of prog can house the likes of The Mars Volta, than Pink Floyd and King Crimson paid for, built and then renovated that house.
OMG the drumming on “Achilles’ Last Stand” is amazing. Just had to throw that in.
I would consider Pink floyd to be somewhat progressive but not like Rush, Yes, King Crimson, or ELP. A lot of people consider Jethro Tull to be prog and I do as well but not as much as the aforementioned.
The genres became “hard-coded” when musical distribution went digital. My favorite artists were always genre-defying. I loved that ECM “chamber jazz,” but that’s not a genre. Where does one categorize Leo Kottke? Folk? New Age? John Fahey composed angular pieces influenced by Bartok equally with Blind Blake. My own music was the same way. It was too “active” for New Age, too aggressive and atonal for ambient, too diatonic for “experimental,” no drums (no rock), too harmonically complicated for folk, and not blues-derived (no jazz). I’m really not much on labels.
I could have sworn that Money was in 7/4.
[QUOTE=…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 [/QUOTE
I would argue none of those things you listed are defining attributes of Prog music, as much as simply, the heavy use of analog synthesizers, which PF would definitely fit into.
I would argue none of those things you listed are defining attributes of Prog music, as much as simply, the heavy use of analog synthesizers, which PF would definitely fit into.
