How are Pink Floyd considered PROG rock?

[BadSanta1281]

I'm trying to be a minimalist so I break all music down into just three genres...

1- Turn up the volume!
2- Meh... listen and see what song comes up next.
3- Ugh. Change the station.

 

[FRoss6788]

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.

Funny you mention Rush...(one of my faves)
I consider them prog, but many have argued otherwise.

 

[chazolson]

And to think I could be practicing instead of thinking about this.

 

[Michedelic]

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.

What was King Crimson in ‘81-‘84?

 

[Ash Jazz]

I never thought of Pink Floyd as Prog.

 

[DJ Bebop]

Because "progressive rock" doesn't mean one thing. It's rock that doesn't fit into the 3 minute pop song format. You could call Zep's "Achilles' Last Stand" prog if you wanted. IMO, if you can nail down progressive rock to something more specific, then it's stopped progressing.

Frank Zappa is listed as Prog Rock.

On another note...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_rock

 

[Guitalia]

My definition:

Band's music was reverentially reviewed in Rolling Stone in the first half of the '70s and then described as "bombastic" and/or "bloated" in the second half.

Band required at least three tractor-trailers worth of equipment to tour.

 

[NobodyImportant]

What was King Crimson in ‘81-‘84?

On (and off) The Road?

 

[HelpImaRock]

Frank Zappa is listed as Prog Rock.

Indeed.

 

[buldog5151bass]

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.

Never really made sense. Explain Fleetwood Mac. Linda Ronstadt. Genesis.

Good music is good music. Same with mediocre music.

 

[DJ Bebop]

I'm old but not that old. I also don't like Dream Theater.

Dream Theater exists only to sell Ernie Ball/Music Man.

 

[HelpImaRock]

Dream Theater exists only to sell Ernie Ball/Music Man.

Maybe, but I have plenty of other artists to listen to.

 

[HelpImaRock]

Never really made sense. Explain Fleetwood Mac. Linda Ronstadt. Genesis.

Lite FM drive time staples.

 

[Michedelic]

On (and off) The Road?

What’s the difference except that they jammed on the album material longer live. Lots of bands do/did that. There was a bit of improv/noise moments, but people like Ornette Coleman were doing that decades before. Earlier KC incarnations did that.

 

[Paul New]

Yes, Pink Floyd were considered progressive among rock bands in their day, before this crazy fascination with endless labelling. You guys know that the labels, especially beyond basic genre, are primarily marketing tools, right? They help developing minds choose an identity.

 

[Spirit of Ox]

What was King Crimson in ‘81-‘84?

Prog/Fusion

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Sorry if someone already said it, but I'd say right from the start (Sid Barrett) days they were "out there, man". Then the genre classic rock was coined and received FM airplay (a LOT of airplay). Lump in some Fleetwood Mac or The Guess Who and blammo, they aren't quite so "out there" anymore.

 

[Durham52]

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?

Plenty of other prog bands (or at least bands that have been labeled as prog since the 70's) had/have huge record sales and mass appeal, in fact to have huge record sales you pretty much have to have mass appeal, think Yes and Genesis, Emerson Lake and Palmer, or Jethro Tull for a few examples.

Who says prog is supposed to be niche music? Is that a new requirement, now that prog isn't as popular as it once was?

When did having classical or jazz influences become pre requisites? Traditional folk, and 'world' (for want of a better word) influences are also found in prog music.

Anyway, why does it matter if Pink Floyd are prog or not, I'm sure it's never bothered them, how any of us might categorize them.

I've never bothered to consider how prog, or not prog PF might be, but they have sure produced some emotive and moving music and surely that's what counts?

 

[Yonni]

Progressive rock does not have to be niche. I’ve never heard that word used to describe it in 45 years of listening to it. Floyd have definitely fitted the description at times: innovative and pushing the bounds of traditional rock n roll, exemplary musicianship, concept-driven albums. If all prog bands sounded similar they wouldn’t, by definition, be progressive. Floyd may not be as strictly prog as Crimson, ELP, Yes, Tull, Rush and Gabriel-era Genesis, but they were certainly fellow travellers.

 

[Stranger Danger]

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?

Dude have you ever tried to play Pink Floyd? My guess is no. No odd time signatures? No complex compositions? Wait what?

I am very sorry but this is nonsensical.