They sounded more in line with the Talking Heads, a direction that Fripp was already persuing. I hear very little ‘fusion’, whatever that might entail.
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
Let’s turn the while thing over to this bunch, and let them decide….
https://www.loudersound.com/prog
https://www.loudersound.com/prog
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
In my view, Pink Floyd is prog. My thoughts are that being a progressive band is more of a mindset and not so much a set of rules such as "cannot be popular", has to be virtuoso" etc. I think they did enough creatively that they were pushing boundaries in regards to what is popular. Sure, their music isn't super complex all of the time, but they did a great job of trying new things, especially in terms of production and sounds. Writing long songs (like the ones on Animals), and concept albums too is pretty progressive to me. Just because they got popular shouldn't have anything to do with them being a prog band. If that's the criteria, then I guess Rush can't be considered prog. YYZ sounds pretty progressive to me and yet I hear it on the radio pretty often.
Alkali Ike
Gold Supporting Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 2,855
- 15,666
- Disclosures
- I never actually learned to play very well
Many so-called Fleetwood Mac fans don’t know or care that this version of the band existed.
I don't know if this particular criteria is necessarily valid. In many or most cases, you're probably right but I'm fairly sure that Yes, Genesis and Rush are all generally considered to be prog and were all very popular, sold a whole lotta records, and played big venues. On the other hand, music stylistic labels are often in the ears of the beholder and many groups are a mashup of styles and/or evolve over time which makes it difficult to easily define what they do.
I kinda stopped listening to them after Bob Welch left.
There's your problem, you seem to be under the impression that the popularity of a band has any say in what genre they play.
Agree. They were different and artsy and still successful. I’m not sure why having a mass following is a disqualifier. Odd time signatures and a virtuoso are present too, so even by OP’s weird definition I think they are covered. They moved the needle in terms of what rock can be and that’s enough for me.
Pretty good dive into the subject. Thanks for posting!
I got as far as Future Games and Bare Trees and moved on. Couldn’t care less about B/N.
Bands like Rush, ELP, Jethro Tull, and Yes also played stadiums, so I guess they're not prog either. If those bands aren't prog, then nobody is, so then sure, PF isn't, because prog doesn't actually exist. QED.
That word is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Early tracks like Genesis's The Musical Box or Pink Floyd's A Saucerful Of Secrets, pretty prog. Later tracks, like Genesis's I Can't Dance or Pink Floyd's On The Turning Away, nothing prog about it.
Last edited:
It seems the definition of a “Progressive Rock band” varies significantly, but I’ve never heard the criteria above applied to progressive rock acts. This definition of prog rock would eliminate Yes & Rush, both of which show up in Rolling Stone’s reader’s poll of the top ten best prog bands of all time (Rush being #1) Both bands have been known to play a stadium or two.
Most prog rock history mentions The Beach Boys Pet Sounds album and the Beatles Sgt. Pepper’s album as the beginning of the era of Prog Rock. Yes, Jethro Tull, & The Moody Blues all come along shortly after, all considered pioneers of Prog Rock, and all having had hits on Billboard top 100 or top 10. Not niche music.
It seems Pink Floyd would fit in the category as well as any of the bands I named.
