How are Pink Floyd considered PROG rock?

[jerry]

In some Steven Wilson interviews he talks about how sometimes he gets grief for some of his work not being 'prog' enough, Wilson IS prog! It seems to me sometimes people put labels on stuff just so they can be the arbiters and throw others out of whatever club that is.

 

[Spirit of Ox]

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.

Yeah definitely a new wave edge. I hear new wave mixed with prog and jazz elements so I consider it more of a fusion type of music rather than progressive rock.

 

[Smooth_bass88]

Put Pink Flord within the context of 1970s rock music. They are clearly 'prog-rock'.

 

[Durham52]

This is another of those threads where the OP throws out a click bait title and a few possibly controversial claims and then never comments again.

Is there a competition going on to see who can troll the most responses?

 

[Michedelic]

I’m out.

 

[DJ Bebop]

Are tort guards Prog?

 

[Tim Skaggs]

PF is classic rock. I’ve never heard them labeled as prog rock.

Rolling Stone Readers Poll: The Best Prog Rock Bands Of All Time (Pink Floyd is #2 on the list of 10.

 

[5StringBlues]

If my hovercraft is full of eels, Floyd is prog.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

And then there is the term "progressive". In 1972 what is considered progressive is now 50 years old.

 

[HelpImaRock]

Are tort guards Prog?

My newly acquired Mustang has a white guard and will PROGRESS to tort next week!

 

[Herrick]

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.

Yeah I never got into the stuff they did after the first album. Then again I didn't really give it much of a chance.

I'm not really a big fan of The Mars Volta but I've no problem with them being classified as Progressive Rock. If some people compare them with Pink Floyd then that's fine I guess. It doesn't take away anything from Pink Floyd, methinks.

 

[dylanjohnson]

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?

All the sub labels of rock that were created in the 70's are pretty useless. PF were definitely a psychedelic rock band, for whatever that is worth.

 

[sears]

Abacab (Atlantic; 1981) was released almost immediately after Duke and it benefits from a new producer, Hugh Padgham, who gives the band a more eighties sound and though the songs seem fairly generic, there are still great bits throughout: the extended jam in the middle of the title track and the horns by some group called Earth, Wind and Fire on “No Reply at All” are just two examples.

 

[MidnightRunner]

Bands like Rush, ELP, Jethro Tull, and Yes also played stadiums, so I guess they're not prog either.

When and where? I wanna know.

 

[aguacateojos]

"no odd time signatures"

Has OP never heard Money? One of the most-learned lines in modern bass history?

 

[Thumpin6string]

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 are no different than Yes or Genesis. All had main stream success and played huge venues. Progressive rock has nothing to do with being niche. It is all about using unusual chords , patterns, counter point and different time signatures. IMHO Progressive is more rock oriented than Fusion which is leaning more towards Jazz. As for odd time signatures, PF's most played tune Money is in 7/8 which is not your standard rock 4/4.

 

[Neil Folkard]

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?

A ton of people have likely already mentioned this, but Money is famous for big chunks of it being in 7/4. Also, Echoes has prog epic written all over it. And Yes were filling stadiums with The Gates of Delirium, as Tool does today. Plus, Atom Heart Mother is definitely influenced by classical music. The Wall was a double concept album. Etc.

Sure, they are not quite in the same exact realm as early Genesis, King Crimson, et al., but I'm quite comfortable putting them in prog territory. Not that genre labelling really matters, but I have a very wide net of what I consider to be progressive music.

 

[aguacateojos]

As for odd time signatures, PF's most played tune Money is in 5/4 which is not standard rock 4/4.

7/4, but yes.

 

[smeet]

I think a lot of genre labels are misleading and unhelpful. I love a lot of Pink Floyd’s music, but I’m not interested in what it’s called. And as far as where the music came from…

A while ago, when I was transcribing a bunch of their songs for a tribute I was in, I realized something. Because some of their stuff (shine on you crazy diamond for instance) is hard to figure out because it’s so slow, I doubled (or more) the speed to more easily hear the form. It simplified it a lot, and I also made it clear that most of their songs are much more directly derived from the blues than I had realized. A bit of a revelation for me. It’s just harder to hear when it sits on the IV chord for 45 seconds.

So maybe they are best categorized as Electronic British Psychedelic Doomy Arena Blues. I think that fits as well as anything else.

 

[5StringBlues]

When and where? I wanna know.

130,000