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
Funny how the blues got its start here with a small following at first. The Brits picked up on it, repackaged it and sent it back over the pond to destroy the minds of our youth!
Thanks British Rock & Roll!
Meddle was not a concert album, in fact they didn't have a plan or concept...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meddle
ELP headlined California Jam. I mean, 300,000 to 400,000 people is enough, isn't it? They were huge for a period in the 70s. They also played Olympic Stadium in Montreal, on the Works tour.
Moving on, Jethro Tull played Shea Stadium in 1976. And Yes played at the Queens Park Rangers' Loftus road stadium in 1975. It's where the excellent Q.P.R. concert was filmed, natch.
Meddle was not a concert album, in fact they didn't have a plan or concept...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meddle
Perhaps, but the song Echoes, being 23 minutes and 29 seconds, is totally prog.
From AllMusic:
Sounds about right to me.
Progressive rock and art rock are two almost interchangeable terms describing a mostly British attempt to elevate rock music to new levels of artistic credibility. The differences between prog-rock and art rock are often slight in practice, but do exist. Prog-rock tends to be more traditionally melodic (even when multi-sectioned compositions replace normal song structures), more literary (poetry or sci-fi/fantasy novels), and more oriented toward classically trained instrumental technique (with the exception of Pink Floyd). Art rock is more likely to have experimental or avant-garde influences, placing novel sonic texture above prog-rock's symphonic ambitions. Both styles are intrinsically album-based, taking advantage of the format's capacity for longer, more complex compositions and extended instrumental explorations. In fact, many prog bands were fond of crafting concept albums that made unified statements, usually telling an epic story or tackling a grand overarching theme. In addition to pushing rock's technical and compositional boundaries, prog-rock was also arguably the first arena where synthesizers and electronic textures became indispensable parts of a rock ensemble. The earliest rumblings of progressive and art rock could be heard in the poetry of Bob Dylan and conceptually unified albums like the Mothers of Invention's Freak Out! and the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, all of which suggested that rock was more than just teenagers' music and should be taken seriously as an art form. Prog-rock began to emerge out of the British psychedelic scene in 1967, specifically a strain of classical/symphonic rock led by the Nice, Procol Harum, and the Moody Blues (Days of Future Passed). King Crimson's 1969 debut In the Court of the Crimson King firmly established the concept of progressive rock, and a quirky, eclectic scene was taking shape in Canterbury, led by the jazzy psychedelia of the Soft Machine. Prog-rock became a commercial force in the early '70s, with Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Yes, Jethro Tull, Genesis, and Pink Floyd leading the way. Meanwhile, a more avant-garde scene (dubbed Kraut-rock) was developing in Germany, and eccentric, unclassifiable bands continued to emerge in the U.K. By the mid-'70s, a backlash was beginning to set in; prog-rock sometimes mistook bombast for majesty, and its far-reaching ambition and concern with artistic legitimacy could make for overblown, pretentious music. Its heyday soon came to an end with the advent of punk, which explicitly repudiated prog's excesses and aimed to return rock & roll to its immediate, visceral roots. Still, prog-rock didn't completely go away. A number of AOR bands used prog ideas in more concise songs; plus, Pink Floyd, Yes, and Genesis all had number one singles in the '80s by retooling their approaches. A small cult of neo-prog bands catered to faithful audiences who still liked grandiose concepts and flashy technique; the first was Marillion, and many more popped up in the late '80s and early '90s.
Sounds about right to me.
Jeez, you must be 20. These were huge stadium bands in the 70's. Yes and ELP were enormous stadium bands, as was Floyd. Why don't you do a little reading up on some history before deciding we're all full of baloney?
Agree. Plus depends when you grew up and probably where to a degree. To me, Rush, Genesis, and Dream Theater are the first 3 bands that come to mind when I think of “prog”. That doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of things but it does to me. And to the post that said David Gilmour is not a virtuoso, I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder. As far as playing the perfect phrase at the perfect time, to me he’s one of the best in any genre on any instrument. Obviously that type of thing is very subjective.
When I grew up, what we called progressive rock was the stuff from Gentle Giant, Morse Code, Genesis w/t Peter Gabriel, Yes, to name a few. The 1970-75 era with 5-6 members in a band, lots of synths, Rickenbacker basses, virtuosos, intense arrangements, sophisticated story telling, long songs with various sections, served in often very cool albums art.
That’s what we called progressive rock.
Come to think of it, we did not label much when listening to music aside from that progressive stuff.
Basically the stuff we enjoyed listening but couldn’t play with our music buddies. Rush, Pink Floyd, Zep’s Achille’s Last Stand, that was doable to the extent of our limited skills, the progressive rock was not.
That’s what we called progressive rock.
Come to think of it, we did not label much when listening to music aside from that progressive stuff.
Basically the stuff we enjoyed listening but couldn’t play with our music buddies. Rush, Pink Floyd, Zep’s Achille’s Last Stand, that was doable to the extent of our limited skills, the progressive rock was not.
Last edited:
I predict an OK Boomer in the near future
I'm not much on black & white labels in music, clearly there is overlap and evolution everywhere we look... But to the OP's and others' points:
1. Lack of popularity or not being "mainstream" is not a requirement for music to be considered prog rock. It's more that most prog rock is not very popular or mainstream because people don't like it.
2. David Gilmour is most certainly a virtuoso, IMHO. Virtuosity ain't all about cramming as many notes into a given space. And even those that can aren't necessity virtuosos.
3. The early PF stuff was definitely prog and psychedelic. And most certainly not mainstream. I don't think I've ever heard Astronomy Domine on the ol' transistor.
4. Not all prog involves weird time signatures, ridiculous lyrics, or overly complex arrangements. And not all music that involves weird time signatures, ridiculous lyrics, or overly complex arrangements is prog.
5. Music evolves, even with the same musicians. Today's prog isn't the same yesterday's prog. And musicians that once made music that could be considered prog may eventually come to write less proggy stuff... and vice-versa.
Now... its time for me to go get my geek on with some Starcastle.
1. Lack of popularity or not being "mainstream" is not a requirement for music to be considered prog rock. It's more that most prog rock is not very popular or mainstream because people don't like it.
2. David Gilmour is most certainly a virtuoso, IMHO. Virtuosity ain't all about cramming as many notes into a given space. And even those that can aren't necessity virtuosos.
3. The early PF stuff was definitely prog and psychedelic. And most certainly not mainstream. I don't think I've ever heard Astronomy Domine on the ol' transistor.
4. Not all prog involves weird time signatures, ridiculous lyrics, or overly complex arrangements. And not all music that involves weird time signatures, ridiculous lyrics, or overly complex arrangements is prog.
5. Music evolves, even with the same musicians. Today's prog isn't the same yesterday's prog. And musicians that once made music that could be considered prog may eventually come to write less proggy stuff... and vice-versa.
Now... its time for me to go get my geek on with some Starcastle.
I like to think I'm pretty ok myself, for a boomer, anyway.
