• 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?

#161
MidnightRunner said:
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?
Click to expand...

Their biggest trait is how many concept albums they have, with extended instrumental passages. But like you, i don't tend to lump Pink Floyd in with the other classic prog bands for some of the reasons you mentioned. I just could understand someone commenting that Pink Floyd has some progressive rock traits because they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop
#162
I'm a fan.

Starcastle.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5StringBlues and DJ Bebop
#166
MidnightRunner said:
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?
Click to expand...
That opinion of Pink Floyd is all because you weren't around when they started. I was managing a record store in LA back then and I kept one copy of each of their old albums in stock because we had a reputation for having the entire catalog of artists repertoire. Pink Flyod's first album was the Piper at the Gates of Dawn in 1967. David Gilmour replaced Syd Barrett for Pink Floyd in 1968 shortly before their second album "A Sauceful of Secrets" was released. In 1969 they released "More" and the studio/live Hybrid "Ummagumma" album. In 1970 they released "Atom Heart Mother" which featured an orchestra and a choir. In 1971 they released "Meddle" and in 1972 they released "Obscured by Clouds" All this time they remained a niche group with a cult following. None of these albums were big money makers. Their talking bits and strange ethereal passages weaving in and out of their music originated from these earlier albums.

Then, in 1973 they were an "overnight success" with their 8th album "Dark Side of the Moon", which was a great album and became known as "the best album to listen to when you're smoking pot". In fact in September of1973 when Pink Floyd played the Hollywood Bowl, the Chief of Police pulled most of the police in the LA Metropolitan area out of their normal beats to work the concert making sure that no one was smoking any pot there. There were literally hundreds of police there and everyone was searched when they entered. There were no big arrests made that night but violent crimes skyrocketed including murder, rape, and armed robbery. The Chief of Police got in all kinds of trouble for that "realignment of resources".

Listen to the first cut from their first big hit album Dark Side of the Moon (album #8 for these "newcomers"). The entire album is on that video, but just listen to the first cut to see what I'm referring to. It incorporates a heart beat, sounds from a cash register, people talking, a crazy person's laugh, a helicopter sound effect circling, etc., to build up to a huge crescendo and resolution. And after the singing stops it gets "out there" again until the alarm clocks herald in the next song. None of these thing were being done at the time. It was all new stuff that no one had ever done or heard before and it was great!



I think Pink Flyod more than paid their dues as a Progressive group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mickey666, Durham52, Hypocrite and 5 others
#169
Yeah, I remember all those pre Dark Side of the Moon albums. My friends and I were big fans. Part of that cult I guess. I remember being astounded at the incredible amount of band equipment in the photo on the back cover of Ummagumma (1969), which I have the equivalent of now in my basement, and it's not much. But to us in 1970, it looked like a warehouse full of gear.



Rip Van Dan said:
That opinion of Pink Floyd is all because you weren't around when they started. I was managing a record store in LA back then and I kept one copy of each of their old albums in stock because we had a reputation for having the entire catalog of artists repertoire. Pink Flyod's first album was the Piper at the Gates of Dawn in 1967. David Gilmour replaced Syd Barrett for Pink Floyd in 1968 shortly before their second album "A Sauceful of Secrets" was released. In 1969 they released "More" and the studio/live Hybrid "Ummagumma" album. In 1970 they released "Atom Heart Mother" which featured an orchestra and a choir. In 1971 they released "Meddle" and in 1972 they released "Obscured by Clouds" All this time they remained a niche group with a cult following. None of these albums were big money makers. Their talking bits and strange ethereal passages weaving in and out of their music originated from these earlier albums.

Then, in 1973 they were an "overnight success" with their 8th album "Dark Side of the Moon", which was a great album and became known as "the best album to listen to when you're smoking pot". In fact in September of1973 when Pink Floyd played the Hollywood Bowl, the Chief of Police pulled most of the police in the LA Metropolitan area out of their normal beats to work the concert making sure that no one was smoking any pot there. There were literally hundreds of police there and everyone was searched when they entered. There were no big arrests made that night but violent crimes skyrocketed including murder, rape, and armed robbery. The Chief of Police got in all kinds of trouble for that "realignment of resources".

Listen to the first cut from their first big hit album Dark Side of the Moon (album #8 for these "newcomers"). The entire album is on that video, but just listen to the first cut to see what I'm referring to. It incorporates a heart beat, sounds from a cash register, people talking, a crazy person's laugh, a helicopter sound effect circling, etc., to build up to a huge crescendo and resolution. And after the singing stops it gets "out there" again until the alarm clocks herald in the next song. None of these thing were being done at the time. It was all new stuff that no one had ever done or heard before and it was great!




I think Pink Flyod more than paid their dues as a Progressive group.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mickey666 and Rip Van Dan
#172
MidnightRunner said:
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?
Click to expand...
Pfoey, keyboard player Thijs Van Leer of Focus is considered to be a grand master in the Prog genre and many prog musicians name call him as an influence but van Leer himself says that Focus isn't a prog rock rock band because "Prog doesn't swing."

And err, you're not very well informed are you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Durham52 and DJ Bebop
#173
Categorization is a tool. It can be useful, but it isn't necessarily a good description of reality. It also tends toward a state (even in science) where each instance (band) merits its own category, which makes it useless. But, I think discussing categories, etc., can be interesting because it leads people to compare and contrast, which leads to understanding and learning.

I wouldn't have put PF in the prog rock genre, but I think they probably are after reading and thinking. Music progresses, and so categories change. I think prog rock has branched into several genres like math rock, stoner rock, and at least some sub-genres of metal. At least, I find myself enjoying some of that, and from an early age liked prog rock, so I assume they share a lot of elements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mickey666
#175
Rip Van Dan said:
That opinion of Pink Floyd is all because you weren't around when they started.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. The same could be said for younger interpretations of many bands' catalogs... how many of us have heard even older people say "I just can't stand Chicago... all they ever made was that 80's schmaltz-rock... I wish they did something interesting!"

If they only knew... and we've seen it with so many other bands that were considered "prog" early in their careers... Rush, Genesis, Yes... but eventually became more "radio-friendly".

Isn't it funny how the typical progression always seems to be a move toward radio-friendliness and not away?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mickey666, FRoss6788 and Iristone
#179
2112 said:
That's an interesting point. The same could be said for younger interpretations of many bands' catalogs... how many of us have heard even older people say "I just can't stand Chicago... all they ever made was that 80's schmaltz-rock... I wish they did something interesting!"

If they only knew... and we've seen it with so many other bands that were considered "prog" early in their careers... Rush, Genesis, Yes... but eventually became more "radio-friendly".

Isn't it funny how the typical progression always seems to be a move toward radio-friendliness and not away?
Click to expand...
If you want your music to be heard by a large audience so you can make a decent living making music, why would you try to make music that works against that? One of the things about making that music more "radio friendly" is that it exposes much larger groups of people to your genre of music and it helps open their minds about other artists that play that genre.

Also you need to realize that rock groups (with the exception of the Beatles) make/made their money in concert tours. Back in the 70's when albums went for $3.49 to ~$5.99, most of the money went to the label. Your royalties on that were rarely as much as $1 per album. 35¢ to 50¢ was much more common. But it got you famous and you could get 10,000 to 20,000 or more fans per night to buy your concert tickets, which you got most of. So the trick is to get more people to become fans without alienating the ones that got you here...that's not easy, but can and has been done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mickey666 and 2112

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back