'Pink Floyd not prog'???

Troll. Not worth a thought.

 

I never said that Pink Floyd was a hardcore prog band. I don't think anyone ever has. However, there is no denying that the Floyd was an ART band. I mean, they released a rock opera in the middle of the punk era; who else on earth had the guts to do that?

 

I notice the author of the article uses the word "experimental." This brings to mind the ole saying: "Loud music I like is hard rock; loud music I think is stupid is heavy metal." Ergo, according to this chap, "Artsy music I like is 'experimental' or 'challenging;' artsy music I don't like is prog."

 

A prime example taking something small that prog is famous for and Pink Floyd doesn't have a lot of. Okay, he's got me there; the Floyd weren't all about the time signatures (and the time signature to "Money" sounded a bit like "lookit me, I can play in a funny time). But this is a bit like the "man-who" argument: "People who smoke tend to die young." "Well, I know a man-who smokes and is eighty."

 

"Pink Floyd can't be prog because they only did 7/4 once." Good for them. Now let's talk about song length, eh? (Coincidentally, I didn't know that "Dance on a Volcano" was 7/4. Huh.)

 

So, no real jazz tendencies in The Floyd, eh? What about that previously mentioned "Money?" It's got a saxaphone, and sax=jazz. Okay, but seriously, the part where the gang drops the melody, and it's Gilmour trading off licks with himself? I think that's a pretty safe bet to call that jazz influenced.

 

To ignore a jazz streak in the Floyd is to ignore some of other Wright's solos (what about "San Tropez," huh?), as well as the general "let's do a slow jam type of thing" feeling on most of the band's output (like that whole "Shine On" thing). Likewise, one could argue that Genesis wasn't exactly a jazz band, but they're prog enough...

 

Okay, no. No. NO. If it's pointless and/or "deep" lyrics you want, look no further than the pre-Darkside material. And Animals (to cite one of "his" records again) is certainly progressive in the concept album fits the lyrics nonsense. "Dogs" is a large, perhaps not terribly complex, but still fairly dense metaphor.

 

Now this is just silly. Didn't the Floyd create an album of orchestral work? I may not be a musical genius or nothin', but I DO know that whenever a rock musician creates symphonic material, it tends to...sound a little similar to said rocker's childhood hero, be he Bach or Mozart or Pagganini (sic, I'm sure). And they sure as sh*t didn't come up that last part of "Saucerful of Secrets" themselves...

 

(If it's something of a slightly more modern bent you'd be after, check no further than The Wall's ever so, ever so slight similarity to Tommy.)

 

Good ole prime example of how popular prog is these days; really makes me admire Muse all the more for coming right out and citing their progressive influences and pretentions.

 

Based on his examples (Yes=bad and Beefheart=good) makes me think about that someone is using the prog/experimental=bad/good shield (that I pretty much just invented there). This is someone who doesn't understand that prog isn't a sound, and it's a state of mind.

 

In other words, he's still angry that Tarkus turned out to be a joke, and no one filled him in. Poor chap.

 

Pink Floyd doesn't SOUND like prog, at least the way this fella understands it, but it's prog at heart, and that's what matters. They may not be a bunch of crazy elf hat wearing, jazz worshipping, mellotron virtuosos, but they're still a load of dumb-ass concept writing, lengthy, w**kthy, keyboard experimenting, pretentious b*****ds, and that's good enough for me.