Pink Floyd and Prog Music

Certif1ed wrote: Barrett/Floyd were the most progressive of all the psychedelic bands - and their music was absolutely not run of the mill psychedelia. It's important to have benchmarks, so pick a psyche album at random, like Country Joe and the Fish's "Electric Music for Mind and Body", Jefferson Airplane's "Surrealistic Pillow" - or anything else. Both have progressive elements, but are psychedelic at core.   Note how the music falls into two neat camps - long meandering jams around a couple of chords, often using the harmonic minor, phrygian mode or other "Eastern" sounding scales, or short pop/rock songs with special effects, "acid" lyrics and the same modal scales in solos. It's not quite as straightforward as that - nothing in music ever is!   Then listen to "Piper At The Gates of Dawn" - it's in a league of it's own. There's very, very little (that I've ever heard) in rock/pop music from 1967 or before that is as sophisticated in terms of composition - apart from the obvious exceptions such as Zappa's "Freak out", or possibly The Doors' debut. 1968 (post Piper) is a different story...   This is because Floyd's longer songs were drafted like architectural blueprints - Floyd (3 architecture students and one artist) are on record as saying that this was their approach.   The structure is pretty much cast in stone (sic) - but they were absolutely free to improvise around that structure. "Saucerful of Secrets" is the best example of this approach at work, and is what differentiates Floyd from "pure" Psyche bands. Compare the version on the original album with the Pompeii version - all the sections are in place, the only real differences are subtleties in performance and improvisation.   Compare other psyche bands live performances - the jams just get longer around the two chords, and the solos drift off into indulgence, sometimes for the better, often worse - but it's clear that the focus is on the long improvs, not the structure.   This element of stringent, formal composition is just not evident in most Psyche, but is key to Classic Prog bands such as King Crimson, Genesis and Yes.   One of the very best examples is "Echoes" on "Meddle", which is a brilliant composition - far better than AHM.   By contrast, DSOTM is simply a collection of songs that are very well sequenced together to produce the feeling of a complete whole - I'm not trying to detract from its obvious brilliance, but it is in no way as sophisticated a composition as "Saucerful..." or "Echoes".   Similarly, "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" is arguably not a particularly sophisticated composition, and hence not really as progressive as the earlier material. Like DSOTM, WYWH is an album that sounds prog, but isn't really, on a fundamental level - unlike Animals or The Wall.

You beat me to it, good post outlining exactly why Pink Floyd are prog.

moshkito wrote: Hi,   How sad ... there is enough literature out there that has the history of Pink Floyd, and Syd Barrett and many other events around the band and the the time that it came up ...   Pink Floyd is NOT ... and never was ... proganythingbullsh*t ... and even Roger will tell you out front that many of those people have not heard enough music to even know the meaning of the word!   Pink Floyd was, like many other bands that we cherish, a product of the times, the educational system and the arts ... nothing less, nothing more.   Pink Floyd, like many other bands and people related to the scene was also put together with people that were not exactly low end uneducated students that are brainwashed by news media and don't know the difference between 4/4 and Ligetti, or Satie, or Jazz!   You can see a lot of what this whole thing was about ... grab the DVD "Tonite We All Love in London" ... and you can see that Syd Barrett was exploring just as much as anyone else ... that exploration has absolutely nothing to do with "prog" ... or as Mr. Fripp would say ... it's just a jam exploring some themes and ideas in rock music terminology.   That PF was considered "psychedelic" was more a media thing and record company thing than it was real, since, and you can see this ... it was all over pretty quick ... one drug too many ... over and out. But that psychedelic "Music" which has a lot more in common with English skit comedy of the time that you heard on the BBC radio, than it does with anything psychedelic itself, was more of a media event relating to radio and such than anything else ... look at the art scene in London at that time ... look at that video ... look at what Soft Machine does at the time (right next to PF on the same stage! ... and realize one magickal and important thing ... the number of artists and people around this ... check out Daevid Allen's talks about the times and the literary giants he was around and sharing fun with ... as were others.   That. is how some art scenes develop and sometimes a musical process comes with it ... and the same thing that many of these people ended up doing in music, was also being done in film and theater at the time. You must realize that London, New York and Paris are the artistic capitals of the world ... and when a King Crimson hits, 10 bands copy it ... immediately ... or when Beatles hit ... 10 bands will copy immediately. Granted, there are some folks that are not copies and a lot of these "progressive bands" are not exactly copies ... but saying Genesis is original when Europe already had a famous history of story tellers and staging events for the like ... is pre-posterous ... and someone needs to go see Kurt Weill and Jacques Brel ... for a week, so they will understand and know the cultural developments and influences that helped bring about something different and new ... for which the 20th century and this time is one of the single greatest development events in art's history ... and this is the credit that we are taking away.   "Prog" by itself ... is meaningless ... in the proper context is very important ... but don't forget that these people did not create/compose "prog music" ... all they clamored for was a voice ... just like you and I would if you felt you had something to say .... and it may or may not include some lyrics ... what's so hard about that picture ... unless you went into it to be a rock star and pick girls and didn't give a poop about anything --- like today?

Hi,

There are many artists that experiment with other things ... and this does not necessarily mean that these are "progressive" ... which is the reason why I reject the description and definition of the term in this board and many other web sites ...

If we're in it to make a dent in music and show that we have people our age that musically intelligent and can create things of value, then it doesn't matter if it is "prog" or just "bullsheepdip" ... it's of great musical value ...

Look ... you don't go around saying that you like Beethoven because he's a Nationalist Romantic by definition ... or Stravinsky because he is Modernistic ... so why the fudge would you call something else "prog"?

IT'S MUSIC ... and let's drop the rest and pretense.

Now connect the music to the rest of the art and VALIDATE the time and place ... but if you are going to separate things (how american of you!) ... all you are doing is killing the music and getting others laughing at you and the discussion ... we need to bring this up ... and a "name" is not gonna do it. Rush is not "prog" ... Rush is very good music by 3 people that are not only intelligent but also master musicians and they are dedicated to the quality of their craft ... why is that so hard to say?

You can look at the experiments that Roger Waters did with Ron Geesin, and eventually Atom Heart Mother, and even though Roger does not talk fondly about those days now ... there was something in the air that helped the creative juices flow ... and created another piece of music that they put on record ... and helped add to their legendary status ... and then say that it was all childish stuff that had no meaning ... ??? You really think that Twyla Tharp thought the whole dancing thing was crap to Atom Heart Mother, even though it was an experiment? .... she wouldn't have her name in dance without having tried different things ... and the same thing for Pink Floyd ...

Again, it is a result of the time and place and the arts around it ... and some people did better than others and some had higher aspirations in other artistic areas ... remember that these were folks that had college degrees ... !!! and a lot of their inspirations come from the artistic milieu, and on top of it ... they are also a part of that scene!!!

moshkito wrote: Hi, There are many artists that experiment with other things ... and this does not necessarily mean that these are "progressive" ... which is the reason why I reject the description and definition of the term in this board and many other web sites ...

I have a friend who wsa rather surprised at my comment when I labelled Pink Floyd as Prog.  "No thy're not!" he said - I said "do you mean Prog is like Genesis, Yes etc.." - "yes" he said.  I agreed - PF are not like Genesis and YEs - however, on the converse they are the most progressive band of all - and a name synomynous with progressive music.  Remember Johnny Rotten's T-shirt "I hate Pink Floyd" (I reckon he secretly liked them).

They are the most progressive, because they were the most eclectic - and that it is why they so hard to place/ categorise.

It annoys me a little when I hear a number of modern bands compared to PF - "the new Pink Floyd" - yes they do sound like PF - BUT ONLY LIKE THE FIRST 5 MINUTES OF SHINE ON YOU CRAZY DIAMOND!! - they sound atmospheric - and yes, PF were very good at "atmospheric" and the "sublime" - but that is far far less than what they actually played.

If any band can truly emulate PF in all their avenues, and be truly like them and noy just "atmospheric", then that will be a band to be hailed, and surely one of the greatest of the new century!!   I'm not joking.  I feel the only bands that have come anywhere near this height are Porcupine Tree and the Mars Volta (because of their eclecticness not their sublimity) - but even they are a long way off - I note Steve Wilson doesn't like being compared to PF but I think he's being somewhat silly there - if he can come anywhere matching their eclecticness then PT will be the greatest of all bands...

Think about it....

Psychedelia - Astronomy Domine
Amusing - Bike
Metal - The Nile Song
Marittime - San Tropez
Atmosphere - Shine On
The gentle - Grantchester Meadows
The Bizarre - Several Species of small furry animals
Rock - Young Lust
The GRand - Welcome to the MAchine
Blues  -Lucifer Sam
Classic - Atom Heart Mother
Jazzy - Biding my Time
Medium pace - Pigs
Archtectural - A Saucerful of Secrets
The blood curdling - Careful with that Axe Eugene
Space Rock - Set the Controls for the HEart of the Sun
Goose Pimpling - Summer '68

The list goes on and on...

They were "progressive" because they were always different - was it really the same band in "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" as "Dark Side of the Moon" - and then was it really the same band in "The Wall".

I've said too much I know, but need I say more?

rwhite wrote: Interesting comments here. What seems to be clear is that the line between psych and prog rock is certainly a fuzzy one,

In a way, you are correct.  When psych went beyond experimenting with funny sounds or droning rhythms, the border did get blurred.  An excellent example would be Jan Dukes de Grey's Mice and Rats in the Loft.  On one level, it is clearly a great psychedelic album, and purely a psychedelic one.  On another level, it's an album that we proggers clearly see prog in.

Edited by ghost_of_morphy - June 06 2009 at 05:03

The word eclecticism was mentioned. That description certainly fits Pink Floyd's work at least up through Dark Side.

I also thought I would weigh in on the ongoing "prog/progressive" definition debate. I personally don't have any problem with these labels (I personally like prog better: short & sweet) being used to describe the kind of music generally discussed on this forum. The progressive rock tag certainly seems like it originated a good while back when this music was new and innovative. Then the term reached a certain threshold in the media and simply stuck. In hindsight, maybe it would it would have been better if a more accurately descriptive term had been used at the time, but it didn't happen. My point is that the prog/progressive label is here to stay, like it or not. When someone says prog or progressive in the outside world, they will probably know (assuming they have enough awareness) that it refers to our music and not country, grunge or r&b for example. In that respect it serves it's purpose. Then there's that definition of progressive ("to make progress or innovate") that seems to be a sticking point for some. The heart of the issue is the fact that any new, fresh, & exciting genre that arrives on the scene becomes old and unfresh after a while, and it appears that true genres with staying power are arriving less and less frequently. I personally don't believe that any of the subgenres contained under this Prog label are really "progressive" but draw from well established musical ideas whatever they may be. But that's also true in every other genre I can think of. None of this, of course, means that good music isn't being made and can't continue to be made in the future. I don't believe that music has to be progressive or innovative to be great or worthwile. There are just so many existing elements that can rearranged to always make things interesting. So anyway, don't feel bad about the progressive tag. Just think about how silly "new wave" sounds now.

PinkPangolin wrote: ghost_of_morphy wrote: Let me give you some historical context here.  Back in prog's heyday, PF wasn't really considered a prog band.  That's kind of weird, given that Atom Heart Mother should really have tripped us prog fans out, but it's true.  Dark Side of the Moon of course caught our attention, but that caught EVERYBODY's attention.  After that, for some reason, pure prog fans went one way and Pink Floyd fans went another way.  I still remember how surprised my friends were in the mid-'80's when they found out that I listened to Pink Floyd.  The early '80's or late '70's probaly marks the time when PF gained wide acceptance among prog fans.  There was a real drought of new prog then, and we had time to look back and realize that PF was quite acceptable to our tastes.  (Something similar happened with Zappa and Led Zeppelin, among many others, then.  We realized that we needed to broaden our definition of prog in that day.) Oh, and I would say that DSOTM was the END of their prog exploration (except for Animals,) not the beginning. This is interesting - I can see well how PF weren't considered a Prog band then - they certainly differ from the rest of what we call "symphonic prog" now. Out of interest - who were considered Prog bands then?? The definition of Prog now is clearly enormously wider than it was then. One thing - yes, DSOTM was the end of their "exploration", but Wish You Were Here is certainly a Prog album (or perhaps "Space Rock")

Edited by Certif1ed - June 07 2009 at 05:27

PF were my favorite band as a teenager, but there's no way I can consider them as progressive.  The music is far too simplistic.  I guess it depends on how you define "progressive."  For me, they just ain't.

I used to think Floyd's stuff was complex, until I became a Zappa fan.  No one's music sounded complicated after that!