Pink Floyd and Prog Music
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=58355
Printed Date: December 01 2024 at 03:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Pink Floyd and Prog Music
Posted By: rwhite
Subject: Pink Floyd and Prog Music
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 14:08
| Hello, I've been a lurker here for a while and first of all just wanted to commend the forum for it's intelligent discussion (so many forums aren't like this). But anyway, I just thought I'd present my viewpoint regarding some recent thoughts on Pink Floyd. For some time, I've thought of them as one of the very biggest names in prog rock and I still do believe that, but I now find a shift in how I would label them. Of course, the Syd Barrett years are most definitely psych, but I now believe that Pink Floyd remained a psychedelic rock group all the way up through Dark Side of the Moon and didn't turn progressive rock until Wish You Were Here. Being quite familiar with their work (I have all their albums through Momentary Lapse of Reason), I don't feel like I'm making an uninformed judgment here. Now I love both prog and psych, and I realize, like so many things, that there is not necessarily a clear-cut line between the two. Dark Side seems to be the culmination of what came before as a result of their prior ongoing evolution. Everything just happened to fall into place perfectly however, which has probably led some to believe that it took longer to create. From comments by the band's members though, it was actually one of the quickest albums they did. Wish, on the the other hand, feels much more carefully planned than Dark Side which has a more free flowing feel to it. Even those first four opening notes of David Gilmour's treated guitar on Wish are an indicator of this - you can just tell there was a lot of effort to make each of those notes have the perfectly desired sound quality - and it succeeded! So in the end, I place Wish You Were Here as the beginning of Pink Floyd's prog rock stage while Dark Side of the Moon was the finalization of their psychedelic rock journey. Any comments on this? |
Replies:
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 14:26
|
I feel that they were progressive all the way through. With a mix between psych and prog, beginning with a strong leaning toward the latter, until they balanced out with DSOTM/WYWH/Animals. After this, they returned to more psychedelic, with a dark bent in the Wall, and Then they turned to psych rock for the Gilmour era. |
Posted By: SilverEclipse
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 14:46
|
I can see why to someone who isn't really into the Floyd wouldn't group them in with Yes and ELP, but I think from Atom Heart Mother on they were absolutely a prog rock band. If Atom Heart Mother, One Of These Days, Echoes, all of DSOTM, Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Dogs, Pigs, Sheep.....etc etc etc aren't progressive rock.... then what is exactly? All they lacked was an emphasis on virtuosity, but their stuff was more spacey and mellow, so it fit that they weren't doing frantic solos and instrumentals. Edit: come to think of it, Saucerful Of Secrets (the song) and most of the Ummagumma studio tracks are pretty proggy as well.------------- "and if the band your in starts playing different tunes, I'll see you on the dark side of the moon" |
Posted By: infandous
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 15:10
|
Strangely enough, even though I have been a huge Floyd fan for years (though not so much in the past 10 or so, just because I've heard literally everything they've ever done a million times) I've never considered them Prog. However, I would have to say that the way they "progressed" from album to album certainly could qualify them, and their innovativeness in terms of studio usage, found sounds, and early adoptions of audio and music technology apply as well (and, of course, long tracks and concept albums). But from a compositional standpoint, and speaking as a musican myself, I always found their music very basic and simplistic. Which I don't normally assocaite with Prog. But, of course, this web site broadens the definition of Progressive rock considerably over what I would think of as Prog so this is just an opinion of mine really. Having said all that, I think the fully deserve to be on this site. Especially if bands like Led Zeppelin and The Doors are on here. I think of them really as psych rock, with some slight prog leanings. But again, that's just me. |
Posted By: Repner
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 16:46
|
I believe they are prog rock. I think the reason people disagree is the lack of complexity in their music. I feel like they have everything else though. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 16:55
|
of course Floyd were psych and their essential approach and simplicity remained more or less the same, but they surely became one of the more truly progressive bands in the world as that approach evolved album by album until almost unrecognizable, and comparable to other prog greats in its development |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 20:58
This Probably quite idiotically, I don't consider them to be as "proggy" as YES or GENESIS... Mostly because they aren't as complex in music writing or in technicality. That isn't a bad thing though, simple can be good. And Pink Floyd is a perfect example of this. Once again, that being said, Pink Floyd aren't very simple really. Perhaps comparatively simple, not otherwise though. Great band.  ------------- 
|
Repner wrote:Posted By: friso
Date Posted: May 31 2009 at 14:46
|
They may not have played progressive rock all the time, but they played enough of it. I myself belief Dark Side of the Moon to be crossover prog. |
Posted By: rpe9p
Date Posted: May 31 2009 at 15:09
| I agree with you about the change they made between dark side and wish you were here. For a while I was a prog fan, but I really didnt like pink floyd because I didn't like their psych stuff. I like all their music now, but wish you were here was the album that made me change my mind about them because I think it was definitely their most progressive album and a big step from proggish psychedelic music to music that was difinitively progressive |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: May 31 2009 at 17:55
I like their early psychedelic instrumentals better than their later stuff, but I would definitely say PF is prog. Their only downfall was making a few commercially popular songs.  |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 31 2009 at 18:26
| I still can't understand why is psychedelic rock incompatible with progressive rock. We have a whole subgenre here dedicated to this mix! |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 31 2009 at 18:49
|
^ not incompatible at all - blood relatives - just a different approach and goals |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 31 2009 at 18:52
What we have is a subgenre dedicated to Psychedelic Progressive Rock and Progressive Space Rock, the name of which is shortened to Psychedelic/Space Rock. ( http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=15 - http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=15 ). This subgenre excludes pure Psychedelic Rock bands.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Little Sir John
Date Posted: May 31 2009 at 22:02
|
I'm sorry. I really just can't see how you can say that Dark Side of the Moon isn't progressive rock. It's a concept album that flows so very well. Besides that, typewriters seem pretty progressive to me. Not to mention the fact that this becomes a reoccurring theme throughout the album. I think what makes it the most progressive is it's very strong instrumental base. I think it's safe to say half the album is instrumental. I could go on and on about it, but I guess it just depends on how you view the boundary between Psychedelic Rock and Space Rock. I really like to think that psychedelic rock is more basic and main stream while space rock is psychedelic rock that is progressive. I think it's also important to note that this album was very mainstream. So many of my friends who don't even know what progressive rock is but listen to classic rock love this album as well as other Pink Floyd works (but mostly Dark Side of the Moon). I never really understood that because I've always seen Pink Floyd as one of the most important progressive rock bands (I think that's because they seem so much more polished than other bands like ELP). |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: May 31 2009 at 22:33
I didn't mean that just because it's psych doesn't mean it isn't prog, it's just really good space rock  Is it just me or does anyone else think that Space Rock (excluding PF of course) gets underrated/ overshadowed by other subgenres? It doesn't get talked about a whole lot, maybe more people would help dispel and clear up confusion as to whether psych/space is prog. Anyways, IMO if you want to get into PF it is best to start with Dark Side, then Meddle, then Wish You Were Here, that way you see the best of both sides, both the experimental and the more symphonic side. If those three albums can't get you to admit PF is prog, then you probably aren't going to think the rest is prog. I'm not saying that you have to like PF or think they are prog, but those three albums are IMO some of their best in each "phase" of their career. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: June 01 2009 at 09:23
I know, it was a rhetorical question I find it strange when people dismiss a lot of music in this subgenre by calling it "just psychedelic". |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 02:42
|
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. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Progiester
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 12:29
| I wonder how PF would have developed, if Syd would have stayed (sane)... |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 12:27
|
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?
|
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 13:30
Just think of the word progressive - moving forward, advancing - in this case, by pushing the boundaries of rock music to places it has not been before. KIf that does not describe The Pink Floyd, then I don't know what does
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 13:59
You beat me to it, good post outlining exactly why Pink Floyd are prog. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: DJPuffyLemon
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 15:11
I remember making a thread similar to this one a few months ago, also questioning whether pink floyd was progressive rock. I'm not saying that they're not, but all these arguments saying: floyd was pushing boundaries, ipso facto they are progressive rock is skewed logic. They are progressive rock, but not because they were so experimental, they are for the same reason that a band like Rush is progressive rock. They had longer songs with outside influences and relatively complex structures. I chose rush because I think we can agree that Rush did not create such ground breaking songs as Pink Floyd did, yet they were still progressive rock. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 17:24
That reads very much like "I was there, so I know what I am talking about". But if you remember it, you weren't really there, right? Going by the same literature you cite, Pink Floyd's music was performed (and possibly partly composed) under the influence of psychedelic drugs during the era of psychedelic music. People witnessed their psychedelic performances commonly under the influence of (legal) psychedelic drugs - it was psychedelic alright. I was merely differentiating between what Floyd actually did, in musical terms, and the particular style that has become known as psychedelic rock. The literature isn't always right, and neither are commonly used terms. Rules always have exceptions, and Floyd are the greatest exception to just about every rule - as you say, they just did it. Call it psychedelic, experimental, progressive, whatever - it's all correct. They were all those things. The media love jumping on bandwagons and trying to appear "hip", grabbing whatever trendy buzzword is just going out of fashion. There was a progressive music scene in London, and Floyd, The Syn, Soft Machine, 1-2-3, Yardbirds, Bowie et al were all a part of it - and there were a lot of psychedelics, and it was all very experimental. It's only wrong when you have some kind of preconceived idea of what any of those terms mean - and hold that, for example, Progressive Rock started with In The Court (something that Fripp would probably dispute). If we want to look back at the music and say "Hey, hang on, those people were actually playing Prog before the established start date, and the guys that say they weren't playing Prog actually were" - AND we have good reason (like musical traits - nothing complicated), then they were playing Prog - or Proto Prog or any other meaningful label. We're not trying to call it something it isn't, just recognising that it's actually something rather special - and Floyd's music was and still is.
Trouble is, the adjective doesn't fully describe it, and leads people down the garden path to think of the early jazzmen (Stan Kenton invented Progressive Jazz in 1947) or worse, Classical composers - how many times have you read about Rachmaninov's progness? Stravinsky, perhaps? Debussy? Bach? When we use the term Prog here, we don't just mean progressive, it's more an attitude in Rock music that you can hear the glimmerings of in early psychedelia and experimental music, which has been stretched to include eclectic folk and jazz as people have perused the "family tree". Simply "Progressive" isn't enough - hence debates used to rage about Led Zeppelin et al - until we settled for "Prog Related", since Zep were progressive in the literal sense. The difference between Prog and progressive frequently gets discussed here, and will probably never find a resolution, because there is no dividing line. Music does not have dividing lines and cannot be put into boxes - but it's nice to be able to get some kind of handle on it when you're discussing it! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Morakthesage
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 19:59
| Pink Floyd was the first prog band I really listened to constantly, leading into other bands and my entire love of prog rock. The destinction between a psych and prog Floyd is very very obscure for sure. I feel that up to and including Ummagumma, Floyd can't really be called prog. Just too much whimsy like "Bike" and "See Emily Play" to reall be all out prog. Atom Heart Mother and Meddle are more transitional albums, as those two definatly have a lot of psych elements, but they integrate new proggier and more organized but complex elements. From Obscured by Clouds on, their pretty fully prog to these ears. I can see where you're coming from, though. Wish fits a textbook example of a prog album better than Dark Side. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 10:41
|
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!!! |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 10:49
Weird ... since Mr. Fripp, who was there, and rejects this theory ... he obviously knows what his inspiration was ... you're invalidating his opinion ... and still call it "prog" ...
Somehow I think that does not show much respect ... like saying that he didn't know what he was doing?
Again, a lot of these things were a combination of arts and artists and musicians in the same group ... sharing ideas, having a drink, getting stoned (yeahhh that too!), what have you ...
But you're crediting an invisible concept ... and rejecting the source! ... wow ...
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 14:58
The definitions are hard to make, because everyone has a different understanding of what is meant.
This site and others try very hard to bring it all together - it's not wrong to use terms, and I agree, most definitions are pretty trite and can't sum up the music in a few sentences.
That's not the point - we try to define it because it is interesting to do so. If you want to reject it, then that's fine - but either come up with something better, or don't moan about it.
Fair enough.
Not sure what you're getting at here - people pigeon-hole music. That is what they do.
Beethoven wrote music that is very different to Stravinsky's, and it's nice to be able to put a handle on it.
Beethoven wrote very different music to Genesis - why not call it something different.
"Music" is not really sufficient for most people, and besides, what is music - Sound organised in time? Or don't you bother yourself with such questions?
So let's not bother with the word "Music" and just call it art, like painting. Tell you what, let's call everything art, because it saves time.
What's in a name? A rose by any other name...
The music is not being killed by a name - that is patently absurd!
Isn't "Prog" MUCH easier to say than the stuff you said?
This site is primarily concerned with Progressive Rock in all its guises, and is INCLUSIVE. Here, it's all Prog (or related), and that's what brings us all together. If we just called it art, then the whole atmosphere of this site would be killed, not the music.
Mr Fripp does not reject my theory, as far as I know. Please indicate to me where he has rejected any of the theories I postulated above - I am truly mystified.
As for respect, I think you're taking it a bit far! I have tremendous respect for him and his music, and cannot see anywhere that I might have suggested he didn't know what he was doing!
I also do not understand what you mean by "crediting an invisible concept ... and rejecting the source".
Music is only invisible to those who do not have any theoretical knowledge, and sources can be disproven.
You seem to be drawing very thick black lines where there are, in fact, delicate, subtle strands. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: rwhite
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 02:54
| Interesting comments here. What seems to be clear is that the line between psych and prog rock is certainly a fuzzy one, probably made more so by the fact that prog largely developed out of the territory previously traversed by psych, but was an attempt to take things even further. Both genres probably drew from many more sources than most other genres of music and as a result well-defined boundaries fell like never before with interesting & exciting results. The root differences between psych and prog, I believe, are more a matter of approach. Musicians who wanted to develop things further along in a certain way, had to create more complicated musical structures and this required a more serious compositional approach, analagous to the way a classical composer would write a piece, rather than the more intuitive, "experiment as you go" approach that psych tended to typify. Even though certain prog groups were famously known for a rather direct classical influence, hence "symphonic rock", more highly developed musical structures could sound many different ways. The initial-period Genesis, for example, created highly developed rock operas, having little in common, soundwise, with classical opera. It is in this way, I think, that Pink Floyd took on a significantly more structured approach starting with WYWH, probably in trying to follow up the tremendous success of Dark Side. Even though I love their later albums (through Final Cut), they are more high level concept, than the earlier, more experimental, jamming ways of the earlier times. Strictly musically speaking, the band was more adventurous up through DSOTM. After that, their musical sound was pretty much fully developed and didn't evolve much further. Despite this, Pink Floyd continued to progress a great deal, but it was all done through the development of very inventive concepts and great quality music (even if it wasn't changing a whole lot). |
Posted By: PinkPangolin
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 03:27
|
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? |
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 04:57
------------- 
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 05:00
-------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 06:42
|
I can't find any documented evidence of this, but apparently the term "Progressive Rock" was not used until lthe mid 1970s - so technically, none of the Prog greats are Prog - if you really want to be that pedantic. It's only with hindsight that history is written - you cannot document it as it happens so easily, because you are bound to miss strands and more remote events that bring it all together.
I think it's perfectly valid to say that a particular group, album or piece of music can have more than one label - after all, they're just labels, and the idea is simply to communicate what the music is like in a nutshell.
So "Saucerful of Secrets" is experimental, psychedelic, progressive, spacey - and bloody good music.
I remember reading an interview with Rotten in which he said that DSoTM was one of his favourite albums - he only wore the T Shirt to annoy the hippies. He is known to be a big fan of Peter Hammill - and the prog connections go further, as at least one of the Pistols was a session musician who had played with Proggers.
I can't remember the details, but I remember our very own Prog DJ Dick Heath discussing this at length. Was it Steve Jones? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: rwhite
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 15:10
|
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. |
Posted By: PinkPangolin
Date Posted: June 07 2009 at 04:29
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") |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 07 2009 at 05:26
"Symphonic Prog" didn't exist in 1967 (and I'm not really keen on the term now, as it's generally inaccurate) - the seeds were growing in various bands, notably The Nice, The Moody Blues and Procol Harum, so no-one was considered Prog or Symphonic Prog back then. However, the music scene from which all those bands - and Pink Floyd - arose was called the Underground / Progressive Music scene; It was labelled Progressive Music. Since Jazz had already undergone a Progressive movement in the late 1940s - early 1950s (Big band arranger Stan Kenton described his music as Progressive Jazz before Progressive Jazz "proper" arose in the music of Lennie Tristano, Miles Davis and John Coltrane) - and there was a Progressive Blues movement, which included acts such as Savoy Brown and John Mayall, it's obviously not stretching it too far (if at all) to describe the music of Pink Floyd as progressive rock - in fact, that would be a very accurate description to the point that it was used at the time. Prog's "heyday" was really circa 1972-5, when these bands were filling bigger and bigger stadia and putting on ever more elaborate shows for more and more fans - so DSoTM actually slots right into the crux of the "heyday", since I consider 1973 to be one of the best years ever for music - you can practically select an album at random from then, and it'll be great. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: June 07 2009 at 13:53
|
I seem to recall the Harvest imprint being set up especially for Progressive Music artists. However, at the end of the day, I think we do tend to label far too much. By and large, this site gets it right with the family of artists we have, generically labelled prog (or progressive rock as I still insist on calling it), and Floyd most certainly fall, IMHO, within that generic family. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Bufo
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 00:08
| 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. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 02:18
Actually, a lot of their music is very complex.
 ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Bufo
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 02:42
|
I used to think Floyd's stuff was complex, until I became a Zappa fan. No one's music sounded complicated after that!
------------- Stuck in the '70s |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 02:46
Seconded! For me, Floyd has always consisted of sustained notes on the keyboard and guitar plus whining courtesy of the grand party pooper himself, Roger Waters. Thank goodness for Alan Parsons and his engineering work! |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 02:49
|
I can't help but think that anyone who says Pink Floyd aren't prog haven't heard Atom Heart Mother. There is organ playing that is distinctly prog on the suite, and the rest of the composition is totally prog. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Bufo
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 04:00
|
I've heard Atom Heart Mother 100 times at least, but I still think Floyd are Art Rock, not Progressive. These definitions from the late, great George Starostin sound good to me: b) Art Rock. Out of psychedelia and lush pop we have art rock, an extremely vague term that more or less means "pop rock that refuses to follow old formulas". The most important thing about it, I guess, is that it is essentially still "pop", music that is not meant to be consciously elitist or revolutionary, but one that broadens its palette significantly by willing to try anything as long as it is melodic enough and more or less fits in the format. Lyrics usually matter a lot, and the music is meant to be taken seriously, even if many of the artists in question have their sarcastic side as well. Unlike its snubby younger brother, http://starling.rinet.ru/music/zstyles.htm#ProgRock - prog rock , art rock is very much alive today (carried on by such commercially and critically successful artists as http://starling.rinet.ru/music/bjork.htm - Bjork and http://starling.rinet.ru/music/radio.htm - Radiohead , among others) and will probably remain that way. ------------- Stuck in the '70s |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 05:54
|
Like I've been saying for a long time, Prog Rock IS Art Rock - it's a subgenre. It's also worth noting that "neo-prog volunteers ( http://starling.rinet.ru/music/marill.htm - Marillion )" also had commercial success (like that's a measurement of Prog!), and even had Jethro Tull as support act at Knebworth. The definition you posted quite clearly describes Pink Floyd as a Prog band, BTW - I'd never heard of George Starostin before, and I note that he's a linguist, not a musician - hence the definitions he posts are not very clear or precise, musically speaking. Try Wikipedia - although I haven't checked to see if it's been vandalised again recently - at least the definition and early history parts were written and edited by a reasonably highly educated musician who really digs Prog. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Bufo
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 06:09
|
He was a linguist, and being a linguist made his definitions more precise. My god, only musicians can write about music? You can't be serious. And no, by his definition of prog, there's no way Floyd falls into that category. Starostin's reviews are very funny. At first I was mad at him for saying Yes was a third rate band and the derogatory things he was writing about Jon, but after I figured out his sense of humor, I found his reviews to be incisive and great. I've been checking out his genres and artists he has assigned to each here: http://starling.rinet.ru/music/indexa.htm Poor Wikipedia. It took me only a very short time to discover that it was Graffitipedia, after which I pretty much ignored it. I still reference it, but I've found I can't trust anything I read on it unless I've verified it elsewhere. An encyclopedia anyone can vandalize is a very bad idea. One alternative to it is Citizendium, but that database hadn't gotten much of anywhere last time I checked. ------------- Stuck in the '70s |
Posted By: Bufo
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 07:36
|
Looking at Starostin's Pink Floyd page ( http://starling.rinet.ru/music/pink.htm ), I see that he lists Art Rock as their primary (most representative) category, but also lists a couple secondary categories. I thought one of his secondaries might be Prog Rock, but instead he lists "Psychedelia" and "Mope Rock." "Mope Rock?" He defines those two as follows: a) Psychedelia. All good things start with a nameless hero smoking pot, I guess; before pop music merged with jazz, classical, and neo-classical, it had to merge with a lot of chemical substances and a few Indian instruments. The idea of being taken by music to "other places" finds its most literal application in psychedelia, and that, basically, is the main criterion for placing artists within that subcategory. Within the genre, all kinds of primary influences are allowed - blues ( http://starling.rinet.ru/music/cream.htm - Cream ), folk ( http://starling.rinet.ru/music/isb.htm - Incredible String Band ), garage rock ( http://starling.rinet.ru/music/13th.htm - 13th Floor Elevators ), electronica ( http://starling.rinet.ru/music/usa.htm - United States Of America ), etc. However, it all comes down to the blunt idea of "opening your mind" in the end. So blunt, in fact, and so idealistic, that true psychedelic music never really managed to outlive the hippie Sixties; rock critics like Jim DeRogatis might, of course, be finding "psychedelia" everywhere, from the Cocteau Twins to Radiohead, but the way I see it, true psychedelia was only possible when rock was in its infancy period. b) Mope Rock. Rock music is not generally known as happy music for happy people, but occasionally depression and gloom get piled up so high that their presence tends to overshadow all the other aspects of a certain band. The first "professionally depressed" band were http://starling.rinet.ru/music/doors.htm - The Doors , and to define their music as "mope rock" works much better than trying to establish what were they in the first place - a pop rock band (which they certainly were) or a roots rock band (which they inarguably were). "Mope rock" became especially popular in the post-75 era, with the advent of depressed New Wavers like http://starling.rinet.ru/music/joy.htm - Joy Division and the massive "Goth rock" scene. Note that "mope rock" primarily means melancholy and depression, and not so much anger and frustration - otherwise, I'd have to merge this category with "punk/grunge" and that wouldn't be cool. ------------- Stuck in the '70s |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 07:56
 You just can't make this stuff up...
Oh!  apparently you can.  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Bufo
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 08:09
I wish I could make up that stuff. Then I could quit my day job! Smart dead Russian guy. ------------- Stuck in the '70s |
Posted By: Little Sir John
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 10:51
|
I don't think a linguist should have the authority to set boundaries like that. You should have a lot of musical knowledge... more than they teach you as a journalism major. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 12:05
You mean you're being serious when you suggest that you require no musical knowledge to write reliable reference material about music? That seems a bit odd to me!
c) Prog Rock. .... Prog[ressive] rock is distinguished by such well-known features as active, at times seemingly superfluous, incorporation of classical and jazz influences, jaw-dropping song lengths, trickiest of the tricky song structures, and immaculate professionalism on the part of players. The peak of prog rock falls on the early 70s, when, for a brief spell, bands like http://starling.rinet.ru/music/yes.htm - Yes and http://starling.rinet.ru/music/tull.htm - Jethro Tull even managed to achieve significant commercial success. (...) [/quote] That all describes Floyd - nothing missing, everything checked. All this stuff about "trickiest of tricky song structures" is usually wrong when it comes to what is commonly held to be Prog anyway - very few actually did this, and Floyd were one of those very few. From what you've given us, you've indicated that Floyd are the epitome of Prog, and there is clearly every way that Floyd fall into that category - what disproves it from the list above?
I totally agee, which is why I guard the sections of the Prog Rock article with the assistance of my co-editors (obviously I can't watch it 24/7 personally). The description is now probably the most accurate you are likely to read anywhere - other definitions say similar, but usually through rose-tinted spectacles - and why not? Only Wikipedia is supposed to be as accurate as possibe - there are strict rules, and I'm in the League of Copyeditors, so I'm confident that this page is as accurate as we could get it (as far as I've edited it so far, that is). ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Bufo
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 12:11
Ridiculous. You shouldn't confine the guy to one little box called "linguist." He obviously had a huge amount of musical knowledge. How do you know he wasn't a musician? As for his categories, he seems to have done them so people like us who like one band could find others with the same sort of sound. And he listed the bands as crossing multiple genres. He certainly wasn't about boundaries. ------------- Stuck in the '70s |
Posted By: Bufo
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 13:10
Wow. So, assuming the guy WASN'T a musician (which we don't know,) you're saying that ONLY musicians have any musical knowledge? Really? Composers have no knowledge of music? Conductors have no knowledge of music? Singers, perhaps, have no knowledge of music, since they don't play an instrument? People who merely love to listen to music have no knowledge of music? I think the fuss concerns the statement "Pink Floyd is not a progressive rock band." And that just depends on how anyone defines "progressive rock." So, define it in a way that does include Floyd. That's fine. Or not. It will never be a black or white issue. We're not discussing rabbits versus non-rabbits, after all. As for that definition describing Floyd, no. It doesn't. Not at all. An active incorporation of classical and jazz influences in Pink Floyd? Where? I'm not saying there aren't any to be found anywhere on any of the albums, but as a distinguishing feature of Pink Floyd music? No, classical and jazz are not an aspect of Pink Floyd. The first two Yes albums, yes. Pink Floyd, no. Jaw-dropping song-lengths? I guess the epitome of that would be Thick as a Brick. Floyd has Atom Heart Mother and Echoes. Good long songs. But there were exceptions to the rule. Floyd songs are usually short. Short is good. I like Floyd, don't mistake me. My favorite band for many years and still among my favorites. Yes have had 8 songs in the 20 minute range, so the "jaw-dropping" thing is more a recurring feature of them. The trickiest of tricky song structures? That's one of the defining characteristics of progressive. Selling England by the Pound is a good example of that, and The Adventures of Greggery Peccary is probably the most extreme example I can think of. It's essential for prog to have that going on, at least some of the time. The Floyd never had that going on. The trickiest their songs got was when poor Syd couldn't or didn't want to play a song the same way twice. Otherwise, we're talking very simple music. It's not about how many notes or chord changes are jammed into a ten-second segment, it's about how well anybody thinks it works, and that will vary wildly from person to person. Fruupp's music is jammed full of notes (and classical influences) but lacks focus and achieves little, in my opinion. Floyd's approach was very economical, very focused, and greatly effective. Less is more, if you know how to use it properly. Immaculate professionalism. To me that means virtuosity. Sorry, that just ain't Floyd. Nick Mason is a solid drummer of the Ringo Starr variety, but he's not Bill Bruford or Terry Bozzio. Rick Wright's work sounds pretty damn cool to me, and his Turkish Delight solos in the olden days are a lot of fun, but he's not Rick Wakeman. Roger Waters is perhaps the most boring bass player I've ever heard. He's no Chris Squire. He's not even a Paul McCartney. Gilmour's composed solos are beautiful and his improvisations are bluesy, rough and nice, but he's no Steve Howe, Robert Fripp, Eric Clapton or Frank Zappa. Gilmour's singing is lovely, and Waters could be very effective too. So, active classical and jazz influences? No. Jaw-dropping song lengths? Rarely. Tricky song structures? Never. Immaculate professionalism on the part of the players? No. Therefore, Floyd don't fulfill the prog requirements of that Russian guy's definition of Prog Rock. Neither do The Beatles, and I like The Beatles. ------------- Stuck in the '70s |
Posted By: Little Sir John
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 15:17
... Composers are musicians. So are conductors, singers, and music connoisseurs. This guy specializes in writing. He's probably pretty good at it, but that doesn't mean he has the kind of knowledge to be an expert in music and to have the authority to establish these things about music. Also, Rick Wright is a very talented keyboardist. David Gilmour is also a very good guitarist. Just because they're not as good as Yes musicians doesn't mean they don't have talent. That's not even a fair comparison. Yes musicians are the absolute best rock music has to offer. I'd say there's immaculate professionalism there. I think there is jazz influence in at least come of Pink Floyd's music. Just off the top of my head, Us and Them. Shine on You Crazy Diamond is pretty long. They have a lot of long songs. Longer than your standard rock groups, even your standard art rock groups. |
Posted By: Bufo
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 22:30
|
I read a lot of his stuff. I don't agree with his taste all the time, but I found his knowledge to stand up to close scrutiny, which means he had the knowledge and wasn't BSing his way through. Were he bluffing his way through, I would have detected it and found something else to read. I didn't say the Floyd weren't talented or very good musicians, since they were. But immaculate musicians? I don't think so. Atom Heart Mother is the one that sounds jazzy to me, not Us and Them. Shine On is long. I forgot that. But not many epic-lengthed songs, which I guess is what "jaw-dropping" means. I don't know. One man's opinion. One man's definition. His website was a labor of love, obviously, but if there is an authority on music categories, I never heard of one. ------------- Stuck in the '70s |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 09 2009 at 01:55
|
Pink Floyd recorded many songs that were between 8 and 12 minutes in length, as did the vast majority of Prog bands. Extremely long tracks are not that common, even with Yes, who managed to record 6 side-length songs, 4 of them on the one album - but it was Floyd who set the standard on Ummagumma in 1969 with essentially 8 long tracks on the same album.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 09 2009 at 02:45
Of course I did not say any of that - the implication simply is not there in my words
Every definition I've ever read includes Floyd - it's only misconceptions that exclude them!
Atom Heart Mother (classical)
Saucerful of Secrets (Jazz)
San Tropez (Jazz)
Bring The Boys Back Home (classical)
...and the classical and jazz influences run deeper than that - they are not as overt in Floyd as in, say, Gentle Giant or Mahavishnu Orchestra, but Wright was classically trained, and often used jazz techniques in his playing.
That's where
Absolutely they're a distinguishing feature of the music - like I say, it runs deep and is not superficial as, say Renaissance or Barclay James Harvest.
See above - Pink Floyd, YES.
The first two Yes albums? I get it - you're a wind-up merchant, aren't you? Those are both pop/rock albums with NO classical or jazz influences!!!!
And what else does Tull have?
Sorry, but that's a bad comparison - Tull's was a mickey-take of the genre anyway
Over-generalisation - Floyd wrote LOTS of long songs, they are not really the exception. DSoTM could comfortably be considered as one long song, in the same way as TaaB or Supper's Ready (which is really 5 related short songs).
You could say that about Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant - hang on, when did GG produce a song as long as either Echoes or TaaB?
You're telling me that GG aren't Prog?
Yes they did.
Saucerful of Secrets and Echoes are two shining examples - and there are plenty more.
On the other hand, many Prog bands had very simple structures - it's a characteristic, but it's not as defining as you'd like it to be.
SEbtP is a good example - that much you got right.
Less is more indeed - and Floyd really mastered that focussed approach, as you say.
However, don't underestimate their more complex compositions - we are NOT talking simple music! For example, SoS is based on an architectural blueprint (according to the band), and comprises 3 very clear sections, each with a characteristic structure - this was (and remains) radical in rock music.
You're right again in it's not about how many notes or chords are jammed in - but it's not about how well anybody thinks it works; that much is opinion: In terms of structuring, you need to be a musician or have studied musical theory to be able to comprehend a complex structure - musical structure is not a matter for laymen who do not understand it, it requires understanding of what form is - just as proper appreciation of literary form requires literary understanding.
That's not even implied - here's a word that people get confused over regularly.
Virtuosity.
Virtuosity does not have to be overt - the guys in PF were virtuosic composers - and initially, virtuosic experimenters, not virtuosic fretburners, keyboard-stabbers or skin-pounders.
Beethoven was a virtuoso composer, Paganini was a virtuoso performer - see the difference?
Besides, there are MANY examples of Prog musicians who are not "virtuosos" - Genesis were only "showmen" because of Gabriel's theatricals. Hackett used to sit down to play the guitar!
Wakeman was a showman, not a virtuoso - you are mixing up overt showmanship with true virtuosity.
I'm a a bass player, and I think Waters is a really good bassist. He plays exactly what's needed and never bores me. Now that takes talent.
But you said above that it's not about cramming loads of notes in - and this is why Gilmour is so great; Less is more.
His solos are rarely "rough" - they are always supremely melodic, and in the early days, he was very experimental (witness Echoes and SoS).
You even used the word "composed" - which is KEY.
Standard rock bands simply improvise solos, while Gilmour's solos are largely composed (with structure within which to improvise) - THIS is a key difference between Prog and Non-Prog; the composed / improvised ratio is significantly higher in Prog. It's not about how fast or blatantly technical you make things!
Witness Barclay James Harvest, Can and Camel.
So, active classical and jazz influences? Yes - evidence provided.
Jaw-dropping song lengths? Yes.
Tricky song structures? You'd better believe it - don't underestimate them! Much more tricky than other Prog bands that could be mentioned. Immaculate professionalism on the part of the players? YES (but not overt showmanship, which is completely different). Therefore, Floyd emphatically and demonstrably fulfill the prog requirements of that Russian guy's definition of Prog Rock. ...although I'd agree with the Beatles not fitting it - even though I'm not sure where they fit into this discussion. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: June 09 2009 at 08:30
|
Im still wondering every time i pop into a debate like this one, Why is it important to pick the correct label. We all know the music, the label you put on it, wont change the sound.
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: June 09 2009 at 08:59
|
I think you could take most of the "official" definitions, check them against a record like
Welcome to the Plesure Dome, by Frankie Goes To Hollywood : and conclude it was a Prog album.
But the thing is, it just dosent sound Prog. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Little Sir John
Date Posted: June 09 2009 at 09:05
|
I honestly can't even imagine how you could say they're not progressive rock. Everything about them screams prog, but you can have your own opinion. I just really can't see why you disagree. Also, the saxophone in Us and Them is very jazzy. ------------- "I just felt we were capable of breaking new ground... with a vengeance." ~Jon Anderson |
Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 03:11
|
I guess it depends on how we define the term "progressive." For me, something that is progressive is the opposite of something that is conservative. In the case of rock music, a band trying to update medieval music or play baroque music using electric instruments isn't progressive, but is rather deeply conservative. It ignores modernity and the entire 20th century. Trying to be the Paganini of the electric guitar isn't progressive; I mean, the guy was born in the 18th century! Using harpsichords and flutes isn't progressive. Composing rock operas and imitating the sonata form or writing rock symphonies isn't progressive.
Pink Floyd were deeply, deeply progressive. (As were early Genesis, King Crimson, and a few others. I seriously have my doubts about Yes, ELP, and several other bands on this site. But that's okay.) For me, "Interstellar Overdrive," "A Saucerful of Secrets," "Cirrus Minor," "Echoes," "One of These Days," DARK SIDE, WYWH, ANIMALS, and (to a lesser extent perhaps) THE WALL are prog prototypes.
|
Posted By: M27Barney
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 07:06
|
As everybody knows, I am not their biggest fan
In 1982 I was studying "A" level English literature. In my class was a Thomas Dolby fan, in fact he was a fan of all the sh*te electronica that sprung up at the end of the seventies and was one of the major genre's of the eighties. Suprisingly, he also loved DSOTM and "The wall". He hated every other Prog band with a vengeance especially Yes (He also hated WYWH and Animals by Floyd) Genesis and ELP. DSOTM IS one of the most successful (POP) albums of all time, it is of no importance in terms of "Proper" Symphonic progressive rock and anybody who says it has may as well say so have Roxy Music or Bowie. My only gripe is that DTOTM should get anywhere near SEBTPin the ratings. Perhaps my virtuosity snobbery has something to do with it  ------------- Play me my song.....Here it comes again....... |
Posted By: Trianium
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 03:09
|
Of course Pink Floyd is prog...probably the most eclectic prog group: psychedelic, space rock, symphonic, rock, blues, jazz, pop, ópera rock, concept albums, good lyrics...they are the epitome of Progressive Rock. Of course Dark Side of the Moon has pop elements, but Genesis has pop elements (with Phil Collins and with Gabriel), YES has pop elements, Jethro Tull has pop elements...who cares if DSOTM has pop elements... |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 03:12
|
Floyd = stasis, not progress. They always managed to find a new way of not really doing anything over the course of an LP or two. |
Posted By: Trianium
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 03:19
| Really...can you explain that? |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 03:32
| He's just being an a****le, Trianium. Don't let him get to you. |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 07:19
Your ignorant comments always make me laugh. So does this one. Pink Floyd clearly evolved after every album, whether you like it or not, but they never did have the excact same style on multiple albums. Definitely in there early period the music kept taking different shapes. From the psychedelic pop songs to spacey soundscapes and experimental rock. Also in their 70's era they constantly kept evolving. Meddle shows some jazz elements while the psychedelic origins of the band also clearly are present. DSOTM shows a more pop orientated band. WYWH also is pop orientated, but in a totally different way, and also Shine On has some psychedelic elements in it. Animals clearly is less poppy and more striking and heavy. The Wall also clearly is different from anything they've done before and TFC has some similarities with The Wall, but definitely is an unique album too. MLOR and The Division Bell also are poles apart, the one is almost hard rock while the other is pop.
|
Posted By: Anthony
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 08:41
Unique in its boringness, indeed  ------------- Future prosperity lies in the way you heal the world with love (Introitus - The hand that feeds you) |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 05:12
Nah, unique as one of my top 5 albums. It is very different from previous PF, except The Wall, but it's very emotional and I love it. Roger's vocals are, though not technically good, brilliant on this album. The variation of whispering and shouting is fantastic and often even haunting. I can see why so many people dislike it though.
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 05:41
|
Labels Labels Labels...............................
Who really cares....was watching Gilmour and Wright " Live in Gdansk" a couple of nights ago and the sound, production and orchestra were perfect. Regardless of how we want to label the band let's face it very few ever reached such dizzy heights in terms of sophisticated, conceptual sound. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 06:19
------------- What? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 09:30
I like Floyd and have always regarded them as prog, but I guess they can't be because I haven't collected all their albums. 
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: progkeys
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 09:42
| I think they were prog since the beginning, but it is more noticiable in Wish you were here and Animals. For me those are examples of exploring new boundaries, the same happens with echoes. |
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 20:20
|
The Final Cut remembers me the time of a failure 1 year relationship that have in high school.
Good album..
oh and BTW Pink Floyd IS Prog. -------------  |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 20:26
This is a band in which the guitarist played three guitar notes a minute, the keyboard player held a note for eight minutes, the drummer played what were at best pedestrian patterns and the singer babbled on about his daddy issues. They managed to meander through various textures over the years, yet their music involves doing very little. Lazy musicians, more than anything else. |
Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 20:55
|
"This is a band in which the guitarist played three guitar notes a minute, the keyboard player held a note for eight minutes, the drummer played what were at best pedestrian patterns and the singer babbled on about his daddy issues. They managed to meander through various textures over the years, yet their music involves doing very little. Lazy musicians, more than anything else."
Haha. I love Pink Floyd; some of the reasons are the very ones you critizise them for. Might there be a reason the band played in this manner? Their best music was about ennui, detachment, alienation, paralysis, stasis. Would you want a band that explores these themes to play like Genesis? This is music exploring inner space, and is great at defamiliarizing the familiar and showing a creepy underworld lurking beneath the surface.
|
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 03:30
David Gilmour has a different style of playing than most guitarists, that's right. But listen to the Pigs (Three Different Ones) solo for example, that's not excactly three notas a minute. Richard played one very long chord in Shine On yeah, but apart from that he's a very good keyboardist. There is actually much more going on with his style on playing, though you might not realize it. Look at the Live At Pompeii footage and you'll notice he's capable of more. Nick Mason often gets judged for his style, but I'm very happy that he doesn't throw in a smashing drum fill every five seconds. His style suits the musical style of the band very fine. To call them lazy musicians is one of the most silly things I've ever heard. But then, looking at some of the other comments you've posted on PA... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Trianium
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 03:41
|
You are so funny!! posts about Pink Floyd without your wise comments would be nothing.
|
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 03:43
Look, I'm usually the last person to defend PF, but they're anything but lazy. They've written some brilliant songs over the years, and every album of theirs has a track or two to die for. I agree about David Gilmour - I think he's an incredibly overrated guitarist, but he has still written some of the best solos of all time. By looking at your two comments about this stuff, it seems like you're against PF because they're not technical musicians, but they never tried to be, and they never will be. They're brilliant songwriters and thats enough for me to get massive enjoyment out of them, and I genuinely don't think you can say they haven't progressed. Listen to A Saucerful Of Secrets, and then Animals, and tell me they haven't done anything new. -------------
|
Posted By: Trianium
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 03:50
| Gilmour overrated? i think he is not overrated. He has his own stile different and original...probably he is less technical than Page or Hackett, but i enjoy more his solos. It's my opinion, i think he is not overrated. |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 03:56
I think he is a very good guitarist, and I like him a lot, although I think he is a lot more limited than a lot of other guitarists. I also love his solos, but I wouldn't say he's one of the best guitarists ever. -------------
|
Posted By: Trianium
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 04:02
| No, of course he is not comparable to Hendrix or Beck. But I will tell you that I've been listening to some Led Zeppelin songs live and .... Page (who is inducted in all lists in the Top 3 guitarists in history) does not seem much better guitarist than Gilmour. In fact I've been disappointed with Jimmy Page, but again my opinion ... and yes, I like Led Zeppelin. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 04:14
Let's look at the points raised one by one;
1. Progressive music is NOT three hundred guitar or keyboard notes a minute or ridiculously complicated drum patterns. The complaint about numbers of notes or complicatedness (as opposed to true complexity) is irrelevant.
2. I fail to hear any references to Roger Water's "daddy issues" in anything the band released pre 1979. This reference to the lyrical contents of The Wall and The Final Cut is also irrelevant, because it is a sweeping generalism - ie, not actually true.
3. It's very telling that even modern bands ore frequently quoted as "sounding a bit like Pink Floyd" - yet none can accurately capture the atmosphere that the band created through their textures. Just possibly there is something very real in the textures themselves that are unique and carefully crafted? You appear to have unpeeled the onion and become disappointed that there is nothing inside, when you should have enjoyed the layers you threw away mistakenly, thinking they were only wrapping.
4. Among bands influenced by Pink Floyd are Opeth, Radiohead and The Beatles - but the list is virtually endless. If you could positively identify bands which influenced Pink Floyds' sound, then frankly I'd be astonished. We all know where the music comes from at a grass roots level - but the finished result sounds nothing like any 1960s Blues rock act.
For a band whose music "involves doing very little", they certainly had (and are still having) a huge impact in the world of progressive music.
The word "Progress" from your earlier quote is also misleading - there are very, very few bands around now labelled "Progressive" who really are. It's become simply a label for a style and sound rather than anything literal.
If in your opinion the word should be taken literally, then, judging them on their first album alone, Pink Floyd are probably the very first progressive rock band, as well as being one of the best examples of the music. The first song alone seems to have come out of absolutely nowhere.
When you also consider that two songs on their second album were the a main source of inspiration for an entire progressive music scene in Germany, then I think you'll need some tomato sauce to go with your words ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: domizia
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 05:03
Terribly well put.------------- RPI=> http://www.camelotclubprog.net" rel="nofollow - Camelot Club Prog ...but also> http://www.maracash.com" rel="nofollow - MaRaCash records. |