Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Pink Floyd's prog period
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Pink Floyd's prog period
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 27953 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote richardh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 05 2021 at 02:34
Originally posted by Necrotica Necrotica wrote:

What's always baffled me is the notion people have of Pink Floyd not being prog altogether; that one never made sense to me. The argument always seems to be that they weren't virtuosos, but bands don't need to be virtuosos to be prog... nor do they need to whip out 5 minutes worth of w**k solos.

But if you look at their other traits, they fit with all the other prog bands of the 70s:

-Long epic pieces with multiple parts? Check.
-Complex albums filled with social critiques and high-art concepts? Check.
-Not adhering to standard pop conventions and drawing more from jazz and classical elements? Check, and even the songs that did adhere to pop did so in a left-of-field way (such as the 7/4 time signature on Money)
-Heavy sonic and compositional experimentation? Massive check; Echoes alone should be proof of that.

I know I'm going on a bit of a rant here; it just always annoyed me that Floyd were occasionally cast out for not being "prog enough" when clearly they were. Don't get me wrong, obviously the common consensus is still that they're a prog band. I've just met so many outliers to that opinion over the years that I felt compelled to touch on it  

Growing in the seventies , it was clear that Prog was mainly ELP, Yes and Genesis. Floyd were in a category of their own possibly because they were so big. For that matter Rush were not really considered 'prog' either.

In my view progressive rock music was very wide and included the likes of Sabbath , Zep and Deep Purple as well as Roxy Music and Floyd.

As for Floyd's prog phase I would go 1973-1977 only. They streamlined it very cleverly and then gained the benefit with those massive selling releases.
Back to Top
AFlowerKingCrimson View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18243 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFlowerKingCrimson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2021 at 21:03
Originally posted by Sacro_Porgo Sacro_Porgo wrote:

Those first couple albums are pretty clearly rooted in Psych rock, plus handing them the "prog" qualification would screw up the general consensus that In The Court Of The Crimson King was pretty much prog's album length debut (Zappa would disagree of course, and he's welcome to, because he rules, but I still would call ITCOTCK ground zero for the movement). So I'm fine saying the Syd stuff's not prog. Atom Heart Mother definitely seems to fit the bill with that sidelong title track and its orchestral sweep. I'd definitely say The Wall is prog, but I'd say the same thing about Tommy and Quadrophenia from The Who. Not every song needs to fit the bill on an individual basis for the album as a unit to qualify. ELP has Lucky Man on it for example. About The Final Cut... I don't love it, but it probably qualifies. It's certainly not pop, that's for darn sure. I haven't listened to the rest enough to say one way or the other, but I know enough to say they seem to have elements remaining which fit the bill, not to mention so much neo-prog pulls from that spacey, slow, synth laden, shimmering guitar lead aesthetic that you could argue the Floyd sound itself had become prog, regardless of song structures or lyrics.

I didn't really want to get into the what is the first prog album discussion on here because it's not really relevant to the discussion at hand. However, since you brought it up I think it's very debatable that "court" was the first. You also had Days of future passed and several others. Frank Zappa probably wouldn't not disagree because I doubt he would consider himself prog. I'm not sure how else I would label Uncle Meat though. I'm also not sure what else I would call the More soundtrack or ummagumma but to be a bit more strict about definitions I chose AHM as the starting point for PF. Anyway, we can argue until the cows come home(no pun intended ;)) about what is or what isn't prog. For me The Wall is more art rock than prog. If art rock is part of prog then ok. I admit prog can be a wide umbrella.


Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - November 04 2021 at 21:05
Back to Top
Necrotica View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Colaborator

Joined: July 28 2015
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 3365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Necrotica Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2021 at 20:59
What's always baffled me is the notion people have of Pink Floyd not being prog altogether; that one never made sense to me. The argument always seems to be that they weren't virtuosos, but bands don't need to be virtuosos to be prog... nor do they need to whip out 5 minutes worth of w**k solos.

But if you look at their other traits, they fit with all the other prog bands of the 70s:

-Long epic pieces with multiple parts? Check.
-Complex albums filled with social critiques and high-art concepts? Check.
-Not adhering to standard pop conventions and drawing more from jazz and classical elements? Check, and even the songs that did adhere to pop did so in a left-of-field way (such as the 7/4 time signature on Money)
-Heavy sonic and compositional experimentation? Massive check; Echoes alone should be proof of that.

I know I'm going on a bit of a rant here; it just always annoyed me that Floyd were occasionally cast out for not being "prog enough" when clearly they were. Don't get me wrong, obviously the common consensus is still that they're a prog band. I've just met so many outliers to that opinion over the years that I felt compelled to touch on it  
Take me down, to the underground
Won't you take me down, to the underground
Why oh why, there is no light
And if I can't sleep, can you hold my life

https://www.youtube.com/@CocoonMasterBrendan-wh3sd
Back to Top
progaardvark View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Crossover/Symphonic/RPI Teams

Joined: June 14 2007
Location: Sea of Peas
Status: Offline
Points: 50919 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote progaardvark Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2021 at 20:18
Their whole discography. Prog is a wide umbrella. Where there may be debate is when they transitioned from one subgenre to the next. 
----------
i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag
that's a happy bag of lettuce
this car smells like cartilage
nothing beats a good video about fractions
Back to Top
Sacro_Porgo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 15 2019
Location: Cygnus
Status: Offline
Points: 2052 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sacro_Porgo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2021 at 20:09
Originally posted by AFlowerKingCrimson AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:

With Rush it is generally accepted that their prog period was between 1976-1981(2112 to Moving Pictures). 

How about with Pink Floyd though? Imo, I would say it was from 1970- 1977 (Atom Heart Mother to Animals). I don't consider the Wall to be full blown prog and the ones after it are basically rock with prog elements and moments(although if someone wanted to call AMLOR or even TDB prog I wouldn't argue). I'm not sure about the very last one since I only heard it once but it sounded more like ambient or something(I would have to play it again though). As for the early stuff it's mostly either psychedelic, experimental, space rock or proto prog. I'm ok with Ummagumma being called prog but imo AHM is their first true prog album even if it still has strong psych elements on it. 

I might also add that, while 2112 through MP is definitely Rush's golden period, FBN and Caress Of Steel have too many prog elements not to be part of their prog years. The Fountain Of Lamneth? By-Tor And The Snow Dog? That's prog.
Porg for short. My love of music doesn't end with prog! Feel free to discuss all sorts of music with me. Odds are I'll give it a chance if I haven't already! :)
Back to Top
Sacro_Porgo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 15 2019
Location: Cygnus
Status: Offline
Points: 2052 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sacro_Porgo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2021 at 20:07
Those first couple albums are pretty clearly rooted in Psych rock, plus handing them the "prog" qualification would screw up the general consensus that In The Court Of The Crimson King was pretty much prog's album length debut (Zappa would disagree of course, and he's welcome to, because he rules, but I still would call ITCOTCK ground zero for the movement). So I'm fine saying the Syd stuff's not prog. Atom Heart Mother definitely seems to fit the bill with that sidelong title track and its orchestral sweep. I'd definitely say The Wall is prog, but I'd say the same thing about Tommy and Quadrophenia from The Who. Not every song needs to fit the bill on an individual basis for the album as a unit to qualify. ELP has Lucky Man on it for example. About The Final Cut... I don't love it, but it probably qualifies. It's certainly not pop, that's for darn sure. I haven't listened to the rest enough to say one way or the other, but I know enough to say they seem to have elements remaining which fit the bill, not to mention so much neo-prog pulls from that spacey, slow, synth laden, shimmering guitar lead aesthetic that you could argue the Floyd sound itself had become prog, regardless of song structures or lyrics.
Porg for short. My love of music doesn't end with prog! Feel free to discuss all sorts of music with me. Odds are I'll give it a chance if I haven't already! :)
Back to Top
Dellinger View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: June 18 2009
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 12724 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dellinger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2021 at 20:04
I guess I would agree with you. Though I might want to consider some even earlier stuff prog too... specially if we consider the live versions.
Back to Top
AFlowerKingCrimson View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18243 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFlowerKingCrimson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2021 at 19:56
^Yeah, I admit it's kind of a judgement call on the Wall but I just don't really hear much that I would consider epic or prog in the traditonal sense. There's a lot of strings on it so I guess that counts for something but overall it's maybe borderline at best imo. I guess everyone will have a different cut off point. Maybe the Wall is sort of like their Duke in a way. 

Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - November 04 2021 at 19:57
Back to Top
Necrotica View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Colaborator

Joined: July 28 2015
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 3365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Necrotica Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2021 at 19:54
Yeah, Atom Heart Mother - Animals sounds about right. Although I would include The Wall and extend it to 1979, as I still think it's progressive enough to make the cut. It kinda blurs the line between prog rock and prog pop, but I think it counts. In any case, I do agree that Atom Heart Mother is where the band's prog elements were really becoming solidified. 
Take me down, to the underground
Won't you take me down, to the underground
Why oh why, there is no light
And if I can't sleep, can you hold my life

https://www.youtube.com/@CocoonMasterBrendan-wh3sd
Back to Top
AFlowerKingCrimson View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18243 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFlowerKingCrimson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2021 at 19:32
With Rush it is generally accepted that their prog period was between 1976-1981(2112 to Moving Pictures). 

How about with Pink Floyd though? Imo, I would say it was from 1970- 1977 (Atom Heart Mother to Animals). I don't consider the Wall to be full blown prog and the ones after it are basically rock with prog elements and moments(although if someone wanted to call AMLOR or even TDB prog I wouldn't argue). I'm not sure about the very last one since I only heard it once but it sounded more like ambient or something(I would have to play it again though). As for the early stuff it's mostly either psychedelic, experimental, space rock or proto prog. I'm ok with Ummagumma being called prog but imo AHM is their first true prog album even if it still has strong psych elements on it. 


Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - November 04 2021 at 19:33
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.