Can anyone tell me why P.Floyd is prog?

Dick Heath wrote: A number of us old timers were baffled when both Rush and Pink Floyd found their way on to Channel Four prog top 10 groups not so long ago. It wasn't America heard DSOTM that the band was called prog, as opposed to psychedelia. So as to being more progressive than other bands, well until they over got over the loss of Syd Barrett it was felt they spent half a decade navel grazing, and progressing by a gnat's cock l

With historical restrospect, that seems like nonsense:

"Saucerful..." was a kind of "Piper 2", but the writing does show marked progression - the title track alone is practically pure Prog Rock, not just a psychedelic jam.

"Ummagumma" represents a major leap forward in terms of the experimentation on sides 3 and 4 - no matter what the band think about it now, I hear it as genius - pure stream of consciousness music (albeit with a smorgasbord of ego...).

"Atom Heart Mother" is very different again - I'm not totally convinced by it, but there are deliberate attempts to do different things and use new sonic soundscapes.

"Meddle" is a pure masterpiece - especially "Echoes", and a stunning progression from the <"Ummagumma" style.

Then there's the "Live at Pompeii" film, which I still find to be a stunning live performance to this day, not to mention "More", "Zabrieski Point" and "Obscured by Clouds"... OK, I did mention them, and they are all somewhat sub-par - but clearly show what the band were capable of when they were only ticking over. I generally don't count them as "bona fide" Floyd albums since they're sound tracks. They were handy doodle pads for later albums - and an interesting insight into the way they changed their collective approaches to composition.

Which brings us to "DSOTM" - which, of course, was performed live many, many months before the band hit the studio.

But that's just a retrospective perspective...

Floyd, are above all one of the greatest acts in the rock era. Maybe too great to be fenced only into the boundaries of the prog music. But the analysis of “The miracle” leaves no doubt, they must be considered (also) as a prog band.

Pink Floyd have never really done it for me either. But that doesn't mean they're not prog.

Prog does not mean 'good'. Good does not mean 'Prog'. How many people on this site have ignored that basic perception of music?

Rockin' Chair wrote: I think Pink Floyd are 50% prog.

No, actually they are 52.265% prog - you should have known that!


Edited by SaintVitus

Rockin' Chair wrote: I think Pink Floyd are 50% prog.

Lol, that pretty much sums it up for me... Perhaps even slightly less than 50% so that I can continue to omit them from my personal prog album list  I don't know, I really really like PF -some of their records I simply adore. Yet I can't bring myself to list them among bands like (classic) Yes, Genesis and King Crimson, it just doesn't feel right, no matter how innovative they were. The musicianship just isn't up to the standard I have in my mind for prog music and that is what I personally put above criterias such as whether a band makes concept albums or create soundscapes that differ from straight rock'n'roll (sooo many bands would have to be included in the prog category if this was one of the primary criterias, really)

In a way Pink Floyd were proto prog at a time when "pure" prog was already riding high. They went a little bit further than The Beatles but not far enough to be authentic prog, at least not for me. Yet I will continue to like them, just as I like The Beatles... It doesn't have to be prog to be great.

 

 

SaintVitus wrote: viperjr98 wrote: I never considered Pink Floyd prog.  That's A Sin!

THAT'S A REALLY BIG SIN

well check it at a dictionary, near the word prog...

You absolutely need no drugs to listen at Floyd's music.  To consider sometihing prog, it just have to be music that goes somewhere with a rock sound, that's all.  Listen to Echoes and Animals, or Shine on and you'll see that no rock group did something like that.  Floyd were also innovative, and if they're not prog, what are they?

Certif1ed wrote: erlenst wrote: In other words you have a definition of prog which is different from the one on this site and 90% of the people in here. Sure, I agree that a lot of the stuff in wikipedia is inaccurate, such as the ridiculous art rock definition they have. But a lot of the stuff there is really great also, for instance a lot of the scientific articles. That's not what I said - but it's probably true nonetheless - I note you don't actually disagree Most people do not have a good working definition of Prog - and many who visit Internet forums get a lot of their information from the Internet. I have yet to see a "good" definition of Prog Rock on the Internet - this site included. Nothing's perfect. I agree that some of Wikipedia is great - I didn't say it wasn't - I said it's "one of the worst sources of information about music that I have ever seen - simply because of all the opinionated and factually inaccurate articles therein.". For example - the article on Twelve Note music is actually entitled Twelve Tone music. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-note_music And this article on Rock music is just an unstructured mess of opinions and potted histories of author's favourites; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_music   From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Ok, I can definately see your point. I wonder though how anyone who obviously knows a lot of the theory behind Twelve Note couldn't get the name straight

However, I would like to see your definition of prog, if that doesn't too off topic. Not that it's even particularly important, after all it doesn't matter what we call the music as long as it's awesome

I myself have never been that big of a PF fan. Maybe it's because I've heard the wrong albums though. (I have Dark Side, Wish you were Here, and the Wall)

Certif1ed wrote: erlenst wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Let's drop the notions of long complex arrangements, complexity and all the other nonsense that tends to go with describing prog for a moment. Prog Rock is not about being hideously complex, or being able to improvise for hours on end -although Pink Floyd more than demonstrated their abilities on their earliest output. In fact, if you think about it, everything after Meddle was one concept per album - the Wall being the ultimate consumation of coherent concept-building. The biggest problem with Pink Floyd as a Prog Rock band that I see is modern perception of Prog Rock - which seems to have little or nothing to do with actual Prog Rock, and more to do with casual sources of reference like Wikipedia, which is one of the worst sources of information about music that I have ever seen - simply because of all the opinionated and factually inaccurate articles therein. Prog Rock is defined by the bands who were there first - the bands who defined Prog Rock. Pink Floyd are one of those bands. That's why they're Prog   Actually I think wikipedia's article about progressive rock is excellent and follow pretty much the same definition as this very site does.. I really have no idea what you are talking about . I can tell. This site got the definition from Wikipedia, hence the similarities. And if you haven't noticed the inaccuracies and bias, then you don't have a working definition of Prog

In other words you have a definition of prog which is different from the one on this site and 90% of the people in here.

Sure, I agree that a lot of the stuff in wikipedia is inaccurate, such as the ridiculous art rock definition they have. But a lot of the stuff there is really great also, for instance a lot of the scientific articles.