Is Pink Floyd prog rock?

Frenetic Zetetic wrote: I thought PF was noise/grind?

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Apparently my brother knew someone a long time ago who described them as "dark wave."

We all know Pink Floyd plays Whale-mating rock

Jaketejas wrote: Before you vote no, you might want to go back and listen to Piper at the Gates of Dawn and compare it to what was out there at the time. It is true that some of their later music tends toward blues, but prog has so many different characteristics. They are proggy, in my opinion, in many ways. Lyricism, didactic albeit twisted metaphorical storytelling, complex chords / progression, some odd time signatures, innovations with synths. I wouldn't place them in the same sub-category of prog as King Crimson. But, if you take out Pink Floyd from PA, you might as well cut off your nose to spite your face. I think some people may be mixing up the umbrella of prog with their favorite subgenre of prog. And, if you don't like my opinion, hard cheese! Resounding, resonating, and reverberating YES!!!

Have to remember also prog rock started to develop in those early days when musicians mix together blues, jazz, folk & classical music. I hear blues even in Porcupine Tree.

Mortte wrote: Jaketejas wrote: Before you vote no, you might want to go back and listen to Piper at the Gates of Dawn and compare it to what was out there at the time. It is true that some of their later music tends toward blues, but prog has so many different characteristics. They are proggy, in my opinion, in many ways. Lyricism, didactic albeit twisted metaphorical storytelling, complex chords / progression, some odd time signatures, innovations with synths. I wouldn't place them in the same sub-category of prog as King Crimson. But, if you take out Pink Floyd from PA, you might as well cut off your nose to spite your face. I think some people may be mixing up the umbrella of prog with their favorite subgenre of prog. And, if you don't like my opinion, hard cheese! Resounding, resonating, and reverberating YES!!! Have to remember also prog rock started to develop in those early days when musicians mix together blues, jazz, folk & classical music. I hear blues even in Porcupine Tree.

I am in agreement. Many if not most Prog bands incorporate blues into their music. I don’t have a problem with it, as long as there is something else proggy to sink the teeth into. Rush is another band that relied heavily on pentatonic scales but they were also quite proggy. It is strange that the person who posted this mentions Rush as Prog but Pink Floyd as not. Odd time signatures is not the only classifying factor for Prog.

I wonder how different the results would be if we asked if Rush were prog or Kansas or Jethro Tull or even Yes or Genesis. ;)

Jaketejas wrote: Mortte wrote: Jaketejas wrote: Before you vote no, you might want to go back and listen to Piper at the Gates of Dawn and compare it to what was out there at the time. It is true that some of their later music tends toward blues, but prog has so many different characteristics. They are proggy, in my opinion, in many ways. Lyricism, didactic albeit twisted metaphorical storytelling, complex chords / progression, some odd time signatures, innovations with synths. I wouldn't place them in the same sub-category of prog as King Crimson. But, if you take out Pink Floyd from PA, you might as well cut off your nose to spite your face. I think some people may be mixing up the umbrella of prog with their favorite subgenre of prog. And, if you don't like my opinion, hard cheese! Resounding, resonating, and reverberating YES!!! Have to remember also prog rock started to develop in those early days when musicians mix together blues, jazz, folk & classical music. I hear blues even in Porcupine Tree. I am in agreement. Many if not most Prog bands incorporate blues into their music. I don’t have a problem with it, as long as there is something else proggy to sink the teeth into. Rush is another band that relied heavily on pentatonic scales but they were also quite proggy. It is strange that the person who posted this mentions Rush as Prog but Pink Floyd as not. Odd time signatures is not the only classifying factor for Prog.

I have listened quite much Delta Blues recent years and there really are odd time signatures. And many really talented guitarists (Robert Johnson & Skip James are the greatest). Really sad many thinks blues is just that boring 12-bar music that it´s mostly is today.

Mortte wrote: Jaketejas wrote: Mortte wrote: Jaketejas wrote: Before you vote no, you might want to go back and listen to Piper at the Gates of Dawn and compare it to what was out there at the time. It is true that some of their later music tends toward blues, but prog has so many different characteristics. They are proggy, in my opinion, in many ways. Lyricism, didactic albeit twisted metaphorical storytelling, complex chords / progression, some odd time signatures, innovations with synths. I wouldn't place them in the same sub-category of prog as King Crimson. But, if you take out Pink Floyd from PA, you might as well cut off your nose to spite your face. I think some people may be mixing up the umbrella of prog with their favorite subgenre of prog. And, if you don't like my opinion, hard cheese! Resounding, resonating, and reverberating YES!!! Have to remember also prog rock started to develop in those early days when musicians mix together blues, jazz, folk & classical music. I hear blues even in Porcupine Tree. I am in agreement. Many if not most Prog bands incorporate blues into their music. I don’t have a problem with it, as long as there is something else proggy to sink the teeth into. Rush is another band that relied heavily on pentatonic scales but they were also quite proggy. It is strange that the person who posted this mentions Rush as Prog but Pink Floyd as not. Odd time signatures is not the only classifying factor for Prog. I have listened quite much Delta Blues recent years and there really are odd time signatures. And many really talented guitarists (Robert Johnson & Skip James are the greatest). Really sad many thinks blues is just that boring 12-bar music that it´s mostly is today.

Blues can indeed be quite complex. Guitarists like Lonnie Johnson (one of my faves), Lightnin' Hopkins, Buddy Guy, Jimi Hendrix, Robert Johnson, and Stevie Ray Vaughan were exceptional good at digging deeply into the complexities of blues and incorporating some jazz. And, there is nothing wrong with blues. I love blues! However, if one is going to take on the task of classifying music, at some point you have to draw a line between what constitutes the genre of "blues" (even if it is very complex blues) and what constitutes prog, even if the prog contains significant blues components. I would argue that, judging by their initial albums, some bands (Rush is a good example) had their roots in blues-based rock (e.g., Jimi Hendrix, Buddy Guy, Eric Clapton, and Led Zep), but then they went in proggier directions, adding more classical (e.g., Farewell to Kings), jazz (richer chords and more grace notes), and prog (epic themes, odd time signatures, non-standard progressions, etc., etc.) influences. At the same time, they STILL included quite a bit of blues even in their later work. But, I wouldn't classify them as a blues band. I hope I have clarified my point.

suitkees wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: I wonder how different the results would be if we asked if Rush were prog or Kansas or Jethro Tull or even Yes or Genesis. ;) Please, no ! Let's not do that !

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: cstack3 wrote: Nope.  No Mellotrons.   I always considered PF more of a blues-based, psychedelic band than prog-band in the mold of Yes/Genesis/Crimson etc.  Inventive?  Yep.  Inspiring?  Certainly.  Progressive?  Never impressed me in that way, particularly.   Since when does something need a mellotron to be prog?  Actually, from what I understand they did use a little bit of mellotron on ummagumma, saucerful of secrets and Atom Heart Mother.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall. Who is the proggiest band of all?