Pink Floyd and Prog Music

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.

Edited by Certif1ed - June 08 2009 at 05:55

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 (Cream), folk (Incredible String Band), garage rock (13th Floor Elevators), electronica (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 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 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.

Dean wrote:  You just can't make this stuff up...           Oh!  apparenty you can.

I wish I could make up that stuff.  Then I could quit my day job!  Smart dead Russian guy.

Bufo wrote: 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.

Certif1ed wrote: 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! 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 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.

Bufo wrote: Certif1ed wrote: 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! 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 you could take most of the "official" definitions, check them against a record like

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.