Is Pink Floyd prog rock?

nah, it's cha-cha-cha

Imagine watching saucerful of secrets live at pompeii and still not thinking Floyd is prog. Odd times=/=prog, with floyd its about unconventional structure and experimentation. Yes, floyd is prog. These discussions lead nowhere.

I probably would describe Pink Floyd as art rock primarily, rather than Prog Rock (but the two need not be considered as different). Pink Floyd is more progressive rock than Prog-by-genre to me. I don't think that Pink Floyd is Prog per se, but I would argue that the band made progressive rock. It's quite diverse and it depends on the album, period somewhat, and even on the piece of music. I got into this a little while ago in another topic. The first album is more psych, the second is also primarily psych and experimental rock, but I would say it could also be described as progressive rock. Ummagumma is psych, experimental, and prog I think. AHM, my favourite, I do consider to be quite Prog, and Meddle. Dark Side of the Moon is art rock mostly to me. Wish you Were Here is Prog Art Rock to me, as is Animals. The Wall is more art rock/rock opera. I'm not interested in the later ones. Ultimately I would say yes and no. It didn't uniformly make what I would call progressive rock particularly, and I wouldn't describe it as Prog primarily for the career. Sorry, this could be a lot better written/ expressed, but I hope it still has some value for discussion.

I'd need another option. It's not black and white to me, it's grey, and to me this "yes or no" presents too simple a dichotomy. It could be described as prog and not Prog, but I don't tend to think of bands as prog per se, I tend to think about specific music those bands made, and that music could be labelled in various ways. I might have added a "Yes and no, maybe so option". It depends quite a bit on how one defines/ describes progressive rock, as well as Progressive Rock (as a genre that need not be truly progressive) and how one parameterises music, as well as how much percentage one counts and many things. One could apply many labels to Pink Floyd across the discography, and even on individual albums.

Edited by Logan - April 24 2020 at 09:38

Hi,

Just not a simple yes or no. Overall I do think Pink Floyd were making progressive rock music, although in late 60s early 70s they called it psychedelic pop music, "prog" or "progressive" label was not being used that early on.

Of course they were. Just because they became very popular doesn't change that.

TexasKing wrote: Do you consider Pink Floyd prog or not? I think art rock is a much more appropriate term for their music than prog rock, so I voted no. Although their music is great I never found it to be complex compared to other bands as King Crimson, Yes, Rush, Genesis...

Braka1 wrote: TexasKing wrote: Do you consider Pink Floyd prog or not? I think art rock is a much more appropriate term for their music than prog rock, so I voted no. Although their music is great I never found it to be complex compared to other bands as King Crimson, Yes, Rush, Genesis... Must prog be musically complex? My first feeling is 'no'. I think for instance a lot of newer metal bands squeak in as 'prog' partly because metal is one modern genre where technical virtuosity is highly valued.   Could a minimalist work be prog?   I'd have said 'yes', though no obvious rock example springs to mind.

I prophesy disaster wrote: It seems to me that the question of Pink Floyd's progginess is about Dark Side Of The Moon. But in spite of its commercial success, that album is prog, and I fail to see why people think otherwise.

Rick1 wrote: In that famous interview, when asked if he considered Pink Floyd were progressive, Zappa answered 'sometimes'.  Floyd - absolutely no doubts - right from the get go up until 'Wish You Were Here'.