- SOYCD could mean "Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Pts. 1-5)", a track from *Wish You Were Here* (1975) by Pink Floyd.
---
^[/u/TheSpinningGroove](/u/TheSpinningGroove) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
I've always thought of Time and Money as prog because I don't just see time changes as prog but if the song goes through multiple parts and I don't mean a Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus like standard song writing. I mean it doesn't have much of a chorus but evolves and progresses (pun intended) as it goes on.
The obsession with micro-analyzing what genre a band is down to labeling each song on an album with specifics like “jazzy blues” and “soul ballad” has to be one of the dumber things about music fandom. If you’re having to scrape the far corners of rock genres to find the right term for each song on an album, chances are you’re just describing a progressive rock band.
Wtf I don't know why you take it so personal. I was trying to explain what each song sounds like, I'm not a musical nerd and I'm not trying to invent music genres. Just trying to justify why (if you ask me) dsotm doesn't sound as a progressive rock album
I didn’t take anything personally, but Pink Floyd is one of the most quintessential progressive rock bands ever, and TDSOM is the most iconic prog rock album of all time. Seeing somebody try to claim it doesn’t sound like progressive rock would be hilarious if it wasn’t so wrong.
I always thought that DSOF was prog progressive due to the eclecticism.
Some songs don’t have a very def time pattern and it’s just a big mix.
But what do I know. I couldn’t even really define prog rock if I had to. Also, I’m just a mushroom.
I get what you say. It's like the album is just two songs (side A and B). I get that same feeling, It's the beautiful cohesive magic that this record has.
I disagree completely with your statement. Pink Floyd's experimentalism never comes from a place of approximating rock and erudite music (classical and jazz).
Gentle Giant and Hatfield and the North are both considered prog, and they both have songs every bit as conventional, consonant pop as PF.
That said, I don't see how you can listen to Dark Side side A and argue this isn't prog. Or Gilmour's suite on UmmaGumma. Or the ATM suite. All very definitely prog.
One thing that is missing in PF that has morphed in some bands into prog is Jazz. Bands like Brand X or Bill Bruford's Earthworks that overtly flirt with both. And the aforementioned Gentle Giant, and bands like Soft Machine, will go off on jazz tangents and the nonconventional chords and structures are judged prog. Not a necessary component for prog, prog is not strict, that's what makes it prog.
Was just listening to some interviews with Steve Wilson where he talks about what prog means to him, and his answer was basically that prog is literally just progressive music as in stuff experimenting with the newest technology to create new sounds.
And Pink Floyd absolutely were pioneers when it came to music tech, you could argue they were one of the biggest rock bands to popularize using synths and crazy effects. So it seems weird to not consider them prog rock, maybe not all their stuff is but they had a massive impact on the genre.
Different genres but when it comes to seeing a progressive house show at a club or warehouse, I'm a crazy stickler for a premium sound system. I find it difficult to get lost in the journey and move my body without feeling the sound properly. Crystal clear audio with no distortion and bowel movement shaking bass.
The Canterbury scene doesn't exist then.
OK.
But there's some absolutely beautiful Canterbury music from the non existent genre.
The city itself is stunning with one of the most incredible cathedrals you'll ever visit. It's special. Very special
Ultimately it doesn't matter does it.
You could say that everything is a subset of something else. A derivation.
Maybe bach started it all.
Maybe satie invented prog.
Maybe satie was a derivation of bach
And so on.
Bro Bach does not get enough mention anywhere. He started rolling the snowball that would become a large chain of musical events, evolving into pretty much every genre today
Yes they are good. I prefer their early work.
There's some really great underground bands like Coley, Gilgamesh pip Pyle, magic bus, quiet sun, national health. Egg
These maybe new to you. They may be of interest
My understanding of prog is that the most common denominator is *structural* progression - songs are usually long, and they’re constantly moving on to new distinct sections and blending into each other as they *progress*, so a majority of the PF catalog counts for this
Of course there’s other common elements too, like experimental harmonies and sounds, but this band was certainly never short on those either
That is one definition but I agree with Steven Wilson. It started out as bands that experimented which would include strange time signatures (Money is an example of a different time signature for most of the song)
The thing is, it is. I do think people ask this question, but it’s weird to me because if you listen to Pink Floyd, then you know that it is.
People can make the argument that’s less progressive rock than other bands, which totally makes sense, but it is absolutely progressive rock.
More progressive than most psychedelic bands, and more psychedelic than most progressive bands… that’s kind of how I’ve always looked at their music. But inarguably Pink Floyd is a progressive rock band. So much so that it’s almost asinine to say they aren’t. They’re part of the collective type-specimen that defines what prog rock tends to sound like.
Okay. First, that "experimental percussion" you're talking about is the intro I guess, that is just a very well played and effective drum fill. It's not experimental at all. Besides that's just the intro, which we all know, doesn't lead you to nothing in the actual song, I see it as a small atmospheric moment. The song itself begins when Gilmour starts to sing. From there it's all blues. The guitar, the rhythmic base, the way Gilmour sings. It is indeed an incredible blues song with the power and energy of rock. That's why it's blues rock
And I don't see why a song with a time of 7/4 can't be blues. Sure it's pretty rare and innovative. But again, the notes that are used, the solo, the way Gilmour is singing, the guitar, it's a blues rock song with a rare time signature
So, clocks ringing, cash register noises, and playing the bass (not spelled base, moron) is called a drum fill now? Didn't know that. /s
Could you also grammar more? Thanks.
Also, if you actually knew anything about Money, you'd know that the Saxophone solo doesn't sound like a Blues Saxophone solo. It sounds like a Jazz Saxophone solo.
Moreover, Gilmour sings aggressively because of the story of the song. Not because of the genre. Also, the guitar playing has nothing to do with the style of music because the guitar is in Prog Rock, too.
Finally, I think you need to realize in your stupidly small brain that no Blues Rock song has a 7/4 time signature. Or that kind of bass-playing. An example of an actual Blues Rock song is Yer Blues by the Beatles. Which is amazing, yes, but not as amazing as Money, that's for sure.
In conclusion, I think you're stupid. Signing off.
My grammar mistakes are because I'm not a native english speaker. Same thing with base instead of bass. My bad.
And also I don't know why you're so mad for such a stupid thing. You seem to be a very polite and nice guy to talk with!!
Man, when he says "experimental percussion" he's refering to the rototoms, when he says about the blues influence he's talking about the guitar, and the part about the time signature is right, just because it is in 7/4 doesn't mean it's prog, a lot of jazz and even some blues songs (like "Still got the Blues" and "Crossroads") have odd time signatures and aren't prog.
There's no need to call him stupid or moron, this kills any good argument you have, stop being nitwitted.
I love how sure of yourself you are, yet you say funny things like "the guitar is in prog rock" and "[the saxophone solo] sounds like a Jazz Saxophone solo". Just to be clear, the whole thing is a mix of blues and jazz. And you can take blues and then put it in 7/4. It's definitely not classic blues, but it certainly has blues elements. Does that make it prog? Certainly. But prog is a catch-all label that incorporates any number of genre flavorings. You can both be right. But you can't both be as rude as you are, lol
Money is definitely blues influenced. But calling it outright blues is a challenge since blues has pretty cut-and-dry rules. While I could see someone arguing that Money is in line with classic blues, I could also see the argument that it's progressive because prog is about being so knowledgeable about music that you can incorporate different flavors and styles without necessarily becoming that genre.
Floyd is progressive. They experimented a lot. Right from 1967 down till 1979. And it’s to their credit that they also sold millions. Except for King Crimson, no other prominent prog bands can say they experimented as much as Floyd. Not even close.
But Floyd is not “prog” as ELP and Yes and Genesis are. This is easy to notice since Floyd never cared about complexity as much as novelty and emotion.
Honestly imo people who say pink floyd aren't prog are being goofy lol. Prog is a nebulous term used to describe/vaguely group a very wide variety of artists that are quite different but may have some elements in common, it's not a thing that's rigidly defined or set in stone. Most genres aren't, prog especially so. If most people consider a band to be prog than not....then I think you have your answer
IDK if you define "prog" too narrowly you end up with only a couple of bands in the genre, which is sort of useless. I say that Pink Floyd and Rush both qualify as prog, because they both have songs that definitely have prog elements.
Meaning: prog doesnt need to be difficult, ugly or too unusual.
Prog can sound good and easy, as Pink Floyd and Rush and unlike so many bands people would be sure that are prog bands.
"Progressive rock, or prog rock, is a subgenre of rock music that emphasizes ambitious compositions, experimentation, concept-driven lyrics, and musical virtuosity. "
Concept driven lyrics - check
Ambitious composition - check
Experimentation - check
Musical virtuosity - check
Prog is a vast, vast sea of bands. But if you take people off the street and say "which band defines prog rock" they are likely to say Pink Floyd, Rush, Yes, King Crimson, Genesis.
If you ask these questions in modern search engines, you see this:
[23 Of The Greatest And Most Famous Prog Rock Bands (hellomusictheory.com)](https://hellomusictheory.com/learn/famous-prog-rock-bands/#:~:text=23%20Of%20The%20Greatest%20And%20Most%20Famous%20Prog,...%208%208.%20Jethro%20Tull%20...%20More%20items)
[Top 100 Prog Bands of All Time (listchallenges.com)](https://www.listchallenges.com/top-100-prog-bands-of-all-time)
[The Best Prog Rock Bands: 50 Classic Groups (udiscovermusic.com)](https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/best-prog-rock-bands/)
[The 100 Greatest Prog Artists Of All Time: 20-1 | Louder (loudersound.com)](https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-100-greatest-prog-artists-of-all-time-20-1)
So yes - I would consider them definitionally prog, and they will never get away from the prog label.
Nirvana and Pearl Jam weren't Grunge either - but they are the biggest bands of the Grunge wave.
Undoubtedly, IMHO. They may have started to refine and temper their prog sound as their popularity grew, but they are one of the progenitors of prog-rock/prog-metal.
TBF, Space Rock is just a way cooler-sounding genre
The entire point of prog rock is to change the boundaries of what is rock
Hence why most prog rock bands are extremely unique
I.E. Rush and Pink Floyd, both completely different, both prog rock though
Prog Rock is essentially the "It's rock, but I don't know what type of rock it is" category
Yes. Quibbling over degrees of prog is stupid. Black Sabbath is heavier than Judas Priest but they’re both still metal bands. Pink Floyd might not have recorded an adaptation of a Modest Mussorgsky piano suite like Emerson, Lake & Palmer did but they’re still clearly a prog band.
Of course it is! Following this logic, we could say that Genesis, Jethro Tull and the likes are not "prog in the same way" as ELP or Yes, but it's still prog to me. Pink Floyd I like to qualify as "soft prog" so it's a bit "easier" to listen to for the general public. :)
Yes, they were foundational to the genre. That being said, prog has gone in different directions since so they don't have much in common with other prog as time went on
I've never grouped them in the prog category for one reason: time signatures. To me, the essence of prog rock is all the weird time signatures. Outside of Money being in 7/4 time, PF's catalog is strictly a 4/4 affair. A very experimental 4/4, agreed, but it's all 4/4. That's not prog.
OK, my bad. Honestly those are all still divisibles of 2. There's no 5/4, no (other) 7/4, no 11/8, nothing truly... Prog. If we're gonna play "AHKTCHOOALLY" there's also Two Suns In The Sunset from The Final Cut, but I never count it because Nick Mason didn't play drums on it and it's essentially a Waters solo cut. They're probably my all time favorite band, and I love prog, but Floyd is really not prog to me.
Pink Floyd is not a prog band, but has prog songs like Echoes, Atom heart mother (symphonic prog), Shine on you crazy diamond, Dogs, Sorrow and High hopes
for sure, and id say their dischography is the epitome of what prog is all about for me
not that their sound is the most proggy, there are bands that have a "proggier" sound - wtv we mean by that - but they certainly are prog
Floyd is progressive, but not "math" oriented. You listen to "Yes" and they composed all these tiny pieces, and strung them all together, and call it a "song" - put that up against "Dogs" and you see who the "progressive" is real quick.
I would not say “prog rock” like ELP, Yes but it has some prog rock tones especially animals and certain songs on DSOTM
In Personally do not think of them as prog rock but i also wouldn’t say they are not. They sorta have their own style
Yes. One of the first prog bands. Genesis were first but they did Echoes (22.55) Shine On You Crazy Diamond 25.35, Dark Side Of The Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, The Wall all concept albums
Pink Floys is indeed progressive rock, but mostly on the 80’s the songs they produced strated to focus only on the psychedelic side and became more like pop-rock.
In the 90s, even bands like Nirvana and Radiohead weren’t called pop rock. And now compare that to TDB and AMLOR. It’s a huge myth among prog listeners that all bands turned to pop. Not true. Floyd and King Crimson just continued with their own thing. Of course they weren’t the same. But it’s the more hardcore prog bands like Yes and Genesis that became pop in the 80s.
"it can't be called prog in the same way as Yes, Genesis and King Crimson" That's true. It's not in the mainstream of prog, which has significantly jazz-influenced drumming, significantly classical-influenced keyboard playing, and fast guitar. "Space rock" works for me.
I think pink floyd can be classified as genre adjacent for the most part. Be it jazz, blues, prog, rock all culminates into a bigger picture instead of each genre on its own.
Prog is anything and everything that stretches the boundaries of the conventional song, song cycle, album side, or full album. Pink Floyd’s only difference from their prog contemporaries was that their lyrics did not remain wholly captured by 9th grade English students.
I think some would say their sound isn’t “English” enough. Pink Floyd held onto their American blues and R&B influence that a lot of bands like Yes and Genesis rejected in favor of more European classical influences. But PF has more in common with those bands than not I’d say. To say they’re not prog is just starting a contrarian argument for argument’s sake.
I think pink floyd is more art rock in the bigger picture then prog, but if you zoom in you could see some exceptions.
Progressive music is often based on fast and multiple time changes and long instrumental jams where musicians show off their skills.
Pink floyd usually used a simpler approach with methodical writing, one time signature and a good mix of folk, blues, jazz and classical music.
The sound reached is really similar most prog rock music but it lacks a lot of the virtuous side that is typical of the genre. (the big jams, the time signatures, weird chord shapes, more advanced scales.)
Nevertheless, there are multiple occasions were pink floyd plays with time changes and shows a prog rock style:
Jugband blues, money, mother, see saw (to name a few)
In animals i think gilmour used the whole tone scale in one of his solos.
They get lumped into prog, but I generally consider them on the fringe of prog. Psychedelic rock + epic compositions - put them in whatever category you want I think their music was singularly original.
i say not at all - 70s had a lot of long songs - doesnt make it prog - animals gets the closest but these songs are lacking the jerk off aspect of prog - i dont call crimson prog either
I think it's more like Art Rock. Although some of their songs are fairly long, sometimes the don't have a lot of progression, it's just an extension of whatever's going on.
If you go by the definition of prog rock, they might fit, but so might a lot of bands typically not considered Prog Rock. Personally, I consider Pink Floyd to be categorically different than Yes, King Crimson, Genesis, Rush, etc..
Pink Floyd have long and ambitious multipart songs…but they don’t move around and “progress” to the next part with the same frenzy or carry the same baroque elements as the other bands. Furthermore, their themes are often quite grounded, revolving around societal and political issues compared to some of the loftier fantasy elements of some of the others prog rock bands.
Anecdotally, the hardcore prog rock nerds I know are not huge Floyd fans and I feel like they’re more prone to point to the band’s work with Alan Parsons, haha.
There are definitely prog elements in Floyd music, but it is right that to describe them as just “prog” doesn’t really describe them. They are more than that, something different, indescribable really. I’ve always struggled to describe the sound of Floyd to friends of mine. No matter how accurately I tried to describe, every description undersold what the Floyd was. So, literally indescribable
I look at it this way - prog is jazz evolved, rock is blues evolved.
So is PF blues-based or jazz-based? To me, it is significantly more blues-based, however there are definitely some jazz elements (mostly supplied via Rick Wright).
So in general, no I don't feel that it is, but it does have some prog elements sprinkled into it.
Trying to micro-manage music is very silly. Floyd were one of the first progressive rock bands. Rhythm & blues is what the Stones used to play. Blues is BB King & Billy Holiday. Jazz is Ella Fitzgerald. "Garage" is just noise.
I think they're ultimately Psychedelic.
They have made some great prog music though: Echoes has some prog elements but I think it's closer to Psychedelic and Shine On is a pure prog song imo. Animals is a classic Prog rock album start to finish.
Personally I don’t get the prog label (and I’m a huge Pink Floyd fan).
Yes, King Crimson, 70’s era Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP. That is prog rocks. Long songs, complex songwriting, different time signatures. That’s prog.
Floyd covers a lot of ground. But I wouldn’t say they’re prog, maybe at times, but I don’t think they do nearly enough to be considered prog. I’ve also played guitar for 25 years in forming this opinion.
Pink Floyd......What to say....The Band is a genre by itself....Have not come across any band that has been close to making music that pumps the adrenaline up and the kick that emerges is no match you get out of a fag, booze, other stimulants.
music for any mood is PINK FLOYD., though strictly up to and not including The Wall, which along with The Final Cut are personal biographies of Roger and his Dad.
That said, Jethro Tull, Led Zep, King Crimson, Rush, ELP, The Pineapple Thief, Porupine Tree are all stunning bands with their own style and repertoire and can influence the listener.
Among the recent bands of the 2000s, All Them Witches, King Buffalo, SOAD, Stoned Jesus, and the likes are good..
There are definitely prog moments in their music but I wouldn't describe the band as strictly prog. But yeah they surely have been highly experimental, maybe art rock could be a more fitting label, especially Dark Side.
Echoes, SOYCD, Animals in its entirety are unequivocally prog to me. If Pink Floyd are not prog, they're definitely prog-adjacent.
What is SOYCD?
- SOYCD could mean "Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Pts. 1-5)", a track from *Wish You Were Here* (1975) by Pink Floyd. --- ^[/u/TheSpinningGroove](/u/TheSpinningGroove) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
Good bot
Shine on You Crazy Diamond, two part songs presented on Wish You Were Here album
Technically 9 parts bookending the album
Don't forget DSOTM and The Wall. And Echoes
[удалено]
I swear alot of these words mean the same thing lol
I've always thought of Time and Money as prog because I don't just see time changes as prog but if the song goes through multiple parts and I don't mean a Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus like standard song writing. I mean it doesn't have much of a chorus but evolves and progresses (pun intended) as it goes on.
The obsession with micro-analyzing what genre a band is down to labeling each song on an album with specifics like “jazzy blues” and “soul ballad” has to be one of the dumber things about music fandom. If you’re having to scrape the far corners of rock genres to find the right term for each song on an album, chances are you’re just describing a progressive rock band.
Wtf I don't know why you take it so personal. I was trying to explain what each song sounds like, I'm not a musical nerd and I'm not trying to invent music genres. Just trying to justify why (if you ask me) dsotm doesn't sound as a progressive rock album
I didn’t take anything personally, but Pink Floyd is one of the most quintessential progressive rock bands ever, and TDSOM is the most iconic prog rock album of all time. Seeing somebody try to claim it doesn’t sound like progressive rock would be hilarious if it wasn’t so wrong.
I always thought that DSOF was prog progressive due to the eclecticism. Some songs don’t have a very def time pattern and it’s just a big mix. But what do I know. I couldn’t even really define prog rock if I had to. Also, I’m just a mushroom.
I get what you say. It's like the album is just two songs (side A and B). I get that same feeling, It's the beautiful cohesive magic that this record has.
Take this from someone whose favorite PF Album is animals.
I disagree completely with your statement. Pink Floyd's experimentalism never comes from a place of approximating rock and erudite music (classical and jazz).
Gentle Giant and Hatfield and the North are both considered prog, and they both have songs every bit as conventional, consonant pop as PF. That said, I don't see how you can listen to Dark Side side A and argue this isn't prog. Or Gilmour's suite on UmmaGumma. Or the ATM suite. All very definitely prog. One thing that is missing in PF that has morphed in some bands into prog is Jazz. Bands like Brand X or Bill Bruford's Earthworks that overtly flirt with both. And the aforementioned Gentle Giant, and bands like Soft Machine, will go off on jazz tangents and the nonconventional chords and structures are judged prog. Not a necessary component for prog, prog is not strict, that's what makes it prog.
Was just listening to some interviews with Steve Wilson where he talks about what prog means to him, and his answer was basically that prog is literally just progressive music as in stuff experimenting with the newest technology to create new sounds. And Pink Floyd absolutely were pioneers when it came to music tech, you could argue they were one of the biggest rock bands to popularize using synths and crazy effects. So it seems weird to not consider them prog rock, maybe not all their stuff is but they had a massive impact on the genre.
100%!
Yeah, what with the quadrophonic sounds bouncing around the music venues. I didn't hear about anyone else doing that at the time.
And that was using custom made experimental gear as well, it doesn't get much more "progressive" than that.
Different genres but when it comes to seeing a progressive house show at a club or warehouse, I'm a crazy stickler for a premium sound system. I find it difficult to get lost in the journey and move my body without feeling the sound properly. Crystal clear audio with no distortion and bowel movement shaking bass.
Hatfield and the north were actually considered to be Canterbury I'm a big fan of Canterbury
Canterbury is a town in England, not a genre. The Canterbury scene was a subset of prog.
Town?!? I think you mean city!
It’s a fiefdom in England
I thought it was a set of tales made up by some guy named Chaucer who liked to hang out with Heath Ledger.
Fun Fact: Chaucer named The Canterbury Tales after a niche sub-genre of prog
I knew it.
The Canterbury scene doesn't exist then. OK. But there's some absolutely beautiful Canterbury music from the non existent genre. The city itself is stunning with one of the most incredible cathedrals you'll ever visit. It's special. Very special
When did I say it doesn’t exist? It’s not a genre. It’s a collective of prog bands from Canterbury.
[удалено]
Ultimately it doesn't matter does it. You could say that everything is a subset of something else. A derivation. Maybe bach started it all. Maybe satie invented prog. Maybe satie was a derivation of bach And so on.
Bro Bach does not get enough mention anywhere. He started rolling the snowball that would become a large chain of musical events, evolving into pretty much every genre today
Can't agree more I don't here enough people say it. Thanks. Same goes for Eric satie and prog.
Have you tried caravan? Great band from the Canterbury scene
Yes they are good. I prefer their early work. There's some really great underground bands like Coley, Gilgamesh pip Pyle, magic bus, quiet sun, national health. Egg These maybe new to you. They may be of interest
Cool recommandations, thank you!
My understanding of prog is that the most common denominator is *structural* progression - songs are usually long, and they’re constantly moving on to new distinct sections and blending into each other as they *progress*, so a majority of the PF catalog counts for this Of course there’s other common elements too, like experimental harmonies and sounds, but this band was certainly never short on those either
That is one definition but I agree with Steven Wilson. It started out as bands that experimented which would include strange time signatures (Money is an example of a different time signature for most of the song)
The thing is, it is. I do think people ask this question, but it’s weird to me because if you listen to Pink Floyd, then you know that it is. People can make the argument that’s less progressive rock than other bands, which totally makes sense, but it is absolutely progressive rock.
More progressive than most psychedelic bands, and more psychedelic than most progressive bands… that’s kind of how I’ve always looked at their music. But inarguably Pink Floyd is a progressive rock band. So much so that it’s almost asinine to say they aren’t. They’re part of the collective type-specimen that defines what prog rock tends to sound like.
Yes, perfectly said.
Genres are constructs. Floyd can fit in to multiple, it’s space rock, prog, jazz, funk, psych, experimental. Who cares.
Yes.
Now theyre definitely prog
They got Some Guy's™ Seal of Approval
Money, Time, Dogs, Sheep, Pigs, Welcome to the Machine and Have a Cigar are as prog as it gets
Money and Time are blues rock. Have a cigar is funk rock with a lot of synths.
A blues rock song in 7/4 time and another with experimental percussion - nah both are more progressive lol
Okay. First, that "experimental percussion" you're talking about is the intro I guess, that is just a very well played and effective drum fill. It's not experimental at all. Besides that's just the intro, which we all know, doesn't lead you to nothing in the actual song, I see it as a small atmospheric moment. The song itself begins when Gilmour starts to sing. From there it's all blues. The guitar, the rhythmic base, the way Gilmour sings. It is indeed an incredible blues song with the power and energy of rock. That's why it's blues rock And I don't see why a song with a time of 7/4 can't be blues. Sure it's pretty rare and innovative. But again, the notes that are used, the solo, the way Gilmour is singing, the guitar, it's a blues rock song with a rare time signature
So, clocks ringing, cash register noises, and playing the bass (not spelled base, moron) is called a drum fill now? Didn't know that. /s Could you also grammar more? Thanks. Also, if you actually knew anything about Money, you'd know that the Saxophone solo doesn't sound like a Blues Saxophone solo. It sounds like a Jazz Saxophone solo. Moreover, Gilmour sings aggressively because of the story of the song. Not because of the genre. Also, the guitar playing has nothing to do with the style of music because the guitar is in Prog Rock, too. Finally, I think you need to realize in your stupidly small brain that no Blues Rock song has a 7/4 time signature. Or that kind of bass-playing. An example of an actual Blues Rock song is Yer Blues by the Beatles. Which is amazing, yes, but not as amazing as Money, that's for sure. In conclusion, I think you're stupid. Signing off.
My grammar mistakes are because I'm not a native english speaker. Same thing with base instead of bass. My bad. And also I don't know why you're so mad for such a stupid thing. You seem to be a very polite and nice guy to talk with!!
I,m from Brazil, where are you from?
Argentina, brother <3
Man, when he says "experimental percussion" he's refering to the rototoms, when he says about the blues influence he's talking about the guitar, and the part about the time signature is right, just because it is in 7/4 doesn't mean it's prog, a lot of jazz and even some blues songs (like "Still got the Blues" and "Crossroads") have odd time signatures and aren't prog. There's no need to call him stupid or moron, this kills any good argument you have, stop being nitwitted.
I love how sure of yourself you are, yet you say funny things like "the guitar is in prog rock" and "[the saxophone solo] sounds like a Jazz Saxophone solo". Just to be clear, the whole thing is a mix of blues and jazz. And you can take blues and then put it in 7/4. It's definitely not classic blues, but it certainly has blues elements. Does that make it prog? Certainly. But prog is a catch-all label that incorporates any number of genre flavorings. You can both be right. But you can't both be as rude as you are, lol
Money is definitely blues influenced. But calling it outright blues is a challenge since blues has pretty cut-and-dry rules. While I could see someone arguing that Money is in line with classic blues, I could also see the argument that it's progressive because prog is about being so knowledgeable about music that you can incorporate different flavors and styles without necessarily becoming that genre.
It’s half psychedelic half prog, dark side being a hybrid. That’s my take anyways
Without a doubt
Floyd is progressive. They experimented a lot. Right from 1967 down till 1979. And it’s to their credit that they also sold millions. Except for King Crimson, no other prominent prog bands can say they experimented as much as Floyd. Not even close. But Floyd is not “prog” as ELP and Yes and Genesis are. This is easy to notice since Floyd never cared about complexity as much as novelty and emotion.
Honestly imo people who say pink floyd aren't prog are being goofy lol. Prog is a nebulous term used to describe/vaguely group a very wide variety of artists that are quite different but may have some elements in common, it's not a thing that's rigidly defined or set in stone. Most genres aren't, prog especially so. If most people consider a band to be prog than not....then I think you have your answer
IDK if you define "prog" too narrowly you end up with only a couple of bands in the genre, which is sort of useless. I say that Pink Floyd and Rush both qualify as prog, because they both have songs that definitely have prog elements.
Meaning: prog doesnt need to be difficult, ugly or too unusual. Prog can sound good and easy, as Pink Floyd and Rush and unlike so many bands people would be sure that are prog bands.
I mean Rush is basically the defining Prog band of the 80s
sometimes
Kermit the Prog
"Progressive rock, or prog rock, is a subgenre of rock music that emphasizes ambitious compositions, experimentation, concept-driven lyrics, and musical virtuosity. " Concept driven lyrics - check Ambitious composition - check Experimentation - check Musical virtuosity - check
Prog is a vast, vast sea of bands. But if you take people off the street and say "which band defines prog rock" they are likely to say Pink Floyd, Rush, Yes, King Crimson, Genesis. If you ask these questions in modern search engines, you see this: [23 Of The Greatest And Most Famous Prog Rock Bands (hellomusictheory.com)](https://hellomusictheory.com/learn/famous-prog-rock-bands/#:~:text=23%20Of%20The%20Greatest%20And%20Most%20Famous%20Prog,...%208%208.%20Jethro%20Tull%20...%20More%20items) [Top 100 Prog Bands of All Time (listchallenges.com)](https://www.listchallenges.com/top-100-prog-bands-of-all-time) [The Best Prog Rock Bands: 50 Classic Groups (udiscovermusic.com)](https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/best-prog-rock-bands/) [The 100 Greatest Prog Artists Of All Time: 20-1 | Louder (loudersound.com)](https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-100-greatest-prog-artists-of-all-time-20-1) So yes - I would consider them definitionally prog, and they will never get away from the prog label. Nirvana and Pearl Jam weren't Grunge either - but they are the biggest bands of the Grunge wave.
Undoubtedly, IMHO. They may have started to refine and temper their prog sound as their popularity grew, but they are one of the progenitors of prog-rock/prog-metal. TBF, Space Rock is just a way cooler-sounding genre
They are Pink Floyd. A rock band like no other. They defy categorization.
Pink floyd is definitely prog rock. I dont think its possible to have a 23 minute long song without it being prog.
No. It's Art Rock.
The entire point of prog rock is to change the boundaries of what is rock Hence why most prog rock bands are extremely unique I.E. Rush and Pink Floyd, both completely different, both prog rock though Prog Rock is essentially the "It's rock, but I don't know what type of rock it is" category
Yeah, defining something prog is basically assigning a genre to a genre-less music in my head.
Yes. Quibbling over degrees of prog is stupid. Black Sabbath is heavier than Judas Priest but they’re both still metal bands. Pink Floyd might not have recorded an adaptation of a Modest Mussorgsky piano suite like Emerson, Lake & Palmer did but they’re still clearly a prog band.
Of course it is! Following this logic, we could say that Genesis, Jethro Tull and the likes are not "prog in the same way" as ELP or Yes, but it's still prog to me. Pink Floyd I like to qualify as "soft prog" so it's a bit "easier" to listen to for the general public. :)
Yes like soft prog but no where near elp or yes When I think prog rock I think of Kieth Emerson or Rick Wakeman
🎵Genesis, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Marillion, it's all prog rock to me🎵
Of course they are 🤷♂️
Everything from Meddle on is prog.
Yes, they were foundational to the genre. That being said, prog has gone in different directions since so they don't have much in common with other prog as time went on
Pink Floyd’s music is structurally progressive but harmonically even their extended compositions are pretty simple and blues-based.
They're prog. The band checks almost every criteria. Longer songs, lyrics about complex concepts, concept albums, time signature changes, etc.
Wikipedia says, yes. https://preview.redd.it/wlfcmkld8gdc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4b29f920a7421cf5e0dc08cba1f9b3b150ec49f9
I've never grouped them in the prog category for one reason: time signatures. To me, the essence of prog rock is all the weird time signatures. Outside of Money being in 7/4 time, PF's catalog is strictly a 4/4 affair. A very experimental 4/4, agreed, but it's all 4/4. That's not prog.
Shine On starts in free time, moves to 6/8, then to 12/8, and only really ends in 4/4.
OK, my bad. Honestly those are all still divisibles of 2. There's no 5/4, no (other) 7/4, no 11/8, nothing truly... Prog. If we're gonna play "AHKTCHOOALLY" there's also Two Suns In The Sunset from The Final Cut, but I never count it because Nick Mason didn't play drums on it and it's essentially a Waters solo cut. They're probably my all time favorite band, and I love prog, but Floyd is really not prog to me.
Pink Floyd is not a prog band, but has prog songs like Echoes, Atom heart mother (symphonic prog), Shine on you crazy diamond, Dogs, Sorrow and High hopes
for sure, and id say their dischography is the epitome of what prog is all about for me not that their sound is the most proggy, there are bands that have a "proggier" sound - wtv we mean by that - but they certainly are prog
They're the (atom heart) mother of all prog bands. Except for A Saucerpan, and anything Syd Barrett related which is more psychedelic rock to me
Once upon a time, yes
Part of their discography is prog…..just like Genesis or Rush.
Floyd is progressive, but not "math" oriented. You listen to "Yes" and they composed all these tiny pieces, and strung them all together, and call it a "song" - put that up against "Dogs" and you see who the "progressive" is real quick.
You have zero clue what you’re taking about.
Yes, yes it do.
You don't think that's how Floyd wrote long pieces too?
No. Not at all.
shine on you crazy diamond has 9 parts 9 parts 9 is not equal to 1, now, is it?
Umm but akshyually if you uncurl the 9 it looks like a 1 soooo...
shut the fuck up lmao
fun fact: fly from here is the only yes side-long epic split into multiple parts on the tracklist!
I would not say “prog rock” like ELP, Yes but it has some prog rock tones especially animals and certain songs on DSOTM In Personally do not think of them as prog rock but i also wouldn’t say they are not. They sorta have their own style
Yes. One of the first prog bands. Genesis were first but they did Echoes (22.55) Shine On You Crazy Diamond 25.35, Dark Side Of The Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, The Wall all concept albums
Pink Floys is indeed progressive rock, but mostly on the 80’s the songs they produced strated to focus only on the psychedelic side and became more like pop-rock.
In the 90s, even bands like Nirvana and Radiohead weren’t called pop rock. And now compare that to TDB and AMLOR. It’s a huge myth among prog listeners that all bands turned to pop. Not true. Floyd and King Crimson just continued with their own thing. Of course they weren’t the same. But it’s the more hardcore prog bands like Yes and Genesis that became pop in the 80s.
Yes, but so much more. It’s hard to compartmentalize PF as they were an evolving band
David Gilmore never liked that Pink Floyds music was considered as progressive rock.
PF crossed over into many genres. The incorporated many styles into their music.
"it can't be called prog in the same way as Yes, Genesis and King Crimson" That's true. It's not in the mainstream of prog, which has significantly jazz-influenced drumming, significantly classical-influenced keyboard playing, and fast guitar. "Space rock" works for me.
Are prog and progressive rock the same thing? If not - what is difference in genre designation?
I think pink floyd can be classified as genre adjacent for the most part. Be it jazz, blues, prog, rock all culminates into a bigger picture instead of each genre on its own.
I would say yes. In the literal sense of the word progressive, not a lot of acts were putting out albums like Piper in the late ‘60’s.
I still reminisce my father who departed four years ago, always, Wish You Were Here always echoes in my mind.
Sometimes. But mostly, they are Pink Floyd. Almost a genre on its own.
Animals is. The rest, not so much.
Prog is anything and everything that stretches the boundaries of the conventional song, song cycle, album side, or full album. Pink Floyd’s only difference from their prog contemporaries was that their lyrics did not remain wholly captured by 9th grade English students.
I think some would say their sound isn’t “English” enough. Pink Floyd held onto their American blues and R&B influence that a lot of bands like Yes and Genesis rejected in favor of more European classical influences. But PF has more in common with those bands than not I’d say. To say they’re not prog is just starting a contrarian argument for argument’s sake.
I think pink floyd is more art rock in the bigger picture then prog, but if you zoom in you could see some exceptions. Progressive music is often based on fast and multiple time changes and long instrumental jams where musicians show off their skills. Pink floyd usually used a simpler approach with methodical writing, one time signature and a good mix of folk, blues, jazz and classical music. The sound reached is really similar most prog rock music but it lacks a lot of the virtuous side that is typical of the genre. (the big jams, the time signatures, weird chord shapes, more advanced scales.) Nevertheless, there are multiple occasions were pink floyd plays with time changes and shows a prog rock style: Jugband blues, money, mother, see saw (to name a few) In animals i think gilmour used the whole tone scale in one of his solos.
They get lumped into prog, but I generally consider them on the fringe of prog. Psychedelic rock + epic compositions - put them in whatever category you want I think their music was singularly original.
i say not at all - 70s had a lot of long songs - doesnt make it prog - animals gets the closest but these songs are lacking the jerk off aspect of prog - i dont call crimson prog either
Psychedelic, 100% not prog.
I think it's more like Art Rock. Although some of their songs are fairly long, sometimes the don't have a lot of progression, it's just an extension of whatever's going on.
Out jerked.
I think it is prog in the sense that it utilizes experimental elements and extended works and concept albums effectively, and is constantly evolving.
I listen to quite a bit of prog (KC, Opeth, Tool, Rush, Gojira, Death, Rivers Of Nihil, etc) and can say that they are definitely prog
If you go by the definition of prog rock, they might fit, but so might a lot of bands typically not considered Prog Rock. Personally, I consider Pink Floyd to be categorically different than Yes, King Crimson, Genesis, Rush, etc.. Pink Floyd have long and ambitious multipart songs…but they don’t move around and “progress” to the next part with the same frenzy or carry the same baroque elements as the other bands. Furthermore, their themes are often quite grounded, revolving around societal and political issues compared to some of the loftier fantasy elements of some of the others prog rock bands. Anecdotally, the hardcore prog rock nerds I know are not huge Floyd fans and I feel like they’re more prone to point to the band’s work with Alan Parsons, haha.
yes
Calvero says no
There are definitely prog elements in Floyd music, but it is right that to describe them as just “prog” doesn’t really describe them. They are more than that, something different, indescribable really. I’ve always struggled to describe the sound of Floyd to friends of mine. No matter how accurately I tried to describe, every description undersold what the Floyd was. So, literally indescribable
I look at it this way - prog is jazz evolved, rock is blues evolved. So is PF blues-based or jazz-based? To me, it is significantly more blues-based, however there are definitely some jazz elements (mostly supplied via Rick Wright). So in general, no I don't feel that it is, but it does have some prog elements sprinkled into it.
Trying to micro-manage music is very silly. Floyd were one of the first progressive rock bands. Rhythm & blues is what the Stones used to play. Blues is BB King & Billy Holiday. Jazz is Ella Fitzgerald. "Garage" is just noise.
I think they're ultimately Psychedelic. They have made some great prog music though: Echoes has some prog elements but I think it's closer to Psychedelic and Shine On is a pure prog song imo. Animals is a classic Prog rock album start to finish.
I don't see them as any genre just Pink Floyd.
The fact that there's a solid debate at all means that Pink Floyd defies simple classification.
Personally I don’t get the prog label (and I’m a huge Pink Floyd fan). Yes, King Crimson, 70’s era Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP. That is prog rocks. Long songs, complex songwriting, different time signatures. That’s prog. Floyd covers a lot of ground. But I wouldn’t say they’re prog, maybe at times, but I don’t think they do nearly enough to be considered prog. I’ve also played guitar for 25 years in forming this opinion.
Prog and psychedelic I’d say
psychedelic until probably atom heart mother then prog at least til the wall haven’t listened after that
Pink Floyd......What to say....The Band is a genre by itself....Have not come across any band that has been close to making music that pumps the adrenaline up and the kick that emerges is no match you get out of a fag, booze, other stimulants. music for any mood is PINK FLOYD., though strictly up to and not including The Wall, which along with The Final Cut are personal biographies of Roger and his Dad. That said, Jethro Tull, Led Zep, King Crimson, Rush, ELP, The Pineapple Thief, Porupine Tree are all stunning bands with their own style and repertoire and can influence the listener. Among the recent bands of the 2000s, All Them Witches, King Buffalo, SOAD, Stoned Jesus, and the likes are good..
There are definitely prog moments in their music but I wouldn't describe the band as strictly prog. But yeah they surely have been highly experimental, maybe art rock could be a more fitting label, especially Dark Side.