My first job in 1974. Working in a British Rail signal box. Spending most of my time gazing wistfully out of the window up at the faraway clouds. Daydreaming about Pink Floyd breathing in the air with David Gilmour's languid guitar playing. So much so that Signalman Ron Butcher. Told me to fuck off up to the office and see the old man. I never returned. Nearly half a century latter I still daydream about Pink Floyd....Yes the mighty Floyd are definitely prog.
To be honest, I think the best "argument" in favor of Floyd as prog is the "updating" of the pre-Dark Side catalog by Nick Mason's Saucerful of Secrets - clearly, for a fair amount of time, their ambitions outstripped their instrumental abilities/prowess, but placed in the hands of those with a more virtuosic bent, you can see that the prog roots go deep, deep, into the Pink Floyd origins. Maybe it started out as "art rock", but the prog creds are definitely present throughout. IMHO
I loved that period. More so than when Dark Side came out. I felt they sold out when first heard it. But, Dark Side grew on me to the point where I liked it quite a lot. U mentioned A Saucerful of Secrets. It did, and still does, blow my mind. As for the virtuoso command, maybe they we'rn't, but I never felt they lacked musicianship to the point where I felt they didn't do what they did fantastic enough.
its not an idea the peopl makin music back then never ot together and said lets call it prog it was progresive music being created at the time from the normal rockability the beatles were doing prog in 65/66
@@234cheech Metallian has got a point. Few of these artists said "Let's call it prog rock." The "idea" was/is "Let's stretch the boundaries. Let's try something different & see if it works." The label "progressive" was applied later.
@@patbarr1351 People were calling it "progressive music" in the 60s and "progressive rock" in the early 70s, so that term was definitely around. But eventually "prog rock" came about and that's what people think of as a genre. I think the confusion comes from there being a difference between Progressive Music/Rock and Prog Rock. There is nothing innovative these days about Prog Rock, and it's essentially been stagnant since its inception, e.g. modern prog bands pretending they're "progressive" when really they're just trying to sound like a select few bands from 50 years ago. There's nothing innovative about trying to sound like Genesis in the year 2023.
@@nectarinedreams7208 I would put the artists you refer to in the "neo-prog" category. The Flower Kings & Transatlantic are working with the '70's form the way Nick Waterhouse or The Blasters work with '50's rock. I think there is progressive music around currently that includes a rock beat, so bands like Porcupine Tree, Radiohead , Doves, Air, & The Gathering are bringing genuinely new ideas into music.
Dear Andy, my desert island discs with my buddies in the lock down , desert island prog discs, I said the Island has the works of Shakespeare , the Bible and Dark side.
Go, Andy! Here's a topic I've thought about before. I have no doubt that a lot of early Floyd is firmly prog. The last album in this category would be "Meddle" with its great prog cut "Echoes". The trouble begins with their fantastically popular "Dark Side". The album's popularity and cuts like "Money" push it towards the commercial end. However, like you said, the album shys away from POPpy topics like love and heartbreak. And it has some great instrumentals. "Dark Side" makes us accept the idea of a gray area between prog and non-prog. Perhaps this is the secret of the album's popularity. Of course, I've ragged on you about "long windedness" before. But I want to point out that it was 13 minutes before you addressed the topic of the video. Still, if I wanted a lecture, you would have no substitute. Peace and love, Robert
I enjoy this channel a lot, because not only do you talk about music I like in an insightful way, but you also have a sensible and thoughtful approach to broader issues. It’s nice to hear someone who doesn’t just instinctively denounce people on one side of an argument
Your progometre scale helped me understand the common thread between bands I liked, such as Rush, ELP, Yes, and Pink Floyd. In America, there was an avant-garde jazz composer, Don Ellis, whose complex compositions shared many of these traits, though he composed & orchestrated for large jazz ensembles.
Great point about Nick Mason as a drummer. His tom work on several tracks I love (like Set the Controls off Ummagumma) and his general feel for percussion playing is just so tasty and reeks of intuitive musicianship of the highest order. As for prog, it's so difficult to neatly classify the boundaries when at the time of its development no one even used the term prog, but instead terms like simfo-rock, art rock, etc, while Pink Floyd were first regarded a psychedelic band, then an Underground band, avant-garde, and finally a prog band. I mean, who cares anyway. Having experienced the mid 70's as an avid radio listener, the term prog started being used as a consequence of Progressive Radio. It was possible to hear music that was not part of your standard chart repertoire, which really did include basically anything that was not standard pop. It's there you would hear The Prophet Song by Queen but not Bohemian Rhapsody or I'm in love with MY Car from the same album.
I always thought Mason was the weakest part of the band. In addition, at the time, Bill Bruford, Phil Collins, Carl Palmer, and later, Gavin Harrison, Mike Portnoy, Mike Magini, Neil Peart and so many others were so much better both technically and creatively.
@@jonathanedwards8696 Yes, no one will dispute that. The point was that for all his laziness, sloppiness and very basic abilities he still played some nice parts and had a good feel for tom work. Personally, I rate Michael Giles a better drummer than all those you mentioned, even though I’m also a big fan of most of them.
@@jelk1188 Well, thats a laughable comment. He was like the "Ringo Starr of prog." Just how Ringo got HIS gig, he probably got that gig merely because he was at the right place at the right time.
Interesting you mentioned Scott Walker early in the video Scott was an American but certainly adopted the British Aesthetic so much so he is revered by a whole generation of singers who are very British Jarvis Cocker , Julian Cope , Neil Hannon even Bowie
About the time signature thing: yes, "Money" is in 7/4 (mostly), but it is a pretty straightforward rock song that people can dance to. On the other hand "Mother" from The Wall has a lot of meter changes, but the fact that they had to bring an outside drummer (Jeff Porcaro) to play the song because Nick Mason couldn't handle it shows how unusual that kind of thing was in their music.
But Rick Wright essentially wrote "Great Gig In The Sky" and "Us and Them", therefore the album known as DSOTM is NOT a Waters album. "The Final Cut"........THAT is a Waters album !
A really well argued, insightful and balanced video. So fresh compared to a lot of channels out there and avoiding petty tribalism--bands may be a carcass now, but the music lives on.
I'm a PF fan since 1977 & that ended when RW left in 1985. (I'm not taking sides) Andy you've presented a very compelling argument to support the proposition that Pink Floyd IS indeed a progressive rock band. I think PF are blown-off by some in the hard-core Prog community because they a) aren't 'tricky' and b) they enjoyed mega mainstream success which would appear anathema to what many in prog world might consider appropriate. After all, we like to keep our little treasures close to our hearts. That success alone may make some fans feel like PF sold out to the common man on the street who, frankly, doesn't really have much of a clue about music. Personally, I don't believe they sought out commercial success but simply created something (DSOTM) which connected deeply with a great number of people. From there on they had a platform. Are they prototypical 'prog rock' like Gentle Giant, Yes, ELP? Not even close. They hail from the other end of the prog spectrum. Regarding the Waters/Gilmour inferno: Polly Samson's statement was very inflammatory and bound to illicit a response. I hope she has a good solicitor. Is Waters a megalomaniac? I wouldn't rule that out, however he deserves accolades for driving that band to the pinnacle of artistic excellence.
There is a BBC doc on here somewhere about the top ten prog bands. Some singer goes 'are they prog?" And then they go on to show a dog singing a song, roger beating a gong, zoned out musical asides, and bashing on keyboards.
Absolutely brilliant! You took the words right out of my mouth but added a bunch I couldn't have come up with. I'm going to post something I wrote on a forum a little while ago when this very topic came up (it comes up far too often): "I think a lot of so-called prog fans are way too uptight about what is and isn't prog, and I think this has been a hindrance to the genre's popularity and a detriment to its reputation in the mainstream. These narrow-minded and historically inaccurate definitions of prog, which bizarrely exclude bands like Pink Floyd, actively deter people from giving the genre a proper go. Perhaps that's people's intention - to gatekeep? According to the generally accepted, mainstream definition of progressive rock, Pink Floyd are absolutely a (very important) part of the genre. Google, for example, defines prog rock as "a style of rock music popular especially in the 1970s and characterized by classical influences, the use of keyboard instruments, and lengthy compositions." That is Pink Floyd. The definition on Prog Archives and all print and online dictionaries I've come across also supports Pink Floyd being a prog band. It's only when you dive into people's comments on forums like this that people begin to muddy the waters and support this pedantic differentiation between "progressive rock" and "prog rock" or "a bit prog" and "true prog". It annoys me because, in my view and the view of most music journalists who covered the genre in the 70s, progressive rock was and is supposed to be as far-reaching as possible within the realm of rock and roll. It's all about open-mindedness, eclectic influences and broad strokes. So why try to confine it with narrow definitions? Why is prog only prog when it fits a very specific mould, despite this being the literal opposite of what the genre is all about? Do you really want all prog to sound roughly the same? I know I don't."
Wunderbar Video Andy I have an alternative Perhaps more progressive, in that it is Regressive …. Progmeter. Unfortunately it is too late to unveil it tonight. Perhaps on your next Video. Thanks for all you do Andy.
Fascinating discussion, Andy. I was especially happy that you fired up the Proggometer. I would love you to feed other contentious bands into it. Bands such as Moody Blues or Procol Harem would could certainly provide a challenge to its calibrations. Speaking of which, I would ask you to consider the following: although classic prog bands concern themselves lyrically with more than partying and 'chatting up' the opposite sex, I would add the following proviso: prog bands often couch the chatting up with an idealization of the opposite sex. In the case of male-oriented bands, the female essence is often elevated to an abstract (goddess) level. "Julia Dream" (Floyd), "Heart of the Sunrise" (Yes), "Lady Fantasy" (Camel), "Still You Turn Me On" (ELP), etc. are very proggy indeed. Perhaps this is part of the "English Aesthetic" but I think it's more nuanced than that. Worth a look. Appreciated the Gilmore/Waters discussion as well. With them, it's not about money as they both have enough. It's about recognizing creative input and/or supremacy. The final outcome will be to further erode the legacy of the band.
I was heavy into the Prog scene, but had never even heard of Pink Floyd until 'Dark Side of the Moon' was released. 'Money' was getting heavy play, and I really dug the bassline, but I that was all I knew of them. I was with a friend, hitching a ride when a guy pulled over to offer us a ride. As soon as we were in he excitedly said he had the new Pink Floyd album, on 8-track, and played it for us. I wasn't impressed with it on first listen, though later, after getting it on vinyl, which made me have to really listen because of the lack of distraction, I changed my opinion. I thought it was a good Space Rock album. Like I said, I was heavy into Prog, listening to PFM, Yes, ELP, and the like, but whenever it came to thinking of Pink Floyd in that vein, I always considered them 'Prog-Lite' Sure they were spacey and trippy and do things like timing changes and all, but I have never really thought of Pink Floyd as being 'True Prog.' I do have all their albums; I was having medical issues on 2020 (not c-19 related) and started going out and buying the entire cataligoues of bands I either didn't have any album of, or only had one or two. Pink Floyd was one of those bands... I have listened to every single album, with headphones (and the proper headspace), but still PF is still on the fringes of Prog to me. 'Aniamals' is an amazing album, and my favorite of theirs, but I can't stop thinking of it more as a 'Guitar' album than a Prog one.
About genres, they're not only there for the industry. Genres are where the forms you can then push against, or mix up, or develop and open up, are being worked out. Without genres, there are no limits to push, and no idioms to speak in.
First album is completely psychedelic, 2nd till Ummagumma is experimental rock, with some glimpses of early prog such Procol Harum’s Shine on Brightly and even Canterbury scene, Atom and Meddle are pure experimental prog, with glimpses of psychedelic rock, however from Obscured By Clouds till Animals is 100% space prog, if you hear some Hawkwind stuffs from same era, you’ll find many similarities. The Wall is a kind of opera rock, but is a mix between Pink Floyd and Roger Waters solo works, Final Cut is most likely all RW solo works, not worth wasting time listening to. Momentary Lapse is a Gilmour solo album trying to sound like PF, Division is definitely a space prog rock effort, whilst Endless is basically made from its studio leftovers
I think up until Animals certainly, however different than their contemporaries. They didn’t have the virtuosity that other prog bands did but the experimentation, lyrical themes, etc, most definitely. I’ve always thought of them as more of an experimental band really esp 67-75. With WYWH the experimentation definitely halted imo. That said I feel like WYWH and Animals are their proggiest albums, at least in the sense of the word prog as we know it. I’m with you though I think Atom Heart and Dark Side are their absolute masterpieces. If Meddle didn’t have San Tropez and Seamus (just redundant songs imo) then I’d probably put that in there too. I think the title track of AHM is an amazingly original experimental work of art, truly pushing the boundaries of music.
Darn, Andy. now you're really starting to make sense. The part between about 20 and 25 minutes in of this video were so full of insight, that the biscuit crumbs fell out my moustache!
Andy, you make some great points. I agree with your position that often great bands break apart because of the inequity among the members. You mentioned that bands who divide things equally from the beginning often stick together. An example of that was/is REM. When they formed, they divided everything equally among the 4 bandmembers and included their manager (who was a law professor at UGA in Athens, GA, where the band formed) with an equal share. They stuck together until their drummer had to retire due to health concerns. I was in Athens when REM were coming up. They seemed to possess great camaraderie throughout their history. I do have a bone to pick with your "progometer". Two of your criteria are noting English kids singing in their native accents and the presence of your "English aesthetic". Now, I don't view those as fair criteria because they stake out 2 positions that non-English bands can never have. Non-English bands start behind by 20% on your scale. Your "progometer" is too heavily weighted toward English bands and is unfair to everyone else. I understand why you have included them - because you see prog as heavily English in its origins and influences. (And you are probably right in this view.) But, your criteria have to be able to be fairly applied to all bands, regardless of where they are from. Should Kansas, the Dixie Dregs, and the Flaming Lips, for example, or Riverside, Opeth or other European prog bands, not be defined as prog simply because they aren't English enough? Of course not....
I have a video coming out on Rush next week. They score in both those categories. They score very high on the Prog-o-meter. They are also the biggest prog band ever to not come from the UK...strange that isn't it....
Once we pass over the silly entertaining and greatly done scoring of Pink Floyd, your speech on morals, truth, beauty and ideology, is up there with the great pragmatic philosophers. I will re-play this for my kids, when they are in their late teens. Lets hope the youtube cloud stays alive 10 years from now 🙂
"Proto-prog is the earliest work associated with the first wave of progressive rock music, known then as "progressive pop". Such musicians were influenced by modern classical and other genres usually outside of traditional rock influences. They often employed longer and more complicated compositions, interconnected songs as medley, and studio composition .Some of the artists that were essential to the development of progressive rock, rather than just anticipating the movement, include the Beatles, the Beach Boys, the Doors, the Pretty Things, the Zombies, the Byrds, the Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd." - Wiki
From about early 1970 thru December 1972 the live Pink Floyd were the most wildly experimental and improvisational rock act in existence. While they may not have had the prog "chops" of ELP, they used their synergistic gifts to create sound sculptures more akin to free jazz that was very influenced by their architectural roots (Waters/Mason). IMO they fully earned their prog status in January 1972 by taking a completely unheard 45 minute song cycle called 'Eclipse' to unsuspecting audiences and proceeded to fine tune and craft it live every night, which was completely unheard of at the time (what balls it must have taken!!!!). The growth in the suite between the first Brighton show in January to Zurich in December 1972 is stunning. This of course would become DSOTM later in 1973 but they had been steadily building the roots through their live work (Saucerful->1969 'Man and the Journey' Suite->AHM->Echoes->DSOTM). 100% prog!!!
Wildly experimental, sure. Brilliant, of course. Prog, depends on how you define it. Back in the day, Pink Floyd was in a class by itself, if memory serves.
Oh wow, that Birmingham show in early 1970 is Pink Floyd at their most "What the hell were they thinking?" Most of the show was material they either never played or only started playing the previous month or that 25 minute piece of WTFery of unreleased Zabrieskie Point instrumentals. Us, now: "Why?. Them, then: "Why not?" And there's the reason why I say "Us and Them".
You're wrong. Between 1971 and 1975, King Crimson was the most improvisational rock band that existed. No other band had the balls to come out on stage and do TOTAL group improvisations, starting from nothing.
Interesting points regarding Waters, DSoM and that everything counts when creating music. I wonder what you think about all the issues that the Maha. Orchestra had regarding these issues. (Which eventually led to the breakup of the first and most influential version of the band).
I really enjoyed this video, as I enjoy most all of your videos. You mentioned an artist, however, that I think merits a video of his own, and that’s Scott Walker. As an American your age, I only really knew Scott Walker’s work with the Walker Brothers. However, a son of mine turned me on to him as a solo artist and needless to say, his eponymously and sequentially named solo LPs are nothing like his pop work with his non-sibling Walker Brothers, none of whom were actually named Walker. Something like “The Electrician” I believe your meter would approve. And, finally, with respect to the elusively defined “English esthetic,” I believe Pink Floyd defined perfectly in a lyric from “Time”: “Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.” The time has come, my comment is over, thought I’d something more to say.
As someone who drank primal prog for mother's milk, let me just report that my journey into what would be the progiverse was launched by Pink Floyd, and specifically, Ummagumma, which was light years ahead of anything else in the musical world, shy of jazz, contemporary classical and world music, which became the go-to place after the magical year of 1973, when the pinnacle had been reached. Listen to Ummagumma and put that point back in the IsProg column for Floyd's percussive inventiveness, which to some may have been over the top, and may have been why Mason later pulled it back in. Floyd is more like Moody Blues in many ways than say Yes or King Crimson, but only at Dark Side and after. Some would say the Moodies are not prog either, on similar grounds. But many of Pinder's songs attain that heavenly sound also associated with prog and classical but little else. Is Floyd prog? Consider the alternative. Is Floyd regressive? Only after a time, perhaps. Early days they were the very definition of progressive, visionary, and so on, but later began to regress toward familiar forms (I'm guessing, I only know their earlier works, but figure they could travel the same road as Genesis, Yes, and ELP who also regressed after a time). Only the King remained constant in its change.
The Moody Blues were definitely "progressive" in 1967, doing things no one else did, pushing outside the usual scope, which is what the term "progressive" means. So were Cream and Hendrix. The very idea of producing albums that had a unity or some sort of theme was a progression outside of the collection of "b-sides" added to a hit single that had been common fare until then. In 1968-70, Pink Floyd were the most radical of "prog" bands.
Just because Floyd was improvisational didn't make them progressive. Musical improvisation has been going on since the first human walked the earth. In addition, in Wikipedia's definition of progressive rock, it is mentioned that instrumental virtuosity is a major ingredient, and no one in Floyd was a virtuoso. @@Leo_ofRedKeep
Finally you proved unequivocally that Pink Floyd is prog. I’ll just save the link to this video to drop in anti-PinkFloyd-Prog conversations and threads.
Thoroughly enjoyed the topic. Excellent. I love Pink Floyd and Roger is brilliant. I thought that his comment that later Floyd was a good facsimile was spot on.
Thank you Andy ! Here's or version of Pink Floyd Echoes: ua-cam.com/video/QWInOb5BkdA/v-deo.html Greetings from INTERSTELLAR OVERDRIVE (The Pink Floyd Experience)
Andy, Good show. I think those who argue against Pink Floyd not being Prog would say with your Progometer, you don't give enough weight to musical complexity and virtuosity. That is the use of shifting tempos, odd time signatures, moving into different key signatures, modal modulation, use of counterpoint and the technical ability to play complex music is a more defining part of Prog compared to some of the other categories in your Progometer. For example, replace Gentle Giant's lyrics on Three Friends or Power and the Glory with lyrics written by Taylor Swift or Beyonce and Gentle Giant would still be considered Prog, because their music checks the main boxes that is most important to the question of is it Prog. If Pink Floyd's Wall or Dark Side of the Moon had lyrics about " How my woman did me wrong" we would not have the same argument. It's kind of like taking an exam where there are 20 multiple choice questions and 1 essay question. The essay question is worth 50% of your grade. You can get all the multiple choice questions correct, but screw up the essay and your done. Personally, I think Pink Floyd's grade is more around 72-75 because I put more weight on music complexity and virtuosity when weighing is it Prog. A Gentleman's C. Thus, they fall into the Prog realm. But, it's a good thing they didn't miss either the concept or long form questions.
Then by your criteria classical music and jazz fusion is more prog than prog. But it is not compexity or virtuosity that makes prog prog. It's a tiny component. My criteria maybe off Ibut I see no one with better!) but the fact is there are other factors.If you changed the lyrical content of Gentle Giant they would still score high becuase they are very proggy, but keep changing the criteria down the list and very soon they would not sound proggy. There is not one common criteria that makes something proggy, it is a cllection of criteria
Andy, My point is I think musical complexity and virtuosity should be more heavily weighted than the other categories. I did not say it existed in a vacuum. I did say that Pink Floyd is Prog. But, they have to tick off a few more boxes than Gentle Giant who does check the big ones in my estimation, which is the musical complexity and virtuosity boxes. However, if that was the only boxes they checked, they would not be Prog. Bela Fleck, Sam Bush and Tony Rice can absolutely shred on their respective instruments, top shelf virtuosos. But, they are Bluegrass musicians ( some label them PROGRESSIVE Bluegrass). They only check a couple of boxes in the Prog categories. Big ones, but not nearly enough boxes to make them Prog or close to it. So, no, there has to be more than just virtuosity and complexity. As for Jazz Fusion, didn't 70s Mahavisnu Orchestra, some RTF and for a modern fusion band , the Aristocrats cross into Prog territory pretty heavily? Yes released Relayer, which certainly swims heavily in the Fusion territory to name a Prog band that went the other way. But, Yes would not be listed as a Jazz Fusion band. And what about Chicago and not the 80s hit making machine? I'm talking about the 68 - 77 outfit that was a Jazz Rock outfit. But, some of their stuff could be Prog. Lee Loughnane, Robert Lamm and James Pankow all studied music in College. Walter Parazaider received a Bachelor's of Arts Degree in Classical Clarinet Performance from DePaul University. Chicago borrowed from jazz and classical music. The band was full of first class musicians and their music could be quite complex. But, at the end of the day, although they could be Proggy and often they definitely went heavily into Jazz Fusion, Chicago 7 being a notable example of that. In fact, Chicago 7 doesn't have vocals until 25 minutes into the album and goes heavily into Jazz Fusion. That album in the genre listing is listed as Jazz Fusion, Jazz, Progressive Rock, Symphonic Rock and Soft Rock ( Because of the hit I've been Searching So Long that's on the album). That's a long way to getting to, no virtuosity and complexity does not make a band Prog or Jazz Fusion or Classical as my examples of the Bluegrass musicians and the band Chicago show. I just think it's a bigger part of the equation than what you believe. Yet, at the end of the day I agree that Pink Floyd is Prog, just as you do, despite the band lacking instrumental virtuosity and musical complexity. The only disagreement we have is to what degree they fit in the Prog World. I think they are in the stadium, whereas you believe they are on the field.
@@ciciusss Perhaps you are taking the prog-o-meter a bit too seriously? But to look at your points...Pink Floyd don't lack virtuosity. Compared to many bands they had greater technique than say The Ramones,, U2, The Beatles, The Stones etc. But if you were to analyse the virtouso level of the average pop performer musician, ie. those that play for Taylor Swift of Justin Beiber, these musicians technique dwarf most skills of prog musicians. So you can't weight this like you said. It would pointlessly give weight to an attribute that is in fact in all music making.
But Andy, the fact that you did a show on is Pink Floyd Prog are you not taking it a bit seriously? I just brought up that I put a bit more weight on a few categories when evaluating Prog than you do, that's all. You ask that we give you our thoughts and I did. Whether Pink Floyd is Prog or not doesn't really have a bearing on whether I like them or not. As far as the session musician vs Prog musician, it can get a bit murky. Tony Levin is known as a Prog musician who played with King Crimson and is considered a part of that band. But, he's done a ton of session work. What about Guthrie Govan? Made a name as a Prog / Fusion guitarist, but is a bit of a hired hand. But, Govan would not consider himself a session guitarist. And how many session guitarist can out play Govan? Jordan Rudess, Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman, and Kerry Minnear have incredible technique that I would put against any session musician. And in Wakeman's case he did do studio work. He left the Academy after talking to his Music Professor who said the school didn't have anything else to teach him. Tim Pierce is a phenomenally successful session guitarist. But, he would be the first to tell you he is not Steve Morse or Allan Holdsworth to name a couple Prog / Fusion musicians. Tom Buchavac is a top Nashville session cat but loves Steve Howe and speaks to Howe's versatility, which would be an essential talent as a studio musician. And how many session drummers have better drumming skills than a Gavin Harrison or Marco Minnemann? Carl Palmer has talked about how he turned his back on being a session musician because he wanted to do his own thing. The big difference between the session guys and the Prog musicians is that session guys can generally read music, which is big, particularly when you are talking about film scores. It's true that you can form your own Prog band and that your ability to read music, ability to get it right quickly, which is essential to being a successful session musician is not as important. But, the legendary session guys like Tommy Tedesco, Hal Blaine, Glen Campbell, Carol Kaye, Larry Carlton, Bernard Purdie, Lee Sklar, Brent Mason, Steve Gadd, Steve Luthaker, Jeff Porcaro, Steve Porcaro, or Dean Parks are they that much better than say Keith Emerson, Gavin Harrison, Phil Collins, Guthrie Govan, Neil Peart, Steve Hackett, Robert Fripp, John Petrucci, Yvette Young or a Steve Morse? I think all these guys would say no. And how would you measure that anyway? And if you want top flight technique, few can touch classical musicians. John Williams is in my opinion the greatest classical guitarist to pluck a nylon string guitar. Some of the pieces he plays are technically beyond most players ( including those session guitarists) and he does it with extraordinary precision. But, conversely, would he have been a good session guitarist? Maybe? In film scores and the like yes. But, what about in the world of the rock / jazz sessions which calls for coming up with parts and improvisation. That is a world that classical musicians with all their phenomenal technique is a bit foreign.
Great video and so glad you finally got that progometer working but I believe it needs tweaking Applying the 10 attributes Zappa comes up Prog and I just can’t get myself to that conclusion So it bears the question Zappa , Prog ?
Of course Zappa was "west coast prog.," but for me, his lyrics were so adolescent, childish, and irritating, I could never listen to him. In a sense, his lyrics weren't "prog."
Andy, I like the approach you take in your video feeds. I've often maintained Frank Zappa released the first Progressive Rock Album. "Freak Out" has all of the musical attributes you mention. To my ear, there are even touches of progressive rock scattered throughout the compositions of Led Zeppelin. Even Elvis was progressive in 1954. I did however like your Zappa deep dive. I have 30 of his 61 albums and found myself often agreeing with your assessment of his albums. For me, the beauty of Progressive Rock is in its intellectualism . I agree with you though, progressive rock is more than, "difficult compositions". Seeing Pink Floyd Live at Randwick Racecourse in 1971 is a musical highlight in my now 69 years of age. Stay safe and go well.
@@jonathanedwards8696 I am not sure why you feel the need to reply to a comment I made on this website many months ago. However, you are correct. I have never seen King Crimson, wish I had back in the day. I do like KC and have 4 albums by them. "Larks Tongues In Aspic" would have to be my favorite closely followed by "RED". Stay safe and go well.
Nice topic for a discussion. I would say they were surely progressive up to some point. They made some great albums while being progressive, and even after. But prog? Rarely and unconsequentialy, sometimes even unvoluntarlily (Atom Heart Mother suite), so not really. They were proggish here and there, but I dont think labeling them as prog does them justice. Pink Floyd just doesn't seem to fit the typical prog bands list: Yes, ELP, King Crimson, Genesis, Camel, Caravan, Gentle Giant, Van Der Graaf Generator etc. They were a different breed to me. I know back in the day any slightly adventurous band was called progressive, e.g. Ten Years After (btw: I like them very much). Here I use the term prog in its narrowed down, contemporary meaning: virtuoso musicians mixing rock with many genres (classical and/or jazz influences included) in a startling way, often within one song, using rapid tempo and mood changes. All the above-mentioned prog bands were doing these things in their prog phase, PF didn't. There is also a tendency to use the term prog in a wider sense, (encompasing bands like Asia), but to me its no point in using the term so broad, that almost any band would fit. I exaggerate (a bit), but you know what I mean. So to me, PF were not a prog band, but it doesnt make them worst than the others. They were great in their own way. In too many ways to be pigeonholed with the other prog artists.
Nobody in Pink Floyd was good enough for them to be considered prog. According to Wikipedia, instrumental virtuosity is an important element of prog. I guess in a sense, they could be considered "easy listening prog."
Generally agree with your assessment.😂 this reminds me to recommend doing a video on a close cousin of prog: Art Rock. What is it? Who plays it? What makes it different from prog?
I think Art Rock was what journalists called prog rock before this term existed. Not exactly the same, but pretty close. One exception (that is, a band that was called art rock but is not prog rock) was the Velvet Underground. And perhaps Spirit.
I’m only interested in the music. With PF, the whole is simply greater than the sum of its parts, regardless of how vocal and opinionated some of those parts have been.
Robert Plant, in an interview during the BBC In Concert performance between the first two albums, called Zeppelin progressive blues, like Jethro Tull and Ten Years After. Those three bands are very distinct from one another. Black Sabbath were a progressive rock band when they started, because there wasn't such a thing as Heavy Metal. All album based bands were progressing the music, all were 'progressive'. As more bands became influenced by the originators of a certain style, they got lumped together according to certain commonalities, then a name got applied to that group. Then sub genres emerged according to the differences from the main group. Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Focus were progressive according to the contemporary press in the early Seventies, then were labelled as Hard or Heavy Rock as the years went on. Thin Lizzy, Status Quo, AC/DC were Heavy Metal at one point, but became Hard or Heavy Rock as bands like Judas Priest and Motorhead defined Heavy Metal as another thing entirely. In the Eighties, the NWOBHM further pushed this, at the same time as 'Progressive' became 'Prog', as Marillion, Twelfth Night and Pallas further defined that genre. In the end, who cares ? I like each individual artist for what THEY do, I'm more likely to dig a band if they are doing something different from everything else, not if they sound like somebody else.
I know Robert very well, he hates prog. He does have a soft spot for Yes however but he is a sucker for a good tune. But what John Paul Jones brought to that band was progressive and anyone describing Battle of Evermore as Heavy Blues Rock aint listening! The issue with prog is that it was demonised and it's influence expunged from the grand narrative NWOBHM is dripping in prog, it is a major influence on that style. Brian Tatler told me this personally and of course Steve Harris and Bruce Dickenson are huge prog fans
Remember, the first King Crimson album came out six months before the first Black Sabbath album. King Crimson was the originator of progressive rock, AND heavy metal.
When I started to listen to this music all these bands - PF, ELP, King Krimson, Yes and the like were classified as art rock genre. The term progressive was hardly ever heard of. Than in course of time these groups gradually turned "progressive". What did they do to transgress to the other genre? One needs more than just a record or two in a new style to surpass the heritage of previous years. Did these bands really change their style so much that at some point in time they stuck to a new style? More than that, to a different genre? When? Some of them even disbanded while still being called "art-rock" and started being classified as "prog" quite some time later, when some of their members were already dead. We can surmise that critics and journalists were not quite to the point in the early 70-es but later they found new and better criteria the light of which dispersed the previous darkness and showed everyone, who called the genre "art rock", the depth of their fallacy. But is there any evidence of such an arguement? Some people may have written monographs, or essays, or if only any newspaper articles? Where are these texts? Interviews? No? Nothing? If so, it might mean that we fecklessly repeat words, meaning of which escapes us. And, by the way, with hard rock and heavy metal it's exactly the same story, if we have in mind the bands like LZ or DP. A peculiar thing - 4 first Deep Purple alboms are also sometimes called "progressive" in a hindsight. Or it may be that there are prog bands and art rock bands and both terms have the right to be? One wonders. And why "progressive"? What progress is there in their music? Are their musicians acolytes of Leibniz, who coined the term? Or, perhaps, they are adherents of conception of Enlightment like Diderot and Montesquieu? Or, maybe, we ought not to think too much about the meaning of words?
I'm not sure that I care what the answer to this question is. All I care is "Were they creating music that I enjoy?". Or maybe "Did they write songs which meant something to me, personally?". I am sure I don't care what's the latest bitterness Roger has to say about his former bandmates. Or what bitterness he has towards the fans of what Pink Floyd continued to do after Roger left. I think some of his solo work was excellent, but I didn't enjoy some of his other releases at all.
Like Neil Degrasse Tyson said: "beyond the laws of physics, everything is opinion". And I totally agree with you on Waters - Gilmour. And I will say the way Polly handled his opinion was ridiculous. But I bet she knew he was about to speak at the UN. It was a poor attempt to cancel him. And as far as his legacy, he is totally mistreated in my opinion. Like you argued: the success of the early work is largely due to Roger Waters.
Yes...I might not agree with him on anything and I do think sometimes people pick on Israel more than they do other countries that are doing similar things, and that can be a bit dodgy. But I hate people throwing terms at people like 'racist' because it is just an attempt to discredit through character assasination
@@AndyEdwardsDrummer indeed, I'm pretty sure Waters isn't any of that. And I bet he has no problems with the individual Israeli. But that doesn't mean you can't have an option on the country or the situation in the region. Polly didn't had to post that tweet in an attempt to murder his character. Polly who now lives a very comfortable life due to Rogers work.
Give them the point for time signatures too. I bet you’ll find as many examples of odd time signatures as you can find of fantasy or science fiction subject matter. You’d be right on both counts.
No.......Roger Waters is the wealthiest member. The latest (2022) Sunday Times Rich List shows Waters at £ 190 million pounds. Dave Gilmour on £ 116 million and Nick Mason on £ 110 million pounds.
Have you listened to Pink Floyd before they became Floyd, when they were still trying to be a British blues band? Syd Barrett was clearly not at all comfortable in the role of bluesman. In the way that say Peter Green was. You can already hear Syd trying to warp the format a little bit. Blues for all it being probably the most important musical development of the 20th century (given all it spawned), is very restricted in format and lyrical content. If you mix in jaz it gets a lot broader, but lyrically it's sex and injustice and that's all. I once heard an authentic blues song, black artist from the US, singing a Christmas-themed blues, and my god it was so wrong. You can't sing about Christmas from within the confines of a proper blues song with jingly bells in the background... and you can't sing about gnomes and owning a cloak neither. So my long-winded point is that Syd and Floyd needed prog just to be themselves.
Pink Floyd are prog for beginners. We all have to start somewhere. Personally, that's how I got into progressive rock and I still love Pink Floyd to this day.
Unless a band makes a prior "we'll divide it equally" agreement or a piece is instrumental only, in your experience Andy, is there any wriggle room on the equal music/lyrics copyright split?
No I don't think so. It's far more convaluted and complex than the general public knows. In most cases royalties go to ex wives, or relatives of ex wives, or managers who managed to get their name on the writing credits etc. Most huge songs are by dead people and there are many people out there living off the proceeds of songs that someone wrote, then died, and then their wife inherited the royalties, then they died and it went to a distant relative of them. I'm telling this just to show how messy it can get. Who lives off Lennon's royalties? Who lives off Kurt Cobain's royalties. Is not Kris N from Nirvana worthy of at least a bit of the writing credit for those songs over who ever is getting them now. Is it his kids? or does Courtney Love get it all? did he leave a will determining this? etc
“Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is THE BEST.” Frank Zappa "Quiet desperation, it's the British way" Does it get more Prog? Or more British. Great episode Thanks
But he also wrote Lord, have mercy on the people in england/For the terrible food this people must eat So not sure it included english music He accepted Gentle Giant, but the English didn't really love them so much back then
I'd say the system you created is good but there are some issues: 1) You've weighted each of the ten as being equal. I'd say some are worth more than others 2) Two of them rely on englishness and I feel like that isn't required
It would be more fruitful to argue if Led Zeppelin was prog instead of Pink Floyd, whom I have always considered a prog band since I first heard them in 1972.
I've liked the progometer since you made it up a few months ago . So yes, Pink Floyd is prog, not doubt. I also agree they have been boring since Waters left, Actually, for me, The Wall was spotty as well. As for the English Aesthetic video, I didn't comment. As an American, I get it, but I don't have it. I'm a little envious. I don't want to ramble on about it and sound like a doofus. Different subject - is the new Rain release coming to the US in cd format? It's not available on Amazon yet. I don't like streaming or downloading from i-tunes. I'm old school, I want the physical media. If there's a way to get it, please let me know.
PF isn't prog cus it isn't twiddly enough and the music is too slow. That's because they can't play fast. They do a lot of funerial dirges. I think what was special about their best stuff was a kind of refined restraint and sense of balance and timbre. The actual noise it makes is so suggestive of non musical realities. If you've studied music and had a go at composing you know this is the aim but it's hard to suggest anything beyond the notes, even if they are good. For instance Wright's keyboard lines are so evocative. Waters best lyrics are also as good as any famous 'proper' poet. The way they used the Abbey Road studio facilities was also key. Particularly that metal reverb plate. It creates a really architectural sense of space like you are listening in some enormous building or Valhalla itself :) OK they are prog for category purposes, I was just being awkward.
agree on PF hitting your list of 10 quite satisfactorily. Personally i go further than you in downgrading the value of the "virtuosity" element in prog. acknowledge that some musicians and bands are more virtuoso than others but it's all so relative that the "scale" of relative difference can be dialed up or down. It's pretty sad of prog fans to claim virtuosity as their own when on a scale that compares the prog best with Charlie Parker or Art Tatum they would lose badly. On that scale the guys in Yes are probably closer to Gilmore level than the aforementioned. But beyond that virtuosity is a "musicians" standard. It is set by musicians and measured by musicians and the vast majority of non musicians in audience just follow the opinion of the musicians. And i fundamentally disagree with this being an important aspect of musical ranking because it's not the virtuosity that affects the non musician listener. Most rock fans have no idea where Nick Mason ranks in terms of virtuosity without googling it. It's why I tune out when Rick Beato starts talking about chord changes ..they mean nothing to me. There must be much more to music that allows it to appeal to non musicians, and that which exclusively titillates (word specifically chosen).other musicians is imo the least important.
I used to have a friend and we would have this argument over and over again. He didn’t like Pink Floyd, so it made it easier for him to discount them. But we are both progressive rock fans, and we agree that king crimson and yes I really the epicenter of progressive rock. But his parameters were tighter than mine. And he insisted that to be progressive rock you had to be able to play fast complicated chords in notes, and as Allan Holdsworth would say tricky Dicky’s, which is something Pink Floyd does not do, and I would agree, then that they are on the outer rim of progressive rock. But they are every bit as progressive rock as a caravan or a camel.
Egocentric Bias makes me think my opinions are correct and worth more. If only Waters and Gilmour could channel this "stuff" into some new music. Separately of course.
The Beatle's Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, and the White Album are fairly progressive in my opinion. It doesnt have guitar solos like Pink Floyd but it's still quite out there and started the prog rock psychedelic rock bandwagon.
PINK FLOYD Are most definitely Prog, just Not Traditional Prog! It depends which albums are in question as well. Some are more Prog than others. They are Art rock and Experimental first and foremost.. The Floyd are just plain unique! There are pleanty of YES & Genesis immitators for sure, but not many Floyd immitators that I know of. I may be wrong however, but pretty close in my guess. What is PROG? Prog does not follow rules, it never has and never will! It Progresses and changes when it wants to, that is why Prog is an aquired taste, and most people do not understand Prog! People who think Floyd is not Prog are fencing themselves into a set of rules of what Prog is not. This is all IMHO BTW.
In my experience, most of the people who don't consider Pink Floyd prog are people who don't want to like prog. But they LOVE Pink Floyd. So how could Pink Floyd POSSIBLY be prog?
Progressive rock was originally a wide-ranging genre. Back in 1970 we had the Bath Festival of Blues and Progressive Music in which ironically Pink Floyd performed. We can all agree they were never blues. It is only in more recent times history has been rewritten mainly by those who don't like their favourites being labelled as prog. A bit like this - Person A "I hate prog". Person B "But you like Pink Floyd!" Person A "Pink Floyd aren't prog."
My first job in 1974. Working in a British Rail signal box. Spending most of my time gazing wistfully out of the window up at the faraway clouds. Daydreaming about Pink Floyd breathing in the air with David Gilmour's languid guitar playing. So much so that Signalman Ron Butcher. Told me to fuck off up to the office and see the old man. I never returned. Nearly half a century latter I still daydream about Pink Floyd....Yes the mighty Floyd are definitely prog.
Pretty typical of the lazy, drop out loser mentality of PF fans.
To be honest, I think the best "argument" in favor of Floyd as prog is the "updating" of the pre-Dark Side catalog by Nick Mason's Saucerful of Secrets - clearly, for a fair amount of time, their ambitions outstripped their instrumental abilities/prowess, but placed in the hands of those with a more virtuosic bent, you can see that the prog roots go deep, deep, into the Pink Floyd origins. Maybe it started out as "art rock", but the prog creds are definitely present throughout. IMHO
I agree...and Mason is a very underated drummer
I loved that period. More so than when Dark Side came out. I felt they sold out when first heard it. But, Dark Side grew on me to the point where I liked it quite a lot. U mentioned A Saucerful of Secrets. It did, and still does, blow my mind. As for the virtuoso command, maybe they we'rn't, but I never felt they lacked musicianship to the point where I felt they didn't do what they did fantastic enough.
All I know is when it comes to Dark Side, you may also want to include Parsons work here as well
Prog is an IDEA not just a sound!
its not an idea the peopl makin music back then never ot together and said lets call it prog it was progresive music being created at the time from the normal rockability the beatles were doing prog in 65/66
@@234cheech Metallian has got a point. Few of these artists said "Let's call it prog rock." The "idea" was/is "Let's stretch the boundaries. Let's try something different & see if it works." The label "progressive" was applied later.
@@patbarr1351 People were calling it "progressive music" in the 60s and "progressive rock" in the early 70s, so that term was definitely around. But eventually "prog rock" came about and that's what people think of as a genre. I think the confusion comes from there being a difference between Progressive Music/Rock and Prog Rock. There is nothing innovative these days about Prog Rock, and it's essentially been stagnant since its inception, e.g. modern prog bands pretending they're "progressive" when really they're just trying to sound like a select few bands from 50 years ago. There's nothing innovative about trying to sound like Genesis in the year 2023.
@@nectarinedreams7208 I would put the artists you refer to in the "neo-prog" category. The Flower Kings & Transatlantic are working with the '70's form the way Nick Waterhouse or The Blasters work with '50's rock. I think there is progressive music around currently that includes a rock beat, so bands like Porcupine Tree, Radiohead , Doves, Air, & The Gathering are bringing genuinely new ideas into music.
Excactly!
Pink Floyd combined prog and funk. Pink Floyd is funky. Bass line Echoes. Absolute MONSTER groove.
@@deetee4403have a cigar and young lust, run like hell… money
Dear Andy, my desert island discs with my buddies in the lock down , desert island prog discs, I said the Island has the works of Shakespeare , the Bible and Dark side.
Go, Andy! Here's a topic I've thought about before. I have no doubt that a lot of early Floyd is firmly prog. The last album in this category would be "Meddle" with its great prog cut "Echoes". The trouble begins with their fantastically popular "Dark Side". The album's popularity and cuts like "Money" push it towards the commercial end. However, like you said, the album shys away from POPpy topics like love and heartbreak. And it has some great instrumentals.
"Dark Side" makes us accept the idea of a gray area between prog and non-prog. Perhaps this is the secret of the album's popularity.
Of course, I've ragged on you about "long windedness" before. But I want to point out that it was 13 minutes before you addressed the topic of the video. Still, if I wanted a lecture, you would have no substitute. Peace and love, Robert
Pink Floyd is "easy-listening prog."
@@jonathanedwards8696 OK. I'll buy that!
I enjoy this channel a lot, because not only do you talk about music I like in an insightful way, but you also have a sensible and thoughtful approach to broader issues. It’s nice to hear someone who doesn’t just instinctively denounce people on one side of an argument
Thanks for listening
You make me reflect, you educate, and you make me laugh. Good combination.
The brilliant keyboard wizard Jon Carin is truly the man in the middle, he must be so flustered by this feud!
I don't think he's in the middle. He appears to have very much taken a side according to his comments on social media.
@@nectarinedreams7208 what were his comments?
Your progometre scale helped me understand the common thread between bands I liked, such as Rush, ELP, Yes, and Pink Floyd. In America, there was an avant-garde jazz composer, Don Ellis, whose complex compositions shared many of these traits, though he composed & orchestrated for large jazz ensembles.
Great point about Nick Mason as a drummer. His tom work on several tracks I love (like Set the Controls off Ummagumma) and his general feel for percussion playing is just so tasty and reeks of intuitive musicianship of the highest order.
As for prog, it's so difficult to neatly classify the boundaries when at the time of its development no one even used the term prog, but instead terms like simfo-rock, art rock, etc, while Pink Floyd were first regarded a psychedelic band, then an Underground band, avant-garde, and finally a prog band. I mean, who cares anyway. Having experienced the mid 70's as an avid radio listener, the term prog started being used as a consequence of Progressive Radio. It was possible to hear music that was not part of your standard chart repertoire, which really did include basically anything that was not standard pop. It's there you would hear The Prophet Song by Queen but not Bohemian Rhapsody or I'm in love with MY Car from the same album.
I always thought Mason was the weakest part of the band. In addition, at the time, Bill Bruford, Phil Collins, Carl Palmer, and later, Gavin Harrison, Mike Portnoy, Mike Magini, Neil Peart and so many others were so much better both technically and creatively.
@@jonathanedwards8696 Yes, no one will dispute that. The point was that for all his laziness, sloppiness and very basic abilities he still played some nice parts and had a good feel for tom work. Personally, I rate Michael Giles a better drummer than all those you mentioned, even though I’m also a big fan of most of them.
@@jelk1188 Well, thats a laughable comment. He was like the "Ringo Starr of prog." Just how Ringo got HIS gig, he probably got that gig merely because he was at the right place at the right time.
Dude, I totally agree with you... my sentiments exactly...You know prog!
Andy Edwards the "PROG-NOSTICATOR". I like it.
Interesting you mentioned Scott Walker early in the video
Scott was an American but certainly adopted the British Aesthetic so much so he is revered by a whole generation of singers who are very British
Jarvis Cocker , Julian Cope , Neil Hannon even Bowie
About the time signature thing: yes, "Money" is in 7/4 (mostly), but it is a pretty straightforward rock song that people can dance to. On the other hand "Mother" from The Wall has a lot of meter changes, but the fact that they had to bring an outside drummer (Jeff Porcaro) to play the song because Nick Mason couldn't handle it shows how unusual that kind of thing was in their music.
But Rick Wright essentially wrote "Great Gig In The Sky" and "Us and Them", therefore the album known as DSOTM is NOT a Waters album. "The Final Cut"........THAT is a Waters album !
And The Wall.
Excellent Video Andy.Love your analysis. Are PF Prog?- absolutely. One word-Echoes.
Tip my hat to you Andy! This is the way to explain something perfectly and bring up your point. Awesome video. Keep them coming!
A really well argued, insightful and balanced video. So fresh compared to a lot of channels out there and avoiding petty tribalism--bands may be a carcass now, but the music lives on.
I grew up listening to Floyd very much on a daily basis. I , like many, was obsessed with them. I think your general view of the band is spot on.
They were also an earlier introduction to "Ambient" genre now so popular.
A very good analysis Andy, well done.
I'm a PF fan since 1977 & that ended when RW left in 1985. (I'm not taking sides)
Andy you've presented a very compelling argument to support the proposition that Pink Floyd IS indeed a progressive rock band.
I think PF are blown-off by some in the hard-core Prog community because they a) aren't 'tricky' and b) they enjoyed mega mainstream success which would appear anathema to what many in prog world might consider appropriate. After all, we like to keep our little treasures close to our hearts. That success alone may make some fans feel like PF sold out to the common man on the street who, frankly, doesn't really have much of a clue about music. Personally, I don't believe they sought out commercial success but simply created something (DSOTM) which connected deeply with a great number of people. From there on they had a platform.
Are they prototypical 'prog rock' like Gentle Giant, Yes, ELP? Not even close. They hail from the other end of the prog spectrum.
Regarding the Waters/Gilmour inferno: Polly Samson's statement was very inflammatory and bound to illicit a response. I hope she has a good solicitor. Is Waters a megalomaniac? I wouldn't rule that out, however he deserves accolades for driving that band to the pinnacle of artistic excellence.
There is a BBC doc on here somewhere about the top ten prog bands. Some singer goes 'are they prog?" And then they go on to show a dog singing a song, roger beating a gong, zoned out musical asides, and bashing on keyboards.
Pink Floyd is "easy listening prog."
Absolutely brilliant! You took the words right out of my mouth but added a bunch I couldn't have come up with. I'm going to post something I wrote on a forum a little while ago when this very topic came up (it comes up far too often):
"I think a lot of so-called prog fans are way too uptight about what is and isn't prog, and I think this has been a hindrance to the genre's popularity and a detriment to its reputation in the mainstream. These narrow-minded and historically inaccurate definitions of prog, which bizarrely exclude bands like Pink Floyd, actively deter people from giving the genre a proper go. Perhaps that's people's intention - to gatekeep?
According to the generally accepted, mainstream definition of progressive rock, Pink Floyd are absolutely a (very important) part of the genre. Google, for example, defines prog rock as "a style of rock music popular especially in the 1970s and characterized by classical influences, the use of keyboard instruments, and lengthy compositions." That is Pink Floyd. The definition on Prog Archives and all print and online dictionaries I've come across also supports Pink Floyd being a prog band. It's only when you dive into people's comments on forums like this that people begin to muddy the waters and support this pedantic differentiation between "progressive rock" and "prog rock" or "a bit prog" and "true prog".
It annoys me because, in my view and the view of most music journalists who covered the genre in the 70s, progressive rock was and is supposed to be as far-reaching as possible within the realm of rock and roll. It's all about open-mindedness, eclectic influences and broad strokes. So why try to confine it with narrow definitions? Why is prog only prog when it fits a very specific mould, despite this being the literal opposite of what the genre is all about? Do you really want all prog to sound roughly the same? I know I don't."
Wunderbar Video Andy
I have an alternative
Perhaps more progressive, in that it is
Regressive …. Progmeter.
Unfortunately it is too late to unveil it tonight.
Perhaps on your next Video.
Thanks for all you do Andy.
Fascinating discussion, Andy. I was especially happy that you fired up the Proggometer. I would love you to feed other contentious bands into it. Bands such as Moody Blues or Procol Harem would could certainly provide a challenge to its calibrations. Speaking of which, I would ask you to consider the following: although classic prog bands concern themselves lyrically with more than partying and 'chatting up' the opposite sex, I would add the following proviso: prog bands often couch the chatting up with an idealization of the opposite sex. In the case of male-oriented bands, the female essence is often elevated to an abstract (goddess) level. "Julia Dream" (Floyd), "Heart of the Sunrise" (Yes), "Lady Fantasy" (Camel), "Still You Turn Me On" (ELP), etc. are very proggy indeed. Perhaps this is part of the "English Aesthetic" but I think it's more nuanced than that. Worth a look.
Appreciated the Gilmore/Waters discussion as well. With them, it's not about money as they both have enough. It's about recognizing creative input and/or supremacy. The final outcome will be to further erode the legacy of the band.
These sexy prog songs are the exception that proves the rule
Ladies if the road. A noteworthy exception.
“Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.”
I was heavy into the Prog scene, but had never even heard of Pink Floyd until 'Dark Side of the Moon' was released. 'Money' was getting heavy play, and I really dug the bassline, but I that was all I knew of them. I was with a friend, hitching a ride when a guy pulled over to offer us a ride. As soon as we were in he excitedly said he had the new Pink Floyd album, on 8-track, and played it for us. I wasn't impressed with it on first listen, though later, after getting it on vinyl, which made me have to really listen because of the lack of distraction, I changed my opinion. I thought it was a good Space Rock album.
Like I said, I was heavy into Prog, listening to PFM, Yes, ELP, and the like, but whenever it came to thinking of Pink Floyd in that vein, I always considered them 'Prog-Lite' Sure they were spacey and trippy and do things like timing changes and all, but I have never really thought of Pink Floyd as being 'True Prog.' I do have all their albums; I was having medical issues on 2020 (not c-19 related) and started going out and buying the entire cataligoues of bands I either didn't have any album of, or only had one or two. Pink Floyd was one of those bands... I have listened to every single album, with headphones (and the proper headspace), but still PF is still on the fringes of Prog to me.
'Aniamals' is an amazing album, and my favorite of theirs, but I can't stop thinking of it more as a 'Guitar' album than a Prog one.
YES! I always called Pink Floyd "easy listening prog."
About genres, they're not only there for the industry. Genres are where the forms you can then push against, or mix up, or develop and open up, are being worked out. Without genres, there are no limits to push, and no idioms to speak in.
I love that final comment. (42:36)
and another excellent videogram
They have always been prog to my ears.
Without question, the progometer is the single most important invention in the history of humanity.
I can see it being used more and more on this channel as I slowly go through all the possible topics I can talk about...
@@AndyEdwardsDrummer 🤣
Nobel Prize...
First album is completely psychedelic, 2nd till Ummagumma is experimental rock, with some glimpses of early prog such Procol Harum’s Shine on Brightly and even Canterbury scene, Atom and Meddle are pure experimental prog, with glimpses of psychedelic rock, however from Obscured By Clouds till Animals is 100% space prog, if you hear some Hawkwind stuffs from same era, you’ll find many similarities. The Wall is a kind of opera rock, but is a mix between Pink Floyd and Roger Waters solo works, Final Cut is most likely all RW solo works, not worth wasting time listening to. Momentary Lapse is a Gilmour solo album trying to sound like PF, Division is definitely a space prog rock effort, whilst Endless is basically made from its studio leftovers
51% = Prog 85% = Prog Prog ! I rest my case Ma Lord.
I think up until Animals certainly, however different than their contemporaries. They didn’t have the virtuosity that other prog bands did but the experimentation, lyrical themes, etc, most definitely. I’ve always thought of them as more of an experimental band really esp 67-75. With WYWH the experimentation definitely halted imo. That said I feel like WYWH and Animals are their proggiest albums, at least in the sense of the word prog as we know it. I’m with you though I think Atom Heart and Dark Side are their absolute masterpieces. If Meddle didn’t have San Tropez and Seamus (just redundant songs imo) then I’d probably put that in there too. I think the title track of AHM is an amazingly original experimental work of art, truly pushing the boundaries of music.
I agree with all that and I hope I can on this really point out where they are prog and why
Darn, Andy. now you're really starting to make sense. The part between about 20 and 25 minutes in of this video were so full of insight, that the biscuit crumbs fell out my moustache!
😀
'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'
Andy, you make some great points. I agree with your position that often great bands break apart because of the inequity among the members. You mentioned that bands who divide things equally from the beginning often stick together. An example of that was/is REM. When they formed, they divided everything equally among the 4 bandmembers and included their manager (who was a law professor at UGA in Athens, GA, where the band formed) with an equal share. They stuck together until their drummer had to retire due to health concerns. I was in Athens when REM were coming up. They seemed to possess great camaraderie throughout their history.
I do have a bone to pick with your "progometer". Two of your criteria are noting English kids singing in their native accents and the presence of your "English aesthetic". Now, I don't view those as fair criteria because they stake out 2 positions that non-English bands can never have. Non-English bands start behind by 20% on your scale. Your "progometer" is too heavily weighted toward English bands and is unfair to everyone else. I understand why you have included them - because you see prog as heavily English in its origins and influences. (And you are probably right in this view.) But, your criteria have to be able to be fairly applied to all bands, regardless of where they are from. Should Kansas, the Dixie Dregs, and the Flaming Lips, for example, or Riverside, Opeth or other European prog bands, not be defined as prog simply because they aren't English enough? Of course not....
I have a video coming out on Rush next week. They score in both those categories. They score very high on the Prog-o-meter. They are also the biggest prog band ever to not come from the UK...strange that isn't it....
Once we pass over the silly entertaining and greatly done scoring of Pink Floyd, your speech on morals, truth, beauty and ideology, is up there with the great pragmatic philosophers. I will re-play this for my kids, when they are in their late teens. Lets hope the youtube cloud stays alive 10 years from now 🙂
Pink Floyd's music is best described as lullabies for stoned people.
great analysis. pretty much agree with every point. PF weren't the greatest musicians but they were great composers with multimedia assist.
They were progressive before the term progressive was coined
"Proto-prog is the earliest work associated with the first wave of progressive rock music, known then as "progressive pop". Such musicians were influenced by modern classical and other genres usually outside of traditional rock influences. They often employed longer and more complicated compositions, interconnected songs as medley, and studio composition .Some of the artists that were essential to the development of progressive rock, rather than just anticipating the movement, include the Beatles, the Beach Boys, the Doors, the Pretty Things, the Zombies, the Byrds, the Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd." - Wiki
From about early 1970 thru December 1972 the live Pink Floyd were the most wildly experimental and improvisational rock act in existence. While they may not have had the prog "chops" of ELP, they used their synergistic gifts to create sound sculptures more akin to free jazz that was very influenced by their architectural roots (Waters/Mason). IMO they fully earned their prog status in January 1972 by taking a completely unheard 45 minute song cycle called 'Eclipse' to unsuspecting audiences and proceeded to fine tune and craft it live every night, which was completely unheard of at the time (what balls it must have taken!!!!). The growth in the suite between the first Brighton show in January to Zurich in December 1972 is stunning. This of course would become DSOTM later in 1973 but they had been steadily building the roots through their live work (Saucerful->1969 'Man and the Journey' Suite->AHM->Echoes->DSOTM). 100% prog!!!
Wildly experimental, sure. Brilliant, of course. Prog, depends on how you define it. Back in the day, Pink Floyd was in a class by itself, if memory serves.
Oh wow, that Birmingham show in early 1970 is Pink Floyd at their most "What the hell were they thinking?"
Most of the show was material they either never played or only started playing the previous month or that 25 minute piece of WTFery of unreleased Zabrieskie Point instrumentals. Us, now: "Why?. Them, then: "Why not?" And there's the reason why I say "Us and Them".
prog was partly a historic and cultural movement and PF was right in the middle of it.
You're wrong. Between 1971 and 1975, King Crimson was the most improvisational rock band that existed. No other band had the balls to come out on stage and do TOTAL group improvisations, starting from nothing.
I think you nailed the essence of the music . I might add new or weird or WTF !
I've heard Floyd described as "Lean Prog" and I agree with that
Are you selling Progometers? 🙂
Interesting points regarding Waters, DSoM and that everything counts when creating music. I wonder what you think about all the issues that the Maha. Orchestra had regarding these issues. (Which eventually led to the breakup of the first and most influential version of the band).
There is a brilliant example of what I'm talking about...
I really enjoyed this video, as I enjoy most all of your videos. You mentioned an artist, however, that I think merits a video of his own, and that’s Scott Walker. As an American your age, I only really knew Scott Walker’s work with the Walker Brothers. However, a son of mine turned me on to him as a solo artist and needless to say, his eponymously and sequentially named solo LPs are nothing like his pop work with his non-sibling Walker Brothers, none of whom were actually named Walker. Something like “The Electrician” I believe your meter would approve. And, finally, with respect to the elusively defined “English esthetic,” I believe Pink Floyd defined perfectly in a lyric from “Time”: “Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.” The time has come, my comment is over, thought I’d something more to say.
As someone who drank primal prog for mother's milk, let me just report that my journey into what would be the progiverse was launched by Pink Floyd, and specifically, Ummagumma, which was light years ahead of anything else in the musical world, shy of jazz, contemporary classical and world music, which became the go-to place after the magical year of 1973, when the pinnacle had been reached. Listen to Ummagumma and put that point back in the IsProg column for Floyd's percussive inventiveness, which to some may have been over the top, and may have been why Mason later pulled it back in.
Floyd is more like Moody Blues in many ways than say Yes or King Crimson, but only at Dark Side and after. Some would say the Moodies are not prog either, on similar grounds. But many of Pinder's songs attain that heavenly sound also associated with prog and classical but little else. Is Floyd prog? Consider the alternative. Is Floyd regressive? Only after a time, perhaps. Early days they were the very definition of progressive, visionary, and so on, but later began to regress toward familiar forms (I'm guessing, I only know their earlier works, but figure they could travel the same road as Genesis, Yes, and ELP who also regressed after a time). Only the King remained constant in its change.
The Moody Blues were definitely "progressive" in 1967, doing things no one else did, pushing outside the usual scope, which is what the term "progressive" means. So were Cream and Hendrix. The very idea of producing albums that had a unity or some sort of theme was a progression outside of the collection of "b-sides" added to a hit single that had been common fare until then.
In 1968-70, Pink Floyd were the most radical of "prog" bands.
Just because Floyd was improvisational didn't make them progressive. Musical improvisation has been going on since the first human walked the earth. In addition, in Wikipedia's definition of progressive rock, it is mentioned that instrumental virtuosity is a major ingredient, and no one in Floyd was a virtuoso. @@Leo_ofRedKeep
Yes, I feel for the poor old drummer
Finally you proved unequivocally that Pink Floyd is prog. I’ll just save the link to this video to drop in anti-PinkFloyd-Prog conversations and threads.
Thoroughly enjoyed the topic. Excellent. I love Pink Floyd and Roger is brilliant. I thought that his comment that later Floyd was a good facsimile was spot on.
Thank you Andy !
Here's or version of Pink Floyd Echoes:
ua-cam.com/video/QWInOb5BkdA/v-deo.html
Greetings from INTERSTELLAR OVERDRIVE (The Pink Floyd Experience)
Andy,
Good show. I think those who argue against Pink Floyd not being Prog would say with your Progometer, you don't give enough weight to musical complexity and virtuosity. That is the use of shifting tempos, odd time signatures, moving into different key signatures, modal modulation, use of counterpoint and the technical ability to play complex music is a more defining part of Prog compared to some of the other categories in your Progometer.
For example, replace Gentle Giant's lyrics on Three Friends or Power and the Glory with lyrics written by Taylor Swift or Beyonce and Gentle Giant would still be considered Prog, because their music checks the main boxes that is most important to the question of is it Prog. If Pink Floyd's Wall or Dark Side of the Moon had lyrics about " How my woman did me wrong" we would not have the same argument.
It's kind of like taking an exam where there are 20 multiple choice questions and 1 essay question. The essay question is worth 50% of your grade. You can get all the multiple choice questions correct, but screw up the essay and your done.
Personally, I think Pink Floyd's grade is more around 72-75 because I put more weight on music complexity and virtuosity when weighing is it Prog. A Gentleman's C. Thus, they fall into the Prog realm. But, it's a good thing they didn't miss either the concept or long form questions.
Then by your criteria classical music and jazz fusion is more prog than prog. But it is not compexity or virtuosity that makes prog prog. It's a tiny component. My criteria maybe off Ibut I see no one with better!) but the fact is there are other factors.If you changed the lyrical content of Gentle Giant they would still score high becuase they are very proggy, but keep changing the criteria down the list and very soon they would not sound proggy. There is not one common criteria that makes something proggy, it is a cllection of criteria
Andy,
My point is I think musical complexity and virtuosity should be more heavily weighted than the other categories. I did not say it existed in a vacuum. I did say that Pink Floyd is Prog. But, they have to tick off a few more boxes than Gentle Giant who does check the big ones in my estimation, which is the musical complexity and virtuosity boxes. However, if that was the only boxes they checked, they would not be Prog.
Bela Fleck, Sam Bush and Tony Rice can absolutely shred on their respective instruments, top shelf virtuosos. But, they are Bluegrass musicians ( some label them PROGRESSIVE Bluegrass). They only check a couple of boxes in the Prog categories. Big ones, but not nearly enough boxes to make them Prog or close to it.
So, no, there has to be more than just virtuosity and complexity. As for Jazz Fusion, didn't 70s Mahavisnu Orchestra, some RTF and for a modern fusion band , the Aristocrats cross into Prog territory pretty heavily? Yes released Relayer, which certainly swims heavily in the Fusion territory to name a Prog band that went the other way. But, Yes would not be listed as a Jazz Fusion band.
And what about Chicago and not the 80s hit making machine? I'm talking about the 68 - 77 outfit that was a Jazz Rock outfit. But, some of their stuff could be Prog. Lee Loughnane, Robert Lamm and James Pankow all studied music in College. Walter Parazaider received a Bachelor's of Arts Degree in Classical Clarinet Performance from DePaul University. Chicago borrowed from jazz and classical music. The band was full of first class musicians and their music could be quite complex.
But, at the end of the day, although they could be Proggy and often they definitely went heavily into Jazz Fusion, Chicago 7 being a notable example of that. In fact, Chicago 7 doesn't have vocals until 25 minutes into the album and goes heavily into Jazz Fusion. That album in the genre listing is listed as Jazz Fusion, Jazz, Progressive Rock, Symphonic Rock and Soft Rock ( Because of the hit I've been Searching So Long that's on the album).
That's a long way to getting to, no virtuosity and complexity does not make a band Prog or Jazz Fusion or Classical as my examples of the Bluegrass musicians and the band Chicago show. I just think it's a bigger part of the equation than what you believe. Yet, at the end of the day I agree that Pink Floyd is Prog, just as you do, despite the band lacking instrumental virtuosity and musical complexity. The only disagreement we have is to what degree they fit in the Prog World. I think they are in the stadium, whereas you believe they are on the field.
@@ciciusss Perhaps you are taking the prog-o-meter a bit too seriously? But to look at your points...Pink Floyd don't lack virtuosity. Compared to many bands they had greater technique than say The Ramones,, U2, The Beatles, The Stones etc. But if you were to analyse the virtouso level of the average pop performer musician, ie. those that play for Taylor Swift of Justin Beiber, these musicians technique dwarf most skills of prog musicians. So you can't weight this like you said. It would pointlessly give weight to an attribute that is in fact in all music making.
But Andy, the fact that you did a show on is Pink Floyd Prog are you not taking it a bit seriously? I just brought up that I put a bit more weight on a few categories when evaluating Prog than you do, that's all. You ask that we give you our thoughts and I did. Whether Pink Floyd is Prog or not doesn't really have a bearing on whether I like them or not.
As far as the session musician vs Prog musician, it can get a bit murky. Tony Levin is known as a Prog musician who played with King Crimson and is considered a part of that band. But, he's done a ton of session work. What about Guthrie Govan? Made a name as a Prog / Fusion guitarist, but is a bit of a hired hand. But, Govan would not consider himself a session guitarist. And how many session guitarist can out play Govan?
Jordan Rudess, Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman, and Kerry Minnear have incredible technique that I would put against any session musician. And in Wakeman's case he did do studio work. He left the Academy after talking to his Music Professor who said the school didn't have anything else to teach him.
Tim Pierce is a phenomenally successful session guitarist. But, he would be the first to tell you he is not Steve Morse or Allan Holdsworth to name a couple Prog / Fusion musicians. Tom Buchavac is a top Nashville session cat but loves Steve Howe and speaks to Howe's versatility, which would be an essential talent as a studio musician.
And how many session drummers have better drumming skills than a Gavin Harrison or Marco Minnemann? Carl Palmer has talked about how he turned his back on being a session musician because he wanted to do his own thing.
The big difference between the session guys and the Prog musicians is that session guys can generally read music, which is big, particularly when you are talking about film scores.
It's true that you can form your own Prog band and that your ability to read music, ability to get it right quickly, which is essential to being a successful session musician is not as important.
But, the legendary session guys like Tommy Tedesco, Hal Blaine, Glen Campbell, Carol Kaye, Larry Carlton, Bernard Purdie, Lee Sklar, Brent Mason, Steve Gadd, Steve Luthaker, Jeff Porcaro, Steve Porcaro, or Dean Parks are they that much better than say Keith Emerson, Gavin Harrison, Phil Collins, Guthrie Govan, Neil Peart, Steve Hackett, Robert Fripp, John Petrucci, Yvette Young or a Steve Morse? I think all these guys would say no. And how would you measure that anyway?
And if you want top flight technique, few can touch classical musicians. John Williams is in my opinion the greatest classical guitarist to pluck a nylon string guitar. Some of the pieces he plays are technically beyond most players ( including those session guitarists) and he does it with extraordinary precision. But, conversely, would he have been a good session guitarist? Maybe? In film scores and the like yes. But, what about in the world of the rock / jazz sessions which calls for coming up with parts and improvisation. That is a world that classical musicians with all their phenomenal technique is a bit foreign.
Great video and so glad you finally got that progometer working but I believe it needs tweaking
Applying the 10 attributes Zappa comes up Prog and I just can’t get myself to that conclusion
So it bears the question
Zappa , Prog ?
Of course Zappa was "west coast prog.," but for me, his lyrics were so adolescent, childish, and irritating, I could never listen to him. In a sense, his lyrics weren't "prog."
Andy, I like the approach you take in your video feeds. I've often maintained Frank Zappa released the first Progressive Rock Album. "Freak Out" has all of the musical attributes you mention. To my ear, there are even touches of progressive rock scattered throughout the compositions of Led Zeppelin. Even Elvis was progressive in 1954. I did however like your Zappa deep dive. I have 30 of his 61 albums and found myself often agreeing with your assessment of his albums. For me, the beauty of Progressive Rock is in its intellectualism . I agree with you though, progressive rock is more than, "difficult compositions". Seeing Pink Floyd Live at Randwick Racecourse in 1971 is a musical highlight in my now 69 years of age. Stay safe and go well.
Obviously, you've never seen King Crimson.
@@jonathanedwards8696 I am not sure why you feel the need to reply to a comment I made on this website many months ago. However, you are correct. I have never seen King Crimson, wish I had back in the day. I do like KC and have 4 albums by them. "Larks Tongues In Aspic" would have to be my favorite closely followed by "RED". Stay safe and go well.
I didn't notice the date of your post.
Nice topic for a discussion. I would say they were surely progressive up to some point. They made some great albums while being progressive, and even after. But prog? Rarely and unconsequentialy, sometimes even unvoluntarlily (Atom Heart Mother suite), so not really. They were proggish here and there, but I dont think labeling them as prog does them justice. Pink Floyd just doesn't seem to fit the typical prog bands list: Yes, ELP, King Crimson, Genesis, Camel, Caravan, Gentle Giant, Van Der Graaf Generator etc. They were a different breed to me. I know back in the day any slightly adventurous band was called progressive, e.g. Ten Years After (btw: I like them very much). Here I use the term prog in its narrowed down, contemporary meaning: virtuoso musicians mixing rock with many genres (classical and/or jazz influences included) in a startling way, often within one song, using rapid tempo and mood changes. All the above-mentioned prog bands were doing these things in their prog phase, PF didn't. There is also a tendency to use the term prog in a wider sense, (encompasing bands like Asia), but to me its no point in using the term so broad, that almost any band would fit. I exaggerate (a bit), but you know what I mean. So to me, PF were not a prog band, but it doesnt make them worst than the others. They were great in their own way. In too many ways to be pigeonholed with the other prog artists.
The PROGOMETER does not lie
Nobody in Pink Floyd was good enough for them to be considered prog. According to Wikipedia, instrumental virtuosity is an important element of prog. I guess in a sense, they could be considered "easy listening prog."
Generally agree with your assessment.😂 this reminds me to recommend doing a video on a close cousin of prog: Art Rock. What is it? Who plays it? What makes it different from prog?
I think Art Rock was what journalists called prog rock before this term existed. Not exactly the same, but pretty close. One exception (that is, a band that was called art rock but is not prog rock) was the Velvet Underground. And perhaps Spirit.
Definitely used to be prog, early stuff up to Meddle, maybe. Later stuff not really prog as we know it Jim.. or just toys with it perhaps.
I’m only interested in the music. With PF, the whole is simply greater than the sum of its parts, regardless of how vocal and opinionated some of those parts have been.
I agree...I hope that came across
@@AndyEdwardsDrummer Yes, Andy, you articulated the point well, and I appreciate that.
Robert Plant, in an interview during the BBC In Concert performance between the first two albums, called Zeppelin progressive blues, like Jethro Tull and Ten Years After. Those three bands are very distinct from one another. Black Sabbath were a progressive rock band when they started, because there wasn't such a thing as Heavy Metal. All album based bands were progressing the music, all were 'progressive'. As more bands became influenced by the originators of a certain style, they got lumped together according to certain commonalities, then a name got applied to that group. Then sub genres emerged according to the differences from the main group. Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Focus were progressive according to the contemporary press in the early Seventies, then were labelled as Hard or Heavy Rock as the years went on. Thin Lizzy, Status Quo, AC/DC were Heavy Metal at one point, but became Hard or Heavy Rock as bands like Judas Priest and Motorhead defined Heavy Metal as another thing entirely. In the Eighties, the NWOBHM further pushed this, at the same time as 'Progressive' became 'Prog', as Marillion, Twelfth Night and Pallas further defined that genre. In the end, who cares ? I like each individual artist for what THEY do, I'm more likely to dig a band if they are doing something different from everything else, not if they sound like somebody else.
I know Robert very well, he hates prog. He does have a soft spot for Yes however but he is a sucker for a good tune. But what John Paul Jones brought to that band was progressive and anyone describing Battle of Evermore as Heavy Blues Rock aint listening! The issue with prog is that it was demonised and it's influence expunged from the grand narrative NWOBHM is dripping in prog, it is a major influence on that style. Brian Tatler told me this personally and of course Steve Harris and Bruce Dickenson are huge prog fans
Remember, the first King Crimson album came out six months before the first Black Sabbath album. King Crimson was the originator of progressive rock, AND heavy metal.
When I started to listen to this music all these bands - PF, ELP, King Krimson, Yes and the like were classified as art rock genre. The term progressive was hardly ever heard of. Than in course of time these groups gradually turned "progressive". What did they do to transgress to the other genre? One needs more than just a record or two in a new style to surpass the heritage of previous years. Did these bands really change their style so much that at some point in time they stuck to a new style? More than that, to a different genre? When? Some of them even disbanded while still being called "art-rock" and started being classified as "prog" quite some time later, when some of their members were already dead. We can surmise that critics and journalists were not quite to the point in the early 70-es but later they found new and better criteria the light of which dispersed the previous darkness and showed everyone, who called the genre "art rock", the depth of their fallacy. But is there any evidence of such an arguement? Some people may have written monographs, or essays, or if only any newspaper articles? Where are these texts? Interviews? No? Nothing? If so, it might mean that we fecklessly repeat words, meaning of which escapes us. And, by the way, with hard rock and heavy metal it's exactly the same story, if we have in mind the bands like LZ or DP. A peculiar thing - 4 first Deep Purple alboms are also sometimes called "progressive" in a hindsight. Or it may be that there are prog bands and art rock bands and both terms have the right to be? One wonders. And why "progressive"? What progress is there in their music? Are their musicians acolytes of Leibniz, who coined the term? Or, perhaps, they are adherents of conception of Enlightment like Diderot and Montesquieu? Or, maybe, we ought not to think too much about the meaning of words?
I'm not sure that I care what the answer to this question is. All I care is "Were they creating music that I enjoy?". Or maybe "Did they write songs which meant something to me, personally?".
I am sure I don't care what's the latest bitterness Roger has to say about his former bandmates. Or what bitterness he has towards the fans of what Pink Floyd continued to do after Roger left. I think some of his solo work was excellent, but I didn't enjoy some of his other releases at all.
Pink Floyd:
"A blues band with alarm clocks. " -- Richard Thompson
Like Neil Degrasse Tyson said: "beyond the laws of physics, everything is opinion".
And I totally agree with you on Waters - Gilmour. And I will say the way Polly handled his opinion was ridiculous. But I bet she knew he was about to speak at the UN. It was a poor attempt to cancel him.
And as far as his legacy, he is totally mistreated in my opinion. Like you argued: the success of the early work is largely due to Roger Waters.
Yes...I might not agree with him on anything and I do think sometimes people pick on Israel more than they do other countries that are doing similar things, and that can be a bit dodgy. But I hate people throwing terms at people like 'racist' because it is just an attempt to discredit through character assasination
@@AndyEdwardsDrummer indeed, I'm pretty sure Waters isn't any of that. And I bet he has no problems with the individual Israeli. But that doesn't mean you can't have an option on the country or the situation in the region. Polly didn't had to post that tweet in an attempt to murder his character. Polly who now lives a very comfortable life due to Rogers work.
Calling someone an anti semite IS an attempt to shut them down
Give them the point for time signatures too. I bet you’ll find as many examples of odd time signatures as you can find of fantasy or science fiction subject matter. You’d be right on both counts.
"The poor ald drummer" from Pink Floyd happens to be the most wealthy member of the band if im not mistaken 😄
How did he manage that with the fewest writing credits?
@@martinspencer1618 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO, 1996 McLaren F1 GTR, etc.
@@martinspencer1618 Family wealth, I think...
No.......Roger Waters is the wealthiest member. The latest (2022) Sunday Times Rich List shows Waters at £ 190 million pounds. Dave Gilmour on £ 116 million and Nick Mason on £ 110 million pounds.
@@martinspencer1618 ok, second wealthiest. I believe it's because he is on most records.
Have you listened to Pink Floyd before they became Floyd, when they were still trying to be a British blues band? Syd Barrett was clearly not at all comfortable in the role of bluesman. In the way that say Peter Green was. You can already hear Syd trying to warp the format a little bit. Blues for all it being probably the most important musical development of the 20th century (given all it spawned), is very restricted in format and lyrical content. If you mix in jaz it gets a lot broader, but lyrically it's sex and injustice and that's all. I once heard an authentic blues song, black artist from the US, singing a Christmas-themed blues, and my god it was so wrong. You can't sing about Christmas from within the confines of a proper blues song with jingly bells in the background... and you can't sing about gnomes and owning a cloak neither. So my long-winded point is that Syd and Floyd needed prog just to be themselves.
Pink Floyd are prog for beginners. We all have to start somewhere. Personally, that's how I got into progressive rock and I still love Pink Floyd to this day.
First Psychedelic
Then Prog
Unless a band makes a prior "we'll divide it equally" agreement or a piece is instrumental only, in your experience Andy, is there any wriggle room on the equal music/lyrics copyright split?
No I don't think so. It's far more convaluted and complex than the general public knows. In most cases royalties go to ex wives, or relatives of ex wives, or managers who managed to get their name on the writing credits etc. Most huge songs are by dead people and there are many people out there living off the proceeds of songs that someone wrote, then died, and then their wife inherited the royalties, then they died and it went to a distant relative of them. I'm telling this just to show how messy it can get. Who lives off Lennon's royalties? Who lives off Kurt Cobain's royalties. Is not Kris N from Nirvana worthy of at least a bit of the writing credit for those songs over who ever is getting them now. Is it his kids? or does Courtney Love get it all? did he leave a will determining this? etc
Epics? Experimentation? Concept albums? Come on guys.
Progressive Rock has many aspects.
“Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST.” Frank Zappa
"Quiet desperation, it's the British way" Does it get more Prog? Or more British. Great episode Thanks
But he also wrote
Lord, have mercy on the people in england/For the terrible food this people must eat
So not sure it included english music
He accepted Gentle Giant, but the English didn't really love them so much back then
I'd say the system you created is good but there are some issues:
1) You've weighted each of the ten as being equal. I'd say some are worth more than others
2) Two of them rely on englishness and I feel like that isn't required
It would be more fruitful to argue if Led Zeppelin was prog instead of Pink Floyd, whom I have always considered a prog band since I first heard them in 1972.
Check out my history of prog part one video...I did it...
@@AndyEdwardsDrummer I did listen to it, thanks.
I've liked the progometer since you made it up a few months ago . So yes, Pink Floyd is prog, not doubt. I also agree they have been boring since Waters left, Actually, for me, The Wall was spotty as well.
As for the English Aesthetic video, I didn't comment. As an American, I get it, but I don't have it. I'm a little envious. I don't want to ramble on about it and sound like a doofus.
Different subject - is the new Rain release coming to the US in cd format? It's not available on Amazon yet. I don't like streaming or downloading from i-tunes. I'm old school, I want the physical media. If there's a way to get it, please let me know.
PF isn't prog cus it isn't twiddly enough and the music is too slow. That's because they can't play fast. They do a lot of funerial dirges. I think what was special about their best stuff was a kind of refined restraint and sense of balance and timbre. The actual noise it makes is so suggestive of non musical realities. If you've studied music and had a go at composing you know this is the aim but it's hard to suggest anything beyond the notes, even if they are good. For instance Wright's keyboard lines are so evocative. Waters best lyrics are also as good as any famous 'proper' poet. The way they used the Abbey Road studio facilities was also key. Particularly that metal reverb plate. It creates a really architectural sense of space like you are listening in some enormous building or Valhalla itself :) OK they are prog for category purposes, I was just being awkward.
All psychedelia is progressive but not all prog is psychedelic.
Syd Barrett's singing is as English as it gets!
Long live the Prog-o-Meter, killer of needless dichotomies!
agree on PF hitting your list of 10 quite satisfactorily. Personally i go further than you in downgrading the value of the "virtuosity" element in prog. acknowledge that some musicians and bands are more virtuoso than others but it's all so relative that the "scale" of relative difference can be dialed up or down. It's pretty sad of prog fans to claim virtuosity as their own when on a scale that compares the prog best with Charlie Parker or Art Tatum they would lose badly. On that scale the guys in Yes are probably closer to Gilmore level than the aforementioned. But beyond that virtuosity is a "musicians" standard. It is set by musicians and measured by musicians and the vast majority of non musicians in audience just follow the opinion of the musicians. And i fundamentally disagree with this being an important aspect of musical ranking because it's not the virtuosity that affects the non musician listener. Most rock fans have no idea where Nick Mason ranks in terms of virtuosity without googling it. It's why I tune out when Rick Beato starts talking about chord changes ..they mean nothing to me. There must be much more to music that allows it to appeal to non musicians, and that which exclusively titillates (word specifically chosen).other musicians is imo the least important.
I agree entirely
@@AndyEdwardsDrummer thanks Andy
I used to have a friend and we would have this argument over and over again. He didn’t like Pink Floyd, so it made it easier for him to discount them. But we are both progressive rock fans, and we agree that king crimson and yes I really the epicenter of progressive rock. But his parameters were tighter than mine. And he insisted that to be progressive rock you had to be able to play fast complicated chords in notes, and as Allan Holdsworth would say tricky Dicky’s, which is something Pink Floyd does not do, and I would agree, then that they are on the outer rim of progressive rock. But they are every bit as progressive rock as a caravan or a camel.
Pink Floyd was "easy listening prog." It was just BARELY prog!
Egocentric Bias makes me think my opinions are correct and worth more. If only Waters and Gilmour could channel this "stuff" into some new music. Separately of course.
All I have to do is ask myself is "If Pink Floyd ISN'T progressive rock then what are they?".
The Beatle's Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, and the White Album are fairly progressive in my opinion. It doesnt have guitar solos like Pink Floyd but it's still quite out there and started the prog rock psychedelic rock bandwagon.
Artist of whatever genre should not have their believes elevated unless they run for office
Gilmour is like: "I am Pink Floyd! And so is my wife!"
PINK FLOYD Are most definitely Prog, just Not Traditional Prog! It depends which albums are in question as well. Some are more Prog than others. They are Art rock and Experimental first and foremost.. The Floyd are just plain unique! There are pleanty of YES & Genesis immitators for sure, but not many Floyd immitators that I know of. I may be wrong however, but pretty close in my guess. What is PROG? Prog does not follow rules, it never has and never will! It Progresses and changes when it wants to, that is why Prog is an aquired taste, and most people do not understand Prog! People who think Floyd is not Prog are fencing themselves into a set of rules of what Prog is not. This is all IMHO BTW.
Where can I buy a progometer?
I got mine from Tandy
It's music!!!
Oh... by the way: Which one is Pink?
Roger: I'm Pink!
David: No! I'm Pink! And so is my wife!
Do patreons get to see the progometer? 🤔
Yes...but then I wipe their memories afterwards in case they tell that fella at Classic Album Review
In my experience, most of the people who don't consider Pink Floyd prog are people who don't want to like prog. But they LOVE Pink Floyd. So how could Pink Floyd POSSIBLY be prog?
I don't really know why this is a question.
im on rogers side
Lol. A terrifying device. You really don't want to see it. 🤣
No you don't. I'm a professional....
Progressive rock was originally a wide-ranging genre. Back in 1970 we had the Bath Festival of Blues and Progressive Music in which ironically Pink Floyd performed. We can all agree they were never blues. It is only in more recent times history has been rewritten mainly by those who don't like their favourites being labelled as prog. A bit like this - Person A "I hate prog". Person B "But you like Pink Floyd!" Person A "Pink Floyd aren't prog."