Proggy rocky

General discussion about Pink Floyd.
User avatar
David Smith
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7074
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year

Proggy rocky

Post by David Smith »

Ahem, great title i must say.

So anyway, were Pink Floyd the first and therefore most revolutionary progressive rock band or what?
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

I don't know if you could call them the first prog rock group. As I understand it, Genesis and The Moody Blues were around before the Floyd...

I can't help you out with this one...
User avatar
David Smith
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7074
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year

Post by David Smith »

Well change the phrasing of the question a bit. Did they just go along with other prog rock bands or did the others get inspiration from them. Basically, when DSOTM came out were they just ripping anyone off?
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

I don't think they were ripping anyone off with DSOTM. In my eyes, prog rock bands tend to just do their own thing, and that's what makes them a progressive rock group.

Warning!!! - Rant below :shock::

------------------------
START OF RANT :!:

I think "Pink Floyd" ceased to be a progressive rock group when Roger Waters left (Or, as I like to call them, Pink Fraud). MLOR and DB are just complete and utter re-hashes. They sought out to sound like some supposed "Floyd sound" (i.e., they looked back on the past work and tried to create music along the same lines). For example, it's absurdly funny listening to the sound bites on MLOR and DB. It's so blatantly obvious Gilmour and Co. just inserted them into the music because "it's expected" or something. Virtually none of them have anything to offer intellectually. The music is un-original beyond belief, and the music is supposedly Gilmour's strong point (I hold the opinion Gilmour's strong point is his guitar playing and vocals, not his songwriting. There's a big difference. It takes a lot to come up with wonderful songs in your head. That is, to be a songwriter. Gilmour is not very good at this, in my opinion. However, he is great at playing that electric guitar). Listen to "Keep Talking" and then "Pigs (Three Different Ones)." Listen to "What Do You Want From Me?" and then "Raise My Rent" from David Gilmour's first solo album. It's so obvious they sought out to replicate some supposed "Floyd sound," and obviously when one does this they are NOT being progressive. It's one thing to re-hash music even a bit, let alone constantly, but to do it on purpose and to give little weight to your lyrics - in my eyes, that's like saying you're just a mere pop band. MLOR and DB are both ultimately a load of hogwash, and it is disgusting that they are said to be by Pink Floyd. But then again, "who cares what it's about as long as the kids go?" Disgusting.

END OF RANT :lol::lol::lol:
-------------------------
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11194
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Post by mosespa »

This is a point that can be aruged until EVERYONE is blue in the face...

I consider The Beatles to be the first Progressive Rock band.

It is possible that there were some jazz fusion/rock groups doing "progressive" things before The Beatles, but they were (in my opinion) the first rock band that were making sounds completely unlike anything that everybody else was doing.

When did they become a Proggy band? I would say that Revolver is possibly the first Prog Rock album...although Rubber Soul contains a few elements that could be considered progressive.

Members of Yes have said that The Beatles were a direct influence upon their attempts to take music to a new level.

Technically, PF are most likely not a "true" Prog rock band.

There aren't a lot of odd time-signatures and there's really no dissonance in their music. It's quite melodic and based in the same R&B that most rock of the day was based in.

However, PF ARE/WERE an ART ROCK band.

There's a difference, as I see it...Prog rock is a deliberate attempt to apply "classical" music theory to rock; whereas Art rock is simply about making a statement in whatever way you deem necessary to make your point.

Art Rock can use principles of Prog rock and vice versa, I suppose...but they are not necessarily one and the same.
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

Post by Spinoza »

RPITI wrote: " Virtually none of them have anything to offer intellectually"

Again, if you want to go intellectually, there are other and better ways than listening to POP-music or lyrics. Take eg Hannah Arendts "Vita Activa".

First: we should have a definition of Progressive rock.
Second: i think in the very beginning they were experimental, free form as they called it. They would just improvise and everytime, the same number would be different. They were the king of the underground. In fact there was only one band doing the same thing at that time ( the name escapes me, i'll have to check it up ) After some time, i don't know exactly when, but i suppose around the time of Meddle ( maybe even from AHM ) they lost that free-form-style.

Third: really i don't see that much progression between DSOTM, WYWH or ANIMALS. Perhaps you can state that MLOR and TDB pick up the old ideas, but there are also innovations because of new technology, like that special pedal Dave uses on Marooned and other songs. And "the progression" to THE WALL came only in the form of orchestral arrangements by Kamen, and a diminished role of Wright.
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

Spinoza wrote: Again, if you want to go intellectually, there are other and better ways than listening to POP-music or lyrics. Take eg Hannah Arendts "Vita Activa".
Are you also one of those pretentious snobs who thinks motion pictures do not hold a candle to theatre?
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11194
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Post by mosespa »

Spinoza wrote:
Third: really i don't see that much progression between DSOTM, WYWH or ANIMALS. Perhaps you can state that MLOR and TDB pick up the old ideas, but there are also innovations because of new technology, like that special pedal Dave uses on Marooned and other songs. And "the progression" to THE WALL came only in the form of orchestral arrangements by Kamen, and a diminished role of Wright.


Okay...right here, you show your foot being squarely in your mouth.

Anyone who can listen to DSOTM and then The Wall and say that the only progressions between the two albums are the orchestral arrangements and the keyboards is OBVIOUSLY NOT LISTENING!!!!!!!!!!

The guitars are tougher in The Wall and Animals than they were on DSOTM and WYWH. Roger sings differently on Animals and The Wall than he does on DSOTM (when he sings, that is) and WYWH.

The Wall contains more different time signatures than DSOTM, WYWH AND Animals COMBINED!!

"Don't Leave Me Now," from The Wall (I'm assuming that you may not have known that since you obviously weren't listening closesly to these albums) has some VERY interesting organ chords based on diminished and augmented intervals (notably the thirds and fifths) while the melody itself seems to defy the key signatures of the chords that are playing...QUITE PROGRESSIVE, if you ask me.

What you say in the above quote is tantamount to saying..."The only difference between Piper and Dark Side is that a guy named Dave Gilmour replaced a guy named Syd." Not only is it a preposterous statement, it borders on the dangerously ignorant.
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

Post by Spinoza »

mosespa wrote:[


Okay...right here, you show your foot being squarely in your mouth.

Anyone who can listen to DSOTM and then The Wall and say that the only progressions between the two albums are the orchestral arrangements and the keyboards is OBVIOUSLY NOT LISTENING!!!!!!!!!!

The guitars are tougher in The Wall and Animals than they were on DSOTM and WYWH. Roger sings differently on Animals and The Wall than he does on DSOTM (when he sings, that is) and WYWH.

The Wall contains more different time signatures than DSOTM, WYWH AND Animals COMBINED!!

"Don't Leave Me Now," from The Wall (I'm assuming that you may not have known that since you obviously weren't listening closesly to these albums) has some VERY interesting organ chords based on diminished and augmented intervals (notably the thirds and fifths) while the melody itself seems to defy the key signatures of the chords that are playing...QUITE PROGRESSIVE, if you ask me.

What you say in the above quote is tantamount to saying..."The only difference between Piper and Dark Side is that a guy named Dave Gilmour replaced a guy named Syd." Not only is it a preposterous statement, it borders on the dangerously ignorant.
1. It's nice to see how you skip the "tough" reply to my first statement: give a definition of Progressive"

2. I don't know that much about the technical aspect of music as you give one with "don't leave me know". Now, i don't really think that one must be an expert in this to be able to tell if something is Progressive POP-music or not.

3. "Progression" does not mean "progressive". So the recent albums are "progressive" because wright uses a Hammond instead off a Farfissa in the earlier days. The guitars are heavier ??? WOW , progressive ain't it, or is it a progression. ??? Different time signatures ?? Do you really believe that that makes "progression" ?

4. In fact we are talking in the wind. Give us a definition of "progressive"
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

Post by Spinoza »

RPITI wrote: "Are you also one of those pretentious snobs who thinks motion pictures do not hold a candle to theatre?"

You are comparing apples with oranges.
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

Spinoza wrote:RPITI wrote: "Are you also one of those pretentious snobs who thinks motion pictures do not hold a candle to theatre?"

You are comparing apples with oranges.
I don't think so.
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11194
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Post by mosespa »

Spinoza wrote:


1. It's nice to see how you skip the "tough" reply to my first statement: give a definition of Progressive"

2. I don't know that much about the technical aspect of music as you give one with "don't leave me know". Now, i don't really think that one must be an expert in this to be able to tell if something is Progressive POP-music or not.

3. "Progression" does not mean "progressive". So the recent albums are "progressive" because wright uses a Hammond instead off a Farfissa in the earlier days. The guitars are heavier ??? WOW , progressive ain't it, or is it a progression. ??? Different time signatures ?? Do you really believe that that makes "progression" ?

4. In fact we are talking in the wind. Give us a definition of "progressive"


I though that I had when I said earlier that Progressive Rock is an attempt to apply "Classical" music theory to rock.

"Progressive" attempts to intellectualize rock. Deeper subject matter in the lyrics, a lot of instrumental showing off, obvious knowledge of music theory demonstrated by the musicians in the use of odd time signatures and chord changes.

I don't think that one needs to know music theory to be able to tell if something is "progressive" or not...it will be obvious. The application of advanced music theory in a song becomes apparent even to a casual listener in the sense that the music sounds more "complicated," even if the listen can't explain what's different.

The typical listener, in fact (as per my experience), is usually turned off by progressive rock, describing it as "noise," "weird," and "annoying."

As per your sarcastic question asking if the later albums are more progressive because Rick uses a Hammond instead of a Farfisa...weren't you the one who used Gilmour's use of a special pedal on TDB as a defense of the album?
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

Post by Spinoza »

Too RPITI: Let's just say that i'm a little bit too old to seek for intellectual satisfaction in pop-music. The way i learned to know Pink Floyd was in a very strange progressive way, because i did buy the albums not very grouped but from different era's. That way i came to appreciate the Pink Floyd-sound in all it's aspects. Off course i consider DSOTM, WYWH, Animals and the Wall as the greatest Floyd-albums ever and i use them to "defend" floyd against Top 10 - groups like Take that and all the other rubbish out there. But fact is, i listen to them mostly not for the intellectual side ( more THE WALL and TFC ) but for the music. Sure, Have a cigar has very nice and meaning full Lyrics, and the soundeffects used by waters are very appropriate and meaningfull, but it's an addition to the music, the overallsound. Well that sound i get also on MLOR and TDB. A songwriter does NOT have to be original, he may be original but that's not an obligation. As i stated before, if i want something intellectual there are other means. Mosespa cleared something out for me about "don't leave me now". That was very nice and it would be great to know other things like that about The wall and the other floyd-albums, like TFC, MLOR and TDB. However, DSOTM, WYWH, Animals don't seem to have that kind of progression ( except the guitarsound ?? ) I listen to all Floyd-albums, to all Floydbootlegs from all eras. Just for the beautifullmusic, the emotions and sometimes interesting lyrics, but really that's not my first priority.
Maybe the kids at school, 15 to 18 y old o,es, i teach, they may be wild about the "wisdom" they find in those lyrics, ranging from Nirvana, Propaghandi to Cradle of Filth, but i'm not.
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

Post by Spinoza »

Thanks Mosespa:

You wrote "I though that I had when I said earlier that Progressive Rock is an attempt to apply "Classical" music theory to rock."

What do you mean with Classical music -theory ???

""Progressive" attempts to intellectualize rock. Deeper subject matter in the lyrics, a lot of instrumental showing off, obvious knowledge of music theory demonstrated by the musicians in the use of odd time signatures and chord changes. "

This could be used as a definition pro and anti Pink Floyd. Are most of the Floyd-albums progressive . In fact not ( as you stated before, no ??? )

"The typical listener, in fact (as per my experience), is usually turned off by progressive rock, describing it as "noise," "weird," and "annoying." "

So are there Floyd-songs that fall in this category ???
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

Spinoza wrote: As i stated before, if i want something intellectual there are other means.


So are you the same way with films? Do you just watch films for the cinematography? You call apparently all non-classical music "pop," and you only listen to it for the ear candy. Do you just watch films for the eye candy? Do you consider all motion pictures to be less than theatre merely because theatre is what came first? You're being disgustingly pretentious.