is PINK FLOYD really PROG? + The Waters/Gilmour Row 

Pretty typical of the lazy, drop out loser mentality of PF fans.

I agree...and Mason is a very underated drummer

@@deetee4403have a cigar and young lust, run like hell… money

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 is "easy-listening prog."

@@jonathanedwards8696 OK. I'll buy that!

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?

Thanks for listening

And The Wall.

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.

These sexy prog songs are the exception that proves the rule

Ladies if the road. A noteworthy exception.

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."

YES! I always called Pink Floyd "easy listening prog."

I agree with all that and I hope I can on this really point out where they are prog and why

Yes, artists can find them very useful. In electronic music, they're like, here's my Minimalist Industrial Tech House or whatever, they breathe genre like air.

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...

"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

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.

😀

There is a brilliant example of what I'm talking about...

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....

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."

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

I agree...I hope that came across

@@AndyEdwardsDrummer Yes, Andy, you articulated the point well, and I appreciate that.

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.

The PROGOMETER does not lie

You nailed it, Ar Ti.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I got mine from Tandy

Check out my history of prog part one video...I did it...

@@AndyEdwardsDrummer I did listen to it, thanks.

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.

I agree entirely

@@AndyEdwardsDrummer thanks Andy

Yes...but then I wipe their memories afterwards in case they tell that fella at Classic Album Review

Rush contain the English Aesthetic. And so do the cartoons and films of Terry Gilliam. We are talking about aesthetic criteria, not where someone comes from. And as I list ten criteria that makes something prog then Can and Goblin are comfortably in the category. But most importantly it might be wise to consider that the Prog-o-meter is just an elaborate way of lampooning the anal retentive gate keeping of your average prog fan

@@AndyEdwardsDrummer "But most importantly it might be wise to consider that the Prog-o-meter is just an elaborate way of lampooning the anal retentive gate keeping of your average prog fan" Indeed, this is a witty trope worthy of a Monty Python skit (more English aesthetic at play).

Floyd was "easy-listening prog."

1965. Robert Fripp, who in three years would form King Crimson, was playing in jazz and lounge groups around London.

Pink Floyd was "easy listening prog." It was just BARELY prog!

I like how you claim that you can't apply quantifiable concepts to music (like for example the Billboard Hot 100?) then apply quantifiable criteria a few sentences later. The truth is that you can and you can't, but I did. And I categorically proved PF are prog, or I sent up the whole idea of categorisation...who knows...

@@AndyEdwardsDrummer Oh absolutely PF are prog, whether deciding by gut reaction or your progometer method. Note I said it's "very difficult to apply TOTALLY quantifiable concepts to art...". Proggers/blokes (usually the same) are always gonna make lists or rate things to a system, like sports fans/comics nerds/film buffs. And why not? It appeals to that geeky, obsessive side of fandom.