Sulphur on 19/5/2010 at 19:18

---

Great post to bring the thread back with, chief. Very insightful.

ercles on 23/5/2010 at 15:11

---

I think the problem is that you are approach prog purely from a musicianship angle. Although Pink Floyd certainly did some interesting and proggy things music wise on their earlier Barret influenced albums like A Saucerful of Secrets and Atom Heart Mother, I think a lot more than just using the odd funny time signature identifies them as a prog band. The first would be the fact that lots of their songs are extended, multipart affairs, often arranged in suites or sections, the other would be their continual attempts at concept albums of different styles. Although neither would necessarily indicate a prog band, when I think of 70's prog music I certainly think of fucking long songs, and really unnecessary concept albums. Do you also think that Rush (another one of those real textbook examples of 70's prog rock groups) also wasn't prog?

If nothing else they tried was prog, The Wall has to be, in the sense that making a double album rock opera about how being in a band fucks you up was and would still remain a fairly bizarre thing to attempt.

It's a bit of a futile debate really, because the whole prog label is such a vague one. Some people consider Radiohead progressive compared to what they listen to, others can't seem to find bands weird enough to be truly groundbreaking. If you are looking for music that was really pretty original for its time I can't see why the early Pink Floyd albums, which really broke ground in the psychadelia culture of London in the late 60's don't qualify.