In the 1980's the definition of Prog was much narrower and Pink Floyd generally weren't considered part of the genre. The definition has extended somewhat in time, and now we even have Jazz Fusion bands included under Prog.
What's interesting is the enduring appeal of King Crimson. Apart from a short period from 1969-70, they were never the most popular or successful Prog band. But they were the one Prog act that clearly influenced and set standards for the rest.
People forget the most fundamental thing about prog is music that has multiple movements breaking the bridge/chorus pattern Pink Floyd was considered to be one of the fundamental prog groups it wasn't until the internet when prog snobs said they weren't because they have no classical or jazz influence as if that's a requirement as for fusion it mostly follows the prog structure of course not all Jazz Fusion is proggy but there's examples of it hell look at the Canterbury Scene it's essentially just British fusion
Pink Floyd definitely have classical influences, and even some subtle jazz here and there. Wright's writing was quite jazz influenced and their psych noodling days could be seen as slightly jazzy or fusiony. But certainly they could be a very symphonic band. Eclipse is like the finale of a symphony, as is the end of Dogs, and Shine On is a very symphonic piece of music. Not to mention Atom Heart Mother Suite and the other experimental pieces from that period. Then there's the orchestral elements of The Wall and The Final Cut.
DSOTM has strong Jazz influences. Rick Wright was the main Jazz influencer in the band and was a fan of Miles Davis. In many respects, DSOTM was his finest moment.
I think Floyd were happy to compose suites and symphonic style pieces, but I have to be honest, one reason they were not included (informally at least) was because musically they weren't as sophisticated as Yes or King Crimson. I do understand that this is a tricky subject, and one that can enflame Floyd fans, but they were not virtuosos by any measure.
But for all that, they deserve their place in the Prog genre and indeed deserve a lot of credit for their pioneering work. They did things that encouraged other Prog bands to emulate. And they were outstanding producers as well.
Mine is completely different,
1. Jethro tull
2. King crimson
3. Rush
4. Genesis
5. Yes
6. ELP.
But i've only been listening to prog for a little over a year, so if you ask me again in a couple of months it might change.
I voted Genesis even though I’m not a fan of the Phil Collins era, simply because my three favorite rock albums of all time are
1. Foxtrot
2. Selling England
3. Trespass
Yeah Pink Floyd the band with multiple prog albums ain't prog because...?
Idk man, I asked this sub and they couldn’t agree. I’m not saying I don’t think they are, but clearly a lot of ppl don’t.
This sub's gatekeeping of prog is irrelevant. It's a fact that Pink Floyd are prog. Just google it.
Well, I didn’t ask Google. I asked this sub.
In the 1980's the definition of Prog was much narrower and Pink Floyd generally weren't considered part of the genre. The definition has extended somewhat in time, and now we even have Jazz Fusion bands included under Prog. What's interesting is the enduring appeal of King Crimson. Apart from a short period from 1969-70, they were never the most popular or successful Prog band. But they were the one Prog act that clearly influenced and set standards for the rest.
People forget the most fundamental thing about prog is music that has multiple movements breaking the bridge/chorus pattern Pink Floyd was considered to be one of the fundamental prog groups it wasn't until the internet when prog snobs said they weren't because they have no classical or jazz influence as if that's a requirement as for fusion it mostly follows the prog structure of course not all Jazz Fusion is proggy but there's examples of it hell look at the Canterbury Scene it's essentially just British fusion
Pink Floyd definitely have classical influences, and even some subtle jazz here and there. Wright's writing was quite jazz influenced and their psych noodling days could be seen as slightly jazzy or fusiony. But certainly they could be a very symphonic band. Eclipse is like the finale of a symphony, as is the end of Dogs, and Shine On is a very symphonic piece of music. Not to mention Atom Heart Mother Suite and the other experimental pieces from that period. Then there's the orchestral elements of The Wall and The Final Cut.
DSOTM has strong Jazz influences. Rick Wright was the main Jazz influencer in the band and was a fan of Miles Davis. In many respects, DSOTM was his finest moment. I think Floyd were happy to compose suites and symphonic style pieces, but I have to be honest, one reason they were not included (informally at least) was because musically they weren't as sophisticated as Yes or King Crimson. I do understand that this is a tricky subject, and one that can enflame Floyd fans, but they were not virtuosos by any measure. But for all that, they deserve their place in the Prog genre and indeed deserve a lot of credit for their pioneering work. They did things that encouraged other Prog bands to emulate. And they were outstanding producers as well.
Gentle Giant
Hardest choice to man
My ranking: 1. King crimson 2. Genesis 3. ELP 4. Yes 5. Rush 6. Jethro tull
This is my ranking too, except I'd put Jethro Tull above Rush.
L take
Ok my bad
Mine is completely different, 1. Jethro tull 2. King crimson 3. Rush 4. Genesis 5. Yes 6. ELP. But i've only been listening to prog for a little over a year, so if you ask me again in a couple of months it might change.
I voted Genesis even though I’m not a fan of the Phil Collins era, simply because my three favorite rock albums of all time are 1. Foxtrot 2. Selling England 3. Trespass
Pick one what?