Where is Pink Floyd in David Weigel’s history of Prog Rock?

[Bucka001]

The Spectator lambasts the new prog book "The Show That Never Ends." Half of the people on this forum will not be on board with the article author's outrage (as many do not consider Floyd to be "prog" rock) while the other half will agree wholeheartedly ("If Floyd wasn't prog, what was?")

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/...-of-prog-rock/

[rcarlberg]

The index set off further alarm bells. It includes copious citations for Styx, Kansas, Rush, Todd Rundgren and The Roches (!) — all of whom stand apart from any credible geographic or chronological reference point for Prog. Omitted entirely are any references to Peter Green’s Fleetwood Mac, Family, Traffic, Spooky Tooth, Can, Faust, Amon Dull, Tangerine Dream or Kraftwerk.

Many have WANTED to spell it that way, few have DARED.

[JJ88]

Some view them as part of psychedelia or later, even mainstream rock. I can understand but I personally think they define progressive rock at its best. Take something like Dark Side Of The Moon, which has 'On The Run' on it.

The likes of Styx, Kansas, Rush- those are all fine bands but I think lacking in the more experimental, exploratory quality of the earlier progressive groups.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Truth be told, this review actually tells me all I'd want to know about the book - while also solidly confirming my scepticism.

The analytical narrative on progressive rock as historical phenomenon in popular music has quite obviously yet to be written. While I hope for it to come in a commonly readable text, its base should be scholarly founded.

[polmico]

Somewhat relatedly, The Atlantic has just called prog "the whitest music ever."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...m_source=atlfb

[JJ88]

^Yeah. Someone on the Hoffman forum said, imagine the outrage if someone called- say- funk 'the blackest music ever'. What a load of horseshit.

Funny that Keith Emerson, whose work that article tears apart, doubtless had a wider knowledge of 'black' (ugh!) musicians than most of these indie/punk-loving critics. Whenever I saw his interviews he was always talking about Oscar Peterson, Jimmy Smith, Brother Jack McDuff, Big John Patton etc. as being his inspirations, and I became aware of players like these myself via him.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Somewhat relatedly, The Atlantic has just called prog "the whitest music ever."

Yup, and thus aschewing the tiny detail concerning South-American bands (and Brazilian most notably) donning a whole bunch of members with African origins, Asian progressive acts (Japan), even some rather prominent European musicians of initial 3rd. world ethnicity.

And are there really THAT many non-whites pumpin' and stompin' to dat Black Metal Hard Grindcore? Didn't think so; neither performers nor listeners. Which is exactly my point; until we have a 'certified' academic interpretation and outline of the whole deal, these folks will continue to spew out their stereotypical drivel into faint eternity.

[Halmyre]

Somewhat relatedly, The Atlantic has just called prog "the whitest music ever."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...m_source=atlfb

Who's up for a game of prog-dissing-cliche bingo?

Whatever. Music is for listening to, not reading about.

[Bucka001]

Somewhat relatedly, The Atlantic has just called prog "the whitest music ever."

^Yeah. Someone on the Hoffman forum said, imagine the outrage if someone called- say- funk 'the blackest music ever'. What a load of horseshit.

Urgghh. And you just know the author himself is white (he is, I looked). But, you know... he's not square like prog-loving white folks, he's hipper than that. Reminds me of a L.A. Times review in '90 of a Peter Hammill show at the Roxy. The reviewer slammed the concert and denigrated the PH audience, describing them as "mostly male, mostly white, mostly in their mid-30s." I wish I could remember the author's name, he was another white guy (who was a male; wouldn't be shocked if he was in his mid-30s) but again, not a nerdy white guy unlike those who dig prog. Lame that the predominant skin color of a band's audience / type of music's audience would somehow be used to denigrate the music itself (like, it's so bad it could *only* appeal to white folk). And it's white writers stupidly sinking to that level, the irony.

[JJ88]

^The guys who write this sort of stuff are always the same, as you say.

Seeing as he went down that road, interesting that he mentions The Ramones, I certainly don't hear much (big, big 'ugh' again) 'black' influence on their sound, if the guy means soul/blues, which I can only assume he does. That goes for the more frenetic end of punk rock generally.

Oh yeah, I seem to recall Bernie Worrell speaking approvingly of ELP.

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/...nd-more-576154

I bet that really blows this guy's mind.

[Baribrotzer]

The analytical narrative on progressive rock as historical phenomenon in popular music has quite obviously yet to be written. While I hope for it to come in a commonly readable text, its base should be scholarly founded.

Is such a thing even possible? To write anything resembling a scholarly work on some subject, one must know what that subject is. And even we don't know what prog really is - the consensus on a definition has been to avoid or postpone it by agreeing to disagree. Indeed, we can't agree on whether or not to count such major artists as Floyd, Zeppelin, the Moodies, or Zappa. Or even the biggest band ever, The Beatles.

Now I suppose that the writer of such a hypothetical tome could adopt what we've sometimes talked about a little: Use a statistical definition, where you compile a list of various objectively describable musical characteristics - odd meters, expanded instrumentation, expanded harmonic vocabulary, extended structures, and the like. Then you could define them as "progressive", and discuss their appearance, use of, and evolution in popular music. That gets around having to provide a yes-or-no definition for artists, or for the music itself. But it's also, in a way, a formalized version of agreeing-to-disagree - you could discuss the progressive vs. traditional elements in some song or album or artist's work without ever getting into the yes-or-no of whether the song or album or band was "prog". Or even getting into what "prog" definitively is.

[Bucka001]

^The guys who write this sort of stuff are always the same, as you say.

Seeing as he went down that road, interesting that he mentions The Ramones, I certainly don't hear much (big, big 'ugh' again) 'black' influence on their sound, if the guy means soul/blues, which I can only assume he does. That goes for the more frenetic end of punk rock generally.

Oh yeah, I seem to recall George Clinton speaking approvingly of ELP. I bet that really blows this guy's mind.

Yeah, you can't sound more "white" (whatever that's supposed to mean) than The Ramones. But something tells me the two authors I referenced before wouldn't be down with describing that band as such.

[Baribrotzer]

Urgghh. And you just know the author himself is white (he is, I looked). But, you know... he's not square like prog-loving white folks, he's hipper than that. Reminds me of a L.A. Times review in '90 of a Peter Hammill show at the Roxy. The reviewer slammed the concert and denigrated the PH audience, describing them as "mostly male, mostly white, mostly in their mid-30s." I wish I could remember the author's name, he was another white guy (who was a male; wouldn't be shocked if he was in his mid-30s) but again, not a nerdy white guy unlike those who dig prog. Lame that the predominant skin color of a band's audience / type of music's audience would somehow be used to denigrate the music itself (like, it's so bad it could *only* appeal to white folk). And it's white writers stupidly sinking to that level, the irony.

Oh, of course he is.

Only a white guy would speak of it with such contempt, born from his own perception of his own lack of inherent "authenticity". Interestingly enough, country music - which, of course, IS "authentic", even the most commercialized Nashville variety - is just as white. Go figure. The worst thing a black guy would probably say of prog is, "I don't get it. I do not get this shit. Will somebody please tell me what this is about, because I do. not. get. this. shit."

[Sean]

It's almost like some of his journalist buddies are pitching in to help draw attention to the book by either complaining about omissions or saying the genre sucked and was "the whitest ever" and then, whaddaya know?, they mention the book.

I suggest not buying the book at all.

It just buys into the usual "punk killed prog" and "this music is somewhat embarrassing because it's so 'pompous' or _____, you fill in the blank".

We know punk didn't kill it at all. Yet that is an inconvenient truth when you are trying to sell, one-sided books like this. It's great he loves prog... He could have just gone about it differently.

[JJ88]

The Clinton Heylin article which started this thread was somewhat more nuanced, it's that guy who wrote the 'whitest music ever' nonsense which I object to.

Progressive rock is, or should be, a broad church.

[Tom]

Somewhat relatedly, The Atlantic has just called prog "the whitest music ever."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...m_source=atlfb

What they mean is, it's the whitest music they have ever heard of. Someone should tell them about Staind. Or even The Ramones, for that matter.

[smcfee]

Pink Floyd's mentioned in the index 14 times, so I guess the answer to the original question is, "in fourteen places".

[Facelift]

I suggest not buying the book at all.

It just buys into the usual "punk killed prog" and "this music is somewhat embarrassing because it's so 'pompous' or _____, you fill in the blank".

Did you read the book? Because this really isn't accurate at all.

[rcarlberg]

The analytical narrative on progressive rock as historical phenomenon in popular music has quite obviously yet to be written. While I hope for it to come in a commonly readable text, its base should be scholarly founded.

Ah, but in order to do that someone will first have to accomplish the impossible: define 'what is prog.'

[Trane]

It's almost like some of his journalist buddies are pitching in to help draw attention to the book by either complaining about omissions or saying the genre sucked and was "the whitest ever" and then, whaddaya know?, they mention the book.

I suggest not buying the book at all.

It just buys into the usual "punk killed prog" and "this music is somewhat embarrassing because it's so 'pompous' or _____, you fill in the blank".

We know punk didn't kill it at all. Yet that is an inconvenient truth when you are trying to sell, one-sided books like this. It's great he loves prog... He could have just gone about it differently.

I'm currently reading Nick Kunt's Apathy For The Devil about his idiotic tastes and role in the 70's... and how he was instrumental in the rise of the Sex Pistols

For the dude, it was about rebellion, fashion & sex, but obviously not much about music

[zombywoof]

But, wait - are Pink Floyd prog?!?

[Baribrotzer]

But, wait - are Pink Floyd prog?!?

Ah, but in order to do that someone will first have to accomplish the impossible: define 'what is prog.'

To repeat myself - and yes, I am under stress:

......I suppose that the writer of such a hypothetical tome could adopt what we've sometimes talked about a little: Use a statistical definition, where you compile a list of various objectively describable musical characteristics - odd meters, expanded instrumentation, expanded harmonic vocabulary, extended structures, and the like. Then you could define them as "progressive", and discuss their appearance, use of, and evolution in popular music. That gets around having to provide a yes-or-no definition for artists, or for the music itself. But it's also, in a way, a formalized version of agreeing-to-disagree - you could discuss the progressive vs. traditional elements in some song or album or artist's work without ever getting into the yes-or-no of whether the song or album or band was "prog". Or even getting into what "prog" definitively is.

So one could talk about the "progressive" element in PF's "Money" - the 7/4 meter - versus the traditional ones - most notably, that it's a blues. But you wouldn't ever need to actually say whether Floyd were a "prog" band, or even what "prog" is. Although you might, just by who you did and didn't include and discuss, imply inclusion or non-inclusion.

[moecurlythanu]

We need to have a group (whatever,) where everyone puts forth what they think are universal characteristics of Progressive Rock. Do a whole collective discussion, and throw out the things that don't fit (aren't agreed upon.) It would go some way towards a definition of the genre, but most likely would simply provide some characteristics that can be counted on.

However, by putting forth characteristics, we might get closer to a definition than we currently are. Just sayin'..

[Baribrotzer]

We need to have a group (whatever,) where everyone puts forth what they think are universal characteristics of Progressive Rock. Do a whole collective discussion, and throw out the things that don't fit (aren't agreed upon.) It would go some way towards a definition of the genre, but most likely would simply provide some characteristics that can be counted on.

However, by putting forth characteristics, we might get closer to a definition than we currently are. Just sayin'..

I tried to do that once, and people just dumped on me. I may not have much sense of humor (none, in fact) but I can take a hint. Or, in other words, one part of the agreeing-to-disagree consensus is that any answer is impossible, trying to look for one is a complete waste of time, and even the attempt deserves only laughter.

[Scrotum Scissor]

I tried to do that once, and people just dumped on me. I may not have much sense of humor (none, in fact) but I can take a hint. Or, in other words, one part of the agreeing-to-disagree consensus is that any answer is impossible, trying to look for one is a complete waste of time, and even the attempt deserves only laughter.

First, John - if they jumped on you for it, then pity them. You're one of the most consequently serious, enlightened, articulate and to-the-point dedicated contributors in this whole place, and anyone with a reasonable amount of insights as to both the topics themselves and the general 'rules of communicative conduct' who's spent some time in here would know this.

But I don't think it's a question of "agreeing" on a definition which everyone can be satisfied or comfortable with. It's a case of casus knowledge and deductive arguments based on this. Whether or not a conclusion then disqualifies this or that name from belonging, isn't really relevant at all. It's not an aim in itself to "be prog". Or perhaps it is, and this is essentially where the main dilemma ahces?