Jump to content
Muse

are muse the new pink floyd?

spareflyer

By spareflyer
in Other Muse Topics

Recommended Posts

Obi Escapee

Obi

Posted
Posted
No. There isn't a new Pink Floyd. For a start, Roger Waters was (maybe still is, but he hasn't released an album since 1991) an incredible lyricist who actually wrote songs with substance, whereas Matt Bellamy's lyrics are usually laughable at best. The only link is that Storm Thorgerson has provided artwork for both bands.

 

Neither band is progressive, by the way. Pink Floyd have about six genuinely progressive songs, formulating a very small percentage of their repertoire. You can only consider them a prog band if you completley ignore the vast majority of their songs.

 

If you don't like prog.

 

Which I do. And so that statement is meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pubicmage Escapee

pubicmage

Posted
Posted
If you don't like prog.

 

Which I do. And so that statement is meaningless.

 

I like prog (King Crimson, Genesis, very early ELP, Camel and The Mars Volta, to name a few), even though there is a hell of a lot of complete rubbish in the genre (i.e. Yes, Rush, Dream Theatre, most ELP). But my statement has NOTHING to do with my opinion of prog rock. What it has to do with is the progressiveness of Pink Floyd's music in comparison to the standard pop song, and anybody who is well-acquainted with their discography should be more than aware that only a minority of Pink Floyd's songs are really progressive. It is just as unfair to classify them as a disco band because of Run Like Hell and a few other songs with the disco beat as it is to classify them as a prog band because of Atom Heart Mother, Dogs and Shine On You Crazy Diamond (and arguably a few others).

 

Essentially: Pink Floyd are not a progressive rock band, and giving them that classification is unfair and inaccurate because prog only forms a small percentage of their discography. They are just an experimental rock band who rely more on timbre than they do on progressive structures.

 

Tell me how the statement is meaningless. If we decide to classify every Pink Floyd song, I can guarantee you that a very insignificant amount of it will (justifiably) be considered progressive. Ergo, they are not a prog band any more than they are a folk band (they have also done a few folk songs like Cirrus Minor, If, Grantchester Meadows and A Pillow of Winds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Obi Escapee

Obi

Posted
Posted
I like prog (King Crimson, Genesis, very early ELP, Camel and The Mars Volta, to name a few), even though there is a hell of a lot of complete rubbish in the genre (i.e. Yes, Rush, Dream Theatre, most ELP). But my statement has NOTHING to do with my opinion of prog rock. What it has to do with is the progressiveness of Pink Floyd's music in comparison to the standard pop song, and anybody who is well-acquainted with their discography should be more than aware that only a minority of Pink Floyd's songs are really progressive. It is just as unfair to classify them as a disco band because of Run Like Hell and a few other songs with the disco beat as it is to classify them as a prog band because of Atom Heart Mother, Dogs and Shine On You Crazy Diamond (and arguably a few others).

 

Essentially: Pink Floyd are not a progressive rock band, and giving them that classification is unfair and inaccurate because prog only forms a small percentage of their discography. They are just an experimental rock band who rely more on timbre than they do on progressive structures.

 

Tell me how the statement is meaningless. If we decide to classify every Pink Floyd song, I can guarantee you that a very insignificant amount of it will (justifiably) be considered progressive. Ergo, they are not a prog band any more than they are a folk band (they have also done a few folk songs like Cirrus Minor, If, Grantchester Meadows and A Pillow of Winds).

 

To be fair, my original point was that both bands were progressively influenced, not necessarily prog bands.

 

My issue was the way you worded it: "If you ignore most the songs". I don't ignore any Mars Volta songs cause they are long for example.

 

Also how long songs are don't make a prog band. Prog bands might have an album full of 5/6 minute songs. Pink Floyd definitely had progressive elements to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pubicmage Escapee

pubicmage

Posted
Posted
To be fair, my original point was that both bands were progressively influenced, not necessarily prog bands.

 

My issue was the way you worded it: "If you ignore most the songs". I don't ignore any Mars Volta songs cause they are long for example.

 

Also how long songs are don't make a prog band. Prog bands might have an album full of 5/6 minute songs. Pink Floyd definitely had progressive elements to them.

 

Pink Floyd weren't 'progressively influenced'. They were influenced by pop bands and jazz groups.

 

What is wrong with the way I worded it? What I meant was that you have to ignore most songs (i.e. listen selectively and not consider any of the non-progressive PF songs, which make up most of their repertoire) to try and give them this classification. If you ignore most of their songs, you can justify calling Pink Floyd a progressive rock band (except it's obviously not justified if you are ignoring most of their music to reach that classification). All I am saying is that EVERY song has to be considered if we are classifying the band's overall sound.

 

I didn't say song lengths make bands progressive. That's a point I've been arguing against for years, in fact. Halleluhwah by Can and Sister Ray by The Velvet Underground are prime examples of 17/18 minute songs without next to no progression, yet they often get unfairly classified as prog rock (especially Can). Repeating a riff for the entire during of a song is obviously not progressive. It's repetitive, and contains less progression than a three minute pop song.

 

And of course I know that you can have progressive songs that are as long as normal pop songs. Can Utility and the Coastliners by Genesis proves that. The problem is that Pink Floyd only have about two such songs. They have progressive elements, yes, mainly because they wrote a few progressive rock songs, but they are far too underwhelming to justify classifying them as a prog band. I have no problem with Animals and Wish You Were Here being considered progressive rock albums. Nothing else in their oeuvre is, though, because the majority of their songs use typical pop structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Obi Escapee

Obi

Posted
Posted
Pink Floyd weren't 'progressively influenced'. They were influenced by pop bands and jazz groups.

 

What is wrong with the way I worded it? What I meant was that you have to ignore most songs (i.e. listen selectively and not consider any of the non-progressive PF songs, which make up most of their repertoire) to try and give them this classification. If you ignore most of their songs, you can justify calling Pink Floyd a progressive rock band (except it's obviously not justified if you are ignoring most of their music to reach that classification). All I am saying is that EVERY song has to be considered if we are classifying the band's overall sound.

 

I didn't say song lengths make bands progressive. That's a point I've been arguing against for years, in fact. Halleluhwah by Can and Sister Ray by The Velvet Underground are prime examples of 17/18 minute songs without next to no progression, yet they often get unfairly classified as prog rock (especially Can). Repeating a riff for the entire during of a song is obviously not progressive. It's repetitive, and contains less progression than a three minute pop song.

 

And of course I know that you can have progressive songs that are as long as normal pop songs. Can Utility and the Coastliners by Genesis proves that. The problem is that Pink Floyd only have about two such songs. They have progressive elements, yes, mainly because they wrote a few progressive rock songs, but they are far too underwhelming to justify classifying them as a prog band. I have no problem with Animals and Wish You Were Here being considered progressive rock albums. Nothing else in their oeuvre is, though, because the majority of their songs use typical pop structures.

 

OK, fair enough, that makes more sense.

 

I really should have been more specific as well. Muse are progressively influenced....but Pink Floyd have inspired hundreds of Prog Bands themselves. Yes, not all their music is proggy (just listen to Money for example) but some of their stuff is.

 

And I'm glad you like Genesis because they are a band that have dabbled in tons of genres, including prog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pubicmage Escapee

pubicmage

Posted
Posted
OK, fair enough, that makes more sense.

 

I really should have been more specific as well. Muse are progressively influenced....but Pink Floyd have inspired hundreds of Prog Bands themselves. Yes, not all their music is proggy (just listen to Money for example) but some of their stuff is.

 

And I'm glad you like Genesis because they are a band that have dabbled in tons of genres, including prog.

 

Precisely. I'd gladly acknowledge that multiple-movement songs like Shine On You Crazy Diamond are progressive, and they definitely have a resounding influence over subsequent bands who are genuinely progressive at least 90% of the time (e.g. The Mars Volta), but when their work as a whole is brought into consideration, they covered too much ground to be given that one tag, and they haven't done enough progressive music to justify it.

 

As for Genesis, I find everything from Trespass through to Wind and Wuthering to be excellent. They've got some good stuff beyond that, but most of it's not really to my taste. Collins as a frontman has nothing on Gabriel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Obi Escapee

Obi

Posted
Posted
Precisely. I'd gladly acknowledge that multiple-movement songs like Shine On You Crazy Diamond are progressive, and they definitely have a resounding influence over subsequent bands who are genuinely progressive at least 90% of the time (e.g. The Mars Volta), but when their work as a whole is brought into consideration, they covered too much ground to be given that one tag, and they haven't done enough progressive music to justify it.

 

As for Genesis, I find everything from Trespass through to Wind and Wuthering to be excellent. They've got some good stuff beyond that, but most of it's not really to my taste. Collins as a frontman has nothing on Gabriel.

 

 

I agree although I could not stand Gabriel as a solo artists. I couldn't stand Collins as a solo artist either. :LOL:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hopix Hysteric

Hopix

Posted
Posted
OK, fair enough, that makes more sense.

 

I really should have been more specific as well. Muse are progressively influenced....but Pink Floyd have inspired hundreds of Prog Bands themselves. Yes, not all their music is proggy (just listen to Money for example) but some of their stuff is.

 

And I'm glad you like Genesis because they are a band that have dabbled in tons of genres, including prog.

 

I think that Pink Floyd ARE a prog rock band if you look at the albums instead of individual songs.

Anyway I agree with wikipeadia in terms of genres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...