Unifaun

Well, I'll keep saying that the Pink Floyd, in terms of progressive, made Atom Heart Mother (the suite), the rest of progressive hardly has anything.

Well, it depends on what you mean by progressive... it's undeniable that the music of the Floyd is much less elaborate and more commercial than that of the early Genesis, Yes, and the like, yet it is usually classified as progressive. It's not just about the grandiose 40-minute suites with keyboard solos and symphonic orchestras... then again, everyone is entitled to their opinion; if "Dark Side" isn't prog, it's still a masterpiece, just like "Selling England," for that matter...

To say it with Genesis (whom I have never liked, I find this album to be uniquely boring and pompous, tastes aside), what do they have in common?

That the music of PF is less elaborate and more commercial (unless you mean in terms of sales...) than that of Genesis, I don't quite agree. But then again, these are completely different styles, compositions, projects, and productions. Selling, in my opinion, is a very beautiful vinyl. Imperfect, though. To quote Banks: The Battle of .... is absolutely not how he originally conceived it. Logorrheic, thanks to Peter. After the Ordeal shouldn't have been included on side B. And the little song with Phil as vocalist.........a boring chant. I prefer Foxtrot, as a whole.

I agree with madcat in saying that TDSOTM is not progressive and that the PF have only done Prog with Atom, but I don't agree with the judgment on Genesis. Unifaun, Genesis, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Van Der Graaf Generator, Caravan, Soft Machine, and others are Progressive bands, not Pink Floyd. One should not rely on Wikipedia for genres because it is not always accurate. What is meant by progressive is a lengthy discussion, but it is certainly not a subjective matter.

@FrenkyWestSide: I know almost all the bands you've mentioned (I've never heard anything by Soft Machine, but I'll fix that) and I believe I have a good overall view of the classic progressive scene... and yet I don't see what the PF lack compared to Genesis and the others you've mentioned, apart from being less elaborate and symphonic and somehow more "commercial." Beyond Wikipedia and aside from the early albums (which are undoubtedly psychedelic), most reviews of their albums on DeBaser also label "Progressive" as a genre. If that's wrong, then I've always lived in error... but then what genre do the Floyd belong to, assuming that their music can be labeled in any way?

Dear Unifaun, in response to the question "what genre do Pink Floyd play," I can't give you a precise answer. I believe it's very difficult, or almost impossible, to label their genre, partly because their albums are nearly all different from one another (except for Final Cut, The Wall, and the early psychedelic ones). I can easily define Atom Heart Mother as a Progressive Suite, but with Echoes (which I think you're very familiar with given your profile), I would hardly say it's as Prog as Atom; it's definitely more psychedelic. The albums I would consider more Prog are Atom and I would also include Animals and Wish You Were Here. The rest, I wouldn't consider Progressive, at least not by my standards.