Indeed. But....

Pink floyd were part of the progressive rock scene, which was pretentious. They had hardly any singles in the charts, especially after Syd Barrett went mad. So at the peak of their excellence, the likes of Jonny Rotten (wearing an "I Hate Pink Floyd" t-shirt), and Dave Vanian (The Damned produced the definitive "punk" guitar riff to attention), brought to the *yoot* a music they could relate to. Even if that was also pretentious.

No analysing required. They both served a purpose. One musical, the other accessible.

I personally like both types of music.

My tuppence.

P.S. "Live in Pompeii" is all you need to decide if you like Floyd or not. Elements of Barrett, Waters, Gilmore,... all of them really.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

There is a time and place where time and place have meaning. Early Floyd had it. Though my Floyd is Obscured By Clouds, Meddle and Dark Side.
Pogressive does not always mean progression.
It can mean noodling down a dead end.
The arrival of punk mean't another choice for us young uns. Going to a rock concert, going to a disco or going to a pub or club to jump about with your mates.
A few would be dogmatic but most would enjoy at least two out of three. We were not on the punk frontline taking the abuse. We would go to the Roxy for a night out then go back home and cleanse our ears with some Isley Brothers.
Have heard good things about Division Bell but don't believe them, gave up after buying Animals.
I also believe that Britpop tolled the bell for the end of the progression of British pop music.

It's good to keep an opened mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

If you are judging PF's success by chart singles you've completely missed the point; it's the 250m albums, and still selling at a million a year, that counts.

Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Its 1971 and Pink Floyd are headlining at Crystal Palace park with the Faces supporting.

My friend and ,young just teenage kids,crawl under various bits of wire and we are then backstage....

Contrast and compare:

The Faces (especially Rod) share their bottles of wine with us and vouch for us as being with them when security for some reason doubt we should legitimately be there

Pink Floyd make us pay to be able to have a jazz cigarette...

Quiz question:which group were cnuts?

Edited by legaleagle (03 Oct 2016 9.50am)

I don't really like Pink Floyd, they're far to prog rock for my liking, but oddly I do really like some of their tracks, but listening to whole albums I find horribly dull. They're great musicians, and I absolutely love psychedelic rock/music, but not the Floyd.

Individually I couldn't pick out a track that I've heard that was s**t. Collectively it just blends to much for me....

But I think its more a me thing, rather than them. Even if they were 'Dad Rock' by the time I was 18

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

In the real world it is an exercise in making money by exploiting the young's need to latch onto a trend. You can dress it up as something more significant if you like but in reality "Punk" allowed people with very limited talent to produce music, in some case independently of big record companies. A lot of so called "Punk was not Punk at all. Just artists jumping on the bandwagon of the trend to sell records, often directed by their record companies.
The late 70's was the era of trends but like most youth culture it has all been wildly exaggerated. There were never many Punks or Teds, rockers or mods for that matter. It was mostly just media hype.