In the Wake of McDonald & Giles

I'm really out of my depth here without doing any research. I wish I had something intelligent and knowledgeable to add to this topic now, but I want to mention that I love In the Wake of Poseidon as it is.

I'm not a fan of the Peace bits either. My revised playlist for Poseidon which works well:

01 Pictures of a City
02 Cadence and Cascade
03 In the Wake of Poseidon
04 Cat Food
05 Groon
06 The Devil's Triangle

I have the M&G album and have listened to it a few times but need to revisit it again. Based on my three listens or so I like it quite a bit. However, I find it to be a bit different and less symphonic than Poseidon or even Court. Pete Sinfield's Still is another good one.

I really wish Crimson had recorded this one other album with the original lineup.

Ironically, I found a nice clean early pressing of the McDonald & Giles album at one of my local record shops a few weeks ago. Somehow I'd never gotten around to listening to it previously - I absolutely love it. It's been in my playing rotation ever since.   That said, there was no way that Mark I KC lineup could've continued and it was kind of remarkable they remained together as long as they did. I couldn't be happier with the way the band's sound continued to evolve.

I doubt that ‘lucky man’ would have been as impressive on ‘Wake’ because it would have lacked Keith Emerson’s insanely great keyboards/synths. ELP was the band for that song.

And Birdman suite is/was waaay too airy and light to be a side 2 on such an intensely menacing record as Wake. It would have needed a hard darkening from Fripp and a bit more variety via a mellotron or something. It is a great work in its own right but way too soft and gentle for “In the wake of Poseidon. Personally I hear very little early 70’s KC in it at all. Incredible string band kinda thing maybe?

And Groon I always considered an average sounding B-side (as it is) and two steps away from being “filler” material.

Edited by Valdez - 21 hours 58 minutes ago at 14:28

Disconnect wrote: The classification of McDonald & Giles as 'crossover prog' is mind-numbingly stupid. The delineations between sub-genres of prog (as set down in stone here at PA) are confusing...and doesn't take into account that bands who are around for 10-20+ years evolve their sound beyond the limits of whatever sub-genre they were originally classified in. King Crimson are a great example of this. Not every Crim album is 'eclectic prog'.

I wasn't planning to post at PA anymore (family issues primarily), negativity and crassness can get me down, but as an early member of the Eclectic team and part of the art rock family I find this comment comes off as both disrespectful to hard-working volunteers (perhaps you mould like to volunteer your time helping the site) and perhaps lacking sufficient perspective and value. It's not the most effective, considerate or helpful way to go about changes if one wishes to see changes.

Originally PA had an art rock category, I actually miss having one, but it was split into other categories such as Crossover Prog and Eclectic Prog and there was Heavy Prog. The acts were moved into the new categories and a huge number were looked at by a small number of people. Also various one in Prog Related got moved, and... Anyway, a huge amount of voluntary work has gone into this site and sometimes ideal fit aor best fit has not been achieved. Also, it was not as easy to access listening materials commonly before. I think the volunteers generally did the best they could given what was available, differences of opinion, and their limited time. But the site can always be improved and all members can help out with that.

Ideally, this site would support tagging albums with genres (multiple genres and music descriptions per album), but it is a sad limitation of this site that whole discographies must be placed in one category. It is not an exact science and one can present arguments to have an act moved form one category to another. It's not set down in stone, one can suggest changes, offer re-writes of descriptions and request the movement of bands from one category to another. That said, various changes do become harder because one would need M@X's involvement -- like I don't think we could just re-rite and submit the category re-writes/edits.

I do think that the genre descriptions could be very much improved, but I do think I would need M@X's involvement to change that. It is not something I would want to do now, but I have wanted to do that.

For Eclectic Prog, again since we have to place whole discographies under one category, it's not meant to just be about if an individual album is Eclectic (that can be what it's about) but based on the Eclecticism across the discography (and it was particularly made for ones considered to be Art Rock). I would say that Eclectic Prog fits King Crimson best for its discography because I do think it has the qualities of more than one PA category without strongly leaning to one of them as a core value. It is eclectic, and Art Rock (one might say that Prog commonly is eclectic by nature as it draws in and on from different styles, but band in Electic ideally should have the qualities of various PA categories in its discography without overmuch leaning towards any of them)

As for Giles and Fripp, I'm not that familiar with it but I had thought it had a mainstream influence of pop (psych pop) and funk. Often Crossover Prog albums are quite Eclectic Prog with some more mainstream qualities. There isn't a firm line between the two often. Avant Prog too often overlaps with what is in Eclectic Prog... Nomenclature is the bane of the archivist.

Some have complained about our made-up categories like Eclectic and Crossover, but I find they have their utility particularly given this site's limitations when it comes to its existing architecture. It's not ideal.

Of course lots of bands are not static, and change, and it is a sad limitation to many that we don't tag by the album, and multitag at that. I do much, much prefer the genre tagging results at Rate Your Music to PA (as well as its easy ability to search for albums based on multiple terms -- much more robust search engine).

I suggest that if you wish to see changes, consider posting one or more compelling, well-argued and courteous topics in Help us improve the site. I suggest avoiding words like stupid as it does not help with a compelling argument. And a little courtesy can go a long way, as can a willingness to put in plenty of effort oneself.

All are welcome to contribute and try to make this site better. Becoming a collaborator with the teams is one big way to help, but it does help to be a respectful and considerate team player. And if one is seen as unpleasant then one might well be passed on (we need people that can be trusted and can work pretty well with others).

I appreciate you Logan! Not so long ago when I was having a bad day I stepped out of line with someone I didn’t even know (you). I kick myself in the ass to this day for being so rude and selfish. To be honest this site is fine. The genres are fine, the mods are fine, the intelligence is through the roof… many times its just US that could use a little fine tuning … I speak for myself, perhaps maybe for others . We know who we are. Opinions about music can get contentious, we are all aware of that. Like political discussions we can scream and shout until we are blue in the face, but in the final analysis it’s all just a cool breeze over a hot turd… (Hey. That gives me an idea for a song!).   

Edited by Valdez - 3 hours 6 minutes ago at 09:20

Well said Logan, and I get it 100%.   BTW I know a few people who think ‘Groon’ is the best thing King Crimsons ever done… I don’t argue the point, but ….   

In closing…. Have fun with it!!!