The much loved and hated ELP

Its seems as though never in the history of prog rock has a band been so revered and yet so despised at the same time. I know there are some big time ELP fans here but I also know there are those that cant stand them. Its a bit perplexing to me.

They practically ushered in the genre, made virtuosity a thing to be admired and marveled at, topped the polls year after year in the 70's, Emerson constantly took home best keyboards awards in every major music magazine and their overall influence on other bands is so far reaching that it can never be fully estimated.


Emerson is unquestionably the greatest multi keyboard player to ever live and is equally at home playing jazz with a big band or complex classical piano with a philharmonic orchestra. Whats not to like?? He is the living definition of a prog musician.

Yes ELP could be bombastic and over the top but thats what made them so great. Who else has the nerve or the audacity to do some of the things they did? They constantly pushed the envelope and were probably the most adventurous band that ever lived.

I think that the charge that ELP did not make consistent records is probably due to the fact that Emerson had so many musical influences in his life that he wanted to show them all on the ELP records. Thats why we have Benny the Bouncer, The Sherrif, Jeremy Bender and other stuff that showed a lighter side of ELP and also helped to break up the heaviness of the over all release. Some call it inconsistent.. I call it brilliant. I guess you had to "get" their humor

They had a singular sound that not even Yes or Genesis could boast. What I mean by that is that in Yes and Genesis you could have personnel changes and most people would never even know it because the overall sound remained the same. Take any member of ELP out of the mix and you no longer had their recognizable sound. Anyway, as you can probably tell, I have slight fondness for that band. I can understand why the average uneducated and casual listener would hate ELP in many ways but I really dont understand why so many progheads hate them as well. And just to be clear about something, when I talk about ELP's greatness, I speak of the first album through Brain Salad Surgery. I'd love to hear feedback from lovers and haters alike!

Got a copy of Edward Macan's excellent book 'The Endless Enigma' today. I'd read through it many times in a nearby shop so I took advantage of a massive 50% discount offer to buy it.

Edited by salmacis - December 15 2007 at 09:32

Ghost Rider wrote: I am an ELP lover, though, like you, I think their greatness ended with the live album. Their output after that does contain some gems, but unfortunately their fame is somewhat overshadowed by the dubious quality of the rest of the material. However, as inconsistent as they may have been, they do represent the essence of Classic Prog in a way Genesis and Yes (to mention but two) don't. Let's face it - prog is not so much about making gentle, melody-filled music, but about bombast, technical chops, preposterous stories and concepts, and stretching the boundaries of 'traditional' rock music. As Mike aptly said, they were bold, brave and adventurous - much as what I say as their modern equivalent, The Mars Volta, are nowadays. Bands such as them command very strong feelings, and rarely leave people indifferent (like for instance Genesis do).

exactly as I feel darling ...  I like what John had to say on his website about ELP.  Some food for thought....

Emerson, Lake and Palmer are quite possibly the world's most reviled band. Now, they were extremely popular in the early 70's among those who 'took themselves seriously' (especially college students), and even today they maintain a sizable cult following, so it would be unfair to say that absolutely nobody likes them. Regardless, however, this is a perfectly legitimate statement on the general level. Fans of punk have always detested them as they would any prog band, but this extended far beyond normal levels of loathing; as an example, one of the staples of late 70's Sex Pistols shows was to burn life-size statues of Keith Emerson in effigy.

Now, this normally wouldn't be such a bad thing, since after all hatred of art-rock and prog-rock was one of the most important principles upon which the punk movement was founded. No, what distinguished ELP was the amount of venom spewed upon them by other "high-brow" artists and their various followers. Fans of classical music absolutely despised them for "butchering" various well-known pieces in their attempts to interpret these standards in a rock idiom. There is a nugget of truth to this, of course (Pictures at an Exhibition is often quite a stretch from the original Mussorgsky piece, to put it mildly), but ... I dunno. I'm sure that a good number of the band's fans became fans of classical music due to their efforts, so that should be worth something. Or maybe the older generation was just mad about all these young whippersnappers infiltrating their societal niche ....

The greatest insult of all, of course, is that even among some prog lovers, they're hated like crazy! Now, prog is often considered a relatively open-ended term, and many are eager to classify any band with the least bit of 'artsy' leanings as one. Hence, many groups are GROSSLY misclassified in this genre. Styx, Journey, Kansas ... all are talentless buffoons with large egos but little else, and let's face it, you really need talent to be a decent prog group (though I guess Kansas and Styx can technically qualify as prog. Ehn). The Moody Blues and Procol Harum often get the tag, but that's only because of the slight symphonic elements in their sound (from mellotron in the former, organs in the latter); both are most definitely rooted in pop, and it should definitely be noted that the former's concepts are never as overwhelmingly bizarre as one would expect from a true prog band (not to mention that the chord progressions are never in the least bit intimidating). Jethro Tull ... well, Jethro Tull was a prog band for the bulk of the 70's, sure, but with a couple of MAJOR exceptions, their progressive stuff was extremely second-rate; I vastly prefer to think of Tull in terms of Teacher and the like as opposed to garbage like Minstrel in the Gallery. And finally, it is highly tempting to refer to Pink Floyd as progressive, but ... avant-garde yes. Artsy, yes. Pretentious, yes. But the lyrics are, again, always either psychadelic, folk, pop, or hyper-angsty. Anyways, the whole point of this is that among English speaking groups (I'm not even going to try and fake any knowledge about German prog or anything like that), there are really five widely acknowledged prog groups (and yes, I'm aware of the existance of Gentle Giant and Van Der Graff, but I'm speaking of widely acknowledged groups, groups that a casual rock fan who may know vaguely enough about prog to have made some level of judgement will recognize): Yes, ELP, Rush (though that's debatable), Genesis (the Gabriel-era stuff plus Trick of the Tail and Wind and Wuthering, that is), and first-period King Crimson (Larks to Red is heavy avant-garde (though the complexity is sufficient to make a definite argument of it also being prog), the 80's incarnation is heavily rooted in New-Wave, and the 90's version could almost be called progressive(*gasp*)-punk with a heavy improv side). And almost universally, ELP is considered the worst of all of these.

Now, for many, a sufficient explanation of this is simply, "ELP sucks!". Needless to say, I think that is a grave mistake (myself, I would rate them third on the list, behind Yes and Genesis - note, however, that I now consider King Crimson on the whole to be far superior to ELP, even though first-period KC only has two albums worth caring about), but I think I can make a good estimation on the real reasons people despise this band. The first, and the most obvious, was the group's relatively heavy emphasis on classical music in their sound. Yes, progressive rock almost always has at least a tinge of some classical elements, but ELP's music had the greatest concentration of it in their music, BY FAR. Now, it's not as if that was the only type of music they did, not at all, but among their discography you can find covers of Copeland, Holst, Bartok, and they even did a full album rendition of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition. Their self-penned material would also sometimes have a pure 'orchestral' feel as well, and they even managed to create a new and totally bizarre genre, the 'rock-symphony.'

The band's classical leanings, however, are not the only significant difference between ELP and the others on the list. A key thing to note about ELP is that, besides King Crimson, none of the others on the list were prog-groups from the get-go. Yes started as a jazzy, psychadelic rock band, and it wasn't until their third LP that they really became Yes as we know them. Rush began as a hard-rock garage band, modelling themselves after Led Zeppelin and Cream. And Genesis, well, Genesis started as a bunch of teenagers trying to sell pop songs to the public and not succeeding one iota (which is a shame, seeing as there are tons of great melodies on their debut). ELP, however, was pretentious and progressive from the very beginning, which makes sense. Both Keith Emerson (The Nice) and Greg Lake (King Crimson) were former key members of groups that had pretty much created the genre, and as such one could only expect them to continue what they seemed to have a knack for. Add in Carl Palmer's technically perfect drumming, and you have a group created for pretentiousness and lots of it.

There is one more aspect that sets ELP apart from the other groups, and that deals with the center of the band's sound. Rush focused on the blistering chops of their guitar and bass players. Yes, regardless of Wakeman's presence, rotated around their amazing bassist, Chris Squire. Genesis tried to emphasize Peter Gabriel's vocals and his bizarre fantasies over the less-than-stellar chops of the rest of the group. In the Court of the Crimson King, regardless of all of the mellotrons, was extremely guitar heavy, not to mention the saxaphones and other reed instruments. ELP, however, did not revolve around a guitar or bass player like the others. ELP was always centered on the keyboards of Keith Emerson. Now, it's not that he was a bad player, FAR from it. It's just that, well, he could be a bit too showoffy. Plus the fact that he often employed some extremely bizarre and occasionally annoying synth tones that few others would even touch. And since most people would rather hear guitar w**king than synth w**king, it's only natural that there would be a huge turn-away from this group.

I think I have made it sufficiently clear that ELP is not for everyone. The thing is, for the longest time I refused to give them even the slightest chance, and that's a shame, because they really aren't that bad! For starters, each of them was a highly talented and extremely professional musician, and even haters of the band have to give them that. Keith Emerson, let's face it, was almost indisputably the greatest keyboardist on earth, hands down (I think he was officially given the title by some renowned magazine twenty five times in a period of thirty years). Hence, he was often able to make large parts of the group's compositions come alive by the sheer force of his talent alone, whereas in the hands of any lesser player it might have been deadly boring. Meanwhile, just as important for the group was vocalist/guitarist/bassist Greg Lake. With the exception of Justin Hayward, NOBODY was a better rock singer than him in the 70's. He was always able to add incredible power and powerful emotional content to the highly abstract and bizarre lyrics that always accompanied the group's music. And one should certainly not minimize his guitar and bass playing, not at all. And finally, there was drummer Carl Palmer, as fine a prog drummer as one could find in the world; with an impeccably fluid and solid playing technique, his playing abilities in the prog universe were surpassed only by Bill Bruford himself.

The fact remains, however, that impeccable instrumental technique is not the only requirement for being a good and distinctive progressive rock band. After all, if all I cared about was great playing abilities, I would be sitting here reviewing various jazz recordings rather than talking about rock and its various forms. You see, it's a common misconception that the band was primarily a medium for the grandiose ambitions of Emerson. Now, don't get me wrong, the man could write an excellent and supremely catchy synth jam (Karn Evil 9.1 in particular), but in NO WAY was Keith the creative epicenter of the band's music. No, that honor fell to Lake, who was an extremely talented pop song and ballad writer. I mean, grandiose and overblown as Tarkus is, it's really just three short, very catchy Lake numbers whose various musical themes are expanded upon with the help of Keith's synths and are reprised in just the right amounts. And that's hardly the only example, as great songs like Lucky Man or Epitaph (from his King Crimson days) will show.

In any case, the point I'm trying to make is that the music of ELP, in general, is nowhere near as intimidating as it is often made out to be. If you're looking for solid pop and rock embellished with a bit of jazz and a healthy amount of classical and symphonic aspirations, you shouldn't be afraid to give them a try. I used to rate them as a two-star band, but surprisingly found that my enjoyment of the band has only increased over time (in particular, the debut REALLY grew on me, as you'll see in a bit), so a three-star rating (out of five) seems appropriate enough. Now go ahead and flame me for liking them as much as, say, Led Zeppelin.

Whether they are the "defining" prog band or not and whether they are appealing or not depends largely on the attitudes of the particular listener.  My view is that when they did something right, they were on fire, but they often stumbled along and had a tendency, much moreso than other bands of the time, to get sloppy (ie. playing and writing).  As far as the divisiveness within the rock community in general:  I would be missing some of the point if I attributed it completely to the band themselves...from many of the reviews I've come across (oooold ones, from "back in the day", and even some holdovers like the ones Micky posted) try to place ELP on some ridiculous plane with the likes of Bach, Beethoven, Mussogsky...it's all quite over-blown - perhaps these are the types of people they appeal to though, and the kind of overwrought opinions they attract (myself included).  I can't help but feel slightly offended when Kansas and Procol Harum are referred to as talentless, when they wrote far more coherent and memorable songs than ELP ever could have....only the technicality couldn't measure up.  In this view, the only criteria for a progressive band is musical ability - the writing, melodies, lyrics...none of this matters.  Blowing off these important compositional aspects is pompous and annoying coming from fans, reviewers, and journalists....but maybe I'm just not enlightened enough to realize that they were the greatest band ever...

Edited by jimmy_row - December 15 2007 at 12:52

One more thing, Just about every prog keyboard player I can think of became a keyboard player because he wanted to be one. Emerson became one because he NEEDED to be. Almost as if he had no choice in the matter. His vision (Both with the Nice and ELP), his natural born ability, his compostional talents etc.. all place him in a catagory all by himself. Emerson could not NOT become what he was any more than Bach or Beethoven could not NOT become what they were. I'm not comparing Emerson to them but you get the message. The world of Rock (especially prog) keyboards was forever changed when Emerson arrived on the scene and his influence has been and will be felt for generations to come. I dont think that can be said for Rick Wakeman or Tony Banks. Not to diminish them in any way but they just didnt/dont have the natural gift of musical vision and talent Of Emerson.

as far as cult following.. he is DEAD on the mark... he refers to NOW.. not then... when even housewifes in the midwest were belting out 'welcome back my friends' as the slaved away in the kitchen.

and an easier musical target.. with a bigger bullseye on their asses...I sure have never seen.  They are an easy target.. .a missunderstood target (ahhh filler tracks?  bullsh*t).. and a LARGE target... because if you know music .. you know of ELP.  Like John says of some other prog groups.. they'd be easy targets as well.. . except that no one outside of hard core progheads know them.  It is the nature of the music when you really push the boundries.. .ELP did it... found popular success with it... and paid the price in pop cullure for it as well.

ELP were certainly instrumental in pioneering progressive rock and giving it a commercial foothold. However, they made the same mistakes Genesis and Yes did when faced with the explosion of punk. Realizing they would be literally slaughtered if they tried to adapt to the new sound, they were critically and commercially slaughtered by churning out bland, uninspired pop. The OP was fairly kind in saying they were derailed by "albums of dubious quality." I don' think there's anything murky about the quality of Love Beach.

micky wrote: when even housewifes in the midwest were belting out 'welcome back my friends' as they slaved away in the kitchen.

Man, those were the days, back when they couldn't vote and certain people weren't allowed in country clubs. Do you remember? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

micky wrote: The greatest insult of all, of course, is that even among some prog lovers, they're hated like crazy! Now, prog is often considered a relatively open-ended term, and many are eager to classify any band with the least bit of 'artsy' leanings as one. Hence, many groups are GROSSLY misclassified in this genre. Styx, Journey, Kansas ... all are talentless buffoons with large egos but little else, and let's face it, you really need talent to be a decent prog group (though I guess Kansas and Styx can technically qualify as prog. Ehn). The Moody Blues and Procol Harum often get the tag, but that's only because of the slight symphonic elements in their sound (from mellotron in the former, organs in the latter); both are most definitely rooted in pop, and it should definitely be noted that the former's concepts are never as overwhelmingly bizarre as one would expect from a true prog band (not to mention that the chord progressions are never in the least bit intimidating). Jethro Tull ... well, Jethro Tull was a prog band for the bulk of the 70's, sure, but with a couple of MAJOR exceptions, their progressive stuff was extremely second-rate; I vastly prefer to think of Tull in terms of Teacher and the like as opposed to garbage like Minstrel in the Gallery. And finally, it is highly tempting to refer to Pink Floyd as progressive, but ... avant-garde yes. Artsy, yes. Pretentious, yes. But the lyrics are, again, always either psychadelic, folk, pop, or hyper-angsty.

When Micky is not working, he collects matches with which to burn many bridges.

1800iareyay wrote: Realizing they would be literally slaughtered if they tried to adapt to the new sound,

NaturalScience wrote: profanatio wrote: What I mean by that is that in Yes [and Genesis] you could have personnel changes and most people would never even know it because the overall sound remained the same. Do those people actually listen to these Yes records with the volume past zero?  I just can't understand this statement at all.  I can hear significant changes in sound with every personnel change.  Can you honestly listen to TFTO with Wake on keys and then Relayer with Moraz and say the "overall sound remained the same"? Edit:  Overall, I'm a big ELP fan, but like a lot of threads here, I don't understand the need to try to build them up at the expense of other prog giants - I'd rather hear their praises sung (and you have done that) then point out supposed "deficiencies" in others - just seems like some are getting a little defensive about ELP...haha maybe the DT comparison with respect to "bashing" is apropos... Just realized maybe I'm getting too defensive about Yes.

As I've noted before.. you really can't take Relayer into account.  The album was primarily arranged for guitar, drums, and bass... the keyboards sound as they were in fact... pasted in to a nearly complete framework.  Relayer does sound different... it is that 'heaviness' that drives some fans to orgasmal heights.. but was NOT was Yes was really about..  That is why no album before sounded like it.. or any since.  Moraz did have his own style.. but the differences go far beyond that.

micky wrote: NaturalScience wrote: profanatio wrote: What I mean by that is that in Yes [and Genesis] you could have personnel changes and most people would never even know it because the overall sound remained the same. Do those people actually listen to these Yes records with the volume past zero?  I just can't understand this statement at all.  I can hear significant changes in sound with every personnel change.  Can you honestly listen to TFTO with Wake on keys and then Relayer with Moraz and say the "overall sound remained the same"? Edit:  Overall, I'm a big ELP fan, but like a lot of threads here, I don't understand the need to try to build them up at the expense of other prog giants - I'd rather hear their praises sung (and you have done that) then point out supposed "deficiencies" in others - just seems like some are getting a little defensive about ELP...haha maybe the DT comparison with respect to "bashing" is apropos... Just realized maybe I'm getting too defensive about Yes.  As I've noted before.. you really can't take Relayer into account.  The album was primarily arranged for guitar, drums, and bass... the keyboards sound as they were in fact... pasted in to a nearly complete framework.  Relayer does sound different... it is that 'heaviness' that drives some fans to orgasmal heights.. but was NOT was Yes was really about..  That is why no album before sounded like it.. or any since.  Moraz did have his own style.. but the differences go far beyond that.

But that's the whole point, isn't it?  The sound was drastically changed because of Wakeman's departure.  Would they have made an album like that if he stuck around?  Doubtful.

Edit:  Or if you will, let's try the difference between the Yes album and Fragile, or between Close to the Edge and Tales.


Edited by NaturalScience - December 17 2007 at 10:26