Print Page | Close Window

Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=95953
Printed Date: December 19 2014 at 18:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog?
Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Subject: Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog?
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 05:09
Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career? I do not see any eclecticism in anything since Red in 1974.Step into this discussion to make your assertion about it. This is my assertion. I don't really consider them Eclectic Prog. What about you?

-------------
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

"Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear walk Hand in Hand"- Neil Peart




Replies:
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 05:18
Eclectic prog is a sub-genre entirely of our own making. It did not exist at all at the time KC were about in the 1970's.

Crimson were one of the archetypal art rock/progressive rock bands in that first wave. Quite honestly, what you want to call them now is somewhat irrelevant. They are classified the way they are here, and in terms of that classification structure, eclectic is about the best fit.


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 05:32
Yeah, I was just about to post something similar as you Steve, but you did it far better than I could ever do.

Over the years people seem to have bought into the stickers and made up genres, and while I do think they have their usage when we're talking music on the forum and we need an easy go-to description, sometimes they backfire on our behinds. 

In regards to the op: have you ever heard Discipline? The album practically spawned the math rock scene some 20+ years before it's "conception". Discipline also quite neatly taps into the post punk/ no wave of the early 80s, albeit conveyed in a far more esoteric dressing. Some of it is almost ambient, while other parts are downright snarling and heavy. Is it electronic at heart then? The electronic percussion Bruford experimented with does suggest that, but then again we also get fed big fat guitar riffs, melodic tunes akin to pop ballads, and something like The Sheltering Sky that defies just about any sticker you care to throw at it.

Oh and don't even get me started on Thrak and The ConstruKction of Light....

Lastly, why is this thread posted in general music discussions? I mean, surely we can agree on Fripp and his endless noodling cohorts can be described as a prog proper act eh?


-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 05:40
random thoughts:

King Crimson play Crimson Prog. Van der Graaf Generator play Van der Graaf Generator Prog. Gentle Giant play Gentle Giant Prog. 

Every Prog band plays eclectic Prog, that is pretty much the thumb-nail description of Prog. Like Progressive the noun is not the same as progressive the adjective, Eclectic the noun is not the same as eclectic the adjective.

Eclectic Prog is another name for a sub-division of Art Rock that we invented. Any band that we put in that subgenre goes towards defining the subgenre


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 05:43
^^^ Of course you would say all of that. Yes I have heard Discipline and I bet you can agree that Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair sound similar? Meaning that the eclecticism is limited. Let me bring about the PA definition of this "subgenre":

Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core.

I honestly don't hear a difference between anything from Discipline- TOAPP. Same goes for Thrak-TPTB

Well it is true that they have "evolved" but so many other bands have too

-------------
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

"Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear walk Hand in Hand"- Neil Peart



Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 05:49
Ok then - we hear things differently. Not a big deal. I do however suspect that you'll be in the minority on this one.

The eclectic moniker also very aptly describes KC's development over the years. There's a big difference between the two periods I was on about. The jump from the three 80s albums to the gritty hard hitting albums of Vrooom and Thrak, is undeniably Crimsonesque. While there are distinct similarities to be found, those are still far and between. They practically sounded like a brand new band. 
The only band that i personally find more befitting of the 'eclectic' badge is Pink Floyd.


-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Neo-Romantic
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 05:50

Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:

^^^ Of course you would say all of that. Yes I have heard Discipline and I bet you can agree that Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair sound similar? Meaning that the eclecticism is limited. Let me bring about the PA definition of this "subgenre":

Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core.

I honestly don't hear a difference between anything from Discipline- TOAPP. Same goes for Thrak-TPTB

Well it is true that they have "evolved" but so many other bands have too

 Instead of thinking of the differences, or lack thereof, between Discipline, Beat, and Three of a Perfect Pair, consider instead the differences between Lizard, Red, Discipline, and The Power to Believe. Each presents a unique blending of influences and styles and demonstrates a long-term evolution that seems to fit the PA definition quoted in your post.  



Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 05:57
What is "eclectic prog"?  Eclecticism is quite common in progressive rock, and has been since the beginning.



-------------
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
"What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes."


Posted By: Earthmover
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 06:20
you can't expect an artist to radically change their sound after every album
forcing change wouldn't lead to good


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Bequeathed" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 06:37
Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:

^^^ Of course you would say all of that. Yes I have heard Discipline and I bet you can agree that Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair sound similar? Meaning that the eclecticism is limited. Let me bring about the PA definition of this "subgenre":

Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core.

I honestly don't hear a difference between anything from Discipline- TOAPP. Same goes for Thrak-TPTB

Well it is true that they have "evolved" but so many other bands have too
More random thoughts:
 
That's not what eclecticism means.
 
Evolution over time does not necessarily mean each successive album has to progress or change, time scales and events are undefined and not delineated by physical boundaries (ie albums).
 
Eclectic does not mean different: If A is eclectic and B is similar to A then B is also eclectic. This distinction holds true for progressive too.
 
Together A and B can be used to define a (new) style if those similarities are different from the eclectic gamut of styles that produced it or from any preexisting defined style.
 
Style is defined as being similar and unchanged, a plurality of style(s) is by definition eclectic.
 
Lacking a referential core denotes that the eclectic nature does not favour one particular style over another.
 
Being mostly X with an influence of Y is eclectic as an adjective but remains stylistically defined as X (ie not as a noun).
 
When no dominant style pervades we can call that resulting style (X dot Y) eclectic as an adjective and as a noun.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 06:44
Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

The only band that i personally find more befitting of the 'eclectic' badge is Pink Floyd.
I agree. However, my DSotM T-Shirt back print says "Still First In Space" Wink


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 07:19
I don't consider Pink Floyd to be Psychedelic or Space Rock for the last forty years, but I'm not bothered about it. ABITW2 was a disco hit, you want them to be classed as disco?

-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 07:57
Originally posted by Stool Man Stool Man wrote:

I don't consider Pink Floyd to be Psychedelic or Space Rock for the last forty years, nor me but I'm not bothered about it, nor me. ABITW2 was a disco hit, you want them to be classed as disco? yeah, let's go for it!


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 08:01
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

The only band that i personally find more befitting of the 'eclectic' badge is Pink Floyd.
I agree. However, my DSotM T-Shirt back print says "Still First In Space" Wink


Nice shirt and what a patinaBig smile I used to own a 'More' shirt that went pink one day after a meeting with one of my newly acquired red socks. Both good and bad though, because while I initially cursed this ruining of my most treasured upper torso garment, it also rendered me with an entirely unique t-shirt that nobody else had. Plus the pink and orange colours really complimented each other in a most psychedelic manner.

I actually think Floyd fits perfectly in psych/space. Hell even on Division Bell you'll find some of the same astronaut leanings in the music. There was always a psychedelic tinge to Floyd, be that in the guitars or the synths. Anyway that's just my take on it - even if I genuinely believe that there never was a more "eclectic" rock band ever.


-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 08:31
I think sometimes we stick a label and it remains forever, so King Crimson got the "Eclectic" label, even though their music changed considerably. Same would be for Jethro Tull being a Prog Folk band, when most of their catalog would not fall under that category, or Santana being Jazz-Fusion, etc.


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 08:55

Maybe KC used to be eclectic, and then they changed



-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 08:59
^Wink

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


 
Evolution over time does not necessarily mean each successive album has to progress or change, time scales and events are undefined and not delineated by physical boundaries (ie albums).
 
Eclectic does not mean different: If A is eclectic and B is similar to A then B is also eclectic. This distinction holds true for progressive too.
 
Together A and B can be used to define a (new) style if those similarities are different from the eclectic gamut of styles that produced it or from any preexisting defined style.
 
Style is defined as being similar and unchanged, a plurality of style(s) is by definition eclectic.
 
Lacking a referential core denotes that the eclectic nature does not favour one particular style over another.
 
Being mostly X with an influence of Y is eclectic as an adjective but remains stylistically defined as X (ie not as a noun).
 
When no dominant style pervades we can call that resulting style (X dot Y) eclectic as an adjective and as a noun.




-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 09:20
Even more random thoughts:
 
How, where and why we put put a band is not an exact science.
 
We aim for best fit rather than exact fit.
 
Sometimes we try to put them where you would expect to find them rather than where they would logically, scientifically, musicologically and rationally be placed.
 
Where one person expects to find them may not necessarily agree with where someone else expects to find them.
 
If there is conflicting opinion then we tend to use the criteria of the subgenre that best fits their most recognisable(progressive) albums, or the subgenre that they were first associated with, or the subgenre they are most often associated with, or the subgenre that they were most influential in, or the subgenre that they are most popular in.
 
The most recognisable albums does not necessarily mean their most popular or their best albums.
 
These criteria are not mutually exclusive, nor are they objective.
 


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 10:49
That's an interesting question......there are many bands here that I disagree with the way they are classified.
I see the first two KC as more symphonic prog based on the songs on them but the later things are certainly eclectic and also heavy prog.
I have been fooled a few times after reading reviews and classifications when I bought an album based on these labels..but I still liked the bands so it didn't really matter how they were classified in the end.


-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: refugee
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 11:15
Eclectic is, I think, the right place to put them, since the word means:

1. Selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources, systems, or styles
2. Made up of or combining elements from a variety of sources

That seems to be true, also after Discipline. Rock, jazz, classical, you name it.


-------------
He say nothing is quite what it seems;
I say nothing is nothing
(Peter Hammill)


Posted By: Wanorak
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 11:19
I agree totally with what Lazland said!

-------------
A GREAT YEAR FOR PROG!!!


Posted By: proggman
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 11:33
Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? Yes, good now we agree.


-------------
God took the Promised Land and put it in my bloodstained hand. I can sell you grace for your soul or you'll burn in hell far below.


Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 13:45
ITCOTCK -> Islands : Symphonic Prog
Larks Tongues -> USA : Heavy Prog
Discipline - ToaPP : Post Rock/Math Rock
THRAK -> The Power to Believe : Experimental/Post Metal

...seems pretty eclectic to me LOL


-------------
I'm using the chicken to measure it.


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 14:10
Fripp was going for a "metallic" sound on Red, too!

-------------
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfrppZ50QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQrdZ0QQsassZmusicosm" rel="nofollow - http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfrppZ50QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQrdZ0QQsassZmusicosm


Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 14:12
In my mind, King Crimson are pretty much the de-facto Eclectic prog band, having evolved so heavily over the course of their career that if you were to pick out Court, Lizard, Red, Discipline and, Power, you could be convinced that they were five different bands. 


Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 15:54
Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

Fripp was going for a "metallic" sound on Red, too!

Absolutely, not to mention USA which I always consider the first example of a mix of the heaviness of 70's Black Sabbath crossed with prog Headbanger


-------------
I'm using the chicken to measure it.


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 18:20
Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:

Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career? I do not see any eclecticism in anything since Red in 1974.Step into this discussion to make your assertion about it. This is my assertion. I don't really consider them Eclectic Prog. What about you?
 
 
No, it is not exactly eclectic in the real extreme perfected sense. King Crimson in the 80's was structured musically around an idea  unlike any particular idea created by the 69' through 74' period bands. It was seperate and divided from the earlier composition of the band and that's what dominated their sound. In the early 70's the experimentation levels, the poetry, the arrangements of the band were impeccable and the times they were living in ..along with the chance meeting of the 4 members is another lifetime. Bob Fripp had worked in the areas of "Punk Rock" and also ..I forget the year..but he recorded Exposure, Sacred Songs, and Peter Gabriel , they were released as individual albums....but I recall reading somewhere that Fripp wanted to originally release the 3 as a triple set in a box with a booklet and title it "Exposure". He was influenced by "New Wave" and "Disco". He wanted to record ambient guitar sounds played over a Disco beat. Those influences I've heard in the 80's Crimson which just seperates itself and is so distant from the early approach to composition.


Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 18:59
Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

I forget the year..but he recorded Exposure, Sacred Songs, and Peter Gabriel , they were released as individual albums....but I recall reading somewhere that Fripp wanted to originally release the 3 as a triple set in a box with a booklet and title it "Exposure".

My understanding was that Darryl Hall's record label thought it would be career suicide for him to release an uncommercial album produced by Fripp so they delayed it's release by 3 years Wink


-------------
I'm using the chicken to measure it.


Posted By: surrogate people
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 19:07
King Crimson music througout the decades has shown influences from sources as diverse as The Beatles, Miles Davis, Talking Heads, The Police, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Tool, 20th century classical music, avant garde, atonal music, electronica, ambient....if that's not eclectic, then I don't know who is

-------------
We don`t see things as they are, we see them as we are...but Pablo Picasso was never called an a****le!


Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 19:21
you forgott gamalan and folk-pastoral ballads

-------------
Acting on your best behaviour

Turn your back on mother nature

Everybody wants to rule the world



Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 19:38
Originally posted by The.Crimson.King The.Crimson.King wrote:

ITCOTCK -> Islands : Symphonic Prog
Larks Tongues -> USA : Heavy Prog
Discipline - ToaPP : Post Rock/Math Rock
THRAK -> The Power to Believe : Experimental/Post Metal

...seems pretty eclectic to me LOL

Well in essence that is eclectic but on the broader sense how is being for example "Symphonic" in an era, eclectic? I don't see why that's funny. I could say the same for other bands. 

The term 'eclectic' in the context of progressive rock describes a summation of elements from various musical sources, and the influences and career paths of bands that take from a wide range of genres or styles. While progressive music can be, in a larger sense, eclectic, the 'Eclectic Prog' term is specially meant to reference bands that trespass the boundaries of established Progressive Rock genres or that blend many influences. 
 
Now where is that in the albums from 1981 on?


Fly By Night-Moving Pictures: Heavy Prog
Signals-Hold Your Fire: Synth Prog

Trespass- W& W: Symphonic Prog
ATWT-IT: Pop Prog

Seems pretty eclectic to me LOL

As Kati once said. No that is not eclectic but changing musical genres Wink


-------------
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

"Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear walk Hand in Hand"- Neil Peart



Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 20:05
LTIA/Red are not heavy prog at all.  That is just one person's view and I don't agree.  The sheer plethora of influences, instruments and sounds makes both albums and also SABB straightforward contenders for eclectic prog. That goes for ITCOTCK too.  21st century Schizoid Man and Moonchild are not symph prog at all.  People who call ITCOTCK symph prog are probably just indulging in an unconscious selection bias and defining the whole album in the image of the title track and Epitaph.  I presume Fripp's brilliance in unifying the diverse elements utilised in the different albums gives the false impression that the music is not eclectic but it is, very much so.



Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 20:30
King Crimson is the definition of Eclectic Prog as we consider it.

Their first album consisted of multiple styles, as we consider them:

1. Heavy
2. Prog Folk
3. Symphonic
4. Avant-Garde
5. Symphonic

Yet their discography is wild with stylistic changes beyond this.

Eclectic means stylistic diversity in an album or variance over a career.  That is how I look at it.


-------------
http://epignosis.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Listen to the new Epignosis album for free- it's good for your health


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 20:39
There are two issues here.

1) OP doesn't know what the word eclectic means

and

2) OP thinks that, even by his own definitions, more than half of an artist's discography is not enough to define their style by.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TullDerGraff" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 20:48
^^^ I don't know what Eclectic is?? What you smoking??(probably on something) I know what eclectic means. It means that there is a different set of influences within a band either in a song or album. I just don't see it in their later albums but that is my opinion! You guys need to take a chill pill and not take things so personal. I don't think their later stuf is eclectic. Big deal. If you look at my OP it asks for you to weigh in.  Geesh!

-------------
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

"Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear walk Hand in Hand"- Neil Peart



Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 20:53
That's the cool thing about music. You can twist and manipulate the formulae that build your songs to the point where no one can agree on what the heck it is anymore.

But yes, for want of a better classification, I'd consider King Crimson eclectic.


Posted By: Eria Tarka
Date Posted: November 17 2013 at 23:49
OP, what sub-genre do you think King Crimson should belong to?

-------------


Posted By: KingCrInuYasha
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 00:32
I think Crimson qualifies, at least up to and including the 80s albums.

-------------
He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball!


Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 01:32
Well the body of their work was certainly eclectic and I think the majority of their albums qualify as eclectic more than any other category. Heavy prog works also but mainly just for the earlier stuff(especially the Bruford/Wetton era). The first two albums and parts of the two that followed could be considered symphonic but over all KC were all over the map stylistically. I think in the 80's crossover prog would be pretty appropriate with the pop and Talking Heads influences that were prevalent. However, I kind of lost track of them a bit after that. I suppose they flirted with heaviness again a bit in more recent years though.


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 02:28
Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:

Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career? I do not see any eclecticism in anything since Red in 1974.Step into this discussion to make your assertion about it. This is my assertion. I don't really consider them Eclectic Prog. What about you?
 
Off course they are
 
BTW : You forgot to come up with : where would they fit better ?


-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: Gandalff
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 02:43

Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:




Originally posted by The.Crimson.King The.Crimson.King wrote:




Larks Tongues -> USA : Heavy Prog
Discipline - ToaPP : Post Rock/Math Rock
THRAK -> The Power to Believe : Experimental/Post Metal
...seems pretty eclectic to me LOL


Well in essence that is eclectic but on the broader sense how is being for example "Symphonic" in an era, eclectic? I don't see why that's funny. I could say the same for other bands. 
[DIVThe term 'eclectic' in the context of progressive rock describes a summation of elements from various musical sources, and the influences and career paths of bands that take from a wide range of genres or styles. While progressive music can be, in a larger sense, eclectic, the 'Eclectic Prog' term is specially meant to reference bands that trespass the boundaries of established Progressive Rock genres or that blend many influences. </span>
 
Now where is that in the albums from 1981 on?
Fly By Night-Moving Pictures: Heavy Prog
Signals-Hold Your Fire: Synth Prog
Trespass- W& W: Symphonic Prog
ATWT-IT: Pop Prog
Seems pretty eclectic to me LOL
As Kati once said. No that is not eclectic but changing musical genres Wink



You forgot:
Rush (1974) and From Genesis to Revelation: Prog RelatedWink


-------------
A Elbereth Gilthoniel
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath!
Na-chaered palan-díriel
o galadhremmin ennorath,
Fanuilos, le linnathon
nef aear, sí nef aearon!



Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 03:42
Originally posted by Gandalff Gandalff wrote:


Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:




Originally posted by The.Crimson.King The.Crimson.King wrote:




Larks Tongues -> USA : Heavy Prog
Discipline - ToaPP : Post Rock/Math Rock
THRAK -> The Power to Believe : Experimental/Post Metal
...seems pretty eclectic to me LOL


Well in essence that is eclectic but on the broader sense how is being for example "Symphonic" in an era, eclectic? I don't see why that's funny. I could say the same for other bands. 
[DIVThe term 'eclectic' in the context of progressive rock describes a summation of elements from various musical sources, and the influences and career paths of bands that take from a wide range of genres or styles. While progressive music can be, in a larger sense, eclectic, the 'Eclectic Prog' term is specially meant to reference bands that trespass the boundaries of established Progressive Rock genres or that blend many influences. </span>
 
Now where is that in the albums from 1981 on?
Fly By Night-Moving Pictures: Heavy Prog
Signals-Hold Your Fire: Synth Prog
Trespass- W& W: Symphonic Prog
ATWT-IT: Pop Prog
Seems pretty eclectic to me LOL
As Kati once said. No that is not eclectic but changing musical genres Wink



You forgot:
Rush (1974) and From Genesis to Revelation: Prog RelatedWink


Oh yeah    Can you guys just lighten up. It is just a topic of discussion. If you think that they are. Make your points

-------------
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

"Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear walk Hand in Hand"- Neil Peart



Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 06:04
We still havent got the : Where would they fit better.
 
If you cant even answer that, then i would say, why not put them in Eclectic 


-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 06:08
Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:

Originally posted by Gandalff Gandalff wrote:


Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:




Originally posted by The.Crimson.King The.Crimson.King wrote:




Larks Tongues -> USA : Heavy Prog
Discipline - ToaPP : Post Rock/Math Rock
THRAK -> The Power to Believe : Experimental/Post Metal
...seems pretty eclectic to me LOL


Well in essence that is eclectic but on the broader sense how is being for example "Symphonic" in an era, eclectic? I don't see why that's funny. I could say the same for other bands. 
[DIVThe term 'eclectic' in the context of progressive rock describes a summation of elements from various musical sources, and the influences and career paths of bands that take from a wide range of genres or styles. While progressive music can be, in a larger sense, eclectic, the 'Eclectic Prog' term is specially meant to reference bands that trespass the boundaries of established Progressive Rock genres or that blend many influences. </span>
 
Now where is that in the albums from 1981 on?
Fly By Night-Moving Pictures: Heavy Prog
Signals-Hold Your Fire: Synth Prog
Trespass- W& W: Symphonic Prog
ATWT-IT: Pop Prog
Seems pretty eclectic to me LOL
As Kati once said. No that is not eclectic but changing musical genres Wink



You forgot:
Rush (1974) and From Genesis to Revelation: Prog RelatedWink


Oh yeah    Can you guys just lighten up. It is just a topic of discussion. If you think that they are. Make your points


Funny you should say that, as you seem to be the sole person in this thread who actually would benefit from your own advice. People are cool as cucumbers in here. 
 





-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: jayem
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 06:09
In the 4CD box  "The Essential King Crimson Frame by Frame" booklet R. Fripp tells what's the essence of  KC to him : "Energy, intensity, eclectism".

-------------
I promote music on my homepage but also

Aragon (Changeling, otEdge)
Pulp Culture (EoRD, ItSoaP)
Tiemko
Tuvalu (live)
uSSSy (Kombucha)
Wanana-Bani Garden (+postprod?)
WytchCrypt (intros!; 6th!)


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 06:44
Okay, moved to Intensity Prog.




...next!


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 06:53
LOLIntensity Prog. I like it! 
And while we're at it, why not change psych/space to swampy prog?


-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: jayem
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 06:56
Next ? 

Gong. Let's define the most accurate sub-genre for Gong.

Please...


-------------
I promote music on my homepage but also

Aragon (Changeling, otEdge)
Pulp Culture (EoRD, ItSoaP)
Tiemko
Tuvalu (live)
uSSSy (Kombucha)
Wanana-Bani Garden (+postprod?)
WytchCrypt (intros!; 6th!)


Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 07:01
^ pixie prog

-------------
Acting on your best behaviour

Turn your back on mother nature

Everybody wants to rule the world



Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 09:23
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

LTIA/Red are not heavy prog at all.  That is just one person's view and I don't agree.  The sheer plethora of influences, instruments and sounds makes both albums and also SABB straightforward contenders for eclectic prog. That goes for ITCOTCK too.  21st century Schizoid Man and Moonchild are not symph prog at all.  People who call ITCOTCK symph prog are probably just indulging in an unconscious selection bias and defining the whole album in the image of the title track and Epitaph.  I presume Fripp's brilliance in unifying the diverse elements utilised in the different albums gives the false impression that the music is not eclectic but it is, very much so.

As a professional musician/writer ..yes!....they often do give a false impression. If an artist is crafty and talented, the music they write is often thought to be a secret of the artist and not in the best interest of the artist to expose all of it. There are many fine guitarists on the planet who can play like Fripp...and they've mastered his styles..but his ideas and concepts, musical structures of composition are his own. People emulate it and often find themselves in a sling where they can't seem to produce originality within it. Fripp is definitely a mastermind in creating a very original style/sound in Prog. Originally Bob Fripp wanted the Red album to sound more "Heavy Metal". I have an interview tape where he states this several times and complains about Bruford not understanding how to play a "Heavy Metal" style on drums. John Wetton's bass had this roaring heavy sound to it ..but in the end..I believe Wetton and Bruford submarined his hopes of producing a Crimson album that produced a "Metal" sound. I noticed over the years how Red is a very loud recording and I'm assuming that Fripp may have suggested for them to play loud on purpose. Wetton's bass was so terribly loud on Fripp's personal collection of Crimson shows...that he had to wait for something new to be developed in technology in order to mix the distortion of the bass lower in volume and to a perfect balance. Fripp produced a heavy sound for Red ....but the horns, violin, ....dynamics of "Starless" are a completely different approach to utilizing elements within composition and are not evident in "Metal"


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 09:51
Eclectic being drawn from various sources describes the meaning of how a schooled musician naturally progresses at a time in their life when they are developing as a writer. In Crimson's case...specific styles of playing found in Eastern music made it's path in their composition. It was sometimes subtle and collectively constructed within an ambient and dynamic section of their music. Just as the amazing Jazz playing of Keith Tippet, Robert Fripp, Mel Collins..was cemented into the compositions to produce a visual of sorts. Musicians sometimes practice producing a visual to be contained within the music.In this case..Crimson were very original and crafted the presentation of their improvisation with oddball dynamics. If you've noticed..."Indoor Games" has a little Zappa influence within it's character. Usually music that is based around a theme or a bizzare story idea is followed with a pattern by the musician to place the instruments in unpredictable sections of the music. This method or style of writing often covers up the eclectic side to things for some listeners and it may even go un-noticed.
 
 
 


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 11:15
Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:

Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career?
...
 
I'm not a great fan of some of these "sub-divisions", but they are a NECESSITY, however, the part that is not clear to most people is that these divisions are fluid and one day something may sound ecletic and the next day electric and the next day progressive, and the next day metalic ... which to me is an issue. That would mean that there is no composer and the music is not worthy of mention, unless it has a section in the store that we cannot ignore!
 
Like "rock" or "pop", or "jazz".
 
In this day and age of commercialization and people selling things by "styles", it makes a board like this and a proper discussion on "progressive" really difficult, and thus, I support the descriptions, though I think that a certain band fits better with the Christian Puddings, than the Protestant Souffles!
 


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 12:26
Tricky prog.

They have slowly become one of my favourite bands. I like the way none of my friends can stand them. That's a sure sign they're doing something right..

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: Nogbad_The_Bad
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 12:41
Bands should be able to be placed in multiple genres as they change over their history.
 
Dean - Can you get right on that? WinkTongue


-------------
Ian

Anyone who thinks Kansas is Prog get out of the room - Adolf Hitler



Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 12:55
Originally posted by Nogbad_The_Bad Nogbad_The_Bad wrote:

Bands should be able to be placed in multiple genres as they change over their history.
 
Dean - Can you get right on that? WinkTongue
I did it years ago. It's a simple technique we can all use, all you need to do is listen to an album and decide where it should be and then imagine that is where it is, now any time you want to access that album all you need to do is reference the appropriate imaginary category via the expedient ethereal index et violin ici, nestpar!?  


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: M27Barney
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 13:08

So if you are going to put genre into third-normal form then a band can have multiple genres - each genre entry to be delimited by the dates that apply. thus Genesis would be...

1969 - 1969 - Sixties proto prog
1970 - 1977 - Symphonic progressive Rock
1978 - Now - Crap....Big smile
 
the site would need to be changed obviously and then somebody to decide which bands were in which genre and when.....NOW THAT WOULD CAUSE SOME DIFFERENCE IN OPINION.....


-------------
Play me my song.....Here it comes again.......


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 13:11
Originally posted by Nogbad_The_Bad Nogbad_The_Bad wrote:

Bands should be able to be placed in multiple genres as they change over their history.
 
Dean - Can you get right on that? WinkTongue
 
Oh dammmnnnn!
 
Forget Bach under Baroque
Beethoven under Romantic
Lizst under Lyrical
Stravinsky listed under ???
...
 
Want me to continue?
 
It's all listed under "Classical"! Which goes with my idea that in the end, we have to respect the composers and the artists much more than we do its "style" or "designation". Unffortunately, we're a consumerist society that is not capable of appreciating something unless it is labeled and designated in the way that they want and like! You do realize how "socialistic" that is, don't you?
 
Democracy! Indeed!
 
 
 
 


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 13:12
"progressive rock music discographies from 8,327 bands & artists, 42,059 albums"

Any volunteers want to get started?


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 13:18
I will do it..........they are all crossover


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 13:21
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

...
I did it years ago. It's a simple technique we can all use, all you need to do is listen to an album and decide where it should be and then imagine that is where it is, now any time you want to access that album all you need to do is reference the appropriate imaginary category via the expedient ethereal index et violin ici, nestpar!?  
 
And probably smoke the right, shall we say ...
 
I'll have my Caravan with Mesquite Honey and a spearmint leaf, thank you!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 13:22
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

"progressive rock music discographies from 8,327 bands & artists, 42,059 albums"

Any volunteers want to get started?
 
All depends how serious and willing you are!
 
The rest is easy by comparison!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: M27Barney
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 13:30
sh*t - I've got another 40,000 CD's / Vinyls to collect.......
Mind you if I don't buy any Frank Zappa - I only need another 10.....Smile


-------------
Play me my song.....Here it comes again.......


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 13:40
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

I will do it..........they are all crossover

MarvellousLOL


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: November 18 2013 at 15:30
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Tricky prog.

They have slowly become one of my favourite bands. I like the way none of my friends can stand them. That's a sure sign they're doing something right..
LOL


Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: November 19 2013 at 03:03
I think they would fit just fine in Heavy Prog since the majority of their albums either have heavy moments or are(LTIA, SABB, Red, Thrak, TCOL,TPTB)

-------------
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

"Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear walk Hand in Hand"- Neil Peart



Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 19 2013 at 03:07
If there is a sub-genre we cannot shoe-horn them into I'd be disappointed - surely they could be squeezed into Zeuhl if we put enough effort into it.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Neo-Romantic
Date Posted: November 19 2013 at 03:24

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

If there is a sub-genre we cannot shoe-horn them into I'd be disappointed - surely they could be squeezed into Zeuhl if we put enough effort into it.

Just pick a song with Belew's heavily processed vocals and Trey Gunn's bass style like ProzaKc Blues and you've got a potential case for it LOL

Round 2: fit them into the RPI category.



Posted By: M27Barney
Date Posted: November 19 2013 at 04:57
Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Tricky prog.

They have slowly become one of my favourite bands. I like the way none of my friends can stand them. That's a sure sign they're doing something right..
LOL
Hm, I can see the attraction of such a reaction - I have a very strange acquaintance who has shunned all late 20th century technologies and now proudly states that his crackly 78's of American black (slave origination) recordings is truly "music of the soul" - His thirst to be in a very exclusive set of listening humanity has been leading him to that for the past 30 years....(he has never owned a CD/DVD player!! or listened to any digital media)Confused
Mind you KC is positively MASSIVE compared to such a niche....LOL


-------------
Play me my song.....Here it comes again.......


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 19 2013 at 17:01
Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

LOLIntensity Prog. I like it! 
And while we're at it, why not change psych/space to swampy prog?


Yes and yes.

For The record though I think King Crimson are accurately classified here on PA. Eclectic Prog for what the damn thing means can accurately be tied to King Crimson's sound first and for most, but KC are other things at times. Very special band. The face of Prog I think.   

-------------
If you have sensitive and analytical sound equipment quality after market audio interconnects/cables make a HUGE difference in overall sound quality...Wider soundstage, reduced microphonics etc etc..


Posted By: Evolver
Date Posted: November 19 2013 at 17:15
Originally posted by M27Barney M27Barney wrote:

Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Tricky prog.

They have slowly become one of my favourite bands. I like the way none of my friends can stand them. That's a sure sign they're doing something right..
LOL
Hm, I can see the attraction of such a reaction - I have a very strange acquaintance who has shunned all late 20th century technologies and now proudly states that his crackly 78's of American black (slave origination) recordings is truly "music of the soul" - His thirst to be in a very exclusive set of listening humanity has been leading him to that for the past 30 years....(he has never owned a CD/DVD player!! or listened to any digital media)Confused
Mind you KC is positively MASSIVE compared to such a niche....LOL
 
Make me think of
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-awful-things-were-now-considering-nerd-behavior_p2/" rel="nofollow - http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-awful-things-were-now-considering-nerd-behavior_p2/
especially #2 in the article.


-------------
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.


Posted By: jayem
Date Posted: November 19 2013 at 17:58
Originally posted by progbethyname progbethyname wrote:

Eclectic Prog for what the damn thing means can accurately be tied to King Crimson's sound first and for most

...and to Fripp's fondness for erudite wording. But we could also hear him say  "Er...Lalalala?" onstage; and to keep it simple, didn't he hate KC to be called "prog"?...

Prog Pillar. Dinosaur; Reference Prog. Eclectic Lalala...

Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

^ pixie prog

"Pixie Prog" may very much help the newbies !!




-------------
I promote music on my homepage but also

Aragon (Changeling, otEdge)
Pulp Culture (EoRD, ItSoaP)
Tiemko
Tuvalu (live)
uSSSy (Kombucha)
Wanana-Bani Garden (+postprod?)
WytchCrypt (intros!; 6th!)


Posted By: DiamondDog
Date Posted: December 04 2013 at 08:23
Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:

Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career? I do not see any eclecticism in anything since Red in 1974.Step into this discussion to make your assertion about it. This is my assertion. I don't really consider them Eclectic Prog. What about you?

Agreeing with others who have said the same thing on here, I don't consider King Crimson to have had a career beyond the first album. Robert Fripp's career is another matter.


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: December 04 2013 at 09:36
Originally posted by DiamondDog DiamondDog wrote:

Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:

Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career? I do not see any eclecticism in anything since Red in 1974.Step into this discussion to make your assertion about it. This is my assertion. I don't really consider them Eclectic Prog. What about you?

Agreeing with others who have said the same thing on here, I don't consider King Crimson to have had a career beyond the first album. Robert Fripp's career is another matter.
That's interesting;......there was a recent interview/article  with band members and Fripp and he clearly said that it was always a group effort and the sound changed because the band changed over time and Crimson was a sum total of whoever was in the band at the time. He strongly implied he was not the only one who decided what type of music they would play.
But then I suppose Bob could be telling tales.
Wink


-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: DiamondDog
Date Posted: December 04 2013 at 09:55
I don't see any contradiction in that - whatever band of musicians were brought together, with only Fripp as the constant - I'm sure it was a communal effort, or at least, could be. That doesn't change the fact that the band originally called King Crimson were no longer together, Fripp merely used the label as a selling tool for whatever projects he fancied at the time.


Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: December 04 2013 at 10:28
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by DiamondDog DiamondDog wrote:

Originally posted by ProgMetaller2112 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:

Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career? I do not see any eclecticism in anything since Red in 1974.Step into this discussion to make your assertion about it. This is my assertion. I don't really consider them Eclectic Prog. What about you?

Agreeing with others who have said the same thing on here, I don't consider King Crimson to have had a career beyond the first album. Robert Fripp's career is another matter.
That's interesting;......there was a recent interview/article  with band members and Fripp and he clearly said that it was always a group effort and the sound changed because the band changed over time and Crimson was a sum total of whoever was in the band at the time. He strongly implied he was not the only one who decided what type of music they would play.
But then I suppose Bob could be telling tales.
Wink


I can believe that it was considered a group effort. I can't imagine the 80's King Crimson getting together only to do what Robert Fripp wanted to do. Levin, Bruford, and Belew were well established muscians, and probably wouldn't sign up for something like that.

Did Fripp ever have any input on lyrics? I know he never really wrote them, but did he ever edit them before they made it into the songs?


Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: December 04 2013 at 10:30
Originally posted by DiamondDog DiamondDog wrote:

I don't see any contradiction in that - whatever band of musicians were brought together, with only Fripp as the constant - I'm sure it was a communal effort, or at least, could be. That doesn't change the fact that the band originally called King Crimson were no longer together, Fripp merely used the label as a selling tool for whatever projects he fancied at the time.


So anytime a band changes personnel or breaks up, they should develop a new name? That's what I'm inferring from this.


Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: December 04 2013 at 12:32
Originally posted by DiamondDog DiamondDog wrote:

I don't see any contradiction in that - whatever band of musicians were brought together, with only Fripp as the constant - I'm sure it was a communal effort, or at least, could be. That doesn't change the fact that the band originally called King Crimson were no longer together, Fripp merely used the label as a selling tool for whatever projects he fancied at the time.

One way I think Crimso as a communal effort is demonstrated is that every version of the band made improvisation a part of their live shows/studio albums.  Beginning with Moonchild, to the horrible "blows" on Earthbound, to the amazing improvs of the '73/'74 band up through the Thrakattak album of 1996 improvs.  If Crimso was really an iron-fisted-Fripp-only band there's no way he would encourage or allow these improvs that rely on the quality of all musicians to ever be released.  Why give up that much control and risk the reputation of his band if it wasn't really a group effort?

I don't believe it was solely Fripp deciding to use the label as a selling tool as the '81 band was originally intending to call itself "Discipline" and actually played some shows under that name.  I believe I've read it was a group decision to take on the Crimso name even though they were uncomfortable with the expectations that would bring (playing the 70's repertoire, being compared to the '69 band, etc).  

Crimso's eclectic-ism made calling all incarnations of the band the same name logical LOL


-------------
I'm using the chicken to measure it.


Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 04 2013 at 12:51
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

"progressive rock music discographies from 8,327 bands & artists, 42,059 albums"

Any volunteers want to get started?
 
All depends how serious and willing you are!
 
The rest is easy by comparison!


I volunteer to help out if M@x decides to implement it (and if I'm still using the site then).

Multi-tagging albums has always been doable, I think, even though I have read people saying it was too hard since I came here.  It's not like they all need to be tagged, there's no hurry, every member could participate (or limit it to collabs and trusted forum members if necessary -- perhaps people with 100 plus posts), and we could still keep the master categories and genre teams as is.

If M@x were willing to bring in the progfreak system where all members can tag albums (system would log the users who tag them), I'd be fine doing tags for a couple thousand albums over a few months (others could add more tags to my tags or correct errors as they see them).  I'd say that we should still keep the master categories for bands/artists, and keep the genre teams, but just offer the opportunity for members to add tags to albums, using drop-down menus and using a limited number of set tags.  And every time someone does a review they might tag an album (wouldn't be much more effort than rating an album).  It wouldn't be much use to me, though, unless we also had a search function where we could do multi-tag album searches.  If it got abused, well, wouldn't be that big a deal.  I'd like to be able to search for an album that is multi-tagged, say, with psych/ folk/ jazz/ experimental, but then I can always use google and I have, to search for albums in a way that the results will work for me.

EDIT: And yes, I believe that King Crimson is very well-placed in the Eclectic Prog category.


Posted By: Genital Giant
Date Posted: December 04 2013 at 14:19
 I personally dislike dissecting prog into all the little prog sub-genres on here. If it's prog then it's prog. All prog is eclectic, so that term in and of itself is redundant. King Crimson to me is the epitome of prog, and the first real prog group.


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: December 04 2013 at 14:42
Originally posted by DiamondDog DiamondDog wrote:

I don't see any contradiction in that - whatever band of musicians were brought together, with only Fripp as the constant - I'm sure it was a communal effort, or at least, could be. That doesn't change the fact that the band originally called King Crimson were no longer together, Fripp merely used the label as a selling tool for whatever projects he fancied at the time.
I'm sure 'they' used the name KC because of name recognition and I have no problem with that, but I honestly believe that much of what they did under the KC name was not all Fripp and definitely  a communal effort.

-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 04 2013 at 14:54
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

...I'm sure 'they' used the name KC because of name recognition and I have no problem with that...


Such tactics can sure help with sales, but using the name KC meant that those people expecting KC and the Sunshine Band might be left feeling very misled and irate (might have helped turn a few disco fans into prog fans though).  I think it would have been better if they had stuck with the name King Crimson instead of using the initials for name recognition from a very different audience... Hey, but whatever works. ;)


Posted By: DiamondDog
Date Posted: December 05 2013 at 11:04
Originally posted by Metalmarsh89 Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Originally posted by DiamondDog DiamondDog wrote:

I don't see any contradiction in that - whatever band of musicians were brought together, with only Fripp as the constant - I'm sure it was a communal effort, or at least, could be. That doesn't change the fact that the band originally called King Crimson were no longer together, Fripp merely used the label as a selling tool for whatever projects he fancied at the time.


So anytime a band changes personnel or breaks up, they should develop a new name? That's what I'm inferring from this.

I suppose it's all about the balance - new incarnations can be formed or evolved by one member leaving and somewhere down the line another, but there must come a point (around midway?) when the original band cannot be said to exist. In the case of King Crimson, wholesale clear-out with only Fripp as constant speaks for itself. A very fine guitarist for sure, and always interesting in whatever he does, but King Crimson still lives? Hardly. 


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 05 2013 at 11:18
How many original members need remain before a band becomes a brand






...I could go on, and on, and on...


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: DiamondDog
Date Posted: December 05 2013 at 11:55
What a good headline - When does a band become a brand? Sounds like an excellent discussion topic to me.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 05 2013 at 12:20
Fripp makes a clear distinction between Crimson, solo and other projects and that is his right. Anyone can see that KC is very much a creative whole rather than a vehicle for Fripp, which is why he chooses his band mates very carefully. Personally I think he's at his best when he is feeding off other people's ideas and creativity.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk