Fripp just does whatever the hell he likes, regardless of what you think about it.

I believe that Fripp just does what he chooses, and in this case is no different to other artists out there. 

But we still have the right to exercise our judgement and opinion. Moonchild never gets to a live setlist whereas the rest of the songs seem to quite often. The reason is that the band improvise pieces that cannot be repeated.  I just listened to Moonchild then and of course it is experimental and interesting but there is not one shred of it that is up to the standard of the rest of the King Crimson songs.  

There! Enjoy!

I would argue that many artists oft bend to the will of their fans or producers so that they can continue making money. Fripp seems to disregard that notion.

They were saying that no matter how quiet they went, the audience were always completely fixated on Fripp and co and they created a very tense atmosphere.

I've always thought that the section of moonchild was trying to recreate that sort of effect. Sure it may not have been too successful but it does at least work in the context of the album.

Whereas quite a lot of other bands have unsuccessfully tried to recreate something they do really well live so I guess this ones nothing to be complaining about.

What a nice post, and absolutely spot on

No meaning is a bit harsh though, even things with no immediate apparent meaning can give you certain feelings. Sometimes it's the mystery in the first place, that is the meaning. 

You might want to check for my review on this album. I went through these in detail in a way that most did not, and worked the lyrics into my review as they are important, and this album is probably the best screenshot and picture you will ever see of the time and place then without being there. Unffortunately, too many people are hung up on some style that was not there ... it has more to do with the time and place ... than it EVER did with the music itself.

 

I like to say, and think, that a lot of this stuff in those days is/was VISUAL ... and you can see the accents done via bits and pieces in the music that bring out that idea, specially in Epitath. But there are lyrics like the song about the Wind that is even more important ... I whisper something, or say this about it, and you don't hear ... and vice versa, and that was a very important theme at the time with the "establishment" not listening and the need for changes helped create a lot of art and comment and what not.

In general that is very true, and widely used in many arts, including film. But this album is hardly the "Pollock" of music in London! ... none of the London music was Pollock or Miro! ... more like Guernica! ... think about it! But it does show/describe, the different feelings and colors and contrasts, that a Pollock might show you. And the Beat Generation is hardly ... about "nothing" and neither is its music.

 

However, if you check the differences between the free forms and "abstractness" in film, music and many other disciplines, you will find that the English version is much more "mental" than many others ... in fact, you will find the best jazz/rock experimentalists are NOT in there, but in France, Germany, and other places, and even in America, where the jazz and then rock scenes were much more adventurous and came to influence everything else before the end of the 60's.

 

English material, and I have written about this, has a lot of "theater" in it (are you surprised with 2 of the biggest and best in the world in London?) , however, and the "visual-ness" of the content and structure of that "story" is usually well defined. That's not to say that there aren't any experimentalists that worked with these things, and some of the processes used in the theater circles are actually quite evident in the work of King Crimson (ie. Brook, Gurdgieff, Hall) and sometimes taken to the extreme.

 

Everyone likes to say that the guitar explosions in 20th Century Schizoid Man is this and that, but I still feel that we're failing to compare the "attitude" and playing to a few things out there at that time ... the senseless war, the IRA thing, the student activism, the authorities abusing people left and right and of course, the LOUD'ness for which the song is also making a large statement on. Even more is the fact that the television took hold big time in the late 60's and you are seeing "war" in its full vigor and ugliness right on your screen, with many images that were disturbing and not fun to watch. The effect of that guitar scream and "senseless" playing, is what this is about ... and the lyrics specify that very clearly.

 

To finish it off, nothing is clearer than "Epitath" the true anthem of that time. Because in any war, you will wake up missing someone. And you will be crying. Unffortunately, we say that this is "progressive", when in fact ... it's the truth!  (... and how else do you want me to tell you that?)

Great point of view, moshkito. I have to admit that if we werent talking about KC, the political perspective of music´s construction probably wouldnt be correctly applied. But i have always thought about KC beeing more "engaged" than most of prog bands in the 60´s and 70´s. Wich is interesting cause the boom of "fantasy visual" in the 70´s would be criticized for rock fans as a signal of alienation, wich would be (supposedly) the gap for punk rising...

Let's just hope Steven Wilson won't read your post 

Hum...What a confession, coming from a RIO/Avant appreciator 

I didn't know about that, but now that I do I agree that this was most likely the intent. I don't think it 100% works, but - particularly when listening through headphones - it does prompt me to listen more and more closely and concentrate more and more, so when In the Court of the Crimson King blares forth it completely bowls me over.

So I'd say it's an interesting way to create tension before the final song, but at the same time it kind of fails if you listen to the song in isolation. It needs the context of the rest of the album to work at all.

Cert1fied's interpretation is indeed wonderful, and in my opinion shows also the strength of Peter Sinfield's ability to write poetry, which can be understood from many symbolistic perspectives, or just be enjoyed as beautiful romantic lyricsm. When the music and lyrics unite in this manner, and the listener is capable of finding associations and reasons from more abstract characteristics, I detect the really fine potential of art being realized.

I do not personally like the instrumental movement very much, which is also from my observation categorically cut from all official KC compillations with Moonchild.I agree however that it is phase interesting as experimentation, and contrasts the other songs of the album, however not for me very succesfully. I'm also happy to learn here there are listeners who like it, and can argument their opinions most profoundly.

I believe having some appetite for minimal and atonal improvisations, but what I find in this piece troublesome is firstly the mood where the listener is entered to it; Melodic and finely detailed composed part works as introduction for the sequence, and though in theoretical level the concept could be seen interesting, this debated main part seems like a disappointing conclusion for the composed part.
This I think is a factor caused by the second point; That this discussed improvisational section is not in my humble opinion very focused to creation of coherent end result, but emphazised the "avantgardistic" dialogue of guitar and perscussions without valid responsibility of end result. On more concrete level; Fripp is in many parts doing quite beautiful mantras, but the neurotic short spasms from the rhythm section and which the guitar answers feel annoying to myself.

About the improvisation quality, as the band was so new, it is possible this reflects to the succesfulness of the open tune. Beginnings often hold much power in spirit, but also much weakness in self-criticism and some uncoherence due search of desired ways. For example the similar abstract sequences in Wetton-Cross era recordings worked much better, as the soundscapes had clear psyhcological qualities, which I feel these tender little testings lack.

The mentioned other quiet improvs Peter Sinfield told are ofcourse interesting too, material which you may have listened from "Epitaph" CD's or other available 1969 live recordings, offering glimpses to these live sessions with poor audio quality. Quite interesting moments, but the musical incoherence is in my opinion often there present also, a characterstic which does not need to dull the shining of these early recordings however.

I also thought about the original question, the considertations "why I don't get this part of the record", indicates how coronized the album is in value terms, as if would be impossible that there could be simply poor moments on it.
I consider judging "good" and "bad" in arts are mostly personal opinions, and the meaning of these insights have merits mostly in sociological groups where some artifacts, like this record, hold a sacred status.

I like some moments on this "holy album", and agree it's historical value in heavy & symphonic prog, but my own interests are drawn currently to slighlty different music, and I think the "progressive rock" innovations which I personally am mostly interested were created earlier in the psychedelic musical fields; These sounds do not relate so much to heavy or symphonic prog sound what I belive this record manifests. Many also seem to feel the following record was a no good carbon copy of the first album, but for me it is more fine tuned version of the same idea, and much more rewarding album as a listening experience, even though it lacks the sphere of progressive rock pioneering blessing this album.

 

AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1m1l00eaDg" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1m1l00eaDg There! Enjoy!

 

You know what's hard about something like this?

 

It's like telling people that parts of Beethoven's 9th are a waste, or parts of this and that are also a waste. In the end, we are trying to state that the artist has no right to paint a Mona Lisa or a sculpto do a Venus de Milo, because you and I will sit here and try to figure it all out ...

 

Give it up ... stop asking questions, and let the "child" live. Sooner or later, the piece of music will have "character" and grow up, and you will see something else that you did not see before ... but nooooooo ... we have to say that it is nothing and music'less!

 

The real issue is that the board is taking up a very classical attitude towards the music (with its definition) but they don't believe in the music itself ... because the music is not the art ... the idea is ... how academic is that?

 

Rarely, is improvisation done for improvisation's sakes ... that is way too hard to do and "direction-less" for music, and most music exercise is much more focus'ed than otherwise ... either on a chord, a note, a sound, a lyric, or something else. But to say that it is meaningless ... I seriously doubt that ANY ONE OF US ever plays music or does any art ... because we don't give a sh*t and it doesn't mean anything ... to us or to someone else.

 

The main issue is that we think that "it has to have a meaning", which some lyrics are supposed to kiss our as$ with!, and by saying that, you are not allowing that "vision" to have a life of its own ... because you are denying its ability to exist. The fact of the matter is ... IT EXISTS, and we can listen to it. So get over it. The child has a scratch in his bum, and a wart in his nose? ... so what? .... it's not ugly ... that's life!

 

 

 

 

It's like asking people from this board to sit and listen to the Portsmouth Sinfonia ... it will never happen because there is not enough heart and appreciation for the spirit from folks that sometimes we think don't have any ... and yet, they do! ... and we're not progressive enough as people adn thinkers to even have a heart and appreciate the progressiveness and incredible effort to get something like that done ... but forget it ... go play/listen to  your 4/4 prog!

Thank you ... it's a conversation with spirit! ... if we keep it cryptic enough we can get rid of many of these neo-prog'rs and neo-progressive folks!

 

Hehehehe !!!

 

There are many of those, not just because of being too "experimental noise" but can be other reasons too, some too heavy, or too crazy, or too loud or whatever. Katia's shouts have made me much more self-aware of this, now even when I'm alone at home or in my car, when listening to some sections I just think to myself "if Katia would see me right now she would shout one of her "how the hell can you like THIS?!"".

 

And yet, I rarely skip them, I guess "like them" is maybe not the right expression but I listen to them anyway and they make part of the whole.

 

Too bad that your definition for prog and the music came about 20 years after the music was made!

 

And of course, today's audience, can't handle a little fun and improvisation and experimentation! Even if it was meaningless!

 

Gawd ... we need another Frank Zappa so bad right now!

 

 

I have found, from writing and studying my own process, that the best way to learn how to write and be creative is when you do ... the very thing that Bowie, Byrne, Eno and those folks used to talk about ... the very Burroughs idea of "52 pickup" ... and then see what you have ...and go from there.

 

It's not easy to do with music, but musicians are the "most afraid" to try different things, because it is very hard to adjust and get back to the chord/note that is the force behind it all ... but folks in "kruatrock" and other experimental folks, showed that it was a falacy for us to think that we could not get back ... Djam Karet is the perfect example in the first 5 albums! In fact, what you learn is that ... one has absolutely nothing to do with the other ... but we have an issue here ...

 

Convention, and my sister is very much of a well known painter in Europe with many international exhibits of her art, is the issue ... for her, art is a VERY mental process that is slightly beyond definition and the only value in it is when you have something at the end of 30 hours of work on it (let's say ... !!!) and she does not trust the immediate and inspired improvisational side of the art. She can enjoy a Keith Jarrett, or listen to some jazz, but for her that is some music that is "composed" ... and she can not reconcile that music with the free form side of it at all!

 

I think that we have the same view of music here ... and thus, getting an understanding of "Moonchild" is a difficult thing ... lest I tell you the famous novel called "Moonchild" that was about corrupting the girl ... which might just be the real comment behind it all ... the soft, innocent, quiet, interesting beauty ... of a child in the middle of a meadow ... eventually corrupted ... and what's worse ... we, as the social animals that are not sensitive enough to understand and do something about that ... to the point where we don't like the very peace and innocence and beauty that it is trying to show us ... softly ...quietly ... as a child sleeps and rests ...

 

Sorry ... it's still a masterpiece in my book. And if all people can do is look for a meaning, may I suggest they go study the big book a little more, because in the end, the truth is right in front of you, or as the man once said ... the father and I are one ... but we don't know the difference or what that means! Worse of all ... we don't want to know!

 

"Far worse things ... await man ... than death!"

 

But proclaiming the last incoherent section of Moonchild as some sort of masterpiece is rather like being a sycophant in the court of the emperor with his new clothes. Reminding the emperor that he is butt-naked will not gain one points among the fawning elite.

Sorry, but i didnt get the process you talking about, whats ``52 pickup``? Are you suggesting improvisation to create art?

 

Wow ... this is nice ... but it's a bit way too literary and classical minded for this board. Folks here are into hits and lyrics that excite and bring your vision to the "tarado" point (a la Brazil!) ... and you suggesting that this is more than that ... ohhh my gawwwwddddd ... there are people here that do not believe that all this music is just pop music and has no value in musical history at all!

 

 

 

 

... I believe having some appetite for minimal and atonal improvisations, but what I find in this piece troublesome is firstly the mood where the listener is entered to it; Melodic and finely detailed composed part works as introduction for the sequence, and though in theoretical level the concept could be seen interesting, this debated main part seems like a disappointing conclusion for the composed part. ...

 

The problem is that many times we are "assuming" that it is composed. What if it isn't?

 

The "melodic/atonal" idea is interesting and it happens to be the single most visible thing when folks are talking about "progressive" music, when all of it has to be "composed" and not a free form exercise, and then, it has to adhere to melodic definitions of music, in an era and century where the main drive was to break down the tonalities so that we could see if there was something out there ... that unffortunately became immediately distorted to be just another melodic sound and instrument ... ie ... synthesizer!

 

... That this discussed improvisational section is not in my humble opinion very focused to creation of coherent end result, but emphazised the "avantgardistic" dialogue of guitar and perscussions without valid responsibility of end result. On more concrete level; Fripp is in many parts doing quite beautiful mantras, but the neurotic short spasms from the rhythm section and which the guitar answers feel annoying to myself. ...

 

Let's say that Robert does these by the pound in many other albums of his.

 

Although I would not exactly call it "minimalist" or "avantgardist" or any other term, mostly because we do not know what Robert sees ... we're making an assumption that what he sees is the same thing that "we're supposed to see" ... and I can tell you that is a falacy of the biggest and highest proportions of all!

 

... I consider judging "good" and "bad" in arts are mostly personal opinions, and the meaning of these insights have merits mostly in sociological groups where some artifacts, like this record, hold a sacred status. ...

 

Hard to get that aross to the top ten world, because they feel the artist is their slave and can not do anything that they can not understand or "know", even if done by lyrics. And this is one of the "bad" (not always, btw) things about the top ten ... people expect the "answers", and not to have to figure them out themselves, which a piece like "Moonchild" is going to cause you to do.

 

The same thing happens here when everyone plays follow the leader and they don't even read what was said or written, and instead begin troll posting of the subject and responses.

 

So hearing someone not liking it, or struggling to find a "meaning" is not surprising when the person has always been bottle-fed by Hollywood and top ten commercialism. Of course that is not to say that others have not done similar, which many have!

 

I doubt that you will find someone that can discuss "improvisation" as much as I can, specially in film and theater. I have had the chance to also do this with musicians, more than once and spent a considerable amount of time with Gong as well -- and it might surprise you to know that the "beat poets" were some of the best improvisational artists ever!

 

The idea, is from the card game, and a bit of a joke ... you throw all the cards in the air and then you pick them up ... and David even said on his "Behind the Music" that you took the lines as they came and did not change anything. And it has a tendency to bring with it, some interesting cross ideas that you did not imagine that came up because of the chance of the order of the cards and the words that were in it.

 

This can be done with music, provided that it is not a "guided improvisation" ... which means that you have a chord you don't touch, as that is the signal for the rest of the band to join in, or switch folks ... and this was something that was very well known and used by Miles Davis a lot ... we start, I do this, then John does his thing, then Tom does that, then I join in and then we finish ... which has freedom in between the "transition points" of the piece of music.

 

However, that's like saying that you can not do an improvisation that has no "transition points", which the Krautrock folks did extremely well, probably in response to the English "composed" style of improvisation ... where the ideas are set down ... and indeed, a lot of the Krautrock was defined/designed to not use any ideas that were from the Western definitions of music, and to see if something new could be created ... which it did ... even if so many folks do not accept it, or felt that the drugs were more interesting, or whatever.

 

Moonchild, is "open". That it might have a beginning or an end point is not quite as important to the piece as the "moment" itself, and that is the part that separates the listener from the musician ... because the listener is making assumptions that do NOT, necessarily, have anything to do with what the musician is doing at all.

 

Remember, also, that at the time, there were a lot of experimental theater and film and other arts, and to say, or think that none of it ever affected music is facile and quite uneducated over all, not always in a bad way, mind you! Specially when it could be done as a satire as Frank Zappa did! But you get the drift.

 

A lot of it, in improvisation, has more to do with the artist himself/herself and how much confidence you can draw from your own visual/internal process. What you and I say, is ALWAYS after the fact and not always valid.

 

I spent all my directing years having fun on the stage with actors to create new things and ideas and processes, and no two rehearsals were ever the same to ensure freshness and continuity ... and guess what a lot of music, specially these days, is missing ... too much on one chord or note or sound. And ideas are ideas and they are all worth while playing with ... if you are not afraid and have the confidence to have fun with what you know ... which is where most people don't! ... the same in this board with its "set ways" as to what "progressive" means, when its very definition is taking away from the very creation of it all ... it's like saying that sex is about getting off and has nothing else behind it ... and you know that's not always true at all!