King Crimson

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Finbar @ Mar 3 2007, 10:08 AM)

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Mar 3 2007, 02:35 AM) Start off with the debut - In the Court of the Crimson King. Then listen to Red. Then listen to Discipline. Finally, listen to The Power to Believe. Listening to those four albums will give you a pretty good idea of Crimson's different line-ups and evolution and you should get a pretty good grasp of what you like personally and you can go from there. My favorite era is the John Wetton era.  For my money you can't beat Larks' Tongues in Aspic, Starless and Bible Black and Red.  But you may prefer the 80's Crimson and go with Discipline, Beat, and Three of a Perfect Pair. Or, you may take a liking to early Crimson and explore In the Court of the Crimson King and In the Wake of Poseidon. Or, the "transitional" Crimson may be your fancy - Lizard and Islands. And let's not forget the "double trio" Crimson - VROOOM, THRAK and THRaKaTTaK. And last but not least, you may like the current 21st Century Crimson - The ConstruKction of Light and The Power to Believe. Or, you may like it all. Note I did not include all the live albums, singles, EPS, and The King Crimson Collector's Club stuff. Exploring Crimson at first can seem quite daunting, but as time and effort will tell, quite satisfying. Remember, King Crimson is a way of doing things.  Enjoy. You did include live albums and EP's. VROOOM is an EP and THRaKaTTaK is a live album.   Kudzu, as you can see, this poll favours Red by far. But that's because it's the most well-loved by fans. I suggest you either start things off with In the Court of the Crimson King, Starless and Bible Black or Discipline. The former is their first album, a good place to start, an undisputed great rock album, and arguably the only "true" King Crimson album because it's the only one recorded by the original lineup. (Real Crimheads don't see it this way.) The latter two are the two that my girlfriend showed me when she introduced me to King Crimson, and they hooked me pretty good. Whichever King Crimson album you end up with, listen to it loud and in full, and give it a chance. Give it more than one full proper listen to grow on you if it doesn't immediately grab you. And, in the end, if you hate the one album you start with, you may love another. Finbar, I wrote - Note I did not include ALL the live albums, singles, EPS, and The King Crimson Collector's Club stuff.   I'm sorry I'm not as detailed, precise and thorough as I should be!

[Finbar]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Mar 3 2007, 10:26 AM)

QUOTE (Finbar @ Mar 3 2007, 10:08 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Mar 3 2007, 02:35 AM) Start off with the debut - In the Court of the Crimson King. Then listen to Red. Then listen to Discipline. Finally, listen to The Power to Believe. Listening to those four albums will give you a pretty good idea of Crimson's different line-ups and evolution and you should get a pretty good grasp of what you like personally and you can go from there. My favorite era is the John Wetton era.  For my money you can't beat Larks' Tongues in Aspic, Starless and Bible Black and Red.  But you may prefer the 80's Crimson and go with Discipline, Beat, and Three of a Perfect Pair. Or, you may take a liking to early Crimson and explore In the Court of the Crimson King and In the Wake of Poseidon. Or, the "transitional" Crimson may be your fancy - Lizard and Islands. And let's not forget the "double trio" Crimson - VROOOM, THRAK and THRaKaTTaK. And last but not least, you may like the current 21st Century Crimson - The ConstruKction of Light and The Power to Believe. Or, you may like it all. Note I did not include all the live albums, singles, EPS, and The King Crimson Collector's Club stuff. Exploring Crimson at first can seem quite daunting, but as time and effort will tell, quite satisfying. Remember, King Crimson is a way of doing things.  Enjoy. You did include live albums and EP's. VROOOM is an EP and THRaKaTTaK is a live album.   Kudzu, as you can see, this poll favours Red by far. But that's because it's the most well-loved by fans. I suggest you either start things off with In the Court of the Crimson King, Starless and Bible Black or Discipline. The former is their first album, a good place to start, an undisputed great rock album, and arguably the only "true" King Crimson album because it's the only one recorded by the original lineup. (Real Crimheads don't see it this way.) The latter two are the two that my girlfriend showed me when she introduced me to King Crimson, and they hooked me pretty good. Whichever King Crimson album you end up with, listen to it loud and in full, and give it a chance. Give it more than one full proper listen to grow on you if it doesn't immediately grab you. And, in the end, if you hate the one album you start with, you may love another. Finbar, I wrote - Note I did not include ALL the live albums, singles, EPS, and The King Crimson Collector's Club stuff.   I'm sorry I'm not as detailed, precise and thorough as I should be! Oh, my bad.

[ReRushed]

Crimson jumped the shark when Greg Lake left!!!!

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Finbar @ Mar 3 2007, 07:08 AM)

Kudzu, as you can see, this poll favours Red by far. But that's because it's the most well-loved by fans

You're forgetting to take one very important aspect into consideration. I was wondering why I was the only one to vote for Lizard. It couldn't really be that I'm the ONLY one who thinks this is the best album.

 

No, with any poll on TRF that doesn't concern Rush, you have to realize that most people don't have all the albums to really give a fair assessment. Even I've never heard their last three (though I'd be deeply shocked if I liked any of them better than Lizard or ITCOTCK), so you're not really getting a fair and objective vote. In fact, outside of you, I doubt that more than a handful (if that) of the 24 people who participated thus far in this poll have actually heard all their albums.

 

This is not to discount the popularity and love people have for Red, just to add in some sober perspective.

[Finbar]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 3 2007, 12:06 PM)

QUOTE (Finbar @ Mar 3 2007, 07:08 AM) Kudzu, as you can see, this poll favours Red by far. But that's because it's the most well-loved by fans You're forgetting to take one very important aspect into consideration. I was wondering why I was the only one to vote for Lizard. It couldn't really be that I'm the ONLY one who thinks this is the best album.   No, with any poll on TRF that doesn't concern Rush, you have to realize that most people don't have all the albums to really give a fair assessment. Even I've never heard their last three (though I'd be deeply shocked if I liked any of them better than Lizard or ITCOTCK), so you're not really getting a fair and objective vote. In fact, outside of you, I doubt that more than a handful (if that) of the 24 people who participated thus far in this poll have actually heard all their albums.   This is not to discount the popularity and love people have for Red, just to add in some sober perspective. I was thinking about that actually, and I came to the conclusion that, you know, it's a testament to the innovation of their music that the responses are as varied as they are on a non-King Crimson forum. I was NOT expecting any votes for THRAK or Three of a Perfect Pair.   And Goobs, buy THRAK. One Time and Dinosaur are standout Crim classics every bit as awesome as Lady of the Dancing Water or 21st Century Schizoid Man. And with VROOOM VROOOM you get to hear the original middle section of Red that was discarded in favour of the more simple middle section we all know and love. Buy it. I won't leave you alone till you do.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Finbar @ Mar 3 2007, 09:32 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 3 2007, 12:06 PM) QUOTE (Finbar @ Mar 3 2007, 07:08 AM) Kudzu, as you can see, this poll favours Red by far. But that's because it's the most well-loved by fans You're forgetting to take one very important aspect into consideration. I was wondering why I was the only one to vote for Lizard. It couldn't really be that I'm the ONLY one who thinks this is the best album.   No, with any poll on TRF that doesn't concern Rush, you have to realize that most people don't have all the albums to really give a fair assessment. Even I've never heard their last three (though I'd be deeply shocked if I liked any of them better than Lizard or ITCOTCK), so you're not really getting a fair and objective vote. In fact, outside of you, I doubt that more than a handful (if that) of the 24 people who participated thus far in this poll have actually heard all their albums.   This is not to discount the popularity and love people have for Red, just to add in some sober perspective. I was thinking about that actually, and I came to the conclusion that, you know, it's a testament to the innovation of their music that the responses are as varied as they are on a non-King Crimson forum. I was NOT expecting any votes for THRAK or Three of a Perfect Pair.   And Goobs, buy THRAK. One Time and Dinosaur are standout Crim classics every bit as awesome as Lady of the Dancing Water or 21st Century Schizoid Man. And with VROOOM VROOOM you get to hear the original middle section of Red that was discarded in favour of the more simple middle section we all know and love. Buy it. I won't leave you alone till you do. Yeah, yeah, eventually I may hear them. Sorry dude, not a high priority for me...

[The Snow Dog]

In the Court of the Crimson King is definitely the best. Greg Lake is the best singer that the band had. Although Bill Bruford is the best drummer so I might pick Red but I will stay with my original choice.

[Ghost of the Aragon]

Like choosing a favorite Rush album, it's tough for me to choose favorite King Crimson album. I think Discipline is one of my favorites simply because it's the first album I heard. I wore out the vinyl listening to it so much! I also love Red and Lark's Tongues in Aspic. The Power to Believe is really incredible too.

[Finbar]

QUOTE (Ghost of the Aragon @ Mar 15 2007, 01:19 PM)

Like choosing a favorite Rush album, it's tough for me to choose favorite King Crimson album. I think Discipline is one of my favorites simply because it's the first album I heard. I wore out the vinyl listening to it so much! I also love Red and Lark's Tongues in Aspic. The Power to Believe is really incredible too.

The thing is, they've never stopped being innovative. But I'd say they stopped being influential after Red. And it's not a shame they're not being imitated so much anymore, because it makes albums like Beat, THRAK and The ConstruKction of Light that much more unique listening experiences.

 

I think that's what Robert Fripp intended when he continued on with the name. The original band was way ahead of its time in terms of musical innovation, and everything bearing the King Crimson name since has followed suit, which is why each new album earns as many new fans as old fans it chases away. That's why the band has broken up and changed lineups so many times, and why Robert Fripp rejects tunes that the other members write saying it's not "crim" enough. Innovation is a must in King Crimson, and compromise is out of the question.

This is why I love their music. I consider them the Wagner of rock, and the greatest thing, ever, to happen to music.

[ReRushed]

Hey Finbar, I haven't heard it yet, but how good is the "almost was King Crimson" pairing of David Sylvian and Robert Fripp? I've had The First Day on my wish list for years and I'm embarrassed I haven't heard it yet!

[Finbar]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Mar 15 2007, 03:22 PM)

Hey Finbar, I haven't heard it yet, but how good is the "almost was King Crimson" pairing of David Sylvian and Robert Fripp? I've had The First Day on my wish list for years and I'm embarrassed I haven't heard it yet!

I, as well, have never heard it. I want to.

Let's make a pact. Whoever hears it first will let the other know what he thinks. Agreed?

 

I've never heard Alexis Korner's Snape either.

Crim related albums I do recommend however are...

 

- UK's self-titled debut featuring the Red era rhythm section. It's jazz rock at it's finest. Actually, from R30 I learned that Rush were listening to it (and saw UK live) at the time of Permanent Wave's making. And I can totally hear the influence, personally.

 

- Giles, Giles & Fripp's one and only album, The Cheerful Insanity of Giles, Giles & Fripp. An excellent psychedelic album with really bouncy, fun tunes. It's been compared to Syd Barret era Pink Floyd, and I certainly see why people would think so. There's two hilarious little stories weaved between the tracks which really make the album what it is. The Saga of Rodney Toady by Robert Fripp is just too much. Sometimes I have to pause the album and run to the washroom, it makes me laugh so much.

 

- The ProjeKcts, if you've got the stomach for avant-garde electronica with all the esoterica of King Crimson's excessive side without the accessible stuff. I will say that ProjeKct Two's Space Groove, the first track at least, is funky as hell and sure to please any funk rock fan.

 

Oh, also... if you're a Pink Floyd fan and/or a Primus fan, pick up Colonel Les Claypool's Fearless Flying Frog Brigade, Live Frogs, Set One. The first track is a thunderous cover of Thela Hun Ginjeet which, I hate to say it, gives the original a run for it's money. Then they do amazing, jammy renditions of lots of different Les Claypool songs including Riddles are Abound Tonight which JUST. f***ing. ROCKS! (Actually, all three members of Sausage, the real original Primus lineup, are present in this recording.) The closing track is an amazing cover of Shine On You Crazy Diamond. It's not as good as the original, but it's great for what it is. Afterwards, Les Claypool tells the audience, "We'll be back in twenty minutes with more Pink Floyd than the human brain should ever withstand," or something like that. I don't have Live Frogs, Set Two, but I plan to get it eventually, because, what it is, is a cover of the entire album Animals, which is my second favourite Pink Floyd album.

 

Happy hunting!

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Finbar @ Mar 15 2007, 08:33 PM)

I, as well, have never heard it. I want to. Let's make a pact. Whoever hears it first will let the other know what he thinks. Agreed?

You got it!

 

I'm hoping DGM will have in stock soon.

[The Rocinante]

Why is In the Wake of Poseidon so hated? That's a great album!

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (The Rocinante @ Mar 16 2007, 07:24 PM)

Why is In the Wake of Poseidon so hated? That's a great album!

I agree. I like it alot. "Pictures of a City" is a fantastic song. I just think it has a reputation of being a carbon copy of In the Court of the Crimson King, which is really unfair, it is a great album.

[Finbar]

QUOTE (The Rocinante @ Mar 16 2007, 07:24 PM)

Why is In the Wake of Poseidon so hated? That's a great album!

It's not hated, it's just nobody's very favourite.

 

It's actually the album with the distinguished honour of having the music that made me cry the very first time music did so. Music has made me cry countless times since, and it's always been music by King Crimson, played by King Cruimson.

The three-part bookend Peace song actually made me decide to be a pacifist. At the time I first heard it, I thought it was the most beautiful thing I'd ever heard, In the Wake of Poseidon.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Finbar @ Mar 16 2007, 10:59 PM)

QUOTE (The Rocinante @ Mar 16 2007, 07:24 PM) Why is In the Wake of Poseidon so hated? That's a great album! It's not hated, it's just nobody's very favourite.   It's actually the album with the distinguished honour of having the music that made me cry the very first time music did so. Music has made me cry countless times since, and it's always been music by King Crimson, played by King Cruimson. The three-part bookend Peace song actually made me decide to be a pacifist. At the time I first heard it, I thought it was the most beautiful thing I'd ever heard, In the Wake of Poseidon. It was made from leftover material from the ITCOTCK sessions, so it never stood a chance of being as good as their first album. It's still very good, though I must admit I haven't listened to it in years. I guess I'll have to slap that baby on and check it out newly...

[Finbar]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2007, 11:52 AM)

QUOTE (Finbar @ Mar 16 2007, 10:59 PM) QUOTE (The Rocinante @ Mar 16 2007, 07:24 PM) Why is In the Wake of Poseidon so hated? That's a great album! It's not hated, it's just nobody's very favourite.   It's actually the album with the distinguished honour of having the music that made me cry the very first time music did so. Music has made me cry countless times since, and it's always been music by King Crimson, played by King Cruimson. The three-part bookend Peace song actually made me decide to be a pacifist. At the time I first heard it, I thought it was the most beautiful thing I'd ever heard, In the Wake of Poseidon. It was made from leftover material from the ITCOTCK sessions, so it never stood a chance of being as good as their first album. It's still very good, though I must admit I haven't listened to it in years. I guess I'll have to slap that baby on and check it out newly... The material isn't left over from In the Court of the Crimson King sessions, some of the material is left over from the original band's live repertoire. There's a difference.   And of course, there were several I Talk to the Wind demos recorded by Giles, Giles & Fripp, so of the two albums, In the Court of the Crimson King is actually the one more guilty of having leftovers of a previous session.   In reality, which album is better is completely subjective, and In the Wake of Poseidon's one and only curse was coming after such a massive success. It'd be like if you invented the razor and then I invented the scissors. Both tools are equally useful in many different aspects, but the one that gets invented first is appreciated more. Doesn't necessarily make it any better.

[The Rocinante]

Beat was good too I haven;t heard Islands, ConstruKtion of Light, or Power to Believe, but I have yet to hear a bad CK album...even though I didn't really think Lizard was all that great

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Finbar @ Mar 17 2007, 09:09 AM)

In reality, which album is better is completely subjective, and In the Wake of Poseidon's one and only curse was coming after such a massive success. It'd be like if you invented the razor and then I invented the scissors. Both tools are equally useful in many different aspects, but the one that gets invented first is appreciated more. Doesn't necessarily make it any better.

That's all well and nice to say, but look at the results in this poll. Six votes for the 1st album vs. Zero votes for the 2nd. Subjective, sure, but I think if you ask most Crimson fans which is better, you're gonna get a 90+ percent crowd choosing the 1st one. Sure it's subjective, but there is also mass consensus opinion.

 

For example, on Prog Archives on their 0-5 rating system:

 

In the Court of the Crimson King - 4.54

In the Wake of Poseidon - 3.76

 

No studio album of theirs has that low of a rating until 1982's Beat with 3.04.

 

Incidentally:

 

In the Court of the Crimson King - 4.54

In the Wake of Poseidon - 3.76

Lizard - 4.13

Islands - 3.89

Larks' Tongues in Aspic - 4.47

Starless and Bible Black - 4.01

Red - 4.42

Discipline - 4.12

Beat - 3.04

Three of a Perfect Pair - 3.30

THRAK - 3.76

The ConstruKction of Light - 3.29

The Power to Believe - 4.08

 

Every album had at least 60 people who rated it, and some had hundreds.

[Finbar]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2007, 05:44 PM)

QUOTE (Finbar @ Mar 17 2007, 09:09 AM) In reality, which album is better is completely subjective, and In the Wake of Poseidon's one and only curse was coming after such a massive success. It'd be like if you invented the razor and then I invented the scissors. Both tools are equally useful in many different aspects, but the one that gets invented first is appreciated more. Doesn't necessarily make it any better. That's all well and nice to say, but look at the results in this poll. Six votes for the 1st album vs. Zero votes for the 2nd. Subjective, sure, but I think if you ask most Crimson fans which is better, you're gonna get a 90+ percent crowd choosing the 1st one. Sure it's subjective, but there is also mass consensus opinion.   For example, on Prog Archives on their 0-5 rating system:   In the Court of the Crimson King - 4.54 In the Wake of Poseidon - 3.76   No studio album of theirs has that low of a rating until 1982's Beat with 3.04.   Incidentally:   In the Court of the Crimson King - 4.54 In the Wake of Poseidon - 3.76 Lizard - 4.13 Islands - 3.89 Larks' Tongues in Aspic - 4.47 Starless and Bible Black - 4.01 Red - 4.42 Discipline - 4.12 Beat - 3.04 Three of a Perfect Pair - 3.30 THRAK - 3.76 The ConstruKction of Light - 3.29 The Power to Believe - 4.08   Every album had at least 60 people who rated it, and some had hundreds. Like I said, it's curse was coming after such a massive success. If the albums came out in swapped order, today, 37 years after the fact, there'd be six votes for In the Wake of Poseidon and none for In the Court of the Crimson King. (After all, it's only been 37 years, and all those fans who were disappointed by the second album haven't died or anything.) An album's success or lack thereof in its own time has a profound effect on how it will be viewed forever, just as significant, if not more so, than the merits of the actual music on the album itself. In the Court of the Crimson King was a real splash, heralded as a masterpiece by the general listening public, critics and famous musicians alike. In the Wake of Poseidon was slammed as a let-down follow up by fans and critics; and album sales.   The point you made earlier about how this is a Rush forum and these people aren't Crimheads who own every album like me, was a good point then, and is most certainly a valid point in this instance. People who say "King Crimson's best album is their first" are people who don't really like King Crimson and own two or three albums at the most. They got the popular first album, liked it, and then picked up something else and found it weird.* They gave King Crimson one last try, maybe six months or so later, but gave up as the next album was also weird. Anybody who had the patience to collect more than three King Crimson albums didn't find the stuff other than In the Court of the Crimson King weird. Since they picked up more than three, chances are greater that they would've picked up the second album, but if they liked the more esoteric stuff enough to keep going after three, chances are they're not gonna vote for either of the first two albums, they're gonna vote for Red.   If you only have the patience for their safest listen and picked up no more than three albums, you probably didn't pick up their underrated second album appealing in many of the same ways as the first album while still retaining it's own identity. But if you have, there's a chance you might like it just as much.   See, it's all a number's game. That's what makes this so interesting. But we'd be foolhardy to take any of these numbers as any real indication of the quality of these albums. This is KING CRIMSON we're talking about. Besides, I've read those reviews on prog archives, not just the King Crimson ones either. Those. People. Do. Not. Know. What. They. Are. Talking. About. A critic is to music as a masturbator is to sex. And that website is living proof.   Anybody who ignores what critics have to say and likes the first album, there's no good reason they won't like the second.   I put to you that the eight votes for Red and several votes for other albums are from people who own four or more King Crimson albums, and that the six votes for In the Court of the Crimson King are guys who own three albums or less. Like Floyd Fanatic said earlier, "The rest of King Crimson's discography is too odd for my tastes."       *King Crimson isn't weird. It's uncompromising, innovative and jarring in radical juxtapositions. Which sounds weird to the unprepared or unwilling.

[rushgoober]

The people on prog archives are people who are fans of the genre. Call them critics if you have to, but they're people just like you and me. These do not comprise people who in 1969 bought ITCOCK, loved it, and then were disappointed by their 2nd album by comparison. Even if some of them were, these people have had 35-plus years to live with both albums, and they're judging them by their own merits now.

 

I don't know why you won't accept the fact that MOST people who have both albums think the 1st album is better. Many latter day fans didn't even buy the albums in order, they're judging them individually by their own merits. Obviously it's always gonna be a subjective opinion that their first album is better than their 2nd, but boy do a LOT of people have that same subjective opinion. I think people are qualified to judge the albums on their own merits and not because of what order they came out. Most Rush fans prefer Fly By Night over their debut, even if they like their debut. It's about which is better.

 

Take me with Crimson, I think their first album is brilliant, their 2nd album is very good but not quite in the same league as the 1st, their 3rd is better than both of them and their 4th one is pretty bad. I could care less what order they came out in, I, like 99% of everyone else who has heard these albums, judge them on their own based on their own perceptions. I can't tell you what order I bought these albums, but it certainly wasn't chronologically.

 

I will give you your point that it's likely most Rush fans on this board who are familiar with their 1st album have not heard their 2nd, but that's why I brought up Prog Archives. These are generally people who have heard both, but even then it's not the same rating system. It's not like they said which album was the best and that's it. Each album is rated individually, and the truth of the matter in black and white is that their 2nd album is rated the lowest of the 1969-1974 period. I personally think people have it wrong and Islands should be the lowest rated, but then again I'm one person against mass consensus opinion. Islands is the 2nd lowest of the bunch anyway.

 

Your point about if the albums were reversed in what order they came out in doesn't make sense when you have people 30-40 years after the fact rating each album individually. People are intelligent enough to make decisions based on the albums relative strengths and that's it. The people at Prog Archives are as qualified to judge as anyone else. They're probably more qualified than most since they are hardcore fans of the genre, and King Crimson are one of the staples and pillars of the progressive rock genre.

[Finbar]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 18 2007, 05:00 AM)

The people on prog archives are people who are fans of the genre.  Call them critics if you have to, but they're people just like you and me.  These do not comprise people who in 1969 bought ITCOCK, loved it, and then were disappointed by their 2nd album by comparison.  Even if some of them were, these people have had 35-plus years to live with both albums, and they're judging them by their own merits now. I don't know why you won't accept the fact that MOST people who have both albums think the 1st album is better.  Many latter day fans didn't even buy the albums in order, they're judging them individually by their own merits.  Obviously it's always gonna be a subjective opinion that their first album is better than their 2nd, but boy do a LOT of people have that same subjective opinion.  I think people are qualified to judge the albums on their own merits and not because of what order they came out.  Most Rush fans prefer Fly By Night over their debut, even if they like their debut.  It's about which is better. Take me with Crimson, I think their first album is brilliant, their 2nd album is very good but not quite in the same league as the 1st, their 3rd is better than both of them and their 4th one is pretty bad.  I could care less what order they came out in, I, like 99% of everyone else who has heard these albums, judge them on their own based on their own perceptions.  I can't tell you what order I bought these albums, but it certainly wasn't chronologically. I will give you your point that it's likely most Rush fans on this board who are familiar with their 1st album have not heard their 2nd, but that's why I brought up Prog Archives.  These are generally people who have heard both, but even then it's not the same rating system.  It's not like they said which album was the best and that's it.  Each album is rated individually, and the truth of the matter in black and white is that their 2nd album is rated the lowest of the 1969-1974 period.  I personally think people have it wrong and Islands should be the lowest rated, but then again I'm one person against mass consensus opinion.  Islands is the 2nd lowest of the bunch anyway. Your point about if the albums were reversed in what order they came out in doesn't make sense when you have people 30-40 years after the fact rating each album individually.  People are intelligent enough to make decisions based on the albums relative strengths and that's it.  The people at Prog Archives are as qualified to judge as anyone else.  They're probably more qualified than most since they are hardcore fans of the genre, and King Crimson are one of the staples and pillars of the progressive rock genre.

King Crimson ≠ prog*. Depending on the era/album/song they're many things, but never prog.

An all encompassing label, rock/experimental would be much more accurate than prog. And I would call the first four albums psychedelic before I called them prog.

 

And you're wrong. Court did better than Poseidon in their time and does better now because record stores stock it more, fans recommend it first, many people've heard of the former and not the latter, but nobody's heard of the latter and not the former, etc. Because of all that, people generally hear it first. Because people generally hear it first, and the albums have a relatively similar mood and sound about them (at least compared to other Crimson albums) they generally like the one they heard first better. I stand by what I said that if they came out in reverse order things would be very different.

 

Just look at the reviews! Never mind the average rating, if you read the reviews themselves, they're all saying Poseidon was just Court Pt. II, and fails because it's too similar to the first. So obviously that aspect at least would be different if they came out in reverse order. We can debate for years and that's one thing you just cannot deny, and never will be able to!

 

My first Crimson album I picked up was The Power To Believe, which I dismissed as "Christine music" at first listen, but slowly grew on me. My second and third were In the Wake of Poseidon and Lizard, which I bought at the same time. Lizard I hated at first listen, and of course, loved once it grew on me much later. Poseidon was love at first listen. ELP still my very favourite band at the time (man have I changed!) I was stoked to find out that Greg Lake did most of the vocals on the album even though he'd officially left the band at that point. And I found that Peace and the title song were just gorgeous songs that blew similarly styled ELP songs like Lucky Man and Take a Pebble out of the water.

 

Anyways, I went on a King Crimson buying spree, and I barreled through the John Wetton era and the 80's era, and finally arrived at the first album... and wasn't impressed. Not at first listen, anyways. It took a while to get into, but I realized I just found it too similarly styled to much of the second album. Had I heard them in the other order, as most people do, and if I weren't so dedicated to find what I love about King Crimson, like most people, I would like the first album more.

 

Really, Poseidon's curse is that it's overlooked. Those people on Prog Archives who rate it lower than Court and dismiss it as Court Pt. II have spent probably no more than a fifth of the time listening to it than they have listening to Court. How does the album stand a chance of being judged on its own merits if if it's not listened to on its own merits? Great albums take growing, growing takes listening.

You can't deny it, people who listen to prog and classic rock and jazz and whatever, they pay attention to when the albums came out. I know I do, and I acknowledge that somewhere along the way, my judgement was also probably clouded by this.

 

In the Court of the Crimson King is the closest King Crimson has ever gotten to being overrated. Everything else they've done is severely underrated.

 

 

 

*While we're on the subject of King Crimson not being prog, neither is Rush, for God's sake! Stop trying to legitimize your love of the band to snobby Yes and Genesis fans 'cause they're stuck in the past anyways. (I'm not implying that all Yes and Genesis fans are snobby. I, myself, am a huge Yes fan. It is my impression that people call Rush prog, even with albums as metal as 2112 and as new wave as Grace Under Pressure, to legitimize their love for them. And Rush is a great band, no legitimizing is necessary! Please!) This isn't directed at you, Goobs, just at people who insist Rush is prog in general.

Anyways, if you really think Rush or King Crimson are prog, ask the members. They'll disagree.

Edited March 18, 2007 by Finbar

[rushgoober]

Well you read my opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree...

[Finbar]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 18 2007, 05:22 PM)

Well you read my opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree...

I won't agree to that!

[Rush!]

Well Finbar, I don't know if you know about this already, but Adrian Belew performed with Frank Zappa in the late 70's for about 3 years or so. His role was pretty much that of a rhythm guitarist and occasional singer but he was a great addition to Zappa's band at that time.