King Crimson Vs. Pink Floyd (funk, rock, albums, member)

[RezZ]

Originally Posted by SubPop

ummmm no sorry those albums are great. The first Ummagumma album is an amazing live album and the final cut is a masterpiece.

I like both but Pink Floyd are in a different league to KC

Neither of which the quality compares to there bigger albums. (or the ones listed by Boo Boo earlier)

[Comus]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Are you kidding me? Whats wrong with that album? I thinks it really damn good. Its pretty much ITCOTCK part 2.

That's exactly what's wrong with it, if I want to listen to In the Court, I'll put on in the Court. It's watered down and stale, Krim have progressed with each album with the sole exception of In the Wake.

[Urban Hatemonger]

Doesn't the idea of being able to vote for both kind of defeat the object of having a VS thread?

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Comus

That's exactly what's wrong with it, if I want to listen to In the Court, I'll put on in the Court. It's watered down and stale, Krim have progressed with each album with the sole exception of In the Wake.

So just because its in the same style its a bad album?

What a bunch of bull****. I'm sorry.

Red kinda sounds like Starless and Bible Black, I guess that makes it a bad album too eh? And of course it means its not progressive. Oh wait a minute, Fragile kinda sounds like The Yes Album, nope not progressive, Selling England by the Pound sounds like Foxtrot, not progressive, Gentle Giants first 5 albums don't sound that different, so not progressive.

And Zeppelin II sounds like Zeppelin I, ah yes bad album. Amnesiac sounds like Kid A, no originality at all, bad album. Magical Mystery Tour sounds like Sgt. Peppers, what a piece of crap.

You know, while we're at it since consistancy is such a bad thing lets just say that if any band has 2 songs that are of a similar style, that strips them of any artistic credibility. Oh oh, King Crimson sucks. Every band sucks.

...

ITWOP is an excellent companion piece to ITCOTCK. I fail to see how any album with tracks like Pictures of a City and Cadence and Cascade could be bad. Overall its a pretty damn strong album. Just because its in the same style as ITCOTCK dosen't take away from the quality of its content. Nor does it mean its not progressive. Have you ever heard of the term if its not broken don't fix it?

[ProggyMan]

Originally Posted by boo boo

So just because its in the same style its a bad album?

What a bunch of bull****. I'm sorry.

Red kinda sounds like Starless and Bible Black, I guess that makes it a bad album too eh? And of course it means its not progressive. Oh wait a minute, Fragile kinda sounds like The Yes Album, nope not progressive, Selling England by the Pound sounds like Foxtrot, not progressive, Gentle Giants first 5 albums don't sound that different, so not progressive.

And Zeppelin II sounds like Zeppelin I, ah yes bad album. Amnesiac sounds like Kid A, no originality at all, bad album. Magical Mystery Tour sounds like Sgt. Peppers, what a piece of crap.

Amnesiac doesn't even sound like Kid A though. Red sounds really, really different than Starless imo. Anyway, yah, an album doesn't have to progress from the bands last one to be good.

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Doesn't the idea of being able to vote for both kind of defeat the object of having a VS thread?

No.

[boo boo]

Well the production on Red is better than Starless, its a bit more polished, and Starless had more jams and Red is more composition based. And Violinist David Cross's presence on Starless set it apart as well.

Come to think of it you're right, maybe not the best example I could have made.

[ProggyMan]

Also Starless is less rocking, it's much softer seems like. Red sounds like a real Rock album at times.

[RezZ]

What happened to no Vs. Threads?

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Doesn't the idea of being able to vote for both kind of defeat the object of having a VS thread?

Or neither.

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

No.

Good job elaborating...It really does defeat the purpose of it though I'm interested to how you see think it doesn't and its kind of sad you have to be asked to explain instead of just doing it when questioned.

[GuitarBizarre]

Originally Posted by boo boo

The live disc is great, studio material not so much.



o_O

A masterpiece? Really?

Maybe saying its bad is pushing it, but I think its below average. Its pretty much a Roger Waters solo album. Theres some good stuff on it, but I just have a personal problem with Waters hijacking the band the way he did, he may have already done it with The Wall, but it was still a great album, because it still sounded like Pink Floyd and it still sounded like a band effort, and Waters at least let Gilmour sing on more than one damn song. This album consists mostly of Waters moping about his dead father and Margaret Thatcher with bloated orchestrial backing (who needs the band?) and just the occassional Gilmour solo to remind people that he's still in the damn band. The best songs on this album are the more rockin ones, and they just sound like outtakes from The Wall.

On its own its not that bad, but by Pink Floyd standards it is IMO.

This post represents an interesting crux. Bands are always told to try new things and evolve lest the fans get bored, yet stray too far from an established formula and it will almost definitely fail miserably.

Problem being fans dont know which they want and will hate on bands that do either too much.