Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrophonic Tonic
For me, it starts and ends with King Crimson. I do enjoy other proggers, such as Yes, Genesis and especially early Van Der Graaf Generator; but King Crimson takes the cake.
The word I most often hear as a negative association with prog from it's detractors is that it sounds like musical masturbation. Something I think King Crimson does INCREDIBLY well is that you often do not hear the spotlighted solos that go on for 5,6,7 minutes. Think of any ELP album and especially live performances, specifically Keith Emerson. He's incredibly talented, and I love that video of him stabbing his Hammond organ with knives, but it feels so unnecessary. It stops being ELP and starts becoming a recital with each guy taking turns showing their skill, aka whipping out their schlongs and a tape measure. That isn't a bad thing, but it gets old quickly.
On the other hand, Robert Fripp is a guitar genius... but can you name a great guitar solo he had with King Crimson? The closest I can come with is the 11 minutes of insane work on 'Fracture'. But the fact that Bill Bruford and John Wetton are playing very well and add to Fripp, rather than get out of his way, is why I like King Crimson. The whole band being at their proggiest all at the same time, rather than one member at a time.
|
The easiest way to describe this would be to say KC resembled a better expression of "more than the sum of its parts."
Most prog bands fail because they depend on the unity of different egos and the music instead itself sounds like each virtuoso wants to accentuate his own independence and individuality. I don't know what it was about the musicians in King Crimson, but they all bought into Fripp's direction and the resulting productions benefit enormously from that kindred spirit.
Most of the prog I like is far from the Canterbury scene that progressive fanboys seem to wet themselves over. I don't find that stuff even remotely interesting.