Originally Posted by Trollheart

First, I'm in the minority but I agree with you on this (people here will say that just goes to show how wrong you are). I'm no expert on KC, I have only heard about six albums so far, and that's through my History of Prog Rock journal, so was of necessity. Most I thought okay, a few really good, a lot mediocre. You can be hanged for such comments here I know, but I don't give a... fig. I don't think I'll ever be a fan of Fripp's soundscapes, and the fact that King Crimson are so closely linked with jazz (and, worse for me, some free jazz) makes it very hard for me to like them. I don't like this album. I only listened to it the once, to be fair, but it did not impress me.

Second: Genesis, Yes and Floyd are certainly progenitors of prog rock (along with ELP, Caravan, Moody Blues and others) but APP came much later, their first album being in the late 1970s (1976) so they could not be said to have been laying down any sort of trail.

Third: Nobody, and I mean nobody should be able to tell you what you should like. If you hate an album, or artist, a million people love, it's been my experience that you should feel free to hate it. There's no rule in music that says you have to like this band or that artist. We're all different. Except me.

I liked your review. I thought it was honest and while you went on record (hah) to say you didn't like the album, you still paid it and the band some respect, which is I think important. Nothing should be trashed or disparaged out of hand. Other than Nickelback, of course.

Originally Posted by Guybrush

I feel like 95% of KC worship focuses on their debut. While there are some things I like a lot, like the song Dinosaur from Thrak or the title track from Red, I don't find their albums terribly interesting. Especially John Wetton I could never quite get behind, preferring Belew.

Some of the musical stuff Fripp has been interested in, like his 80s league of guitarists, feature some of the worst aspects of musicality/virtuosity with few or none of the attractions. He's an interesting character for sure, but not always appealing.

Originally Posted by rubber soul

I happen to like King Crimson a lot though I think Guybrush is right that most fans fixate on the brilliant debut. There are so many incarnations of King Crimson, which is essentially Robert Fripp and company, it's hard to keep count. I do think they've done a lot more than Court of the Crimson King though (In the Wake of Poseidon, Lark's Tongue in Aspic, Red). In fact, if you're only a casual fan, I'd recommend A Young Person's Guide to King Crimson. The complilation covers just about every great track Crimson did from 1969-1975 (though it did miss Easy Money off Lark's Tongue). Still the greatest prog band ever in my book.