Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteater
And finally, I could care less how appealing their approach is to those who indulge themselves this sort of trash: anyone who writes off King Crimson, ELP, and everything Yes did after Close to the Edge as "grotesque", yet acknowledges such groups' influences on the musicians they adore isn't worth piss in my book.  |
Pitchfork has always been down on the prog acts of the 70's. Just like the snotty nosed punkers of the late 70's early 80's. I think it's a reactionary stance because they know they never could be as talented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteater
And finally, I could care less how appealing their approach is to those who indulge themselves in this sort of trash: anyone who writes off King Crimson, ELP, and everything Yes did after Close to the Edge as "grotesque", yet acknowledges such groups' influences on the musicians they adore isn't worth piss in my book. |
I agree with the bulk of your post, though would like to point out that they did actually include two King Crimson albums in their 1970s Top 100, and at any rate
did after all mark the first three important Yes albums very highly. Aside from that, they also included four Pink Floyd albums in their 1970s Top 100. So it can hardly be alleged that they spit in the face of prog
entirely. Even Pitchfork try to be fair, probably more so than the hipster crowd who purport/try to follow them.
Did you mean ELO, by the way? I'm not sure what ELP is (I'm sure you didn't mean El-P!!!).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zombeels
Pitchfork has always been down on the prog acts of the 70's. Just like the snotty nosed punkers of the late 70's early 80's. I think it's a reactionary stance because they know they never could be as talented.
|
See above. It's not quite so cut and dry as one might assume.