Which is the better band? UK or KC (SaBB era when they were a 4 pce like UK)

[WytchCrypt]

If you watch the Live In Japan video from the Three Of A Perfect Pair tour (reissued on the Neal And Jack And Me DVD), there's a brief section where Fripp is shown playing that bit on, his Roland G-303, unplugged, accompanied by a metronome. This leads me to believe that:

a. That bit of music was part of his regular practice/warm up routine, possibly even to this day

and

b. It's quite possible that a lot of the more "difficult" bits we hear in his guitar work, say the "manual sequencer" stuff in the 80's era records or the recurring them in the Larks Tongues pieces, also had their genesis in his practice routines, ie something that he initially devised as a means of improving his playing technique, and then incorporated into pieces that the public would get to hear.

Ya, I bought that same Three of a Perfect Pair Japanese tour video on VHS when it 1st came out...I love the scene your describing. Another interesting occurrence of that bit can be heard on one of the King Crimson Collectors Club releases of the '71 Boz/Wallace/Collins/Fripp lineup. I think it's either the Live at Detroit, or Live at Summit Studios album but somewhere in an improv Fripp breaks into the middle section of what would become Fracture. I think you're right, it's a practice piece he played for many years before he found a good home for it in Fracture

[wideopenears]

King Crimson by a landslide. This incarnation of the Crim has influenced bands like Anekdoten, Anglagard, and others....they brought an avant-garde experimental, improvisational element to heavy rock and symphonic elements that you didn't hear often previously. The run of albums from Lark's to USA is an essential part of a Prog discography, IMO. (I count these as basically the same band, though I know we had Jamie Miur for a hot second, and Red had a shifting cast...)...

UK were in many respects the last gasp, pre-Asia, of the Prog heavyweights. Holdsworth is one of my favorite musicians ever, but I don't value his work on this album as highly as most of the rest of his work, frankly. UK's stuff was very "composed," and it struck me as an attempt to exploit the "excesses" of Prog as well as to add some pop and AOR elements, though Asia was the logical outcome of this trajectory. Still, I like the first UK album quite a bit, the others not so much.

[WytchCrypt]

UK were in many respects the last gasp, pre-Asia, of the Prog heavyweights. Holdsworth is one of my favorite musicians ever, but I don't value his work on this album as highly as most of the rest of his work, frankly. UK's stuff was very "composed," and it struck me as an attempt to exploit the "excesses" of Prog as well as to add some pop and AOR elements, though Asia was the logical outcome of this trajectory. Still, I like the first UK album quite a bit, the others not so much.

Didn't Bruford mention in his autobiography that UK was purposefully assembled to fill the void of the fading prog giants and that he bailed the 3 piece because he felt they were supposed to be the "new ELP"?

[Dave (in MA)]

Didn't Bruford mention in his autobiography that UK was purposefully assembled to fill the void of the fading prog giants and that he bailed the 3 piece because he felt they were supposed to be the "new ELP"?

His '78 timeline says

With Holdsworth already unhappy, the long summer tour booked for the US is bound to be lumpy.
Following a chaotic free concert at Penn’s Landing, Philadelphia, Wetton “fires” Bruford and Holdsworth, but the band limps on to its last gig in West Hartford, CT. on October 8th. A short, fiery furnace.

but the book said something about not wanting Holdsworth any more, and asking him whether he wanted to stay or go with AH.

[jkelman]

While "Mental Medication" should have been expunged, the rest of U.K. is fantastic.

Funny...MM is one of my favourite tracks on the album, after the "Dead of Night" trifecta.

But that said, these "which is better" threads are, imo, absurd. It's all apples and oranges, barring very, very superficial comparisons.

And why is it necessary to prove why one thinks one is better than the other? Is there not room enough for both in this world, whether it's UK and ELP, UK and Crimson or whoever else one cares to bring together?

Sure, I suppose it's fun and engenders some discussion but ultimately it turns into a slamfest rather than a celebration.

Personally, I love both UK and LTIA Crimson. For very different reasons....and despite sharing the same drummer and bassist on that first UK album, their playing is oh so different that even comparing them is apples and oranges, IMO, because the concepts for each group were so very different.

I had a very, very interesting conversation today with a modern progressive cat, and we discussed the myth of punk killing prog. Progressive music never went away..it didn't even go underground; it just changed, as progressive music should, allowing for the emergence of newer groups who may not have been progressive in the traditional sense that some think of when they use the term, but in terms of being actually progressive and moving music forward, absolutely deserve to be considered in the same breath as the '70s giants. Bands like XTC, Japan, Blue Nile, Talk Talk (after they first couple records), etc.

Sorry, I digress but for me, threads like this encourage all that is wrong with the way modern progressive music is viewed. It's great for discussion, I suppose, but I just think this idea of one band being better than another is flawed because the frames of reference are often so very, very different, and ultimately reflect nothing more than personal taste and absolutely nothing that's objective (no, " incessant and boring noodling-improv" is not a measurement, any more than "evil, Svengali-like Holdsworthless") and a comment like "There are very few bands UK could lose to (possibly Genesis or Marillion) therefore once again UK is the clear cut winner in this match." does nothing to prove why UK is the clear-cut winner.

However, for my taste and opinion, the folks who get it closer to right are:

Musically it is apples and bananas to me.

because it's the real truth, and

This subjective stuff makes me sleepy. In fact... good night. I'm going to bed and listening to some Gong.

.

Not to make it any less of an achievement, the answer to the question

And I still haven't a clue how Fripp played Fracture.

is: practice.
The real question, in my mind, is not how does he play it...it's how did he conceive it? Most folks with a good set of hands and time to do it can learn to play just about anything. But coming up with the ideas? Now that, IMO, is the real key - and that applies to both writing and improvising.

As for Cross, as I have written in my reviews of LTIA Crimson, I think Cross was hard-done by, thanks to just the few years difference between Crim and, for example, UK. In that time, monitoring got so much better, and it became possible for folks playing instruments like violin to hear themselves properly, especially at the kinds of volumes these bands were playing at...and that makes a huge difference. These days, most (not all, but most) bands plays at far lower onstage volumes because (a) they value their ears and (b) because they don't need to because monitoring is better and house PA systems are also better. combiNot saying Cross is necessarily as virtuosic as Jobson (I don't actually know that to be a fact), but the point is he would have been better served in Crimson had he not been competing with the high decibel juggernaut of Bruford and (especially) Wetton, who made it virtually impossible, without proper monitoring, for someone like Crosss to hear himself properly onstage and consequently play with really good intonation. I think his playing on LTIA is very, very good (especially on Part 1)l; given the majority of SaBB came from live recordings, you're hearing the consequence of onstage problems and, as a result, less playing from Cross. OTOH, on the quieter tracks, like "Trio," I think his playing is quite exquisite.

As for Fripp being "robotic" and Holdsworth being a "real master of the guitar and improvisation," a couple questions:

1. What actually defines being a "real master of the guitar";
2. When it comes to improvisation, comparing Fripp and Holdsworth is rather pointless because their approaches, their languages, everything about how they approach the instrument is just so damn different. But let's not forget that Fripp played some absolutely wonderful improv on albums like Lizard and Islands, neither of which was "robotic" in the least. Nor is his improvisational work in the LTIA group robotic. In fact, his solos on tunes like "The Night Watch" and "Exiles" reveal a guitarist capable of great lyricism and beauty.

That's not to say I don't love AH - I do, boy do I! But they are such different players it's hard enough to compare them without getting into the rather pointless exercise of who is "better."

Changing the titles of threads like this to "who do you like more: X or Y, and WHY" might be more appropriate. Then we know we are talking opinion, not fact...and it would ask folks to explain their choices....and those explanations need to be better than "because they suck" or "because he's "evil" and "Svengali-like"; having met Holdsworth on more than one occasion, I can assure you that unless he's pulling one over on me, he's neither

[3LockBox]

The adoration of that first UK album eludes me. I gave it several listens... put it aside for a spell, put it back on... nuthin.

[calyx]

Didn't Bruford mention in his autobiography that UK was purposefully assembled to fill the void of the fading prog giants and that he bailed the 3 piece because he felt they were supposed to be the "new ELP"?

Bruford is a great storyteller and is able to turn the erratic interactions of individuals into a broader coherent storyline, but often at the expense of factual accuracy. I have often found his accounts contradicted by contemporary sources or even basic fact-checking, like his famous ABWH of professing surprise at meeting Wakeman and Howe at the airport for the flight to Montserrat where we know for instance that Howe wasn't part of the trip.

So what Bruford says about how/why UK came together may reflect the viewpoints of some, primarily the record company, but to imply that Wetton and Jobson only had cynical motives for forming the band, where it was clearly more complex (and certainly more artistic) than that, and that conversely he and Holdsworth were artists of total integrity and refused to bow to commercial pressure, is painting an oversimplified version of what really happened, even though largely true.

[GuitarGeek]

About this business about Fripp's playing being "robotic", I suggest you listen to:

1. the solo at the end of side two of Lizard (heavy reverb fuzz solo, just before the demented circus music kicks in)
2. the death rattle solo, as I like to call it, at the end of the Earthbound version of Groon (oh shut up! It's not that bad, and in this case, it's absolutely brilliant, even if the sound quality is a bit funky)
3. Any version of The Night Watch or Exiles
4. Starless finale (let's say the Providence or Central Park shows from the end of the 74 tour)

His lead playing in those instances is anything but robotic. It's very expressive, melodic, and beautiful. There's other examples in amongst the live recordings, but these are the most obvious examples, I think.

[GuitarGeek]

Oh, and another point in Fripp's favor: As I understand it, that's him playing the crazy synth line on Happy Family.

And while Holdsworth eventually abandoned any attempt at playing anything even remotely resembling mainstream pop or rock music, Fripp seems to have always embraced the idea of having something "radio friendly" as part of King Crimson's music (to say nothing of his work with Peter Gabriel, Darryl Hall, etc). He seems to have taken Darryl Hall's suggestion that "You gotta have something in 4/4 time" to heart...ok, maybe it's not always in 4/4 time, but sometimes, if you don't tell the listener it's actually in seven or 13 or whatever, they'd never know the difference.

[Painter]

But that said, these "which is better" threads are, imo, absurd. It's all apples and oranges, barring very, very superficial comparisons.

And why is it necessary to prove why one thinks one is better than the other? Is there not room enough for both in this world, whether it's UK and ELP, UK and Crimson or whoever else one cares to bring together?

^^^ This

[Phlakaton]

I really like Mental Medication - another argument that doesn't go anywhere. I like a song - someone doesn't. Now where do we go from there? Nowhere.

[Shadow]

Now where do we go from there? Nowhere.

NOWHERE?! YOU OPEN UP A CAN OF ADRIAN PETERSON ON THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Facelift]

KC in a landslide.

[cavgator]

Bruford is a great storyteller and is able to turn the erratic interactions of individuals into a broader coherent storyline, but often at the expense of factual accuracy. I have often found his accounts contradicted by contemporary sources or even basic fact-checking, like his famous ABWH of professing surprise at meeting Wakeman and Howe at the airport for the flight to Montserrat where we know for instance that Howe wasn't part of the trip.

So what Bruford says about how/why UK came together may reflect the viewpoints of some, primarily the record company, but to imply that Wetton and Jobson only had cynical motives for forming the band, where it was clearly more complex (and certainly more artistic) than that, and that conversely he and Holdsworth were artists of total integrity and refused to bow to commercial pressure, is painting an oversimplified version of what really happened, even though largely true.

I think you are a little harsh on Bruford's interpretation. I didn't read anything devious about Jobson/Wetton in Bruford's account. I simply thought it was a great platform for him to differentiate between the artist and the craftsman, and his analogy seems to me to fit perfectly. He wasn't disparaging the other two, IMO. He simply wished to go into a more creative, improvisational direction, as did Holdsworth. Listening to the live album with the original band, Holdsy seemed like a fish out of water, trying to play in a tightly structured prog band. I couldn't imagine Allan trying to play with UK live any more than I could imagine him playing with ELP, Yes, or most other tightly structured prog bands. With live KC, OTOH, I could see Allan going to town along with Fripp, which might have been amazing.

[Facelift]

The adoration of that first UK album eludes me. I gave it several listens... put it aside for a spell, put it back on... nuthin.

The first two Bruford albums blow UK's material out of the water, IMO.

[Trane]

Since Wetton and Bruford are in both bands, the annul.
In terms of pure musical talent, Fripp and Hodsworth are about equal (Holdsy being more virtuoson while Fripp more literate/composer)...
Is Cross better than Jobson? I don't think so (I just don't like much anything Jobson's done anywhere in the 70's), but most likely I'll be in a minority on this issue ...

so in adding the sum of the four separate parts, UK would be slightly better than KC...

But obviously, despite SABB being my least favorite KC 72/74 album, they're definitely the better band, especially on stage (Nightwatch release)




PS: I'm somewhat warming up to some SABB tracks on side A that I didn't like previously: Well Let You Know and Mincer (too bad about that abrupt end)... So now with Nightwatch, I now like half the tracks on side A and the whole of the flipside. (too bad I still think Wetton is a fairly crappy singer on that album - not that he's better on LTIA.... But on Red, he's rather good


BTW, I find Wetton's singing on UK more tolerable as a whole, as opposed to his KC works.

[Trane]

Originally Posted by cavgator

Take Red, remove Providence, and replace with Fracture, and that album is every bit as strong.

Not Fracture, but Asbury Park.

Boh would make Red substantially better, but their disappearance from their respective albums wouild cause them great prejudice...

SABB would become a lesser album than Island and USA would have less interest than Earthbound (which has some intterestibng improvs despite the crap sound)

[GuitarGeek]

Boh would make Red substantially better, but their disappearance from their respective albums wouild cause them great prejudice...

SABB would become a lesser album than Island and USA would have less interest than Earthbound (which has some intterestibng improvs despite the crap sound)

Well, if you took Asbury Park off USA, you could easily replace it with another improv, or any of the other songs that were played on those shows. You could insert something like Starless in it's place, and it'd work just as well.

And I do agree it would have made no sense for them to hold Fracture for the next album. It's just fine on Starless And Bible Black.

One thing I never understood is why they didn't include Doctor Diamond on Red. I know Fripp said it "never fell into place as a composition" (or whatever) but I think it works rather well. And I think it would have been a good side two opener. But the thing is, to come up to a full LP side, they'd have to include a third track. They probably could have used a shorter version of one of the improvs, having fade in/out as needed.

[battema]

So, I'm confused...is this still a parody thread or are we all now taking this one on the level?

[Dave (in MA)]

So, I'm confused...is this still a parody thread or are we all now taking this one on the level?

Which Crims played tennis?

[battema]

African or European tennis?

I am suggesting that tennis balls migrate.

[Scrotum Scissor]

I had a very, very interesting conversation today with a modern progressive cat, and we discussed the myth of punk killing prog. Progressive music never went away..it didn't even go underground; it just changed, as progressive music should, allowing for the emergence of newer groups who may not have been progressive in the traditional sense that some think of when they use the term, but in terms of being actually progressive and moving music forward, absolutely deserve to be considered in the same breath as the '70s giants. Bands like XTC, Japan, Blue Nile, Talk Talk (after they first couple records)

Not as long as the self-proclaimed connoisseur continues to perceive reality solely through subject versus object; object being the actual music, subject being "oneself" and what one "gets" or "defines". The fact remains that not only do the majority of 'big six-style proggers' *NOT* in any way relate to progression as an active developmental asset in contemporary music, they mostly wouldn't even detect such progression if it came up and bit them in the ass.

As for KC's SaBB vs. UK's first; the latter is great, but it hardly made a lasting impression on much development in rock at large, whilst "Fracture" was by definition a paradigmatic compositional point in rock music.

And btw, the eternal accusation of "noodling" is something that has been pointed precisely at progressive rock music from the exterior for decades; it had initially little next to nothing to do with the art of improvisation, which within modern scholarly music is held in just as high regard and seen as mandatory en par with the practice of notation. Rather, alleged "noodling" was a Yes or Tull or Genesis alluding to the role of 'serious composers' while obviously leaving a lot to be desired in that department.

[JJ88]

And btw, the eternal accusation of "noodling" is something that has been pointed precisely at progressive rock music from the exterior for decades; it had initially little next to nothing to do with the art of improvisation, which within modern scholarly music is held in just as high regard and seen as mandatory en par with the practice of notation. Rather, alleged "noodling" was a Yes or Tull or Genesis alluding to the role of 'serious composers' while obviously leaving a lot to be desired in that department.

Well did they ever explicitly allude that they were serious composers- certainly the members of Genesis or Tull don't seem the type that would to me? I can see why people felt that about ELP and Rick Wakeman, with the 'classical' influences and the orchestras that both sometimes used. But the other bands, not so much.

The other weasel-word is 'pretentious'. Such words seem to me thrown out by people who could never be bothered to get to grips with what the bands actually did, instead criticising them for what they weren't doing. There's been a certain thawing-out of that school of thought over recent years, thankfully...but not in the Rock Hall, of course, which is still heavily populated by the same old people. By all means, if an album falls short by its own criteria, it's worthy of a poor review. But not when judged by a criteria of 'good ol' rawk n roll' or whatever.

[JJ88]

The first two Bruford albums blow UK's material out of the water, IMO.

Yes, to be honest, I'm inclined to agree. Certainly Holdsworth is better suited to Bruford IMHO.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Well did they ever explicitly allude that they were serious composers- certainly the members of Genesis or Tull don't seem the type that would to me? I can see why people felt that about ELP and Rick Wakeman, with the 'classical' influences and the orchestras that both sometimes used. But the other bands, not so much.

The other weasel-word is 'pretentious'.

Indeed, although the one allegation having something (if not always exactly a lot) going for it was that of much such music sounding "contrived" and/or "forced". Which, I suppose, implies the opposite of something sounding "organic" - although again one misses out on the criteria of definition here.

Did a band like Yes ever allude to being 'serious composers'? Well, at least they made a certain go for it with the very concept of TfTO, albeit some of the most far-fetched ideas there are actually among their more enduring ones on a larger scale (and yes, I'm thinking of the percussion-vs.-tape effects part). And I personally think Jon Anderson's Olias and parts of Squire's Fish releases mark the pinnacles of their 'serious' ventures (musch more so than those über-campy 'works' of Wakeman). Of course, Jon A. would later mock the spoofing of Yes' music as an "upcoming attempt at putting the bible into music", which still doesn't detract from the man's ambition.