I say King Crimson deserve to be in the RRHOF. The only question is which of the many lineups of the band should be considered for induction?
I say King Crimson deserve to be in the RRHOF. The only question is which of the many lineups of the band should be considered for induction?
Robert Fripp
Ian MacDonald
Peter Sinfield
Greg Lake
Michael Giles
Mel Collins
John Wetton
Bill Bruford
Adrian Belew
Tony Levin
They should all be in but we know the RnRHOF are eletist bastards...
Cheating, you have to pick one. Next band, not next bnds[emoji6]Originally Posted by rich
I think you're living in the reality distortion bubble. Elvis Costello has released over 20 studio albums, every one of which has charted in both the US and UK. He continually sells out tours in countries around the world, the US included. In musical circles, he's never not been relevant and he's worked with scores of established artists across a wide stylistic range in many cases reinvigorating their careers. He is listed as one of Rolling Stone's top 100 artists and it's hard to find any respectable music journal that hasn't lauded him, The Wire included. He's received NME awards, Grammy awards, a BAFTA, Gemini awards, he's in the Grammy and Songwriters halls of fame. You're so far off the mark and so militant about it, it's worth asking where on the doll he touched you. If I had to guess, I'd go with his politics.
yes, and he even had his own TV Show at 1 point.
Elvis Costello is without question *FAME-ous*
Regardless of whether or not you *like* Elvis Costello, what this mostly tells me is that you spent the last quarter of the 70s, as well as the all the following decades in a cave.
Steve F.
www.waysidemusic.com
www.cuneiformrecords.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“Remember, if it doesn't say "Cuneiform," it's not prog!” - THE Jed Levin
Any time any one speaks to me about any musical project, the one absolute given is "it will not make big money". [tip of the hat to HK]
"Death to false 'support the scene' prog!"
please add 'imo' wherever you like, to avoid offending those easily offended.
I remember the same poster making a 'I don't get why everyone doesn't think Dream Theater are amazing??' post, yet the same doesn't apply when it comes to dumping on other artists they don't like.
I mean, I'm no Costello groupie, I like him up to and including Imperial Bedroom but not much I've heard after that (a tiny amount of his output) has had staying power for me. But whatever, he merits inclusion. There should indeed be far more punk/post-punk era artists in there without doubt.
Maschine!
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
King Crimson, Jethro Tull.
Supertramp and Tull here certainly popular in their prime, worthy of induction I would think. Stadium acts that both played Prog music.
Should be the next two.
Crimson might be the first pick in a Progressive Rock Hall of Fame... not sure about popular music...a bit under the radar from the mainstream a bit like The Smith's were.
So? IMO there should be completion of 60s and 70s before him. He's good, but not really influential.
Say what?
I think it is definitely Kansas' time. Hell , they have two of the biggest staple AOR radio hits of all time. And with their resurgence, its the perfect time. ELP should at least be nominated for sheer record sales, we'll see. Sorry, don't get your hopes up for KC or GG. I will faint if either one is even nominated. JT has a chance. Moodies should already be there!
If hip hop, funk, and R&B "aren't rock n roll", then neither is prog.
I think King Crimson are the most likely band to get inducted, vis-a-vis prog, if they choose to continue down this route. They seem to get a certain amount of respect that most progressive bands don't. The question, who would get inducted? Presumably the original lineup, the Larks Tongues band and maybe the 80's quartet would be my guess.
I somehow don't see ELP getting inducted. They kind of represent "everything that is wrong with prog rock" to the detractors (including record critics). They're the band that every so called modern progressive band names when explaining how "we're not progressive rock". Ya know, it goes something like this: "Oh, to us prog rock was always ELP, and we were never into them", like they're afraid their audience (whatever audience they've managed to accrue) will suddenly disappear overnight if there's any slightest hint of them being linked in people's minds to ELP, however tangential said link might be.
He's probably still upset about the Ray Charles incident (which Ray Charles even forgave him for, because Ray knew first hand that people say stupid stuff when they're drunk).
Joy Division for one. Public Image Limited, for two. I would induct The Church and a few other bands, but I'm not sure how "important" they actually are, apart from making some damn fine music.
Attitudes and times change. Recent reviews of their re-issue catalogue by modern day critics have been very praiseworthy. I don't remember any band saying anything like you quoted either, in fact quite the contrary! Whatever your opinion ELP are the most 'famous' Prog band not in there and are probably the most likely candidate.
How do you expect King Crimson to be nominated, they haven't had a top 50 album since 1969. They don't meet the 'fame' criteria!
Is this like your 'drummers polls'?? Evidence would be welcome...and Prog Magazine doesn't really count, obviously they'll get positive reviews in a publication about the genre!
I'm afraid that ELP have always been used as the whipping boy for the perceived 'worst excesses of progressive rock' and you must have lived under a rock not to notice. I don't really agree...a lot of what is said about them is unfair and IMHO they should definitely be in there. But I would imagine they are (sadly) the least likely of the big-selling progressive acts to get in.
I most definitely do remember such commentary. This was around 10 or 12 years ago, there were a few articles where certain bands were described as "new" progressive rock or whatever. No, I'm not talking of bands that are normally thought of as "prog rock", there were a couple at least who were sort of closer to being "alternative" or whatever. Can't think of their names, but there was a point where a couple bands were being described in the press as "progressive rock" and their response was just as I described, the "We were never into those bands" attitude, with ELP being cited as the specific example.
Neither does The Velvet Underground, and they were inducted two decades ago. I think King Crimson will eventually get inducted just because of their influence.How do you expect King Crimson to be nominated, they haven't had a top 50 album since 1969
They don't meet the 'fame' criteria!
For a band who's only ever had one album in the top 50 (is that Billboard or Cashbox, btw?), King Crimson sure has pulled off a pretty successful career. For a band who've broken up and reformed as many times as they have, they still manage to be a popular live band. Sure, they're not selling out ten nights in a row at Madison Square Garden (as the Grateful Dead did regularly in the late 80's and early 90's), but they're not exactly doing the bar mitzvah circuit either, are they?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying ELP doesn't deserve to be nominated. However, I doubt if ELP would have existed if not for King Crimson. I wouldn't think Lake would have chosen a progressive path if it were not for Fripp.
Laura
Well, they did tend to be a bit on the excessive side, but at their best, I think they also tempered that with some fine songwriting and arrangements. And Emerson's influence, not just as a musician, but as being one of the first people a lot of folks heard using a synthesizer, I think is important too. But the good parts of their music seem to be forgotten by a lot of the critics, unfortunately. Which is why I think they'll be a long shot for induction.
^I think they definitely lost their way in the late 70s, and I'm not keen on the long solo sections in their live shows (but they were by no means the only offenders at that time). However, their 1970-4 work (including the live albums) and the good stuff on Works Volume 1 holds up very well indeed...genuinely great work.
Another reason I think their stock was reduced is because they spent most of the time since the split inactive as a band, and the 90s reunion didn't really relaunch them to any great degree. (I think the ELPowell album came closest, creatively and commercially, but it's not quite ELP, of course!) By contrast, whatever one thinks of specific line-ups, there's almost always been some kind of version of Yes treading the boards, so their presence has been higher.
Wrong; King Crimson have three albums in the US Top 50, "In The Court.." (#28), "In The Wake...(#31) & "Discipline" (#45).
Disagree! Emerson alone is probably the most 'famous and influential' keyboard player in Rock, let alone Prog!
Oh, and here's a link to recent review of Anthology from a newspaper [not rock or prog] tabloid!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...nces-pomp.html
Why do you even bother to argue? Would you expect a doorknob to answer when you pressed the doorbell? The "goodness" of music is (purportedly) comprehended through a level of appeal reflected in sales and the size of concert venues. This is kinda why Ace of Base are a much better band than, say, Anderson/Stolt.
Last edited by Scrotum Scissor; 12-27-2016 at 08:12 AM.
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks