Bracket: ITCOTCK vs Red?

[N_Singh]

Neither .

Nothing is as adventurous and creative as LTiA, their true avant-garde but beautifully accessible MASTERPIECE.

[taliesin]

That's an interesting observation

No it's the usual stupidity from Rufus - I think I lost track of the number of things wrong with it in the first sentence.

[grego]

In The Court of Crimson King, obviously.

[Enid]

Please elaborate on these impeccably intriguing observations by corroborating with meticulous insights that simply leave all of us completely breathless.

"I believe".

I believe it's an interesting observation based on Fripp's claim that when recording the piece "Red" , Bruford didn't understand the nature of the piece nor in the end did he offer up the appropriate/suitable kind of playing to Fripp's standards. I wonder if Bruford ever discussed this nail in the coffin departure with musicians he worked with shortly after..... like telling Dave Stewart that Fripp wanted to play Metal. Fripp was no longer interested in playing Progressive Rock ...... obviously. Regarding jazz drummers unable to play Rock, .... obviously many of them played in Rock bands prior to joining Jazz bands. However if a Jazz drummer is only devoted to Jazz for a few decades and is asked to perform Rock.... they will be rusty and not have a natural control until they begin practicing. Same situation exists when putting down you're electric guitar for Classical nylon for a long period. You have to make adjustments when arriving back to electric. Bill Bruford had amazing Independence on drums. Fripp said he was a Classical drummer frustrated with Jazz. I thought that to be a cruel thrust. Good thing Fripp didn't join Yes. Possibly Metal or what Fripp requested was alien to Bruford. Bruford must have thought that his position was moronic.

[Kcrimso]

I believe it's an interesting observation based on Fripp's claim that when recording the piece "Red" , Bruford didn't understand the nature of the piece nor in the end did he offer up the appropriate/suitable kind of playing to Fripp's standards. I wonder if Bruford ever discussed this nail in the coffin departure with musicians he worked with shortly after..... like telling Dave Stewart that Fripp wanted to play Metal. Fripp was no longer interested in playing Progressive Rock ...... obviously. Regarding jazz drummers unable to play Rock, .... obviously many of them played in Rock bands prior to joining Jazz bands. However if a Jazz drummer is only devoted to Jazz for a few decades and is asked to perform Rock.... they will be rusty and not have a natural control until they begin practicing. Same situation exists when putting down you're electric guitar for Classical nylon for a long period. You have to make adjustments when arriving back to electric. Bill Bruford had amazing Independence on drums. Fripp said he was a Classical drummer frustrated with Jazz. I thought that to be a cruel thrust. Good thing Fripp didn't join Yes. Possibly Metal or what Fripp requested was alien to Bruford. Bruford must have thought that his position was moronic.

So why did not Fripp start to play metal after Red. And no, I don't think that Breathless is metal.

[aplodon]

In the Court...

Sent from my phone via Tapatalk

[selfextraction]

It's Red by a long way for me. This lineup is probably one of my all-time favorite bands.

[selfextraction]

It's Red by a long way for me. This lineup is probably one of my all-time favorite bands.

[Enid]

So why did not Fripp start to play metal after Red. And no, I don't think that Breathless is metal.

I have no idea. On this interview cassette tape he says..."I wish to play more Heavy Metal and Bruford didn't know how to play the piece Red" and so on.. The interviewer says to Fripp....."I feel that the Crimson albums could be matched up in pairs, for example, I.T.C.O.T.C.K. can pair with I.T.W.O.P., Lizard with Islands, Larks and Starless, and perhaps Red somehow matches up with Exposure.". Fripp says, "Ehhh.... that's an interesting observation, but Crimson could have never played "Breathless". I mean, to me it seems during the interview he's mostly swimming in this pool of disparity and basically chops Crimson into little pieces every chance he gets. And " Breathless" does not sound like Metal at all ... and I don't get it. Larks Tongues Part I and part II, Fracture, Red, are all pieces which are reminiscent of each other regarding patterns and Fripp admits this during the interview that he felt maybe he wrote something reminiscent of something else in order to create them. Well obviously "Breathless " is #5 in line as it contains the same pattern . Perhaps he was foul and felt like he wasted time with Crimson from the moment McDonald and Giles announced that they were leaving and his stomach dropped, to the struggle of keeping the band together through Lizard and Islands, and then the '73/'74 band where they conspired to sack David Cross.....I mean... Fripp accomplished great things through disappointment and I used to think he had resentment for that.

[Jay.Dee]

"I wish to play more Heavy Metal"

Sometimes dreams come true...

[notallwhowander]

Well, Heavy Metal was a bit of a plastic term through the '70s. Once the NWOBHM hit its stride in the '80s, and inspired the next generation of metalheads, were there cleaner through-lines and sharper definitions. What we think of as Heavy Metal now may only overlap what Bruford or Fripp thought it was then.

[Scrotum Scissor]

I believe it's an interesting observation [...]

Yes, but your observation is founded on the dynamics and resonance between knowledge, insights, merits and reflection.

[DoubleDrummer]

Odd bracket -- two different bands.
ITCOTCK is more of a Giles-MacDonald-Lake band..............RED is the best release of the classic KC line-up.
To me these albums are the bookends -- the beginning and the end..................and both are brilliant.

[Enid]

Sometimes dreams come true...

Lol!

[Enid]

Well, Heavy Metal was a bit of a plastic term through the '70s. Once the NWOBHM hit its stride in the '80s, and inspired the next generation of metalheads, were there cleaner through-lines and sharper definitions. What we think of as Heavy Metal now may only overlap what Bruford or Fripp thought it was then.

Very true and insightful. Thank you

[Enid]

Sometimes dreams come true...

I haven't listened to King Crimson in 5 years. They were my favorite band for decades . When I was a teenager I owned many bootlegs, collected every off spring such as Septober Energy by Centipede and the usual suspects .... taping the Amsterdam show whenever it was aired , ending up with four different broadcasts with different track running, Even thought there was a possibility to obtain the recording of Abracadabra. This is all laughable to me now. The Sid Smith book is essential. What he experienced through writing his book is a chapter within itself. To this day, I still find their history fascinating. For example, the missing tape of the Fillmore East which was somehow misplaced when in Pete Sinfield 's possession.

[Jay.Dee]

Lol!

Well, I have read it did not end up well. Instead of rowdy riffing and shredding many expected from an "unknown" guy filling the shoes of the Heavy Guitar Gods like Petrucci and Malmsteen, Fripp chose to play 40 minutes of soundscapes.

Went to see G3 in Gothenburg Sweden. The main reason was of course Fripp but I have some respect for the others, especially mr. Vai. I wasn't aware of what kind of performance Fripp would choose. When Fripp starts his soundscape I think it will last for 10-15 minutes and a band will enter the stage but no. He continues and some unresteness among the audience is obvious. Some are booing, some chatting, wandering around or whatever but most of them are uninterested in the performance.

Obviously it was far worse in Holland some days before but if you read the comments from fans on the Steve Vai home site almost everyone are condemning the behaviour of these people. However one guy hit the target and wrote:

- "I can't believe he's opting to do soundscapes for 40 f^ckin minutes. Does he not have a band that he can perform with? If not, that's pretty stupid considering all of the material he could draw from in his back catalogue (King Crimson, solo stuff etc) that could be used for performance. How sad..."

Another one writes:

- "I think he is a bit of a mismatch for what the average rocker going to G3 is expecting, but it's piss poor to boo."

We who are devoted fans gladly pays to see a concert by Fripp playing soundscapes but imagining the rockers who are prepared for some virtouso fast picking on highly disted guitars. How smart was it by Fripp to choose this set... or by Satch to choose Fripp when he knew what would be on his repertory. This guy refuses to do "greatest hits shows", but a wise general chooses out of his strategy where to fight his battle. Obviously Fripp chose the wrong battlefield or strategy. Make your own choice.

http://et.stok.ca/articles/1178-12.html
http://www.vai.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5715

[squiz17]

Red.That is all.

[Scrotum Scissor]

true avant-garde but beautifully accessible

Why do you somehow insinuate an apparent antagonism between the "true avant-garde" and the "[beautifully] accessible"? Because most other "true avant-garde" isn't?

I agree with your description, I just don't see the "logical necessity" of your reservation.

[Mikhael]

Court. Red was noisy, repetitive, and somewhat boring for me.

[Enid]

Why do you somehow insinuate an apparent antagonism between the "true avant-garde" and the "[beautifully] accessible"? Because most other "true avant-garde" isn't?

I agree with your description, I just don't see the "logical necessity" of your reservation.

There is that realization that Avant-Garde is inaccessible to a great number of Prog fans. So Red probably registered even tempered with Prog ears (not the site) , because it never gave up the ingredient for Prog by surrendering to Avant-Garde. In point a Univers Zero gig did not produce enthusiasm and many Prog fans cleared out or hung in the lobby. Pure Chamber Rock does not appeal to a good amount of Prog fans. Typically it contains a soprano voice that throws people off balance and makes them cringe. Or they sometimes feel...."Well, if you're going to spend hours listening to Charles Ives or Arnold Schoenberg, do it in your room", let alone if they have to sit through Chamber Rock that crosses into Avant-Garde and spoils their evening. My favorite music is modern Chamber Music and I would never have expectations of anyone liking it. And I do not dislike anyone who does not prefer it. But I have witnessed people walking out on a Chamber Rock band who were booked to play a 2 or 3 day Prog fest along with other Symphonic Prog bands that are not too distant from formulas of Pulsar or Eloy. Which is why R.I.O. fest gatherings are more of a practical solution.

[Accordo dei Contrari]

I think ITCOTCK - it is a far more balanced album, in my opinion. And note, I prefer King Crimson 72-74 by far. But the masterpiece of such lineup is, in my opinion Starless and Bible Black. This said, songs such as Red, Providence and Starless are absolute gems.

[Scrotum Scissor]

There is that realization that Avant-Garde is inaccessible to a great number of Prog fans. So Red probably registered even tempered with Prog ears (not the site) , because it never gave up the ingredient for Prog by surrendering to Avant-Garde. In point a Univers Zero gig did not produce enthusiasm and many Prog fans cleared out or hung in the lobby. Pure Chamber Rock does not appeal to a good amount of Prog fans.

I know.

But with all due respect, it's not a realization - seeing how it's simply not "real" and thus untrue; it's an apparent notion, which is different. Genuine musical perception doesn't primarily emannate from a predisposed templative impression but from impulsive reactions to and connotations of the very appearance of immediate sound. It doesn't exactly take much reading of Adorno to comprehend this. As such, what you call "prog fans" seem to react negatively to an act like Univers Zero (since you mentioned them) because this band (or the whole enigma of those frightfully threatening "RIO blah-blahs") somehow breaks with a perceived set of connections subjectively alluding to an overall logic of what constitutes "greatness" - it has practically nothing whatsoever to do with musical understanding, comparative interpretation or actual analysis of the sonics in question. It's about how you hear music - not the music itself.

I personally came to progressive rock in my early teens through other kinds of ambitious popular musics; 70s heavy rock, singer-songwriter antics, soul, crooning and psychedelia, I suppose. Stuff I heard while growing up. What the 'progressive' rock conundrum promised was a sense of transcendent fulfilment of not only the creative process in rock but the potential and possibilities of listening. In other words, it's a case of channelling the "self" through interaction. And so you search for certain virtues, traits and qualities in the musical object before you, not because it's owed but due to its eventual ability in rendering percepion itself anew. Like a drug of sorts, perhaps. The "ear" adapts to most things quite naturally, whether professed "avant-garde" or not; it isn't exactly like climbing a set of stairs, this, or "getting" a foreign language - it's essentially about neutralizing the codes of that tongue, thus rendering the meaning of words a matter of your own by claiming their effect.

King Crimson were not only one of the first decidedly "progressive" rock entities; they were one of the very harbingers of the avant-garde as a concept and rule of future rock music. There's no antagonism; "progressive rock" was by formative definition avant-garde, and the present day artists creating progressive rock are recognized by the strive to push ahead. The ongoing thread on Thinking Plague should suffice as reminder. Of course, the ruling "Prog" morale amounts to another purported axiom, namely that "the endpoint of greatness has already been achieved so don't imagine yourself able to move beyond it, or you're not properly prog - and being properly prog is what it's all fucking about!" So, although there's rock music being made in spades today which the 70s progressive bands would never have mastered (neither theoretically or technically), this is all aschewed from the positive logic by tagging it "avant-garde" instead, allowing for us to stay put and flog our own carcass into grinded boneflour.

Now I'm still a great admirer of the creative aspects in "classic" progressive rock music, and as a gesture of enactment one is obviously free to add one's own to tradition - and yes, there are certainly many a modern-day "oldieprog" band I enjoy well enough. But stagnant form defies fundamental creativity, whether this or that stylistic idiom is said to reign it. The "avant-garde" denotes nothing but the point of further entry, which is what inspiration and artistic geist is all about in the first place. Pretentious as a mustard turd, yet oh so rewarding for the crusader who suffocates on it in bliss. So this leaves us with a rather bizarre situation where the admitted greatness of an original thought is hallowed for its singular creativity (i.e. the initial wave of progressive rock), while current followers are hailed and praised for not pursuing such aims, seeing how this would render them so dreadfully "avant-garde".

As it is today, the RIO fest at Carmaux is one of very few actual "progressive rock" concert endeavours still somewhat running.

[Enid]

I know.

But with all due respect, it's not a realization - seeing how it's simply not "real" and thus untrue; it's an apparent notion, which is different. Genuine musical perception doesn't primarily emannate from a predisposed templative impression but from impulsive reactions to and connotations of the very appearance of immediate sound. It doesn't exactly take much reading of Adorno to comprehend this. As such, what you call "prog fans" seem to react negatively to an act like Univers Zero (since you mentioned them) because this band (or the whole enigma of those frightfully threatening "RIO blah-blahs") somehow breaks with a perceived set of connections subjectively alluding to an overall logic of what constitutes "greatness" - it has practically nothing whatsoever to do with musical understanding, comparative interpretation or actual analysis of the sonics in question. It's about how you hear music - not the music itself.

I personally came to progressive rock in my early teens through other kinds of ambitious popular musics; 70s heavy rock, singer-songwriter antics, soul, crooning and psychedelia, I suppose. Stuff I heard while growing up. What the 'progressive' rock conundrum promised was a sense of transcendent fulfilment of not only the creative process in rock but the potential and possibilities of listening. In other words, it's a case of channelling the "self" through interaction. And so you search for certain virtues, traits and qualities in the musical object before you, not because it's owed but due to its eventual ability in rendering percepion itself anew. Like a drug of sorts, perhaps. The "ear" adapts to most things quite naturally, whether professed "avant-garde" or not; it isn't exactly like climbing a set of stairs, this, or "getting" a foreign language - it's essentially about neutralizing the codes of that tongue, thus rendering the meaning of words a matter of your own by claiming their effect.

King Crimson were not only one of the first decidedly "progressive" rock entities; they were one of the very harbingers of the avant-garde as a concept and rule of future rock music. There's no antagonism; "progressive rock" was by formative definition avant-garde, and the present day artists creating progressive rock are recognized by the strive to push ahead. The ongoing thread on Thinking Plague should suffice as reminder. Of course, the ruling "Prog" morale amounts to another purported axiom, namely that "the endpoint of greatness has already been achieved so don't imagine yourself able to move beyond it, or you're not properly prog - and being properly prog is what it's all fucking about!" So, although there's rock music being made in spades today which the 70s progressive bands would never have mastered (neither theoretically or technically), this is all aschewed from the positive logic by tagging it "avant-garde" instead, allowing for us to stay put and flog our own carcass into grinded boneflour.

Now I'm still a great admirer of the creative aspects in "classic" progressive rock music, and as a gesture of enactment one is obviously free to add one's own to tradition - and yes, there are certainly many a modern-day "oldieprog" band I enjoy well enough. But stagnant form defies fundamental creativity, whether this or that stylistic idiom is said to reign it. The "avant-garde" denotes nothing but the point of further entry, which is what inspiration and artistic geist is all about in the first place. Pretentious as a mustard turd, yet oh so rewarding for the crusader who suffocates on it in bliss. So this leaves us with a rather bizarre situation where the admitted greatness of an original thought is hallowed for its singular creativity (i.e. the initial wave of progressive rock), while current followers are hailed and praised for not pursuing such aims, seeing how this would render them so dreadfully "avant-garde".

As it is today, the RIO fest at Carmaux is one of very few actual "progressive rock" concert endeavours still somewhat running.

Thank you for this post! This is very educational sincerely.

[Enid]

Some humans have the idea that Avant-Garde is an expression of your own. There are formulas for it though and traditionally used . I became familiar with those ideas when hearing Bella Bartok Piano Concerto #2. There is a science behind creating Avant-Garde music . Dissonant has to be somewhat fitting and it usually is in the modern day music of John Adams or Ingram Marshall. The melodic aspect to music that is considered to be Avant-Garde or Modern Chamber Music is typically dark romantic sounding. Mostly evident in composition as opposed to being found in improvisation although rare .... but obviously in Terry Riley's music or the early improvisation of Stomu Yamashta. King Crimson appeared as innovative by expanding their Avant-Garde approach through improvisation . "Providence and "Journey To The Centre Of The Cosmos" , ( which "Journey" should have been a studio track on Red), and they were influential .... however in the end it's what you make of the music. Certain playing aspects to Modern Chamber Music, Chamber Rock and Avant-Garde experimentation are often identified in Progressive Rock and attributed to King Crimson , but if a guitarist plays the Tri-tone Interval up and down the neck, a majority of people will be reminded of Fripp. It's because he was the first guitarist to master it and make it sound almighty important in Prog. Does that mean if I play the same patterns on violin people will be reminded of David Cross? I agree that Fripp influenced many Prog bands, however he was influenced by 20th Century Avant-Garde composers to a degree and if the credit be given to both more often, I'd be more settling with the theory. My obsessive idea is to discover what composers influenced my Prog heroes and spend months observing the music which inspired them to create .