Talk:King Crimson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King Crimson article.
Article policies
Good article King Crimson has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified King Crimson as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Russian or German language Wikipedias.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
HisSpaceResearch (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Old discussions on this talk page

Could we get a source for the assertion that Fripp thought Crimson was essentially about playing live? I believe there's a quote that says so in Melody Maker, as quoted in the Young Guide to KC's booklet. I think this was correct only at some point in the band's history, probably between Earthbound and USA. The math rock turn, plus some of Fripp's side productions, imply quite the opposite, such as the vocal cleanup between the "God Save the King" vinyl and CD editions, or the "The First Day" and "No Pussyfooting" productions, which were both recorded as album and as live albums ("Damage" and pirate versions, respectively). Sorry, these are first-thoughts notes, I guess my grammar+syntax deeply suck. François/phnk

  • Fripp has discussed KC as a primary live band at least as recently as in VROOOM VROOOM live compilation's liner notes, which was released in 2001 and documents the live band 1995-1996. And the band is also constantly releasing new live albums and especially digital downloads, from all it's eras. I'll dig up a more precise quote/resource when I get the time. This was a good question! Fripp has stated repeatedly that he dislikes touring, and that touring with KC especially is a huge pain for him. However I think he sees live KC music as more valuable than studio KC music. evktalo 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for these additional elements. I would argue that the points you just brought in justify that the KC article should reflect some ambiguity about the 'live' nature of the band. I am not sure this is clearly sorted out in Fripp's vision of KC, and I actually think this paradoxical ambivalence about live performance is a significant way to look at the KC alchemy. François/phnk

Hmmm, a bit debatable whether KC is in fact a "British" band now. Three quarters of the line-up are American.

  • True, though its founder and primary member Robert Fripp is British; the constantly rotating membership makes it tricky to categorize the band in such a way. A category (assuming that's what you're referring to) is just a collection of things that are loosely associated in some way, so I'd say it's more appropriate than inappropriate. -- Wapcaplet 22:55, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • H'mmmm. Perhaps it would do to call them a "nominally British" band?

Founded in Britain, by Britons, the definitive early albums(up until Red?)featuring exclusively British musicians...I dont see a problem. Although in theory I think the idea of sticking a flag in a band should be beneath me I can't accept the group being called anything but British while Fripp is still in charge! Samgb 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

      • While the group was British in 69-74, from there onwards it has been (increasingly) Anglo-American; also the music has changed from English progressive rock of the (early) 1970s. Perhaps just "a musical group"? evktalo 22:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually quite fond of the phrase "...leaving King Crimson in the unenviable position of being a rock band without a singer, bassist, or drummer." [1] I can see that there might be objection on the grounds of neutrality, but I think it's probably obvious to most readers that a rock band without a singer, bassist, or drummer isn't much of a rock band, and the phrase is more colorful than its replacement "as". Perhaps there's a better way to phrase this? -- Wapcaplet 03:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. Let's keep it. Just because it is objective doesn't mean it has to be purposefully dry. Freeflux

Is the wording really close enough to Crimson King to include a link at the top of the article? Should we do this in all two-word articles where there is another article that reverses them? This linking policy seems a little overexuberant right now. Also, what, if any, is the relationship between the band's name and the King character? Does anyone know?Alfoor 05:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect little connection, as the band had been releasing records for 13 years before this character was created, however I suppose the character's name might have come from the band. Tev 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The article says the band was founded in 1968, however, according to several sources, including DGM and notes from A Young Person's Guide to King Crimson, the band officially started on January 13, 1969. MusicBrainz also listed an incorrect 1968 date, but during that time period, the members of the future KC were in Giles, Giles & Fripp. The notes from AYPGtKC mention that the group formed "in outline" on November 15, 1968, but I think that the "official" formation date should be what is referenced by outside sources such as Wikipedia or Musicbrainz or whatever. -- Megaslow 05:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think king crimson does fall under the math rock catagory, so I am challenging the deletion of that classification. Freeflux Sept 2006

[edit] Discography

I made a new page for the King Crimson Discography. Necro 04:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beelzebub synonym

For what it's worth, Beelzebub is a loose Semitic transliteration for "Lord of the Flies", not "the man with an aim". --anon

The article states "The name King Crimson was coined by Peter Sinfield as a synonym for Beelzebub" but what possible connection is there between the two? --Blainster 23:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

...I had edited the false etymology already (January 2006), but they undid it.

There are no verifiable sources for this, yet the link between Beelzebub and King Crimson (the Crimson King) could be death. The person who first wrote the paragraph just assumed this connection. There is no synonymy at all, but Sinfield may have considered Crimson King as a synonym. So the sentence is not 100% incorrect. --Quinceps 15:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I should think it very obvious that the name King Crimson derives from the song "In the Court of the Crimson King" and that the "crimson king" of the song is the devil: He's red ("crimson") and he presides over (is "king" of) hell (his "court"). The song is saying that earth (here, where we are now) is hell. TheScotch (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influence

I think that it would be great to write a section on the influence that king crimson has had on music. Especially considering the fact that their debut is widely considered to be one of the greatest progressive rock albums of all time. I tried to write this, but I was having trouble finding sources. Someone ought to take a stab at it. Someone more qualified then me. Freeflux 01:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

--- "influenced by heavy metal". I take great exception to this statement. While it is certainly truth that King Crimson often will play the hardest of rock, (for example, "21 Century Schizod Man"), heavy metal traditionally is a much simpler form of rock than anything that King Crimson ever produced. I would stay that they are much more influenced by the likes of Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix and the improvs of Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead than any metal band. To be truth, they seemed to have more jazz influence than rock and my knowledge of jazz is limited. But to say they where/are influenced by heavy metal is in my humble opinion, to almost say they have electrolytes. Or to use another example, it would like calling Led Zeppelin's work heavy metal. I would not recommended doing that to Jimmy Page in person.

BTW, I love Wikipedia - keep the Great Work! Vanamoon (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the term heavy metal (in respect to pop music) hadn't been invented yet when The Court of the Crimson King was released, which would make it impossible for "Twenty-first-Century Schizoid Man" to have been influenced by it. I'm strongly opposed to using the term heavy metal retroactively. TheScotch (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

---

[edit] Lineup section

Just a quick query. Why does the 1969 lineup on this page not include Ian McDonald? Or Peter Sinfield for that matter. Surely they were key members of the band, especially McDonald, sharing credits for every song off Court. There should be an extra category of lyricist and reeds/wind/mellotron. The vocals section can be simply written Lake/McDonald for 1969. Possibly horns and piano should be included too, to cover the other incarnations.

[edit] 1-2-3 and citations

Can any of you guys find a way to add a quote about 1-2-3 (later Clouds) to the influences section? The band was a definite strong influence on Crimson/Fripp, but finding a tasteful way of inserting it is the problem. Thanks for any help you can give on that. "Matthew.hartington 14:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)"

[edit] Anyone else interested in seriously IMPROVING this article?

GA, then featured status. It could and should be done. Many more citations are needed, but I think that this article could be brought up to a very high standard quite rapidly.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I adore this band entirely too much to not want their article to be Featured. I probably won't be able to dive in until this weekend, but I'd certainly like to offer my services. - C. M. Reed

I actually think that this article may contain original research, and may actually not be NPOV, specifically in the sections below the history.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'music' section in particular may well contain original research.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've improved the 1960s part of the history by adding citations. I hope to do more of this later, then once the article is fully cited, put it up for GA, then peer review, and just generally go about the path to a featured article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that since I was gone from Wikipedia for about a week, edits have been made to this article, many of them in good faith but not compliant with WP:MOS. For example, listing bands that King Crimson influenced in the lead section is inappropriate. I hope to continue the citing of sources that I was doing last week.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, OK, I've improved a large part of the 1970s section. Just need to continue citing the history of the band. If anyone here can offer help or advice as to whether my improvements are good or not, or whether I'm using WP:RS, please do because I made improvements to the band Family (band) and didn't get GA and that has just been ignored.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I also have strong concerns about how useful the images are, except the one at the top of the page with the four band members during the 1980s which is good. Would anyone like to offer me advice here-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
And I don't like the unencyclopedic tone of some of the passages here, which is making it harder to reference. Still, kudos to whomever had written it in the first place.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think I should add more material about the musical styles throughout the history of the band, without going into excessive detail, just to make the whole thing more interesting.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. The 1990s and 2000s sections are harder to reference, more ugly and bloated, and just generally... bad. I know less about KC from the 1990s onwards, too, and it's my least favourite period of King Crimson.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of album booklets as references

The CD remastered King Crimson album catalogue has a lot of interesting articles from music magazines from when the albums were released reprinted in the album booklet. Anyone got an opinion on using these as a source? I do have the CDs to do that...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to quit Wikipedia at the moment, but it's no use. I've put myself up for editor review (WP:ER). Anyway, if anyone's here to read this, please offer me advice on improving this article to the FA status it deserves eventually. If Pink Floyd and Genesis (band) can become FA than so can King Crimson. I just need help with this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with citing those if the magazines themselves are reliable sources. –Pomte 06:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've started citing these from the Red (album) and Discipline (album) booklets.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finished citing the history section

Still got a fair number of citation needed tags for the problematic bits that I will either find a reference for in time, or delete.

I removed this image as it seemed kind of out of place:

Image:King Crimson in Concert.jpg

This ticket for the concert in Russia also seemed kind of useless:

Image:Kc-ticket.jpg

It's kind of applying the WP:NOT#IINFO rule to images as well as information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of pictures that are related to the subject of the article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "music" section is awful because it's so hard to verify

Can anyone help me here? At the moment, this section is the biggest obstacle this article has to GA.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting closer to GA sort of standards now...

Thank you, Pomte. If you'd like to discuss what you feel the obstacles to GA are at the moment here right now...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm currently comparing this to the Genesis (band) article. If that's featured, there's very little we have to do here for mere GA. I'm going to nominate the article today and if it does fail, I will address all the relevant points this time.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navigation box

Currently the template at the bottom of every page is quite large and can detract from the article. Here's one way to make it more compact. I haven't changed any links, just the structure of the table.

v • d • e
King Crimson
Current members Robert Fripp · Adrian Belew · Tony Levin · Pat Mastelotto
Former members Greg Lake · Michael Giles · Ian McDonald · Peter Sinfield · Mel Collins · Gordon Haskell · Andy McCulloch · Boz Burrell · Ian Wallace · John Wetton · Jamie Muir · Bill Bruford · David Cross · Richard Palmer-James · Trey Gunn
Original studio albums In the Court of the Crimson King · In the Wake of Poseidon · Lizard · Islands · Larks' Tongues in Aspic · Starless and Bible Black · Red · Discipline · Beat · Three of a Perfect Pair · THRAK · The ConstruKction of Light · The Power to Believe
Singles and EPs Cat Food/Groon · Atlantic Sampler · The Night Watch/The Great Deceiver · Epitaph/21st Century Schizoid Man · Matte Kudasai · Elephant Talk · Thela Hun Ginjeet · Heartbeat · Three of a Perfect Pair/Man With an Open Heart · Sleepless · VROOOM · Dinosaur · People · Sex Sleep Eat Drink Dream · Level Five · Happy With What You Have to Be Happy With
Live albums Earthbound · USA · The Great Deceiver · B'Boom: Live in Argentina · THRaKaTTaK · Epitaph · The Night Watch · Absent Lovers: Live in Montreal · Cirkus: The Young Persons' Guide to King Crimson Live · Live in Mexico City · The ProjeKcts · The Deception of the Thrush: A Beginners' Guide to ProjeKcts · The Beginners' Guide to the King Crimson Collectors' Club · Heavy ConstruKction · VROOOM VROOOM · Ladies of the Road · EleKtrik: Live in Japan · The Power To Believe Tour Box · Déjà VROOOM (live DVD)
Compilations A Young Person's Guide to King Crimson · The Compact King Crimson · Heartbeat: The Abbreviated King Crimson · Frame by Frame: The Essential King Crimson · Sleepless: The Concise King Crimson · The 21st Century Guide to King Crimson - Volume One - 1969-1974 · The 21st Century Guide to King Crimson - Vol. 2 - 1981-2003
Side projects ProjeKct One · ProjeKct Two · ProjeKct Three · ProjeKct Four · ProjeKct X · ProjeKct Six
Related bands Giles, Giles and Fripp · McDonald and Giles · 21st Century Schizoid Band · Crimson Jazz Trio · Emerson, Lake & Palmer
See also Elephant Talk (King Crimson Wiki)

–Pomte 13:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I like that one much better! I've cited pretty much everything in the article now. Good work.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to replace the old template and if anyone disagrees, the old one is still there in the edit history.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] While I'm waiting for the GA to be passed or failed...

I think the article is "good" as it stands, but it could also be expanded and given more thorough details. There are lots of interesting tidbits in the references that could be used to flesh out the text. For a featured article, more pictures, sound samples of KC music, a new section or two, a thorough copyedit and use of the dreaded cite web template that I despise would be a good idea, then there's probably a strong chance that we could make it to FA.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I can handle converting all the citations to use templates. Do you mind how I format them vertically? I think it makes the rest of the text easier to identify and read. Of course, there's no need for the templates at all if you want to format them manually. –Pomte 20:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you do it? I just hate using the cite web template.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

The article as a whole is very good, but there are a few issues. The intro is only two paragraphs, but this is a long article (41kb), so it really ought to have three. Using citeweb would also be good idea, or at least some consistent formatting style. The 80s, 90s, and 00s sections are all very short, you would either need to expand them or find a way to group them for FA. The genre list in the infobox is a bit abrupt ("and others"), either remove that or find consensus to add more genres. I'm not that familiar with the band, so I don't know which way would work best. Altogether, though, this article could easily reach FA with a few improvements. Good luck! ErleGrey (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed another picture

Image:KC newspaper.jpg A page from Melody Maker announcing Mike Giles and Ian McDonald leaving the group

Not necessary.

--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits made over the past month - both good and bad

I'm concerned about some of these. I worked hard to get this to GA status, and although there have been improvements, there have also been negative things, in my opinion. Whilst I do not WP:OWN this article, I feel that certain things, such as the addition of non-free album covers as decoration (they do not constitute fair use in THIS article as the article is about King Crimson, not specifically about these albums) and the removal of sourced content have been negative and have somewhat decreased the chance of FA status. Of course, I could just revert them all but I'll have to take a closer look sometime at exactly what went on while I was away during July, and keep the positive edits and remove the bad ones. If any contributors here wish to discuss this, please do, on this talk page.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Got the article a version that I like.

I've also added it to my watchlist so that it doesn't slip back to a state I don't like. Remember, I'm looking to get this to featured article status, and work may be needed but it's not a great deal. I prefer the article long rather than trimmed of excess content - makes it more interesting for readers. Please discuss any changes here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a WikiProject on King Crimson

[edit] citations

Some of these references have the wrong end of the stick. Right articles, wrong books; right books, wrong articles. People adding 2 and 2 and getting 22. Messy guesses instead of proper research. Vanman404 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] pictures

this article needs some pictures pretty desperatley, the sheer blocks of text aren't very aesthetically pleasing, not to mention forbidding. The article just looks dull and uninteresting. Gmip 05:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Come on, really?

Let's face it- this band hardly deserves all the accolades and "rock-history" this article dumps on King Crimson. Future generations are impressionable about what is considered important, and let me say, this band was not. This article borders on propaganda and was probably written by someone with Owner-interest in the band.

"Shake my left hand man, it's closer to my heart" - Jimi Hendrix to Robert Fripp after seeing an early King Crimson performance.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

--- I have never had any commerical interest in King Crimson or any musicial band for that matter but I would have to say that King Crimson is a band that is so much more important than there "popularity" would indicate. They are innovators and pioneers of the hard edge of of fusion. The early stuff (with MacDonald and Lake) was so unique and the first album especially stand out as one of the greatest statement against nuclear way in music.

You do not have to like them but many of us do and appreciate this band of very, very craft musician that have take music to place that it has never been before. Yes, I am a fan, as in fanatic.Vanamoon (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ---

Re: "Future generations are impressionable about what is considered important, and let me say, this band was not.":
The implication seems to be that King Crimson's putative notability is a matter of historical revisionism. The author of the above remark does not provide any evidence for this assertion, but seems to suggest that his own personal experience supports it. I may then be allowed the liberty of noting that my own personal experience contradicts it. I recall clearly that the songs "In the Court of the Crimson King" and "Epitaph" were played frequently on the FM radio stations KSHE and KADI in St. Louis for a period of years in the early seventies (they may have been played before and after as well--I don't know; I wasn't listening then). I recall clearly that my friends C. and R. were effusively enthusiastic in 1973 about the album Larks Tongues in Aspic, and I recall that I was very favorably impressed with the group when I saw it in concert in 1973. I found its musicianship impeccable, and I noted that it played at a comfortable volume (rare in rock for the time) and that its guitarist Robert Fripp, flouting convention, played sitting down. It seemed to me that the group was very dedicated to and serious about music, willing to embrace subtlety and nuance and not very much interested in flash or posturing. I never heard any recorded guitar solo approaching the daring of Fripp's in "Twenty-first Century Schizoid Man" until Andy Summers of the Police recorded "Driven to Tears" more than a decade later, and I don't find the Summers's solo nearly as inventive, startling, or satisfying as the much earlier Fripp solo. TheScotch (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The middle paragraph of the "Improvisation" section

This is the only part of the article that currently worries me. It's not well cited or wikified. Thoughts on it? Should we trim it down? It's a danger to the article's GA status as a whole.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's this part in particular that concerns me: What differentiates King Crimson's approach from most other jazz and rock groups is that Crimson's improvisation avoids the notion of one soloist at a time taking centre stage while the rest of the band lays back and plays along with established rhythm and chord changes. Rather, King Crimson improvisation is a group affair, a kind of organic music-making process in which each member of the band is able to make creative decisions and contributions as the music is being played. Individual soloing is largely eschewed; each musician is to listen to each other and to the group sound, to be able to react creatively within the group dynamic.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influences

The discussion of King Crimson's influences should be separated from the discussion of the bands King Crimson influenced. These are two separate topics and should not be combined in one section. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I split it up into two sections. Klausness (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Switches between American and British English

We should either choose one or the other, and in the featured article candidacy page it was stated that the article uses both in places. Personally I feel British English would probably be more appropriate given the group's origins, but there are complexities due to the unusual Anglo-American shift that it has gone through. Thoughts?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)