ELP vs Camel

Blacksword wrote: kenethlevine wrote: Raff wrote: I think the point I wanted to make in my original post was misunderstood. As I stated clearly, I am no ELP fangirl (actually, I am NO band's fangirl - I can be critical even of my favourites),  nor do I hate Camel - far from that. The question, in my personal (and very humble opinion), is one related to the 'objective value' of a piece of art, be it visual, musical or literary. To give a practical example, I don't like St Peter's Basilica (I am originally from Rome), but I'd never try to prove it is a worthless building because I don't like it, or suggest it should be scrapped from art history books. I could have taken a painting, or a book, to give the same example. There are lots of artistic or literary 'masterpieces' I don't particularly care for, but I would never deny their overall importance. However, by not having any ELP in that notorious Top 100 (which, being on the front page and all that, does have some kind of informational value for newcomers), we are automatically denying them their place in prog history - and this, always in my opinion, is not a good thing for the 'ultimate prog resource'. It's a good point, but what can we do about it.  I'm certainly not prepared to flood my reviews with 5 stars for Tarkus, let alone for Love Beach    The people have spoken, and this is among the most democratic sites, maybe you are saying too much so.  But history is always being rewritten.  Maybe the new prog sensibility is that Camel is more worthy than ELP? That is probably the case, and I would say a lot of that (though not all) is down to Camel being guitar driven, and there is a lot of love for heavy, guitar based progressive music, among the younger prog fans. Thats my perception, anyway.

That's something I hadn't thought of.  I had assumed it was because they are more melodic and accessible than ELP.   But I remember reading a few years back how almost every front man of every group these days is the guitarist.

kenethlevine wrote: Blacksword wrote: kenethlevine wrote: Raff wrote: I think the point I wanted to make in my original post was misunderstood. As I stated clearly, I am no ELP fangirl (actually, I am NO band's fangirl - I can be critical even of my favourites),  nor do I hate Camel - far from that. The question, in my personal (and very humble opinion), is one related to the 'objective value' of a piece of art, be it visual, musical or literary. To give a practical example, I don't like St Peter's Basilica (I am originally from Rome), but I'd never try to prove it is a worthless building because I don't like it, or suggest it should be scrapped from art history books. I could have taken a painting, or a book, to give the same example. There are lots of artistic or literary 'masterpieces' I don't particularly care for, but I would never deny their overall importance. However, by not having any ELP in that notorious Top 100 (which, being on the front page and all that, does have some kind of informational value for newcomers), we are automatically denying them their place in prog history - and this, always in my opinion, is not a good thing for the 'ultimate prog resource'. It's a good point, but what can we do about it.  I'm certainly not prepared to flood my reviews with 5 stars for Tarkus, let alone for Love Beach    The people have spoken, and this is among the most democratic sites, maybe you are saying too much so.  But history is always being rewritten.  Maybe the new prog sensibility is that Camel is more worthy than ELP? That is probably the case, and I would say a lot of that (though not all) is down to Camel being guitar driven, and there is a lot of love for heavy, guitar based progressive music, among the younger prog fans. Thats my perception, anyway. That's something I hadn't thought of.  I had assumed it was because they are more melodic and accessible than ELP.   But I remember reading a few years back how almost every front man of every group these days is the guitarist.

rogerthat wrote: Blacksword wrote: rogerthat wrote: On the topic of influence, I definitely think ELP were among the most influential prog acts - other than Pink Floyd.  Not because of Emerson and Palmer showing off as is commonly suggested.  Rather, they, along with Gentle Giant and Jethro Tull 'created' (put in quotes because everything under the sun has been done before somewhere sometime) a paradigm of prog that came to be representative of the genre and was yet very different from the direction shown by ITCOCK. When I hear the early albums of Genesis or Yes or Camel, I can visualise ITCOCK foreshadowing the direction these bands took, regardless that they may have forged their own distinctive sound as they evolved.  But Tull with their folk prog, 'Giant with their wonderful mutli-faceted approach and ELP with the most keyboard driven sound of them all went in different directions.  Maybe it is just a false trail and what seems to be so evident to me is not so to others because they are more experienced than me, but oh well, thought I'd put it down anyway.  I remember reading interviews with Genesis, where they said ITCOTCK was a massive influence on them, when locked themselves away in a cottage to write Trespass. I think Tony Banks's first Mellotron was a 'hand me down' from Fripp! So, I would agree with what you say about many bands, being influenced by the first KC album. In terms of influence, I'm still not too sure. ELP certainly had little in common with many other prog bands. They were unique in their approach, but with the exception of a few tribute bands, I cant really think of many other acts who were obviously influenced by them (maybe PFM? I'm not really that familiar with them). Same applies to Tull. That said, I guess influece, is just one measure of how successful a band is. So what if they didn't influence thousands of other bands? It doesn't take anything away from the fact that they were hugely successful. I think, most bands - of any rock sub genre - tend towards more guitar presence in the music, rather than maing music that is keyboard led. While not many bands sound exactly like ELP, prog moving to a keyboard driven as opposed to guitar driven sound owes a lot to ELP, it ensured that at least the first rising of prog rock was very different from what generally passed as rock music...from the 80s onwards prog has drifted back to a more guitar oriented sound.   I definitely agree that influence alone is not the sole criterion of success, there are many albums by far less successful or influential bands that I would pick over the best ELP albums from the point of view of personal preference. At the same time, I agree with Raff that a band as important as ELP needs to be better represented at least on the symph prog page - being that they are classified as  symph prog - if not on the main page.  What is the solution? Perhaps to introduce a separate ranking on the basis of importance and influence and then list the most representative albums of a sub genre and the genre as a whole prominently. We can still have the best album lists so if you are like "F*** influence, I want to listen to the best albums" then you will get a good guide for that too.  That way, the system remains democratic and also gives credit where due.  What do you think?

I would definetly support what you are suggesting in principle. One reservation I have would be whether or not there is a real need to refine categories, listings and charts any more than the site already does. But 'importance' and 'influence' are two more very subjective criteria to employ when assessing a bands impact on a sub genre, or on prog rock overall. In terms of allowing PA members an insight into what other folk consider influential or important, it's a good thing, but I can see it spawning countless threads, arguing a bands overall worth.

But hey! If it's something that's easy to implement and manage, why not?

BTW, I would also support ELP being better represented on the Symphonic page. I've never been a big fan, but I would say they were obviously a MAJOR player in that sub-genre. 'Important' due to their success, and of course their many classical interpretations, if not their 'influence'

Blacksword wrote:   I would definetly support what you are suggesting in principle. One reservation I have would be whether or not there is a real need to refine categories, listings and charts any more than the site already does. But 'importance' and 'influence' are two more very subjective criteria to employ when assessing a bands impact on a sub genre, or on prog rock overall. In terms of allowing PA members an insight into what other folk consider influential or important, it's a good thing, but I can see it spawning countless threads, arguing a bands overall worth. But hey! If it's something that's easy to implement and manage, why not? BTW, I would also support ELP being better represented on the Symphonic page. I've never been a big fan, but I would say they were obviously a MAJOR player in that sub-genre. 'Important' due to their success, and of course their many classical interpretations, if not their 'influence'

rogerthat wrote: Blacksword wrote:  I would definetly support what you are suggesting in principle. One reservation I have would be whether or not there is a real need to refine categories, listings and charts any more than the site already does. But 'importance' and 'influence' are two more very subjective criteria to employ when assessing a bands impact on a sub genre, or on prog rock overall. In terms of allowing PA members an insight into what other folk consider influential or important, it's a good thing, but I can see it spawning countless threads, arguing a bands overall worth. But hey! If it's something that's easy to implement and manage, why not? BTW, I would also support ELP being better represented on the Symphonic page. I've never been a big fan, but I would say they were obviously a MAJOR player in that sub-genre. 'Important' due to their success, and of course their many classical interpretations, if not their 'influence' It definitely would add more clutter, I don't deny that but "best" is an even more subjective criterion than "influential".  At least the discussion on influential forces a measure of objectivity; "best" becomes all personal preference.  It would add more topics for debates, but hey why not?

Why not indeed, I've not much better to do than argue all day..

crimson87 wrote: Check any " Brief history of progressive rock" and ELP is mentioned up there whileC Tarkus and BSS are genre defining albums for every site. As regards to PA , at least the site has ELP on a list of popular artists and names them properly as a seminal band in symphonic prog.

They are both so different and it's pointless (imo) making comparisons. I have owned albums by both at one point.

Whilst Trilogy is palatable, I now find ELP tiresome, overblown, and frankly boring.

I see you're keen to make friends and infleunce people Fleetway.

Easy Livin wrote: I see you're keen to make friends and infleunce people Fleetway.   We like to keep things friendly around here. We'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you're new, but calling your fellow members "elitist F-bags" is not particularly endearing now is it?   Keep it respectful please.

Fleetway wrote: Easy Livin wrote: I see you're keen to make friends and infleunce people Fleetway.   We like to keep things friendly around here. We'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you're new, but calling your fellow members "elitist F-bags" is not particularly endearing now is it?   Keep it respectful please.   Sorry. I just disslike seeing this constant bashing of camel for no reason in every thread where they are mentioned.