Among the other "Big Five", all have albums in the Top Ten. 

Because peoples 'OPINIONS' don't mean 5hit !

And that's what these ratings are, collective awareness or not.

However, it is a 'FACT' that ELP were one of the most early innovators of a musical style that would go on to have an entire genre dedicated to it.

Does that help?

That's why individuals rankings are meaningless, and overall rankings don't reflect ELP's significance in the early days of prog.

My personal top 100 doesn't have any ELP or Genesis

I have a taste for Ultimate Spinach. 

I guess I'm missing something with your posts. 

All that said, while I have never liked ELP, I do acknowledge that they had a big role in the development of prog (in addition to huge album sales).  But of the big 6, they probably hold the least favour among prog fans today.  Why that is, I don't know...is there sound more "dated", or retro in a negative way?  Are fewer fans interested in the type of virtuosity and showmanship they espouse?  The other members of the big 6 are more about the ensemble for the most part, even when ruled with an iron fist like JT.  It's interesting to me from an academic point of view.

You are correct. ELP had 9 gold albums in the U.S. from 1970 to 1978. King Crimson had one gold album in its entire 50+ year existence. VdGG probably still owes money for studio time rental from its first album.

I've met a lot of young fans of Yes---particularly the Yes Album Fragile and CTTE---also Genesis --especially The Lamb and SEBTP and Foxtrot

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yes-roundabout-to-be-continued" rel="nofollow - https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yes-roundabout-to-be-continued

Probably because they haven't stood the test of time. They were one of the most popular during the 70s but many less recognized bands such as Van der Graaf Generator, Gentle Giant and other non-Anglo bands have proven to be more interesting.

Lack of guitar is definitely on the top of many's list of why they don't like ELP as well as the over dominance of keyboards.

Personally i like the first four albums but not a one of them comes close to making my top 100 or even 200 for that matter.

They just don't have that "extra" something that makes them OMG great, at least for me :)

I think it really comes down to the jokier, more saloon oriented tracks on each album, or their insistence on experiemental, almost atonal, 20th century classical type pieces scattered throughout their discography. No doubt Toccata and Abaddon's Bolero are impressive, but are they as easily listenable as Tarkus or Jerusalem, let alone most anything by Yes or Genesis? Not really. They're oddly an acquired taste for being so big in a world built on acquired tastes.

thank God some common sense! Of course ELP were too unfocused and scatter gun in style. That is their appeal. They excelled as a live band and could blow away any heavy rock band of the time while retaining a level of sophistication beyond most of their peers. If music is only about consistency then Camel are the greatest thing.

very true as well. there is a large amount of resentment towards ELP , too much bombast blah blah bah. They had way too much fun and that's just not allowed!

ELP were easily innovative as any prog bands. How is Tarkus not innovative or for that matter beautifully composed?  Pirates is also as well composed as anything within the prog cannon. There are several myths about ELP that are constantly perpetuated such as it was all about technicality (it really wasn't) . However they couldn't focus enough on albums and Greg Lake and Keith Emerson were often not on the same page. Trilogy is possibly the greatest example. Diversity of ideas is fantastic but no focus so it became a big fudged.

Other bands managed to find a direction especially Genesis who smashed it from Cryme through to Lamb. Funnily enough though when they got more bombastic , albums are less highly rated. That makes your point I guess.

It's very obvious to me that keyboard lead albums don't fare well on PA. No Rick Wakeman in the top 100 bares that out, yet Six Wives , Criminal Record and Myths and Legends are all fantastic albums full of great compositions. 

No no no, I didn't mean to imply that ELP weren't innovative (obviously they were), nor that they never produced beauty (obviously they did). I'm just saying to a present day listener, VDGG and Gentle Giant can seem quite a bit more innovative than ELP (probably because ELP's was more influential and popular), and something like And You And I or Firth Of Fifth is more beautiful and sweet than something like From The Beginning. ELP's greatest strengths to me were their attention to detail and complexity and their bombast and ambition, just about unmatched by any other band at the time.  I just think that the general tastes of prog fans must have moved away from those qualities and more towards the shimmering, glistening qualities of Yes and Genesis and Floyd in the intervening years.

I think the lack of vocals on Six Wives has more to do with its lower placement than a lack of guitar. Notice there's no Steve Howe solo album in the top 100 either.

What's your favorite ELP album?

Clearly, I blame the cover of "Love Beach." 

Brain Salad Surgery

But, of course, it doesn't mean that ELP isn't one of the best, most important and influential prog band ever. For me, they are in my top ten of the 70's with Genesis, Yes, Camel, Genle Giant, King Crimson, Van Der Graaf Generator, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull and Rush. And they have some of my favourite prog tracks ever, especially "Tarkus" and "Karn Evil 9", two of the best prog suites ever written. And Emerson is probably my favourite keyboardist too.

ELP probably just haven't weathered well like some other bands from that early 70's era, and others seem to have gained esteem over the years such as VDGG & GG. At the outset ELP were seen as a core band to listen to if you also liked Yes, Genesis, the Floyd etc, and made some fine albums but by the time they released BSS it was all becoming a bit pompous and overblown (as good as that album is).  As if they almost became a parody of themselves, and hence attracted the detractors amongst prog fans. [Just the way I see it - their albums were part of my musical education back in the 70's, so that maybe makes a difference.]

Personally speaking their debut album and PAAE are two of my top twenty prog albums of all time.

Well, you *almost* had it, I was with you on everything up until "...ELP were one of the most--." ELP is one of the big six not because of being early innovators (VdGG pre-date them and were certainly early innovators, and are a very influential band; many prog bands pre-date ELP [including The Nice ;-) ]). It's because ELP were massively successful at the time. "Big Six" implies a certain level of success and, while I don't listen much to (and downright dislike) a few of the bands commonly called "Big Six," it's right that they're labelled as such. The Big Six bands knew healthy mainstream success, and were therefore instrumental in introducing the whole "prog" thing (whatever that was) to the masses. 

I personally like VdGG, Can, and Magma much more than any of the Big Six bands, but their sales don't begin to compare. VdGG is probably the most "successful" out of those three bands and they had moderate success. They basically broke even for Charisma (who, while never losing money on them, never made a ton either). It wasn't until the 80s when Virgin bought the Charisma catalog and Branson restructured their old contracts (after Hammill talked to him about what's fair) that debts were considered paid off and the band's ex-members starting making good $$ on royalties. But that was a struggle that the Big Six bands would never have had.

I can't say I put a lot of weight on 'financial' success as a measure of where a band stands in the whole "Big #" discussions. It's a very American concept IMHO.

You also sort of support my argument when you mention The Nice "many prog bands pre-date ELP [including The Nice ;-)" , which was obviously a stepping stone to ELP. So given VDGG first released in 1969, as did King Crimson (Greg Lake) and Atomic Rooster (Carl Palmer) in 1970, while The Nice released in 1967 I stand by my assertion that they were early innovators.

I have found that many people who are big VDGG, Magma type fans usually, but not always, are not fans of ELP and visa versa. Not sure why that is.

Success may be an American barometer, but I've seen a lot of Europeans come up with the same Big Six as everyone else.

If it's about innovation and chronology, then VdGG (and others who weren't mega-successful) are fair game for the Big Six. I love VdGG, but I'd never put them in a Big Six category, but that's just because of my personal barometer (which, again, comes back to measurements of financial success). Now if we're talking innovation, creativity, influence, etc... they're #1 in my book. But the whole "Big Six" thing is a specific animal which, to my way of thinking, does imply level of success and known-ness (errr... I mean they're well known)

The Nice were not ELP, two completely different things (in my opinion... you may see it differently, fair enough)

On this we agree. I think the fact that ELP are known to a large portion of the prog ignorant population also supports their "bigness" (sorry about that word). And I understand there is a relationship between exposure and success.

So, big because they were as popular as Zeppelin for a time? Big because they had hits? Big Because they hold attendance records at venues? Big because they are well known to the general masses? Who knows.

For my tastes I would say VDGG is more avant garde than progressive, but that's probably just a distinction without a difference. But ELP were more (god I hate using these descriptors) 'traditional' in their progressive musical approach.

As a Millennial who discovered Prog in my teens, I gave all the Big 6 a very good go, streaming (Last.FM in its golden days) most of their albums multiple times. ELP were one of the more frustrating bands, as they came up with some amazing tracks such as Tarkus, Tank and the insane but fun Karn Evil 9. But for every good track I seemed to run into just as many throwaway trash, such as the enitre second side of Tarkus, The Sheriff, Benny the Bouncer etc. which I got into the habbit of skipping immediently.

As I got older and could afford to buy albums instead of stream, I found getting into ELP even harder than before. The frequency of trash songs really kills the overall mood that the better songs had created, dragging down my overall rating of each album. I think that is the main reason ELP struggle to get into the top 100, people like albums that are good quality from start to finish, especially Prog fans who listen to albums in one go. Only their debut stays good at all points, so I'm not supprised that is the only one in the top 100.

Only this one???  I think he thought this was the http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=100055" rel="nofollow - I'm the Ghost Of Mandrakeroot thread....That thread needs medication.

I enjoy ELP, did not realize their albums ranked so low here, regardless of personal reviews this is the main place people seem to come to for progressive music information, background. Tarkus is not in Top 100?? Wow......

This begs the discussion should PA bear some responsibility to acknowledge certain albums that are pivotal to the whole mainstream of progressive rock....maybe not maybe who cares, might be some responses. 

Yes I know the ranking system might be broken, but it is still a ranking system.

Emerson was one of the first to really push the envelope of the new Moog synth, and he did very creative things with it, whereas most keyboardists just used it in a fairly static way (Wakeman for one).  

Regarding guitar, Greg Lake was an amazing lead guitarist, but he rarely showed this side of his talent.  You can certainly hear this on "Karn Evil 9."  Lake was a contemporary guitar student along with Bob Fripp, so there is that influence. 

RIP Lake and Emerson.  

'Pictures' was my brothers favorite ELP album. I rate it as good as the first 4 studio albums  but the debut will always be my favorite. IMHO it is more interesting than the later ones and has no silly tracks,,,though the Tarkus title track is probably the single best thing they ever did.

Someone earlier mentioned running into a younger person wearing a Yes t shirt. This is something I saw a bit of about 10-15 years ago but not so much lately. I'm pretty sure in all of those cases the teen got into them through their parents. That wouldn't need to be the case with Pink Floyd or Rush. ELP and Yes were big in the seventies but their appeal didn't really spill over into mass acceptance and popularity like PF and Rush did. I think now when people hear about prog and get into it they inevitably discover the big six but I think for many it's Porcupine Tree, Tool, Prog metal in general and of course PF and Rush and who knows what else. For some reason ELP and to a lesser extent Yes just haven't aged that well(except for close to the Edge which seems to have held up with most these days). 

ELP defined the genre, they were influential, revolutionary and commercially succesfful. I think only Yes has a stronger case for being part of the Big 3/5/6/10 or whatever else. Crimson weren't particularly big in terms of popularity after their first album, Genesis were but only in their latter era (aka, not the prog one), Tull and Floyd were, but they weren't 100% prog. Tull were more of a folk rock band with a prog era and Floyd started as a psychedelic/space rock band for years and also in their prog era they weren't fully prog like Yes or Crimson were.

I was always intrigued by their use of (mostly) modern orchestral works.

Keith introduced me to a number of composers I had never known about in my teenage year, like Mussorgsky, Janacek, and of course, Ginastera.

I made good use of the Boston Public Library's extensive classical record collection in the early seventies.

I was lucky to meet Emerson after seeing his band play (I think the last time In Massachusetts).

He seemed pleased when I told him that he opened my eyes to orchestral music, and that he was a very large part of the soundtrack to my life.

I had listed to progressive rock (or art rock as it was called back then) before I heard ELP, but they were why I became infatuated with prog.

I was watching an ELP concert not long ago and my mom asked them who they were and I told them it's ELP and she was like oh yeah, I know them, they're from my time. I was a bit surprised because she hardly knows anything about rock music at all . She knows the household names like Beatles, Stones, Queen, etc. but not much else, I know she knows Pink Floyd because it's the favorite band of me and my dad, but I don't think she would know any of the other prog bands (except Genesis), not even Yes and Tull who were also huge. Hell, she might not even know Led Zeppelin lol.

I have great respect for them, mostly for original "guitarless" form, top notch musicianship at the time, bravado, trailblazing keyboard stuff that inspired future prog. Also, when ELP wants to be epic, they really are epic. There is a curious synergy between pompous, grandiose Emerson style and tender Greg Lake's voice, somehow reminiscent of Romantic poetry. That being said, they are tied with Pink Floyd for the "least listened to" band of so called Big Six.

That's the result of multiple factors, most of them already mentioned. My guesses are:

• unfocused and all over the place. You have one "epic" track, followed by drum solo, then acoustic smooshy ballad, and then experimental organ tour de force, crowned with silly honky tonk...
  

• Must be perplexing for people used to cohesive albums with clear musical direction, elaborate artwork and safety found in conformity. In the world where people participate in internet flame wars about genres, subgenres and sellouts, a fifty years old band that happened to close their landmark album with ARE YOU READY, EDDY? doesn't sit well, at all
  
• no guitar. A bit too much for some listeners, I imagine
• short career. For most of us ELP were basically done after Brain Salad Surgery and we've never got a convincing record with 90s or 00s production. Like Gentle Giant, they only belong to 70s
  
• a bit dated sound. I dunno if it's heavy reliance on Moog, lack of dominant guitar riffs, production issues or very specific vocal timbre. At times their experimental pieces border on ridiculous (say, Toccata) so it's a hard sell for non-fans
• bad rep lingering since 1970s. Scapegoats of new wave/punk oriented musical press of the day, and they never had the chance to convince them otherwise. Even today I occasionally hear people laughing at prog rock and targeting ELP in particular. Some opinions may be legit, but most of it just parrotting others I say

Having lived through the birth and formation of what we now call the progressive rock music revolution, I'd have to repeat that I always associated prog's elite with a band's ability to permeate public consciousness while still pushing boundaries. Thus, The Beatles, The Moody Blues, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, The Who, ELP, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Jethro Tull, Yes, and, when they were available, Pink Floyd would qualify--these were the hot tickets for concert goers when music was going through its album- and concert-oriented transformation. King Crimson, Zappa, Genesis, Mahavishnu, Miles Davis, VDGG, Camel, Renaissance, were in no way the same league as the aforementioned list: not in terms of album sales, radio play, concert interest, or even public awareness. What "Big Six"?

  

Big six is a term used retroactively by the prog community. It's not perfect but it goes mostly by influence and over all popularity within the prog community(imo). There's no denying who was popular initially but what matters is who continue to influence the current prog bands and it's usually the ones who have had the greatest impact as prog bands who do that. For better or worse, over all popularity is a factor in determining who makes that impact.

         After hearing Triumvirat, I became fixated on keyboard based progressive rock bands , and both this and my new interest in classical music lead me, of course, directly to ELP, and their even stronger use of classical music transcriptions on their albums. ELP and Triumvirat epitomised for me in music the phrase "best of both worlds" in their capability to rock, and also play transcriptions of orchestral music. Since that summer of 1985,  prog and orchestral music have both reinforced my interest in the other.

BrufordFreak wrote: Who are the "big six" again? I can never get it straight, cuz I'm never sure if it's about popularity, sales, concert ticket sales, critical acclaim, influence, historical significance, contribution to the evolution of music, songs, or best album covers. I think I'd have a different six for each and every one of those categories!

Surely to be "big" a number of criteria need to be met, not just one, popularity (which may be considered at the time vs. in the long run, among listeners who appreciate prog stuff vs. general audience - although I think it's pointless to separate this from sales or ticket sales), critical acclaim, innovation, influence (all of which feed into "historical significance), possibly longevity, and "prog credentials" (on which some think they should rule out Tull and PF; have fun with that argument). Some trading off is allowed (KC are weaker commercially than a number of bands but overall far more innovative than for example Genesis let alone Rush) but still a certain minimum should be required on all criteria.

Surely also hardly any of these is 100% objective and can always be argued, and putting a threshold between the "big 6" or whatever (big 3? big 10?) and the rest is always going to be artificial and one can argue endlessly. However I think the bands mostly listed as "big 6" (Yes, Genesis, ELP, KC, Pink Floyd, Tull) are those that do more or less well in all categories, and honestly, I don't see Rush, VDGG, Gentle Giant, or whoever that close. As a Can fan of course I'd like to see Can up there (and according to rateyourmusic they should be in) but have to concede that they never were great for a more general audience. If I'd rank the big 6, I'd probably rank  ELP sixth personally due to their lack of consistency (for the same reason only their debut album at best would scratch my top 100) and quantity of great material compared to the others, but there's no doubt that they are special and BIG in many respects. 

Hi,

I was thinking that it was the other way around. If PA rated albums instead of songs, then some other things would get a rating, but instead there are too many albums that are just a one song boogah!

Hi,

I'm not sure that this is possible. The folks today (including some admins) are more suited and have listened to a whole lot of the metal and other styles of "progressive" music to be able to understand and appreciate the value of something like the big albums that we continually mention. ELP were very valuable in that they absolved an audience that was left behind by rock music, the folks that knew and appreciated classical music! ELP, for me was the first "progressive" I got and it was way back in 1970, and I was already aware of The Nice and how far out they were.

I don't think that a fun bit here and there is an issue, even though I did not care for them too much, but hearing Tarkus in its entirety was a "whole album", for me! 

I really think that the main problem is when we consider these all just "songs", and they side them next to each other, and by the time you get a DT song that everyone likes, things like Tarkus and ELP take a bad hit.

I would like PA to take a bigger and stronger stance on the world of "progressive music", but I'm not sure that the Admins even want to consider that idea since there won't be an international flavor in the whole thing. Japan, for example, would likely get ignored as would many other countries that also had a heck of a lot of progressive music!

The 'shrooms must've been very potent in 1969. Emerson didn't leave the Nice until March of 1970, and Lake didn't quit King Crimson until a month after that. They auditioned Palmer several weeks later.

Numenoreon579 wrote: I have been an ELP fan since 1977 and I think they typify what the phrase “prog rock” or “progressive rock” is. If you listen to all their albums (except In The Hot Seat), they produced something different on each recording. How many other bands has so many genres to their name— heavy metal ( listen to The Barbarian opening chords, Living Sin), Honky Tonk, humour ( the sheriff, Jeremy Bender, Benny The Bouncer), orchestral (where do I start!!!), innovative moog synthesisers, daggers stuck in a keyboard— need I go on. Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, Pink Floyd— you new as soon as they were played who you were listening too. No chance of that where ELP were concerned. This was a 3 piece band and created more sound any other. I would have loved to see them in their pomp and don’t forget the big bands of the seventies would turn up at their concerts!!! They received so many accolades (Sounds music newspaper gave them 7 1st awards in various categories in 1973-74). Nuff said really ( although I could say lots more!!)

I'm sure they were great in their heyday. I totally would've been a bigger fan if i had been around in those days for sure. As someone who came into prog well after the fact, i find bands like Gentle Giant, Gnidrolog and Van der Graaf Generator to be much more interesting musically and lyrically and offer albums that grow even stronger after multiple listens. The first four ELP albums are definitely excellent. No doubt about that but for some of us who weren't around in those days, they just don't measure up to some of the under the radar bands that existed at the same time but didn't get any attention. They will always have a special place in prog history for sure. They were innovators of the symphonic prog sound in every way. It makes sense to me why they don't rank higher these days than the other big bands of the day.

Yes, I saw the BSS tour twice, it was quite the show!!  I'm a big fan of the first LP and Tarkus, but my interest lagged a bit until BSS.  That was hugely popular at the University of Illinois when I was there. 

Cool!

PA's ratings usually suck anyway. I mean, Tales From Topographic Oceans isn't even in the Top 250.

No Neal Morse, Spock's Beard, The Tangent, The Flower Kings or Transatlantic in the Top 100.

I had a dream that they took all the jazz and metal albums off the site. And PA was the greatest website in history. And then I woke up to Miles Davis and Death in the Top 100.

Doesn't the top 100 list let you adjust it to feature only the subgenres you want to view?

also, big YES to The Tangent! 

Hi,

Thx ... I'll correct that!

BTW, even though your intentions are not exactly honorable, best to let you know that I never did any drugs until much later in 1972. You might ask about the drugs before assuming that kind of error. Makes mine look not so bad after all!

Yes indeed they do. So you know I set the controls to the heart of the Prog and blast off - minus the jazz and the metal. Ironically, I love metal and jazz. My dad played with Stan Getz. But Prog it's not...

So...drugs aren't the excuse? It might be best to just pretend. 

I think he may be suggesting that Genesis didn't push boundaries like the other bands. From a technical point of view I agree and they were actually shy of even being called 'prog' and associated themselves with bands like Roxy Music at the time. I think it irked Banks that they got dragged into the that stream , probably explaining some of his personal issues with Hackett who was more into prog than anyone else in the band!

If he didn't want to be lumped in with the Yes' and Pink Floyds of the world, he shouldn't have written such darn long songs! 

The ultimate goal is to be a 3-D printer. Then you can print yourself. Other than the oil changes and a taste for lunar regolith, the hum of printers is one of the foundational sounds of the universe.

the vinyl is superb quality , I've just pre-ordered another live box set coming out this year which is 10 discs.

Fanfare 1970-1997 is a must for fans but can be passed on by anyone less committed to the band I suggest. Bear in mind I have hoovered up all the re-issues and even tried to get the original Atlantic CD issues just for the sheer hell of it!