Good arguments, actually. 

I am amazed, though, I must say. 

But I agree!

We've all been mesmerized, or should I say mellotronized! 

It reminds me of a post of Iván who once explained why the Moody Blues' The Days Of Future Passed wasn't prog.

The same kind of logic could be used for ITCOTCK, which you do.

So strip the tempo changes, the eclecticism, the mellotrons, the full symphonic sound on some tracks, the free jazz and the adventurous percussion from the album and there remains a bunch of... songs.

Proto-prog then?

EDIT: while I read back my post I wonder: what makes prog prog? 

All the extras on the album (and there are a lot of proggish extras on ITCOTCK) don't make it prog, as long as the skeleton consists still of traditional songs, right?

So a non-innovating album like Pendragon's The Window Of Life is prog, because the basis consists of long stretched non-traditional songs, but ITCOTCK with all its innovative coachwork on the traditional chassis is not prog, right?

Now, that is what I call a myth

We categorise and name things so we can communicate with each other. So classifications are merely points of common reference that allow us to recognise that we are talking about the same thing. This isn't a flaw, quite the opposite, it is a survival trait, without which we'd have died-out from eating plants that no one had bothered to previously classify as poisonous.

Where it all goes wrong is when we get overly concerned by being pedantically exact about it. Sometimes it's okay to call spiders "insects" when there is no need to be taxonomically precise, just as it is perfectly fine to use the word "bugs" to mean all manner of creepy-crawlies and not just those that are insects of the suborder Heteroptera. 

Saying that Itchycock (or whatever) was the first prog album is merely a point of reference so we all know what we are talking about. When we pedantically pick over it with a pseudo-musicological taxonomy it loses that peg-in-the-ground relationship and when approached like that very few (if any) albums would survive such close scrutiny. So it's semi-arbitrary consensus (by some undeclared common agreement) that this particular album is chosen to be "the first Prog album", and there is nothing wrong with that, any one of a number of albums could have been picked, it doesn't actually change anything. Itchycock suddenly doesn't become any easier or harder to listen to, it doesn't instantly become an album that you are not permitted to like or dislike; and so its status as an album is not affected by whatever label you give it.

I think he means "Big Fooking Deal"  

I wasn't in London at the time, so I'm not sure how it influenced the scene.  This interview with the late Peter Banks (RIP, dead now for exactly one year today) gives some interesting insights!

http://www.themarqueeclub.net/interview-peter-banks-yes" rel="nofollow - http://www.themarqueeclub.net/interview-peter-banks-yes

It's importance lies, as others have stated, in the influence it had on other musicians at the time (similar to Bitches Brew).

Personally, I love the album, including the noodling about in Moonchild.

 

Pink Floyd, The Moody Blues, and many others were already experimenting with aspects of what we now call prog, but this Itchycock, as it were, was a major force in the groundswell that became the prog genre.

I was about to post something along these lines, but then again, the ratings on PA are highly inflated. I won't name names here, but just here the other day I saw a collab giving three stars (3 stars=good album) to an album he basically thought was boring

The same goes for Selling England by the Pound, where you find a lot of reviewers throwing 5 stars at an album where they detest Epping Forest,.......... but let's keep it to KC. Loads of folks award Red with 5 stars even though they don't particularly like Providence... and the list literally goes on.

The problem each of these 5 star regurgitators get - is when they face an album they think is even better than what they've heard before. They run out of stars. 

Admittedly, I've just written about a lot of, what I personally think of as masterpiece albums, offering up a lot of 5 stars, but in my defence, I started out stating this exact fact. I don't pull the 5 star trigger easily.

Back to ITCOTCK: When I first purchased it, I was hugely under-whelmed. I loved the first two cuts - in particular I talk to the Wind, but the rest I couldn't be bothered with. The fact that so many others kept singing it's praises on here made me even more insusceptible to it's charms. Recently, though, I've warmed up to it - and I happen to dig Moonchild now Epitaph is still a big bag of margarine to these ears, and I highly doubt that'll ever change.... 

The first prog album does exist but relies on your definition of prog. Assuming we can all agree that Tales from Topographic Oceans is prog, then by implication that or an earlier album was the first prog album. Unfortunately there is no progometer to measure the quantity of prog in a song or on an album. Each one of us have our own progometer but, say, 75% of us can agree that itCotCK was the first prog album.

Prog went through the stages of ideation and conceptualization (on a song basis) before itCotCK which appears to be the conceptualization of album long prog. Further development led to the actual realization of prog by bands like ELP, Genesis, Yes,  KC etc. (Subsequent stages can be denoted commercialization and operation of prog.)

Guldbamsen wrote: BaldJean wrote: what never fails to amaze me is how many people give 5 stars to this album and make bad comments about the second part of "Moonchild". are they aware that this second part constitutes almost a quarter of the album? how can an album of which nearly 25% are bad be a 5 star album? I was about to post something along these lines, but then again, the ratings on PA are highly inflated. I won't name names here, but just here the other day I saw a collab giving three stars (3 stars=good album) to an album he basically thought was boring The same goes for Selling England by the Pound, where you find a lot of reviewers throwing 5 stars at an album where they detest Epping Forest,.......... but let's keep it to KC. Loads of folks award Red with 5 stars even though they don't particularly like Providence... and the list literally goes on. The problem each of these 5 star regurgitators get - is when they face an album they think is even better than what they've heard before. They run out of stars.  Admittedly, I've just written about a lot of, what I personally think of as masterpiece albums, offering up a lot of 5 stars, but in my defence, I started out stating this exact fact. I don't pull the 5 star trigger easily. Back to ITCOTCK: When I first purchased it, I was hugely under-whelmed. I loved the first two cuts - in particular I talk to the Wind, but the rest I couldn't be bothered with. The fact that so many others kept singing it's praises on here made me even more insusceptible to it's charms. Recently, though, I've warmed up to it - and I happen to dig Moonchild now Epitaph is still a big bag of margarine to these ears, and I highly doubt that'll ever change....

Yeh, I love 21st Century Schizoid Man and Moonchild, I Talk To the Wind is A-okay with me, and I can tolerate In the Court, but Epitaph () just doesn't cut it for me.

.

..

...

Bendtner is more of a Van Damme Generator fan y'know. 

The Beatles (and noone else?) were allowed to release "album long singles" (if they wanted to) given their god-like status. Find it hard to believe that the record company would let an unknown band like KC release I Talk to the Wind in full length.

If it had chart potential why wasn't it cocered by someone else and released as a single?

Irregardless of length, I Talk To The Trees Wind is a popular music ballad and no one can predict whether those damn things will chart or not, if Clint Eastwood can take I Talk To The Wind Trees into the pop charts then anything is possible.

No that was not what was said.  I repeat the question was about whether in terms of classification it is pop or prog.  It is a simple enough question but now you are demonstrating the holy cow syndrome I mentioned earlier, getting worked up about any attempt to question the consensus on ITCOTCK without understanding the question.  

As to your next question, why of course Yes have.  Either Relayer or TFTO would comfortably qualify and while I have some doubts about the title track of CTTE it is certainly a much better fit for this purpose than I Talk To The Wind.  And your last statement doesn't make sense.  Why of course their music would be influenced by contemporary or historic musical styles...er, what music wouldn't.  What does that have to do with whether it's prog or not?   It would appear that ELP and Genesis have always included one or two pop tracks in their albums but then I never stated that they did make 100% prog albums.  Ok, what did I just shake the banyan tree or something?  

There are loads of prog rock bands that have made albums that were prog from start to finish without pop tracks.   Why credit ITCOTCK with something that it doesn't achieve? Where have I or BJ questioned the influence of ITCOTCK on the genre?  All that has been said is it is not a full fledged prog album either (an argument that is often made to deny that Days of Future Passed or Saucerful of Secrets are prog albums).  It could very well have still been (and was) influential on prog.  

Wasn't "Itchycock Park" sung by the Small Faces? 

My dear sir, the word flirt itself has more than one connotation (as in "flirting with danger") so perhaps you could have made the effort to state precisely what you meant instead of expecting people to read your mind.  Or was it a conveniently chosen word that allowed you an escape route in case I should bring this up?   

And you may not recall, but in most of the previous discussions on "which was the first prog album", the precise argument made in favour of ITCOTCK making the case is that it was the first album length prog.  That is to say, that other, preceding albums did not concern themselves fully with prog.  I think this is the very point that BJ is trying to question.  Whether or not you agree, it is certainly a valid question.  Tarkus for instance has a side long epic and pop tidbits for the rest.  It is indeed regarded prog in spite of this so therefore how would Saucerful of Secrets not qualify as one of the first prog albums.  Nearly half of the running length of that album IS prog - Set Controls plus the title track.  The disclaimers and caveats and what not used to ensure ITCOTCK remains on the first prog album pedestal are, when looked at carefully, pretty artificial.  It is the most influential of the early prog albums.  I don't know whether or not BJ agrees with it, but I certainly do believe that and have never questioned that.  But it doesn't have to be the very first prog album to have exerted said influence.

Anyway, your last para makes it pretty clear there is no point in discussing this subject further with you.  You have approached the topic with misgivings to begin with and thereafter your responses are bound to be much more antagonising than they have any need to be.  You have no right to ask me to get real as if I just heard prog for the first time yesterday, mind it!  

 I commented on Jean's other post but I'd just like to say that I feel the whole album is absolute "prog rock" gold. Moonchild, Epitaph, I talk to the Wind - the whole shbang. While a few of the tracks took a little to warm up to when we first met, it definitely all sunk in, much like a good deal of the Crimbeast's other work. These 'what is/what isn't prog' debates baffle me.

 On the point of categorization, sure, it helps us communicate, but all the different little subconscious associations we carry around with us in this day and age do more harm than good when it comes down to how we approach art specifically, as both onlookers and participants I feel. In other words, artistic categories encourage premature decisions or flat out close-mindedness.

 I'm fine with a very general label (it's how I found this site after all), and I'm very appreciative of the work that's gone into the site to further help us navigate the sounds we may be interested in, but to sit here and debate whether one song or another is "truly a prog tune" is just absolute silliness in my opinion. 

because the other 75% is amazing?

What I think is that its a very important album. It was a 'coming out' album. . Its a grand statement. Its a bunch of young incredibly talented guys doing something with style and panache.

Of course they didn't invent 'prog' so perhaps this is the crux of the issue. What they did was pull together a lot of ideas and present them in the most coherent way possible . They defined it rather than inventing it.

I do however think it's interesting to hear from people, who've experienced how the album was received at the time of it's release. How it manifested itself in the rock community. If everything - or just half of what is said about itchycock is true, then I think it warrants half an extra handshake.

 

Well said Robert.....and I couldn't agree more.

A quote from Fripp related to that article:

"For '69 Crimson the creative explosion was utterly remarkable and anyone who came near us felt the power."

 

 

 

Yup I really enjoyed BaldJean's thoughts on this album as well.

They are supposed to be rated how you feel like rating them. 'Feel' includes emotional feelings not just some intellectual cold detached mathematical approach ie 75% is good so I give only 4 stars. That just annoys me quite frankly. 

In a way it did exactly that though. The limits and boundaries were set but just a long way out. You have everything pretty much in this album that was called 'prog' over the next 4 or 5 years.

That is a perfectly valid point Todd, and a very important one.

We need to decide what we mean when using the figure of speech 'The first' in this context. Many people take this to be chronological, as in 'the first prog album in the history of popular music', and I believe this to be a mistake and an over simplification, others claim it to be 'the first influential prog album', which is probably closer to the mark but again, I believe this to be an over-simplification. 

Wikipedia[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Court_of_the_Crimson_King" rel="nofollow - 1 ] qualifies it more succinctly: 'generally viewed as one of the first works to truly embody the progressive rock genre', which leaves the debate open for other albums to share the honour and, by replacing Jean's 'full[y]-fledged' with 'truly embody', allows for the "pop" tracks on the album to be included into whole thematically and stylistically. [That 'truly embody' clause would also exclude Days of Future Past and, together with 'generally viewed as' clause, Freak Out! I could expand on that, but won't].

I wholeheartedly agree

To top it off with another heretic thought: I think that In the Wake of Poseidon was more or less an improvement.

 

The original sin was wasting time categorizing human beings! NOT eating from the Tree of Knowledge which was added and translated later, so you and I could "not" learn what the white masters already knew, and we would have to be subservient to the religion that thought it up!

 

The tree of knowledge is for everyone, but religions don't want to feed you that, because it lessens their need and work!

 

I'm thinking that the translation semantics are killing this thread.

 

So sad, because it has good points here and there, but the translation is simply not getting anywhere with people intentionally changing the meaning of the words to fit their own ideas, and not seeing the different point of view.

 

How well, I know this. It's so frustrating and disappointing!

 

I do think it is a nice point of view, but I am more starting to think that this whole thread is becoming more about a woman not possibly having a point about any point of view, and that is wrong!

 

Btw, the quote should say, that it wouldn't be a chair. It should say, you probably wouldn't sit on them, and negating the need to call them "chairs".