BEAT

King Crimson is most likely my favorite band. They practically define what progressive music is, IMO. I couldn't give anything they do less than 3 1/2 stars; Beat is their 3 1/2 stars. It's still more interestiing than 90 % of whatever you could hear on the radio. It's just not up to most of King Crimson's output.

My biggest criticism with Beat is its similarities to Discipline. I may be handicapped by the fact that I've listened to Discipline so many times - it's the dark side of fanaticism! "Neal and Jack and Me" and "Neurotica" are two examples. "Heartbeat" and "Two Hands" are the most accessible tracks on the album. Some other reviewers seem to think that's a terrible thing. I like both songs a lot, especially "Heartbeat". There is absolutely nothing wrong with making skillful - but - listenable music. No one criticizes The Beatles or Mozart for it! My intetion is not malign other reviewers on this site that we all love. I simply want to stress that there's nothing wrong with being enjoyable.

"Sartori in Tangier", "The Howler", and "Requiem" are also excellent tracks. "Requiem" is definitely King Crimson at their least accessible. My only other problem with Beat, and it's only a part-time problem, is Adrian Belew's sining. I think he's the most talented singer KC has ever had, but I don't like it when he announces like an auctioneer instead of singing. The songs on Beat aren't quite as groundbreaking or memorable as on Discipline, which is why Beat gets 3 1/2 stars compared to the rest of KC"s brilliant discography.