In the Wake of Poseidon: Underrated?

Prog-jester wrote: The title track is amazingly beaituful, probably my favourite 69-72 KC track ever. Of course ITCOTCK is a revolutionary record, a ground-breaking and genre-defining one, but that "Moonchild" noodling ("a space jam"(c)) always kills the vibe for me, as much as "Providence" does on "Red". With song-oriented material THAT strong why put such raw impros on the actual albums?

Crimson was all about improvisation. Nearly all the material on ITCOCK evolved through improv. They were known for that throughout that period, later through the Lark's era too. I don't know that they did much improv in development of In the Wake of Poseidon. I've often wondered how Crimson became envy of other bands that wanted to design pre-arranged arrangements. Crimson was the antithesis of that, unless In the Wake of Poseidon spoiled their association with improv by recycling the overall countours of ITCOCK. Thinking out loud here. BTW, Providence is the best thing on Red. It reminds me of Genesis' The Waiting Room. Something in the air in '74?

I thought we were talking about ITWOP but it's interesting to note that the first  part of Moonchild appeared on A Young Person's Guide To King Crimson. That's a weird compilation. Bought it before the days of the internet for Groon and I Talk To The Wind and to get the book back in the 70s. Peace and Cadence & Cascade are on there as well as Cat Food. So I guess Fripp thought it was better than Lizard back then. 

Prog-jester wrote: BaldFriede wrote: "Moonchild" is not noodling at all, as Jean and I pointed out many times. The improvisation mirrors the lyrics; you can hear the Moonchild playing hide and seek, dropping stones on the sundial, you can hear the breaking of dawn (the smile from a sunchild) and so on. Oddly enough I recall seeing a Classic Rock article where both Lake and McDonald (if memory serves me well) confirm that it was a last-minute-added jam to stretch the playing time (35 minutes for LP didn't seem enough in 1969 smh?)

That's not a contradiction at all.

BaldFriede wrote: "Moonchild" is not noodling at all, as Jean and I pointed out many times. The improvisation mirrors the lyrics; you can hear the Moonchild playing hide and seek, dropping stones on the sundial, you can hear the breaking of dawn (the smile from a sunchild) and so on.

Oddly enough I recall seeing a Classic Rock article where both Lake and McDonald (if memory serves me well) confirm that it was a last-minute-added jam to stretch the playing time (35 minutes for LP didn't seem enough in 1969 smh?)

Saperlipopette! wrote: I love the debut and the follow up plus their next five albums. I understand the "mirroring complaints" in theory but its of no relevance to me. The whole album is packed with greatness, the titletrack is beautiful and that's the stuff that matters to me. The A-side structurally resembles the A-side of In the Court? Ok, it does. But that happens all the time - why is it of such importance that a 1969 and 1970-album both starts with an aggressive tune, followed by a ballad and an stunning epic? I don't get it.

For me it's not so much that the second album copies the first one. It's more that every equivalent song is lesser for me than the ones on the debut. The title song I do love, but even that one is not as good as "Epitaph"... but then no other Crimson song will be as good as Epitaph for me (except perhaps Starless). The thing is, I just don't like the songs, except for the title track.

I love the debut and the follow up plus their next five albums. I understand the "mirroring complaints" in theory but its of no relevance to me. The whole album is packed with greatness, the titletrack is beautiful and that's the stuff that matters to me. The A-side structurally resembles the A-side of In the Court? Ok, it does. But that happens all the time - why is it of such importance that a 1969 and 1970-album both starts with an aggressive tune, followed by a ballad and an stunning epic? I don't get it. 

I've been listening to a lot of KC over the last week, revisiting everything from Lizard to Beat. I don't think they ever recorded a bad album. Some are better tha others obviously, but they don't have an "Invisible Touch" in their catalogue, or a "Union" or "Love Beach" for that matter.

They are consistently good. The trio of 80's albums are possibly their worst, and even they score three stars each IMO.

To me it sounds like leftover tracks from the previous album's sessions. I like it a lot but it lacks that something special that makes it have its own identity unlike "Court" "Lizard" "Red" and pretty much everything that followed. For me it's the weakest of the early albums but still pretty good and a must have in my collection. To be fair it has grown on me more as i've listened to it but there are too many riffs that are recycled from "Court"

Averages out to mediocre... about half very good to excellent, half essentially unlistenable (including the rubbish "Cat Food" -- I don't know what people see in this.)

dr prog wrote: What kind of progger doesn't like cadence and pictures. A stupid one lol

I think you should take care at who you call stupid. Which should be at nobody at all. But not likind Pictures and Cadence doesn't make me stupid, it just means my tastes are different. I Talk to the Wind isn't among my favourites from the previous one either, but I find Cadence evern more dull, specially because of the notably weaker vocals. And Pictures just sounds noisy, while I do find Schizoid Man much more enjoyable. I won't insult you for liking them, you just have a different taste.