Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog?

In the 4CD box  "The Essential King Crimson Frame by Frame" booklet R. Fripp tells what's the essence of  KC to him : "Energy, intensity, eclectism".

Edited by tamijo - November 18 2013 at 06:05

ProgMetaller2112 wrote: The.Crimson.King wrote: Larks Tongues -> USA : Heavy Prog Discipline - ToaPP : Post Rock/Math Rock THRAK -> The Power to Believe : Experimental/Post Metal ...seems pretty eclectic to me  Well in essence that is eclectic but on the broader sense how is being for example "Symphonic" in an era, eclectic? I don't see why that's funny. I could say the same for other bands.  [DIVThe term 'eclectic' in the context of progressive rock describes a summation of elements from various musical sources, and the influences and career paths of bands that take from a wide range of genres or styles. While progressive music can be, in a larger sense, eclectic, the 'Eclectic Prog' term is specially meant to reference bands that trespass the boundaries of established Progressive Rock genres or that blend many influences. </span>   Now where is that in the albums from 1981 on? Fly By Night-Moving Pictures: Heavy Prog Signals-Hold Your Fire: Synth Prog Trespass- W& W: Symphonic Prog ATWT-IT: Pop Prog Seems pretty eclectic to me  As Kati once said. No that is not eclectic but changing musical genres

You forgot:

Well the body of their work was certainly eclectic and I think the majority of their albums qualify as eclectic more than any other category. Heavy prog works also but mainly just for the earlier stuff(especially the Bruford/Wetton era). The first two albums and parts of the two that followed could be considered symphonic but over all KC were all over the map stylistically. I think in the 80's crossover prog would be pretty appropriate with the pop and Talking Heads influences that were prevalent. However, I kind of lost track of them a bit after that. I suppose they flirted with heaviness again a bit in more recent years though.

Edited by Prog_Traveller - November 18 2013 at 01:33

OP, what sub-genre do you think King Crimson should belong to?

^^^ I don't know what Eclectic is?? What you smoking??(probably on something) I know what eclectic means. It means that there is a different set of influences within a band either in a song or album. I just don't see it in their later albums but that is my opinion! You guys need to take a chill pill and not take things so personal. I don't think their later stuf is eclectic. Big deal. If you look at my OP it asks for you to weigh in.  Geesh!

King Crimson is the definition of Eclectic Prog as we consider it.

Their first album consisted of multiple styles, as we consider them:

1. Heavy
2. Prog Folk
3. Symphonic
4. Avant-Garde
5. Symphonic

Yet their discography is wild with stylistic changes beyond this.

Eclectic means stylistic diversity in an album or variance over a career.  That is how I look at it.

The.Crimson.King wrote: ITCOTCK -> Islands : Symphonic Prog Larks Tongues -> USA : Heavy Prog Discipline - ToaPP : Post Rock/Math Rock THRAK -> The Power to Believe : Experimental/Post Metal ...seems pretty eclectic to me

Edited by ProgMetaller2112 - November 17 2013 at 19:52

King Crimson music througout the decades has shown influences from sources as diverse as The Beatles, Miles Davis, Talking Heads, The Police, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Tool, 20th century classical music, avant garde, atonal music, electronica, ambient....if that's not eclectic, then I don't know who is

ProgMetaller2112 wrote: Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career? I do not see any eclecticism in anything since Red in 1974.Step into this discussion to make your assertion about it. This is my assertion. I don't really consider them Eclectic Prog. What about you?

No, it is not exactly eclectic in the real extreme perfected sense. King Crimson in the 80's was structured musically around an idea  unlike any particular idea created by the 69' through 74' period bands. It was seperate and divided from the earlier composition of the band and that's what dominated their sound. In the early 70's the experimentation levels, the poetry, the arrangements of the band were impeccable and the times they were living in ..along with the chance meeting of the 4 members is another lifetime. Bob Fripp had worked in the areas of "Punk Rock" and also ..I forget the year..but he recorded Exposure, Sacred Songs, and Peter Gabriel , they were released as individual albums....but I recall reading somewhere that Fripp wanted to originally release the 3 as a triple set in a box with a booklet and title it "Exposure". He was influenced by "New Wave" and "Disco". He wanted to record ambient guitar sounds played over a Disco beat. Those influences I've heard in the 80's Crimson which just seperates itself and is so distant from the early approach to composition.