ELP vs Camel

Keppa4v wrote: Someone's emotional and beautiful is someones loathsome easy-listening. Someone's bombastic and flashy is someone's pompous and unlistenable. When considering my favourites I personally don't care how well a band crystallizes the essence of prog or punk or surf music, I just care about how much I enjoy listening to the band. I recognize the impact of Ramones and Dick Dale and respect it, but it doesn't make a difference in my overall liking of them. Camel I enjoy in the length of albums, ELP I mostly enjoy in the length of songs (which sometimes are in the length of albums, I admit). Yesterday I listened to the first four studio albums by ELP, and there's some truly brilliant stuff in there. So even though I defend Camel I'm not putting ELP down. ELP made more proggy prog, but Camel made more enjoyable music if you ask me.

You know, you made a lot of very good points in the above post. On the other hand (and I am no ELP fangirl, though I like them very much), there is one thing that should be said. If serious writers about prog mention ELP as one of the seminal bands of the genre (even going to the lengths of analysing one of their tracks in detail, like Edward Macan did in his Rocking the Classics), and Camel as a second-tier band at best, there must be some reason.

That, of course, doesn't mean that Camel's music cannot be more enjoyable to many people - I, for instance, enjoy many second-tier bands' music more than Genesis', as influential as they are. My main point is, a site that aspires to be the ULTIMATE prog resource should not have on its front page a Top 100 (which for many people is important and indicative) with NO ELP albums at all (and full instead of obscure albums by equally obscure bands). If the site is supposed to be a guide, personal taste should be secondary.

kenethlevine wrote: I don't really care what "serious" writers say.  "Serious" writers dissed all prog.  So if I am not to follow serious mainstream music writers, why should I follow serious prog writers?

Serious prog writers did/do know their stuff. Serious mainstream writers, usually critiqued (is that a word?) mainstream music on it's 'mainstream' merits, and dissed prog, because it wasn't mainstream. Simple really.

ELP WERE one of the seminal prog acts, regardless of whether you like them or not. They were very 'progressive' in their approach to making music, and although they may not have been as influential as Genesis or Yes (open to discussion) they were hugely successful and very talented. Along with Genesis, KC, Yes, Tull, Floyd, they were a premier league prog band.

Edited by Blacksword - March 07 2009 at 07:55

kenethlevine wrote: That's all well and good, but I didn't come here to parrot what serious prog writers say.  I came to offer my take on prog  and learn about music that I didn't know before.  A few albums excepted, I am not high on any of the top tier bands (although I totally get the adulation when it comes to Genesis and especially KC).  And I think I represent a segment of music fans that could get into prog with the right exposure, ie-not ELP  .

I really hope that was not referred to me, since I've never parroted anything in my life. However, since you seem not to have read my post besides that quote, I'll leave it at that before it turns ugly.

true, like "Lucky Man".  But then Camel might have done an even better job of capturing that segment, not necessarily pop fans but people looking for something with more depth yet still accessible

OK, apology accepted.... Let's just agree to disagree!

On the topic of influence, I definitely think ELP were among the most influential prog acts - other than Pink Floyd.  Not because of Emerson and Palmer showing off as is commonly suggested.  Rather, they, along with Gentle Giant and Jethro Tull 'created' (put in quotes because everything under the sun has been done before somewhere sometime) a paradigm of prog that came to be representative of the genre and was yet very different from the direction shown by ITCOCK. When I hear the early albums of Genesis or Yes or Camel, I can visualise ITCOCK foreshadowing the direction these bands took, regardless that they may have forged their own distinctive sound as they evolved.  But Tull with their folk prog, 'Giant with their wonderful mutli-faceted approach and ELP with the most keyboard driven sound of them all went in different directions.  Maybe it is just a false trail and what seems to be so evident to me is not so to others because they are more experienced than me, but oh well, thought I'd put it down anyway. 

I think the point I wanted to make in my original post was misunderstood. As I stated clearly, I am no ELP fangirl (actually, I am NO band's fangirl - I can be critical even of my favourites),  nor do I hate Camel - far from that. The question, in my personal (and very humble opinion), is one related to the 'objective value' of a piece of art, be it visual, musical or literary.

To give a practical example, I don't like St Peter's Basilica (I am originally from Rome), but I'd never try to prove it is a worthless building because I don't like it, or suggest it should be scrapped from art history books. I could have taken a painting, or a book, to give the same example. There are lots of artistic or literary 'masterpieces' I don't particularly care for, but I would never deny their overall importance. However, by not having any ELP in that notorious Top 100 (which, being on the front page and all that, does have some kind of informational value for newcomers), we are automatically denying them their place in prog history - and this, always in my opinion, is not a good thing for the 'ultimate prog resource'.

Raff wrote: I think the point I wanted to make in my original post was misunderstood. As I stated clearly, I am no ELP fangirl (actually, I am NO band's fangirl - I can be critical even of my favourites),  nor do I hate Camel - far from that. The question, in my personal (and very humble opinion), is one related to the 'objective value' of a piece of art, be it visual, musical or literary. To give a practical example, I don't like St Peter's Basilica (I am originally from Rome), but I'd never try to prove it is a worthless building because I don't like it, or suggest it should be scrapped from art history books. I could have taken a painting, or a book, to give the same example. There are lots of artistic or literary 'masterpieces' I don't particularly care for, but I would never deny their overall importance. However, by not having any ELP in that notorious Top 100 (which, being on the front page and all that, does have some kind of informational value for newcomers), we are automatically denying them their place in prog history - and this, always in my opinion, is not a good thing for the 'ultimate prog resource'.

It's a good point, but what can we do about it.  I'm certainly not prepared to flood my reviews with 5 stars for Tarkus, let alone for Love Beach    The people have spoken, and this is among the most democratic sites, maybe you are saying too much so.  But history is always being rewritten.  Maybe the new prog sensibility is that Camel is more worthy than ELP?

I gave Tarkus 4 stars myself.. As to the people speaking, there would be a lot to be said about it, as well as about many of the reviews here - but this is neither the place nor the time. If the new prog sensibility is such, then so be it... I rest my case.

kenethlevine wrote: Raff wrote: I think the point I wanted to make in my original post was misunderstood. As I stated clearly, I am no ELP fangirl (actually, I am NO band's fangirl - I can be critical even of my favourites),  nor do I hate Camel - far from that. The question, in my personal (and very humble opinion), is one related to the 'objective value' of a piece of art, be it visual, musical or literary. To give a practical example, I don't like St Peter's Basilica (I am originally from Rome), but I'd never try to prove it is a worthless building because I don't like it, or suggest it should be scrapped from art history books. I could have taken a painting, or a book, to give the same example. There are lots of artistic or literary 'masterpieces' I don't particularly care for, but I would never deny their overall importance. However, by not having any ELP in that notorious Top 100 (which, being on the front page and all that, does have some kind of informational value for newcomers), we are automatically denying them their place in prog history - and this, always in my opinion, is not a good thing for the 'ultimate prog resource'. It's a good point, but what can we do about it.  I'm certainly not prepared to flood my reviews with 5 stars for Tarkus, let alone for Love Beach    The people have spoken, and this is among the most democratic sites, maybe you are saying too much so.  But history is always being rewritten.  Maybe the new prog sensibility is that Camel is more worthy than ELP?

That is probably the case, and I would say a lot of that (though not all) is down to Camel being guitar driven, and there is a lot of love for heavy, guitar based progressive music, among the younger prog fans. Thats my perception, anyway.

Edited by Blacksword - March 07 2009 at 09:05