Jakszyk, Fripp, Collins

harmonium.ro wrote: the music is not similar to KC, but sounds more like a Canterbury-flavoured Crossover prog.

Few King Crimson albums are "similar" to King Crimson.  Each lineup has a new sound, which to me makes them a prime example of Eclectic prog.

harmonium.ro wrote: Yes but IMO this music doesn't sound like any of the ways KC have sounded in the past. So the question is "is this a new KC sound"? Fripp says it's related to KC, from the same "gene pool" to quote him, so IMO that's not enough.

I have no idea.

Is there a difference between King Crimson and "projekts?"

harmonium.ro wrote: ^ Essential question. I don't know the answer.  I've heard that the Projekcts are improvisations (hence certainly different to what you can hear on proper KC albums), but done by actual KC line-ups that we know from canonical KC releases. But we'll need expert opinion on this...

Oh, so like "Moonchild" and "Providence?"

ProjeKcts, as done in the late 90s, consist of fraKctalizations of the double trio. The spin-offs then go off and do improvised material as discrete entities. I would argue for isolating the ProjeKcts away from the main KC page, just as, say, Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe aren't under Yes. Similarly, this new 'ProjeKct' should gets its own page in the vein of Fripp and Eno or Giles Giles and Fripp.

That is, of course, unless someone mucks it up just as they did by sticking the Fripp/Sylvian stuff all over the place

It is a de facto King Crimson album. If we want to be really pedantic about it, hen mark all the Projeckts under different names.

BTW, the album cover says "A King Crimson Projeckt"

Thanks for the comments guys. Yes, this is a ProjeKct indeed. Fripp also says it:

Fripp wrote: Unexpectedly, the JJ & RF project became a ProjeKct, via JF&C and JF&C with L&H. Unexpected, but not surprising given the Crimson gene pool. And, for the first time since 1981, there is more English in the genes than American, in the ratio 4:1. This unexpectedness is welcome: it suggests there is more going on than could be predicated merely on what has gone before. And yet, once here, there is familiarity; like meeting a close member of the family for the first time, one whose education & upbringing was elsewhere & outside the family town. If we were looking for precedent, such as while arguing for a particular Crimson line of development with former manager SG Alder Esq. of EG, this might be along the lines of song-based Crimson; in distinction to a developing Crimson instrumentality after 1972 with Larks’, Fracture, Red and onto Discipline et al. Songs are always problematic because they come with both lyricists and singers, sometimes the functions combined. That a given, I enjoy playing with good singers more than anything.

That doesn't make it a King Crimson album though - and my feeling is that the justification for this one being on the KC page is weaker than for previous projekcts.

It's not a KING CRIMSON album as far as i'm concerned even if the artwork looks like it is. I think if it was it would say KING CRIMSON without the "Projeckts" part added on.Just an opinion.

Why would we exclude this Projekct when we have two other Projekct albums included in KC's discog?

Andyman1125 wrote: Why would we exclude this Projekct when we have two other Projekct albums included in KC's discog? Both Projekct 2 and Projekct X have albums listed here. What you could do is put (King Crimson Projekct) next to the title to elaborate why it is listed here.

I was gonna say that
I'm so sloooow

There is  a long interview and explanation in # 17 of Classic Rock Presents Prog. I have yet to read it though. But this new album is presented as Jakszyk, Fripp, Collins in that feature.

I am far from being a KC expert so I don't know.