Is Robert Fripp Overrated?

Dayvenkirq wrote: Argonaught wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: ProgMetaller2112 wrote: Today, they very well may be the most commercially successful progressive rock band in the world. In other words the most successful prog rock band ever Yeah, because the commercial success is all that matters.  How did I not think of this before? Commercial success does matter; there is correlation between the music quality of a given album and the number of copies sold - that is, if your methodology is right: - Only look at the buying behavior of a specific group (like e.g. "prog" lovers), and disregard the rest of the statistics, so that you'd be comparing apples to apples - Ignore reviews, ratings and forum noise: BS talks, money walks.  I noticed a while ago that I am willing to spend more money on the best-selling albums of Yes, KC, PT, PF etc. than I would on their more obscure stuff. I haste to re-iterate that I don't buy the likes of Britney Spears, Justin Beaver, Katy Perry and the rest of them. In that case let me re-phrase myself: commercial success is not the only thing that matters.

^ You remember writing this, right?

ProgMetaller2112 wrote: Today, they very well may be the most commercially successful progressive rock band in the world. In other words the most successful prog rock band ever

rogerthat wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: Argonaught wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: ProgMetaller2112 wrote: Today, they very well may be the most commercially successful progressive rock band in the world. In other words the most successful prog rock band ever Yeah, because the commercial success is all that matters.  How did I not think of this before? Commercial success does matter; there is correlation between the music quality of a given album and the number of copies sold - that is, if your methodology is right: - Only look at the buying behavior of a specific group (like e.g. "prog" lovers), and disregard the rest of the statistics, so that you'd be comparing apples to apples - Ignore reviews, ratings and forum noise: BS talks, money walks.  I noticed a while ago that I am willing to spend more money on the best-selling albums of Yes, KC, PT, PF etc. than I would on their more obscure stuff. I haste to re-iterate that I don't buy the likes of Britney Spears, Justin Beaver, Katy Perry and the rest of them. In that case let me re-phrase myself: commercial success is not the only thing that matters. I think you were clear enough to begin with "commercial success is all that matters(sarcastic)".   By the way, Pink Floyd beats Rush by a very wide margin for commercial success.  I think JT does so as well.  But I guess they are not prog.

Oops.  Forgot about Pink Floyd.  They have definitely sold more albums than Rush.  Just looked up some statistics, and Jethro Tull is ahead too, as well as Chicago and Santana (if you consider them "prog").

Dayvenkirq wrote: ProgMetaller2112 wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: ^ You remember writing this, right? ProgMetaller2112 wrote: Today, they very well may be the most commercially successful progressive rock band in the world. In other words the most successful prog rock band ever Yeah and what, the music has always been and will be the most important thing for me. Them being the most successful prog rock band means that people go out buy their stuff for a reason. That sounds more like a crude definition of "most commercially successful". Isn't there a difference between "most successful" in general and "most commercially successful".

jesus these conversations are hurting my head...

Robert Fripp is TERRIBLY underrated.

He broke ground with EVERY new incarnation of King Crimson.

And as soon as they WEREN'T breaking new ground he disbanded the group.

Now IMHO that's an artist of the highest order who honors the muse so obediently.

Every single version of KC has broken new ground musically.

Not sure you can say that about any of the other prog artists.

ProgMetaller2112 wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: ^ OK, let me put it this way: isn't there a difference between "commercially successful" and "musically successful"? The two aren't always the same thing, right? you already heard what I have to say but in the case of Rush in my opinion they are definitely "musically successful"

But what do you have to say to the FACT that they are not the most commercially successful prog rock band? Definitely one of the most successful, no arguments there.  If you are going to say Rush is better than some other band just because the album sales 'confirm' their quality, I don't buy that argument. 

So what exactly is the point of making assertions you are not interested in defending, may I ask?  You didn't just say that Rush are your favourite band.  You have tried to claim that commercial success and artistic success are NOT different things.  That is an objective statement and not a subjective one so you have to defend it and thereby convince people about your stand.  

I didn't have to infer it because he has said so.   Here:

ProgMetaller2112 wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: sounds more like a crude definition of "most commercially successful". Isn't there a difference between "most successful" in general and "most commercially successful". Not really,

I have read his words correctly, I think.   "Isn't there a difference....?"  "No, there isn't."  If that is not what he intended, it is up to him to clarify. 

I can call it for what it is, regardless.   This is just about people trying to find arguments in favour of why their favourite band is great.  I am sure such a case can be very effectively argued in terms of Rush's profound influence on prog metal without resorting to dubious stats. 

^Oh, great song!