Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog?

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?

Yeah, I was just about to post something similar as you Steve, but you did it far better than I could ever do.

^^^ Of course you would say all of that. Yes I have heard Discipline and I bet you can agree that Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair sound similar? Meaning that the eclecticism is limited. Let me bring about the PA definition of this "subgenre":

Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core.

I honestly don't hear a difference between anything from Discipline- TOAPP. Same goes for Thrak-TPTB

Well it is true that they have "evolved" but so many other bands have too

Edited by ProgMetaller2112 - November 17 2013 at 05:44

ProgMetaller2112 wrote: ^^^ Of course you would say all of that. Yes I have heard Discipline and I bet you can agree that Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair sound similar? Meaning that the eclecticism is limited. Let me bring about the PA definition of this "subgenre": Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core. I honestly don't hear a difference between anything from Discipline- TOAPP. Same goes for Thrak-TPTB Well it is true that they have "evolved" but so many other bands have too

 Instead of thinking of the differences, or lack thereof, between Discipline, Beat, and Three of a Perfect Pair, consider instead the differences between Lizard, Red, Discipline, and The Power to Believe. Each presents a unique blending of influences and styles and demonstrates a long-term evolution that seems to fit the PA definition quoted in your post.  

Edited by Neo-Romantic - November 17 2013 at 05:51

you can't expect an artist to radically change their sound after every album

Guldbamsen wrote: The only band that i personally find more befitting of the 'eclectic' badge is Pink Floyd.

I agree. However, my DSotM T-Shirt back print says "Still First In Space"

Stool Man wrote: I don't consider Pink Floyd to be Psychedelic or Space Rock for the last forty years, nor me but I'm not bothered about it, nor me. ABITW2 was a disco hit, you want them to be classed as disco? yeah, let's go for it!

I think sometimes we stick a label and it remains forever, so King Crimson got the "Eclectic" label, even though their music changed considerably. Same would be for Jethro Tull being a Prog Folk band, when most of their catalog would not fall under that category, or Santana being Jazz-Fusion, etc.

Dean wrote:   Evolution over time does not necessarily mean each successive album has to progress or change, time scales and events are undefined and not delineated by physical boundaries (ie albums).   Eclectic does not mean different: If A is eclectic and B is similar to A then B is also eclectic. This distinction holds true for progressive too.   Together A and B can be used to define a (new) style if those similarities are different from the eclectic gamut of styles that produced it or from any preexisting defined style.   Style is defined as being similar and unchanged, a plurality of style(s) is by definition eclectic.   Lacking a referential core denotes that the eclectic nature does not favour one particular style over another.   Being mostly X with an influence of Y is eclectic as an adjective but remains stylistically defined as X (ie not as a noun).   When no dominant style pervades we can call that resulting style (X dot Y) eclectic as an adjective and as a noun.

That's an interesting question......there are many bands here that I disagree with the way they are classified.