Why not more ratings for Gentle Giant albums?

rogerthat wrote: Prog_Traveller wrote: Gerinski wrote:   Your 'typically' is very atypical. Perhaps some sites say so in retrospect, but GG would have never been listed as big five in the 70's. GG bigger than Oldfield, Camel, Tull, Renaissance, all the Canterbury guys, VdGG, Supertramp etc? are you kidding? Absolutely not. GG had an album "free hand" which made it to number 48 which is more than I can say for any of the bands you mentioned except for maybe Supertramp.  Um,  Tull????  Come on, Aqualung got to no.7 in the US and TAAB hit no.1.  Oldfield - Tubular Bells hit no.3.  Renaissance's Live At Carnegie Hall charted at no.46 so even they managed to just about best Gentle Giant in that regard.  I get that you love Gentle Giant and i do as well but there is surely no need to misrepresent charting stats, of all things.

Dude, I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. Oldfield only had one gold album in the US. Worldwide it sold more but then again Oldfield is not a band now is he? I was focusing more on VDGG, Canterbury etc.

More than that I only brought up album sales because some of you were focusing on that. Also no need for the bold type. It's quite unnecessary.

I am going mostly by reputation in prog circles. I stand by my original big five or big six comments. GG is in and ELP are out(unless you go purely by album sales which is silly).


Ultimately, I feel a lot of it boils down to the members of this site. The vast number of younger members on here can give a certain band the impression that they are less popular or influential than they really are. Other sites have more older members so certain bands are respected more and other bands less where as on here you might think some of these tech metal bands or Dream Theater or whoever are the best thing to happen since sliced bread.

I won't take any of this too seriously because like I said I just believe it has to do with the nature of this particular website. For example, I've also noticed relatively few ratings for Happy the Man. HTM are often considered the most influential and important US prog band. I personally would give that accolade to Kansas but HTM would be number two for sure. There is only 100 ratings for their first and 118 for Crafty Hands. Yet IQ, Haken, Pendragon, Riverside, Beardfish, Phideaux, etc etc have over two hundred ratings. It's just not right I tell you. HTM along with probably a lot of other older bands have obviously been buried in the past. GG not as much but still to some degree. My point being I guess is that prog just like any other popular music form is dominated by what's hot and what's new(in other words the flavor of the week). The exceptions ofcourse are the most obvious bands like YES, GENESIS, PF etc.


Edited by Prog_Traveller - December 02 2013 at 12:52

Based on responses from this thread I would say GG were more well known in the US than in Europe. That would also be the case with Renaissance as far as I know and probably also Nektar. However, VDGG were more well known in Europe. Actually even Genesis were much bigger in Europe in the seventies(ie as a prog band)than they were in the US. A lot of it boils down to exposure such as radio airplay, concerts booked etc etc.

I'm hoping maybe this thread will cause an increase in the GG ratings on here. ;)

Prog_Traveller wrote: Gerinski wrote:   Your 'typically' is very atypical. Perhaps some sites say so in retrospect, but GG would have never been listed as big five in the 70's. GG bigger than Oldfield, Camel, Tull, Renaissance, all the Canterbury guys, VdGG, Supertramp etc? are you kidding? Absolutely not. GG had an album "free hand" which made it to number 48 which is more than I can say for any of the bands you mentioned except for maybe Supertramp.

Prog_Traveller wrote: Typically GG do fit in as part of the big five(I'm going by other prog sites where I've read this).   YES GENESIS King Crimson Gentle Giant ELP

Prog_Traveller wrote: Also, it has been suggested that GG were playing the same venues as Genesis was and were as big as them(before Steve Hackett left). While I won't go quite that far the fact is they were playing 1,500 to 4,000 seat venues in the US around the same time Genesis were. Maybe Genesis were filling those seats a little better than GG but the fact remains GG were a pretty big cult band in the seventies and just behind the more mainstream acts(just behind KC).

Prog_Traveller wrote: Typically GG do fit in as part of the big five(I'm going by other prog sites where I've read this). Typically the big five is: YES GENESIS King Crimson Gentle Giant ELP

Your 'typically' is very atypical. Perhaps some sites say so in retrospect, but GG would have never been listed as big five in the 70's. GG bigger than Oldfield, Camel, Tull, Renaissance, all the Canterbury guys, VdGG, Supertramp etc? are you kidding?

^ Interesting ... 'cause I love their vocal work on things like "On Reflection" and "His Last Voyage".

Edited by Dayvenkirq - December 01 2013 at 23:20

moshkito wrote: History, has shown the GG deserves a lot more respect and understanding than we are willing to give it, as a whole, not just as one group of folks, but all of us here.

That's it!

Typically GG do fit in as part of the big five(I'm going by other prog sites where I've read this). Typically the big five is:

YES
GENESIS
King Crimson
Gentle Giant
ELP

PF and JT are not universally recognized as prog or big five but I suppose you could toss either one in for a big six.

ELP's popularity in prog circles has decreased a lot in the past ten to fifteen years in prog circles. GG are far more respected than ELP these days. So that puts GG in a big five even big four(if there was such a thing). I'm going by my experience talking to hardcore fans and prog internet circles so yeah I know what I'm talking about. Ultimately it's an opinion but if you go by consensus then GG are a lock for a big five or big six position.

Edited by Prog_Traveller - December 01 2013 at 16:59

chopper wrote: Prog_Traveller wrote: If that is true then YES is a second division band because they weren't as big as Pink Floyd or Genesis. In what way were Yes not as big as Genesis? Genesis' albums only had higher chart placings from Duke onwards. If you're talking the "classic" prog period then I would argue that Yes were bigger.

YES were bigger as a prog band but Genesis were bigger as a pop band but over all more people know about Genesis than YES because of their commercial/pop success. In the seventies GG weren't too far behind Genesis. My point was GG were a second tier and not third tier prog band.