Stripping a myth - the truth about ITCOTCK

No that was not what was said.  I repeat the question was about whether in terms of classification it is pop or prog.  It is a simple enough question but now you are demonstrating the holy cow syndrome I mentioned earlier, getting worked up about any attempt to question the consensus on ITCOTCK without understanding the question.  

As to your next question, why of course Yes have.  Either Relayer or TFTO would comfortably qualify and while I have some doubts about the title track of CTTE it is certainly a much better fit for this purpose than I Talk To The Wind.  And your last statement doesn't make sense.  Why of course their music would be influenced by contemporary or historic musical styles...er, what music wouldn't.  What does that have to do with whether it's prog or not?   It would appear that ELP and Genesis have always included one or two pop tracks in their albums but then I never stated that they did make 100% prog albums.  Ok, what did I just shake the banyan tree or something?  

There are loads of prog rock bands that have made albums that were prog from start to finish without pop tracks.   Why credit ITCOTCK with something that it doesn't achieve? Where have I or BJ questioned the influence of ITCOTCK on the genre?  All that has been said is it is not a full fledged prog album either (an argument that is often made to deny that Days of Future Passed or Saucerful of Secrets are prog albums).  It could very well have still been (and was) influential on prog.  

My dear sir, the word flirt itself has more than one connotation (as in "flirting with danger") so perhaps you could have made the effort to state precisely what you meant instead of expecting people to read your mind.  Or was it a conveniently chosen word that allowed you an escape route in case I should bring this up?   

And you may not recall, but in most of the previous discussions on "which was the first prog album", the precise argument made in favour of ITCOTCK making the case is that it was the first album length prog.  That is to say, that other, preceding albums did not concern themselves fully with prog.  I think this is the very point that BJ is trying to question.  Whether or not you agree, it is certainly a valid question.  Tarkus for instance has a side long epic and pop tidbits for the rest.  It is indeed regarded prog in spite of this so therefore how would Saucerful of Secrets not qualify as one of the first prog albums.  Nearly half of the running length of that album IS prog - Set Controls plus the title track.  The disclaimers and caveats and what not used to ensure ITCOTCK remains on the first prog album pedestal are, when looked at carefully, pretty artificial.  It is the most influential of the early prog albums.  I don't know whether or not BJ agrees with it, but I certainly do believe that and have never questioned that.  But it doesn't have to be the very first prog album to have exerted said influence.

Anyway, your last para makes it pretty clear there is no point in discussing this subject further with you.  You have approached the topic with misgivings to begin with and thereafter your responses are bound to be much more antagonising than they have any need to be.  You have no right to ask me to get real as if I just heard prog for the first time yesterday, mind it!  

 I commented on Jean's other post but I'd just like to say that I feel the whole album is absolute "prog rock" gold. Moonchild, Epitaph, I talk to the Wind - the whole shbang. While a few of the tracks took a little to warm up to when we first met, it definitely all sunk in, much like a good deal of the Crimbeast's other work. These 'what is/what isn't prog' debates baffle me.

 On the point of categorization, sure, it helps us communicate, but all the different little subconscious associations we carry around with us in this day and age do more harm than good when it comes down to how we approach art specifically, as both onlookers and participants I feel. In other words, artistic categories encourage premature decisions or flat out close-mindedness.

 I'm fine with a very general label (it's how I found this site after all), and I'm very appreciative of the work that's gone into the site to further help us navigate the sounds we may be interested in, but to sit here and debate whether one song or another is "truly a prog tune" is just absolute silliness in my opinion. 

because the other 75% is amazing?

What I think is that its a very important album. It was a 'coming out' album. . Its a grand statement. Its a bunch of young incredibly talented guys doing something with style and panache.

Of course they didn't invent 'prog' so perhaps this is the crux of the issue. What they did was pull together a lot of ideas and present them in the most coherent way possible . They defined it rather than inventing it.

I do however think it's interesting to hear from people, who've experienced how the album was received at the time of it's release. How it manifested itself in the rock community. If everything - or just half of what is said about itchycock is true, then I think it warrants half an extra handshake.