King Crimson - In The Court Of The Crimson King has been a very important album to my musical development. But I'll rate the album based on the music alone, without regard to its importance.

 

However, it was 21st Century Schizoid Man that was my gateway to this album, and I think it's unlikely that I would've got the album without it. The Court Of The Crimson King is a great track, but not essential to me (unlike 21st Century Schizoid Man, The Court Of The Crimson King would not have provided the need to get the album). Although I Talk To The Wind and Epitaph are the type of King Crimson music that normally would not appeal to me, these two tracks (especially Epitaph) are very good, nevertheless. I give Moonchild a rating of 2/10 because I only listen to a fifth of that track, skipping ahead after the song part has finished to the final track.

 

I acknowledge the importance of this album, both to me, and to the history of prog in general, but give a rating of 8/10 to the album as a whole.

 

Psychedelic Paul wrote: That's a 10/10 from me good buddy.  In the Court of the Crimson King is my favourite King Crimson album by a long way.

my favorite album is "Lizard", and that is a 10/10 for me. "Red" is a 9/10

Maybe you would prefer the version with Jakko singing. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xhMEtgd2pY" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xhMEtgd2pY

I used to like it, but as I heard other stuff, I lost interest. I still like Epitaph and the title track, but the rest does nothing for me. I'm afraid I'm not a KC fan.

Considering that it is way more than just an "album" of music, and in particular, it fits as an incredible snapshot of the time and place ... it means that the 10 is a must. 

Sadly, because folks do not "see" or "relate" to the events at the time, that helped bring about the music in the album ... specially things like "Epitaph" being about losing your friends to bombs or in Vietnam gives it an edge that is really hard to not relate to for many of us that were "there" at the time, and know the harshness that so many of these artistic events faced. But everyone seems to think that it was all just fun and games and pop music.

"I talk to the Wind" has a poetic meaning, that I believe is misunderstood and it stands for a lot of GREAT WORK in music at the time that was ignored, WITH or WITHOUT words ... no one seems to have heard anything, and no one gave a damn after it all ... the comments and the dislikes for the song, is sad ... it is a very honest expression, and deserves a lot better ... and of course ... it wasn't heard because the wind carried away the words from your ears!

8/10

for importance and impact - 10/10

deducted a couple of points for the weak production and also for the tedium that is Moonchild (life is way too short)

I have explained many times that "Moonchild" is anything but a tedium.

https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=97438&KW=Moonchild&PID=4954031#4954031" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=97438&KW=Moonchild&PID=4954031#4954031

since the link I gave to "Moonchild" no longer works in that post here a new link:

the explanation I gave is the reason why "Moonchild" is my favorite track from that album

As usual, I agree with my Welsh friend!

Enchant X wrote: I do have a problem with moonchild , for me it drags the album down to an 8

if ones listens to "Moonchild" with the right attitude one can't help but loving it. once again: the best track of the album! and I am absolutely serious about this

 

It's an interesting analysis, but it doesn't change how I feel about the track because it doesn't connect with me in the way it needs to connect with me, regardless of how clever it is.

 

 

Hi,

So, you're saying that Tchaikovsky has to change his music so it can connect with you, or Beethoven, or The Beatles, or JackWhoGivesaJunk .... because it "needs" to connect with you.

One thing about art history, for ALL MUSIC, PAINTING AND LITERATURE ... IT'S ABOUT YOU connecting to it, not the other way around ... you are making a point that people need to change so you can "connect" to them ... pretty soon you are going to hit the proverbial brick wall ... no artist is going to give a darn about you ... why? Can you imagine the Beatles have to give a darn about so many people ... who are you in the end? 

You are using the very words that commercial music likes ... so it can sell more and take your money ... 

And it isn't about being "clever" ... a lot of times when things like "Moonchild" are written, a lot of it is intuitive, and not exactly "pre-thought" ... and I agree with the ladies ... but I might not see exactly the same details that they did, but it's close, though I would not consider it a game.

I really don't think I prophesy disaster was making a claim that artists need to go out of their way to connect with their audience. It doesn't make you a bad person or listener for feeling like any piece of art, even a masterpiece, doesn't quite connect for you. If it did, then the world would be nothing but bad listeners who can't find it in themselves to like every work of art they encounter. 

Also, Prog is commercial music. If you can buy it, stream it, go see it live, get a t-shirt with the band's name on it, or anything of the sort, it's commercial.

No one is guaranteed to love any given work of art. If they were then life and music would be very boring indeed.

 

It was Sacro_Porgo's reply to you that led me to realise that my reply to BaldJean was open to misinterpretation. It's not clear to me whether or not you misinterpreted what I said, but no, I firmly believe that an artist should be free to produce whatever music they want. But if an artist is free to produce whatever music they want, then it is only natural that a listener should be free to accept or reject whatever music that artist has produced.

 

I'm not obligated to like Moonchild, or even to try to understand it. And I'm free to express my opinion about it on a forum such as this. But the point I was making in my reply to BaldJean was that if a piece of music doesn't resonate with me in a way that I enjoy, then understanding it at a purely intellectual level isn't going to make it enjoyable.

 

When it comes to experimentalism in music, I do not think that it itself makes music worthy. If a piece of music is experimental, then the experiment has to work musically beyond its own terms for it to succeed in appealing to me. In other words, while I do like weird music, there is a limit to how weird music can be for me to accept it.

 

 

Great response and I wouldn't worry about misinterpretation, I knew what you meant, Mosh just grabbed another opportunity to have a rant.

Hi,

This changes over time ... sometimes something that didn't click before, clicks later ... and it would be too easy to say that a more mature look would be different, but I think that there are a lot of things that go into that equation, many of which are hard to distinguish.

I prophesy disaster wrote: ... When it comes to experimentalism in music, I do not think that it itself makes music worthy. If a piece of music is experimental, then the experiment has to work musically beyond its own terms for it to succeed in appealing to me. In other words, while I do like weird music, there is a limit to how weird music can be for me to accept it.

Experimentation in music is something that is an acquired taste and it does not go well with folks that like to have things "in the right order" in their heads. I think, after a lot of work with actors and actresses, that "experimentation" is something that you can work on, until it breaks what I call the "last wall" of your senses ... so that when you are rehearsing, you can pick up the maximum attention possible, to give your ability to respond a much better focus and atmosphere.

This can be done in music, but there are too many folks that believe that it is all notes, and nothing else matters ... (it's why they listen for a "sound", right? ... BS ... ) and I have had the chance to do this with a couple of musicians and it works, but the ones that lean on knowing which chord you are playing, usually fall out of the equation really fast ... what matters is your "listening" and how fast your response is, to the music in the air ... not your idea, or the easiest chord you can play.

In listening to AD2, for example, try "Yeti" (the title cut) and then the "MM thing" on Dance of the Lemmings. You could say the guitar dominates "Yeti" but almost no other instrument is "there" to create a song, or a thread to go by, which suggests that John W probably said ... I'll just do this and continue, and you guys try to fit in as you can ... and it goes all over the place, and this, in theater, is called a "controlled improvisation" in that you are depending on someone to give you some space, but you don't know what that is, and will not see it, until AFTER ... the whole thing, IF YOU RECORDED IT. I recommend doing these at first without recording, so you only worry about listening, and not how you sound or don't sound, and then, after you feel more comfortable, try to record it once ... but you must look at it apart from it ... meaning a few days later, so you allow the playing feeling to grow inside, and then next week (so to speak) you finally listen to it and are more capable of comparing what you DID, to what you THOUGHT ... two very different things, that help your ability to work with someone else on stage, music or theater!

When you hear the MM thing" in DotL, you will find really quick that no one is trying to create a riff, or a piece of song at all, and specially listening to Lothar Meid, who seems to be the one "leading" the whole thing, but his bass playing is all over, and never breaks into something that would make ... a part of a song ... it comes and goes, and sometimes it thinks Michelangelo ... so to speak.

Improvisation is hard for most listeners ... because what is in front of you is NOT ORGANIZED ... and IT SHOULD NOT EVER BE ... so it can grow on its own two feet. Too much of the stuff you hear nowadays, is riff related, or solo related or simply sound related, and has nothing to do with improvisation as a natural process in music making ... and I don't even enjoy listening to these things ... and the difference, for example, check out some of the early jazz stuff by Jan Garbarek, and then go listen to Miles live somewhere ... the folks playing with Miles had no idea where he was going ... but none of them ever complained and they knew that the trick was to listen to him, and adjust the flow of what he was doing ... not a riff like something, or a splash on the drums, or something that would be "asking" to return to a normal "SONG" like process, which is way easier to do ... and you don't have to listen ... you just count! To me, this defines a "drummer" from the majority of nothing hitters.

You got to remember that RF is well aware of a lot of these things I am saying, based on his Gurdjieff studies and readings ... and his detail on rehearsal, includes a lot of these things, and it is something that is really hard to describe and even discuss, because it is a "feeling" thing, and not a "word" thing, and this is where folks get lost and (probably) 90 out of 100 musicians fall out ... and my saying this has had a couple of comments from Berklee folks, that think all music is just a mechanical exercise, and they are afraid to even consider "improvisation", unless it is based on a chord or riff, something much easier to teach .. you can go here and there in this moment since it is a related chord and so on ... and sometimes, this tends to intimidate your ability to completely free form, without being tied up to a "process" that you will have to unlearn later.

sorry about the long bit

Moonchild and...surely you don't mean I Talk To The Wind? But Then what else could you be referring to...?

That's certainly interesting. If it doesn't connect with you though, then it doesn't connect you, no matter how hard or interesting it is. As a musician, if you can't bring yourself to play Moonchild and improvise with the other musicians in your group during the improv section (and have it work), then sure you have room to improve as a musician. However as a listener, if you can't bring yourself to enjoy the sound of musicians improvising without any idea where the song is going or what the chord is or where the beat is, you're not deficient. You just don't like the taste of that kind of experimental passage.

Hi,

And that, specifically your example, specifies that you are not into "MUSIC" ... you are into your idea of what "MUSIC" is supposed to be.

Over 50 years of seeing concerts, I would say that a lot of listeners are VERY DEFICIENT when they come to see YES, and all they want is CTTE and ROUNDABOUT ... or see another band and only want THIS or THAT ... which tells you that they are into something that relates to their personal lives, and NOT INTO THE MUSIC OF THE BAND at all. Specially when you consider 2 or 3 pieces as merely 1, 2 or 3% of their total cannon and output ... you are stating right there that you are not into the band's music at all!

As an example, you can hear and see in the material by MAGMA how this equation that you mention falls apart ... it does not tell you anything, and you pretty much have to close your eyes and allow your imagination to fly ... but rock audiences can't do that ... 

And worse ... we're supposed to be a bunch of folks about PROGRESSIVE MUSIC and we talk about it as some regressive piece of crap that belongs in the top ten every day ... not in "progressive music"!

After 50+ years of this, I really would like to state that too many people need some seasoning and some waking up ... you don't realize until 30 or 40 years later how much the whole thing meant to you personally, and on top of it, many folks are already dismissing it! And the fact/idea that you are cutting down your INNER experience by only listening to a few things that "you can relate to as a fan!", will not really help you learn something really precious and valuable about the human instinct and art!

Okay, I'm gonna try to make some sense of this, but really I think you need to chill out and quit criticizing other people for not liking what you like.

1. I AM into music. Very much so. The fact that you've got me defending that is laughable, but it's the truth. I play half a dozen instruments in multiple genres, sing, collect records, and most importantly I listen closely when I listen to music. I have listened to Magma actually, and I have appreciated it, although it's not my favorite music. It kind of blew my mind, but I don't always want my mind blown when I'm listening to music. Like I don't always want a gourmet meal for dinner. Sometimes I just want some macaroni and cheese, comfort food that makes the soul feel happy. Sometimes I just want to listen to Green Day and forget the world.

2. If hardcore Yes fans go to see them in concert and walk away a bit disappointed they didn't get to hear their favorite Yes song, that's not deficient, that's just the nature of being a fan. How would you feel if you saw King Crimson live and they didn't improvise one bit and played only their most popular songs exactly how they are on the record? I'm guessing you'd be very understandably disappointed, as KC are known for their unpredictable live shows iirc. It's really no different than a Yes fan who's been in love with the band since middle school who would love nothing more than to hear I've Seen All Good People live. The only deficient listener is the one who doesn't actually listen to music, who doesn't have any connection with the art or appreciation for it.

3. Perhaps listening and relistening to songs you don't enjoy on the off chance one day you'll "get it" and love them isn't a terrible idea, but at the end of the day you can't knock people down for trying to listen to something you love (in this case Moonchild), deciding after close listening and even some research that they don't enjoy it, and choosing to invest their listening time trying other new things and exploring other avenues they might or might not enjoy. Time is limited, and no one's going to spend much of their time listening to music they don't like, life's too short.

By the way, I don't dislike Moonchild. I'm pretty ambivalent about the lengthy improv and I think they did better improv on later albums, but I do like the whole song better than The Devil's Triangle. Does that make me a deficient King Crimson listener?

Voted 10/10.

In my ranking is 9,75/10

 

I believe I am older than you think I am. I've been listening to In The Court Of The Crimson King since the mid-to-late 70s, including the whole of Moonchild. So I'm actually quite familiar with the post-song part of Moonchild. It's only in more recent times with digital technology that I choose to skip the post-song part of Moonchild. I don't think it is all bad, some parts are enjoyable, but at nearly 10 minutes, there isn't enough enjoyment to stop me from skipping forward at the end of the song part.

 

 

 

And sometimes, I just listen to 21st Century Schizoid Man.