Talk:King Crimson/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Could we get a source for the assertion that Fripp thought Crimson was essentially about playing live? I believe there's a quote that says so in Melody Maker, as quoted in the Young Guide to KC's booklet. I think this was correct only at some point in the band's history, probably between Earthbound and USA. The math rock turn, plus some of Fripp's side productions, imply quite the opposite, such as the vocal cleanup between the "God Save the King" vinyl and CD editions, or the "The First Day" and "No Pussyfooting" productions, which were both recorded as album and as live albums ("Damage" and pirate versions, respectively). Sorry, these are first-thoughts notes, I guess my grammar+syntax deeply suck. François/phnk

• Fripp has discussed KC as a primary live band at least as recently as in VROOOM VROOOM live compilation's liner notes, which was released in 2001 and documents the live band 1995-1996. And the band is also constantly releasing new live albums and especially digital downloads, from all it's eras. I'll dig up a more precise quote/resource when I get the time. This was a good question! Fripp has stated repeatedly that he dislikes touring, and that touring with KC especially is a huge pain for him. However I think he sees live KC music as more valuable than studio KC music. evktalo 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these additional elements. I would argue that the points you just brought in justify that the KC article should reflect some ambiguity about the 'live' nature of the band. I am not sure this is clearly sorted out in Fripp's vision of KC, and I actually think this paradoxical ambivalence about live performance is a significant way to look at the KC alchemy. François/phnk

Hmmm, a bit debatable whether KC is in fact a "British" band now. Three quarters of the line-up are American.

• True, though its founder and primary member Robert Fripp is British; the constantly rotating membership makes it tricky to categorize the band in such a way. A category (assuming that's what you're referring to) is just a collection of things that are loosely associated in some way, so I'd say it's more appropriate than inappropriate. -- Wapcaplet 22:55, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • H'mmmm. Perhaps it would do to call them a "nominally British" band?

Founded in Britain, by Britons, the definitive early albums(up until Red?)featuring exclusively British musicians...I dont see a problem. Although in theory I think the idea of sticking a flag in a band should be beneath me I can't accept the group being called anything but British while Fripp is still in charge! Samgb 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • While the group was British in 69-74, from there onwards it has been (increasingly) Anglo-American; also the music has changed from English progressive rock of the (early) 1970s. Perhaps just "a musical group"? evktalo 22:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually quite fond of the phrase "...leaving King Crimson in the unenviable position of being a rock band without a singer, bassist, or drummer." [1] I can see that there might be objection on the grounds of neutrality, but I think it's probably obvious to most readers that a rock band without a singer, bassist, or drummer isn't much of a rock band, and the phrase is more colorful than its replacement "as". Perhaps there's a better way to phrase this? -- Wapcaplet 03:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I agree. Let's keep it. Just because it is objective doesn't mean it has to be purposefully dry. Freeflux

Is the wording really close enough to Crimson King to include a link at the top of the article? Should we do this in all two-word articles where there is another article that reverses them? This linking policy seems a little overexuberant right now. Also, what, if any, is the relationship between the band's name and the King character? Does anyone know?Alfoor 05:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect little connection, as the band had been releasing records for 13 years before this character was created, however I suppose the character's name might have come from the band.

Tev

00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The article says the band was founded in 1968, however, according to several sources, including DGM and notes from A Young Person's Guide to King Crimson, the band officially started on January 13, 1969. MusicBrainz also listed an incorrect 1968 date, but during that time period, the members of the future KC were in Giles, Giles & Fripp. The notes from AYPGtKC mention that the group formed "in outline" on November 15, 1968, but I think that the "official" formation date should be what is referenced by outside sources such as Wikipedia or Musicbrainz or whatever. -- Megaslow 05:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think king crimson does fall under the math rock catagory, so I am challenging the deletion of that classification. Freeflux Sept 2006

I made a new page for the

The article states "The name King Crimson was coined by Peter Sinfield as a synonym for Beelzebub" but what possible connection is there between the two? --Blainster 23:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

...I had edited the false etymology already (January 2006), but they undid it.

There are no verifiable sources for this, yet the link between Beelzebub and King Crimson (the Crimson King) could be death. The person who first wrote the paragraph just assumed this connection. There is no synonymy at all, but Sinfield may have considered Crimson King as a synonym. So the sentence is not 100% incorrect. --Quinceps 15:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I should think it very obvious that the name King Crimson derives from the song "In the Court of the Crimson King" and that the "crimson king" of the song is the devil: He's red ("crimson") and he presides over (is "king" of) hell (his "court"). The song is saying that earth (here, where we are now) is hell. TheScotch (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be great to write a section on the influence that king crimson has had on music. Especially considering the fact that their debut is widely considered to be one of the greatest progressive rock albums of all time. I tried to write this, but I was having trouble finding sources. Someone ought to take a stab at it. Someone more qualified then me. Freeflux 01:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

--- "influenced by heavy metal". I take great exception to this statement. While it is certainly truth that King Crimson often will play the hardest of rock, (for example, "21 Century Schizod Man"), heavy metal traditionally is a much simpler form of rock than anything that King Crimson ever produced. I would stay that they are much more influenced by the likes of Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix and the improvs of Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead than any metal band. To be truth, they seemed to have more jazz influence than rock and my knowledge of jazz is limited. But to say they where/are influenced by heavy metal is in my humble opinion, to almost say they have electrolytes. Or to use another example, it would like calling Led Zeppelin's work heavy metal. I would not recommended doing that to Jimmy Page in person.

BTW, I love Wikipedia - keep the Great Work! Vanamoon (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the term heavy metal (in respect to pop music) hadn't been invented yet when The Court of the Crimson King was released, which would make it impossible for "Twenty-first-Century Schizoid Man" to have been influenced by it. I'm strongly opposed to using the term heavy metal retroactively. TheScotch (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Just a quick query. Why does the 1969 lineup on this page not include Ian McDonald? Or Peter Sinfield for that matter. Surely they were key members of the band, especially McDonald, sharing credits for every song off Court. There should be an extra category of lyricist and reeds/wind/mellotron. The vocals section can be simply written Lake/McDonald for 1969. Possibly horns and piano should be included too, to cover the other incarnations.

Can any of you guys find a way to add a quote about 1-2-3 (later Clouds) to the influences section? The band was a definite strong influence on Crimson/Fripp, but finding a tasteful way of inserting it is the problem. Thanks for any help you can give on that. "Matthew.hartington 14:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)"

GA, then featured status. It could and should be done. Many more citations are needed, but I think that this article could be brought up to a very high standard quite rapidly.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I adore this band entirely too much to not want their article to be Featured. I probably won't be able to dive in until this weekend, but I'd certainly like to offer my services. - C. M. Reed

I actually think that this article may contain original research, and may actually not be NPOV, specifically in the sections below the history.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'music' section in particular may well contain original research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've improved the 1960s part of the history by adding citations. I hope to do more of this later, then once the article is fully cited, put it up for GA, then peer review, and just generally go about the path to a featured article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that since I was gone from Wikipedia for about a week, edits have been made to this article, many of them in good faith but not compliant with

WP:MOS. For example, listing bands that King Crimson influenced in the lead section is inappropriate. I hope to continue the citing of sources that I was doing last week.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h}

09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, OK, I've improved a large part of the 1970s section. Just need to continue citing the history of the band. If anyone here can offer help or advice as to whether my improvements are good or not, or whether I'm using

WP:RS, please do because I made improvements to the band Family (band) and didn't get GA and that has just been ignored.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h}

12:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I also have strong concerns about how useful the images are, except the one at the top of the page with the four band members during the 1980s which is good. Would anyone like to offer me advice here-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And I don't like the unencyclopedic tone of some of the passages here, which is making it harder to reference. Still, kudos to whomever had written it in the first place.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think I should add more material about the musical styles throughout the history of the band, without going into excessive detail, just to make the whole thing more interesting.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. The 1990s and 2000s sections are harder to reference, more ugly and bloated, and just generally... bad. I know less about KC from the 1990s onwards, too, and it's my least favourite period of King Crimson.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've recently added a lot of content to the History section and will be returning to add tweaks now and again. I hope that what I've done has been an improvement. However, in the attempt to make the article more interesting I may have occasionally slipped over into what might appear to be OR (although I've based a lot of the additions on material from Sid Smith's In The Court Of King Crimson biography). Among other things, I've tried to emphasize the band's shifting nature and sound, the often fraught musical and personal relationships within it, and its tendency to quickly embrace and be influenced by contemporary music technology. I've also added some material on the band's spiritual component (although only in that certain subjective beliefs and experiences of several members, most notably Fripp and Muir, have influenced how the band works). I've also established a rule-of-thumb seven lineups of the band (drawing mainly on Pete Frame's Rock Family Trees, although I've not found an online reference for this). Looking forward to reading future edits. - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

PS - apologies for multiple typos, and thanks to those who have corrected them. - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The CD remastered King Crimson album catalogue has a lot of interesting articles from music magazines from when the albums were released reprinted in the album booklet. Anyone got an opinion on using these as a source? I do have the CDs to do that...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to quit Wikipedia at the moment, but it's no use. I've put myself up for editor review (

WP:ER). Anyway, if anyone's here to read this, please offer me advice on improving this article to the FA status it deserves eventually. If Pink Floyd and Genesis (band) can become FA than so can King Crimson. I just need help with this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h}

16:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with citing those if the magazines themselves are reliable sources. –Pomte 06:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've started citing these from the Red (album) and Discipline (album) booklets.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Still got a fair number of citation needed tags for the problematic bits that I will either find a reference for in time, or delete.

I removed this image as it seemed kind of out of place:

File:King Crimson in Concert.jpg

This ticket for the concert in Russia also seemed kind of useless:

File:Kc-ticket.jpg

It's kind of applying the

Can anyone help me here? At the moment, this section is the biggest obstacle this article has to GA.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Pomte. If you'd like to discuss what you feel the obstacles to GA are at the moment here right now...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm currently comparing this to the Genesis (band) article. If that's featured, there's very little we have to do here for mere GA. I'm going to nominate the article today and if it does fail, I will address all the relevant points this time.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently the template at the bottom of every page is quite large and can detract from the article. Here's one way to make it more compact. I haven't changed any links, just the structure of the table.

–Pomte 13:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I like that one much better! I've cited pretty much everything in the article now. Good work.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to replace the old template and if anyone disagrees, the old one is still there in the edit history.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is "good" as it stands, but it could also be expanded and given more thorough details. There are lots of interesting tidbits in the references that could be used to flesh out the text. For a featured article, more pictures, sound samples of KC music, a new section or two, a thorough copyedit and use of the dreaded cite web template that I despise would be a good idea, then there's probably a strong chance that we could make it to FA.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I can handle converting all the citations to use templates. Do you mind how I format them vertically? I think it makes the rest of the text easier to identify and read. Of course, there's no need for the templates at all if you want to format them manually. –Pomte 20:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you do it? I just hate using the cite web template.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The article as a whole is very good, but there are a few issues. The intro is only two paragraphs, but this is a long article (41kb), so it really ought to have three. Using citeweb would also be good idea, or at least some consistent formatting style. The 80s, 90s, and 00s sections are all very short, you would either need to expand them or find a way to group them for FA. The genre list in the infobox is a bit abrupt ("and others"), either remove that or find consensus to add more genres. I'm not that familiar with the band, so I don't know which way would work best. Altogether, though, this article could easily reach FA with a few improvements. Good luck! ErleGrey (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:KC newspaper.jpg A page from Melody Maker announcing Mike Giles and Ian McDonald leaving the group

Not necessary.

--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about some of these. I worked hard to get this to GA status, and although there have been improvements, there have also been negative things, in my opinion. Whilst I do not

I've also added it to my watchlist so that it doesn't slip back to a state I don't like. Remember, I'm looking to get this to featured article status, and work may be needed but it's not a great deal. I prefer the article long rather than trimmed of excess content - makes it more interesting for readers. Please discuss any changes here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Leave your name here if you're interested.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of these references have the wrong end of the stick. Right articles, wrong books; right books, wrong articles. People adding 2 and 2 and getting 22. Messy guesses instead of proper research. Vanman404 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

this article needs some pictures pretty desperatley, the sheer blocks of text aren't very aesthetically pleasing, not to mention forbidding. The article just looks dull and uninteresting. Gmip 05:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it- this band hardly deserves all the accolades and "rock-history" this article dumps on King Crimson. Future generations are impressionable about what is considered important, and let me say, this band was not. This article borders on propaganda and was probably written by someone with Owner-interest in the band.

"Shake my left hand man, it's closer to my heart" - Jimi Hendrix to Robert Fripp after seeing an early King Crimson performance.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h}

23:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not have to like them but many of us do and appreciate this band of very, very craft musician that have take music to place that it has never been before. Yes, I am a fan, as in fanatic.Vanamoon (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ---

Re: "Future generations are impressionable about what is considered important, and let me say, this band was not.":

The implication seems to be that King Crimson's putative notability is a matter of historical revisionism. The author of the above remark does not provide any evidence for this assertion, but seems to suggest that his own personal experience supports it. I may then be allowed the liberty of noting that my own personal experience contradicts it. I recall clearly that the songs "In the Court of the Crimson King" and "Epitaph" were played frequently on the FM radio stations KSHE and KADI in St. Louis for a period of years in the early seventies (they may have been played before and after as well--I don't know; I wasn't listening then). I recall clearly that my friends C. and R. were effusively enthusiastic in 1973 about the album Larks Tongues in Aspic, and I recall that I was very favorably impressed with the group when I saw it in concert in 1973. I found its musicianship impeccable, and I noted that it played at a comfortable volume (rare in rock for the time) and that its guitarist Robert Fripp, flouting convention, played sitting down. It seemed to me that the group was very dedicated to and serious about music, willing to embrace subtlety and nuance and not very much interested in flash or posturing. I never heard any recorded guitar solo approaching the daring of Fripp's in "Twenty-first Century Schizoid Man" until Andy Summers of the Police recorded "Driven to Tears" more than a decade later, and I don't find the Summers's solo nearly as inventive, startling, or satisfying as the much earlier Fripp solo. TheScotch (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the only part of the article that currently worries me. It's not well cited or wikified. Thoughts on it? Should we trim it down? It's a danger to the article's GA status as a whole.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's this part in particular that concerns me: What differentiates King Crimson's approach from most other jazz and rock groups is that Crimson's improvisation avoids the notion of one soloist at a time taking centre stage while the rest of the band lays back and plays along with established rhythm and chord changes. Rather, King Crimson improvisation is a group affair, a kind of organic music-making process in which each member of the band is able to make creative decisions and contributions as the music is being played. Individual soloing is largely eschewed; each musician is to listen to each other and to the group sound, to be able to react creatively within the group dynamic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There should be material in both the Eric Tamm and Sid Smith books to either support elements of this paragraph or replace them. - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of King Crimson's influences should be separated from the discussion of the bands King Crimson influenced. These are two separate topics and should not be combined in one section. ---

I split it up into two sections. Klausness (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We should either choose one or the other, and in the featured article candidacy page it was stated that the article uses both in places. Personally I feel British English would probably be more appropriate given the group's origins, but there are complexities due to the unusual Anglo-American shift that it has gone through. Thoughts?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

McCulloch is misspelled in the King Crimson timeline. i am unable to correct it.

• I fixed it (in Template:King Crimson timeline) Klausness (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "2008REH" :
  • {{Cite web|url=http://www.dgmlive.com/news.htm?position=100&|title=Robert Fripp's Diary|accessdate=2008-01-04|publisher=DGMLive (dgmlive.com)}}
  • {{Cite web|url=http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?artist=&show=&member=3&entry=9991|title=Robert Fripp's Diary|accessdate=2008-04-15|publisher=DGMLive (dgmlive.com)}}

The

pronounced "Project Ten" (...) The X stands for

roman numeral

10, being in spirit "1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10", the sum of the previous ProjeKcts.

It's been recently changed[2] to:

pronounced "Project Ex" (...) The X stands for X, not for the Roman numeral ten.

Both claims are unsourced, so where's the truth? For a start, is there an audio interview of Fripp actually pronouncing the name? (If he says "Ex" that kills the numeric meaning; if he says "Ten" a second source would still be better to support the 1+2+3+4.) I've removed the claims from the page and asked for sources on Talk:ProjeKct X . 213.91.48.13 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The word "eschew" (avoid using; abstain from) is misused referring to the bad review by Keith Moon. I haven't read the review. Would "panned" be too strong? sbump (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I realy feel that the introduction should reflect a little more after the part about "not having a band leader". I mean, obviously, someone kept the band together, and unless it was some kind of band working only by consensus, Fripp would be regarded as the glue that kept the band continuing. Something like with

I believe the following statement in this article to be false: "the band released a new album, Islands, which is noted for its heavy Mellotron sound." I'll have to listen to Islands again to be absolutely certain, but I don't believe there is any Mellotron playing on this album. 66.18.238.120 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

After having listened to Islands, I can report that the only instances of Mellotron to be heard are about 3 minutes worth during the song "Sailor's Tale" and a very minor passage during "Ladies of the Road". It can hardly be said that this makes the album have a "heavy Mellotron sound". The purported source for this information, the All Music bio of the band, seems to me only to mention KC's use of the Mellotron within the same paragraph that describes the album "Islands". I'm therefore going to remove the problematic statement in this article. 66.18.238.120 (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed in the "Related bands" section of the navbox, there is Liquid Tension Experiment. I'm not really sure why this band is related, since I don't think sharing a member really counts. Porcupine Tree is debatable, but there seems to be some real influence, in addition to the member sharing. So can we remove LTE? I have one suggestion for inclusion: Bruford Levin Upper Extremities. It shares two members with Crimson, and has a similarity of sound. Opinions? -Freekee (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with including BLUE, but think that LTE should also be retained. Crimson is linked to a remarkable number of other musical projects for one reason or another, and I think that this fact should be honoured. - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

matte fly, disney sky. twang, tang, boomerang gypsy guy. exiles. poseidon. chorus *) fallen angel. peace. it's supposed to be dragonflies. panoramic75.249.226.28 (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? - Dann Chinn (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this sound like speculation?

"Today, King Crimson's early music seems to owe a lot to the compositional frameworks of jazz innovators like Charles Mingus and John McLaughlin), fused with British pop and classical music."

I see no source for this, and the word "seems to owe" seems rather speculative and ambiguous. Opinions on this? Lord Mandos (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

On Sept. 6th, I made a change to the "Influence on other bands" section of this article, noting the inclusion of a cover of King Crimson's 'Larks Tongues In Aspic, Pt. 2' on the special edition of Dream Theater's newest release, Black Clouds & Silver Linings. May I ask why this change was reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.176.16 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with some of the conclusions in the GA discussion above, some fair points are made and I am starting to modify and compress the article as part of a tidy-up (without stripping out too much content).

I've also noticed that the length of the article is starting to prompt automatic notes suggesting that parts of it are split off. Given that King Crimson has a particularly convoluted and interesting history/set of connections for a rock group (in academic terms, at least) does anyone have any thoughts as to which topics can be split off into other articles without undermining the existing one?

Also, I'm considering drastically shrinking the content of the "interim" sections of the biography by moving the material over to the entries on the individual musicians, if this can be done without undermining the impact that developments within and during those interim periods had on the main band. Any thoughts on this? - Dann Chinn (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On the album/lineup chart should we add a stick section to separate it from the other bassists who didn't use it. for example

     THRAK            

Bass Levin

Stick 1: Levin

Stick 2: Gunn

Warr Gtr: Gunn

     Red

Bass: Wetton

Stick 1:

Stick 2:

Warr Gtr: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.106.172 (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:King Crimson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

Last edited at 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A few proposals concerning the ProjeKcts:

This entire entry is long and difficult to follow. Contributing to that difficulty is that the largest portion of the body is a chronological discussion of each formation. However, ALL ProjeKcts are lumped into the portion of the timeline that included ProjeKcts 1-X.

I propose that we break ProjeKcts 6 and 7 (a.k.a. Jakszyk, Fripp and Collins) out, and place them where they fall chronologically.

Additionally, there IS a ProjeKcts wikipedia entry. Perhaps we can greatly abridge the details of each ProjeKct in this article, and flesh them out a little more fully at the actual ProjecKts article.

Thoughts?

I will probably do this in the next few days if nobody objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZildjianLudwig (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The ProjeKcts page is the right place for all those details, and the corresponding section here should be abridged.--Gorpik (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I happened to glance at the King Crimson entry today and saw the list of "Associated Acts". It occurred to me that perhaps Genesis should be on the list because Bill Bruford toured with them for months sometime around 1976 after Phil Collins became Genesis' lead singer.

I am not sure but, I think I remember reading somewhere that Bruford may have discussed with the group the idea of becoming a permanent member of Genesis. Just a vague memory... that's all.

Vansloot (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the other bands listed, Genesis certainly would make the cut. However, I think it may be worth re-evaluating what constitutes an "associated act." Crimson members have played with hundreds of bands. If we listed everyone that they'd played with, it wouldn't be particularly useful to anyone reading this article.

Surely "21st Century Schizoid Band" and "Crimson Jazz Trio" constitute "associated acts." "Giles, Giles and Fripp" make sense as well.

But do Porcupine Tree, Liquid Tension, Foreigner and others really constitute an "associated act?" Does listing these acts help someone learn more about Crimson? I doubt if Genesis, Liquid Tension, Porcupine Tree or Foreigner would list KC as an "associated act." And they probably shouldn't.

Wikipedia users will naturally find these relationships by clicking on band members. I don't think it's practical to list them all here, and the existing list should probably be pruned.

Thoughts? ZildjianLudwig (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Genesis and Yes should be on the list because they are significant bands which members of King Crimson played more than a special guest appearance. I think we should cut out side projects formed by the members, as those aren't necessarily associated with King Crimson, but rather with that individual member of King Crimson. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Foreigner meets your criteria: it is a "significant band", and Ian McDonald was a proper-member of both bands. Somehow it still feels like a stretch to call these two bands "related." I think your definition is a good start but needs refining. Thoughts on how Foreigner plays in? Perhaps add the criteria that they must be the same (or similar) genre? ZildjianLudwig (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Only one member of King Crimson played in Foreigner, Genesis, and Yes, therefore those bands do not qualify for the associated acts section under Wikipedia guidelines. Burbridge92 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Al all those bands you mention, I think Porcupine Tree (PT) is the most suitable as an associate act, because interaction between both bands has been frequent in recent years. Some examples: Gavin Harrison, of PT, played in the last KC tour; Steven Wilson of PT did the remasters for the most recent reedition of classic KC records; Robert Fripp guest played in two PT records; Theo Travis, a PT collaborator, toured three years ago with Fripp; the Tony Levin Trio (including also Pat Mastelotto) supported PT in their most recent tour, so 3/5 of KC were taking part in that tour... I am sure I am missing more collaborations between members of both bands.--Gorpik (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts. That will tell you what qualifies for the "associated groups" section. I think Porcupine Tree is definitely the best example by the criteria. Burbridge92 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Genesis SHOULD be included. As well as Bruford playing for them in '76, Steve Hackett was influenced by KC as he saw their debut at The Speakeasy in April '69. When he joined Genesis, he strongly suggested that Tony Banks buy a Mellotron. Banks did, buying a Mk.II from King Crimson, the latter saying that it was the same instrument that was used on the "In The Court..." album - it wasn't! Also, Crimson and Genesis could (in the early 1970's) both be classified as "Progressive". Taff Hewitt (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

King Crimson is currently on hiatus, with no knowledge about when (and maybe even if) they will return. Wikipedia's infobox guidelines clearly state that "If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here (former members), and none in the "current_members" field." To fulfil this criteria the members should be removed from the members section, and the title of the section with the most recent lineup should be changed to something like "Most recent lineup" as opposed to "Current lineup". Doing this would not be a bad idea, as if when the band returns the lineup is the same as it was before, the same lineup could be placed quite easily back into the infobox, and if the lineup is different, then the members in the "Most recent lineup" section who are no longer a part of the band can easily be moved to the "former members" section, and the lineup could be updated for insertion into the infobox. Does anyone have any objections within Wikipedia's guidelines as to why we shouldn't remove the members listed as being currently in the band now? Burbridge92 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If the band is no longer active, and there are no indications for a future reunion, the lead should say that they "were" a rock band, not that they "are" a rock band. If they "are" a rock band, then they should have current members. 81.83.138.192 (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no indications to suggest either way with regards to King Crimson. They are on hiatus, they could come back, they might not. So until we have reason to believe that the hiatus has turned into a break up the term "are" is appropriate. However, there are still no current members due to the fact that a) they are inactive and b) if they reform their may be a completely different lineup to the one that went on hiatus, so labelling any members as "current" (other than Robert Fripp who is the one constant member) would be pure speculation on our behalf. In any case, the Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that an inactive band (regardless of reasons for inactivity, be in permanent breakup or otherwise) should have no members listed as current. Burbridge92 (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article reference their influence on popular culture, especially how their music earned a parody in the mockumentary Spinal Tap? I mean, who can listen to "Court of the Crimson King" without picturing Spinal Tap's Stonehenge and those little druid munchkins dancing around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.101.100 (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Spinal Tap parodied the over-the-top ambition of genres of music, not one specific band. This article doesn't need any more tenuously-relevant content. It's got enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.36.208 (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Unless we could find a reliable source where the filmmakers stated that they were specifically thinking of KC for that scene, this is just argumentative and not encyclopedic.--Gorpik (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit trolling, obviously. As regards Spinal Tap, I believe that the main reference point was Saxon (with whom several of Tap's creators toured for research) and that the pod scene was based on a set malfunction on Yes' Tales from Topographic Oceans tour. As for the Stonehenge sequence, that's based on a Black Sabbath tour in which the band's set was too big for the venues and in which they employed a dwarf performer to caper around throwing stuff at the audience and then jump off a trilithon. I'm sure that all of this stuff is online somewhere, but as it's not got anything to do with King Crimson I can't be bothered to look it up right now. - Dann Chinn (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed Earthbound wasn't in there so I put it in. If there is a reason it's not there feel free to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.100.71 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit and for posting a message about it. I removed your edit because the album can be found in the King Crimson discography and since it's not a studio album it's not mentioned in the main article. Quibus (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi WP (team?),

Unless Discipline Global Mobile (DGM) has granted permission to link to specific pages, Wikipedia is violating the Terms of Service of DGM Live!:

"

1.2. Copyright.

The Site Content and Site Code are owned by DGM and/or the associated music publishers and are protected by applicable domestic and international copyright laws. Copyright © 1983-2012 DGM. All Rights Reserved. Unless expressly permitted elsewhere in the Site by DGM, you shall not copy, distribute, publish, perform, modify, download, transmit, transfer, sell, license, reproduce, create derivative works from or based upon, distribute, post, publicly display, frame, link, or in any other way exploit any of the Site Content or Code, in whole or in part.

Links to the Site, other than to the Home Page, are only permitted upon express permission from and arrangement with DGM. Any rights not expressly granted to you herein are reserved. Any violation of copyright laws may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible." (Emboldening and italics added)

Would somebody (for example with good relations with DGM Live!) please ask for permission to link to specific DGM pages, for example for the WP articles currently listed on the King Crimson footer template?

In the interim, we should begin removing the DGM page references.

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded our article Discipline Global Mobile, Fripp's music company which supports its own website.

Beginning with yesterday's expansion, it is nearly expanded enough for a DYK, which should be submitted in 3 days. Please help with further expansion and review of the article.

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hook

I nominated the following hook for DYK.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you know

• ... music was called "an industry founded on exploitation, oiled by deceit, riven with theft and fueled by greed" by Robert Fripp (pictured), King Crimson guitarist and founder of Discipline Global Mobile?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than starting an edition war, I prefer to open a discussion here. Richard Palmer-James has been moved from "Additional/guest musicians and lyricists" to "Former members" on the grounds that he should be in the same category as Sinfield. He also appears in the timeline as a band member. Nevertheless, unlike Sinfield, he never appeared in KC record credits as a band member, so I think he should return to the guests section and disappear from the timeline. As explained elsewhere in the article, he just had a postal relation with the band.--Gorpik (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it's an awkward topic. On one hand, you're right in what you are saying, plus Peter Sinfield did play synthesisers for the band occasionally whereas Palmer-James never performed with King Crimson. On the other hand, they both worked with the band in the same capacity principally, so I can understand why people would argue either way. Burbridge92 (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, that argument cuts both ways. You could as easily say that Palmer-James wasn't a member of the group, and Sinfield worked in the same capacity principally as Palmer-James, so Sinfield should also be considered a guest musician. Second, Palmer-James didn't work with King Crimson in the same capacity as Sinfield. Aside from a couple instrumentals each on In the Wake of Poseidon and Islands, Sinfield wrote lyrics to all of King Crimson's songs during his time with them; Palmer-James didn't write lyrics for even half of them.

Third and most importantly, I was under the impression that it isn't Wikipedia's place to decide who should have been considered a member of a group and write history to be in line with what we think should have happened rather than what actually did. King Crimson's album sleeves and press articles of the time are unambiguous that Palmer-James wasn't a member; our job is simply to report that.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Your third point is paramount, in my opinion. I am updating the article accordingly.--Gorpik (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know how to edit the timeline. If someone can help with that, it will be appreciated.--Gorpik (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've managed to successfully edit a timeline before. However, the timeline includes both guest musicians and band members, so we shouldn't remove Palmer-James unless we're also going to remove the other guest musicians. If you're thinking it would be a good idea to remove guest musicians from the timeline, I think we ought to start a new topic for that.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the Personnel / album chart, but the Timeline to the right of the member list. Palmer-James was the only non-member listed there. But no problem, I have just found where it was, so I edited it myself.--Gorpik (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Most band articles don't use a timeline like that one, and so editors typically refer to charts such as the one with guest musicians in it as the timeline.

Pretty amazing coincidence that you should post this now; just hours before sitting down to do my Wiking for that day, I made a note to myself to correct Palmer-James's own article concerning the matter. I also went ahead and fixed the relevant album articles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a defined Wikipedia standard for this? The back-and-forth is getting silly.

Personally, I'm inclined to think that Wikipedia - as a site - should all be in one standard grammar. Just because the band is (at times) British, doesn't necessarily mean that the article should be written that way. I think we'd all agree that an article about a rap "artist" shouldn't be written in

That said, I also don't care about the grammar enough to change it. I just want to see the edits stop.ZildjianLudwig (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted a couple of recent changes that converted British expressions into American ones. The only guideline I could find is in

MOS:S lists them (AAVE is not one of them, by the way). I tend to find that the general consensus is: use the national variety spoken in the artist's country, in case English is spoken in that country. Of course, in some cases it is not so easy to decide which is the nationality of a band. In any case, this article is currently written in British English, so I think we should follow the guideline and stick with it.--Gorpik (talk

) 10:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd hardly compare British English – i.e., English as spoken in the place it comes from, like French as spoken in France – to AAVE. —

^ॐ

13:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The first footnote on this page refers to the page's claim that King Crimson should be included in the category of New Wave. The footnote link goes to the King Crimson page from the website http://www.johnmcferrinmusicreviews.org, an amateur review site. While I'm quite flattered to have my writing (I'm John McFerrin) as the first footnote on the Wikipedia page for an all-time great prog band, I really feel like there should be a more robust citation for King Crimson falling under the category of New Wave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.23.21 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There is. Immediately to the right of that first footnote is one citing

Allmusic's review of Beat.--Martin IIIa (talk

) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well clearly I'm blind. There you go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.23.21 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Amongst the constant flow of people trying to push their personal webpages on Wikipedia, a request like yours is really unusual, John. Kudos to you.--Gorpik (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I notice that, whenever he is mentioned, Mr. Charig has his first name credited as Marc. This is incorrect - he was born Mark Charig. He told me in a e-mail he sent me. The reason for this error is a spelling mistake on the credits for the "Red" album, where he is referred to as Marc Charig. On the other albums he appeared on ("Lizard" and "Islands"), he is correctly credited as Mark Charig.

Taff Hewitt (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember having read that before, but I cannot remember where. I think you should go ahead and change that name.--Gorpik (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that there is already a Wikipedia entry for Mr. Mark Charig, which seems to confirm my assertion, so I have corrected the text as suggested. Gorpik - you MAY have seen this on http://tron-is-king.org.uk Taff Hewitt (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)