King Crimson for proto-metal?

harmonium.ro wrote: Since this hasn't been closed, I won't start another thread just for this minor issue. As ITCOTCK was recognized as proto-metal, I was surprised to see that two of the live albums representing this era were marked as non-metal. The first is Epitaph, which shows the first line-up in all their heavy glory (IMO even more heavy and edgy than on the studio album). The second is Ladies Of The Road, which represents the Islands line-up and tour; while the first disc's metalness can be debated, the second disc consists of a continuous (by means of editing) medley of "Schizoid Men". Pure proto-metal madness! Thanks for considering this. And cheers for having KC here!

Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll make those changes, and lock this thread now.  Any other KC discussions can be done in other music sections of the forum.

CCVP wrote: Certif1ed wrote: J-Man wrote: Yeah, that is quite a contradiction. Caio, we can add bands who have only one definite metal album. The question with KC is if they ever actually released a full-blown metal album.    I think that since KC have consistently dabbled and returned to the heaviest end of the spectrum that they're probably worth considering, full album or not - you could probably make a very decent and quite long album out of KC's metal and proto metal pieces. Not actually, I just don't think they belong here. They have a dicography spanning through a +40 year spectrum and you will consider only one separate album and say that the band is metal because of that? Specially knowing just how many line-up changes and stillistic changes they have gone though? It is like saying that the Sahara is a fertile place just because of the few oasis it has. I'm not against the one album policy, quite the contrary, but it can't be applied as an absolute guideline for adding bands. If we do use that in an absolute way we will end up having major distortions, like there are in PA. Having one metal album among 15 studio albums (most of which do not have noticeable heavy metal influences) and adding a band on that sole basis is one of those distortions, IMO.

Edited by Certif1ed - 27 Jan 2011 at 9:15am

J-Man wrote: Dammit, Steve! You ninja'd me!

CCVP wrote: Certif1ed wrote: J-Man wrote: Yeah, that is quite a contradiction. Caio, we can add bands who have only one definite metal album. The question with KC is if they ever actually released a full-blown metal album.    I think that since KC have consistently dabbled and returned to the heaviest end of the spectrum that they're probably worth considering, full album or not - you could probably make a very decent and quite long album out of KC's metal and proto metal pieces. Not actually, I just don't think they belong here. They have a dicography spanning through a +40 year spectrum and you will consider only one separate album and say that the band is metal because of that? Specially knowing just how many line-up changes and stillistic changes they have gone though? It is like saying that the Sahara is a fertile place just because of the few oasis it has. I'm not against the one album policy, quite the contrary, but it can't be applied as an absolute guideline for adding bands. If we do use that in an absolute way we will end up having major distortions, like there are in PA. Having one metal album among 15 studio albums (most of which do not have noticeable heavy metal influences) and adding a band on that sole basis is one of those distortions, IMO.

Oh boy... It doesn't matter that they have 15 other studio albums. If you think Red is full-blown proto metal, then King Crimson should be added based on that album. Look at it this way... we don't have to always add metal bands. In some cases, we can add metal albums.

What are these "major distortions in PA" that you keep referring to?

It is like saying that the Sahara is a fertile place just because of the few oasis it has.

Maybe the entire Sahara isn't fertile... but that oasis sure is. Do you think it would be right to say "Since this oasis is in the Sahara (which is not fertile), it would be wrong to consider this oasis fertile."? We're not trying to prove that the entire Sahara is fertile - only that oasis.

Certif1ed wrote: J-Man wrote: Yeah, that is quite a contradiction. Caio, we can add bands who have only one definite metal album. The question with KC is if they ever actually released a full-blown metal album.    I think that since KC have consistently dabbled and returned to the heaviest end of the spectrum that they're probably worth considering, full album or not - you could probably make a very decent and quite long album out of KC's metal and proto metal pieces.

Not actually, I just don't think they belong here. They have a dicography spanning through a +40 year spectrum and you will consider only one separate album and say that the band is metal because of that? Specially knowing just how many line-up changes and stillistic changes they have gone though? It is like saying that the Sahara is a fertile place just because of the few oasis it has.

I'm not against the one album policy, quite the contrary, but it can't be applied as an absolute guideline for adding bands. If we do use that in an absolute way we will end up having major distortions, like there are in PA. Having one metal album among 15 studio albums (most of which do not have noticeable heavy metal influences) and adding a band on that sole basis is one of those distortions, IMO.

^I think you�re right Alex. King Crimson don�t have to have one full metal album to be included. Mind you they are suggested for proto metal. That means music that greatly influenced metal. The albums that should be tagged proto metal should be the albums with proto metal songs. Even if there are only few of them on those albums. That means albums like Larks T, Red and Court. This is purely my personal opinion though and as I�ve said before it is entirely up to the proto metal team to decide wether or not King Crimson should be added and which albums should be tagged proto and which should be tagged non-metal. If any of the albums are considered for progressive metal I�m sure the proto team will take that discussion with the progressive metal team.

Edited by UMUR - 25 Jan 2011 at 6:44am

I thought we decided a while ago to forgo even the borderline hard rock/heavy metal cases until we had a stronger collection of more purely metal bands. And now we're considering King Crimson?

Don't get me wrong, 21st Century Schizoid Man and LTiA contain some crazy stuff. I will say that they are perhaps among the heaviest riffs I've ever heard, even as a fan of more extreme metal. But they are far beyond a borderline case.

I do think they definitely had more than "a few sort-of-metal songs". They had a few full blown metal songs, and a good percentage of sort-of-metal songs. However, if you add up all the material that could be even considered metal, you'd be hard pressed IMO to come up with maybe 30% of the band's catalogue. And they haven't even really released an album that's metal. That point has, as far as I know, yet to be refuted in this thread.

The ConstruKction of Light? That's not a metal album. That's just a dissonant album with severe mixing issues. I find far too often people hear a dissonant riff and immediately label it as metal. Such is not always the case.










...and completely off topic, but "Dancing with the Moonlit Night" is totally a metal song.

 

Edited by Pekka - 25 Jan 2011 at 2:49am

:| I don't even know where this conversation is going 

I think we should just let the proto team puzzle this over

andyman1125 wrote: That's perfectly acceptable  I'm no avant-metal expert, I just thought Thrak and TCoL were rather experimental and "out-there"

Something can be somewhat avant without being metal