MetalMusicArchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home >Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements >Suggest new bands/artists to MMA
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - King Crimson for proto-metal?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedKing Crimson for proto-metal?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Message
Andyman1125 View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Location: Rhode Island
Status: Offline
Points: 2068
Direct Link To This Post Topic: King Crimson for proto-metal?
    Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 9:19am
There's no doubt that these guys have had a huge influence on prog-metal bands today, and even some modern metal bands (Ozzy covered 21st Century Schizoid Man). They have a distinct proto-metal feel that made me want to suggest them.



A little treat Tongue



Edited by andyman1125 - 17 Jan 2011 at 9:25am
Back to Top
Stooge View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator/Retired Admin

Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Location: Whitby, ON, CAN
Status: Offline
Points: 5637
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 9:31am
I'll let the proto metal team know of your suggestion.  I love KC, whether we decide to include them here or not. Smile
Back to Top
J-Man View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Location: Philadelphia,PA
Status: Offline
Points: 7032
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 9:34am
I support their inclusion. They've had a more subtle influence on metal than, say, Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple, but I think if we want to accurately represent the formation of heavy metal, King Crimson played a key role.

Dream Theater has also covered LTIA by the way. Thumbs Up
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime
Back to Top
Andyman1125 View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Location: Rhode Island
Status: Offline
Points: 2068
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 9:41am
And Tool/A Perfect Circle/whatever other band Maynard James Keenan is in have also covered 21st Schizoid! 
Back to Top
Triceratopsoil View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 17 Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 4197
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 10:43am
I really don't think they belong, as much as I love King Crimson.  Having 4 or 5 songs that are sort of similar to metal doesn't make them at all related to metal.  Even if they were included, all their albums would be "non-metal" but have maybe one "proto-metal" song on them
Back to Top
Andyman1125 View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Location: Rhode Island
Status: Offline
Points: 2068
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 12:37pm
I think more than just 4 or 5 songs are "metal." Yes, many of their songs are ballads, but most bands have ballads. Look at CMX's discography. They have 1 metal album out of something like 10 studio records.  I would easily call Red a proto-metal album, as with Lark Tongues. Three of a Perfect Pair might even be called alternative metal in some cases.
Back to Top
Stooge View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator/Retired Admin

Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Location: Whitby, ON, CAN
Status: Offline
Points: 5637
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by andyman1125 andyman1125 wrote:

I think more than just 4 or 5 songs are "metal." Yes, many of their songs are ballads, but most bands have ballads. Look at CMX's discography. They have 1 metal album out of something like 10 studio records.  I would easily call Red a proto-metal album, as with Lark Tongues. Three of a Perfect Pair might even be called alternative metal in some cases.


I'd imagine if KC are added to MMA, only some of their pr-80s work would be tagged proto.  In my opinion, their 80s material isn't metal at all, but some songs on Thrak and later albums could  be considered metal, but would most likely be tagged non-metal as a whole.
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Errors and Omissions Team

Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 7485
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 12:54pm
It would really be difficult to tag any of their albums as metal.  But it would be a shame not to include them because arguably 21st Century Schizoid Man was the first progressive metal song plus a smattering of other songs spread throughout their discography are also metal. 
Back to Top
UMUR View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Errors & Omissions Team / Retired Admin

Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 18150
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 1:07pm
Some albums like Red, Larks Tongues and and maybe the debut could be tagged proto-metal but that�s entirely up to the proto team to decide. Personally  I�m biased as King Crimson arguably don�t have one album that through and through could be called "metal". On the other side they�ve been a great influence on metal and especially progressive metal so that might speak in their favour. Proto-metal acts aren�t per definition "metal" acts. They came before metal and influenced the genre if I understand the definition correctly. But that would also mean that you can�t label their 80s or later albums with the proto tag. They would be tagged non-metal.
Back to Top
Andyman1125 View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Location: Rhode Island
Status: Offline
Points: 2068
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 1:23pm
Yea, that's the case with Rush.... all the pre 80s albums are proto-metal, then with Counterparts it switched to alt metal... because it was at that point.

Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2011 at 2:44am
^Depends on your point of view.
 
In the late 1970s, Rush WERE Progressive Metal - there was not much else that was. There was no "proto" about Rush - they were considered metal - not sure why history is being re-written!
 
With Crimson, however, the proto case is easier to make; Taking "ITCoTCK" as the prime example, then comparing it to later metal albums with slower and more atmospheric content, it's pretty cut and dried as proto-metal (we don't have a proto progressive metal category, or that's where that album would be);
 
The case for 21st Century Schizoid Man is closed, the title track is massive, epic, and doomy. It's not full-on metal, but that's the point of "proto". MoonChild is avante garde playing so "out there" that few people I've come across can actually appreciate what Crimson were doing - here's a hint - there's little that's truly random about it.
 
There are many technical and "progressive" metal bands that have tried to push into this kind of direction, but, to the best of my knowledge, Crimson remain the only rock band that have truly broken into the realms of musical expression in such an abstract, yet intelligent, logical and artistically creative way.
 
So that's 3 out of 5. Admittedly, the other two fall short in terms of metal - but I think that the importance of the 3 I mentioned are too vital to overlook (although I'd guess most won't see the MoonChild connection).
 
The other albums all need to be weighed up - but I think that Crimson's back catalogue is of interest to most people who like metal, so my vote is add them!


Edited by Certif1ed - 19 Jan 2011 at 2:48am
Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2011 at 8:15am
Agreed. The debut contains proto-metal, and Red & LTIA contain a unique form of classic 70s metal. The last era also has quite some prog-metal.

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

I really don't think they belong, as much as I love King Crimson.  Having 4 or 5 songs that are sort of similar to metal doesn't make them at all related to metal.  Even if they were included, all their albums would be "non-metal" but have maybe one "proto-metal" song on them


That applies better to Led Zep, who are already here.
Back to Top
Triceratopsoil View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 17 Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 4197
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2011 at 7:33pm
well wtf are Led Zeppelin doing here then?  Get rid of em!
Back to Top
Andyman1125 View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Location: Rhode Island
Status: Offline
Points: 2068
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2011 at 8:50pm
^ Well they were "heavy metal" in the 70s, so they kind of need to be here LOL
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2011 at 12:14am
^I've never seen any direct reference to this in documents of the time, but from the late 1970s onwards there are plenty of published articles which refer to Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc. as the earliest heavy metal bands - which doesn't stop them being hard rock, heavy rock and progressive rock as well... those were highly creative and formative times!
 
The earliest reference to Heavy Metal in a musical context has precious little to do with what people call Heavy Metal now - it's a fantastic, constantly evolving genre, so it's wrong to say that (insert band name here) is NOT Heavy Metal - unless they're not, of course... Tongue
Back to Top
The Angry Scotsman View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 08 Aug 2010
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 1076
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2011 at 1:02am
Love King Crimson, and I do think they had some impact on metal. But really, this seems like a huge stretch, even for proto metal.

Let's not repeat mistakes of PA, one being including bands we like! LOL
Hate being a stickler, but IMO we do need to a bit exclusive, as we see what happens when we allow to many borderline bands.

Some sorta almost metal sounding songs, and some influence but really, they are prog rock and that's where they belong.
A band claiming influence also should not warrant inclusion because influence does not equate to music.

Tool claims them as a big influence, but that's prog metal/art rock whatever. Most "normal" metal bands I HIGHLY doubt claim KC as an influence. LOL Elvis was a major (probably biggest) influence on Hendrix!
Frank Zappa on SoaD
Meshuggah and Slayer on Carpenter of Detones.

So please, don't let the inspiration of a band sway your vote. We need to judge bands on their music, not history or inspiration etc
Sorry for the rant, but I do not want a floodgate of PA proportions on here!
All respect to Robert "God" Fripp of course!!!


Edited by The Angry Scotsman - 20 Jan 2011 at 1:03am
Megadeth, Metallica, Slayer and Testament. The real Big Four of thrash metal!



Listen to doom metal, worship Satan
Back to Top
Triceratopsoil View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 17 Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 4197
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2011 at 2:20am
Clap



p.s. I think you mean "Rober" LOL


Edited by Triceratopsoil - 20 Jan 2011 at 2:20am
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2011 at 5:11am
Originally posted by The Angry Scotsman The Angry Scotsman wrote:

Love King Crimson, and I do think they had some impact on metal. But really, this seems like a huge stretch, even for proto metal.

Let's not repeat mistakes of PA, one being including bands we like! LOL
Hate being a stickler, but IMO we do need to a bit exclusive, as we see what happens when we allow to many borderline bands.

Some sorta almost metal sounding songs, and some influence but really, they are prog rock and that's where they belong.
A band claiming influence also should not warrant inclusion because influence does not equate to music.

Tool claims them as a big influence, but that's prog metal/art rock whatever. Most "normal" metal bands I HIGHLY doubt claim KC as an influence. LOL Elvis was a major (probably biggest) influence on Hendrix!
Frank Zappa on SoaD
Meshuggah and Slayer on Carpenter of Detones.

So please, don't let the inspiration of a band sway your vote. We need to judge bands on their music, not history or inspiration etc
Sorry for the rant, but I do not want a floodgate of PA proportions on here!
All respect to Robert "God" Fripp of course!!!
 
Hey, I have no problems with rants - but I don't really get your point.
 
Leaving "influence" aside for a moment (you could argue that Van Halen or Faith no More were influenced by Soul music, and this would be more than valid reason to exclude Soul artists);
 
Isn't "21st Century Schizoid Man" (proto) metal enough?
 
What about the progressive metallic elements in "Red" or "Lark's Tongues"?
 
It's true that they had no 100% proto metal albums, but I think that if there's some there, and it's significant, then it's proto.
 
I think the main issue here isn't that Crimson didn't produce proto metal music - I think that they did, and the Youtubes posted above bear testament to this - but that they're better known for, ahem, other music - much of which puts a huge number of technical and progressive metal bands into the shade.
 
After all, Dust's early albums probably have 6-7 proto metal tracks on between them, but no-one complains about their inclusion.
 
It's the proto metal that counts - and "Suicide" kicks ass;
 
 
 
No-one has complained about The Sweet, MC5, Mountain, Aerosmith or Nightsun (another Progressive Rock band) - none of whom have 100% metal albums. It's proto-metal after all - and history IS important, as is influence, to a reasonable extent. It's all about context - or next we'll be purging 90% of NWoBHM (which few would consider "true" metal, but few know enough about the hundreds of bands in that category).
 
 
Why discount prog metal bands - is this out of convenience? Prog Metal is part of the Metal genre - the clue's in the name...
 
All I'm asking for is a little reasoning for why KC shouldn't be considered - why does it seem a stretch? Isn't "Thrak" a pure progressive metal track (never mind proto)?
 


Edited by Certif1ed - 20 Jan 2011 at 5:22am
Back to Top
Andyman1125 View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Location: Rhode Island
Status: Offline
Points: 2068
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2011 at 9:47pm
My point exactly. They would fit quite nicely. They would probably even fit into avant metal! LOL
Back to Top
Balthamel View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1336
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 8:14am
i will also call the Musical Box by Genesis proto-heavy metal as well also parts of Dancing With the Moonlit Knight Tongue
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.16
Copyright ©2001-2013 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.191 seconds.