![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 |
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
Hmmm, a bit debatable whether KC is in fact a "British" band now. Three quarters of the line-up are American.
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)
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)
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)
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 King Crimson Discography. Necro 04:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Beelzebub is a loose Semitic transliteration for "Lord of the Flies", not "the man with an aim". --anon
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 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)
---
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)
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 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)
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:
It's kind of applying the WP:NOT#IINFO rule to images as well as information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of pictures that are related to the subject of the article.- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 WP:OWN this article, I feel that certain things, such as the addition of non-free album covers as decoration (they do not constitute fair use in THIS article as the article is about King Crimson, not specifically about these albums) and the removal of sourced content have been negative and have somewhat decreased the chance of FA status. Of course, I could just revert them all but I'll have to take a closer look sometime at exactly what went on while I was away during July, and keep the positive edits and remove the bad ones. If any contributors here wish to discuss this, please do, on this talk page.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
--- I have never had any commerical interest in King Crimson or any musicial band for that matter but I would have to say that King Crimson is a band that is so much more important than there "popularity" would indicate. They are innovators and pioneers of the hard edge of of fusion. The early stuff (with MacDonald and Lake) was so unique and the first album especially stand out as one of the greatest statement against nuclear way in music.
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) ---
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)
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. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 04:19, 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.
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 :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 05:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The ProjeKct X page used to state:
It's been recently changed [2] to:
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 Dire Straits, originally, when all but bassist John Illsley left and were replaced, with Mark Knopfler always at the helm. (Probably this is a bad analogy... off the top of my head in a hurry.) But another sentence or two in the introduction should eith day that there were phases of differing band members, or another link to the (former) bandmates. Too have to seek them out near the bottom of the page feels Like a disservice to the contributions of some fine musicians ( Greg Lake, also of Emerson, Lake & Palmer is an example) during that period of prog rock. As it is, it seems to give them status as hired sidemen, rather than talented members of the band. The only other alternative I can think of would be to list them in the infobox, and then place that note saying "Go here for more information on former members." Please consider this. The page could be made FA but this item hit me in first reading before I was beyong half page. -- leahtwosaints ( talk) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
matte fly, disney sky. twang, tang, boomerang gypsy guy. exiles. poseidon. chorus *) fallen angel. peace. it's supposed to be dragonflies. panoramic 75.249.226.28 ( talk) 14:03, 30 June 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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force (" GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:
Given the range of issues and the problematic use of sources in the citations I have audited, I am boldly delisting the article from GA. If you have questions or comments, take them to my talk; I don't watchlist old reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 00:21, 21 February 2010 (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 several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
|
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
I nominated the following hook for DYK. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you know
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)
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 African American Vernacular English, just because that rapper happens to use AAVE.
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 |
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
Hmmm, a bit debatable whether KC is in fact a "British" band now. Three quarters of the line-up are American.
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)
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)
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)
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 King Crimson Discography. Necro 04:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Beelzebub is a loose Semitic transliteration for "Lord of the Flies", not "the man with an aim". --anon
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 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)
---
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)
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 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)
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:
It's kind of applying the WP:NOT#IINFO rule to images as well as information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of pictures that are related to the subject of the article.- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 WP:OWN this article, I feel that certain things, such as the addition of non-free album covers as decoration (they do not constitute fair use in THIS article as the article is about King Crimson, not specifically about these albums) and the removal of sourced content have been negative and have somewhat decreased the chance of FA status. Of course, I could just revert them all but I'll have to take a closer look sometime at exactly what went on while I was away during July, and keep the positive edits and remove the bad ones. If any contributors here wish to discuss this, please do, on this talk page.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
--- I have never had any commerical interest in King Crimson or any musicial band for that matter but I would have to say that King Crimson is a band that is so much more important than there "popularity" would indicate. They are innovators and pioneers of the hard edge of of fusion. The early stuff (with MacDonald and Lake) was so unique and the first album especially stand out as one of the greatest statement against nuclear way in music.
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) ---
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)
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. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 04:19, 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.
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 :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 05:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The ProjeKct X page used to state:
It's been recently changed [2] to:
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 Dire Straits, originally, when all but bassist John Illsley left and were replaced, with Mark Knopfler always at the helm. (Probably this is a bad analogy... off the top of my head in a hurry.) But another sentence or two in the introduction should eith day that there were phases of differing band members, or another link to the (former) bandmates. Too have to seek them out near the bottom of the page feels Like a disservice to the contributions of some fine musicians ( Greg Lake, also of Emerson, Lake & Palmer is an example) during that period of prog rock. As it is, it seems to give them status as hired sidemen, rather than talented members of the band. The only other alternative I can think of would be to list them in the infobox, and then place that note saying "Go here for more information on former members." Please consider this. The page could be made FA but this item hit me in first reading before I was beyong half page. -- leahtwosaints ( talk) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
matte fly, disney sky. twang, tang, boomerang gypsy guy. exiles. poseidon. chorus *) fallen angel. peace. it's supposed to be dragonflies. panoramic 75.249.226.28 ( talk) 14:03, 30 June 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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force (" GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:
Given the range of issues and the problematic use of sources in the citations I have audited, I am boldly delisting the article from GA. If you have questions or comments, take them to my talk; I don't watchlist old reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 00:21, 21 February 2010 (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 several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
|
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
I nominated the following hook for DYK. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you know
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)
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 African American Vernacular English, just because that rapper happens to use AAVE.
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)
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)
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)
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)