OFF: Progressive really progressive?

[Alex S. Garcia]

>I would not burden KC with the label 'progressive'.  Indeed, their music
>in the days of the classic Fripp/Wetton/Bruford/Cross line-up could be
>better defined as 'mercurial'.  And if anyone has sampled the delights of
>the 'Great Deceiver' box set, they would perhaps realise they should be
>fitted either into the free-jazz category or psychedelic, on the basis of
>much of their live performances being improvisational - not something that
>I have ever witnessed to any great extent from the so-called 'progressive'
>bands.  In fact, they always seemed rather too structured for my liking.

Ooohh... I don't agree. Yes has been known to improvise a lot. In fact,
"Tales from topographic oceans" sounds a lot like an improvised album to me.
Although it probably isn't. And I know other prog bands are pretty good at
improvising too. I mean, hey, when a band is so good at structuring their
music they can't be bad at improvising. You attain a certain skill level
where you can hardly go wrong. I can't imagine Steve Howe or Kerry Livgren
(for instance) not being able to improvise. C'mon, let's be serious for a
minute ! ;-)
        And just for the record, King Crimson IS a progressive band, at
least in my personal little universe. Just as are Jethro Tull, ELP, Camel
(to some extent), etc...



Alex S. Garcia.

----------------------------------------------------------
Become a Patternwalker ! Visit Corwin's Pattern...
  http://members.tripod.com/~Mandor/
  (with links to the Icarus Encyclopedia, Artefact, Rock
  In Progress, Slash, Micronos and more to come...)
----------------------------------------------------------