Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
The problem I see with a discussion like this is that the idea of limiting the use of a band's name to the particular style of music with which they made the name first known can only serve to either severely restrict the artists from developing/adapting/varying their style or to make it ever more difficult for fans to find the music. Perhaps we should think of some of these bands more like classical ensembles than as specific line-ups. Should the Kronos Quartet have changed their name when cellist Joan Jeanrenaud left and was replaced by Jennifer Culp? Why should they not be able to continue working under the ensemble name which they have spent years making a household name? Should the Chicago Symphony have changed its name when Sir George Solti stepped down? Should they change their name in the next couple years when Barenboim steps down? If an ensemble, of any stylistic leaning, builds a reputation of quality, should they not be able to continue using that name? "But a rock band is typically less stylistically diverse in its output than a string quartet or a symphony orchestra!" While that may be largely true, it obviously doesn't hold for bands like King Crimson, Pink Floyd, or even Yes. Personally, I think that if we pigeon-hole the styles or even rosters of any group, we may miss the whole point of the band. While, yes, Robert Fripp is the sole member of the family tree of King Crimson to be present in all incarnations (just as Chris Squire is the only one to be in all incarnations of Yes), I think the true common link between all incarnations of, e.g. King Crimson, is the composition and performance of a special kind of music. That special kind of music may be the kind that opens the door for Trent Reznor some 20+ years before he walks through, or it might be the kind of music that evokes the idea of a rock gamelan, or it might be a specific type of improvisation, or some combination of any/all of it. The point is, I look to King Crimson to provide a certain level of limit-pushing with each album. I don't care whether it's the double-trio, the double-duo, the 80s gamelan, the 70s trio, or w.h.y. I do care that they challenge me. To that end, there are some of the Projekct albums that serve as better Crim albums than the first of the albums to come out of the Projekcts (i.e. Construction of Light). It is the same thing I look(ed) to Yes for; I lost my taste for following them, however, when they released two double albums that contained a mix of live classics and woefully underdeveloped new material. In these days of Google searches, it probably doesn't matter what Fripp calls any bands he plays in, because I'm likely to be able to find it by doing a search for Fripp. But, if I'm at a record store and I'm looking for a particular type of music (not style, not genre, but perhaps rather philosophy) I know that I'll find it in King Crimson. Contrary to what was mentioned here, it seems that Fripp connects all of his non-solo/non-guest activities to King Crimson, even if it is evidenced only by the idiomatikc misspelling of Projekcts and various song titles with a hard-c sound. Actually, I don't care what he calls the band, I just wish they'd tour again so that I could see them again for only the second time, especially since it'd mean that I'd get to see/hear Tony Levin play live. Cheers, Jon Southwood