What keeps this album from being a 10/10 in your opinion?

What keeps this album from being a 10/10 in your opinion?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0wgA9L5TN5M
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Album cover isn't memey enough.

King Crimson is shite.

King Crimson have done better. The more folky songs have already been done earlier in their career, and the heavier ones were more matured on Red.

Like most of their albums that aren't ITCOTCK or Discipline, too much fucking jazz fusion prog jam sessions that go nowhere, and a huge lack of compelling songs and emotion.

Nothing. This album is perfect. Best kc album.

It's pretty close to a 10/10 for me. It's the best rock album IMO.

It's pretty close to a 10/10 for me. It's the best rock album IMO.

All the foul language.

it's prog so like right off the bat the max it can get is 7/10

Nothing. It is a 10/10

Title tracks are lame. Honestly, King Crimson is pretty underwhelming for how praised they are on Sup Forums.

They're the least shitty prog band

Nothing. It's their best album. SABB and Red are close to ten's but some of they live improvisation stuff is dull as hell.

Neat, they're still underwhelming.

They're literally the only prog band worth listening to. Listen to King Crimson and Yes and you've heard everything prog has to offer. Yes encompasses all the shittiest aspects of every other prog band at once.

thrak is better

Strange considering their content is not very interesting.

you're not very interesting

Shitty music tends to not be very interesting.

>Fripp turns you into a rabbit
>Fripp holds you close
>Fripp whispers into your ear "you will learn, child. or you will die by my hands"
>you love King Crimson now because they're the greatest band of all time

It's not prog though.

The shitty intro part to Exiles is too long

nothing.

Vito comes head-to-head with his greatest challenge yet: Larks' Tongues in Aspic. A forty-six minute tromp through some of the most mundane music that he's heard since 2007. (A cut of Vito facepalming at his computer, checking his watch, and reviewing restaurants on Yelp to pass the mundanity of the first quarter-hour. He looks up at the camera and winces, "Bloody hell, when the fuck does the singer begin? Is there even a singer?") Watch as he tackles some of the most criminally-lauded progressive rock he's ever heard, from a year that he never thought could disappoint him so sorely: 1973. (A cut to Vito shouting, still at his computer and now with his eyes focused on the Playstation 2 to his right, where he plays Spiderman 2. "This is the same year as fucking The Dark Side of the Moon and Selling England by the Pound! I'M EMBARRASSED.") And just when he thinks it's over... (Vito looks incredulously at his monitor, "IT'S ONLY THE FIRST SONG? I'm done. I quit this show.") ...it's only just begun.

This is Album Nightmares.

Okay, so... the problem here is literally the same that I've had with all the other King Crimson recordings, which is that I'm absolutely bored out of my mind and am somehow able to garner more entertainment from messing around with HTML color codes than paying attention to the actual music. This is the album that is probably most 'hiply-lauded', for reasons that I'm not going to even begin to try and understand. Maybe the first instance of a two-part, serves-as-both-opener-and-closer song, "Larks' Tongue in Aspic" is the most dreadful challenge I've breathed in the face of, a mish-mash of nonsense noises and pseudo-drama that ultimately goes nowhere. They should have learned from what Pink Floyd would do four years later, let their bookends be short and simple and sweet a la "Pigs on the Wing"

What the hell are you copy/pasting that from? Who the fuck is vito?

>a mish-mash of nonsense noises and pseudo-drama that ultimately goes nowhere

Could this be more wrong

It doesnt give me that great mystical sense of atmosphere you get with ITCOTCK, and it doesnt offer the tight concise experience Red has. Its really interesting but not necessarily moving

Doesn't have Greg Lake on it

I can't hear the studio version on youtube or spotify

fucking robert fripp...

its a dude on RYM who leaves these massive, narrative reviews on albums.

I've always hated the singing on Easy Money personally despite it being a pretty good track. The title tracks and Exile are both great and some of the bands strongest material. The other tracks are not as good unfortunately and would both be the weakest tracks on Red

Imagine being such a musical pleb that fucking King Crimson sounds like a "random mish-mash of noise" to you.

If he thinks that KC is just a "random mish-mash of noise", then I would love to hear his thoughts on free-form jazz
> youtube.com/watch?v=0wgA9L5TN5M

easy money

Upon glancing at it it does not capivate me, though it does interest me
This is why.

>criticising John Wetton's smokey voice

You fucking animal

I remember reading some of his reviews and liking them, but that's awful

It's a great album. Has a very evocative, manic energy to it that you might not connect with. It's kind of a necessary antidote to psych rock in a sense: the title tracks in particular capture the sense of a "traumatic encounter with Reality" if you immerse yourself. it's a phenomenally balanced album: rage and chaos pitted against autistic discipline has always been and will always be the fundamental dichotomy of King Crimson, manifesting differently in different incarnations, and I think Lark's is the album that pushes the hardest in both directions, but never fucks it up.

I haven't been on Sup Forums in a few years, I can only assume you people's taste is even worse now than it was when I left.

I like John Wetton's voice its just the do-do's at the start of the track that don't click with me. He sings a large portion of my favourite KC tracks

I see his reviews a lot on albums I want to check out and sometimes I get where he's coming from/understand the mood he's trying to set and other times yea he's way off lol