King Crimson

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 1994 (The 1995 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? No  what's this?


Inducted into Rock Hall Revisited in 1997 (ranked #145) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
In the Court of the Crimson King (1969)
In The Wake Of Poseidon (1970)
Red (1974)
Discipline (1981)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
21st Century Schizoid Man (1969)
In the Court of the King (1969)
Starless (1974)

King Crimson @ Wikipedia

King Crimson Videos

Will King Crimson be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?
"Musical excellence is the essential qualification for induction."
   

Comments

118 comments so far (post your own)

They Suck

Posted by X on Friday, 01.5.07 @ 20:27pm


Spoken like a true KISS fan...

Posted by Kit on Friday, 01.5.07 @ 22:47pm


The day King Crimson gets in is the day I start to consider the possibility of potentially taking the HoF semi-seriously.

Posted by William on Monday, 01.8.07 @ 17:08pm


Let's see. Progressive rock wouldn't be what it is without them. They innovated (and continue to) long after every other prog band went pop. There's no way they can be ignored. Oh. Wait. This is the rock and roll hall of fame. No prog rock allowed. My mistake. Assclowns.

Posted by Scott on Tuesday, 01.23.07 @ 08:48am


martin says yes In The Court Of King Crimson is a kick arse album

Posted by Martin on Sunday, 03.18.07 @ 00:22am


Put in Rush before King Crimson. Rush is ten times more successful and has not had 20 different "band members." Who would be inducted? The coprorate entity known as KC?? You cannot simply put in KC because they were before Rush - as that is completely out of anyone's control (i.e. the age of the band members is something we would all agree is not in anyone's control). But, since the RUSH debut album - Rush is WAY more successful with virtually no airplay and no self-promotion.

Why you ask? Very simple - they are much more talented and just better better musicians and better song writers. Sometimes things are simple.

And, since the departure of Rutsey, the same three members make up Rush - now that is what I call a band.

Later

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, 03.18.07 @ 10:57am


"You cannot simply put in KC because they were before Rush - as that is completely out of anyone's control"

Doesn't matter. King Crimson innovated more and earlier, and yes, that does matter. They were doing it first, meaning Rush doesn't get as much credit for doing it later. Doing what someone else has already done is not innovating you stupid git.

Posted by William on Sunday, 03.18.07 @ 13:52pm


King Crimson coming first might not be in anyone's control, but it is a fact that should be acknowledged. Saying Rush gets no airplay is retarded, and if lack of airplay is your standard than Crimson gets even less airplay. Crimson INVENTED progressive, Crimson INVENTED what is generally called art-rock. There is no Rush without Crimson. End. Of. Take off your fanboy glasses for two seconds.

Posted by Kit on Sunday, 03.18.07 @ 14:30pm


Also, calling King Crimson a corporate entity makes absolutely no sense at all. Do you read what you type?

Posted by Kit on Sunday, 03.18.07 @ 14:32pm


King Crimson may have "invented" progressive, as you claim, but Rush is a unique band with their own style quite different from KC, and of course way, way better - there is no comparison to be made here. Put the "resume's side by side and there is no comparison...Plus, Rush was "progressive" for a brief period. Albums like Fly by Night, Moving Pictures, Vapor Trails, etc. are nothing like albums like Hemisphere or 2112, sorry just the facts dude.

Plus, I bring up no airplay and lack of self-promotion because Rush is huge in terms of record sales, concert sales and are still going strong more than 30 years later with the same three band members. The idea of no airplay would not pertain to KC, as it does not fit my line of thinking (i.e. despite lack of airplay and self-promotion, Rush is big time). Why? Because KC is not big time...not even close to Rush...again, just the facts

LATER

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 03.21.07 @ 14:38pm


BTW, referring to KC as a "corporate entity" - follow the bouncing ball. I was merely pointing out that Rush has had the same three band members for 30 plus years and KC has had 20 different members. So, WHO (meaning which players get the honors) or do they induct the "name" KC.

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 03.21.07 @ 14:53pm


No, but I do enjoy showing you the errors in your flawed thinking, not to mention putting in your face how much better and more successful Rush is than KC - facts are facts dude - lighten up. We are talking about bands, none of which you are a member - don't take it so personal.....

LATER

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 03.21.07 @ 18:59pm


King Crimson as innovative as they were/are did not invent progressive rock. That honor goes to the Moody Blues and Days of Future Passed in 1967. Actually the seeds of prog were sown by the Beatles who added orchestral arrangements to songs such as Elenor Rigby on Revolver in 1966...still Crimson deserves to be inducted. The cover of Court of the Crimson King is the most frightengly intense piece of artwork ever on an albumn and the music is just as hairaising. 21st Century Schizoid Man is truly prophetic. I Talk to the Wind is chillingly delightful. You just don't see talent like this in the music biz today in terms of being
able to write a melody and combining it with words to create an image in your mind.

Find some class RRHOF. Induct King Crimson and these other progressive pioneers. Show the world
and these younger generations what music really is.

Posted by SG on Tuesday, 03.27.07 @ 01:28am


Kit and William the Stupid Git: KC did not invent Progressive Rock, as is noted above. Plus, last time I checked Rush sounds totally unique and different from KC. Name a Rush song with "orchestral arrangements." The fact is, Rush's main influence were early English Blues (see The Who, Zep, Cream). Didn't they do a tribute called "Summertime Blues"?? Was there any KC on there? Not......The fact is, Rush is a totally unique band that is difficult to categorize into one specific genre - that's what makes them so unique......induct Rush already...

Idiots

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, 03.27.07 @ 13:21pm


SG: The Moodies did make an important contribution to art-rock and prog, but I don't really view them as prog. Their music is still relatively simple and does not use the insane arrangements or pure lyrical abstractions that KC, Genesis, and their ilk did. I think if the Hall ever adresses prog (and that's a big if), The Moodies might end up getting treated the same way proto-punk like The Stooges and MC5 do, out in the cold while the reapers of their influence like The Clash and The Sex Pistols enter.

I don't really dig the Moodys, but there's a case for their nomination.

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 03.27.07 @ 15:43pm


Moody Blues definitely deserve induction way before KC - and THEY are progressive rock. In fact, from Wikipedia:

"Since Pink Floyd's induction to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Moody Blues (along with Yes) are at the head of the list of progressive rock groups which have not yet been inducted and consistently top opinion polls of acts who the public feel should be inducted."

IDIOT....

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 03.28.07 @ 18:57pm


Your obsession with me is cute and all, but yeah, you still are pretty much not worth listening to.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 03.28.07 @ 19:37pm


"Cute" - I figured you for gay.....

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 03.28.07 @ 21:29pm


Spoken like a true narcissist!

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 03.28.07 @ 21:32pm


"Your obsession with me is cute and all, but yeah, you still are pretty much not worth listening to."

No...you cannot handle the fact that I prove you wrong, time and again, as here with the Moody Blues...

IDIOT

Posted by ANON on Sunday, 04.8.07 @ 07:11am


All I can say is the committe is prejuidice against prog rock I am sry to say but they say they commit the best well do so and put Tull an KC in the HOF

Posted by Alex on Friday, 05.4.07 @ 10:06am


OK - in the attempt to expand my appreciation of rock's pioneers and maybe upgrade my musical tastes, I went out and bought "In the Court of the Crimson King" and gave it a listen. And another listen. And then a third.

I must admit (and I know this puts me at risk of ridicule) that there were things I did sorta like in its 43 minutes, but when I finally took the cd out and replaced it with Led Zep II, it kinda felt like I had endured the sauna - for my own musical health - and Zeppelin was the wash of cool air as I exited the steaming wooden closet; there was as sense of heaviness lifted.

Those in the know, please help me
(sincerely: what am I not tasting in this prog-rock masterpiece that would make me enjoy its taste. Give me your insights. I wanna be more musically well rounded and literate.

Here's what I experienced: I liked "21st Century Schizoid Man" It kinda rocked. Violent and disturbing lyrics (people being raped with Napalm..), but I got into its intensity.

"I Talk to the Wind" was ok, but it seemed like something the Elves of Rivendell toot away on high up in their trees. I couldn't get into it.

For some reason I found the song "The Court of the Crimson King" infectious and I enjoyed it the most. I wouldn't turn it up and play it at a party, but I enjoyed it alright.

"Moonchild" is where I am really confused. That opus actually pissed me off, because from about 2:30 in I listened to 10 fucking minutes of Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood incidental music - at about 5 minutes in it occured to me - "Robert Fripp is fuckin with me." This is just noodling and plinking away randomly on kettle drums and triangles and Javenese orchestral stuff. It seemed outright rude to me, being subjected to this, and I had a sense of resentment at my time being wasted.

Being completely candid.
So help me understand - is this just the nature of Prog-rock and all the themes of distopia? It's not happy music - doesn't get the toes tapping or inspire singing along.
Am I doomed to be an unenlightened dolt?

Posted by shawn on Friday, 05.11.07 @ 10:05am


Shawn-relax, unenlightened dolts don't use words like distopia which doesn't appear in pocket dictionaries. (Unless of course you misspelled it.)

Wow I'm impressed you made it through that radical transition from KC to Zep without serious
injury...I wouldn't recommend doing that to others who are reading this.

I really believe that certain music is better listened to under certain circumstances. For example U2 is a band I would never play during the daylight hours especially a sunny day. U2 deserves to be cranked up after sundown. They just ....exude the night. In the case of King Crimson I would put them on mid to late morning on a cloudy dreary damp rainy foggy day say around 10-11 AM after a cup of tea. These are the optimum conditions to take in the tooting of the Elves you mentioned regarding "I Talk to the Wind." It tends to take you to a place far away
This "rainy day effect" also works fabulously on "Court of the Crimson King." You're just transported somehow to that place in your mind.
I think this applies to other prog bands too. I can't picture listening to old Genesis while on the beach surfing in California....

Seriously, I hope that helped.

Posted by SG on Saturday, 05.12.07 @ 02:30am


"Seriously, I hope that helped."

Well, it's a good start (laughing). Enjoying Crimson requires being in the optimum mood, if I'm getting the jist of your advice.
Thank you, SG.
I'm still pissed about being tricked into the dentist's waiting room of the album- the 10 minutes of Teletubby walkabout noodling on "Moonchild". That does not rock.

Now I am curious: did Crimson's sound change quite a bit in the Adrian Belew period?

Posted by Shawn on Saturday, 05.12.07 @ 09:22am


Crimson's sound changed on almost every album. The Belew period might be the best area of KC to get into for non-proggers. My personal favorite is the middle-period Starless and Bible Black/Red period.

Posted by Kit on Saturday, 05.12.07 @ 15:17pm


Personal favorite song is "Pictures of a City" off of In the Wake of Poseidon.

Posted by William on Saturday, 05.12.07 @ 18:18pm


A lot of people don't really understand Progressive Rock. It's taking musical virtuosity with an experimental spirit and the desire to create art, hence the name Art Rock. Anything can be prog if it meets these conditions, and that doesn't define it as good or bad. No matter how good you think King Crimson is, you cannot deny that they were practically the definition of the band HOF says it looks for, yet neither it nor Yes nor Rush, all excellent and all eligible, have been inducted.

Also, to whoever said Rush was not influenced by KC, you are delusional. A sound can come from anywhere, but the true sophistication of music comes from its approach. Rush sounds very little like King Crimson, but would they have thought to write complex and experimental compositions if it wasn't for the prog bands before them that started to break free from the constraints of pop?

Posted by Kenny on Saturday, 05.12.07 @ 23:14pm


For me, the IN THE COURT... record is more impressive for what ground it broke vs. being an actual enjoyable listen. I love the title track and "21st Century Schizoid Man", but I also have difficulty really enjoying the rest of it. "Epitaph" is nice.

But check out the album RED, that really rocks in a more conventional sense, but maintains the Crims experimental spirit. Also, their sound was very different once Adrian Belew came aboard, check out the album DISCIPLINE for the best of that.

Posted by Dezmond on Sunday, 05.13.07 @ 10:18am


Two things here. First, Rush may have been influenced by the generic concepts of progressive rock via KC, but they sound nothing like them. That I would give credit to KC as being an integral force in progressive rock. But, the fact is Rush has a much more heavy metal sound. And, even in interviews they cite British blues bands as their MAIN influences, not KC (i.e. Cream, Zep). Did they not fairly recently do a tribute to that genre and time period??

As for Shawn not liking KC. Shawn, this is being said in a supportive way. If you do not like it, that is fine. I do not like KC much either. Yes, music should be listened to in different moods, but all that bullshit about sipping tea. C'mon, this is rock music, not Mozart. That is why I hate Rush being categorized as Progressive, as I think their music transcends that genre. I do not even like most progressive Rock. As Kit said, most of it is masturbatory and self-indulgent. A friend of mine keeps trying to get me into Dream Theater, but I just can't, it is boring and I just don't like it - it is that simple. MB I should sip some coffee and that would help. Shawn, go with your gut and feeling and don't like something for the sake of liking it just to appear more well rounded or sophisticated. In that sense, I would take JM over KC any day.

In this same regard, does anyone out there know what it says on the 11 minute song La Villa, on the album itself, to describe the song? In any event, Rush to me was only "progressive" very briefly. Once Permanent Waves came out, they ceased to be progressive, except for an occasional song or two.

Anyway, gotta get me some tea :-)

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 05.16.07 @ 12:33pm


"..As for Shawn not liking KC...If you do not like it, that is fine.."

Well, I wasn't really saying that I did NOT like Crimson - there was some of "In the Court" that I did like. I just want to broaden my sense of musical taste and try to absorb some stuff that my ears have not yet instinctively buddied up with but that I can see is revered by many to be excellent. I'm gonna give RED and BIBLE BLACK and a Belew period cd a try and hope to develop an appreciation for King C.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 05.17.07 @ 13:03pm


RED rocks.

Posted by Dezmond on Thursday, 05.17.07 @ 15:52pm


One thing I forgot to ask SG- when sipping the tea - should that be Earl Grey or is plain old Lipton okay?

Please advise

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, 05.17.07 @ 17:11pm


Anonymous ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lipton_Earl_Grey_in_tin.jpg


Posted by SG on Saturday, 05.19.07 @ 01:40am


Okay, cool...I will go with the Early Grey with a splash of low fat milk....Nice....

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, 05.20.07 @ 14:52pm


For what it's worth, I agree with shawn; that "virtual void" in Moonchild is a rather annoying, especially when everything else makes "In The Court…" one of the most amazing albums of all time.. That alone might warrant at least some (and certainly more than currently exists) consideration for HOF induction…

But as dezmond points out, RED (and the other Wetton albums, for that matter) really does rock… and in ways that even Zeppelin could only ASPIRE to.

The elitists on the committee have likely never heard those albums.

Posted by Tom W on Thursday, 06.7.07 @ 13:31pm


Well, I did go get "Red" and upon listening to it 3 times I have found that I am quite fond of it. Fripp's vocals and the haunting melodies of "Fallen" and "Starless" dragged me in and I am ofetn aware that I'm humming them, trying to fill in lyrical gaps. I loved "One More Red Nightmare", and "Red" is nice and forcefully urgent.

King Crimson strikes me as being kind of similar to classical music in the sense that it doesn't reach out and grab you in an immediately gratifying way, like a pop/rock song, but necessitates soaking it in, hearing it a few times, appreciating what they have orchestrated. Here in Arizona there is a commercial (I think it's for satellite radio?) that features Elvis Costello sitting in a car, listening to a classical composition, and he says something to the same effect. Hope you can catch it.

Having said this, I still don't understand why the first 5:00 of track 4 - "Providence", like "In the Court's" "Moonchild" is necessary. It's not jamming or improvisation - it's indulgent wankery in my op. Arbitarary, meandering noise - guitar effects, violin screeches, random percussion. If I want fucking Peter and the Wolf, I will go seek that out.
I really think these parts of King Crimson's work contributes to putting them outside of being accepted as rock. I find it pretentious to stuff it in the midst of a otherwise admirable albums.

But I still dig Red.

Posted by shawn mc on Thursday, 06.7.07 @ 15:45pm


Shawn mc, glad you took the time to explore Crimson. I agree with your comments, including your complaints about "Moonchild" and "Providence". But also like you said, those are fogiveable considering everything else that is there. Now, you need to check out the album DISCIPLINE. It is completely different from IN THE COURT... and RED. The guitar interplay between Fripp and Belew is awesome, and Tony Levin is a unique bassist.

One correction, Wetton sings the vocals, not Fripp.

Posted by Dezmond on Friday, 06.8.07 @ 07:40am


"One correction, Wetton sings the vocals, not Fripp."

Please look away, for I am hideous. That's embarrassing. Shows you how much of a neophyte I am musically. The more I read you guys' comments, the more I become aware at how vast the musical landscape is and how little I have really heard. There are so many artists and styles I am listening to for the first time because I am paying attention to the ones you and William and Kit and Anon and others mention; some I like, some my ears reject.

But so far I have come to enjoy King C., The Flaming Lips, The New Pornographers and The Decemberists.

Posted by shawn mc on Friday, 06.8.07 @ 09:02am


Dude, don't worry about it. I think we are all like that, which is why music is such a wonderful, bottomless well from which to draw. As much as I like to think I am the shit and know it all, I come across new stuff all the time that I had missed previously that should have been obvious to me all along. Crimson is an example, actually. As much as I spout off about Crimson this and Crimson that, I only started listening to them about a year or two ago, and I've been into music for a LONG time.

That is what's great about being a music fan. You've never really heard everything worthwhile out there. There is always more to discover.

Posted by Dezmond on Friday, 06.8.07 @ 10:58am


i Please look away, for I am hideous. That's embarrassing. Shows you how much of a neophyte I am musically.

A "neophyte" hasn't a clue about King Crimson. You, my friend, are well beyond that. Welcome to the club.

Posted by Tom W on Friday, 06.8.07 @ 13:19pm


They'll never recognize prog. Tool won't get in either.

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 06.13.07 @ 03:43am


Surprising discovery while watching the movie "Children of Men" yesterday - the song "The Court of the Crimson King" is actually used in the movie for about 60 seconds.
Very cool!

Posted by shawn on Monday, 07.9.07 @ 18:49pm


Surprising discovery while watching the movie "Children of Men" yesterday - the song "The Court of the Crimson King" is actually used in the movie for about 60 seconds.
Very cool!

Posted by shawn on Monday, 07.9.07 @ 18:50pm


King Crimson would get in, but because of the fact that their line up changed almost every album hurt them. Also, when you think about it they only had two classic albums in their debut ("In the Court of the Crimson King") and "Larks Tongue in Aspic".

Posted by Brian Washington on Wednesday, 09.12.07 @ 03:05am


All the big name prog bands will get in as soon as a few key names on the committee finally drop dead and take their prejudices with them.

Posted by Torc on Friday, 09.28.07 @ 13:41pm


"Red" outdoes anything Rush has ever or will ever do. plain and simple. the fact is that KC is by far more deserving.

Posted by anonymous on Saturday, 03.1.08 @ 07:09am


King Crimson not in = HoF being a joke

Posted by Kuro on Monday, 03.10.08 @ 16:29pm


Why would anyone say that Rush should be inducted before King Crimson. Those Rush lights shows must have really screwed up brain.

Posted by Eric Draven on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 04:54am


Funny thing about Robert Fripp...if someone claimed to play like him (which I've never heard), he would just change his tuning and do something else totally off the wall, which is what makes King Crimsom such a unique band.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 06.22.08 @ 15:40pm


LOL at the comment above... "oh that's right-- this is the RRHoF, prog rock isn't allowed in." Genesis, Yes, Crimson, ELP, Procol Harum, the Strawbs, Gentle Giant, Alan Parsons (who engineered a little thing called "Dark Side of the Moon")and others won't make it to the Hall until Jann Wenner is DEAD. Sorry to say, but unless it's a 4/4 beat with street dirt under its fingernails (or on its sticky fingers!), it ain't going in.

Posted by Music Lab on E-Music on Saturday, 07.5.08 @ 13:49pm


ROBERT FRIPP AND COMPANY DO NOT SUCK.......YOU DO......

Posted by Geoff Belle-Isle on Monday, 08.18.08 @ 11:59am


remember,this is the HoF those old assholes will do everything in their power to keep prog rock out

Posted by derlington on Monday, 08.18.08 @ 12:28pm


If you like Red, listen to their 90's-2000's era music completly different form their earlier stuff, a lot more electronic, ambient, and heavy. Almost sounds Industrial rock influenced.

Posted by Disinton on Tuesday, 09.23.08 @ 18:19pm


Let's see if I can take a stab at this.
As I undertsand the rules based on Black Sabbath and Lynyrd Skynyrd, they would induct members of the band from their classic era, so that would be anyone who played on an album from 1970 to their first "hiatus" in 1974. Thus, it would include:
Robert Fripp — (1969–present)
Greg Lake — (1969–1970)
Michael Giles — (1969–1970)
Ian McDonald — 1969; 1974)
Peter Sinfield — (1969–1971)
Mel Collins — (1970–1972; 1974)

Boz Burrell — (1971–1972)
Ian Wallace — (1971–1972)
John Wetton — (1972–1974)
Jamie Muir — (1972–1973)
Bill Bruford — (1972–1998)

David Cross — (1972–1974)
Richard Palmer-James — (1972–1974)
that's thirteen inductees, and that leaves out three members who were there less than a year
(Gordon Haskell — Andy McCulloch — Rick Kemp)
Wow. that would be a big band, the acceptance speech would take all night

Posted by Mr E on Wednesday, 10.1.08 @ 23:34pm


Let's see if I can take a stab at this.
Boz Burrell
Ian Wallace
Posted by Mr E

Yeah,bands with large lineup changes is tricky when pondering induction.

We can scratch botBoz, and ian as they've both passed away a few yrs. back.

Posted by Gary James CA on Thursday, 10.2.08 @ 08:38am


We can scratch both Boz, and Ian attending as they've both passed away a few yrs. back.

That's better.

Posted by Gary James CA on Thursday, 10.2.08 @ 08:40am


King Crimson's absence from the hall is about the most obvious case of discrimination I have seen. If the hall was an accurate representation of music, King Crimson would have been inducted around the same time as Pink Floyd

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 10.5.08 @ 10:51am


Would be nice to make a Boz double and induct King Crimson and Bad Company at the same time. Truly an underrated talent.

Posted by Mr E on Saturday, 10.25.08 @ 23:29pm


With all that has been said above about KC and why it should be inducted there has been a huge omission of commentary about just how good they have been over the years due to what thay have done live in concert. What brought me into loving the beast that is Crimson is their sheer power live (on their numerous live records and when seeing them in concert). All one needs to do is to get their hands on a little 4-disc set called "The Great Deceiver". It covers a two year period (1973 - 1974) where they play scorching versions of their songs from their albums and intermingled between these songs are many improv pieces which, in many cases, are better than their composed pieces. They have live album releases from all "periods" of the band an in all cases these releases are much bettert than the studio albums.

Posted by RYG on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 09:34am


I think the problem with great prog bands like king crimson and yes is the number of different lineups they had. With crimson, they would not put in every person who has ever played with the band, and there are really three separate time periods they would have to choose from: the early In the Court/Wake of Poseidon with people like Greg Lake, Red/Larks Tongue/starless and Bible Black with Wetton and Bruford, or the Discipline/Three of A perfect pair with Belew and Levin. All of these groups created music (although my personal favorite is the belew led group), but the hall could not elect them all. And one of these lineups by itself does not seem to be hallworthy.

Posted by Neil on Monday, 03.23.09 @ 21:26pm


Rock & Roll Jeopardy
Category: If They Collaborated

If King Crimson did s aong with Tommy James & the Shondells, it would be called...

What is "In The Court Of The Crimson And Clover King"

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 17:22pm


King Crimson did not invent progressive rock, but they are one of the most influencial in the genre and rock music in general. A few names off the top of my head that have covered them are Ozzy Osbourne, Voivod, Dream Theater, Les Claypool, etc. They definately deserve induction.

Posted by Dude Man on Wednesday, 07.29.09 @ 17:49pm


Who is this anonymous twat that keeps up the stereotype that Rush fans are morons? Every Rush fan I have met is a dumb metal head pretending to be an intellectual. Peart said that Bill Bruford was a massive influence on him. Even tho supposed English blues (forget the real thing) was an influence, Rush was popular by copying the british progressive rock bands since they couldn't come close to bands like Cream. So they dumb-ed down progressive rock for the neanderthal denim jacket stoner metal crowd, and now they think their music is superior to everyone else. Its the emperor's new clothes. They aren't smarter, better, or more deserving of rock hall accolades than King Crimson's. If Crimson didn't exist, they would be a crappy Zeppelin rip off band.

Posted by John York on Wednesday, 12.2.09 @ 09:30am


If classic albums were deemed classic after three listens, the world terence mckenna's increase novelty has truly arrived.

Posted by todelishus on Tuesday, 03.30.10 @ 10:55am


The rock and roll hall of fame induct artists who have helped shape the history of rock music. As King Crimson are noteable pioneers of the progressive rock subgenre, I find them worthy of being inducted. Bands like Rush, even if they were more successful, have NOT had an influence on what rock music is today, or how it will be in the future. They are not a revolution in rock music history therefore, they should not be inducted.

Posted by Alex on Wednesday, 03.31.10 @ 14:58pm


They're actually 2nd wave prog, and second in the queue behind The Moody Blues, but yes they're way overdue for induction.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 07.28.10 @ 19:57pm


Crimson's 21st Century Schizoid Man performed live in Hyde Park 1969, ment more for the Heavy Metal genre than anything else. A giant leap in the direction of metal as we know it.

Posted by roger on Monday, 08.23.10 @ 05:38am


So the Rock Hall doesn't like Prog because by drawing from classical elements, prog rock implied to some that rock itself wasn’t artistically interesting or important enough to contain its complex ideas. And for many critics prog strayed too far from rock’s African-American origins, reinforcing the stereotype that associated European music with the intellect and African music with the body. Prog rockers considered Bo Diddley too simple. In other words, Europeans use their heads to write music (that's Prog), while Africans use their private parts to write music (that's Rock). Furthermore, Europeans are intellectuals and Africans are sex crazed.

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 01.20.11 @ 04:00am


Roy, does this accusation have any foundation or is just something you cooked up last night and decided to post on the page of every prog band on here?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 01.20.11 @ 05:16am


http://rockhall.com/blog/post/5442_a-response-to-why-no-yes-in-t/

My comment is in response to Dr. Onky's article about why no Yes in the Rock Hall.

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 01.20.11 @ 05:21am


Ah I see, thanks for the link

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 01.20.11 @ 05:24am


Actually if I had paid attention I would have noticed the link had been up on the updates section at the top of the home page for quite some time!!

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 01.20.11 @ 05:35am


King Crimson is the first, and I believe the only, rock and roll band that changed music theory. With that fact in mind, they should be in the hall of fame.

Posted by EV on Saturday, 03.19.11 @ 06:41am


I'll bet Rush listen to King Crimson. And learn quite a bit. (As a huge bunch of other bands do.) I'm pretty sure it's not the case the other way round.
Anyway -- Rush will finally enter, since it's a band from the right continent. The RRHoF is as worldwide as the US "World Series" are in sports.

Posted by stf on Saturday, 07.16.11 @ 20:55pm


Influence: King Crimsons influence is massive. Yes.
Innovation: Their work was very important in the development of prog rock. Yes
Commercial: Not a lot to speak of here. No.
Critical Respect: ITCOTCK is cited by many as among the greatest albums of all time. Yes.

80%, that's a definetly deserving.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 09.3.11 @ 16:29pm


I thought I read everything until I read this posting. Now we all no what a sham The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is with the bands/individuals that truly have no business inducting into the Hall. Lawd knows how much of a Genesis fan I am, but without King Crimson, there would be no Genesis.

King Crimson basically set the standard for progressive rock by taking the template that bands like The Moody Blues, Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd and Procul Harum and created the canon that began the progressive rock movement. Think about all of the great musicians that came to this band and others that created other bands afterwards.

King Crimson might not have been the million album seller that Genesis or Yes was, but they were extremely influential and innovative.

And yes GFW, I agree with you, and I say 100%

charles

Posted by Chuck AzEee! on Wednesday, 11.16.11 @ 18:03pm


Hardly seems possible they are not in the RRHOF, but Billy Joel is.

Posted by Skip on Thursday, 11.17.11 @ 05:27am


"King Crimson is the first, and I believe the only, rock and roll band that changed music theory." - EV

I decided to repost the above statement because it is a testament to a common misconception. That misconception is "King Crimson invented progressive rock/King Crimson were the first progressive rock band," both of these statements are in fact, untrue. Yes, King Crimson is one of the most influential early prog bands but why they continue to be hailed as "the inventors of prog" baffles me.

The origins of prog are much more complicated than one seemingly obscure band releasing one album. First of all, bands that could be classified as "prog bands" that were active and recording BEFORE King Crimson include: Procol Harum, 1-2-3 (later renamed Clouds), Barclay James Harvest, Soft Machine, the Moody Blues (Note: their debut isn't usually considered prog), the Nice, Gong and Caravan. However, none of these bands are usually considered in the "big league" of prog, that distinction normally goes to later bands like King Crimson, ELP, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes and Jethro Tull. Fans of Rush will also claim that band deserves mention and some may even classify Roxy Music under this category (controversially).

Now, the origins of prog go even further than the first few bands like Procol Harum, Clouds or Soft Machine. For instance albums like Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper, Freak Out! and Surrealistic Pillow are typically cited as the beginnings of prog. The Zombies, with their baroque pop sound, also helped lay the foundation for prog.

Out of these prog bands that are still left out in the cold, I can only realistically see Rush, The Moody Blues and Yes getting in at this point (and Roxy Music, however you choose to classify them). Rush has a very vocal fan base that won't rest until their band gets inducted, plus since Rush is a fairly well-known name and this'll definitely help the Hall sell tickets. The Moody Blues are often seen as a "nostalgia act" and the baby boomers running the show are bound to get to them sooner or later. Yes will get in due to their name recognition, commercial success and the fact they later adopted a more pop-rock sound which the Hall will go for (like Genesis getting in due to the Phil Collins-era if you will). ELP will be left out since they are unfairly considered the definition of musical wankery, Jethro Tull will be left out because "prog-folk-rock" is just too specific and small of a genre that the Hall won't bother with them and finally, King Crimson will be left out because the Hall thinks they are too obscure. In addition, the Hall tends to go for big names rather than the roots of a genre. The very fact King Crimson has been eligible since 1994 and not even considered yet is an indication of this.

"King Crimson basically set the standard for progressive rock by taking the template that bands like The Moody Blues, Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd and Procol Harum and created the canon that began the progressive rock movement." - Chuck AzEE!

This comment by Chuck is why King Crimson should be inducted, not because they "invented prog," which they didn't.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 12.10.11 @ 06:59am


Two chances for guitarist and saxophonist Ian McDonald to be inducted into the Rock Hall (King Crimson, Foreigner).

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 09.4.12 @ 08:04am


The chances of King Crimson being nominated for the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, in the not too distant future, has just increased exponentially with the induction of Rush. Oh and by the way John York, just how much of Rush's catalogue have you actually heard? I am definitely not "dumb," nor a "metal head," but I have supported Rush's induction since 1998. As far as King Crimson is concerned: "In The Court Of The Crimson King," "Larks Tongues In Aspic," " Red," "Discipline" and "Beat" are all brilliant albums. I also like 'Sleepless' and 'Three Of A Perfect Pair' from "Three Of A Perfect Pair." As to which members should be inducted, I would suggest the following: Robert Fripp, Bill Bruford, Adrian Belew, Michael Giles, Greg Lake, Ian McDonald, Tony Levin, Peter Sinfield and John
Wetton.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Sunday, 02.3.13 @ 20:52pm


The Court of the Crimson King is a great album.
The R&RHF shuns entire genres of rock music. Prog has never fared too well.

Posted by astrodog on Tuesday, 02.5.13 @ 03:17am


Astrodog,

Rush's induction bodes well for the induction of more progressive rock acts in the future. The members of Rush will likely endorse several progressive rock groups during their induction ceremony. I would not be surprised if Geddy Lee did not personally endorse The Moody Blues, Yes, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, etc. I would not expect King Crimson to get inducted next year, but then again you never know.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Tuesday, 02.5.13 @ 08:50am


King Crimson

01. Robert Fripp (1968-Present: guitar, keyboards)
02. Greg Lake (1968-1970: vocals, bass; Emerson, Lake and Palmer, The Gods, Asia)
03. Ian McDonald (1968-1969: woodwinds, keyboards, guitar; Foreigner)
04. Michael Giles (1968-1969: vocals, drums)
05. Peter Sinfield (1968-1972: lyrics, keyboards, synthesizers)
06. Gordon Haskell (1970-1971: vocals, bass; Les Fleur de Lys)
07. Mel Collins (1970-1972: saxophone, flute, keyboards)
08. Andy McCulloch (1970-1971: drums)
09. Boz Burrell (1971-1972: vocals, bass; Bad Company)
10. Ian Wallace (1971-1972: drums)
11. John Wetton (1972-1974: vocals, bass; Family, Roxy Music, Asia)
12. David Cross (1972-1974: violin, viola, keyboards)
13. Bill Bruford (1972-1998: drums; Yes)
14. Jaime Muir (1972-1973: percussion)
15. Adrian Belew (1981-Present: vocals, guitar)
16. Tony Levin (1981-Present: bass, keyboards)
17. Trey Gunn (1994-2003: guitar)
18. Pat Mastelotto (1994-Present: drums; Mr. Mister)

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 05.23.13 @ 10:16am


I am hoping that soon, "A Young Person's Guide To King Crimson," "The Compact King Crimson" and "The Concise King Crimson" will eventually be released as remastered expanded CDs with the blessing of Robert Fripp and the assistance of Steven Wilson.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Friday, 11.15.13 @ 04:33am


As I had said before, I have enjoyed several albums by King Crimson. "In The Court Of The Crimson King," "Lark's Tongues In Aspic," "Red," "Discipline," "Beat" and "Thrak" are all brilliant albums. I also like several songs from "Three Of A Perfect Pair" and I would really like to see Steven Wilson and Robert Fripp release a re-issue of "A Young Person's Guide To King Crimson" on remastered cd, as well.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Thursday, 01.2.14 @ 01:10am


Two of this year's inductees: Peter Gabriel and Daryl Hall (of H&O) have worked with Crimson King Robert Fripp. Peter Gabriel's second eponymously-titled solo album from 1978, had both guitar and production work by Fripp. Also, Daryl Hall recorded an album with Robert Fripp called "Sacred Songs"

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Thursday, 01.2.14 @ 01:25am


why are we arguing about who's better! King Crimson and Rush both are great prog bands, so is yes,genesis gabriel era,dream theater,tull,porcupine tree,ELP, and so on! LONG LIVE PROG!

Posted by eric on Tuesday, 01.21.14 @ 22:53pm


"LONG LIVE PROG," indeed!

Eric you are correct, Rush and King Crimson are both great "progressive rock" bands. As to those previous detractors who do not classify Rush as progressive, well I have heard them arguing that point for decades. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be aware that they have lost that argument.

Rush is not, was not and has never been a "heavy metal" band. They may have inspired a slew of hard rock musicians, but their tentative connection to that genre is tenuous at best.

As far as King Crimson is concerned, they have been a very innovative progressive rock band, since their debut. Other than "Lizard," which I have never really liked, most of King Crimson's vast catalogue is worth listening to. Robert Fripp has been constantly innovative in pushing that musical form to it's limit. I would rate their recordings, which I am familiar with, thusly:

"In The Court Of The Crimson King" *****
"In The Wake Of Poseidon" ****
"Lizard" ** 1/2
"Islands" *** 1/2
"Lark's Tongues In Aspic" *****
"Starless And Bible Black" ****
"Red" *****

"The Young Person's Guide To King Crimson" *****

"Discipline" *****
"Beat" *****
"Three Of A Perfect Pair" **** 1/2

"The Compact King Crimson" *****

"The Concise King Crimson" *****

"Thrak" *****
"Thrakattak *****
"Vroom" ****
"B'Boom Live In Argentina" *****




Posted by Enigmaticus on Thursday, 01.23.14 @ 08:35am


"LONG LIVE PROG," indeed!

Eric you are correct, Rush and King Crimson are both great "progressive rock" bands. As to those previous detractors who do not classify Rush as progressive, well I have heard them arguing that point for decades. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be aware that they have lost that argument.

Rush is not, was not and has never been a "heavy metal" band. They may have inspired a slew of hard rock musicians, but their tentative connection to that genre is tenuous at best.

As far as King Crimson is concerned, they have been a very innovative progressive rock band, since their debut. Other than "Lizard," which I have never really liked, most of King Crimson's vast catalogue is worth listening to. Robert Fripp has been constantly innovative in pushing that musical form to it's limit. I would rate their recordings, which I am familiar with, thusly:

"In The Court Of The Crimson King" *****
"In The Wake Of Poseidon" ****
"Lizard" ** 1/2
"Islands" *** 1/2
"Lark's Tongues In Aspic" *****
"Starless And Bible Black" ****
"Red" *****

"A Young Person's Guide To King Crimson" *****

"Discipline" *****
"Beat" *****
"Three Of A Perfect Pair" **** 1/2

"The Compact King Crimson" *****

"The Concise King Crimson" *****

"Vroom" **** 1/2
"B'Boom: Live In Argentina" *****
"Thrak" *****
"Thrakattak" *****

In my honest opinion, any of their compilations, are definitely worth checking out first. When I had lived in the Bay area, back in the late 1980's, I had listened to a lot of King Crimson.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Thursday, 01.23.14 @ 08:49am


By the way, King Crimson is the cover artist for this month's issue of PROG magazine.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Tuesday, 10.21.14 @ 00:54am


King Crimson were not a band. They were the one of the greatest orchestras of the 20ith Century. Robert Fripp was of course the conductor and first chair. His complete discography lists more than seven hundred releases over four decades. Truly one of the greatest composers of our era. In a thousand years, He will be remembered for his contributions to music theory.

Posted by Mikhail on Thursday, 10.23.14 @ 22:12pm


King Crimson are now reformed, probably for the last time. The deserve to be inducted. Now or never!

Posted by Markco on Friday, 02.13.15 @ 04:04am


I do think that King Crimson will be nominated next year for induction into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Sunday, 08.9.15 @ 19:31pm


Prior to Rush's induction into the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, the members of Rush had mentioned four bands who should have already been inducted into the Rock Hall: Yes, Deep Purple, The Moody Blues and King Crimson. All of these bands were hugely influential.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Monday, 11.23.15 @ 02:07am


I do not understand the aversion of the Hall to induct Prog bands, or, bands like Little Feat.
Just because you don't like the music, or that prog bands didn't have the sales numbers of a Michael Jackson,Or Fleetwood Mac,does not mean that these great players don't deserve induction.
Nobody has thought to even mention Jethro Tull in any of this.
Oh well, maybe the Hall will one day visit their proctologist for some badly needed brain surgery, because that's where their brains are located.

Posted by mrmusic248 on Thursday, 12.17.15 @ 03:37am


mrmusic248,

I do not understand the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame's aversion to "prog" either, but I certainly do think that Rush's induction will change things. As far as the sales of certain progressive rock artists are concerned, do we really believe that Rush has only sold 40 million albums, worldwide? Are we that naïve? Rush still packs arenas and sometimes stadia 40 years later.

As far as I am concerned, That 40,000,000 sales figure for Rush, is probably the biggest lie ever perpetrated upon the public. It does not even remotely make sense, but the record industry is undoubtedly upset that Rush has been so successful and does not cater to their whims.

As far as King Crimson is concerned, they are 7th on my list of favorite bands, slightly above Duran Duran and slightly below Gentle Giant. If King Crimson does appear on the ballot, I will vote for them!

Posted by Enigmaticus on Thursday, 12.17.15 @ 08:56am


I think that the nomination of King Crimson will be much sooner than later. Of course, the complicated logistics of inducting various members may be the chief reason why King Crimson has not been inducted yet.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Sunday, 01.17.16 @ 16:54pm


King Crimson is seventh on my list of greatest progressive rock bands, slightly below Gentle Giant and slightly above, Duran Duran.

I have not really written much about King Crimson, compared to what I have written about these other "prog" bands: Rush, The Moody Blues, Yes, Duran Duran and Electric Light Orchestra.

That situation is about to change.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Saturday, 10.15.16 @ 11:55am


I was hoping to write more about King Crimson, but I suppose that will have to wait until later.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Monday, 10.24.16 @ 18:55pm


Finally, the newly remastered and expanded versions of "Beat," "Three Of A Different Pair" and "Thrak" are available; I have been waiting several years for this to occur.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Wednesday, 11.2.16 @ 10:22am


RIP Greg Lake here too!

Posted by Roy on Friday, 12.9.16 @ 22:36pm


I am very saddened to hear about the recent passing of Greg Lake, co-founder, former bassist and vocalist for King Crimson. As far as members of the King Crimson alumni who have already passed on, Greg Lake was indeed a giant.

Greg Lake had played bass and sang on "In The Court of The Crimson King" and on several songs on "In The Wake Of Poseidon."

Greg Lake will definitely be missed. :-(

Posted by Enigmaticus on Saturday, 12.10.16 @ 13:48pm


My prediction that the members they will induct are

Robert Fripp
Greg Lake
Michael Giles
Ian McDonald
Boz Burrell
Ian Wallace
John Wetton
Bill Bruford
Adrian Belew
Tony Levin

Posted by Nicky Joe on Friday, 12.16.16 @ 07:07am


Nicky Joe,

That is an interesting list. I think that if King Crimson is nominated later this year, then they will be inducted. I think that the inducted members will be:

01. Robert Fripp
02. Greg Lake
03. Michael Giles
04. Ian MacDonald
05. David Cross
06. John Wetton
07. Tony Levin
08. Adrian Belew
09. Bill Bruford

Posted by Enigmaticus on Sunday, 01.8.17 @ 06:31am


King Crimson

01. Robert Fripp (1968-Present: guitar, keyboards)
02. Greg Lake (1968-1970: vocals, bass; Emerson, Lake and Palmer, The Gods, Asia)
03. Ian McDonald (1968-1969: woodwinds, keyboards, guitar; Foreigner)
04. Michael Giles (1968-1969: vocals, drums)
05. Peter Sinfield (1968-1972: lyrics, keyboards, synthesizers)
06. Gordon Haskell (1970-1971: vocals, bass; Les Fleur de Lys)
07. Mel Collins (1970-1972: saxophone, flute, keyboards)
08. Andy McCulloch (1970-1971: drums)
09. Boz Burrell (1971-1972: vocals, bass; Bad Company)
10. Ian Wallace (1971-1972: drums)
11. John Wetton (1972-1974: vocals, bass; Family, Roxy Music, Asia)
12. David Cross (1972-1974: violin, viola, keyboards)
13. Bill Bruford (1972-1998: drums; Yes)
14. Jaime Muir (1972-1973: percussion)
15. Adrian Belew (1981-Present: vocals, guitar)
16. Tony Levin (1981-Present: bass, keyboards)
17. Trey Gunn (1994-2003: guitar)
18. Pat Mastelotto (1994-Present: drums; Mr. Mister)

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 01.8.17 @ 17:54pm


Nicky Joe and Enigmaticus

You both actually think Peter Sinfield will be left out of the King Crimson induction? He was an original member and the band's lyricist for four years. He's sort of like the Grateful Dead's Robert Hunter.

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 01.8.17 @ 18:01pm


Roy,

If I am not mistaken, Peter Sinfield had also written lyrics for Emerson, Lake & Palmer, in addition to King Crimson. However, Robert Fripp and he have apparently had a strained relationship for several decades, due to Sinfield's focus on fantasy, rather than reality in his lyrics. Instead, King Crimson's new lyricist was Richard Palmer-James, a friend of vocalist John Wetton.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Tuesday, 01.10.17 @ 01:24am


Roy,

If I am not mistaken, Peter Sinfield had also written lyrics for Emerson, Lake & Palmer, in addition to King Crimson. However, Robert Fripp and he have apparently had a strained relationship for several decades, due to Sinfield's focus on fantasy, rather than reality in his lyrics. Instead, King Crimson's new lyricist was Richard Palmer-James, a friend of vocalist John Wetton until 1974, or so. Then King Crimson went on an indefinite hiatus, only to return in 1981 with the brilliant studio album, "Discipline" and a new lyricist and guitarist, Adrian Belew.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Tuesday, 01.10.17 @ 01:35am


Peter Sinfield on keyboards and synthesizers as well. The Rock Hall might give him the Nick Simper (Deep Purple), Peter Banks (Yes) treatment!

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 01.10.17 @ 04:37am


RIP John Wetton

http://sixxsense.iheart.com/articles/national-rock-news-active-main-rock-104648/john-wetton-cofounding-member-of-asia-15520764/

Posted by dmg on Tuesday, 01.31.17 @ 09:56am


It is a very sad day indeed. Former bassist and vocalist for King Crimson, U.K. and Asia had passed away today. This means that two of King Crimson's former members (Greg Lake and John Wetton) have both passed away fairly recently. My most sincere condolences to the family and friends of John Wetton. :-(

Posted by Enigmaticus on Wednesday, 02.1.17 @ 00:56am


It is a very sad day indeed. Former bassist and vocalist for King Crimson, U.K. and Asia, John Wetton, had passed away today. This means that two of King Crimson's former members (Greg Lake and John Wetton) have both passed away fairly recently. My most sincere condolences to the family and friends of John Wetton. :-(

Posted by Enigmaticus on Thursday, 02.2.17 @ 03:24am


If the Rock Hall really is capping the inductees at 8

King Crimson

01. Robert Fripp (1968-Present: guitar, keyboards)
02. Greg Lake (1968-1970: vocals, bass; Emerson, Lake and Palmer, The Gods, Asia)
03. Ian McDonald (1968-1969: woodwinds, keyboards, guitar; Foreigner)
04. Michael Giles (1968-1969: vocals, drums)
05. Peter Sinfield (1968-1972: lyrics, keyboards, synthesizers)
06. Bill Bruford (1972-1998: drums; Yes)
07. Adrian Belew (1981-Present: vocals, guitar)
08. Tony Levin (1981-Present: bass, keyboards)

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 02.21.17 @ 06:19am


I'm not sure if it's an oversight on your part, Roy, but there's no way the late John Wetton will get excluded from a King Crimson induction. He's a core member of his era of the band, and his trilogy of albums are some of the greatest the band has ever released.

If I were a betting man, I'm guessing Ian McDonald will be the one getting the "John Rutsey" treatment from the Hall (he only played on the debut, IIRC), and these 8 (if there truly is a cap with that number as the limit) will be the ones enshrined:

1. Robert Fripp
2. Greg Lake
3. Michael Giles
4. Peter Sinfield
5. Bill Bruford
6. John Wetton
7. Adrian Belew
8. Tony Levin

Posted by Joseph on Monday, 03.13.17 @ 06:53am


Yes, you are right, and that would mean Ian McDonald won't be a two-time inductee (Foreigner).

Posted by Roy on Monday, 03.13.17 @ 19:22pm


Roy and Joseph,

However, Ian McDonald was an integral part of King Crimson for co-writing, 'I Talk To The Wind' and 'The Court Of The Crimson King,' so I think that there may be 9 members inducted, instead.


Robert Fripp
Adrian Belew
Tony Levin
John Wetton
Bill Bruford
Greg Lake
Ian McDonald
Michael Giles
Peter Sinfield

Posted by Enigmaticus on Tuesday, 03.14.17 @ 10:52am


Yes, Enigmaticus and Roy, I do believe 9 (or even 10) is the ideal inductee list for a band like King Crimson. By adding Ian McDonald in, all the original members get enshrined. Plus, you can make a case for Mel Collins or David Cross, who were official members on multiple albums.

Anyway, Yes' Geoff Downes (who first mentioned about the Hall's "cap") never mentioned a specific number, but it should be arbitrary depending on the band/group (to be fair to those who have had several line-up changes).

Posted by Joseph on Tuesday, 03.14.17 @ 22:19pm


Rush was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame in 2013. Yes will be inducted into the Rock Hall in 2017. Will King Crimson be next?

Why should King Crimson be inducted?

Of their many members over the years, who should be inducted?

Posted by Enigmaticus on Saturday, 03.25.17 @ 06:34am


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.