Talk:King Crimson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleKing Crimson was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
March 11, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
June 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 29, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 5, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 9, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 21, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject iconVital articles C‑class(Level 5)
WikiProject iconKing Crimson has been listed as a level-5 vital article in People, Musicians. If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

should Genesis be included in "Associated Acts"?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Based on the other bands listed, Genesis certainly would make the cut. However, I think it may be worth re-evaluating what constitutes an "associated act." Crimson members have played with hundreds of bands. If we listed everyone that they'd played with, it wouldn't be particularly useful to anyone reading this article.
Surely "21st Century Schizoid Band" and "Crimson Jazz Trio" constitute "associated acts." "Giles, Giles and Fripp" make sense as well.
But do Porcupine Tree, Liquid Tension, Foreigner and others really constitute an "associated act?" Does listing these acts help someone learn more about Crimson? I doubt if Genesis, Liquid Tension, Porcupine Tree or Foreigner would list KC as an "associated act." And they probably shouldn't.
Wikipedia users will naturally find these relationships by clicking on band members. I don't think it's practical to list them all here, and the existing list should probably be pruned.
Thoughts? ZildjianLudwig (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Genesis and Yes should be on the list because they are significant bands which members of King Crimson played more than a special guest appearance. I think we should cut out side projects formed by the members, as those aren't necessarily associated with King Crimson, but rather with that individual member of King Crimson. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Foreigner meets your criteria: it is a "significant band", and Ian McDonald was a proper-member of both bands. Somehow it still feels like a stretch to call these two bands "related." I think your definition is a good start but needs refining. Thoughts on how Foreigner plays in? Perhaps add the criteria that they must be the same (or similar) genre? ZildjianLudwig (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Al all those bands you mention, I think Porcupine Tree (PT) is the most suitable as an associate act, because interaction between both bands has been frequent in recent years. Some examples: Gavin Harrison, of PT, played in the last KC tour; Steven Wilson of PT did the remasters for the most recent reedition of classic KC records; Robert Fripp guest played in two PT records; Theo Travis, a PT collaborator, toured three years ago with Fripp; the Tony Levin Trio (including also Pat Mastelotto) supported PT in their most recent tour, so 3/5 of KC were taking part in that tour... I am sure I am missing more collaborations between members of both bands.--Gorpik (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts. That will tell you what qualifies for the "associated groups" section. I think Porcupine Tree is definitely the best example by the criteria. Burbridge92 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

ProjeKcts Cleanup[edit]

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.


I will probably do this in the next few days if nobody objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZildjianLudwig (talkcontribs) 15:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. The ProjeKcts page is the right place for all those details, and the corresponding section here should be abridged.--Gorpik (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

Personally I think it's an awkward topic. On one hand, you're right in what you are saying, plus Peter Sinfield did play synthesisers for the band occasionally whereas Palmer-James never performed with King Crimson. On the other hand, they both worked with the band in the same capacity principally, so I can understand why people would argue either way. Burbridge92 (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, first of all, that argument cuts both ways. You could as easily say that Palmer-James wasn't a member of the group, and Sinfield worked in the same capacity principally as Palmer-James, so Sinfield should also be considered a guest musician. Second, Palmer-James didn't work with King Crimson in the same capacity as Sinfield. Aside from a couple instrumentals each on In the Wake of Poseidon and Islands, Sinfield wrote lyrics to all of King Crimson's songs during his time with them; Palmer-James didn't write lyrics for even half of them.
Third and most importantly, I was under the impression that it isn't Wikipedia's place to decide who should have been considered a member of a group and write history to be in line with what we think should have happened rather than what actually did. King Crimson's album sleeves and press articles of the time are unambiguous that Palmer-James wasn't a member; our job is simply to report that.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your third point is paramount, in my opinion. I am updating the article accordingly.--Gorpik (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't know how to edit the timeline. If someone can help with that, it will be appreciated.--Gorpik (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've managed to successfully edit a timeline before. However, the timeline includes both guest musicians and band members, so we shouldn't remove Palmer-James unless we're also going to remove the other guest musicians. If you're thinking it would be a good idea to remove guest musicians from the timeline, I think we ought to start a new topic for that.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not talking about the Personnel / album chart, but the Timeline to the right of the member list. Palmer-James was the only non-member listed there. But no problem, I have just found where it was, so I edited it myself.--Gorpik (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. Most band articles don't use a timeline like that one, and so editors typically refer to charts such as the one with guest musicians in it as the timeline.
Pretty amazing coincidence that you should post this now; just hours before sitting down to do my Wiking for that day, I made a note to myself to correct Palmer-James's own article concerning the matter. I also went ahead and fixed the relevant album articles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British/American Grammar[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I have reverted a couple of recent changes that converted British expressions into American ones. The only guideline I could find is in MOS:MUSIC: "An article in Wikipedia should use one national variety of English consistently". As for accepted varieties, MOS:S lists them (AAVE is not one of them, by the way). I tend to find that the general consensus is: use the national variety spoken in the artist's country, in case English is spoken in that country. Of course, in some cases it is not so easy to decide which is the nationality of a band. In any case, this article is currently written in British English, so I think we should follow the guideline and stick with it.--Gorpik (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd hardly compare British English – i.e., English as spoken in the place it comes from, like French as spoken in France – to AAVE. JonC 13:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subject/ verb disagreement. i.e. "the band have".[edit]

This is an English Fusion band ( circa 1970's), from England, where the english language was developed. Maybe using the form, "the band has" isn't too much to ask for. This simple gramatically correct use of their language could go far in the credibility Wiki deserves. Could it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recommend you read this wikipedia article, which explains why "the band have" is correct British English.--Gorpik (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that doesn't explain it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current members[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

If the band is no longer active, and there are no indications for a future reunion, the lead should say that they "were" a rock band, not that they "are" a rock band. If they "are" a rock band, then they should have current members. (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no indications to suggest either way with regards to King Crimson. They are on hiatus, they could come back, they might not. So until we have reason to believe that the hiatus has turned into a break up the term "are" is appropriate. However, there are still no current members due to the fact that a) they are inactive and b) if they reform their may be a completely different lineup to the one that went on hiatus, so labelling any members as "current" (other than Robert Fripp who is the one constant member) would be pure speculation on our behalf. In any case, the Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that an inactive band (regardless of reasons for inactivity, be in permanent breakup or otherwise) should have no members listed as current. Burbridge92 (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spinal Tap Reference Missing[edit]

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 (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Unless we could find a reliable source where the filmmakers stated that they were specifically thinking of KC for that scene, this is just argumentative and not encyclopedic.--Gorpik (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bullshit trolling, obviously. As regards Spinal Tap, I believe that the main reference point was Saxon (with whom several of Tap's creators toured for research) and that the pod scene was based on a set malfunction on Yes' Tales from Topographic Oceans tour. As for the Stonehenge sequence, that's based on a Black Sabbath tour in which the band's set was too big for the venues and in which they employed a dwarf performer to caper around throwing stuff at the audience and then jump off a trilithon. I'm sure that all of this stuff is online somewhere, but as it's not got anything to do with King Crimson I can't be bothered to look it up right now. - Dann Chinn (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Earthbound added to Discogrophy[edit]

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 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your edit and for posting a message about it. I removed your edit because the album can be found in the King Crimson discography and since it's not a studio album it's not mentioned in the main article. Quibus (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright concerns regarding Discipline Global Mobile (DGM)[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


I nominated the following hook for DYK.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger Fripp plays guitar.

Did you know

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs to be edited for grammar[edit]

This article really needs to be edited for grammar, specifically there are several subject/verb agreement issues throughout the article.

Examples - in the first paragraph:

King Crimson are<<this should be "is" a rock band founded in London, England in 1969. Often categorised as a foundational progressive rock group,[1] the band have <<<has incorporated diverse influences and instrumentation during their history (including jazz and folk music, classical and experimental music, psychedelic rock, hard rock and heavy metal,[2] new wave, gamelan, electronica and drum and bass). They have been influential on many contemporary musical artists and have gained a large cult following, despite garnering little radio or music video airplay.[3]

Though originating in England, King Crimson have <<<has had a mixture of English and American personnel since 1981.

Between 1970 and 1971, King Crimson were<<<was an unstable band,

Since reforming for the second time (in 1994), King Crimson have<<<has blended

This type of grammatical error is made pretty consistently throughout the article, however, there are exceptions, where subject/verb agreement is correct as in this example:

King Crimson's existence has been characterised by regular periods....

In any case, the entire article should be reviewed for consistency.

Ronb1224 (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)ronb1224Reply[reply]

Such changes could help. However, English English apparently allows plural verbs for a singular group of persons when the individual members are emphasized.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has already been discussed before. See British/American Grammar and Subject/ verb disagreement. i.e. "the band have". above.--Gorpik (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"British"?---Adrien Belew, Tony Levin, Trey Gunn, Pat M., Gavin Harrison[edit]

The lede called KC a British band. Since the 1980s, the only new members have been Americans, so it is crude to call the band "British (full stop)".

The band started c. 1967 in Southwest England and moved to London, before being recognized commercially and artistically in 1969. The members were predominantly from Southwestern England.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last bullet point under Influence on Other Artists[edit]

There is at least one legitimate grammar issue here, and that is the last bullet point (on Japanese musicians influenced by KC) under "Influence on Other Artists". That point is currently a single run-on sentence that doesn't make sense, especially toward the end. Someone more familiar with this music than myself (I've heard of most of the bands but don't know their work in depth) really should edit that into two or three simpler sentences, with special attention to clarifying the stuff about Boris et al toward the end. (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I have just made an attempt to improve the wording for that bullet.--Gorpik (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

King Crimson as New Wave[edit]

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, 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 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is. Immediately to the right of that first footnote is one citing Allmusic's review of Beat.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well clearly I'm blind. There you go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Mark Charig[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I remember having read that before, but I cannot remember where. I think you should go ahead and change that name.--Gorpik (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 Taff Hewitt (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The departure of David Cross[edit]

It has been mentioned in Sid Smith's book that David Cross was voted out of the band (by 2 to 1 to be annoyingly accurate!) However, the booklet that comes with the boxed 4-CD version of "The Great Deceiver" tells a different story. Apparently, after they played the last gig of the tour at Central Park, NYC, on 1st July 1974, Fripp said to the rest of the band that he had pencilled in another tour of the USA. When he heard this, Cross' heart plummeted and announced then and there that he was quitting the band, Not only was he feeling 'musically isolated', but he was fed up with touring. Taff Hewitt (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to WP:PRIMARY, we better stick with Smith's book as a source. I also remember having read that when Cross left the band, Fripp said that "he was the weak spot in my heavy metal band". In any case it looks like all sources agree that Cross and the rest of the band had drifted away from each other, even if the details of the actual breakup vary somewhat.--Gorpik (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The exact quote from page 61 of the original "Great Deceiver" box set's book is: "The frustrations of touring were getting me down and when yet another USA tour was pencilled in to follow the recording of Red I decided not to go. The others decided to record the album without me." From Fripp's 1974 journal entries on page 19, we learn that Wetton thought Cross should go, Bruford thought he should stay, and Fripp "regret[ted] that he must leave". Later notes on the following page clarify that this vote discussion was held before the Central Park show that night, but that Cross wouldn't be told until later. Cross's statement doesn't make clear whether he got around to informing anyone of his decision before he was told about this, or even when the next tour was first planned. Cross being told of the decision as the first actual communication on the topic is consistent with all accounts. Ixat totep (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enumeration of lineups[edit]

I've seen their line-ups divided into sections like Mk. 1 and Mk. 3, but it's not clear how the boundaries are determined. For example, the album "Lizard" is attributed to #2, even though the only musician who played on both it and the first album is Fripp. Only two musicians were replaced going from "Lizard" to "Islands", the sole album attributed to #3. How is it determined that Lizard belongs in 2 rather than 3? TGGP (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. I admit that In the Wake of Poseidon may be attributed to lineup #1 since there was no definite KC formation at the time, but Lizard had one, even if it was short lived.--Gorpik (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of trying to work this out ourselves, we should look to reliable sources. What do they suggest as the key changes over time? Bondegezou (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, but I don't think the current division in the article is sourced. It strikes me as just a way to divide a long section. Anyway, better look for reliable sources rather than making this up ourselves, for sure.--Gorpik (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can add something to this. I don't recall WHERE I heard it (probably an interview given to the music press in about 1973), but the line-up numbering was Fripp's, based solely on the line-ups that toured. So, the "In the Court..." line-up was Mk1, the "Islands" line-up was Mk2, and the line-ups with John Wetton were Mk3. I don't know if/how the numbering changed when Jamie Muir left. The "...Poseidon" and "Lizard" line-ups never toured, so they don't get a mention, which seems a little harsh. (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fripp describes the "Lizard" lineup as "Transitional Lineup II" in the notes to the 40th anniversary edition, with the Poseidon assemblage being "Transitional Lineup I" (it looks a lot like the proper Lineup I, but everyone except Fripp and Sinfield appeared as session players). The "Transitional Lineup II" credit is on the first page following the track listing in the booklet. I can't find the "Transitional Lineup I" quote (Fripp did not provide notes to the Poseidon remix), but it's clear from the context- Fripp describes the transitional lineups as "positioned between the live Crimsons of 1969 and 1971", which leaves no other option. If I can figure out a way to lay that out I'll edit the chart, but won't start an edit war if someone thinks it doesn't work and reverts it. Ixat totep (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on what you say, just a mention somewhere that those two line-ups are considered transitional by Fripp, along with the appropriate source, might be enough.--Gorpik (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Personnel section and timeline have been updated with the news of the new Crimson line-up. However, I am concerned that both section's updates have made presumptions about what instruments everyone will play (e.g., the timeline says Collins will play keys). Apart from Jakszyk being on vocals/guitars (as confirmed on his website), what everyone else is doing is not clear and is not supported by reliable source citations. Most of the presumptions seems likely, but not all of them (Collins/keys). Bondegezou (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that this is a far fetched shot; nevertheless, once Fripp publishes his new diary entry everything may become clear, so I don't think there is a hurry to straighten things up.--Gorpik (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Conspicuously absent from the article are any details as to why Belew is conspicuously absent from the new line-up. Belew was keen for King Crimson to play together during the years that Fripp had the band on hiatus. Did he quit? Was he ousted? Was the decision mutual? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFAIK, Fripp just did not include him in the new lineup. Belew wrote in his FB page that Fripp called to tell him he would not be in the new incarnation of the band. I don't know of any other public details.--Gorpik (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that Adrian's article makes note of this. Perhaps it should be mentioned here? (I don't know if Facebook is a reliable source.) I would think the sudden departure of the band' front-man since 1981 is worth a mention, but it's quite possible I'm reading too much into it. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree much. You don't really need to point out that Belew is not in the next lineup; this is clear for anyone reading it. And, as you say, if you want to know more about Belew's situation, you can just go to his article.--Gorpik (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Towards the 2013 lineup[edit]

Due to events surrounding the new band lineup and Adrian Belew's current activity with the Crimson ProjeKCt (plus the status and significance of ProjeKCts in general) I've been making some changes to the band history sections. These are intended to better represent Jakko Jakszyk's journey towards becoming a King Crimson member, the manner in which ProjeKCts inform and support King Crimson music, and the several ways in which that music has been maintained and represented in the past decade.

This means a more prominent representation of several spinoffs and ProjeKCts, most particularly 21st Century Schizoid Band and the Crimson ProjeKCt. Since 2002, we've had a tribute-band-cum-reformation involving significant former bandmembers who revived old Crimson music and eventually provided the main band with its new frontman; a band with a significant proportion of current and recent members including the longest-serving (and, until last year, current) frontman continuing to perform the '80s and '90s material, with Fripp's blessing; and a situation in which King Crimson is never entirely inactive due to consistent ProjeKCtwork. I think it's now appropriate to integrate ProjeKCtwork and 21CSB history into the main history, so long as it can be done without too many extra complications. I welcome further discussion on this.

Also, I've been reworking the intro paragraph. With the new lineup established, it was time for this paragraph to go back to being a full historical overview and the "new" news to stay at the end of the history section. - Dann Chinn (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ELP as an associated act[edit]

I was reading the discussion above on associated acts, and I was surprised to see that ELP didn't come up at all. Although ELP and King Crimson did indeed have only one member in common (Lake) and ELP would therefore seemingly not meet the criteria for associated acts, an exception should be made here because ELP was a supergroup and supergroups tend to be rather strongly associated with the groups their members came from. ELP should therefore be included as an associated act. Esszet (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Had ELP been a parallel group or a spin-off, this could be analysed. But Greg Lake just left KC to join ELP and from that moment on both bands went completely separate ways, so I fail to see why we should make an exception here.--Gorpik (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Associated acts are meant to have at least 2 members in common, although that rule is frequently not applied. I would argue for ELP's inclusion for the different reason that Peter Sinfield, a former member of Crimson, was effectively a 4th member of ELP. He contributed lyrics to ELP on Brain Salad Surgery, Works Volume 1, Works Volume 2 and Love Beach. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, Sinfield helped Lake with a few lyrics, but saying that he was a fourth member of ELP is overstretching quite a lot. He didn't have a say on what the band did, unlike what happened during his tenure in KC. But OK, I'll admit that a second ex-KC collaborated with ELP.--Gorpik (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're interpreting (and the ‘Associated Acts’ guidelines are using) the term ‘associated acts’ too narrowly. You (and the guidelines) are using it only to include professional associations when it sounds as though (and it's apparently frequently interpreted to include) strong associations in general. I would therefore argue that ELP should be included as an associated act because the association between them and KC is rather strong for the reasons listed above. If you'd like to get the guidelines changed before we add them, we can do that as well. Esszet (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you say about supergroups in your initial comment might be relevant if a link between both bands had been kept, but that was not the case. I have no notice of any collaboration of any kind between KC and ELP after Lake switched bands, apart from Lake himself recording vocals for ITWOP when he was leaving. Then he sure asked his former bandmate Sinfield, already out of KC himself, to help with some lyrics but, once again, there is no indication of Sinfield interacting at all with either Emerson or Palmer; just Lake. This is not a strong association between both bands in my opinion (I'd agree with adding Sinfield as an associated act for Lake, on the other hand, due to their continued association).--Gorpik (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel describing the situation as merely "Sinfield helped Lake with a few lyrics" feels inaccurate. He was the lyricist on multiple ELP songs and also worked directly with Emerson on Love Beach (with the much under-rated "Memoirs of an Officer and a Gentleman"). Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The association between KC and ELP is much more a popular one than a professional one. If you're talking about how ELP was a supergroup and you know where the members came from, you'll say something to the effect of: ‘Yeah, Keith Emerson was from The Nice, Greg Lake was from King Crimson…’. The association would be much weaker if ELP hadn't been a supergroup (e.g. the association between KC and Yes isn't particularly strong just because Bill Bruford was a member of both bands), but because ELP was a supergroup, the association is much stronger than that between other bands who had only one member in common. That is the basis of the association between ELP and KC. Esszet (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did, a while back, add in a section titled "Supergroup" that covered all their members' associations, but it was removed even though this group definitely meets the definition of supergroup with how many members, who would have fame before/after joining" rotated through. I'd say we restore that, but IDK how to source something like that. Moline1 (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added back in the Supergroup section and added a link to it in the associated acts section. Moline1 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on King Crimson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]



can we agree to throw out "post-progressive" from the genre list? As far as I know, no other source uses this term to describe King Crimson. It's not even an established genre, but a concept that appears in three or four books on progressive rock; no bands are commonly described as post-progressive. I tried removing it myself, but an editor keeps restoring it without addressing my concerns. Chilton (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline chaos[edit]

The timeline figure is getting very complicated. Trying to show this many different colours is not practical. I cannot make out what's going on, and I know the band's history well.

Most timeline figures on other articles do not go into this degree of detail about who plays precisely what. I suggest a simplification is in order. The text, and other articles, can show the details. The timeline should be clear and you achieve clarity by being simple.

So, how about we drop "backing vocals" entirely; combine drums and "custom percussion"; and combine bass and Chapman Stick? Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's perfectly fine for me. KC's dynamics are unlike most other bands, let's not make that even more complicated.--Gorpik (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to combine Chapman Stick and Warr Guitar as both are brands/variations of touch guitars. The distinction is not worth the lack of readability. And for that matter, the chart gets the point at which Gunn switched from Chapman Stick to Warr Guitar wrong by several years anyway. Ixat totep (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no recollection of Tony playing "Keyboards, Synthesiser, mellotron" in the 90's incarnation. Removing. Is the same true of Trey playing bass? Did he ever play anything but a "touch-style guitar?"ZildjianLudwig (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A strong case can be made for removing the drums/percussion distinction. It seems that virtually every Crimson drummer has played both "drumset" and "other percussion." Even if it's not the case, one is a subset of the other. About the ONLY one it may not make sense to apply this to would be Belew. Thoughts? ZildjianLudwig (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Totally agreed. You may make distinctions in the article, or in the list of members, but the timeline graph should be kept simple if we want it to be useful.--Gorpik (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ProjeKct albums probably have no place in the timeline, as the timeline doesn't show ProjeKct membership. "Scarcity" is rather conspicuous, as an album appears to be released in a huge gap in band membership. ZildjianLudwig (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Influence section[edit]

All the recent additions to the Influence section have bloated it beyond the ability of our average reader to wade through it. I propose that every artist merely mentioning King Crimson as an influence should be removed, so that we can focus on those artists that actually describe how King Crimson influenced them. Let's concentrate on readable prose rather than an exhaustive (and exhausting) list. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging Ojo del tigre who has done most of the recent work. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with Binksternet. Bondegezou (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, I think I overcrowded the section. But I think they could also be grouped into genres without naming each one and/or keep the more popular bands even if they do not speak in extension because sometimes there is little information in interviews, for example it took me a while to find the references of Mars Volta and Primus who were in other languages, or Brent Hinds gave few interviews and he was primarily responsible for introducing King Crimson to the other members of Mastodon.
Thanks for letting me know, I should have taken a look at it before. Ojo del tigre (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2011's "Jakszyk Fripp Collins (A King Crimson ProjeKct)" is not King Crimson[edit]

The lineup chart now appears to show a 2011 King Crimson lineup consisting of Jakszyk, Fripp, and Collins, plus those KC members who appeared on the album as session musicians (Levin and Harrison). However this is not King Crimson, as is made clear all over the official materials and the DGM web site. If the chart is tracking the ProjeKcts, then it should also have P6 from 2006. And arguably "The Crimson ProjeKct". And should track the different ProjeKct lineups during 97-99.

I propose that if we want a chart of the ProjeKct lineups, that it be put on the ProjeKcts page. The KC chart should stick with KC proper. Alternatively, the chart could do what the List of Yes band members timeline does and add color notation for alternative versions of the band (ABWH and Yes Featuring AWR). But I think that that clutters the chart too much, particularly after the nice simplifications that were recently done.

Ixat totep (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed -- should be removed. And thanks for your other edits. Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on King Crimson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Band photo[edit]

The photo being used at the top of the page looks blurry and doesn’t show the current lineup of the band. Are there any photos available of the current lineup or of higher quality, and how could I go about replacing the current photo with one of these? SomePersona (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well? SomePersona (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The most recent photo on the Commons is this one. It's still blurry, though. To change the current photo, you'll need to change the entry under '| image' in the infobox part of the source to the name of the file you wish to change it to. If you have a better photo that you have the rights to, you can upload it to the Commons under an appropriate licence and it could be used on the article instead. Hope that helps! Ralbegen (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on King Crimson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New photo[edit]

I added a new photo to reflect the current lineup (most of it, at least). The old photo was blurry and displayed a lineup from over ten years ago (it said performing in 2003). The drummer was even hidden in the photo. The photo I used has 7 of the 8 current members (doesn't have Jeremy Stacey). SomePersona (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AllMusic links are all dead[edit]

Apparently Allmusic changed its naming system, so now we need to update all the links. It's also an opportunity to check if the sources support the contents of the article (for example the Discipline link doesn't support it). --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I updated the links, although I haven't checked if the statements were supported. Cheers. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added info[edit]

there should be some mention of how the band has very strict control of how there image is used (For example; the popular music website has a blank image for their albums and band photos "due to certain legal restrictions imposed on by King Crimson's Management.". They're also one of the very few popular acts not to have music on streaming services. RF23 (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed Extraneous Sentence and Keith Moon Reference[edit]

I removed the sentence "The album was no more of a success than the singles and was even disparaged by Keith Moon of the Who in a magazine review.[1]" from Formation because: 1) The source cited contains no reference to Keith Moon nor any quote by Keith Moon, and 2) The substance of the sentence, viz., the lack of success by GG&F releases, was described in the remainder of the paragraph. Count Robert of Paris (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progressive rock definition[edit]

Re: "Although initially considered a seminal force in progressive rock (a genre originally characterised by lengthy compositions featuring extended instrumental sections)..." Progressive rock did tend to involve lengthy pieces--or tracks--(lengthy, that is, compared to most pop songs, certainly not lengthy at all compared to most classical pieces or jazz improvisations) "with extended instrumental sections", but so did most of the music of most rock groups in the late sixties and early seventies who weren't trying to have top-40 hits (and quite a few who were). If this were all it took to be progressive, then Derek and the Dominos Live and the Allman Brothers's "Moutain Jam" would be progressive. No, progressive rock was characterized, rather, by harmonic and rhythmic complexity (often involving odd meters), instrumental virtuosity (especially the flaunting of which), and references to classical music (especially twentieth-century classical music). That might be a bit much to sandwich into a parenthetical aside, but I question why we should be attempting to define a genre within a parenthetical aside in the first place--such that I am deleting it. TheScotch (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impending dissolution of King Crimson?[edit]

If I read Tony Levin's tour diary correctly, King Crimson is no more. Of course, there is no official confirmation on this, but I suspect that there is some truth. Tuxman (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be that the current incarnation of KC has run its course but in the absence of any official statement, it's speculative. Then again, it would be naive and foolish to dismiss the strong indications from people such as Sid Smith who in a tweet from 8th December, announces in his view that the last live gig has just taken place. Some perspective from Robert Fripp's diary entry of the 23rd November. Going by this, it appears that major changes are afoot, such as an end to KC as a touring entity. Stroness (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added some text using three reliable secondary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fripp has been known to say such things, only to reform the band shortly afterwards. He isn't the most reliable source on whether his career is over, rather hilariously. Daemonspudguy (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Associated Acts/Supergroup[edit]

King Crimson has many associated acts and many members joined these bands, which also means they can be considered a Supergroup. I have added a list of the members that have moved through the ranks as well as the bands they are associated with. I've also added Many others to the associated acts section that links to this new section. Moline1 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're going to need a reliable source for that. The section you added has no sources whatsoever, and is original research. You also have no explanation, sourced or otherwise, for why King Crimson would be considered a supergroup retroactively because of the groups later members took part in after they departed the group. Much of the section you added is redundant to the history section of the article. Looking at your talk page, it seems you have been notified or warned multiple times by other users for adding uncited original research essays to articles. I recommend you read the guidelines at WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, WP:CS, and WP:NPOV. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 documentary by Toby Amies[edit]

Not sure what source could be usable, but the IMDB page is here. Mapsax (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"are" or "were"[edit]

A week ago, I changed the article opening to "King Crimson were..." That stuck until today when Daemonspudguy reverted it saying, "we have already reached a consensus that the band still exists". I have reviewed this Talk page and I don't see a consensus that the band still exists. There was a short discussion above that's over a year old and didn't reach a conclusion.

King Crimson has ceased to exist. The band has not done anything for well over a year. There are no plans to do anything. An Aug 2022 reliable secondary source says, "Now that Crimson has entered another hiatus, the rendition of Starless in Japan last December being regarded by all as the last we’ll hear from the band". A Jul 2022 interview with Fripp asked, "what would it take for the band to resume live shows?" Fripp replied, "If you asked what would it take for King Crimson to go on a major tour again? [...] My quick answer would be: If I knew for certainty that King Crimson touring was the only way to prevent World War III, I’d be making phone calls." That's a somewhat sarcastic answer, but the meaning is clear. Fripp also says in that article that there are, "No plans at all" for further Crimson live work. A Mar 2023 article says, "the Fripp-run King Crimson, is likely done, or, at the least taking a long nap." It quotes Levin as saying, "His [Fripp's] words to me were that he had no plans for King Crimson doing anything else, but he would let King Crimson speak to him if it chose to. I interpreted that to mean there are no plans and probably won’t be anything else, but it’s not impossible that there might be."

Fripp has not shut the door completely on the possibility of King Crimson returning at some point, but Crimson currently does not exist. Should Crimson re-appear, we can change the article opening back to "King Crimson are..." But, for now, Crimson are as dead as a dinosaur. Fripp's delight in being a bit enigmatic in interviews doesn't change the facts on the ground, or the WP:RS reporting of them. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that KC are as dead now as they were in 1975, 1985 or 2005. Can they ever return? Sure, as they did on those occasions. We know they are as prone to resurrection as a Marvel superhero, and this may be the only reason why we don't get ultraconclusive statements. But, for now, we should consider that the band ceased to exist in December 2021. Gorpik (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to disagree. There has to be a degree of consistency across music groups as to what constitutes being active and I don't regard a lack of publically available future plans as being sufficient 'evidence' to declare any band as no longer being in existence, far less one with such an unorthodox history as King Crimson. There are good sources that the band can no longer be regarded as a touring entity, as @Bondegezou refers to, but allowing for the fact that any group can go into an extended hiatus, they should still be referred to as being current until there is irrefutible evidence that they've been disbanded. Anything else is just speculation. Stroness (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're not touring, they're not recording, they're not writing. There is no King Crimson. To write "King Crimson are..." is to mislead readers. It is not a statement that is supported by reliable sources.
I don't see any lack of consistency across music groups as to what constitutes being active. Did you have specific examples in mind? If anything, it seems to me that those who want "are" are treating Crimson as special, as with your comments on their unorthodox history. Bondegezou (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"They're not touring, they're not recording, they're not writing" - groups are allowed time off, they don't need to be continually writing/recording/touring, as I'm sure you'll be aware. Given Fripp's position as band-leader, only a clear statement from him to the effect that the group is no longer an ongoing concern is sufficiently strong to support the change to " were" at this time, especially given Fripp's & the other band members ongoing activities. Concluding that they have disbanded for good on the basis of a) a statement that KC will no longer tour, b) mention of a quieter time ahead, and c) a mere 15 months or so of KC inactivity is premature in the context of their history. Stroness (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s not how Wikipedia works. We cannot base this purely on what Fripp says, because Fripp is a WP:PRIMARY source. We are required to favour secondary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bondegezou I have made this exact same argument with Pink Floyd for quite a while now. Daemonspudguy (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pink Floyd at least did something in 2022. That's why that article says "are". King Crimson did not. Bondegezou (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not a lack of publicly available future plans; we have explicit statements by band members (at least Fripp and Levin) that there are no plans for the future. For me, that's an important difference. Gorpik (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fripp's statements refer only to live work. That still leaves a lot of scope for other activities. Stroness (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of which are happening. There are no other activities from the band. We can’t speculate that maybe there’s some secret other activity going on. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bondegezou just saying that none of those things are happening without proof isn't enough. Until we have a clear and concise statement on whether or not King Crimson is done, they still exist. I don't know how many times this has to be said. Daemonspudguy (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:V is a basic pillar of Wikipedia. If you are claiming that the band are engaged in other activities, the onus is on you/Stroness to provide reliable sources saying that. The article text cannot be based on unsourced speculation.
You suggest we need a clear and concise statement on whether or not King Crimson is done. From whom? WP:SECONDARY is very clear that we look to secondary sources, not primary sources. We have secondary sources saying the band is over. Bondegezou (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are overplaying your hand here @Bondegezou. You are the one taking some secondary sources and then inferring from them that the band is defunct. That is speculation and no amount of referring to WP protocols is going to change that. Stroness (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"None of which are [sic] (is) happening". Really? How do you know? That is just speculation on your part. Groups are not obliged to share their plans with anyone until such time as it suits them. Expecting those of us who don't regard the group as defunct to be able to provide you with evidence of what a group are doing is just a smokescreen for the clear lack of plain, objective evidence to support your particular viewpoint. It's Fripp's prerogative as to when he declares KC as finished or not, not some wikipedians! Stroness (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have reliable source evidence that there is King Crimson activity, please provide it. WP:V is very clear that all statements on Wikipedia must be verifiable. I have provided reliable secondary sources saying King Crimson is not happening.
It is not Fripp's prerogative as to when he declares KC as finished or not. That violates WP:PRIMARY. Bondegezou (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Provided reliable secondary sources? You mean that one interview with Tony Levin, who, last I checked, is a member of King Crimson as much as Robert Fripp is? Daemonspudguy (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They have a show coming up on Dec 3 2023 Cgwaldman (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither PT nor KC have announced any shows. I don't know who are actually playing that gig; sometimes, these kind of pages use automatic systems to extract information, and those systems fail. It may just be some tribute band. Gorpik (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. That listing is in error. Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]