Jump to content

Talk:Emerson, Lake & Palmer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Location

Small worry: I was just playing trivial pursuit and learned from that game that ELP was from Prague, not England. Can anyone clarrify before I edit the article? Electronic.mayhem 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Drummer Carl Palmer tours on an irregular basis with his Carl Palmer Band, playing electric guitar adaptations of ELP's keyboard work in the club circuit."

This sentence cought my attention. Having found no additional information on the Carl Palmer Band in Wikipedia, I though someone could help me by pointing out any concrete albums the band produced (whether live, studio or even bootlegged). Thanks in advance.

You'll find out quite a bit on Carl's site, carlpalmer.com. It looks like there's two live CD's released by the trio, Working Live Vol.1 and Working Live Vol.2. They rework old ELP songs, especially Palmer showcases like "Tank", with electric guitar instead of keyboards. Bjimba 00:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

hey the opening paragraph is not written in proper encyclopedic format "huge concerts" im not sure how best to fix this but someone will (JTB01 (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

POV

This is perhaps one of the most biased articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. This thing's due for a major edit. Matt Yeager 05:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Matt: I'm genuinely curious as to where you see bias and what type of bias you see. I've just read the whole thing and about the worst I can say about it is that the writing is somewhat less dry than typical Wikipedia style. So, what's the first change you are going to make?

Jgm 12:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article is biased let alone 'one of the most biased articles ... on Wikipedia'. The lack of response tells you the author of that quote seems to have been somewhat out to lunch that day. Anyway, what I actually wanted to say is that most people (aside from dedicated fans of the group) probably know ELP best (or at all) from their cover of Aaron Copeland's Fanfare for the Common Man, and perhaps I believe in Father Christmas (though am I right in thinking that that was a Greg Lake solo release?). Perhaps a bit more about those two tracks should be added to the article. JRJW January 2006

Year of formation

The article has recently been edited to say the group formed in 1969. What's the source of this information? Their first notable performance was at the Isle of Wight Festival, 1970, with a first performance occuring not too long before(according to an interview with Greg Lake on the ELP Isle of Wight 1970 CD). If I understand it correctly, that took place toward the end of the year, making it more than likely for the group to have formed in 1970 rather than 1969. Smeggysmeg 01:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Additionally, In the Wake of Poseidon was released in 1970, making it unlikely that the group formed before Lake had left King Crimson. I think this gives ample leeway to change the formation date back to 1970. Smeggysmeg 01:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that 1970 is the correct 'official' date. Emerson wanted to leave the Nice and met with Greg Lake in late 1969 when the Nice & King Crimson were both playing at Fillmore West. They toyed with the idea of forming a band together and agreed to keep in touch, but nothing was formalized until the following year. Emerson went on to look for a drummer and almost recruited Mitch Mitchell (with the remote possibility of bringing Jimi Hendrix into the fold). Hendrix died in 1970 and Mitchell bowed out...the world is left to speculate what could have happened. Palmer was eventually found and pursuaded to join the band in 1970 and the rest, as they say, is history. Tjdigit
      • Can a source be given for the Hendrix comment? It just introduced a lot of information to the article that seems to distract from the band itself, and doesn't seem to be considered common knowledge or verifiable. I feel tempted to revert until some reliable source can be given.Smeggysmeg 04:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

Thoughts?

Good stuff. I wonder: could C Powell and R Berry be labelled something other than "Former members"? Perhaps "Associated members"...? Also, what about adding Peter Sinfield to the box. Bondegezou 23:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Best Of

An article for the 1980 compilation, The Best of Emerson, Lake, and Palmer should be created, even though it's long deleted, and better versions have come out since.Sposato (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Should mention Fanfare for the Common Man

Hi. I was suprised that the article does not mention Fanfare for the Common Man, especially since that article does mention ELP here. Would someone who (unlike me) has some real knowledge of rock music like to add something? See also JRJW's note above. Chris Chittleborough 16:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EmersonLakePalmer Album.jpg

Image:EmersonLakePalmer Album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Original Bootleg Series from the Manticore Vaults: Volume One

Editors here may be interested in working to improve The Original Bootleg Series from the Manticore Vaults: Volume One or taking part in a deletion discussion about the article: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Original Bootleg Series from the Manticore Vaults: Volume One. Bondegezou 10:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blender article as criticism

A user has requested mediation on this issue. Can the user who requested mediation make sure that this template is placed above the section that requires mediation, then click here to fill in the case page.

The article is citing an article from Blender magazine "as the 2nd worst artist on their list of 50 worst artists in music." The Blender piece in question ([1]) is clearly tongue-in-cheek rather than serious criticism. Blender, despite billing itself as "the ultimate guide to music and more" was actually best known for what its Wikipedia article generously calls "sometimes steamy pictorials of female celebrities." In short, Blender was a lad mag, with some music content.

I'm all for ELP criticism, if we can source some real, serious criticism (and there was certainly a lot of it), rather than a trivial "worst 50" list from something like Blender. Anyone up for some real, sourced criticism? TJRC (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Being called the 2nd worst band ever by Blender is real sourced criticism bro.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No, not in a lad mag like Blender, particularly in a piece like this one. There's some real reasoned and thoughtful criticism out there, and we ought to include it. TJRC (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does it have to be "reasoned and thoughtful," didn't know that was policy.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Criticism sources are no different from other sources. Are you really suggesting sources that are not reasoned and not thoughtful are appropriate? TJRC (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure and Blender would qualify as a regular source so why not here. Why are you the judge that it needs to be "reasoned and thoughtful" and why is this Blender not "reasoned and thoughtful." For all we know they could've invented a crazy smart computer that, after a 10 year waiting period, computed elp to be the second worst band ever.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the judge, but I've explained the basis of why it's not thoughtful and reasoned. Your response was that those aren't required attributes, which is absurd; then you changed your position that Blender meets the standard, with no explanation why. What support do you have for this speculation that Blender used this hypothetical "crazy smart computer" to determine the positions? Are there any other editors besides UhOhFeeling and myself with an opinion on this inclusion? I think some additional opinion would be worthwhile here. TJRC (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Blender blurb is just a useless trivia bit. Its inclusion doesn't improve the article at all. Leave it out. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I disagree with you though. I'm sure the "lads" at Blender sat down and had a reasoned and thoughtful discussion on who made the list. I see plenty of articles with "Rolling Stone rated it blah blah blah in there list of whatever" and that always goes. I just don't get why this is just a "useless trivia bit". —Preceding unsigned comment added by UhOhFeeling (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't real criticism. The Doors made one of their 'worst of' lists, that doesn't mean that it should be mentioned there. In fact, the overwhelming consensus is that The Doors are not one of the worst bands of all time. If this is included here, then that should be included over there. Zazaban (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a comment on this on the mediation page ( Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04/Emerson, Lake & Palmer ). Jgm (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Jgm said it better than I could... "I don't think we can exclude a contribution on the basis that there might be a better version of the contribution lurking out there somewhere (this is almost always true to some extent, if you think about it; I thought the Wikipedia philosophy was to improve weak content, not reject it outright). As TJ points out, there has been abundant criticism of this band over the years, both from "true" sources and among various fan bases, but you wouldn't know it from reading the article as it is. The Blender item at least serves notice that such opinion exists; I also trust users will consider the source and make up their own mind as to the item's value rather than have us decide for them."--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Zazaban's comment. I also agree with the earlier term "useless" as a good desciption of what this text adds to the article. Fair Deal (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies but I feel it should be noted that Fair Deal and especially Zazaban are fans of prog rock. Very possible the IP's referred to were as well.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the consensus to remove the text from the article. GripTheHusk (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In keeping with the original agreement I have removed the section. GripTheHusk (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Original agreement? That's funny. Why don't we try talking about this on the mediation page?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Blender article as criticism, redux

So far I do not believe there has been any good reason to keep the Blender article out and I find JGM's reason for inclusion very persuasive. I would like to restart this discussion to get some sort of consensus.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been pushing this fixation for eighteen months now with a singular lack of success, picking up a ban for edit warring in the process. With the greatest of respect don't you think you should give up Flogging a dead horse now and move on? There are probably far more important things to worry about in life. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Having read through the Blender article, I oppose its use as a source. It's a crude piece of jocular rudeness, dressed up as a ranking because editors know readers like rankings and lists such as "10 reasons not to stick your fingers in the fire". Given how widely and deeply disliked ELP were, I expect it would be straightforward to locate criticism from fellow musicians or music writers that rises above manufactured common abuse. Now you may disagree; you may have the highest regard for Blender and for the writer(s) of this piece, you may even have written it yourself - but you do seem to be as unlikely to find consensus in your favour this year as you were last year. Still, I'll keep watching in the hope that someone, maybe you, finds some text that at least adds balance and at best demonstrates once and for all what an appalling band... ahem. NebY (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This horse is only about to be born. These are the authors who contributed to the blender article...

Jonah Weiner - Currently a music critic for slate, John Harris (critic), J.D. Considine, John Aizlewood - Writer for The Sunday Times, The Evening Standard and The Guardian who regularly appears on the BBC, Clark Collis - Writer for Entertainment Weekly Rob Kemp - Contributing editor to Men's Health and others.

I think with this stable of authors, this is a valid article. There are many similar rankings on other pages. I don't see why this does not qualify especially considering the article's pedigree.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes: I also oppose having it in the article for all of the reason stated above, particularly since it's not a serious piece of criticism. Radiopathy •talk• 03:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not serious criticism, regardless of who contributed to it. It stays out. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. TJRC (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
How is this non serious criticism when it there are similar criticism's on nearly every other major artists page such as . . . Rolling Stone rated them this in such and such poll. Why don't you back up your argument other than simply stating "it's not serious criticism." There has been no good reason why this is not good criticism. Being stated that you are the 2nd worst artist of all time by a bunch of respected music critics IS serious criticism.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
User:NebY has already addressed this point, above. TJRC (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
...and you're comparing Blender to Rolling Stone? Radiopathy •talk• 20:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
User:NebY does know how to use adjectives. However, the user makes no substantive point about not including the article. Also, I am not comparing the two, I am only pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, this was recently posted on Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard

"The stable of authors does sound imposing. I'm not sure if the list itself is supposed to be reviewed magazine content, or "submitted content", but if it comes from those authors, it seem reliable, per the part of WP:RS that says "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". --GRuban (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)"--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

After looking over the list, it is exactly as User:Neby describes. Mlpearc powwow 19:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't mean anything . . . This was also recently posted by the pros at wikis reliable sources noticeboard.
"I didn't check the author's credentials but it doesn't appear to be user-submitted content. I would say that this qualifies as a reliable source." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The people who adjudicate such matters say this is a good source. Barring a worthy argument to the contrary I am going to add this to the article in the near future.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it so important to you to have a negative review of ELP in this article? It sounds like you're edit warring and forum shopping to try and get approval for your POV pushing; it doesn't sound like you have anything constructive to contribute. 21:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Radiopathy •talk•
This is unreal. It should be in the article for balancing sake. How am I possibly edit warring? I haven't edited on the page in a while. I was told BY AN ADMIN that I should use the reliable sources noticeboard. Quit telling me I don't have anything constructive to contribute hypocrite. I am the one trying to make a contribution that is legit according to the people at the reliable sources noticeboard. You are simply being negative and not offering any substantive help/contribution. And how am I POV pushing when it has been acknowledged by several users that this article needs some criticism. Now it looks like we will have some and it's from a reliable source.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. NPOV stands for NEUTRAL point of view. This article hardly has a neutral point of view right now.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
[ec x3]Being able to cite a reliable source for something doesn't automatically mean that it deserves inclusion. You'll still need to establish that there's consensus to include it, which doesn't seem to be a given from what I've read here and in the archives. I'd say at the very least, cherry picking a negative review and creating an entirely negative section for it would present an undue weight problem. There has to be more than one review available so that a section can be created from a more neutral point of view. --Onorem♠Dil 22:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
To quote the first line from undue weight . . . "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." If anything, this rule strongly favors inclusion. Criticism of ELP is a significant viewpoint (as noted by many editors) and this is a reliable source. As for consensus, that is what I am trying to establish. I have not heard one solid substantive argument to not include the article.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No Biggie But...

"Take A Pebble" is folky. Really? "Lucky Man", maybe... 123.243.37.236 (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a fan article

I don't now whether inclusion of criticism is warranted, and I have no particular ax to grind against ELP, but there are very clear indication of Fan POV instead of NPOV. Example: "The Love Beach album has been ill-received not only by the music press but also by the fans, who easily understood that the group was tired." Really? How do we know what fan's "easily understood." I think I will attempt to change the most egregious of these. Carlo (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to Criticism

There are some edits in the criticism section that sound utterly ridiculous and were clearly edited by ELP fans.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Added Experimental Rock to genre section. Prenigmamann (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)prenigmamann

Paragraph is Oddly Written

The 2nd paragraph opens with a wide diversion before getting to the story, and it continues too wordy... could be written a little better. I'll give it a try, somebody really hate it, revert it. Friendly Person (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Band name

I see no reason for the comma in the page name (and the band name). They never used it on their album covers (except for some late-period retrospectives and Emerson, Lake and Powell which is arguably a different band). Nothing to do this boxing day, so I'm changing it. --Matt Westwood 09:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

... on the other hand I see there's already a redirect from "Emerson Lake & Palmer": what's the buzz? --Matt Westwood 09:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictures at an Exhibition

There's this anonymous editor 93.41.23.149 who keeps removing Pictures at an Exhibition from the list of albums. WHY??????? "Because it's live?" Oh come on. --Matt Westwood 22:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've noticed this over a long period of time, I think not just from this anon editor. I know there is a general practice of separating out "live albums" from studio albums, and, where (as here) there is a separate discography article, omitting the live albums from the main article.
But that practice seems to be premised on the typical "live album", which is a recording of live performances of material previously having been released on studio recordings. That's not really the case here; Pictures at an Exhibition is a canonical ELP album, that just happens to have been recorded live instead of in the studio. My take is that it should be listed here. TJRC (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thx for confirming what to me seems obvious. Goes to show that you should only really edit a page if you know at least a minute fraction about the subject matter. :-) You say "general practice" but is there anything on this subject enshrined in a rule? If there is it needs to be challenged. --Matt Westwood 08:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a guideline or policy to that effect; it's just something I've observed. In any case, if there is such a guideline or policy, I think the applicable policy here is WP:IGNORE. In this case, the basis for the practice, that live albums are generally live recodings of previously released material, is not applicable here, so the practice is not applicable either. TJRC (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and declare a consensus that Pictures at an Exhibition be retained in the discography list in this article. To summarize the above: it's a canonical ELP album; and there is no rule that says an album should be excluded merely because it is a live album. Two editors, Matt Westwood and I, have voiced our opinion here. A third editor, User:Patchallel has twice reverted the deletion ([2], [3]), which I take as consistent only with an opinion that it should remain. The only dissent is from the IP editor who is edit-warring against the three editors mentioned here. TJRC (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I also concur that it belongs. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a feeling that this nameless (and if I get my hands on it, limbless) anonymous editor is just being deliberately either mischievous or combative. It also has access to more than one computer. It's probably in an internet cafe somewhere and has nothing better to do with its time. --Matt Westwood 20:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but please-for your own sake-try to tone it down a bit. I assume you're joking, but saying things like "and if I get my hands on it, limbless" might be interpreted as a threat of physical violence, which could theoretically be reported to law enforcement, not to mention get you blocked for a very long time. I urge you to consider striking that comment. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
There.--Matt Westwood 06:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Are or were?

Since their most recent outing was 2010, and they were still actively releasing stuff as late as 2011, is it premature to say "ELP were an English progressive etc."? It can be argued that they are, against all odds and contrary to all that is sensible about the universe ;-), still active. --Matt Westwood 08:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with "are". While activity is irregular, it seems inaccurate to say this band is defunct as an entity. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Are or is?

And, in the sequel to the above question, do we use "are" or "is"? On my (US) side of the pond, we'd probably use "is", as made by this recent edit, since the subject is a group, a singular noun, named "Emerson Lake & Palmer" that happens to have three members. But I've seen enough British documents that say things like "The company are..." that makes me suspect that "are" is the correct usage under the British English style to which this article conforms. Not being fluent in British English myself, I'm reluctant to revert this edit. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Are. Cheers. Radiopathy •talk• 00:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Are is the correct British English... They have some weird rules with music groups. For example, instead of a founding member, it's "founder member". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back my friends to the discography battle that never ends

In the wake of the fight to get Pictures at an Exhibition included in the discography, are we going to allow the triple live album "Welcome back my friend ... Ladies and Gentlemen" to live in the discography? Unconventional, but I'm afraid I would argue "yes" because it is one of their most famous releases. --Matt Westwood 05:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

It might be worth mentioning that the music of ELP was, and is, frequently ridiculed as "pretentious" by music critics. I have also read interviews of musicians where ELP (along with Pink Floyd) is cited as the point where prog rock was felt to have run its course which inspired a backlash "back-to-basics" movement in popular music, such as punk and pub rock. I feel that the criticism was frequent and consistent enough to warrant a mention of it on the main article. I am too lazy to look for sources, but I think that several alternative rock bands--possibly Nine Inch Nails--have raised this issue during interviews.Mister Tog 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning, sure. It's usual for anything brilliant and challenging to be denigrated by those who are mundane and creatively disinclined, so why not mention what they have to say.. as important as their opinions are.59.167.185.55 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on your parade, but the fact that you think that they were brilliant is just your opinion. You should not imply that an alternative viewpoint about ELP is not really valid, because they were, as you say, 'brilliant and challenging'. I actually agree with a number of others on this page who feel that ELP were not a very good band at all. Indeed, I would say that they were vapid, overblown and at times simply awful. It is well known that punk and new wave rose as a direct counter to bands such as ELP, who by 1975, were seen as in need of 'slaying'. Again these are just alternative opinions, but the cries against bands such as ELP were very vocal and should be included in this article. Now again I say that these are just alternative opinions, I am not saying that objectively ELP were rubbish, just that personally many despised them.

I want to know what kinda crack they smokin cos i want some. The doors are even on that list? wtf?? -Winter123 (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't ideal. It reminds me of Wikipedia's article for Enoch Powell, in the sense that the authors seem to have balanced out the unsavoury aspects of the subject too well. The band are described as exciting forerunners in musical innovation as a fact, rather than an opinion; their late-1990s tours are described as enjoyable, also as if this was a fact rather than an opinion; their 3CD dance remix project Reworks - which must surely have been a hard sell - "found favour with critics and, impressively, the dance music community" in the author's mind, and apparently found "a gigantic new audience" which also exists only in the author's mind; the disastrous Works tour is glossed over in a sentence; and so on and so forth. Overall there's a lack of "according to SOURCE X, the band FACT Y", and lots of bald statements of opinion masquerading as objective fact. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I touch on similar comments about Rush in this section: Talk:Rush (band)#22.the members of Rush were the biggest jerks.
I'm not sure where Wikipedia stands on criticism sections on band biography pages but it's worth pointing out that Genesis have a criticism section. The criticism of Genesis would obviously be of a similar (though not identical) nature to that of ELP, as both are considered classic prog rock acts from that era. However while Genesis certainly received their fair share of criticism, I doubt they recieved as much (or as harsh) criticism as ELP, who are one of the most heavily critically lambasted bands ever. Isn't it a bit inconsistent to have a criticism section for Genesis but not for ELP or for that matter Yes, both of whom were and still are far more attacked and criticised than Genesis? I don't think it would be fair to dwell too much on criticism, but a few quotes from notable rock critics or scholars (probably not Blender!) outlining a few of the reasons why the band were so heavily disliked shouldn't be too hard to find. 92.9.212.167 (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The entire "Criticism" section needs to be deleted, in my opinion. Why is it so important to certain people that criticism of ELP appear in the profile? Why does a "criticism" section seem to exist primarily for progressive rock bands from the 1970's? Where are the criticism sections for Led Zeppelin, ZZ Top, or Aerosmith? (Hint: There aren't any). I hope that we can build a consensus via intelligent discussion of this issue, but I see no justification for a special "criticisms" section in this or any band article. Mentioning criticisms of the band in the article, passim, is more than sufficient.Carnamagos (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It`s funny how punk was perceived as art but ELP was perceived as commercial..personally they turned me on to classical music which whether you like it or not its hard to argue that its not good music although a lot of people who are not musicians think so..everyone has their own personal taste..ELP were and are technically good musicians especially Emerson who is not only a gifted pianist but a serous composer such as Frank Zappa ..if you cannot read music or at least charts I`m not particular interested in your opinions about music but to each their own..I`m not interested in punk but I don`t put it down either..I just don`t care about it one way or the other.--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Greatest, etc.

I have a listing here: "neo-gothic eclecticism" that describes ELP's music. I also recommend Ed Macon's Endless Enigma as a guide to their music. I consider ELP the greatest band in history, Works, Vol. I the greatest album in history, and "Pirates" the greatest song ever written. Vallin <piratessfas@yahoo.com> VallinSFAS 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree..they were very good..the criticisms against them basically came from the fact that they could play and were very good..some people don`t like opera but there is no accounting for personal taste. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Recording dates

It's said that Tarkus was recorded in January -71 and Pictures At Exhibition in March. Yet it's also said that "due to management conflicts, the recording was not released until after Tarkus, their second studio album", etc. It seems unclear what the "shelving" signifies unless the albums were originally meant to be released in "wrong" order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.253.96 (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emerson, Lake & Palmer. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 10:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Grammy Nomination

I'm a long time ELP fan but just read that they were nominated for a Grammy. Should this be mentioned in the text? I don't know how to do it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.141.232 (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

More about criticism

1º. Every artist feels so important. Some artists nowadays don’t go to the store across the street without their bodyguards, super-fashioned outfits, jewelry and makeup, only to buy a six-pack, so what is self-importance?

2º. Some others just copy and copy and copy and copy… at least ELP were original and had their own style. Nobody can deny that.

3º. Fortunately, not everybody is ready to listen to some sort of music.

4º. I prefer not to place examples, because some may feel hurt. 

5º. It is good to take criticism. It makes people wiser, but… What is a music critic? A music critic, and in general, any critic, is just a parasite who earns a salary for talking about others' work. So, to all critics in the world, save your f****** critics and do something in your own. And what about the ‘mordida’ (bite)?; “Pay me some money and I will talk very good about your music.” As I´ve said, PARASITES. The time you spend reading critics or comments, you can better use it listening to the music and making your own conclusions. It helps you to be wiser, more cult, original, since you don’t repeat what other said, and a lot of good things.

6º In my opinion, there are two kinds of music: deep music, and light music. ELP is deep music. What we usually see on TV and radio is light music. The majority of people don’t want to think, because thinking hurts. If you play/show deep things, people won’t see it, so soap won’t be sold, and radio and TV are there to sell soap. That’s why they play that sh++. Go to the library instead. Besides, a regular employee or dj, will play whatever they pay him/her to play, otherwise he/she will be fired immediately. There is also more ‘mordida’ here from music distributors. “You have to play this fifty times a day, cause we want to be platinum.” It’s all about the money. Music is another business.

For all this reasons and some more, world is like it is.

To finish, let me tell you the last secret: I prefer ELP and other artists who I like, to be just for a minority. It is much more comfortable all the ways.

Christian Conejero García — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.136.10 (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emerson, Lake & Palmer. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Album sales

Hey all! When I read "48 million sold worldwide", isn't this grossly overrated? If only 4.5 million certified in the US... LowSelfEstidle (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The 4.5 million figures seems to come by multiplying the number of gold records on that page (9) by the minimum for certification (500K). 9 × 500,000 = 4,500,000. I don't know how RIAA handles things like the many re-issues and repackagings ELP had; so it's hard to really assess these claims.
I would rather that the 4.5M US figure was stricken and instead noting that they had 9 gold records. TJRC (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In the spirit of the above, I made this edit. That's actually what the RIAA source tells us. TJRC (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Emerson, Lake & Palmer. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emerson, Lake & Palmer. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

New "Criticism" section

User:UhOhFeeling started the following conversation on my talk page, after he added the new longer criticism section, which included his favorite Blender line embedded in some other material that appears to be genuine criticism; and after I removed that line (but retained the rest of the material he added).

Really? Even with the rest of the criticism you don't think the blender blurb fits? U crazy dood.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Adding perfume to a skunk does not make a skunk smell any sweeter. As we've said all along the Blender piece is not criticism; it does not belong. The rest is mostly okay. It should be cleaned up a bit (I'd like to see better distinction between overall criticism of the band and of the Love Beach album; right now they're confusingly conflated), but it's a good start. I'm about to take off on a short holiday. I'll look at it when I get back. TJRC (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I truly do not understand how this could not be considered criticism. Doesn't a skunk's smell in context make a difference? I think so. The Blender blurb further demonstrates how lowly some people thought of the band.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Just glancing at a couple of definitions for criticism and the everyday meaning of it, the Blender blurb is technically criticism.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
No. For all the reasons already stated on talk page, over and over and over again, it's not criticism. Go re-read it if you like, it's not worth repeating. Good for you for digging up some real criticism; the article needed it. But that doesn't justify citing a humor piece like the Blender article as though it, too, were criticism. TJRC (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
All those reasons are poorly founded and poorly researched. A "humor piece?" Have you seen the authors responsible for this article? They are well respected critics. It seems as though people made up there minds and, in the face of all evidence to the contrary including wiki policy, refuse to reasonably discuss/examine the facts.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's of general interest to editors of this article, not just me, so I'm moving it here to make the discussion open rather than one-on-one. TJRC (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Using this article as criticism makes little sense as it does nothing much to justify their believe that ELP were/are that bad. They accept they sold millions. They did long solos - so what - so did oh so many other groups. It was en vogue at the time. They reworked the classics - again so did so many others. Their concerts were big sellers, their albums sold well (as stated). Even their recent, one-off, reunion was acclaimed. If I could see some clear critisicm I would welcome this piece. People need to realize how things were in 1972 and not just say 'they were bad' without offering any real reason for the statement.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I do like the new Criticism section. I am rather surprised that after assembling it, UhOhFeeling would still wish to add, in effect, "[someone else] said they were the second worst band ever". Whether that someone else is POTUS, David Letterman or Blender, it's not just not worth including in an encyclopedia, it's also weak and ineffectual and detracts from the main purpose of the section, to establish once and for all what an appalling ... ahem.
I appreciate that UhOhFeeling went to the talk page regarding the Blender article. I know it's sad that s/he mistook "building consensus" to mean "dismissing everyone else's opinion without addressing their concerns" and having built a consensus against hir, claimed to have done as instructed and proceeded anyway, but I'd rather remember hir as otherwise making a positive contribution to the article. NebY (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It merely illustrates just how bad some people (6 or so highly respected music critics) thought ELP were. Why do we allow such types of criticisms on nearly every other artists page? Isn't there something to be said about consistently applying the rules? Clearly there is no reasoning that is going to occur on this issue though.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, look at any definition of criticism. This is without question technically criticism. Argue for not including it for another reason if you want but don't tell me it isn't criticism. Look up some definitions please. You are simply attempting to save face on a point of view that has been thoroughly discredited.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It is now apparent how much you dislike this band, and how you are using reliable, third party sources to get your POV to a quite large audience. The balance of WP:UNDUE has swung too far in one direction. Radiopathy •talk• 01:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
How does this have anything to do with my like or dislike of the band? More red herrings. No surprise at this point though. Honestly, not that it matters, I think ELP did some pretty cool stuff. Certainly Emerson was a unique talent. Some of it was not so great (in my opinion). I am only trying to balance an article which previously had a serious NPOV problem considering the vast amount of criticism ELP endured.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't actually think this is criticism more like negative comment and they are different. If it said they were poor performers, they couldn't play, their albums sold badly as they sounded poor that might be criticism. To say they did long solos and played the classics but sold well is just as much a negative comment without backing or real meaning as saying 'they were crap because they had long hair'.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Heavens to Betsy.

crit·i·cism    /ˈkrɪtəˌsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[krit-uh-siz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.

Saying you are the 2nd worst band ever is a judgment that your merits are not good.

Criticism - the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature

Evaluating meaning...Web definitions for evaluate measure: evaluate or estimate the nature, quality, ability, extent, or significance of; "I will have the family jewels appraised by a professional ...

Saying you are the 2nd worst band of all time is by all means an evaluation or a "measure" of a work of art.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just knew a dictionary definition would turn up here....but that doesn't exlain WHY they were the worst other than a personal opinion. Because they sold 40 million records, becauase they played classicial music? Makes no sense. Look at it from the point of view of someone who knew nothing of pop music, ELP or the 1970's. How would this help them? Why are they not the worst or the 10th worst or the 100th worst? No one could say from these why their 'merits were not good' and, as such, this reference is worthless.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a definition can be helpful when someone clearly doesn't understand the meaning of a word. The article doesn't explain why they were the 2nd worst nor does it need to to be worthy (as is noted in just about every other major music article). The article merely illustrates that in the opinion of respected music critics ELP was the 2nd worst band ever.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
mere·ly   /ˈmɪərli/
[meer-lee]
–adverb
1. only as specified and nothing more--Egghead06 (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Haha, OK, what's your point. Everything on wikipedia could essentially be considered as "merely" illustrating something or other.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The whole criticism issue shouldn`t even be in the article..they were technically very gifted musicians and apparently some people have a problem with musicians who actually can play..I don`t remember at the time too many people not liking them..there were a lot of different types of music going around then unlike now where virtually every commercially successful band is either heavy metal or rap..they were really just another act..some people liked them some didn`t..they weren`t even particularly well known initially..Lucky Man was not a major hit and as far as I know it was their only one..the real issue came out later when they became a concert draw pretty much because they put on a good live show and like the allman brothers and the grateful dead people started going to see them because they were good live not because they had sold a lot of records..some people had a problem with stadium rock and the commercialism of the music business in general which I understand and agree with...however I never heard these types of criticisms aimed at peter frampton..fleetwood mac..led zeppelin..all of who were much more popular at the time and musical amateurs compared to ELP..I've never understood what people had against them except that they were good...they are still legends in Europe from what I`ve been told and all the negative perceptions of them are a result of the way people here in America view them which to me is odd as this is the land of plastic commercial adulation and yet people here seem to have a problem with this band..i just don`t understand that. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It`s wrong to end this article on such a negative note..the fact that there are people in the world who don`t like this band..classical music or anything else is noted but why does the article have to close with a statement that essentially sums up their career as just another rock and roll band that couldn`t play when any serious music student..not a critic..could see that the opposite is true? 75.139.90.83 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

After seeing the so called 'criticism' section of the article, I decided to start a talk about validity of it. To no surprise, such talk exists and the majority is opposed to it. Why is it still there? Just take a look at the 'these guys are as stupid as their most pretentious fans' comment and honestly try to consider this a good piece of critique worthy of being in an encyclopedia page. It's almost like making a whole section of *any* popular rock band about people who say they 'sold out'. It has no substance, no reason for it to exist. Please, delete. 89.228.246.8 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. Although the section might be trimmed a little, if these critics are notable then their views on a very prominent band are probably also notable. I've always found the comment by Peel quite funny. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
While I do consider humor an important aspect of life, I don't think wikipedia page of the band is the best place for it, with no regards to whether the joke is actually funny or not. This, plus ommision of positive information like Grammy nomination[1] the band received (someone has already pointed that out in the discussion) makes me question the neutrality of that part of the article. Before you ask, I don't consider a Grammy nomination such a big deal, personally, but among others it's considered a prestigious award, and yet it's missing here. 89.228.246.8 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
If you feel positive information is missing, by all means add it. Many might see the Peel comment as throwing more light on his own tastes, but I think it genuineley reflets the a more general feeling about "prog rock dinosaurs" that came out of new wave and punk. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't really don't know how. The article is missing the Edit feature avaliable for other pages, so I assumed it's in some way closed for public edits, otherwise I would have added it immediately. 89.228.246.8 (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies. I now see that it was semiprotected, on 19 August 2016, by User:NeilN, after persistent sock puppetry. That protection is due to expire on 19 February 2017. Maybe Neil would consider unprotecting now. Alternatively, you could make a formal edit request in a thread here. Or better still, you could register an account and nake a few edits on other articles - once you are established you will be able to edit this article even though it semi-protected. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Changed to pending changes protection. --NeilN talk to me 17:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1431457/awards


The criticism section is too slanted in a negative direction..there is something called positive criticism..the fact of the matter is they were extremely talented especially when compared to many if not most of their contemporaries...they had and still do have millions of fans..Carl Palmer is arguably the best drummer in the world...the fact that they went right over many people`s heads says more about the public then it does about the band..Kiss, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, Peter Frampton, the list goes on forever..never caught as much grief as they did..the Monkees didn`t and for the most part never even played their own instruments. This section is way to biased, probably written by people who aren`t even musicians..everyone is entitled to an opinion but this section ignores the fact that had legions of fans who couldn`t care less what the critics think and who are only trying to sell newsprint anyway which ultimately has nothing to do with music. It obviously slanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD95:45F0:DC2D:1217:77A0:F75E (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC) 2600:1702:2340:9470:C981:20D4:6DED:66B6 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Criticism is a neutral term..there is positive criticism, negative criticism and neutral criticism...it is essentially a synonym for evaluation..the criticism section in this section is unbalanced and slanted 2600:1702:2340:9470:C981:20D4:6DED:66B6 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emerson,_Lake_%26_Palmer/Archive_1&oldid=1158436097"