Why do rock critics (arguably oxymoronic) feel compelled to disparage King Crimson at every opportunity? Glenn Dixon’s assessment of the band’s recent output as “misbegotten adventuring” (“People Who Died,” 4/16) is totally subjective; I find the Crimson of the ’90s as compelling as the Crimson of the ’70s. And unlike other prog-rock bands of that era, Crimson had the good sense to cease operations from 1975 to 1980 to regroup, rethink, and reinvent, which resulted in some of its most brilliant work. (Significantly, another musical giant took those years off: one Miles Dewey Davis.) I also find Pere Ubu’s recent worksespecially Pennsylvania, the most recent discto be every bit as savory as its ’70s output. And I’m willing to put my subjective assessments up against Dixon’s any day.
via the Internet