Talk:Emerson, Lake & Palmer

Bonkers Criticism Section

Why is the criticism section so over-the-top? This doesn't seem like a fair and balanced analysis of EL&P's music or influence. Consider the Moog solo at the end of "Lucky Man." I remember hearing that at the time, and it was revelatory. The whole concept of keyboard synthesizer as lead instrument for progrock was pioneered by Keith Emerson. (Keith was influenced by Wendy (then Walter) Carlos' "Switched-on Bach") There were certainly critics who wrote favorably about EL&P contemporaneously and in retrospect.

Some of EL&P holds up well.

Most of it does..the orchestral works particularly. This is bad writing to end this on such a negative note..if nothing else the negative criticism should be at the beginning of the paragraph. 2600:1702:2340:9470:DA4:B188:3B8E:BD80 (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I`m going to go ahead and change this..I`m not deleting anything, I`m not adding anything except the word "however" at the beginning to make the last section of the article more readable..there is no reason whatsoever to end this on such a negative note. 2600:1702:2340:9470:CC5B:AC5D:E977:3AD5 (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I realize that this has been raised as an issue before. Is there some hope we can improve this article? Sbelknap (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Personal recollections of "revelatory" episodes, decades later, are not considered to be WP:RS. If there are positive reviews and appraisals, whether contemporaneous or retrospect, which have been missed, by all means add them. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert this? The positive criticism is there with references..all I did was exchange the position of these paragraphs in order to give a fair representation of this band..I certainly did not add any personal opinion or original research 2600:1702:2340:9470:854F:B902:8A4:B7B2 (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

My last edit was on 13 September 2018‎? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

My apology..it was reverted almost as soon as I did it and you were the only one that said anything here so I just assumed it was you..sorry 2600:1702:2340:9470:854F:B902:8A4:B7B2 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I reverted it. The section is titled "Influence and critical reception," so naturally discussion about influence should lead. Dan56 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Then the title should be changed...there are plenty of successful bands who have their share of critics...this reads as though they sold millions of records and were a successful live act they were a critical failure which they were not..again there is no reason why this article should end with such a negative tone 2600:1702:2340:9470:854F:B902:8A4:B7B2 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article, not a fairy tale. Dan56 (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What does that mean? The criticism section is obviously biased against them as well as this discussion..anyone who has ever played music or created art has someone who is incapable of appreciating it..for example I just looked at the AC/DC article which has an entire section devoted to negative criticism followed by Accolades which is totally appropriate regardless of how many people liked or didn`t like their music 2600:1702:2340:9470:7D16:54D1:1D7B:6B6B (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect Dan56 was alluding to the artificial struggle to find a Happy ending. If there are positive reviews and appraisals, whether contemporaneous or retrospect, which have been missed, by all means add them. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The positive reviews are in the first paragraph with footnotes...what is the reasoning behind ending this article with a negative tone ? (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)2600:1702:2340:9470:C11D:71AE:ED43:D82B (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks pretty balanced to me. Let's face it, "pretentious" was a term frequently used to describe the band, and while I don't personally agree, it's fair to include it.

The "Blender" pseudo-criticism somehow got re-added despite a longstanding overwhelming consensus to leave it out, and I've just deleted it. TJRC (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

More like a pseudo-consensus... I think a more formal process should be taken to determine an actual consensus. Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This a classic example of bad writing rather than an introduction or thesis supported by the main part of the article with a conclusion..instead there is an intro..relevant objective information regarding this band..mostly positive..then a totally one sided conclusion to which the body of the article supports the complete opposite 2600:1702:2340:9470:ADCF:6753:7358:8845 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "Blender" magazine passage be removed from the criticism section?

The consensus is to remove the "Blender" magazine passage from the criticism section.

Cunard (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This was removed from the article's section on critical appraisal of the band; it is a ranking of the band in Blender magazine's list of the "50 worst artists in music history" (archive of original). The rationale cited for removing it was this thread above. Should it be removed? (please relegate lengthy comments to #Comments) Dan56 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Votes

• No per WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE and WP:NOTCONSENSUS. Dan56 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, it should remain removed as discussed above in New "Criticism" section, Bonkers Criticism Section, and in the extremely thorough discussion that seems to have been missed, Blender article as criticism. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - It should remain out of the article, per my comment in this discussion. (I'm formally User:Mlpearc) - FlightTime (open channel) 18:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes undue weight, not encyclopedic, lists info is generally cruft whether it is positive or negative imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Per WP:SUBJECTIVE, keeping this information improves the article. Blender is a notable (and reliable) source for critical opinion of music, and the "50 worst artists" piece is credited to such music-journalism luminaries as J. D. Considine and Jonah Weiner, and the accompanying blurb in the original source is representative of popular criticisms levied at the group. Also, the above thread cited for its removal is not a consensus; mostly fancruft and shaming of editor(s) trying to report appropriate content that happens to be unfavorable to the article's subject. Dan56 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it should remain removed. This was done to death almost a decade ago. Contrary to the comment on this RFC, there is an extensive discussion with many editors weighing in. See Talk:Emerson, Lake & Palmer/Archive 1#Blender article as criticism. The consensus was to leave it out. TJRC (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Note: notifying prior discussion participants, per WP:APPNOTE ("Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic"): ( Martinevans123 — Lonepilgrim007 — Egghead06 — UhOhFeeling — Radiopathy — NebY — Wiki libs — Zazaban — Jgm — 21stCenturyGreenstuff ); ( Mlpearc — Onorem ). TJRC (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

bias

This is not good enough..they were ahead of their time 2600:1702:2340:9470:7103:703D:723F:1DC8 (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The assessment of the legacy of ELP in this article is unbalanced. The included negative criticisms are cherry picked from a large number of assessments, many of which are more insightful and more positive. sbelknap (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

people can make their own minds up. it is not the place of a WP article to influence this one way or another. who or what is 'blender'? has it the circulation of RS or mojo? it must stay or go on that basis, & not on whether we agree with its assessment of ELP.

duncanrmi (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It`s not so much biased as unbalanced..the article seems pretty complete it just ends on this totally negative tone..a small number of critics had it in their heads that classical music is pretentious and were never able to let that go..they were always a minority but were able to sell it Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This is all load of crap anyway...ELP were the most gifted rock musicians of their time..only Frank Zappa and his crew..maybe Yes had the chops they did...most of the people who are reading this hate classical music..opera is boring to them..100 years from now no one is going to care about the doors or zepplin let alone the mindless autotuned loop that`s repeated endlessly for the last 30 years..its just a question of time before someone who understands the minutia of wikipedia policy trivia fixes this article as it took a century for the world to recognize Bach..meanwhile ELP`s fan base keeps growing because they could play more than 3 chords and I assure you..no one is going to remember a handful of critics who wouldn`t know the difference between the white keys and the black on a piano Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't it The Noddmeister who had the chops?? [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Band members" other bands

In the first para., why are E, L & P introduced as members of other bands? Surely this is not standard. Billsmith60 (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)