18 particularly ridiculous prog-rock album covers

I'm not sure how to read your response, but, as usual when it comes to the AV Club, the article's pretty entertaining.

And prog rock is absolutely pretentious. It's practically a defining trait of the genre. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion.

The King Crimson and Jethro Tull covers are pretty wicked.

Wasn't "I can see your house from here" actually the sequel to The Ninth Configuration?

I like the Fates Warning cover. That Coheed & Cambria one is hi-larious.

Some great album covers at that link. Nursery Cryme is one of my all-time favorites.

It may be my soft spot for Gabriel-era Genesis talking, but I don't think the Nursery Crime cover is that bad.

Tarkus would have made a great mid-level Mega Man mini-boss.


While I actually enjoy the album quite a bit I have to agree here, that cover makes me chuckle when it pops up on my MP3 player.

I love the covers for Court of the Crimson King and De-Loused (shocking...), while I do agree that they are ridiculous I think that's part of the charm.

This article makes me feel bad for enjoying Coheed.

It's not so much that they made the general statement, but that they provided visual representations to a readership that probably has the good sense to not own many of them and were gracious enough to include funny write-ups for each.

What, are you the bassist from Captain Beyond or something?

How would you know, you just throw them away.

I, for one, love Coheed for their ridiculously over-the-top pretension. And their girly vocal stylings.

Would Asia count as prog rock lite? Because they could be on that list. Ditto Styx.

And thanks to my college roomate I know that Dream Theater had "better" representations, behold:

I'm sorry, but I think that most of those covers are pretty cool looking. Now that vinyl is gone and CDs are dying, cover art will eventually die. Alas...

I like how people rarely ever use "pretentious" like the actual definition, but instead drop it like it's cool.

I'm actually very conscious of what the word means and have criticized people on this board for using it in the manner you describe.

A lot of the early key prog rock acts (Yes, ELP, King Crimson) were pretentious in the truest sense of the word. They were operating under the pretense that rock music is more respectable if it's treated like classical music (e.g. intrumental precision over sexy swagger, bloated multi-part pieces over brief pop songs, complexity over simplicity, often at the cost of hooks).

Now, I like some of this stuff, and a lot of the bands eventually became quite conscious about the genre's tendencies toward pretense and indulged in mild self-deprecation (which is why some of the album covers shown seem to be poking fun at the bombast rather than simply indulging in it). But, hell yeah, it's pretentious.

I don't get 'pretentious' (as they mean it) out of the Crimson King cover at all.

There's nothing wrong with the cover of Hemispheres. The rest aren't so much ridiculous as just ugly.

Or maybe they're just better, more ambitious musicians. Why so cynical? I have little musical talent, but I'm sure that if I were to write and record music I would not be satisfied with walking into the studio to record fluff. Why so cynical?

I say this as a Rush fan - the cover of Hemispheres is Spinal Tap-level silly. There's a naked guy walking across a giant brain.

I'm not cynical. Prog rock was quite literally an attempt to raise the artistic credibility of rock music by making it more like classical music. It's presumptuous in that it assumes rock music needed to be made more artistically credible (after Dylan, Hendrix, and the Beatles, this wasn't really true), and pretentious in that the musicians were operating under the pretense that classical music was the form by which this credibility could be obtained.

Is it because these guys were talented that the music came out sounding like it did? Undoubtedly. But injecting classical motifs into the rock genre is the way they chose to use these talents. Quite obvious to anyone who's played rock music, prog is not the only way for talented musicians to avoid playing "fluff" in a rock context. As I mentioned above, Dylan, Hendrix, and the Beatles didn't play "fluff" (well, the Beatles might have, at first, but it was good fluff). The more musically talented punk bands, like Television, didn't play "fluff." Richard Thompson, probably a better guitarist than any of the prog guys, didn't play "fluff." There are ways for musically talented people to play technically-accomplished rock music without playing prog.

Prog-rock has had a significant influence on bands I like and on how I play drums (I love stuff that's not in 4). I grew up listening to Rush and like lots of King Crimson, some Yes and early Genesis stuff. This doesn't preclude me from looking at prog-rock with a critical (not cynical) eye. Just because something's good doesn't mean it's not the product of pretentiousness.

Well, yeah. No genre's without its awful, awful album covers. It's hardly unique to prog. It's just that 70s and 80s prog bands usually had bigger budgets, so the album covers tend to be immaculately drawn.

I'll admit that I like the King Crimson one, and the Coheed and Cambria one seems entirely in keeping with the band's comic book aesthetic.

5/8s for wusses. 17/8 foreva, yo.

What, Peter Gabriel and Chick Corea got together over drinks one day and planned this or something?

You're the one being presumptuous. Pretend prog-rock is nothing more than music performed by talented ambitious performers, and there's no intent whatsoever to change attitudes as you claim: what would be different?

Every composer I've ever met composes what they do for at least one of two reasons: it'll sell; it's what they want to hear or play.

And you're privy to their motives . . . how?

But it's the way they chose. As I said, it's the music they want to play.

Presumably these ways are less pretentious, as defined by you? What makes them less pretentious?

As far as I can tell, this pretentiousness starts and ends between your ears.

That being the case, it's too bad that the AV Club misinterpreted the image and went for the easy man ass joke instead of really cutting out the picture's pretentious heart.

And Steely Dan as prog rock? Nah.

The origins of prog rock are fairly well-documented. Read up on the origins of the Moody Blues Days of Future Passed (1967). It was originally commissioned as a rock version of a Dvorak symphony.

EDIT: And if you can listen to the poem at the end of "Knights in White Satin" without having the label "pretentious" cross your mind, you're a stronger man than I.

Dude, I love that King Crimson cover! It's one of the first albums I ever got on vinyl and I fell in love with that freaky face.

I'm with you, Russ. I've never agreed with the prog rock label as applied to Steely Dan. They're much more straightforward blues/jazz rock.

Really, when it comes to ridiculous album covers I'm not sure any prog rock band can hold a candle to Molly Hatchet:

Yeah, but it's Frazetta. It wouldn't be the same if they went for something from the Brothers Hildebrandt. They used three guitars. They HAD to include axes in the album art. It's one of the rules.

Yeah, the King Crimson cover is pretty neat, and doesn't really fit in with the thesis of the article.

I don't know that I'd classify Captain Beyond as across-the-board prog-rock. Sure they were influenced by it to a point, but they had more of a bare bones hard-rock thing going on and the King Crimson album is nothing short of astounding. I was just cruising the internet the other day looking for a t-shirt of that cover. Couldn't find one in my size though. I have a buddy with the Tarkus tattooed on his shoulder as well as the pterydactyl and the volcano on other parts of his body. His goal is to get every part of that album on him somewhere. He is full-on for that prog stuff.

Well, yeah. If that's your standard for progressive rock I can see your point. I was thinking along the lines of 'The Camera Eye' or something. But just because the poofs in The Moody Blues were reaching for some classical/rock hybrid to make a statement about rock doesn't mean everyone else is. Artists make the art they want to make, for whatever reasons they have.

And the cover of Hemispheres is a picture of the title track. So what? Most of the others look like hideous velvet doodle-art. Most of the stuff Hugh Syme did for Rush is outstanding. 'Test For Echo' deserves a vinyl release just for the artwork.

I wouldn't say straightforward. Steely Dan's lyrical voice is absolutely unique.

It's not my "standard" for prog rock (that's Foxtrot), but it's a pretty important foundational piece.

Sure, but that doesn't mean every progressive rock band wrote what they did for the same reasons as the Moody Blues.

Do you want the recording? It's not so much a conversation as a symbolic rendering of the ideas in a narrative featuring dwarves, robots, and a sacred mandolin conveyed in five movements, the last of which features a flawlessly executed flute solo in 15/4.

Seriously, though, I've never even heard Chick Corea referred to as "prog rock."

Also, just because an artistic movement wasn't conceived with some sort of official gameplan doesn't mean that there aren't key aspects that can come to be identified with that movement. Just as most of the first strain of New York punk bands reacted to prog by embracing shorter, less ornate song structures, most of the early prog bands were defined by the fact that they attempted to wed classical music to rock.

It's not like Joyce, Eliot, Woolf, Faulkner, and the rest got together and said "Hey, let's invent modernism!!!!" But we can still pick out some common traits and analyze them with those in mind.

But that's not just what it was. Music performed by talented, ambitious performers doesn't necessarily have to manifest in 15-minute keyboard solos, hilariously straightfaced fantasy and sf-based lyrics, and rock interpretations of classical pieces and motifs.

There are things beyond talent and ambition that tend to get certain musicians the "prog" label. If it were just talent and ambition, those other key artists I keep bringing up (Beatles, Hendrix, Dylan, Thompson) would also be called "prog." As others have said, Steely Dan doesn't really seem prog, despite plenty of talent and ambition. There are scores of talented and ambitious people in rock music. Why do you think it is that they're not all called "prog"?

It's obvious you're a prog-rock enthusiast. When you hear the word "prog" associated with an artist, I suspect that you have an inkling that you'll probably like it. It's not just the talent and ambition - it's the particular way in which the artist uses that talent and ambition.

Sure. I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm not saying that the members of Yes got together and said, "God, I can't fucking stand this stuff we play, but we must do this for the good of mankind!!!" But talent and the intent to amuse oneself doesn't necessarily make for great art. Michael Bay is extraordinarily talented at making things blow up, and I'm sure he enjoys his movies thoroughly.

Ummm... I've heard and read the tracklistings to Yes, King Crimson, Rush, and ELP albums. If you're not hearing and seeing the classical influences there, I'm not sure what to tell you.

I never argued otherwise. You, however, seemed to be suggesting that the only way that talent and rock can possibly coexist is in prog, as the only alternative is to play "fluff" beneath one's level. This is tremendously wrong, and I've got the Motown to prove it.

It doesn't take itself as seriously. Self-deprecation came late to prog. It's there now, but it never occurred to me that Rush regarded 2112 as humorous, at least not as evidenced via performance, and they probably should have, because it's kind of hilariously overblown.

To some extent, this is true. To me, the music sounds pretentious (though as I've stressed throughout this thread, I don't think this is always a bad thing at all). I'm not stressing over whether you, Robert Fripp, Jon Anderson, or Neil Peart disagree. All I can do is give you the reasons why I think it sounds pretentious. As music (and all art) is basically interpretive, you don't have to agree. But judging from general statements made about the genre by music critics, music fans, etc., I don't think I'm alone in my assessment. It's not like I'm making some kind of wild jump into unexplored territory of music criticism.

Mmmmmm...the Funk Brothers!

I'm not sure I'm getting your point, either, Seabass. Are you suggesting that musicians like Willie Dixon, Bela Fleck or Elvis Costello (just to name a few stupidly talented people who don't play prog) are playing fluff that's beneath them? I'm honestly not attacking you but maybe just looking for a little more clarification.

Well, that's one album by the Moody Blues. It's hardly fair to extrapolate across the entire genre.

Return To Forever was its own thing.

Sure, but you weren't talking about music theory. You were talking about pretentious motives regarding bringing respectability to pop music.


No, it doesn't. But that's what they chose to write and record. The reasons for doing so are as varied as the people doing it, as it is with most things.

Because the critics say so? I don't know, I don't pigeonhole my taste that way.

Like Ripoll said, I like good music. Bad music, not so much.


I'll agree to that. I don't try to second-guess the composer's motivation, though.

I never said anything about the quality of the work one way or the other. Could be an artist records what he thinks is cool, but is wrong.

As I said, that says nothing about why it was done.

I didn't say that, I said I wouldn't want to walk into a studio to record fluff. There's plenty of music that's neither prog-rock nor fluff. But we were discussing prog-rock.

Not being sentient, it can't. Art, I'm told, is a mirror. 'Tis the listener who takes it seriously. Or not.

It's exactly as blown as it's supposed to be. I have no problem with musical stories, be it 2112 or 'El Paso', although I've personally heard more than enough Marty Robbins to last a lifetime.


The important thing is that's how it sounds to you.

I'm fine with that. I can and often do disagree with more than one person at a time. And you might be right! You might put forth an example and I might agree, as in the case of the Moody Blues. But that's you and me and one album, and that's all.

Not at all. I didn't say prog rock is the only alternative to bubblegum music. Just the alternative under discussion.

I was referring to conversation between Gabriel and Corea, not the Moody Blues album. I've got it on vinyl, with a foldout cover featuring a spaceship and these tree-men. It's weird.

Are you saying motivation doesn't direct how music is constructed? What, did Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, Yes, and others just stumble into using classical structures in a rock format?

Fact - these bands had a habit of creating grandiose, classical-influenced music with a focus on instrumental precision. The lyrics are often fantasy and sf-oriented, sometimes taking the form of extended storylines. Can we agree on this, at least? Or am I extrapolating too much?

Fine; however, the reasoning you gave was as follows: "Or maybe they're just better, more ambitious musicians. Why so cynical? I have little musical talent, but I'm sure that if I were to write and record music I would not be satisfied with walking into the studio to record fluff. Why so cynical?"

This implies that the chief reason that prog rock bands had for performing a type of music that specifically referenced classical music, put a high priority on instrumental prowess, etc., was so that they were not performing "fluff." Frankly, I don't buy that the reasons that Yes, King Crimson, ELP, and a bunch of the other early prog bands all just happened to use similar classical were all that varied. It wasn't coincidence.

The word "pigeonholing" puts an unnecessarily negative spin on what I see as shorthand. "Hey, what does the Mars Volta sound like?" "Well, they're sort of like prog-rock meets punk with some metal and vaguely Latin influences." "Well, okay."

You may not "pigeonhole" your taste that way, but it's pretty clear from the bands you mention in the music threads that your tastes run to what pretty much everyone else would call "prog." I don't see what's wrong with admitting this tendency.

It's just that much of what you consider "good" happens to be what others probably call "prog."

Whether you admit it or not, genre informs what you listen to. It's not that you necessarily pick music based on what genre name, but if your favorite artists happen to be Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, and Patsy Cline, it's pretty clear that you like country music, even if you coyly refuse to give this name to it.

Art asks us to make assumptions on its meaning. This often manifests in figuring out motivation. When we watch No Country for Old Men, we don't just sit there and let it wash over us. We try to figure out what McCarthy and the Coens are trying to get across. This is no different than attempting to figure out what the prog bands were getting at with their classical music motifs. To not analyze the composer's motivation is to be a pretty lazy listener, I think.

It's also not second-guessing when you've heard the movement characterized this way over and over again, occasionally from people involved with it. I haven't been able to find anything I can link here, but I know I've read interviews with a few of these guys before, and the rationales are made pretty clear.

Yes, and you brought up fluff as the likely alternative to prog.

That's part of the equation. But if you think Guernica is hilarious, you're pretty fucking weird. While art is open to interpretation, I don't buy that "poetry means anything you want it to mean" bullshit. There's nothing on 2112 to suggest that Rush intended it to be taken as anything other than completely serious, whereas the opposite is true of, say, Weird Al's Dare to Be Stupid. Which one is funnier depends on your view of comedy and, perhaps, camp.

I love musical storytellers. But I'm not sure how an Ayn Rand-inspired sci-fi fable about a mystical guitar amidst space battles and such doesn't strike you as pretty overblown and symbolically heavy-handed (much like the writings that inspired it). I think you're just reluctant to acknowledge any weaknesses in the music you like, which is kind of lazy listening, IMO. I like a lot of music that doesn't quite hit the mark, lyrically, or on which the vocalist misses a note, but is all the better for it. It seems like many prog fans have more of a problem with imperfection, be it perceived (lyrical content, which is subjective) or indisputable (a missed beat, an off-key note). In some ways, it's music for the literal-minded and math-brained.

I didn't realize we were now qualifying every statement on this board with "I think." Isn't that sort of implied?

Where does Mastodon's "Blood Mountain" cover fall into? I personally love it.

The cover to Genesis' Trespass is far uglier and ill-conceived than anything on Nursery Cryme.

Fleetwood Mac, not really a prog band even in its weirder moments, had more than a few (fairly awful) prog-inspired covers:

http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Me-Fle...2078917&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Kiln-House-Fle...ef=m_art_li_10

http://www.amazon.com/Then-Play-Flee...ref=m_art_li_6

Sure. I just have my doubts about there being some big effort to bring respectability, as you put it, to rock. I think it's painting with an awfully broad brush.

Really, that's it. I can't put it any more simply than that.