Talk:Keith Emerson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject contemporary music, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary music subjects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

COULD SOMEONE TRY TO FIX THE PAGE? I TRIED TO ADD A FOOTNOTED QUOTE, BUT THE TEXT WHICH FOLLOWS IT DISAPPEARS FROM THE PAGE (ALTHOUGH IT IS STILL IN THE EDIT SCREEN. R

Please resist the urge to change the entry back for the third time. It's pure vandalism. No informed critic or experienced keyboard player believes other pop or rock keyboard players of the time were technically, harmonically, or melodically in the same league as Keith Emerson. By indicating otherwise, you are providing your opinion -- which is fine in conversation, but isn't called for in this venue. Wakeman et al are all good players, and perhaps if the sentence were rewritten along those lines it would be more apt.

R

Just read your declaration on Emerson - breath-taking that you should think YOUR opinion is the only one that matters! To say that Emerson - fine keyboard player though he is/was - shouldn't even be judged against the others because he's supposed to be incomparable, is franky ridiculous - and PURE opinion - yours! - not the opinion of so-called 'informed' critics. Such opinion definitely doesn't belong in Wikipedia, it's based on nothing but hero-worship. In MY opinion, his real legacy wasn't so much his playing, as making the organ a leading instrument in the mind of the public. And from what I read, he took that idea from one of the others to do it. Surely you should have a more balanced and unbiased view? You don't do your hero any good by claiming the unclaimable. P!

I'm not giving my opinion; I'm explaining a consensus opinion. Some folks (apparently you are one of them) believe the other players are on par with Emerson and others feel Emerson is a superior player. That is all I've said. Your statement equates the two of them, but disregards the views of a number of other folks who do not agree with you. It is childish of you to persist in changing a balanced statement. If you persist in giving your opinion and thinking your views are more important than other folks, I'll be happy to continue to change what you've written to something more accurate. By the way, Emerson is not my hero. But his playing was superior to any other rock musician of the time. Any keyboard player knows that, including the ones you've listed.

Just found your message - you're not giving your opinion? And Emerson isn't your hero? Then what is that piece about his playing being 'superior to any other rock musician of the time'? That's YOUR opinion! And the following sentence about 'any keyboard player knows that, including the ones you've listed' - have you interviewed the other players to check their opinion out? I can safely bet that not one of those thought that Emerson was superior, though I've no doubt they respected his ability - as he would respect theirs! It's also very telling that you could only consider that I (or anyone!) would at the best think the other players were 'on a par' with Emerson, many people would, I know, consider some of the others superior to him - and not just the public, I've seen that said in print many a time. We can all be selective about the references we choose! For my money, they were all good, each in their own way, it's naive and simplistic of you to put one ahead, though there's nothing wrong with you having a PERSONAL preference - that's different to a statement of fact. And by the way, you're wrong about me too - I've NEVER contributed ANY edits, just read them, so I didn't 'list' anyone...you're mixing me up with some of the other people who also don't share YOUR opinion! So save your 'childish' remark for your adversary in editing - personally MY opinion is you're both way off beam, and have no balance in your thinking at all. It's definitely YOU who thinks your opinion is the only one worth having - that's what I object to. You're welcome to your own thoughts, but don't try and foist them on the rest of us. It will never work. For goodness sake, try and be a bit more balanced! I could say a lot more, but being rude to other editors isn't in the Wiki spirit - you should remember that too....and try and write a piece that we can ALL live with!

P

DEAR P,

You asked if I'd interviewed any of the other players to learn their views on Emerson. Well, I know two of them personally having played with them, so I suppose an interview is unnecessary. They're in awe of Emerson and believe he's in a class of his own in terms of rock keyboardists or players from the "progressive" era. You have a nice day, skippy.

R

Thank you for writing, at least that's a start, and communication is a better way of dealing with disagreement than slagging each other off from a distance, especially when there might be common ground somewhere! But you're still shooting yourself in the foot (OK, perhaps the toe!) - it's good that you actually know two of the guys listed, and say you know their views, but that doesn't include all the guys, does it? So your statement is still not valid, it's sweeping rather than specific. You feel it has weight, because of the guys you know, and I agree it does give some authority, but (in my opinion!) you should stick to mentioning the two guys you do know - that would, if anything, make your point stronger, providing you're bold enough to put your connection to them - and their direct words from their mouths - in print. I'd go along with that, no quarrel. But anything else is mere conjecture and opinion. Another angle I see is that any of the guys who were really top level would never say than anyone else is better. That makes me think that you knew the (relatively!) weaker players on the list, ie, Rick Wright and Tony Banks - not that they weren't good by any means! - but arguably more 'background' players than the other three. And I also think some people not on the list would have a thing or two to say about it all - Vincent Crane (my personal favourite!), Jon Lord etc. I have seen Wakeman's printed thoughts on Emerson, plenty of respect, but certainly not any concession of superiority! And, as is well-documented, Emerson took the idea of lead organ from Ritchie, so I doubt that there would be much love lost there either, given the way history worked out. On that score, I've also seen a comment by Blinky Davison that the most impressive organist he saw was 'the guy from Clouds'. As Blinky was the drummer of the Nice, that seems pretty damning. Then again, to put it in perspective, I gather that Blinky and Keith weren't exactly crazy about each other around the time the Nice packed up, so it could well be a deliberate dig, rather than a valid point of view. And knowing Keith's fragility about Ritchie, he would certainly know where to aim the barb. All we on Wiki should be doing is reporting the facts, and let the readers decide for themselves. that's all I'm saying.

So you 'have a nice day' too! And thanks for writing - really!

P

Sorry you think I'm shooting myself in the toe, P. Rick (Wakeman) and Billy are two fine players, and one would be hard-pressed to argue that they didn't make significant contributions in their respective bands. But, like most good musicians, they have no difficulty appreciating other talented musicians and giving them their well-deserved due, and they were the two musicians I referred to earlier. I understand that you believe top-level musicians "would never say anyone else was better" than they are, but in fact it happens often and it's always refreshing to see. Musicians have no greater fans than other musicians, P, and while I understand you believe I've been giving my own opinion, all I can tell you is that Keith's musicianship was regarded on an entirely different level by the players themselves who were also making records at the time. Just as Hendrix' playing was considered more accomplished by gifted players like Eric, Pete and Jeff (Beck), so Keith's playing was regarded as more accomplished by his peers. Perhaps you hear that as a criticism of the other keyboard players of the time, but it's really just a comment on Keith's inimitable playing. (Interestingly, Hendrix and Emerson were considering forming a band not long before Hendrix passed.)

That's not to say Emerson was an accomplished classical or jazz player, as he was neither -- and he was happy to acknowledge that. But in the rock venue, in terms of his technical proficiency, his harmonic choices, his references to various "high" and "low" styles, often within eight bars of each other, Emerson's playing was on a completely different level from his peers. Take a listen to the remarkable solo in "Take A Pebble" sometime or to the writing on "Fugue". These are the sorts of things that bring out the "fan" in a musician.

R

I appreciate you writing, and you have a lot of interesting things to say. But I'm afraid I think you must have got the wrong end of the stick in your conversations with them, despite actually playing with Wakeman and Ritchie (though I'm very impressed that you have, of course - it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts on their respective qualities and faults). I certainly have never seen anything that Wakeman's said that conceded any kind of superiority, and I've seen things in print by Ritchie that were, if anything, slightly dismissive of Emerson, perhaps a bit of sour grapes because he believed Emerson took all the credit that he thought should have been his? One quote (I think it was 'Record Collector') about Emerson by Ritchie was 'I knew him when he played sideboard'. So that doesn't quite square with 'awe'. I bow to your superior knowledge about musicians, and the contacts you have, and I'm certainly not qualified to judge on who's best by any means, but I still think there's far too much opinion and bias in what you've written to date. A shame, because I've enjoyed your comments here - why don't you use more of that voice in the piece itself? It seems to me that you have a lot to contribute, perhaps more in the technical comments? If you could just take a bit more of objectivity, you could make a real worthwhile contribution. Or perhaps you're working towards that anyway?

P

DEAR R


R - Let me get this right, you knew and played with Billy Ritchie? I thought he packed in after Clouds? Can you share what he was like as a person and a musician? According to Mojo, he's never been traced. Vanman404 13:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


P,

Sometimes, inclusiveness -- even well-intended inclusiveness -- can create, if not exactly bias then inaccuracy. The intent of Wikipedia is laudable, but the execution can sometimes leave something to be desired, in my admittedly limited view. Not sure if you're familiar with Douglas Hofstadter, but he's a brilliant guy who wrote a fascinating book in the late 70s that won a Pulitzer Prize in the States. One might think Wikipedia's entry on Hofstadter would be written by his fans, appreciators, colleagues, and well-regarded scientists with an interest in physics, cognition, mathematics or music, and therefore display a high degree of accuracy and insight. In fact, the entry on Hofstadter turns out to be filled with errors, according to a rather bemused Mr. Hofstadter in a recent interview. A while back, I read a few paragraphs in another Wikipedia entry which covered the opening chord of The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night. In attempting to name the notes and name of that extremely unusual chord (for a hit pop song circa 1964), the entry was similarly well-intended, openhearted, inclusive, fair-minded, open to disparate views, and mostly wrong. I suppose one might reasonably say in that case the formal name of a chord and the specific notes which comprise it can only have a single correct answer and that, over time, someone will inevitably stop by and correct the inaccuracies just as others will no doubt iron out some of the inaccuracies in Mr. Hofstadter's entry. That's certainly a hopeful view, but in practice it can sometimes work the other way, P, where more opinions are slathered on in desultory prose like a kind of verbal paste.

R

RE BILLY RITCHIE

I know for a fact that Billy Ritchie would never have expressed any kind of 'awe' about Keith Emerson - the facts are second hand to me, but Billy Ritchie's attitude was that Keith was a fine player, albeit a 'living room' player, and certainly couldn't live with Billy 'live'. Take away the histrionics - the very fine histrionics, I have to admit - and dynamically, Keith was no match for Billy, who was probably the most Rock-orientated keyboard player of the time. I think it's dangerous to peddle such anecdotal nonsense, you will always be found out. Matthew.hartington 21:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Dear Matthew,

Now it is I who am in awe of you. I'm impressed that you "know for a fact" something about my experience. There's a good lad.

R

Dear R, It's true I can't know your experience, or explain how you came to the conclusions you did - How the wires came to be crossed is one for you to figure out, not me. But let me say it clearly - according to my sources, there's no way that Billy Ritchie would agree with the words you've ascribed to him. If you know him personally (which I don't, it's true), perhaps you should ask him again, let's assume you were just misinformed in some way. I'm sure you're a good lad really. Matthew.hartington 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be pleased to discuss this in a serious way with anyone willing to do so without making it personal. Billy's playing was well-suited to his group, in my opinion, but comparing him with some of the leading keyboard players of his day is a bit like comparing New Colony Six to Miles Davis. Many of Billy's peers were superior players, which is not to say Richie was a poor player. He was a limited player who made the most of his limitations. "Watercolour Days" sounds reminiscent of Emerson's playing, only Richie's playing is much simpler and to be frank, not difficult. In "Cold Sweat" Richie's note choices are the most obvious ones he could have selected. "Lighthouse" is playing on autopilot. His playing on "The Carpenter" is sometimes out of time and sloppy, which is somewhat unusual. "I Know Better Than You" contains very simple playing and it's perfectly fine, of course, but again most players of the time could have played something similar. "Get Off My Farm" seems fairly representative of Billy's playing as it contains a number of good beginnings of musical ideas which run out of musical steam. Someone asked what Billy was like and I thought he was a very nice man when I knew him.

R


I certainly don't want to make it personal. And I bow to your superior knowledge about the music. It's impressive to note how much you've studied that. But you're mistaken in saying that Ritchie would agree with your views about Emerson. Nuff said. Matthew.hartington 09:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Matthew,

Like anyone else, musicians say all sorts of things to the press. Sometimes, there is little distance between what one really feels and what one tells a reporter or interviewer. On the other hand, one sometimes uses the press to be provocative, settle scores, blow off steam, or otherwise make news.

As I recall, Keith had a lot of respect for Brian Auger's organ playing. I don't know whether he mentioned this in press interviews, but I know he felt that way. I don't think he rated anyone higher in the late 60s, particularly amongst British organists.

R

Dear R, I respect your views, and you show quite clearly in much of what you say that you know what you're talking about. Yet there are contradictions. And I'm annoyed that you called the Clouds page 'vandalism', when after SmackedBot, quite justifiably set out the citations request, the page got into a mess, I was simply straightening it out as best I could. I don't believe by any means it had reached where it should be, but I was satisfied it was in better shape than when I began. Why don't you use that obvious talent to help construct, not destroy? Matthew.hartington 07:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - Better still, why don't you help me construct the page? And can we discuss it on my user page (or yours?). It doesn't seem fair to Keith to have all this here (not your fault it's happening, I agree).Matthew.hartington 08:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


Matthew, I've never been to the Clouds page and when I used the word 'vandalism' I wasn't referring to that page. I'm relatively new here and do not know how to properly make citations, although I made an honest effort to try when the importance of citations in Wikipedia entries was explained to me. It's not clear to me what you feel I'm 'destroying'. Other than making a few edits in the beginning of Keith's entry, and citing what the All Music Guide writes about his playing, I've simply joined the discussion on this page to try to better understand your views and those of the other fellow.

Regarding the views of music critics, these folks have their place and the best ones, in my view, make an impact by encouraging their readers to seek out recordings by artists these readers might otherwise not have been exposed to. On the other hand, with a few notable exceptions, most music critics know very little about music - whether creating it, making it, or understanding how to listen to it. Music criticism is difficult, just like literary criticism is difficult, and most folks are not up to the task even when they call themselves critics. Don't get me wrong, Matt. In my line of work, I've spent time with many music critics over the years and they are often engaging to talk to and interesting people in their own right. But there is often a great difference between the way a non-musician hears music and the way a musician listens to it. So, while you may well have come across critics who feel strongly about the playing of an individual musician or group, it is equally possible that the prevailing view amongst musicians differs from the critical view of non-musicians.

When the great jazz pianist Oscar Peterson happened to turn on his TV one night in the 70s and saw Keith switching between ragtime one moment and a fugue the next, he was so taken with the performance that he immediately called up his friend, Count Basie, and told him to turn on his TV. I love that story, which I'm reasonably sure is not apocryphal, because the view of most music critics of the day was that there was something essentially non-musical and bombastic about so-called 'progressive' music groups like ELP. But to a musician - ironically a hero of Emerson's as a teenager - Emerson's playing was accomplished and, given its venue, very unusual. Not long after this, the two men met and Peterson asked Keith to be part of a BBC show Peterson was presenting.

R

Dear R, sorry, I've obviously got the wrong end of the stick. Thank you for your patience. And I like that story too. Matthew.hartington 14:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC

R:- just come back from holiday to find the dialogue I seem to have dragged you into. Then again, I know you can handle it. Interesting comments about music generally, why don't you sign up and commit yourself? I think you could contribute a lot, especially a few new pages on artists who're not represented here yet.

P

Hello again, P. Hope you had a good holiday. I appreciate the vote of confidence. Be well.

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 16:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)


Boy...that off-color overexposed awful image of Keith Emerson is just SO much better than the prior image - if Keith saw that he might have preferred dying first not to have this pathetic piece of visual drek he was kind enough to do with a fan posted and distributed worldwide on Wikipedia. Congratulations on finding that lovely free image. Tvccs 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tvccs, this kind of comment is what is really harmfull to Wikipedia. Be respectful to other editors. Avoid using improper humor. --Abu Badali 02:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
To find you, after the massive attack you have launched on my images, to be discussing respectfulness, I cannot find the words. It would be my hope that users who find and substitute free images would find ones of far better quality before replacing same. I have little doubt Keith Emerson would abhor the image being used here being distributed as a primary image worldwide. Tvccs 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


If he abhors it, he has only to give us a freely-licensed replacement and we'll use that instead. —Chowbok ☠ 02:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And as a photographer, I would never in a hundred years have posted such an image for publication - it's fine where it was, as a nice fan image, but has no place being used as it now is on Wikipedia. Tvccs 02:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
REMOVAL OF MATERIAL THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE CITATIONS

Regarding the removal of the insertion about the influence of Billy Ritchie on Keith Emerson, I can of course understand the rationale, but citations can be provided to back up this fact - it's in the public domain that this influence exists. Also, I find it rather confusing when the source re Jack McDuff says a similar thing, yet seems to remain similarly unsourced. It was the McDuff connection that encouraged me to put the piece in. On reflection though, I think it's right to remove it, on the grounds that it is, after all, Keith Emerson's page, not a clipboard for someone else's intrusion. But the fact is, the influence of Ritchie exists - Emerson was (till he saw Ritchie) an organist who sat down and played in the background. When 'The Nice' saw 1-2-3 (at the Marquee early 1967), they sacked O'List (guitar), and became an organ trio, much in the style of 1-2-3. But how can such a reference be included tastefully? And without offence to other contributors? I'd rather someone else did it......can anyone help with that? Matthew.hartington 09:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


It's interesting to note in this context that after O'List left the band The Nice actually wanted to employ another guitarist, as mentioned, among other places, in this article by John Covach (a musicologist and researcher of progressive rock):
http://www.ibiblio.org/johncovach/elp.htm - "Inquiring prog minds will want to know that O'List briefly replaced Mick Abrahams in Jethro Tull, and that Steve Howe was offered O'List's spot in the Nice".
This fact casts a serious doubt on your theory that The Nice decided to become a keyboard trio after seeing 1-2-3 and fired O'List for this reason, as it seems they didn't decide to become a keyboard trio, but fired O'List for other reasons and were trying to get another guitarist (Howe declined the offer, as was mentioned elsewhere). - Debby, 1 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.89.193 (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Matthew, I missed it the last time, but I noticed now there's something fundamentally wrong with your time line. You wrote:
"Emerson was (till he saw Ritchie) an organist who sat down and played in the background. When 'The Nice' saw 1-2-3 (at the Marquee early 1967), they sacked O'List (guitar), and became an organ trio, much in the style of 1-2-3."
But The Nice were formed only in May 1967 and O'List left sometime in 1968, before they released their 2nd album (November 1968). Seems that in September 1968 O'List was still in the band, if the timing of this video is correct (September 29, 1968):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NArOpaKC3E
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UQpAzLg-38I
Actually, in a 2006 interview O'List kinda claimed the rights to the entire stage act of The Nice:
http://www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk/magazine/2006/10/davy-olist-interview.php
"My musical directions for Keith was for him to follow what Pete Townsend and Jimi Hendrix were doing and applying that to the Hammond organ; swinging arms, feedback, distortion, wild flare, etc., which he did for me. I knew organists had never been seen like this before. I knew it would work on the audiences. We were more like a circus act, so different for the audiences to look at. They were startled! This idea was so new to rock and caught a lot of attention from press, record companies, audiences, etc., that’s why Jimi Hendrix loved us; the whips, the flying doves I put into the audience, the smoke bombs, the guitar and organ exploding together, the theatric costumes I designed."
I guess Keith Emerson would have something to say about that :-)
I'm not saying there was no influence as I don't know, but to be included in an "encyclopedic" article it should have more solid reference and a factually accurate timeline. You're saying The Nice saw 1-2-3 in early 1967, - that is before The Nice even existed as a band, - and immediately after that sacked O'List and became a keyboard trio, while The Nice just started playing together as P.P Arnold's band around mid 1967 and O'List was still in the band in 1968, and after he left The Nice were for some time trying to replace him with another guitarist (and even while O'List was still there Keith Emerson was by no means a background keyboardist in The Nice).
And BTW, re standing at (and on) the keyboard, neither of them invented it. Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis were doing that since the 50s and I doubt rock keyboardists growing up in the 50s and 60s never heard of them and their stage antics. These guys were playing standing up, they played the piano with their feet (I've heard Lewis was using also other body parts, like Emerson, but not on the videos I have), they stood, walked and danced on top of the piano, according to the legend Lewis also set fire to the piano on several occasions (he denied it in an interview some years ago). In the 60s Jerry Lee Lewis, whose career was ruined in the US for his marriage scandal in the late 50s, was performing in Europe, including the UK. I have video clips of both Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard from British TV shows in the 60s. Here's one of Jerry Lee Lewis on British TV in the 60s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEc-RazQlY
Not that it's news of any kind, but the point is I really doubt either Emerson or Ritchie or any other British rock keyboardist active in the 60s have never ever heard of the most famous American rock pianists who established this style and never laid eyes on them and just incidentally invented this kind of stage act all by himself. So as far as the stage act goes, neither of them was an original. - Debby


Oh, and one other little thing that slipped my mind - before Keith Emerson turned 20 (somewhere between 61 and 64) he already had a keyboard trio called - you'll never guess - The Keith Emerson Trio. Here you have a list of the bands Emerson played with before The Nice (I have another better reference, but not in English):
http://www.classicwebs.com/emerson.htm
And here's another page where the trio is mentioned:
http://mysticrivermusic.com/mrweb3/elp.html
I should get Edward Macan's book on ELP, so I'll have a better reference. Meanwhile you can see it on Amazon - Edward Macan's "Endless Enigma" - Amazon lets you search inside and read a long excerpt, so you can see the Keith Emerson Trio mentioned on page 5 here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader?ie=UTF8&p=S01D&asin=0812695968
Just go to page 5.
It might not have been a rock trio because Emerson was more into Jazz at the time, but he was no stranger to the concept. 1-2-3 might have been the first rock keyboard trio and maybe there were others we've never heard of, but your assertion that The Nice saw them early 1967 and then sacked O'List to become a keyboard trio is just factually incorrect. - Debby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.52.245 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


didn't emerson had hand surgery in 93?

Contents

[edit] Re Ritchie

Interested in the Ritchie comments. I’m a muso too, played keyboards at good level, met Emerson, didn’t meet Wakeman, but saw him. Lot of top guys then, but Emerson and Ritchie stand out from rest coz they carried the whole fxxxxxg thing on their own without support other than bass and drums. And Ritchie was first to do it, no question. Clouds records not best, unfair on the guys. Watercolour days organ might not be that hard to play, but shows distinct and individual voice, and some very sublime piano phrases. Lighthouse (corny song), piano and organ very cleverly make sound paintings, not techno, but not always about difficult, bout taste and sense too. Tons of that here, saves the song. I know better than you, nother naff song, but easy to play? Don’t think so - those phrases aren’t just a few notes, they’re chords, and the thing about Billy , he had hands like two right hands, all his solos were either octaves or harmonies, that’s why the organ sounded so strong live. I remember Tony Kaye puzzling bout that - they played the same Hammond, but he couldn’t get the strong sound, even stood the two keyboards together at the Marquee to study the drawbars and work out why. The answer wasn’t the keyboard, it was Billy. On I know better than you, those eight-finger chords work out at 12 a bar. Listen to Imagine me - no-one else at that time could have played that two-handed ending, those ascending diminished chords played at incredible speed and power. Sing Sing Sing, the same. On stage, even more so. And did a lot of those classical snatches that gave Keith the idea he later became famous for. Fugue in Cminor in the middle of Bowie’s song for instance. And did Nut Rocker, that ELP did later as an encore. Plus America, that Yes filched. Cold Sweat, predictable notes, but part of ambience, not meant as solo. Listen instead to the powerful syncopations of the organ - no overdubs, just two quick hands. Agree about Carpenter (trying to build a solo that just didn’t build) and Get off my farm (worst song of the lot)- solo disappears up its own axxhxxe. Ritchie was never a great soloist, but then, neither was Keith. Billy was a great band player, and Keith was a great set-piece player. They were very different in style. Keith was generally from that McGriff/Smith Hammond school, Billy played the organ with more of an orchestral approach, he tended to try and play everybody’s part, just as well he was in a three-piece. Same was true of Harry, the drummer. They wouldn’t have suited a full band, too busy, could say Billy was power mad. But for my money, the best live organist at that time by a mile. Biggest organ sound ever. DaveEx 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

==PS== Sounds unfair to Keith - meant to say 'best live organ sound'. As I said at the start, to me Keith and Billy were the two guys that stood out. Not fair to single out one against the other, my mistake.DaveEx 10:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dream Theater

There has been an attempt to remove my trivium that Keith's favorite current prog band is Dream Theater. This comes from the Chris Comer interview linked to on this very page. I intend to fix the citation once I learn how to better use wikipedia. I thought I would put it out there in case someone else would like to do it first. Nigel Napalm 17:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

For citations you need to read WP:CITE. As for adding useless "trivium", perhaps reading WP:TRIVIA will help. 205.174.160.6 18:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, buddy! Nigel Napalm 19:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] With ELP: Notes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Emerson#With_ELP

The entire "notes" paragraph (and a long, unbroken and verbose one it is) lacks a single citation, is highly speculative, uses personal opinion and analysis better suited to an album review than a scholarly, encyclopedic article on the person Keith Emerson. Many of the statements are also provably false through cursory googling of actual sources, as opposed to the writer's reliance on his own opinions and biases.

Therefore, I've removed the entire section. It seems to be at once an apologia for Emerson's habit of using other composer's work uncredited, as well as a long, worshipful ode to Emerson. It certainly has no place in this article. Its information is highly speculative and without corroboration by any source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.9.83 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moog image

Consider using Image:Doug Dino KeithEmersonsMoog.jpg which is claimed to be his old Moog. Bovlb (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)