Which do you prefer: Crimson or Crimson II?

Dec 21, 2003
632
2
18
42
Sudbury, Canada
By Edge of Sanity. Also, give a reason for your answer.

I prefer Crimson because I preferred the production (particularly the vocals), the repetition of memorable refrains, the more natural sound (ie. less keyboards and synths), and the cohesive nature of the album since it was only one song. Crimson II was very good, but I found it slightly disappointing.

Your opinions?
 
Crimson.
Crimson II was a dissapointment, because I naturally expected it to be better than Crimson. It wasn't. If I didn't have Crimson in the back of my mind while listening to this album, I probably wouldn't have thought it was that bad. It's good. But no Crimson...
 
Wait...are you guys talking about the band King Crimson or something else? Because their line-ups have been coined KC1, KC2 and so on.
 
Raumien said:
Wait...are you guys talking about the band King Crimson or something else? Because their line-ups have been coined KC1, KC2 and so on.
Not really...Egde of sanity's Crimson and Crimson II.

I preferred crimson as well. :)
 
I was just thinking about this! I'm listening to Crimson II right now. I love the production of C2, along with how the synths are used to add an atmosphere that C1 didn't really have. Although, the first Crimson had a lot more risky things like slow downs and more melodic parts, which I liked a lot, too. C2 seemed to stay within a certain. . ."zone" without taking too many musical risks.

I think I may like C1 a hair more than C2 for one reason. The story isn't really what I expected it to be, not in a bad way, but I expected something way different.

Although on the other hand, C2 is more enjoyable for me to sit and listen to from start to finish than C1. . . .

I should probably just stop.:erk: I'll say C1 by a micrometer.