Progressive Rock Talk with ChatGPT

ChatGPT Loves Progressive Rock: My Conversation with an AI

by John Diliberto (and ChatGPT) 2/22/2024

I had the most intelligent conversation with ChatGPT today. The album Mercator Projected by East of Eden had been in my head for a while so I put it on while cleaning my office. It still sounds great and made me wonder why King Crimson’s In the Court of the Crimson King took off into the iconosphere while East of Eden is completely forgotten. They were both released the same year, 1969, and Mercator preceded ITCOTCK by a full 6 months.

Both bands were plying a mix of jazz, rock, symphonic sounds and mystical lyrics. Both had some virtuoso players. And both had some really great songs. But one is iconic and the other is forgotten. So on an idle afternoon I asked ChatGPT this question:

Why wasn’t the band East of Eden as big as King Crimson in 1969?

Now, I kind of new the answer why, but was surprised to see ChatGPT not only articulately and knowledgably answer that question, but then go on about some other progressive rock groups. It’s initial answer is in that typical ChatGPT response of a list, but then goes to actual conversation.

ChatGPT said:
East of Eden and King Crimson were both part of the late-’60s progressive rock movement, but King Crimson’s In the Court of the Crimson King (1969) was a game-changer that overshadowed many of their contemporaries. Here are a few key reasons why East of Eden didn’t achieve the same level of success:

1. Groundbreaking Impact of King Crimson
King Crimson’s debut was a seismic shift in rock music, blending symphonic grandeur, jazz influences, and heavy proto-metal elements. It was hailed as revolutionary upon release, setting a new standard for progressive rock. East of Eden’s Mercator Projected (1969), while innovative, didn’t have the same dramatic, genre-defining impact.

2. Stronger Production and Cohesion
King Crimson, led by Robert Fripp, had a strong and distinct musical vision. Their album had a clear identity, with impeccable production and grandiose arrangements. East of Eden, though experimental and diverse, lacked the same level of cohesion and polish, which may have made their music harder to market to a broad audience.

3. More Defined Leadership in King Crimson
Robert Fripp’s firm direction helped King Crimson maintain a strong identity despite numerous lineup changes. East of Eden, on the other hand, had a less centralized leadership, making their artistic direction more fluid but also less recognizable to a growing fanbase.

4. Marketing and Exposure
King Crimson benefited from great promotion and the endorsement of influential figures like Pete Townshend of The Who, who called their debut “an uncanny masterpiece.” This kind of high-profile praise helped propel them into the public consciousness. East of Eden, though respected, lacked similar major endorsements or media buzz.

5. Musical Complexity vs. Accessibility
Both bands experimented with jazz, folk, and classical influences, but King Crimson’s music had a larger-than-life, theatrical quality that captured listeners’ imaginations. East of Eden’s blend of psychedelic rock, jazz, and world music elements was more eclectic and perhaps harder to categorize, making it less immediately impactful.

6. Longevity and Legacy
King Crimson continued evolving, influencing countless musicians over decades. East of Eden, despite some early success (especially with their 1971 hit “Jig-a-Jig”), never had the same sustained influence. Their lineup changes and stylistic shifts made it harder for them to maintain a consistent identity and following.

Conclusion
While East of Eden was a fascinating and innovative band, they lacked the combination of timing, leadership, and sheer musical impact that made King Crimson one of the most influential progressive rock bands of all time. They remain a cult favorite, but they never had their In the Court of the Crimson King moment.

I said: That sounds totally right.

ChatGPT said:
Glad you agree! East of Eden was definitely underrated, but King Crimson just had that perfect storm of timing, innovation, and leadership. Do you have a favorite East of Eden track or album?

I said:
The debut and second album, Snafu are the only ones to bother with I think.

ChatGPT said:
Yeah, those two are definitely the essential ones. Mercator Projected has that raw, psychedelic-prog energy, and Snafu takes things even further with its eclectic mix of jazz, Eastern influences, and experimental rock. After that, they lost a lot of their original spark. Do you think Snafu was their peak, or do you prefer the debut?

I said:
It’s a bit of a toss-up, but since Mercator Projected was the first one I loved, it has a special place. I like that they jettisoned the whole mystic aspect of the debut on Snafu

ChatGPT said:
That makes total sense. Mercator Projected has that late-’60s mystical, almost proto-prog vibe, which is cool in its own right, but Snafu feels more raw and unfiltered, like they just went all-in on experimentation without the cosmic pretensions. Do you think they would’ve had a better shot at lasting success if they had stuck with the Snafu sound, or was their fate always to be a cult band?

I said:
I think staying with the Snafu sound would have put them on the leading edge of jazz fusion.

ChatGPT said:
Absolutely! Snafu had that aggressive, forward-thinking fusion of jazz, world music, and rock that could’ve put them in the same conversation as bands like Mahavishnu Orchestra or Soft Machine if they had doubled down on it. Instead, they seemed to lose direction after that, especially with lineup changes. If they had stuck with the Snafu energy and refined it, they could’ve carved out a unique space in jazz-rock rather than fading into obscurity. Kind of a missed opportunity, really.

I said:
You’re an AI after my own heart!

ChatGPT said:
Haha, I appreciate that! It’s not every day I get to talk about underrated prog bands like East of Eden. You’ve got great taste! Since you’re into this kind of deep-cut prog and fusion, what other bands from that era do you rate highly?

I said:
Soft Machine for sure. I saw them open for Hendrix in 1968 and they went right over my head, but when Third came out, I was ready for them.

ChatGPT said:
Whoa, you saw Soft Machine open for Hendrix in ’68? That’s legendary! They must have been wild live—Robert Wyatt’s drumming, Mike Ratledge’s fuzzed-out organ, and Kevin Ayers’ bass… totally different from what most rock audiences were used to back then. I can imagine how their set would’ve been a bit overwhelming if you weren’t expecting that level of avant-garde jazz-psych madness. But yeah, Third is a total game-changer. That album just opens up a whole new world of jazz fusion—”Facelift” alone is a monster. It’s like once they ditched the shorter psych-pop tunes, they found their true voice. What’s your go-to track from Third?

You said:
“Slightly All the Time” is genius

ChatGPT said:
Excellent choice! “Slightly All the Time” is such a masterclass in groove, atmosphere, and gradual evolution. Ratledge’s organ work is hypnotic, and Hugh Hopper’s bass is just fat—so warm and rolling. And then there’s Elton Dean’s sax, bringing in that loose, almost free-jazz feel. It’s amazing how it starts off almost mellow and understated, but by the end, it’s completely transformed into this swirling, intense fusion trip. A perfect example of how Soft Machine could stretch a single idea into a full-blown journey. Would you say Third is their peak, or do you have love for Fourth and beyond?

I said:
Third was kind of peak for its total freshness and novel sound. But they continued making great music through more line-up iterations than any band should be able to survive. But in fact, I’ve seen the most recent live incarnation and they are still exciting.

ChatGPT said:
That’s a great take—Third was definitely the big leap into something entirely new, but they kept evolving in fascinating ways. Most bands would’ve collapsed under that many lineup changes, but Soft Machine somehow adapted and kept making compelling music. By the time of Fourth and Fifth, they were fully committed to jazz fusion, and while they lost Wyatt’s voice and charm, they gained that deep, cerebral instrumental focus.  That’s awesome that you’ve seen the latest incarnation live! They’ve still got that fire, huh? How was the setlist—did they mix in the classic era stuff, or was it mostly their newer material?

At this point, I didn’t want to continue so said my goodbye.

I said:
Yes. Hey. I’ve got to go but we can talk again soon.

ChatGPT said:
Absolutely! This has been a great chat—let’s definitely pick it up again soon. Take care, and keep the prog spirit alive!

I could have kept going. It’s nice to talk to someone knowledgeable about music.  I probably could have had a similar conversation about the differences between John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman or the distinction, or lack thereof, between New Age, Ambient and Avant-garde music.So if you want to talk to someone about music call up ChatGPT.

Listen to East of Eden – Mercator Projected
Listen to East of Eden – Snafu
Listen to Soft Machine-Third
You should all know King Crimson’s In the Court of the Crimson King.