| Track: | Rating: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Arthur | | | | ||
| 2. Lady Of The Lake | | | | ||
| 3. Guinevere | | | |||
| 4. Sir Lancelot And The Black Knight | | | | ||
| 5. Merlin The Magician | | | | ||
| 6. Sir Galahad | | | | ||
| 7. The Last Battle | | | | | |
"While the Rick Wakemans of this world fannied about in capes singing about King Arthur, thereby forever crediting the genre, a handful of English (wait for it) "progressive rock acts" actually did something more useful than just provide good jokey copy for pop writers throughout the next 20 years."
(Stuart Maconie, review, "King Crimson: Frame by Frame: The Essential Crimson", NEW MUSICAL EXPRESS, 7 December 1991, reprinted in the liner notes to King Crimson's The Great Deceiver, pp. 28-29.)
It does not speak well of an artist's legacy when music critics use said artist's work to define all that is wrong with a genre (particularly when the genre is not, in itself, being condemned outright). But these comments by Stuart Maconie are fairly typical of the response of music critics (even those who are also progressive fans, in many cases) to the works of Rick Wakeman.
Rick Wakeman's King Arthur has been singled out for considerable punishment over the years. Taken on its own, the album doesn't deserve this treatment. For that matter, it doesn't deserve much attention at all -- it simply isn't terribly good or bad of a work, and certainly isn't as wretched as some critics might suggest. But, then, it often seems that RW viewed the music on KA as being secondary to the show. How can he fault the critics for viewing it the same way?
To put this in a bit of context for newcomers, King Arthur was Rick Wakeman's third solo album, and his first after having left Yes in 1974 [obviously, I'm not counting Piano Vibrations, which was not intended as a commercial release]. It followed Journey To The Centre Of The Earth, a wildly successful release in the UK album charts (and a moderate success in America if memory serves). King Arthur, too, was a "hit" for RW, and was the 15th most successful album in Great Britain for the year 1975.
The album also led to a full-fledged touring fiasco, with RW throwing away a tonne of pounds on a music-and-ice-show spectacular. In retrospect, the greatest financial mistake of the venture might have been RW's decision to bring an orchestra on tour with him. The antics of the skaters reportedly elicited much applause from the audience, and the strength of Wakeman's showmanship during this time has never been in doubt ... but it's probably safe to say that the music was secondary to the spectacle. And it's certainly safe to say that the damage caused by this preposterous scheme is still hurting the image of progressive music to this day (even if Wakeman himself deserved most of the bad press which he received).
Perhaps if Wakeman had followed up this release with another "hit", he could have established himself as being in some respects "above the critics" (think Rod Stewart), and could have salvaged his reputation accordingly. As it happened, though, King Arthur was the last of his albums to reach an absurd level of popularity -- No Earthly Connection (1976) was a relative stiff, and his subsequent releases did equally poorly. In retrospect, his decision to rejoin Yes in 1977 seems the logical outcome of his declining solo fortunes.
Moving on to the actual release ... the premise of the album itself doesn't really require much analysis: Wakeman writes a number of songs based on stories and characters from Arthurian legend, and sets them to music. As others have noted, said music is almost completely unrelated to earlier forms of composition (the choral chants don't really count), and the lyrics don't really shed any new light on the figures involved. As a historical/musical drama, the album is a clear failure. And, even as a work of music, its reach clearly exceeds its grasp. Many of the tracks received "good" ratings almost by default, with the curious arranging and decent instrumental solos allowing them to reach above their fundamentally prosaic nature.
The basic idea of the album is spelled out in its first few seconds. Terry Taplin's introduction to the "sword in the stone" legend has all the signs of feigned melodrama -- of trying to sound impressive while saying rather little. This is following by a semi-classical/semi-Hollywood overture, with some reasonably good synth leads overtop of it (the similarities to Journey To The Centre Of The Earth are fairly clear from rather early on, by the way). Ashley Holt's inimitable vocals make their appearance before too long, sadly, and the quality takes a slight dip as such -- the bad lyrics don't help (sword in the stone, knights try to pull it out, etc), nor does the Disney-esque nature of the music. An obviously "heroic" instrumental theme follows, followed by some actual clever developments in the "churchland and the wood" section. The subsequent instrumental bits are decent enough, if a bit under-composed. Wakeman has his moments, as does bass player Roger Newell (easily the most "standout" member of the backing band). The end result is entertaining enough, but a bit less than satisfying. (For those concerned with the plot, Arthur eventually pulls out the sword.)
The 45-second "Lady Of The Lake" is divided into two sections -- a choral description of this aspect of Arthurian legend (but why at the beginning?), and a brief classical motif on piano. Both aspects of the track are decent enough, but not particularly notable.
"Guinevere" may be the most poorly mixed track of 1975, and that isn't even the full extent of its problems. The primary synth motif of this track is decent enough, and the instrumental middle section has a few points in its favour ... but neither of these can make up for the stultifyingly dull pop-balladery that occupies the other 70% of the song. Ashley Holt's crooning about the fair queen is less than enjoyable, with the chorus especially notable for its artistic failure. This is the sort of track that one could envision Bryan Adams singing for some godawful Hollywood feature, and it doesn't do the album's quality any favours (though the bass player gets a few decent licks in here and there).
From the semi-fake classical lead-in and the chants of "Fight! Fight! Fight!", it becomes evident fairly quickly that "Sir Lancelot And The Black Knight" isn't going to be an in-depth character study. The music is ridiculous, for the most part, and the rhyming couplet lyrics are nothing short of terrible. This track would rate even lower were it not for the fact that the high-impact instrumental solo is actually pretty good (and almost akin to 1973/6 Genesis, actually). Then the actual "song" reprises and the quality nosedives again. (For those concerned with plot: Lancelot ends up knocking The Black Knight off his horse, and proceeds to kill him. Gripping stuff, isn't it.)
The second half of this work begins with another absurd choral intro, leading to "Merlin The Magician", the extended instrumental track of the album. The first musical section is a baroque theme, with some fair degree of harpsichord presence. This suddenly stops and, after about 10 seconds, the "piece proper" begins. Essentially, there are three musical motifs here: a rather boring keyboard-based instrumental (which seems to be using its ambience in a failed effort to hide its essential meaninglessness -- almost like a half-baked Pink Floyd imitation), a rock band section (which is actually pretty good), and a jokey ragtime theme (which suddenly appears out of nowhere halfway through the song -- I suppose that this actually has some connection to Merlin's eccentricity, and deserves some credit as such). This is probably the second best number here, and it still isn't that great.
"Sir Galahad" is a decent enough number, but has something of a "not really there" quality about it (ie. the music seems barely to register in the mind of this listener at times). The music goes through a number of diverse themes, none lasting long enough to really make an impact (though the circus-Hawaiian theme has a certain "curiousity factor" to its advantage). Plotwise ... well ... Lancelot meets his bastard son, Arthur gives him a sword, not much really happens. Perhaps Wakeman had a few difficulties writing about a morally virtuous knight in 1975. [And, by the way, doesn't Gary Pickford-Hopkin's voice sound profoundly mediocre on most of the album.]
With an opening line like "Gone are the days of the knights/Of Round Tables and fights", it's probably a good thing that "The Last Battle" is mostly an instrumental. The music here is somewhat better than the rest of the album, with an Oldfield-esque feel that actually develops with some fair degree of substance (and even that semi-cheesy orchestral ending can't really ruin things that much.) What lyrics there are tell of civil war, Arthur's defeat of Mordred, the fall of the Knights, the Saxon invasion, and the eventual discovery of Arthur's bones at around 1200 AD (somehow, questions of historical authenticity seem a waste of time with material like this ...). Not perfect, but the good parts of this are at least good enough to enjoy without lapsing into a "guilty pleasure" mindset.
For all of its notoriety, this is an album that's fairly easy for prog fans to ignore. I can't really recommend it too strongly except to diehard fans of Wakeman's early years.
[Incidentally, though, the main theme to "Arthur" does sound like it would make decent election coverage music.]
(review originally posted to alt.music.yes on 13 May 1998)