Phil Collins For Addition as Prog-Related

 

(I like PC...but even I, who usually favor any, any addition, have to think twice or thrice on this one).

 

Is this the same person insisting on Boston's inclusion ???

 

Losing established members from this site would be a bad thing for whatever reason, but in this instance it would not be because they are being fickle and registering dislike Phil Collins, but because they did not like the direction in which the PA would appear to be going. At this moment in time there are two "camps" regarding the inclusiveness of the Archive, both have sound reasons for the way they think and ultimately, whatever the final resolution, it will be to the benefit of the site (debate is healthy, it prevents stagnation). However, this particular "issue" is outside that debate and IMO would do more harm than good to both viewpoints.

 

Similarily I also believe that the image and credibility of the PA would be tarnished by his addition. Not because of him personally, but because the reviews of his albums will not be representative of what the PA is about. No Phil Collins fan is going to like the negative reviews his solo albums will attract, on reading them they will not explore the PA further, they will either jump to his defense or walk away. Nobody comes here looking for a negative review of their favourite artist - yes we take onboard any negative reviews when looking for other albums to buy, but it is the positive ones we use when deciding those purchases. I believe a wave of negative reviews for any artist makes the Archive look bad.

 

I agree with Scott that many artists turned their back on the Prog tag at a time when it was a dirty word only to protect their careers, others (like Everygrey) simply do not like to be pigeon-holed as it limits their potential audience. But in Phil's case it was different and I do not feel that Iván took those quotes out of context - there is an interview on Phil's own website where he makes similar statements. Even during his tenure as Genesis's drummer, he was activiely involved in simplifying their music, reducing odd time meters to standard signatures (in a TV documentary recently he demonstrated how he converted one of Rutherford's unusual rhythms by adding an extra beat). That said, he did not apply that methodology to Brand X because is vision of BX was as a Jazz-fusion band.

 

He is here already for his work with Progressive bands and that alone is a worthy achievement.

 

 

Well, I survived the night so Britney's ex-bodyguard must not have been a Peter Gabriel fan.  I'm suspecting that from a lot of the posts that I read since from last night, my very first post was not read.  How is PA's creditibility hurt for having Phil Collins on the site if his biography reads in a manner as I have proposed?  It is as about specific as possible in stating that Phil Collins as a solo artist is not a prog rock artist. 

 

Secondly, again this proposal was based 100% around Easy Livin's comment that an artist should be included in Prog-related if they were a former member of a progressive rock band. 

 

Thirdly, Ghost of Morphy's comment above is the exact reason why I feel that Phil Collins should be here.  My difference of opinion with most of you would consist on the idea that Phil Collins solo career is 99% non-prog, while the rest of you think it is 100% non-prog. 

 

To Sean Trane, no, I am not the person who proposed Boston, but yes, I am one who would support their inclusion in Prog-related.  They do have a concept album and they can stand toe to toe with any progressive rock band in pretentiousness.  But I digress.

 

I haven't seen Bob's other post regarding Phil Collins having been already rejected as a Prog-related artist.  Despite my starting this thread, I have absolutely no problem with having Phil Collins not included, as again, the whole point of this thread was in regards to my very first post which offered a compromise biography which I had hoped would appease those who were adamantly against his inclusion, and was also a follow-up to a highly respected member of the forum's post which begrudgingly stated the same thing.

 

One last reason (I think) for why I feel Phil Collins should be included also is to address another excellent point made by Easy Livin' in his post.  Many times a listener who is a fan of one band will want to give that band's solo artists and spin-off bands a listen in the hopes that they will have the same sound.  To save such a listener from the same disappointment that most of you have, this site would be performing the service that it has set out to provide by telling this listener that Phil Collins as a solo artist is absolutely not a prog artist.  If his solo albums all show 1 and 2 averages this should be very clear to that listener that they probably would be disappointed in his solo albums if they are fans of progressive rock.  Yes, this is very obvious to those that are well-versed on these matters, but I am sure there are also those that have been under a rock for the last 20 years or born yesterday so to speak who might benefit from this inclusion. 

 

Again, I have no problem with his being rejected and I have no problem with any member who dislikes Phil's solo career or who vehemently disagrees with his being included.  Within a forum thread there is no way for me to know whether or not any of the posters read my very first post which started this thread or if their long developed reject reflex kicked in just at the title of the thread.  I know that many times people just see the last post and react towards that.  None of the posts seem to address my very first post and all that I ask is for opinions in regards to that.

 

Thank you again for your participation in this friendly debate and for all attempts at trying to keep this civil. I know how difficult that is considering the thread subject. I haven't gone outside yet so there may be some of you laying in ambush outside waiting for me but hopefully not.

 

I addressed this partially in my previous post but I wanted to expand upon it a bit.  I am not as wise when it comes to the interpretation of "what is prog" as you may be Hugues.  One of my purposes for frequenting this site is to expand upon and learn from others "what is the meaning of "prog"?".  (Climbs mountain and asks Prog Dahli Lama, who surprisingly resembles Mr. Fripp (No offense meant to anyone who looks to the Dahli Lama as a spiritual leader)).

 

To that respect, I respect that Boston is considered an AOR band.  What is the difference between a well-crafted rock/pop song and a poorly crafted prog song?  To my untrained ear, a band like Boston sounds 100 times closer to what I consider to be the prog sound than a band say, like Meshuggah.  I like "commercial" prog metal but have difficulty with the experimental/technical side of the prog metal sound.  To that end it has been deemed appropriate by the powers that be that this experimental/technical side of metal belongs here.  I respect that decision. Doesn't mean that I have to listen to those bands.  Please Mikeenregalia don't let this have you cross me off your Christmas card list.   I support Prog Metal as a viable category of prog.  I just have a lesser tolerance level.