| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
rogerthat 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
 Posted: January 27 2012 at 08:09 |
 Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure. Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist. But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.
|
Pop in terms of stucture? What tosh. Why is it not rock in terms of structure? This whole argument is frustrating. |
Hardly any difference in terms of structure between pop and rock (i.e. not prog) anyway. But in either case, not progressive in terms of structure, if I might put it that way instead.
|
I'd rather you did...or say "simple song structure"
But I disagree either way.  |
Yes, simple song structure is exactly what I had in mind. As for the second line, well, why am I not surprised!
|
 |
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: January 27 2012 at 08:14 |
rogerthat wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure. Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist. But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.
|
Pop in terms of stucture? What tosh. Why is it not rock in terms of structure? This whole argument is frustrating. |
Hardly any difference in terms of structure between pop and rock (i.e. not prog) anyway. But in either case, not progressive in terms of structure, if I might put it that way instead.
|
I'd rather you did...or say "simple song structure"
But I disagree either way. |
Yes, simple song structure is exactly what I had in mind. As for the second line, well, why am I not surprised!
|
Maybe I should listen again but Get em out by Friday has many different passages and can -utlity is Prog for sure isn't it? Watcher of the Skies without Mellotron would be heavy rock.
But if you disagree, Suppers Ready could be viewed as a number of simple songs strung together(with the exceptuion of a few parts)
|
|
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: January 27 2012 at 08:41 |
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure. Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist. But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.
|
Pop in terms of stucture? What tosh. Why is it not rock in terms of structure? This whole argument is frustrating. |
Hardly any difference in terms of structure between pop and rock (i.e. not prog) anyway. But in either case, not progressive in terms of structure, if I might put it that way instead.
|
I'd rather you did...or say "simple song structure"
But I disagree either way. |
Yes, simple song structure is exactly what I had in mind. As for the second line, well, why am I not surprised!
|
Maybe I should listen again but Get em out by Friday has many different passages and can -utlity is Prog for sure isn't it? Watcher of the Skies without Mellotron would be heavy rock.
But if you disagree, Suppers Ready could be viewed as a number of simple songs strung together(with the exceptuion of a few parts) |
To me, Get em out and Can Utility are sort of like Love Lies Bleeding, so not quite there. In Supper's Ready, the 'songs' seamlessly blend and segue into each other except for a few moments where the music seems unrelated around the 10 minute mark. And rather than developing in a cyclical pattern, which is what pop is, it shows more linear development with effective use of reiteration. The melody on "Walking across the sitting room" is repeated on flute to connect to a different passage of music. Again, the "Eternal Sanctuary Man" stanza is reprised for "As Sure As Eggs is Eggs", evoking the feeling of the culmination of a journey. But none of the different vocal melodies are used in a verse chorus pattern.
|
|
thehallway
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 13 2010
Location: Dorset, England
Status: Offline
Points: 1433
|
Posted: January 27 2012 at 09:02 |
progprogprog wrote:
thehallway wrote:
It's chords with vocals..... and neither the chords nor the vocals are innovative ... |
That's just absurd.It weren't innovative if they mimicked previous bands which isn't true.
Maybe you should define this two words:
1.pop 2.innovation
However you're somehow right about the lyric.
p.s As you're in PA for a long time, you've certainly said that before so it may be repetitive for you, why don't you just tell the gist of your thoughts to explain how do you really see prog and what do you expect from a prog song? 
|
How do I see prog? Well, 'Prog Rock' is a historic genre of the 1970s that I certainly don't deny Genesis belong to, with all their Mellotron noodling and [eventual] complex song structures. 'Progressive' is not a genre, however, but a word, and we all know what it means. Genesis, before SEbtP, were not, in my opinion, particularly progressive, and to give an example of a significant body of their work that is closer in style to pop and that isn't innovative, I gave you Foxtrot, side one. I haven't heard any earlier albums so I can't comment, but I would be surprised if they were more like Selling England.... Pop just means popular, and it is largely interchangeable with the word rock when we're talking about Genesis in the early seventies. That's what the music they made was. Get 'Em Out By Friday (a song I wasn't planning on listening to so many times over the last couple of days, because I hate it) has a pop structure that merely takes a long time to happen. There is a little intro, plenty of verses and choruses, and some kind of bridge. They didn't mimic any specific previous bands, but that alone is no reason to say 'Genesis were innovative'. A rather conventional arrangement is used on that song and others, a rock rhythm section, with keyboards providing the chords (which are hardly the most adventurous), and a guy singing. The guitar doesn't have a lot to do, but when it does, it's nothing that wouldn't be found outside rock music in general. Does that make it bad? No (although, for other reasons, I don't really enjoy it). Does it make it progressive though? Also no. Supper's Ready is, however, a song that is progressive in some ways, although I would still argue that it was considerably less innovative and ground-breaking than the music of Yes, ELP and especially King Crimson. People react badly to criticism of Genesis because there is a lot of love for the band here........ now that I've explained my opinion, I hope it receives less hostility.
|
|
|
|
thehallway
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 13 2010
Location: Dorset, England
Status: Offline
Points: 1433
|
Posted: January 27 2012 at 09:08 |
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure. Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist. But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.
|
Pop in terms of stucture? What tosh. Why is it not rock in terms of structure? This whole argument is frustrating. |
Hardly any difference in terms of structure between pop and rock (i.e. not prog) anyway. But in either case, not progressive in terms of structure, if I might put it that way instead.
|
I'd rather you did...or say "simple song structure"
But I disagree either way. |
Yes, simple song structure is exactly what I had in mind. As for the second line, well, why am I not surprised!
|
Maybe I should listen again but Get em out by Friday has many different passages and can -utlity is Prog for sure isn't it? Watcher of the Skies without Mellotron would be heavy rock.
But if you disagree, Suppers Ready could be viewed as a number of simple songs strung together(with the exceptuion of a few parts) |
As Rogerthat said, it's largely still a cohesive work, and it is progressive, as I'm sure you'll agree. The other songs perhaps seem so, but the only difference between them and the other rock songs of the time would be the increase in length, due to the number of verses and whatnot it took Genesis to get out all of their ideas. Foxtrot, as a whole, adds barely anything new to the table when it comes to musical innovation, and that is how this argument got started, because I see quite a large gap there between this band and the groups who were pushing boundaries.
|
|
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: January 27 2012 at 09:15 |
|
I respectfully disagree
|
|
|
|
progprogprog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 279
|
Posted: January 27 2012 at 09:50 |
thehallway wrote:
How do I see prog? Well, 'Prog Rock' is a historic genre of the 1970s that I certainly don't deny Genesis belong to, with all their Mellotron noodling and [eventual] complex song structures. 'Progressive' is not a genre, however, but a word, and we all know what it means. Genesis, before SEbtP, were not, in my opinion, particularly progressive, and to give an example of a significant body of their work that is closer in style to pop and that isn't innovative, I gave you Foxtrot, side one. I haven't heard any earlier albums so I can't comment, but I would be surprised if they were more like Selling England.... Pop just means popular, and it is largely interchangeable with the word rock when we're talking about Genesis in the early seventies. That's what the music they made was. Get 'Em Out By Friday (a song I wasn't planning on listening to so many times over the last couple of days, because I hate it) has a pop structure that merely takes a long time to happen. There is a little intro, plenty of verses and choruses, and some kind of bridge. They didn't mimic any specific previous bands, but that alone is no reason to say 'Genesis were innovative'. A rather conventional arrangement is used on that song and others, a rock rhythm section, with keyboards providing the chords (which are hardly the most adventurous), and a guy singing. The guitar doesn't have a lot to do, but when it does, it's nothing that wouldn't be found outside rock music in general. Does that make it bad? No (although, for other reasons, I don't really enjoy it). Does it make it progressive though? Also no. Supper's Ready is, however, a song that is progressive in some ways, although I would still argue that it was considerably less innovative and ground-breaking than the music of Yes, ELP and especially King Crimson. People react badly to criticism of Genesis because there is a lot of love for the band here........ now that I've explained my opinion, I hope it receives less hostility. |
If you were a musician, you'd know that even Justin Bieber's songs are detailed.No song is simple, it's not like saying "well, let's add some mellotron to this". Music composing, I believe, is not an easy task.Those who compose muse know what I'm exactly talking about.
Foxtrot, as you know, released in 1970 which progressive rock was still an infant, they got more mature with time.Every bands need time to develop their skills and Genesis is no exception.
terms pop, rock, prog, ... aren't enough fulfilling and clear, therefore not good for analyzing a song and its composing details.Actually those are suitable for the reference in conventional conversations not using them to determine a music structure professionally.
|
|
thehallway
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 13 2010
Location: Dorset, England
Status: Offline
Points: 1433
|
Posted: January 27 2012 at 09:56 |
progprogprog wrote:
thehallway wrote:
How do I see prog? Well, 'Prog Rock' is a historic genre of the 1970s that I certainly don't deny Genesis belong to, with all their Mellotron noodling and [eventual] complex song structures. 'Progressive' is not a genre, however, but a word, and we all know what it means. Genesis, before SEbtP, were not, in my opinion, particularly progressive, and to give an example of a significant body of their work that is closer in style to pop and that isn't innovative, I gave you Foxtrot, side one. I haven't heard any earlier albums so I can't comment, but I would be surprised if they were more like Selling England.... Pop just means popular, and it is largely interchangeable with the word rock when we're talking about Genesis in the early seventies. That's what the music they made was. Get 'Em Out By Friday (a song I wasn't planning on listening to so many times over the last couple of days, because I hate it) has a pop structure that merely takes a long time to happen. There is a little intro, plenty of verses and choruses, and some kind of bridge. They didn't mimic any specific previous bands, but that alone is no reason to say 'Genesis were innovative'. A rather conventional arrangement is used on that song and others, a rock rhythm section, with keyboards providing the chords (which are hardly the most adventurous), and a guy singing. The guitar doesn't have a lot to do, but when it does, it's nothing that wouldn't be found outside rock music in general. Does that make it bad? No (although, for other reasons, I don't really enjoy it). Does it make it progressive though? Also no. Supper's Ready is, however, a song that is progressive in some ways, although I would still argue that it was considerably less innovative and ground-breaking than the music of Yes, ELP and especially King Crimson. People react badly to criticism of Genesis because there is a lot of love for the band here........ now that I've explained my opinion, I hope it receives less hostility. |
If you were a musician, you'd know that even Justin Bieber's songs are detailed.No song is simple, it's not like saying "well, let's add some mellotron to this". Music composing, I believe, is not an easy task.Those who compose muse know what I'm exactly talking about.
Foxtrot, as you know, released in 1970 which progressive rock was still an infant, they got more mature with time.Every bands need time to develop their skills and Genesis is no exception.
terms pop, rock, prog, ... aren't enough fulfilling and clear, therefore not good for analyzing a song and its composing details.Actually those are suitable for the reference in conventional conversations not using them to determine a music structure professionally. |
Perhaps, a lesson in not making assumptions is needed today. I am a musician. I am studying composition at a world class conservatoire of music. Music composing, I agree, is not an easy task. I should know. That has no bearing whatsoever on my opinion of the skill of Genesis, or their level of progressiveness. I judge other rock bands on similar terms. There is no problem with the words or language...... I'm just using them in a way that must annoy you. I said myself that Genesis would develop into a decent and progressive band in 1973. That fact does not make Foxtrot good, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
progprogprog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 279
|
Posted: January 27 2012 at 10:17 |
thehallway wrote:
Perhaps, a lesson in not making assumptions is needed today. I am a musician. I am studying composition at a world class conservatoire of music. Music composing, I agree, is not an easy task. I should know. That has no bearing whatsoever on my opinion of the skill of Genesis, or their level of progressiveness. I judge other rock bands on similar terms. There is no problem with the words or language...... I'm just using them in a way that must annoy you. I said myself that Genesis would develop into a decent and progressive band in 1973. That fact does not make Foxtrot good, in my opinion. |
Lesson learned . I made that assumption because I couldn't imagine a musician in such young age.I apologize for that  After rereading my post, I couldn't find any anger in my words.we were just talking 
|
|
dwill123
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 19 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4460
|
Posted: January 27 2012 at 17:08 |
|
|
|
progprogprog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 279
|
Posted: January 27 2012 at 17:56 |
|
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: January 27 2012 at 23:56 |
thehallway wrote:
There is no problem with the words or language...... I'm just using them in a way that must annoy you. |
Yes, I wanted to bring this up....to say that which is not PROGRESSIVE is just pop with mellotron is far fetched. I knew what you were getting at, but it was an over simplified way of putting it, especially if applied to the entire output of Genesis. Tracks like Los Endos clearly don't have anything to do with pop even if they may not be highly innovative. I don't think innovation is the USP of Genesis anyway...emotion and theater is.
|
|
progprogprog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 279
|
Posted: January 28 2012 at 04:34 |
rogerthat wrote:
I don't think innovation is the USP of Genesis anyway...emotion and theater is.
|
Right on  . And that's true for most prog bands as well.
Edited by progprogprog - January 28 2012 at 04:35
|
|
The-time-is-now
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 05 2008
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 2060
|
Posted: January 31 2012 at 06:02 |
ninestonesclose wrote:
You can't compare these two like for like... sorry.... both equally brilliant and totally different. Love them both. |
Agreed. But I vote Fripp !!!
|
 One of my best achievements in life was to find this picture :D
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
John Mclaughlin VS Robert Fripp
