Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 06 2012 at 20:21
iamathousandapples wrote:
That's because they lost their Genesis sound over the years. Their first two albums Fish practically aped Peter Gabriel and then Marillion slowly gained their own sound.
I did have all the Fish albums in mind when I said that. I agree with Dean, other than Grendel and Web, I cannot hear any significant Genesis influences. On the other hand, I hear prominent Pink Floyd elements in their music, more so on Fugazi than Script for a Jester's Tear. Both Assassing and the title track evoke Another Brick in The Wall Pt-2. I have noted similarities to Comfortably Numb elsewhere, can't recall offhand. Back to Script.., He Knows You Know sounds more like Rush than anything Genesis would have done. And Garden Party is far too rocking, almost like NWOBHM without metal guitar, to be related to Genesis.
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Posted: April 06 2012 at 20:38
^
Agree that Marillion in the Fish-era is not overwhelmingly musically determined by what Genesis did.
However, much of their aesthetic was based on Genesis, and I believe their conception of themselves, i.e. as successors or revivalists of Genesis type attitude in music, maybe subconsciously but very likely also on the conscious level. Particularly Fish as a vocalist and performer embodied a Gabrielian style.
Their actual music passages were not necessary particularly Genesis-like, and I agree with the Pink Floyd influence on quite a lot of it.
Most importantly, the lyrics and album themes were a huge development beyond Genesis and in contradiction to Genesis, except maybe some parts of Lamb Lies Down (namely Back in NYC). They were personal political, straight, direct and powerful. Genesis had surrealistic lyrics that were quite lackluster. Marrillion was also sort of anti-Romantic, while Genesis usually gravitated toward some sort of romanticism in its lyrics, comically post-Gabriel (Trick Of A Tail, One For The Vine, etc.)
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 06 2012 at 22:28
Fish has a tone somewhat similar to Gabriel, though from hearing him speak, I don't think he is quite the baritone that Gabriel is. His natural pitch is slightly higher, I reckon. But, as Dean pointed out, his singing style is more influenced by Hammill. The lyrics too are more direct and powerful, as you pointed out. I like Fish's lyrics way, way more than Gabriel. The opening line of Script...alone is immortal, "Here I am once more/in the playground of the broken hearts". Metaphorical, but full of feeling and purpose.
I think the reason people associate Marillion more with Genesis than VDGG/Hammill might be down to Mark Kelly's keyboard tones. They do sort of evoke Banksynth though the parts are not necessarily that similar. Neither Pointer nor Mosley sounded anything like Collins, he was a far better drummer than either imo. Rothery has a tone that evokes Hackett but his leads are constructed more like Gilmour's. He plays proper solos while Hackett was more of an ensemble musician in Genesis.
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7275
Posted: April 06 2012 at 23:20
I'm surprised no one mentioned Miles Davis' "Bitches Brew" and its offspring, the Mahavishnu Orchestra! They blazed many trails & influenced guys including Robert Fripp (who admitted to avoiding listening to MO so as not to be "seduced" by it!)
McLaughlin is one blazin' cat on the six-string (or 12-string) guitar!
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: April 07 2012 at 03:27
I think we need to differentiate 2 kinds of being "influential": by innovation or by popularity.
Maybe it's easier to illustrate what I mean taking the example of rock guitar: Hendrix, Blackmore, Eddy Van Halen or Vai revolutionized the way an electric guitar could be played and as such have influenced in more or less degree all the generations of rock guitarists after them. For sure they were popular too but the major element of why they can be called influential comes from the innovation they introduced.
Page, Clapton, or Pete Townshend did not introduce much innovation from a technical viewpoint but became hugely popular and as such they were also highly influential to later guitarists.
As always things are not simply black or white but different shades of grey, and an example of such a middle point could be David Gilmour. From a technical perspective he did not really innovate or revolutionize guitar playing, but he developed a highly personal style particularly in soloing, plus he also became hugely popular and because of both reasons has been enourmously influential.
So innovation and popularity can come in any degree of mix but it's important to understand them as 2 distinct elements when judging who and why was influential to other musicians or bands.
When it comes to full bands in prog, all the big names have of course been influential and for a combination of their innovation and their popularity, but some more for the former and some more for the latter.
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: April 07 2012 at 05:11
rogerthat wrote:
I did have all the Fish albums in mind when I said that. I agree with Dean, other than Grendel and Web, I cannot hear any significant Genesis influences.
You cannot, but I and many others can. The sooner we agree to disagree the better.
Joined: January 26 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Posted: April 07 2012 at 05:38
Gerinski wrote:
I think we need to differentiate 2 kinds of being "influential": by innovation or by popularity.
Maybe it's easier to illustrate what I mean taking the example of rock guitar: Hendrix, Blackmore, Eddy Van Halen or Vai revolutionized the way an electric guitar could be played and as such have influenced in more or less degree all the generations of rock guitarists after them. For sure they were popular too but the major element of why they can be called influential comes from the innovation they introduced.
Page, Clapton, or Pete Townshend did not introduce much innovation from a technical viewpoint but became hugely popular and as such they were also highly influential to later guitarists.
As always things are not simply black or white but different shades of grey, and an example of such a middle point could be David Gilmour. From a technical perspective he did not really innovate or revolutionize guitar playing, but he developed a highly personal style particularly in soloing, plus he also became hugely popular and because of both reasons has been enourmously influential.
So innovation and popularity can come in any degree of mix but it's important to understand them as 2 distinct elements when judging who and why was influential to other musicians or bands.
When it comes to full bands in prog, all the big names have of course been influential and for a combination of their innovation and their popularity, but some more for the former and some more for the latter.
I agree with this.
I also don't think the answer is so easy. Take Genesis for example. Were they really influential? Except for Marillion, and perhaps the Decemberists, I don't see their influence much in or outside of prog. Same with Yes. Sure there are a handful of continental bands as well as a couple of English bands that sound like Yes- maybe Glass Hammer is the best example- but no one particularly successful, and considering the following of Yes it seems their influence is disproportionately small.
Here's my half-baked view on where some key influences came from:
The 70s bands were looking back at the Beatles, the Nice, the Who, and Hendrix. Within the 70s I think some of the greater influences were KC, the Canterbury crowd, Pink Floyd, and Mahavishnu Orchestra.
In the 80s it seems to me that the greatest influences in prog was coming from outside of prog- from Afro- pop, to rap (eg. Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five) . King Crimson and perhaps Eno carried that the farthest and garnered a lot of influence into the next decade.
In the 90s- I think bands were looking back again at the 70s. King Crimson shows up again, as well as Pink Floyd, and some harder rock like Zeppelin, and Rush to a lesser extent.
In the 2000s some bands seem to be acknowledging the 70s even more- Pink Floyd and KC in particular. Radio Head , Mars Volta, and Rage against the Machine seem modestly influenced by the 70s but have established new directions and may be some of the bands who will most greatly influence the rest of the next decade.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 07 2012 at 05:47
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
I did have all the Fish albums in mind when I said that. I agree with Dean, other than Grendel and Web, I cannot hear any significant Genesis influences.
You cannot, but I and many others can. The sooner we agree to disagree the better.
You should know by now I can never agree to disagree
I suspect the original observation (back in the 80s) that Fish sounded like Gabriel, and Marillion sounded like Genesis was tainted by the music press bias against Prog Rock at that time. I accept that there is some slight similarity, but not enough to tag them as a Genesis-clone (or a Floyd clone or a Yes clone) - they are a product of their time. Gabriel, and I suspect Hammill, were influenced vocally by Roger Chapman - all four vocalists share common idiosyncrasies of style and delivery (and I guess you could add Ian Anderson, Terry Reid, Joe Cocker, Tom Newman and Audience's Howard Werth into that late 60s alumni of idiosyncratic British vocalists, but I think Chapman was the most influential on Prog vocalists of that time).
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: April 07 2012 at 05:50
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
I did have all the Fish albums in mind when I said that. I agree with Dean, other than Grendel and Web, I cannot hear any significant Genesis influences.
You cannot, but I and many others can. The sooner we agree to disagree the better.
You should know by now I can never agree to disagree
I suspect the original observation (back in the 80s) that Fish sounded like Gabriel, and Marillion sounded like Genesis was tainted by the music press bias against Prog Rock at that time. I accept that there is some slight similarity, but not enough to tag them as a Genesis-clone (or a Floyd clone or a Yes clone) - they are a product of their time. Gabriel, and I suspect Hammill, were influenced vocally by Roger Chapman - all four vocalists share common idiosyncrasies of style and delivery (and I guess you could add Ian Anderson, Terry Reid, Joe Cocker, Tom Newman and Audience's Howard Werth into that late 60s alumni of idiosyncratic British vocalists, but I think Chapman was the most influential on Prog vocalists of that time).
I never knew how the press labelled them. I am saying that without prior influence when I heard the first album I thought it sounded like Genesis. Not a clone...I would never say that. But a definite similarity to my ears. I didn't even hear Grendel until a few years ago.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: April 07 2012 at 06:10
I think it's a matter of time perspective. When I first heard Script in 1982 it sounded to me and all my friends a lot like Gabriel's Genesis. We all said the same so it had to be true back then. When we saw them live performing the Fugazi tour we felt like we were watching a reincarnation of Gabriel's Genesis, there was simply not much else to compare them to.
Now after so many years and having heard so much Neo and newer Prog, I do not barely see any similarity with Genesis anymore other than the fact that Fish singed and performed in a theatrical way. There is so much more music to compare with now that the distance between Script and Genesis seems much much bigger.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 07 2012 at 06:27
Snow Dog wrote:
I never knew how the press labelled them. I am saying that without prior influence when I heard the first album I thought it sounded like Genesis. Not a clone...I would never say that. But a definite similarity to my ears. I didn't even hear Grendel until a few years ago.
Okay.... let's say I find that unusual. Most people who listen to Marillion for the first time were/are aware of the claimed simularities before they hear them - I know I was back in 1982 and my reaction was affected a little by those preconceptions, though as a Hammill and Gabriel fan at the time I saw closer simularities in Fish to the former and musically (aside from the keyboard sound as already noted) the simularities are over-stated.
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: April 07 2012 at 06:34
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
I never knew how the press labelled them. I am saying that without prior influence when I heard the first album I thought it sounded like Genesis. Not a clone...I would never say that. But a definite similarity to my ears. I didn't even hear Grendel until a few years ago.
Okay.... let's say I find that unusual. Most people who listen to Marillion for the first time were/are aware of the claimed simularities before they hear them - I know I was back in 1982 and my reaction was affected a little by those preconceptions, though as a Hammill and Gabriel fan at the time I saw closer simularities in Fish to the former and musically (aside from the keyboard sound as already noted) the simularities are over-stated.
I can't see why it is unusual. By this time I dind't buy any music papers. Neither did the person who had the album. They weren't on TV. I suppose my memory could be wrong and I wasnn't the first to say it or maybe I had heard. Now you say I cannot be 100% certain. But even if I was aware I still thought they sounded like Genesis. And I didn't like Marillion either.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 07 2012 at 06:49
Snow Dog wrote:
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
I never knew how the press labelled them. I am saying that without prior influence when I heard the first album I thought it sounded like Genesis. Not a clone...I would never say that. But a definite similarity to my ears. I didn't even hear Grendel until a few years ago.
Okay.... let's say I find that unusual. Most people who listen to Marillion for the first time were/are aware of the claimed simularities before they hear them - I know I was back in 1982 and my reaction was affected a little by those preconceptions, though as a Hammill and Gabriel fan at the time I saw closer simularities in Fish to the former and musically (aside from the keyboard sound as already noted) the simularities are over-stated.
I can't see why it is unusual. By this time I dind't buy any music papers. Neither did the person who had the album. They weren't on TV. I suppose my memory could be wrong and I wasnn't the first to say it or maybe I had heard. Now you say I cannot be 100% certain. But even if I was aware I still thought they sounded like Genesis. And I didn't like Marillion either.
Marillion had 23 UK top-40 singles and several TOTP and MTV appearances since 1983... Genesis had 21 UK top-40 singles and several TOTP and MTV appearances, VdGG - zero on both counts. As I said, I find it unusual that anyone could hear a Marillion album for the first time without preconceptions or prior knowledge of who they sounded like - unusual but not impossible.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 07 2012 at 11:24
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
I did have all the Fish albums in mind when I said that. I agree with Dean, other than Grendel and Web, I cannot hear any significant Genesis influences.
You cannot, but I and many others can. The sooner we agree to disagree the better.
I was not responding to you anyway, irrespective of the fact that you may have the same opinion as somebody else who thinks Marillion is like Genesis.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 07 2012 at 11:29
Gerinski wrote:
I think it's a matter of time perspective. When I first heard Script in 1982 it sounded to me and all my friends a lot like Gabriel's Genesis. We all said the same so it had to be true back then. When we saw them live performing the Fugazi tour we felt like we were watching a reincarnation of Gabriel's Genesis, there was simply not much else to compare them to.
Yes, put that way, there must have been no other British theatrical prog rock act in the 80s to compare to Genesis (not really, of course, but neo prog was about a handful of bands in the 80s of which Marillion were the most popular). I understand the notion that they were the Genesis of the 80s. But on some other threads, I have seen it almost passed off as a matter of fact that they are Genesis clones and for that, I would have to hear much stronger musical similarities than I do. I was introduced to Marillion as a Genesis-like band and it did take some time to discern those influences that had nothing to do with Genesis and overcome the strong pre-conceived notion that I was listening to a band that wanted to sound like Genesis.
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: April 07 2012 at 12:50
rogerthat wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
I did have all the Fish albums in mind when I said that. I agree with Dean, other than Grendel and Web, I cannot hear any significant Genesis influences.
You cannot, but I and many others can. The sooner we agree to disagree the better.
I was not responding to you anyway, irrespective of the fact that you may have the same opinion as somebody else who thinks Marillion is like Genesis.
I know you were not responding to me. I didn't realise that I couldn't comment.
Joined: March 15 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 1551
Posted: April 08 2012 at 12:31
From the 70s GENESIS, YES, PINK FLOYD and KING CRIMSON are definitely the most influential bands, giving birth to whole new music paths.
80's belong undoutfully to MARILLION.
90's see the rise of Prog Metal.Bands like QUENNSRYCHE, FATES WARNING, DREAM THEATER and WATCHTOWER define the sound of thousand of bands.From the (contemporary) Progressive Rock view I can see THE FLOWER KINGS', RADIOHEAD's, SPOCK'S BEARD's traces in a many bands of the 00's.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power,the world will know peace...
listen to www.justincaseradio.com , the first ever Greek Progressive Rock radio
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Most influential Prog Bands
Topic Options
iamathousandapples wrote:
