INVISIBLE TOUCH

I´ve heard awful prog, some of it is not only simplistic, but also uninspired, repetitive, most of it seems to be a cheap copy of many other bands and some prog doesn´t even sound like progressive rock and there´s nothing that makes me think it could be prog. All those bad progers are listed in this site and most of their albums receive good ratings. Most of those albums may have prog-like sounds and some small details in the songwriting that make them prog. But my question is: Is a loussy prog album better than a good and entertaining pop or plain rock album ?.

Why does everybody seem to punish this album for not being "Foxtrot"?. Has anybody thought of the possibility that after 17 years together and making music, Genesis just were not the same?. I´m not the same I was at 13 years old and definitely don´t feel and think the same way. My interests, emotions, motivations and everything is largely different now. No musician in the history has ever written the exact same thing throughout his carrer. And something more important, no rock writer in the history of prog rock has managed to remain creative, fresh and full of the original quality after the 5th or 7th album.

YES, "the ultimate prog band" started doing loussy music only 10 years after their first album, it sounded like pop (What is worse, like ugly pop) and it was so bad that people seem to just disregard it (Tormato). And they made some terrible prog with "Relayer" also (Those 3 minutes of repetitive jamming are not only made out of one single idea, they may get to be anoying too). They tried hard being a succesful pop band in the 80´s and never seemed to make it. It seems like the problem with a band making pop, is that they are succesful, like Genesis. It doesn´t matter if it´s fresh and entertaining pop, the problem is that it´s pop. Does anybody really care about albums with no music like "The final cut"?. That´s not prog and doesn´t even have a tune and is boring like hell ¡¡¡. I´m not sure if I would have liked a Genesis making, or trying to make prog in the 80´s. But thinking of King Crimson (The only who did), makes me wonder if it´s worth it to make robotic prog with no tunes whatsoever just for the sake of making prog. King Crimson´s 80´s prog is no better than any mediocre prog of the 70´s. They were never too much of creative and diverse music writters in the 70´s. Trying to make prog in the 80´s that may like wider audiences (with pop sounds) is too pretentious.

This album is definitely not "Nursery" nor "Selling". The same way "Union" is not "Close to the edge" and "Under wraps" is not "Aqualung". These latest albums are not, or at least, should not be expected to be as good as the 70´s ones. Doing that is absurd.

I used to hate people saying Collins was guilty for turning Genesis into a solo project and making it poppier. After reading about it I knew it was not only Collins the responsible for changing into Rock pop. Rutherford and Banks were as tired as anyone of making music about rare creatures and bizarre stories with the strangest of sounds. Everyone talks about Gabriel as if he alone had made Genesis, and no one seems to realize he practicaly never played a note nor did he write it. The fact that he was the singer and lyrics writer in the most prolific and original moment of Genesis doesn´t make him the owner of an Era. Like the so called "Gabriel´s Era". Come on ¡¡. Every band is more creative and original at the beginning than 17 years later. I consider "Invisible touch" a great album. It sure has some very low points like "Throwing it all away" and the title track. And even these two are enjoyable, entertaining at least. I´d rather listen to this album 5 times than listen to something like "Palepoli" by Osanna. "Tonight tonight." may not be completely prog., but it sure is not a poppy song and you know?, those sounds and sudden intensity is great. Has prog fans (I consider miself one, and enjoy the strangest and most complex prog.) ever though that pop elements and other genres´ are all around even in the best regarded prog albums ?. "Close to the edge" is a song with the structure of a pop song and with catchy choruses just like a pop song. Yet, the playing is great and some sounds are prog trademarks, therefore, it is called prog. ..Oh, and lasts for 18 minutes, where around 8 or even 10 of which are nothing but filler (Like that 6 minutes ballad with barely no music, or the last part which is exactly the same as the first). Still, this song, along with the album that contains it, manages to be the number one in this site. "Selling England", "Foxtrot" and "Nursery" contain at least 2 pop songs each, and I have never read anyone complaining. The "first and most representative prog album", "In the court", has Epitaph and I talk to the wind and are together one third of the whole album (The other third is moonchild, which is a pop & crap song). And it is the third best album in this site. What is "Roundabout" supposed to be with that chorus being repeated no less than .what?, 6 times?..Does complexity alone make a song a prog song?. Wouldn´t it be a Pop song with great playing?. "Atom heart mother", and "Meddle" are 2/10 prog, 4/10 pop, and 4/10 filler, and no one says "If", "A pillow of winds" and "Alan´s psycadelic brakfast" are a shame in Pink Floyd´s cataloge. ..."Ey ¡, don´t dare making pop or songs with simple music in the 80´s or you´ll be called a looser ¡¡¡" .Come on ¡¡..

Prog, not prog, pop, not pop, ???. Is the genre more important than the music and the final effect?. I do agree that great prog is heaven on earth, but also bad prog may be the most boring and less inspiring kind of music. Blaming music for not being prog is ridiculous. And be careful, next time you do, you might be spitting on some of the best regarded Prog pieces of music ever.

I´ve never cared about the ratings, but I´ll give this album a 4 star rating. Every song in it contains a good proportion of energy, conviction and feeling. "Tonight", "Domino", "The Brazilian" and "Land of confusion" are well crafted and wether you like or not the sounds and arrangements on them, I could name easily 100 songs from the 70´s best regarded prog albums that contain less music, imagination and feeling than these. .The pop songs in this album are catchy and managed to succed widely. You can´t call such a popular song like "Invisible touch", crap. Would you dare calling "Don´t stop till get enough" by M. Jackson, crap?..Such a wonderful and inspired song shouldn´t receive less than everyone best comments. "In too deep" is nice, it´s definitely not crap like "Who dunnit" is it?. And "Anything she does" has some energy and a beat that makes me smile and feel happy and was played with conviction. Something mediocre progers never seemed to understand as a valuable element. In the end, these pop songs are consumed completely after a while and nothing remains, I know. That´s why this is not a 5 star album.

What´s a 5 star album to me?.A flawless album, something like YES´ first, full of conviction and implicit energy. Something like "Selling", "Foxtrot", "Inferno" by Metamorfosi, "Octopus" by Giant, "Mirage" by Camel, "Wish you were here", Banco´s "Darwin"..there are way more.all of them have to be entertaining, original, with conviction, with well crafted atmospheres, with great songwriting, creative, insipired, and with that energy only great albums contain, "energy from the heart". Not precisely energy full of power and strong sounds, but that energy that touches your soul.I wish I could write in spanish to make it clear for you..

One thing I know, Pop doesn´t mean crap whatsoever. Bad music, wether it´s prog or pop should be penalized, just be careful when judging music for not being Prog, and prog just for being prog.

I guess I could fill 2 more pages with a lot of other ideas I have regarding the wrong perception of reviewers towards Prog Vs. Pop. Even with my loussy English. But the core of my idea is that music should be seen as what it was meant to be, not as what prog lovers would like it to be.