| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
ken4musiq 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
 Posted: January 24 2006 at 00:28 |
If you really know about prog music you should know that collins always was the mastermind of genesis. >>>
His presence was most profound on the first two albums.
Actually there are two Genesis, or Genesi in the Latin. The band that was post-Gabriel is a different band so comparing the two is probably faulted. From Trick of the Tail forward, it is obvious that the boys are going for the mainstream American audience, where the money was. I like the pop stuff. I've always loved Abacab and quite frankly, I could do nothing but give Collins my full respect for the way he was able to dominate the pop music industry in the 1980s. He certainly had more talent than Madonna.
Genesis was the quintessential Prog rock band. I could imagine that Genesis was quite special to the English audience that revered them in the early 1970s. Yes was a pop band; they were also Collins' favorite band. He hoped to audition for them back in 1971 when Bruford was first thinking of leaving. ELP was a supergroup; Jethro Tull was a blues band. Pink Floyd was a psychadelic band. Gentle Giant, Soft Machine and King Crimson were pseudo-jazz fusion bands. Whatever prog was, Genesis defined its purist manifestation.
|
 |
RoyalJelly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 29 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 582
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 01:31 |
|
Yes, and Ringo was the real genius behind the Beatles. He
just let Lennon and McCartney sign all of those songs because
he took pity on their poor, talentless souls.
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 02:04 |
|
Ivan's continued attacks on Collins are tiresome. Read the literature:
Banks exerted the most influence throughout their career. And as for
saying that Genesis' albums sound almost exactly like Collins' solo
albums, go and listen again. There is nothing remotely like Tonight,
Tonight, Tonight or Duke's Travels or Domino or Fading Lights or Dodo/
Lurker on any of Collins' solo albums. And there is very little like Sissudio
or You Can't Hurry Love on any Genesis album -- one or two songs,
perhaps, not much more. Much of their Duke and beyond material was
more pop-oriented, with a number of saccharin ballads, I'll agree with
that. But, as others have said, that was in line with the times, as was the
1980s production sensibilities.
Ivan, you pride yourself on being a good debater. But listen to yourself.
You wanted Genesis to 'keep at least part of the original sound and
quality.' Really? And just when would it cease being original? 1983? 1990?
I thought the idea of progressive music was to -- progress?
And as for the claim: 'when they became POP they were just another band
giving the people simple music that anybody could make' -- how can you
argue that with a straight face? You really think multi-million selling pop
can be made by anybody? Anybody? Virtually every prog group who tried
it failed, and that includes virtually all of them! It seems to be an integral
part of progressive-snobbery to regard pop music as inferior, simpler,
beneath contempt. If it was that simple there'd be a lot more millionaires
around ...
Phil Collins was either a hero nor a villain. He was merely a talented
musician who experienced success in at least two separate forms of
music. I do not see how that makes him the object of invective and
exaggeration that he has become in this forum.
Edited by russellk
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 02:46 |
 russellk wrote:
Ivan's continued attacks on Collins are tiresome. Read the literature:
Banks exerted the most influence throughout their career. And as for
saying that Genesis' albums sound almost exactly like Collins' solo
albums, go and listen again. There is nothing remotely like Tonight,
Tonight, Tonight or Duke's Travels or Domino or Fading Lights or Dodo/
Lurker on any of Collins' solo albums. And there is very little like Sissudio
or You Can't Hurry Love on any Genesis album -- one or two songs,
perhaps, not much more. Much of their Duke and beyond material was
more pop-oriented, with a number of saccharin ballads, I'll agree with
that. But, as others have said, that was in line with the times, as was the
1980s production sensibilities.
Ivan, you pride yourself on being a good debater. But listen to yourself.
You wanted Genesis to 'keep at least part of the original sound and
quality.' Really? And just when would it cease being original? 1983? 1990?
I thought the idea of progressive music was to -- progress?
And as for the claim: 'when they became POP they were just another band
giving the people simple music that anybody could make' -- how can you
argue that with a straight face? You really think multi-million selling pop
can be made by anybody? Anybody? Virtually every prog group who tried
it failed, and that includes virtually all of them! It seems to be an integral
part of progressive-snobbery to regard pop music as inferior, simpler,
beneath contempt. If it was that simple there'd be a lot more millionaires
around ...
Phil Collins was either a hero nor a villain. He was merely a talented
musician who experienced success in at least two separate forms of
music. I do not see how that makes him the object of invective and
exaggeration that he has become in this forum. |
Excellent viewpoint and well put. For the armchair critiques outthere it is very easy to sound experts when we merely convey an opinion on music, in reality the true talent is done by the 'artist' whether we like the artist or not.One of the commentator above likened Genesis to almost the purest manifestation of progressive music. I would agree totally up until the Mama album and Collins, alongside Rutherford and Banks made that highly acclaimed label be a reality.
Edited by Chris Stacey
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
richardh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 29177
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 03:00 |
SlipperFink wrote:
richardh wrote:
Banks was the mastermind in Genesis. |
ONLY from a compositional standpoint.
In the 'classic' line-up, you have the arch-typical "chemistry group".
Remove ANYTHING and the equasion suffers.
SM. |
The compositional standpoint is the only one that matters.Its the music that has lasted and Banks work in the band provided the cornestone.No doubt that Collins and Hackett provided the instrumental clout but did they really contribute that much from a writing point of view? All successfull bands have a chemistry but you can usually pick one member from any band that is vital.I would argue for:
King Crimson - Fripp
Rush - Peart
ELP -Emerson
Yes - Howe
Pink Floyd - Waters
Genesis - Banks
|
|
napoca
Forum Newbie
Joined: March 08 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 24
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 03:00 |
Well, I think the "problem" is the name: Genesis. It is truly hurtful to listen to a song like "I can't dance" knowing it was written by GENESIS - or maybe let's say performed by GENESIS. If the band playing that s*** have had another name nobody would debated today if P. Collins, "all three" or somebody else is responsable for the death of a PROGRESSIVE ROCK band called Genesis. I, as a listener, have the choice to listen or not to an album. This is my freedom. They, as musicians, have the freedom to compose everything they feel and think is expressing in the best way their feelings and thoughts. But if you kill a band, keep it dead - keep it's name untouched and clean. This is what I have against P. Collins, "all three" or whoever. Respect your own work if the progressive rock era of your band meant something to you. Don't use the same name (Genesis, Yes, King Crimson and so on) to "progress"  At least R. Fripp wanted to name the new KC incarnation Discipline. For myself, King Crimson had died after Red. Period. The rest is Discipline. Or something else - could be DJ Bobo, I don't care.
Edited by napoca
|
|
Norbert
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 20 2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 2506
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 03:00 |
russellk wrote:
Ivan's continued attacks on Collins are tiresome. Read the literature:
Banks exerted the most influence throughout their career. And as for
saying that Genesis' albums sound almost exactly like Collins' solo
albums, go and listen again. There is nothing remotely like Tonight,
Tonight, Tonight or Duke's Travels or Domino or Fading Lights or Dodo/
Lurker on any of Collins' solo albums. And there is very little like Sissudio
or You Can't Hurry Love on any Genesis album -- one or two songs,
perhaps, not much more. Much of their Duke and beyond material was
more pop-oriented, with a number of saccharin ballads, I'll agree with
that. But, as others have said, that was in line with the times, as was the
1980s production sensibilities.
Ivan, you pride yourself on being a good debater. But listen to yourself.
You wanted Genesis to 'keep at least part of the original sound and
quality.' Really? And just when would it cease being original? 1983? 1990?
I thought the idea of progressive music was to -- progress?
And as for the claim: 'when they became POP they were just another band
giving the people simple music that anybody could make' -- how can you
argue that with a straight face? You really think multi-million selling pop
can be made by anybody? Anybody? Virtually every prog group who tried
it failed, and that includes virtually all of them! It seems to be an integral
part of progressive-snobbery to regard pop music as inferior, simpler,
beneath contempt. If it was that simple there'd be a lot more millionaires
around ...
Phil Collins was either a hero nor a villain. He was merely a talented
musician who experienced success in at least two separate forms of
music. I do not see how that makes him the object of invective and
exaggeration that he has become in this forum. |
The "progress" of the 80's Genesis is a regress.From Homo Sapiens to Australopithecus.
But I don't blame this on Phil Collins alone.
Multi-million selling pop can be made by anyone who is stupid enough. These "millioaire stars "are nothing more than tools and creatures of the record companies. With some support anyone could be the next Britney Spears.Musical talent is really not required for that.
|
|
BiGi
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 01 2005
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 848
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 03:20 |
richardh wrote:
All successfull bands have a chemistry but you can usually pick one member from any band that is vital.I would argue for:
King Crimson - Fripp (King Crimson IS essentially Fripp)
Rush - Peart (I'd rather say Geddy Lee)
ELP -Emerson (sadly you're right  )
Yes - Howe (WHAT???  I think the only unreplaceable Yes member is Chris Squire - btw I already told in another post how I like Trevor Rabin and the change he brought when he joined Yes)
Pink Floyd - Waters (agreed! true genius!)
Genesis - Banks (absolutely right) |
|
A flower?
|
|
Legoman
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 21 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 306
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 03:31 |
|
The best things that Phil Collins ever did... ever... was Brand X and
he should have stuck with that. And dear GOD... if anyone even
thinks about bringing up "In The Air Tonight" ... I will find them...
Seriously. I don't know who exactly bought out Collins but it was
good for him and bad for music. Please check out Brand X if you
haven't. It's fantastic. R.I.P. Collins 1978.
|
|
Chipiron
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 05 2005
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 780
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 04:15 |
I hate Phil Collins because he is much more handsome than me. 
|
|
[IMG]http://www.belderrain.es/GIFs/tora.gif">
|
|
erik neuteboom
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 04:48 |
Peter Gabriel is my hero but Ivan has a good point about the unpleasant behaviour from Peter Gabriel he describes. Many years after his departure from Genesis Peter went into psycho-therapeutical help in order to work on his passive-agressive tendencies. You can read about that in many books about Peter Gabriel. But Phil Collins was
1) very demanding
2) a man who wanted to control everything
3) he was a worcaholic
4) a man who always needed applause
5) a man who wanted to go for success,
that's why he sold Genesis to the pop charts!
|
|
Charles
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 01 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 167
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 08:58 |
It's like the same record over and over again whether it is on this forum and elsewhere, the same nonsense is being spewed about Phil Collins...
I hate to single out one specific individual here as there are many more who follow this ppoint of view as well, but I guess they do not bother to read the all the postings within this thread...
I personally love Genesis, and will always come to defend the band, as for unlike many so called fans, I became a die-hard fan of theirs when I was in high schoool (circa 1984-88) so my introduction to the band was (Genesis/No Jacket Required/Invisible Touch) well before I heard the terminolgy progressive rockfor one, and two before I knew learnt to seperate the obvious difference between Phil Collins (more soulful and upbeat) Genesis (more cerebral and mechanical). But Genesis had a certain qulity to them thatwas different than even many of their peers.
Phil Collins can be dogged for bringing down Genesis, but as it was re-iterrated here in this thread numerous times that TONY BANKS controlled the musical direction of the band, while everyone else added their parts, Mike and Tony DID NOT GIVE INTO PHIL into switching directions from progressive rock to pop, for those so called fans gave up on Genesis after Steve left, if you notice the songwriting credits to and then there were three... The mjority of the songs were written by a rather prolific TONY BANKS and Mike Rutherford. Phil contributed the lyrics to two of the rather progressive themed "Ballad Of Big" and "Scene's From A Night's Dream", but writing music was still a year away.
Phil then went on his much needed sabbatical, and with MIKE RUTHERFORD's DRUM MACHINE. Asides for two songs "Please Don't Ask" and "Misunderstanding", the remaining songs would become part of a great album that would signify the beginning of a great and prolific solo career.
I must get back to work...
Charles
|
|
G'day
|
|
cuncuna
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2005
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 4318
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 09:59 |
Rising Force wrote:
Because he's a flamer and burned my house down and I lost everything. That's why I blame Phil Collins. |
¿Phil Collins burned your house?... I kind of have an obssesion regarding Adrian Bellew. I really think he should work harder... Mmmhhh... also, I was partially deaf because of Pedro Aznar. He's really good looking, so, I went to one of his concerts with my girlfriend. The place was loaded with girls that wanted to SEE him. When he came to the stage, they all began screamming...
|
|
¡Beware of the Bee!
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 10:18 |
van's continued attacks on Collins are tiresome. Read the literature:
Banks exerted the most influence throughout their career. And as for
saying that Genesis' albums sound almost exactly like Collins' solo
albums, go and listen again. There is nothing remotely like Tonight,
Tonight, Tonight or Duke's Travels or Domino or Fading Lights or Dodo/
Lurker on any of Collins' solo albums.
You're quoting 5 songs in 4 albums, anyway, IMO those songs have no artistic value anywat, but the sound the atmosphere was the same as in Coillins solo albums-
And there is very little like Sissudio
or You Can't Hurry Love on any Genesis album -- one or two songs,
perhaps, not much more. Much of their Duke and beyond material was
more pop-oriented, with a number of saccharin ballads, I'll agree with
that. But, as others have said, that was in line with the times, as was the
1980s production sensibilities.
For me sounds almost exactly the same as for many Genesis fans, go and ask how many people believe thatGenesis made Susudio and you will have your answer.
Ivan, you pride yourself on being a good debater.
I don't take a pride in anything, as Popeye said I am what I am.
Never said I was a good debater, I only said that I enjoy debating, which is differemt. I enjoy beisball, but I can't play in the major leagues.
But listen to yourself.
You wanted Genesis to 'keep at least part of the original sound and
quality.' Really? And just when would it cease being original?
I don't want anything, I just buy or not buy their music and give my honest opinion, for me it sucks and that's all.
Original is making something different to the rest, making mainstream music is just being part of the mediocre musical industry in MOST of the cases.
1983? 1990?
I thought the idea of progressive music was to -- progress?
You think wrong, the adjective Progress has no relation with Progressive Rock.
And even if it was. Going from Musical Box to Ilegal Alien or Who Dunit is not Progression, it's regresion.
Please you are intelligent ebough to understand that after Duke, no Genesis album was remotely Prog'.
And as for the claim: 'when they became POP they were just another band
giving the people simple music that anybody could make' -- how can you
argue that with a straight face? You really think multi-million selling pop
can be made by anybody? Anybody?
- Michael Jackson
- Prince
- Maddonna
- New Kids on the Block
- Britney
- Donna Summer
- Celine Dion
- Lionel Ritchie
- N'Synk
- Eminem
- All the Rappers
- All the Hip Hoppers
For God's sake, Milly Vanilly made millions and the even couldn't thing a fu**ing note.
The Olsen twins have made more than 100 millions selling CD's (Plus almost 1,000 millions acting (???)) and they can't sing a note.
Yes, anybody with or without talent but with good lookscan make a multi million selloing Pop career, it depends on luck more than in skills.
I could use 100, 1,000 or even more examples.
Virtually every prog group who tried
it failed, and that includes virtually all of them! It seems to be an integral
part of progressive-snobbery to regard pop music as inferior, simpler,
beneath contempt. If it was that simple there'd be a lot more millionaires
around ...
- UK
- King Crimson
- Jethro Tull
- Rush
Kept faithful to their style and never failled.
Neo Prog appeared during the 60's and despite most bands of this genre are not as skilled as the old ones, at least they made great music.
Phil Collins was either a hero nor a villain. He was merely a talented
musician who experienced success in at least two separate forms of
music. I do not see how that makes him the object of invective and
exaggeration that he has become in this forum.
Fallacy, Phil Collins mever did two different sryles of music, he never CREATED Prog music, he was only part of a band that created Prog.
Phil Collins only made crappy POP.
Iván
|
Edited by ivan_2068
|
|
|
|
NutterAlert
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 07 2005
Location: In transition
Status: Offline
Points: 2808
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 10:27 |
"oh there must be some misunderstanding
There must be some kind of mistake........"
|
|
Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005
|
|
NetsNJFan
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 12 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3047
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 10:32 |
ivan_2068 wrote:
van's continued attacks on Collins are tiresome. Read the literature:
Banks exerted the most influence throughout their career. And as for
saying that Genesis' albums sound almost exactly like Collins' solo
albums, go and listen again. There is nothing remotely like Tonight,
Tonight, Tonight or Duke's Travels or Domino or Fading Lights or Dodo/
Lurker on any of Collins' solo albums.
You're quoting 5 songs in 4 albums, anyway, IMO those songs have no artistic value anyway, but the sound the atmosphere was the same as in Collins solo albums-
Those Are great songs, IMO. Dodo rivals anything the band did with Gabriel IMO.
And there is very little like Sussudio
or You Can't Hurry Love on any Genesis album -- one or two songs,
perhaps, not much more. Much of their Duke and beyond material was
more pop-oriented, with a number of saccharin ballads, I'll agree with
that. But, as others have said, that was in line with the times, as was the
1980s production sensibilities.
For me sounds almost exactly the same as for many Genesis fans, go and ask how many people believe that Genesis made Sussudio and you will have your answer.
Ivan, you pride yourself on being a good debater.
I don't take a pride in anything, as Popeye said I am what I am.
Never said I was a good debater, I only said that I enjoy debating, which is different. I enjoy baseball, but I can't play in the major leagues.
But listen to yourself.
You wanted Genesis to 'keep at least part of the original sound and
quality.' Really? And just when would it cease being original?
I don't want anything, I just buy or not buy their music and give my honest opinion, for me it sucks and that's all.
Original is making something different to the rest, making mainstream music is just being part of the mediocre musical industry in MOST of the cases.
1983? 1990?
I thought the idea of progressive music was to -- progress?
You think wrong, the adjective Progress has no relation with Progressive Rock.
agreed in most cases
And even if it was. Going from Musical Box to Ilegal Alien or Who Dunit is not Progression, it's regresion.
Please you are intelligent ebough to understand that after Duke, no Genesis album was remotely Prog'.
There were still some great moments on later records. Agreed, after Duke, they weren't a prog band. But Me & Sarah Jane, Dodo/Lurker, Abacab, Mama, The Brazilian, Domino, Tonight, Tonight, Tonight, Fading Lights --- all great PROG ROCK songs.
And as for the claim: 'when they became POP they were just another band
giving the people simple music that anybody could make' -- how can you
argue that with a straight face? You really think multi-million selling pop
can be made by anybody? Anybody?
- Michael Jackson
- Prince
- Maddonna
- New Kids on the Block
- Britney
- Donna Summer
- Celine Dion
- Lionel Ritchie
- N'Synk
- Eminem
- All the Rappers
- All the Hip Hoppers
Yes, anybody with or without talent but with good lookscan make a multi million selloing Pop career, it depends on luck more than in skills.
I could use 100, 1,000 or even more examples.
Don't forget Ivan, even the least talented, unmusical of that list had good songrwriters behind them who knew how to write hits. Not everyone can write good pop. Look at all the prog bands that fialed in the late 70s/80s, but Genesis succeeded because they wrote good, intelligent pop. There is such a thing.
Virtually every prog group who tried
it failed, and that includes virtually all of them! It seems to be an integral
part of progressive-snobbery to regard pop music as inferior, simpler,
beneath contempt. If it was that simple there'd be a lot more millionaires
around ...
- UK
- King Crimson
- Jethro Tull
- Rush
Kept faithful to their style ansucceses.
Neo Prog appeared during the 80's and despite most bands of this genre are not as skilled as the old ones, at least they made great music.
Pfff...Neo-Prog....Genesis never made anything remotely as insipid as "Kayleigh"
Phil Collins was either a hero nor a villain. He was merely a talented
musician who experienced success in at least two separate forms of
music. I do not see how that makes him the object of invective and
exaggeration that he has become in this forum.
Fallacy, Phil Collins mever did two different sryles of music, he never CREATED Prog music, he was only part of a band that created Prog.
Phil Collins only made crappy POP.
Iván
Ever heard of Brand X. Quite a bit of that was written or co-written by Phil Collins, and it is pure prog. I think you underestimate his contributions to prog genesis as well, I think he had a lot to do with the Lamb's music since that was written more communally.
|
|
Ivan, I really do think sometimes that you let your dissapointment of Gabriel and Hackett leaving cloud your judgement of later Genesis. So what, its no perfect prog, its still very good music. I really do reccomend you listen to the Three Sides Live album (which I think is their best live) and tell me those songs aren't prog (most of them).
|
|
|
|
SlipperFink
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 230
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 12:14 |
richardh wrote:
SlipperFink wrote:
richardh wrote:
Banks was
the mastermind in Genesis. |
ONLY from a compositional
standpoint. In the 'classic' line-up, you have the arch-typical "chemistry
group". Remove ANYTHING and the equasion suffers. SM. |
The compositional standpoint is the only one that matters.Its the music
that has lasted and Banks work in the band provided the cornestone.No
doubt that Collins and Hackett provided the instrumental clout but did
they really contribute that much from a writing point of view? All
successfull bands have a chemistry but you can usually pick one member
from any band that is vital.I would argue for:
King Crimson - Fripp
Rush - Peart
ELP -Emerson
Yes - Howe
Pink Floyd - Waters
Genesis - Banks |
Nope.
Rock music's(even PROGROCK music's) strongest suit is ENDEARMENT.
Period.
En Masse subscription to any of the genres secondary or incidental elixirs
is folly.
It is no different than folk or blues in this way.
What's charming, and quite remarkable, is the way a bunch of white
English kids twisted an indiginous Black American musical form around to
make it resonate properly with the fabric of their life experiences....
But THAT'S what happened.
The ROCK and JAZZ in ProgRock comes from THIS SIDE of the pond. And
it holds the POWER OF ENDEARMENT that is/was sorely lacking the the
"Rehash the Dead White guy" forms the European kids were bringing to
the table.
Face it. Without the "rock".... Most progrock is utterly dreadful.
SM.
|
|
Prog_Bassist
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 29 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 830
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 12:33 |
|
there's nothing wrong with collins, he is good in every type of music he has played.
|
|
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 12:47 |
|
I don't think he is the only person to blame. I just think that he
accelerated the whole process. I think Genesis would become popier with
or without Collins, even with Gabriel and Hackett. But maybe not so
pop. Squire and Anderson couldn't prevent Yes being pop, Ian Anderson
who composed almost all Jethro Tull songs made Under Wraps. King
Crimson became worse in 80's. The Moody Blues made two great
albuns in eighties, but went pop too, even with Patrick Moraz and all
the others. ELP didn't record as ELP, but To the power of the Three is
ridiculous (Emerson and Palmer), Emerson, Lake & Powell is better,
but far from what ELP once was.
So it was almost inevitable. Only few bands resisted, most of them not
mainstream (like Hawkwind). The difference is that Yes for
example made some weak efforts but not so pop like Genesis ones
(although the 1983 album has some interesting songs).
|
|
iguana
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 825
|
Posted: January 24 2006 at 12:55 |
i dont blame collins. i blame
YOU 
|
|
progressive rock and rural tranquility don't match. true or false?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Why do you blame collins?
