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: March 02 2007
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 5532
Posted: April 30 2010 at 11:32
Trouserpress wrote:
I'd always thought the idea of including Phil Collins on PA was ridiculous, but having seen this I'm starting to reconsider:
Seems like a dead cert for Avant-Prog!
is a rio-avant something over phill's ssstudio piece, something realy strange, and as far as I understand is something from eastern europe , language a la czech or serbian, russian. Is not Phill going mad, is that tune he is puted over Phils music is mad
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Posted: April 26 2010 at 17:57
Garion81 wrote:
Chris S wrote:
^ It is simple as far as opinions go. I believe Face Value is a prog album, as was Shapes, Abacab and Invisible Touch whether they went in a pop/AOR direction or not.
I think it is clear that the majority here would not agree with yours. Face Value is a good pop/rock album but nothing more in my mind. I don't hear anything remotely proggy/fusion sounding music that Phil had done before or anything that broke any new ground unless you think cymbal less drums did that.
As for the others you mentioned it is irrelevant to even debate them since Genesis would have here based on their albums from Trespass to Wind and Wuthering (I would go to Duke but some of us wouldn't) and these albumsand also including From Genesis to Revelation would have been included as well.
wait, wait, wait a second... who cares about PC, YOU DON'T THINK GENESIS COULD BE INCLUDED WITH ABACAB TO WE CAN'T DANCE AS A SOLE BASIS?
Just because you include a pop track on a prog album doesn't mean its a pop album. Look, maybe Shock Treatment and Punch And Judy didn't get to the top of the charts, but they were AOR songs no less.
I dare you to deny those albums had major prog tracks; what about Home by the Sea/Second Home By The Sea, Domino, Fading Lights.... I mean... to start? And all the others which were hugely Prog but may have been slightly crossover.
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
Posted: April 26 2010 at 17:15
Chris S wrote:
^ It is simple as far as opinions go. I believe Face Value is a prog album, as was Shapes, Abacab and Invisible Touch whether they went in a pop/AOR direction or not.
I think it is clear that the majority here would not agree with yours. Face Value is a good pop/rock album but nothing more in my mind. I don't hear anything remotely proggy/fusion sounding music that Phil had done before or anything that broke any new ground unless you think cymbal less drums did that.
As for the others you mentioned it is irrelevant to even debate them since Genesis would have here based on their albums from Trespass to Wind and Wuthering (I would go to Duke but some of us wouldn't) and these albumsand also including From Genesis to Revelation would have been included as well.
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
Posted: April 26 2010 at 16:56
Garion81 wrote:
Phil Collins as a solo artist no way. But he is here in two bands Genesis and Brand X. Thus he is respected for the prog he did, at one time, play. I don't see Dennis DeYoung here either but Styx is here. I think these two are related for this argument. Phil has created no prog as a solo Artist and neither has Dennis so they do not belong. He as member of two groups did produce prog and both of the groups are here.
I don't want to sound pedantic but he was also in Flaming Youth ( On this site), played on Camel, Peter Gabriel, Daryl Stuermer ( On this site), Peter & The Wolf ( On this site), Peter Banks, Brian Eno ( On this site), John cale ( On this site), David Hentschel ( Remember him?), Steve Hackett ( On this site), Anthony Phillips ( On this site), Robert Fripp , John Martyn ( On this site), Robert Plant, Mike Oldfield ( on this site), Al Di Meola, Paul McCartney, Tears For Fears, Eric Clapton, The Who ( On this site), Patrick Woodroffe and David Greenslade, Jack Lancaster & Robin Lumley, David crosby...............
But Seriously, what kind of credentials/resume does one require to be admitted to the PA Hall of Fame apart from the opinion of what is and what is not a prog album.
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: April 26 2010 at 16:15
Well, you can put me squarely in the middle of the road along with yellow stripes and dead armadillos regarding Phil's inclusion as a solo artist. He's already here in a big way. I think the album has its proggy moments. The rest of the catalog I honestly don't have any familiarity to comment on. The three Genesis albums Chris mentioned I do know, but I only have Abacab in my collection, which gets a lot of flak, but I still like it.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
Posted: April 26 2010 at 15:10
^ It is simple as far as opinions go. I believe Face Value is a prog album, as was Shapes, Abacab and Invisible Touch whether they went in a pop/AOR direction or not.
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
Posted: April 26 2010 at 14:07
"perhaps it would be more mature if the Prog Community accepts his work in its context* instead of holding what it could be against him"
That is the statement I was referring too. I don't revile Phil at all. Sure I don't like some of the things he said in the past but all three remaining members were in agreement to the shift towards the pop style and there is nothing wrong with that. I am saying he is not being dissed here at all by not including his solo works.
Persuade us based on his solo material and why do you think it should be here in a progressive rock site that its only criteria for inclusion is your output has to have at least one prog album. This is not based on him, or his legacy as that has already been addressed by the inclusion of both Genesis and Brand X. This is based entirely on his solo output which is different than his work with those two bands. Another example I will give is a band Called Native Window. It contains all of the members of the present Kansas touring group sans Stave Walsh. I would never even consider them to be included here because they play a very pop/rock sort of music. It isn't bad but it isn't prog either. In your argument above it would be yes for inclusion it should based on their content as a whole. That is the point I am making. Tony Banks, Mike Rutherford , Steve Hackett and Peter Gabriel all have recorded progressive rock albums in their solo catalogs and Phil did not. It is that simple.
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
Posted: April 26 2010 at 13:53
RoyFairbank wrote:
Actually, I think the issue that transcends whether Phil's albums are listed on Progarchives is whether the prog community matures beyond its quasi-mythological resentment of him. He is not some Judas figure, seriously, like so many portray him. Genesis under his co-stewardship radically departed from their modus operandi of former times, but not a single major Prog band of the 70s ended the 80s with the same record or style as they had in the 70s. 80s Genesis was an expression of the times, and one which, nevertheless, was as much designed to appeal to Prog fans as pop and AOR fans, with a significant portion of the actual time on every album being devoted to a type of slick but recognizable prog, (incontestably; 15 minutes even on the unpopular Invisible Touch, versus 9 minutes of Phil Collins solo type material, and well over 30 minutes of Prog on We Can't Dance). Phil Collins may have found a comfort zone in making Pop, but he is not to blame personally for what is clearly a historical and general shift in music away from not only Prog but even thoughtful music in the 80s and 90s. Its akin to burning cultural problems in effigy using Phil Collins as a straw man. I might add, that it would be futile to try to deny this overzealous sentiment in the prog community, its already been acknowledged and exhibited here on this thread. In the end, Phil Collins was an excellent Prog drummer, an emotional vocalist and wrote and composed a good deal of the material of classic Genesis; he even reunited with Genesis in 2006/2007 and was willing to do so with the classic lineup. Though it may be disappointing that he did not fight against the tide, perhaps it would be more mature if the Prog Community accepts his work in its context instead of holding what it could be against him.
So eloquently put, and whilst I know you do not agree PC should be included I think your sentiments regarding this very important Prog pioneer should be applauded.
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Posted: April 26 2010 at 13:43
Garion81 wrote:
^Again he is listed in the this site as a member of the two prog groups in which he created some great prog moments. If he had one or two solo albums that reflected either of the prog styles he was famous for in Genesis or Brand X no one and I mean no one including Ivan would object to his inclusion. I would even go so far as to be lenient enough that if he included one such song on each of his albums I would be open to it. For whatever reason Phil did not do this. Really, this is the only objection no matter what one feels about what happened to Genesis. There is no prog in his solo material.
Obviously you didn't read my post, I wasn't arguing for his inclusion, I was making a grand philosophical point about the role Phil Collins plays in Prog fan's explanation of Prog's historical decline.
RoyFairbank wrote:
Actually, I think the issue that transcends whether Phil's albums are
listed on Progarchives is whether the prog community matures beyond its
quasi-mythological resentment of him. He is not some Judas figure,
seriously, like so many portray him. Genesis under his co-stewardship
radically departed from their modus operandi of former times, but not a
single major Prog band of the 70s ended the 80s with the same record or
style as they had in the 70s. 80s Genesis was an expression of the
times, and one which, nevertheless, was as much designed to appeal
to Prog fans as pop and AOR fans, with a significant portion of the
actual time on every album being devoted to a type of slick but
recognizable prog, (incontestably; 15 minutes even on the unpopular
Invisible Touch, versus 9 minutes of Phil Collins solo type material,
and well over 30 minutes of Prog on We Can't Dance). Phil Collins may
have found a comfort zone in making Pop, but he is not to blame
personally for what is clearly a historical and general shift in music
away from not only Prog but even thoughtful music in the 80s and 90s.
Its akin to burning cultural problems in effigy using Phil Collins as a
straw man. I might add, that it would be futile to try to deny this
overzealous sentiment in the prog community, its already been
acknowledged and exhibited here on this thread. In the end, Phil Collins
was an excellent Prog drummer, an emotional vocalist and wrote and
composed a good deal of the material of classic Genesis; he even
reunited with Genesis in 2006/2007 and was willing to do so with the
classic lineup. Though it may be disappointing that he did not fight
against the tide, perhaps it would be more mature if the Prog Community
accepts his work in its context* instead of holding what it could be
against him.
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: April 26 2010 at 13:29
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
As a fact, Mike Rutherford is as responsible as Collins for the change in Genesis style, but nobody questioned his adition because of "Smallcreeps Day", a terrible album (In my opinion of course), but a Prog Related album anyway.
If Phil had something similar, well, I wouldn't say a word.
Iván
I like Smallcreep. Mike went on to do much worse.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: April 26 2010 at 12:23
Garion81 wrote:
^Again he is listed in the this site as a member of the two prog groups in which he created some great prog moments. If he had one or two solo albums that reflected either of the prog styles he was famous for in Genesis or Brand X no one and I mean no one including Ivan would object to his inclusion. I would even go so far as to be lenient enough that if he included one such song on each of his albums I would be open to it. For whatever reason Phil did not do this. Really, this is the only objection no matter what one feels about what happened to Genesis. There is no prog in his solo material.
As a fact, Mike Rutherford is as responsible as Collins for the change in Genesis style, but nobody questioned his adition because of "Smallcreeps Day", a terrible album (In my opinion of course), but a Prog Related album anyway.
If Phil had something similar, well, I wouldn't say a word.
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
Posted: April 25 2010 at 17:54
^Again he is listed in the this site as a member of the two prog groups in which he created some great prog moments. If he had one or two solo albums that reflected either of the prog styles he was famous for in Genesis or Brand X no one and I mean no one including Ivan would object to his inclusion. I would even go so far as to be lenient enough that if he included one such song on each of his albums I would be open to it. For whatever reason Phil did not do this. Really, this is the only objection no matter what one feels about what happened to Genesis. There is no prog in his solo material.
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Posted: April 25 2010 at 17:43
Actually, I think the issue that transcends whether Phil's albums are listed on Progarchives is whether the prog community matures beyond its quasi-mythological resentment of him. He is not some Judas figure, seriously, like so many portray him. Genesis under his co-stewardship radically departed from their modus operandi of former times, but not a single major Prog band of the 70s ended the 80s with the same record or style as they had in the 70s. 80s Genesis was an expression of the times, and one which, nevertheless, was as much designed to appeal to Prog fans as pop and AOR fans, with a significant portion of the actual time on every album being devoted to a type of slick but recognizable prog, (incontestably; 15 minutes even on the unpopular Invisible Touch, versus 9 minutes of Phil Collins solo type material, and well over 30 minutes of Prog on We Can't Dance). Phil Collins may have found a comfort zone in making Pop, but he is not to blame personally for what is clearly a historical and general shift in music away from not only Prog but even thoughtful music in the 80s and 90s. Its akin to burning cultural problems in effigy using Phil Collins as a straw man. I might add, that it would be futile to try to deny this overzealous sentiment in the prog community, its already been acknowledged and exhibited here on this thread. In the end, Phil Collins was an excellent Prog drummer, an emotional vocalist and wrote and composed a good deal of the material of classic Genesis; he even reunited with Genesis in 2006/2007 and was willing to do so with the classic lineup. Though it may be disappointing that he did not fight against the tide, perhaps it would be more mature if the Prog Community accepts his work in its context instead of holding what it could be against him.
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
Posted: April 25 2010 at 13:26
Phil Collins as a solo artist no way. But he is here in two bands Genesis and Brand X. Thus he is respected for the prog he did, at one time, play. I don't see Dennis DeYoung here either but Styx is here. I think these two are related for this argument. Phil has created no prog as a solo Artist and neither has Dennis so they do not belong. He as member of two groups did produce prog and both of the groups are here.
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
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 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Phil Collins and here's why. . . . .
Topic Options
Trouserpress wrote:
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
