Why do you blame collins?

russellk wrote: The problem, Norbert, is that you betray an appalling ignorance of how the music industry works. They don't come up with 'sure things' and find some faceless, talentless nobody to front them. It's quite the opposite: thousands of nobodies fight each other for the chance to pitch their own talents to record companies, who take a punt on them just in case they're the next 'breakthrough' act. I'm sorry to disillusion you, but it takes special talent to perform like Spears or Madonna. There are the glorious exceptions, such as Milli Vanilli, but these always get found out. To believe that pop stars are talentless is a slur on yourself -- if they are talentless, why aren't you out there making millions? Because you have less talent than they do, that's why. Lighten up on Phil Collins is what I'm asking. Forget your own sense of betrayal, of what might have been. He didn't owe you four more albums like Trick of the Tail. If, like me, you didn't enjoy his more recent work as much as his earlier work, that's fine. Say so, I won't argue. Me, I admire the man.

OK , I see your point . Talent is certainly relative somehow.Madonna never would be able to write and perform a glorious masterpiece like Close to the Edge or Supper's ready. And she should not try that.

In some aspects I am maybe more talented than Madonna.Not at stage performance.

The thing that makes me upset that most people don't even try to discover,

to some more demanding music. There are not many people who know anyting about Peter Hamill. They easily consume everything what they are actually offered.

They listen to what is trendy.

 

Edited by Norbert

Hi guys !

To summarize and clear up:

1. Phil Collins is certainly a good musician, some Genesis and Brand X albums easily prove that.

   His solo works are not my cup of tea, but I find them listenable.They are far more enjoyable than

   outputs of average pop stars.

   On the other hand, I only can call the post 1980 Genesis  letdown and disappointment.

2. The number of the sold records does not tell anything about quality.

    Dark Side of the Moon is a classic album and it is one of the best selling albums ever. Bohemian Rhapsody is a superb song altough it was No 1. for 9 weeks.

The Beatles always wrote enjoyable songs which are still very popular. Led Zeppelin filled the biggest

arenas and most of their albums are good. Radiohead is a rather succesful band and their music is

mostly very good.

 So  there are a lot of great music which is very popular.

But horrible music is horrible  music no matter how succesful it is. The millions of sold albums by Britney Spears don't make her "music" better.

Do you think that popularity is an escuse for everything?

This thread is a bit overreacted, isn't it?

 

 

The first real prog rock album that I know of is In The Court Of The Crimson King.Maybe they didn't invent it exactly but that was an album that defined the genre very well.None of the other bands were close to Crimson at the time IMO. >>>

It brings up the question what exactly is prog.  Perhaps the ingredient that Crimson added to the pallette was the improvisation. But when you think of a song like I Talk to the Wind as a response to Dylans'a Blowin' in the Wind, you really see how silly the album is. What saves the album is the mellotron, which for me really defines the early prog sound. my feeling is that prog is something much larger than we have come to define it by.

I think that prog is a very masculine genre.  And King Crimson is the most masculine in the group.  But the big bands like ELP and Jethro Tull and then ultimately Genesis made it big because they could relate to women.  By bringing the piano to the forefront, ELP was especially important in making rock a cross gender genre. But I think today it is a largely male driven.  I've never seen Dream Theater but how many women come without their husbands or boyfriends dragging them along? there are few at Crimson concerts.

 

  Blaming Phil Collins for the demise of prog/genesis is the stupidest idea that is widespread amongst prog fans.

Point 1 The public's taste had changed. The complex sound of the early 70s was out and the simpler sound of eLVIS cOSTELLO OR THE Police was in

Point2 Before ATTW3 ELP had already made Love Beach and Yes Tormato in which the prog element was very much diluted. Pink Floyd would also make the Wall whose prog element is questionable. At the same time Phil was busting his gut for prog in Brand X.

Point 3 Phil was an integral part of the compositional team for TLLDOB ATOTT and WAW

Point 4 By ATTW3 Genesis had lost 40 per cent of it's line up making the complex layered sound of earlier masterpieces nearly impossible to recreate

Point FIVE Phil is a hard working lovely guy who loved Yes and is proud of his years in prog

Point SIX he also wrote For Absent Friends and Please don't ask Me two classics

Norbert wrote: BiGi wrote: Norbert wrote: I don't believe that Collins and Spears are the same, I just wanted to  point out that becoming a famous pop star does not require any kind of special talent. No? And what does it require? I'm eager to know... Of course I mean musical talent. Ask any member of the Backstreet Boys or Britney Spears in person, they know surely more than an ignorant prog-snob like me who is stuck on uninteresting albums like Foxtrot or Pawn Hearts or Relayer and many more.

russelk in his post explained exactly what I think!
No fraud can sell million of copies worldwide!
And were it only for their pretty faces, Madonna and Britney would not count so many female fans (or the Backstreet Boys and Robbie Williams so many male ones)!

And as far as it concerns Phil Collins I have absolutely nothing against him or the musical direction he decided along with his bandmates to pursue!
Crikey, even Gentle Giant went pop on Giant for a day and Civilian which are maybe lesser efforts, but not bad at all...yet nobody is so harsh towards brothers Shulman or Kerry Minnear!
Why? Because they were less successful? So the great guilt on Phil Collins is that he has managed to be successful?

lunaticviolist wrote: plstipus143 wrote: Personally I feel Mike and Tony are as much to blame as Phil I agree.  I don't hate Phil, I just don't really like his music.  He obviously wanted to try something else.  Peter Gabriel didn't play much prog after he left Genesis.  Yes "sold out" in the '80s.  Asia, GTR...the list goes on.  Let's face it.  If Phil sold out, so did the entire prog world.

 

  also Phil was one of the last to do it.I don't know how in the 80s and 90s he could settle for such mediocrity having once been part of a brilliant music creating ensemble.But that is another question.

Phil had   nothing to do with the demise  of prog and for one who was around in the 70s at the time it was never attributed to him . Maybe to TFTO , maybe to the Works tour , but mostly to changing taste of the public

Losendos wrote: lunaticviolist wrote: plstipus143 wrote: Personally I feel Mike and Tony are as much to blame as Phil I agree.  I don't hate Phil, I just don't really like his music.  He obviously wanted to try something else.  Peter Gabriel didn't play much prog after he left Genesis.  Yes "sold out" in the '80s.  Asia, GTR...the list goes on.  Let's face it.  If Phil sold out, so did the entire prog world.     also Phil was one of the last to do it.I don't know how in the 80s and 90s he could settle for such mediocrity having once been part of a brilliant music creating ensemble.But that is another question. Phil had   nothing to do with the demise  of prog and for one who was around in the 70s at the time it was never attributed to him . Maybe to TFTO , maybe to the Works tour , but mostly to changing taste of the public

Wwhaha, are you suggesting that TFTO has anything to do with the demise of prog ? Get real !

Under wrote: Collins was surely not the big man behind early Genesis and as far I know he never claimed to be. The man is a lazy genius.

It's Collins significant critisism of the 70's material that sours the milk for me although I will say his contribution to music as a drummmer is (IMO) beyond question.

BTW Under, I loved the phrase 'lazy genius'


Edited by sigod

pakish wrote: If you really know about prog music you should know that collins always was the mastermind of genesis. The leaving of Gabriel was a coincidence with the change in gensis music but also with all the musical movement in england, they truly kept on creating new things. The problem is to watch it retrospectivly and not paying attention to the context

... If you really know about prog music you should know that BANKS always was the mastermind of genesis.

ken4musiq wrote: I pretty much disagree with all you said. ITCOTCK is not at all silly, and really is the first prog album. What are you trying to say with that paragraph about gender? (Btw, KC isn't the most masculine in the group for sure, particularly NOT their first albums which are the ones we're talking about)>>   My point is that, yes, everybody agrees the ITCOTCK is the first prog album.   There is something exclusive about KC that garners them this title and what that may be muscially is the improvisation.  I think though a better part of it is Prog is a male dominated genre and KC has come to identify the maculine side of old school prog. Red has often been described as the first heavy metal album.  So people are more comfortable with KC as the first real not proto prog group.  Maybe this comes from Macan's book. Historically, however, this is just not the case. The term prog was used earlier in 1968 to refer to Procol Harum and The Nice both of which are more prog because they identify the key element of what prog was and that was integrating classical references into the music. The Nice had all of the components of prog, classical references, odd meters, folk references and improvisation. I am also a big ELP fan and the reason why ITCOTCK is silly for me is Lake's lyrics.  They ruined many a good ELP song,too. He's a great bassist though

I don't think improvisation is the biggest innovation KC made with their first album. Three of the five songs don't have any improv. in them, yet they're clearly prog.

I have to admit that I don't know too much of the Nice's work, probably you're right that it already had most of the characteristics of prog, at least in particular songs. I guess KC's debut was just so "out there" at its time that it really took rock music to a new level which then made it the "first prog album".

Another band would be Soft Machine, their debut also has most components of prog (and was released before ITCOTCK), yet it wasn't the big breakthrough in rock music KC made a year later.

I'm not a big fan of Lake's lyrics myself, but I find the ones on ITCOTCK quite enjoyable.