Genesis were bad to its fans.

Perhaps I should have made this a blog.
But basically my point is, it's not unreasonable for a progger to feel some sort of annoyance at collins and co.
I am surprised by many of your responses many of the review written about 80s Genesis belie 'matter of fact' responses this thread has generated. 
My point here is to put things in perspective. I believe fans are important to a band, Iron Maiden has shown this by them coming to NZ recently, if they didn't feel anything to their fans then they wouldn't have come. The fact is folks these bands are in entertainment its all about their audiences, if not it annoys us after all some posts have expressed frustration about Fripp's treatment of fans, the fact that he has got his lawyers
to take off his music of the archives gave many annoyance. Also those posts about hoping bands will come to your home country and play. This website is all about fans, you members are fans of different bands, so what on earth are you all talking about fans being silly? We are the fans, and about bands owing you nothing, don't we all attend or try to attend concerts, so spare me please this all these posts about bands owing nothing, I'm just being honest about my fandom, in NZ we get zilch prog, so count yourselves lucky that your bands do consider you and tour in your countries.




Edited by Cheesecakemouse - April 24 2009 at 04:00

Genesis started by trying (and failing) to make 3-minute pop songs. I've read interviews where they said it was much easier to add to their compositions and complicate them than it was to edit them to fit the pop single format. After about 10 years practice, they finally achieved what they originally set out to do.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Omg Genesis became a pop band because Phil Collins didn't want to do prog anymore. I'm sorry, but get over it. Bands change and people change, as radical as that may sound to some of us.

Damn right. A forum for discussion Yes......fan discontent on group evolution with the times...No. Can you imagine if Genesis continued playing new SEBtP type compositions well into the 80's...just not realistic, sorry. It is easy looking back as an armchair critic but those guys lived and breathed Genesis. There are many Gensis fans who liked most of the post Duke albums and with the exclusion of Collin's Disney solo escapades, actually enjoyed his music too.

I think in the end they made all the great prog albums they had in them and their pop was good pop.  Just wish they hadn't expressed such contempt for the fans of the old stuff.

Edited by Slartibartfast - April 24 2009 at 07:01

I'm listening to my son's favorite song.  "Can-Utility and the Coastliners."  

Cheesecakemouse wrote: What am I saying here? I believe that a band can grow and experiment but remain true to their sound, while a solo artist has no such obligation they can be diverse as they want; that is the nature of solo work its about the artist exploring sounds outside of the requirements of the band.

Some times I think the same way, but I'm not sure about that. Do you think The Beatles remained "true to their sound" in all their albums, I don't think so, they completely changed their sound and style and no one seem to complain about that. I think artists should make the music they feel like, some people may like it and some may not, they shouldn't worry too much about pleasing their fans. They should be true to themselves and what they really want to do more than true to their sound.
I don't like many of the songs on Invisible touch and We can't dance, but ok, they made a couple of weak albums and went poppier, like a lot of other bands did, it's not such a big deal. Anyway, in my opinion there's some quality music in all their albums, even the weaker ones, and I completely disagree with people who thinks the bands changed completely from one day to the next one after Peter left, or after Hackett left, like they sold out or something, it was transitional from album to album.

Great posts.... What a lot fans need to realize is that, for better or for worse, 1). they are never a consideration when an artist is in the midst of the creative process,  2). great artists evolve. I'm sure Kandinsky alienated many fans of The Blue Rider when his works became more geometric and abstract during the 1920's and 1930's. Furthermore, many artists wish to leave their past in the past, or some of it. If Phil thinks "The Musical Box" is crap, imagine what he must think of "Return of the Giant Hogweed".

You know, Geddy Lee had stated at one point in the 80s (during their synth period) that they couldn't stand some of their early material , that it was painful to their ears. He said it was like looking at the drawings you made in kindergarden.
Then the 90s come around, and finally in the new millenium,  doggonit , they turn around and get back to playing the ear ache music of yore.
Looking back, I wonder if the frustration was more that Rush's fans couldn't see that the band was in a different space at the time (late 80s).
The same as Roger Waters having to deal with shouted requests for Syd's songs, and replying that it wasn't '67 anymore .
And so it comes down to a double edge sword - a die hard is so attached to his favourite band that he'll support it for ever. But a die hard will also feel betrayed if his favourite band no longer plays the music the fan demands.
Neil Young has gotten away with it. But then, more than a few of his albums are not in his fan's collections.

Epignosis wrote: Fripp plays whatever he wants. Can't fault him there.

now replace Fripp with "everyone"

cacho wrote: Epignosis wrote: Zappa plays whatever he wants. Nobody can fault him!

Megawin.