Is Foxtrot... Boring?

I'm not even going to bother going back to see the previous discussion.

Certif1ed wrote: I'm not even going to bother going back to see the previous discussion.   Foxtrot is not a boring album - it's one that some people take a long time to discover.   That's not patronising - it's fact.   If it bores you, you're the type that needs "hits", not art.

I agree that it's rather uneven - and Get 'em Out By Friday really is an abomination - but it's a varied set which includes one of the defining side long epics of the early 70s. You don't have to like it, but I don't think it can objectively be described as boring.

For me it's a pretty lackluster album -- good, but non-essential.  When I was getting back into Progressive Rock after having gone off rock for quite a few years, it was one of the first albums I bought.  I liked "Can-Utility" and "Horizons" particularly -- never enjoyed "Get 'em Out" on the whole, but it has good parts.

As I discovered more Prog, and delved into the various categories here, Genesis palled greatly for me.   But Foxtrot never really wowed me.  If others love it, that's lovely, but I'd rather listen to other albums (I rarely play Genesis anymore even though it was one of my favourite bands at one time).

IMHO ,yes...

and now I add a post entailing my opinions towards the album which include either a) I disagree and vehemently (yet subty) condescend to you for your difference in opinion or b) agree and say that all the old crusty people who enjoy the album are stupid as my opinion is clearly superior for the sole reason that it is mine

Atomic_Rooster wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: Horizons really is just an instrumental intro to Supper's Ready, but it succeeds wonderfully in that regard   Well....really it isn't. It's an entirely seperate piece with no connection to Supper's Ready. in the context of the album it is though, otherwise there would really be no point in placing it so conveniently. (or they may have just not put it in the album altogether, because it is a bit anticlimactic after the previous songs)   In the context of the.......what? I don't get it. I'm sure Hackett didn't write it though because the lads "need an introduction to Supper, Steve, so we do, to be sure".   That was an Irish Tony O'Banks. I'm not saying they got steve to write it for the sake of an intro, but it was lying around and they thought, hey this song works as a transitional piece between the previous songs and our gigantic epic that otherwise would appear extremely abrupt and out of proportion with the rest of the album (ok so they probably didn't think that exactly, but you get the point right?) Truthfully though, the song Horizons just isn't that great on its own, its alright for a neo-romantic guitar etude, but Kleyans, Brauer, and others were much better at the same time for that type of music, so its use as a transitional piece into Supper's Ready is really what makes it stand out   Of course Horizons is great on its own. It is, to this day, one of Hacketts most popular acoustic pieces. That's your opinion, No it isn't my opinion. How can it be an opinion that its still popular with Hackett fans? The proof is tangible.  but from a musical standpoint, its not progressive at all (not that that matters) and it pales in comparison with the majority of other guitar compositions at the time.  Just because its popular doesn't mean its good. This is totally irrelevent to any discussion we are having here. I neither claimed it was Progressive nor "good". Technically speaking, its just a very shallow piece when taken by itself  Now THAT is a matter of opinion. (there are many more emotional, beautiful, and technically better written pieces from the same time in the same style) Opinion again.  but as an interlude between Supper's Ready and the rest of the album, its a nice piece of music. As it is when played alone, in itself also.

Snow Dog wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I'm not even going to bother going back to see the previous discussion.   Foxtrot is not a boring album - it's one that some people take a long time to discover.   That's not patronising - it's fact.   If it bores you, you're the type that needs "hits", not art.   No.....its patronising.

Syzygy wrote: I agree that it's rather uneven - and Get 'em Out By Friday really is an abomination - but it's a varied set which includes one of the defining side long epics of the early 70s. You don't have to like it, but I don't think it can objectively be described as boring.

Fassbinder wrote: Certif1ed wrote:   If it bores you, you're the type that needs "hits", not art.   Now that's fine!   I have no idea what does "boring" mean, but I have serious suspections that it might seem a kind of expression similar (in its sense) to "it makes little impression on me" or "I don't find much interest in this album".   After some ten listenings I have the feeling that "_______________ "(insert any of the expressions you've just read in the previous paragraph).   Now the type that, apparently, needs "hits", not art, has a problem -- which album full of "hits" to choose for listening -- Over, or The Least We Can Do Is Wave To Each Other, or A Passion Play, or Lizard...