Collins the mastermind of early Genesis?

His contribution in music and lyrics was almost equal to 0 (ZERO) before Gabriel left.

BTW, always is a long lapse of time, especially for a guy who joined on the third album as drummer (August 4 1970), when a great part the stuff for this release was written or in process (The Jackson Tapes  in 1969 contain material from Nursery Cryme like the first version of Fountain of Salmacis).

Most of the music was by Banks with contribution of Gabriel, Hackett and Rutherford, and the lyrics were mostly by Peter.

Collins did a great job with drums arrangements but significant contribution to songwritting, not even before Hackett left.

Iván

Well considering Wnd and the wuthering and A trick of the tail i think Genesis would have made some more decent if not great stuff if Hackett hadnt left. That being said Phil Collins is a dispicable man whom i loath with a vigorous passion

carry on

alan_pfeifer wrote: You know, musicans have  to eat too.

1. Peter Gabriel
2. Steve Hackett
3. Dave Gilmour
4. Roger Waters
5. Ian Anderson
6. Robert Fripp
7. Bill Bruford
8. Tony Levin
9. Steve Howe
10. Rick Wakeman

Are not exactly poor

Iván

Personally I feel Mike and Tony are as much to blame as Phil

PC is a very fine drummer, one of my favourites, and he doesn't sing bad (especially on 'No jacket required') so please stop such childish discussion. He is one of the rare drummers who didn't record an album for the art of drumming. And he is not to blame in genesis' change of direction : other prog bands followed the same path (Le Orme, Yes, Banco, ELP, King Crimson, Renaissance, Jethro Tull and many more). And was PG still prog after he left Genesis : OBVIOUSLY NOT.

lucas wrote: And he is not to blame in genesis' change of direction : other prog bands followed the same path (Le Orme, Yes, Banco, ELP, King Crimson, Renaissance, Jethro Tull and many more). And was PG still prog after he left Genesis : OBVIOUSLY NOT.

good point!

You know it is amazing, I look back on all the so called expert opinions about Collins, and I have to shake my head in dismay. Collins was ( and hopefully still is) a superb drummer. His vocal support on Nursery Cryme, Foxtrot, SEBTP and The Lamb was excellent and created a great combined choral output with Gabriel. Even ' More Fool Me' was IMHO a classic little song and a fine close to " Side One" of SEBTP.

The fact that people forget TOTT, Wind & Wuthering and And Then There Were Three and some think Collins sold the band out have obviously been listening to too much obscure junk like Opeth , dare I say it, IMHO. Collins's strength of character was what made Genesis survive thankfully to many fans from TOTT onwards. His vocals on Second's Out are of the highest calibre, IMHO I even rate Supper's Ready as good as Gabriels, yes poor old Steve Hackett moved on, but what made Genesis so refreshing was that they continually managed to reinvent themselves. People say Collin's lyrics were rediculous, what about Gabriel's compromising stage outfits. Laughable now when viewed on film but at the time as fresh and vivid as driven snow.

Which makes me raise another question, why is it that we totally crucify an artist because they elected to evolve, albeit more commercially? Are we experts and could we do better than making a couple of hundred million quid? The Genesis sound did deteriorate after the Mama album but has anyone tried listening to Face Value or hello I must Be Going? Great albums especially the first by Collins. I don't see anyone crtiscizing Rutherford for Acting Very Strange or the awful latter Mike And The Mechanics. Tony Banks after the incredible A Curious Feeling, even though was not as commercial ( he damn well tried!!!) made some very poor solo material.

All their solo projects helped one another return to the fold to recreate Genesis and I for one love almost evything they produced with the possible exclusion of Invisible Touch and Calling All Stations.I reckon some people think they are such experts on Collin's calibre when to be honest IMHO( there I have said it again) they don't really give the artist due credit and respect for all his contributions to Genesis. On a critical note it is 10 years since he released anything half decent.

Also I love Steve Hackett but to be really honest his last decent progressive album would probably go all the way back to the early 80's with Defector. Show me a band that remained so prolific for so long and tried their damnest to release concept albums up until Mama. Yes even Abacab had a progressive feel to it.

My final point is that if we can have artists like Roger Hodgson or ELO on PA why the hell can we not have Collin's solo work. I am sure it may well fair badly in the ratings but to dismiss his works on the basis of commercialism is hypocrticial. Face Value alone was groundbreaking music.

Chris Stacey wrote: has anyone tried listening to Face Value or hello I must Be Going? Great albums especially the first by Collins. Face Value alone was groundbreaking music.

True, these albums are great, nevermind if they are not prog.  I also like most of the songs on 'No jacket required' even if some of them feature electronic/programmed drums (but even Bruford used them) : 'i don't wanna know', 'take me home' (featuring PG (and Peter Hammill ?) on backing vocals), 'doesn't anybody stay together anymore' (with some tribal rhythms), 'inside out' and the following album '...but seriously' features also some gems (but there's an overuse of brass instruments IMHO). And people on this forum should understand that prog is not the only form of music on earth, and certainly not the best : there are plenty of s**t in this musical genre.

richardh wrote: Banks was the mastermind in Genesis.

I agree. It surprises me that some people haven't spotted this.

Even Phil Collins has said that nobody makes Tony Banks do anything he doesn't want to. It's essentially his band and he took it down a road where he clearly wanted to go. Collins may have been a catalyst for the change in their style, but he was by no means some evil genius striving to destroy a good prog band. They were not content with being wealthy, they wanted to be filthy rich and so sold out. Simple.

When I had bought And Then There Were Three I played it two times and then threw it away from my balcony for the birds, I was so upset about some poppy songs and afraid that Phil had taken command of Genesis. I even refused to join my friends to the concert In Leiden, The Netherlands (I still feel very frustrated about that, I missed the 'mirrors-tour').

My problem with Phil Collins is not only that he turned Genesis into a popprog band but also that Phil started to talk very derogatory (that word is from my dictionary) about Seventies progressive rock, in one of the UK music magazines he even said about Pink Floyd that they were boring! Apart from a short compilation Genesis never gave credit to their splendid Seventies progrock heritage in their live set from The Eighties because Phil Collins was not pleased with it. I wish that he was as tolerant as Rush during their concerts, still playing In The Mood for the hardrock fans and Xanadu for the progrock fans!

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

Careful with the exaggeration Eugene

If you know anything about Genesis then you will know Collins wasn't with the band for the first two albums.....................................

^ That is correct. Stating that Collins was The man that killed Genesis is giving too much credit to Phil Collins and too little respect to Banks and Rutherford by indirectly saying they are followers. Of course Phil Collins had influences, but the other two were clearly ready to follow or even walk aside him.

Collins was surely not the big man behind early Genesis and as far I know he never claimed to be.

I do not like the elevator type of music he has started to make and sadly still does, but he gets my respect anyway. He has an outstanding and very differs musical carreer and kept on being in the musical top for decades. People like Prince and even Michael Jackson couldn't keep their audience (even if it is a different one) for that long.

So why blame him. He was getting older. It takes much more time to write a decent prog song than a little pop song. The man is a lazy genius.

erik neuteboom wrote: When I had bought And Then There Were Three I played it two times and then threw it away from my balcony for the birds, I was so upset about some poppy songs and afraid that Phil had taken command of Genesis. I even refused to join my friends to the concert In Leiden, The Netherlands (I still feel very frustrated about that, I missed the 'mirrors-tour').

Was that you who throwed this album at my head. You owe me some new glasses.

Beware, it could have been a claim or even penal case and then it would be stated in the files that Erik N. had damaged people by his record "And then there were three". Pfoeii, there goes your image.

I was as agressive as your 'Medieval moving picture' .. , mr. Under!

By the way, where do you live in Holland?

Bottom Line folks, is that sometimes the creative juices just run out. Look at our prog favorites from the 70's and you'll find that most of the one's who stuck around ended up making music that was more pop that prog (even King Crimson re: Three of a Perfect Pair). Let's face it, it's far easier to produce a 4 minute pop tune than a 10 minute progressive piece of music.

JS

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

Uh, that's a dumb statement.

First off, he wasn't even in the band for the first two or three years of the band's history, and he wasn't in the band during their last chapter (Calling All Stations).  Using the word "always" is immediately and obviously incorrect.

Secondly, his role was mostly of the faithful drummer until he took over for the vocals.

Thirdly, he didn't write or contribute much to the band's music until he took over as singer, and even then, it was nothing compared to Bank's role.

If anyone was the mastermind or leader, it was Tony Banks.  He was there through it all, played the biggest overall part in the band's sound, was always outspoken and put his foot down in band decisions.  If you don't believe me, read the Genesis history book "I Know What I Like".  It's all there in black and white.

Sounds like this forum was started by either a Phil Collins fanatic, or someone just trying to start trouble and argument among Genesis fans...

P.S.  When Gabriel left the band, there was not an immediate change in the sound, so that statement is also incorrect.  Gabriel did play a big role in the group's lyrics, but that didn't necessarily change the overall sound.

  Phil Collins is an excellent drummer who made a sterling contribution to Genesis in it's heyday.As the lead guy in Abba said you are only big for around 7 years then time moves on. Once the 80s came Phil wanted to do pop and Banks wasn't the creative genius he had been.No use getting angry.

By the 80s even the people who loved prog in the 70s had tired of it and weren't buying the records and going to the concerts. So the choice was oblivion or adaption. Yes were clever with 90125 a hit single but some good prog also. But by the 80s it was a hard balancing act

Shrump wrote: Come on guys. We all know that Phillip is the cause behind all problems. Of the whole world. I mean he lives in my computer for heavens sake!

  you're right Phil not only destroyed genesis he destroyed the public' love for prog and converted them to pop.

 Just like Yoko Ono destroyed the Beatles and had she not come into John's life the Beatles would have made another 10 Abbey Roads

 So there must be  a whipping boy or girl

To answer Alpine Jone's question:

The band started changing their sound for several reasons.  Obviously with Peter Gabriel (20% of the group) out of the picture, his contribution in words and music was going to be missing, and the other band members would take on a larger contribution.

But more importantly, the prog. music scene was changing around that time (1977-78).  Prog. groups were becoming less listened to and promoted on radio stations and in magazines, and newer styles like disco and punk were starting to get more visibility.  Prog. bands were referred to as "dinosaurs", as something old and outdated and boring.  Banks, Rutherford, and Collins all wanted to move a bit away from this sterotype, and update their sound to include more pop elements and bring more women into their fanbase.  Steve Hackett didn't want to take this route, holding true to his prog. roots, so he left too.  That left the "three" to completely control their sound to this new route.  And that's what happened.

It wasn't primarily a "Collins" decision to update the band sound and go a more pop-ish route.  It's so stupid to keep hearing people repeating that myth.  It was something that the three all agreed on and wanted.  Banks was still the most in charge though, but he and Rutherford were more than happy to have Collins become the smooth pop vocalist that he started to become.  And just listen to the Banks or Rutherford solo albums.  You'll hear the same thing: smooth pop-styled singers filling up their albums.

Again, it wasn't Collins who "ruined Genesis".  It was "the three" who were guilty for taking that approach.  And in Collins defense, he was and is still a great drummer.  And his work with jazz/fusion group Brand X can't be ignored; being some of the most respectable solo work of ex-Genesis members.

Face reality and leave the guy alone.

Some thoings to answer:

jojim wrote: Mr. Collins is no devil. He is a good drummer ("cinema show", "lamb lies down on broadway" etc). Nobody here has ever said anything against this fact, by thecontrary I believe he wasn't just good, he is an excellent drummer. We should acknowledge that a rock group can't compose 10 times the same song only different. Genesis made much more than 10 excellent songs, and each one is different to the previous. I'm nost asking for more of the same, just keep at least part of the original sound and quality. Just check something, if Genesis was ever original was when they were Prog', when they became POP they were just another band giving the people simple music that anybody could make, all their ballads sound almost exactly the same and almost exact to Collins solo stuff.  Collins lead the group to new horizons. This does not mean that I like it better than in the old days with Gabriel. But Gabriel went away. That's a fact. Pretty selfish. Pretty selfish? Do you know something about Peter's history in that moment? Peter's daughter was very sick, and I believe he wasn't really supported by his bandmates and school friends. Peter asked for a delay in the release of The Lamb because of this personal problems and a side project with his short story. The rest of the band said no. Phil Collins has stated that Peter was almost forced to leave theatricals because they didn't liked it. The rest of the band was tired that Peter was the image of Genesis and they made him feel that. There was a lot of problems, so he decided to leave. Read the lyrics of Solsbury Hills, you can feel his disapointment: And Collins did what he had to do - making simple Pop-Songs. That's fair enough. That's profitable enough would be more precise. Cool down boys!

There goes the second

Under wrote: ^ That is correct. Stating that Collins was The man that killed Genesis is giving too much credit to Phil Collins and too little respect to Banks and Rutherford by indirectly saying they are followers. Of course Phil Collins had influences, but the other two were clearly ready to follow or even walk aside him. The problem is that late Genesis albums sound exactly the same as Phil solo albums and not as Tony or Mike's, of course they have their share of responsability, but the head was Phil. Just to remind how powerful the little guy got, Tony said no way when Collins asked to add the Phoenix Horns from Earth Wind & Fire to ABACRAP, he even said he could create the effect with his synth. But Collins made a big issue of that and they all accepted, want it or not in a band like Genesis where Tony hides behind the keyboards and Mike plays way behind, the frontman is the leader. Collins was surely not the big man behind early Genesis and as far I know he never claimed to be. Collins was asked in Genesis a History if HE would let Peter Gabriel join back and he said clearly and without asking anybody else: "NO, I WOULDN'T ALLOW HIM" So he not only claimed to be the leader, but in fact he was I do not like the elevator type of music he has started to make and sadly still does, but he gets my respect anyway. He has an outstanding and very differs musical carreer and kept on being in the musical top for decades. People like Prince and even Michael Jackson couldn't keep their audience (even if it is a different one) for that long. Michael jackson (despite his horrible music) kept his audience since 1975 when he won his first solo Billboard award with Forever Michael and reached the peak of the mediocre POP circuits when he released the single "Don't Stop Till You Get Enough" until at least Dangerous in 1992. Collins Pop Genesis became really popular since Genesis (Shapes) in 1983,  before that they got a couple hit singles but not really massive and he left Genesis in 1995 (Despite they didn't had released any other studio album since 1991), So he didn't even had the "honor" (???) to beat Wacko Jacko.  So why blame him. He was getting older. It takes much more time to write a decent prog song than a little pop song. The man is a lazy genius. The problem is not that he was getting older and it was harder to write a decent Prog' song, this could be said if he was ever a prolific Prog songwritter, but the fact is  that I doubt he ever wrote alone a single decent Prog' song. Tony Banks could be accused of lazy, Mike maybe, they became Phil Collins favorite session musicians, but Phil always kept busy, he maintained a solo career parallel to Genesis, signed with Disney and managed to keep control of the band. He's just a great drummer but an absolutely cheesy song writter.

Iván

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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

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...

"oh there must be some misunderstanding

There must be some kind of mistake........"

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).

Norbert wrote: 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.

What a load of drivel. Comparing Britney Spears to Phil Collins in terms of marketability. You have much to learn...but it is OK with a name like Norbert the world will forgive you.

Threads about Collins exist in all progressive forums I visited (not only in English) with some defending him while others hit him.

When the name Phil Collins is mentioned I remember that tape of REAL Genesis performing "Supper's ready", in 1973 or 1974, and Peter Gabriel doing the intro, talking about birds and worms and initiating a tune of 'Jerusalem bogie' asking: "Faster, Phil, faster...". The other members appear smiling, some ironically; for some reason I guess that Gabriel wouldn't ever ask Banks, Rutherford or Hackett to go faster or any other pace. The way Gabriel salutes Collins after the tune is much more like a nobleman gently greeting a peasant.

These series of odd events associated with Phil's precocious baldness and short height (for British standards) provided the caldron were revenge was stewed. The greatest revenge was transform Genesis into a popish band - and I agree that they made pop in a higher level than the average.

The fact is that Phil, the little drummer boy, the peasant still loves Gabriel, the thinker, the noble, a lot.

You know, that song "Take Me Home" is an excellent song, captures a sentiment perfectly. Collins is a powerful creative force, no doubt.

By 1974 most of the prog bands were in hiatus: ELP, Yes, Moody Blues, Procol Harum, Renaissance and King Crimson.  The future of many of these bands was in question.  There is that period between 1975 and 1977 where prog is virtually at a standstill. Sure some of the minor bands are still doing some fine, and even some of their best work. But for the most part, the heavies were taking a holiday to redefine the band.  Most would emerge transformed. for example, the bluesy the title track for Going for the One was a real surprise. I don't think that it is any accident that Genesis released two albums in 1976. They were trying to tap into the American market, and make some money while the other bands were on holiday. Trick of the Tale really shows the influence of the American folk rock at the time: America, Eagles, though it is a little old by that time.  Your Own Special Way is pure California mid-70's pop.  With Follow You Follow Me they had found that synth pop sound that would dominate pop music for the next decade.  They may have even been the first to be successful at it.

Collins was also one of the key people in

The development of mellow 80’s pop, after

He killed a great band of course. Look on

The bright side a least Steve Hackett has

Had a good career.

Man Overboard wrote: lucas wrote: PC is a very fine drummer, one of my favourites, and he doesn't sing bad (especially on 'No jacket required') so please stop such childish discussion. He is one of the rare drummers who didn't record an album for the art of drumming. And he is not to blame in genesis' change of direction : other prog bands followed the same path (Le Orme, Yes, Banco, ELP, King Crimson, Renaissance, Jethro Tull and many more). And was PG still prog after he left Genesis : OBVIOUSLY NOT. King Crimson never followed that path.  Never.

Youre right, Crimson never fell down to popish music, crimson always had remain their standart of quality, some albums are better than others, but they never sell themselves to comerciality....

ken4musiq wrote: 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.

Maybe you dont remember, King crimson invented the genre, and they are the only old progband who doesnt make crap music for sell millions.
Anyway, early genesis was a really great band, but for me, they didnt defined the purist manifestation of prog..

Maybe you dont remember, King Crimson invented the genre, and they are the only old progband who doesnt make crap music for sell millions. >>>

The idea that prog was invented by KC is a myth, although it is a widely held and rather mainstream opinion. The term prog rock was being used by rock journalists as early as 1968.  Procol Harum and The Nice were already doing prog before KC was even producing records.   For early musicians of and enthusiasts of progressive rock in England, Genesis defined the aesthetic.  King Crimson was too influenced by jazz to be purely prog rock and even Fripp stated that later KC was not to be associated with prog rock.

Well, that lipstick alone is a crime!

erlenst wrote: The Miracle wrote: He was the one who made Genesis sell out. Once Hackett left, he really became the mastermind, and killed a great band. And his solo career was cheap pop too! EXPLAIN !!! NOW !! I am sick of people puking out stuff like this, when it actually makes no sense ! What was Banks and Rutherford then ? Mindless sheep ?? How will you explain their role in the process of selling out ?

"We thought, 'f*ck it, let's sell out" -Phil

They had, of course, some involvement, but Phil had the poppiest career, sand he was the songwriter, Banks and Rutherford were almost session musicians for him on the later albums They didn't do too well on their own either, but it was Collins who started it all.

ken4musiq wrote: Maybe you dont remember, King Crimson invented the genre, and they are the only old progband who doesnt make crap music for sell millions. >>>   The idea that prog was invented by KC is a myth, although it is a widely held and rather mainstream opinion. The term prog rock was being used by rock journalists as early as 1968.  Procol Harum and The Nice were already doing prog before KC was even producing records.   For early musicians of and enthusiasts of progressive rock in England, Genesis defined the aesthetic.  King Crimson was too influenced by jazz to be purely prog rock and even Fripp stated that later KC was not to be associated with prog rock.

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. 

Chris Stacey wrote: Norbert wrote: 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. What a load of drivel. Comparing Britney Spears to Phil Collins in terms of marketability. You have much to learn...but it is OK with a name like Norbert the world will forgive you.

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.

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.

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.

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?

1. If Genesis hadn't have gone the way they did they would've folded about 20 years earlier than they did so whether you like what they produced after W&W or not what have you lost?  Some people liked some or all of the later years and get pleasue out of the 80's and 90's proggier tracks some didn't, those that didn't can choose to ignore them or waste energy by getting all upset by them and trying to blame somebody.

2.  Genesis were probably one of the biggest bands on the planet around 86/87.  They could easily have hit singles, they had credibilty amongst some rock and prog fans, there success had nothing to do with sex appeal and they were all about 36.  Quite some achievement then let alone now when compared to todays youth driven/clean cut/style over content/ manufactured pop environement.

Phil Collins wasn't the mastermind at any time but he was a worthy contributer and the only man for that job. 

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

BiGi wrote: 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?

I am not less entitled to my opinion than you are.

Your opinion is that the music of Madonna, Backstreet Boys etc. works.Listen to them  if you think

that they are OK. I won't argue that.

My opinion is that their songs are dull, meaningless,pointless. This is nothing to do with how they look  like.

There are some good pop groups like The Beach Boys, Dire Straits, and even ABBA.

I don't hate Phil Collins at all, I am just not very keen on his solo works and on Genesis after 1980.

As you can read in my most recent post. Collins is miles above the mentioned boys and girls(I mean not The Beach Boys but the younger ones).

Millions of people can't  be wrong and be misguided? This is a very, very naive statement.

Unfortunately, they can.

I never wish to become a millionaire by selling throw-away material. I  dont envy any of these MTV icons. If you do, that  is your business.

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

I know many of you will not agree, but I love Genesis music after PG departure.

Albums such as Wind and Wuthering or And then there were 3, are absolutely masterpieces and PC support and contribution was excellent (I love his voice!).

I believe anyway he started his (and Genesis decline) after the good sales of his first solo album, which also diverted Genesis music to a more commercial style.

..And we all know how it ended...

Luca

NetsNJFan wrote: 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.  It's not prog at all, it may be good music for people who like soft POP, but not for me.   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).

Nope, it doesn't cloud me at all, I bought Three sides Live (Really the 4 sides live one) and it sucks.

The medley is horrible, Phil Collins singing for example In the Cage lacks of depth, emotion, panic., Daryl Stuermer is an excellent Jazz guitar player, but he can't create the atnmoispheres Steve Hackett did.

At the end I bought one 4 sides album for one side that doesn't fill me.

Ivàn

EDIT: I'm out of Lima, so I will be posting less often, But none of us compared Phil with Britney, we only answered to the fact that creating a hit single does not require great skills in most of cases.

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