Phil Collins is an amazing drummer, and I think his detractors are only so because he became a pop singer, not because of his drumming abilities. I wonder what they thought when they heard him play "Cinema Show" with no problem on the Turn It On Again tour.

I really shouldn't be doing this; I have work to do, and other things that need my attention.  Still I thought I'd at last make time this morning to reply to the criticism my POV (back on page 2) has garnered from some here, some of it quite unnecessarily harsh.  It should go without saying that this is in my opinion - just sometimes that opinion is not so humble!  Furthermore, my apologies to the administrators.

I can't decide whether what I'm about to do is foolish; it probably is.  But I admit that I was foolish and caught up in the first place to use some of the language I did.  I was trying to be a little funny while saying something that frankly bothers me - and instead I've come off less than witty, or worse.  For that I'm sorry.  Now I'm about to stick my neck out again, and some will see even less the point.  So I guess I write for those who do see it, and who tend to remain silent in their dignity.  And also for those who, like me, try to understand folly in themselves and in others.  

Oh, and thank you a thousand times Ivan_Melgar_M for your calm reasoning in defense of the purpose of this forum.  You're a credit to the community.

****

Well at last, after so long, after so many failed attempts, we have, according to some here, a definition of the word Artist: a person who does "what the f**k he wants, when the f**k he wants."  Forgive me if I paraphrase.  The definition goes on to provide that these Artists will draw their power and integrity, perhaps even their very inspiration, from their own desires with no sense of owing anyone in the world anything, and their appreciators in turn need feel no obligation.

But can this really be true, so completely true, or is it just one of those opinions that stands so erect because it claims fact as its domain, or claims enough membership due to the ease with which it is said and the force it would seem to carry?  People have comforted themselves down through history with "inexorable logics", and once under the heady power of these logics have forgotten that logic itself is man-made.  Fox News has built an empire on the exploitation of this frailty of ours.  In the history of nations you see the inexorable logic, the unassailable opinion in truth's clothing, in impressive figures often with truly glorious and humanitarian intentions (I don't say it sarcastically) who see history as a process with their ideal of Freedom and Industry as its end.  Take Marx and Engels for a small set.  But for those of us who are given pause by such claims, we have the benefit of the writing of even better people, great and feeling people who sought and celebrated true freedom and spirit and who resisted the often, ironically, tyrannical label of Revolutionary.  This principle is beautifully embodied by Camus in The Rebel (as in life) or Dostoevsky in The Grand Inquisitor (again, as in life), or Leopardi or Barthes in their writings, to name just a few.  If we can only remain vigilant we will see that such figures as these Inexorable Logicians mentioned earlier always tell you that, perhaps unfortunately, you are just going to have to submit all or part of your very freedom to the benevolent authorities - always for the Inquisitor, just for some years while the state whips matters into shape in the case of Marx/Engels.  After all, the ideal world pictured by these revolutionaries is, though it would be in our best interest, apparently unnatural; it can't come about on its own, and so it'll need some help - and there they are to dutifully oblige.  Only the very rarest of these types have guessed the bloodshed their ideas may reciprocally cause, and usually too late.

So, to remain free is to remain vigilant; one wishes it weren't so, but it is.  How else can we remain vigilant, by what means?  Where will Youth first learn of it?  What other sources will draw our attention to ever-threatened freedom and to causeless Love?  Why, the arts and philosophy.  Among the arts is of course music, and music-with-words has the special opportunity to interject philosophy and universal ideas as well in an attempt to be complete, as art and as statement.  Which musics do this?  Ones that are first-and-foremost commercial?  I think not; that makes no sense, for the interests most served by such industry lie elsewhere, and are almost always antithetical (ie. except in rare and brief periods).  What musics then?  Folk comes quickly to mind.  And so, friends, does Progressive Rock!  Among all forms of rock this form has probably most often championed a non-authoritarian humanist view, or a view that at least offers interesting challenges to the powerful and the elite.  Do we stop often enough to consider that it may just be this, and not the sound, that is most responsible for attracting us in the first place to this genre?  

I am left to wonder how it is then that so many people presumably raised on its gifts can come to such corporatist conclusions.  Gifts, meaning something given freely; perhaps there is no reason, and perhaps there's technically nothing owed in return.  But I refuse to believe those sensitive enough to have appreciated this music for so long can really be so unkind.  That would be cruel indeed.

****

To say what I have said is difficult mainly because it is simultaneously an aesthetic and humanist position, having as it's concern Art as beauty and the movable way in which we understand that.  This is an immensely contentious area of art/cultural criticism, no total solution will or should ever exist, and yet the discussion carries on for many.  I say, good.  To say what my detractors have said is frankly easy.  This draconian sort of opinion is always available and ready for use.  I fail to see how it isn't corporatist - I see enough of that during my work day -, it certainly is a favorite position of Control-types.  If Collins wants to make mad cash then he can, some said.  Well, that's just what I said, and I went on to say that I don't appreciate it.  

They used to "do whatever they wanted" in the 70s, which was somehow prog, then they changed their minds all by themselves with no influence from the industry or other considerations... to doing... whatever they wanted.  Really?  I thought I observed a period of upheaval and rebellion followed by one of complacency by more than a few.  But wait, that's too unfair of me - artists after all are not supermen.  But I do know that the record industry, seen as a money making apparatus purely, must have been thrilled with the singles era of the 50s and 60s, far less so with the progressives and other album-length makers (anti-single) of the 70s and part of the 80s, and thrilled again (for a time) with what followed.  Gabriel-Genesis penned a pop song in I Know What I Like (a favorite of mine).  But did you know that Gabriel (and perhaps other members) refused an offer for the band to appear on Top of the Pops?  Touring schedule might have been used for an excuse, but that was not all.  They also denied their label's request that a film of a live performance be sent to Top of the Pops instead.  Peter Gabriel - I guess he knew what he liked.  There's pop, and there's pop.

Money justifies everything?  What of ethics?  Does that sound pretentious?  Well, turn again to the bulk of your artists.  What would Transatlantic and Procol Harum have to say (In Held), to name one song?  If they don't mean what they say, why not sing about cars and chicks?  You know the answer, just remember you know it.

In the end though I understand Phil Collins selling out - it's simple mathematics, short division to be exact.  You see, when some of you said he owes us nothing, well, that isn't precisely true.  There are some people he has owed dearly.  Collins will tell you: divorcing three wives can prove expensive.  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/08/16/phil-collins-pays-third-wife-a-record-25million-in-divorce-settlement-115875-20699955/ - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/08/16/phil-collins-pays-third-wife-a-record-25million-in-divorce-settlement-115875-20699955/   Personally I come back to wondering if he isn't just a pragmatist and perhaps poor judge of character, and his, er, needs changed.   According to Wikipedia (in a cited entry), with the album Face Value he identified divorce as one of his main influences.  Turn that phrase in your head.

(-edited to make Mirror story hyperlinked-)

1, In the beginning, excelent drummer

8, Hope he retiers completely and disapears completely out of existence

Phil's playing at his best had something that few, if any, other drummers could match. The subtlety of his performances on Cinema Show and the Unorthodox Behaviour album is jaw-dropping.

Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?

Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?