Overrated Genesis?

The theme of popularity better discuss it with Progger, who claims Genesis was not populñar in UK and USA in the 70's, and that's the only thing I agree with him  Read a bit of history, while Yes, ELP and Pink Floyd were playing before crowds, Genesis had to travel to Italy and Belgium because nobody knew about them in the early 70's.>>

 

What I am saying taht among "true prog devotees" not the general public, people who were buying Gong and Soft Machine, as well as Caravan, and Camel.  This is why the neo-prog bands tend to sound like Genesis.

 

The difference is that Genesis used all of them. The style of Genesis is narrative, the style of Yes is poetic and mostly makes no sense, Pink Floyd is more political and related with depression, Tull has also great lyrics.

 

A) it does not matter because prog was not about the lyrics.

b) Jethro Tull used all of them and more as all the other bands tackled topics that Genesis did not explore. I will acquiesce to the reality that Gabriel and Anderson were great lyricist. That is not a matter of taste.

 

So....you decide what we must believe to Phil Collins and what not? Great, now you're an expert in psycology.>>

 

Just watch the video From Genesis to Revelation and tell me what you think. 

 

I will, but why all you Genesis haters don't accept that everything is a matter of taste????>>

 

A) we are not Genesis haters

B) everything is not a matter of taste. For example, one must be able to discern good music from bad, a good guitarist from a bad,, as you have done with Hackett.  Genesis was not as great an ensemble as Yes, ELP or King Crimson.  Listen to Perpetual Change, Larks Tongues, Karnevil 9.  Gabriel was a better lyricist than Lake, sinfield, Wetton or Anderson, by far. Genesis put out some great albums but they are marred by Gabriel's voice.  All that four albums in the top ten tells me is that Genesis fans are not as discerning as other.

Atkingani wrote: About the issue of popularity I'd like to remember that Mozart died in poverty and was buried as a beggar, Van Gogh sold only a single picture (for his brother) while alive. The historical perspective is the better way to see things more clearly IMO. I observe presently a great and renewed interest in Gabriel-Hackett-era Genesis stuff that I do not observe for other bands of the same period. In fact this interest is also ever-growing for bands that were considered "obscure" in the 70s, like VDGG, for instance.

for what it's worth.... great post.  There are two ways to look at this. The 'historical' perspective, which is something I really enjoy doing, and actually have spent a lot of time on other sites debating and 'researching'.  Some of us were there and remember how these albums playing out... in the day, some weren't.  The other, popularity while interesting, is subject to the whims and favor of today's (and tomorrows) listerners.  Go by popularity and ELP drops from probably amoung the 3 or 4 more important (and most interesting) groups of prog, to just another group that many people love to hate.  I believe it is important not to be a slave to 'popularity' and not forget how these groups were thought of and how they impacted the progressive scene in the day.  That is the whole base of my 'rants' about Genesis, not because I don't like them. I'm a fan of prog, how can I not like them hahahahha. I'd just like to see more balanced discussion than..... I like Genesis or I don't like Genesis.  Preference is not really debateable.... what we are talking about... historical perspective is...  and that is the fun in it. 

ken4musiq wrote: What I am saying taht among "true prog devotees" not the general public, people who were buying Gong and Soft Machine, as well as Caravan, and Camel.  Well, true devotes are the only people who really know about Progressive Rock, so it must mean Genesis was something special if true devotees love this band and the musicthey released.. But what is true (despite that i don't like it) in the 70's Yes had much more fans than Genesis and Pink Floyd had an album that was N° 1 in sales in history of Rock music. This is why the neo-prog bands tend to sound like Genesis. This only means that Genesis was more influential than the rest of Progressive bands, and that this guys considered that Genesis was the band they liked more, nothing else and nothing more. Those guys playing Neo Prog, were going against the public opinion, when Punk and Disco were kings they dared to play Progressive Rock that was an outcasted genre and hated by the masses. I may not like Neo Prog as I like early Symphonic, but I respect what this guys did. A) it does not matter because prog was not about the lyrics. You guys are very special, YOU BROUGHT THE ISSUE OF THE LYRICS AND MADE A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT: Ken4musiq wrote: 3) The themes that Genesis/Gabriel tackled in their/his lyrics were universal to the prog bands at the time, although Gabriel is the most interesting of the lyricists. But when somebody proves you the versatility of Genesis lyrics, you change your arguments saying Prog is not about the lyrics. Let me inform you something, Prog' is about the music, the lyrics, the attitude, the virtuosism and the intelligence of their compositions, if you can't get this, you know nothing about Prog. b) Jethro Tull used all of them and more as all the other bands tackled topics that Genesis did not explore. I will acquiesce to the reality that Gabriel and Anderson were great lyricist. That is not a matter of taste. No other band had the narrative that Genesis had, Jethro Tull lyrics were great, but never as versatile as Genesis. So....you decide what we must believe to Phil Collins and what not? Great, now you're an expert in psycology.>> Just watch the video From Genesis to Revelation and tell me what you think.  I have all Genesis videos, and I don't believe a word that Phil Collins said, he contradicts himself very often, he said that he rather listen Sex Pistols than Yes, but a few minutes after he says that Yes was his favorite band. Phil Collins is a bussinesman, he says what is better for his wallet, nothing else, one day he said he never understood The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway and that he hated the redording sessions, but a few years after he said that he enjoyed recording The Lamb and that it's the best album ever recorded. A) we are not Genesis haters Yes you are, you don't waste any oportunity to say how bad was Genesis compared with the rest of the bands, how low quality was their music and how great was Yes. Read my posts, I never said Genesis was better than Yes, because I don't own the truth, I only say I like Genesis much more and That I don't like Jon Anderson's voice. B) everything is not a matter of taste. For example, one must be able to discern good music from bad, a good guitarist from a bad,, as you have done with Hackett.  Genesis was not as great an ensemble as Yes, ELP or King Crimson.  Listen to Perpetual Change, Larks Tongues, Karnevil 9.  Gabriel was a better lyricist than Lake, sinfield, Wetton or Anderson, by far. Genesis put out some great albums but they are marred by Gabriel's voice.  All that four albums in the top ten tells me is that Genesis fans are not as discerning as other. Your answer proves me ytou are absolutely subjective, you repeat that Yes, ELP and King Crimson are better than Genesis as a dogma, but you don't give any argument. Why should we accept your opiion as the absolute truth, if even we who are Genesis fans don't dare top say they were better than Yes, ELP or King Crimson, at least I only say I like Genesis more.

Iván

If Genesis, VDGG, Gentle Giant and others are attracting more attention today it does not mean that I (and I believe that other proggers too) want to bury Floyd, Yes or EL&P because they were more popular during a certain period. For me they all contribute for the enrichment of progressive rock and of music as a whole.

If we are here still discussing those bands and their works after 1/3 of a century have passed it is because they all have/had their value - it's undeniable. Nothing to do with personal taste.

 

What I am saying that among "true prog devotees" not the general public, people who were buying Gong and Soft Machine, as well as Caravan, and Camel. 

Well, true devotes are the only people who really know about Progressive Rock, so it must mean Genesis was something special if true devotees love this band and the music they released..

 

No they are not. Actually, true devotees of any genre tend to be the most narrow minded. But  I amnot disagreeing here, just stating a idea, one that can be dis- substantiated and proven false.

 

This is why the neo-prog bands tend to sound like Genesis.

This only means that Genesis was more influential than the rest of Progressive bands, and that this guys considered that Genesis was the band they liked more, nothing else and nothing more.

In the short run, they were.

 

A) it does not matter because prog was not about the lyrics.

You guys are very special, YOU BROUGHT THE ISSUE OF THE LYRICS AND MADE A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT:

Ken4musiq wrote:

3) The themes that Genesis/Gabriel tackled in their/his lyrics were universal to the prog bands at the time, although Gabriel is the most interesting of the lyricists.

But when somebody proves you the versatility of Genesis lyrics, you change your arguments saying Prog is not about the lyrics.

 

Prog has been about the music, first. I have stated on other threads that this was the problem with prog.  It had so few really good lyricist of which Gabriel and Anderson are the best.  I should probably say, prog had too many mediocre lyricist and singers as well.  But very few people can write music, play guitar, sing and write lyrics.  It is a lot to expect from anybody.

Let me inform you Prog' is about the music, the lyrics, the attitude, the virtuosism and the intelligence of their compositions, if you can't get this, you know nothing about Prog.

 

fine I agree with you here.

b) Jethro Tull used all of them and more as all the other bands tackled topics that Genesis did not explore. I will acquiesce to the reality that Gabriel and Anderson were great lyricist. That is not a matter of taste.

No other band had the narrative that Genesis had, Jethro Tull lyrics were great, but never as versatile as Genesis.

 

what is the narrative?  It would have been more intersting if you started here and then enlightened me about why you like the narrative Genesisi pout forth rather tahtn trying to find some point in my argument so that you can disagree with me on points where we concur.

Why were anderson's lyrics not as versatile as Gabriel.  He wrote satire in Passion Play War Childand tackled environmental issues in his later albums. He wrote about spirituality, (Songs from the Wood) aetheism and economic inequlity, (The Aqualung album) being an artist (Minstrel in the Gallery)

So....you decide what we must believe to Phil Collins and what not? Great, now you're an expert in psycology.>>

Just watch the video From Genesis to Revelation and tell me what you think. 

I have all Genesis videos, and I don't believe a word that Phil Collins said, he contradicts himself very often, he said that he rather listen Sex Pistols than Yes, but a few minutes after he says that Yes was his favorite band.

Phil Collins is a bussinesman, he says what is better for his wallet, nothing else, one day he said he never understood The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway and that he hated the redording sessions, but a few years after he said that he enjoyed recording The Lamb and that it's the best album ever recorded.

 

I got news for you.  they are all mostly business men. I have asked is the reason the band got rid of Gabriel in the first place was probably econonic.  He was no sooner gone and they changed their style to fit an American audience where the money was.  The fact that hackett never sold out tells me more about his musicianship than anything else.

A) we are not Genesis haters

Yes you are, you don't waste any oportunity to say how bad was Genesis compared with the rest of the bands, how low quality was their music and how great was Yes.

Read my posts, I never said Genesis was better than Yes, because I don't own the truth, I only say I like Genesis much more and That I don't like Jon Anderson's voice.

 

Whether you like Anseron voice or not is a matter of taste. Whether he can sing better than Gabriel is a fact, he can as is the fact that Gabriel is a better lyricist than Anderson.

B) everything is not a matter of taste. For example, one must be able to discern good music from bad, a good guitarist from a bad,, as you have done with Hackett.  Genesis was not as great an ensemble as Yes, ELP or King Crimson.  Listen to Perpetual Change, Larks Tongues, Karnevil 9.  Gabriel was a better lyricist than Lake, sinfield, Wetton or Anderson, by far. Genesis put out some great albums but they are marred by Gabriel's voice.  All that four albums in the top ten tells me is that Genesis fans are not as discerning as other.

Your answer proves me ytou are absolutely subjective, you repeat that Yes, ELP and King Crimson are better than Genesis as a dogma, but you don't give any argument.

 

this is not based on doma.  When you listen to the great Yes or ELP albums the ensemble playing is more complex.  Listen to the way the band plays against eachother on Your Move or the dense textures of Fragile.  You and I is a great pop song.  It got plenty of air play because it was a great pop song.  Genesis did not write anything that accessible during there formative years except perhaps Watcher of the Skies, which is also a great pop tune.  It should have gotten more air play.  This is in America.  I don't know about Europe.

Why should we accept your opiion as the absolute truth, if even we who are Genesis fans don't dare top say they were better than Yes, ELP or King Crimson, at least I only say I like Genesis more.

It is not what people say, it is what people post on the reviews.

Iván

[/QUOTE]

ivan_2068 wrote: [QUOTE=ken4musiq] No they are not. Actually, true devotees of any genre tend to be the most narrow minded. But  I amnot disagreeing here, just stating a idea, one that can be dis- substantiated and proven false. Then lets ask POP fans and radio DJ's who according to your logic must be better informed. [quote] Pog has been about the music, first. I have stated on other threads that this was the problem with prog.  It had so few really good lyricist of which Gabriel and Anderson are the best.  I should probably say, prog had too many mediocre lyricist and singers as well.  But very few people can write music, play guitar, sing and write lyrics.  It is a lot to expect from anybody. Let me inform you Prog' is about the music, the lyrics, the attitude, the virtuosism and the intelligence of their compositions, if you can't get this, you know nothing about Prog. fine I agree with you here.

Holy crap, you agree with me, but at the same time you say Prog is not about lyrics???

I don't believe Gabriel, Ian Anderson, Peter Hammill, Fish, Pete Sinfield, Greg Lake, Neil Peart, Steve Walsh, David Gilmour, Roger Waters, etc are bad vocalists, most of them are outstanding and absolutely superior to 99% of POP lyricists who repeat one or two phrases ad nauseam or talk about how their beloved girlfriend left them.

What is the narrative?  It would have been more intersting if you started here and then enlightened me about why you like the narrative Genesisi pout forth rather tahtn trying to find some point in my argument so that you can disagree with me on points where we concur.

Peter Gabriel narrates the songs almost always in third person, not in a biographical style (first person) as most musicians, his style combines reality with fantasy in a way that reminds me very much of the Real wonderful Latin American Movement, in songs as Musical Box, Watcher of the Skies, Get 'Em Out by Friday, etc.

But he doesn't stay there, also narrates historic pieces like Can Utility and the Coastliners (Inspired in King Knute of Norway and England -if I'm not wrong- who's subdites claimed the waters retreated under his command) or Mythological themes like Fountain of Salmacis based in Hermafroditus son of Hermes and Aphrodite. who blended with a nymph and turned into a being with feminine and masculine essense.

His polemic outfits were a visual aid created to help people understand the lyrics and place the scenery, plus a visual pleasure gor those who had the luck to see them in the early 70's.

I could go for days and wouldn't end, but I believe this is enough to make my point. 

Why were anderson's lyrics not as versatile as Gabriel.  He wrote satire in Passion Play War Childand tackled environmental issues in his later albums. He wrote about spirituality, (Songs from the Wood) aetheism and economic inequlity, (The Aqualung album) being an artist (Minstrel in the Gallery)

I don't believe Jethro Tull touched as many issues as Genesis, but stil i believe Ian Anderson lyrics are incredible, Thick as a Brick is a masterpiece of imagination but still I stay with Gabriel lyrics.

I got news for you.  they are all mostly business men. I have asked is the reason the band got rid of Gabriel in the first place was probably econonic.  He was no sooner gone and they changed their style to fit an American audience where the money was.  The fact that hackett never sold out tells me more about his musicianship than anything else.

Peter Gabriel left Genesis because his daughter was very sick and some doctors believed she wouldn't survive, plus the fact he didn't felt comfortable with the way the band was working.

In his own words he said he felt like part of the machine. Nobody kicked him, he left the band, listen Solsbury Hills and the lyrics that explain clearly Peter's position.

All the rest of the band has publicly declared that Peter decided to leave Genesis for second time after The Lamb (He left a few months before because he wanted to work in a project with The Exorcist director), most f them were shocked.

But he didn't acted as a businesman, read a bit of history, he created Womad expending his last cent to promote music from Africa mostly. This was an artistic adventure, to the point that he lost all his money and Genesis made a concert in Milton Keynes to help him, because Womad was an artistic success but an economic disaster.

After his later success, Peter worked for free in several Amnesty International concerts around the world, organizing them, he lead the campaign against the Apartheid, I had the chance to see him in concert in Santiago de Chile in the Amnesty International Concert "Rock from the Ashes" against the politic prissoners of Pinochet's Government.

Again, inform yourself before you speak.

Whether you like Anseron voice or not is a matter of taste. Whether he can sing better than Gabriel is a fact, he can as is the fact that Gabriel is a better lyricist than Anderson.

Why is it a fact? Since when there are facts in art? Can you tell me if Donatello is better than Il Correggio of if Bach is better than Mozart? I stand on my point you are arrogant and you think that your word is law. 

According to you every person that believes Peter Gabriel is a better vocalist than Jon Anderson is wrong just because you say so? Again, you're very arrogant.

this is not based on doma.  When you listen to the great Yes or ELP albums the ensemble playing is more complex.  Listen to the way the band plays against eachother on Your Move or the dense textures of Fragile.  You and I is a great pop song.  It got plenty of air play because it was a great pop song.  Genesis did not write anything that accessible during there formative years except perhaps Watcher of the Skies, which is also a great pop tune.  It should have gotten more air play.  This is in America.  I don't know about Europe.

If you say something is a fact and nobody can dispute it, then it is a dogma, most people here or in any Prog place won't agree with you, just saying Watcher of the Skies is a POP tune is an aberration, that I explain on another thread.

There are hundreed of reviews about every Genesis albums and some are excellent (Not mine because those were he first I ever wrote and now i believe are mediocre), read them and you'll foind that the world doesn't start and end with your opinion.

I don't know if Yes is better or worst than Genesis, but i know I like Genesis more.

But this is my last postreplying you, because nobody can discuss with a fanboy who believes his word is law.

Iván

I am done with this, Ivan.  I came hear to discuss not to argue, which is all you want to do.  According to you logic, I can argue that The Partidge family is as good as Genesis because it is all just taste.

ken4musiq wrote: I am done with this, Ivan.  I came hear to discuss not to argue, which is all you want to do.  According to you logic, I can argue that The Partidge family is as good as Genesis because it is all just taste.

Be honest you arrogant, you don't discuss because I gave you answers to each and every argumant you gave demostrating your contradictions and ignorance about musical history.

BTW: The Partridge Family was never a band, the only guy who actually played or sing in that TV show fictional band was David Cassidy, the rest of the actors only moved their lips and faked to play instruments, so they can't be better than anybody, uise better examples.

But a metal fan can argue that Iron Maiden is better trhan Genesis, or a classic Rock fan can argue that Led Seppelin is as good  band as Yes or a POP fan can say that Buckingham - Nicks Fleetwood Mac is in the level of King Crimson, why not????

Al are competent musicians, we like Prog, they like their respective genres, who amI to tell the Prog is better thanMetal, Classic Rock or POP?

I'm not an arrogant ignorant who believes that everybody must agree with my perspective.

Music is an art and art has a high component of subjectivity, nobody owns the truth, all are right and all are wrong.

We can say (if we know enough) if a guitar player or a keyboardist is skilled, but betweem two great guitar players we can't with 100% of seccurity say which one is better by an inch, this is subjective, I may like much more Santana's style than Hendrix, but that doen't mean one is better than the other.

Iván

 

Progger wrote: The bottom line is that GENESIS are overated!!!!

NO!  they are not... they are BEING overrated. The difference is subtle but real.  They did do multiple GREAT albums, along with what .... multiple score  of groups in the 70's. What they were not though were amoung the very top of the food chain so to speak amoung the prog groups of the 70's.  When you talk about comparing groups as we seem to want to do... great albums BAH!!!! that's strictly preference... it you check the facts, look at sales, mags from the day.  Genesis were not considered in the same league as the big 3. ELP, Yes, and Floyd. Genesis had some impact on the Italian scene, but little else until prog had died and was reborn in the 80's.  In the 70's they were not amoung prog's movers and shakers so to speak, thus really had little impact in direct comparison to some of their peers.  If the groups are to be contrasted, that is the only way to do it.  One man's dirt is anothers gold, and anothers gold is someone's dirt.

micky wrote: Progger wrote: The bottom line is that GENESIS are overated!!!! NO!  they are not... they are BEING overrated. The difference is subtle but real.  Why do you think Genesis is being overrated? The answer is because you don't believe they deserve the recognition they have. In other words because you like other bands more than genesis. You're non being objective, you're only deciding because of your taste. Polls in radio programs or TV are flawed because people just give a name and vote, I read most of the Genesis reviews and a huge majority are absolutely coherent, people explain why they believe Genesis should be rated so high. But this phenomenom is not exclusive of Prog Archives, in every especialized Progressive site where the members really know about Prog', Genesis is in the top, so if people who know about the genre say Genesis is maybe the top band, I see no reason to believe they're being overrated. They did do multiple GREAT albums, along with what .... multiple score  of groups in the 70's. What they were not though were amoung the very top of the food chain so to speak amoung the prog groups of the 70's.  When you talk about comparing groups as we seem to want to do... great albums BAH!!!! that's strictly preference... That's right, its' all preference, and the majoprity of votes in the Prog sites go for Genesis.  it you check the facts, look at sales, mags from the day.  Genesis were not considered in the same league as the big 3. ELP, Yes, and Floyd. Genesis had some impact on the Italian scene, but little else until prog had died and was reborn in the 80's.  In the 70's they were not amoung prog's movers and shakers so to speak, thus really had little impact in direct comparison to some of their peers. Except Pink Floyd, no Prog group was able to stand in front of POP groups and win, so if you believe in recognition on the public charts, your logic is flawed, because in that case you should consider that Saturday Night Fever and GGrease soundtracks were the albums of the decade. You're also ignoring a very important fact: Pink Floyd started in the mid-late 70's, so by 1970 they were famous Emerson was already the main performer of The Nice, Lake was a member of King Crimson and The Gods with Ken Hensley and Lee Kerslaka and Carl Palmer was alredy a recognized musician. Yes members had already a career before they joined this band, some of them were 25 years old when became Yes members. Genesis members were absolutely unknown in Great Britain, they had recently left school, were teen agers so nobody knew them that explains the lack of early recognition. But the world doesn't start and end in UK and USA, Genesis were idols in Italy and Belgium reaching top 10 in every album, inclñuding Trespass.   If the groups are to be contrasted, that is the only way to do it.  One man's dirt is anothers gold, and anothers gold is someone's dirt. Why do you valuate mmore the recognition of the 70's than the recognition today? After 30 years there's more perspective, we have many more choices and Genesis is at the top. This means they passed the test of time that makes a legend of a band. This is absurd, Alan Parsons was very popular in the 70's but they never made a concert until the 90's if I'm not wrong, so you don't know how great concerts they made. Renaissance with their great quality never were so popular. Everything is subjective Micky. Iván

    I unfortunately don't have the time to read all of the discussion.  However, I will throw in my pet peeve.  I think Selling England by the Pound is overrated.  There. I got that off my chest.  There are four or five Genesis albums I'd rather listen to.