The Marillion Round Table

Message Rating: Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 lazland wrote:

 genbanks wrote:

 iluvmarillion wrote:

 genbanks wrote:

Well, Marillion...when I listened them at first, was somehting great!, being a Genesis hardcore fan of all their eras, Marilllion sounded then as the perfect musical solution. The first era, with Fish and even with Seasons End, is the best, and Script is the best album they ever made, perfect. One of the things that they lost (a shame) is the preponderance of Mark Kelly in the keyboards, a very underrated musician. This master was little by little getting behind, and after Seasons end, he was definitely behind, and with him the music a bit downhill. With Hogarth, they have very good things, but not as an album (with the exception of Seasons End, a great album). They became much repetitive, lacking of instrumental sections and many times uninspired. My best songs
All Script for a Jester's Tear (exception of Chelsea monday)
Grendel, Market square, Charting the single, boats than the candy
Assasing, Incubus, Jigsaw, Fugazy, Punch and Judy
Almost all Childhood End (Blind curve, what a track)
Slaintemath, Hotel hobbies and At that time of the night, Only for the record (the key solo)
King of sunset town, Easter (superb), Seasons end, The space
Cover my eyes, The party, Waiting to happen, This strange engine, Brave, The great escape.., Interior Lulu (some sections), Don't hurt yourself, You're gone, Wrapped up by time, When I meet good.

I read the review you posted for "We Can't Dance" and pretty much agreed with every thing you wrote except for your rating of 4 stars (mine would be closer to 3 stars). However, I don't understand your interpretation of the post "Seasons End" Marillion albums. You embrace the pop elements of the post Gabriel Genesis albums, but reject those same elements in the Hogarth Marillion albums. I personally don't find anything repetitive in the latter Marillion albums.

Well, thanks, but maybe I'm being misunderstood (is the correct verb time?). I do  not criticising the prog character of Marillion, I'm not saying that they've being turned to pop or brit pop or nothing like this, simply is that in my taste, they sound to me a bit repetitive, just like for others maybe Genesis or other band could sounds repetitive too. It's a matter of taste. For example, Holydays in Eden,  I like it much (not all the album), and is mainly pop. After that they returned to a less commercial sound, and for me they have great things (I've listed some songs that I like much). But is not the kind of music that I like more. When I talk about Kelly, I'm talking about keyboards not only as a companion or support, but as solos or more prominence. As I said before, I have listened him doing something different in  King of number 33 of Dee Expus and I like it much. Marillion is prog rock, before and now, and as an integral work, they are more prog than Genesis, that is true, but other thing is my taste. I love prog rock, is the music that I like and buy, but I don't like everything about prog rock. Hope you understood me.

I do understand you. Try, though, to take a bit of a hint from someone who has listened to prog and classic rock for the best part of 40 years now.

It really doesn't matter whether the music is prog, or not. If you enjoy it, it is good music. I, for example, love Fleetwood Mac (especially the Buckingham & Nicks version). Not remotely prog, but damned good stuff.

The fact that Marillion are "more prog than Genesis" (even if true, which I would dispute), is neither here nor there. I happen to adore both, and all phases at that. I hate the snobbery that many here display when talking about.......gasp.....commercial music

In terms of your original point, one of the reasons why people on this thread love Marillion so much is that it is a collective effort. Without any of the five protagonists, the finished product would be greatly diminished. The material is all truly a group effort, wrought by hard work and group effort. Actually, that is also true of three man Genesis after Duke, far more than the Gabriel era

Ok, Lazland, it's good to agree in this point. To be honest, I take care about the prog side of the music, but because I l like it, I enjoy the long tracks, the instrumental sections, the pompous, those great lyrics and many more, but I like other kind of music too, like classical or pop or commercial or how everyone wants to call it. I love all Genesis albums, abslolutely all, prog or pop or what it could be and I like many Marillions albums, as I said I like much Holydays in Eden or Afraid of sunlight or even Anoraknophobia, but Radiation, Marillion.com or Somewhere else, just little bits. 

About the songwritting as a group effort, that is really a point. In fact, Marillion in the times of Fish, sign the songs as all the musicians songwritting, was that really true? The same was happened with Genesis in the times of Gabriel, but the true was that Banks and Rutherford were always the main songwritters, and many people even knowing that fact, live exalting Gabriel and Hackett as the Genesis mentors of their music. I don't know this about Marillion, but I suspect that Rothery seems to be the driving force behind the band, maybe someone can teach me about this, or maybe they really are a team. The perfect example is Pink Floyd, when they worked as a team, they made (IMO) their best things (Dark side and Wish you were here). Division Bell is really good too, in part, cos Wright was there again, songwriting with Gilmour. That the escence of the bands, to songwrite as a more than one people. I agree with you about Genesis post Duke era, they started with the jams sessions (mainly from Abacab).