WHO WAS THE GUILTY OF GENESIS DECADENCE ?

There's no doubt that it has much to do with the changing musical scene: Prog was 'in' during the early 70s, but in the later stages of the decade, the Sex Pistols & the Ramones became the new fashion, and many Prog artists found that they had to adapt in order to survive. Having said that, King Crimson appear to have survived the 80s in extremely good shape while still maintaining some artistic integrity.

Peter Gabriel's solo work allowed him commercial success WITHOUT sacrificing his integrity. In short, his music may be mainstream focused, but then again, so was Dark Side of the Moon.

In my opinion, after all the great early Genesis prog albums, they had already reached their prog best and could not improve further, unless they were gods.  They decided to take a different approach and style (obviously not prog anymore) which are still good, even if for me the great prog albums produced by early Genesis are a thousand miles infront (in quality and musicality).  They manged to reach out to pop lovers as well, which is no sin - just different.

ita_prog_fan wrote:   The unstoppable flowing of time, nothing else !

Though I hate too agree with you, cause of your opinion in your review of Tales from topografic oceans (my opinion about that master-piece is exactly the oposite and I'm in the same age as you) I simply have to agree with you in this case to 100%. Cheers

I agree with itaprogfan. Time is a bad beast.

I'm GLAD they turned pop! Crappy '80s Genesis is better than no Genesis at all, and that's what would have happened if they stayed prog, they wouldnt of lived past '79.  And the made some good pop-prog in the '80s as well.

I Can't afgree with you NesNJFan, for prog' fans of Genesis this was terrible, and this fans are the ones who kept the band alive when they started, those are the fans that loved them when the rest of the world hated Genesis.

I thoink the fans always deserve somerespect, Ok, Genesis had the right to sell themselves (The remaining two originals and one hired member), but at least they should have changed the name of the band.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: I'm GLAD they turned pop! Crappy '80s Genesis is better than no Genesis at all, and that's what would have happened if they stayed prog, they wouldnt of lived past '79.  And the made some good pop-prog in the '80s as well. I Can't afgree with you NesNJFan, for prog' fans of Genesis this was terrible, and this fans are the ones who kept the band alive when they started, those are the fans that loved them when the rest of the world hated Genesis. I thoink the fans always deserve somerespect, Ok, Genesis had the right to sell themselves (The remaining two originals and one hired member), but at least they should have changed the name of the band. Iván

I may have a different perspective since I am only 17 and was not there, however, I guiltily admit I do enjoy some fo their '80s work.  A pale comparison to their 1970-1980 work of course, but oh well. 

I certainly do not claim to be an expert on this matter, but I was curious as to the reasons for the change in sound myself several years ago. What I discovered reading through interviews and magazine articles and the band's own official website has made me rethink the idea of blaming Phil alone. According to what I learned, it was a GROUP decision to change style with the times. From what I remember, it was TONY who pushed the idea the hardest and Phil who resisted the most! Phil had stated that he did pop songs on his solo albums and didn't want to do the same thing with Genesis. Phil in fact was responsible for keeping in some the early classics like Fountain Of Salmacis in the setlist, where the others wanted to drop them and play only things that Phil had sung lead vocal on. As Phil said in an interview on their website, "just try to get Tony Banks to do something he doesn't want to do, its impossible!" The times were changing, and Genesis changed with them. If you notice, most bands that have lasted decades together have changed with the times. The ones who didn't were left in the dust. Making music was their livelihood, and they didn't want it to end! After all, do the Rolling Stones sound the same as they did in 1972? Does Bob Dylan? No, of course not. You can't please everybody all the time. For every fan who was upset by the change, there was another two that were thankful! I'm not saying I prefer the eighties material (I don't), but I respect the band's decision to keep working in an environment that was becoming increasingly unfriendly to prog. If you want to blame someone, blame the public, who didn't buy enough records by prog acts to keep it a viable genre for most record companies. ~IMHO~

I hate this argument.  There has always been somebody trying to pinpoint the "moment" that Genesis became more commercial.  For some its Trick Of the Tail but I'm sorry in 1975/6 I don't remember the charts being littered with songs like Robbery Assault and Battery or Mad man Moon.  It's only with hindsight that Phil Collins became incredibly successful as a solo artist that people want to say that Trick was the "start" as he took over lead vocal, or is it the title track?  If thats the case then you can date the supposed decline back to the Lamb (Counting Out Time) or Selling (More Fool Me/I Know What I Like) etc. etc.

I don't think their albums became blatently commercial until Abacab and thats a bloody wierd album.

I loved all eras and beleive that the "spirit" was always the same throughout.  The only change was style not content.

The media is to blame.  They (and Phil Collins) got way too much exposure.  Even to this day, you can't go a day without hearing a Genesis/Phil Collins tune in the waiting room of some doctor's office or any other public place.  You hear him on the radio more than The Beatles for God's sake.  He's everywhere, whether you want it or not.  Peter Gabriel had significant mainstream success, but it's always a pleasant surprise to hear him on the radio or see him on tv.  He has a familiar and pleasant voice that we've grown to love, but haven't been burned out on.  Also his music is always interesting, there's always a lot emotion to it.

I think the general public is burned out on Phil Collins.  He has a familiar and pleasant voice too, but now when we hear him, it's no longer a pleasant surprise, it's "not him again."  It doesn't help that his music tends to be bland and boring.

I find it interesting that it's impossible to find a fan of Genesis nowadays who does not like the early stuff.  Back in the 80's the world was full of Genesis fans who preferred the pop to the prog stuff.  Why don't they exist anymore?  Well, they're the ones that hate Genesis now, or have become indifferent to it.  On the other hand, fans that were alienated in the eighties have actually stuck with them.  It tells you something about prog fans vs. pop fans.

Edited by Gianthogweed

BiGi wrote: Oh, for crying out loud! AGAIN??? or maybe...STILL?

Yes,this subject was discussed so many times.I remember myself answering or discussing or bringing up this subject about seven times.