Green and Funky wrote: first of all, ITS NOT IN 9/8! its 8/8! second of all, though the bass lines are similar, the bands take them to different effects. No need to compare.

Even Fish admitted that "Grendel" was very much inspired by "Apocalypse in 9/8".

BaldFriede wrote: Green and Funky wrote: first of all, ITS NOT IN 9/8! its 8/8! second of all, though the bass lines are similar, the bands take them to different effects. No need to compare. Even Fish admitted that "Grendel" was very much inspired by "Apocalypse in 9/8".

Correct, and you can hear that very well. Marillion was imitating with an 8/8 version, with a boom-thrak-boom-boom-thrak-boom-thrak-thrak pattern, to put in Crimsonite terms, errr ....

I mean:

A-B-A-A

B-A-B-B

So 8/8, and a rhythm pattern where the second part is mirroring the 1st part.

If someone can still understand what I mean  . A friend of mine said that the Grendel - rhythm was very complicated. I said: no it's not, and it's a rip-off from an intricate Genesis - track.

Still, imitation or not, Grendel is a great track. One of my favourite Marillion-tracks. Except for the cheap imitation  .

the whole think was based around the way Suppers Ready was created, still a good track though. 

Forgotten Son wrote: The only similarities between them is in that one section, which I think of as Marillion paying homage to an important influence. Marillion did not rip off Genesis, nor did they seek to mimic them. They may have set out to create an epic slightly similar to Supper's Ready, but not to the extent of plagarism.

Of course not to that extent but the band (or at least the three remaining members from that time) all admit that that was their attempt at the 20 minute epic in the fain of Suppers Ready, even if they vehmenently denied any influence from Genesis at the time

Forgotten Son wrote: The only similarities between them is in that one section, which I think of as Marillion paying homage to an important influence. Marillion did not rip off Genesis, nor did they seek to mimic them. They may have set out to create an epic slightly similar to Supper's Ready, but not to the extent of plagarism.

Author Paul Stump said it best when he characterized Marillion as basically "a Genesis tribute band."

yargh wrote: Forgotten Son wrote: The only similarities between them is in that one section, which I think of as Marillion paying homage to an important influence. Marillion did not rip off Genesis, nor did they seek to mimic them. They may have set out to create an epic slightly similar to Supper's Ready, but not to the extent of plagarism. Author Paul Stump said it best when he characterized Marillion as basically "a Genesis tribute band."

thats going a bit too far i think, Marillion has their own "sound" thats different to that of Genesis, but yea I see the similaritys.

SlipperFink wrote: Now if we can just school him on the glaringly apperant distictions between blue-eyed gospel, folk and country influences in American music in the 70's we may be able to take him to woodshop II. SM.

What's this in reference to?

Green and Funky wrote:   Marillion kept prog alive in the 80's. Would it have been better if Marillion didn't exist in the 80's and all music was just pop sh*t? Marilion kept the prog flame alive.

If Marillion hadn't existed, we would always have had Pallas and Twelfth Night

Marillion was influenced by some bands, and Genesis was probably the most important influence. Camel's Andy Latimer said that Steve Rothery once mentioned Camel as an influence. So probably there are more influences than just Genesis.

Honestly, I don't know for sure if the 8/8 part is a rip-off from Genesis 9/8 part, but I've always felt that it was, and that they were trying to imitate Genesis and didn't have the musical knowledge to do it properly. I always found that 8/8 part extremely irritating, but maybe I was overreacting. It's probably that the Genesis influences were a bit too much for me, like that 8/8 part and Fish with his painted face in the early days.

But although the influences are obviously there, I do think that Marillion developed their own sound quite soon, already on the 1st album. They remained progressive, and were even becoming more innovating from the Brave days on. Quite an achievement, since they were professionals and had to make a living out of it.

Totally agree with the posts supporting Marillion's work.

Yes, Marillion (in the Fish-era) were influenced by 70s prog rock but not solely Genesis.  Fish is a huge Yes fan (maybe even more so than Genesis) and elements of their music could be detected in what Marillion were doing.  Also agree that Camel had an influence - but that's what all these bands were - influences.

My personal is view is that Marillion filled a void and kept the flame burning for prog throughout the appallingly bad 80s music scene.  I think it's mainly people who were say teenagers and "grew up" with prog when it was in effect, born are maybe the harshest critics of early Marillion music. 

Marillion have went from strength to strength over the years constantly releasing fresh, original & experimental music - not just staying within it's prog core.  To still slate them as throwback Genesis clones is harsh & unfair.

Prosciutto wrote: Green and Funky wrote:   Marillion kept prog alive in the 80's. Would it have been better if Marillion didn't exist in the 80's and all music was just pop sh*t? Marilion kept the prog flame alive. If Marillion hadn't existed, we would always have had Pallas and Twelfth Night

Marillion are in a higher class of prog than both Pallas and Twelfth Night (thats my personal opinion anyway) 

Marillion kept prog in the public eye throughout the 80's and though, from what ive heard, IQ were nearly a match for them (though not quite) they appealed to more people than Pallas and Twelfth Night and probably helped those bands get fans as well.

And to those that say that Camal influenced Marillion, of course they did, Marillion had their drummer for about a month or two in 84, how could that have not influenced them.

King Crimson was pretty good at churning out songs based on the same formula in the 80s - interlocking 16th note bass-guitar-and drums with looping.  I'm not sure what's progressive about that, especially when you do it over and over.  Personally, I think KC had too many great players and not enough songwriters in the 80s.  That stuff is also too verse-chorus-verse for me.  At least Marillion had some interesting song structures.

CandyAppleRed wrote: I was taken aback many years ago when I bought a Genesis song book, and the time signature for Apocalypse in 9/8 was given as 9/4

Because if you count it out while listening to that part, it is in 9/4. Genesis must have made a mistake (but I will admit 9/8 sounds better than 9/4).

yargh wrote: Without getting into bashing Marillion too much more than I already have, I would like to point out the problem of claiming that they "kept progressive going in the '80s."  They didn't -- they kept elements of the '70s alive in the '80s.  Real progressive music kept progressing -- King Crimson, for example, kept progressive going.  Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, This Heat, Art Bears and an emerging Japanese progressive scene kept progressive alive in the '80s.  Not Marillion or Pallas or Pendragon -- they were about paying homage to progressive's surface elements and not really making progressive music.

I think this is a very correct assesment in retrospect> This point is valid nowadays when most prog rock fans are now aware that groups like Univers Zero and Art Zoyd, and other RIO acts actually kept the progressive music spirits alive or even existed , but the public was not aware of this (outside a few nutcases and there were fewer active prog fans in the 80's then there are today). As A belgian (although I was in a Canadian exile from the early 70's onwards) , I was not even aware of Univers Zero until 88 date of which I got back across the pond. So this tells you a bit how osbcure those progressive musos were.

To the public eye watching rock music evolution through commercial radios , there was only Marillion and consorts. I had to wait until the mid-90's to discover Japanese mid-80's neo-prog groups because they were completely absent from the public eye. In a way , bravo to Marillion (I loved their debut album, although I thought it too derivative) just for being present in the public eye.  But is that enough to have kept the prog spirit alive? Or were Marillion simply not riding a nostalgic wave and filling a void that all essential prog bands of the golden era had left!

This is where honesty must come in consideration (beyond the feeling factors): Marillion came to fill a void (even if they were completely honest in doing their music , believing it and not thinking of a financial move) and consumers actually were happy with the acetate instead of nothing! So Marillion got such a following because there was nothing else in that "market niche" among other reasons. This is why I believe that they are way over-rated!

Especially compared to Univers Zero and Von Zamla!!

Sean Trane wrote: yargh wrote: Without getting into bashing Marillion too much more than I already have, I would like to point out the problem of claiming that they "kept progressive going in the '80s."  They didn't -- they kept elements of the '70s alive in the '80s.  Real progressive music kept progressing -- King Crimson, for example, kept progressive going.  Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, This Heat, Art Bears and an emerging Japanese progressive scene kept progressive alive in the '80s.  Not Marillion or Pallas or Pendragon -- they were about paying homage to progressive's surface elements and not really making progressive music.     I think this is a very correct assesment in retrospect> This point is valid nowadays when most prog rock fans are now aware that groups like Univers Zero and Art Zoyd, and other RIO acts actually kept the progressive music spirits alive or even existed , but the public was not aware of this (outside a few nutcases and there were fewer active prog fans in the 80's then there are today). As A belgian (although I was in a Canadian exile from the early 70's onwards) , I was not even aware of Univers Zero until 88 date of which I got back across the pond. So this tells you a bit how osbcure those progressive musos were. To the public eye watching rock music evolution through commercial radios , there was only Marillion and consorts. I had to wait until the mid-90's to discover Japanese mid-80's neo-prog groups because they were completely absent from the public eye. In a way , bravo to Marillion (I loved their debut album, although I thought it too derivative) just for being present in the public eye.  But is that enough to have kept the prog spirit alive? Or were Marillion simply not riding a nostalgic wave and filling a void that all essential prog bands of the golden era had left! This is where honesty must come in consideration (beyond the feeling factors): Marillion came to fill a void (even if they were completely honest in doing their music , believing it and not thinking of a financial move) and consumers actually were happy with the acetate instead of nothing! So Marillion got such a following because there was nothing else in that "market niche" among other reasons. This is why I believe that they are way over-rated! Especially compared to Univers Zero and Von Zamla!!

I suppose age *is* a factor, although my experiences are different.  I learned of the existence of progressive rock in the mid-1980s (I was too young in the '70s to remember its music as it was happening) -- a friend of mine who knew I was into Genesis had a couple of Marillion albums and said "you should hear these guys -- they sound like Genesis!"  So I borrowed his cassettes and returned them the next day in disgust.  "You're right," I said. "They do sound like Genesis."  Maybe if I was older I would have been bitter enough towards the music industry and disillusioned enough by the 1980s and I would have liked those surface elements that Marillion possessed a lot more.  But as much as I liked (and still like) much of the mainstream prog from the 1970s, I'm too young to have developed a nostalgia for it.  I just hear the music as music -- and as music, Fish-era Marillion doesn't excite me very much.

But yeah -- I see your point about Marillion's "honesty" and of course I do admire Marillion's anti-corporate streak and their dedication to play whatever music they wanted (and to make money off it).    

Cygnus X-2 wrote: CandyAppleRed wrote: I was taken aback many years ago when I bought a Genesis song book, and the time signature for Apocalypse in 9/8 was given as 9/4 Because if you count it out while listening to that part, it is in 9/4. Genesis must have made a mistake (but I will admit 9/8 sounds better than 9/4).

Thanks Cygnus - I can manage to count the 9 bit, but still can't work out how to count 4 or 8 in bar anyway !

BaldFriede wrote: Even Fish admitted that "Grendel" was very much inspired by "Apocalypse in 9/8".

So true. Even though I'm a devoted fan of the band Fish led until 1989, I'm not going to deny that most of that work performed and released was mostly based upon the Gabriel era "Genesis", giving Marillion a new foundation for improvement and experimentation.

If not entirely Xeroxed, "Grendel" is, let's say, an "excerpt" from "Apocalypse in 9/8". No question about it.

Land

I would estimate that Marillion "stole" probably no more than 10% of their ideas from Genesis, if that.

The famous section in Grendel is quite obviously based on "Apocalypse in 9/8", no matter what the time signature - the point is that the two sections map onto each other in terms of telling the particular story. Marillion's musical treatment of it is quite different - and it is the only time they "steal" an idea directly.

There are other times where homage is paid - but the overall style, particularly of Fish-era Marillion, is so very different to 1970s Genesis that I'm surprised that anyone believes all the old guff about them being some kind of "tribute band". If you think that, you've obviously never heard PFM or IQ, or a shedload of other bands that are far closer in sound.

Let's be honest here - which Marillion songs sound like which Genesis songs?

That'll be none of them.

Except, maybe, that bit in Grendel.

Cygnus X-2 wrote: CandyAppleRed wrote: I was taken aback many years ago when I bought a Genesis song book, and the time signature for Apocalypse in 9/8 was given as 9/4 Because if you count it out while listening to that part, it is in 9/4. Genesis must have made a mistake (but I will admit 9/8 sounds better than 9/4).

So to say the rhythm in "Apocalypse in 9/8" is actually 9/4 only makes sense if you know what tempo the piece of music is in.

Some common tempo markings, from slow to fast (for more information go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo  ):

Largo - slowly and broadly
Adagio - slowly
Lento - "slow" but usually only moderately so
Andante - at a walking pace
Moderato - at a moderate tempo
Allegretto - "a little allegro", understood to be not quite as fast as allegro
Allegro - quickly
Presto - fast
Prestissimo - very fast 

-------------


BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.

BaldFriede wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: CandyAppleRed wrote: I was taken aback many years ago when I bought a Genesis song book, and the time signature for Apocalypse in 9/8 was given as 9/4 Because if you count it out while listening to that part, it is in 9/4. Genesis must have made a mistake (but I will admit 9/8 sounds better than 9/4). Whether a note is an 1/8 or a 1/4 note depends on the general tempo of a piece. Of two notes of the same length one can be an 1/8 note, because it is used in a piece that is a largo, while in another piece that is an allegro the same note is a 1/4. Most classical composers give a bpm at the beginning of the piece, like 112 (which does not keep conductors from choosing their own tempo for it ; to make things more complicated there also is a theory by a German musicologist that the classical composers actually counted a backward and forward swing of the metronome as one single beat, which means their music music is being played double as fast today as was their intention; she has recorded some pieces like the Waldstein sonata in their "real" tempo; listening to them in comparison to the fast versions is a strange experience. ) So to say the rhythm in "Apocalypse in 9/8" is actually 9/4 only makes sense if you know what tempo the piece of music is in. Some common tempo markings, from slow to fast (for more information go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo  ): Largo - slowly and broadly Adagio - slowly Lento - "slow" but usually only moderately so Andante - at a walking pace Moderato - at a moderate tempo Allegretto - "a little allegro", understood to be not quite as fast as allegro Allegro - quickly Presto - fast Prestissimo - very fast

I meant the sound of the name Apocalypse in 9/8 sounds better than Apocalypse in 9/4.

But kudos for the little lesson, Friede.

Well, ya know I LOVE Grendel and Suppers Ready, both wonderful songs,

BUT

Yes, Grendel is an utter Suppers ready rip off, which the band are mildy embarrassed about now.

Still a good song, however.

BaldFriede wrote: Whether a note is an 1/8 or a 1/4 note depends on the general tempo of a piece. Of two notes of the same length one can be an 1/8 note, because it is used in a piece that is a largo, while in another piece that is an allegro the same note is a 1/4. Most classical composers give a bpm at the beginning of the piece, like 112 (which does not keep conductors from choosing their own tempo for it ; to make things more complicated there also is a theory by a German musicologist that the classical composers actually counted a backward and forward swing of the metronome as one single beat, which means their music music is being played double as fast today as was their intention; she has recorded some pieces like the Waldstein sonata in their "real" tempo; listening to them in comparison to the fast versions is a strange experience. ) So to say the rhythm in "Apocalypse in 9/8" is actually 9/4 only makes sense if you know what tempo the piece of music is in.

Sorry, BF - that isn't true.

Time signatures have nothing to do with tempo, and nor do notes.

A 1/8 note is always a 1/8 note. A Semibreve (4 crotchets) is considered a "whole" note.

For example, in 4/4, we have 4 1/4 notes to the bar.

If an Adagio or a Lento is in 4/4, then all beats are 1/4 beats.

If an Allegro or a Presto is in 4/4, then all beats are still 1/4 beats - the tempo indicates that the base time for the beats has changed, not the proportion.

I hope this clarifies it!

I've never read that theory about the metronome swing - it sounds interesting. Could you tell me where you read it?

Certif1ed wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Whether a note is an 1/8 or a 1/4 note depends on the general tempo of a piece. Of two notes of the same length one can be an 1/8 note, because it is used in a piece that is a largo, while in another piece that is an allegro the same note is a 1/4. Most classical composers give a bpm at the beginning of the piece, like 112 (which does not keep conductors from choosing their own tempo for it ; to make things more complicated there also is a theory by a German musicologist that the classical composers actually counted a backward and forward swing of the metronome as one single beat, which means their music music is being played double as fast today as was their intention; she has recorded some pieces like the Waldstein sonata in their "real" tempo; listening to them in comparison to the fast versions is a strange experience. ) So to say the rhythm in "Apocalypse in 9/8" is actually 9/4 only makes sense if you know what tempo the piece of music is in.   Sorry, BF - that isn't true. Time signatures have nothing to do with tempo, and nor do notes. A 1/8 note is always a 1/8 note. A Semibreve (4 crotchets) is considered a "whole" note. For example, in 4/4, we have 4 1/4 notes to the bar. If an Adagio or a Lento is in 4/4, then all beats are 1/4 beats. If an Allegro or a Presto is in 4/4, then all beats are still 1/4 beats - the tempo indicates that the base time for the beats has changed, not the proportion. I hope this clarifies it!   I've never read that theory about the metronome swing - it sounds interesting. Could you tell me where you read it?

Sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood me, Certif1ed. This is not what I said. I never doubted that being an 1/8 note has nothing to do with the tempo; in fact this is what I wanted to point out. But whether it is a 9/4 measure or a 9/8 has very much to do with the given tempo, and this is simply because the set tempo defines how many bars there are within a given time. (Actually it is mathematically a little more complicated, but I'll skip that).

As to the metronome swing theory: I didn't read about it, I heard a radio feature about it. It was first postulated by musicologist Willem Retze Talsma; Grete Wehmeyer and Clemens von Gleich are two other musicologists who are of the same opinion. They call their theory "Tempo Giusto", "Right Tempo".

The only thing I have to say about Marillion is that if I want to listen to Genesis, then I will listen to Genesis.

BaldFriede wrote: Whether a note is an 1/8 or a 1/4 note depends on the general tempo of a piece. Of two notes of the same length one can be an 1/8 note, because it is used in a piece that is a largo, while in another piece that is an allegro the same note is a 1/4.

Could you explain then? I must have mis-read it.

yargh wrote: Without getting into bashing Marillion too much more than I already have, I would like to point out the problem of claiming that they "kept progressive going in the '80s."  They didn't -- they kept elements of the '70s alive in the '80s.  Real progressive music kept progressing -- King Crimson, for example, kept progressive going.  Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, This Heat, Art Bears and an emerging Japanese progressive scene kept progressive alive in the '80s.  Not Marillion or Pallas or Pendragon -- they were about paying homage to progressive's surface elements and not really making progressive music.

This is only partly true;

Marillion and the other Neo-Prog bands did keep Prog Rock going in the 1980s - that's a fact. They drew new audiences into Prog Rock, who were then able to explore and enjoy the roots of these new bands.

They also had the beneficial side-effect of keeping elements of 1970s Prog Rock alive.

Using Marillion as the example, they kept Progressing - their music from the 1980s has 1980s stamped all over it. It's Prog for the 1980s - that's the point. Twelfth Night were one of the greatest examples of this - compare them to any "Classic" prog band and get laughed at.

King Crimson played a different style - and that was also progressive to some extent, when they weren't stuck in a rut, at which times it wasn't.

Finally, the similarities between Marillion and Genesis are so superficial that the constant comparisons are just silly, and obviously based on what was printed in the media at the time, not reality. I mean: "Garden Party" sounds exactly like "The Knife", doesn't it?

It's interesting to note that the only comments making this dubious comparison are just statements with no backup whatsoever. One might suspect that absolutely no thought went into them.

Certif1ed wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Whether a note is an 1/8 or a 1/4 note depends on the general tempo of a piece. Of two notes of the same length one can be an 1/8 note, because it is used in a piece that is a largo, while in another piece that is an allegro the same note is a 1/4. Could you explain then? I must have mis-read it.

Isn't it self-explanatory? One piece is a largo, which means that its tempo is slower; an 1/8 note in it will be slower than an 1/8 note in an allegro; in fact the length of an 1/8 note in a largo is the same (more or less, because, as you can see from the metronome scale I added in my first post, there is still quite a range about the tempo of a largo) as the length of a 1/4 note in an allegro (provided all other musical parameters are the same).

^ isn't it the other way round? a 1/8 note in a largo should be about as long as a 1/4 note in an allegro, assuming that the allegro is about twice as fast (in terms of bpm) as the largo.

Incidentally: I bought an Ivanhoe CD this week - greak stuff. One of the songs features alternating 15/16 and 14/16 (equals 7/8). I was a little surprised at first that a band like Ivanhoe would use that complex a signature, but it's true.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ isn't it the other way round? a 1/8 note in a largo should be about as long as a 1/4 note in an allegro, assuming that the allegro is about twice as fast (in terms of bpm) as the largo.

That's what I said; did you misread my post?

Yes, Apocalypse in 9/8 is in 9/8

Yes, Marillion's Grendel was derived from the above - but in 4/4 because there is no way that Fish has ever been able to sing anything in a slightly odd time signature.

Yes, Marillion were initially heavily influenced by older, 70's prog bands (as were Pallas and Twelfth Night)

But no, they did not keep prog alive during the 80's - they did as much for 80's prog as Rush did with Grace Under Pressure (God, that album still churns my stomach). Marillion just kept reminding us what we missed because Collins got out from behind that drum kit!! Just as Spock's Beard reminded us in the 90's of what Yes could have been doing if only they hadn't let Trevor Horn near them.

Crimson, on the other hand, produced seminal works during the 80's that embraced modern sounds and technologies and yet still kept their musical inaccessible to the Cheltenham Average.

Certif1ed wrote: Pablosnerudas wrote: Nonsense. This is going back to the silly "Marillion sound like Genesis" argument, which is merely regurgitating the music press at the time - there is no truth in it.

Marillion DEFINITELY sounds like Genesis. Trust me on this one.

Biggles wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Pablosnerudas wrote: Nonsense. This is going back to the silly "Marillion sound like Genesis" argument, which is merely regurgitating the music press at the time - there is no truth in it. Marillion DEFINITELY sounds like Genesis. Trust me on this one.

Give examples or your statement is pointless,and our trust in you would be misguided....

In the beginning Marillion were influenced by Genesis: Fish wearing make up, that riff on Grendel was a naive rip off from Apocalypse in 9/8. The Genesis influence is also noticeable but in some minor way on Script for a Jester Tear, there're also influences by Camel (Steve Rothery on Chelsea Monday and Forgotten Sons sounds like Andy Latimer).

Some years later we can hear "Steve Hackett" on Warm Wet Circles but I think Steve Rothery wanted to pay some tribute this time.

Nobody can deny those influences on the early days of Marillion, fortunately soon they found their own sound.

Biggles wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Pablosnerudas wrote: Nonsense. This is going back to the silly "Marillion sound like Genesis" argument, which is merely regurgitating the music press at the time - there is no truth in it. Marillion DEFINITELY sounds like Genesis. Trust me on this one.

No they DEFINITELY don't. Trust me on this one.

Does "Fugazi" sound like "The Musical Box"?

Nope.

I have to say I've never heard anything by Marillion that I would say sounded like a clone of a Genesis song. I must say it took me a little while longer to get into Marillion than some of the other neo-prog bands, but I found that was because in all honesty, Marillion were more original than IQ or Pendragon were. Sure, there are elements in Marillion's sound that are akin to Genesis, but there are also traces of Pink Floyd and VDGG in there too, yet neither are explicit enough to be labelled 'soundalike'.

In fact, 'Misplaced Childhood', alongside Camel's 'Nude', is one of the only 80s prog albums I would label a totally flawless album.