Fish Marillion vs Hogarts Marillion
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34788
Printed Date: April 19 2024 at 15:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Fish Marillion vs Hogarts Marillion
Posted By: Nash
Subject: Fish Marillion vs Hogarts Marillion
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 13:41
|
wich of these marillions times do you think was the best? or both were at the same level? ------------- http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/191/sydbarrettg.jpg/" rel="nofollow">  |
Replies:
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 13:45
|
I did a poll like this when I first joined and it wasn't close. Still, Hogarth's Marillion is the incarnation that I prefer. Besides, without Hogarth, we wouldn't have the masterpiece Brave, which is far and away better than anything from the Fish era. E ------------- 
|
Posted By: Modrigue
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 13:45
|
I prefer Fish's Marillion I love all their 4 albums
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqf2srRfppHAslEmHBn8QP6d_eoanh0eW" rel="nofollow - My compositions |
Posted By: orr2112
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 14:00
| Hogarth is good, but Fish is the greatest since Hammill and Gabriel, though he was very influenced by both |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 14:02
| Fish, with a very large margin. |
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 14:13
|
I prefer Fish but Hogath era has its moments as well.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 14:19
| I love H's voice but find Fish and his barking style grating on the ear. I also prefer the material of the later period. I guess a lot of how someone will view the band is from the perspective of which version they encountered first and, for me, it wasn't until "Brave" that I first heard Marillion. |
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 14:27
|
I actually first remember the "Kayleigh" video on MTV, and "Incommunicado" from FM radio here in the states. Good stuff, but never really invested until a friend sent me a copy of Six Of One, Half Dozen Of The Other. It completely blew me away, and mostly due to the Hogarth stuff. "Easter" was the song that really sealed it for me. That song is pure bliss. E -------------
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 14:28
Whoah buddy. Now I back you up on your love of Hogarth all the time, but better than anything from the Fish Era? You may like it more, but I think you will find a lot of people that will place a couple of Fish era albums way above that. The primary candidate would be "Script for a Jester's Tear." Personally, I place all of the fish era albums above anything with Hogarth. And Nash, as E said, he did a poll like this a while ago. So did I, and there are many others. This subject has been debated to death. It basically just comes down to personal preference. As you see with E and I, we will never agree on this subject, but we do respect each other's opinion. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
E-Dub wrote:Posted By: CrazyDiamond
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 15:21
I can't choose, but Hogarth's Marillion make music in a more mature way, imo.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ed_The_Dead
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 15:26
|
H! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ed_the_dead/?chartstyle=asimpleblue5"> 
|
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 15:35
|
Fishy fish fish ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: chessman
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 15:39
|
It has been very difficult for me to choose here. Up to a month ago, I always said Fish era. And I still prefer his voice to Hogarth's. But I have played both eras a lot recently and I have to say I think Hogarth's era has the edge at the moment. Albums like Marbles, Afraid Of Sunlight, Anoraknophobia and Season's End just get better with each play.
So, today, I voted for Hogarth's era.
(E-Dub will have fallen off his chair now in disbelief!
 )Next week, however, it could all change.
To be fair though, as others have said about Marillion in the past, the two eras sound so different at times, it could be two different bands you are listening to.
 |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 15:47
|
For me no contest, Fish Marillion is To Gabriel Genesis as Hogarth Marillion is to Collns Genesis. Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 16:22
|
Having just recently been aquainted with both periods, I must confess Hogarth's Marillion atract me a lot more than Fish's. They do sound more mature, more serious and more talented. And I kinda dislike Fish's way of singing, I prefer the colder, more low-key Hogarth.
I agree that they sound a bit like different bands, but comparing Hogarth's Marillion with Collins Genesis is borderline malicious insult. ------------- Bigger on the inside. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 16:53
Hey, Collins Genesis started with ATOTT and W&W as Hogarth started more adventurous but both IMO started to decline and get closer to mainstream with the pass of the years.
Of course Hogarth never released anything like Illegal Alien or Who Dunitt? but the last Video Clip is simply horrendous IMHO.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 17:05
Bhikkhu, the "IMO" should've been implied. Of course my opinion doesn't fly with the majority; but, what would this place be if we all agreed on the same thing? Additionally, I've made it known that Brave is probably the best CD I own. For me, it's 76 minutes of pessimism, alienation, betrayal, grief, anger, hopelessness, and hope. And the thing is, Brave didn't quite grab me at first. I can't really pinpoint when the light finally went on, but when it did hit me, I knew what I was listening to was something not of this world (No Pendragon pun intended). Lastly, sometimes Fish seems to be overstating or trying too hard when it comes to emotion (this is just to these ears and not a statement of fact). It simply seems a bit forced and over-the-top; whereas, Hogarth creates such a mood on Brave in an almost effortless manner. It's different on every song, too. If anything, this band became Jekyll and Hyde with Hogarth. To do something a bit more light in Holidays In Eden, to turn around and produce such a brooding and dark album in Brave took courage. Then, they do another flip flop and produce Afraid Of Sunlight, which is a bit more ethereal, but such a social statement on what we perceive as fame, but shedding light on the reality of it all. I applaud them. E -------------
|
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 17:08
Not much of a decline, in my opinion. Genesis may have lost a little credibility within the prog community, but the Hogarth-led Marillion have gone on to produce (at least) two masterpieces in Brave and 2004's Marbles. And with all due respect, Fish hasn't come close to producing a masterpiece since leaving Marillion. E -------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 17:11
Oh I don't think so. He's come close. Raingods with Zippos is great, probably 4 stars. Vigil is next. Great tracks on there; probably about a 3.5 or 4. Sunsets on Empire and Field of Crows were disappointing; maybe 2.5 or 3. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 17:14
I've heard both, and I'm still not convinced. I found RwZ to be quite dull. If anything, Vigil could be the closest, but still doesn't come anywhere near Brave or Marbles. You're gonna have to convince me better than that.  E -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 19:33
I would've said the same... I mean, honestly, I like Fish's Marillion much better, though ironically enough my favorite Marillion album is with H (Brave)... but having said that, the problem with Fish-Marillion is that is too Genesis-like; curiously, people seem to forgive them for this, nobody ever mentions the fact, but everybody who has heard Genesis albums and Fish-Marillion albums will agree, if heart is left aside. It's great music nevertheless but not 100% original, as many people always seem to require from their prog. I don't, so what the hell, I also prefer the Genesis2.0-Marillion...  ------------- 
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 22:47
I actually like all of those albums. Don't underestimate "Crows," there is some good stuff there. I think the problem is that they were more rock oriented, and less complex. Still quality music though. "Vigil" is great, but "Raingods" is my favorite. I would play any of those albums before an H album. Heck, I would play "Fellini Days" or "Suits" first. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 25 2007 at 23:48
Hey E, I believe we're talking about Marillion albums not about Fish's solo career.
 I love Genesis albums but I can't stand 5 seconds of Collins or Rutherford's solo stuff.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: February 26 2007 at 00:26
No need to state the obvious to me. Just drawing a parallel between Marillion before and after Fish, and the solo career that ensued. I believe I wasn't out of line for comparing the two because the two parties are forever linked; however, if doing so is going to get you or anyone else in a twist, I'll end it right here. You have to admit, what I said wasn't only true, but not inflammatory in the least. E -------------
|
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: February 26 2007 at 00:27
Suit yourself, Bhikkhu. What you hear and what I hear are two different things. It's probably best that we not talk about it in this particular thread, however. E -------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 26 2007 at 00:34
It bugs me when people say this. I've listened to a lot of both bands, and it becomes more apparent as time goes on that Fish-era had little sonically and songwritingly (I can't believe I just made up that word) to do with Gabriel Genesis other than Fish's voice sounds similar to Gabriel's until you hear it a lot. I can tell them apart like night and day now. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 26 2007 at 01:56
Well Stoney, I find a lot of similarities:
I believe there are a lot of Genesis influences in Marillion, not clones at all because mainly Rothery's guitar is absolutely and radically different to Steve's but in the rest, the influence is more than obvious even Trevawas and Pointer sounded very close to Rutherford and Collins is Script IMHO. Iván-------------
|
Posted By: iguana
Date Posted: February 26 2007 at 04:00
|
H era by a mile. don't really listen to marillion w./ fish anymore. times and people change. ------------- progressive rock and rural tranquility don't match. true or false? |
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: February 26 2007 at 04:13
|
I've come to love both equally. My favourite albums are as follows: 1. Misplaced Childhood 2. Clutching at Straws 3. Marbles 4. Script for a Jester's Tear 5. Brave
I hear more Pete Bardens in Kelly than I do Banks.
Maybe, in the very early days of Marillion. As noted many times before there's a lot more Hammill influence in Fish's vocals, lyrics too for that matter.
Probably the biggest similarity there is
I strongly disagree with that
That's a bit of a stretch.
Really. On all the interviews I've seen or read with him he seems to mention Yes far more than Genesis. According to an interview with Classic Rock magazine, his 5 favourite British albums are: 1. Dark Side of the Moon 2. The Yes Album 3. Moondance 4. Led Zeppelin IV 5. Selling England by the Pound -------------  
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: February 26 2007 at 09:01
That's the whole point my friend. I will give "Brave" its credit. It is a fine album. I would just rather listen Fish. All personal preference. Besides, you have recently found the wonder of Genesis. You know good music when you hear it.  ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Yito
Date Posted: February 26 2007 at 11:15
|
Marillion saves the 80's with Fish, but the era of Hogarth is more complex and mature.in vocal details,maybe H don't write lyrics like Fish,but Hogarth is much,much,MUCH better singer than Fish. ------------- Psalm 96 1 Sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 26 2007 at 11:41
In the DVD I got he gives an interview in his house and even shows his albums to a British interviewer, the first one he presents is The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, he even says it's the first concert he ever went to and mentions them as his greatest influence.
It's a legal Brazilian edition called Marillion "The Fish Years". I don't know how they manage to get stuff released nowhere else.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Spacemac
Date Posted: February 26 2007 at 16:29
| Both |
Posted By: markosherrera
Date Posted: February 27 2007 at 19:31
| Fish like a singer,but I prefer Marillion than Fish solo |
Posted By: markosherrera
Date Posted: February 27 2007 at 19:36
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: February 27 2007 at 21:47
In this ocassion I'd have tom disagree with Ivan too..... Pointer similar to Collins?
 Well, maybe the style is not worlds apart, but the quality of execution....now that's a different matter... one is a very competent drummer (some people actually have him as the best, though I disagree), the other is a bad, sloppy drummer who, in the only album he played for MArillion, was even worse, bordering on atrocity. But the similarities do exist. I can hear them as evident as I can see the sun in the mornings (I live in Florida so I can actually do it, unlike some europeans ).... For me, please respect my opinion Mr. Stonebeard (stoney? ), I do think Fish-era Mariilion, specially Script, are Genesis2.0... with differences like the guitar style, but even those I don't perceive them as being as great as others do... -------------
|
Posted By: Freak
Date Posted: February 27 2007 at 22:09
|
I wussed out! I couldn't pick... At least not enough to influence the polls.
I'm an H-sympathizer, I think the guy is brilliant. Both band's produce(d) excellent material. Fish was an awesome singer and stage presence. So is H. I think the band has gotten to grow and display more mature playing under Hogarth, but a lot of the music had pure power behind Fish.
Whoever's singing, I'm happy! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 28 2007 at 02:12
-------------
|
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: February 28 2007 at 04:13
I've never liked that comment in relation to this topic. It implies that the band weren't maturing with Fish and that Fish hasn'tmatured since leaving Marillion, both of which certainly aren't true. -------------
|
Posted By: Wilcey
Date Posted: February 28 2007 at 04:43
|
hmmmmm, well having not idea who "Hogart" is (some relation to Hogarth perhaps?) I will abstain from voting. Really, I don't see it as a competition, they are different. It's ok to be different, one doesn't need to be "better". I know the old stuff better, and it holds a lot of "rights of passage" memories for me, so it's really hard to be objective. I find Hogarth's voice out of my comfort zone to listen to, but I think they have recently fouind their stride again and look forward to hearing the new album. But to me they are like two seperate bands, and two I don't feel comfortable comparing. P-C |
Posted By: Angeldust
Date Posted: March 19 2007 at 13:52
|
Accept them both.that's enough ! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: March 19 2007 at 13:55
------------- 
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: March 19 2007 at 14:11
|
Fish is one of the best singers of Prog in my book. His gutteral voice and angst driven lyrics fit Marillion's music to me. Hogart sounds to breathy and whiny....again, to me. They should have changed the band's name to Wimpillion. ------------- 
|
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: March 19 2007 at 19:54
Huh? No, let me rephrase that! Huh? Some posts warrant a LOL emoticon. This, however, is not one of them. E -------------
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: March 20 2007 at 08:22
Yeah, well, sorry. I thought it was funny. I guess you don't feel the new singer sounds Top 40? Granted, some of Fish's solo stuff is lyricly wimpy and seems like an attempt at top 40 or adult contemporary (i.e. Gentleman's Excuse"), but his voice still has raw power.  -------------
|
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: March 20 2007 at 08:49
My opinion as well
|
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: March 20 2007 at 08:54
Hogarth isn't exactly new. I mean, the guy has been with Marillion for some 17 years now. Top 40? No, I don't hear it. I don't feel that either vocalist sounds particularly top 40. Just me, however. E -------------
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: March 20 2007 at 11:22
agreed.. i think that both Marillion eras are a phenomenon in the history of music... both worlds are great and i can't think of any other band losing such an essential member and still going on that great!!! maybe we should give more credit to the rest of the band... after all, they always were the 'spine' of the group... ------------- -music is like pornography... sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more... -sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue... |