I have a feeling Colin Salmon and Walter Trout may be nicknamed Fish too, not to mention Julian Bream. There's a Plaice for all of them.

I still listen to them every now and then, but...I guess I just don't hear what everyone else is hearing.

Your Puns are Brill

I refer all honourable members to my Right Honourable Friend’s extremely sensible answer.

Catcher10 wrote: Like Genesis............I like both eras of Marillion, why not?? Great music is great music. Plus I think H is a better vocalist than Fish.

I think he has a wider range and his voice is more recognizable.

They are fools!

I like everything Marillion did with Fish. With Hogarth they made some very good albums, some OK albums and some disappointing albums - that happens when a band is having a long career. Never understood why you should dismiss a band when they change the singer (or any other member, for that matter...). It is not as if they became radically different in their music; yes, they changed (fortunately), but they remained recognizably Marillion to my ears (with some exceptions).

Thanks, and I like your pun too!    I thought Steve Hillage may be nicknamed Fish too, but that was just a Red Herring.

true---I don't love all of either period of the band---but I think there is some great stuff from both periods--probably a little more greatness from the H period---they all became better musicians.

I will say that Marillion's musicianship is incredible no matter who is singing.

so you haven't listened to Anoraknophobia, Marbles, FEAR, Sounds that Can't Be Made?

You're missing out IMO. 

Man, are these albums so excellent

At one time, I owned all the Fish-era albums, but in spite of a few good songs, they just didn't stand the test of time with me. They are no longer a part of my music listening.

I do still own and listen to Seasons End, Holidays in Eden, and Brave. I consider Brave to be their masterpiece - in fact, I consider this album to be SO definitive and all-consuming that I've refused to listen to anything they've done since! 

what do you mean? I can't figure out your abbreviation. 

"To Each His/er Own" — it's one of the choices in the poll. 

I only have gotten into Marillion during the pandemic!  Had heard both eras of the band somewhat over the years, but for some reason never invested much.  Now, I've deeply listened to it all over the past several months, and I have to say I like both eras pretty much equally, but with a slight edge to the H era, mainly just 'cause there's so much more of it.  The four Fish era albums were outstanding, but there's no way they would have created 18 outstanding albums with that lineup!  Hogarth era have produced (in my opinion) at least 4 outstanding albums (Brave, AOS, Marbles, FEAR), others that are nearly outstanding (Seasons, HIE, TSE, Sounds), and none that are terrible, in my opinion.  That's a lot of outstanding music!  If you don't like the H era, no problem!  If you're avoiding it just because it's "not Fish", that's kinda stupid. 

Hi,

I really like the last two albums by FISH, and they are in some ways superior to Marillion's effort's.

It's a shame that folks don't take him seriously because he is a very good singer and leader for a band.

I'd just say that anyone who dismisses either era of the band is just.........missing out. Both eras made some brilliant music.

MP? I don't know this abbreviation. 

I just Googled "SFAJT" and discovered it's an abbreviation for "Script for a Jester's Tear" and I  think "MP" was meant to be "Misplaced Childhood", but the "P" was misplaced.

 

I don't care for Marillion with or without Fish either. I prefer Walter Trout.

Voted for: Right to like and dislike anything!

Never liked Marillion regardless of the lineup. That said, the Genesis comparisons are increasingly tiresome and completely wide of the mark. Despite it being an unflinching confrontation with his own alcoholism, the self mythologizing artwork of Clutching at Straws was the final 'straw' for me i.e. Fish actually thought he was part of a conversation that included Dylan Thomas, Truman Capote, Lenny Bruce, John Lennon and Jack Kerouac. The only thing he has in common with most of that company is the liver ravaging bar tab. It's completely understandable that people starved of Prog in the 80's were more than ready to lower the bar to accommodate the false dawn afforded by Neo.

Hi,

I'm not sure that it is saying a whole lot about anyone or anything ... like others did not have that same drinking, or drugging problem?

I'm not sure that it is right to judge people for the way they are ... and the art they created. In history of the arts, there are many more of them that drank, and drugged, than there are Christian saints hanging around talking like they are the fire of some god out there!

FISH's last couple of albums are very good, and Marillion would never have the guts to even consider "The Rose of Damascus", which is in my estimation much more important than a lot of the material that Marillion did, which I like, but all of a sudden is very hollow and cheap by comparison ... 

I don't know what is right or wrong many times, but dishonoring an artist because he/she drinks, or smokes or is gay ... just doesn't seem right to me ... heck, might as well trash Edgar Allan Poe! AND so many others!

If Neo is epitomised by Marillion, IQ, Pendragon, Arena, Pallas and the like, I think they raised the bar over most 70s prog.

Raised the bar over most 70s prog?  Prog rock actually had the semblance, however faint, of progressivity in the 70s. It actually differentiated itself from the run-of-the-mill rock and roll of the time. The bands you spat out are pale imitations. Like a Casio keyboard's stale simulation of actual instruments.

As is the norm you haven't understood a single word of the post to which you are responding. The artwork that adorns Clutching at Straws implies (or it can be inferred) that Fish should be considered an artistic equal to the other celebrated artists on the sleeve. In that company Derek Dick wouldn't even make it as an understudy to their designated driver.

You know there's a 'delete post' option right?

I'm so with ya on this one. H era just seems to sleepytime lackluster. Not really the vocalist's fault but rather the band went for dream pop inspired almost AOR vibes. A big yawn for me. Fish solo albums were better but yes that magic chemistry that made the first four Marillion albums so great was lost for me too.

Or Episcopalians? Certainly not Presbyterians.

Indeed.  Raised the bar over what, exactly?  Thick As A Brick?  Foxtrot?  Tarkus/Brain Salad Surgery? Close To The Edge?  Wish You Were Here?  Rotter's Club?  Seriously.  

But that goes for any music, though.  It's always your loss if you don't listen to and appreciate something. There's very little music that's utterly, objectively bad.  So one has to prioritize and listen to the music the mind gravitates to rather than be like, "Oh, it's Marillion, it's got to have something in it for me if I only tried hard enough".  There's no point to forcing it.

More or less what I feel.  But I still do like Vigil In A Wilderness a lot.  When I listened to that, I realized that Fish had been hugely influential on the Marillion sound, to the point of dominating it. Maybe that's why they wanted him out, so Rothery & Co could do their own thing.

Talk about lowering the bar. 

Some of it IS his fault, if you've heard his attempts to sing Script For A Jester's Tear.  He just bails out of nailing that "Game is OVERRRR" scream.  He was a completely different kind of singer. He would not have fit into the Fish-Marillion sound so the band would have had to move to where they could accommodate his voice.  As it turns out, they wanted to all along anyway.

I'm not a big fan of Marillion, but, oh god, Clutching at Straws is definitely a top-tier album. Their best work so far, I love especially the guitar work. The other Fish albums are nice and I definitely enjoy them more than anything done after he was gone. It is really weird how the band changed so much with the following album, with a more sober approach instead of lively arrangements. Fish solo carrier wasn't that great either, although Sunsets on Empires is my favorite work from him after Clutching.

I tend to 'appreciate' Fish's singing for the energy and passion rather than being head over heels in love with his tone.  But I swear, listening to Family Business/Cliche right after H-Marillion makes him sound like Hayward or Greg Lake in comparison.

Yeah, a good and knowing post.

With regard to the band, what is extremely telling is that fans of the band such as I from the really old days (Market Square Heroes time) have not just stuck with the band, but loved every single part of the journey as it has progressed. This includes h-era Marillion, various side projects, and also Fish solo stuff. The band have had an almost unique way of bonding a pretty sizeable group of fans to them who have stuck with them through thick and thin, and it should not be forgotten that they really were pioneers of the crowdfunding model of making music, and that would not have been possible without us loyal fans at the time, most of whom started watching and listening to them because of a bloody great big Scottish man called Dick who wore makeup and sang songs that reminded us of the prog heyday.

I have always found forums such as this to be rather too full of really obsessive types. Not just Prog Archives, but also, for example, Star Trek forums, where anything that does not include a character scratching his or her arse in the same manner as Captain Kirk did in 1967 is automatically “not proper Trek”. Our equivalent here is “not proper prog”, or “the eighth sequence of music on the third track automatically disqualifies the album from being categorised as Symphonic Prog”, and etc.

I think it might have been better had the band changed their name when Hogarth joined, and, indeed, band members have confirmed in numerous interviews that this was a serious discussion amongst them.

It really is all about the music. I get why some of the purists don’t get or like them, but I just love the storytelling, incredible musicianship, and the atmosphere the band create.

And exceedingly well said from your side too.  

Speaking for myself, I am definitely not obsessive about the Fish sound (which is why I did a revisit today).  I tend to respect change on the part of a band and get bored of bands that don't change (which would be the reason I have no idea what songs are on the last released Iron Maiden or AC DC albums).  It's just this visceral reaction in me to Hogarth that I can't really explain.  Happens; music is a bit like food.  When you don't like it, you don't like it, even if the best chef in the world has cooked the meal for you.

...exactly like people who disown Yes without Jon, or Pink Floyd without Roger, or Genesis without Gabriel, Hackett, Collins, Phillips, Silver, Mayhew, and Ray Wilson. Or King Crimson without... [insert long list here]