Jump to content

Did Genesis really "sell out"?


Gompers
 Share

Do you think Genesis sold out by writing radio friendly material?  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think Genesis sold out by writing radio friendly material?

    • Yes
      28
    • Not sure
      6
    • No
      26


Recommended Posts

Did they change writing Progressive Rock simply to cash in? Do you blame them if they did? Should they be ridiculed if you think they did? Did the Genesis boys loose their balls or was it a ballsy move?

 

Or did they burnout on Prog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think they did, but I still like a lot of the stuff they did with Collins. Duke, Abacab, and Genesis are all good albums even though they are pop. I think they would have eventually become a pop band if Gabriel stayed. There was money to be made, so I don't really blame them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they sell out? IMO they did.

 

Do I fault them? I think they were far from starving, but each to his own I guess.

 

Should they be ridiculed? No more than Green Day.

 

Did they lose their balls? Hell yeah they lost their balls. angry.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After W&W, there was not much memorable Prog though. I almost feel they lost their ability to write in that style effectively. And as far as if Gabriel never left, we can simply look at his "So" release for that answer. That was very Pop. Also, look at the other releases by Banks and Rutherford. Not very Prog at all. I say this with the caveat that I haven't heard all of Banks solo stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 80's were a weird time for bands from the 70's. I think Genesis did an admiral job staying current with the musical trends that were happening, though things did a get a little out of hand with the last 3 albums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jul 8 2011, 12:22 PM)
The 80's were a weird time for bands from the 70's. I think Genesis did an admiral job staying current with the musical trends that were happening, though things did a get a little out of hand with the last 3 albums.

Yes. I like Abacab and Duke. It was everything after the self titled album where they went total puss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure but I love that four-album streak more than anything plus bits and pieces from the rest of their catalogue.

 

IMO, they produced 7 mediocre/decent albums (everything after W&W), 4 charming and good albums similar to the "prog" era (the first two plus the two after Gabriel)...

 

 

And then, after Trespass some aliens took over them and created the most magical otherworldly music ever, from Nursery Cryme to TLLDoB.

 

That four album-streak is on a differently level entirely IMO, and every song, every second of each album is from a different world. Just a completely different band. All the eras of genesis sound like they were bands somewhat inspired by those aliens that came and left.

Edited by Good,bad,andrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno...you could ask the same question of Rush's output in the 80's!

 

I think they CHANGED with the times, and COULD have gone a bit MORE mainstream than they did (see Phil Collin's solo albums!) They CHANGED, but I don't think they actually SOLD OUT.

 

When you look at their album structures, they mixed it up a bit, one of two serious PROG pieces (tempo and time signature changes etc.) A ballad or two, and something "fun". Some of their older stuff tended to get "long in the tooth" and you could easily lose interest with how they seemed to Stretttcccch things out sometimes...

 

Progressive rock is just that...PROGRESSIVE! Things don't ALWAYS need to deeper into Mordor to be interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did what everyone else of their ilk in the late 70s and then into the 80s, they went more commercial, just about every prog band from that era who lasted that long did this, no big thing...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think they sold out. I think they simply changed style. I mean, who's to say what will be commercially successful? You can't just wave a wand and say, "We are going to switch from making prog to making MONEY". It doesn't happen like that.

 

I think the departure of PG was a major part of it...over the years they shifted to shorter, catchier, tunes. They got lucky and the masses liked a few of their albums. Try this with any other band and you could get any number of results.

 

The things they brought to the table were talent and songwriting capabilities. Lots of bands have that and couldn't successfully make the transition to pop.

Edited by tjtull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jaminbenb @ Jul 8 2011, 01:41 PM)
I dunno...you could ask the same question of Rush's output in the 80's!

I think they CHANGED with the times, and COULD have gone a bit MORE mainstream than they did (see Phil Collin's solo albums!) They CHANGED, but I don't think they actually SOLD OUT.

When you look at their album structures, they mixed it up a bit, one of two serious PROG pieces (tempo and time signature changes etc.) A ballad or two, and something "fun". Some of their older stuff tended to get "long in the tooth" and you could easily lose interest with how they seemed to Stretttcccch things out sometimes...

Progressive rock is just that...PROGRESSIVE! Things don't ALWAYS need to deeper into Mordor to be interesting!

You hit the nail right on the head. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god yes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE
Did they change writing Progressive Rock simply to cash in?

Probably. I can't vouch for whether their musical tastes changed or not, but to seriously compare the musical depth of the 70's and 80's material is silly. They dumbed down their playing, pure and simple. Not to say it was bad, but that's what they did.

 

QUOTE
Do you blame them if they did?

I certainly do not. Money is nice!

 

QUOTE
Should they be ridiculed if you think they did?

Not ridiculed, but it's perfectly fine to comment on the absurd differences between 1976 and 1986. I know Phil Collins has problems with depression, and some of it is how hard people are on him about switching genres. It shouldn't be like that.

 

QUOTE
Did the Genesis boys loose their balls or was it a ballsy move?

I'd say it was pretty ballsy. They gave up much of a large cult following to try something different. Many bands, like Gentle Giant, tried this and failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think it should be pretty obvious that they sold out.

 

You simply don't go from Supper's Ready and Dancing with the Moonlit Knight to Illegal Alien and Invisible Touch without selling out to a very large degree.

 

The question perhaps should be, did the fact that Genesis sold out destroy their legacy? I would say yes to a small degree, but their early/mid-period material was SO strong that most fans of their prime material still love them anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Albone2112 @ Jul 8 2011, 01:21 PM)
QUOTE (Jaminbenb @ Jul 8 2011, 01:41 PM)
I dunno...you could ask the same question of Rush's output in the 80's!

I think they CHANGED with the times, and COULD have gone a bit MORE mainstream than they did (see Phil Collin's solo albums!)  They CHANGED, but I don't think they actually SOLD OUT.

When you look at their album structures, they mixed it up a bit, one of two serious PROG pieces (tempo and time signature changes etc.) A ballad or two, and something "fun".  Some of their older stuff tended to get "long in the tooth" and you could easily lose interest with how they seemed to Stretttcccch things out sometimes...

Progressive rock is just that...PROGRESSIVE!  Things don't ALWAYS need to deeper into Mordor to be interesting!

You hit the nail right on the head. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The comparisons with Rush don't fit for me AT ALL.

 

The only reason being that I think the progression of Rush's music was natural for them. I mean, yeah, you can single things out like the rap section in RTB and make an argument, but even during some of the later albums of Rush that I didn't like, I don't think they were ever selling out to sell more albums, or at least no more than they ever did. I think they remained pretty true to themselves, even when they were making mediocre to bad albums by their standards.

 

Genesis, on the other hand, were a completely different band after awhile, and completely divorced themselves from their roots to make mainstream pop music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 9 2011, 05:05 PM)
Well, I think it should be pretty obvious that they sold out.

You simply don't go from Supper's Ready and Dancing with the Moonlit Knight to Illegal Alien and Invisible Touch without selling out to a very large degree.

tru-trutrudio. cool10.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fact that it took both Gabriel and Hackett to leave for them to lose their prog edge begs the question that maybe Collins Banks and Rutherford were wanting to go in a more commercial direction for several albums before they went commercial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gabriel really got on Hackett's tits. Gabriel certainly made Genesis the colourful band they were. When PG left, so did the songwriting, showmanship and general mystique.. gotta say, what rose from the ashes was, pretty good, thank's mainly to P.C's voice. In all honesty, a change of direction was inevitable.

 

Why they never made Daryl Stuermer and Chester Thomson permanent band members i'll never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Fred Star @ Jul 9 2011, 09:18 PM)
Why they never made Daryl Stuermer and Chester Thomson permanent band members i'll never know.

Seeing as how Phil could already drum and Mike was a bass player, I could see why they never made Daryl and Chester "official" members by including them on studio releases. It would have been a good change of pace if they had been in the studio I believe. With Chester, I can imagine the drums on the albums would be either very laid back or moderately rocking beats. Not sure how well Daryl would do in-studio, but I'm sure he'd make a good contribution.

 

In regards to Genesis selling out, no, I don't think they did. They went further into the mainstream circuit, but never sold out. I think a lot of Collins' solo work while he was still with the band had a large effect whenever he went back to work with Genesis. The same goes with Rutherford. Mike and The Mechanics were definitely the pure 80s pop band. Tony Banks held more to the progressive and classical side of things, so not many people really heard him. I have no qualms over them going into a more mainstream audience because it encouraged them to dig deeper into the history of the band. Large parts were taken away when Peter and Steve left, yes; but knowing that Phil, Mike, and Tony dived head first into uncharted territory was a brave move. Most bands probably would have called it quits then. I admire the determination they had when making the first album without Peter and the first album without Steve; it showed that they weren't going to give up without a fight. And so what if they changed? You'll never be too sure about where a band is going to go. I highly doubt anyone expected Benoit David to be a replacing vocalist for Jon Anderson. So what's the difference with changing and experimenting with different genres?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...