rushgoober Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 04:05 AM)No. They evolved. I hate the term "selling-out". It's bollocks. Next thread! "Did Rick Wakeman sell-out when he hung up his cape for a jumpsuit???" Oh right, they just happened to evolve from making complex, fascinating progressive rock into ultra-poppy catchy commercial drivel with wide mainstream appeal. What a natural progression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetaxe&saw Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 10 2011, 02:04 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 04:05 AM)No. They evolved. I hate the term "selling-out". It's bollocks. Next thread! "Did Rick Wakeman sell-out when he hung up his cape for a jumpsuit???" Oh right, they just happened to evolve from making complex, fascinating progressive rock into ultra-poppy catchy commercial drivel with wide mainstream appeal. What a natural progression. You are SO good at being sarcastic. Have you taken classes? They took in their musical surroundings, knew change was necessary to stay relevant, and made some fantastic albums. Evolution, baby. One could also say they went from making portentous, bloated, padded, aural muck to making concise, lean, melodic, catchy, tunes. I happen to love both, so I'm quids in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 QUOTE (Oracle @ Jul 10 2011, 12:46 AM)And so what if they changed? You'll never be too sure about where a band is going to go. .......So what's the difference with changing and experimenting with different genres? Yes, a band can at any time change its sound. It's up to them. It's their music, their careers. Bands should never be afraid to change and grow musically. However, if a band changes to a predominantly mainstream pop sound, specifically to make more money, then that is when they're called a sell-out.....and rightfully so. Again, they have the right to do it, but fans also have the right to stop supporting the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 07:13 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 10 2011, 02:04 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 04:05 AM)No. They evolved. I hate the term "selling-out". It's bollocks. Next thread! "Did Rick Wakeman sell-out when he hung up his cape for a jumpsuit???" Oh right, they just happened to evolve from making complex, fascinating progressive rock into ultra-poppy catchy commercial drivel with wide mainstream appeal. What a natural progression. You are SO good at being sarcastic. Have you taken classes? They took in their musical surroundings, knew change was necessary to stay relevant, and made some fantastic albums. Evolution, baby. One could also say they went from making portentous, bloated, padded, aural muck to making concise, lean, melodic, catchy, tunes. I happen to love both, so I'm quids in. Well how fortunate for their wallets that their natural inclinations and proclivities happened to have them stumble to the top of the charts and into such wealth and fame. And as we all know, all great art is borne from a desire to stay relevant. Of course there's nothing wrong with wealth and fame, or catchy pop tunes, as long as you don't mind selling off large chunks of your soul, and losing hard-earned respect and credibility to get there. I actually think that's great. More bands should do that. And no, I didn't take classes. Sarcasm for me was a natural evolution, kind of like how one naturally goes from The Musical Box and The Battle of Epping Forest to I Can't Dance and In Too Deep. Feel free to respond and disagree, but there's no reply that will convince me this band didn't sell out. No reply at all. Edited July 10, 2011 by rushgoober Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jul 10 2011, 07:27 AM) QUOTE (Oracle @ Jul 10 2011, 12:46 AM)And so what if they changed? You'll never be too sure about where a band is going to go. .......So what's the difference with changing and experimenting with different genres? Yes, a band can at any time change its sound. It's up to them. It's their music, their careers. Bands should never be afraid to change and grow musically. However, if a band changes to a predominantly mainstream pop sound, specifically to make more money, then that is when they're called a sell-out.....and rightfully so. Again, they have the right to do it, but fans also have the right to stop supporting the band. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetaxe&saw Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 10 2011, 02:33 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 07:13 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 10 2011, 02:04 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 04:05 AM)No. They evolved. I hate the term "selling-out". It's bollocks. Next thread! "Did Rick Wakeman sell-out when he hung up his cape for a jumpsuit???" Oh right, they just happened to evolve from making complex, fascinating progressive rock into ultra-poppy catchy commercial drivel with wide mainstream appeal. What a natural progression. You are SO good at being sarcastic. Have you taken classes? They took in their musical surroundings, knew change was necessary to stay relevant, and made some fantastic albums. Evolution, baby. One could also say they went from making portentous, bloated, padded, aural muck to making concise, lean, melodic, catchy, tunes. I happen to love both, so I'm quids in. Well how fortunate for their wallets that their natural inclinations and proclivities happened to have them stumble to the top of the charts and into such wealth and fame. And as we all know, all great art is borne from a desire to stay relevant. Of course there's nothing wrong with wealth and fame, or catchy pop tunes, as long as you don't mind selling off large chunks of your soul, and losing hard-earned respect and credibility to get there. I actually think that's great. More bands should do that. And no, I didn't take classes. Sarcasm for me was a natural evolution, kind of like how one naturally goes from The Musical Box and The Battle of Epping Forest to I Can't Dance and In Too Deep. Feel free to respond and disagree, but there's no reply that will convince me this band didn't sell out. No reply at all. Soop-oib! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fledgehog Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 10 2011, 10:04 AM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 04:05 AM)No. They evolved. I hate the term "selling-out". It's bollocks. Next thread! "Did Rick Wakeman sell-out when he hung up his cape for a jumpsuit???" Oh right, they just happened to evolve from making complex, fascinating progressive rock into ultra-poppy catchy commercial drivel with wide mainstream appeal. What a natural progression. QUOTE (MEEEEE!!!!!)Duke-era genesis was sort of prog/pop, so it was a gradual transition (though i don't particularly ENJOY post-invisible touch genesis, i wouldn't call it selling out) a lot of bands from ALL different genres evolved in similar ways in the 1980s (look at Yes, Rush, The Police's last 2 albums, Van Halen, hell, even Chick Corea started that Elektric Band disaster), but I wouldnt necessarily call any of those examples selling out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 10 2011, 09:33 AM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 07:13 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 10 2011, 02:04 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 04:05 AM)No. They evolved. I hate the term "selling-out". It's bollocks. Next thread! "Did Rick Wakeman sell-out when he hung up his cape for a jumpsuit???" Oh right, they just happened to evolve from making complex, fascinating progressive rock into ultra-poppy catchy commercial drivel with wide mainstream appeal. What a natural progression. You are SO good at being sarcastic. Have you taken classes? They took in their musical surroundings, knew change was necessary to stay relevant, and made some fantastic albums. Evolution, baby. One could also say they went from making portentous, bloated, padded, aural muck to making concise, lean, melodic, catchy, tunes. I happen to love both, so I'm quids in. Well how fortunate for their wallets that their natural inclinations and proclivities happened to have them stumble to the top of the charts and into such wealth and fame. And as we all know, all great art is borne from a desire to stay relevant. Of course there's nothing wrong with wealth and fame, or catchy pop tunes, as long as you don't mind selling off large chunks of your soul, and losing hard-earned respect and credibility to get there. I actually think that's great. More bands should do that. And no, I didn't take classes. Sarcasm for me was a natural evolution, kind of like how one naturally goes from The Musical Box and The Battle of Epping Forest to I Can't Dance and In Too Deep. Feel free to respond and disagree, but there's no reply that will convince me this band didn't sell out. No reply at all. This response appears to be designed to stifle any debate altogether... Typical Goober, "I'm right you're wrong no matter what so don't bother responding..." The kind of drivel not worth reading and I normally don't these days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 08:22 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 10 2011, 02:33 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 07:13 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 10 2011, 02:04 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 04:05 AM)No. They evolved. I hate the term "selling-out". It's bollocks. Next thread! "Did Rick Wakeman sell-out when he hung up his cape for a jumpsuit???" Oh right, they just happened to evolve from making complex, fascinating progressive rock into ultra-poppy catchy commercial drivel with wide mainstream appeal. What a natural progression. You are SO good at being sarcastic. Have you taken classes? They took in their musical surroundings, knew change was necessary to stay relevant, and made some fantastic albums. Evolution, baby. One could also say they went from making portentous, bloated, padded, aural muck to making concise, lean, melodic, catchy, tunes. I happen to love both, so I'm quids in. Well how fortunate for their wallets that their natural inclinations and proclivities happened to have them stumble to the top of the charts and into such wealth and fame. And as we all know, all great art is borne from a desire to stay relevant. Of course there's nothing wrong with wealth and fame, or catchy pop tunes, as long as you don't mind selling off large chunks of your soul, and losing hard-earned respect and credibility to get there. I actually think that's great. More bands should do that. And no, I didn't take classes. Sarcasm for me was a natural evolution, kind of like how one naturally goes from The Musical Box and The Battle of Epping Forest to I Can't Dance and In Too Deep. Feel free to respond and disagree, but there's no reply that will convince me this band didn't sell out. No reply at all. Soop-oib! Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 i had always heard that the change to a large degree was due to phil getting divorced. that and MTV, a lot of older groups went more commercial with video exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerxt1990 Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Did they sell out? sell-out (n.) to prostitute one's creativity for the purposes of profit. e.g. You're f-cking kidding me right? Of course they sold out. Edited July 10, 2011 by lerxt1990 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Jul 10 2011, 11:03 AM) Did they sell out? sell-out (n.) to prostitute one's creativity for the purposes of profit. e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25oYL8z6QgE You're f-cking kidding me right? Of course they sold out. That video is a really bad example of them selling out. I think you grossly underestimate how much Genesis simply loved to drink Michelob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 10 2011, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Jul 10 2011, 11:03 AM) Did they sell out? sell-out (n.) to prostitute one's creativity for the purposes of profit. e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25oYL8z6QgE You're f-cking kidding me right? Of course they sold out. That video is a really bad example of them selling out. I think you grossly underestimate how much Genesis simply loved to drink Michelob. And we all know that drinking Michelob leads to hair loss and irreversible testicular shrinkage, so i guess this thread has run full circle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Star Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 "Volkswagen". were the main sponsors of their "Invisisible Touch" tour. Actually watched that gig live on Sky Television from Knebworth (House) Park, almost 20 yrs ago. The qestion whether or not they sold-out or souled-out is evident in the size of the crowd/s attending those gigs, the advertising and the T.V. coverage... or was it due to sheer public demand. Volkswagen even named a car (either the Golf or the Polo) after the band... the limited edition GENESIS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gompers Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jul 10 2011, 10:27 AM) QUOTE (Oracle @ Jul 10 2011, 12:46 AM)And so what if they changed? You'll never be too sure about where a band is going to go. .......So what's the difference with changing and experimenting with different genres? Yes, a band can at any time change its sound. It's up to them. It's their music, their careers. Bands should never be afraid to change and grow musically. However, if a band changes to a predominantly mainstream pop sound, specifically to make more money, then that is when they're called a sell-out.....and rightfully so. Again, they have the right to do it, but fans also have the right to stop supporting the band. Some fans stopped but their fan base also grew immensely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCFIELDS Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 YES!.....a perfect example of selling out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (Gompers @ Jul 10 2011, 07:27 PM)Some fans stopped but their fan base also grew immensely. Many rock fans stopped. Many more pop fans started. Is that a plus or a minus...?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skalamander2112 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 when you listen to something like The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway then Invisible Touch, it kinda makes you want to kick Phil Collins in the nads. having said that, i will say that Domino and The Brazilian from Invisible Touch are great tracks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silas Lang Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) I very much doubt that they thought they were selling out and I'm sure they thought that they were making great, state of the art pop music. I think it's wrong to say they were only chasing the money. If that was the case, why wouldn't they have done it sooner? It wasn't a sudden change but was such a gradual shift over such a long period of time that I really don't think you can accuse them of selling out. It was simply the combination of certain members leaving, the changing times (leaving them with the choice and the challenge to either reflect the times or to be left behind), and them naturally evolving and changing as musicians and people (and allowing newer influences into their music). And it worked pretty damn well until Invisible Touch when it started to become a bit more stale, bland and monotonous. The bottom line is Genesis moved on. They streamlined their sound just like most of thier contemporaries who were still around. Do the people who rip on post-Gabriel or Hackett Genesis really just have a problem with pop music generally when it comes down to it? More complicated isn't automatically better or more interesting. And besides, out of all the '70s progressive rock bands they already had more of a leaning towards the pop side; The Lamb is full of catchy, concise poppy tunes (though the lyrics were more intellectual and bizarre than standard pop). If it wasn't for them "selling out" (and Gabriel's solo career) there would be a lot less fans of the '70s albums (which almost certainly sold more in the '80s when Genesis became huge than they ever did in the '70s). Although the Michelob commercials and tour sponsorship do raise legitimate questions, in the main I'd have to vote no. Edited July 11, 2011 by Silas Lang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaminbenb Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaminbenb Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (skalamander2112 @ Jul 10 2011, 09:26 PM) when you listen to something like The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway then Invisible Touch, it kinda makes you want to kick Phil Collins in the nads. having said that, i will say that Domino and The Brazilian from Invisible Touch are great tracks.... You can't compare the old and new stuff. like that, those are extremes! You can't even compare Illegal Alien and Jesus, He Knows Me, to anything else either....but yeah, tunes like Domino, Fading Lights, The Brazilian, Home By The Sea, and Abacab are wild! Heck Turn It On Again is in an odd time signature and was a HUGE RADIO HIT! They took some crazy prog and made it more accessible...why is that "selling out?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmotionDetector Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Put me down for 'evolved'. Don't get me wrong...I definitely see how some here probably hated the 'pop' sound that showed up on the later albums, specifically Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance. There is no doubt about it...those albums are WAY more different than anything they did in the early prog years. It's not even close. BUT...the same argument can be said for RUSH. Sorry, I simply don't understand how anyone can say that the Rush comparisons are way off. They aren't. They are more similar than you can imagine. Example: Does anything on PoW or HYF sound like Hemispheres or 2112? Nope. Does anything on Presto or RTB sound like Signals or P/G? Nope. How about S&A and CoS? Didn't think so. None of us look at Rush as 'sellouts' (well, I don't anyways). To me, the same goes for Genesis. They evolved and progressed into something that maybe didn't work for some fans, but certainly did for others. I don't expect many to agree with me, but I enjoyed most of the Phil Collins' years. To me, the 'Shapes' album is one of my all-time favourite albums. 'Home By The Sea' is not only one of my all-time favourite songs, but that is PROG. I don't care what anyone says...that to me is very progressive-sounding. Yes, their later stuff sounded more 'commercial' and did get them more mainstream success, but hell...who's to say that a future track on Clockwork Angels doesn't do the same for RUSH? I know it's unlikely, but never say never. I wouldn't consider that 'selling out'. I consider that a band doing what they want to do, and getting noticed for it. I don't really want to bring Nirvana into this either, but I just want to mention...I remember when Kurt Cobain hated the idea of getting 'popular'. However, when Nevermind was released, it got huge media attention, and their popularity exploded. I don't consider that a sell out or the fact that they wanted it, because Cobain expressed numerous times that he wasn't comfortable with the popularity. It happens though. Again, maybe it's because I actually find alot of the later Genesis enjoyable, but I don't see it as selling out. They went in the direction they wanted to. Obviously, many fans hated it. Others probably enjoyed it, and newer fans came on board (and discovered their earlier records) because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost In Xanadu Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 One of my favorite songs "post-sell-out" is Driving the Last Spike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gompers Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Jul 11 2011, 12:50 PM) Don't get me wrong...I definitely see how some here probably hated the 'pop' sound that showed up on the later albums, specifically Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance. There is no doubt about it...those albums are WAY more different than anything they did in the early prog years. It's not even close. Yes, but IMO, We Can't Dance marked a return to some more memorable Prog, in terms of song length and not so much odd time sigs. Driving tthe Last Spike and Fading Lights are awesome tunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILSnwdog Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (skalamander2112 @ Jul 10 2011, 09:26 PM) when you listen to something like The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway then Invisible Touch, it kinda makes you want to kick Phil Collins in the nads. In order to kick Phil Collins in the nads...he would have to have some nads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now