Did Genesis really "sell out"?

[skalamander2112]

QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Jul 11 2011, 12:37 PM)

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.

[Lost In Xanadu]

QUOTE (skalamander2112 @ Jul 11 2011, 03:09 PM)

QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Jul 11 2011, 12:37 PM) 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. While it is true - I still dig a lot of the "pop" Genesis and Phil's solo stuff. Always takes me back to my youth listening to that stuff... HS and college mainly.   But for a drummer to use a drum machine on some of his solo albums?

[EmotionDetector]

QUOTE (Lost In Xanadu @ Jul 11 2011, 04:15 PM)

QUOTE (skalamander2112 @ Jul 11 2011, 03:09 PM) QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Jul 11 2011, 12:37 PM) 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. While it is true - I still dig a lot of the "pop" Genesis and Phil's solo stuff. Always takes me back to my youth listening to that stuff... HS and college mainly.   But for a drummer to use a drum machine on some of his solo albums?   Ha, I agree. However, there is no denying that the drum machine sound works on 'In The Air Tonight'.   Plain awesome.

[HowItIs]

NO

 

People credit Phil with too much power in that group of three. As he said once, "Just try to make Tony Banks do something he doesn't want to do."

 

Why is it that when a band grows and experiments and widens their oeuvre, there's always folks who can't handle that? If you don't like what they do after a certain time then don't buy it. Stay in the past if that's where you're the most comfortable. But attacking the band for your inability to grow with them is childish.

[rushgoober]

[EmotionDetector]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 11 2011, 08:09 PM)

If Rush sold out, how come their sales dropped in the 80's from what they did with MP? They could easily have done MP part II and sold a hell of a lot more albums, but they did what they wanted to do. Being inspired by what was current does NOT equal selling out. Genesis definitely abandoned their roots to a very large degree and went right for the money.

Goobs, I'm having a hard-time understanding what you're saying here. I mean, you're essentially saying that the band has a direct handle on how many albums are sold in the end?? I don't think so.

 

I think the band writes what they like, hoping that their audience will feel the exact same and purchase the album. No band can determine how many albums they will sell. I highly doubt that the boys sat around thinking, "if we write a second Moving Pictures, it will go 4x platinum. However, let's go in this heavy synth direction and watch sales decline by 3x as much."

 

By that logic, shouldn't Queensryche have cashed in big time when they decided to make Part 2 of Operation: Mindcrime? From my understanding, the original masterpiece went at least Platinum in the U.S., while Part 2 was nowhere near that in sales.

 

You really believe that Phil, Mike, and Tony KNEW for a fact that by writing songs like 'Mama' and 'Home By The Sea', that they would sell 2-4 million more records just like that? As we know from our many discussions on this forum, music is so damn subjective. Songs that people rip to shreds around here are some of my absolute favourite songs. Just like there are probably albums out there that I consider s**t that others would take to their 'desert island'. No band has control on their sales...the fans decide that.

 

The bottom line here is...BOTH Rush and Genesis simply did what they wanted to do. They progressed in the directions that they were going for, whether accepted by their fans or not.

 

Like I said before, if Clockwork Angels turns out to be a radio-friendly record, and they start getting massive radioplay and sales go through the roof, are we going to call them sell-outs? I certainly won't.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Jul 11 2011, 05:55 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 11 2011, 08:09 PM) If Rush sold out, how come their sales dropped in the 80's from what they did with MP?  They could easily have done MP part II and sold a hell of a lot more albums, but they did what they wanted to do.  Being inspired by what was current does NOT equal selling out.  Genesis definitely abandoned their roots to a very large degree and went right for the money. Goobs, I'm having a hard-time understanding what you're saying here. I mean, you're essentially saying that the band has a direct handle on how many albums are sold in the end?? I don't think so.   I think the band writes what they like, hoping that their audience will feel the exact same and purchase the album. No band can determine how many albums they will sell. I highly doubt that the boys sat around thinking, "if we write a second Moving Pictures, it will go 4x platinum. However, let's go in this heavy synth direction and watch sales decline by 3x as much."   By that logic, shouldn't Queensryche have cashed in big time when they decided to make Part 2 of Operation: Mindcrime? From my understanding, the original masterpiece went at least Platinum in the U.S., while Part 2 was nowhere near that in sales.   You really believe that Phil, Mike, and Tony KNEW for a fact that by writing songs like 'Mama' and 'Home By The Sea', that they would sell 2-4 million more records just like that? As we know from our many discussions on this forum, music is so damn subjective. Songs that people rip to shreds around here are some of my absolute favourite songs. Just like there are probably albums out there that I consider s**t that others would take to their 'desert island'. No band has control on their sales...the fans decide that.   The bottom line here is...BOTH Rush and Genesis simply did what they wanted to do. They progressed in the directions that they were going for, whether accepted by their fans or not.   Like I said before, if Clockwork Angels turns out to be a radio-friendly record, and they start getting massive radioplay and sales go through the roof, are we going to call them sell-outs? I certainly won't. All I'm saying is songs like Illegal Alien, In Too Deep, Invisible Touch, I Can't Dance, No Reply At All, Follow You Follow Me, etc. are fluffy commercial pop. They may be very well constructed fluffy commercial pop, but you don't get to that point from the depths of complexity, intricacy and intelligence that Genesis came from without selling out to some significant degree. You don't have to see it or agree, but to me it's pretty painfully obvious.   Rush never wrote fluffy commercial pop songs designed solely to garner massive mainstream appeal. At lease I never saw it. No, their idea of a big hit was a song like The Big Money, which if anything is a clever commentary against that kind of obvious pandering.

[lerxt1990]

Selling Out

 

 

Redux.

 

Cmon...

[lerxt1990]

 

 

[lerxt1990]

[go2wrk@95974]

yeah, probably....a'lotta band's sold out

in the old days..by goin' commercial, they gave

up their rock and roll principles for lame-stream

success.Sucks..but oh well.. ancient history.

I dug Genesis in the early days..they had some

kick-a*s tunes, for sure.

[lerxt1990]

contrasts..

 

 

[go2wrk@95974]

Yep...big difference..but ya know, they got rich

and outrageously popular goin' lame-stream..

 

So ya know what ..what can ya say..they had bills to pay,

mansions to buy, lemo's to cruise round in...sounds

like a sweet deal to me...They always had the talent,

they wanted to cash in on the cash-ola..Cant really

blame'um too much.Thanks for the 2 comparisons.

[Fred Star]

Or they just mellowed with age.

[micgtr71]

QUOTE (Lost In Xanadu @ Jul 11 2011, 11:54 AM)

One of my favorite songs "post-sell-out" is Driving the Last Spike.

This is a great song. I don't think that they would disagree that they had sold out. In fact, their ticket sales were showing that they sold out most nights...I, however was not in attendance.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Jul 11 2011, 08:40 PM)

contrasts.. this that

shhhh, don't use logic. people hate when you do that.

[greg2112]

I voted no. Sure in the very later days they put out some terrible soft-rock singles, but a ton of their radio friendly stuff is excellent, ie Abacab.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Jul 11 2011, 08:40 PM)

contrasts.. this that

I understand the thinking a lot of people have. No one wants to admit that their heroes are flawed, that they possess anything less than artistic purity and integrity.

 

It's like when Rush kept going on tour after tour without really supporting any product. It's much easier for people to give their heroes tremendous benefit of the doubt and come up with any reasons humanly possible other than to admit they're capable of sacrificing any artistic integrity for the sake of cashing in.

 

At some point, however, the information becomes pretty obvious, and it gets harder and harder to defend the indefensible.

 

I say that it's ok to admit our heroes are flawed. Rush to a degree sold out and went after the almighty dollar. They didn't do it musically, but they still did it. Genesis did it musically.

 

To me the question becomes not did they sell out, but do we forgive them for it and still love the band regardless? For me, the answer is yes. Sure, some respect is lost, but my version of giving them the benefit of the doubt is to realize that they're only human, they're not perfect.

 

Many people who defend the band have said those exact same words, that they're only human and not perfect, but for me that doesn't change the fact that they both still did sell out to a degree. Not every band has had the luxury of breaking up before the inevitable artistic decline and/or unfortunate cash grab.

 

Many would argue, well, why shouldn't they cash in and reap some of the benefits of their long careers? I'm not saying they shouldn't, just that we should call it what it is.

 

Does it mar their legacy that they sold out? Sure, but at least both bands have created a hell of a lot of great music, so the damage is somewhat contained.

Edited July 12, 2011 by rushgoober

[Gompers]

QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jul 10 2011, 09:23 PM)

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...??   Depends on what your goal as a musician is. I like money. I am pretty sure there is more of it in Pop. So if I could write Pop tunes, I would and maximize my ability to make lots of dough. I guess if I really wanted to write Prog, I would have to have a side band that was for my personal enjoyment.   Now that I think of it, Genesis did sell something. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Z9YHZa2PL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[GernTheFish]

I don't like much of their material beyond Duke & Abacab, but there are a few gems in their later stuff like "Driving the last Spike". So they've always been capable of writing good stuff. I think the problem Genesis had was they tried to make everyone happy. They went too far into the abyss of pop rock and simply could not please everyone. It's almost as if they became another band. Other Prog rock bands stayed true to their core fans for the most part, despite changing musical trends.

[invisibleairwaves]

Gotta love prog fans. If a band changes its musical style to something they don't like, it must be because the band made a conscious decision to abandon artistic integrity in the name of profit, and not the myriad other factors that could lead to such a change. Or they decided to undergo some sort of musical castration. Naturally.

 

There's a pretty obvious trend among musicians in their 30's and 40's. They tend to change as they get older, generally to a less "ambitious", more middle-of-the-road style from what they played when they were young. Call it "mellowing out" or "losing their edge". Call it maturing as songwriters, no longer needing gimmicks like off-the-wall time signature changes or album-side-length songs to stand out and be noticed. Because - and this is something the uber-serious prog snobs always refuse to understand - to many songwriters, accessibility is something that's valued, not feared. The ability to instantly impact someone with only a vocal melody and the underlying chords is incredibly precious. I certainly can't blame someone for pursuing that, and to accuse them of abandoning their integrity for doing so is simply inane.

[Spindrift82]

I think they just changed their approach.

 

You have to remember that Genesis started off as a pop band. Listen to FGTR, that album is extremely poppy.

 

I think they were doing prog because it was "popular", but at the same time, they wanted a radio hit. Then came along "Follow You Follow Me", which topped the charts, and that led all three of them to go, "hey, we can do something with that..."

 

I like all of Genesis's material. I don't disguise that they're my favorite band. I love all of it, from 1967-2007.

 

That being said, there's something special about those early albums. But I'd take Invisible Touch, We Can't Dance, or Calling All Stations over anything that's playing on the radio nowadays.

[Rick N. Backer]

QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jul 10 2011, 10:13 AM)

One could also say they went from making portentous, bloated, padded, aural muck to making concise, lean, melodic, catchy, tunes.

Excellent point. Why is it so universal that a band's "true fans" are the same people who blast anything the band puts out that "casual fans" also enjoy (e.g. Moving Pictures, Paranoid, Eliminator, etc.)? If the band puts out a mediocre or worse album, the "true fans" chastise "casual fans" for not supporting it, but when the band puts out a big seller, out come the cannons.

[Principled Man]

QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Jul 12 2011, 09:41 AM)

Gotta love prog fans. If a band changes its musical style to something they don't like, it must be because the band made a conscious decision to abandon artistic integrity in the name of profit, and not the myriad other factors that could lead to such a change. Or they decided to undergo some sort of musical castration. Naturally.

It's not just prog fans. All kinds of rock fans have accused bands of selling out. Genesis, Heart, ZZ Top, Journey, Fleetwood Mac, Yes, and even Metallica have been accused, and usually for good reason.

 

It's not a question of "not liking" the new sound. It's about the new sound being majorly or purely POP in nature.

[ILSnwdog]

QUOTE (greg2112 @ Jul 12 2011, 05:45 AM)

I voted no. Sure in the very later days they put out some terrible soft-rock singles, but a ton of their radio friendly stuff is excellent, ie Abacab.

I have trouble including Abacab in the sell out group. Just compare that to We Can't Dance or Invisible Touch. Abacab has some brilliant material on it. We Can't Dance and Invisible Touch is just retched.