Genesis - did they really sell out?

Also, after Gabriel and Hackett walked out, what should the remaining 3 have done?
Why did Peter not sell out when the lead singer and main lyricist walked out on the Genesis name?

Edit. Since you edited your post- what is the commonly held definition of selling out in your opinion? And if, as it seems, it is allowing your music to become more commercial - attractive to a wider audience - how is it not absolutely selfish for a fan to accuse an artist of selling out? Every artist creates to inform and speak to an audience.

 

In the case of Genesis? Yes.

 

We hold these truths to be self evident. But all are just opinions with yours being as valid as mine.

 

You lack a coherent point and are arguing for the sake if it. Please stop.

 

No. No Yes. I mean Yes? No. Or....something

 

They did not: their band changed, they grew as people, and they wrote music that they wanted to write. It just happened to be more accessible to the masses and people responded.

 

Actually, the definition of "selling out" that I'm using is the only correct one. People have begun to adapt this ridiculous notion that an artist gravitating toward a more commercial sound is the same thing as selling out -- and it simply isn't.

The phrase "sell out" has traditionally meant that the artist has compromised their beliefs or authenticity just to make a buck. And that's why people are taking offense to the use of the term, as it's got a negative connotation for a reason. If the question was, "Did Genesis become more commercial sounding?", then obviously the answer is yes, and I think everyone would agree with that. I just don't see that they sold out their principles.

I'm a casual Genesis fan at best -- I don't even own any album of theirs post-Abacab. And I own all the studio albums up to that point, so what does that tell you? This isn't a case of me enjoying the later stuff and trying to justify it by saying "they didn't sell out". The later stuff just isn't of much interest to me personally -- yes, their style changed and evolved -- and yes, they became more commercial -- but that is very different than "selling out".

 

Like all the other albums before this one since Abacab there are no solo Phil Collins tracks on We Cant Dance.

 

Surely all three of them must cringe at some of those awfull hits they had. The press and critics and not to mention other artists gave them enough stick. That must surely hurt or maybe not $$$$

 

See, YOU think they're awful -- that's fine, but what makes you think that THEY "surely" do too?

 

This is a very narrow definition of the term that perhaps you observe, but is not the most common, IMO. For example, there is a definition on Wikipedia:

"Selling out" is a common expression for the compromising of a person's integrity, morality, authenticity, or principles in exchange for personal gain, such as money. In terms of music or art, selling out is associated with attempts to tailor material to a mainstream or commercial audience. For example, a musician who alters his material to encompass a wider audience, and in turn generates greater revenue, may be labeled by fans who pre-date the change as a "sellout."

Did Genesis, at any time, tailor their material to a mainstream or commercial audience to an extent that was greater than they once did? Obviously, yes. Then according to Wikipedia, they *are* sell-outs.

 

Beg to differ. The slow stuff on that album was all Philler and lacked the Tony Banks impetus that had previously made these tracks listenable.

 

Wikipedia has a definition that is informed by your own view. Just lets be clear- this is not a definition that is either objective - it describes you your own behaviour - or authoritative - it’s Wikipedia!!! What is being sold out???
“The artist” has 3 members not 5. Their music will not sound the same. If you listen to all 5 Genesis members and apply this definition they were trying to sell out since Trespass - can we sell a record???- And they only succeeded in selling out once Gabriel and Hackett had got out of the way. Personally I think this definition is ridiculous and an attempt to post rationalise the sell out by saying it’s a sell out because some people have said it was. Not many.

 

You are just rationalizing. By the Wikipedia definition Genesis objectively are sell-outs. Deal with it.

 

I’m sure they wish no one heard their music and they had all become music teachers or sellers of new and used books by 1978z

 

I’ll leave you to your irrational Wikipedia(!!!!!) defined world view. A coherent thought is an endangered species.

 

Why is it irrational?

 

We can go around and around with this semantics game all day, but I would suggest that your post proves my point exactly. The first sentence of that Wikipedia definition uses a lot of the same words I was throwing out there -- integrity, principles, authenticity.

What it goes on to say is that an artist "attempts to tailor material to a mainstream or commercial audience, and in turn generates greater revenue". I interpret that to mean that the artist specifically targets a commercial audience for the money. A band can write and record material that is more mainstream in nature -- which does do well commercially and financially -- without doing it solely for the reason of making money. It's right there in the phrase -- "selling" out.

At the end of the day, whether you want to label it "selling out" or not, really doesn't matter. Their music was more commercial in the '80s, and they did have more success, I think we can both agree. Regardless of whether I personally enjoy what they did, that's not something I prefer to put a negative spin on. Good for them for being successful.

 

Yes, as I have said in earlier posts, I generally like '80s Genesis - though I personally like them better when the were on the cusp of mega-stardom (Duke, Abacab) than after they became one of the biggest bands in the world (Invisible Touch, WCD).

 

Because an example of what some fans might say cannot be itself a definition of the thing having occurred. If some fans might say that Peter Gabriel repudiated his work with Genesis by leaving - that does not mean that in fact he did repudiate his work by leaving. It’s just some fans opinion. Therefore it can’t be a definition. Secondly until someone actually defines sell out beyond saying that a professional band wants to sell more records, you don’t have a definition that has any work to do because 95% of working bands want to sell more records.

 

None of your objections are persuasive. The number of bands who do X does not impact the status of whether or not X exists, whatever X may be. Also, you are arguing that something that is commonly understood to be true cannot be a gauge for the definition of a term? Dude, that's exactly how you define a phrase - it's how people are using it.

I think you simply don't want to accept that Genesis may be sell-outs (under what appears to be a commonly-understood usage of the phrase).

 

Hold on My Heart?

 

Since you want to abandon argument for abuse DUDE and don’t appear to be able to COMPREHEND why an open source example is not a definition there is really no point in continuing. You can roll on with your they sold out because someone told me so and I will continue to look at what selling out means in the real world.

Edit. Re reading your post I’d agree they were sell ups!

 

Sure, I suppose it is all, indeed, opinion -- but at the end of the day the burden of proof is on the accuser, isn't it? Where's this evidence that they were going against their principles in recording this material?

I'd gladly concede if you could produce one interview in which any of those guys said something to prove your point. Surely there must be a clip from 1973 on YouTube somewhere that you can post where Rutherford or Banks state that they'd never want to write a commercial song. Or an interview with Collins from 1975 where he says that he'd never want to have a chart hit. No?

 

My first example.