Genesis - did they really sell out?

This is a big subject and one I have wrestled with over the years. Either it was all an organic evolution or the biggest sell out in rock history.
Here are a few facts:
Genesis did start out with the intention of being writers that provided material for others. An ambitious intention for a bunch of school kids. They were influenced by The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Classic Soul music, The Stones and The Who.
An early set back was the making of their debut album which didn’t turn out as they expected thanks to a producer who was far too powerful for the lads to withstand any strong influence over and fuelled by their own idealism they soon they became entranced by the changing times of 1968/69 through pioneers such as Family, SRC, The Nice and King Crimson.
Their musical ability took them into the progressive blues scene which just happened to gel with the cult audience of the day that were distancing themselves from typical ‘60s pop of Dusty Springfield, Lulu, Tom Jones et al.
Importantly the first business tycoon to come calling was Tony Stratton Smith and through his nurturing they were given room to develop, find better more resilient musicians in Hackett and Collins and the classic Genesis line up was born.
In the background Gabriel and Collins harboured dreams of writing separately to the band and doing an album of pop music, while Tony Banks admitted to wanting to release singles and have hits. Note this was in 1972-74 at the height of their prog powers. What we heard on their albums was just one side of what they craved doing.
The bands internal politics and schedule prevented any outside work of any significance (Collins’ session work aside) being undertaken and as progressive trailblazers they made some stunning music. But inside lay a different version of Genesis that needed to free itself from the shackles of 1970s progressive rock.
As members fled and created space for the three remaining members to dictate their fate what resulted was a simpler style of writing which attracted a bigger fan base, higher financial rewards and a new reputation. Schooled on good quality pop music and featuring high calibre musicians Genesis managed to move into a new area with a new label only too happy to support their new direction. It wasn’t my cup of tea and I turned elsewhere for what I wanted to buy/listen/see but with the distance of several years hindsight they were actually good at commercial tunes and playing to their new audience. In Phil Collins they had a resident class clown - comfortable as a frontman and good value in interviews. In the world of MTV they couldn’t fail.
So in my opinion they didn’t sell out but were certainly in the right place at the right time and made the most of what they could do with their talent.

 

Wembley Stadium, july 1987. I guess the tickets were indeed sold out a few days before the event

 

That's an interesting take.

Have to admit that I don't see anything of the Fading Lights type of song on the 1986 Invisible Touch album, I certainly don't see anything that looks remotely like the darkness of the Dreaming While You Sleep track, and while you might see a shade of the humour of either Land of Confusion or I Can't Dance (more from the promo videos as much as the songs I would suggest), there isn't a whole lot between the two albums that the five intervening years between the two would otherwise give you. Then again, they've always had a humourous streak, as songs like Harold the Barrel, the Battle of Epping Forest, etc, ably demonstrate. They always liked longer tracks to tell a story and the sound of both of the IT and WCD albums was driven by the sounds of their respective times. If anything, the guitar sounds on some tracks on WCD sounds more like 1980 than 1991 (Never A Time springs to mind at this juncture).

The entire sound is different between IT and WCD, there's little or no Simmons electronic drums, and while I can see that it's conveniently easy to draw a line between those two and their other work, closer inspection shows clear blue water between the two titles.

 

Yeah.. they sold out every stadium and arena.

 

I had no problem with them going pop. Fine, it's their choice. Same with Yes, Rush, etc.

But I HATE when when they started to despise the 70s, specially Tony Banks with the Gabriel era

Banks believed that, by desmissing the Gabriel era, fans will turn into and appreciate the 80s

Of course history has proven him wrong

 

Collins was just the same if not worse, dissing prog and distancing himself from the bands 70's period.

 

I admit I really got pissed off when Phil complained about the lyrics to All in a Mouse's Night. He hated the word "breadbin". But his bitterness at that sort of lyric is very telling. I think it marks the distinction between typical prog songs and pop tunes. Pop tunes lyrics pretty much (not always, there's always exceptions) use the human experience for subject fodder. Although there are certainly prog "love songs", one can safely say they represent a minority of those songs. If you're in this thread you know very well what typically constitutes subject matters of prog lyrics.

 

I'm not a Genesis fan. I haven't heard any of the Gabriel albums so it's more to do with unfamiliarity than anything else. My Dad loves them.

I watched the Genesis documentary on BBC Four a couple of years ago and enjoyed it. It surprised me though how badly I thought Tony Banks came across in it. I remember thinking he seemed like a bit of a tosser! Phil Collins, who I disliked for many years, came across well and generally does in interviews. Also realising what an incredible drummer he is calmed down my dislike.

 

Speaking of Phil, when seeing Genesis live in 1982, Phil described Supper's Ready as quite music and loud music mixed together, it seemed to me that Phil didn't really get what prog is, it's the same with folks that think music with distorted guitars and a raspy voice makes it heavy metal.

 

Well, I don't know about that, but they sure sold England by the pound!

 

I think the history of Banks’ own opinion of their earlier work is more complicated than that and involved several ‘changes of heart’. I believe in The Genesis Songbook documentary he mentioned that their earlier work was what he was most proud of, but the pop music is what most people remember them by. Fast forward many years later in the documentary, When In Rome - Come Rain Or Shine, he said he was proud of all the music they’ve done. I think what Banks was really the unhappiest with was The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway (one of my favorite Genesis albums) and a lot of this stemmed from the isolated feeling he had as well as Rutherford, Hackett, and Collins from Gabriel. I think he still carried some deep resentment towards Gabriel after he had left, but I think with the passage of time and knowing full well that Gabriel couldn’t have pressed on given his own personal circumstances, that he became more sympathetic towards for leaving. Also, the way Gabriel left was the right way to leave a band. They had a meeting where he announced he was leaving the band. I’m still rather puzzled by the way Hackett left and I felt it would’ve been a better idea to tell every band member instead of just telling Collins (who he happened to pass him on the street while Genesis were mixing Seconds Out). Anyway, I think there’s always been personal friction in the band and it’s not just from Banks who, in my mind, was an ‘all or nothing’ kind of musician (and that’s certainly commendable in many respects), but I’ve said for years that without Banks, there wouldn’t have been Genesis. He is the one that kept the ball rolling and, without him, I just don’t think things would’ve turned out very well and the fate of the band would’ve obviously been even more dire.

 

Question: Did Genesis sell out?

Answer: Who gives a flying F$&@??

 

I used to think they sold out. Hated the " Earth Wind and Fire" Genesis. Still prefer from Wind ,& Wuthering back, but who am I to say their evolution is a sell out. They stayed current. Is that really a sell out? Hey it's all subjective and besides "A Man's Gotta Eat". Besides there's still bands like Porcupine Tree/Steve Wilson, King Crimson, Aristocrats, Big Big Train and others that satisfied the Progressive Appetite. PaxAmoLux

 

ROFLMAO too funny. Motown tribute albums....geeezus that's hysterical....but true

 

Phil loved his Motown ... If Motown had been looking for a session drummer when Genesis were making Foxtrot, he may well have left the band I reckon

 

If Genesis sold out, they sold out in their own special way.

(See what I did there?)

 

“Sold out” isn’t in my vocabulary. All that matters is words and melody, which is why I like Am I Very Wrong?, Harlequin, The Colony of Slippermen, Entangled, Wot Gorilla?, Vancouver, Alone Tonight, Lurker, In Too Deep, Living Forever… Just about everything from 1968–1991 (CAS isn’t tuneful enough).

Actually, I like Providence by King Crimson, so maybe words and melody aren’t everything…

 

They did it in slow motion lol
The didn't really sell out, so much as stroll down the lane in a leisurely manner

 

It seems that Steven Wilson has slowly been distancing himself from the whole notion of progressive music. Big Big Train aren’t anything special, IMHO. The Aristocrats aren’t that interesting to me and seem nothing more than a platform for their virtuoso displays. I have yet to hear anything from them that I’ve truly been moved by. Porcupine Tree are dead as far as I’m concerned. Why would Wilson return to an old idea now? This newer ‘prog’ isn’t really too progressive, but more regressive. I can’t think of too many musicians working today that have had the same effect on me as these 70s and 80s progressive bands.

 

Perhaps if they did bring someone new into the mix...it might have added artistic integrity. Personally, I don't find much of it there, with the trio years.

 

I can understand what you're saying there, but is the lack of impact because of the bands or because of you? ... that isn't an aggressive question, so please don't read it that way
for example - I find it hard to believe that any album would have the effect on me that my first few listens to Pink Floyd's The Final Cut and The Wall had on me ... a lot of that was because of my place in the music listening world at the time. I was young, and everything was new. Do you know what I mean?
I can listen to a Flower Kings album, and really enjoy it ... ahhh ... Transatlantic Whirlwind ... Last Years Dream Theater album .... Devin Townsend's Empath, and really enjoy it, and think it does show progression ... but it doesn't have the impact that my first listen to those Floyd albums, or Genesis Nursery Cryme, or when Zappa's stuff clicked with me ... Does that make sense?

 

That just means you don't really like the albums though, yea?

I am not a huge fan of Invisible Touch or We Can't Dance, but there are certainly some very artistic moments on there, once you get passed the singles, and even some of the singles weren't exactly straight pop for the time.

 

I can only say, and this is with complete honesty, that when I heard the B-side "Submarine" I felt a prog band had run out of gas and coasted to the side of the road. Only thing to do then is get out and start walking. But where to?

 

No BBT isn't anything special. Porcupine Tree ended long ago..... Crimson has become??? A cover band of itself? The Golden Age of Progressive has passed. Who do you find worthy these days may I ask. Always looking for good music.