Genesis - did they really sell out?

Yes their songs on the whole became shorter and Phil was a guy who was a melodic hook machine. But in many ways, the mass audience came to them. Starting with Duke, “Turn it on Again” was a huge hit. It’s probably the only Pop hit song to hit the Billboard top 100 in 13/8 time in the history of music. “Fading Lights” is a tour de force and was a fitting end to the last song on (what I believe to be) the last Genesis studio album. As another commenter said earlier, the “Genesis Sold out” mantra is lazy. It’s more complicated than that and there’s a lot to like in their entire catalog.

 

Yes, they progressed greatly as pop artists and businessmen, which did nothing for prog fans.

 

In your opinion.

It’s true a lot of prog fans are too intransigent to see beyond the genre.

But hey, each to their own.

 

I would go so far and say that Phil Collins was not a big fan of prog. He "used" the band for his purposes, especially after he started writing music.

This sounds very contra Phil Collins - but it is not meant like that. I love the guy. I just think his heart was not in prog music. A very talented guy who was able to do almost everything.

 

So, my opinion is true. Gotcha!

 

It's interesting that his first side gig was in a jazz fusion outfit. Transitioning...ever...so...slightly...away. He managed to slip in some singing on Moroccan Roll.

 

Yup, he was a song and rhythm guy. Brand X gave him a chance to stretch out as a drummer. His solo albums gave him a chance to extend his wings as a song performer.

 

Genesis was always a songwriting collective, nothing changed after Phil began contributing.

 

Notable though that the guy who wrote the rock songs in Brand X was always John Goodsall. Phil's songs tended to be more jazz than even the others' contributions (which always had some prog or classical in them).

 

Phil was big into the fusion scene of the 70s, being a fan of the Mahavishnu Orchestra, Weather Report, and some of the jazzier Zappa lineups. He was also very much into Buddy Rich and some of the big band standards. So his blowing off steam in Brand X is no surprise whatsoever. I think people were more puzzled at what came later, because they may not have realized that he also had a huge love of Motown and soul music, along with having grown up with 60s pop/rock.

 

All 4 days...July 4, 1987 was the last night at Wembley, and of the tour. The pre-FM recording is quite good

 

Well said.

 

I think the problem is that all this excellent work you are mentioning is overshadowed by "I Can't Dance", "Land Of Confusion" and "Invisible Touch". They still had "long ones" until the very end. But they are not being seen by the general public.
Some people were so disappointed about the pop direction that they cannot forgive the band for that - in spite of the "long ones".

But from a commercial point of view, we shouldn't forget that it was the pop tracks that gave Genesis this big audience filling stadium arenas - whether we like it or not.

I remember clearly being on a gig in 1992 and watching some bored faces around me while they were playing "The Old Medley". One guy even said "what is this??" ;-)

 

That's not the point. He said that even during the pop era there were great songs. He was referring to the quality of the material, which has nothing to do with being prog or pop, let alone the length of the songs.

 

What do you mean by "that's not the point"?? To me this is a point, otherwise I wouldn't write it. And who has said that there were no good songs during the "pop era"?

When I say "long ones" I am referring to the term used by Genesis themselves, when they talk about their less poppy material. They even released a live CD called "Genesis ‎– Live / The Way We Walk (Volume Two: The Longs)", even though the length is not the only criteria.

Apart from that, in my opinion the quality of the material varied a lot during 1983-1991. Some pop songs are better than others, some more experimental songs are better than others.

 

Oops... my bad. I misunderstood the post you quote completely. In fact, who missed the point was me. Sorry.

 

Oh yeah, but those pop music fans can really see beyond their favorite genre.....

 

I think that your last sentence fits the earlier eras too. They were often excellent but most of the albums went from the sublime to the ridiculous and back again. That's part of their charm, for me.

 

Yes. Absolutely. They went from creative imaginative prog rock to commercial pop of the lowest common denominator

 

Yeah, right. Never been a fan of "After The Ordeal" ;-)

 

I like pretty much all of what Genesis did but I can entirely see fans not wanting to take the journey toward the poppier songs. However, even at their most radio friendly, I don't think they were anything other than a sophisticated and musical band. If I'm searching for pop's lowest common denominator, I have to turn my gaze way (way!) below Genesis.

 

I think this is a bit of exaggeration, especially if you look at today's charts.

Although I am not always particuarly fond of the pop Genesis did, I think by adapting to the pop scene, they managed to get many young people to discover their proggier stuff. Didn't most of us start listening to pop in the end?

 

I don't see how much farther they could have gone with Gabriel. He wasn't just a front man but a unique composer. That wouldn't have reached full flower with as many other hugely talented musicians in the band. All with their own voices. That's not to say that I love prog. I am not really a huge fan. But I recognize that all those major 70's acts had to make concessions in order to move on in the 80's. Genesis obviously was the extreme in that case. But given the Rutherford/Banks/Collins brain trust that ran the band after Gabriel/Hackett "amscrayed" ... I think the following albums were the logical conclusion of their strengths. Gabriel was very much experimentation and eclectic musical vision. Hackett is one of the greatest guitarists of his time period. Who more then proved that leaving justified and solidified his individual musical vision. The ones who stayed were about form and rock craft... don't the albums bear that out? The critical love died out but the bank statements got a lot better. The 80's was the era were the arena rock phenomenon reached it's pinnacle. You had to hit that head on if you wanted to survive. That for me isn't "being commercial" that's more about being "a potent musical entity." For me it was the 90's where everything about Genesis got just well... SAD. If that's where their pop results were truly tragic. They earned the terms "sells out" then. But as long as your music is popular and with what's happenin'... I don't see how the term "sell out" is fundamentally applied. It's like Metallica... "they sold out after the Black Album!" Well... where the heck was there else for them to go?

 

That's true, unfortunately. I've known a lot of progheads like this.

I wasn't very open minded myself in my late teens, in fact. Then my brother started listening to the likes of New Order, The Cure, Depeche Mode... I initially thought it was all commercial crap but with time and a bit of maturity I began to see how radical I was.

I still love prog, but I have no problem with pop and I think Genesis made the right call. Progressive rock had ran its course towards 1976. It seems that all grounds were finally covered and they could only repeat themselves after that.

It's true that their lyrics became too banal in the 80s but the music remained special, hit singles included.

 

I don't think that prog fans really begrudge the band's success, as borderline successful prog bands like Genesis would have all but disappeared in the age of New Wave, and they had to pay the bills. I think that prog fans can be happy for them on that level while still being disappointed in their pop ventures. Now, Phil Collins is a whole other story.