I started to type out a huge, involved comment, but I don’t want to come across like mirror-world Patrick Bateman, so I’ll just say here: Genesis. 1970-1976 and 1978-1998 were almost like two completely different bands.
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
13 points (100.0% liked)
Music
7303 readers
3 users here now
Discussion about all things music, music production, and the music industry. Your own music is also acceptable here.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I’m glad Peter Gabriel left. He didn’t need them.
It's hard to imagine where they would have gone after The Lamb, but it's nice to speculate.
1978 marked the departure of Steve Hackett, probably their proggiest songwriter. There's still a bit of old Genesis magic in the following 2 records but by 1981 it was basically completely gone
I finally got to see Hackett this past December, on the last show of the Seconds Out Revisited tour. What a treat.
I wanna see the Bateman commentary lol
I once saw the two eras of Genesis referred to as Boring Genesis and Shit Genesis, and I was never able to fully disagree.
I agree with you, and I still love Phil Collins era Genesis. Blame my dad.
I guess you could also break it up 1970-1976, 1978-1992 and 1998, for whatever the fuck Calling All Stations was.
I think it is fine to just treat them like two completely different bands. Personally, I like both of them. But if I had to pick one 70-76 of course would be the choice.
Indeed; it eventually got to the point where I couldn't tell the difference between Genesis' music and Phil Collins' solo music.
ITA, which is crazy when you consider how much of those songs that sounded so much like Phil Collins solo tracks were written by Mike or Tony.
Prog Genesis was so weird to discover in my teens. I was used to the 80s Genesis from MTV.
Shapes was my first album, when I was 15. Then Three Sides Live, then Seconds Out, then anything I could get my hands on.
Sugar Ray. They went from Mean Machine to Fly. Caution, potato quality videos.
Holy shit. Is this even the same band?
journey sold out. but then again when you have steve perry you sell out hard and make that money. so i dont blame them in the least.
The first three albums sound nothing like what most people recognize as Journey.
Not sure if I'd call it selling out specifically, but I've hated every single song Weezer has made since the white album. Just not a fan of the way they've taken their music
I think it's literally just Rivers Cuomo trying to write good pop tunes and failing
I'm not sure this is exactly what you're looking for, but it literally a "sell-out" and has always bothered me. Jim Morrison never wanted his music used for any other purpose, but the rest of the band went behind his back and sold a song (I think to Ford) for advertising.
Then there's Bob Dylan. Never literally promised not to do advertising, but "Song To Woody," on his very first album comes about as close to a promise as you can get. And then selling his entire song catalog? Come on!
I think selling his catalog is a smart move. It cements his financial stability for the rest of his life, and probably his children as well. But yes, once he's sold it, they can do whatever they want with it.
He was not in need of financial stability.
I'm not one to rush to Dylan's defense on much, but 50 years can do a lot to change a person's mind.
But it was so meaningless a gesture! It would have been trivial for him to remain true to his own artistic vision. If his message as an artist had changed (as it did many times) that would be different. But shilling for Victoria's Secret was not art. He just traded on his "brand," and that is truly selling out.
I enjoy Coldplay as much as most people don't enjoy Coldplay, which is quite a lot considering what I've heard some people say. They have, how shall I put this, "refined their sound" extensively over the past decade. Parachutes, A Rush Of Blood To The Head, X&Y, Viva La Vida: that's a remarkably solid group of albums. And then there's been a string of albums that I admit I enjoy rather less than those. Those younger than me still seem to enjoy them, so they must still be doing something right. So you can call that what you will. I wouldn't call it selling out per se but they certainly have taken a direct route to commercial success and aren't afraid to change with the times.
For something a bit more modern, Fall Out Boy. From Under the Cork Tree was their last decent album imo and even that was a shift from Grand Theft Autumn. Hearing them now they sound like generic pop nothing to my ears. Such a shame.
Hard to argue this. I do love their latest album, but it's certainly not the pop punk from their first 2 albums.
.
Ouch. The "after" sounds retro vocal acts like Heartracer and The Strike. Not idea how they made that jump.
Metallica is the example that most-readily comes to my mind. They went from being very pro-tape-trading in their early days (because they recognized that open access to music = more fans) to whining "Nyapster stole our myoosic :("
I like this example because it's not about their music, it's about their attitude and forgetting where they came from. Personally, my favorite Metallica album was Kill Em All, and I haven't really liked much of what they did after that.
I liked everything up until the black album. The black album was hit-or-miss for me; it had some parts i liked and some parts that weren't really doing it for me. Load and Reload sounded (to me) kind of generic; it was metal but it wasn't up to the standard I expected out of Metallica. The less said about everything after those albums, the better.
view more: next ›