From: jester@crash.cts.com (Ken Bibb)
Subject: Collins > Gabriel? (Was Re: he can't dance/he can't sing)
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 16:26:38 GMT

In <1318@hydra.bucknell.edu> norbeck@mira.bucknell.edu (nancy norbeck `93) writes:

>In article <1992Apr08.172104.11015@crash.cts.com> jester@crash.cts.com
>(Ken Bibb) writes:



>>5) You completely miss the point:  Phil wants Fame and Fortune to
>>   the exclusion of Quality.  Why?  Because more people will by pop
>>   crap like "We Can't Dance" and his solo stuff than will buy
>>   "Foxtrot" or "Selling England by the Pound".  Where do I say that
>>   he wants Fame and Fortune to the exclusion of anything else but
>>   quality?

>Ok, so where do you say where you got this information?  You asked in

I'll email you the article references when I get a chance to look them
up.  I recall reading that Genesis now 'walks into the studio and
an album comes out' (anyone know the reference off the top of their
heads?).  Why is it easy?  Because they are cranking out pop trash (as
mentioned by at least a few others).  There have also been a number of
articles which have discussed how Phil Collins is a sell-out.

But you don't have to have written proof.  Just listen to "Selling
England by the Pound" or even a Brand X album.  Listen to Collins's
drumming.  Listen to the songs--they're well crafted aren't they?
Yes, this is an *opinion*, but most people seem to agree that these
albums are well made.  Now listen to "We Can't Dance".  It's godawful
in comparison.  If it had NKotB as the artist, you might expect it to
sound this way, but it says "Genesis".  In an article (or was it an
interview?) Tony Banks said that he was tired of being ignored by
the musical press for his achievements.  Well, he has the music
industry's attention now, but he insists on playing it easy and tagging
along behind Phil instead of writing the incredible songs that he used
to write.

>your post (which I deleted most of) for verification from a respected
>journal or magazine as far as other facts go, where are your
>references?  Did Phil just walk up to you one day and tell you that he
>wanted F&F for those reasons above?  Did he even mention F&F?  I'd
>like proof of your telepathic abilities please, or at least Phil's
>autograph and a videorecording of the conversation you had with him in
>which you learned this information, if you can't provide proper
>written sources, such as "respected journals or magazines."

>And just who are you to go saying that you are the Determiner of
>Quality?  

Who are you to say that I'm not the Determiner of Quality?  You are obviously
too dense to realize that I'm stating an *opinion* here.  Take out
a loan and rent a clue.

>Does every artist you listen to have to meet your specific
>quality control guidelines?  Reality time here, GENESIS is the band in
>question here.  Unless I'm mistaken, your name does not appear on the
>credits listing you as a member of the band.  Or a writer for them.
>Or an agent for them.  Or a producer, or any other affiliate of
>Genesis.  

Most of the above people would, when Phil Collins farted, applaud and
call it high "art".

>Who are you to judge?  Beyond your own personal decision of
>whether or not to buy the album, you're not in that position.

Wanna bet?  There's this thing called freedom of speech.  I can
say anything I want about Genesis.  You might not like it.  Tough.
You can respond to it, or you can kill this thread, I don't care.
But I *can* post my opinion of the group to this newsgroup.

>Let's get something straight here.  Genesis is a band.  They make
>music.  

For the sake of argument, let's call it music :)

>Music, as many people seem to have forgotten, is an art, much
>like writing a book or sculpting a statue.  The artist controls what
>goes into his or her particular work, and has his or her own reasons
>for doing so.  

And those who are interested only in the monetary aspects will
seek to make their works more accessible to the public so there will
be greater demand, a greater market.

>Whatever those reasons may be, they are valid for that
>particular person, and no one other than the artist has the right to
>change them.  

If the public stops demanding something, the artist, if seeking money
will change to try and follow the public's wants.  I feel that Genesis
has done this.

>*Granted,* there will be as many different
>interpretations of that work as there are people who hear it, read it,
>or see it.  But those interpretations, whether they're the ones the
>artist had in mind or not, are personal, and shouldn't be forced onto
>an audience either.

If you follow this reasoning, then reviewers should stop reviewing albums
because they are forcing their opinion on us.  In fact, reviewers are
not "forcing" their opinion on you.  Neither am I.  If you do not like
what you are reading, all newsreaders that I'm aware of allow you to
exit the current post.  You have the right to leave when I say something
that you don't like.  You can also set up a kill file if you'd like,
but just because I dislike Genewimps doesn't mean that I may not like
something which you like.  People are funny that way--they share certain
likes but can be diametrically opposed in other likes.

>Please stop plying high-and-mighty seer of all things and quit trying
>to tell us you can read Phil's mind, or anybody else's for that
>matter.  

If I claimed to be telepathic (which I don't recall), it was a blatant
joke which was obviously too subtle for you.  Being hit in the head
with a sledgehammer would probably also be too subtle for you.

>This group doesn't exist to bash an artist.  

This group exists to discuss music.  Music discussion includes fanatical
praise and gleeful bashing.  I don't see you defending the plague of
Rush fans on the net.

>It also doesn't exist to bash the legitimate opinions held by others.  

Who appointed you the Determiner of Legitimate Opinions? ;)

>If I happen to like the new album, who are you to tell me I shouldn't,
>or am not allowed?

Where did I say you that you *shouldn't* like it?  I said that it was
of poor quality.  There are a lot of people out there with no taste
at all who like this stuff.  You're probably one of them.  You've got
a right to demonstrate your lack of taste by defending drivel like
"We Can't Dance" just as much as I have a right to demonstrate a lack
of tact for pointing out your lack of taste.  I also don't recall
saying that you're not allowed to listen to it.  (I wouldn't, btw, say
that--I'm anti-PMRC.)

>Finally, when it comes down to music, it's pretty basic.  You have the
>right to like what you want, and not like other things.  

And I have the right to tell others about things that I like, and tell
them about things that I dislike.

>But before you go knocking someone else's songwriting (or performing)
>ability (or writing, or sculpting) ask yourself this:  Can I write better
>stuff than so-and-so can?  

Ah!  The age-old you-can't-review-this-if-you're-not-better argument.
You are forgetting the equally old "Those who don't: review".  When my
album comes out, btw, I'm sure that it won't be to your liking if you
like Phil's rectointestinal spewlings..

>If you can, then quit complaining and go do it! 

Go complain?

>If you can't, then respect the artist in question for his or her
>ability, whether you like it or not, and allow those people who enjoy
>it the opportunity to do so in spite of your own opinion.  

How can you respect someone who is not interested in what they do?

>You know, kinda like "Let he who is perfect cast the first stone."

How do you know that I'm not perfect? ;)

>Can we stop this senseless bickering now?

no. :)  You probably think that Phil Collins is better than Peter Gabriel
too....

--
jester@crash.cts.com		"Remember the Jester"--fish
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc