Songs I'm Afraid to Admit I Don't Like

  • Literally speechless re the Steve comment. Nonsense.


    There was a moment when Punk ruled the airwaves too. Thankfully, both were dead-end moments, and ended quickly, when the public saw how vacuous they were.

    I think niether punk or synth pop were vacuous. They had their place like prog rock did, and some good bands came out of those eras IMO. Ok, prog enjoyed a longer golden period, but all three genres are in a similar position now, on the fringes of musical interest but still pulling loyal cult followings. The three forms of music were about breaking rules.

  • Literally speechless re the Steve comment. Nonsense.


    There was a moment when Punk ruled the airwaves too. Thankfully, both were dead-end moments, and ended quickly, when the public saw how vacuous they were.

    Since I was the one who tossed the term ''hired gun'' around, I want to be very clear. I agree regarding Steve: 6 studio and 2 live albums, a distinctive sound, a clear, significant contribution to the band and an increased songwriting role on the last records.

    He was perhaps not the member with the greatest specific weight but ''hired gun'' doesn't really apply to him. His place in Genesis history is undisputable and he cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be compared to Daryl. We are all entitled to out opinions but claiming the contrary, perhaps based on personal taste, borders on historical revisionism.

    Edited once, last by Fabrizio ().

  • I think niether punk or synth pop were vacuous. They had their place like prog rock did, and some good bands came out of those eras IMO. Ok, prog enjoyed a longer golden period, but all three genres are in a similar position now, on the fringes of musical interest but still pulling loyal cult followings. The three forms of music were about breaking rules.

    I wouldn't put punk and synth pop in the same category, I would, however lump punk and grunge together and as somebody who only cares about music and not ''movements'', I would not hesitate to define them vacuos. They were so-called rebellion movements, against old farts, elaborated and soulless music and I can appreciate that, not what they played though. Their resurgence is highly unlikely, prog rears its head periodically because people like to play and listen to music. Any artist worth something, emerging from the punk period, actually left punk behind, one might say to thrive, others would say to develop and that blind juvenile angst and anger only takes you so far and cannot sustain itself. They came and they went and both things are imo very positive. Prog also came to shake things up, if I remember correctly but there was some substance to it before it degenerated. Punk was important for other reasons but had no musical substance at all.

  • speaking of punk, maybe who dunnit was inspired or tried to parody songs such as blondie's i know but i don't know. it's silly but i enjoy it.


    i like punk when it's mixed with other styles -rock, reggae, jazz...-, like police or the above mentioned blondie used to do.

  • I think niether punk or synth pop were vacuous. They had their place like prog rock did, and some good bands came out of those eras IMO. Ok, prog enjoyed a longer golden period, but all three genres are in a similar position now, on the fringes of musical interest but still pulling loyal cult followings. The three forms of music were about breaking rules.

    There is absolutely nothing about synth pop that requires rule breaking. Synths are musical instruments, and provided they are played by proper musicians, can stick to, or disregard the rules as required. Don't get me wrong, I like, and liked, a lot of synth pop, Alphaville (who embraced guitars by the second album), A-ha, who did from day one, Soft Cell, whose singer moved on, and Rosemarie Precht aka Cosa Rosa, who again, took guitars on board by album 2, improving her sound immensely. Human League, ABC and Heaven 17 are among those I find tedious, and Human League's producer Martin Rushent came out with that famous comment: "It doesn't make you a better carpenter because you can knock nails in with your hand". It does, of course!


    Punk was a different kettle of fish. Most of them didn't know the rules, many didn't even know there WERE rules! I remember the first time I heard "Anarchy in the UK", my thoughts were "Someone doing a Jasper Carrott "Funky Moped" impression over a bad Eddie Cochrane cover. I stick by that! :)


    There's currently a prog chart in the UK. Punk and Synth? Not yet!

    Ian


    Works with chess - Not with life

  • There was a moment when Punk ruled the airwaves too. Thankfully, both were dead-end moments, and ended quickly, when the public saw how vacuous they were.

    None of this is accurate. Punk didn't rule the airwaves. It received very little airplay. "The public" didn't come to some sort of mass decision where everyone suddenly stood up and said in unison, "Hang on, this punk and synth stuff is vacuous!" And neither synth pop nor punk were dead-ends; both sewed the seeds of a range of bands just as their seeds were sewn by others.

    Abandon all reason

  • I wouldn't put punk and synth pop in the same category, I would, however lump punk and grunge together and as somebody who only cares about music and not ''movements'', I would not hesitate to define them vacuos. They were so-called rebellion movements, against old farts, elaborated and soulless music and I can appreciate that, not what they played though. Their resurgence is highly unlikely, prog rears its head periodically because people like to play and listen to music. Any artist worth something, emerging from the punk period, actually left punk behind, one might say to thrive, others would say to develop and that blind juvenile angst and anger only takes you so far and cannot sustain itself. They came and they went and both things are imo very positive. Prog also came to shake things up, if I remember correctly but there was some substance to it before it degenerated. Punk was important for other reasons but had no musical substance at all.

    I think we need to be careful not to swallow everything the media have fed us over the years. The notion of punk or any type of music "coming along to shake things up" or to intentionally be rebellious is entirely a media invention. I also disagree punk or grunge had no musical substance and have to question what seems to me the completely subjective notion of 'musical substance' and what exactly that means!


    Picking up on other comments above: I hadn't heard Rushent's carpentry comment before, but agree with him; and I find myself wondering if there is anyone who actually gives a damn what genre charts exist!

    Abandon all reason

    Edited once, last by Backdrifter ().

  • There is absolutely nothing about synth pop that requires rule breaking. Synths are musical instruments, and provided they are played by proper musicians, can stick to, or disregard the rules as required. Don't get me wrong, I like, and liked, a lot of synth pop, Alphaville (who embraced guitars by the second album), A-ha, who did from day one, Soft Cell, whose singer moved on, and Rosemarie Precht aka Cosa Rosa, who again, took guitars on board by album 2, improving her sound immensely. Human League, ABC and Heaven 17 are among those I find tedious, and Human League's producer Martin Rushent came out with that famous comment: "It doesn't make you a better carpenter because you can knock nails in with your hand". It does, of course!


    Punk was a different kettle of fish. Most of them didn't know the rules, many didn't even know there WERE rules! I remember the first time I heard "Anarchy in the UK", my thoughts were "Someone doing a Jasper Carrott "Funky Moped" impression over a bad Eddie Cochrane cover. I stick by that! :)


    There's currently a prog chart in the UK. Punk and Synth? Not yet!

    Many of the synth pop pioneers came from a punk background and were also influenced by electronic progressive acts from the 70's; Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream etc.. When the Human League and OMD started recording there was nothing else like it, and it was very experimental. Yes, they went on to produce some 'vacuous' hits, but then so did Genesis ;)


    The rule breaking came from using entirely electronic instruments (in some cases) to produce pop music. Previously, electonic music had been about creating atmospheres, not songs.

  • I think we need to be careful not to swallow everything the media have fed us over the years. The notion of punk or any type of music "coming along to shake things up" or to intentionally be rebellious is entirely a media invention. I also disagree punk or grunge had no musical substance and have to question what seems to me the completely subjective notion of 'musical substance' and what exactly that means!


    Picking up on other comments above: I hadn't heard Rushent's carpentry comment before, but agree with him; and I find myself wondering if there is anyone who actually gives a damn what genre charts exist!

    Point taken, I guess we do sometimes have a tendency to simply provide the same talking points we have been feed for so long. However, while I agree there's a level of subjectivity to the concept of 'musical substance', I still struggle to find any in Punk, can you? The bands and artists emerged during that period who amounted to something, I should mention Police or U2, never were really Punk, they merely tapped in that energy but strictly musically speaking they were either too good musicians, songwriters or both to dwell on Punk and I wonder, again, musically, what is today the legacy of Punk? I can answer that question for Rock&Roll, Blues, R&B, Jazz-Rock, Hard, Heavy, Metal whatever Rock and Prog Rock but Punk? What's left of that?

    Edited once, last by Fabrizio ().

  • You're focusing too much on the music itself rather than the way it inspired many young budding musicians.


    As for musical substance, luckily my interpretation of that concept must be different from yours, as yes I do find it in punk, but probably more in new wave.

    Abandon all reason

  • You're focusing too much on the music itself rather than the way it inspired many young budding musicians.


    As for musical substance, luckily my interpretation of that concept must be different from yours, as yes I do find it in punk, but probably more in new wave.

    Yes, I do admittedly focus on the music itself and yes, luckily, we must have different interpretations of the musical substance concept. I won't deny Punk has inspired many young budding musicians but even somebody like say, Billy Idol, in the end, accomplished something by leaving Punk behind and actually writing songs, singing and playing for real. I appreciate and respect anybody who can play an instrument, sing and/or write songs or have, generally speaking,something to say and uses his skills as a medium. Then, I like some of them according to personal taste. Punk didn't check any of the abovementioned boxes.

  • The reason I feel fortunate I don't share your views on this is that I hope it means I don't sound as snooty as you sounded above, though you may not have intended to - "left punk behind, started playing songs for real". In fact this goes to the root of the issue I have with the nebulous idea of musical substance. Idol's a good example - for me, his post-punk stuff was glossed-up rubbish. While not especially a Generation X fan, I found their stuff infinitely preferable and, if you will, real.

    Abandon all reason

  • The reason I feel fortunate I don't share your views on this is that I hope it means I don't sound as snooty as you sounded above, though you may not have intended to - "left punk behind, started playing songs for real". In fact this goes to the root of the issue I have with the nebulous idea of musical substance. Idol's a good example - for me, his post-punk stuff was glossed-up rubbish. While not especially a Generation X fan, I found their stuff infinitely preferable and, if you will, real.

    Sorry, I misinterpreted that and I admit I wanted to reply in kind. It happens when writing, people really don't know each other and things are not clear. Thanks for clarifying that. Apologies extended, we clearly differ on a lot of things but personally I find your insights interesting and I hope we can disagree further. As for Idol, I thought Rebel Yell was a hell of a rock song but the main point is, I appreciate artists who have something to say, even better when they have the means to do so, neither was the case with Punk imo.

  • No need to apologise, in fact I should have clarified my own point by saying I don't generally find your posts snooty which is why I mentioned it coming across that way when I was sure it wasn't the intention. Yes I think we probably disagree generally on music but the disagreements are interesting, as they should be. I absolutely get the appeal of Rebel Yell, but dislike it very much as for me it has a certain kind of soulless shiny 80s rock feel which is a sound I don't get on with. In comparison, GenX were more raw and satisfying, meaning in this case they had the greater substance than the hollow 80s rock stuff. But I do see how others will bring different takes on the substance question.

    Abandon all reason

  • No need to apologise, in fact I should have clarified my own point by saying I don't generally find your posts snooty which is why I mentioned it coming across that way when I was sure it wasn't the intention. Yes I think we probably disagree generally on music but the disagreements are interesting, as they should be. I absolutely get the appeal of Rebel Yell, but dislike it very much as for me it has a certain kind of soulless shiny 80s rock feel which is a sound I don't get on with. In comparison, GenX were more raw and satisfying, meaning in this case they had the greater substance than the hollow 80s rock stuff. But I do see how others will bring different takes on the substance question.

    It's settled then. I am really not a fan of overproduced, glossy sound, hence my problem with most of the music in the second half of the 80s, including Genesis and I understand absolutely the appeal of a more raw approach to music but in both cases, I try, without always succeeding, to go past that and look at the core. I get what you say about Rebel Yell but in my mind it still a great song, if you heard the acoustic version you'll see what I mean. GenX were more raw but that wasn't what turn me off. I simply didn't find enough 'meat' there, they could have been more polished and I would have felt the same.

  • I think we need to be careful not to swallow everything the media have fed us over the years. The notion of punk or any type of music "coming along to shake things up" or to intentionally be rebellious is entirely a media invention. I also disagree punk or grunge had no musical substance and have to question what seems to me the completely subjective notion of 'musical substance' and what exactly that means!


    Picking up on other comments above: I hadn't heard Rushent's carpentry comment before, but agree with him; and I find myself wondering if there is anyone who actually gives a damn what genre charts exist!

    No, punk didn't come along to shake things up. It came along because people (exploiters, really) like Malcolm McLaren wanted to use them to get rich. They succeeded, and used the media to their own ends. As for whether anyone cares what genre charts exist: I guess they do, or they wouldn't. Chart compilers aren't doing it to pass the hours away.

    Ian


    Works with chess - Not with life

  • No, punk didn't come along to shake things up. It came along because people (exploiters, really) like Malcolm McLaren wanted to use them to get rich. They succeeded, and used the media to their own ends.

    I don't think that's quite true. Punk started appearing in the early 70s primarily in New York but then also in the UK and Australia. McLaren didn't encounter it til he and Westwood visited NY in about 75. He took some cues from the NY Dolls and yes to some extent masterminded the Pistols' look and style, and Lydon had to eventually sue him for pay due to him. He was clearly a shyster, but I don't think he and these other people like him you refer to, whoever they may be, are the reason punk happened. It was already happening, and McLaren got on the bandwagon and for a while steered it to his advantage.


    Blimey we've come some distance from Genesis Songs We're Afraid To Admit We Dislike.

    Abandon all reason

  • Blimey we've come some distance from Genesis Songs We're Afraid To Admit We Dislike.

    Right but personally I 'm not too particular about threads hijacking. Things run a natural course and it is interesting to see a debate unfolding.

    Anyway, to bring things back on track, I was going to mention Like it or Not, for the life of me I cannot see what some fans see in that song but the thread went on so long, I might already have mentioned that.;-)

  • Hahaha! Let's all start again.


    I already said I'm not afraid to admit to any. Mad Man Moon, 2nd half of Volcano, Mar, Vine.... all ones I don't bother with.


    Is there enough support for Like It to make it one of 'those' songs? It's okay, I don't mind it but it's not one I seek out.

    Abandon all reason