Why do establised geniuses like Gabriel and Ferry suck now?

[vtx]

I don't think they suck ,,but ,,I also believe their not pushing things anymore,,as much as say Fripp and Sylvain.....

[paul minot]

I too think Gabriel hasn't touched the heights he achieved with Genesis and there in lies the clue I think. Genesis were more than just Gabriel's backing band just as Roxy Music were more than just Ferry.

No offence to Peruvian pan-pipe players but perhaps Gabriel could choose his collaborators more wisely. As for Ferry - get rid of that dinner jacket and phone old Eno mate.

I totally agree with you guys about Gabriel and Genesis--although I would give credit to Tony Banks for challenging him, more than Collins. As for Ferry--he did an album with Eno within the last few years, and it sucked just as bad. Amazing. I guess they're BOTH just too old.

[Emerald Tablet]

i believe it is imposible to fill a lifetime with good quality music. The stones and the beatles didn`t manage to do so. Elvis and hell even`t chuck berry didn`t manage to do so 17th / 18th / 19th / 20th / 21th century composers all tried and i can`t think up one that build not atleast one shite composition. (imo) But why should artists always be genius. I don`t think they don`t make good music anymore because they are pampered today - i just think they need to fail bigtime to see it takes more as just "personality" to score.

As conseptual as it was i liked ferry`s "as time goes buy album" very very very very much

gabriel
Even though poppy the simple song "Your Eyes" from the 80`s "so" album moves me to tears but that could be my taste - his nowadays work doesn`t touch me as much indeed. But perhaps his next album will be perfect again.

[Steven West]

Don't worry Paul. The pickle broke off when they were inserting it, and now they have to take it out on someone is all.

But to your topic, and why these 'kings' fade like so - age, and success. When they start, they all feel they have to prove something - to get girls backstage, to get accolades in Rolling Stone, to make their 'landmark record'... And after all that's been acheived, there's nowhere else for them to go.
Gabriel got 'deep' about his personal life, and it was the turn of his demise commercially. I like 'Digging In The Dirt' myself, but definately makes the listener feel like Pete's psychoanalyst.
To a die hard fine, that's nice. To a 29 year that still likes shaking and saying 'Sledge...' - they're not going to play 'doctor' for Pete.

Ferry is still cool IMHO. He was and still is the best 'crooner' we got today. He can still pull off 'Do The Strand' to 'Avalon' and be a class act.
Problem with Brian is - no one wants 'class' today.
They want Robbie Williams with a 'Rooster Boy' haircut pulling his skin off in a video, and necking with Laura Dern or Nicole Kidman.

Even Bowie tried to 'be hip' by tagging along with Trent Reznor and exploring Drum and Bass styles....
How did it go on South Park when the kids got obessed with Chinpokomon dolls - have the parents think they're cool too. That kills the obsession right there. Too bad that episode didn't come out earlier to save David. But I hand it to Bowie for trying atleast, he still has that 'angst spark' in him. But really, it just comes off like Frank Sinatra and Bono doing 'Under My Skin' anyway you slice it now.

Age - it's a cruel bitch!

PS - my above comment was for your previous rant.

[shamann]

I've always thought the word genius was a dirty one. Used most often to tell one person that they are lesser than another, or that one person must excel more often than the plebs.

It's a dangerous business assuming that some of us are inherently better than the other. And it cuts both ways, as why should Peter Gabriel and Brian Ferry somehow always have to meet up to a listener's standards?

Perhaps consider that music makers can only execrise ideas that suit any listener for so long, and that as they move on, the listener will either get it or they won't.

Also consider that when one has not had their naughty bits stroked by the great money machine, that they perhaps feel they have more to prove, trying hard to get the good stroking, and so they fill their music with new ideas and more invention, looking for the right formula.

Post-naughty bit stroking, they just simply try to maintain the necessary balance to never have to go without.

[d2]

A lot of what we think is "great" has to do with the context in which we first experience it. My first listen of Gabriel's Security album - by way of example - was at 4 in the morning driving in deep fog on a country road. Every subsequent listening therefore is held against that first experience, which partly forms a context for that work in my own mind.

It's much the same for everything and everyone, I think.

Part of what makes something "groundbreaking" or "revolutionary" is precisely this element of surprise and serendipity. Novelty is something that can't be created at will (and especially not recreated)

[shamann]

Part of what makes something "groundbreaking" or "revolutionary" is precisely this element of surprise and serendipity. Novelty is something that can't be created at will (and especially not recreated)

Indeed, nor sustained indefinitely.

[Bassballjg]

I love the recent kvr fashion of starting a thread by making a ridiculous assumption and asking in the thread title 'why it is so' while presenting the assumption as if it was a fact.

'why is 2+2=5 nowadays?'

'why is read a greeener colour than blue?'


To be on topic:

My opinion is that 'up' is the best work PG has ever delivered.

This is my opinion.

You are allowed to think otherwise.
THB I don't give a shit about it.

But please don't present your opinion as if it was a given fact.

I concur.

Why not? Do I really have to pussyfoot around here because I might offend somebody here? It's just my opinion, OK--that's a given, isn't it, since we have clearly established here that EVERYTHING is subjective.

Here's an opinion for you. Anybody that can't accept the fact that I KNOW that this whole thread is based on my OPINION, but feels that I need to qualify it as such in order not to offend the other participants here, is a pussy

Jeez.

Just to be clear about something, my concurrence is with Jens' opinion of the Up album. You are certainly more than entitled to your opinion and clearly the fact that everything in this thread is nothing more tha opinion is stipulated prima facia. I sincerely regret any misunderstanding caused by my use of Jens' whole quote as identifying me with his total statement.

While clearly in the decided minority in this thread in liking Up, and it seems anything more that 3 or 4 years post-Genesis, I take a somewhat middle position regarding matters of aesthetic theory. Clearly, it is possible to build consensus around a perception of what is good art based upon set out criteria and the endurance of a works appreciation over time. And there are also clearly defined standards of performance craft that tell us whether a piece of music is well-done for what it is regardless of if we like it or not. Indeed, it is possible to detach aesthetic analysis from personal taste; as an experienced musician, I know whether I band I hate is good or not. If a piece of music reaches an audience and has meaning to it, the ability to do so and to do so for new audiences over time is in my opinion one of the better ways to judge the quality of an artist or a work of art.

However, none of this invalidates the aesthetic experience of those with whom we disagree or falsifies their aesthetic criteria. In the end, we all simply like what we like, and it's best to agree to disagree.

On the subject of the latest Gabriel album, I find it to be an utterly engrossing musical experience. There are memorable melodies, engaging grooves and rich timbral textures. In particular, the songs "Sky Blue", "No Way Out" and "The Drop" are very, very intensely emotional listening experiences for me.

Mr. Minot, I sincerely hope that this post, particulaly the first paragraph, has clarified my remarks for you, being as I made no remark to you in the first place. I have no problem with you or your expression of an opinion with which I coincidentally disagree. I am not here to insult, disrespect, flame or fight anyone. I would therefore ask you to refrain from calling me names. We are not acquainted so I cannot see your use of the word pussy as anything but perjorative and meant to insult and defame. I have meant nor done you any harm, sir, and I wish that we could carry on this discussion without further resort to personal attacks.

John Gibson
BassballJG

[Steven West]

I hear you on 'genius' Shamann. But I think we're all 'geniuses' holding on to certain 'aces'.

I mean - when Ferry, Gabriel and all were playing dives, screwing skanks, getting dissed in Hit Parader and all... I bet they had ideas they were saving for when they get 'the big deal'. They quietly go over it in their heads on the bus, or backstage while the guitarist is tuning, or jot bits of it down on a quiet sunday afternoon... We ALL do it - big or small. I got stuff that NEEDS a real studio, session players and a six figure budget. Now whether that will be my 'landmark' CD if I ever get the chance - don't know? But will I 'unload myself' on it, and make sure everything is as perfect and detailed as I can make it? You bet!

So I'm fairly convinced that alot of these 'geniuses' were honing their own vehicle for whenever they got the chance... I'm sure Gabriel was toying with 'Games Without Frontiers' long before leaving Genesis... But he knew that would be one of his personal 'aces'.

Does it make him a genius? No, but it makes him pretty smart.

[wrench45us]

i tend to agree with the one point about drive and youthful ambition. there was no real certainty early on in these careers that it would be possible to make a decent living creating music. that question has passed. some can continue on when that question has been answered.
the other factor is the influences. let's limit it to other musicians -- when starting out i think one tends to feel very fortunate to have other creative people to work with, but at some point creative people have creative differences. if there's no economic incentive to work together, people choose to work apart. and it sometimes turns out a little bit of friction between people was providing inspiration.

Bob Dylan has had his ups and downs, but he's always generally been a solo act. He was pretty much thinking of letting it go in the 80's. But then he toured with the Dead and their practice of near continuous touring and their attitude toward their 'job' turned Dylan around. He talked obliquely about his turnaround on the '60 Minutets' interview and he did talk some about holding up his end of the bargain as far as his destiny and agreement with the powers that be.
Doesn't sound like you'd get that same attitude from PG. I don't know about Ferry. Roxy was a kick ass band. In both cases there was a certain propulsion once they went solo that fizzled out. 'Boys and Girls' is one of my favorite CD's.

Neil Young, started as a solo act. He got pulled into Buffalo Springfield -- a ton of talent in that band. Went away into 'his' band Crazy Horse in and out of CSNY, but he comes back to Crazy Horse and he had some real loopy crap for a long period there. But here again I think there's a certain 'agreement' in play.

just my musings, after 35+ years of paying attention to such stuff.

[jens]

I love the recent kvr fashion of starting a thread by making a ridiculous assumption and asking in the thread title 'why it is so' while presenting the assumption as if it was a fact.

'why is 2+2=5 nowadays?'

'why is read a greeener colour than blue?'


To be on topic:

My opinion is that 'up' is the best work PG has ever delivered.

This is my opinion.

You are allowed to think otherwise.
THB I don't give a shit about it.

But please don't present your opinion as if it was a given fact.

Why not?

because you're using lame and unfair methods to riducule a great artist.

How many of the people which answer your question while taking it as a given fact that 'Gabriel suck now' did listen to 'up' just once?

I guess that a fair amount of those people replying to this thread and answering your question and who now know that 'Gabriel suck now' never listened to this album.
But they all are discussing now why Peter Gabriel makes only shite nowadays.

It's a lame psychological trick.

So this whole thread seems to me just a lame way of abusing other people to share your opinion...

[shamann]

So I'm fairly convinced that alot of these 'geniuses' were honing their own vehicle for whenever they got the chance... I'm sure Gabriel was toying with 'Games Without Frontiers' long before leaving Genesis... But he knew that would be one of his personal 'aces'.

I don't know, it's been my experience that you're never quite sure what your ace is, that the things you hold dear tend not always to be the ones held dear by others.

But I really think the notion of genius is a dirty simplification of life. Why must someone who's good at something be a genius, instead of just someone who's good at something?

In the past, I worked in corporate hell for several years, and a common meme there is the idea of the 'guru', the person who's shown an aptitude for a given task. But those who bandied the word around the most tended to be those most desperate to exploit that ability. "Steve, you're the security guru, can you look after this?"

I think a guiding principle through all this should be: when they sell it all back to you, don't believe a single word they say. I was watching a thing on TV the other day that gave a 22-minute history on the "Alternative explosion" in music in the early 90s. Not a single thing they said bore any resemblance to how I remember it. Every narrative was neat and tidy, and reinforced the commodified perspective of the whole thing. "Really, Nirvana single-handedly did it all, with a little help from REM in the 80s." What a load of arse.

There's a new 3000 page history of music recently released that I'm very interested to see. I've heard that it turns a lot of accepted notions on musical development through the ages on their ears. If so, it re-enforces the idea that just because someone told you so doesn't necessarily make it so. I firmly believe that the most prescient imperative of our times is "Don't believe the hype!"

Cheers,
Steve

[cron]

In all due respect jens, I think most here don't slap IMO on the end of everything because they credit people with the intelligence to take their words in context.

IMO

[donkey tugger]

Brian Ferry? That's that cuntryside alliance twat isn't it?

[jens]

but anyway: how many people who are discussing in this thread now form subconciously an opinion about PG's current music without having actually heard it?

That's just ridioculously unfair.


I mean: no-one answered: 'maybe his music does not suck after all'

Every one assumes that it does.