Head To Head
Log In
Register
Unsung Forum »
Phil Collins
Log In to post a reply

80 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
IanB
IanB
6761 posts

Edited Sep 09, 2010, 09:46
Re: Phil Collins
Sep 09, 2010, 09:27
The Sea Cat wrote:
IanB wrote:
Yes he has made a lot of terrible records but there were a lot of artists who made their name pre Punk who cashed in their chips in an undignified fashion in the 80s pandering to MTV in the worst way - Winwood, Palmer, Clapton for three. I would put Bowie in that category too. And Rod.


Absolutely Ian and that's exactly my original point. I'm not excusing the rubbish , just emphahsing his pre-naff status and talent. Credit where it's due and all that.


Yup. I would argue that those artists had little choice because the rock media (at least in the UK) abandoned expansive music when Punk came along. So all those older guys who had been playing long (too bloody long in some cases) or else trying to do the Little Feat thing suddenly either gave up (Man), relocated to Europe (Roger Chapman), went futher left field (Hammill) or went stark raving singles crazy.

Some of it was greed but some of it was that there was suddenly no platform for them in England to make that kind of music. Dire Straits and the Police et al had replaced the big 70s acts and Queen really went in a singles-led direction after News of the World or maybe Jazz. Genesis of course went the exact same way. And Yes. John Martyn had a crack at it and failed. Joe Cocker was luckier.

Unless you were true to Metal or already minted you were pretty much fucked when it came to making interesting rock music unless you were prepared to pretend to be allied to Punk in some way. This was before the days when people could make albums at home for buttons. Recording time was really expensive. This only occured to me when I read how much the two Joy Division albums cost to make.
Topic Outline:

Unsung Forum Index