Marillion: Does anyone like this band?
Anne Hyzer
I went out and bought a $25 double cd import because I heard good things
about this band on the prog rock newsgroups. I don't get it. The singer
totally sucks. And no, it's not a Geddy case where you just have to get
used to his voice, HE SUCKS! And the music seems very marginal. What am
I missing? I'll be perfectly willing to admit that I was wrong if
someone can show me the good in this band.
Erik Kolstad
I like Marillion, but they changed lead singer after the "Clutching at
straws" album. To the worse, definitely, although the first album after
the change has a few adequate songs. So, it depends heavily on which
album you bought. The lead singer to count on is Fish, an "obscure
Scottish poet."
Rush is not dead, but Xanadu is probably their best song, yes.
You're very direct, Anne, provokingly so.
--
http://www.mi.uib.no/~erikk Erik Kolstad,
http://www.uib.no/ University of Bergen.
Rick Atkinson
Erik Kolstad <er...@mi.uib.no> wrote:
>I like Marillion, but they changed lead singer after the "Clutching at
>straws" album. To the worse, definitely, although the first album after
>the change has a few adequate songs. So, it depends heavily on which
>album you bought. The lead singer to count on is Fish, an "obscure
>Scottish poet."
I totally disagree. Anne, if you did not like this import (is it
Thieving Magpies?), then try some of their newer work with a much
better singer, Steve Hogarth. My suggestion would be Season's End and
if you like that I would then get Brave, Marillion's best album which
happens to be a concept album about a girl found washed up underneath
a bridge w/ no recollection of how she got there. The story describes
how she could have fallen so far in life to reach that point. It's a
very dark album that takes some getting use to.
You might want to start w/ Seasons end, though. It's a good
introduction to the group.
Rick
Chrisopher Anderson
I do!
Actually I have to admit I only own a copy of "Misplaced Childhood", but
I have heard bits and pieces here and there and I liked what I heard.
Tes, i know that Fish left the band a couple of years back , but I
understand the new singer does a decent job.
Like I said, it takes a while to get used to a band like them since the
lyrics tend to get a little heavy from time to time.
It may be a stretch, but it would be nice to hear from bands like UFO or
Triumph again.
Later,
Thor
Scott Evers
And I TOTALLY disagree with both of the previous posters, Anne. If
you want to learn about Marillion, why not try posting to
ALT.MUSIC.MARILLION ????????
Use your judgement & give a listen to both incarnations. There are
more zealots for the Fish & Hogarth camps than there are factions
on A.M.Y.
--
Scott Evers, Squire Panther
____________________________________________________________________
!|!_!_!!!_!_!_!!!_!_!|| _______________"Rx" "Skar"_________________
|| | | | | | | | | | || ______________"Call To Arms"________________
|| | | | | | | | | | || X3,X3r,K4,ESQ-1,Jupiter 6
-----------------------*********************************************
Cam Wilson
well, what was the CD? if it's the live performance called "the thieving
magpie" - in Italian (can't remember how that translates), then it's a
pretty good representation of their music. but it could be a poor quality
bootleg. or it could be that very recent live release with the other singer.
for me, that would have spoiled it.
anyway, i'm a HUGE rush fan, and i've more recently been turned
onto Marillion as well. i love their music, at least up until their
original singer (Fish) left them. "clutching at straws" may be their
best album as far as i'm concerned. "misplaced childhood" is also a
good one. these might win you over. Fish is nothing like Geddy, but more
like Peter Gabriel from his Genesis days. great singer, just a different
style. what grabs me is the amazing interaction of keyboards and guitars.
in fact, much of the guitars in their music reminds me of the classic
Alex Lifeson sound and style. give 'em a chance; it took me a while to
warm up to it, but this band is at least a #2 after Rush in their genre.
--
Cam Wilson * ca...@nortel.ca
La Villa... Tempus Fugit... Warm Wet Circles
(you figure it out - and get back to me, man)
Becky Allison
Don't give up on Marillion until you listen to Misplaced Childhood. It's
several years old and features their previous lead singer, Fish, instead
of Steve Hogarth. It's a concept album, tightly unified, and the next to
last song, Childhood's End, is one of the most memorable numbers I have
ever heard.
Becky
Teabags
Who the fuck are Marillion? If nobody knows who the fuck they are, then
who really gives a flying shit???!!
Anne Hyzer
The cd I have has Fish as the vocalist! It also has Childhood's End. I
still don't like them. Sorry. Next.....
Ysroq
Old Marillion, from the days in which Fish is their lead vocalist, is
amazing!! I am a huge Rush fan and a fan of a lot of the old prog bands
like Yes, King Crimson, etc. Everyone always told me that Marillion sounds
like old (Peter Gabriel era) Genesis. I kind of reversed the process, by
getting turned on to old Genesis via Marillion. Pick up their album
trilogy, "Script for a Jester's Tear", "Fugazi" and "Misplaced Childhood".
These are excellent and tell a story of corrupted innocence throughout. I
have tried to listen to some of the post-Fish stuff, and can't stomach it,
nor can I handle too much of Fish's solo stuff. The song, "Fugazi", in
particular, is simply a masterpiece. Check it out!!!!!
Anne Hyzer <m...@my.matrix> wrote in article <32422E...@my.matrix>...
Barry Bocaner
Fish is a pretty bad singer... he's got a very limited instrument, a poor
sense of phrasing, and totally refuses to do *anything* interesting with
his voice. His lyrics are generally very good though, and, on some
things, his sound can be endearing and appropriate. The new singer is
MUCH better, although he is a poorer lyricist. Their music is also
pretty dull for the most part, although a lot of it is strikingly beautiful.
--
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Barry J. Bocaner _________/|
<ba...@gslink.com> (___|_____\|__________
_|__________)-
"If you listen to a piece of classical music it's a piece of music, but if
you listen to a pop song from 1954 it sounds like a pop song from 1954.
How much of the music that's being written today will be worth listening
to in ten years, except for nostalgia?" -Geddy Lee
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Martin Colloby
On Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:10:50 GMT, atki...@atl.mindspring.com (Rick Atkinson)
wrote:
>if you like that I would then get Brave, Marillion's best album which
>happens to be a concept album about a girl found washed up underneath
>a bridge w/ no recollection of how she got there. The story describes
>how she could have fallen so far in life to reach that point. It's a
>very dark album that takes some getting use to.
Not wishing to be pedantic, but the girl was found wandering near the bridge.
It's a big bridge - people who jump off it don't come back.
Great album - I got to see the show in Bristol (near the Bridge).
Martin Colloby
Harlequin Computer Services Limited
mar...@harleqin.demon.co.uk
Kristian Tanner,Helsinki
kte...@pop.erols.com (Teabags) writes:
>Who the fuck are Marillion? If nobody knows who the fuck they are, then
>who really gives a flying shit???!!
Quick to judge, quick to anger:
Ignorance, prejudice and Teabags walk hand in hand.
--
Kristian M. Tanner < Head Librarian >
Bruno Lima
I make Kristian's words mine...
Marillion WAS a brilliant progressive scottish band until its lead
singer, Fish, departed in 1988 (I think). IMHO, they are very mediocre
right now.
There's a alt.music.marillion newsgroup. Check it out.
Marillion (with Fish, a.k.a. Derek Dick) is one of my favorites bands,
alongside Rush, Jethro Tull and The Who.
I'm pretty sure most Rush fans would like the 'old' Marillion; the
melodies are beautiful and elaborate, while the lyrics are intricate but
clever.
Regards,
Bruno.
Ken
Marillion! They have done a great job replacing Fish, Have you tried the new Marillion?
Its just as good if not better then the old! Fish is dead in the water while Marillion
hammers ahead. Check it out for yourself!
Ken
|Gompers|
On 21 Sep 1996 04:18:21 GMT, Teabags <kte...@pop.erols.com> wrote:
::Who the fuck are Marillion? If nobody knows who the fuck they are, then
::who really gives a flying shit???!!
::
Marillion is the best opener Rush ever had. If I hadn't seen them
open, I never would have found this great music (in the Fish vocal
era.)
----------
Rich Lafond
ri...@accessus.net
aka |Gompers| on Efnet Rush chat IRC channel #yyz
----------
jonath...@ukonline.co.uk
Which singer are you listening too and which album? Fish was their first
singer, he was replaced by Steve Hogarth in 1989. IMHO Hogarth is by far
the superior vocalist - in fact I find it very hard to kisten to the old
Fish/Marillion albums. Check out the albums Brave and Araid of Sunlight. I
gather back in 1984, some Rush fans at Radio City Hall in New York did NOT
like Marillion.
Mark Tiplady
>>Who the fuck are Marillion? If nobody knows who the fuck they are, then
>>who really gives a flying shit???!!
Nice attitude. I, and many other people (including Rush themselves) know who
'the fuck' Marillion are. In fact I've known who 'the fuck' Marillion are for
the last fifteen years. D'ya think the band would still be together after
that long if nobody knew who 'the fuck' they were?
Your loss.
Mark.
Anne Hyzer
Not to mention, it might not hurt to try and be a little more open
minded. Don't you like hearing about new bands from fellow rush heads,
whom you should trust at least a little?
Trygve Kloev
Mark Tiplady wrote:
>
> >>Who the fuck are Marillion? If nobody knows who the fuck they are, then
> >>who really gives a flying shit???!!
>
> Nice attitude. I, and many other people (including Rush themselves) know who
> 'the fuck' Marillion are. In fact I've known who 'the fuck' Marillion are for
> the last fifteen years. D'ya think the band would still be together after
> that long if nobody knew who 'the fuck' they were?
>
> Your loss.
>
> Mark.
Speaking of Marillion, could someone please email me a snippy post-Fish
album evaluation ?
Trygve
Mike Platt
Your right, I was at one of those Radio city concerts and half the audience were yelling that they sucked. I
liked them myself. They were extremely popular in England when Misplaced Childhood was released which was a
great album.
IAN
Ken <k...@mail.alliance.net> wrote:
>>
>> Bruno.Im a Rush fan, and not only do I like the "old" Marillion, I also like the new
>Marillion! They have done a great job replacing Fish, Have you tried the new Marillion?
>Its just as good if not better then the old! Fish is dead in the water while Marillion
>hammers ahead. Check it out for yourself!
>Ken
BOLLOCKS!!
Ian
IAN
ri...@accessus.net (|Gompers|) wrote:
>On 21 Sep 1996 04:18:21 GMT, Teabags <kte...@pop.erols.com> wrote:
>::Who the fuck are Marillion? If nobody knows who the fuck they are, then
>::who really gives a flying shit???!!
>::
>Marillion is the best opener Rush ever had. If I hadn't seen them
>open, I never would have found this great music (in the Fish vocal
>era.)
>----------
>Rich Lafond
>ri...@accessus.net
>aka |Gompers| on Efnet Rush chat IRC channel #yyz
>----------
They were great when Fish was with 'em. But when he left, they went
down the pan
Ian
IAN
jonath...@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
>Which singer are you listening too and which album? Fish was their first
>singer, he was replaced by Steve Hogarth in 1989. IMHO Hogarth is by far
>the superior vocalist - in fact I find it very hard to kisten to the old
>Fish/Marillion albums. Check out the albums Brave and Araid of Sunlight.I
>gather back in 1984, some Rush fans at Radio City Hall in New York did NOT
>like Marillion.
I got Holidays in Eden, it's okay, but compared with Misplaced
Childhood or Clutching at Straws it's shite!!!
Nobody can match the lyrics of Fish.
Ian
Bruno Lima
Well said, Ian!!
Fish's lyrics are unbeatable.
Neil Peart's and Peter Hammill's (Van der Graaf Generator) come a close
second.
Marillions
Marillion is my favorite band. They are no way like rush. More of a Pink
Floyd feel to most of ther albums. Hey, if you don't like them no
problem. That's why there are other bands out there.
Alex Stanton
I do too. I saw them open for, I think it was RUSH, way back a many
moons ago in Buffalo. I was impressed. I agree that they are in no way
like RUSH and yes, they are more Pink Floydish than any other band that
I can think to compare to.
Cam Wilson
sure there are some Floyd comparisons, but i'd say there's a huge
similarity to older Genesis, esp. on Marillion's earlier material.
Fish's vocals and the themes and sounds they created are very
reminiscent of Genesis at their most progressive.
as for similarities to Rush, i'd have to say the one i quickly noticed
was the guitar sound and style, particularly on albums like Misplaced
Childhood, maybe Fugazi, and Clutching at Straws. this is what finally
drew me into their music, then i was able to appreciate the other
elements in their music. there is more of an even balance of keys and
gtr, with keys often dominating - in a good way...
Niak Niak
>
> Neil Peart's and Peter Hammill's (Van der Graaf Generator) come a close
> second.
You just forgot Peter Gabriel, Jon Anderson and John Wetton. They beat
Neil Peart, IMHO.
Renaud
HA Sinclair
Bruno Lima (br...@wisenet.net.au) wrote:
: IAN wrote:
: >
: > jonath...@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
: >
: > >Which singer are you listening too and which album? Fish was their first
: > >singer, he was replaced by Steve Hogarth in 1989. IMHO Hogarth is by far
: > >the superior vocalist -
Silly Boy! what are you on???
Howard
Daniel O'Riordan Casey
Ken (k...@mail.alliance.net) wrote:
: Bruno.Im a Rush fan, and not only do I like the "old" Marillion, I
: also like the new Marillion! They have done a great job replacing Fish,
: Have you tried the new Marillion? Its just as good if not better then
: the old! Fish is dead in the water while Marillion hammers ahead.
: Check it out for yourself!
: Ken
What he said!
Although I have trouble deciding which Marillion I like more, they're both
great.
Try Clutching At Straws or Misplaced Childhood (old Marillion) or Season's
End or Afraid of Sunlight (new Marillion).
Also, give them time to grow on you. They are a very subtle band.
|Gompers|
On Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:15:38 GMT, hs5...@wfcs.bris.ac.uk (HA Sinclair)
wrote:
::
I must agree...Hogarth doesn't have the depth that Fish gave
Marillion. Sure Fish isn't a "girly" singer, but his words and vocal
style meshed perfectly.
----------
Rich Lafond
ri...@accessus.net
aka |Gompers| on Efnet Rush music chat IRC channel #yyz
----------
John J Muir
I'm sick of this constant bickering over whether Hogarth or Fish is
a better vocalist/lyricist. Most of this seems to stem from a belief of
many that Fish's lyrics were sublimely deep or poetic.
I can't speak for Fish's solo lyrics, but his lyrics with Marillion
are often akward and awful. Lines like "Apocalyptic alphabet casting
spell the creed of tempered diction" are just horrible. Sure it sounds
cool when he sings it but lyrically it's awful. And lines like these
are the rule, not the exception when it comes to Fish. What really irks
me about Fish is his gratuitous use of symbolism. For instance, how
many songs can Fish fit a pale kimono and a wedding ring into? I didn't
even think these fit appropriately into the song the first time they
were used in "Emerald Lies", which is otherwise a great song.
The fact is, Marillion was stagnating under Fish. How would you
feel in a band where the majority of your songs seemed to revolve around
your lead singer's bout with alcoholism or his failed love life?
I love Marillion's old sound, but their new sound is far better and
more experimental. Prior to adding Hogarth, Marillion was musically
another Rush/Genesis clone. Since adding Hogarth, they've tried
everything from pop to their new heavy/ambient rock sound. At last
they're writing songs that don't revolve around their lead singer's
shortcomings, and are writing lyrics that I find to be far more
accessible and introspective. Great lyrics can and should be subtle,
and shouldn't have to constantly hit you over the head with a dictionary
to make their point.
When I saw Marillion in Pittsburgh last year I was absolutely
floored by Hogarth's stage presence. I had seen Marillion's videos w/
Fish and a few with Hogarth prior to the concert, and had been
unimpressed. Nothing prepared me for the energy that Hogarth had that
night. I don't think I've ever seen a concert where the lead singer had
such energy. I won't spoil it for you with details if you've never seen
them live, but it was pretty impressive. And the fact that they came
and played four encores also added to the night.
To conclude, stop ripping on my man Steve Hogarth. Sure, Fish was
one of a kind and had some great lyrics. But Fish was not the be-all
and end-all of vocalists. The fact is, Fish is gone, and Marillion is
making even better music than ever.
Mark Tiplady
In article <DyyFA...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>,
hs5...@wfcs.bris.ac.uk (HA Sinclair) wrote:
>Bruno Lima (br...@wisenet.net.au) wrote:
>: IAN wrote:
>: >
>: > jonath...@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
>: >
>: > >Which singer are you listening too and which album? Fish was their first
>: > >singer, he was replaced by Steve Hogarth in 1989. IMHO Hogarth is by far
>: > >the superior vocalist -
>
>Silly Boy! what are you on???
>
The right track!
Mark.
Paul Spring
On Tue, 8 Oct 1996 16:14:12 -0400 John J Muir (spe...@CMU.EDU) wrote:
> I'm sick of this constant bickering over whether Hogarth or Fish is
<snip, snip, snip>
If you're sick of all the bickering, why add to it with a convoluted
diatribe of your own?
How can you possibly compare them?
"And some of the people that she thought that she knew
Were never like this when she saw them at school
She's never been anywhere like this before
Everybody's so out of control"
Doesn't that sound so contrived... like some schoolboy trying to write an
essay?
"I act the role in classic style of
a martyr carved with a twisted smile
To bleed the lyric for this song
to write the rites to right my wrongs"
Now that's verse! What Hogarth writes is prose sung to music.
As far as vocal style goes, Fish has got a voice in a million, whichever
band he sings in. Hogarth has a nice voice which would go well in a church
choir, but not an up-tempo progressive rock band.
When it comes to musical style, it's much harder. Every member of Marillion
is a brilliant musician in his own right (except you-know-who) and each
undoubtedly brought his own influence to all the Fish-era stuff. The very
fact that the style changed so dramatically after Fish left, however, shows
that he had a significant part to play. In my opinion, they were great
together, and each suffers now from the split. It's no good telling people
to stop moaning about the days gone past. For those of us who have followed
them from from their early days, right through to seeing them sell out 3
consecutive nights at Wembley Arena and then drop down to their current
level, there is ample room for sadness and nostalgia. The audiences speak
for themselves I think. Also, in my experience, when introducing new
converts to Marillion, a few nights of Script/Fugazi/Misplaced
Childhood/Clutching is enough to make a rabid fan of anyone who appreciates
good music, desperate to go out and buy all the CDs. On the other hand,
Hogarth era stuff tends to leave them cold. In short, I believe Marillion
have gone underground, appealing to a small cult following. Their early
stuff is simply brilliant, whoever you are and whatever your tastes, in
style and content it was unparalleled.
--
___ _ ___ _
| _ \__ _ _ _| | / __|_ __ _ _(_)_ _ __ _
| _/ _` | || | | \__ \ '_ \ '_| | ' \/ _` |
|_| \__,_|\_,_|_| |___/ .__/_| |_|_||_\__, |
|_| |___/
______________________________________
________| |_______
\ | p...@berkshire.net | /
\ | http://www.berkshire.net/~pjs | /
/ |______________________________________| \
/__________) (_________\
___ ___ ___
/ _ \/ _ \ / _ \ finger p...@berkshire.net
/ /_)/ /_\// /_)/ Key ID: 512/41407D31
/ ___/ /_\\/ ___/ Fingerprint: 9D 7F A8 64 B3 36 67 2A
\/ \____/\/ AD 80 40 EC 39 8A C6 02
Jonathan Mock
Not fish, thats for sure. Touche!
John J Muir
You justly criticized me for my last diatribe, but, in the spirit of
wicked capriciousness, I'll indulge myself yet again.
Regarding your Fish quote from Script, I personally think it's pretty
horrible, and certainly not one of the many far better lines I would
have used to fashion an argument. "To write the rites to right my
wrongs", that's just brutally bad word play, which is what most of
Fish's lyrics are. You said that Hogarth was contrived? That pun
sounds pretty contrived to me. Fish beats ideas over the head, Hogarth
says them subtly. For instance, compare the lyrics to Forgotten Sons
and Easter, both songs about the pointlessness of violence in Ireland.
Fish hammers away at his point, rhyming just about anything violent he
can, regardless of whether it pertains to what he's talking about:
"Armalite, street lights, night sights, death in the shadows, he'll maim
you, wound you, kill you, for a long forgotten cause...morphine, chill
scream, bad dream...who orders desecration, mutilation, verbal
masturbation in their guarded bureaucratic wombs" That to me, is
CONTRIVED drivel and certainly not great verse.
In Easter, on the other hand, with a few lines Hogarth establishes the
sense of loss and futility of the war without being as overt and
exhibitionistic. The lines "A tattered necklace of hedge and trees on
the southern side of the hill, betray where the border runs between
where Mary Dunoon's boy fell", and "What will you do with the wire and
the gun, that'll set things right, when it's said and done?", are so
much more elegant. There is a beauty and honesty in saying the profound
simply, and this is what Hogarth has the Fish does not.
Granted, Hogarth is not always as profound in his verse. But at least
he's not pompous and prone to the pseudo-intellectual posturing that
Fish is.
His lyrics always have a fundamental ring of honesty, simplicity, and
melody that Fish's ranting will never have. I wouldn't feel this way if
there were any visible constraints or moderation to Fish's adjective and
metaphor cramming in a song, but there don't seem to be any. Fish will
take every and any opportunity to insert poetic devices, literary
references, or regional phrases. As colorful and insightful as many of
these are, they are simply overwhelming and disgusting when viewed en
masse. Before you accuse me of a diatribe, you should try reading some
of Fish's lyrics, so know the real thing when you see it.
From a purely musical standpoint, I think Marillion is far closer to
brilliance now than ever. As I had stated in my last post, their early
albums musically had little that established them as a unique entity in
the progressive rock field. Comparisons to Genesis and Rush were valid
because their sound was very much derivative of these and other bands.
Today, their sound is incredibly unique. When I ask friends to
categorize the style of music on albums such as Brave or Afraid of
Sunlight, they are at a loss for words. No easy comparisons come to
mind. Marillion has finally found a "sound" and a sense of musical
maturity that is distinctive unto themselves. Hopefully, they'll
continue to experiment and grow in this sense.
Marillion's fall from popularity has been quite a positive experience in
my point of view. I feel that they are now finally a "band" in the
whole democratic sense, not simply the backup musicians for their
acclaimed vocalist. Yes, Marillion has become a "cult" band. But at
one point, Rush, Yes, and other bands were merely "cult" bands.
Sometimes bands make the best music when they're not being courted by
every venue, radio station, and label.
I realize you'll probably respond to this with a quote from "Hooks
in You" or "Cover my Eyes" or something to "prove" just how inane
Hogarth's lyrics are. I don't care. No occasional instances of
standard radio fare quality lyrics compare to the bulk of ridiculously
esoteric and blatant devices crammed into almost every Fish song.
Amari Mornan-Vaughan
John J Muir <spe...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
>The lines "A tattered necklace of hedge and trees on
>the southern side of the hill, betray where the border runs between
>where Mary Dunoon's boy fell", and "What will you do with the wire and
>the gun, that'll set things right, when it's said and done?", are so
>much more elegant. There is a beauty and honesty in saying the profound
>simply, and this is what Hogarth has the Fish does not.
Although the second of the two lines you quote does depend rather heavily on Yeats
'Easter 1916', the source acknowleged by H and Helmer. I don't have a copy here, but
check it out...The wire and the gun bit is a direct lift.
Mike & Kim
>
> Although the second of the two lines you quote does depend rather heavily
on Yeats
> 'Easter 1916', the source acknowleged by H and Helmer. I don't have a
copy here, but
> check it out...The wire and the gun bit is a direct lift.
The only line I remember from the poem is "To long a sacrifice will make a
stone of your heart" also lifted in the song. Still, its kinda cool that
my favorite band quotes one of my favorite writers (check sig)
--
Slainte,
MIKEY!!!!
"I think it better that in times like these
A poet's mouth be silent, for in truth
We have no gift to set a statesman right"
-W.B. Yeats
Paul Schirf
As a fan of BOTH Marillion incarnations I can't stay
out of this thread.
Fish writes lyrics few people can sing - but are a great
read. Misplaced Childhood and Clutching at Straws are
great collections of a boy's own stories. ;) They're kind
of like 2112 and Moving Pictures in the Rush catalog -
high points in a career that isn't really going down hill.
Hogarth is a good singer but a great lyricist? Nah!
The stuff he writes by himself is not as good as the
material co-written or "lifted". Brave is a GREAT
album and certainly ranks higher than Script and Fugazi
for listen-ability. Other albums are worth buying but
are not masterpieces.
The music is great with both singers. I almost wish
they would have altered the name a bit when Hogarth
came on. It would have prevented a lot of heartache.
James McGregor
In article <jonathan.mock-0...@194.6.113.184>, Jonathan Mock
<jonath...@ukonline.co.uk> writes
Turtle!
(Sorry, it's been a long day! :-)
James
IAN
John J Muir <spe...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
>You justly criticized me for my last diatribe, but, in the spirit of
>wicked capriciousness, I'll indulge myself yet again.
>Regarding your Fish quote from Script, I personally think it's pretty
>horrible, and certainly not one of the many far better lines I would
>have used to fashion an argument. "To write the rites to right my
>wrongs", that's just brutally bad word play, which is what most of
>Fish's lyrics are. You said that Hogarth was contrived? That pun
>sounds pretty contrived to me. Fish beats ideas over the head, Hogarth
>says them subtly. For instance, compare the lyrics to Forgotten Sons
>and Easter, both songs about the pointlessness of violence in Ireland.
>Fish hammers away at his point, rhyming just about anything violent he
>can, regardless of whether it pertains to what he's talking about:
>"Armalite, street lights, night sights, death in the shadows, he'll maim
>you, wound you, kill you, for a long forgotten cause...morphine, chill
>scream, bad dream...who orders desecration, mutilation, verbal
>masturbation in their guarded bureaucratic wombs" That to me, is
>CONTRIVED drivel and certainly not great verse.
>In Easter, on the other hand, with a few lines Hogarth establishes the
>sense of loss and futility of the war without being as overt and
>exhibitionistic. The lines "A tattered necklace of hedge and trees on
>the southern side of the hill, betray where the border runs between
>where Mary Dunoon's boy fell", and "What will you do with the wire and
>the gun, that'll set things right, when it's said and done?", are so
>much more elegant. There is a beauty and honesty in saying the profound
>simply, and this is what Hogarth has the Fish does not.
>Granted, Hogarth is not always as profound in his verse. But at least
>
Two different styles.
Fish= British prog rock
Hogart= American AOR
Pick the one you prefer, tell everybody which you prefer if you want
to, shut up, and then go and listen to him.
Ian
HA Sinclair
: "What will you do with the wire and
: the gun, that'll set things right, when it's said and done?", are so
conflict in Northern Ireland, the power and biterness in Forgotten Sons
speaks volumnes about the harsh reality. My father was born in belfast
and has lived right throught conflict and he sees no elegance there, This
is pretty teribble poetry in my view and in does not have irony,
profundety or power.
There is a beauty and honesty - Beauty? Honesty? These are the things
which are lacking from the whole history of the conflict, no one is
willing to accept blame or stop and think about the way they are tearing
their own country, lives and children's live appart. There is not honesty
in these lyrics it is basically ideological bulshit set to bad music. My
vote is with Fish simply because I know about the emotions which the
conflict arouses in people and I find it distressing when people
misconstrue them in an attempt to write a song. Fish puts all the anger,
bitterness and heartfelt helplessness which would be felt by an Ulsterman
or a Republican who was not involved with the conflict and just wanted
peace, like myself and indeed my Father.
Howard hs5...@bristol.ac.uk
(Please reply to me personally if you have anything more to say)
:
:
Julian Allsopp
Bravo, John J Muir.
I wish I could have put it as eloquently, but no doubt the petty Fish v
Hogarth bantering will continue for a long time yet.
Personally, I can't listen to the pre-Hogarth Marillion anymore. I keep
thinking, "I just want to forget that they had someone like that fronting
them when they now have Steve Hogarth". Completely different, but
completely right for the band.
A singer, not a screamer.
Mark Tiplady
In article <84513718...@stoke.demon.co.uk>,
i...@stoke.demon.co.uk (IAN) wrote:
>Fish= British prog rock
>Hogart= American AOR
Uh, not on my planet. It's impossible to pigeonhole either singer like that.
For instance most of Brave is patently not 'AOR' - songs such as Internal
Exile and Just Good Friends are patently not 'British Prog Rock'.
Mark.
kth...@gmail.com
> I went out and bought a $25 double cd import because I heard good things
> about this band on the prog rock newsgroups. I don't get it. The singer
> totally sucks. And no, it's not a Geddy case where you just have to get
> used to his voice, HE SUCKS! And the music seems very marginal. What am
> I missing? I'll be perfectly willing to admit that I was wrong if
> someone can show me the good in this band.
Marillion minus Fish = Shit