Enough Said. Over hyped. Just play any Peter Gabriel Album against any Phil Collins album. Just do it. It is that simple, Phil Collins produces ear candy. Easily forgettable. Peter Gabriel creates classics. Art. Music, that is not only incredibly influential, but something that you get something out of even twenty years later.
With Genesis, Peter Gabriel worked tirelessly to create an amazingly innovative, wonderfully theatrical, never seen before art-rock spectacle that pushed the boundaries big time. It was such an artistic entity before Phil Collins took over and took the band in a terrible, soft-cock-rock direction. Hence, Phil Collins is completely responsible for destroying the band's musical integrity and everything that had been achieved. Collins was an OK drummer...,it's where he should have stayed..*Bang*, *Bang*....Instead of causing troubles within the group and helping the onset of Peter Gabriel's estrangement from his band-mates.
Even though Phil Collins is often seen as a great singer and a benefit to Genesis, the truth is that he really succeeded in tearing them apart and bringing them down. He brought a lot of good to the table for them, but also brought a lot of problems with him.
Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins were equally bad and tried to force their own style on the band but to no avail. To be honest, the entirety of Genesis was the result of a series of very unfortunate mid life crises that went terribly wrong. I will stick to my Desiigner and Ariana Grande while you plebs stick to your aging prog ResidentSleeper 10 minute songs
The sound of Peter Gabriel is the Genesis I like and share. Phil, even though he is a great singer, is not the kind of voice that I find good to develop the direction that the band had during the Peter Gabriel period. Besides, I just cannot hear more than two songs straight with Phil as the singer
Genesis were unique when led by Gabriel. I enjoyed the complexity of the music (which I think in the most part was Bank's) and the wit lyrics. After Gabriel left they gradually lost it. I still think that winds and withering and trick of the tail were decent but after that their goal was money and in that respect they made it. Overall as a fan, they lost me.
Phil was a great drummer. He was simply superb on Robert Plant's solo tour. That being said, unless you are a fan of 80s top 40, his music is largely Muzac. Gabriel is in the class of Lennon and McCartney, Bowie, etc. It is just the way the cookie crumbles.
Likely is Mike and Tony's fault. The two albums after Gabriel's departure were great. I think it was after Steve Hackett left when it all started to fall apart. Collins era is fine and they made great songs , but the last album made by Rutherford And Banks alone is just bad imho. Lets remember that there was creative differences beetween them and Hackett, which ended with Hackett leaving the band to pursue more experimental artistic aspirations
But Phil Collins' voice and his more commercial ear saved them from disappearing down a pretentious prog sinkhole. Tony Banks somehow still believed to the end that this was his band, but without Collins I'm not sure how long it would have survived, even with Gabriel - I like The Lamb Lies Down but not sure where that direction would have gone eventually. Collins voice and Rutherford/Banks music together was special - Ripples being an example. Maybe by the time Collins left it had gone perhaps too commercial but the post Gabriel body of work speaks for itself.
Peter Gabriel Genesis has great songs, like Looking For Someone and The Chamber of 32 Doors, for instance. Phil Collins Genesis has great songs like Duchess and Like It Or Not. The only era of Genesis I don't like is Calling All Stations. People complain that they got too pop with Invsible Touch, for instance, but I consider that to also be progressive rock. They were using new technology and creating new things. I consider it to be just as creative as albums like The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. I personally prefer Phil Collins genesis anyways, not because it was poppier, just personal preference. They were both equally. Albums like Genesis and Duke are just as good as Foxtrot and Selling England By The Pound in my opinion. Also Three Sides Live is my favorite Genesis album.
Success is what killed Genesis. That, and each member getting more and more set in his way with age. Gabriel did the same thing. Gabriel, Genesis and the three surviving members stopped developing after their mid-80s success. None of them has made a event album since 1986. The only one who continued to push himself artistically is Steve Hackett.
Phil did not ruin Genesis. Genesis is great from their second album all the way to their second to last album. They did get more poppy with Phil but only after two full albums without Peter. They always held on to their prog roots. They had many epic songs with Phil throughout the discography. The peter era was a tad on the "too artsy" side where the Phil era was a tad on the to "poppy" side. Phil did not ruin Genesis, Tony and Mike had a lot to do with the direction of the band also. Bands can not always stay the same. Being a prog band means you change and test the limits. SUPERIOR HAS SPOKEN!!!1
Gabriel was unique without a doubt but if Collins hadn't taken over as lead singer the band would have died with Gabriel's departure. Yes they changed but not for the worst. Almost all bands change when they are together for decades. U2 has changed many times over the years and they have the same 4 members they started with.
I don't know if Gabriel led Genesis would have survived the pop driven 80's or not. Gabriel as a solo artist made music that sold better, had more melody, universal appeal. Shock the monkey and sledge hammer sound nothing like anything that he did with Genesis. Conversely, the Collins led Genesis changed their sound over night, and not only survived the 80's, but influenced it.
Peter Gabriel left on his own. He was becoming estranged from the band because he had artistic aspirations that he felt were being muted due to the constraints of being in a band. Genesis actually tried out different singers until they realized they had an awesome singer already in the band. They did change but lots of bands changed as time went on. Maybe they became more pop oriented but it was better than a lot of the same genre of music that was coming out. Even Peter Gabriel started doing pop as the 80's progressed. I feel that Phil was a more natural and soulful singer than Peter regardless.
Why does this incessant argument prevail? I love all eras of Genesis from the classic prog early days littered with Gabriel's fabulously quirky lyrics, through the 4 man era where they made melodies and atmospheres which make your heart sing, through to the 3 man days when the music simplified in some ways but where they could still knock out amazing tunes too, Dodo, Home by the Sea, Dreaming while you sleep, Dukes Travels ............ All speak for themselves.
Without the parting of the ways in 1975 it is likely that the band may have imploded and we would not have had the benefit of all their cracking individual work. Stop harping on and listen to what you like and ignore the rest...... Whodunnit? Never gets played by me but I dont feel the need to rubbish other songs because of the odd turkey!
All members of Genesis made massive contributions to their success and also contributed to its weaker moments....... So what? Enjoy the music!
Phil Collins rocks! When Peter Gabriel left Genesis they were all but doomed. Name One other band where lead singer left and the band went on to prosper. Then Phil went on to a highly successful solo career. There is no logical argument that can support Phil Collins destroying Genesis.