Discussion in 'Entertainment' started by MrFunnyWobbl, Jan 8, 2019.
Solo career only, use whichever criteria you like.
Peter Gabriel. I don't think very highly of Phil Collins music at all. Every time I've heard him (admittedly not super well versed on his stuff), I thought he was pretty awful.
took more chances
I'm not even a huge Gabriel fan, but if I had to list my favorite songs either of them did, I'd probably go through 10-15 Gabriel songs before any of Collins.
PG did things differently then Collins
nothing against Collins-but I think of Wayne Gretzky's famous comment
"I do not look where the puck is--I see where it is going"
PG was often one step a head of everyone else in music
Gabriel by a long, long way. Collins solo career is pretty disappointing in my opinion.
Collins stuff is alright but nothing special.
With PG when he had a CD coming out you had to ask yourself what will it sound like with Collins you never has to ask. It was going to be in the middle
I would've thought Phil peaked higher than Peter
I always get a kick out of this video.
At 0:15 seconds the stadium starts shaking to the beat of the song. Phil Collins was a mega star back in the day. Video was from 1997.
I've always thought that Phil Collins was more pop, and Peter Gabriel was more alternative.
Peter Gabriel for his solo stuff, Collins for his Genesis stuff.
Phil was a bigger record seller, but Peter the greater artist. Both put on great live shows. And I like them both, but Phil's music really went downhill in the "Tarzan" soundtrack era.
I would have paid an arm and a leg for the mid-70's Genesis lineup to reunite for one tour in the late 90's or so.
Collins had more success with his solo career having a higher peak and greater sales/commercial success and his music has greater appeal to masses
Collins > Gabriel
Appeal to popularity never makes any sense to me-- it's completely backwards reasoning. The masses are almost by definition bound to be more ignorant and have more undeveloped tastes than anyone with even a modicum of interest or passion in something (basically, you simply need to know or care slightly more than the average person in order to be a more qualified authority on any given subject). Aside from indicating something about its accessibility and meeting a baseline/floor of quality, it's completely meaningless when determining how good or bad something is compared to something else.
Or you know, you just like what you like.
That's not really actually the case though, IMO. You can only truly know what you like by really diving in and digging around and slowly developing a better understanding of your own preferences, which the masses as a whole could never be expected to do (it would be kind of insane if they did). Even when factoring subjectivity, popularity among the masses is probably one of the least useful barometers of how good something is.
The logic is equivalent to valuing the instincts and opinions of a bunch of eight year olds over the thirty-year-old versions of them, IMO.
Nothing is a useful barometer of how good something is. Each individual is different. Most of the time people can instantly like/dislike a song as soon as they hear it
Nothing is a perfect and authoritative barometer of how good something is, I agree-- subjectivity is always going to muddy those waters, but some are clearly more reasonable, credible, and useful than others, to some degree. It's not just a black and white "every opinion is completely equal no matter what" thing. The gut instincts of someone who barely cares or even pays attention is never going to be more meaningful than the considered and engaged impressions of someone who actually engages in it, and that's where any appeal to popularity becomes more questionable than any opinion otherwise already would be for the reasons that you've given.
I think to truly care as much as you say, you already have to had some type of attraction in the first place. I'll give you an example. I will be more inclined to give a deep listen to a Metallica (my favorite band) track that I had barely listened to before than some random country singer (not really fond of country music). Why, because I care and one thing and not the other, hence, you just like what you like.
While that initial "some type of attraction/repulsion" is bound to be somewhat of a continuing factor, it's never going to paint a perfect picture of what your sensibilities will ultimately be (or can be), which is initially skewed by superficial barriers and misunderstandings that get fixed/overcome and become more and more refined as you expose yourself to more stuff.
If all of your current opinions line up perfectly with that initial attraction/repulsion, I would argue that you probably don't know yourself or your own sensibilities half as well as you think you do. That **** changes over time as you challenge your initial preconceptions of it-- it becomes better and better, and you're bound to at some point open up to different paths that you wouldn't expect to.
The idea that you just like what you like exactly, forever and ever is a totally false misconception, IMO. That only happens if you just don't bother to chip away at it, which is the case with the opinions of the masses (because afterall, there's no way you're going to get everyone to unanimously give total attention to the same thing).
I don't think I explained myself clearly. I don't mean "I like what I like" as in someone can predict what I like. What I mean is, say a song I never heard before came on. don't know the artist or anything. No preconceptions whatsoever. after the song is over, typically, I either like it or don't like it or somewhere in between. Doesn't matter the genre or popularity or whatever.
Yes, I understand that. That's what I mean too. By preconceptions, I'm referring to those initial impressions. You have a certain impression that's instinctive, but that impression isn't necessarily representative of what you would end up thinking is true/most satisfying if you dove head first into everything (which I realize isn't possible). In fact, it's usually muddied by things like conditioning, manipulation, knowledge, and comfort zones that are mostly just superficial barriers that can be overcome but that people usually don't.
I mean, it's like, compare your music opinions/instincts/preferences when you were eight years old to what they are now. I'm sure there's some through-line you can make, but the earliest versions of your impressions were never fully representative of your actual sensibilities which, even relative to just you, are better and more meaningful now than they once were (the same way that any deeply exposed opinion is more meaningful than the average popular shallow opinion).
You like what you like for the time being, but then (if you expose yourself to a lot of stuff) even THAT changes and gets closer and closer to what you find out you ACTUALLY like. If you have a reasonably level playing field, then sure, you can point to subjectivity being the determining factor. But until that gap gets even remotely close, the less exposed opinion shouldn't be weighted equally.
Separate names with a comma.