Over the years there has been the on and off again debate over whether Marillion was better with Fish or h. I think it all comes down to personal preference, but in my opinion, some of the older Fish-era albums, great as they are, have begun to show their age. Hogarth, on the other hand, has allowed Marillon to mature and bring their sound into the present day.
I'll be the first to admit I'm not a big fan of Fish's post-Marillion work as a whole. Sure, there are a few gems, but far too few for me to stay interested. When Fish left the band, many wrote Marillion off as dead. Fish felt as though he could carry on without the others and achieve even greater success. After all, he was Marillion. Well now we all know how the 'cunning plan' has worked out. By surrounding himself with average (exception: Mickey Simmonds and Frank Usher) musicians, Fish has shown himself to be what he truly is: a great lyricist with a strong need for a great supporting musical cast. He had that in Marillion. He's never had it solo.
Marillion, on the other hand, decided to carry on with an unknown singer. A sure sign of suicide. I think most would agree that their 'cunning plan' has fared much better. In Hogarth, they got a multi-talented musical force, an exceptional vocalist, and an energetic, passionate live frontman. Injecting new life into the band, Marillion have gone on to release classics such as "brave", "AoS", and "Marbles".
Fans periodically scream for a Fish/Marillion reunion. For what? To hear Fish attempt to sing the old songs? Anyone watch or listen to "Return To Childhood"? To my ears it's a sad and downright painful experience. Time has not been kind to Fish's vocal abilities. 30+ years of excess will probably do that to you. Reduced budgets have also taken their toll on the caliber of musician Fish has been able to attract. It shows.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, h has taken the band to new heights in terms of creative output that most Marillion fans would have never thought possible. Sure, you might have not liked all of it, but you can't accuse them of resting on their laurels and not trying something new. Hogarth has given them the flexibility to experiment.
Marillion have become a successful self-run entity that has to bow to no one (except us from time to time). They are the model for how to survive in the current music industry on your own terms. Fish , on the other hand, has struggled to stay afloat (pun intended).
So, in my opinion the ongoing debate is pointless. Fish left (thank God), Marillion continued, and both are where they are. For those who are pushing for a reunion, it's pointless. It will never happen (save for the recent Aylesbury one-off) nor should it. Musically, it would be crap. It would also be a huge slap-in-the-face to h. Marillion are not interested for good reason. They know they've got a good thing going. Why mess with it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Exceptionally well said! Whenever a band breaks up and comes back together again with a different lineup, there are always going to be people who hate the new sound and pine away for things to return to the way they used to be.
Band reorganizations -- especially when the lead singer is involved, are risky business and more bands fail at it than succeed. For every Genesis there's a Journey.
I was so upset when Fish left Marillion. I really thought they were on to something that could only get better and better. In hindsight however, I think they were on their way to selling out completely (commercially) sell-out and ultimately fading away to obscurity because they couldn't sustain what they built with Misplaced Childhood and already started to tear down with Clutching at Straws. Fish's post-Marillion work bears this out -- a good share of the material appearing in his first two albums was written while he was still in Marillion. We'll never know for sure where they would have gone, but one thing I'm pretty sure of -- that voice was on its way out and his excesses post Marillion would have most likely been even worse had he stayed in the band. The arrival of H really did breathe new life into the the band. They operate now as a democratic unit with a frontman and lyricist who is as charismatic if not moreso than the original.
I don't mean to be cruel to Fish, I'm a fan.. but dreams are dreams and reality is reality. You're right.. a reunion at any time would have been a mistake... now it would be an outright DISASTER!
Couldn't agree more.
Well, I don't agree with you guys. For me, Fish Marillion was magical and H Marillion is just plain boring, Radiohead and Muse copycat music. (Muse rules by the way). Can you possibly compare "no one will take you away from me now, no one will take you awaaaay" to "The sky was Bible black in Lyon"?
A valid opinion, but I think you missed the point.
You don't have to like the direction that Marillion have taken with h at the helm. The "No One Can" lyrics you posted are in no way indicative of the overall body of work of h-Marillion. "No One Can" is a blatant stab at a commercial single. Marillion were being pressed by EMI to produce hits and the entire "Holidays In Eden" album suffers because of it. The band themselves would be the first to agree. Once they broke free of EMI, they were no longer under such constraints and the music shows it.
I would cite songs such as "Mad", "The Great Escape", "Afraid of Sunlight", "The Invisible Man", "The Last Century For Man", "A Few Words For the Dead", "Neverland", etc., etc. They are as 'prog' as anything the band ever created with Fish.
That's still not the point however. The point was that Fish has basically lost all of his vocal range (he would tell you that as well), and has suffered musically by not having a constant, first-rate group of musicians surrounding him (he would never admit to that one). Therefore, in my opinion, his solo output over the years has been sub-par at best. If you like the music, great. I simply don't care too much for it. I've never questioned Fish's prowess as a lyricist/poet. I just questioned his ability to sing. In my opinion, he can't.
The main gist of the original post however, was to address those that constantly cry out for a Fish/Marillion reunion. Those fans would want to hear music from the first four albums. They would want to hear that music sound the way it did back in, say 1985. The reality is that Fish would be unable to deliver the goods, the band would have to play everything in a lower key to accommodate his lack of range, and the overall performance would be extremely disappointing. As I said in the original post, I can't even watch 'Return To Childhood' without cringing.
I've seen Hogarth on (mostly) good and (some) bad days as a vocalist. Even on his worst day, he can sing rings around Fish at his current 'very best'.
You don't have to like h or h-era Marillion. I just think that if Fish had stayed in the band, they would have broken up sometime around '90-'92. It's now 2007 and the band continues to evolve and thrive. Rehashing 1983-1987 is pointless and would serve no purpose other than to bring back glimpses of fond memories. Ultimately it would be a great letdown to anyone really listening.
Hey, I actually like some h-era stuff (Seasons End and Radiation come to mind) and I haven't said that Fish's post-Marillion output is all that good, either. In fact, I agree with you about his surrounding himself with sub-par musicians. But everything Marillion has done from Anorak onwards is... well, not good in my opinion. And Somewhere Else is just horrible. I fail to see the point for the band made out of 40-year-olds, to emulate a band made out of 20-year-olds. Hogarth may self admittingly hate progressive rock (look up his comment about geeks listening cross legged to old prog records), but that's the kind of music that made Marillion famous.
Fish on the other hand, got himself too much immersed in Scottish nationalism in his lyrics, which is not a subject I can really identify myself with, and the music is sub-par too.
Having said all that I'd very much rather he stayed with Marillion, even if they would break up a couple of records later. I think it's an incredibly sad moment in Live from Loreley, when Fish hugs Steve Rothery whilst singing "The cracks are already beginning to show"...
See? Opinions are meant to differ. I consider Radiation one of the weakest Marillion albums. I'm surprised that you like it, considering it's one of M's more blatent efforts at sounding 'cutting edge' (I don't think the experiment worked). I think Anorak, Marbles, and SWE are much more in the vein of a typical Marillion sound.
As far as the point behind a 40+ year old (closer to 50 in most cases) group of guys trying to sound like a group of 20 year olds, my question is, "Why does there have to be a point in the first place?' Marillion makes music that they like and doesn't really seem to care what anyone else thinks. I admire that. I don't always like the results, but I admire it just the same. Marillion could certainly rely on the tried and true 'prog' formula that made them semi-famous. I think that doing so however, would cause them to be bored and ultimately speed up their demise. I know I'd be bored. I'd much rather see the band pushing the envelope and trying new directions with each release, rather than going the IQ or Pendragon route and rehashing the same album over and over again.
I also don't find SWE to be among the band's stronger works. To me, it's OK; certainly not horrible. Horrible to me is Fish trying to sing Misplaced Childhood. If you think it's horrible, that's OK. Each to their own opinion. It would be a boring world if we all liked exactly the same thing.
er, well I think it is a little disingenous to say you think the H V Fish debate is worthlesS - but go on to offer a very clear opinion comparing them!
I'm glad to see Marillion with H continuing to perform and theres no doubt they have produced much creditable material.
However, if singing voices are going to be discussed, I think one must be honest and say that both singers powers have declined.
This aside,personally I think it is clear that Fish has a flair and talent which H-Marillion do not quite have. I don't say he has always used it well - he has been more erratic than his former band.
The band reached their peak with Fish and if you compare 13th Star to Ms rather insiped recent stuff then....
In my humble opinion, I think that Marillion without Fish is like Deep Purple without Blackmore. In these situations, some bands should just change their names. I´ll never say that Fish-Marillion is better thant H-Marillion...they are just two different bands which share the same name. I think that those who prefer Fish-Marillion would have loved the band to stand together longer...until decadence started to show up. A reunion, given the present circumstances, would be a fatal mistake, no doubt about it. But let me finish this post saying that I prefer listening to bands like Arena, Pendragon or Pallas rather than Marillion. Just listen to albums like "Contagion" or "Passion" and compare to most of H-era Marillion's albums. Or explore other prog bands like Beardfish, Agents of Mercy, Karmakanik, and you'll start missing Fish-Marillion a little bit less...
Well well well, I've stumbled on this blog conversation from 5 years ago now and so wonder if my mention will be heard. I'd just like to say that I was a massive fan of Marillion, to me Marillion is with Fish, I love the early stuff up until and including Fugazi.
I have to admit that I don't know much of both fish and Marillion since their split from each other. But Fish needs the recognition that he deserves. When he joined Marillion in their fledgling days, he gave them identity and passion. It's been said that it was Fish who was getting the bookings and chasing record companies, he had the unique charisma and voice style as a frontman to get them noticed.
Fish wrote the lyrics, the stories, gave the band a kleidescope of images to work on for the music. Fish worked with band's cover artist, giving ideas, concepts and direction. True, without Marillion Fish might never have become known, but he is what helped put Marillion on the musical scene. He was brilliant at what they achieved.
There's a video on YouTube of Marillion at the Hammersmith Odeon in 1984, they are playing Fugazi, and whilst Fish's voice is suffering, as it's the final night after a national tour, it is Fish and his concepts which make for an amazing piece of musical theatre, it is fantastic!
Fish's voice had edge, He produced dark atmosphere and brilliance, he could work the crowd and hold their attention and for this he got the fans hooked.
I for one would love to see a fish reunion with the band if only they hadn't've got with another singer, and fish hadn't lost his vocal ability. It would just be emotional. So we just have to look at the old video's and listen to the old music to know that it was brilliant.
I thought that they had dated a while back, but this time round for me it brings it all back just how good they were, it's just whatever you're into.
All I can say is Fish was a legend for being with Marillion, and so he always will be because of what he achieved with them.
Post a Comment