Heres the place to talk about Fish in general

Re: Upset by Marillion playing what are essentially Fish son

Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:36 pm

:lol: its just wonderful hearing the fish songs. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Upset by Marillion playing what are essentially Fish son

Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:32 pm

brother 95 wrote:H has a lot a difficulties to embody these songs BUT Marillion is a stunning band and delivers extraordinary albums,emotionaly powerful and strong!
8-)


Seems to me he doesn't even bother trying to 'embody' them and (from what I've seen on YouTube) generally lets the audience do it! The one and only time I started to watch him "performing" (I use the term loosely) Script, I was amazed to see he was laughing. I was WTF, this isn't supposed to be funny! So I ended up switching it off. The band, however, are still superb.

I do like one or two Marillion songs from the post-Fish era, but they are few and far between. The music remains superb, however. Fish-era songs I think they should leave well alone because they really do belong to Fish and, whilst the band naturally still has rights to them, they were, after all, written with Fish's voice and Fish's performance of them in mind and I believe only Fish himself can give them the credit they deserve. As has already been said, Hogarth doesn't really put any effort or any part of himself into them & they weren't written for his kind of performance (or lack of it). If I were in his shoes, I can't say I'd particularly want to, either.
Thanked: 4

Re: Upset by Marillion playing what are essentially Fish son

Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:13 pm

Lady41 wrote:
brother 95 wrote:H has a lot a difficulties to embody these songs BUT Marillion is a stunning band and delivers extraordinary albums,emotionaly powerful and strong!
8-)


Seems to me he doesn't even bother trying to 'embody' them and (from what I've seen on YouTube) generally lets the audience do it! The one and only time I started to watch him "performing" (I use the term loosely) Script, I was amazed to see he was laughing. I was WTF, this isn't supposed to be funny! So I ended up switching it off. The band, however, are still superb.

I do like one or two Marillion songs from the post-Fish era, but they are few and far between. The music remains superb, however. Fish-era songs I think they should leave well alone because they really do belong to Fish and, whilst the band naturally still has rights to them, they were, after all, written with Fish's voice and Fish's performance of them in mind and I believe only Fish himself can give them the credit they deserve. As has already been said, Hogarth doesn't really put any effort or any part of himself into them & they weren't written for his kind of performance (or lack of it). If I were in his shoes, I can't say I'd particularly want to, either.



I've got to agree totally with Sharon's post. I saw Marillion on the STCBM tour for the first time in nearly 30 odd years and although the show was good musically, I honestly thought that when they played Sugar Mice for the encore and H!!!!! (F***ing hate that) :evil: sorry Hogarth just pointed the mic to the audience and didn't sing a note, I thought it was very unprofessional , Although it proberly sounded a 100 times better than it would if he had attempted to sing it !!?? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Upset by Marillion playing what are essentially Fish son

Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:25 pm

I haven`t seen Marillion for close on 20 years. To pull up the old arguments is maybe a bit unfair. Marillion like it or not are his band now and have been for many a year. However, ask me who I like or what means most and you will soon realise that I think Marillion will always be decent, but cyst removals et al. Fish and all the musos who have been a part of things are way more special.

Re: Upset by Marillion playing what are essentially Fish son

Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:13 am

Andyboy67 wrote: Although it proberly sounded a 100 times better than it would if he had attempted to sing it !!?? :lol: :lol: :lol:


I agree. The audience probably did a far better job than he would have done and he would have figured that. Whether you love him or hate him, he's not stupid. He can't - and doesn't want to - do justice to songs that aren't in his bag or of his creation and input - and I can't honestly blame him for that. Nothing against the guy but his voice and performance simply doesn't lend itself to the stuff before his time.

From a personal perspective, his voice irritates the hell out of me as it's just a monotone, but that's just a personal view. It's best served in songs like Easter where it's even and doesn't go up and down or vary in deliverance or passion - in fact, Easter is probably the only song I've heard him sing in more than one octave, but it doesn't come naturally - or sound to. To me, H just doesn't deliver passion and that's what Fish does. I once knocked Fish's voice (before I was lectured on here about the difficulties he'd encountered with it) but I could never say it was without passion. And, for me, that's what music (at least insofar as the singer) is about.

But it's horses for courses, and whatever floats your boat. I think the band & its music carries Hogarth a lot more than his voice does. Fish has survived without the band and still delivered, one way or another.

Re: Upset by Marillion playing what are essentially Fish son

Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:35 am

Im not slagging Marillion or Hogarth off , I have Seasons, Holidays and Sounds and think they are very good albums . It just wound me up by his actions live as I explained in my previous post . Times change, band line ups change and to some they now have 2 artists/bands to enjoy listening to and seeing live.

Re: Upset by Marillion playing what are essentially Fish son

Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:11 am

If I go to a Marillion show and I don't hear a Fish era song i view it as a disappointment, it's pretty obvious from the comments here that most people commenting aren't h-era Marillion fans, I am for most of the stuff, I will never like Marbles or HiTR but I do feel that STCBM was a return to form. I have been very vocal in criticising h's vocals, primarily because I find he mumbles a lot for effect in the later recordings and that irritates me because he actually is a very good singer, technically he's got a good range and is better than Fish (before anyone argues, I'm pretty sure Fish himself has said this), though i prefer Fish's singing. if I go to a Marillion show I want to hear stuff from all of Marillion's career and that includes Fish era, at the end of the day the 4 members had a great part in shaping the sound of those songs and should be proud of them, it is interesting to note that when Rothers has played with other bands of late he has quite often played Fish era songs, I'm guessing ones that h for his own reasons doesn't want to play such as Incubus, and Rothers enjoys revisiting them occasionally. I've seen h with Marillion many times and I haven't really felt he is not bothering with the songs or not throwing himself into them except a couple of times where he has let the audience sing (I didn't pay to hear an audience sing the songs) and when he wouldn't sing jigsaw at the conventions a few years ago, that being said it was great to hear the rest of the band playing it. As someone said if you don't like h singing Fish era songs you're unlikely to just come across it unless you're at a show or looking at youtube and you can easily skip to the next video, at he end of the day 3 or 4 days ago it just turned 25 years since h joined the band, that's about 3 or 4 times longer than Fish was, he should probably be allowed to just sing whatever he and the band want :)
Thanked: 3

Re: Upset by Marillion playing what are essentially Fish son

Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:02 am

jester1470 wrote: he actually is a very good singer, technically he's got a good range and is better than Fish (before anyone argues, I'm pretty sure Fish himself has said this), though i prefer Fish's singing.


Your post (in its entirely) is very fair comment and whilst I won't "argue" cos that's not my style ;) ) I won't agree. His range is flat to my ears & it's boring. Just because Fish conceded he has a better range doesn't make Fish right, either. He doesn't need to criticise and has got over any bitterness & holds his own, anyway. Ultimately, an artist is playing to an audience and that audience is going to have different views.

It's about your own taste and perception of how something should be performed. And that will always be subjective.

Resorting to arguing really isn't necessary. Personally, I don't think H can sing. I'm not convinced Fish can, either, but he puts a performance into what he does and has a 'presence' in what he does. And the artist's presence, to me, makes it. He has a 'something' that few artists possess. I won't apologise for not seeing that in H. I'm not a music critic and wouldn't wish to be. But I won't be persuaded in my stance that music, of any genre, is entirely personal.

Re: Upset by Marillion playing what are essentially Fish son

Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:27 pm

Lady41 wrote:
jester1470 wrote: he actually is a very good singer, technically he's got a good range and is better than Fish (before anyone argues, I'm pretty sure Fish himself has said this), though i prefer Fish's singing.


Your post (in its entirely) is very fair comment and whilst I won't "argue" cos that's not my style ;) ) I won't agree. His range is flat to my ears & it's boring. Just because Fish conceded he has a better range doesn't make Fish right, either. He doesn't need to criticise and has got over any bitterness & holds his own, anyway. Ultimately, an artist is playing to an audience and that audience is going to have different views.

It's about your own taste and perception of how something should be performed. And that will always be subjective.

Resorting to arguing really isn't necessary. Personally, I don't think H can sing. I'm not convinced Fish can, either, but he puts a performance into what he does and has a 'presence' in what he does. And the artist's presence, to me, makes it. He has a 'something' that few artists possess. I won't apologise for not seeing that in H. I'm not a music critic and wouldn't wish to be. But I won't be persuaded in my stance that music, of any genre, is entirely personal.


It isn't entirely personal though, there are conventions as to what makes you a better technical singer, it may not be that you have to like someone who is a technically better singer but there are conventions in place on technicality. Mariah Carey is technically a brilliant singer but i don't really get much out of her performance, I might prefer another artist but technically Mariah is a better singer, she hits her notes better, she can sustain them longer she has a larger range. You're mistaking taste with technicality and there is a difference, Steve is a better technical singer, but I prefer Fish. Steve Hogarth actually has a very good range, one of the things I haven't liked about him recently is his over reliance on falsetto in his performances. I would think most people would see Steve Hogarth as technically better because he is, that doesn't mean you have to like him more, technicality isn't a personal viewpoint, but liking someone more or less is.

Re: Upset by Marillion playing what are essentially Fish son

Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:54 pm

jester1470 wrote:It isn't entirely personal though, there are conventions as to what makes you a better technical singer, it may not be that you have to like someone who is a technically better singer but there are conventions in place on technicality. Mariah Carey is technically a brilliant singer but i don't really get much out of her performance, I might prefer another artist but technically Mariah is a better singer, she hits her notes better, she can sustain them longer she has a larger range. You're mistaking taste with technicality and there is a difference, Steve is a better technical singer, but I prefer Fish. Steve Hogarth actually has a very good range, one of the things I haven't liked about him recently is his over reliance on falsetto in his performances. I would think most people would see Steve Hogarth as technically better because he is, that doesn't mean you have to like him more, technicality isn't a personal viewpoint, but liking someone more or less is.


But it IS personal. Some people consider Celine Dion & Mariah Carey to be 'screechers' and those people would argue that technically their voices are flawed as a result. And their 'taste' is consequently affected. The hearing range of the average person will affect whether something is 'technically' flawed or not - some have better hearing in the lower frequencies, others in the higher frequencies. Where you sit in your own personal hearing percentile - and this applies as much to musicians as anyone else - affects your perception & thus your taste. So they are interchangeable and linked in one way or another. Personally I can tolerate both Celine Dion's voice and Mariah Carey's but many cannot (and I admit I'm becoming less tolerant of Celine Dion's which, as my hearing changes with age/presbycusis affects my desire to listen to her music) - & 'taste' in music will be tinged with that. It follows pure logic.

Tolerance to sound, technical or not, is subjective & individual.
Next

Full Version