Talk:...And Then There Were Three...

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/musicreviews/2285/genesis-in-surround.html
 * In Duke (album) on 2011-03-17 17:12:46, 404 Not Found
 * In Genesis 1976–1982 on 2011-03-19 20:19:59, 404 Not Found
 * In ...And Then There Were Three... on 2011-05-20 21:27:14, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.genesis-news.com/genesis/reviews/sacds/1976-1982.htm
 * In Duke (album) on 2011-03-17 17:12:46, 404 Not Found
 * In Genesis 1970–1975 on 2011-03-19 20:19:59, 404 Not Found
 * In ...And Then There Were Three... on 2011-05-20 21:27:27, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.genesis-news.com/genesis/reviews/sacds/interview-with-nick-davis.htm
 * In Duke (album) on 2011-03-17 17:12:46, 404 Not Found
 * In Genesis 1970–1975 on 2011-03-19 20:19:59, 404 Not Found
 * In ...And Then There Were Three... on 2011-05-20 21:27:56, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.blender.com/guide/back-catalogue/54728/133-then-there-were-three-133.html
 * In ...And Then There Were Three... on 2011-05-20 21:28:00, 404 Not Found
 * In ...And Then There Were Three... on 2011-05-31 04:32:04, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/genesis/albums/album/104990/review/5944592/and_then_there_were_three
 * In ...And Then There Were Three... on 2011-05-20 21:27:13, 404 Not Found
 * In ...And Then There Were Three... on 2011-05-31 04:32:12, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Album's Status as a Progressive Rock album
Alright, Since someone doesn't feel that this album is a progressive rock album, and deletes all edits to show that it is, citing them as "unsourced and undiscussed" even though I've not seen any discussion or sources he's used to support his edits that say it isn't one, lets discuss it now. I want to know what qualities this album lacks that prevent it from being a Progressive Rock album, or what qualities it does have that disqualify it from such a genre classification.

Is it it's lack of longer songs? that can't be it, because then why is Yes's Tormato album considered Prog when it only has songs ranging from 2 to 7 minutes, or Kansas albums such as Point of Know Return, or Monolith, or even Audio-Visions which none of those albums have songs that pass 7 minutes and 20 seconds. or Gentle Giant's Octopus album, without one of the shortest prog albums, clocking in at just under 35 minutes long with songs that range between 3 and 6 minutes.

so what else could it be? Could it be the albums fair share of pop songs (and I use that term loosely, I consider them more rock than pop) and to be fair it does have a couple, "Follow You Follow Me", "Many too Many" come to mind. and I would never argue that its a purely progressive rock album. Its definitely not. But you give me "Follow You Follow Me" as a reason why ATTWT is a pop album, and I'll point to songs like "Down And Out" which, while the song does have some more commercial pop tendencies, it also has an odd time signature that is very much qualifies it as a prog song in my eyes anyway, and if you disagree, I recommend you | hear the song again. On top of that, I'll also point to the song | Ballad of Big, while its not my favorite song on the album, Its still definitely rooted in the Prog genre, the differences between the verse melody and the chorus, its absolutely a prog song. And there's plenty of other examples of prog on this album, "| Burning Rope", "| Deep in The Motherlode", "| The Lady Lies", and even "| Say Its Alright, Joe". They're all very much prog songs, albeit more on the poppy side of Progressive rock, but still very much on the more progressive side.

And if the reason that the album isn't classified as a progressive album is because of its more pop leanings, then why is Duke, an album that is arguably even more of a pop rock album than this one still classified as Progressive rock? (which I agree with, Duke is definitely still a progressive rock album, but that's not the point) Also, I can point out bands like Asia who are very much Pop rock/hard rock in style, but still considered progressive rock, and their music is a lot more pop driven than this album. Also Styx albums like Paradise Theater, and Kilroy Was Here. While I once again agree with them being considered Progressive rock, Much of their music is rooted in more of a pop rock sound, again, even more so than this album.

I could go on and on, but I'm going to stop there for now, and ask the question that I posed in the beginning of this post again. What about this album disqualifies it from being considered Progressive Rock?

Sovphil13 (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear here: You made changes to genres without discussing the issue or citing reliable sources. Do not change genres without discussing the issue or citing reliable sources. You've been given consensus warnings on that repeatedly. The warnings reflect Wikipedia's policy on this issue, as does WP:GWAR. No, I do not need to demonstrate/prove that your opinion is wrong. No, I did not say that your opinion is wrong. I said -- as others have -- that you must either discuss such changes to establish a consensus before making the change or cite reliable sources for the change.


 * If you have reliable sources calling the album progressive rock, cite them and you're done.


 * If you don't have such sources (can't find any, don't want to look, whatever) discuss why you think it is progressive rock. ("What else could it be?" is not a meaningful argument, BTW.)


 * The fulcrum of the question is that you are discussing a turning point for the band. Few would dispute (and sources fully support) that the Gabriel years are the definition of progressive rock. Few would label the mid-80s Collins years as progressive rock. This album -- post-Gabriel, post-Hackett -- needed to generate bank for the band, and it did. It kept the group together. Is there some progressive rock in some of the songs? IMO, sure, but that doesn't make it a progressive rock album any more than "Follow You Follow Me" makes it No Jacket Required. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * First, I want to make it clear that I did not say "What else could it be" in a way that you seem to imply. I was not saying "If Its not Progressive Rock, what else could it be", which is what it seems like you think thats what I tried to use as an argument. Its not. I was using that as a segue into/introduce a new point for my argument, moving from the point about the song lengths to talking about the songs themselves.


 * Second, I don't see whats the importance of mentioning about the Peter Gabriel era Genesis being quintessential Prog vs 80's Phil Collins Genesis being pop rock, which honestly neither statement really has bearing on the status of this album. in fact, you specifically said Mid-80's Phil Collins-era. This album is not Mid-80's Phil Collins era Genesis. this is from 1978, I fully understand where you're coming from that after Steve Hackett left the band started to push for a more radio friendly sound, Its true, but at the same time, they didn't right away abandon Progressive rock. and if, for the sake of argument, they did, and this album shouldn't be considered Prog, then what about Duke, their 1980 album? That album is still largely considered a Progressive Rock album, their last Progressive rock album. (an assessment that again, I do agree with)


 * I also want to address the part where you say "Is there some progressive rock in some of the songs? IMO, sure, but that doesn't make it a progressive rock album any more than "Follow You Follow Me" makes it No Jacket Required" Okay. I originally wasn't going to bring this up, but I will for the sake of argument. Let's talk about the 80's era Genesis. While it largely became a pop act in the 80's, it would still not be fair to say that they 100% abandoned prog in the 80's either. notice I said 100% abandoned, because they largely did. but there's still 1 or 2 songs of each respective album like "Home by the Sea/Second Home by the Sea" off of their 1983 self-titled album, or the 10 minute "Domino" off of Invisible touch. Where I'm going with this is, while those 80's albums may have 1 or 2 songs that could be considered Progressive Rock, with And Then There Were Three, that's half the album (really more than half since 6 songs out of 11). So that should absolutely be taken into account when genre classifying an album.


 * lastly, I want to know what the significance was of comparing "Follow You Follow Me", to No Jacket Required, A Phil Collins solo album. because that made absolutely no sense to me.


 * Update: Checking the page history, I realize that it wasn't you who took off the Progressive rock genre label initially, and I apologize for assuming that maybe it was you. But before March, "Progressive rock" was one of the album's genre classifications on here.


 * Sovphil13 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If you think Genesis ditched prog straight after Hackett left, listen to "Duke's Travels / Duke's End" to change your mind. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * We are not discussing whether or not one song is a particular genre. We are discussing the album. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As much as I love Duke's Travels and the entire Duke album (Its my favorite Genesis album), and you are right,, that it is very much prog, is also right, its not relevant to the conversation about whether or not this album is prog. now if you want to comment about this album, you'd be very much welcome to discuss it with us.
 * Sovphil13 (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen much discussion here. I've been waiting for someone to try and counter what I'm saying. please. anyone can chime in at any time. Sovphil13 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If there's a good source saying it's progressive, add it. Simple as! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been trying for a while, since this whole thing started, the thing is, what would be a suitable source? Like, a professional review wouldn't outright state that this is a prog album, and I don't expect them too. instead I see a lot of them say something like, and I'm paraphrasing here, the album "Blends their signature prog sound with a more commercial pop sound". hell, it even says that in the wikipedia article, either in the what I call the "summary" at the top, or in the Background section. I can't remember which. so if that's enough for me to cite to change the genre, I'll do it. But if not, what else can I use? would the website Allmusic work? in the in the album page for [| ...And Then There Were Three...], it has "Prog Rock" listed as one of the styles for the album, And on the Discogs website, it also lists "Prog Rock" as one of the styles for the album. If one of those works, then great. tell me and I'll cite it and change the page accordingly. -Sovphil13 (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's entirely possible that there isn't a reliable source available.


 * Genres listed on Allmusic (i.e., the sidebar) are not considered reliable as they come from amazon and effectively have no editorial oversight behind them. The text at Allmusic generally is considered reliable. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force.


 * Discogs is a user-edited site, so it fails under WP:SPS.


 * For older (pre-2000) albums and songs, the best I've ever found are career retrospectives in reliable sources (Rolling Stone is quite good for this) and periodic "best of genre" lists is similarly top notch sources.


 * Career retrospectives likely popped up with their Hall of Fame induction a few years ago.


 * If "Jimmy's Rock Blog" lists it in his "Best Prog Rock Albums of All Time" it's meaningless. If RS lists it as one of the "Top 50 Progressive Rock Albums of the 70s", I'm sold.


 * While looking for your prog rock source, please do add cites for any other genres you find. I'd bet my eye teeth there are just as many reliable sources for pop and art rock as there are for progressive. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I tried Rolling Stone before, but I didn't see any kind of review for it. I'm starting to think maybe they don't have anything on the album. even if they did, its probably them, bashing it, because why would late-70's Rolling Stone speak positive about an album from a prog band, or anything even remotely creative and outside the . I read the career retrospective, they named the album once, and mentioned that "Follow you Follow Me" was their first hit single or "pop hit" as they called it, but didn't even mention its stylistic shift from the previous albums. it could barely be considered a glance at the album.


 * As for the top 50 prog albums list, I don't see anybody anywhere putting this, or any Phil Collins-era Genesis album on their top 50 prog albums, aside from probably Trick of the Tail. Which is kinda sad, because the era Phil Collins-era from 1975-1980 is home to 4 really good prog albums, Including ...And Then There Were Three... though admittedly that's the weakest album of the 4, Still great though. but when people think Genesis and Prog, they think of the Peter Gabriel era first and foremost. and I totally see why.


 * and last, well I don't know if this is enough, but the Allmusic review, which by the way, most of these reviews are really short and barely cover anything. Its like one paragraph long. but it does state, basically the same thing I said it would before, That the album ventures towards the more straightforward pop sound that the band is known for in the 80s, without abandoning their prog elements. Not in so many words, but that's essentially what it said. If that's enough, let me know.


 * Sovphil13 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's entirely possible that there isn't a reliable source available. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * So, I guess this brings us back to discussion. If there's no sources, then lets continue to talk about it and come to some kind of consensus. unless one of us manages to find something to support either case. -Sovphil13 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I added an additional space between everyone's messages in this section to make it look more organized. I hope that's okay. feel free to revert it if it isn't. Sovphil13 (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * At the moment, there is no consensus that I can see.


 * Additionally, I don't see any source of new information that here to change my mind. IMO, this album straddles the line. It has some progressive rock and some pop songs. I don't feel the album is progressive rock. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said before, its definitely not a purely progressive rock album, and I'm not trying to argue it is. but that's why Wikipedia's genre section allows for more than one genre, as poppy as it is, Its still 50-60%% prog, I think that should count for something. the album does walk the line between pop rock and Prog, so does their album, Duke. so why not, as with Duke's article, classify it as both? Progressive Rock, Art rock, Pop rock. it doesn't even matter the order. Sovphil13 (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I found a good compromise. If you're hesitant to call it Prog rock, What about if I label it Progressive Pop instead. like albums such as Supertramp's Breakfast in America, or ELO's Out of the Blue have been labelled by wikipedia.Sovphil13 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think that a genre different that the one you wanted and I disputed is a "compromise". (If you think we should go to Albuquerque and I don't, that doesn't make Montreal a "compromise".)


 * I don't think it's a "progressive pop" album. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Prog rock genre warring
This article has seen a long string of editors trying to classify the album as progressive rock, but without sources. In the last four months, the genre warring has this history:
 * December 2019 – IP from Gravesend, Kent, UK removing references to pop rock and replacing with " Art rock, progressive rock, psychedelic rock"
 * December 2019 – User Misiek7PL adding prog rock
 * February 2020 – IP from St Petersburg, Russia adding prog rock
 * March 2020 – IP from Varekil, Sweden adding prog rock
 * April 2020 – IP from Tel Aviv, Israel adding prog rock
 * April 2020 – IPs from Curitaba, Brazil repeatedly adding prog rock

None of these editors cited a source for prog rock, which means the existing citations are not contradicted – the ones that say the album showed Genesis moving away from prog rock and toward pop rock. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Calling into question the validity of the Pop Rock citation
Upon reviewing the given citation and reading page 150 (and surrounding pages) of Bowler & Dray's biography of Genesis, there is no mention of the term "pop rock," or even a reference to the album as such. There are two references to "pop," both of which I will clarify. The first is a reference to "Follow You Follow Me" as a "lovely little pop song." However, as SummerPhD has previously clarified, we are not discussing the genre of a single song, we are discussing the genre of an album, and so such a citation would be insufficient for our purposes. The second reference is a quote from Tony Banks, which describes "most of the Genesis catalog" as "Pop music done with more subtlety," which is not specific to the album in question.

Unless a reliable source can be found for the "Pop rock" tag, the genre should be removed for failing to meet our standards. Denimspoon (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)