[Squonkman]

[quote=nickm;6922]

First off, Peter (like any member of the band, or any other band) doesn't actually owe us anything. He is a recording artist and we have chosen over the years to buy his records and go to his concerts. That doesn't mean he is obliged to produce new albums at any other frequency than he is comfortable with. It also doesn't mean that he has to get back with Genesis to try to recreate something he did in his early 20s. If he is uncomfortable with revisiting his past then that's up to him.

I don't think anyone said Gabriel OWES us anything, at least I didn't. I think the point of most people is---if you are going to do it, lets get on with it before we are all on respirators. If you don't want to do it, step up to the plate, say so, and quit stringing everyone---fans, promoters, and your fellow ex band mates--along.

I think he feels that he went out of Genesis on a high and he would be risking credibility by going back to them. To me that is an understandable viewpoint.

We all understand that you can't recreate or duplicate the past. But you can acknowledge and honor your own legacy by playing your old songs once in a blue moon. Your response does not answer why if Roger Waters and Dylan and Springsteen and Sinatra and McCartney and on and on can revisit their past by playing some good songs again, why is he so above it? Seems like an unrealistic almost elitist viewpoint to me, not an understandable one. And if he truly believes that, why would he EVER sing any song that isn't off his current album? Why on his last tour did he do songs from his first three albums? Why does he always sing Solsbury Hill? Isn't that going backward to your past?

Second, I agree that the re-recording of old vocals does seem a bit excessive. Peter is obviously a perfectionist and is probably aware that he isn't the greatest singer who ever lived. Clearly, when he hears his live vocals on tape he picks up on the faults and instinctively wants to correct them. He's sufficiently aware of his own imperfections that he feels the need to put them right. Other singers don't feel the need to do this - for whatever reason, either because their vocals are always 100 per cent (this must be extremely rare) or because they're egomaniacs who believe their own hype.

No, see, its absurd because the Shrine Lamb show was supposed to be a slice of time---true fans want to hear what they sounded like back THEN, not have someone go and rerecord everything---that defeats the point of saving the old archives. Do you think the Grateful Dead is rerecording all thier old vault releases? Their fans would laugh in their faces and not buy them. I am equally irritated that Hackett rerecorded the Firth of Fifth solo on the Rainbow show. Its that old English uptight curmudgeonness coming out.

Third, I disagree that Peter's disinclination to reunite with Genesis is in any way an insult to his musical legacy. I suspect this period of Peter's career is very dear to him and he is seriously concerned that 'going back' may only dilute the memories he has of those early days.

Again see above. If you can't even sing the great tunes that brought you fame and fortune in the first place, and influenced a whole genre of rock music, then what was the point? Music is meant to be replayed, not tucked away in a scrapbook where no one ever sees or hears it again. Can you imagine Sinatra saying---I am not going to sing I've Got You Under My Skin anymore because I don't want to revisit my past, or Dylan not playing Like A Rolling Stone, or Waters ignoring Dark Side of the Moon like it never existed? He is demeaning the significance of those songs by NOT playing them.

They all sat in a room earlier this year and from what I gather, everyone was on board except for one person, who they said they can't get a commitment out of. We all know who that is. There is one person holding up a potential 5 man reunion. And its not Hackett.