Best live version of "Whodunnit"

Quote from AnythingNow

I'm listening to a great recording of 1982/08/26 at Saratoga Springs. I really love the Encore Tour, because of the setlist and because they were really a powerful live band.

One thing that struck me when listening was how good a version of "Whodunnit" they delivered at this concert. You can really tell they love playing it and as we all know the song wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. Tony plays it a bit different making it even uglier, if possible, and Phil is in perfect vocal form.

Here is a link, so you can all enjoy this recording:

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

With all that said, I wonder:

Which is your favourite live version of "Whodunnit"?

Display More

This version of "Who Dunnit?" is a good one, and I dislike the song live much less than the studio version.

The most revealing thing about that song is how it ended up on "Abacab" - from the interview on the DVD from the boxset, Ahmet Ertegun himself (Mr. Cofounder-of-Atlantic-Records) lobbied for the song's inclusion. Who would have ever predicted that?

I like the keyboard sounds on both this and the original, the big 'warp' of noise at the start and middle is one of my favourite TB moments. But I think PC overdoes the vocal, it's way too pantomimic, even for a track not meant to be taken very seriously.

But thanks for the link, it was a good tour and a great setlist which gave me my one and only chance to see them do the whole of SR (listening to this I skipped through the tedious unfunny Romeo and Juliet introduction - PC just didn't have PG's knack of doing rambling introductions). Sanctuary Man is a real high point on this show.

Hearing Encore Tour shows takes me back to seeing them on this tour at a large concrete cattle shed used for agricultural shows in a field in the English westcountry. There was still straw on the venue floor. We were then stranded amid the winding narrow country lanes while the tour trucks rumbled past us and we didn't get back to London until the following morning. We were just 17 and it was all a bit odd!

Thank you for posting this, I am enjoying that whole show! Interesting how they came up with some unusual medleys and new transitions between songs. Also, it is obvious at this point there was a clear contrast between old and "new" stuff but the "new" songs were far from the later commercial era thing, all the Abacab songs grew a lot in live versions and they're surprisingly edgy.

Quote from Schrottrocker

the "new" songs were far from the later commercial era thing,

The "commercial era thing" actually started with Abacab. The band started thinking in much more commercial terms, even sequencing the album so that the more accessible songs appeared at the start. Funnily enough, after Abacab the band moved gradually back to the kinds of songs for which they were best known, with We Can't Dance being the closest to the "old style" Genesis, having a greater proportion of narrative-based songs and instrumental passages - even the album cover was inspired by an existing piece of artwork (shades of Selling England By The Pound, there) and the artist was then commissioned to provide artwork for each of the songs on the album, recalling records such as A Trick Of The Tail, Duke and Nursery Cryme.

Quote from Backdrifter

... listening to this I skipped through the tedious unfunny Romeo and Juliet introduction - PC just didn't have PG's knack of doing rambling introductions...

As much as I enjoy listening to their live recordings from all eras, I can't bear to listen to some of Phil's salacious intros to songs like Cinema Show — I usually skip past it and get right to the song.

I certainly prefer the detached, understated humour of Peter's stories, particularly some of his intros to Firth of Fifth and Supper's Ready.

Quote from Witchwood

As much as I enjoy listening to their live recordings from all eras, I can't bear to listen to some of Phil's salacious intros to songs like Cinema Show — I usually skip past it and get right to the song.

I certainly prefer the detached, understated humour of Peter's stories, particularly some of his intros to Firth of Fifth and Supper's Ready.

Not a fan of any lengthy introductions to live songs, I must say. Bono and Springsteen come to mind, although the latter is fun sometimes but I really can live without them in a gig. I understand that they were needed initially, to give Steve and Mike time to tune their 12-strings. Of course Peter and Phil are profoundly different and while I agree with you that some of Phil's jokes imo didn't quite suit the spirit of their early songs, I am inclined to cut him some slack. He said himself that while singing was difficult, communicating with the audience, particularly after Peter was dreadful.

Quote from Witchwood

As much as I enjoy listening to their live recordings from all eras, I can't bear to listen to some of Phil's salacious intros to songs like Cinema Show — I usually skip past it and get right to the song.

I certainly prefer the detached, understated humour of Peter's stories, particularly some of his intros to Firth of Fifth and Supper's Ready.

At least Phil's humour was direct and the audience knew what he was talking about. I quite often found Peter's rambling intros to be irrelevant and poorly delivered. You mention Firth of Fifth which I think is the prime offender when it comes to Peter's stories.

The whole point of telling a joke or a dirty story before a song was, as Phil explained, meant to deflate any sense of pomp. Humour relaxes an audience. When an audience is relaxed, they more readily absorb what's being presented to them.

^

It definitely worked a lot better when he stopped trying so hard to be blokeishly funny and did stuff like levitating the stadium and demonstrating the domino principle. There probably weren't many, if any, performers at that time who could involve and engage 80,000+ people in a huge stadium in that apparently effortless way.

Quote from Backdrifter

^

It definitely worked a lot better when he stopped trying so hard to be blokeishly funny and did stuff like levitating the stadium and demonstrating the domino principle. There probably weren't many, if any, performers at that time who could involve and engage 80,000+ people in a huge stadium in that apparently effortless way.

I agree completely, I think at times he was trying too hard but it's normal. I also would add something that critics of that period gleefully oversaw and overheard, he was one of the best live vocalists around. I remember seeing them on the Abacab tour, they were all on fire but he was absolutely mind-blowing. Better than Sting and better than Bono , to mention two of that most celebrated singers, back in those days.. A pity critics tended to mix up what he sang with how he sang it, particularly with regard to his solo career.

Quote from Witchwood

As much as I enjoy listening to their live recordings from all eras, I can't bear to listen to some of Phil's salacious intros to songs like Cinema Show — I usually skip past it and get right to the song.

I certainly prefer the detached, understated humour of Peter's stories, particularly some of his intros to Firth of Fifth and Supper's Ready.

I kinda like some of Phil’s intros , down to earth and in my opinion always sort of just like the average Joe would do , but each to his own

"I kinda like some of Phil’s intros , down to earth and in my opinion always sort of just like the average Joe would do , but each to his own."

Don't get me wrong, I liked some of Phil's intros too, particularly around the start of the 3-man era.

His intro to Fountain of Salmacis where he explains what a hermaphrodite is were usually amusing. I enjoy listening to his banter with UK audiences during the Duke tour. He was very good on his feet, very spontaneous and able to respond to different audience reactions. I sort of liked his Duke suite story, and I liked some of the audience participation things he did such as his intro to The Lady Lies.

it's just some of his storytelling earlier on, most notably during the 4-man era, comes across to me as a bit crass and awkward.

But we can attribute that to Phil needing a couple of tours to get comfortable with the new role as frontman and developing his own on-stage persona.

Re the above it's especially interesting, and quite odd, hearing recordings of the 1976 tour with Hackett and Rutherford doing song introductions in order to lessen this new burden on PC.

Quote from Backdrifter

Re the above it's especially interesting, and quite odd, hearing recordings of the 1976 tour with Hackett and Rutherford doing song introductions in order to lessen this new burden on PC.

Yes, talk about awkward.

Mike seemed to occasionally get lost up there, thrown off by shouts from the audience, abandoning stories midway through...

It was a bit cringe worthy sometimes.

What we would give now to hear them intros just one more time ....

Quote from shadow

What we would give now to hear them intros just one more time ....

Maybe that sounds a bit selfish.... sorry

Quote from Witchwood

"I kinda like some of Phil’s intros , down to earth and in my opinion always sort of just like the average Joe would do , but each to his own."

Don't get me wrong, I liked some of Phil's intros too, particularly around the start of the 3-man era.

His intro to Fountain of Salmacis where he explains what a hermaphrodite is were usually amusing. I enjoy listening to his banter with UK audiences during the Duke tour. He was very good on his feet, very spontaneous and able to respond to different audience reactions. I sort of liked his Duke suite story, and I liked some of the audience participation things he did such as his intro to The Lady Lies.

it's just some of his storytelling earlier on, most notably during the 4-man era, comes across to me as a bit crass and awkward.

But we can attribute that to Phil needing a couple of tours to get comfortable with the new role as frontman and developing his own on-stage persona.

Display More

Just my opinion but while I won't fret over intros to live songs, to me they are just that, intros, and worthy getting upset over, I never thought that Phil's humor, or lyrics for that matter were very suited for Genesis, at least not the kind of Genesis I got on board with. I am sure he is a fantastic bloke to have a beer with and I have plenty of respect and love for the drummer, singer and musician but this whole idea to try to infuse some sort of humor into the band didn't do much for me. They had their humor, it was just different.

An aspect of Genesis shows that really singled them out from so many other bands was the banter with the audience. While some one person's idea of what is funny may well differ from another's, it's worth noting that it was only when Phil joined the band that any sort of humour started to come through in the lyrics, despite the fact that he wasn't writing any lyrics at the time. Just his easy-going presence seemed to lighten the mood enough for Peter to give us such wonderful lyrics as Harold The Barrel and The Battle Of Epping Forest. Yet another example of now profound the effect of his joining Genesis was.

There's a telling example of how quick Phil was to respond to unexpected situations on the Jerusalem Boogie In Motor City bootleg where Peter is stumbling through some ridiculous song introduction, umming and ahhing and generally making a dog's dinner of it. when someone in the audience, clearly fed up with these shenanigans, shouts out a vulgar remark about Peter's mother's eating habits. Peter is completely thrown and is lost for words while Phil helpfully suggests from behind the drum kit: "There is a bar..."