Your first ever Genesis concert was ...

    Hello, I may have the answer your looking for...


    Quote from StillCan'tDance

    I was disappointed not to hear Dreaming While You Sleep, too. But being able to actually see the lights this time (as opposed to waiting until the encore) made up for it. Also, the acoustics are much at an indoor venue (give or take a few places) than in a field.


    One of the concerts on that short tour was indeed cancelled due to Phil being ill but I can't say for sure which one it was.


    The show at The Wolverhampton Civic, Wolverhampton was meant to be on the 26th October, but Phil got ill so it was moved to the 17th November 1992.




    hope that helps,


    Regards


    Mark

    I don't remember exactly the year. But the first time I ever heard Genesis was on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert on TV. They Played "Watcher of The Skies" from Foxtrot. It was such trippy stuff, with Peter decked out in his cape and the front of his head partially shaved. I loved it. So I went out and bought the album. And became a fan. Then as soon as they came to the Academy of Music in New York City after that(Early 70's) I went to see them with a friend. Then I saw them in Waterbury, CT and again at the Academy of Music several times. The first concert did music from Nursery Crime, Foxtrot and Selling England By the Pound. I saw that tour again and I also saw the Lamb Lies Down On Broadway Tour twice. Then I went to school in Northern Arizona in 1975 and returned to Connecticut/NY in 1976 and that's when I really became a fan. I saw the Trick/Wind Tour several times in NYC and Westchester County a few times.


    My life was such a whirlwind in the 70's. I liked lots of bands, saw many concerts in the northeast - Was very into Jazz - Weather Report, Pat Metheny and all kinds of Fusion, Funk and R&B as well as other Rock and Prog. But I graduated college in 1980, spent the summer in Martha's Vinyard in 81' wrote my 1st screenplay and moved to Los Angeles in early 82'. When Hackett left, the Band recorded And Then There Were Three and Duke, Phil broke away to do his solo career, Mike did the Mechanics and Peter exploded his career - Which was when I moved to LA in the early 80's - That's when i really started listening to their music seriously and they evolved into my favorite band. I just liked it more and more as time when on. And over a 15 year period they became my favorite band. Wind and the Wuthering eventually became my favorite album along with Trick, Selling England and Duke. But I was around since the early 70's - seeing them with both Peter and Phil and with Hackett and without. But I can't say that they were always my favorite until the mid 80's. But it was their music from the Hackett Era that I liked the best. Although I enjoyed everything from the beginning all the way through Calling All Stations. There is just no BAD music by Genesis. It just evolved - As it should have.

    Hackett era? There was no Hackett era. He was in the band from 1971 to 1977, of course, but during that time Peter and then Tony were the chief writers and the musical direction of the band had already been decided upon before Steve joined (he famously played them three pieces when he auditioned to which they said "We like that one, we're not sure about the other two!"). Instrumentally, the core of the band was Phil, Tony and Mike. Steve was more of a contributor, less of a participant (remember, this is the fella who was unsure of Supper's Ready and was openly critical of The Lamb, even admitting that the album happened "despite of" and not "because of" him. And how can we forget him going off to record a solo album after Peter left the band? "I thought this could be the beginning of my solo career whether I liked it or not" he said, betraying a serious lack of dedication to the band that had given him his first big break.).


    I often look back on Steve's time with the band and wish there was more involvement from him on the songs. The years 1971 - 1977 feel to me like "Genesis starring Steve Hackett" but I suppose some musicians are more group players than others, which is why the band, when reduced to Tony, Mike and Phil, lasted so long and were so successful.

    I don't think an era has to be defined by who the leader or star/stars were. To me it's the time a person was in a band, In a show or on a particular team .


    There was most certainly a Hackett era IMO, and it's simply the years he was in the band, and ended when he left, plus the Seconds Out album

    Quote from Ericm

    I don't think an era has to be defined by who the leader or star/stars were. To me it's the time a person was in a band, In a show or on a particular team .


    There was most certainly a Hackett era IMO, and it's simply the years he was in the band, and ended when he left, plus the Seconds Out album

    Well, there's nothing to say that our opinions have to make any sense. To me, naming an era after a member of the band who wrote so little is the least sensical opinion I've come across in many a moon.

    Writing a song is one thing, but performing on a song whilst making sense of what the writer intends etc is just as note worthy. Could any of us in the cold light of day make sense, of what any of the guys in Genesis would be asking of us if we were in a studio or rehearsal room etc.


    So the idea that someone who wrote little should be less than those who wrote a bulk amount, is frankly absurd.


    Regards


    Mark

    Quote from StillCan'tDance

    Well, there's nothing to say that our opinions have to make any sense. To me, naming an era after a member of the band who wrote so little is the least sensical opinion I've come across in many a moon.

    Well it's not so much just my opinion but based on what an "era" is actually defined as.


    Definition of era


    1 a : a fixed point in time from which a series of years is reckoned


    I believe that's exactly what was being cited when referring to "The Hackett Era". The time and years he was in the band. Not what he did or didn't do, how popular or famous he was, or how big or little his contribution was but just simply the years he was a member.

    Leaving aside the lesson in English (from an American, yet!) I maintain that to name an era after someone who had so little to do with the writing and the arrangements just seems perverse. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about fame and stature; given that I mentioned neither, I can't help but wonder about the nature of your fixation.

    Quote from StillCan'tDance

    Leaving aside the lesson in English (from an American, yet!) I maintain that to name an era after someone who had so little to do with the writing and the arrangements just seems perverse. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about fame and stature; given that I mentioned neither, I can't help but wonder about the nature of your fixation.

    I don't have a fixation about Steve's fame or stature. I was simply replying to your point about his contributions vs the other what you called "core" members, who we can certainly agree as far as Phil and Mike go were and are more famous. It seems to me you're saying because he didn't have the same stature in the band that's your problem with the era thing.


    As far as calling it an era, if not that, then what term would you use for Steve's time in the band? Personally I think era is the right word since that's what the definitIon of era is. If you have a better word for it, I'm all ears.


    As for the American thing, aside from some slang terms, I think most definitions apply to both of our countries. If you want the intellectual high ground based on ages of our countries, have at it. It's all yours.

    Quote from Ericm

    I don't have a fixation about Steve's fame or stature. I was simply replying to your point about his contributions vs the other what you called "core" members, who we can certainly agree as far as Phil and Mike go were and are more famous. It seems to me you're saying because he didn't have the same stature in the band that's your problem with the era thing.


    As far as calling it an era, if not that, then what term would you use for Steve's time in the band? Personally I think era is the right word since that's what the definitIon of era is. If you have a better word for it, I'm all ears.


    As for the American thing, aside from some slang terms, I think most definitions apply to both of our countries. If you want the intellectual high ground based on ages of our countries, have at it. It's all yours.

    It was you who brought up the issue of fame and stature. Twice. Can you tell me where I've implied that Steve's paucity of contributions has anything to do with the fame of other members in the band? By the time he left, neither Phil or Mike were particularly famous so I really have no idea where you're coming from. If you can divorce yourself from the issue of fame and concentrate on simple facts then we'll both be on the same page.


    Because I recognise Genesis as having two distinct eras - 1970 - 1977 and 1980 - 1992 - and because I recognise that Steve was not a core contributor to the music, I don't have a name for Steve's time in the band.

    My one and only Genesis concert was at Manchester 2007.


    Had only got into the band properly shortly after We Can't Dance had been released although I was oblivious to any touring going on. As my interest grew I was looking forward to the next release and the possibility of seeing them live, then they announced Phil had left the band. Whilst I accepted that didn't mean the end of Genesis and I even picked up the Congo single, it wasn't the same as Phil's voice and drumming had been a major part of what drew me to them. Of course Genesis was mothballed shortly thereafter and then the rumours began. I vowed that if Phil ever rejoined and they ever did live gigs, I would be there.


    Still look back on the entire day of the gig itself with great fondness now. Living on the east coast I had to drive south-west for about 2.5 hours to pick up my Dad who was flying back into the UK from holiday. Possibly heard the Live Earth performance on the radio although it is one of the few things I can't remember for sure. Me and my Dad then had to travel back north for about an hour or so to get to Manchester. I remember parking in the grounds of a school and the walk to Old Trafford, getting the tour merchandise, finding our seats on the pitch, the sun slowing falling behind the end of the stadium where the stage was (and making early use of my souvenir Genesis cap to keep the sun out of my eyes). The gig itself of course and then the slow walk out back to the car and the drive to my Dad's house.


    Was really hoping they'd give it a 2nd go with a revised set-list but it wasn't to be and of course now will never likely to be now.

    What a lovely account. I was at that gig, too and I remember it as being a lovely sunny day. I'd watched the Live Earth show on tv before getting the train to Liverpool and from there to Manchester. I walked to the gig on my ownsome (I was meeting up with friends at the stadium) and passed a few bars from which plenty of fans were spilling out.


    I thought the gig at Manchester was just perfect. Clearly the band thought so, too, because most of the tracks on the live CD are taken from that show. Phil got some good-natured boo-ing for describing the venue as the "theatre of dreams" and I also remember the familiar pungent whiff of a herbal cigarette drifting past me! What amazed me most was the age range of the fans in attendance. I thought it very encouraging to see that Genesis music still affects so many. One slight incident that was very unpleasant to watch was a drunken man and woman (whom I'd seen board the train at Lime Street with a crate of booze) kicking off on someone in the crowd early on in the gig. They were swiftly removed - good riddance to bad rubbish, say I - but apparently they weren't even fans, just a pair of lushes with money to waste and no other way of enjoying themselves other than by trying to ruin someone's day.


    I was never bothered by the set-list. It was a pretty well-rounded collection of hits and stuff that always worked well in the past. A lot of the old material - Ripples, In The Cage, Los Endos, Afterglow - they'd stopped playing by the time I started going to see them so I just lapped it all up.

    Quote from paul795

    Earl's Court, June 1977. Spent the night on the pavement outside to get front row tickets when the box office opened. Sat right in front of Steve.

    Can you recall what the queue was like? A long one, what time you arrived, good camaraderie, get much or any sleep? Good going by the way, great seat.


    I did the overnight-queue-for-tickets for the London Lyceum gig May 1980 - a rare occurrence of them going on sale only about 4 or 5 days before the gig. Any time I walk down Tavistock Road, I always glance at the spot where I 'slept'.


    The last time I queued for ticket sales was 2000, for the Radiohead gig that was in Scott Walker's Meltdown Festival. Since then it's been F5 all the way.

    Abandon all reason

    Quote from StillCan'tDance

    Hackett era? There was no Hackett era. He was in the band from 1971 to 1977, of course, but during that time Peter and then Tony were the chief writers and the musical direction of the band had already been decided upon before Steve joined (he famously played them three pieces when he auditioned to which they said "We like that one, we're not sure about the other two!"). Instrumentally, the core of the band was Phil, Tony and Mike. Steve was more of a contributor, less of a participant (remember, this is the fella who was unsure of Supper's Ready and was openly critical of The Lamb, even admitting that the album happened "despite of" and not "because of" him. And how can we forget him going off to record a solo album after Peter left the band? "I thought this could be the beginning of my solo career whether I liked it or not" he said, betraying a serious lack of dedication to the band that had given him his first big break.).


    I often look back on Steve's time with the band and wish there was more involvement from him on the songs. The years 1971 - 1977 feel to me like "Genesis starring Steve Hackett" but I suppose some musicians are more group players than others, which is why the band, when reduced to Tony, Mike and Phil, lasted so long and were so successful.

    On the old forum, under my avatar, it read "I'm an all era's fan. Of Steve Hackett!" (I'm not using it now as his last 2 album's have been a bit "below par") So as you might guess, I disagree completely, the Hackett era is my favourite era of Genesis. Gotta say, your "attitude" over the last few days on here has not endeared you to me, your avatar seems to fit you pretty well. Since you seem to think you have a monopoly on being right, might I suggest a listen to Billy Joel's "Shades of Grey" And perhaps a little thought for others opinions before hitting the "send" button?

    Ian


    Putting the old-fashioned Staffordshire plate in the dishwasher!

    Like 3
    Quote from foxfeeder

    On the old forum, under my avatar, it read "I'm an all era's fan. Of Steve Hackett!" (I'm not using it now as his last 2 album's have been a bit "below par") So as you might guess, I disagree completely, the Hackett era is my favourite era of Genesis. Gotta say, your "attitude" over the last few days on here has not endeared you to me, your avatar seems to fit you pretty well. Since you seem to think you have a monopoly on being right, might I suggest a listen to Billy Joel's "Shades of Grey" And perhaps a little thought for others opinions before hitting the "send" button?

    This is essentially a response to both those posts, the above and Still Can't Dance's.


    While I have no problem with the phrase "the Hackett era", as I know what people mean by it, I do think there are elements of what SCD said that ring true. Collins and Banks have said in interviews that SH seemed to stay on the margins during his time in the band, and that he felt like a "temporary member". Famously of course, when SH left, PC said he was completely neutral about it and perhaps that lack of feeling reflects those sentiments about SH being a kind of visitor to the band. Don't get me wrong though - I am in no way underestimating his contribution. I believe his solo at the end of Salmacis was the start of a new sound, his blending of his guitar sound with the keyboards, the brilliant economy of his work, his songwriting, all this and more makes him absolutely integral to their evolution.


    I don't blame him for saying "this could be start of my solo career whether I like it or not" as it was in context of PG leaving and most outside the band reacted like it was Genesis's death knell. It seems reasonable to me he'd have those thoughts and maybe getting the album out before the next Genesis album was an insurance policy should the post-PG band not work out.


    I take issue with SCD's comment that PG then TB were the main writers. I stand to be corrected, but I'm not sure that's right. It seemed to me writing was spread between TB, PG, MR and earlier, AP. Some key sequences were triggered by Banks-Collins-Rutherford jams e.g. Apocalypse and Cinema Show. (With those three working together in that way, and PG often doing his usual slow lyric-writing job, it mustn't have been surprising that SH was often on the margins). I also get the impression that despite their "All songs by all" credits on those PG albums, there was an increasing influence by Banks.

    Abandon all reason

    Like 1
    Quote from Backdrifter

    Can you recall what the queue was like? A long one, what time you arrived, good camaraderie, get much or any sleep? Good going by the way, great seat.

    I went with a friend, and I think we got there about 10-11ish the night before, we lived quite close in student accomodation in South Ken. I don't recall how long the queue was behind us, it can't have been too big as I don't recall there being any stewarding. We were on the pavement opposite the entrance to Earl's Court tube, had to deal with a few piss takers, but it was all good natured around us. We took sleeping bags, and needed them to keep warm (must have been May when the tickets went on sale), probably didn't get much sleep.


    I tried to get to Drury Lane early for tickets in 1980, but despite arriving at the crack of dawn on a Sunday morning, and feeling like death warmed up (having been sick the evening before) , was turned away after a few hours as we were told there was no hope of us getting anything. After that never queued for anyone.