Are Genesis becoming un uncool? Or is it me.?

  • To add to the above, as recently as December I discovered I worked with closet Genesis fans who went to see them, and they were disappointed that there were no Phil Collins songs played.

    Also on the topic of phil as the bad guy in Genesis. I firmly believe the guy is almost a genius musically, and as talented as Tony and Mike are, they are not geniuses really. Phil didn't make them a pop monstrosity, but through his ability he enabled Tony's (and to a lesser extent Mike's) ambitions to be a rock star. To some extent he was a translator for their language to the mainstream. None of us can know how music of today will be judged in 400 years time but I'd like to think that if any artist was labeled "misunderstood" it would be Phil. Popular hack? No. Godlike multivalent talent? Yes.

    And to finish, I do much prefer the compositional beefiness that Banks/Rutherford added to Genesis than I do Phil solo. I think they are unbelievably good, as evidenced by CAS being in my top 3 Genesis albums and above any Phil solo album. It's just that IT could have been The Fugitive 2 without Phil. Yes, the tour would have been Tuesday night at the Odeon instead of 3 nights at Wembley Stadium!

    There are a few bands like that, I think, where the sum of the parts exceeds the individual talents, as they bring the best out of each other. Queen is another, the solo albums all have enormous weak spots (Except Roger's "Happiness?") which display how, for example, Brian's metal excesses get pulled back by the others.


    Putting the old-fashioned Staffordshire plate in the dishwasher!

  • It's just that IT could have been The Fugitive 2 without Phil. Yes, the tour would have been Tuesday night at the Odeon instead of 3 nights at Wembley Stadium!

    Shame that it wasn't. I would much rather listen to The Fugitive than to listen to Invisible Touch. Tony wrote incredible music, but couldn't connect with the masses. Probably because of his unusual chords and progressions.....which is what I love about his composing.

  • It's just that IT could have been The Fugitive 2 without Phil. Yes, the tour would have been Tuesday night at the Odeon instead of 3 nights at Wembley Stadium!

    Hmm, The Fugitive is just about my favorite TB solo album. I’d gladly have taken more elements of that incorporated on to the IT album.

  • Given their massive success and huge popularity it's understandable that it can feel as though it's you against the whole world for not liking them, but it's just an impression based on their global reach. Believe me, you're not alone. For me they're in that category that Bob Dylan and Kate Bush occupy: I completely get why people like them so much, and I have great respect and admiration for what they did, but apart from a few songs their stuff doesn't click with me.

    This a great, and I think a very important distinction. You can appreciate what a band did for music, the influence they've had on the industry, and on bands that you love. You can even understand why people like those bands. But you yourself don't have to be moved by their music.

    That's how I feel about the Rolling Stones and the Beatles. Total respect and appreciation for what they did for music. Their influences are immeasurable. And I understand why people love their music. But it doesn't do anything for me.

  • Re: Fans wanting to hear Phil's solo stuff at a Genesis concert and vice versa.

    It has to be an interesting process that an artist goes through, determining how much of their band's persona and legacy they want to incorporate into their solo persona. Phil and Peter each made, I suspect very deliberate decisions, not to include any of the band's work into their solo careers (until recently). Mark Knopfler and David Gilmour each made the opposite decision, and prominently include their bands' songs in their live tours.

    I would guess that everyone in that position makes that decision for different reasons.

    Wanting to prove that they are successful on their own

    Wanting to avoid getting stuck in their past

    Wanting to play songs that they were instrumental in writing for their bands

    Wanting to sell tickets, and knowing people are coming to hear the band's songs, even if it's a solo show

    Legal ownership of the songs, and who pays who royalties

    I suspect this is also different for artists / bands / songs that had primary or individual songwriters, versus those that write as a collective

    Similarly, it has to be interesting for the band to make that same decision about incorporating a member's solo work into their show. Do they want to differentiate between the band and one member's solo work? Do they want to capitalize on a solo hit for one of their members? I know Van Halen did that some, with Sammy's solo work. But I always took that as; Eddie had a guitar solo, Alex had a drum solo, Michael had a bass solo, so Sammy got a solo career song. But I can't image that Rush ever contemplated playing something off of Lee's My Favorite Headache.

    Personally, I'm glad Genesis keeps their shows to the band's songs, and doesn't include any of their solo work.

  • Regarding bands doing solo songs, once Joe Walsh joined the Eagles they became dependent on his songs to some extent, as their own catalogue was so small. They did a couple of Glenn Frey and Don Henley songs during Hell Freezes Over. Frey's songs were predictably dropped & they did a couple of Henley's on Farewell One. Then those were dropped. The remnants of them still presumably do Walsh's songs. If they do any of Henley's now I neither know nor care.