Nothing from Abacab again

  • It is entirely possible to have Pop Classics, Genesis' or less, as I said before, personal taste alone doesn't establish what is a classic

    I did say ''for me' in my post. I think it's a bit harsh to say that one person shouldn't be allowed to use the word to describe a song they love. We will have to agree to disagree there.

  • Ugh, there's something so vacant about trying to "define" what a band's classic songs are. Aren't they all just Genesis songs? I like what I like, you like what you like. I've always loved that there's very little consensus about Genesis highs and lows, everyone has different favorite bits.


    Fair enough, you might say Firth of Fifth is a classic prog song, whatever the hell that means, while Harold the Barrel is not. But I don't think there's a formula that defines a classic Genesis song.

  • I gave some parameters which of course can never be entirely objective but based on those for instance, Turn it on again is certainly a classic, Mama perhaps, so no, their classics don't necessarily end with the 5 man era. As I said stuff like I can't dance or IT is far more likely to be mentioned when talking about Genesis because they are relatively recent and were massively successful, it doesn't matter what I think about them, they are classics and they must play them. As I said I think Dodo and M&SJ are fine songs, keep it dark is intriguing and MOTC a nice listen no more than that.

    Where I would disagree the most is with the notion that commercial success is one of the ingredients of what makes a song a “classic.” It makes little difference if a song is mentioned a lot or gets more airplay. Most pop music by definition involves a trade-off between inventiveness and commercialism. Millions listened to, danced to, and bought albums filled with disco music in the mid-to-late 70s; that didn’t make the music “classic.” Also if you look outside the music world from film to art to automobiles, “classic” is defined as something that pushes the creative envelope, something not necessarily designed for large-scale mass consumption.

  • Where I would disagree the most is with the notion that commercial success is one of the ingredients of what makes a song a “classic.” It makes little difference if a song is mentioned a lot or gets more airplay. Most pop music by definition involves a trade-off between inventiveness and commercialism. Millions listened to, danced to, and bought albums filled with disco music in the mid-to-late 70s; that didn’t make the music “classic.” Also if you look outside the music world from film to art to automobiles, “classic” is defined as something that pushes the creative envelope, something not necessarily designed for large-scale mass consumption.

    I would disagree as well but it needs to be measurable to an extent, otherwise it's up to anybody's taste to decide what's a classic and if you read carefully, I specifically said it's a mix of several factors. A song like Invisible Touch can be polarizing among Genesis fan but the general public made it a monster hit. The song has featured in any tour since release, it was played in 2007 and it was played now. I'm sure there's isn't a single doubt in anybody's mind it was going to be included. Abacab is a hybrid, not as artistically acclaimed as its predecessors, not as commercially successful as its successors, as I said it never ranks particularly well in any poll but yes, it has a few fans and there are a couple of good songs there. Again though, while we don't know the reasons why, we cannot dismiss the fact that it was dropped completely by the band, long before Phil had drumming and singing limitations but to be honest if it had happened with an album or songs I fancy, what the band think wouldn't change the way I feel or my enjoyment of it

  • I did say ''for me' in my post. I think it's a bit harsh to say that one person shouldn't be allowed to use the word to describe a song they love. We will have to agree to diagreee there.

    I noticed you said it's your opinion and anyone can use the word "classic", as he pleases, people can also disagree and explain why, particularly in cases where the only parameter used to back a personal assessment is personal taste .

    We are exposing different views here,so far respectfully, if somebody says they like Abacab, the only thing I can offer is, I don't and we are done, if however, somebody says Abacab or some songs on it are classics, I think I can dispute that rationally, without having to resort to my personal taste. The Album was released 31 years ago, enough time to put everything in perspective, I think Genesis fans, in general, have spoken, the general audience have spoken, so have the critics and apparently so have the band.

    Edited once, last by Fabrizio ().

  • I would disagree as well but it needs to be measurable to an extent, otherwise it's up to anybody's taste to decide what's a classic and if you read carefully, I specifically said it's a mix of several factors. A song like Invisible Touch can be polarizing among Genesis fan but the general public made it a monster hit. The song has featured in any tour since release, it was played in 2007 and it was played now. I'm sure there's isn't a single doubt in anybody's mind it was going to be included. Abacab is a hybrid, not as artistically acclaimed as its predecessors, not as commercially successful as its successors, as I said it never ranks particularly well in any poll but yes, it has a few fans and there are a couple of good songs there. Again though, while we don't know the reasons why, we cannot dismiss the fact that it was dropped completely by the band, long before Phil had drumming and singing limitations but to be honest if it had happened with an album or songs I fancy, what the band think wouldn't change the way I feel or my enjoyment of it

    By the measure of dropping music from a given album completely from live sets, none of the songs on Nursery Cryme, Foxtrot, and (at least on the most recent tour) A Trick of the Tail are “classic”? If it’s a mix of several factors, doesn’t that mean each factor must be present for a song to be called “classic”? If not, which factors are most important? It seems to me commercial success is at the bottom of the list (if it deserves to be there at all). Members of the band have talked about the challenge of putting together a setlist in which much of the set has to be comprised of songs that the fans expect to hear (the hits). As they have pointed out, that leaves a limited amount of time to play songs they’d like to play that aren’t “fan favorites.”

  • a setlist in which much of the set has to be comprised of songs that the fans expect to hear (the hits).

    I only speak for myself, but as a *fan*, I precisely want to hear "non hits" (or "deep cuts"). :D

    It rather may be the "general/average audience", who knows songs because of radio airplay since the 80's, "Phil Collins connection"...

    play songs they’d like to play that aren’t “fan favorites.”

    I really wonder what songs it would be...

  • I only speak for myself, but as a *fan*, I precisely want to hear "non hits" (or "deep cuts"). :D

    It rather may be the "general/average audience", who knows songs because of radio airplay since the 80's, "Phil Collins connection"...

    I really wonder what songs it would be...

    I think the fan favorites category applies in this case to their pop era hits. I’d have died and gone to heaven if they’d have played Supper’s Ready (especially A in 9/8) or Watcher of the Skies on this tour, but in that case you would have had 90% of the audience (at least at the US shows) furrowing their brows in a “WTF is this?” moment. Those songs are classics by any standard, but are completely unknown to most of the concert attendees.

  • By the measure of dropping music from a given album completely from live sets, none of the songs on Nursery Cryme, Foxtrot, and (at least on the most recent tour) A Trick of the Tail are “classic”? If it’s a mix of several factors, doesn’t that mean each factor must be present for a song to be called “classic”? If not, which factors are most important? It seems to me commercial success is at the bottom of the list (if it deserves to be there at all). Members of the band have talked about the challenge of putting together a setlist in which much of the set has to be comprised of songs that the fans expect to hear (the hits). As they have pointed out, that leaves a limited amount of time to play songs they’d like to play that aren’t “fan favorites.”

    I made the comment about Trick and Wind having several songs that don't translate well live, not the case with Abacab with at least 3 to 5 obvious live songs. Still those two albums each have one song being played and revered to this day: Songs they MUST play and I guess they play gladly, I've also said that, at least for the majority Genesis fans the status of those albums cannot be questioned, SEBTP ranks always 1st or 2nd in any poll, same with Trick, Wind is always up there, so are other Gabriel albums, not the case with Abacab. By the way I think it's a bit unfair to bring them up as term of comparison, they are long ago and never get any radio time, the majority of the general audience never even heard them, older songs are always more likely to be dropped, so you cannot make a comparison with Abacab which can only be compared with later albums

    Let's understand each other, I'm not interested in commercial success but it is a factor, actually, the only one measurable in figures. Wake me up before you go go, is a pop classic, whether you and I like it or less, so is Dancing Queen, and so is IT. Yes, the band have a hard time putting together a set list, given their decades spanning career, and yes they have to play the favorites, now, EVIDENTLY no Abacab song is amongst them, it was the case now, in 2007 and, during the WCD tour and apart from the title track during the IT tour. Imagine this, only two albums later, when Phil could sing and drum whatever he wanted, only one song was left. I think the signs are quite clear.

    Edited 2 times, last by Fabrizio ().

  • I noticed you said it's your opinion and anyone can use the word "classic", as he pleases, people can also disagree and explain why, particularly in cases where the only parameter used to back a personal assessment is personal taste .

    We are exposing different views here,so far respectfully, if somebody says they like Abacab, the only thing I can offer is, I don't and we are done, if however, somebody says Abacab or some songs on it are classics, I think I can dispute that rationally, without having to resort to my personal taste. The Album was released 31 years ago, enough time to put everything in perspective, I think Genesis fans, in general, have spoken, the general audience have spoken, so have the critics and apparently so have the band.

    But you are resorting to your personal taste, no matter how much you claim you are judging it 'rationally'. I think your 'Genesis fans in general have spoken, etc' is an incredibly sweeping statement. I still think you read too much into none of the songs being played live.

  • But you are resorting to your personal taste, no matter how much you claim you are judging it 'rationally'. I think your 'Genesis fans in general have spoken, etc' is an incredibly sweeping statement. I still think you read too much into none of the songs being played live.

    I made no mystery of my opinion in general of Abacab as an album, I said I like a couple of songs, I just don't think they are up there with their best ones. I don't think I'm being swayed by my personal taste but of course I have no way to be sure, that said, the arguments I have presented are my opinion quite solid and I think it would be more productive to address those rather to imply I just dislike the album.

    Perhaps my statements are sweeping but again, how do you counter them? Are they incorrect? Untrue? Various forums, in various languages apart, for what is worth, through the years, I've met many Genesis fans, in several countries I lived in and I can assure you that they reflect what you see in several polls. Abacab has its following, but it is in no way large. As for me reading to much into the fact the album isn't represented live, again, you might be right but fans have complains and questions, questions that cannot be answered by the fact that they have have too large a catalogue or Phil cannot drum or sing anymore. They don't sound like sound, valid arguments and I tried to explain that.

    Perhaps I'm biased but songs of a good, important album are cherished and played live.

    Allow me to throw the ball back into your court though, you clearly like the album and that's fine, you seem to think it's a great album, have you got more than your personal taste to substantiate that? They released I think 15 studio albums, why is Abacab top notch?

  • It can be read in any interview to Banks or Rutherford, that Abacab isn't their preferit album.

    Naturally this opinion don't match to Genesis' fans. :/

  • songs of a good, important album are cherished and played live.

    It's clear by now that nobody will shift you from this entrenched stance. But it sometimes seems odd to me that fans on this board sometimes speak as though they've forgotten who Genesis were and what they were like, such as their regularly ruthless unsentimental approach to songs and albums. A clear fan favourite is Trick. Across their 6 last tours Genesis played either one, a fragment or no songs from it bar the outlier of 07 (2 songs). For 40 years they played the same single track from W&W bar with the occasional other bit (exceptionally, YOSW a few times in 86). As was pointed out, Nursery Cryme vanished from sets, the blip being 3 mins of TMB in 92. Burning Rope lasted one tour. Etc etc etc. Their entire live history is full of multiple disprovals of your "cherished" assertion.


    Quote

    Allow me to throw the ball back into your court though, you clearly like the album and that's fine, you seem to think it's a great album, have you got more than your personal taste to substantiate that? They released I think 15 studio albums, why is Abacab top notch?

    What else is there other than the personal views of fans? Is there some definitive Official Gold Standard beyond that? Some music equivalent of an SI Unit? Of course not. So why ask how someone's view of an album can be "substantiated" outside that personal view?

    Abandon all reason

  • Thanks Backdrifter. You answered perfectly. I certainly don't claim that because I personally think Abacab is a great album, with a couple of tracks which I conside 'classics' that everyone has to share that view.


    But also, if you are going to state that a criterion for classic status is that a song should be played live, that eliminates everytihng by the Beatles as a band from Revolver onwards. Perhaps the Beatles should not be an example because McCartney obviously plays many of the later songs in his solo shows. But the Beatles never played A Day In The Life. So...

  • It's clear by now that nobody will shift you from this entrenched stance. But it sometimes seems odd to me that fans on this board sometimes speak as though they've forgotten who Genesis were and what they were like, such as their regularly ruthless unsentimental approach to songs and albums. A clear fan favourite is Trick. Across their 6 last tours Genesis played either one, a fragment or no songs from it bar the outlier of 07 (2 songs). For 40 years they played the same single track from W&W bar with the occasional other bit (exceptionally, YOSW a few times in 86). As was pointed out, Nursery Cryme vanished from sets, the blip being 3 mins of TMB in 92. Burning Rope lasted one tour. Etc etc etc. Their entire live history is full of multiple disprovals of your "cherished" assertion.


    What else is there other than the personal views of fans? Is there some definitive Official Gold Standard beyond that? Some music equivalent of an SI Unit? Of course not. So why ask how someone's view of an album can be "substantiated" outside that personal view?

    I like this point very much. Please don't ask me to provide evidence to prove that the album I like is good. It's like asking someone to prove that green is a good color.

  • But also, if you are going to state that a criterion for classic status is that a song should be played live, that eliminates everytihng by the Beatles as a band from Revolver onwards. Perhaps the Beatles should not be an example because McCartney obviously plays many of the later songs in his solo shows. But the Beatles never played A Day In The Life. So...

    No, come on, let's be fair here, I've never said that's the sole criterion, I made a couple of points which haven't been even addressed, the live bit was one of them and I shouldn't even bring up that the Beatles stopped touring in 66, not a good example.

    Edited 2 times, last by Fabrizio ().

  • It can be read in any interview to Banks or Rutherford, that Abacab isn't their preferit album.

    Naturally this opinion don't match to Genesis' fans. :/

    True but personally I don't really care about that, the artist's opinion of his work hardly has an impact on my preferences, they all acknowledge anyway that the moment they release a song or an album it's no longer their own and it's a slippery slope, throughout time they expressed negative opinions over songs and albums that are revered by the fans.

  • 'It's a mix of things: consensus amongst the fans, reviews, commercial success, longevity etc... Those songs simply don't cut it in any of those areas'. (quote from Fabrizio earlier in the thread).


    Those were the criteria you used for what should be considered a classic (as well as then saying that songs from cherished albums should be played live). Basically when you say 'those songs simply don't cut it in any of those areas' you mean in your opinion.


    Consensus amongst the fans - which fans? Have you asked them all?

    Reviews - don't always stand the test of time. Opinons change. What may once have been dismissed, may now be revered.

    Commercial success - Abacab was commercially successful, wasn't it? But why should that be one of the criteria? There are plenty of great songs from great albums which were not commercially successful, yet are regarded as classics for other reasons.

    Longevity - the album has been around for a long time. If you think it or any of its songs doesn't deserve to be labelled classic, ultimately that's your opinion.


    I think it is interesting that in the post above you say that the artist's opinion of their work doesn't count or has an impact on your preferences.


    When you asked me did I have anything other than personal preference to substantiate my own claim, the difference between us is that I don't claim to do that. I will say the following about two of the songs I mentioned. The title track has every element of this period of Genesis that makes it a great song: intriguing lyric, great performance (I wish I could get technical and explain why, but I can't). As for Dodo/Lurker, it is unique. The lyric is nothing like the rest of their catalogue. Phil sings it superbly. I don't do analysis well, which puts me at a disadvantage on this board.


  • My personal taste absolutely informs my opinion of Abacab, I'm aware of it and I don't deny or conceal it, I don't know why you would think otherwise but tt's really not about that isn't? You think Abacab is a great one and you minimized the fact that it is never played live, I don't agree with you on the former statement and I tried to offer some explanations to the live thing, ''Offer'' being the key operational word, because ultimately, only 3 people know the truth.

    No, I haven't spoken to each and every Genesis fan and I know that Abacab has some but would you deny it is a polarizing album? Would you deny that Abacab is not up there in the fans' preferences? I've been around several incarnations of this forum and I've been member of others, in Italian, English, German and Spanish. Product of having lived in several countries, having been a fan for decades and frankly being old. There's no way to escape the fact that Abacab is generally not rated highly. I don't think it's necessary to ask everyone. It would be perhaps interesting to poll Abacab exclusively with other 3 man era albums and see how it does but in a general poll, I'm sorry...

    Abacab was more successful then its predecessors, it figures since it was more immediate and accessible, it was also less successful than its successors though, I don't have the figures in my head but I don't think it reached the commercial peaks of IT and WCD, I'm not sure about Shapes. To this day, generally speaking, it's very rare you hear anything from Abacab on the radio, it can happen but not compared to other albums of that era.

    Reviews, I don't know whether fresh reviews have been written about it, I cannot really opine, I somehow doubt though the album is now revered.

    Commercial success, I don't know why you resist the notion that commercial success is an indicator....In Pop. I equally don't know why, you keep comparing with songs which were never going to be featured on Top of the Pops or, due to their length, never get any radio time. With that in mind, if an artist suddenly starts churning out pop tunes, they better chart and sell, otherwise what's the point? IT was a commercial Juggernaut, that alone makes it a classic, whether I agree or not and trust me I don't, that factor alone dictates that it must be played live. It doesn't apply to Abacab apparently.

    The live bit, it might be that I read too much into it, in an attempt to back up my opinion of that Album but when I read that Phil cannot sing anymore, Phil cannot drum anymore, they have too many songs and they need to make a choice and even worse that the Beatles have never played some of their classics live, for each of those points there is, in my view a valid, argument which I won't repeat now because I've made them already. If I read too much into it, those are simply excuses.

    I said I like Dodo and M&SJ, I also like MOTC and KID, given the fact though that Genesis have written so many great songs, I really don' think those are up there and they can be labeled as classics. The title track, I'm sorry but I think it's abysmal and probably gets the prize as Genesis worst instrumental ever, PERSONALLY, I can see why they don't play it anymore, despite the fact that it's an obvious live number. Ask them to drop TIOA and they probably tell you they can't and don't want to. BTW you can get as technical as you like.

    No, the artist opinion doesn't affect me, it doesn't make me like or dislike a song or an album more. Genesis members have often spoken poorly of some of their songs I like. Yes members, a band I adore, often praise Relayer as their best work. I don't like it, I don't care what they say, why should I?

    They have a different connection, as artists and creators I realize that, they probably think, they should or could have played it differently, I'm just the listener and I hear things differently.

    Edited 5 times, last by Fabrizio ().