Songs I'm Afraid to Admit I Don't Like

    While I don't believe they consciously sat down and actually planned to capitalise on the success of FV and then HIMBG, I completely agree that those solo successes gave the band some extra momentum due to the "Oh that's that band with him in" factor. But I tend to look at what happened before FV and Abacab. Certainly in the UK anyway, they'd had a steady series of top 10 albums then their first top 10 single with FYFM. Then came their first number 1 album in the UK with Duke, a second UK top 10 hit single with TIOA and a sizeable US single hit with Misunderstanding. This is all pre-FV and on the basis of those growing successes, I think the strategy was already in place to build on that with pushing harder through more touring and multiple single releases. PC's success helped them along with that.


    Do you mean that on the 3SL tour they played arenas in the US for the first time? They'd been playing those sorts of venues in Europe for a few years before that.


    Anyway, sorry, off-topic - cwah, that Supper's Ready's a bit overrated isn't it?

    Abandon all reason

    Like 1
    Quote from Backdrifter

    While I don't believe they consciously sat down and actually planned to capitalise on the success of FV and then HIMBG, I completely agree that those solo successes gave the band some extra momentum due to the "Oh that's that band with him in" factor. But I tend to look at what happened before FV and Abacab. Certainly in the UK anyway, they'd had a steady series of top 10 albums then their first top 10 single with FYFM. Then came their first number 1 album in the UK with Duke, a second UK top 10 hit single with TIOA and a sizeable US single hit with Misunderstanding. This is all pre-FV and on the basis of those growing successes, I think the strategy was already in place to build on that with pushing harder through more touring and multiple single releases. PC's success helped them along with that.


    Do you mean that on the 3SL tour they played arenas in the US for the first time? They'd been playing those sorts of venues in Europe for a few years before that.


    Anyway, sorry, off-topic - cwah, that Supper's Ready's a bit overrated isn't it?

    They were not struggling but compared with other prog bands such as Yes and ELP and I won't even bring up Pink Floyd, they were quite lagging behind in terms of fame, recognition and why not financial remuneration. You talk about Duke and its success in the UK and arguably Europe but Duke was over ten years after they started recording albums. Misunderstanding was, I seem to remember, a top 20 in the US and again we are talking about an over ten years build-up, kind of a slow burn isn't it? Anyway, nothing comparable with what happened afterwards, I would say. I can't say whether they did capitalize on Phil's success consciously or less but it really looks like they did, all evidence points to it and I see no evil in that. Again, I only object at times to the material, some songs but it something had to give. For the sake of our beautiful friendship I will pretend I didn't read the Supper's Ready bit ;.)

    Jethro Tull were outselling Yes and ELP in the US by the mid 70's IIRC, Thick as a Brick went multi platinum in the US, and they were playing places like the LA Forum and MSG, from about 76 onward. Genesis did lag behind a little commercially, although I think they had quite a high profile in the 70's, because of all their connections and collaborations. It wasn't until they started releasing pop singles in the late 70's, that they really took off. Bands like Yes and Tull seemed more able to score hit singles with songs that were more repesentative of what they did on their albums, whereas Genesis often diluted their prog element to virtual non existence to score a hit.

    Quote from Gabble Ratchet

    Couldn't agree more. By the time this album came out, they'd long abandoned art-rock glory for radio-ready piffle.

    I don't think you've given this material a chance. You're kind of obsessed with being able to neatly close the book at the end of the 70s that you're not giving later material a chance. Home by the Sea has an instrumental section that's as complex and accomplished as any of their earlier stuff, and as far as I'm concerned beats anything off Duke into a cocked hat. In fact they deliberately divided the suite so that one half could be short enough for the radio while retaining the longer ensemble for album consumption.

    Quote from Blacksword

    Jethro Tull were outselling Yes and ELP in the US by the mid 70's IIRC, Thick as a Brick went multi platinum in the US, and they were playing places like the LA Forum and MSG, from about 76 onward. Genesis did lag behind a little commercially, although I think they had quite a high profile in the 70's, because of all their connections and collaborations. It wasn't until they started releasing pop singles in the late 70's, that they really took off. Bands like Yes and Tull seemed more able to score hit singles with songs that were more repesentative of what they did on their albums, whereas Genesis often diluted their prog element to virtual non existence to score a hit.

    Right, I forgot to mention JT, the point remains though, after over ten years of recording albums most of which critically acclaimed and some of those with a reasonable commercial success, they were not, at least commercially speaking, in the league of abovementioned bands. I don't remember when they broke even financially but it was quite late in their career . They survived Punk and with a new decade looming, it was time for them to sit down and rethink what they were doing, not simply go into a studio and do what they did. They a card to play, Phil and his newfound visibility. They obviously played it.

    Quote from Fabrizio

    Right, I forgot to mention JT, the point remains though, after over ten years of recording albums most of which critically acclaimed and some of those with a reasonable commercial success, they were not, at least commercially speaking, in the league of abovementioned bands. I don't remember when they broke even financially but it was quite late in their career . They survived Punk and with a new decade looming, it was time for them to sit down and rethink what they were doing, not simply go into a studio and do what they did. They a card to play, Phil and his newfound visibility. They obviously played it.

    I really can't agree that the band deliberately exploited Phil for commercial gain. By the time of Abacab, Phil's confidence had increased considerably due to his success with Face Value. He felt that his opinions would now carry more weight and so he spoke out more openly (Mike's original guitar solo for Me And Virgil, for example, that he felt sounded quite dated. Mike agreed and changed it accordingly. Source: Hugh Fielder's ubiquitous Book Of Genesis). From that point on, Genesis was much more representative of the three members.


    Tony and Mike have said many times that Phil's success did not affect how Genesis worked. I believe them.


    As for Genesis's success in relation to the other bands, they did indeed take longer to achieve substantial success ("Slower build, slower decay" is how Peter Gabriel sums it up). Tony Stratton Smith ploughed a ton of money into the band, believing that eventually they would make it big. The band remained in the red until 1976. Such was the gradual build-up, that by 1987 when the band ended the Invisible Touch tour with four sold out nights at Wembley Stadium, there was definitely a sense that their hard won success was well deserved.

    Quote from Blacksword

    Genesis often diluted their prog element to virtual non existence to score a hit

    I'm not sure it was such a conscious decision. Sometimes they wrote a tune that just sounded fine as it was, without any extra frills. That was the case with More Fool Me and I Know What I Like, just as it was with Your Own Special Way and Follow You Follow Me.

    i think that the essence of genesis was writing the songs together, improvising. that's why they often wrote complex pieces. progressive rock has a lot to do with improvisation. but sometimes they wrote simpler things that needed no more development. time made them better at writing those brief and direct songs. it was a natural process.

    Quote from StillCan'tDance

    I really can't agree that the band deliberately exploited Phil for commercial gain.

    Tony and Mike have said many times that Phil's success did not affect how Genesis worked. I believe them.

    When put in those terms, it sounds like something cynical and almost tacky and that was not my implication at all. Like other bands and artist coming from the 70s, Genesis had to decide what is it they wanted to do and be in the new decade and to be blunt: much as I love Tony and I consider him to be the soul and backbone of Genesis, I think he is incapable of doing anything different from what he does and is which I love admittedly but seems to evolve quite slowly. No one here has any way of knowing what they real intentions, conscious or less, were and I don't think statements to the press should be taken at face value, no pun intended. What you expected Mike and Tony to say? Time to cash in and let's exploit Phil? To me, it looks and sounds like Phil's success DID affect how Genesis worked, that, the changed music scene around them and probably the awareness they couldn't go on the way they always did. They simply needed a new direction and Phil for many reasons was the one who could provided. Just like Peter and his costumes, they needed a 'star' in order to accomplish that and a world-class, recognizable singer, something Mike understood later too with the Mechanics but Tony and Steve never did. Phil was suddenly that and they started planning carefully and working even harder then they did before. This is no clear evidence but imo, together with the material an indication that might prove a point, no morfe than that.

    BTW Me and Virgil's last problem was whatever guitar solo it had ;)

    Edited once, last by Fabrizio ().

    Phil's resume or CV speaks volumes here. I believe that Genesis had focused their thoughts on Tony and no other member. I'm not a fan of Tony, because of his snobbish attitude. I hope I'm wrong. Though I like Tony's solo works, I'm not a fan of his character.


    I love Collins, Phillips, Hackett and Gabriel ....

    Quote from Fabrizio

    Right, I forgot to mention JT, the point remains though, after over ten years of recording albums most of which critically acclaimed and some of those with a reasonable commercial success, they were not, at least commercially speaking, in the league of abovementioned bands. I don't remember when they broke even financially but it was quite late in their career . They survived Punk and with a new decade looming, it was time for them to sit down and rethink what they were doing, not simply go into a studio and do what they did. They a card to play, Phil and his newfound visibility. They obviously played it.

    They were £500K in debt in 1975. They broke even after the release of Trick in 76.


    Phil had relativey little visibility until Face Value which was around 1980 (?) They survived punk, I guess by moving to the middle of the road. The likes of Yes, ELP carried on doing what they did, after the record buying public had mostly moved on, which is why they died (at least temporarily so) Floyd survived because their music had enough rage, anger and misery in it to suck in some of the punk/new wave sympathisers. KC had long got out of the game, knowing that it was dying and Fripp cleverly made sure he was hanging out with, and collabroting with the right musicians of the time to maintain his profile sufficiently to stage a KC comeback in the future, bringing some new wave crediblity with him. As for Tull, I really can't explain their sustained success, as they strike me as completely 'unfashionable' throughout their entire career.


    I tink the pop element of Geness really came from Tony. It was more his band than Phil's. I'm sure they were influenced by Phil's love of Motown and soul, but Banks was also a pop music fan and never really regarded Genesis as a prog rock band. I don't think they would have taken a commercial direction if Banks hadn't wanted to. Altough I would agree that by the time of Genesis (Shapes) Phil's solo success was winning the band a new generation of fans.

    Quote from Blacksword

    They were £500K in debt in 1975. They broke even after the release of Trick in 76.


    Phil had relativey little visibility until Face Value which was around 1980 (?) They survived punk, I guess by moving to the middle of the road. The likes of Yes, ELP carried on doing what they did, after the record buying public had mostly moved on, which is why they died (at least temporarily so) Floyd survived because their music had enough rage, anger and misery in it to suck in some of the punk/new wave sympathisers. KC had long got out of the game, knowing that it was dying and Fripp cleverly made sure he was hanging out with, and collabroting with the right musicians of the time to maintain his profile sufficiently to stage a KC comeback in the future, bringing some new wave crediblity with him. As for Tull, I really can't explain their sustained success, as they strike me as completely 'unfashionable' throughout their entire career.


    I tink the pop element of Geness really came from Tony. It was more his band than Phil's. I'm sure they were influenced by Phil's love of Motown and soul, but Banks was also a pop music fan and never really regarded Genesis as a prog rock band. I don't think they would have taken a commercial direction if Banks hadn't wanted to. Altough I would agree that by the time of Genesis (Shapes) Phil's solo success was winning the band a new generation of fans.

    I really like your explanations in the second paragraph, especially regarding Crimson, you summed up very succinctly the smart moves Fripp made.


    I often have discussions with old rock-heads who bemoan the lack or loss of success by some of the sorts of bands mentioned above, but as you rightly said, these are the bands that largely didn't alter their sound. The rock heads describe this as a good thing and that those bands "at least didn't sell out" etc etc. These are generally the same guys who think that's what Genesis did i.e. "sell out" and that nothing post-1980 is worth listening to. One guy said to me "they sacrificed their musical integrity", something which no-one who ever saw them play live could ever reasonably say. My view is they maintained that integrity, but just applied it in ways those guys didn't like.


    Yes seemed to be on the decline but with the arrival of Rabin and making 90125 they plugged in to the boom in FM-friendly shiny rock and they took off all over again.


    Tull is an odd one isn't it. I was about to say, did they really have sustained success but then checked their album sales and they were having gold or silver certifications in the US and UK right through to Rock island in 1989 which was silver in the UK. I'm not familiar with their work from the late 70s onwards but if as I surmise their style didn't really change much at all, then yeah they buck the trend of stick-in-the-mud bands withering and dying.

    Abandon all reason

    Like 1

    90125 was a genius album. The combination of Trevor Horns production techniques and the bands sheer songwriting skill carried them through. I remember - in the days when I had hair! - sitting in a hairdressers talking to the guy cutting my hair about music. He was a massive Level 42 fan, with a love also for soul music. I asked him if he'd been to any gigs lately, and he said he'd been to see Yes at Wembley. I think it may have been on the Big Generator tour. He said his mind had been completely blown away, and that 90125 was one of the best albums he'd ever heard. It was clear that Yes had reached a whole new generation of fans with that album. Wakemen has said he would have loved to have worked on that album.


    As for Genesis, although I'm lukewarm on much of their post Duke stuff, I wouldn't begrudge them that success. It's not as if they hadn't earnt it. Every now and then they still produced fantastic music.


    Yeah, Tull are an anomoly. Thick as a Brick topped the US charts. Funny to think that the album was supposed to be a piss take of prog rock concept albums.

    Quote from Blacksword

    I tink the pop element of Geness really came from Tony. It was more his band than Phil's. I'm sure they were influenced by Phil's love of Motown and soul, but Banks was also a pop music fan and never really regarded Genesis as a prog rock band. I don't think they would have taken a commercial direction if Banks hadn't wanted to. Altough I would agree that by the time of Genesis (Shapes) Phil's solo success was winning the band a new generation of fans.

    I agree on several accounts but not on the most important one.

    Tony definitely took over after Peter left; with Steve and Phil still being considered junior members and not writing a lot, Mike being more of the collaborative writer, Tony was unchallenged and the most prolific writer. He certainly was a pop fan in his youth, while Peter and Phil had a great love for black music, Mike would lean more towards the Stones and Tony was a self-declared Beatles fan. Even when he wrote songs that might have been considered as pop i.e. Many too Many or Afterglow, although the latter is tricky, his lyrics were not in that purely pop department.

    Tony has been often described by his band mates as irremovable, there's no way of making him do, something he doesn't want to to.

    That said, there is absolute no indication in his work with the band, that the pop elements were coming from him. He often professed his love for long, proggy compositions, his work with the band backs that up and in fact, if you look at the songs, Mike was first letting some pop elements creep in.

    Tony certainly became more collaborative, on Abacab almost every song was written by the band, except three and the key became how Phil reacted against Tony, meaning what vocal lines Phil was able to come up with, on top of the the chords layer Tony provided. Tony has often said he needed the others to edit him and learn to be more concise, left to his own devices he would always tend to wander off or ramble on. So no, I don't think the pop elements were mainly coming from him. Of the three writers in the band only one was a purely pop, R&B-ish writer and he got more visibility.

    I agree TB became the alpha male and the one who fought most stubbornly for his own material. I don't know to what extent he became a purveyor of the poppier stuff when they became the more democratic trio. Though I have read things which indicate he was still a dominant writer, more so than the even-handed B/C/R song credits suggest. I read he was occasionally known for providing vocal demos at least up to Abacab, which might that he at least wrote vocal melodies, and that he wrote Keep It Dark (a favourite short-form one of mine) and Silver Rainbow, and the music if not the words of Hold On My Heart.

    Abandon all reason

    Quote from Backdrifter

    I agree TB became the alpha male and the one who fought most stubbornly for his own material. I don't know to what extent he became a purveyor of the poppier stuff when they became the more democratic trio. Though I have read things which indicate he was still a dominant writer, more so than the even-handed B/C/R song credits suggest. I read he was occasionally known for providing vocal demos at least up to Abacab, which might that he at least wrote vocal melodies, and that he wrote Keep It Dark (a favourite short-form one of mine) and Silver Rainbow, and the music if not the words of Hold On My Heart.

    Well, he has always been quite self-reliant as a writer. He had the chords, the harmonies, the lyrics and the vocal lines too. There's a bit in the Making of the Shapes album video where he sings, in a weird falsetto, lyrics and melody to Home by The Sea to Phil. Kudos to Phil for keeping a straight face during the process. You are right though, he had done that before, stuff like One for the Vine were played to the group almost finished. The 4 man era is definitely Banks having a tight grip on the band, I would say that applies to ATTW3 too, then he released said grip a bit on Duke. As of Abacab Phil had become an asset to be reckoned with and he achieved equal status. Tony was smart, I would say, he probably realized the group couldn't go any further, particularly commercially with him in charge alone.