Your Own Special Way

    I don't mind the song, but far prefer other tracks on that album.


    My favourite version is the live version with strings from 1986. Does anyone know more about how that came to be? I don't remember them doing it on previous tours unless they did it a bit on the W&W tour. So why did they resurrect specifically for this show? I remember hearing something about them having to make use of strings for some kind of contractual reason (can't remember the details), but why not do that for another song that they are playing regularly rather than a song they haven't played for years, if ever, live?

    Quote from Blacksword

    I agree. A great read. Must have read it cover to cover ten times in my teens. I can't believe how obsessed with some bands I was at the time! Have you ever read From one fan to another by Armando Gallo? It's mostly a collection of AG's photographs of the band over the years. Not so muvch an informative read, but an excellent pictorial history of te band.

    I have indeed got a copy of From One Fan To Another! I bought it along with I Know What I Like. I think From One Fan makes the perfect companion piece to Armando Gallo's celebrated biography. If memory serves the book also features photos from the Mama tour taken by another photographer - Margaret?

    Quote from Dr. John

    I don't mind the song, but far prefer other tracks on that album.


    My favourite version is the live version with strings from 1986. Does anyone know more about how that came to be? I don't remember them doing it on previous tours unless they did it a bit on the W&W tour. So why did they resurrect specifically for this show? I remember hearing something about them having to make use of strings for some kind of contractual reason (can't remember the details), but why not do that for another song that they are playing regularly rather than a song they haven't played for years, if ever, live?

    Yes, the musicians union in Australia insist that everyone that plays there either has a strong section as their opening act or that they feature the string section in their performance. When Phil played there on his No Jacket Required tour he used the string section for some of his songs and when Genesis played there I think they used the strings on both Your Own Special Way and In Too Deep. Not sure why they picked that hoary old song from W&W, though. Nice to hear it, though and, like you, it's my favourite version of the song.

    Quote from StillCan'tDance

    Yes, quite an odd one that but a reminder that they were courting a much larger audience long before the days of Invisible Touch.

    That was the format of the show, it couldn't be escaped and as such they adapted, a bit of a stretch, taking that as an example of their lust for popularity but the point is another. You seem to entertain or wanting to push the idea that they always wanted to be a pop act, they just lacked and subsequently honed the pop-songwriting chops to make it and that too is imo incorrect for several reasons and there's evidence to the contrary, even though Phil said it but you know, sometimes artists or athletes or politicians, public figures in general just feed stuff to the press and fans. They broke away from Jonathan King who wanted them to be a pop act. They worked on several albums without any kind of interference from the record company, basically insulated from everything around them. They occasionally came up with easy listening tunes to which they wrote lyrics which would practically kill any chance of of being decent pop singles. Think of I know what I like for instance and a chorus going: ' I know I love you and you know you love me' and then go with some equally inane verses. Much more likely to chart higher than it actually did, don't you think? I think if you change the lyrics to Carpet Crawlers you have yourself a nice single but apparently they didn't wanna. Now, to be fair, did they want to be successful? You bet! Up to a certain point though, it was always on their terms, they certainly didn't cater for anybody's taste but theirs and most importantly; being famous, successful and commercially viable in the 70s was completely different from having that very same status in the 80s, particularly the mid-80s which is when things imo really started going downhill. A quick review and comparison of the charts from say 70 to 75 and from 85 to 89 would give a general idea of what I am talking about. Perhaps, it is true, perhaps Mike couldn't have never written something like Invisible Touch in the 70s and thank god for that, that songs should have never seen the light of day, as far as I am concerned, somehow though, I think he wasn't really interested in that, nor I think were Ant, Tony and Steve.

    Edited 2 times, last by Fabrizio ().

    Quote from Fabrizio

    it is true, perhaps Mike couldn't have never written something like Invisible Touch in the 70s

    Well, considering he was the band's bass player in the seventies and the song itself is based on a Prince/Sheila E style of song, neither of whom were making music in the mid-seventies, no, he wouldn't have written something like that back then.


    As a fan of Genesis with my own opinion and tastes, I will take what a member of the band said over anything that I or any other fans have to say. So, you may well dismiss the comments of the band's erstwhile drummer, singer and front man as being no different to the platitudes of a politician...but I don't.

    Quote from StillCan'tDance

    As a fan of Genesis with my own opinion and tastes, I will take what a member of the band said over anything that I or any other fans have to say. So, you may well dismiss the comments of the band's erstwhile drummer, singer and front man as being no different to the platitudes of a politician...but I don't.

    I don't dismiss them, I simply take them with a grain of salt. Just like when they tell you that their last album is always the best. Phil has been massively and imo unjustly attacked for years for 'ruining' the band and it is well documented that he doesn't respond well to criticisms, he is by far the more thin-skinned in the band with regard to how people respond to his music and I've always found his comments in this area were really about him being on a defensive mode. It wasn't me, they always wanted to do that, they just didn't know how to and so on...

    Quote from Fabrizio

    It wasn't me, they always wanted to do that, they just didn't know how to and so on

    From Mike Rutherford: "We always wrote short songs, it was just that they were crap."


    Yes, Phil responded to journalists who made what he felt to be ill-informed comments about him and his music. You really think music journalists know what they're talking about? Personally, I find Frank Zappa's comment on such people to most appropriate: "Most rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, for people who can't read." Frank Sinatra put it more succinctly, calling them "pimps and hookers".


    And as someone who is a professional performer, I can tell you with some authority that being thin-skinned tends to come with the territory. Rare is the performer who doesn't take criticism to heart.

    Quote from StillCan'tDance

    From Mike Rutherford: "We always wrote short songs, it was just that they were crap."


    And as someone who is a professional performer, I can tell you with some authority that being thin-skinned tends to come with the territory. Rare is the performer who doesn't take criticism to heart.

    Again, it sounds to me they are selling and touting the new course, the way they would promote a new album. It's not that I am inclined to question it because Phil says it or Mike. You look at they way the went along in their career in the first years you just question it. They could have remained on the FGTR course, there was enough pop talente to develop there. They didn't seem to want though. I don't blame Phil for being thin-skinned, they were brutal to him during the 80s and it became fashionable and cool to hate him. I was merely offering an explanations as t why he would say things that don't seem to be backed up by their history. It comes with the territory alright, just some people seem to be more impervious to it

    Quote from Fabrizio

    You look at they way the went along in their career in the first years you just question it.

    Not really. I don't question why Stephen King is writing books like The Outsider and Revival these days instead of Carrie and Salem's Lot. It's just artistic progression, that's all.

    Quote from StillCan'tDance

    Like who?

    Tony, Mike, Peter and Steve never seemed to suffer much from it. Peter said clearly that you have to be ready to go out and accept people might hate you. Tony is rumored and I don't know whether that's true or he just said that, of having stopped reading the reviews altogether once he realized they weren't going to get a fair chance from the media and they were generally misunderstood. Not Phil. He read everything and on occasion made it a point to reply publicly to the articles.

    Quote from StillCan'tDance

    Not really. I don't question why Stephen King is writing books like The Outsider and Revival these days instead of Carrie and Salem's Lot. It's just artistic progression, that's all.

    Oh, I was referring to actually listening to FGTR and then how they decided to proceed in the coming record. There is of course progression but there also distance between what they wanted to be and what JK was trying to get out them.

    Quote from Fabrizio

    Tony, Mike, Peter and Steve never seemed to suffer much from it. Peter said clearly that you have to be ready to go out and accept people might hate you. Tony is rumored and I don't know whether that's true or he just said that, of having stopped reading the reviews altogether once he realized they weren't going to get a fair chance from the media and they were generally misunderstood. Not Phil. He read everything and on occasion made it a point to reply publicly to the articles.

    I think the key word here is "seemed". I think the more successful the artist, though, the more vocal they are about criticism. Not because their ego can't take it, quite the opposite in fact. It's their receptiveness to criticism that has put them at the top of the tree. I mentioned Frank Sinatra earlier, a man who was exceptionally thin-skinned and who was arguably the most overt in his behaviour to his critics. He also happened to be the most successful entertainer of the 20th century.

    Quote from StillCan'tDance

    I think the key word here is "seemed". I think the more successful the artist, though, the more vocal they are about criticism. Not because their ego can't take it, quite the opposite in fact. It's their receptiveness to criticism that has put them at the top of the tree. I mentioned Frank Sinatra earlier, a man who was exceptionally thin-skinned and who was arguably the most overt in his behaviour to his critics. He also happened to be the most successful entertainer of the 20th century.

    Well, of course ''seemed'' is the word to by if we don't take Phil's words at face value, there's no reason to do it for the others. Yet, there is no contentious episode, regarding other band members and the media recorded and they all had a quite rough deal as a band.

    Quote from Fabrizio

    Well, of course ''seemed'' is the word to by if we don't take Phil's words at face value, there's no reason to do it for the others. Yet, there is no contentious episode, regarding other band members and the media recorded and they all had a quite rough deal as a band.

    You're presuming that they don't dislike negative criticism because they don't have a history of writing to newspapers.