If I was to say my favourite Genesis albums are the six studio releases from the Hackett era, every Genesis fan knows precisely what albums I'm talking about without having to spell it out.
I recall the initial post that prompted this discussion, and as a point of chronology, it is silly to avoid referring to the "Hackett era" solely on the basis that he wasn't a predominant songwriter.
How is that relevant? It isn't.
How is that relevant? It isn't.
To you? I think you are missing the point. The thread did not originate because of a comment but several conversations and posts and threads.
The implication being made by some is not whether Steve was in the band and his contribution was valuable, that is a given and I don't know how someone could deny that, I already said that if the minimum requirement is that of his tenure, obviously we can talk about a Steve era.
What is being said though, overtly or less is different and it is that he marked an era through his contribution and in that that regard it is quite interesting to assess how much he actually contributed in terms of songwriting and sound, moreover it is being implied that things changed after he left and not only that, they changed because he left. In fact some believe that he leaving had bigger impact than Peter's departure and that imo is baseless.
...
I've been wondering whether it its correct to talk about a Steve-Era in Genesis.
...
My post was in response to this comment and a previous discussion which seemed to parallel your question: Is there such thing as a Steve era? Is it a valid reference point?
As stated above, my answer is undeniably yes.
If the point of this thread, is to discuss Steve's influence on the overall sound, I would concede he was a minor contributor - but one whose contributions were notably absent in subsequent albums. The absence of any classical and 12-string guitar, and rare use of acoustic after Steve's departure is a noticeable change in sound that strikes me as more than just a coincidence.
I'm with Witchwood on this, even to the 6 favourite albums! 
Incidentally, it's been said Genesis weren't a "guitar" band: This is the band who, live, often played THREE guitars simultaneously, to create that unique, early Genesis sound. Not Steve's innovation, I know, but they certainly embraced guitar enough to make it an important part of the mix for several years.
Incidentally, even the BBC seem to agree, see
Good programme, by the way, I have it on DVD, full of classics.
If the point of this thread, is to discuss Steve's influence on the overall sound, I would concede he was a minor contributor - - but one whose contributions were notably absent in subsequent albums.
That was the point of the thread: his influence on sound, songwriting, arrangements and overall direction and I apologize if I haven't made that sufficiently clear, again I don't necessarily agree with the parallel: tenure=era but I have no trouble if someone choses to see it this way, as long as things are kept in perspective, after all, as I said, I came across fans who said The Lamb was only worth it because of the backing vocals. As for you points, I agree on both account. Not a major contributor, still missed, I know I did miss him to the point that I wanted him on CAS. It's perfectly OK if someone lost interest in the band because he left, It still makes no sense that things went sour because of his departure or that things would have been different with him on board.
I Know What I Like, a song that wouldn't have happened without Steve.
True, that song and others too. Again, it is not my intention to bring Steve down, much less his contribution. I like George, I don't compare his output in the Beatles to Paul's and John's though.
It seems that Phil had a knack for helping arrange their various bits from fairly early on, to the point that when HE left that skill seemed to be the biggest hole he left. Mike and Tony could get another singer and another drummer, but they couldn't (didn't want to?) replace Phil's ability to help shape the musical ideas or be another voice for or against what was being written.
That, to me, is something Steve also brought to the band, but in a more musical and less structural way. Perhaps he wasn't constantly contributing whole creations the way Tony was, but his contributions and opinions had an impact on the arrangements and the overall sound of the band just the same.
Almost all of Genesis' catalog is so interesting because the final products were always more than just the core of what the song was strictly speaking. They all contributed to the sound regardless of who took the biggest credit, and I think that's why their songs are greater than the sum of their parts. And Then There Were Three and Calling All Stations are both good examples of what happens when you pare the Genesis sound too far.
That, to me, is something Steve also brought to the band, but in a more musical and less structural way. Perhaps he wasn't constantly contributing whole creations the way Tony was, but his contributions and opinions had an impact on the arrangements and the overall sound of the band just the same.
Phil's contribution in the arrangement department is well documented and has been acknowledged by himself and the other members of the band over and over. Personally, I am not aware of a similar contribution when talking about Steve which doesn't mean there wasn't, I simply don't know. Perhaps you can name same examples? Very interesting point about the sound CAS btw. I never thought about that way but you might be right there.
No Steve era in my eyes. But then again, no Peter or Phil era either. For me, the eras of the band are based on the music, not the members involved. So, the first era ends with W&W with the second starting with Duke. ATTWT, CAS and FGTR stand alone.
Interesting
But that somehow defines there IS a Steve Hackett era
I think it’s safe to say that the time Hackett was in the band can be seen as a specific band period. Same with the trio time.
