Posts by Dr. John

    I don't really know how commercially viable a 5-man or 4-man tour would have been in the 2000s and onward. A significant portion of people that filled the arenas and small stadiums were there for the 3-man era hits. You could see/hear/feel the waning attention of many during In the Cage, Ripples, etc.


    What could have worked might have been a 5-man or 4-man selection of shows in particular markets, which might draw many from other locales. If they did say London, Paris, Rome, New York, they might have been able to fill larger venues with fans of the older material. I still don't know how profitable it would have been - a lot of tours are losing money until the final shows.


    Anyway, I totally understand why the band chose to have a 3-man reunion once the 5-man option didn't materialize. To do a 4-man reunion would have awkwardness in a variety of scenarios. If they focused on the catalogue up to 1977, Phil would have had to sing a lot of songs that he hasn't sung in a long time and may not be that into anymore (never mind how into them Tony and Mike would be). And skipping any 3-man songs would definitely reduce their overall ticket sales. I also can't see getting Steve to play guitar (or alternatively bass) for Duke's Intro, Domino, Invisible Touch, etc. I suppose they could have done something like what The Eagles did for their History of The Eagles tour: first set with earlier songs and earlier personnel and second set with later songs with a different set of personnel. But that would have had Steve sit out for the second set and would have made him feel like second fiddle for the tour.

    I've never been a fan of this song and can understand the comments about it being annoying.

    Have never noticed that. But then again, anything from 1978 onwards is Mike playing lead on the record anyway so this (and Jesus he knows me) are exceptions.

    Not quite true. Daryl plays lead on Behind the Lines, It's Gonna Get Better, and a few others that I can't think of immediately.

    Although in the early days he let clever wordplay get in the way of poignancy and narrative, Gabriel kept getting stronger. Certainly by III onward, his lyrics were very strong.


    Banks and Rutherford could both do a great lyric as well as ones that were awkwardly clunky (Banks) or maudlin (Rutherford). Collins sometimes could write a good lyric (e.g., Take Me Home), but I find many of his phrases kinda trite and obvious (e.g., Another Day in Paradise).

    You guys are aware that there is a long studio version, right? It's what the album version was edited down from. It was the B-side of the 12-inch single and (later) CD single of "Mama" (the long version that fades out some 40 seconds later than the album version).


    To me, the long versions of these two songs are the real versions, and the album versions are just inessential extras.

    I am aware and have the Mama CD single for that reason, but I acquired that much more recently so the edited album version is the one I listened to for many years. So my opinion of the song is based more on it than on the full version.

    I like this song. I really like Tony's circling back on itself opening string pattern. I like the synth bass from Mike. And I really like the melody. The lyrics are perhaps the weakest link - earnest but a bit trite.


    Despite the editing out of a verse, I like the studio version because of Phil's use of falsetto to hit the high notes. This adds a nice intimacy to this section. Live he goes for it full force, but it sounds strained and unnecessarily aggressive.

    On the Air for sure. Although I prefer the polished Plays Live version, the studio version does crackle with energy. I just wish he didn't use that affected, strained voice - maybe he felt it suited the character, but it underserves the melody.


    DIY is also better live, but I like the quirky 5/4 groove.


    Indigo is a nice, simple, quiet song. It almost sounds like someone else wrote it. I still like it.

    I enjoy songs across Billy Joel's career, but haven't been engaged by full studio albums, except perhaps The Stranger. I like a few songs from most albums. Miami 2017 is perhaps my favourite individual song, particularly the live version from Songs In the Attic. I saw him once live and really enjoyed it, perhaps because it was a selection of songs from many albums.

    I'm curious why you like the octave down version. The original higher version has an effortless, soaring, flying feeling. The lower version is warmer admittedly, but but feels heavier to me.


    I forgot to mention how I like the oboe snippets in the original studio version (in the quiet section after the first refrain). I don't remember if we have heard Peter play oboe on anything else. Someone will have to refresh my memory


    One other thing to note is that in the live medley versions, Tony skips a whole section after the main melody. He just goes straight to the ascending quadruplet and triplet run. I'm guessing this is because the section omitted is actually quite hard to play. I have never heard him perform this section live in a way that is faithful to the original studio version.

    This is one of my favourite tracks. I do have a few quibbles with aspects of the studio and live versions, but the many strengths obliterate these minor imperfections.


    First of all, I really see this as two pieces of music that have been stitched together and have no discernible relationship with each other. The first portion is anchored by Mike's amazing 12-string part, with its odd tuning that has pairs of strings tuned to different notes (as opposed to the usual octaves). The intro section alone is worth the price of admission, but I also love the quiet instrumental section before the "Na na na na" bit. Just gorgeous and magical. The verses and the "Take a little trip back..." refrain are fine, though not the most remarkable.


    Then we get the second section in 7/8, which clearly evolved from a jam between Mike, Tony, and Phil. It's hard to discern if Steve has any significant role here (and later live versions show that the trio can do it just fine). The main almost-singable melody (the part in A) is one of the most beautiful that (presumably) Tony has come up with.


    The studio version has its strengths. The first section is subtle, pristine. The jam section pales in comparison to the live versions, but there is still something to be said for Phil's subtle and complex ghost notes on the main melody section. Also, the studio version has some lovely overdubs by Tony that add a lower harmony line to the main melody when it repeats. Also in the section after the rapidly ascending quadruplets and triplets, he adds a countermelody that is actually a variation of the main melody in A.


    Live, the full versions benefit from much stronger dynamics in the 7/8 instrumental section. The Seconds Out version benefits from still having mellotron, particularly in the repeat of the main melody with heavy bass pedals. That section is just glorious. The downside of this version is lack of a polyphonic synthesizer, so the lead lines can't be harmonized and sound kind of weak. I also dislike the forced-sounding ending


    The 1978 versions still have the mellotron but now have a polyphonic synth for the harmonized lines. This is the first appearance (I think) of the Riding the Screen snippet, which I really like. The drumming is now very aggressive, which is great in a different way. The segue into Afterglow is still a bit forced, but better than the previous ending.


    After that, we are into the excerpts as part of medleys. Tony loses the mellotron (sigh) and replaces it with mainly poor alternatives. He also changes to less interesting lead sounds. Mike also loses the 12-string to do it on 6-string, at least for the Mama and IT tours I think. The drumming remains great through the 80s versions. The versions on the TIOA and the Last Domino tours suffer from Tony deciding (inexplicably) to lower the main melody by an octave and use a limp lead sound. Of the live medley versions, I most like the early 80s era.


    Can you tell I listen to this song a bit too much?

    For the most part, I do not use any like/dislike options. I think when I started on music forums long ago, I was mainly interested in the discussion. I don't even remember if there was a like/dislike option 20 years ago. So I am very old school in my participation, responding further if I have something to add to a discussion (which might include agreement, disagreement, or something in the middle). I don't participate in discussions on major social media platforms, so I never got in the habit of like/dislike options in the past decade.


    That said, I don't have an issue with people wanting to use these options. I just feel they are imprecise. Often I am in partial agreement or disagreement with a previous post, so a simply binary answer wouldn't be very accurate for me.

    First part of Domino.

    Imagine the guitar/synth riff with arpeggiated 12 strings, the synthy lead line played with the Pro-soloist,

    and then the "Can't you see what you are doing to me " part with big organ chord, punctuated with Mellotron brass sound...

    I think the guitar part is more rhythmic and percussive compared to the arpeggiated parts of yore. The synth line perhaps might work.

    Ooooh I don't know. I'm projecting the vocal over that arrangement in my head and not liking it. Also, the lyric about looking back over a life doesn't lend itself to a 'fantasy' feel. Got any better ones?! 8o

    OK fair. It might not have been the perfect marriage musically. But I do think the reflective stance on life is echoed in previous songs - e.g., Afterglow, Ripples. So lyrically I think it could fit.

    This is one of those songs that captures an atmosphere that no other band could. It is dreamy, misty, melancholic, wry, resigned. Steve's nylon string guitar sets the tone with dignity. Tony's mellotron paints landscapes. Mike has a subtle and mobile bassline that lifts the song like breathing. And Phil offers a tender vocal that soars when it needs to.