I enjoy all three, although Pigeons is clearly third. Match is slight, silly, and catchy. Good for a little fun. Inside and Out is a nice story song, but where it really excels is the outro instrumental - great keyboard solo and some tasteful work by Steve.
I have the 3-inch CD single too and don't have a player that will play it anymore, so I'm glad these songs are on the box set or I wouldn't be able to play them.
Yes, it was.
It's interesting to compare John's 'personal' songs with Paul's which seemed mainly to be about his relationship with Jane Asher & then Linda. I much prefer songs like You Won't See Me to Julia, but that's just me.
You Won't See Me is just so darn catchy. Julia isn't one of my favourites - I appreciate John was expressing himself, but I find the song a little monotonous.
Both the 5 and 4 man line ups present far too many challenges at this stage, they are really not a realistic option , that said a cameo could be squeezed in for Peter and Steve, one or two songs at the end of the final show, for instance.
I agree that cameos or one-off 4 or 5-man shows are more realistic.
It is not surprising to me that it is the 3-man group that is mounting the tour. They were together as a unit longer than the previous incarnations and it makes sense that they could have the strongest sense of connection with each other. A 3-man configuration is also the most straightforward to put on tour.
If they were to do a tour as the 5-man or 4-man line-up, there are a number of complexities to consider. Would they focus only on the earlier repertoire, which some fans would love? I'm not clear that Tony, Mike, and Phil would want to ignore their later repertoire. They have all talked about how much they like their later repertoire, so I can't imagine them agreeing to not play any of it. Also, if Peter were to somehow agree to a 5-man tour focusing on earlier repertoire, what would Phil be doing, other than back-up vocals? It would be at best a 4.5-man tour
Alternatively, they could cover a broader range of repertoire, but then how would Steve and Peter be involved? Would Steve be OK covering Mike's guitar parts on the later songs with Mike playing bass? Would Mike be OK with this? What would Peter do? They could do something that The Eagles did on their History tour, splitting the show into two parts - first part 5-man or 4-man, second part 3-man. But would Peter and Steve want to be part of a tour in which they only played on half of the setlist?
Did he not feel that way about In My Life as well? Or Yer Blues?
One of the reasons John & Paul bonded so strongly was because they both lost their mothers when they were young. (Hence Mother Mary in Let It Be).
Also, I thought Julia was a very personal song for him.
I've raised this point before, but I'll do it again as it is relevant to this conversation.
There is nothing wrong with creating art to make money. It is what most (admittedly not all) artists do. Some of the greatest works in music and art were made for money, very often tailoring the art to meet the expectations of the people paying for it. A composer such as Mozart created music for his patrons/employers at the time. Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling because he was commissioned to do so. Their works were not diminished because they were done for money.
I would argue that Genesis was always creating music to make money and build an audience. How successful they were changed over time. I don't believe they ever stopped caring about creating music that they liked and felt was of good quality.
The tour is very unlikely to begin as planned in April but happy for a live stream? On a personal level, the feelings you get from seeing and hearing a band live are not comparable to live streams on any level.
It's very much akin to a cookery program where the meal looks delicious and all you have is a guest telling how how fabulous it tastes.
While I agree that there is no comparison between experiencing a live show in person and watching a concert on a screen, I'll take a concert on a screen over no concert at all.
I’d be fine with a livestream event next year since a tour is unlikely in 2021. This also might make cameos from Gabriel and Hackett more possible.
There are many interviews in which John indicated a preference for gutsy, straightforward rock 'n' roll, and yet he is also responsible for musically intricate songs like Because, which has some of The Beatles' most interesting harmony parts.
Most of the paired strings are tuned to different notes. Somebody in the old forum posted a youtube link of a guy who showed the exact tuning and played the intro in the original way. I can't guess the tuning, I'm not a guitarist, but I know the lowest pair is tuned in an octave, the second pair in a fifth, one of the higher pairs in a sixth and the highest or second to highest is in unison. Anthony Phillips uses a lot of similar crazy tunings, which is what made me realize Mike did this too in The Cinema Show. I don't even know how that song can be played with a standard tuning. A cover band I saw perform that song played it with three guitars to make it sound like this...
Correct! Usually the pairs of strings on a 12-string are tuned in octaves or unison, even in alternative tunings. For The Cinema Show, Mike tuned two sets of strings not in octaves but in a fifth and a sixth as you noted. The second half of of the song he switches guitars to one in standard tuning. Here is an example of someone doing the intro in this tuning:
Your turn!
Thanks. I had wondered why The Beatles hadn't achieved something like this, but then remembered that most of their singles didn't come from their albums, but were separate releases.
My question: 12-string guitar parts were a wonderful feature of many Genesis songs through to the late 70s. Mike in particular, used alternative tunings for his 12-string. For example on The Musical Box, he tuned the 3 highest pairs of strings all to F# (live was a slightly different tuning). For the first half of The Cinema Show, he did something particularly interesting with the tuning, very different from standard alternative tunings. What was unusual about his tuning for the first half of The Cinema Show? Bonus if you know the actual tuning (because he apparently has forgotten).
I heard that they were the first band to have five singles from one album (IT) in the top 5 or 10, which is interesting since they were such an album-focused band until the 80s.
I have never been the hugest fan of Van Halen as a band, mainly because I am underwhelmed by DLR as a vocalist and lyricist (SH is technically a better vocalist, but I still find him a bit ho hum). However I have always had a healthy respect for the musicianship of Eddie and Alex. While Steve Hackett was one of the pioneers of tapping on electric guitar, Eddie was definitely the one who took it into the stratosphere, along with a whole other bag of impressive tricks. And importantly, he also understood the value of when not to use the tricks. His solos are melodic, have dynamics, and are not just a demonstration of speed and agility. So he has been a bit influence on a generation of guitarists and it is sad to lose him.
There are a number of long songs by Genesis that feel stitched together from other bits. Sometimes this doesn't work for me - The Battle of Epping Forest comes to mind. It does work for me in the case of Supper's Ready. There are certainly some bits that wouldn't work well on their own - How Dare I Be... would stray into boring if it were standalone, but it works as a link and contrast between the rollicking Ikhnaton... and the subsequent lurchy and silly Willow Farm..
Apocalypse through to As Sure As Eggs Is Eggs is clearly my favourite part. Apocalypse has obvious appeal from the rhythms, Tony's organ solo, and the great dynamic shifts and drama. ASAEIE is magnificent and majestic. As much as I love the emotional commitment of Peter in the original studio version, I tend to prefer Phil's vocal control in this section in the live versions. I also love the groove - so slow it almost feels like it might stop and yet it keeps on going. Chester does a magnificent job in this section in the live versions.
There are a few other bits that I really like. The unnamed link between Willow Farm and Apocalypse is particularly lovely, with the high tinkling guitar and flute/keyboard.
Slightly off topic I know, but isn't it funny that so many of these tours which aren't "for the money" have such staggering tickets prices.
They might not need the money, and they might not be doing it for the money, but the ticket prices on the latest tour are staggering so SOMEBODY has said "we can charge an absolute fortune for these".
I haven't heard the band say this on this occasion, but the common excuse is "we don't have anything to do with ticket prices", which is a lame excuse IMO
These days, artists often need income from live performances because there is little income from streaming and the sales of the music itself (writers do get more from publishing royalties). So touring is important for them to earn money. However, tours are also very expensive to mount in terms of paying for all the crew, equipment, transportation, etc. So many huge tours only start to make a profit in the last shows of the tour, even with the exorbitant ticket prices.
The word-play with words in a row that change only one sound?
From dad to dam to dum to mum, from mum to mud to mad to dad
...a dream of Mad Man Moon (I guess he must have been moon mood mad)
Ooo, that's a clever answer. Never even would have thought of that.
Well, they are the longest songs on their respective album sides, but that seems too simple. They are also the last songs on their respective album sides - also seems too simple. I'm pretty sure Mike doesn't play cello on MMM, so it's not that.
This is the question that has stumped us most so far. I can't even keep track of all the guesses!
OK, I finally figured out one example. Mick Taylor played on several Ron Wood solo albums. I'll need to do more research to figure out other examples.
I think the original premise of this thread is band members collaborating, who were never in the band at the same time. So the examples above of The Beatles and of The Eagles are different - those members were in the band at the same time. I was trying to look up if Bernie Leadon had ever collaborated with Joe Walsh or Timothy B. Schmidt, but came up with nothing (I know they toured together for the History of Eagles tour). Otherwise I can't come up with anything yet.
