Generally I don't have a problem with fadeouts. They're just fine for a lot of songs. When a proper ending is added for live performances of a Genesis song that fades out in the studio version, I tend not to consider it an improvement.
That said, "Congo" easily has the most objectionable fadeout in Genesis history. It leaves the song sounding incomplete. I think it still could have been faded, but at a different spot -- say, after a return to the chorus.
here's the far superior original It's Yourself with its MMM opening-like ending. I think someone on here said the reason it fades on Archive 2 is in the intervening years that bit of master tape had corrupted. I hope that's the reason as it's too irritating to think they consciously took the stupid decision to fade it.
My understanding is that "Submarine" was the song that was missing its original ending on ARCHIVE 2 due to tape damage, although they apparently found a way to resolve this in time to feature the proper version on the 1976-1982 box set.
As for "It's Yourself," my understanding is that the band simply didn't like the original ending, and thus indeed "consciously took the stupid decision to fade it." Assuming that's true, feel free to be irritated with them!
Received the CD today and just finished my first listen through. Not Steve's best by any means, but it has some good moments and is definitely a keeper. There are occasional little echoes of things Steve's done in the past, but it never sounds like Steve is just repeating himself.
BTW, I did a quick flip through the CD booklet and realized that I really didn't care to familiarize myself with the "plot" of the album's story (as given in small bits on the pages for the various songs). In the case of this album, though, one can listen to it without being concerned at all about the "story" -- something not so easily done with, say, THE LAMB LIES DOWN.
While I generally like the album overall, this track is far from being one of my favourites. In fact, I've always found it quite curious reading the contrasting views of other fans regarding this song.
It has a jarring start, continues with this despondent tone, completely lacking of any melodious hook throughout its course and never rewarding the patient listener with anything I would describe as instrumentally adventurous or interesting.
I find it underwhelming but not unlistenable which is why it gets a 7 from me.
This basically describes my own opinion on the track. As I may have mentioned before, hearing part of this track kept me from checking out the album any further for some time.
Made the purchase. Best price I found (for U.S.) was here:
The Circus And The Nightwhale (CD) by Hackett, Steve (lasercd.com)
Christian: you are sure about the Banks, Kershaw credits?
Good catch. The writing credit should just show Banks. The only Banks/Kershaw composition released by Strictly Inc. was the B-side "Back to You."
Tony Banks at his very best. A masterpiece, clearly showing his real talent.
I have to say that, while I don't agree with this sentiment myself, I can see why someone else would feel that way about the song.
I'm probably in the minority on this, but for me this is not a favorite from the STRICTLY INC. album or from Tony's solo career in general. It seems to be long just for the sake of being long, and may have worked better as a shorter (though still fairly long) piece.
I'm never one for deeply analysing song lyrics, and haven't ever joined in on the picking-over of the Lamb story and what it all means etc.
Well, I'm with you on that as far as the LAMB story goes. I do have interpretations of my own regarding some parts of the story, usually along the lines of "this could represent such-and-such an event in the character's past." I wouldn't expect anyone to share them and I'm sure they're mostly very far removed from what Peter actually had in mind. For the most part, though, my position on the LAMB story -- to modify and re-purpose a description that's been used for something totally unrelated -- is that it "neither invites nor rewards close examination." *
Now that I think about it, I do have my own interpretation of the "two golden globes," but it has to do with Rael's reaction to them rather than their form or number.
(* That's stolen from what one writer said about The Beatles' "Revolution 9": "it's a track that neither invites nor rewards close attention." BTW, I disagree with that particular position.)
Does anyone have any suggestions as to where to buy this CD in the U.S.? So far I'm finding limited availability and higher prices than I want to pay. If not, it looks like I'm going to have to wait a while.
...there's an indistinct bit of vocal far back in the mix, just after the line "by whatever's coming here". Someone suggested it was a bit of PC backing vocal, though it sounds like PG to me, and it has the intonation and cadence of words rather than scatting...
There's also a tiny vocal touch in the background just after "I can see the corner of the tunnel" that makes it sound like "tunnel (ah)".
It took some close listening to notice those.
My guess on the first one is that it was a proposed backing vocal part that was ultimately decided against, and it either didn't get mixed all the way out or it bled through to another track. The other one sounds like a background thing that was accidentally recorded but either wasn't noticed or was considered too minor to worry about.
Interesting, it never occurred to me the 2nd bit is kind of a middle with no return but I see what you mean.
I never thought of it either until I was writing my post above!
Here is a (not very good) recording of the sole performance of it on the first date of the W&W tour, 01/01/77 London Rainbow and CT's first show with them. They couple it to the only performance of Wot Gorilla they ever did, via a Waiting Room-ish snippet.
Yes, I'm familiar with it -- one of many poorly-recorded bootlegged Genesis things that I wish could be heard with better sound quality.
The first part of this track is great, especially in terms of the chords, melody & backing vocals. It's kind of a shame it doesn't go on longer. If it wasn't for how the song had to be fit into the plot of a story, it might have been written so that it returns to the first part at the end, with the second part basically being a midsection instead.
"The song was developed several years before its release and was even played live under the title The Light in 1970. [The same applies to Anyway, which can be found as a kind of early version or demo on the Jackson Tapes under the title Frustration]."
That's actually a little misleading, because "Lilith" uses only a small part of the almost 9-minute "The Light." And there's more to "Frustration" than the proto-"Anyway" section.
Here's another scenario that doesn't really fit the question, but which the question calls to mind: The greatest number of band members, that I know about, who were all in the same two very different bands.
Four members of Renaissance, from their transitional 1970-1972 period, had all been in The Nashville Teens at different times in the early-to-mid 1960s: John Hawken, Michael Dunford, Terry Crowe and Neil Korner. None were still in the band by the time of the first album with Annie Haslam (PROLOGUE), though Dunford was "on staff" as a non-performing writer and of course would rejoin the band later.
Even odder, guitarist Rob Hendry, who was with the group briefly during 1972 (appearing on PROLOGUE), would join The Nashville Teens for a short time after being in Renaissance.
Talking Heads spawned Tom Tom Club (Tina Weymouth & Chris Frantz).
Grace Slick made an album with one other member of Jefferson Starship, and another with two other members.
Hmm, so he would have been born on February 22, 1949. That would make him the oldest living G-man, wouldn't it? (The late John Mayhew would have been the only one born earlier.)
I notice that John Silver's Wikipedia entry just gives his birthdate as "1950." Is there a source for his actual birthdate that could be used as a citation for correcting this?
As a fan who has checked out all of the Genesis-related solo careers to various extents, I decided to check out Ray's as well. I bought CHANGE when it was new, in the version with 3 extra tracks, without hearing any of it first. But upon listening to it once, I found that it didn't grab me at all and I passed it on.
The following year I picked up THE NEXT BEST THING when it came out. I liked the first 2 songs, but couldn't even make it through the rest of the album before I gave up.
However, I eventually got LIVE AND ACOUSTIC and liked it, although I'd say that a few of the Genesis & related covers aren't really needed. This album's version of "Gypsy" is one of my favorite Genesis-related solo tracks.
LIVE remains the only Ray solo item in my collection, other than the version of "Inside" from NEXT which I purchased as a download.
Have been able to hear most of the album on YouTube (if only in rather disjointed fashion), and I'll say that it's far from Steve's best but far from his worst as well. Favorite is still "Enter the Ring." Will be looking for a good price for the CD...
Maybe he means the "hasn't it"?
That would be it. Anyway, what does it mean that it was "relocated"?
I'll never understand the relocated 'isn't it'.
I've never heard what you're talking about. Can you explain?
one of those post-07 changes such as moving "Isn't it" in Lovers Leap, deadening the flute in IKWIL and the petulant 'hmmmph' thing at the end of Trick, etc.
Wow, all of those things have gotten lost? This is why I'm not interested in the later mixes.
See my comments about another "lost in the mix" thing here and in the posts that follow.
Anyway, I'm glad you can hear it now!
