Posts by Fabrizio

    They were a bit clumsy, from a sheer marketing/promotional point of view. They waited too long instead of capitalizing on the buzz generated by Phil's departure, by the time CAS was released only a few cared about it. They should have given up any pretence of commercial success and with that in mind perhaps they could have been a bit more daring with the material. Nick D'Virgilio said in an interview that when he got on board, he was hoping they were going back to their roots a bit more. The tour should have been structured differently, ergo downsized and in hindsight, I don't think that Ray was the right choice, I like his voice and he did a fine job but he doesn't seem to have anything to do with Genesis music, some people were looking forward to him writing more on a possible next album. Personally, I dreaded the thought and I'm even more convinced after having listened to his solo material. I read that Big Big Train, David Langdon, auditioned, he would have been my choice. Great vocalist, somewhere in-between Peter and Phil and clearly, stylistically closer to Tony and Mike than Ray.

    please explain. He did experiment with all sorts of things - for some his music was too experimental. I'm curious what he might come up with next.

    Of course he did, massively, his last releases though have been more conventional and it's no criticism, it's just a natural curve. When an artist begins releasing Christmas, American songbook or, like in Peter's case, orchestral albums, these are clear indicators of an artistic period not exactly brimming with creativity and running its natural course and why not? He's had quite the career. His last original material album was 22 years ago and IMO not his best effort and he seems to have lost a bit of interest, so of course, I'll be happy if and when he releases an album but I'm no longer sitting at the edge of my seat.

    quite honestly - I don't need a "So 2" and I hope his new album will be a surprise. Having said that, I also hope for strong and powerful songs.

    I agree, SO came at a time where he needed something more accessible and commercial, and the whole music industry was all about that. With all of this behind him I should hope Peter just goes his way. That said and being a massive fan, it pains me a bit to say that, I don't think we can no longer expect anything experimental from him. He seems to have lost interest. Not holding my breath.

    If I remember correctly Steve wasn't even invited, he just popped up. I'm not aware of any legal issues between him and the band but there's a video circulating on YouTube of Phil promoting Face Value on a US radio station in which he hints at a couple of statements Steve made and didn't go down well with the band. Compared to other bands the spilt was quite civil but it's fair to assume some hard feelings still lingered on. To this day, even though they always carry themselves as gentlemen and I'm sure it's water under the bridge, when I see them all together, I always have the feeling of Steve being a dissonant voice, there's always a bit of bitterness creeping through the banter.

    Well, he also has been working with his own band. This Mechs tour is just a few weeks.

    And I guess the money is good, the atmosphere welcoming, relaxed and familiar, the material not at all demanding and if he has a few weeks to spare why not? There is however a point to be made, when you are a young upcoming musician, with playing it too safe and let's be honest on the back of your surname.

    I think he released 4 or 5 albums, even Peter has been more prolific. I bought pros and cons, at the time and I didn't rate it very highly. I listened to Amused to death and I never thought it was something to write home about. The only think he did, musically, was milking the Wall ad nauseum when he found out that it could be used as a metaphor for....Well, anything but that's where he was stuck for decades, he never really moved on. I'm sure he has his following but I don't think it's disparaging to say his solo career wasn't exactly relevant. He has been ranting over various topics and feuding with Gilmour over the PF's legacy. He occasionally had a good point to be fair, I never understood why Gilmour's girlfriend could advertise her 'work''' through the Pink Floyd's website or even opine publicly on the band. I found it quite Yoko-like, meaning tacky and tasteless. Anyway, Waters left the band when websites weren't even a thing and after several court battles losses, it was stablished he didn't really have a say in it. He sacked Wright, succeeded in alienating Mason who is his son's godfather, so, quite the unsavory character I'd say with less to say than he believes, a wannabe Chomsky.

    He strikes me as one of those people who confuse being a perennial contrarian with being smart. Whenever there's a contentious topic, he'll make it a point to side against the general consensus, looking down on sheep. I've got no time for him.

    Why don't you think they're prog? I'm just interested in your reasons.

    Their songs I guess, stripped to their core: chords, melody and harmonies, they are not as complex as those of other prog bands, if we consider complexity as a benchmark for prog artists. The use they made of the studio, almost as an instrument, was certainly adventurous and can be considered progressive but generally speaking they don't compare musically and in terms of musicianship to Genesis, KC, ELP, Yes, Rush and so on. I love them and I'm probably splitting hairs here but I've always had a hard time considering them prog. Take Gilmour, whose sound I love, he's basically a blues guitarist, Wright, Waters and Mason are fine but in terms of chops, I don't feel they compare to any of their counterparts in other prog bands. I think it's one of the secrets of their success, as quirky and inventive as they were, they were not intricate at all, you can hum and strum along most of their songs.