Posts by Fabrizio

    I know they rehearsed the song Abacab but ultimately it wasn’t played. It is now three straight tours now without any songs from that album. Is that the bands least favorite album? In my opinion it was a pretty important album in Genesis history since it was a transitional album to their more pop era. Curious what everyone thinks about this omission?

    Wasn't it par for course though? I don't exactly know the reasons why but if I'm not mistaken that album was dropped entirely live by the WCD tour never to be resurrected again. I'm not sure they played anything on the IT tour, perhaps only the title track. It wasn't considered in 2007 and with that in mind, it wasn't a shocking omission now.

    It was an important album, a weak one imo and they are probably no longer behind it, as simple as that, Phil's current limitations cannot possibly be reason enough, he had to tackle far more taxing songs. The album seems to have disappeared from radios too, you are more likely to hear Misunderstanding, That's all and obviously several IT tracks than anything from Abacab.

    Dropping Los Endos is quite the surprise and I feel with two back up singers they could have easily tackled Entangled. Dropping Abacab is not a surprise.

    invisible touch -the song- is disliked by some genesis fans. i'm not one of them, for sure. but i think the perception of this song would be different if it:

    - had been placed somewhere else on the album, not as the opening track.

    - hadn't been chosen as the first single.

    - the album hadn't been called after invisible touch.

    I can't speak for others but my dislike for that song is really not determined by where it was placed on the album or when it was released as a single. You are perhaps right in saying that something like LOC would have probably been a less bitter pill to swallow but I would still find IT abysmal. I found it bad at that time, I find it even worse today.

    I get what you mean, though I don't quite agree. As many of us have said over the years, Tony is the essential core of Genesis and so Tony's keyboard parts can make anything sound like Genesis throughout all the years. The keyboard intro on If That's What You Need is definitely Tony. But it is a different Tony than from the early 70s. He is mainly staying in one key - the main modulation comes with "And if there is any kind of danger...", and it is a minor modulation. It is more typical of later Tony parts, where he moves around more or less in the same key, changing shades rather than major harmonic departures. Songs like Hold On My Heart and Fading Lights are similar in this kind of way.


    I quite like The Dividing Line. Again it is much simpler, with the intro staying in the same key over just 4 chords and Tony using a pretty repetitive motif. There is a modulation to the verses, which are otherwise pretty simple chordally. The most adventurous bit is the bridge ("In the comfort and safety of your own home... "). None of this seems musically like Tony's parts of The Lamb to my ears, which have more modulation and more intricate rhythm patterns. So even if you were to play The Dividing Line on say a Pro Soloist over a backing organ, I think it would sound quite different than music of that era.

    I mentioned songs that I thought could have fit but to be clear, not because I particularly like them TDL is nice so it's Dodo which sort of stands out on a quite imo weak album but If that's what you need, isn't really my cup of tea and Domino rubs me the wrong way, although I cannot really say why. You'll get no argument from me that Tony kept things simpler, it actually applies to the whole band, Phil playing backbeats and Mike not being Steve but I was referring more to the general atmosphere conjured up by some chords changes. There's a Youtube channel, Rick Beato where he has a series: What makes this song great. He talks about different songs, detailing production, structure, chords, arrangement and musicianship. There's an episode on Dance on a Volcano which I think you'd appreciate in case you don't already know it. It's a good example of the complexity Genesis dealt with back then. What Makes This Song Great Ep. 57 Genesis - YouTube

    YOSW is far from my favourite track, but I don't mind it. The live version from the Australian portion of the IT tour is quite nice.


    While I can draw musical lines from various 3-man era songs back to the 5-man era, they were really writing differently by this point. They were often jamming as guitar, keyboards, and vocals, with a drum machine providing the basic rhythm. This is not going to naturally lead to a song that suits a 5-man band without considerable retooling. Plus they were deliberately trying to make a break from their earlier music, so even if they came up with something that sounded more 5-man era-isa, they might abandon it in favour of something that sounded newer and fresher.


    So once you get past Duke, I can't think of much that would have fit well on earlier albums.

    What is you is true but there are things like style and sound that remain and unavoidably peek through and rear their head. When you hear the keyboards intro to If that's what you need on CAS for instance, that is unmistakably Tony and consequently Genesis, I'm not saying that song would have fit on previous albums, in fact I don't think it does but some elements always stick around.

    As I said, I believe something like the Dividing Line would have fit, sure the sound is very modern but if you strip it down, I have no trouble imaging it on the Lamb with stuff like BINYC, Cage or The Colony of Slippermen. Dodo is reminiscent of their more epic and bombastic moments and personally I can imagine Peter singing that. Domino is another one, we get distracted by the mid 80s keyboards and drums sound but to its core, it is just another Tony's song and they've always been around.

    I have to say I keep hearing this from fans about YOSW. I really like it . I think I thought it was it was OK when first out but it's grown on me more and more over the last 44 years. The vocals on the chorus are strong. A lot of people have said they would have prefered IAO on the album , a song I find quite limp. It has very proggy instrumentals but they are very weak compared to other Genesis instrumentals that are all over W&W so deserves the EP treatment. YOSW to me fits beautifully in Wind and Wuthering. I felt it was time it stick up for a great song so frequently slated. I can't see it on any other album , BUT , as a song it does compare to Visions Of Angels as in it's a love song with gentle verses and stronger fuller chorus .I prefer YOSW for its fuller sound and it's beautifully sparse interlude. The understated guitar work really makes it for me too. Am not knocking VOA I really like it, the instrumental sells it . Also most fans love OFTV. One of their very best.

    I bought the album in 1980, I was 16 and I remember liking the song, probably because I was infatuated with some girl whose name I've long forgotten. Its charm wore out pretty rapidly though and I must say, it's probably their worste song up to that point, they did worse on the following album of course. Musically, apart from the excessive saccharine, it sounds stitched together, many songs are but here it doesn't seem to work, verses, Chorus and instrumental sound disjointed and patched together unseamlessly.

    I understand the parallel with Vision of Angels but see, they were 19 I believe and there's an innocence and sincerity to it that makes me favor it. If I remember correctly it was something Ant wrote, having a crush on Peter's girlfriend. Those seasoned musicians, with several epic albums under their belt, let alone their life experience, couldn't possibly have the same Innocence and sincerity.

    I think they were just trying to have a single.

    OK, not just Steve's parts: without the instrumental parts that are absent from the trio's live version. I like the SEBTP version as is, with EVERYONE's contribution. Of course, the main instrumental part is Steve's guitar solo (the famous tapping part), that lifts the song to an entire other level as far as just about everyone is concerned.

    I don't enjoy the trio live version either for so many reasons that I won't go into now and yes, his tapping part is outstanding and an essential contribution to a song that otherwise wouldn't really be shabby either and he didn't write. You can make a parallel, if you will with FoF and his legendary solo, truly one of his peaks, still not his song, isn't it? You can say that it elevates the song, not that it makes it which is exactly the case with DWTMK.

    We certainly agree that it was a band effort - which is exactly what I was saying yesterday.


    But you should go back and listen to the piece again. ;)


    As for who brought what, it seems the main bits were from Gabriel and him - but it's difficult to find conclusive evidence other than aural - and again, his guitar is all over that tune.

    No, you said that the song is relevant because of Steve, otherwise and I quote;'' It would be a song within the usual, universal, boring song format (as heard on the trio's live outings) - not the formidable piece of Genesis music that it is'' , because all songs begin with an a cappella intro of course.....

    You appear to have different intel over who brought in what, to the best of my recollection Steve wasn't involved but I'll never claim to have the Genesis Gospel and I'm sure there are Forum members here who can shed some light on the matter. Ultimately I'm not downplaying Steve's contribution, you just like his bits and are simply enhancing it.

    I'm not reducing it to anything - the trio did that when playing it live.


    And Hackett certainly is a major presence on the SEBTP version. Only here would people dispute that.

    I think you should go back and read your words about the rest of the song and again, it's a band effort, can we agree though that he wasn't the one who brought in the song or any bit and didn't have anything to do with chords, melody, harmony and lyrics? Then of course, he pitched in, nobody denies that.

    You do realize you're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth, dontcha ? (Sounds painful!) ;)


    Nowhere am I saying that Hackett composed a lot in those days (although you forget the whole middle section/guitar solo of Moonlit Knight - the end is as much Rutherford as Hackett anyway). I was saying he left his mark in the arranging as well—as you put it, 'greatly contributing to the sound'—, also influencing the writing decisions (since just about everything was scrutinized by all) and (with Gabriel, obviously) steering the band in directions it would never go later on.


    When he finally left there was nobody left to counterbalance Banks's overpowering presence, which is why everything kind of sounds like a Banks/Collins solo album from then on...

    Let's see and correct me if I'm wrong: you said everything worthwhile about this song is Steve's, you then proceeded to disparage the rest of the song, reducing it to a sappy, 3 man era ditty which is amusing but hey, it's your opinion. You then said that Steve is all over this song which considering he wasn't the main catalyst, nor was he involved in the chords, melody and/or lyrics, basically the backbone of any song, is quite a bizarre statement. I'm not forgetting any section played by him or Phil for that matter, in fact I consider DWTMK very much a band effort, a brilliant one, where again some of the members had more of a say than others. The fact that Steve was influencing the writing decision appears to me as your very personal interpretation, I think Phil had more clout when it came to discussing arrangements and ultimately, this interpretation of yours contradicts history, statements from the band and from the man himself. I think he left because he felt they didn't let him express himself or are we rewriting history?

    Why just the final part? Hackett's all over this one.

    I should go back and check but I seem to remember that the core of the song is Gabriel's and I want to say Rutherford's but I'm not sure. Steve wasn't involved in chords, harmony and lyrics, rather with the instrumental parts which don't get me wrong are great but are on top of what had already been fleshed out. Again, someone will have a better recollection and I'll stand corrected but the point remains, it's a great song, in its entirety.