Posts by Fabrizio

    I don't know how often it has to be said that there is nothing wrong with 'being McCartney rather than Lennon. People forget how self-indulgent and pompous a lot of Lennon's stuff was and they always choose to ignore some of the Double Fantasy songs, which were more McCartney than McCartney ever was.

    A bit off topic and I am not sure the comparison applies here but as a longtime Beatles fan, I share that sentiment and I think it would be deserving of an entire thread. People are and have always been far too indulgent with Lennon.

    This is the album where Phil really lost me, I did buy it, just like I had bought FV, liking it immensely, HIMBG, liking it OK, although I started having trouble with his lyrics and some cheesy ballads.

    Jacket came to epitomize and embody some of the things that went wrong with mid-80s music, rightly so IMO. I can still listen to Take Me Home and, Long way to go and I think vocally he was in top shape but I see the album as a disposable piece of plastic.

    I've enjoyed the live renditions, both recorded and in person, but never relinquished my liking for the original. It shows what a good songwriter can come up with when being direct. Banks's description of writing this and Vine sum it up perfectly. One is a big long sprawling affair put together over the course of a year, and leaves me cold, especially its typically overwrought lyric. The other was written on the spot and conveys its message simply and clearly, is enduring and one of my favourite Genesis songs.

    I don't find it nostalgic and wistful - I'd likely not care much for it if I did - rather, my interpretation comes directly from Banks's description of what he had in mind, ie it's tragic yet hopeful. The narrator has lost everything but still has hope for the future - what a powerful message.

    I like Tony's bombastic style, his epic storytelling which incidentelly is an essential element of Genesis music, I like it also when he gets a bit introspective and at the same time, generic enough for everybody to identify with the song. As I said, I think Vine is spectacular, I don't know of many songwriters who could come up with something like that, occasionally though something he does doesn't resonate with me, such is the case with The Lady lies or it doesn't stand the test of time, Vine, after the WOW reaction it deserves imo, is one of those cases. I can see why it could leave someone could but in all honesty the music is great, the melodies simply beautiful, the solos fantastic and the arrangement brilliant. And yet....

    Certain songs worked much better 'live', of course, and not necessarily with the line-up that recorded them. Ergo, Your Own Special Way and In That Quiet Earth from 86/87, One For The Vine from 1980 and Afterglow from, well, pretty much any tour from 1980 onwards.

    I found a new appreciation for the album version of Afterglow. Like many, I was deeply impressed by Phil's delivery on 3SL where he has a sort of ''muscular'' approach to the vocals, turning in it. de facto, into a power-ballad. For years, after hearing that, it was almost impossible for me to revert to the original, then it dawned on me that is is a nostalgic, wistful song and with that in mind, I was able to appreciate it again on the album, also because of the undercurrent vibe running through the album you were mentioning. That vibe at its worst sounds a bit too bland to me, at its best though, it's simply beautifully intimistic.

    To me, W&W is 'brilliant' beginning to end and One for the Vine cobbled together? It is a masterpiece and ranks right up there with Firth of Fifth and any other of the more noteworthy Banks tracks.

    I would never dare to criticize it from a formal point of view, it's a monumental piece of work which bowled me over the first time I heard it and for the longest time was my absolute favorite on the album.

    I said, ''it feels'' though and that is not only subjective, it really can't be helped.

    It simply hasn't aged well with me, I still can listen to FoF and it still feels magic and mind you, THAT was really cobbled together, as Tony has explained several times but to me it has retained its sense of wonder.

    Pressed to come up with explanations, I could probably say that there's more of the others on FoF: Peter's voice which IMO was better suited for this kind of songs, Steve's guitar which is substantial to the song and Phil's arrangement which, as Tony admitted, was key. Vine is entirely Tony's, he played it to the others for the first time in its entirety: chords, melody, harmony, arrangement and lyrics and I love Tony, I've always said he was the single most important member of the band and he largely defined the band aesthetic and sound but he really needed the others and I think his solo career proved that.

    That could be an explanation, if one was needed but I'm really not sure.

    Wall of keyboards - yes, apt description.

    Again, it's interesting how tastes differ. You think Gorilla could've been longer whereas I wish it wasn't even there!

    Pigeon never did much for me, whereas Gorilla was Phil bringing a bit of Brand X to Genesis with Tony strechting outside his comfort zone. Phil said in an interview, he couldn't believe he was able to get Tony Banks to play stuff like that. I admit when I first heard it, I too thought it was a throwaway bit, nothing more than the distorted reprise of the OFTV solo with a cool drums pattern.

    That remained my idea for the longest time, then I started listening to what they were actually playing and how they were playing it and yes, I thought they could have developed it a bit more but as you said, tastes differ.

    It is also interesting how taste evolves with the years; I used to like YOSW, now I wonder what I was thinking, I thought Mouse was pure genius, now I think it is Banks at his most self-indulgent. Vine was perfection and now it feels cobbled together. I found Steve's instrumentals just OK, now I think they are absolutely brilliant.

    An album that impressed me greatly when I first got it but as time went by, some cracks appeared, although I still rate it quite highly, it has slipped a bit in my personal scale. This is the album where imo Peter's absence is felt the most. They coped wonderfully on Trick but they were beginning to be bit bland and formulaic for my taste, nothing blatant of course but elements were creeping in. Peter's quirkiness, grit and originality is missing and also someone who could limit a bit Tony. Much as I like Mr.Banks, I've always thought he needed either Peter or Phil to edit him. I like Steve's songs and contributions a lot and they stood the test of time for me, unlike some other bits. I still believe ths must have been Steve's finest hour, at least as a composer. As a player he is as usual brilliant but stifled by the wall of keyboards and again, I like Tony's sound but he really ovedid it here.

    Wot Gorilla could have been longer imo, Afterglow is simply brilliant as it is Earl of Mar. One for the vine is a great song but didn't age well imo, I cannot put my finger on it, everything is apparently brilliant, I just got tired of it. Mouse is really weak, lyrically and musically, except for the coda and YOSW....oh well..... I listen to the album when I'm feeling mellow or nostalgic. It suits the mood.


    A 50-minute album a bit short?

    Yes, I was being paradoxical. l iked it so much I hoped that would be more of it. I became aware afterwards, there were limitations with the vinyls but back then, as I boy, completely enthralled with that album, I simply wanted more. That album to me was perfection, no weak point, in time you evolve and start seeing some flaws of course. That's way I was so thrilled when I heard there was another song and that's why I wanted almost desperately to like it.

    Of course, the purist prog anoraks would have complained about this song they same way they complained about "Your Own Special Way" on the following album. Still, it's a very nice track.

    I don't know if I fit into those categories but I would have complained. For years the only flaw I could find in that album, was that it seemed a bit short and for years I was unaware of the existence of It's yourself. When I found out, I obviously was thrilled and had great expectations, I believed they could have only produced brilliance during those sessions. When I finally heard it, I was heavily underwhelmed and trust me, I didn't want to be, I loved that album too much and couldn't get enough of the good thing. As it is though, I found it bland and uninteresting both musically and lyrically, heck, I think I even find YOSW more interesting which is saying a lot.

    After all these years I'm happy it wasn't included and most of all, I'm happy they didn't touch Los Endos which is a classic or cut another song. I just think it's subpar even compared to the weakest songs on the album and IMO it makes perfect sense it didn't make the final cut.

    My favorite album for a blend of both sentimental and artistic reasons, strange, considering that all other favorite albums are with PG. I still believe that musically it is probably their most cohesive, homogenous and even effort but I would concede that it doesn't have the peaks of the ´previous albums.

    There's not a song a dislike, although I would agree that the title track and RA&B are the weakest ones but I like the lyrics, the stories they tell , the atmosphere they conjure up and that they are both played masterfully. We are imo far from fillers.

    Phil delivers, although he is very far from the singer he was to become.

    My favorite song, strictly for sentimental reasons, is MMM, altrhough I don't believe it's the best song on the album, that would be probably Entangled IMO but the way I see it, the album is made up of 6 very strong songs and 2 OK songs.

    My favorite G-Cover art as well.

    Not "maybe"; Keith Moon died in September. You claimed that when they were making the album earlier that year, Phil was itching to join The Who. And he wasn't.

    As for the claim of resentment from Phil towards Mike and Tony, that's the first I've heard. It's the manager who plans the touring schedule, not the band, so I don't know where you're getting your information from.

    From the horse's mouth, he said it in an interview that, perhaps unreasonably he resented the touring and the fact the other two were pushing for that while he was having problems with his marriage. I think he was being unreasonable and at the end of the interview, he sort of acknowledged that.

    The interview , as I remember, is not even very old, last decade, I saw it on Youtube.

    As for the timeline and Keith's death, as I said, I don't dispute it.

    it is generally known, he was having personal problems, he wasn't very happy with the the band and his role in it, during that period.

    He just wanted to be a drummer and he talked about having been offered the gig with the Who.

    When exactly that happens, I dont know but it's a known fact.

    Obviously, it makes perfect sense that would have happened after Moon's death.

    Earlier that year however, he had left for Vancouver, his tenure with the band was on very shaky ground, to the point that he said in other interviews that he had basically left the band or he was ready to do so, unless the others could find a way to make it work with him in Canada.

    So yes, they were facing a second potential defection and yes, he was distracted and yes he was unhappy, personally and artistically. That was my whole point.

    Keith Moon died in September 1978, by which point Genesis had recorded And Then There Were Three and were actively touring the album. I believe Phil offered to join The Who after Moony died, not before.

    May be but I still remember a couple of interviews in which Phil expressed his dissatisfaction with either the band altogether, or his role within it. Apparently he also resented the other two for the incessant touring which brought his marriage to an end. I have no knowledge of the exact timeline of course but it's safe to say, his mind was elsewhere.

    3, CAS overall (to me) wasn't Genesis, in the strictest sense, it was the Banks/Rutherford band. The only redeeming track in my view from that album was "The Dividing Line", which would have been even better if done as a pure instrumental.

    Obviously a valid opinion, personally however, I would have a hard time thinking that Rutherford and most of all Banks are not Genesis or are able to generate anything that doesnt sound like Genesis, particularly the latter.

    He is a founding member, doubtlessly the most prolific writer within the band, his keyboards sound massively defined the band's sound, on occasion too much imo but Ok.

    His chords and chords changes, melodies, moods and atmospheres are quintessentially Genesis, he literally cannot play anything without sounding like Genesis, to the point that his solo career sounded, on occasions, rather pointless.
    I cannot even begin to list how many times he and Mike collaborated on Genesis songs, TOTT, for instance, from a songwriting perspective is overwhelmingly their album.

    He has been aknowledged by the others, including Peter, Steve and Phil as the backbone and cornerstone of the band,. Tony Stratton-Smith has said several times, he is the one member that could have nor been replaced.

    With that in mind, we can say that perhaps he wasn't on his strongest form on that album and definetely Phil was sorely missed, as well as the chemistry they created amongst the three of them but to me for instance, whether I like it or less and I'm not crazy about it, that album sounds more Genesis than most of the stuff on IT or WCD.