Posts by Fabrizio

    Oh well, there you go.

    I've been a Genesis fan for over 40 years, albums have been released , played, listened to, reviewed and criticized ad nauseum. It's safe to assume their relevance in the Genesis catalogue has sunken in by now. Polls are an indicator, more or less precise if you will but they are. If the most recent albums which have the huge advantage of being the most recent, almost invariably occupy the last positions, perhaps it isn't a coincidence.

    The band is no more, they haven't released an album in over 20 years and I reckon they won't anymore.

    With all this in mind, as long as I make clear that I'm expressing an opinion and I am respectful of anybody's taste and opinions which is not always the case here, as I was able to appreciate from very recent comments, I see no point in tiptoeing around or mincing words and I reserve the right to call it as I see it. Sure, some fans might think that say, Another Record, just to mention a dud is a great song, I happen to think they can write stuff like that in their sleep and by gravity a song like that, with time, gets the relevance it deserves. None. It doesn't mean somebody cannot possibly like it, more power to them but we seem to be unable to break out of the equation I like it=it's great or at least it must be great. I wish my favorite band had only released perfect albums with perfect songs, unfortunately for them, as for any other artist it wasn't always the case and I think we should be able to say that. Very few bands are able to keep the fire in their belly with a decades-spanning career, I would say that U2 for instance, whether one likes them or less, deserve a lot of respect because they constantly tried to do just that: keep the flame alive. Genesis simply didn't imo and I don't feel like blaming them, I just liked them more when they were less sleek smooth and glossy but so very intense, original and unique. There is no sin in saying it, I reckon.

    Don't you like it then??

    Not their finest hour IMO but as I said, it happens when a band is running on empty at the end of a long career. I can understand that people who got on board around that time may like it, Genesis are after all great musicians and songwriters, the energy and drive might dwindle but talent and skills are still there, as polished as ever in fact, at times too much. People who had been around longer however, cannot help comparing.

    Well... some people have spoken.

    I'll bet not as much as it pains me to see The Lamb trailing behind W&W.

    Well, if you REALLY want to go there NC got only 1% more than ATTW3 and WCD. Apocalypse now: the Horror....The Horror....I can't think of a more tired, listless, light coke, autopilot mode, contractual obligation smelling, end of the road album than WCD. Three good songs in a sea of mediocrity as far as I'm concerned. Apart from a few exceptions, overall the laziest lyrics ever penned by Genesis and to be clear why not? After an over 20 year career, with some remarkable albums under their belt. It can happen but as I said, people like it and they have spoken.

    I'm not. I don't like it very much but given the preferences members tend to express here, I find it unsurprising W&W is so highly ranked - if I'm surprised about anything it's that it isn't higher.

    I would agree it is a bit of a surprise, W&W does generally rank high but I don't remember ever seeing it taking third place and like many here, I've seen my share of polls and forums. Some things are constant, like either Trick or SEBTP there at the top which is about right in my book. Generally speaking I'm fine with the results and even if I weren't, the people have spoken. I think Foxtrot and NC could have done better but I must say, it pains me a bit to see Trespass ranking after IT.

    I have listened to the Dividing Line a fair bit recently. What a great track. Although I have been singing the praises if RW lately I found myself imagining Phil singing it. No disrespect but I really think this would have been a classic Genesis song had it been done by Phil.

    I've always said that it is a great song and it is one of the few tracks of the Genesis catalogue I can imagine sung by either Ray, Phil and even Peter. It isn't always the case.


    Yes, I like the use of "pretty good band". Assuming Fabrizio means Genesis then yes I suppose they were pretty good. It reminds me of a favourite moment from the Rain Or Shine documentary, Collins musing "We could be a really good band.... if only we had a bit more talent."

    Yes count me in on the 👍👍👍 re Martyn. What a breadth of material he left us. Intimate soulful acoustic guitar folk or slightly demented skewed rock, he had it going on. I still recall him doing a semi-crazed incendiary live rendition of the menacing John Wayne. That epic riff, it was like a storm coming towards you.

    Well, there was obviously more than a hint of understatement and irony in that "pretty good" which I trust won't be lost on the majority ;)

    I'm glad every time Martyn gets the acknowledgement and praise he so highly deserves imo and I agree, the man had it going on: folk, rock, pop, blues even jazz. Incredible guitarist, vocalist, songwriter and at time lyricist, the whole package but very much a niche artist, just to go back to the previous point. Doesn't matter how much I like his music.

    I think the common mistake is to define relevance of a given artist or lack thereof, according to likes or dislikes.

    Personally I define relevance as either commercial success or widespread artistic recognition. A blend of the two elements is the ideal scenario of course. In that respect Phil was relevant, he's still massively popular. Peter was too, for perhaps, at times, different reasons. Steve IMHO opinion isn't. I love John Martyn, many musicians did and without wanting to toss the term "genius", around, he was quite unique.

    He wasn't relevant though and I wouldn't care to press that point. He was a niche artist, like Steve. The only relevance Steve might have had is that he used to be in a pretty good band. Without that, good luck with drawing any attention to his career. It could be applied to Ant too, not to Mike though, he has after all a couple of hits under his belt and while I don't care about commercial success, that definitely constitutes relevance.




    A bit of an overkill, I realise that but as far as I'm concerned none of the others gets nowhere near in terms of consistency and a blend of artistic recognition, commercial success and innovation.

    Once that is settled, I must say that, apart from Phil but that's a kind of consistence I really don't like, all the others lacked imo some sort of evenness in their solo output.

    Tony is one if my favourite songwriters but his solo career to me sounded too much like Genesis, only without Phil or Peter and the others. Not really a versatile musician and as such he stuck to his guns, without the input from the others, his music sounded like a Genesis byproduct but not as good.

    Mike, like Tony has a wonderful debut album and Beggar is imo quite strong but again, I find the rest uneven. Ant, again a fantastic debut, some good songs and pieces here and there but for my money, also a lot of forgettable noodling.

    Steve, love to this day Spectral Morning, paradoxically I have more albums of his than any other members' which goes to show how much I wanted to like him and how prolific he is . One of my favourite guitarists, I love his sound but not much of a songwriter imo, more a texture and colouring kind of artist, not much ''meat'' to his music or to be more precise, to his songs .

    Phil, well, again stunning debut then he lost me progressively, no pun intended. I have a problem with mid/late 80' music and he came to embody that not sure to this day whether he was a victim or a perpetrator, perhaps a chicken-egg argument but I often wondered what his career would have been like, had he gone sólo in the 70s, instead of a decade later. Be as it may, imo, together with Peter the most consistent but of course you have to like what he does and I truly don't, apart from the odd song.

    I continue to be astounded by the lack of fanfare All In A Mouse's Night gets. Only 4 votes? :O

    I think it is one of those classical songs that seemed a great idea at the time but after a while…. Not so much, to me at least. I love almost everything Tony does but he really went overboard here and I .still feel for Phil, having to sing those lyrics. The verses are nice, there is no real chorus, not in Banks' fashion anyway, it's simply a crescendo but not a great one.I still love the coda though, great job from Steve finding a bit of space above all those keyboards.

    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.