I can agree - but then it’s time for a 5.1 version of US
Whichever version, a GREAT album. I liked it immensely upon release, it has grown even more and more on me over the years. My second favorite PG album.
Posts by Fabrizio
-
-
Agreed. Based on this conversation and others I've seen in the past, I appear to be well in the minority in that I actually prefer the studio version of this track, though I do enjoy the live performance of it as well.
I give the studio version the edge because I prefer the sound of the bassy instrumental break in the middle and then where the momentum picks up at the end (probably my two favourite moments in the song).
The studio version allows me to pick up on all the different instrumental nuances and personally I think this reflects more the tone and the topic of the song.
Of course the live version is highly enjoyable too but I'd push back against the notion that it put the song on the map.
-
A bit surprised over the comments on the studio version. The live version is certainly livelier which is to be expected with any song performed live but because of of kind of song it is, the subject matter, the atmosphere, the lyrics and so on, I think the studio version is sheer brilliance.
It's a pensive, reflective outlook on the status of a possibly deteriorating personal relationship, the listener is sort of dragged in to wallow in that mood and possibly think about his own relationship. I love the live version of course but personally I didn't need it to realize this is one of Peter's many finest hours.
-
It's quite obvious everybody has different excpectations. Since it is highly unlilely anything will ever happen again, it's also a strante discussion.
Let's imagine they decide to do something together again. They are older men now - so why do we always compare to times when they were younger? It doesn't make sense and it's also some kind of unfair. If there was a reunion of any form in the foreseeable future, I would surely go. If only to see them on stage together again. I don't expect them to run around on stage like when they were 30.
It IS a futile discussion considering it won't happen but that's one of the reasons why I am always surprised to see ho many fans don't come to terms with that.
The question of why comparing is a valid one: I for one, while not suggesting others should do the same, can't avoid doing it. I hold those songs dear.
When you go to a tribute band's gig , comparisons are unavoidable. How a song is delivered and performed has a massive relevance. I understand we are all inclined to cut our heroes some slack, they are not a tribute band, they are the real thing and there is a nostalgia element no tribute band can ever hope to satisfy but it doesn't diminish the importance of the performance. When you hear McCartney singing Beatles songs these days, comparisons are unavoidable. Genesis, at least for me, are not exempt from that but as I said, nothing against those who would enjoy it. I just don't get it, as well as I don't get while I can't.
-
I've been wondering and marveling about the fact that I have absolutely no appetite for this and I know I'm the overwhelming minority here. I've been trying to figure out why that is and the next best hypothesis I can come up with, is that I don't think anything they could do would be remotely as good as they actually were. Again, I'm not sure that's the real reason but it might be. Sure, I'm saddened the band is no more but let's face it: it's been a while now and I had time to get used to that but no, it wouldn't thrill me as much as having time, being in the mood and listening to one of their fantastic albums and simply let those memories and feelings come back to me.
Their music has given a lot and have been very important to me and I guess I still have that.
No criticism obviously towards those who would like to see band members' sons or cousins playing instruments, or listen to songs being a bit mortified by two-tones lower keys, I can't understand that either though, nor am I able to guess why but no, it simply isn't for me. Does anyone feel the same and why?
-
Steely Dan-Aja
-
I must confess, I don't know their music at all. I know who they are of course and I think I heard Skylarking once at a friend's but they just passed me by, at the time there was always some other artist whose album I had to get and when you are in your teens, you only have so much money to devote to albums. Interesting thread though, it might motivate me to give them a go, although I doubt I might be as receptive as I was back then.
-
I gave it 12+ but it isn't actually that big a favourite of mine. I must give it another listen after reading these posts.
Some PG songs grow slowly on fans or at least on me. I remember it took me quite some time to fully appreciate stuff like The Family and the Fishing Net or Only Us and it was a bit annoying because evidently these were not throw-away songs. They were long and clearly ambitious but really didn't resonate with me. Now they are amongst my favorites but an epiphany was needed.
-
15 without even blinking. Best relationship song ever. Melody, lyrics, arrangement, vocals. Peter at his best.
-
I Know What I Like, a song that wouldn't have happened without Steve.True, that song and others too. Again, it is not my intention to bring Steve down, much less his contribution. I like George, I don't compare his output in the Beatles to Paul's and John's though.
-
If the point of this thread, is to discuss Steve's influence on the overall sound, I would concede he was a minor contributor - - but one whose contributions were notably absent in subsequent albums.
That was the point of the thread: his influence on sound, songwriting, arrangements and overall direction and I apologize if I haven't made that sufficiently clear, again I don't necessarily agree with the parallel: tenure=era but I have no trouble if someone choses to see it this way, as long as things are kept in perspective, after all, as I said, I came across fans who said The Lamb was only worth it because of the backing vocals. As for you points, I agree on both account. Not a major contributor, still missed, I know I did miss him to the point that I wanted him on CAS. It's perfectly OK if someone lost interest in the band because he left, It still makes no sense that things went sour because of his departure or that things would have been different with him on board.
-
How is that relevant? It isn't.
To you? I think you are missing the point. The thread did not originate because of a comment but several conversations and posts and threads.
The implication being made by some is not whether Steve was in the band and his contribution was valuable, that is a given and I don't know how someone could deny that, I already said that if the minimum requirement is that of his tenure, obviously we can talk about a Steve era.
What is being said though, overtly or less is different and it is that he marked an era through his contribution and in that that regard it is quite interesting to assess how much he actually contributed in terms of songwriting and sound, moreover it is being implied that things changed after he left and not only that, they changed because he left. In fact some believe that he leaving had bigger impact than Peter's departure and that imo is baseless.
-
I think we can safely say, with Tony on board, no one was getting an equal share of anything, or setting the tone, Even Peter couldn't wangle that
Well no, not quite. Peter always gave Tony a hard time and ultimately got to pick the story , set the tone and write the lyrics to a whole double album, not a minor accomplishment and a major power move within the band and Mike has always had a way to navigate around those difficulties and get his songs on the album. The main problem with Steve was, as different members have said several times , they were not crazy about his songs. They didn't see him as substantial songwriter.
-
They were going to bring Stuermer in on Duke but apparently this was thwarted by logistics. They then, as they're on record as saying, decided that they worked well as a trio and liked having the space it provided.
ATTWT has been referred to here as bland. My problem with it is unevenness and tweeness. It's got (for me) two excellent tracks in Down & Out and Many Too Many, Follow and Undertow are good and Motherlode okay, and the rest is either Banks at his most pompous and overbearing, or cringe-inducing dross. It's hard to say what they would've come up with had Hackett stuck around but if those songs are an indication of the sort of material they had knocking about then I'm not sure how much he could've done to improve matters.
Nothing against Daryl but I am glad they didn't, I think I've already explained why in another thread.
ATTW3 was personally the first time with a Genesis album, I could have lived without the half of it. It had never happened before, I don't necessarily agree with your list of the songs worth something but I agree it is a mixed bag. Even songs which are potentially good, like D&O seem to miss something: energy, conviction some grit. It sounds like they were itching to change something, didn't know how to do it and resorted to carless editing, like with Undertow which I think is really good. We can venture what would have happened with Steve on board: better guitar sound, perhaps an instrumental or a couple of songs more to make the record better. Co-written songs I guess, I struggle to find a song Steve has written on his own on a G album. We equally can guess what wouldn't have happened: Steve getting 25% of the material or setting the tone of the album.
-
To take these points:
No, I don't think there needs to be something marking a difference between eras. We're not talking about geological epochs or something. His era was the time he was in the band, which overlapped with PG's time or era if you will, and included the "4-man era"'. Anything further is over-thinking it.
I didnt say it was a red herring to consider how much someone wrote and played, just how much they wrote. I wouldn't expect an introverted new arrival to get much material past a closed shop of schoolfriends. He wrote some stuff, and contributed a distinct playing style that was part of their sound, as I said earlier. There's no set quota of writing that has to be achieved in order to confirm that 'era' can be used.
If the minimum requirement is for someone to be in a band then I agree with you, there was a Steve era.
-
It might be contradictory if you don't agree that his playing and arrangements were an important element.
To be clear: my ideal Genesis line-up has Steve in it. I love his playing, you now that and I do think it was important but in trying to give each member their dues, Steve's guitar wasn't the core, the cornerstone or the backbone of the band's sound, it was more the icing on the cake, a cake which was baked by others, nor was his songwriting central and of course we can agree to disagree but those things, dare I say facts? Are really, really hard to dispute.
-
genesis suffered from steve departure, for sure. i'm tempted to think of 'and then there were three' as a four-member era album with one of the members missing. steve left a hollow that tony, mike and phil weren't still prepared to fill. it wasn't until 'duke' when they really became a proper three-member band.
That might be an additional explanation as to why ATTW3 is a bit ''bland''. I find it curious but telling that they never even considered replacing Steve, a mistake in my view but again it gives away how they saw the band and implicitly Steve's role in it.
-
Tend to agree with this. Too much emphasis is placed on songwriting.
My point is, in a band, even though one person may have written the song, the others all end up contributing to the final sound, Firth of Fifth is a classic example. would the flute solo have had as big an impact on the world?
Steve's impact may have not been huge at the start, as Ant was a good guitarist and the comparison would have been less stark, but when he left, the sound changed immensely, ATTWT is a very lame sounding album after the W&W, even Wot Gorilla stands out in comparison, and it's the second worst track on there. Only 4 tracks are adequate on ATTWT, Motherlode, Many Too Many, Lady Lies and FYFM, the rest really needed a guitarist to lift them. Sadly, he'd moved on, and an era had ended.
Surprisingly Ian I disagree, but I also think it depends on the band and the genre. If you told me that too much emphasis is placed on songwriting in, say Weather Report, I might even agree. Ultimately, given the instrumental contribution by Joe, Wayne and even Jaco, who actually wrote the song is really not that important, given that it is based on a sketch of an idea and played almost every night in a different way. Genesis however, were all about songwriting, they saw themselves as songwriters and rarely incurred in the original sin of other prog-bands where noodling took over and form trumped substance.
Much as I appreciate their instrumentals which have almost always a songwriting element to them, I really like their songs. Steve knew that too, that's why he pushed to have more material on the album, he was growing frustrated because he no longer wasn't content to be only a great guitarist. Phil was at that time, the one who didn't overly care, in fact he wanted to carry on as an instrumental band.
ATTW3 is the biggest piece of evidence produced by Steve's fans, the premise being that it was their weakest album hitherto. I happen to agree but some fans don't.
There's some truth there, Steve's sound is missing and certainly the album could have used a couple of good songs more but as I said many times, it's quite contradictory to say Steve was shortchanged, suffocated, underused which is all true and then claiming that one album is not so strong because he left. IF ATTW3 is not as strong as its predecessors, it is due imo to other problems plaguing the band in that period. Phil was understandably absent-minded, in fact I don't particularly enjoy his playing and singing on the album. He was starting to be fed up with some of lyrics and thinking about joining the Who. That doesn't bode well for any album. They were starting to think about changing, everything around them suggested that but they had no idea how and clearly they were working with formulas that were becoming stale. The notion that things unraveled because Steve left lacks logic and basis, is far-fetched and doesn't explain Duke: strong material, excellent sound and loads of energy.
-
Display More
There are two ways of considering this. First, on a purely chronological basis, 1971 - 1977 mark the years he appears in the band's regular recorded works, not counting 3SL and the Archive sets. So on that simple basis, that can be said to be the Hackett Era.
Second would be the notion that the term 'era' in this sense defines something more than pure chronology; the substance and, if you like, value/significance of his work as part of the band. My view is that there is significance to his time in Genesis. From early on, especially his Salmacis solo, he had a distinctive sound that contributed to the Genesis overall sound. As has been said, they've never been an overtly 'guitar band' but his work underlined that the instrument was nevertheless an intrinsic part of their soundscape. That his technique was subtle and economical made him well-aligned to the work of a relatively non-guitary band.
After he left, their sound gradually then rapidly changed. We can speculate that might've happened even if he'd stayed, but it's moot. The fact their sound changed after his departure is enough for me to accept his presence was materially significant. I'm not bothering to consider the empirical importance of whether he wrote 'enough' in this context, for me that's a red herring. All the above is sufficient for me to say that yes, there was a Hackett Era.
Ultimately though, enjoyable as it is to discuss this, I find it a largely semantic debate. I could quite happily end my case after my first point - that's when he was in Genesis, so that's his era.
It is semantic yes and yes, it could end with the first point but my question would be: how can you tell the Steve era from say the Gabriel era, they largely overlap and during that period, as Peter has said there was no democracy within the band, some members were clearly more equal than others and I think we can agree. So what would be the difference between the Gabriel or 5-man era and Steve-era? At the same time, what would be the difference between the 4-man era, largely dominated by Banks both in songwriting and sound and the Steve-era? There must be some element enabling us to mark a difference, don't you think?
As for what would have happened after he left, again, you are right, it's rather moot but somehow I cannot imagine Steve taking over and contributing 50% of the material and indulging in minutes long solos.
Lastly, why is it a red herring to consider how much a member has written and played? And if it is, what would be then the criteria by which we can measure his impact on the overall music?
-
I have no idea, who wrote what, because - as I said - all the writing credits go to all. My approach is, how strongly the members of the band influenced the sound of the band and how good their musical skills are. Had Peter Gabriel never written a single lyric and not composed a single bar, I would still claim, there is an era of Peter simple because of his completely unique and stunning vocals.
This will probably not satisfy you, I` m afraid, but it is as simple as that for me.
It's really not about satisfying me an it bears repeating that I like Steve's playing and I think he was he felt and heard from the get go, I even like For absent friends, go figure. I really feel he was missed when he left but I just don't think it is enough for a musician to simply be in a band to be able to say it was his era. I agree with you actually, it depends how strongly the member influenced the sound of the band. It is in a way, weird to think that Steve himself felt like a junior member on the first records, felt that in the beginning had little to offer as a songwriter, felt that he was often buried sound-wise and in the final mix by the keyboards which is imo true, felt that later on, his input wasn't valued enough in terms of songwriting which again, I think is accurate but imo justified and almost everybody would concede that Genesis were never a guitar based band but we can still talk about a Steve-era. Btw, all those claims are his words, not mine, I just happen to agree with him.
