Posts by Fabrizio

    I personally think comparisons with Daryl are futile because Daryl was never a band member, never contributed any song or played on any album and ultimately he played either Steve's or Mike's part. I appreciate the boost he gave to the band live but that's it.

    So, on top of Peter-era, Phil-era, 5,4&3 man era, prog&pop-era you would also include a Steve era when talking about the band? How is it different from say 5,4, 3- man era or prog era? I ask because they basically overlap, how do we differentiate and tell them from another?

    I obviously don't mean chronologically, that's quite easy: 71-77 but how did Steve, during this period made a mark or influenced the band or steered the direction in a measure comparable to other members or in a way that it is legitimate to talk about Steve era?

    Also, generally speaking the average Genesis fan knows who wrote what and broadly, how much single members contributed to a specific song in terms of chords, harmonies, lyrics and arrangements, as such we have an idea of what Steve might have done. We know for instance that FoF is basically Tony's but I think we all agree it wouldn't be the same without that guitar solo, with that in mind I think we are able to ascertain a couple of things.

    Inspired by some random comments, the thread the guitar and Genesis and the subsequent discussion over Steve's and partially Daryl's role, I've been wondering whether it its correct to talk about a Steve-Era in Genesis.

    During the years I came across, some fans, mainly guitarists, who claim that the term is an appropriate one and it marks a period in the band in which Steve left a mark in terms of sound and spirit that goes beyond his tenure with Genesis.

    I disagree, without undermining Steve's contribution to the band and most of all his legacy, the way some people who would compare him with Daryl do, I don't believe Steve, with the exception of W&W was confident, prolific, self-assertive and mature enough as a writer and arranger to have a major specific weight in the band, at least nothing comparable to the other 4 and later on 3.

    I would have a much lengthier introduction to the thread but it is pointless at this stage, I am sure there will be an opportunity later on to make my points, right now I am interested in your view on this.

    13 points seem about right. Second best song on the album and a giant leap forward from Trespass. Difficult to get into at first, like the majority of early Genesis songs but once you crack it you realize how catchy it actually is. Probably one of the first tunes where Mike shines as a bass'-player, I suspect Phil had something to d with that? Personally I don't care much for Steve's version and for me Peter's voice is simply the best fit for this song.

    What events? What recovering?


    Why wait - start the thread. It'd potentially be an interesting one.

    I thought I'd just wait for things to simmer down, there's been a bit of conflict lately, I confess StllcanDance went several bridges too far for my taste.

    Plus, I am bad at starting threads, the self-consciousness of the non-native speaker I guess. Ian doesn't worry me, he is a die-hard Steve's fan but also a gentleman, I am sure the discussion can be stimulating, animated but civil but then I have to read stuff from others, like Steve being almost a hired musician at Daryl's level that I find both disheartening and absurd. Yes, it might be interesting and I might get around to it, I only have to strike the right tone.

    Regardless, "Hackett-era" is a well-used and long established term on Genesis forums, and it certainly encompasses a "sound" far more than "Gabriel era" does. Quite apart from the fact that he did do quite a bit of composing (Far more than Phil) his arrangement input was a big influence, you only have to (force yourself) to listen to ATTWT to hear that. ;)

    I am so itching to have a thread about this Ian, there are really too many inaccuracies for such a short post and again ATTW3 is used as quite shaky evidence and article of faith at the same time…..Again, Inaccurately. It would be nice to discuss this, not because I think I can change your mind, it seems to me you are not willing to come out of your fan corner and but I would like to see how fans generally feel about this particular topic and perhaps put to rest some urban legends about the Hackett era, an urban legend itself imo, unless the concept isn't restricted to his tenure in the band. I hardly agree with SCD and with his style, less so with his manners but unfortunately, I think he had a valid point here, one that could not be belabored adequately due to how he was handling it.

    Perhaps we wait a little, it could be the Forum in general is still recovering from recent events and the mood might be affected. Someday though.....

    It doesn't sound as bad when you consider it as 4 albums.

    Actually I think there was no piano either, 4 album and almost two decades without any acoustic instruments whatsoever. I guess they were out of fashion and it makes sense, electronic music took over. It couldn't be helped, I assume, the new, leaner material didn't lend itself to any acoustic sound. I remember listening to CAS and thinking:'' Wow, acoustic guitar! Drums and even a drum solo!''

    Era instruments like the Simmonds drums and the Fairlight. („There is no Fairlight on this record.“ - Liner note on No Jacket Required)

    Well yes, of course, some instruments and respective sound mark an era but acoustic instruments are sort of timeless, it is remarkable there's a 17 years gap in Genesis without a single acoustic guitar.

    I'm struggling to think of any acoustic guitar on those albums you listed, I think you're right but likewise stand to be corrected by any musos more knowledgeable about such things.


    Off topic of guitar but I think the mellotron made its final appearance on Duke too? I'm sure that in itself is probably taken as a sort of death knell by some. I'm not so fussed about that though, but it would've been interesting if they'd found a way of incorporating acoustic guitar into their post-Duke sound at some stage, without compromising the leaner sound.

    Well, the Mellotron, like a the Moog perhaps were sort of era instruments, they were victims of the next techno keyboards. They were then rediscovered by the neo-prog bands who were trying to channel a specific sound and era. Evidently though, there was not much space for acoustics instruments in the 80s. We could argue that apart from the 12-strings sound and that became outmoded, Mike had little to offer in that department, although I sort of liked what he did on Open Door but it seems to me that even Tony gave the piano altogether.

    One of the casualties of the new course launched with Abacab was the acoustic guitar and I don't mean necessarily the 12-strings but acoustic in general. I will probably stand corrected but I don't think there is any trace of it on Abacab, Shapes, IT or WCD, it resurfaces on CAS. A pity actually.

    Why is this thread revolving around one off-topic comment? The old forum had an unwritten rule: morons get ignored.

    I think what happened is quite egregious. People should feel free to respond accordingly and they see fit imo. Personally, I took other measures and I don't do it publicly but I cannot blame people who do.

    IQ, along with Camel, Pendragon and Twelfth Night are my all time favourite bands. Others include Renaissance, Stackridge, and Enid....

    What Pendragon album would you recommend? I confess I don't know them at all.

    Rutherford proved a dynamic performer on the guitar and turned in an impressive solo on Burning Rope and Many Too Many. Elsewhere, his flanged guitar gave Follow You Follow Me a distinctive sound and Deep In The Motherlode showed that he could hold his own as a rhythm guitarist.


    When the band went on tour, Mike was initially unsure as to whether Genesis needed a bassist who could play guitar or vise versa. Alphonso Johnson suggested Daryl Stuermer and the rest is history. While Daryl proved adept at taking on the bass parts, it was as a lead guitarist that he truly shone. Having ditched Firth Of Fifth, the band were eager to find a song upon which Daryl could show his chops.

    It's fair to say that when Genesis lost Steve Hackett they gained two distinctive players: the dynamic Mr Rutherford and the fret-shredding Mr Stuermer. All three players have given a distinctive voice to the Genesis sound and while Genesis might not be considered a "traditional" guitar band, it's hard to imagine many of their tunes without the contributions of Messrs Hackett, Rutherford and Stuermer.

    There several bits I agree with some others I don't .

    Much as I like Mike's parts on Many to Many or Burning Rope it is hard for me to define them as ''impressive'', either from a technical or compositional point of view. Perhaps you can explain what you mean with impressive because to me they simply fit the songs, they are adequate but far from jaw-dropping or going the extra mile.

    I think where Mike gave something really original and fresh to the group was with things like FYFM or as rhythm guitarist and obviously his acoustic interplay with either Ant or Steve, certainly not as a soloist.

    I think, I seem to remember and it makes sense that Mike knew right away he needed a guitar player who could also play the bass, because he knew some of Steve's parts were beyond his skillset. I don't seem to remember he being unsure about this. It was 78 and they were still playing a lot of the 5 and 4 man era.

    I can't speak for anybody but I for one, can absolutely imagine any Genesis tune without the contribution of Daryl, it's not really difficult give the fact he hasn't written any.

    While I share your admiration for Daryl's technical proficiency, you wrote yourself that the new course was much more direct, accessible hence not requiring particular chops and Genesis were certainly not a guitar based band, again your words, meaning plenty of guitarists would have done the job equally well and I think it is fair to say and I am sure you won't have any trouble admitting that fans are quite divided over Daryl's treatment and delivery of Steve's bits but most importantly: I don't mean to bring Daryl's down but it perplexes me when I read he was a star in his own right. Really? Fans went to the concert to listen to his bits? No sorry, he was a hired musician, playing somebody's else's parts, some of which not really demanding, some other revered and again argued over. I understand personal preferences but as I said before, history cannot be re-written according to those. This is probably your favorite Genesis incarnation but it doesn't change reality.


    While hopefully not a cultist, I do like his work a lot and admire his skills, he is up there as one of my absolute favourite guitarists. I love the distinctive range of sounds and textures he has brought to his work. Bowie said himself and Eno were a bit stuck making Heroes and decided to bring in Fripp to have a go. Bowie thought he nailed it straight away and loved the plaintive sound he brought to the song. The mark of a truly skilled and creative musician, the ability to see what a song needs wgen even its author didn't.


    A BBC documentary about guitarists described him as "more like a professor than a rock star, treating the guitar as an instrument of science."

    I admire his skills but I can't really say he is amongst my favorites, although clearly his talent cannot be denied and he does sometimes come up with truly inventive stuff, I don't always like his sound. I would say that I find it ''dry'' but I realize it would make little sense and I have no way of explaining it better.

    I agree with you 100%.. The're a lot of KC fans out there, so it does not surprise me at all. Appreciate his talent, but not my favourite guitar player.

    Don't get me wrong, I think he is excellent but there's like a cult around him which I believe in part he was good at cultivating and which in my mind doesn't really match his actual skills. I believe it was Bruford who said once that he is a bit full of it, of course Bruford said that about many people :)