Posts by Fabrizio

    I I see a tiny group of mostly one on here relentlessly peddling the doom laden message that the show will be terrible and never missing an opportunity to express it either directly or worse, indirectly such as in the above quoted internet belch.

    Ok, I'll have ONE go at trying to reply because your comment is out of line, uncalled for and bordering on personal. I dare you to find one post of mine in which I said the show will be terrible. I said, on various occasions, I'm not interested, I explained why, I also expressed the wish for everybody to enjoy it and I was being sincere, I also said that I'm happy they are out there, what I think about it takes second place. Is it peddling? No more than other people reiterating, on various occasions that it will be great no matter what, I read those comments, I don't agree with them and some repeat this a lot but I don't feel the need to call people delusional or acritical. Hate to think I might be bursting somebody's bubble here, because when I like something I really do not care what others might think. Am I being reiterative? Perhaps but I dare you to find a single member here who hasn't expressed the same opinion more than once, over the years. This is a forum, we are having a debate, you might not like some opinions, the same goes for me, either debate politely, or ignore them as I do and I do so often. You are more than welcome to reply, if you do, I'd appreciate you debate the merits of what I'm saying and refrain from snarky, personal comments. I could easily tell you where to go, your comment definitely warrants it, I always choose not to do that over the internet, a bit too easy for my taste. Be respectful and polite, if not I'll be more than happy to spare you the tedium of my posts.

    indeed a unique show


    but then again, what defines peak? I don't think it has to be connected with audience response. It can be, but doesn't have to. And of course we all have different perspectives. But I am also sure that musically, based on what they WERE able to do, their peak must have been somewhere between Lamb and Abacab.

    Well, their commercial peak is IT, the numbers are there and you cannot argue with them.

    Their artistic peak is and will always be subjective, as the term is too vague, as for the live performances. it is always partially subjective, I say partially because obviously there were moments in which they were playing objectively better, also aided by better technology and increased financial means. Touring with a van is legendary and romantic, those gigs are etched forever in the memories of the audience but musically they may be a bit dodgy. To me it's all a highlight from 1970 to 1980, fine, ATTW3 is a a half faux pas IMHO but in the great scheme of things, it doesn't tarnish what they did. Commercially, I'm sure they would have liked to do better, during that period and they would have deserved it. Oddly enough, at least for me their live peak was from 1980 to 1983. Nothing is ever easy with Genesis.

    Agree that Afterglow lost some of that meditative, contemplative feel as he took a more strident approach to it (but the double drumming in the outro is so killer that I still like later versions).


    And I also agree that some slighter songs sounded stronger because he had a strong delivery. That's All and Invisible Touch are examples for me. Sussudio is an example from his solo career.


    The key changes alone change the feel of songs for me, so it means that I can be open to other changes that come along with it. If they do Mama, perhaps it will be brooding and haunting with a softer voice instead of the scary and tortured delivery of the original.

    I must admit even Phil's outstanding vocals couldn't make some songs more palatable to me, to this day I still cannot listen to stuff like Sussudio and IT. On Mama, we will have to agree to disagree, if we acknowledge that it is one of Phil's finest performances, the consequence for me is that anything less won't do, there wasn't a single singer around, back in 83 able to sing it like that, not even Bono, to mention a powerhouse with some remarkable pipes. I wish, in light of the current, objective limitations they would have done something completely different. They don't have a real unplugged album for instance and it would have been nice to see them all seated, like in the beginning, not only Phil, with an orchestra for the more majestic, epic songs and a stripped down, acoustic arrangement for the others. Then perhaps, thin vocals wouldn't have mattered so much.

    However, I did feel he overused that style of his singing on songs that were better served with a softer approach.

    Yes, ii was a bit of an overkill sometimes, Afterglow on 3SL springs to mind, even though I enjoy it and I'm in awe of his vocals, one is left wondering whether the wistful nature of the song wouldn't require a more ethereal approach, like on SO for example, only on SO his voice didn't have any particular character. On a positive note though, some new era songs, to me at least, were just about OK because Phil sang them and the way he did. He was able to infuse life and grit into songs that IMHO were really nothing special and therein lies the problem. Those songs were created by and for a singer who had almost unlimited vocal resources at his disposal, how do you deliver them in an acceptable way when that singer is no longer here? He got by in 2007, barely, as you said, I'm curious what they come up with this time, they will have to be really imaginative and inventive because if the answer is taking the songs two keys down it would be rather disappointing.

    Makes me wonder why his voice lost the power as it did. I mean, obviously age, but maybe too much screaming and touring?

    That would be my guess, he wasn't a singer and came late to the microphone, it took him around 4 years to find his voice, when he did he seemed to enjoy it...A lot and probably abused it a bit. Singing Genesis material didn't help, Banks had apparently no mercy on the singers Peter was constantly trying to reach notes beyond his key and it was no different with Phil, who has a completely different voice from Peter's. On top of that, the guy toured a lot, with Genesis and on his own. It must have been exhilarating for him to be able to sing stuff like Mama or TTT, considering he started with For Absent friends and More fool me, radical departure, he sounds like two different people. Finally, he got older and his general health conditions worsened. All this took a toll evidently. The mere fact that he has to sing seated would be a game changer even if he were on top shape, you breath differently and that has an impact on the sound you make.

    Phil's voice has changed in tone in multiple ways over time. It was lighter and initially lacked heft early on, then became stronger and lost some of that light touch, it then became warmer, and then became lighter and a bit more nasally as you mention.

    Perhaps there are others but I can't think of any other singer who went through so many changes with his ''instrument' through the years'. I'm not sure he can hit a falsetto at the moment and that was his trademark in the beginning, he had this very pure, high-pitched voice that mingled very well with Peter's. On WCD his voice was already beginning to sound a bit nasal, I guess the more he was losing power the easier he was to lean on his nasal tones. You don't seem to be a fan of his ''screamy'' period, personally I think that was what set him apart and made him world class, before that he was just good, proficient and adequate. It is probably possible to tackle some songs with a different, mellower approach, personally I don't see it happening without the songs suffering badly, particularly when the voice has no warmth and nasal voices plainly don't. I was curious to see how he would do with his material, far less demanding vocally on his tour, I know you can't gain your power back once you lost, it vocal chords just wear off, but the voice, the tone and flexibility can somehow improve. Well, as I said, after having heard a couple of things, I'm just happy he is out there...

    I've watched many performances (online) from Phil's recent tour, hoping that with practice I might hear some strengthening of his voice. I haven't heard that happen. His range is less than it was for the 2007 tour, which wasn't bad but lacked the power in the upper register. Now he has both less range and power - which is fine and expectable for his age. So I do expect keys to be lowered for him as some were on the 2007 tour. I do expect the back-up singers to potentially cover or support passages that are harder. And I expect songs or sections of songs that benefit from an aggressive vocal to be either absent or at least modified in some way to accommodate where Phil is at.


    This is why I was hypothesizing that they could do Man On the Corner without the aggressive octave jump. Sure it would change the song, but I am open to a reinterpretation. Ripples was lovely on the 2007 tour, where Phil took a much gentler approach to the chorus than say on the Duke tour. It still worked well. Many artists reinvent their songs live over time, both to accommodate aging and also because it keeps things fresh foI

    The loss of power in his voice doesn't bother me much, sure, I wonder how he is going to cope but it applies to over 90% of the vocalists when aging, although it is admittedly dramatic with Phil. I concur that some songs can benefit from a softer approach, although not MoC imo, the dynamic of the song is based in that octave jump. It could work for softer songs, you mentioned Ripples I could add FYFM,

    I guess it is how his voice transformed that rubs me the wrong way, it's just too nasal for me.

    I totally get what your saying. If I go to the concert in December and it blows, I’ll call it like it is. I won’t be one to sugarcoat it. Of course my frame of reference is limited to concert videos. Many fans’ comments on here are much more credible than mine. Thanks for the spirited conversation.

    Always a pleasure and enjoy it.

    Fair enough. For me, this is the first time I’m seeing them live, so I’m not trying to be unrealistic, but I don’t want to go to the concert just to see him pal around with his “mates”. For that I could sit at home and watch the Invisible Touch video. I want to see good music.

    What can I say? If you are expecting the songs to be performed the way they should or it used to be, that is not going to happen but who knows? Perhaps they can still pull off something good, they've always been respectful of their audience and I know that limitations are there but I'm sure they'll give their best. Be as it may, I hope you and everybody else truly enjoy it, the fact that I don't care for it is completely irrelevant. I only begin to have a problem when some fans start saying that it was just like before, I saw several videos of Phil's tour and the comments were disheartening, either that or people are tone deaf.

    I was speaking in generalities and using your quote as an example. All of us make it to be that he is made of glass, his voice, his body. We know he’s not drumming anymore. Let’s see how he starts out the tour, we may all be pleasantly surprised.

    To be clear, when I think about this tour, Phil is the one I'm the happiest for. I have no appetite for it but I love seeing him up and about with his mates, doing something he loves. He's been through quite a lot and on a personal level I'm thrilled he's still out there. That said, on a musical level, he simply doesn't have it anymore, not enough a reason for many not to go and see them and I'm happy about that too, I wish them all the success they deserve but let's not kid ourselves please.

    Now I know there are forum members here who have seen Phil recently on his Not Dead Yet tour and know much better than I, but are we getting a little crazy with predicting how frail Phil will be? I feel like we’re making it out to be that he’s like China (no put intended). I know he’s been sick, but he has to be in somewhat formidable shape to endure a lengthy tour such as this one. Otherwise I don’t think they would be attempting it. I think Phil is more durable than is being portrayed.

    I don't know about others and I have no data on his health conditions , I'm only talking about his voice which is beyond frail.

    I saw them during the Abacab tour in Pisa and Rome and the WCD tour in Vienna, i don't rate the Abacab álbum high but the energy of the live performances was unparalleled and Phil retained his hunger to play drums. You are right, vocally he was a bit screamy but I found that was his trademark as a singer. On the WCD tour he had lost some power, would still sing great but was becoming too nasal for my taste, playing drums seemed like chores, in general though, they were a well-polished machine a bit too sleek for me, not the same level of energy and excitement.

    the instrumental end to Abacab is one of my favourite live tracks..as on 3sides live and other boots. Would be great to hear it again, although don't see as an opener

    I'm actually curious to see whether ANYTHING from Abacab will be included in the setlist at all. I should go back and check but I believe that together with ATTW3, with the exception of FYFM, it is the least represented album live. I'm obviously not including prehistoric albums .

    According to Phil, his peak as a player was the Lamb and the Brand X albums. Mike's is difficult to ascertain but it's fair to believe that it went hand in hand with Phil's. Tony has imo no peaks and no lows. He's just solid and doesn't really budge from his spot, both a good and bad thing perhaps.