I fall in and out of love with this one, for reasons I cannot completely puy my finger on, but it is and remains an outstanding song.
Posts by Fabrizio
-
-
However she seems a lot fonder of her whole catalogue, in contrast to some chaps we could mention.
Give her time, when she'll have a three decades-spanning back catalogue, she might change her attitude on that.
-
I know we're getting way off topic here, but who cares...
While it doesn't hold up to the stronger songs on Us, it does provide some contrast and variety.
I consider US the last, truly great Peter's album but even on great albums you'll have one or 2 fillers or weaker songs. KTF certainly falls into that category for me. I'm not outraged by it but it truly is weak.
-
Let's be honest: Steam and Kiss that Frog were blatant efforts to replicate the general sound and sexual lyrics of Steam. Peter was trying to cash in on a formula that had worked well on the previous album.
I agree, although personally, I would rate Steam much higher than Kiss that Frog.
-
Steam is an average song but nothing spectacular. It's more like a Sledgehammer "pastiche".
Playing for time is a far better song in my opinion.
Provided that the two are so different they can't possibly be compared, I agree with your assessment of Steam, good song but highly derivative. As for Playing for time, after several listen, it's a good song, it caught my fancy much more than the previous two releases, particularly in the case of Panopticon, there's nothing there, as much as I'm concerned, it borders on poor. I still hope he has something better in store.
-
15/15 pts
no other choice. It's in my PG all-time top 5. The whole album is stunning.
I know that story as well but did Peter ever confirm it's about JFK?
You mean perhaps JFK's killer. I don't think it was either mentioned or confirmed.
-
Prefer could simply mean dislike less
The language fails me sometimes
In the end, even though I agree that something interesting can be found even in their weakest songs, I would have a hard time extolling the virtues of either, but again, Paperlate has a clear filler quality to my ears. Even Phil's vocals, as energetic as ever, don't sound as refined and polished as on other Abacab songs. -
I also prefer NRAA of the two, particularly for Tony's keyboards and Mike's bassline. I still like Paperlate nonetheless.
''Prefer'' would be too strong a word for me when talking about NRAA but I do appreciate Mike's work on the bass and the break, in the bridge, slowing down the song. Tony's keyboards are interesting too, it's just the interplay with the horns, that really doesn't work for me. Ultimately a minor detail though, because horns or less, the song per se wouldn't be amongst my favorites. that doesn't work for me, By comparison, Paperlate sounds like a filler to me.
-
Genesis at their poppiest still usually had some musical substance that demonstrated their underlying talent.
Well, yes, undoubtedly, they know their craft, they are certainly top drawer and we are reminded of that , even in their weakest songs but I must say I don't find much substance to Paperlate, there is IMO a bit more in NRAA, even though it's another one I dislike.
-
I had lost sight of them for a couple of years now, it happens when you have other things on your mind. I just find out about David's absurd and tragic death and that he has been replaced by an Italian singer.
I wish the band all the best, they deserve it, David will be missed though.
-
-
I've not seen anyone - anywhere - comment on the similarity to Washing Of The Water when PFT moves to "part two". Just me?
Now that you mention it...
-
For me it's very far from sounding like a demo. It's a more raw production on the voice but also more natural. Without the useless effects that we sometimes find on his voice. The sound recording is just magnificent with a very pure rendering.
As I said, I don't have a specific opinion on it yet, I said demo for lack of better words, you say ''raw production and more natural'', which could be a potato-potahto case, so I'll go along with it. I just noticed that something was different. It might be that he was in fact channeling Randy Newman, definitely a lesser vocalist than Peter, even though quite effective. Anyway, I like how he delivers the song, very subdued in the first part, it seems appropriate for the type of song and lyrics but I have to say I also like the effects he normally uses for his voice which I think he knows very well by now, he knows what works and personally I don't think he ever overdoes it.
-
9 of the 10 are from IT or WCD. Truly a deep dive into their history
What? Peter Gabriel was the singer?!! And who's Peter Gabriel? I got both the former and, albeit less frequently the latter.
-
The other interesting thing to note are the sections where he sings in a much lighter, gentler style that seems almost reminiscent of his singing in the 70s, e.g., "Never fade away" at 0:57, "Play again, play again" at 1:12.
Glad to see I wasn't completely off in spotting something unusual in the vocals, as I said though, I need to listen to it a couple of times more to elaborate.
-
I like this one better than the other two, quite reminiscent of Randy Newman, some moments are Peter in top form. He sounds great, although at first listen, the voice production seems to have a demo quality to it, less polished than usual, it sounds obviously deliberate, but I need more listens to be able to put my finger on it.
-
Poor, something I could have really lived without.
-
The quality of Peter Gabriel's songs is variable.
There are two periods (IMOO): the inventivity of the first fourth LP's. Then, the rest...
In each subsequent album there are always one or two indigent songs:
I don't know of many artists who don't have one or two fillers on their albums, it's pretty much a given and I don't think it's' reason enough to say that the quality of their work is variable. I also think, in Peter's case that it is quite difficult to lump together the first 4 albums. The first two were clearly the output of an artist who was trying to be original, find his own path while putting the longest distance possible between himself and his previous band. The result was a mixed bag and the quality, as you put it, was certainly not homogenous. PG3&4 were something different altogether, certainly more solid but even on PG3, widely regarded as a masterpiece, you can find at least a song some people consider a filler. SO and US even though very different from another are again of very solid albums material-wise. UP not so much IMO.
-
Actually, the opposite would have been the case in the past, I've never had any problem in voicing my dislike for any song but there were times I was trying to be blase' about songs I actually liked, FYFM would be the perfect example.
-
Nobody can expect his new album to contain eleven songs in the style of "San Jacinto" or "Secret World".
Why not though? I'm ambivalent about it, I know you make a valid point but on the other hand Peter always said he had a large number of songs he has been sitting on for years. I can assure you I wasn't expecting to be bowled over like it happened with PG3 for instance and it doesn't have to do entirely with his music, I'm much older to begin with but frankly I was expecting a bit more. I know that the fire in your belly subsides with age and success if you are a rock artist, but Peter's music has always been quite cerebral, it still is from what I can hear, this much hasn't changed but these two songs are a bit of a letdown as far as I'm concerned. I can see The Court growing on me in time but Panoticom is rather forgettable IMO.
