The Mayflower- Jon&Vangelis
Posts by Fabrizio
-
-
It was Fabrizio who first raised this point back on the old forum, and I'm sure (really, REALLY sure!) he'll pop along to explain his logic
but it seems to me others are merely using it as a whipping post to denigrate Steve with reference to their particular Genesis hero. Fine, but let's not pretend others aren't also capable of turning out similar things. Shock the Monkey, for example, a chorus that could render my stereo at risk!I was actually going to but the second ''REALLY'' all caps, convinced me otherwise
Suffices it to say that I don't think his songs carry a particular punch and, I think you already know that though, I am not one to denigrate Steve particularly not comparing him to my personal Genesis hero. I might not think highly of him as a songwriter but I have much respect for him as a player and his contribution to the band. -
Is there enough support for Like It to make it one of 'those' songs?
You would be surprised, I know I was. I' always thought of it as a filler, some throw-away song from the Acting very Strange writing sessions, another album I thought was really terrible, particularly after Smallcreeps' brilliance. I found it sappy, pedestrian, uninspired and probably the only song on Abacab, Phil sings poorly. He really doesn't sound convincing and convinced on this one. He tries so hard to infuse some life in it that his pitch is all over the place in the end. Then someone came up with the internet and Genesis Forums and I found out some fans think highly of it: a great ballad, a great love song, a great pop song and so on. I was and remained baffled.
-
Blimey we've come some distance from Genesis Songs We're Afraid To Admit We Dislike.
Right but personally I 'm not too particular about threads hijacking. Things run a natural course and it is interesting to see a debate unfolding.
Anyway, to bring things back on track, I was going to mention Like it or Not, for the life of me I cannot see what some fans see in that song but the thread went on so long, I might already have mentioned that.;-)
-
No need to apologise, in fact I should have clarified my own point by saying I don't generally find your posts snooty which is why I mentioned it coming across that way when I was sure it wasn't the intention. Yes I think we probably disagree generally on music but the disagreements are interesting, as they should be. I absolutely get the appeal of Rebel Yell, but dislike it very much as for me it has a certain kind of soulless shiny 80s rock feel which is a sound I don't get on with. In comparison, GenX were more raw and satisfying, meaning in this case they had the greater substance than the hollow 80s rock stuff. But I do see how others will bring different takes on the substance question.
It's settled then. I am really not a fan of overproduced, glossy sound, hence my problem with most of the music in the second half of the 80s, including Genesis and I understand absolutely the appeal of a more raw approach to music but in both cases, I try, without always succeeding, to go past that and look at the core. I get what you say about Rebel Yell but in my mind it still a great song, if you heard the acoustic version you'll see what I mean. GenX were more raw but that wasn't what turn me off. I simply didn't find enough 'meat' there, they could have been more polished and I would have felt the same.
-
The reason I feel fortunate I don't share your views on this is that I hope it means I don't sound as snooty as you sounded above, though you may not have intended to - "left punk behind, started playing songs for real". In fact this goes to the root of the issue I have with the nebulous idea of musical substance. Idol's a good example - for me, his post-punk stuff was glossed-up rubbish. While not especially a Generation X fan, I found their stuff infinitely preferable and, if you will, real.
Sorry, I misinterpreted that and I admit I wanted to reply in kind. It happens when writing, people really don't know each other and things are not clear. Thanks for clarifying that. Apologies extended, we clearly differ on a lot of things but personally I find your insights interesting and I hope we can disagree further. As for Idol, I thought Rebel Yell was a hell of a rock song but the main point is, I appreciate artists who have something to say, even better when they have the means to do so, neither was the case with Punk imo.
-
There lay the clue. I think there were far better bands (and I'm unanimous in this) of English representation - Pink Floyd - The Who - but then there may be a genre disparity in the pop vs rock malarky. If you like The Beatles, fine by me but I sincerely believe they were over-hyped.
We re not talking about better or worse bands, although when you mention PF and the Who, we are already moving in a different territory and category than the Smiths. You brought up the argument of ''Britishness'' to substantiate your dislike for the Beatles or preference for others. Whether I like the Beatles or not, is really not the point here, it is equally perfectly fine to find them over-hyped but it also besides the point. Personal taste aside, I think it is very hard to maintain that the Beatles are not quintessentially British and in fact the original ambassadors of British music. Perhaps though you can help me understand, why are the Smiths and their music more British than the Beatles?
-
You're focusing too much on the music itself rather than the way it inspired many young budding musicians.
As for musical substance, luckily my interpretation of that concept must be different from yours, as yes I do find it in punk, but probably more in new wave.
Yes, I do admittedly focus on the music itself and yes, luckily, we must have different interpretations of the musical substance concept. I won't deny Punk has inspired many young budding musicians but even somebody like say, Billy Idol, in the end, accomplished something by leaving Punk behind and actually writing songs, singing and playing for real. I appreciate and respect anybody who can play an instrument, sing and/or write songs or have, generally speaking,something to say and uses his skills as a medium. Then, I like some of them according to personal taste. Punk didn't check any of the abovementioned boxes.
-
Forme The Smiths were more important. Gave rock music an Englishness that the Beatles didn't.
I think, without even debating the merits of what you saying, you proved again the difficulty of substantiating personal taste. I am sure eyebrows raised when reading ''Smiths'' and ''Beatles'' even in the same sentence, I know mine did but it's quite OK and it is not really the point. It is bizarre to claim that the the Beatles, basically the Godfathers of British rock music were not British enough or less British than any other band. They put Britain on the music map, in an industry basically dominated by America, they made England the centre of the world and London the place to be, at a time, after WW2, in the light of the USA-USSR Cold War, after Suez and after a string of Colonies declared Independence, when it became painfully clear that the Empire was no more and England was just another country. They single-handedly started the so called British Invasion and all the while being with their music extremely British. To this day they are considered by the rest of the world, British icons, like say, James Bond or the Monarchy. So, you don't think much of them? That's fine but I am sure you can find better reasons than lack of Britishness
-
I think we need to be careful not to swallow everything the media have fed us over the years. The notion of punk or any type of music "coming along to shake things up" or to intentionally be rebellious is entirely a media invention. I also disagree punk or grunge had no musical substance and have to question what seems to me the completely subjective notion of 'musical substance' and what exactly that means!
Picking up on other comments above: I hadn't heard Rushent's carpentry comment before, but agree with him; and I find myself wondering if there is anyone who actually gives a damn what genre charts exist!
Point taken, I guess we do sometimes have a tendency to simply provide the same talking points we have been feed for so long. However, while I agree there's a level of subjectivity to the concept of 'musical substance', I still struggle to find any in Punk, can you? The bands and artists emerged during that period who amounted to something, I should mention Police or U2, never were really Punk, they merely tapped in that energy but strictly musically speaking they were either too good musicians, songwriters or both to dwell on Punk and I wonder, again, musically, what is today the legacy of Punk? I can answer that question for Rock&Roll, Blues, R&B, Jazz-Rock, Hard, Heavy, Metal whatever Rock and Prog Rock but Punk? What's left of that?
-
I think niether punk or synth pop were vacuous. They had their place like prog rock did, and some good bands came out of those eras IMO. Ok, prog enjoyed a longer golden period, but all three genres are in a similar position now, on the fringes of musical interest but still pulling loyal cult followings. The three forms of music were about breaking rules.
I wouldn't put punk and synth pop in the same category, I would, however lump punk and grunge together and as somebody who only cares about music and not ''movements'', I would not hesitate to define them vacuos. They were so-called rebellion movements, against old farts, elaborated and soulless music and I can appreciate that, not what they played though. Their resurgence is highly unlikely, prog rears its head periodically because people like to play and listen to music. Any artist worth something, emerging from the punk period, actually left punk behind, one might say to thrive, others would say to develop and that blind juvenile angst and anger only takes you so far and cannot sustain itself. They came and they went and both things are imo very positive. Prog also came to shake things up, if I remember correctly but there was some substance to it before it degenerated. Punk was important for other reasons but had no musical substance at all.
-
Literally speechless re the Steve comment. Nonsense.
There was a moment when Punk ruled the airwaves too. Thankfully, both were dead-end moments, and ended quickly, when the public saw how vacuous they were.
Since I was the one who tossed the term ''hired gun'' around, I want to be very clear. I agree regarding Steve: 6 studio and 2 live albums, a distinctive sound, a clear, significant contribution to the band and an increased songwriting role on the last records.
He was perhaps not the member with the greatest specific weight but ''hired gun'' doesn't really apply to him. His place in Genesis history is undisputable and he cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be compared to Daryl. We are all entitled to out opinions but claiming the contrary, perhaps based on personal taste, borders on historical revisionism.
-
It would have been interesting to see how Ant would have evolved as a Rock-guitarist. Funny to think that he was considered to be the edgier and 'rockier' among the guys back in the days. He seems to have lost interest in playing that, practically immediately after leaving the band and adopted a mellower, acoustic sound.
-
That's a pretty fatuous remark, even for you.
Getting personal is uncalled for. I enjoy debating you, you know your Genesis history and it's stimulating. You are obviously very, very, very biased in favor of Phil but why not? Nothing wrong with that, even though a little more objectivity would help. Unfortunately you have this penchant for abrasiveness that makes it difficult sometimes to have a decent conversation with you, particularly when you snap back with personal attacks like you just did. You find my remark fatuous? Fine, elaborate, substantiate it and refrain from getting offensive. Again, I find your contributions interesting and I would hate to have to block you but I am not here to have Forum feuds, they bore me really.
-
Which, except for abacab, (and even that is adequate, nothing more)
Adequate.....Is it though? Personally I am quite underwhelmed by it. The new course didn't give a guitarist many opportunities to really shine. This was one and imo more could have been done with it. I like Mike's playing on CAS but solos are really not his for
-
Except the "hired gun" comment was a reference to Daryl! Lots of bands in the 80's had a synth sound and a good guitarist, nothing prevents them working together. As for Mike criticizing other's songwriting, it seems a bit ironic given his leaning on others to co-write so much M&M stuff.
True, the'' hired gun'' was a reference to Daryl. As for Mike's comments I wouldn't take them as criticisms, just…..Comments, and as I remember he wasn't the only one in the band not being crazy about Steve's songwriting skills. An assessment, and I am aware it means nothing, I personally share. I do believe and I wrote it previously that Steve has a chorus problem. As for Mike, I think he admitted himself being a collaborative songwriter but I would say that he was smart enough to realize that, others weren't and Mike is certainly responsible for some very significant bits in Genesis, securing his place in the band's legacy.
Regarding the guitar playing, I think they were right in not replacing Steve, for the music the started generating, Mike was more than OK.
-
I agree. Daryl is an excellent musician, but he's one of thousands of gifted guitarists with a generic understated soft rock solo sound. He's technically perfect but completely innocuous; could be anyone. Steve was unmistakably Steve, and his style instantly identifiable in the same way that Steve Howe, Eddie Van Halen and Frank Zappa were. Daryl is a session musician, who could tour with a boy band if need be, and who's sound just blends in. These musicians have their place and Daryl's contribution to live Genesis has been good enough, but I've never regarded him as a member of band. I have a little more respect for Chester in this regard, though. Like Bruford, Chester is quite a recognisable, stand out player who's probably bought more to the Genesis live sound over the years than Daryl did.
I respect them both. I am a lousy guitarist and when somebody can play like Daryl, I cannot help but be in awe, then of course I agree with you: while I appreciate their years of service to the ''cause'', they were never band members and without wanting to be disparaging, the cause would have been served with equally proficient musicians. I also agree Chester is more recognizable than Daryl in his playing. in fact he struggled a bit in the beginning with regard to what Phil wanted from him. Nothing to do with skills of course but coming from a different background he has a different feel. There's a video on YouTube of him being interviewed by Nick D'Virgilio where he says there was a bit of frustration on both Phil's and his side in the beginning because Phil wasn't getting what he wanted from him and he was unsure about what Phil wanted. Apparently going to a Disco in the UK, watching people dance there and how he related dancing with rhythm helped him realize what he had to do differently. Ultimately though, no matter how much I appreciate them as musicians, I wouldn't have wanted them on any Genesis record. They are simply not right.
-
Actually, when I hear Daryl Stuermer playing on Jean Luc Ponty's albums, I often wonder how he didn't get bored touring with Genesis. He definitely had the chops for jazz fusion.
Having said that, I found nothing remarkable about his playing in Genesis - or at least nothing that would make me forget about Steve Hackett.
In fact, those brief moments when Daryl was unleashed, the contrast in his approach did nothing more than reinforce my preference for Steve's way of playing those songs.
I think both he and Chester could have played Genesis stuff during a nap and that is the point I was trying to make: having two musicians of that caliber surely helped the band raising their game live. Having praised his chops and his superior technique, I remained convinced though that Daryl's playing has absolutely nothing to do with Genesis and what they are about.
-
It's just an opinion. You have yours; I have mine.
Well, yes, you are right. As long as you specify those guitar lines are celebrated by you, it is an opinion and as such to be respected. Otherwise it is just inaccurate.
-
I couldn't agree less.
I sensed that
What can I say though, I will never be a fan of any guitarist, no matter how good, shredding on the FoF solo. I am quite sure that was not how it was originally intended.
