Posts by Fabrizio

Quote from mdepps

Y'know I'm almost with you in that I recognise that all the best stuff was done in the 70s.

In some ways I'd even go further because I can't find anything on Duke I love.

It's just I think that Side 1 of Shapes is a brief return to form. And there are a handful of singles (fingers of one hand!) spread over the last five albums that I wouldn't skip.

I tend to be a 70-80 kind of fan myself but there are some songs after that period I truly love, after all, it's not like they couldn't write songs anymore or their style didn't shine through here and there. I would say that for my taste, my attitude towards the band changed as of Abacab, while previous to that I generally loved the albums with the odd songs I didn't care for, in the 80s, I really didn't enjoy the whole albums but I was still able to find the odd songs that grabbed me. I often wondered if I had become a fan, had I come across the band in the 80s and I can't really answer that but I somehow doubt it.

Quote from Blacksword

Thick as a brick was intended as a spoof prog album; a send up of concept albums. I have always regarded Tull as a prog band. Not sure why anyone wouldn't really. They're not a favourite of mine though. There isn't really a template for prog rock. All those bands were very different to each other. VDGG were a little 'rough around the edges' too IMO, but unmistakably prog rock. Floyd were also not the worlds best musicians, with the exception of Gilmour. Their music was quite basic. Brilliant and very orginal, but relatively basic. Interstingly many Floyd fans don't regard them as prog rock.

I would think of high standard of musicianship as a basic requirement for a prog band, however, the example you provided with VdGG and PF make a perfectly valid point of how it isn't necessarily the case.

Quote from Backdrifter

I've never been bothered about the musicianship thing, it's too often a red herring.

That is exclusively, when compared to other bands. I am really not fixated on that and it's not a pre-requisite of mine for liking an artist but when you think about other prog bands JT sound a bit rough around the edges.

Quote from Witchwood

Outside of Passion Play, I don't think Tull really fits the characterization of a progressive rock band.

They clearly have much more in common with folk hybrid bands like Strawbs, Traffic and Fairport Convention than with traditional prog bands like Yes and ELP.

I would tend to agree with you, the general audience though doesn't seem to agree with us, perhaps due to the fact they were active in that period, nor does incidentally the prog audience. I don't know the current status but Thick as a Brick was #1 in the poll of prog albums of all times for quite some time on Progarchives. The other bands were Genesis, Yes, VdGG, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, ELP, Rush and so on. I would also suggest that Brick was by all means intended as a Prog album by Anderson.

Quote from Squonk

I'm steppin' in 'ere to defend meself - PAPERLATE is brilliant!! Bought it as a single originally (4-track EP was it?) and the song has that trumpet chorus (I love a bit o' brass, me) and also I think it's just a bit different and one of a few reasons why I love Paperlate!

I really don't have a problem with anybody's choices, however, I am having a hard time imagining an article or a conversation going:' Genesis, the band famous for songs like Paperlate, Alone Tonight and Your own Special way'. But hey! More power to you, it can't be reiterated too often really: to each his own.

Quote from Merryman

Each to their own of course, and I know it's no one's place to judge anyone else's music taste and I don't mean to, indeed beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc., etc...

But "Alone Tonight"? Really?

And Paperlate??!!! As you said to each his own,

Quote from StillCan'tDance

As for Jethro Tull, I much prefer the name Robert Plant gave them: Jethro Dull.

I think Thick as a Brick is massively overrated, I don't really love Anderson's voice and the musicianship was subpar when compared to other Prog bands. Aqualung though, is imo a masterpiece.

Quote from Backdrifter

I agree TB became the alpha male and the one who fought most stubbornly for his own material. I don't know to what extent he became a purveyor of the poppier stuff when they became the more democratic trio. Though I have read things which indicate he was still a dominant writer, more so than the even-handed B/C/R song credits suggest. I read he was occasionally known for providing vocal demos at least up to Abacab, which might that he at least wrote vocal melodies, and that he wrote Keep It Dark (a favourite short-form one of mine) and Silver Rainbow, and the music if not the words of Hold On My Heart.

Well, he has always been quite self-reliant as a writer. He had the chords, the harmonies, the lyrics and the vocal lines too. There's a bit in the Making of the Shapes album video where he sings, in a weird falsetto, lyrics and melody to Home by The Sea to Phil. Kudos to Phil for keeping a straight face during the process. You are right though, he had done that before, stuff like One for the Vine were played to the group almost finished. The 4 man era is definitely Banks having a tight grip on the band, I would say that applies to ATTW3 too, then he released said grip a bit on Duke. As of Abacab Phil had become an asset to be reckoned with and he achieved equal status. Tony was smart, I would say, he probably realized the group couldn't go any further, particularly commercially with him in charge alone.

Quote from Blacksword

I tink the pop element of Geness really came from Tony. It was more his band than Phil's. I'm sure they were influenced by Phil's love of Motown and soul, but Banks was also a pop music fan and never really regarded Genesis as a prog rock band. I don't think they would have taken a commercial direction if Banks hadn't wanted to. Altough I would agree that by the time of Genesis (Shapes) Phil's solo success was winning the band a new generation of fans.

I agree on several accounts but not on the most important one.

Tony definitely took over after Peter left; with Steve and Phil still being considered junior members and not writing a lot, Mike being more of the collaborative writer, Tony was unchallenged and the most prolific writer. He certainly was a pop fan in his youth, while Peter and Phil had a great love for black music, Mike would lean more towards the Stones and Tony was a self-declared Beatles fan. Even when he wrote songs that might have been considered as pop i.e. Many too Many or Afterglow, although the latter is tricky, his lyrics were not in that purely pop department.

Tony has been often described by his band mates as irremovable, there's no way of making him do, something he doesn't want to to.

That said, there is absolute no indication in his work with the band, that the pop elements were coming from him. He often professed his love for long, proggy compositions, his work with the band backs that up and in fact, if you look at the songs, Mike was first letting some pop elements creep in.

Tony certainly became more collaborative, on Abacab almost every song was written by the band, except three and the key became how Phil reacted against Tony, meaning what vocal lines Phil was able to come up with, on top of the the chords layer Tony provided. Tony has often said he needed the others to edit him and learn to be more concise, left to his own devices he would always tend to wander off or ramble on. So no, I don't think the pop elements were mainly coming from him. Of the three writers in the band only one was a purely pop, R&B-ish writer and he got more visibility.

Quote from StillCan'tDance

I really can't agree that the band deliberately exploited Phil for commercial gain.

Tony and Mike have said many times that Phil's success did not affect how Genesis worked. I believe them.

When put in those terms, it sounds like something cynical and almost tacky and that was not my implication at all. Like other bands and artist coming from the 70s, Genesis had to decide what is it they wanted to do and be in the new decade and to be blunt: much as I love Tony and I consider him to be the soul and backbone of Genesis, I think he is incapable of doing anything different from what he does and is which I love admittedly but seems to evolve quite slowly. No one here has any way of knowing what they real intentions, conscious or less, were and I don't think statements to the press should be taken at face value, no pun intended. What you expected Mike and Tony to say? Time to cash in and let's exploit Phil? To me, it looks and sounds like Phil's success DID affect how Genesis worked, that, the changed music scene around them and probably the awareness they couldn't go on the way they always did. They simply needed a new direction and Phil for many reasons was the one who could provided. Just like Peter and his costumes, they needed a 'star' in order to accomplish that and a world-class, recognizable singer, something Mike understood later too with the Mechanics but Tony and Steve never did. Phil was suddenly that and they started planning carefully and working even harder then they did before. This is no clear evidence but imo, together with the material an indication that might prove a point, no morfe than that.

BTW Me and Virgil's last problem was whatever guitar solo it had

Quote from Blacksword

Jethro Tull were outselling Yes and ELP in the US by the mid 70's IIRC, Thick as a Brick went multi platinum in the US, and they were playing places like the LA Forum and MSG, from about 76 onward. Genesis did lag behind a little commercially, although I think they had quite a high profile in the 70's, because of all their connections and collaborations. It wasn't until they started releasing pop singles in the late 70's, that they really took off. Bands like Yes and Tull seemed more able to score hit singles with songs that were more repesentative of what they did on their albums, whereas Genesis often diluted their prog element to virtual non existence to score a hit.

Right, I forgot to mention JT, the point remains though, after over ten years of recording albums most of which critically acclaimed and some of those with a reasonable commercial success, they were not, at least commercially speaking, in the league of abovementioned bands. I don't remember when they broke even financially but it was quite late in their career . They survived Punk and with a new decade looming, it was time for them to sit down and rethink what they were doing, not simply go into a studio and do what they did. They a card to play, Phil and his newfound visibility. They obviously played it.

The Cinema Show is my #1

Quote from Backdrifter

While I don't believe they consciously sat down and actually planned to capitalise on the success of FV and then HIMBG, I completely agree that those solo successes gave the band some extra momentum due to the "Oh that's that band with him in" factor. But I tend to look at what happened before FV and Abacab. Certainly in the UK anyway, they'd had a steady series of top 10 albums then their first top 10 single with FYFM. Then came their first number 1 album in the UK with Duke, a second UK top 10 hit single with TIOA and a sizeable US single hit with Misunderstanding. This is all pre-FV and on the basis of those growing successes, I think the strategy was already in place to build on that with pushing harder through more touring and multiple single releases. PC's success helped them along with that.

Do you mean that on the 3SL tour they played arenas in the US for the first time? They'd been playing those sorts of venues in Europe for a few years before that.

Anyway, sorry, off-topic - cwah, that Supper's Ready's a bit overrated isn't it?

They were not struggling but compared with other prog bands such as Yes and ELP and I won't even bring up Pink Floyd, they were quite lagging behind in terms of fame, recognition and why not financial remuneration. You talk about Duke and its success in the UK and arguably Europe but Duke was over ten years after they started recording albums. Misunderstanding was, I seem to remember, a top 20 in the US and again we are talking about an over ten years build-up, kind of a slow burn isn't it? Anyway, nothing comparable with what happened afterwards, I would say. I can't say whether they did capitalize on Phil's success consciously or less but it really looks like they did, all evidence points to it and I see no evil in that. Again, I only object at times to the material, some songs but it something had to give. For the sake of our beautiful friendship I will pretend I didn't read the Supper's Ready bit ;.)

Quote from Backdrifter

I've never bought into this idea that with Abacab they aimed to capitalise on Collins's solo success. There was already greater simplicity in evidence on Duke yet it still had a very Genesis sound in some ways; Abacab sounded like a logical development of that, and the way they describe abandoning a load of material that was starting to sound too samey comes across to me as a band who were thinking clearly and, as many bands don't, recognised they were in danger of becoming a self-caricature. They've never seemed to me to be a band who'd consciously make that kind of move - "let's capitalise on his success".

By the way, regarding their decision to move away from their 'usual' sound - they're sometimes quoted as including "the tambourine on the chorus" as a trope they'd overused. When have they actually done that?

Illegal Alien was mentioned - musically I like it, but the lyrics and accent are horrible.

Obviously, I cannot possibly know what the real intentions of the band were but it does seem plausible and commercially smart. It is true that a greater simplicity was on display on Duke, at places, but not to Abacab level and if we accept the argument that they dumped the material they already had, in favor of a more direct approach, it would seem to validate the fact that were wasn't an evolution per se but a total departure , both sound and songs would seem to validate that.

After all, depending on whom you ask within the band, In the Air Tonight was discarded but suddenly they had no problem with Man on the Corner and we are absolutely in the same territory. They released Duke 3 years after W&W, then things suddenly accelerated: Abacab was released only a few months after FV and a year after Duke, a year later they released 3SL, where they payed arenas for the first time and a year after that Shapes. It was the right thing to do imo, they had to push , they had the momentum and that momentum was provided by Phil's success. Without it, all that pushing would have probably unjustified and moot. They were definitely thinking what to do and how to do it, for the first time accepting external input from the execs. I agree that they were at risk of becoming self-caricature and as such I applaud their decision. I would only maintain that perhaps due to the workload the quality, meaning the material suffered. The best songs on Abacab and Shapes together would imo make the definitive album of the 80s but on two separate albums they are, for my money too little.

Quote from PhillyBoy

Yes, everything changed after the success of ‘Face Value’. Genesis became Phil’s band. Hurrah!!

Quote from PhillyBoy

Yes, everything changed after the success of ‘Face Value’. Genesis became Phil’s band. Hurrah!!

Sure…..

Quote from StillCan'tDance

With Who Dunnit? I could understand someone saying that about No Reply At All (they'd be wrong but I'd understand someone making that error) but not with Who Dunnit. I've always heard more of Tony in that song than Phil, to be honest.

Nope: the capitalizing part is clear with the streamlined and more straightforward approach in songwriting of Abacab released soon after Face Value and a year after Duke and how hard and fast they pushed in the following years with albums and tours.

The strategizing is represented by the unprecedented move of asking a record executive about which songs to include on the album, I don't remember it was only about Whodunit, it was more of a general discussion in which Ertegun suggested to include 'that thing' on it.

Yes, it was Tony's. Apparently Phil and Mike agreed to record it to shut him up.

Quote from StillCan'tDance

As for record executives dictating the direction Genesis took in the eighties, the only evidence to support that is Ahmet's insistence that they include "that" song (as he called it) on the album. That's hardly a damning indictment of the band buckling under. More like respecting the opinion of a man who was rightly revered in the industry. RIP Ahmet, we won't see the likes of him again.

As for Phil's comment about wanting to get songs on the radio, he was only repeating what both Mike and Tony have said at various points.

Not damning at all, just an episode marking the difference and a departure from the the previous policy or MO. I think they were trying to capitalize on Phil's success, his voice, his drums sound and in doing that they strategized which they clearly didn't do before.

As for Kiss the frog, not a good one but considering the masterpiece of the album, I am inclined to be lenient

Quote from StillCan'tDance

I was being sarcastic about those longer pieces!

Seriously, though, as Phil points out in his excellent autobiography, Tony and Mike wrote songs that they wanted to get on the radio. They came from a time when you could switch on the radio and hear The Kinks, The Who, The Beatles and The Animals, all of whom wrote great songs that got a lot of radio play. And right from the get-go they released singles as unlikely as The Knife and Watcher Of The Skies (indeed they made a version of the latter specifically for the singles market). As they progressed, they simply got better at writing shorter songs which meant that eventually they got the radio play that they'd coveted for so long. Once you get good at something, you're bound to do it more often, which is why in the latter half of their career, the shorter songs dominated over the longer pieces.

Sarcastic? You? No wonder I didn't get it Joking aside though, I heard and read Phil saying that a few times but I have a hard time buying it. It seems a bit defensive of him to me. While I am sure that they would have relished having more recognition or comercial success, if you will and certainly the radio was a whole different beast in the 70s, they increasingly wrote songs that made it really difficult for them to be played on the radio, even when there was a wider attention span. When there was a song with some chances of being played, like I know what I like, they were quite ambivalent about it. Peter said they were worried about its obvious single potential, adding also how dumb that was. I remember reading how happy they were on Trespass to have escaped Jonathan King's grip who basically forced them to write some singles which was clearly not what they wanted to do. They recorded the whole SEBTP without even a single music executive checking in. Fast forward to the 80s and I am more inclined to believe Phil's version. With a decade of records under their belt, they were still not a major act. On Abacab they consulted with Ahmet Ertegun which songs ought to be included on the album. Word is we have Ahmet to thank for the inclusion of Whodunnit. Be as it may, this signals a major change in attitude. I believe Tony, after Phil's and Mike's success must have been itching to do something similar. He had always been after all the backbone of Genesis and imho the most gifted songwriter within the band but perhaps he is simply not a good pop writer. I personally find stuff like Illegal Alien and Anything she does quite bad.

Quote from StillCan'tDance

Like Home By The Sea, Domino, Fading Lights, Dreaming While You Sleep, The Brazilian, Driving The Last Spike...

Home by the sea without the instrumental is quite radio-friendly, in fact in the beginning I though it was Mike's given the similarity with Silent Running, I found out much later it was Tony's. A case could be made for Dreaming while you sleep but The Brazilian like any instrumental doesn't stand much of a chance on the radio. The others are simply too long or too complex or both. Not that they are overly intricate but simply too much for the radio.

Quote from Backdrifter

Orifice of Hades.

Dark prog?