This has officially given me a fit of the giggles. It sounds like something from a "progressive band" version of Spinal Tap.
Just take a look at the titles on Hemispheres by Rush. We are absolutely in that very same territory.
Posts by Fabrizio
-
-
I could never imagine "Silent Sorrow in Empty Boats" or "Ravine" being played in concert outside of the whole album being performed...
I could actually but only as part of an instrumental medley not as stand alone tracks.
-
i'm not crazy about afterglow. i find it a bit flat, and it lacks an instrumental section to breathe. nevertheless, i think it works well as a live number.
I think an instrumental section is lacking on Undertow and perhaps on Heathaze, because I think the songs were written with this structure in mind which is typical of Tony. Particularly on the former you can hear how it was edited and the song suffers a lot but Afterglow, whether one likes it or less wasn't imo conceived in that way and of course he could have squeezed an instrumental section in but just like Many too Many the song works fine without it and doesn't require it.
-
I still cannot understand why this album does not click with fans
Specially when Genesis left their proggier side when Hackett left. 
This album is dated I know and the start of what was great. It reminds me of bands like the Beatles & Stackridge.
I play this album probably 5 times a year as with with other Hackett/Phillips era Genesis.
Speaking for myself, the problem I have with this album is not as much that it is outdated, Trespass is too but I love it, I simply have a hard time considering it a Genesis album. Some of their typical elements surface faintly but in general there is no identity there and the fact they were very young is only part of the problem because that again, would apply to Trespass too. No, they were consciously trying to cater for somebody else's taste, possibly Jonathan King's and in doing so they were nor really themselves. You can hear Peter for instance trying different vocal styles on the record, on Trespass, he is simply himself, lack of experience and all, but himself..
I must say, I never understood how some fans can claim they abandoned prog after Steve left and some even saying because he left. It seems highly inaccurate to me. I never had the feeling that Steve got to decide or steer the band's course, in fact, I seem to remember he left because he felt shortchanged, and underused both as a player and as a writer which btw. was true. Whatever happened with band after he left, would have most likely happened anyway. It would have been his choice to be a part of it or less but again, I don't think he would have gotten the chance to determine anything.
-
No. 2
The Musical Box
I love the slow build-up, that adrenaline-pumping exchange between the guitar and organ at the start of the climax, the unique sounds of the guitar during the solo, and that powerful ending.
Absolute perfection.
To this day, this song fascinates me. They worked on it a long time with Ant and then Steve and Phil came on board and instantly made their mark. Possibly, Peter's first great vocal performance with the group. I read someone saying on this very forum that the song did nothing for him up until the ending but, and I don't mean to sound patronizing, I would suggest to listen harder, you are missing out. This is Genesis at their best.
-
Number 2 for me would be the Musical Box and I don't really have much to say about it. Pure magic.
-
I have a soft spot for Paul's rendition of Long Tall Sally and John's version of Mr. Postman.
-
The Beatles, as we know them, wouldn't have existed without either John or Paul, so IMO you can't choose one over the other...and since they're a two-headed monster, if you remove either head the monster dies...which is what eventually happened to the Beatles. Once the split happened, the solo career that meant the most to me was Paul's. I don't like my music to be politically motivated, and that was the path John chose for his solo career. Love 'em both though.
Solo careers are a whole different thing and imho John has pretty much squandered his. A couple of good albums and handful of good song but for my money that's about it and it is a crying shame. I don't mind an artist being political, as long as he is sincere and there is some coherence and imo John was neither. One might argue that Paul was too often….harmless but he did what he did and was rightly unapologetic about it. As for John&Paul with the Beatles, I would agree it is difficult to pick one over another, I find myself defending either when someone makes a definitive call in that area. It's not difficult considering the songs both wrote. I would venture that John was instrumental in becoming successful, he was a true original and a bit far off, whereas Paul was perhaps more conventional. In return, I would perhaps say that Paul was crucial in keeping that success, he was imo the most gifted musician in the group and although different from John an equally gifted songwriter. Ultimately though, they needed each other to compete and give their best and they kept each other in check, something they missed sorely in their solo careers.
-
So, since we are talking about them, perhaps and just for fun, someone can answer the Question I personally am unable to answer, at least when it concerns their tenure in the band: John or Paul? And why?
-
And for me, neither is R9. However much intent Lennon may have had about any 'meaning', like any track once it's out there it's up to the audience. For it to be an Emperor's New Clothes job it would have to have been revered by many as a deep artistic statement. I honestly don't know if it has been.
Fair point.
-
Regardless of how anyone feels about "Revolution 9," I can't say I blame them. I used to look down on it myself, mostly because that seemed to be the expected reaction.
Isn't in a way what happened with Whodunnit? It was released as a sort of annoying, obnoxious joke and it was broadly received in that way , except, some fans ended up liking it. My point there would be, and it applies to Revolution#9 too, are we fans over-indulgent in a way? Would we give songs like these even a remote chance if they hadn't a certain name stamped on it? To me, songs like these are a clear example of emperor's new clothes. They are what they are, nothing else and nothing more, even when the Beatles or Genesis wrote them.
-
BTWn, I've heard a couple of John's early albums with Yoko. Compared to those, R9 is an absolute masterpiece.
No argument there
-
In a way I think you've raised an interesting question about its artistic merit. Ian McDonald suggests it was an artistic achievement in being possibly the most commercially widely distributed piece of abstract art ever. It'd be interesting to know how many copies ever got past a single play. I disagree that appreciating it or arguing for its possible artistic merits takes anything away from appreciation of Lennon as a songwriter or does any injustice to his status as such. Indeed as a sound collage would we even count it as a 'song', rather think of its possible artistic merit in context of what you said, ie the boldness of slapping it on a Beatles album?
I gather McCartney, lover of Stockhausen and musique concrete, and prime architect of the infamous Carnival of Light, was away and had no involvement in its creation, and wasn't too pleased to find it had been done and his name as usual co-credited.
By McDonald's criteria Yoko too is an abstract artist, she had her fair share of visibility, commercial distribution and exposure at that time with her….Music and her ...Art, but it was the 60' and by now we know for sure she is and always have been a con artist. Sure you can be abstract, when you know what you are doing, you master a medium and can allow yourself the luxury of going beyond that medium. That doesn't apply to Yoko though and alas to John either. I see that track as a massive exercise in self-indulgence. The Beatles were practically music gods and it was quite hard to say No to anything they wanted to do. Acknowledging it for anything different than what it is, namely one really off is imo doing John and his legacy a disservice but hey, I never said nobody can possibly like it. I would just object to taking it seriously.
No, Paul wasn't pleased because I think he saw it for what it was , basically a travesty and also clearly Yoko making her mark on a Beatles album but as I said, any possibility of collaboration was gone be then. John fancying himself Stockhausen resented stuff like Martha my Dear and Obladi Oblada and even if he might have had a point, those too were self-indulgent, at least one of them knew where they came from and what they were about, without illusions of being something else or more than por-rock musicians
In a way I think you've raised an interesting question about its artistic merit. Ian McDonald suggests it was an artistic achievement in being possibly the most commercially widely distributed piece of abstract art ever. It'd be interesting to know how many copies ever got past a single play. I disagree that appreciating it or arguing for its possible artistic merits takes anything away from appreciation of Lennon as a songwriter or does any injustice to his status as such. Indeed as a sound collage would we even count it as a 'song', rather think of its possible artistic merit in context of what you said, ie the boldness of slapping it on a Beatles album?
I gather McCartney, lover of Stockhausen and musique concrete, and prime architect of the infamous Carnival of Light, was away and had no involvement in its creation, and wasn't too pleased to find it had been done and his name as usual co-credited.
-
I like the audacity of R9.
Just my opinion. but the only think bold about it, is slapping it on a Beatles album. It could have been titled Revolution#8 and have whole different sounds and atmosphere and it it would have been the same…...Equally audacious. It was basically John AND Yoko goofing around. That said, if you like listen to it it's quite OK but let's not kid ourselves into believing there's some sort of artistic merit to it. We would do no justice to one of the greatest songwriters ever.
-
It's a complex piece of music. Never one for easy time sigs, Hackett's intro must be a nightmare for guitar enthusiasts to master. Just try humming verse and chorus, let alone singing along - you need quite a vocal range to make it to the end. In short, if you had to do a Genesis song at a karaoke evening, you wouldn't choose this one. Steve certainly doesn't attempt it at his gigs, hunched over his guitar, muttering along to his masterpiece while his session staff do the hard bit.
Love the song but I would dispute is a tough one to sing. Genesis have much more difficult songs for vocalists both in the PG's and PC's eras. It requires expression and color more than range, the verse is quite easy to deliver and the chorus doesn't strike me as particularly hard, in fact, I would argue it is probably the easiest song to sing on that album, barred perhaps Afterglow. Steve cannot sing it obviously, but that's really no measure.
-
..."Revolution 9" would be somewhere in the top half, along with many of John's other tracks.
I simply hate that track and it is one of the reason why I hate Yoko. She had nothing to do with the band break-up obviously, it is ludicrous to even consider that. They were simply drifting apart as people do, but somehow she managed to convince John, he could be something different or more than a pop-rock artist and as much as I love John, he clearly couldn't. Bear in mind at the time I even managed to listen twice to the B-Side of the Plastic Ono band Live in Toronto. This is how much I wanted to like his stuff. John has some really strong moments on the White Album, imo stronger than Paul's in general but that track is simply pretentious Nothing and the beginning of a Lennon I could have lived without: the, out of his league and unprepared, wannabe, vanguard artist, the self-styled and quite insincere working class hero, the politically and extremely glib and uncoherent engaged artist and so on. The White album, like any double album is imo a mixed bag but the remarkable feature of that album is John and Paul, stopped collaborating and competing. Without that competition and collaboration they started descending a bit into self-indulgence, and while in general I like John's songs better than Paul's on that album Revolution#9 is a clear example of that
-
Number 3 is Supper's Ready for me. The song that got me hooked up on Genesis, together with Peter's voice.
-
While My Guitar Gently Weeps, which I find a bit tedious and quite pompous in the way some GH songs could be.
This one is quite surprising. Personally, I think it is probably George's best song ever and one of the Beatles' best.
-
The piccolo trumpet solo is indeed sublime and I gather McCartney sang it to the player to show what he wanted.
Apparently he literally hummed it to the player and the same with the solo on For No one.
-
Display More
James Bond - You Only Live Twice, Thunderball & Goldfinger
.
Been going over some of James Bond's catologue.. Starting with Sean Connery..... Though You Only Live Twice is not one of my favourite from the bond movies.
Thunderball is probably one of my favourite movies from Sean Connery. The Avro Vulcan is one of my favourite aircraft ever which was in this film.
I always wait for Christmas to unleash my inner child and have a full Bond-Marathon. From Sean to Daniel...…..I've been expecting you, Mr. Bond.....
