Posts by Fabrizio

    I thought Nic said they were rehearsing Abacab at one point? Even if I am recalling that correctly it dosen’t necessarily mean that Abacab made it into the final show. One thing to keep in mind tho is that while it’s been 35 years since they played abacab, that was only 2 tours ago for this lineup of Genesis (3 if you include CAS). And of all the “long dead” songs that Genesis could revive, Abacab is pretty likely because it was a hit (peaking at #9 in the UK & #26 in the US)

    You are right, everything is on the table and any song could be revived. I was always surprised they dropped Abacab, speaking of openers it could be one, it's an obvious live number, it was a minor hit and fans, seems to like it, not me, I've always thought there's nothing to it and it wore out its questionable charm pretty quickly. One redeeming quality was Phil's vocals, he was in top form and could sing the telephone book back then. It's different now of course.

    Invisible Touch strikes me as a possibility for an opening song. It's upbeat and well-known, so while various of us on this board might groan inwardly, much of the audience might be energized. Phil was also doing it on his recent tour, so we know he was comfortable singing it (in a lower key).

    True, IT could be an opener and true again that would be much to the dismay of many fans. I reckon though it doesn't really matter anymore. It's their last go at it, people should just enjoy it.

    Fair assessment, but then what is your opinion about an opening song?

    Something upbeat and energetic that grabs the audience immediately and get them to jump up. No nuances, no build up , like Domino. it generally is something in your face. As far as Genesis are concerned, as usual leaving personal preferences aside, something like Land of Confusion does the job or TIOA, even something that I particularly dread, like Abacab would be a better opener and certainly the intro to Behind the lines. As a matter of fact, given the state of Phil's voice, I hope they heavily rely on instrumental stuff.

    It's quite an interesting topic and not an easy one to sort out, particularly trying to leave personal preferences aside. I don't think for instance that their peak live necessarily coincided with the albums and their songwriting. I loved the 3SL period for instance, I saw them live and they were bristling with an energy they didn't have before but without being sloppy. Phil's singing was stellar and he still hadn't abandoned his drum set. Still, I think Abacab was one of their weakest albums. Album-wise I think we can all agree that unlike other historic bands, Genesis don't have a definitive album. They had incredible streaks though. If we take SEBTP, The Lamb and Trick, three albums that constantly rank at the top in any poll, they are all quite different one from another. Trick for instance, my personal favorite is probably their most even album, the material is strong but there isn't any Cinema Show, Supper's Ready or The Musical Box on it. If I were to try and make the two areas converge and align, I would probably agree that the Duke period and subsequent tour would be' ''It''. Solid songwriting, excellent album, great performances, very energetic but still retaining the spirit and magic of yore. Phil still an unbelievable drummer but also a world class vocalist, probably for the first time. I saw those Lyceum gigs on YouTube and they are just wonderful, they close a decade and a chapter on a very high note.

    That's the 80s for you! :)

    GENESIS is something else though. I've emptied our dustbins with more care than they took to choose that cover.

    A 5 year old using crayons would have rejected it on the basis it betrayed a distinct lack of care.

    I agree, if with IT it looks like they made some effort but their mind was somewhere else, with Shapes it looks like they couldn't even be bothered.

    I also think Ray was NOT the wrong choice. Longdon’s voice is, in my opinion, a bit thin and less characteristic.

    Without wanting to push the Longdon thing any longer, it's moot, while I can agree that Ray's voice has more character, I cannot possibly agree with Longdon's voice being thin. Listen to his vocals on BTT's album, he has a far broader range than Ray who is a quite stiff, monochormatic singer. He relies a lot on his natural tone which is great and lower tones, a bit like Peter if you would but Peter has always had the ability t cut loose, something Ray doesn't have, as Tony pointed out when he said that more could have been done with some songs.

    My concern would be if Longdon ended up getting the Genesis gig and they just recorded that one album, David would forever be an ignoble footnote in the history of Genesis and carrying a lot of baggage.

    Would BBT have even hired him? With Nick d'Virgilio as the drummer, half the fans attending BBT shows would be baying for songs off CAS.

    While I agree Mike and Tony made the wrong choice, I am very happy with the way things unfolded with them selecting Ray instead.

    I think the world is a better place with David being musically unfettered in BBT.

    I think BBT would have been happy with any Genesis "reject" but I see your point. Ultimately no singer would have altered the fate of that album, without Phil their commercial appeal was gone, no matter what and I think you are right, Genesis have had their say and what a say it was. Let's just appreciate BBT.

    Totally agree. I'm a huge fan of that album. I've spouted off before on what a shame it is how things didn't work out. Suffice to say, I think they had a lot of potential, of which there was plenty of evidence in the CAS material, and a second album would have been so interesting.

    I like the album fine, not crazy about it, to this day though, I wonder whether Ray was the right choice. Don't get me wrong, I like his voice and he did a good job but I hear it came down to either him or David Longdon and after having heard David with Big Big Train, I would have definitely preferred him. Also, I have the feeling, after having heard Ray's solo career and David's contribution to the band, he would have been a better fit in the songwriting department.

    All Genesis members contributed significantly in making Tony's music better with perhaps the only exception of Steve but just because Tony never gave him the chance to be more than the layer on he cake, he would bake. When Steve was given a chance, he more than chipped in. IMO he never had two singers as good as Peter and Phil and that is crucial. Still, as every member, including the manager, at one point or another have stated, Tony is the only one the band could not be dispensed with, if we are talking about the musical essence of the band. I appreciate your point on ACF and to an extent I share it, I still maintain the material per se, is very strong, he should have allowed more external input to bring it to life, just like Mike did with Smallcreep's day.

    Though that doesn't explain a large portion of what he's done beyond Genesis.

    I'd say, at times, he tried to do something different and didn't succeed. I find ACF great but imo it was a mistake not to have other musicians on it, apart from Chester and Beacon, who thought was OK but not great. A real guitarist, with some real guitar parts and a bass player would have made a difference.

    Interesting. To me, that's not a good thing. When a band member does solo stuff I'm not interested in it sounding like the band they're from, I wouldn't see the point of that. I like it when a solo outing completely departs from the band's output.

    Anyway it's moot with ACF as I really don't like it. For me it's like the dullest elements of the 4-man era - my least favourite Genesis phase - watered down.

    That's Tony Banks with his strengths, many and weaknesses, some. He does what he does and he cannot do anything else. What he does, incidentally makes up a large part of what Genesis is. I always have to smile when I read about CAS not sounding like Genesis, only because Phil isn't on it. Like Tony and Mike, together can produce anything different than Genesis, in fact, I doubt they could even if they tried. I personally think the 4 man era was excellent, Trick, to very good, Wind but I'm happy it was brief as it was spiraling into blandness and that mainly because Tony was too much in control.

    I have a vastly differing view.

    I can think of six Genesis albums that I would choose A Curious Feeling over.

    To me, ACF is the closest any solo release ever came to sounding like Genesis.

    And there are at least close to half a dozen individual tracks from other albums of Tony's that I think would have been among the highlights if they initially appeared on certain Genesis albums.

    Personally, I'd choose ACF over Abacab, at least the half of Shapes, IT, WCD and CAS any day.

    I know TB is central to Genesis, but there is not a single song from his solo career I would place above the lowest Genesis track. Maybe, *maybe* something like Queen of Darkness over Hold on my Heart. I find the overwhelming majority of his solo work doesn't really sound 'like' Genesis. I think most of it would have been rejected by Mike and Phil.

    A bit harsh perhaps, several songs on ACF are imo at Genesis level, in fact most of them, were written for Genesis but I would agree that Tony's solo career was somehow disappointing, considering his talent. I've always thought of him as a musician who gets a 90% there; he has the chords, the melodies, the lyrics but he obviously depends on a singer and he never had a singer as good as Peter or Phil. Also he is not a very flexible artist, he does what he does and what he does is excellent but don't expect him to step out of his comfort zone or explore which keeps him from being edgy imo. As talented as he is I think he works best in a band context. I think he needs someone who helps him simplifying or simply argues with him to edit him, both Phil and Peter were helpful in that department.