Posts by Fabrizio

    It's a little preachy but otherwise I think you proved what I was trying to say perfectly!

    Preachy would entail some sort if intensity or even passion which is completely absent from those lyrics, it's just perfunctory generic, like talking about the weather and glib, although not remotely as glib as way of the world. Musically there's nothing there for me, it's sounds like absent-minded Beatles.

    ok, maybe rousing triumph is a little bit of an overstatement, let’s say really solid effort instead.

    I really struggle to see it as a solid effort, it's imo a quite tired, uneven, rather self complacent, end and middle of road album which is OK, considering, as someone pointed out that it was their 14th studio record. It's unlikely that an artist or a band with a 3 decade spanning career will produce their best effort at the end of their long run. I look at the ranking and the first three songs are arguably the best ones, the others have no particular relevance in the Genesis songbook, some of them are IMO. quite weak.

    Recently, I played the "Shapes" album a lot. Still not in my Top 3, but this has grown a lot over time. Especially Silver Rainbow and Just A Job To Do

    Side A of that album, to me epitomizes what Genesis could or should have been like in the 80s, particularly after the partial, personal disappointment of Abacab. Side B is, I would say objectively, you never know though, weaker. I do sometimes listen to it but eventually nothing really sticks for me. Yes, Silver Rainbow is nice but not much more than that. Phil's singing is premium, throughout the album.

    I can see where you're coming from on that, and certainly as an introduction to the suite, I love Behind the Lines. I certainly think that Misunderstanding is a nice statement of intent for an alternate Duke, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that you could put the Suite on Side One, and then the rest on Side Two - the only issue for me there is that you then run into the problem of having Travel's/End on Side One, when that's a fantastic closer. It would feel wrong for me to go from Travel's/End into something else.

    As a song, even taken separately from Duchess and then the Guide Vocal coda and without really touching personal preferences, BTL would IMO still be better as an opener, in fact I would say there are at least two songs which would be better suited than Misunderstanding, again without debating the value or merits of the songs: MOOT and TIOA. Misunderstanding is an obvious single but I believe would fall quite flat opening an album. An opening song ideally, should be something you can begin a gig with and I don't believe Misunderstanding has what it takes.

    Yes, their bravest. ATOTT was in many ways (apart from losing the lead singer) a

    Continuation. Abacab was a Full stop and restart. It’s probably their most controversial album ....

    I beg to differ and it doesn't have to do with my preferences. First of all, losing the lead singer can NEVER be minimized. The tone of the articles at that time is clear testimony of that. Genesis were done, as far as the medias were concerned. Peter was not only the singer, he was the main focus of attention and, after the Lamb he had established himself as the leader of the band, Banks notwithstanding. In a band with more than a writer and lyricist, he single-handedly decided the story, the lyrics and the set the tone which is definitely grittier than previous albums. In a nutshell, he decided the ''direction'' of the band, as music critics at the time put it. If anything Trick might be considered as a continuation of SEBTP, they return to known themes and are again very British, in that sense it is a clear departure from the Lamb. Be as it may, the mere fact they decided to go on, knowing the risks involved, is imo incredibly brave. As for Abacab, I just don't like it, that's known but not to the point to deny its importance, more than ''brave'', a couple of songs are just too easy listening and mainstream to be considered brave, I would define it as ''necessary''. It had to be done.

    Chester has literally said that since his conversion he's more uncomfortable around certain behaviours.


    But I guess well established and verifiable facts are "a stretch".


    Gotcha.

    Gotcha? Verify this fact; all the others who witnessed Phil's outburst, were much more comfortable with it than Chester with it, because, you know... He's a Christian, they are faithless pagans and that allows us to immediately gauge Chester's level of outrage vis a vis these behaviors, also clearly establishing that he is automatically more upset than non believers. And you know that for a fact. Please...You are clearly either not getting my point or choose to ignore it, whichever way, pointless for me to continue.

    To be clear, I fully understood you are not criticizing either Phil or Chester, I just feel you are broaching topics that simply don't belong in the debate and are in fact a stretch.

    I reckon that in every work environment, when someone starts being verbally abusive, kicking and throwing things around, EVERYBODY is bound to feel uncomfortable, particularly when it's out of character, their faith or lack thereof has nothing to do with it.

    The idea that Chester, as a born again christian should be more upset than others when confronted with this kind of behavior, is again a stretch, not only we don't know that but it seems to suggest that religious people are paragons of morals, virtue, sobriety, decency and manners and let's be frank here, we all know they are not.

    You might of course disagree with my statement, the moment we begin to discuss that though, we are increasingly veering away from the topic and that's why, as I said before, it's beside the point and neither here, nor there.

    What Chester believes in, just like his race, bears absolutely no relevance here.

    I absolutely love the title track, it's one of the most 'live' sounding studio tracks they have. Phil's vocals are almost snarling and the pulsing interplay between the instruments is like a knife thrusting in and out. Very energetic and inventive.


    Bigger issue... the scope of what different fans love is a *huge* draw for me in Genesis. There are very few big bands that cover the range of tastes they do.

    Yet, for some reason they don't play it live, by the WCD tour they had already dropped it from the setlist, just like the rest of the album and unlike some recent or newer era Genesis stuff it gets absolutely no playtime on the radio. I think with that song they tried to recreate something a-la TIOA and for my money they didn't succeed. As I always said fans like what they like and it's a good thing but time puts songs and albums in perspective. As I said Phil was vocally on fire on that album and tried hard to infuse some energy into filler stuff like AR and LION. Another one I have problems with is No reply at all and obviously Paperlate. I love Tony, he's the soul, backbone and cornerstone of the band but he is a purely British, quite stiff, classical music influenced player and songwriter. EW&F, another band I adore and Tony have really nothing in common, to me it just sounds cringeworthy but again lots of energy there.

    I agree about Phil's vocals here, 81 - 83 I think was his peak both vocals and drumming. I was born in 1981 so I have no direct experience unfortunately!


    As for Abacab, it has an oddly anonymous quality in that it is sandwiched between albums with more celebrated tracks like Behind The Lines and Turn It On Again on one side and Mama, That's All and Home By The Sea on the other, than anything on Abacab. Maybe that keeps it a little fresher in my mind. I enjoy the off-kilter nature of Keep It Dark and Another Record.

    KID stands out imo, so do MASJ and Dodo, I think MOC is a pleasant listen but nothing more than that, the rest is forgettable in my book, even the title track that should be a highlight, at least live but the band dropped altogether. It's probably the only modern era album whose songs never get performed live and personally I can understand why.

    Abacab is a great grower isn't it? There's something about it that keeps me coming back. I think it's more exploratory than the albums either side of it, the production is sparser and there's an energy in the musicianship that isn't always present in Genesis. For example, WCD which I very much like hasn't got the same punch throughout.

    I feel exactly the same about Abacab, only I get to a different conclusion. Ever once in a while I give the album a chance, something draws to it: the energy, the novelty, the production, the crisp sound. It is imo, together with Shapes, Phil's absolute vocal peak, I've always maintained that at the time he was one of the best vocalists around, including much more celebrated figures like Bono and Sting. I saw them live and he was a force of nature, not always the case before and after that period. Anyway, when I'm done listening to Abacab and I break it down, I inevitably have to conclude that I'm spite of all its redeeming qualities the material is quite weak when compared to all previous albums with the only possible exception of ATTW3. Very few songs stood, imo the test of time and have particular significance in their songbook.

    I don't see why it is a stretch when it is well documented that Chester became a "born again Christian" in 1980 and due to his beliefs he doesn't indulge in the booze, women or "foul language" that tend to pervade the music scene. What he seems to be saying in the Rolling Stone interview is that Phil's behaviour on that last tour they did was unusual, in part caused by Phil's abuse of alcohol around the time, and it made Chester feel uncomfortable.


    There's nothing sinister there. I do feel sad that Chester probably played drums in more Genesis shows than any other drummer, and really hasn't always been recognised by the guys. They don't fool around and have fun with him like they do Daryl. But ultimately all it proves is that all of the guys are human, none is perfect.

    I could probably address your implication that religious people are more offended by indulgence in booze, foul language and women, who I'm sure would be thrilled to be lumped in this generalization, than those who are not religious, for the utter fallacy it is....Except, I don't want to and I don't think I should, it's neither here, nor there. I don't know whether Chester is religious or less, I don't know how deep his faith is, again, it's neither here, nor there. Phil, whom I trust nobody on this forum knows well or at all, had a rough period and less than stellar behaviors and suddenly we find out he always had a temper, we want to make sure he isn't a racist and that his behavior is kosher enough not to offend religious sensitivity, whatever that is. Yes, I do believe it's a stretch and we should perhaps not read too much into it. As for the guys not hanging around with Chester as much as they did with Daryl, couldn't it be just a matter of chemistry? Steve was in the band for 7 years and to this day, you can tell he didn't fit in as well as Phil. I don't see why that should be taken as a sign of imperfection on either side.

    Ok, I feel the conversation is going a bit off the rails. Granted, it wasn't Phil's finest hour and yes, he was probably drinking too much and and going through some challenging things which ended up affecting his behavior. He lashed out inappropiately which can happen but suddenly there are talks of him having a temper, something never reported before and racism is being mentioned. Again, I don't know him, I feel the need to reiterate this because some of the comments I read here lead me to think that some people are close to him but the way he carried himself throughout the years would really seem to rule out that his outbursts were racially motivated or tinged. Again, Kudos to Chester for taking the higher ground and too bad, there hasn't been at least a call between the two. That said, let's be honest, we've only heard one side of the story and we really cannot know.

    ^ I just tried reading a synopsis of it. It banged on about sorcery, Don Juan and warriors or something. I read the synopsis twice and nothing stuck, it was like breathing on a window pane. I'm pretty sure there was no mention of horses made of sand though.

    I did the same and I agree, I just reported something I know I read decades ago and it was a different time, nowadays you can doublecheck everything within seconds.

    Long ago, in an Italian music magazine, Tony, during an interview said that the lyrics to MMM were based on Carlos Castaneda's novel Eagle's Gift. At the time, I was so enthralled by the song that I vowed to look for the book, I never did, I was 15, I think and had better or more entertaining things to do. I browsed the internet, looking for references to that old interview and couldn't find any, either in English or Italian but I do remember reading about it, how trustworthy the journalist was, I couldn't say.