Posts by drw4d

    That's a really good interpretation. I still find it odd. Once we reach a "certain age" (cough, cough), we all look back at things we said, did, etc., at different points in our lives. And while we might cringe in certain instances, the reality is that history is not revisionist, i.e., we acted in a way that was consistent with who we were at that point in our lives. That doesn't make it any less valuable and shouldn't be looked down at as who we are today is the cumulative sum of those experiences. That's way too off-topic lol.

    I think that's a really valuable lesson, yes. But there's a difference between recognizing the value of what was done in the past, and reliving what you've done in the past by hanging out with it every night.


    I certainly know that my first marriage and subsequent divorce contributed to who I am today (and hopefully helped make me a better husband this second time around). But I have no interest in hanging out with my ex-wife. Similarly, I'm sure the band can see the way certain songs were really influential in their growth as artists and as a band. But that doesn't mean they have any desire to play some of those songs ever again. And I don't blame them for that.

    I watched the APT video this AM, and first, at the very least, it took the terrible taste of that awful Reelz "doc" out of my mouth. This was a nice little look at the tour, and how it came together. I'm glad to have been able to see it.


    I wasn't sure what I was expecting out of this. Would it make me want to finally buy tickets for one of the Chicago shows, or make me even more okay with not having bought tickets yet? In the end, a little of both.


    I really want to see that stage show! They usually put an amazing stage and lighting rig together, and they make it work with the songs incredibly well, and this looks pretty amazing. I would LOVE to see that.


    On the other hand, I don't need to see this version of Phil sing those songs. As others have said above, he's just not sounding great. Maybe by the time of the actual shows, it'll be fine. But I'd rather the 2007 shows I saw be the last memory I have of seeing them live. And based on what we think the set list will mostly be comprised of, that's not much of a draw for me either. Who knows; maybe in a few weeks, when we know the actual set, there'll bee a few great surprises, but I'm not really counting on it.


    I hope it's amazing. I hope that I hear such great things about it that I really regret not going, or that I hear it early enough that I do get tickets. I hope.

    As MoonlitKnight said, you're actually not too far off. Actors with terrible wigs and mustaches. And that one scene was pretty much "Tony", "Mike", and "Phil" standing around while "Hugh" stood in the doorway. Just painful.



    Not far off lol. Worst part is I was visiting my 83 year old father. I mentioned this doc about my favorite band was on and I wouldn’t mind watching it. He said “sure” and we both regretted it. I kept telling him “this isn’t their music playing in the background. Their music is much better.” When the show finished he muttered “Thank God that’s over” and turned on the news lol.

    Exactly! I turned it on while my wife was in the room, and while I knew she wasn't really paying attention, I felt the need to keep defending my fandom of this band that was being portrayed in this really schlocky way. She knew it was terrible, but I sort of felt the need to apologize for it anyway.

    New documentary out Sunday-

    https://themusicuniverse.com/r…sic-documentary-festival/


    On Sunday, August 15th at 9 pm ET/6 pm PT Genesis: Breaking the Band former lead guitarist Steve Hackett shares his first-hand experiences of the band’s incredible success, the story behind his departure and witnessing the clashes between singer Peter Gabriel and drummer Phil Collins that would spawn their remarkable solo careers.


    Looks fun!

    "Fun" is a really generous way to describe this. I watched it last night, and cringed most of the way through. From the bad, completely non-Genesis music throughout, to the terrible "reenactments" of scenes, to really hyping up the dissension within the band, it was just bad. Dee Snider, who can actually be a good narrator with the right project, was a terrible fit for this; crazy aggressive tone the whole way through.


    Steve and Richard Macphail were the most prominent voices. Mike's voice was almost non-existent, while Peter, Tony, and Phil were all tiny clips from really old interviews.


    I was surprised to learn that the fox's head and red dress were first seen in Paris at the Bataclan ... which gives you an idea of how accurate the whole things was.


    They have a concept all about "Breaking the Band." And they're going to tape bits and pieces of a story together, in order to create a narrative that fits that concept. My advice ... if you haven't watched it yet, don't waste your time. But that's just my 2 cents.

    Keep It Dark iirc?

    Yes, I'm just now watching (for the n-teenth time) the Mama Tour. Darryl is certainly playing the guitar parts on that.


    What's interesting (maybe only to me) is that Mike is also playing a guitar, but as he does on the next song, It's Gonna Get Better, he's playing the bass line on it. I started a different thread when I noticed that he did that, but hadn't seen that it's a carryover from Keep It Dark.


    Which, to keep it on the topic of the thread, It's Gonna Get Better is another lead that Darryl plays, from the post-Hacket era (which I think someone above may have pointed out already).

    Yeah, I love all eras of Genesis but BoEP never excited me. And though I love Floyd, I have as much difficulty getting into those other bands that have been mentioned as I have getting into Hackett's solo work. I appreciate I might be missing something. Of those bands, King Crimson seems like they might be a go but I haven't given them a fair try yet. I cannot warm to Yes.

    Totally agree on Steve's solo work. I'm actually not too big a fan of any of the solo stuff. There are bits and pieces from each of them that I like. But there's nothing that I'm passionate about from any of their solo careers. I really feel like they each needed things that the others brought. Someone needed to write the really long epics, while someone else needed to edit them down some. Someone needed to push the more artistic elements, while someone else needed to keep a little focus. Someone needed to bring harder sounds, and someone else needed to keep pastoral melodies in mind. They each brought something that the others lacked, that made the band incredible. But on their own ... meh (in my opinion at least).

    Thinking about the bands I listen to (see my previous comments) reminds me that I generally have an aversion to prog rock bands other than Genesis. I can’t stand most Yes songs. Their lyrics often sound to me like the pseudo-intellectual musings of a wannabe 16 year old poet, and their music is not as consistently melodic as is that of Genesis. ELP tends to be “too grandiose” by half for my taste. I could go on, but the general point I’m raising is that Genesis is the only prog band that consistently does it for me (though King Crimson has its moments). Am I out on an island alone feeling like this?

    You are definitely not alone in this, and I agree with pretty much everything you wrote there. I'm into a couple prog-adjacent bands like Pink Floyd and Rush. But with only a couple exceptions, I've never gotten into Yes, ELP, King Crimson, or any other bands in that genre. They're just too 'noodly' for me. I think that's why I don't really like 'Epping Forest'. I like a lot of the other early Genesis stuff, but that one really doesn't work for me.


    Top 5 (not including Genesis) right now?

    Floyd

    Counting Crows

    Lyle Lovett

    Blind Pilot

    Playlists off my phone with lots of different bands mixed in

    Now that we are not worried about spoilers on this thread, here is the video of Alison Krauss and Vince Gill doing an acoustic country version of That's All. I doubt we'll hear a version quite this country, but it is nice to hear how Genesis songs can be reinvented.


    Thank you for posting this! I've seen AKUS half a dozen times or so, and used to have a pretty decent boot collection from their shows, but I'd never seen / heard this before. Very cool to see a cross over of two of my favorite bands.


    That said, while this is really cool, not sure I love this version. Think I'd have preferred Dan Tyminski singing, as opposed to Vince Gill, and definitely would have preferred Alison to have played the solo on fiddle. Slow the whole thing down and make it a little more lonesome. Alison jokes that she wants people leaving their shows feeling sadder than they did when they came in, and that could have done it, with a few small changes.

    I think this is the answer. If you watch the video, what mike is doing on guitar correlates with the synth-sounding bassline. This is notable at the beginning when it is just Tony's ascending synth lines and then the bassline kicks in and the camera briefly shows Mike playing single notes. There is also a very brief moment when there are some accented E notes in the bass line followed by a pause and Mike seems to be doing the same accents. Meanwhile when the camera shows Tony's hands, he is clearly just playing the CP70 piano sound and his left hand is not following the bassline; there is another point where he is clearly holding chords and yet the bassline is still moving around separately.

    Yes, I totally agree that it's Mike playing the bass line on the guitar. It's too intricate for it to be played on pedals. And they both move around too much (Mike spends some time late in the song back at Chester's drum riser) to be playing pedals. And as you point out, there are shots of Tony playing things that are very clearly the keyboards sounds, and clearly not the bass line. So I knew it was Mike playing it, and that it was going through some effects.


    I guess I was just wondering why. Is there a reason why he would choose to play it on a guitar, and then use effects to drop the tone, as opposed to just playing it on a bass? I'm neither a guitarist nor bassist, so while I'm sure there's a reason for it, I don't know what it is. It was just something that I was curious about when watching the video. And then while I don't know that there's a way to know for sure, but do we think he was just doing that for the live performance, but used a bass for the studio recording? Or do we think he did the same thing; played the bass line on a guitar, going through an effects setup?

    35 years ago or so, my friend Joe and I wore out his VHS copy of The Mama Tour video, we watched it so many times. At the time, I never really paid much attention to "It's Gonna Get Better", in large part because I knew what was coming next, and just wanted them to play "In the {bloody} Cage," which they did play in a minute. And the Genesis album was never one that I spent too much time listening to either. Aside from "Home by the Sea" (and I liked the live version of that, once The Longs was released, better anyway), there wasn't much on there that spoke to me. But in the last couple years, I've listened to that album more often, and really come to like it. There are definitely a couple cringe worthy tracks, but there's also some really great music on there. "Silver Rainbow" and "It's Gonna Get Better" in particular work much better for me now than they ever did when I was younger.


    Anyway, "The Mama Tour" on youtube has been in the background music rotation for me since starting to work from home more often last year. (As an aside, there's a version out there where someone spliced in audience video from other concerts for the tracks they played but that weren't part of the official video release. The quality is definitely reduced, but it's nice to have those tracks back in place.) With a new appreciation for "IGGB", I've been paying more attention to it in the video, and recently noticed that, even though it has a pretty noticeable bass line, neither Mike nor Darryl are playing a bass.


    Darryl is pretty clearly playing the rhythm guitar parts, that are kind of jingly strumming sound, and then the lead at the end. So Mike has to be playing the bass line on the guitar that he's holding. So my very long-winded question for the musicians out there is; why would he be using a guitar, that I would assume is going through some effects to bring the tone down, as opposed to playing a bass for that part? And do we think that was just for the live performances, or did he play a guitar trough effects for the studio version?

    3 Sides Live - This is the album that made me decide my friend wasn't crazy for trying to get me into the band after all. Once he got me to the Cage Medley, I was pretty hooked. I listened to those couple tracks over, and over, and over again when I was about 13-14 (and haven't stopped for close to 35 years), and that version of Afterglow is still one of my most played tracks. The rest of the album is great too. Abacab and Dodo / Lurker sound great. And then the BOOM ... dahn, dahn, dahn ... of Behind the Lines ... LOVE IT!!!


    Live 1973 - First few tracks on there are really good, but for me, it's all about The Musical Box and The Knife. The version of TMB is amazing, and I could listen to it on a loop for hours. If I had to pick one track to explain to someone why love this band, that might have to be it (Behind the Lines from 3SL could also be on that list). And then The Knife just slays it. It's not really representative of the band as a whole, which is maybe one of the reasons I love it so much. And my dream Cover would be for Metallica to play that one live. James noodling around on the guitar for Tony's keyboard parts, Kirk nailing those guitar solos, Lars banging away on the drums, and 12,000 crazy fans chanting "We-are-on-ly-wan-ting-fre-e-dom!" Yeah, that totally checks all the boxes for me.

    Anybody here go to the We Can’t Dance tour?How would you say it ranked say compared to the IT tour or the tour in ‘07?

    Wow, you're just going right at it there. That's a question that could raise a lot of hackles.


    I only know the IT tour (and earlier) from the videos, so I won't speak to them. For me personally though? I'd take the '07 tour over the '92 WCD Tour any day.


    I don't have any issue with the way Darryl plays the FoF solo. I actually really like his interpretation from the '92 tour and '07. Some of the earlier tours where he played it, it was too jazzy for me. And while not the way Steve plays it, Darryl does a great job with that solo. Besides, Phil, Mike, and Tony seem to be okay with how he plays it, and that's a good enough endorsement for me.


    But the whole middle section of that medley where they played 8 bars of this and 8 bars of that; that just didn't work for me. I think that sort of medley was great for the Mama and IT Tours, where it was short bits of other bands' songs. And I love the idea of hiding little bits, like they do with Stagnation. Or the instrumental medleys they've done on other tours. But the way they put in bits of their own songs that year; not my thing.


    While in general, I do like We Can't Dance as an album, I'm not a fan of either Jesus He Knows Me or Dreaming While You Sleep, so those were songs that I thought could have been replaced in the set. I know other people do like those songs though, so I'm glad they got to hear them. They played I Can't Dance on both of those tours, and again, that could could have been replaced in the sets (or removed from their catalog all together, as far as I'm concerned).


    Fading Lights was a great song to hear in '92, and while I wish they had played it again in '07, I understand not doing it. Instead, they made that the music playing as everyone left the stadium / arena, so we still got to hear it, which was nice.


    Home By The Sea they played on both tours, but at least in the recordings I've heard, they played Part 2 much faster in '92, and slowed it down again in '07. I much prefer the slower pace they took with it. I felt like it gave more weight to it. The visuals were pretty cool too, with the red lights coming up from behind the screen, leading into the guitar solo at the end. I've always felt like they could repeat that solo phrase one more time, and really take the roof off.


    In the Cage, Afterglow, Ripples, Los Endos, parts of the Duke Suite, Carpet Crawlers ... yeah, for me, it's the '07 tour over the '92 tour, and it's not even close.

    So, I was looking at Live Over Europe, but are there other Encore series or boots that are better in sound quality and setlist?

    They played the same set every night, so all of the Encore Series recordings are the same as Live Over Europe. I think the only difference was one of the nights in LA, when they had to cut a couple songs due to the weather. Otherwise, it was the same set every night.


    For my ears, I'd say LOE sounds a little better; it's more produced, and a little fuller sounding. The Encore Series still sounds great, but maybe a little thinner. I have a couple of the ES, mostly because I wanted a recording from one or two of the shows I was at. But personally, I never felt a need to get ES recordings from other shows that tour. I also have boots from two of the shows I was at, that I never listen to.


    If the set list ever changed during the tour, or if the official release was missing tracks (like all of their previous live releases), then maybe it's different. But LOE is the full show, with tracks selected from different nights on the tour, probably because they thought they were the best versions. And Nick did a great job putting it together.


    For my 2 cents (and this is just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt), I'd go with LOE. The Encore Series is great, if you're a completest, want a specific show for personal reasons, or want to listen to each show to find the small changes or mistakes (I'm looking at you Chester in The Cage in Toronto, and you {did we decide it was Tony?} in Firth of Fifth in Rome) they occasionally made. But again, that's just me.

    I completely understand where you're at. I saw them 4x in 2007 and although the setlist remained unchanged each experience was different. I started by buying Stuttgart and Munich before I made travel plans and ended up buying Dusseldorf and Berlin for three of us. At one point my desk drawer was overflowing with tickets. I was able to sell the Munich & Stuttgart tickets for just under what I bough then for. Then they announced the NA leg of the tour and I ended up seeing them in Toronto and Ottawa. Toronto with my wife and Ottawa with my then 16 year old son who thought I was crazy. Those shows are the absolute peak of my concert history and I was really thinking about skipping this tour and leaving it at that. My wife is from the Buffalo area and we have gone there every Thanksgiving for the past 30+ years and the show there is the Sat after. When I saw the timing of that I had to buy two to avoid kicking myself that night. I still expect more announcements, more likely additional shows in existing cities but possibly other cities. The band probably looks at this as probably the "last" one for a number of reasons. Although I think it's cool that Phil has his son playing with him I will truly miss seeing Chester up there. He was there in 1978 when I first saw them and has always been part of the Genesis experience for me, even if he was not a "member" of the band.

    That Toronto show was fantastic! It had been raining all afternoon, but it turned into an absolutely beautiful evening for an outdoor show.


    For me, Paris and Amsterdam were divorce presents to myself (people buy you wedding presents, but you're on your own for divorce gifts), in part because after the '97/'98 CAS tour of North America was cancelled, I wasn't risking it. Toronto, because why not, Pittsburgh 2 days later, because I was going to be there for a Cubs game anyway, and then home in Chicago. Such a great summer!


    And actually, speaking of the Buffalo area, the night between the Toronto and Pitt shows, I stopped in for a beef on 'weck at Schwabl's in West Seneca. People can keep their wings; beef on 'weck is Buffalo's true gift to the culinary world.

    Quote from milicz


    I had a similar experience, but I was able to score some tix hours later when I logged on at 6pm. Looks like they kept adding seats throughout the day, I landed 5th row 200 level. I was able to get even better seats today using the WXRT presale, lower level 17th row. They didn't show up as available until an hour into the presale.


    I saw the XRT email this AM too, and was looking at tickets for Tuesday night. I was close to pulling the trigger on a pair, but in the end, decided that it was more than I really wanted to spend. I was crazy / fortunate enough to see them 5x in 2007, and right now, I'm feeling okay letting those continue to be the last shows I'll see. Maybe I'll be kicking myself come September when the Europe shows start, and November when they open North America here in Chicago. But right now, I'm feeling okay about it.


    For folks that are going, Have a Great Time!!

    Couldn't have been a worse experience I think.

    In 2007, it was pretty easy to buy tickets to shows in Paris and Amsterdam, on websites in languages I didn't even understand. This time around?

    The hoops we had to go through to get "verified" were many, but it gave the illusion that they really were trying to help out the actual fan. Not so much.


    Chicago show ... start with 2000+ in the queue, and it slowly reduced. Then it froze at 114 for about 10 minutes. Finally, I was able to select seats.

    Hmm ... $1200 for that Platinum seat on the floor, $900 for that Platinum seat on the side, or $400 for the other Platinum seat up in the 300 section. Oops, waited a bit too long, so even those were all gone.

    Guess I'll try the general sale on Friday, but don't expect much better.


    I'll just appreciate The Musical Box show I'll be at later the same week even more. $50, no "I Can't Dance" (don't take that the wrong way; I love most of the ... can we really call them New anymore ... songs, just not that one). Seems like a good deal to me.