Posts by drw4d

    The first time I heard this version, I was really unsure about it. To my ear, it sounded a lot like Weird Al singing, and that really colored my first impression. It made my brain think of it as more a parody of the original song, as opposed to a parody of televangelists. After listening again, I was able to hear this for what it is.

    I'm not a big fan of the original, though I appreciate it more now than I did in 1992. And other than a couple things I've seen on YouTube, I don't know Ghost at all. All that said, I like this. It's not going to make me go out and buy the new Ghost EP that this will be on. But I liked it. It's pretty faithful to the original, just amped up a bit, and has a lot of the theatrical sound that I've heard in those few other Ghost songs. I thought the bridge in particular was really good.

    The metal cover I have wanted for years is Metallica covering The Knife. James playing rhythm for the keyboard parts, Kirk and Lars thrashing away, 15k fans chanting "We / are / only / want / ing / free / dom." The Live '73 version specifically; every time I listen to that, I can hear Metallica playing it.

    I always love seeing Genesis fans taking stuff written about the band and picking it apart at the sub-atomic level. In this case, some bloke or other doing his top 10 list. It's what this forum was created for! 😂

    I always assumed that it was a requirement within the Terms of Service when we created a profile here.

    I prefer Gilmour (he lets the songs do the protesting), although like Waters, his solo stuff is very weak compared to them as a band (very like Genesis in fact). I haven't seen him play since The Wall concerts at Earl's Court in the early 80s.

    Unlike Waters, Gilmour always looks like he's having fun on tour. I would have liked to have been at Pompeii for his return concert in 2017, although there is a brilliant blu ray of the event, one of the best concerts ever.

    I felt that way for a long time too. For me, Gilmour's first two solo efforts are still really weak. There's brief moments, but for the most part; eh. And that's how I felt about "On an Island" the first listen or two, and I put it away. But then I started listening to the live versions from Gdansk, and really got to like the songs that way. Then I went back to the studio album, and I really, really like it. And then, for me at least, he went back a step or two with "Rattle That Lock." Admittedly, I haven't heard the whole thing. But I haven't heard anything to make me want to hear any more.

    I don't know too much of Waters' solo material. I did just pick up "Is This the Life we Really Want?" but haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. I know a couple of the tracks that he's played live either on the 'Us+Them' or 'Not a Drill' tours, and those few songs at least, I liked. We'll see how I feel about the rest of the album.

    But I totally get the comparison to Genesis, and their solo material. There's some things that I like, sure. But I think Tony, Mike, Phil, Steve, and Pete all needed the others to pull more out of them, or to reign them in a little. Roger, David, Richard, and Nick each benefited from what the others brought to the table too.

    So, this is one of those instances where an artist not having everything taken off of YouTube worked in their favor.

    I tend to have YouTube going on in the background when I'm working from home. The Mama, IT, WCD, and TioA tour videos are in constant rotation, along with Gilmore's Live in Gdansk, and the Delicate Sound video. Other artists pop in occasionally too, but those are the main things I'd put on for background noise.

    People started to add video's from Waters' current tour (This is Not a Drill), and I started having some of those on too, and I was really into it. A couple tracks in particular, I thought were really well done. Finally, I decided, okay, when's he coming to Chicago; maybe I have to go see this show. Turns out it was that night, and that just wasn't going to work, so I accepted that I missed it. But I kept watching some of the videos, and kept being more and more disappointed that I had missed the show. So I looked at future tour dates, and saw that he was going to be in Kansas City (only an hour+ flight from Chicago) over a 3 day weekend. So I got to see the show Saturday night.

    There's no question that he's incredibly political. He doesn't hide from that at all, and he's pretty open about how he feels about Floyd fans who don't like him being that political. I'd say most of what he called out on the screens was met with agreement, though certainly there were some statements that didn't go over as well. I suspect that "Fuck your guns; they're killing our kids" gets a different reaction in Kansas City, Missouri than it does in Chicago or Boston, for example. And while he does have some views that I think are, well, just wrong, I still wanted to see the show.

    It was AMAZING! Musically, it was great. I loved some of the changes he made to one Floyd song in particular. I loved some of the other Floyd songs he played, that you don't get from Gilmore. I'm not huge into his solo stuff, but what he played I thought was pretty good. It was visually a great show to watch. My wife, who knew maybe 3 songs total (and even those, it was more of a, yeah, I think I've heard that before), and wasn't too interested in going, had a good time, in part because the visuals kept her engaged. He pushed a lot of buttons, and pushed some boundaries at times, but that's sort of what you expect from him.

    He's far from perfect (aren't we all?), and his views aren't always ones that I agree with. But the guy puts on a great concert. And even with some of his more controversial ideas, I was okay giving him a few bucks, to be able to see the show. So thank you to all of the folks who saw him earlier in the tour, recorded their shows, and posted them online!

    Is Raise the Roof any good? I really liked Raising Sand. But what I really wanted was another AKUS album, as opposed to another Plant & Krauss, so I think that's why I haven't picked it up. I take it you'd recommend it?

    Yes.... I have mixed feelings about CAS. I do think it's a better album than most people think. Honestly if I did it again, I might put it above Wind & Wuthering, which is an album I can't get a hold of. Some of those ratings, particularly for .... Three and FGTR, aren't even trying to be accurate. Looking at it again I think there are too many C songs.

    I didn't notice CAS here as much as I did The Lamb. That stuck out to me, in part because of where you have The Lamia, which I rate much higher. Then I noticed that you have a lot of the Lamb's tracks in the D category. The album, you rate as a B, but if I counted correctly, only 7 tracks B or higher, and 16 tracks C or lower.

    My guess is that if I was to go through this same exercise, I would see similar differences between how I rate an album, versus how I rate each of the songs on that album. I probably think I really like an album, because I love a couple songs, and I sort of forget about the songs I don't really like. Similarly, I might think I dislike an album because of a couple songs, forgetting that there are other really great tracks. I might have to go looking for this thing.

    Re: Fans wanting to hear Phil's solo stuff at a Genesis concert and vice versa.

    It has to be an interesting process that an artist goes through, determining how much of their band's persona and legacy they want to incorporate into their solo persona. Phil and Peter each made, I suspect very deliberate decisions, not to include any of the band's work into their solo careers (until recently). Mark Knopfler and David Gilmour each made the opposite decision, and prominently include their bands' songs in their live tours.

    I would guess that everyone in that position makes that decision for different reasons.

    Wanting to prove that they are successful on their own

    Wanting to avoid getting stuck in their past

    Wanting to play songs that they were instrumental in writing for their bands

    Wanting to sell tickets, and knowing people are coming to hear the band's songs, even if it's a solo show

    Legal ownership of the songs, and who pays who royalties

    I suspect this is also different for artists / bands / songs that had primary or individual songwriters, versus those that write as a collective

    Similarly, it has to be interesting for the band to make that same decision about incorporating a member's solo work into their show. Do they want to differentiate between the band and one member's solo work? Do they want to capitalize on a solo hit for one of their members? I know Van Halen did that some, with Sammy's solo work. But I always took that as; Eddie had a guitar solo, Alex had a drum solo, Michael had a bass solo, so Sammy got a solo career song. But I can't image that Rush ever contemplated playing something off of Lee's My Favorite Headache.

    Personally, I'm glad Genesis keeps their shows to the band's songs, and doesn't include any of their solo work.

    Given their massive success and huge popularity it's understandable that it can feel as though it's you against the whole world for not liking them, but it's just an impression based on their global reach. Believe me, you're not alone. For me they're in that category that Bob Dylan and Kate Bush occupy: I completely get why people like them so much, and I have great respect and admiration for what they did, but apart from a few songs their stuff doesn't click with me.

    This a great, and I think a very important distinction. You can appreciate what a band did for music, the influence they've had on the industry, and on bands that you love. You can even understand why people like those bands. But you yourself don't have to be moved by their music.

    That's how I feel about the Rolling Stones and the Beatles. Total respect and appreciation for what they did for music. Their influences are immeasurable. And I understand why people love their music. But it doesn't do anything for me.

    I think there's an extent to which, Genesis / Phil made the "mistake" of becoming popular, and then too popular. There's something to being into a "cult band", that allows those in the know, to know that they are cool. But when suddenly everyone loves your favorite band, you're just another one of the folks that jumped on the bandwagon, even if you've loved them from the beginning. I think sometimes there's an aversion to admitting being a Genesis fan now, because so many people associate them with the 80s, and often equate them with Phil's solo career. Maybe it's easier to be sheepish about it, than to be that guy who's explaining, "No, really, they're so much more than Invisible Touch, and they aren't Sussudio." Mansplaining your favorite band is ... not a good look.

    Mike Rutherford always comments that Genesis don't have an iconic album like Dark Side or The Wall, but I think Trick is theirs.

    I think this is one of the great things about Genesis. Depending on who you're talking to, and even what sort of mood they're in, you could get any of a few different answers.

    Selling England


    Invisible Touch

    Any of those could be seen as their iconic album by different fans. And then Mike and Tony talk about Abacab being critical to their growth, and The Lamb is iconic in its way too.

    As I said, I think that's one of the really interesting things about Genesis. The didn't have a single iconic album, because they didn't have a single iconic sound. They changed over time; dare I say ... they progressed.

    Don't get me wrong; I love me some Floyd. Meddle, Animals, The Wall, and Division Bell are all in pretty regular rotation. But for the life of me, I can't remember what order any of the pre-Wall albums came out. I'm not saying you can swap songs out from one album, and they'd fit nicely on any other. But there is a similarity there, that could allow What Do You Want From Me to replace Have a Cigar. I don't think you can say the same about No Son of Mine replacing Squonk.

    Excellent tracklisting and very well-structured. In terms of the material it suits me just fine. In a way I echo the previous comment on TS but if you do a compilation, YOU choose what to put on it - end of story.

    Thank you.


    ...then don't put it on shuffle! To me it's utterly baffling why anyone ever does - even more so someone who's nicely constructed and sequenced a playlist and then decides to shuffle it. It'd be like a flower arranger standing back from their work all pleased then immediately scrunching and messing the flowers around.

    A totally reasonable line of thinking, and one I can't really argue with. I think what it comes down to is time. If I'm driving home from work, or riding the bike trainer, I may not have how ever many hours long the whole playlist is. Rather than always trying to remember where I left off, and not wanting to always start at the beginning, sometimes I just want some live Rush (or Genesis, Floyd, Metallica, or Counting Crows, each of which I've also built live setlists), and don't need it to be in a specific order, so shuffle works.

    I totally get what you're saying though. Can you imagine listening to The Lamb on shuffle, just because you don't want to start at the beginning every time? Why on earth would anyone do that?!? Similarly, why shuffle a curated live set? I get it.

    nice one..good mixture..but no Spirit or Sawyer?...would be a riot with some fans! 😄

    I'll grant you that Spirit is an omission. The encore medley they did in '91 includes that, and I think it's amazing! I have a recording from Chicago, that I really like.


    2112 (overture)

    Finding My Way

    La Villa (partial)


    Red Barchetta (partial)

    Spirit (reprise)

    I would normally have included that whole bit in my set. But it's broken up into individual tracks, and if I decided to shuffle the playlist, instead of listening to it straight through, some of those bits would seem very out of place.

    Sawyer ... I'll just say that I recognize there are some people (maybe even most) who would see that as a glaring omission, and leave it at that.

    Now come on, you can't tell us about your live compilation then not post the setlist! We're waiting...

    (taps fingers, raises eyebrows....)

    Okay. I will say that this is really newer stuff heavy, because that's what I have the best recordings of. If I picked up some of the older live releases, I'd maybe be able to fill in some of the older songs that I'd want to include.

    R30 Overture


    Half the World



    Time Stand Still

    The Pass

    The Camera Eye

    Leave That Thing Alone

    The Main Monkey Business

    Ghost of a Chance

    Distant Early Warning

    One Little Victory

    The Analog Kid

    Witch Hunt

    Red Sector A

    Drum Solo


    Malignant Narcissism

    Entre Nous


    The Seeker

    La Villa Strangiato


    Working Man

    Passage to Bangkok

    Far Cry


    I have all of the studio albums, other than HYF; for some reason I've just never gotten that one. And then I have a few of the more recent live albums (Different Stages, Rush in Rio, R30). And I've got a few boots from back when I was collecting those for a bunch of bands.

    I like a lot of the older stuff, but they aren't albums I go back to over and over again. When the mood strikes, I might pull one out and listen to the whole thing. I was a freshman in college when Roll the Bones came out, so that was a big album for me, and I still like most of it (Bravado might be my favorite of all of their songs, especially live). I loved Snakes and Arrows when it came out, but for me at least, it hasn't aged well. Some good moments, but on the whole ... eh. Clockwork Angels was the opposite. I didn't really like it at first, but it grew on me, and is one of the few albums that I do go back to regularly.

    What I listen to most is a playlist I put together of Live tracks, sort of my own concert, pulled together from official releases and boots. To some extent, that's the problem with the digital age; we can listen to the bits we like over and over again, without listening to the things we don't. That's a shame, because sometimes, you hear something again after a long time, and it speaks to you differently. I guess it's an argument for going back through the catalog start to finish again sometime ...

    The fact is, they don't want to. Understandably they play what the three of them all want to play.


    And in the end, they're not our performing monkeys. They're human beings.

    This ... this right here; you've nailed it right on the head. They are going to play what they want to play.

    I'll add that for me, I would only want them to play what they want to play, if only so you know they're not just going through the motions. Play what you like and feel energized by, not what the fans want. Because ... they're not our performing monkeys! Exactly! They should be doing this because they WANT to, and playing the songs THEY want to.

    I mostly like the Rockontours podcast. I still can't tell the difference between the two, so I'll take your word that Guy is the interrupter. I do think that they've gotten a little better over time. I certainly haven't listened to them all. But I remember thinking, while listening to the Nick Mason episode, "Will the two of you stop talking, so that your guest can actually speak?!?" There's less of that as they've done more interviews though. But maybe that's why I've only listened to a few of them; their interview style doesn't really work for me, so I limit it to artists I'm already interested in.

    I'm not at all familiar with Steve's solo work, so listening to them talk about Genesis, even though I've already heard almost all what was talked about before, was perfectly fine with me. But I have to think that Steve gets a little frustrated at never getting talk about his own solo career when he does these interviews.

    Melody Maker Ad - check

    Public School boys vs not - check

    Tension during The Lamb: check

    Firth Solo - check

    Phil's Solo Career - check

    Steve's Solo Career - <crickets>

    There's a handful of songs that fit in this group, or into a list of songs that I've always liked, but I think are often overlooked.

    Back in NYC is one that I overlooked for a long time, but it's become one of the highlights for me. And Hairless Heart is, I think, really fantastic. And then someone earlier mentioned The Lamia. I think with all three of them, it took the first box set, and that live version of them, for me to really latch on. I was so used to live versions of In The Cage (3SL was what finally got me into the band), that the rest of the album didn't really resonate. But once I heard live versions of each of those; man, I love them. The Lamia in particular is a great live track. And I get it; I know that the second half of the Lamb isn't as respected at the first half. And I know that it comes to a "conclusion" somewhat abruptly. But I really like the second half.

    Many Too Many is one that it took a while for me to find; one of my least favorite of their albums, so it wasn't in regular rotation. But I've grown to really love that track. Like it or Not is another late cut from an album that I think is really strong. I think either of them would have made a great addition to the '07 or '21 tours, but I knew there was no way.

    Other folks have mentioned Keep it Dark, and I echo their sentiments. Great track!

    It's Gonna Get Better is one that I've known for ages, but never really card about. My buddy and I wore out his copy of The Mama Tour on VHS. But we never paid much attention to this one, because we knew that the Cage Medley was coming up, and that's what we were waiting for. But it's a really great song. And especially the last couple years, I have to keep reminding myself that, indeed, It's Gonna Get Better (at least I hope so).

    The last I'll mention is Anything She does. When I was younger, I hated that song, I think mostly because I liked the radio hits, and wanted to hear The Brazilian. I also never understood Benny Hill, so that song was never in the rotation. And then I started to really get into the older stuff, and I poo-pooed IT as a whole; I was too cool for that radio-friendly crap! Foxtrot or Die, man! (Ahh, the arrogance of a teenager) But at some point, something with it clicked with me, and I really like it. I love the addition of the harpsichord-ish sound in the last verse after the break. It's nothing more than a silly little pop song. But I think it's a great silly little pop song.

    I thought the 92 medley was perfect. The best part of some classic songs, and brought us through the beginning notes of Volcano to IKWIL. It is my favorite medley they have ever done, as I'm not keen on In the Cage too much.

    This is one of those "to each their own" sort of situations. For me, '92 has been my least favorite medley over the years. Not because of the big things they played. I really liked Volcano, Lamb, tMB, Firth, and IKWIL. I thought those worked well, and if they had just done those things, it would have been a perfectly lovely medley. What ruined it for me was the 8 bars of this, 8 bars of that, and 8 bars of the other thing that they shoehorned into it. I didn't need mini-snippets of Illegal Alien, Your Own Special Way, FYFM, or whatever else they crammed in there.

    I still really like the Turn it On Again medley from the Mama tour. Same idea, where they did 8 bars of this, and 8 bars of that. But I think what made that work well was that it wasn't their songs. They were little bonuses of fun. I don't know how many times I've seen the video of that show, but I still love it, and I still feel the excitement build as they get closer and closer to getting back into TIOA.

    But doing the same thing for their own songs, for me at least, didn't work at all.