Yes Vs Genesis

Another argument for Yes could be that they were (still are, actually) a much better live band than Genesis.  Genesis were always famous for their live show because of their frontman's excellent theatricality, but listening to a Genesis live album is never as exciting as a Yes live album, because they play everything the same (in comparison to Yes's huge live variations; see Yessongs: Perpetual Change). 

Syntharachnid wrote: micky wrote: NouSomesduSolei wrote: I can't believe the amount of Yes "haters" on here. I completely love Genesis, they are the only prog rock band that you could argue is better then Yes. But Genesis is not better than Yes. Some of the people that have commented on this topic have made just stupid points. Saying that Anderson and Yes are emotionless is just rediculas. These people obviously never have sat at a Yes Show while Howe is sitting with the slide guitar and anderson pouring his heart into "soon".  On the contrary to what most of the people say I think Yes music is more emotional. This is shown by the amazing solos. As far as musicianship, Genesis doesnt hold a candle to Yes.  But im not going to just bable on, obvisously everyone has a good music taste if were argueing about this. Thanks,Mike nice post! Agreed!  Stunning debut NouSomes!  And for the record, there really aren't that many Yes bashers around here.  It's just all coming out in this one thread.

it's not like those on the Yes side of this question are any more Genesis haters.  Personally I love the group. Just some things are well known, Genesis was thought of (by themselves) as a rather boring group. Hense the costumes and the stage show.  They were not the instrumentalists that Yes were.  The music is first rate, it's great stuff, but Yes did it as well (or better) for longer and without a doubt IMO  were the benchmark of 70's prog....err... prog period. 

floydaholic wrote: micky wrote: Syntharachnid wrote: micky wrote: NouSomesduSolei wrote: I can't believe the amount of Yes "haters" on here. I completely love Genesis, they are the only prog rock band that you could argue is better then Yes. But Genesis is not better than Yes. Some of the people that have commented on this topic have made just stupid points. Saying that Anderson and Yes are emotionless is just rediculas. These people obviously never have sat at a Yes Show while Howe is sitting with the slide guitar and anderson pouring his heart into "soon".  On the contrary to what most of the people say I think Yes music is more emotional. This is shown by the amazing solos. As far as musicianship, Genesis doesnt hold a candle to Yes.  But im not going to just bable on, obvisously everyone has a good music taste if were argueing about this. Thanks,Mike nice post! Agreed!  Stunning debut NouSomes!  And for the record, there really aren't that many Yes bashers around here.  It's just all coming out in this one thread. it's not like those on the Yes side of this question are any more Genesis haters.  Personally I love the group. Just some things are well known, Genesis was thought of (by themselves) as a rather boring group. Hense the costumes and the stage show.  They were not the instrumentalists that Yes were.  The music is first rate, it's great stuff, but Yes did it as well (or better) for longer and without a doubt IMO  were the benchmark of 70's prog....err... prog period.  Assuming King Crimson didn't exist.

nah, being a good boy and staying on topic ha hah ha  I've already gone off topic, with Ivan, once today.

floydaholic wrote: Ok then, i'll leave this between Genesis and Yes.

oh I be surprised if someone hadn't tackled that idea in a previous thread. Dig and it up and give it a bump ha hahha. Well I'm going to turn in.  Have a good night Matt!

No Ivan,  not for their costumes, unless what I've heard/read  is wrong (which of course is always possible) the costumes were a direct result of people saying that " they (Genesis) were so f*cking boring".  (A quote from Charisma Records PR man) Personally I thought it was a brilliant move and definitely got Genesis the desired result...getting noticed.  I may not know everything Ivan, but I don't make stuff up either. I thought it was rather humorous myself, that's why I brought it up.

micky wrote: No Ivan,  not for their costumes, unless what I've heard/read  is wrong (which of course is always possible) the costumes were a direct result of people saying that " they (Genesis) were so f*cking boring".  (A quote from Charisma Records PR man) Personally I thought it was a brilliant move and definitely got Genesis the desired result...getting noticed.  I may not know everything Ivan, but I don't make stuff up either. I thought it was rather humorous myself, that's why I brought it up.

There is some truth but not as you say it:

• Peter was a very timid guy, Antony Phillips had stage panic, Tony is also very shy and Mike never was a charismatic guy, so nobody was a real frontman in their early years, there was no show or anything, just 5 guys playing heir music in normal clothes.
• When they released Trespass and even Nursery Cryme, Peter didn't used costumes, and if you see the Belgium TV Video, he sings with his arms crossed and also standing in the same spot. By this time they were idols on Italy. This is why Tony Straton Smith from Charisma Records thought the show was boring, Peter hardly moved from a 1 square meter spot and had no interaction with the audience, what was even harder in the case opf Genesis because Steve stayed on his chair at one corner (Almost always the left one), Mike also hided in the left back part of the stage and Tony never took his eyes from the keyboard and Phil the only other charismatic member was too busy with hisdrums, he was the only one who joked with Peter during the concerts.

• Of course as a stage act was boring, but the music wasn't already Nursery Cryme was N° 4 on Italy and I believe N° 2 in Belgium.
• The first time Peter used a costume was in Dublin, he knew the audience was hard, so he decided to shock them, he asked his wife Jill for a red dress and bought a fox mask to make reference to the Foxtrot album, and he acomplished his purpose. (The dress is an exact copy of the cover art of Foxtrot).

• The next day all papers in England were talking about the weirdoe that used a red dress in Ireland, so he decided that bad propaganda was better than no propaganda.
• But the main reason Peter used costumes was to help people understand Genesis Lyrics.
• For example the Song Dancing with the Moonlit Knight is a sarcastic point of view of British society and a complex play of words from UK authors, so nobody understood the concept (This guys had a very solid school formation, and their lyrics were too complex for the average Joe), so he used the Britannia costume (A Roman-British soldier with the UK flag) and he explained somehow the meaning of the lyrics telling the audience he represented the spirit of England.

I don't believe you invent things, but your info is out of context.

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

ivan_2068 wrote: Stonebeard wrote: still don't get that argument. I believe sooner or later another band would have come along and have the same effect on future generations. But would not have been the Neo Prog we know today, I'm sure that Marillion, Arena or Pendragon would have never existed or reached success without Genesis influence,please it's the base of their sound!!!!! Stonebeard wrote: From what I've heard of Banks, all Genesis abums from Nursury Cryme to Wing and Wuthering at least, I think he is a great keyboardist but only stands at that.. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, if you think that the most influential keyboardist of Prog'  si not a virtuoso, OK you can believe it. Stonebeard wrote: [quote] I have never heard any solo albums from either Howe or Hackett, so I can not bring up an argument on that subject. Based soley on core Yes output and core Genesis output, I still think Howe is better. But then again, Hackett never really got a chance to shine..[/quote] Then how can you say wuith such a scurity that no Genesis member is a virtuoso musician? But you make my point, Genesis musicians worked for the band, they were virtuoso players but sacrificed their personal pride for the music, so if you admit Steve Hackett never had the chance to shine, how can you talk about his lack of virtuosity Stonebeard wrote: [quote] Eh, yeah, I suppose (based soley on Phil's Genesis career)[/quote] What about Brand X? Iván

1. If you want me to say that Genesis was a major influence in neo-prog bands, then sure, I agree with that. Still, I prefer Yes.

2. I am not "saying with such security" that no member from Genesis was not a virtuoso. From what I've heard, above mentioned, no member from Geneisis is a virtuoso in the sense that they had perticularly amazing chops. They were a  cohesive band and each member complementary to the others, for better. But I doubt Steve Hackett's virtuosity even when I say he doesn't get a chance to "shine" in Genesis because you obviously believe he is a virtuoso guitarist. If that is true, then he was never allowed to truly show that in Genesis, which is sad.

Stonebeard wrote:

I am not "saying with such security" that no member from Genesis was not a virtuoso

No Stonebeard, you clearly said and I quote you:

As for musicianship, Yes wins hands down. Nobody from Genesis was a virtuoso. Though they could play their instruments and write good songs, they by no means matched the Howe-Squire-Wakeman line-up.

This is pretty clear Stonebeard.

Stonebeard wrote:

But I doubt Steve Hackett's virtuosity even when I say he doesn't get a chance to "shine" in Genesis because you obviously believe he is a virtuoso guitarist. If that is true, then he was never allowed to truly show that in Genesis, which is sad.

Again you say youu doubt of someone without even having heard him?

BTW: What about Firth of Fifth and Horizons just to mention two bright Hackett performances.

But you're entitled to dislike Genesis or consider them as low profile musicians, but please don't affirm something with such seccurity without having listened a single solo work by Hackett.

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

ivan_2068 wrote: Stonebeard wrote: I am not "saying with such security" that no member from Genesis was not a virtuoso No Stonebeard, you clearly said and I quote you: As for musicianship, Yes wins hands down. Nobody from Genesis was a virtuoso. Though they could play their instruments and write good songs, they by no means matched the Howe-Squire-Wakeman line-up. This is pretty clear Stonebeard. Stonebeard wrote: But I doubt Steve Hackett's virtuosity even when I say he doesn't get a chance to "shine" in Genesis because you obviously believe he is a virtuoso guitarist. If that is true, then he was never allowed to truly show that in Genesis, which is sad. Again you say youu doubt of someone without even having heard him? BTW: What about Firth of Fifth and Horizons just to mention two bright Hackett performances. But you're entitled to dislike Genesis or consider them as low profile musicians, but please don't affirm something with such seccurity without having listened a single solo work by Hackett. Iván

1. Is it required that I listen to every song written by an artist before I make a judgement on them? I am only saying that Hackett did not have a chance to shine in Genesis. If you say that his solo career shows suignificant virtuosity, then I believe you. But after hearing and/or owning all 70s Genesis albums, I feel like I'm allowed to make a statement like I've made.

2. Just so there isn't any confusion, I love Genesis. Here's how I would rate the albums I have:

Trespass: 4/5
Nursery Cryme: 4.5/5
Foxtrot: 5/5
Selling England By the Pound: 5/5
Lamb Lies Down on Broadway: 4 or 4.5/5
Trick of the Tail: 4.5/5
Wind and Wuthering: 4.5/5

I have Duke, Abacab and a few live albums, and I haven't really listened to them enough to judge.

While I love Genesis, I still love Yes more.

3. Yes, "Firth of Filth" has a supurb solo from Hackett, and "Horizons" is beautiful and both are memorable as hell, but those are just a few examples. As I listen to many Genesis songs, once in a while I'll realize "Wow, that is a cool guitar line," or "Hey, that was an interesting riff," but really, those moments occur in numerous bands' music, although I admit I was perticularly floored when I first heard "Dancing with the Moonlit Knight."

Perhaps we have different definitions of virtuosity. I listen to a lot of metal in addition to well as neo-prog and symphonic prog, and coming from that background I try to learn to appreciate and play fast, melodic harmonies in complex time signatures with complex rhythms. One being able to do such things certainly puts them higher up in my book of virtuosity, but still knowing restraint and a "when to play and when to not" philosophy will guarantee my repect and probably a bit of jealosy too.

Edited by stonebeard

every single member oj genesis is a virtuoso, hackett, not only an excellent guitarist, but a great innovator, doing two handed tapping  some 10 years before van halen "invented" it, using  volume pedal to sound  a keyboard, and generally making atmospheric sounds  that happened previously been done before then. Tony Banks, while not nearly as flashing as Rick Wakeman, does  the most ingenius chord structions that have no equal, Mike Rutherford, while not being the best guitarist or bassist ever, he did damn good  parts for both, and his work with bass pedals is incredible, such as the  Apolcolypse in 9/8 part of suppers ready, that is all him, switching  pedals guitar, in the awesome 13/8 rhythm before it changes to 9 for the organ solo.  Phil, though people criticize him for everything later (most of which  is NOT nearly as bad as owner of a lonely heart)  was an incredible drummer, the nuances of his playing are uncerpassed, listen to  all the jazzy ride cymbal flourishes on foxtrot, incredible, and all,  from someone who has heard records of Bill Bruford playing with Genesis live in 76 and his terrible performance of Steve Hackett's Genesis Revisited, I believe that Phil is the better of the two. Gabriel, he's  just damn good, so is Anderson, I just like Gabriel better, totally personal preference, now don't get me wrong,  I think Yes is a very good band, with some great instrumentalists, expecially  Chris Squire, but as a whole, Genesis takes it. I 've only touched on musicianship, though  I have opinions on songwriting, ect for both, but for now, I'll let it slide with just this