Tony Banks or Rick Wakeman

To be fair, Tony has said plainly in interviews that he considers himself an accompanist, not a [Wakeman/Emerson]-type keyboard player. He categorizes himself as a composer.

I've not voted in this poll because, while I own more albums by/with Rick, I'm not going to "pick one" because their respective approaches and output are drastically different, stylistically and tonally. Both guys have recorded music that is either fantastic or questionable.

Earthmover wrote: Are we doing these polls annually or what?

Apples and oranges really, but Tony Banks will always be my favorite prog rock keyboardist and he's a hell of a composer in his own right as well.

Edited by Mirror Image - April 04 2014 at 22:55

twosteves wrote: verslibre wrote: To be fair, Tony has said plainly in interviews that he considers himself an accompanist, not a [Wakeman/Emerson]-type keyboard player. He categorizes himself as a composer. I've not voted in this poll because, while I own more albums by/with Rick, I'm not going to "pick one" because their respective approaches and output are drastically different, stylistically and tonally. Both guys have recorded music that is either fantastic or questionable. I saw the interview of Banks that you reference---in typical Banks fashion he is really putting down those other guys as show offs whereas he does it right---and tastefully. He is saying he could do what those other guys do but he has more taste.

Keyboard ca. the 90s?

Trane wrote: Hands down it's Wakeman. While Banks has made extraordinary contributions to great pieces of work, he's lazy. Never pushed boundaries nor exposed us to more than being a keyboard player in a band. Quite a disappointment.

Tony Banks' Seven - A Suite For Orchestra demonstrated a flair for orchestral composition. I thought it was very liustenable albeit too polite. He needed to inject some of the fun and mystery he brought to Genesis rather than writing music that was more traditional, as though this is what is supposed to be written and recorded. maybe check out Varese, Messiaen and Stravinsky. He has been writing and recording for Genesis for 25 years and did shed loads of touring.

He emerged via folk pop rock beginning gradually merging  and developing symphonic styles in a small orchestra (rock band) context. He wrote many lyrics with his music as did his compadre Mike Rutherford. Together they brought a rock band to the high point of symphonic rock. then they shifted their emphasis and allowed the soul influences informing drummer extraordinaire and fine singer Phil Collins to broaden their range.

He and Genesis did a considerable amount - this really is an understatement- to bring music from obscurity to world acclaim. This is not easy to do and requires a work ethic and inteelectual and emotional drive few can comprehend. There is a reason why these guys, Wakeman, Banks et al are there and it is most certainly NOT laziness. They're like icebergs, 90% of what goes into the evident 10% is not readily apparent. Get closer and the iceberg becomes more apparent. Unless you're skippering the Titanic.

His manner, as is evident on the remaster DVDs is a guy reserved and down to earth. No drugs, likes cycling for exercise and has the sort of manner that has kept Genesis afloat and aloft certainly  together as a band (not forgetting the input of Stuermer and Thompson as a constant unit for longer than most bands have been around). He oversaw the remastering as well. He's not a frontman but he is exacting and lays it out for everyone else. Peter Gabriel could not have put on a Foxes Head unless the picture Banks painted allowed him to do so.

His style as soloist is that of someone with something to say, he knows what he wants to do, does it, show boating is not his thing but moments of solo piano show he can do the nifty thing just as much. But musical style is all about individual identity and how it is expressed. It's not solos but how a piece hangs together effectively, e.g. One For The Vine. There are others but as a keyboard "solo" with the full band absolutely essential to it's subtleties it has little competition.

Genesis had a superb sense of the ironic. Having a singer join whose hit was because of it being featured in jeans commercials was kind of amusing considering the whole I Can't Dance thing was satirizing just that. Of course RW has a great sense of humour, between his wit and Bruford's droll writing style they would make a good team on TV...

RW has made fantastic contributions to Yes who manage to struggle on without him. Genesis without Banks or Rutherford? I don't think so. Great musician and writer. Not much of a pop star though.

uduwudu wrote: Trane wrote: Hands down it's Wakeman. While Banks has made extraordinary contributions to great pieces of work, he's lazy. Never pushed boundaries nor exposed us to more than being a keyboard player in a band. Quite a disappointment.   Tony Banks' Seven - A Suite For Orchestra demonstrated a flair for orchestral composition. I thought it was very liustenable albeit too polite. He needed to inject some of the fun and mystery he brought to Genesis rather than writing music that was more traditional, as though this is what is supposed to be written and recorded. maybe check out Varese, Messiaen and Stravinsky. He has been writing and recording for Genesis for 25 years and did shed loads of touring. He emerged via folk pop rock beginning gradually merging  and developing symphonic styles in a small orchestra (rock band) context. He wrote many lyrics with his music as did his compadre Mike Rutherford. Together they brought a rock band to the high point of symphonic rock. then they shifted their emphasis and allowed the soul influences informing drummer extraordinaire and fine singer Phil Collins to broaden their range. He and Genesis did a considerable amount - this really is an understatement- to bring music from obscurity to world acclaim. This is not easy to do and requires a work ethic and inteelectual and emotional drive few can comprehend. There is a reason why these guys, Wakeman, Banks et al are there and it is most certainly NOT laziness. They're like icebergs, 90% of what goes into the evident 10% is not readily apparent. Get closer and the iceberg becomes more apparent. Unless you're skippering the Titanic. His manner, as is evident on the remaster DVDs is a guy reserved and down to earth. No drugs, likes cycling for exercise and has the sort of manner that has kept Genesis afloat and aloft certainly  together as a band (not forgetting the input of Stuermer and Thompson as a constant unit for longer than most bands have been around). He oversaw the remastering as well. He's not a frontman but he is exacting and lays it out for everyone else. Peter Gabriel could not have put on a Foxes Head unless the picture Banks painted allowed him to do so. His style as soloist is that of someone with something to say, he knows what he wants to do, does it, show boating is not his thing but moments of solo piano show he can do the nifty thing just as much. But musical style is all about individual identity and how it is expressed. It's not solos but how a piece hangs together effectively, e.g. One For The Vine. There are others but as a keyboard "solo" with the full band absolutely essential to it's subtleties it has little competition. Genesis had a superb sense of the ironic. Having a singer join whose hit was because of it being featured in jeans commercials was kind of amusing considering the whole I Can't Dance thing was satirizing just that. Of course RW has a great sense of humour, between his wit and Bruford's droll writing style they would make a good team on TV... RW has made fantastic contributions to Yes who manage to struggle on without him. Genesis without Banks or Rutherford? I don't think so. Great musician and writer. Not much of a pop star though.

Edited by richardh - April 06 2014 at 05:29

agree with uduwudu ---Banks is a quiet, genius who can do it all---Wakeman's work with Yes in the 70's was some amazing--ground breaking playing---but there is too much cheesy playing apart from the 70's for me to consider him better than Banks.

Tony not looking so great there. 

richardh wrote: I would put Banks with Rod Argent , Dave Greenslade , Jon Lord* and Pete Bardens

I'd put Rick Wright and Roger Powell in that group, too.

richardh wrote: ]Wakeman belongs with the Keith Emerson, Eddie Jobson and Patrick Moraz camp

I concur.

richardh wrote: * Jon Lord started off in the Emerson camp but then migrated to 'other side'.

And Don Airey, who joined Purple, could fit into either group, but I'd be more inclined to put him in there with Wakeman and Emerson.

richardh wrote: A lot of this is to do with personality. Wakeman liked to embrace the latest keyboard tech while Banks was happy with his organ (so to speak).

I categorize guys like Banks and Bardens as "texture" players and Emerson and Wakeman are classical rockers who are the equivalent of a lead guitarist, on keys (Emerson, especially).

Then we have guys like Jan Hammer, who have fitted ably into support or lead positions and are competent in a number of musical styles/genres.

In Banks mind he is the lead player in Genesis---as central a lead player as the guy in the Doors---much to the annoyance of Hackett---who wasn't able to get his more guitar oriented songs in the group as often as he liked---and was usually replaced with a keyboard driven song.