Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: April 13 2010
Location: Dorset, England
Status: Offline
Points: 1433
Posted: January 07 2011 at 10:13
Nov wrote:
thehallway wrote:
I actually like Gabriel but I think Tony Banks and Phil Collins were(/are) both too arrogant to allow the others to contribute what they were capable of.
Certainly you can say that Tony was/is arrogant in terms of what went on the albums.
However, you cannot level that accusation at Phil. He was a very minor contributor until duke and after that, even though he was a superstar away from the band, was extremely keen that the contributions were split 3 ways and that all albums from duke onwards were a true group effort.
Tony was always the major contributor to Genesis (even on songs such as "Hold On My Heart") and, for me, was always the heartbeat of the band.
Okay.
But Phil Collins was certainly a bit of an arrogant t**t when it comes to things like 'inventing one of the most famous yet easy drum fills in music history'..... or 'playing at both San Fransisco and London during Live Aid'.....
If he was more democratic in Genesis then I respect that.
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Posted: January 07 2011 at 10:24
Personally, I think Bach is overrated. Ditto Brahms, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn and all those "seminal" classical guys. After all, people like Debussy, Stravinsky, Scriabin and Frescobaldi - to say nothing of Schoenberg, Varese and Stockhausen - are mcuh more progressive.
Joined: April 13 2010
Location: Dorset, England
Status: Offline
Points: 1433
Posted: January 07 2011 at 10:45
maani wrote:
Personally, I think Bach is overrated. Ditto Brahms, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn and all those "seminal" classical guys. After all, people like Debussy, Stravinsky, Scriabin and Frescobaldi - to say nothing of Schoenberg, Varese and Stockhausen - are mcuh more progressive.
LOL.
No need for a LOL, I completely agree! (But add Ravel, Prokofiev, Sibelius and Gershwin to that list)
But we must take into consideration the time gap between the first list of composers and the second, in which a lot of changes took place in music. Bach had nothing to listen to other than monks!
Howevre, a direct comparison indeed produces a better result for the later guys; I think many people here would agree.
Joined: November 12 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Posted: January 07 2011 at 18:34
peter gabriel era is some of the most interesting and complicated music i've ever heard! I'm looking forward to checking out the musical box if they come to the midwest in 2011.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: January 08 2011 at 15:09
Mmmm.... some reasons why I love Genesis?
Unlike many other band who drew mostly from rock and jazz stylism, early Genesis used many more classical elements in their choice of key changes, chord progressions and soloing lines. Banks arpeggios were very much derived from classical music.
Hackett guitar lines were extremely original for its time, neither based directly on rock neither in jazz, also a lot of classical stuff in there but translated to an electric way.
Their use of acoustic and 12-string guitars was also delightful, some here have suggested that it made them "folk" but that's nonsense, folk guitar is based on strung patterns or at most simple arpeggios, while Genesis used harmonic complex arpeggios much more inspired in classical music. Rutherford and Hackett (with some help from Banks) did agreat job at the guitars but I have always thought that it was a real pitty that Anthony Phillips left, we can only guess what superb music might have come had he stayed with the band (together with Hackett I mean).
OK you don't like Collin's drumming but to me he was great again for similar reasons, not a rock drummer and yet not a typical jazz-rock drummer either, a wonderful compromise in between with a lot of subtle touches and (I agree with Moshkito here) very loose, not metronomic at all.
Rutherford... no need saying much, amazing bass and very good with the Moog Taurus bass pedals even if sometimes a bit unnoticed due to the production.
Another thing I love is the theatrical feel of many of their songs, they don't just talk about something, they tell tales, much as if you were reading a book of short stories or short theater plays.
Then there's that english victorian feel, I'm not english but for some reason I love that feel.
And I can not get how can you consider them "bland", with songs such as The Return of the Giant Hogweed, Get'em Out by Friday, The Musical Box.... if this is bland I don't know what kind of ears do you have.
Finally, "Can you tell me where my country lies, said the unifaun to his true love's eyes... It lies with me, cried the Queen of Maybe, for her merchandise, he traded in his prize... "
If you are not moved by this opening I can't help you explain why
By the way maybe it would help if you said which other bands do you like and why? of course there's no reason why you must like Genesis.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: January 08 2011 at 22:24
He has not replied back apparently on this thread, not recently at least. He's either busy with personal commitments, which I hope is the case, or simply wanted to wind up Genesis fans.
Unlike many other band who drew mostly from rock and jazz stylism, early Genesis used many more classical elements in their choice of key changes, chord progressions and soloing lines. Banks arpeggios were very much derived from classical music.
Hackett guitar lines were extremely original for its time, neither based directly on rock neither in jazz, also a lot of classical stuff in there but translated to an electric way.
Their use of acoustic and 12-string guitars was also delightful, some here have suggested that it made them "folk" but that's nonsense, folk guitar is based on strung patterns or at most simple arpeggios, while Genesis used harmonic complex arpeggios much more inspired in classical music. Rutherford and Hackett (with some help from Banks) did agreat job at the guitars but I have always thought that it was a real pitty that Anthony Phillips left, we can only guess what superb music might have come had he stayed with the band (together with Hackett I mean).
OK you don't like Collin's drumming but to me he was great again for similar reasons, not a rock drummer and yet not a typical jazz-rock drummer either, a wonderful compromise in between with a lot of subtle touches and (I agree with Moshkito here) very loose, not metronomic at all.
Rutherford... no need saying much, amazing bass and very good with the Moog Taurus bass pedals even if sometimes a bit unnoticed due to the production.
Another thing I love is the theatrical feel of many of their songs, they don't just talk about something, they tell tales, much as if you were reading a book of short stories or short theater plays.
Then there's that english victorian feel, I'm not english but for some reason I love that feel.
And I can not get how can you consider them "bland", with songs such as The Return of the Giant Hogweed, Get'em Out by Friday, The Musical Box.... if this is bland I don't know what kind of ears do you have.
Finally, "Can you tell me where my country lies, said the unifaun to his true love's eyes... It lies with me, cried the Queen of Maybe, for her merchandise, he traded in his prize... "
If you are not moved by this opening I can't help you explain why
By the way maybe it would help if you said which other bands do you like and why? of course there's no reason why you must like Genesis.
A very insightful post certainly but I really think the cited 'classical music influence' re Genesis is vastly overstated. Yes, I can hear the academic orthodoxy in much of Banks playing style but in the main, Genesis compositions from Trespass up to and including Trick of the Tail contain very little formal symphonic writing c/f something like say, Karn Evil 9 by ELP which states, develops and treats thematic material in a very similar way to composers like Richard Strauss, Liszt, Sibelius etc Even the harmonic territory that Genesis usually inhabit betrays their origins as that of pastoral folk/rock, liturgical church hymns and time honoured tin pan alley song-craft (albeit of a very sophisticated and refined type)
BTW I love early Genesis but have always felt they are only tenuously classically fashioned. Similarly, Yes are often credited with classical leanings, but for me that's also well wide of the mark. Perhaps our wish to have our favourite bands taken seriously from outside the popular music realm engenders this rather fanciful delusion of 'formal academic rigour' etc
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: January 09 2011 at 06:45
ExittheLemming wrote:
A very insightful post certainly but I really think the cited 'classical music influence' re Genesis is vastly overstated. Yes, I can hear the academic orthodoxy in much of Banks playing style but in the main, Genesis compositions from Trespass up to and including Trick of the Tail contain very little formal symphonic writing c/f something like say, Karn Evil 9 by ELP which states, develops and treats thematic material in a very similar way to composers like Richard Strauss, Liszt, Sibelius etc Even the harmonic territory that Genesis usually inhabit betrays their origins as that of pastoral folk/rock, liturgical church hymns and time honoured tin pan alley song-craft (albeit of a very sophisticated and refined type)
BTW I love early Genesis but have always felt they are only tenuously classically fashioned. Similarly, Yes are often credited with classical leanings, but for me that's also well wide of the mark. Perhaps our wish to have our favourite bands taken seriously from outside the popular music realm engenders this rather fanciful delusion of 'formal academic rigour' etc
I actually agree with you, it's just that I did not express myself properly. Genesis indeed picked up their main influences from english popular / church / chamber / choir music, not from the proper Classical Symphonic and Romantic music we generally mean by "Classical". England was not particularly strong in Classical music.
But the aforementioned "english popular music" was itself influenced by classical elements and I just meant that Genesis did not derive so much from blues-rock and jazz as many other bands but rather from this classically-influenced english popular music.
^ Yep we are in the same ball park on that one as one of the most attractive things about Genesis is their abandonment of traditional blues and rock harmony/scales which does lend their music a refreshing erm...quaintness (of a good kind)
I admit I probably jumped the gun and read symphonic where you wrote classical (the former ain't what you meant)
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: January 09 2011 at 09:17
Chris S wrote:
These videos are fanbased surely?
That's what I'm thinking now. They weren't on the compilation DVD. They were well done though and appear to be official videos with the opening title at the bottom.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Posted: January 09 2011 at 09:32
ExittheLemming wrote:
BTW I love early Genesis but have always felt they are only tenuously classically fashioned.
No one would claim that Genesis IS classical music. It's in the area of pop/rock, and the music is arranged for five people with electric and acoustic instruments. But it's inspired by classical music, and there's a lot of classical elements in Genesis which is not very common in pop, rock or even most progressive rock bands either.
ExittheLemming wrote:
Yes, I can hear the academic orthodoxy in much of Banks playing style ,but in the main, Genesis compositions from Trespass up to and including Trick of the Tail contain very little formal symphonic writing
Formal symphonic writing? No, of course the songs don't keep to any conventional form in classical music, and of course it's not "formal" in any way. But an important factor I think is that Genesis didn't want to take classical elements and turn it into a rock expression. The song structures, the varying levels of dynamics, the rich arrangements and the fluid transitions between different atmospheres and moods, are some of the elements that
show that they weren't confined within the context of a rock expression, but was free both musically and expression-wise. It is not classical in the sense that it is derived from a certain kind of classical music and then converted into rock. It is after all original music. The classical elements are not just technical elements, but also the expression. But you may say that many of those elements can be found in folk music. It's not strange because a lot of classical is based of folk music. If we hear a section with polyphonic melodies, you could say that it is a classical element or a folk element, it's not that important. The result is however something that doesnt keep to a specific tradition, but is of course pop/rock in a wide sense.
ExittheLemming wrote:
Perhaps our wish to have our favourite bands taken seriously from outside the popular music realm engenders this rather fanciful delusion of 'formal academic rigour' etc
It's possible that there are those who wants to call some prog bands classical music, or claim that it is a part of that field. I think, though, that many who listen to classical music doesn't want to admit that there is a grey area between classical and pop/rock - they think it's two separate areas, and if some pop band wants to pretend to be classical, they can do so, but won't be taken seriously by the classical side. I don't care about such clear definitions, I think each artist should be taken for what it is.
Classical music generally is on a much more advanced level than pop/rock music, but doesn't have to be "higher art" just because of that fact. But the possibilities can be bigger. A lot of jazz can be very intricate harmony-wise, hard to play, keeping to specific structures which is hard to grasp for normal people. You have to know the theory behind it, but if you do, you won't necessarily make good music based of it. In the classical world people are keeping to customs and rules. But it's just what it appears to be. For example, if you want to write a big classical piece, it doesn't have to be a "symphony", it can have any structure of your own choice.
Joined: August 04 2009
Location: Estonia
Status: Offline
Points: 70
Posted: January 09 2011 at 10:03
I'll just give in my two cents on why I like the band.
I'll start off with: Genesis is a flawed band, that is for sure. Gabriel's vocals, especially in the early years are quite weak - not that he is a bad singer, he just doesn't have a very strong voice and the style he tries to achieve with it even puts an emphasis on that. Hackett's unique and always lovely guitar playing often got downgraded. Especially in the later years, when Tony Banks took over the role of the lead instruments with his synthesizers almost completely. Their music left little space for improvisation and spontaneity, which is something I've always thought would improve their style. The compositions, on their own, are not exactly adventurous in style in the context of some things that were going on at their time in "popular" music.
However, what I always find interesting about them is their prowess in writing songs with a logical emotional structure and memorable melodies. Some would consider "memorable melodies" as bad in a prog context as "memorable hooks" which is of course a term from the dreaded field of pop music and such is to be shunned, but I disagree: In Genesis' case, it's the melodies and their strength which contributes to the overall strength of the music. That and how they are arranged.
For example, what I love about Hackett's solo in "Dancing With The Moonlit Knight" is that every single phrase he plays there is a melody that fits into the composition as a whole. Not only is that solo a technical achievement, it's also a compositional one and has a stark contrast with the usual improvised pentatonic scale solo of most rock music.
That is, for me, the thriving force behind their music. I would say they are the strongest symphonic progressive rock band from that era in regards to arranging and composing melodies. And obviously that is what they were going for anyway. The band members have stated in various interviews, that they considered themselves songwriters and simply wrote them creatively, not as avant-garde artists who would push the way we think of rock music or music in general.
Another aspect that I do like about them is the lyrical side and how in most of the cases the lyrics reflect the music well. I love the quirky storytelling of Gabriel in songs like "Epping Forest" and "The Musical Box". Even in later times, with Collins, like "Trick of the Tail".
I'd say, however, that in the end, Genesis' (And I am mainly talking about the early 70-80 Genesis) strength lies with their emotional resonance, that stems from the strong melodic core of their music. This provides you with moments that are instantly memorable and in that are almost classical in nature. Who wouldn't remember the first moments of Firth of Fifth or the first guitar solo from The Musical Box, when the organ enters. And who are we kidding, their sound is definitely an unique one. You can recognize it instantly as them and you can trace numerous bands who have sought to emulate that sound. I am not sure exactly what it is, I have not analyzed their music that thoroughly, but it definitely has to do with emotive melodies combined with harmonic passages inspired by classical or folk music and a strong structure to the music generally.
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17848
Posted: January 09 2011 at 14:03
I watched "When in Rome" last night on Palladia again for the hundreth time.(I really need to get that DVD).....and even though the setlist is heavy 80's on the TV show....but hearing In the Cage, I Know What I Like really reminds me of why I thoroughly enjoy Genesis. Even the performance of Mama and Domino are excellent on this tour.
And when I watch the Shepperton films I am always floored at the brilliance that is Genesis with Gabriel and Hackett
I enjoy all of Genesis eras, to me they just fill all the needed attributes of an amazing group of writers and musicians.
Joined: December 03 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 638
Posted: January 09 2011 at 14:14
Gerinski wrote:
Mmmm.... some reasons why I love Genesis?
Unlike many other band who drew mostly from rock and jazz stylism, early Genesis used many more classical elements in their choice of key changes, chord progressions and soloing lines. Banks arpeggios were very much derived from classical music.
Hackett guitar lines were extremely original for its time, neither based directly on rock neither in jazz, also a lot of classical stuff in there but translated to an electric way.
Their use of acoustic and 12-string guitars was also delightful, some here have suggested that it made them "folk" but that's nonsense, folk guitar is based on strung patterns or at most simple arpeggios, while Genesis used harmonic complex arpeggios much more inspired in classical music. Rutherford and Hackett (with some help from Banks) did agreat job at the guitars but I have always thought that it was a real pitty that Anthony Phillips left, we can only guess what superb music might have come had he stayed with the band (together with Hackett I mean).
OK you don't like Collin's drumming but to me he was great again for similar reasons, not a rock drummer and yet not a typical jazz-rock drummer either, a wonderful compromise in between with a lot of subtle touches and (I agree with Moshkito here) very loose, not metronomic at all.
Rutherford... no need saying much, amazing bass and very good with the Moog Taurus bass pedals even if sometimes a bit unnoticed due to the production.
Another thing I love is the theatrical feel of many of their songs, they don't just talk about something, they tell tales, much as if you were reading a book of short stories or short theater plays.
Then there's that english victorian feel, I'm not english but for some reason I love that feel.
And I can not get how can you consider them "bland", with songs such as The Return of the Giant Hogweed, Get'em Out by Friday, The Musical Box.... if this is bland I don't know what kind of ears do you have.
Finally, "Can you tell me where my country lies, said the unifaun to his true love's eyes... It lies with me, cried the Queen of Maybe, for her merchandise, he traded in his prize... "
If you are not moved by this opening I can't help you explain why
By the way maybe it would help if you said which other bands do you like and why? of course there's no reason why you must like Genesis.
I agree with everything, and that is also the reason why I love Genesis. I always kind of saw them as a supergroup that was not a supergroup.
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
Posted: January 09 2011 at 14:40
re your comment on phils drumming - What are you talking about? have you even heard him drum?! most of the stuff he plays is using the ride cymbal he is a jazz fusion drummer try listening to any Genesis or Brand X then get back to me with "so much hihat no ride"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.191 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.