ProgPos Blog - Genesis Studio LP Tour
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66437
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 22:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: ProgPos Blog - Genesis Studio LP Tour
Posted By: progpositivity
Subject: ProgPos Blog - Genesis Studio LP Tour
Date Posted: April 09 2010 at 12:13
|
This is a Prog *blog*. As such, the topic shifts and changes.
I've always been more of a GG and Yes fan than a Genesis or ELP fan. Not that I didn't like Genesis, they were always OK in my book. But I'm finally getting around to giving Genesis another chance to really break through my consciousness and to connect with me. I'm going to give each album multiple listens, providing it my undivided attention - even wearing headphones from time to time!
I've just finished 'absorbing' Trespass. Next up is Nursery Cryme!
You are invited to share your thoughts/observations on Nursery Cryme as I seek to let it "sink in" to my consciousness through repeated listens this week!
We also have a "back-thread" going on the subject of favorite keyboard or guitar solos. I love the guitar solo in "Carry On My Wayward Son". Feel free to "chime in" to post your favorite solos of all time!
-----------
Original Blog Post:
Many neo-proggers have tried (and most would argue that to a greater or lesser extent most have failed) to recreate the vibe of early Genesis. I'm not talking about sounding exactly the same as Genesis. I'm talking about creating a similar emotional feeling or listening experience the way Yezda Urfa or Modest Midget do for Gentle Giant fans or the way Par Lindh Project does for ELP fans.
What is it about early Genesis that made them sound so very good while performing mellow, melodramatic "prog"? And why does it so often come off sounding uninspired, lame or even downright silly when newer bands attempt to implement key elements of the early Genesis "style" either musically or vocally? Oddly enough, when new prog bands employ stylistic elements from the guidebooks of other Prog Giants like Yes, ELP or Gentle Giant, it seems to "work" better, integrating into the end-result much more seamlessly. Of course, this observation may just the result of a personal bias on my part. I confess that I'm not a huge Genesis fan. I enjoy their music but never quite got into them as much as the other Big Greats of Prog History. Personal bias aside, I still can't help feeling that, more often than not, the bands that are most inspired by Genesis often emerge as a type of Frankenstein monster, resembling Genesis in general form, yet curiously having undergone an unintentionally grotesque transformation during the process of coming to life. If you agree, why do you think this is the case? If you disagree, I'd love to hear why as well. Or perhaps this blog should take a turn toward another direction. Perhaps I should revisit the Genesis albums from start to finish again, giving them a fair chance to elevate themselves to my personal Top Tier of Prog Greatness, a position they already hold with the vast majority of Prog Fans worldwide? ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Replies:
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: April 10 2010 at 06:31
|
Personally, I find bands that try to imitate elements of Yes, ELP, Tull etc often also missing the mark.
My guess is that in the early days a band like Genesis was really pioneering in a new sound, while bands that use a lot of Genesis elements often don't have the same sense of adventure. And then it sounds like you've heard it all before.
Just my first guess.
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 10 2010 at 06:40
| I completely agree with you Marcel but I think that retro-symph is not necessarily a lost cause. Just like it was possible to do outstanding and 100% creative works in this style (just think of Hybris), theoretically it should be possible to do it again. I think the problem lies with the approach - those who try to do a certain style will fail, those who just try to do great music will succeed. At least that's how I feel the issue. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 10 2010 at 10:44
|
I think it's probably testimony to the unique summed talents and chemistry that existed in 'Gabriel' era Genesis that makes them so attractive to take inspiration from but devilish to replicate. Although they were clearly all very highly accomplished musicians, they were in many respects one of the most 'democratic' giants of the 1st wave of proggers i.e. none of them could be deemed 'shredders' and in all their most enduring work, the whole is way more than the sum of its parts. For me, neo prog (the chief culprits of flattery by imitation I guess)is that they had learned the ingredients but still didn't have the recipe. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: April 10 2010 at 12:28
Yes, I do agree and maybe my response was too impulsive: there is some great neo prog out there. There are both soulless imitators as well as prog chiefs cooking a wonderful meal (to use Lemming's metaphor), classic but slightly different.
Genesis did have many imitators, though. More Genesis imitators than Yes and ELP imitators, I have the feeling. Maybe because Genesis seemed like an easier act to follow, which was maybe a false notion and that's why many bands failed (but certainly not all)
|
harmonium.ro wrote:Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: April 10 2010 at 14:11
|
I think that IQ is the exception for the Genesis inspired bands. They are not missing the mark. Maybe also the Marillion Fish period.
------------- Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness. Emile M. Cioran |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 11 2010 at 18:17
|
Some of the 1980's neo vocalists seem to have been deeply inspired by Peter Gabreil's dramatic approach. Their emoting, however, can make Peter Gabriel's thespian antics seem downright understated in comparison, can they not? Now one may like an ultra-melodramatic vocal style - so I'm not here to really *bash* that per se. But magnifying one element of classic Genesis in such a manner clearly changes the end result. I'm curious... Might there be a group of 80's rock music fans out there that feel these neo bands *improved* upon classic Genesis? It is as if some of these bands thought, "Wow, listen to the dramatic approach Genesis took in the 70's! They really abandoned their roots on this. We can take this to the next level! Of course, their musical interludes were way too long and drawn out. We will trim that type of "excess" from our songs so that we can tell dramatic tales while still keeping everything short and focused."
Then again, I'm trying to read their minds - which is a dangerous thing - but it seems plausible enough to me at the moment. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: MCP
Date Posted: April 11 2010 at 20:31
|
Because imitation is at best, the same, and well we've heard that before. When a band makes their own it ends up with something like Anglagard's Hybris. Every musician needs to take one's own path from one's own experiences. If one is trying to imitate when one doesn't create music in a similar way, it will almost certainly not work. I know from personal experience one can get caught up in technical details and forget the true creative process. Best to try to make your own story with music, no matter what. Also it's not always money that motivates these bands, it's like nostalgia, but they have to break away from it or else they are stuck in the past. It's produces tough times to vist uncomfortable and new experiences, but it will be worth it in the long term. |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 07:09
-------------  Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 07:17
Yes your response is like a image that exagerate the reality with a good dose of imagination. It doesn't convince me. ------------- Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness. Emile M. Cioran |
Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 07:46
|
Actually I would say that Anglagard and Sinkadus really managed to bring the spirit of Genesis alive (especially the 71-72 sound), without sounding all too derivative. Marillion's Fish tried to sound like Genesis but became more interesting to me when they left that legacy behind on Fugazi and Misplaced Childhood. And don't bring up IQ or I'll get bad-tempered! By the way, I haven't heard any Yes or ELP reproduction yet that I haven't been running away from at full speed! |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 07:50
|
^ Two YES inspired recommendations: ../album.asp?id=2251"> 
 4.35 | 76 ratings ../album.asp?id=2251 - Boris 1975 ../album.asp?id=18986"> 
 3.77 | 9 ratings ../album.asp?id=18986 - Holdfénykert - Enhanced and Remastered 2008  |
Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 10:32
|
Ah yes that Boris, I was only thinking of stuff from the 80's and later! Eh, Holditujzzjbjbbb who?  |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 10:38
Trust me 
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 14:52
|
I've never been big on these guys even before they sold out. I do throw some of their older albums on the turntable occasionaly and still can't figure out what the big deal is/was. I recently put Trespass on and it just sounded so dated. I think Marillion were successful with their first 3 albums was because the death of 70s prog was still fresh in a lot of minds then they found their own groove and I even like some of the Rothery stuff. Can't stand it when he does the older Fish songs though. In some sections of the planet prog didn't even really die. In Montréal where I live they are still big along with ELP ( Emerson & Lake play here tomorrow ) Supertramp, Gentle Giant and King Crimson. In the few record stores that are left you never find those sections empty. Never mind bands that model themseves after Genesis, Genesis themselves can't even, or don't have the heart to play the older material and I get the impression that they would rather leave that up to cover bands like The Musical Box. I saw them a couple of summers ago and itwas just the old farts that got something out ofthe few older tracks that they played. Just a glance at the older material on the When In Rome DVD. The Musical bBox does a great job if you want to hear a Genesis clone band and I've seen them several times. I don't think there's anything wrong with borrowing from the older prog bands but there has to be something new. Although their covers are somewhat generic I like some of the covers that Dream Theatre have done obver the years. It's always a nice suprise to listen to a band that can actually do justice to old Crimson or Gentle Giant tracks as well. I heard a reggae band do House Of The King recently. That's my two cents for ow. ------------- |
Posted By: Lorien Dude
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 16:38
|
Hi There.
I have been involved in writing and recording music in bands and as a solo artist. I agree that there are some bands who go out of their way to sound exactly like the early Prog greats. But something I have found over the years is that it's easy to review or cast aside modern bands as copycat bands, just because some of their sound is similar to that of a band of years gone by. For example, I have always loved and enjoyed the harmony vocals of Simon and Garfunkle, Dan Fogelberg, Crosby, Stills and Nash, The Beach Boys to name but a few, but in the past I have been accused of being an Anderson or Collins copycat, Knowone has ever accused me of being a Wilson or Fogelberg copycat, when really that is where my harmony ideas stem from. Just because I put my ideas to Progressive sounding music, it seems any ideas I put down for massed harmony vocals, means I'm trying to be Jon Anderson. The "oh they sound like" remark is a good way of helping people to know what kind of music they may get from a recording, but reviewers often use this as a quick line which sometimes hides what is really going on on the latest bands efforts. They don't look any deeper. I sang on a recording once where different reviewers described me as sounding like Anderson, Collins, Gabriel, Michael Stype, Sting, Hogarth, Fish, And even Fergal Sharkey. all different coments from different reviewers about the same album. Do any of these side by side, really sound like each other. I think a lot of the time its not the artists that sound amazingly like the bands of yesterday, but just some listeners who are so wrapped up in their past and the bands from their youth that they cannot embrace new bands playing instruments and songs similar to the their hero's. Lets face it there are only a certain amount of sounds one can make, and they've all been made before. You either like it or you don't . Simples.
------------- Lorien Dude |
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 17:14
Yes Lorien, I understand what your saying. It's easy to be negative about a band that had a similar sound to some big bands of the past. When there's so many bands making progressive music since the 70s, its difficult not to be compare to some bands at some points in the history of prog music. But i think that bands should not try to copy a style of band when they made a album. But it's also almost impossible to avoid any similarity in a style of bands with some bands of the past. If those bans can be a source of inspiration, why not use this and still create our own style. It's like a painter who use the same colours of everyone, but when he combines everything in his own way, it gaves a orginal work of art. 
------------- Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness. Emile M. Cioran |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 17:27
|
Fergal Sharkey!
 Wow - it has been a long time since I've heard that name! As a DJ in broadcast radio, I used to play some of his music on a Rock station in the 1980's. Anyone remember "A Good Heart" or "You Little Thief"? (I'm not so sure very many around here would *want* to... Great vocalist IMO!)Perhaps if every reviewer compared you to a single vocalist, it might be worth asking whether you were consciously copying that particular vocalist and how effective that approach was for you...
But it sounds like you have people favorably comparing you to a wide variety of vocalists, so I would tend to think that you must be doing something right!
I was trying to refer more to bands that really seem to be going out of their way to capture the GENESIS style - to clone it so to speak... Then again, come to think of it, perhaps I had some French bands in the back of my mind - bands that key onto the dramatic element of Gabriel's vocals and emote theirs like crazy.
But I know what you mean about expectations. If we get to stuck looking in the rear-view mirror, everything up ahead of us starts seeming "derivative". ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 21:35
|
I always believed it's easier to be inspired in a band based mostly in the virtuoso attributes of their members, in the case of YES, Wakeman (one of the most talented musicians) was replaced by Kaye, Moraz and even Briskin (Yes Symphonic) and they all did great jobs, because they were following one man. Yes with master Steve Howe and Trevor Rabin, sounded almost as good on stage, because Trevor was replacing only Steve Howe, and even when Steve is a genius, his playing is more based in his personal skills than in a tight interplay with the keyboardist.. In the case of Genesis, if you want to replace Banks, you need to replace also Steve Hackett, because the interplay between both was the base of the atmospheric trademark of Genesis, Gabriel left, the band lost a lot, Hackett left and the band was doomed to make Pop music. Yes was a band with high egos, and a very good musician can replace a great musician who wants to shine over the rest, but you can't do the same with a band like Genesis with 5 extremely talented musicians but with smaller egos, who always gave priority to the band interplay than to their personal shinning. For God's sake, nobody could imagine Yes without Jon Anderson, and already they had 4 vocalists and always sounded great on stage.
If you want to be inspired in Yes, you have to follow the music and have one or two musicians capable of taking the place of one or two key members of Yes, if you want to be inspired in Genesis, you need 5 musicians able to replace the whole band and willing to leave their personal aspirations for the sake of the band, and that's hard.
My two cents.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 13 2010 at 16:25
Very interesting points Ivan. At first listen, Genesis *sounds* easier to imitate because there are not as many singularly dominant performances, thus more neo-proggers were emboldened to "give it a go". But successfully "pulling it off" is deceptively difficult due to the subtlety of the interplay among the varous components of classic era Genesis music.
On a side-note, perhaps Genesis' reductionist future was sealed when they quit replacing band members. They transitioned quite successfully (IMO) when AP left and SH stepped in. But losing SH without a strong replacement... That set the stage for the deconstruction that would follow.
Whenever Yes hasn't replaced a departing member with a similarly strong composer, they too have deconstructed (Drama, Open Your Eyes, etc.) ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: theBox
Date Posted: April 14 2010 at 01:46
|
Actually the matter is quite simple for me. Genesis were MASTERS of HARMONIC LANGUAGE. Their Chord progressions and the way they arranged them was far and beyond anything done by the bands of the day. The newer copycats just focus on the sound or the vocals but FAIL to take into account the HARMONIC MANNERISMS of genesis themselves, and that's why they will always fail.
------------- |
Posted By: Lorien Dude
Date Posted: April 14 2010 at 11:22
|
"Very interesting points Ivan. At first listen, Genesis *sounds* easier to imitate because there are not as many singularly dominant performances, thus more neo-proggers were emboldened to "give it a go". But successfully "pulling it off" is deceptively difficult due to the subtlety of the interplay among the varous components of classic era Genesis music."
I can agree with this. My covers band did Watcher Of The Skies. During any rehearsal or gig, one was just waiting for the train wreck to happen, The most difficult song I've ever had the displeasure of murdering :O)
Enjoyed reading this thread, chaps, don't often get on here but will be doing so more often.
Cheers ------------- Lorien Dude |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 14 2010 at 13:40
------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 14 2010 at 14:21
Good points, early Genesis sung to everything with a full knowledge of the issue, they sung to a giant plant that sounded like Mythology but was real, sung to kings as Knute that are not known by a good part of the Britishs, dealed with terrible topics as violence mixes with sexual desires between a Child turned in adult and a girl (Musical Box) with enough class to make it sound mysterious before repulsive, imitators just look for a similar vocal range, but forget the central issue...The ideas and imagination, Genesis made The Musical Box sound terrifying and mysterious, imitators would make it sound as paedophilia.
Some bands believe that having a vocalist that has a similar range to Gabriel and a keyboardiist who follows Tony Banks is enough, but there's much more in Genesis, the richness pof the band sound and the thick atmosphere before unnecessary solos, is something only Genesis was able to create.
I'm sure that Chris Squire is more recognized than Mike Rutherford, but only Rutherford was able to be an integral part of Genesis, I heard Tony Levin and Jeff Berlin making Squire parts, but hardly heard any bassist capable to replace Rutherford in Genesis.
Of course they had luck, the loss of Anbthony Phillips could had been tragic, but found Hackett who had a relatively similar style, with aggressive atmospheres instead of wanting to shred and be the next Hendrix.
Genesis could only had that success with Gabriel, Hackett (or Phillips), Collins, Rutherford and Banks, whatever other formation, would had not worked equally, the prove is in the fact that except the first drummers and Phillips, they never replaced a member (except when Collins didn't wanted to be back for CAS and had no alternative), but instead they hired session musicians and followed with three key members on studio, despite that Rutherford is not mainly a guitarist.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 14 2010 at 14:33
|
^ Sung of Tiresius for Pete's sake. ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 14 2010 at 14:36
 ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 14 2010 at 19:26
That does it! Let's officially declare this question as "answered"...
And so it is time for this blog to - ahem - *progress*.
At this blogs inception, I freely confessed that , although I like Genesis well enough I suppose, thus far I've really *connected* more with other Prog Giants like Yes and Gentle Giant. I even suggested that "perhaps I should revisit the Genesis (studio) albums from start to finish again, giving them a fair chance to elevate themselves to my personal Top Tier of Prog Greatness, a position they already hold with the vast majority of Prog Fans worldwide...
Well, now that I've heard observations on this blog from so many sincere and friendly Genesis aficiionados, how can I not take advantage of this opportunity to sequentially tour through the Genesis studio albums of the 1970's with them? (Special Note: If you suspect that when I said "1970's studio albums" I was simply employing a cheap and artificial device in order to avoid the debut album, then you have seen right through me. I am "guilty as charged'. I hope this does not offend you. Indeed, if "From Genesis to Revelation" inhabits an especially cherished place in your heart, please do feel free to post something about that album... I suppose I *could* even be shamed into including it in my mini-tour of Genesis studio albums... But I kind of doubt it.)
And so it is that I now embark upon my 2010 Genesis classic-era studio album mini-tour with the album TRESPASS. I pledge to you that I will give the entire TRESPASS album at least 3 *attentive* listens this week and will then post my thoughts here (whether they be good, bad or indifferent). Will anyone join me in such a mini-tour?
And even if you don't have time to go back and revisit/re-listen to TRESPASS this week, do you have any observations or suggestions for me as I do so?
For example:
* What should I be listening for on TRESPASS?
* Are there any subtle qualities I may miss if I don't listen closely for them?
* Are there any particular passages from one song or another that you wish to call to my attention?
* Of course, "The Knife" is a standout track. I don't think I'll need any help appreciating that one but feel free to extoll its virtues if you wish! * Peter will play quite a bit of flute on this album, right?
* Ant's style will keep TRESPASS a bit more organic and pastoral than Hackett's approach on subsequent records, right?
I look forward to your feedback - especially whenever you feel I'm not giving credit where credit is due.
Let the listening begin!!
Mark Stephens ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 14 2010 at 21:32
|
^^^
Trespass, the album that started the legend, often underrated because Hackett and Collins were not there, but the giant leap that took a band in search for a hit single to a mature Progressive Rock band without steps.
It really took me several years to get used to Trespass, now I rate it only after Foxtrot and Nursery Cryme, incredibly ïs one of the Genesis albums that has that strong Hackett flavour even without Hackett, proving that only Steve could replace Ant. My highlights are: Looking for Someone: Around the third minute when the radical change happens, the incredible pass from piano to organ is simply delightful and the flute section is the cherry on the top. White Mountain: IMO the first Genesis masterpiece, the keyboard intro is delightful, still gives me goose bumps, the voice of Peter sounds as clear as never after, again a radical change makes my day, just perfect, and Phillips adds the magic touch. Visions of Angells: The instrumental break around the 2:30 minutes is the first trademark Genesis moment, the Mellotron and organ combination is out of his world.. Stagnation: The frenetic instrumental break around 2:47 is breathtaking and the vocal climax around 6:40 is perfect "I want a drink...I want a drink" , just precious and the following coda is just perfect Dusk: Always impressed me that sort of Bossa Nova inspired musical break around the second minute. The Knife: After White Mountain, the best song, not a weak moment, but the highlights in the violent lyrics, the revolutionary spirit taking with some sort of satire, I don't know what is more violent, if the music or the incendiary lyrics. A great album. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: April 14 2010 at 21:41
| I love Trespass too, possibly my favorite Genesis album. Tied with Selling England. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 14 2010 at 22:02
| big Tres fan here too, in addition to the wonderful music and arrangements what impresses me is that in 1970 no one had done anything like it (though this may have been harder to see back then with all the incredible musical breakthroughs that were occurring) |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 15 2010 at 06:37
|
I know Trespass well, but then again I listen to so much other prog from around the world that, come to think of it, I believe it has been a while since I've listened. And trust me I'd be happy to do so today. I'll say one thing right off. There is a certain, I don't know, colour to the record. When you really know this for sure is when you come to observe that some residue of it remains in the next album, Nursery Cryme, and that the colour falls away after that (not to those future albums' detriment; they just mature yet again). ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 15 2010 at 09:49
IMHO Trespass is the first album from the first essential trilogy of Genesis. The band started dark, obscure and mysterious, based in heavy atmospheres that covered the audience, being Trespass their darkest release, the sound was clearly based in the interplay between Phillips or Hackett and Banks, even when they changed two key members (The late but underrated John Mayhew and the colossal but extremely shy Anthony Phillips) Collins and Hackett didn't changed the style radically, it was the same band and the same mood. As a fact the three albums show a shy formation, Hackett as Phillips, sitting and only caring for the guitar, Banks don't taking his eyes from the keys even to say hello to the audience and Rutherford hiding almost behind the right speakers (from the band's perspective), for God's sake, in the interviews only Gabriel and sometimes Collins spoke to the public and dared to joke between them on stage (The show of Peter only started during the Foxtrot tour, before they were a band with no act), while the others timidly laughed and said monosyllables. It was a band with virtuoso musicians but no stars except Peter. It's only in SEbtP that the band mixed that initial approach and added a more friendly sound with some attempts of making themselves more popular as I Know what I Like and the sub-par More Fool Me. Of course "The Lamb" was a "rara avis", an album that nobody (not even Gabriel I believe) expected, a much more complex and hard to understand album despite the preeminence of shorter tracks and some simpler songs like Carpet Crawlers or rocking tracks as the title song. So for me, and even when the 5 Gabriel albums are perfect masterpieces, the first three Prog albums, define Gabriel Genesis as one of the most mysterious and magical band who privilege the team sound over the personal brilliance, and for that reason my favourites. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 15 2010 at 10:43
^ Iván, I could cry,  honestly. Very sweet, they are my favorite too.
I take it you saw them back in the day? How many times, touring for what albums? ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 15 2010 at 10:55
I had a couple of problems with the Genesis tours:
Only seen Gabriel Genesis on videos. -------------
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 15 2010 at 11:14
Well, apologies to everyone else, back to the business of the thread...
------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 15 2010 at 19:56
|
I'm still listening and absorbing...
Day One was devoted a full spin of Side One - and then to repeated "listenings" of Track One "Looking for Someone". I now feel ready to make some observations on the first song of the album. But first...
So many bands start off their albums with long, droning or ambient audio sequences. Why do they do this? To build anticipation and tension I suppose.
Oddly enough, I'll admit that I don't really mind this approach at at a concert hall before a band takes the stage... On the contrary, I consider it quite effective... We are all packed into this arena, waiting together as a 'tension building' tone imperceptably "sneaks" into our collective consciousness. Suddenly we begin to "take notice" as the lights begin to dim... and some guy starts screaming... "TOWN... Let me introduce... GENESIS!!!!!!!!!!" and we all go wild... I truly "get" that.
But on disc, hearing this monotonous 18 second "build up" of a swelling keyboard patch (or whatever it happens to be) just drives me bonkers. It makes me want to stand up and scream - "DO SOMETHING MUSICAL ALREADY, ANYTHING - PLEASE!!" But that's my problem I know. (And you guessed it. I'm not a huge fan of 'ambient' music... But at least people like Eno put a lot of thought into the colors of their ambient music. I can actually dig that. But these bands don't usually put that much blood, sweat and tears into the introductory murmur IMO. I envision someone finding the nearest droning low orchestral tone they can find and say "yeah - we'll fade that in..." It DRIVES ME CRAZY!
Ah, well, there must be something valid to that approach... So many bands do it. It simply must be aesthetically pleasing to a lot of people, no?
My apologies for that mini-rant... Just consider it my own little 'ambient' "build up/intro" to the beginning of the actual 'content' of this post!
 OK - that said, starting off this album with just Gabriel's unique voice. What an inspired move! They really knew they had something special with Gabriel's vocals, didn't they? And the song goes right into motion (which as you know by now that I truly appreciate)...
Single word thoughts that strike me upon listening to "Looking for Someone" are *atmosphere* and *space*. So much of today's music is highly *compressed*. I'm no "pro" so maybe this song is too - but it doesn't feel like it to me. I feel like I can actually hear "empty space", creating an effect on the palette all its own. I don't mean times of absolute silence during the song. I'm talking more about the atmosphere created by musical passages in which the guitar plays single notes in perfect harmony with single notes from the keyboard. The arrangement leaves plenty of room for the music to breathe, so much space on the audio stage from which PG croons and wails.
When a music industry professional produces a young band today, they usually figure out a way to dampen the lounds, boost the quiets, and totally drench the audio spectrum until they have a wall of sound. I'm not saying that approach is entirely invalid, but it certainly contrasts with this one.
Hard to believe I let this glide right past my ears in years past. A unique set of preconceived notions on my part let to that - of course. It sure is fun to discover the depth here for the first time.
Much more listening still to come...
Prog On! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 17 2010 at 00:14
|
White Mountain.
High points:
* Mellotron provides a rich timbre to start and end the song. Very nice.
* Increased volume and tension sets the stage for wonderful contrast during the passage that follows each chorus.
* Tempo changes are very effective. The slowdown makes the ending seem even more dirge-like.
Ahem - Not high points:
* The chord progression is very common. That shouldn't be a big deal. If it *works*, it *works*. I was just surprised that it was so very predicable.
* Toward the beginning especially, there were a few moments where the guitar and drums seem just a tad 'out of sync' - "loose" might be a better way to describe it... certainly not "tight". In its own way, it is actually a little charming - in this age of digital quantize - there is something human and endearing about hearing a little *variance* from a guitarist or drummer. It makes the music seem more "real" if that makes sense.
General observation:
This drummer doesn't seem near as "juvenile" or "amateur" or "bad" as some would have had me think. OK - he's no Phil Collins (but PC is a monster drummer with fantastic chops). This drumming fits in well with the understated and reflective guitar, flute and instrumentation overall.
Conclusion:
In the end, I'll call White Mountain a good pop rock story-song. It is the atmosphere, arrangement and dramatic delivery that elevate it - not quite to greatness - but to "very-goodness". Say, 3.5 stars.
Am I missing something? Rating it too low? Feel free to let me know!
Next up: "VISIONS OF ANGELS"! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 17 2010 at 21:55
It's not a simple three tone progression, by the contrary, it's at least a mixture of several chord progressions, the problem and the merit is despite being the song long, all chords seem incomplete because they add new contradictory ideas making excellent bridges with the guitar and Mellotron, before they are finishing a chord, they add a bridge and start another one, they start "in crescendo" stay freezed in some moments and use what we call an inverse chord (in Spanish) around the 4:25 just to return to the initial chord at higher speed, anything but predictable IMO
Don't ask me more, because my piano lessons ended almost 30 years ago and what I remember is a bit limited, specially due to the language in which I learned.
I believe it's brilliant what they managed to do with a very long track (for early Prog), to make it sound so simple and easy.
To make a simple song sound complex is pretty easy doing some tricks, making a complex song sound simple is pure genius.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 06:18
If you meant at the lyric "... must die", I think it's the suspended chord on the 5th (though it's not precisely and technically suspended, it ends up so due to other things going on in the production / arrangement). That whole section leading to that point is a sort of development, through instrumentation and rate, of the songs' signature chord progression. The cycling over and again of those chords is not only apt for a narrative tale on a story with an inevitable conclusion, but also lends to the pre-human legend, the pre-Christian allegory, that is the theme of the piece. All this and more I'm sure is to be found through analysis of these great early Genesis songs. But they also knew how to keep the, if you will, 'visceral' coming; as one small example, what fan doesn't still get chills from the icy opening of this song? ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 09:56
|
Yes American, seems as if they suspended that chord in a moment, but it's only an effect, the organ seeems to in fact be suspended in time as a hold inthe story (Or "congelarse" -freeze- as we say in Spanish), but the chord is not incomplete, Peter ends with the voice, it's only a fantastic effect that gives credibility to a narration.
I mentioned in a previous post a circle or cyclical chord progression, but it's not that either, because they doesn't repeat it almost exactly or with slight variations to create suspense, they add something extra on each turn and not just a repetition of the same chord.
That's why I consider this song is over looked normally.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 10:05
^ 
------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 12:15
So many things wrong with this post I just have to mention them.
1. Wakeman's replacements. Your points are certainly valid for Brislin (although he really shouldn't count as a hired hand) and Kaye (when he even tried to live up to Wakey's rep.) You could throw in Downes there as well. Moraz on the other hand, is a formidable talent in his own right who left his own stamp on the group for a shining brief moment. I'd argue that you could say the same for Khoroshev as well.
2. Trevor just did guitar? Excuse me?
3. Howe and Wakey practically invented that tight interplay between keyboards and guitar, as careful listening of Fragile and CTTE (and GFTO) should convince you.
4. On to Genesis. Yes, Hackett and Banks were the key musical members, but it wasn't their interplay. Banks is one of those good but not great keyboardists you were talking about earlier. He's no Wakeman. He does have a true genius for composition however. On the other hand, Hackett is very nearly the complete package.
5. I suppose that you can justly say that Genesis had small egos compared to Yes. That's like saying a Rhinocerous is smaller than an Elephant, and it kind of kills your argument. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 17:47
-------------
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 18:07
^ Whew. Ghosty, I've seen people take Iván lightly before. And it always ends this way.  
------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 18:35
Don't be afraid, I love a good debate, but statements like this is wrong in an opinion are not correct.
I love what Yes did, if it wasn't for Jon, they would be among my top bands, but their approach is different, than the Genesis approach, Howe can overdub ten times, because his guitar solos are more spectacular if he plays more, but Hackett and Banks duet didn't work like this,
Take Apocalypse in 9/8, there's no place for a solo or an extra performance, everythig is just in it's place, one instrument more or less would ruin everything, in Close to the Edge, you can add more effects to Wakeman's solo and would onlyy be better.
A good example is One for the Vine on "Three Sides Live", The Banks solo at the middle was horrendous, he tried to change it to sound more modern and it seems a Star Wars laser swords fight, the only way he could do it is as it was on Wind & Wuthering, he changed and ruined it.
With this I'm not saying one is better, I like Genesis more, but taste is personal, it's just that a Yes musician has more freeedom than a Classic era Genesis musician, to the point that Hackett was only recognized after he left, while Howe practically has done his career on Yes and still considered an icon.
I'm OK with GoM disagreeing with me, it's healthy, but saying "Everything is wrong in this post" and then adding phrases like "Banks is good but not great" based only in his personal taste as if it was a fact,, is not the best option.
Banks wouldn't be the most followed keyboardist if he wasn only good, and guys at that level are hard to rate, all are outstanding, I believe Moraz and Nocenzzi have a better tecchnique than Emerson and Wakeman, but that's only a consequence of full studies, but wjho is better as a whole? That's hard to tell
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 18:41
|
The discussion gets lively! Thank you for your contributions Ivan and Ghost of Morphy!
While I don't personally take exception to the proposition that classic Genesis was more about interplay in their arrangements.than virtuoso performances by individual band members - and that Yes (in contrast) placed more emphasis on individual style and virtuosity on their instruments, I would suggest that the validity of this observation is as much (or more) a function of Genesis neglecting employment of individual virtuoso performances than it is a function of Yes neglecting to employe interplay.in their arrangements.
And to me the key word is *emphasis*... for we could certainly point out passages in 'Close to the Edge', 'And You and I', even 'Roundabout' (which I consider to be a weaker song overall) where interplay is *essential* to the polyphonic genius of Yes compositions. This could become a great excuse to go back and listen to Relayer listening for interplay among the various guitar parts overdubbed on the album. Plus Howe said *some* of the music had been written before he arrived - not *all*. Yes took a clearly Moraz-fusiony direction that I cannot possibly believe Howe composed in a vacuum. Relayer has Moraz fingerprint on it. I'm also sure we could pick out places where Hackett and Banks are no slouches in their performances. After all, bands like YES and GENESIS don't become TOP TIER Prog Heroes by totally neglecting either of these elements. Nevertheless, I do think the amount of *focus* or *emphasis* is different between the two bands.
Here's a question for everyone Why do you think Genesis didn't put more emphasis on flashy individual virtuoso performances? One reason clearly could be limitations of the performers involved. But that wouldn't be the case with Phil Collins IMO - who could play monster fusion circles around some of the drum parts he put down on Genesis songs. To some extent, was it not that their vision for the music and their personal style dictated their approach? One could even argue that Ant Phillips' less extroverted fingerprint remained on the band quite some time a while after he left. What are your thoughts? ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 18:48
|
I couldn't agree more with you, Ivan, and that' coming from a guy who grew up listening to Yes rather than Genesis.
Genesis(classic) always sounded me as the team work between Tony Banks and Steve Hackett(or Anthony Phillips) with Peter Gabriel's theatrical and unique input. Phil Collins and Mike Rutherford suited perfectly with the band, Phil had a great drumming and a great backing-voice while Mike added 12-string guitars and appealing and original bass lines.
Yes(classic), on the other hand, always sounded to me more of a virtuosic band in the sense of musicianship, not that they weren't good at composing, but the solos and overall musicianship in Yes has always been a standout of Yes, something that Genesis wasn't acclaimed of because they didn't and hadn't to do that to standout.
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 18:59
I'm hearing Dm, C, Bb, Amaj suspended, (usually resolved to Amaj but sometimes left suspended)... in a rather basic and conventional manner. Am I really missing all that much? What is so special there?
I then hear "Bminor, C, Amaj, D maj, E (no third)"
The little turnaround is a nice departure... Is it "Amin, G, D maj... Amaj sus, A major"? Which leads naturally back to the Dm?
Not a bad song. And clearly one need not pursue complex chord progressions only for complexity's sake. It it *works*, it *works*.
Then again, I may be missing something... I once listened to a Gentle Giant song numerous times before recognizing an element that made the whole song come alive. So please don't hesitate to further enlighten me! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 19:05
I'm sure Ivan has already answered this, but I'll give my input anyway:
Genesis approached their symphonic style of prog in a very different way than Yes did, and listening to both side by side explains this easily.
Yes, imo, always sounded to me more rock-headed with Steve Howe delivering various riffs and electrifying guitar solos, while Genesis, in some way, have always sounded darker and less "rockier", Steve Hackett nor Ant were there delivering guitar riffs, neither was Tony Banks delivering flashy solos. Mind you, this is not disregarding that Genesis were capable of pulling heavy or powerful stuff (The Musical Box, The Knife, etc).
We could argue if Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford were capable of pulling-off the stuff that Wakeman and Squire could pull-off, but I don't think it comes to the discussion since it's clear that Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford were capable, one way or another, to standout by their own but they didn't do that, they preferred to interplay with the rest of the band and give an overall sound/style to the band, something that Wakeman, Squire and Howe clearly didn't do. In this case, I don't want to disregard the approach of Yes to their sympohinc style of prog, they clearly all had chops and composition-wise they knew how to compose some splendid epics.
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 20:06
 . I'm quite the harmony/orchestration head. I don't have the time at all now. But I can stop back... ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 20:24
Nice question, I thought on this issue several times and believe the reasonds are various:
Different reality:
Different music:.
In other words, Yes was a proffesional Rock band with an spectacular and flashy show, Genesis was a group of kids making excellent music. Just a note, people say "Hey Emerson is better so he could do all that"...This is BS; Wakeman, Kaye, Moraz, Banks, and all guys in their level, could most surely do whatever all the others did, but each one had a different style and personality, there's the difference.
Each band did what they had to do.
My two cents
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 13:10
-------------
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 13:17
I'm just going to respond to this one point, because everyone can listen to the albums and make up their own mind.
However I have to point out Ivan's sleazy dishonesty (or alternatively his extreme sloppiness.) Most of his refutation of point 3 is a slamming of Relayer. I invite everyone to look at my original point quoted above to see if I mentioned Relayer. I also invite honest and disinterested parties to join me in pointing out to Ivan that it was Moraz who played on Relayer, not Wakeman, and therefore Relayer has no reason to be included in this point. -------------
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 13:19
|
Oh, and we should all support the addition of Boston in prog-related! -------------
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 14:32
|
Ghost, it appears as though Ivan thought you cited Relayer in your examples of Yes albums with pre-planned tight keyboard guitar interplay, which is not the case.
But I think his larger point is that he feels one can basically *erase* the guitarist's (or keyboardist's) parts on most Yes songs, and then overdub a totally different - yet equally virtuosic - part in it's place and the song would not really suffer as a result. The fact that Moraz could come in so late in the process and put his unique virtuosic solo parts on the Relayer album with so much success is provided as evidence that a Yes song can work that way - with extra parts layered on after the fact instead of pre-planned for a synergistic and cohesive "whole". I think he is also saying that if one did that same thing to a Genesis song that was "in process", it would totally ruin the song.
If find this perspective thought provoking, even if I'm not sure I 100% agree with it. I must concede that I intuitively feel there is surely an element of validity. It is worth breaking down into 2 parts.
1) Could someone step in and change the guitar parts on a Genesis song and the song not be totally ruined in the process? Would it be totally impossible for Genesis to have worked that way? This question may be impossible to answer. No doubt, removing an Ant Phillips guitar part and replacing it with an indiscriminately showy performance could wreck the vibe. (But I would suggest that Patrick Moraz didn't work that way either. He didn't just indiscrimiately overdub on top of Relayer. He took the greater whole into account - even if some of his parts were added "after the fact" did he not? Ah, but I'm already getting into the Yes question (#2 below). I'd better defer that line of thought until later on...
The closest glimpse we may ever have of seeing whether classic Genesis could "work that way" or not might be found with a closer inspection of Nursery Cryme. How many of the guitar parts to this album might have been already written by Ant? Then how many of them might Steve Hackett have made an adjustment here or a change there? To whatever extent Steve's guitar parts differ from what Ant would have played, it could be argued that the arrangements *did* change but that the songs were *not* quite ruined as a result. Perhaps a listen to Ant's "F sharp" contrasted with listenings to "The Musical Box" could give us some clues? Just a thought....
On to the 2nd question. Could we really remove a full guitar part from most Yes songs or a full keyboard part from most Yes songs and insert an equally vituosic performance by another guitarist or keyboard player without dramatically changing or diminishing the songs character in so doing?
In the early "classic" years Yes would evidently jam for hours on end until they found parts that were both complex and inter-locking (even recording them on tape so they could capture and then strive to recreate the best parts later). I think this is how they came up with some of those mind blowing simultaneously virtuosic performances with complex interplay in the arrangements. At other times, however, they shined the spotlight clearly on an individual player for a solo. Interplay in the arrangement was *not* the focus at those times. I suspect a totally different - yet equally impressive solo - could "fit in" without damaging the song in these contexts.
Let's focus on Yes' universally revered album "Close to the Edge" Which song(s) could one perform this type of "cut and paste" surgery on successfully? I promise to listen to the song as objectively as possible to see to what extent I agree or disagree.
Good discussion points everyone! Keep the ideas coming! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 18:25
Please, call me whatever you want, but never dishonest,, I have never insulted, much less give you that right because you don't know me....Calling someone dishonest is an offence, and I'm not willing to accept it
I know that Moraz played on Relayer, but I believe the keyboardists of this bands could be easily changed between without any problem (Of course you need a good musician), As a fact Relayer sounds tighter to me than any previous Yes album.
Now, Of course I mention Relayer after you mention GFTO because the situation is exactly the same in both albums despite the musicians are different
That's my whole point, Yes is mainly based in the skills and virtuosic atributes of their members more than in a team work and close interplay. Now if you want to make a drama, insult me and focus in the the well known fact that Moraz played in Relayer (You didn't said it, I said it..Are you happy?) and still ask people to help you, it's your problem,. but please control your language, I won't accept any word about my honesty, it took me decades to be who I am, and nobody who knows me by a post has a right to place doubts on it.
Iván. -------------
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 19:53
|
Let's not impugn anyone's integrity over what appears to be just an honest mistake.
Ghost wrote "Howe and Wakey practically invented that tight interplay between keyboards and guitar, as careful listening of Fragile and CTTE (and GFTO) should convince you." and Ivan wrote "Relayer and GFTO tight?...Funny," I'm much more interested in exploring the following idea (which I think Ivan is saying in the "bigger picture").
"a good example is Close to the Edge, the solo by Wakeman is an ornate, you can add it or take it and wouldn't affect the central idea of the music, while you touch a note in Banks music and you ruin the song." Ivan, could you alert me to the location in the song's running time where this solo falls? For example, about 4 minutes into the song... or at about the 8 minute mark, etc.? I'm at work right now, but when I get home, I'm very interested in listening to this particular solo to see to what extent I can hear and/or agree with what you are talking about.
I'll be asking myself "I'm my 'mind's ear' can I envision *erasing* Wakey's solo and then replacing it with an equally virtuosic keyboard solo? When I do so, would the song emerge with very little damage to its overall character?"
Indeed, I may be able to envision this - as long as the solo is performed by someone with a lot of pizazz (like Patrick Moraz) as opposed to someone great yet more sedate like Vangelis.
My next question will be to ask myself about the keyboard parts *overall*. "How integrated into the composition as a whole are they IMO? How critical is interplay in the arrangement of the piece overall?
Can I envision someone else (Patrick Moraz maybe?) playing keys of his own style all over the entire song?"
And then the 'litmus test' question... "With this imaginary change, would the entire piece 'Close to the Edge' emerge with very little damage to its overall character IMO?"
I really don't know what the answer will be to these questions. I'll just have to go through the *fun* of listening to CttE with brand new ears!
For this, I thank you Ivan. Because, whether I end up totally agreeing with you, totally disagreeing with you, or any gradation inbetween, not only are you sharing your perspective with me as I embark on a journey to discover the greatness of classic Genesis... You are also helping to make a time-honored classic Yes album to come alive in a new and interesting way for me!
Ghosts - thanks for your input as well. It is - of course! - highly valued! I invite you to give CttE another listen. Of course, this is only your mission if you so choose to accept it and this post will self destruct in 30 seconds!
Let's see what we discover. Your result may be different than mine and different from Ivan's as well. That is one of the cool things about art!
Either way, I'm sure Yes' reputation will survive this scandalous allegation!
Prog On my friends!
------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 19:57
------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 20:38
No my new friend, it's not a mistake- I mentioned Relayer, because it's the exact same case as in Going for the One, and even more radical, because we are talking about a man who replaced the guy who had worked for years with them, we are talking about a totally different keyboardist than Wakeman, but still the album worked incredibly well, as a fact is ,a reinforcement for my point, because Moraz, with a radically different style than Wakeman, and without even having an approach with Yes, came, took the previous recordings, added a couple arrangements and released the best Yes album ever... This (I believe) makes my point, that with a great replacement, no matter who is, Yes will still work, something I don't believe would be so easy in the case of early Genesis. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 20:56
I wasn't talking about any special onel, as a fact I'm talking about any Banks performance in general.. But if you want one ruined, listen Three Sides Live (British version with the old songs) the real song is One For the Vine (Even when due to a mistake of the CD recording appears at the 20 seconds of Fountain of Salmacis) Tony changes the approach, uses electric piano and instead of organ a cheap synth that sounds like a Casiotrone, it's like a battle of swords in Star Wars, but even that may sound as a joke, The real problem is when Stuermer ruins the continuity of the guitar (He's a hell of a guitar player, but he can't work Steve's atmospheres), incredibly the problem is that you listen Stuermer too clear when the song requires a more subtle guitar and Phil (Or Chester not sure), makes a killer drum solo, but too complex for the song, if they had left it as in W&W it would had been great. As a fact is pretty hard to find a bad stage performance in Genesis (Except for technical reasons), because they usually stayed incredibly close to the original version, probably because they knew that a mistake would ruin it all and that there was little place for improvisation, so they played it safe. Check it., it's interesting. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 21:30
| Well, I always like better the live songs when they add something to the song, making impovisations or new arrangements, otherwise, what's the point in having a live album if it's going to be played exactly the same way as the studio album. And often enough I like better the live versions. And I guess it is a point in favor of the artist to be able to make suitable changes to the songs (and make them right) when playing live, than having to play just as it was written on the studio album because otherwise it won't work. I still have to hear more Genesis Live albums to express my opinion on this point for Genesis in particular. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 21:43
|
^ yes and no-- you're correct that Genesis performances can be by-the-numbers as on Genesis Live (though Three Sides Live is rather good), but though I've never seen them, I suspect it would be quite enjoyable to witness the compositions, as written or not. You simply aren't experiencing the magic on a recording. That said, seeing Pink Floyd do the exact same show two nights in a row for the AMLoR tour was disappointing. It depends on the band members, the times, the current musical direction of the band, the very mood of that particular evening. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 22:18
I believe there are bands that should improvise and as a fact do it great, I seen Wakeman and Tull several times and don't imagine a live show sounding as in an album. But a band like Genesis or Pink Floyd are different, they always sound almost exactly, and casually both are two bands that have a rich atmospheric sound. For me, the Three Sides Live performance of One for the Vine is disappointing, even when I like the In the Cage performance despite the differences, they made One for the Vine too light, too 80's, clearly for a new fanbase and without any mystery that is one of the main characteristics of the band and the song in particular. Remember that even that version was too strong for the USA album and they released Three Sides Live for this country with a fourth studio side with songs as Paperlate, because the new fans only knew the band after Hackett left . But it's only my opinion. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 22:38
true, though I have some recordings of Floyd in '75 touring WYWH and they had a rougher, more spontaneous approach than later..more like a rock band doing art than an art band doing, or trying to do, rock. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 22:51
I always believed that this was caused for the historical weight of Dark Side, they didn't had the balls to touch it because everybody had a copy and all the fans wanted to listen it as it sounded in their homes.
WYWH gave them more freedom, it's more a rock album, even the Gilmour solo in Shine on You Crazy Diamond calls for jamming.
But also the eternal conflict between Dave and Roger was a cause for preasure, none of them would had allowed the other to change the tracks too much.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 20 2010 at 16:02
|
Two listens to the studio version of Close to the Edge last night...
Question #1: "I'm my 'mind's ear' can I envision *erasing* Wakey's solo and then replacing it with an equally virtuosic keyboard solo? When I do so, would the song emerge with very little damage to its overall character?"
Yes. As far as the organ solo toward the end of the song, I can very much envision *erasing* Wakey's solo and replacing it with a jammin' solo by any number of musicians playing a flashy solo and I think the song would emerge with very little damage to its overall character. (Vangelis probably wouldn't do the trick - but Ryo Okumoto would... That is clearly a showcase organ jam moment requiring a particular passion and insensity much more than any particular phrasing or melody.)
Question #2: "How integrated into the composition as a whole are the keyboard parts in CttE IMO? How critical is interplay in the arrangement of the piece overall? I walked away from those listens more impressed with Wakeman than ever. I'll go as far as to say the keyboard solo at the end of the song is the least impressive aspect of Wakeman's contribution to this song overall. It isn't that the solo is crappy. It is that his touch of genius is all over CttE - in subtle (and not so subtle) ways throughout. I think I'll have much to say on this later when I can reference specific places in CttE where the keys are very integrated into the entirety of the composition.
One final "controversial comment" I can add right now... I've always felt that Steve Howe - as great as he was (and is!) in concert - got himself in just a tad "over his head" during some of the live performances of the YesSongs era. He more than "made up" for any amount of imprecision with sheer energy and enthusiasm - creating a concert experience and a YesSongs album experience that is not only vital and exciting - but is also unique from the studio album experience - capable of standing on its own. But it was an action born more of necessity than from grand design IMO.
Sometimes hearing Howe on YesSongs is a little like watching a high wire act. There is a certain amount of tension involved... Can he pull this off? When he does, I exclaim "YES! He did!" I can almost feel the sweat dripping from his brow....
What Howe (and all of Yes to some extent) did on CttE was truly gutsy. The parts he contributed through multiple takes and dubs in the studio were so ambitious that it stretched him to his performance peak. Indeed, many of the band members had to practice quite diligently to recreate workable approximations of the masterpieces they created in the studio within a 'live' context.
And so I'll come out and "say it"... From a strictly compositional standpoint, I do *not* think Howe quite "pulled off" the first frenetic guitar section of CttE successfully on YesSongs. I won't go as far as to allege that he "ruined the song" of course. He did manage to recreate some measure of the mood and feeling from the studio version. And he was clearly cognizent of the importance of remaining true to the key guitar melodic theme that emerges from the chaotic opening section. I think he does an excellent part of integrating that into the guitar section - so all is not lost by any means... Squire's bass part *is* spot on and is 100% "mission critical" to the opening section IMO.
Thoughts? ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: April 20 2010 at 22:16
I wouldn't agree Pink Floyd always sound exactly as in the album (nor Roger Waters Solo). Perhaps indeed many songs remain almost the same, for they are not good to be improvised upon, and perhaps they do not change the other songs as much as other artists might, but I have heard some songs I really like much better live from Pink Floyd. Specially, those songs that end with a guitar solo, Gilmour usually makes them a lot better (for my taste) live, he makes them longer (at least a bit) and more powerful... that's one of the reasons I don't really like the studio version from Comfortably Numb so much any longer, the solo ends all too soon (though the atmosphere is certainly better on the original recording). Waters made MAJOR changes to Set the Controls to the Heart of the Sun, and to Welcome to the Machine on the In the Flesh live album (though I wouldn't say I like those versions better, they are good anyway). And what about early Pink Floyd? just about any song they chose to play live (alas, they released too few of those) sounds so much better, longer, more powerful, and even more atmospheric. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 21 2010 at 11:11
Well, of course, as a Psych band the jamming was the center of their act.
Just seen a rare version of "Careful with that Axe Eugene" and it's impressive.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 21 2010 at 14:52
|
It is interesting which sections of a song that band members feel they can take liberties with in concert and which ones they feel are so integral to the song's structure that they need to leave them "as is". They usually make wise choices IMO but not always. Most rock and pop music performers (prog and non-prog alike) have to make these decisions when they take their music on the road. I once heard an interview in which Eddie Van Halen discussed his thought process for guitar solos on his songs in concert. There are certain sections that he felt he should not change, certain motifs he felt he should *not* abandon during a song's solos lest he change the character of the song and disappoint the fans in the process... Even so, there were other sections in which he felt much more free to improvise... and then there were situations where he felt obligated to work within the confines of the same motif, melody or riff as the solo on the album even while having freedom to improv with slight (and not so slight) variations.
I only bring EVH up because that interview so clearly illustrates what I'm describing. But the same thought process applies to proggers as well.
Can you think of any live performances (either in person or on "live" record/CD) that have - at least to some extent - disappointed you due to a change to a song?
On the flip side, have there been any performances (either in person or on "live" record/CD) that have disappointed you to some degree because they left everything virtually unchanged?
Which performances did you think captured a good combination of remaining true to critical themes, motifs and entire sections, while also expanding or changing other elements with improvisation or new arrangements for the live context?
If you are a performer or recording artist, have you ever gone through this type thought process before practicing for a live show? Or does it seem to "come naturally" to you?
I'll share two examples from my recent listening session to Close to the Edge from YesSongs. One good and one 'not so good'.
Not so good:
There is an organ run that Wakey adds toward the beginning of the song that is thankfully not on the album - or is mixed so low that I cannot hear it - in which the organ sounds more like something I might hear at a baseball game. A kind of indiscriminately cheesy type run that I might play if I were asked to just throw something in a song to fill up some space. To my ears, it is tragically "out of place" in a song of such cosmic proportions and aspirations. (This is - of course - a highly subjective judgment. You may consider that a grand addition to the song - but it struck me as sorely 'out of place'.)
Good:
In contradistinction, there is a highly composed passage toward the middle of the song where the bass and guitar introduce a new chord phrasing while Wakeman restates the dominant theme on keyboard at a slower tempo on top. Excellent counterpoint! A "high spot" of the song IMO and one I would have sorely missed had they skipped, replaced, or majorly changed during the concert performance. And they wisely left it the same as on the record. (If anyone is unsure where I'm talking about in the song, please let me know and I'll be glad to post the approximate running time of this section of the song for you. I'm at work right now without access to the song but I'll be glad to find it and post it.) ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: April 21 2010 at 19:07
|
the famous guitar solo on the PULSE DVD concert on Confortably Numb is one of the few times I sensed the presence of somthing godlike, and the HUGE disco ball opening upp and revealing a flower. I saw Yes in December and they were amazing and the new singer was great |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 22 2010 at 12:13
|
The guitar solo from Comfortably Numb is very melodically uplifting - which creates an interesting sense of temporary 'relief' to the struggles depicted by the narrator in the song. It paints an emotional "sound picture" of the protaganist's memories of an elusive " fleeting glimpse out of the corner of his eye" of something good and bigger than him and all of his problems. Your emotional response speaks volumes about its effectiveness. Truly one of rock music's "great guitar solos". As such, this is a guitar solo that simply *must* retain key melodic elements or else the song would be fundamentally changed. Fans would be so incredibly disappointed if DG just improvosed a totally different melody at that point of the song. (I know I would!). Sure DG can embellish a little phrasing or add an extra note here and there - but during the key melodic sequences, the fundamental motif absolutely *must* remain. Of course, he can extend the solo - even double or triple its length, with the 2nd and 3rd time around becoming an improv-fest if he wants... So sometimes one can get "the best of both worlds" after all!
Glad to hear you enjoyed Yes in concert recently - even if Jon couldn't make the trip. Opinions are destined to be "divided" with a Jon-clone singing. But it Jon can't make it, David sounds like "the next best thing"!
Funny thing... When I first heard David Benoit was going to fill in to sing on this tour I thought "the jazz pianist can *sing*?"! Wouldn't *that* have been wild if it had been the same "David Benoit"!!!  ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 22 2010 at 20:18
|
This song may be more 'crossover' than prog... but I've always *loved* Kerry Livgren's guitar solo on the Kansas song "Carry on My Wayward Son". The part where he steps down the scale with 4 staccato notes before speeding up... there is such a sense of economy, every note is just so *perfect*! That is certainly a solo that I would want him to replicate "note for note" in concert (as he did when I saw him in the 70's. Great show! Steve Walsh was so full of energy. Jumping all over the stage like a mad mand. Playing keyboards while jumping all over the place!) ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Ethos
Date Posted: April 22 2010 at 20:53
|
Guitar: Steve Hackett - Firth of Fifth Keyboard Rick Wakeman-Awaken ------------- "As sure as Eggs is Eggs." |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: April 22 2010 at 21:00
| Steve Hackett, the song 12 from Neal morse`s album ? |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: April 22 2010 at 21:07
| Tempano - Selective Memory - Argos |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 23 2010 at 12:09
I didn't even realize Hackett played on that album! Now I simply must track it down and give it a listen! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 23 2010 at 21:15
|
Before I can righfully move on to the next Genesis stuio album in my 'mini-tour', I *owe* an update on my TRESPASS listening experience. I had expected The Knife to be the clear standout track from the entire album, but repeated listens (with full attention) have yielded an unexpected result. Stagnation has turned out to be my favorite.
I hope you will forgive me for hearing snatches of early classic Moody Blues (In Search of the Lost Chord era) here and there during some of the quieter moments of TRESPASS. The song Dusk is the most obvious (but not the only) example. The Moodies had so many slick hits that it sometimes gets easy to forget how organic and cosmic, mellow and artistic they could be back in those early days.
I also hear some unexpected stylistic 'common ground' with Gentle Giant's Three Friends album.
I now believe I have *absorbed* this album enough to *graduate* on to the next Genesis stuio LP. NURSERY CRYME!!!
One final note to come 'full circle' back to the beginning theme of the blog. Has anyone heard of a band named Madrigal? I just heard an album of theirs named "On My Hands" that I consider (not equal to but) worthy of consideration from classic Genesis fans looking for a similar approach with a modern sensibility. By modern I mean 80's or 90's... Wow... I must be really *old*! LOL!! But you know what I mean. More modern than 70's era Genesis.
I'll personally rate Madrigal above 80's Marillion and IQ any day.
Mark Stephens
------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 24 2010 at 12:13
|
Too distracted Friday night. My attempts to listen to Nursery Cryme devolved into "background listening" as I did other things... I shouldn't be surprised that I got the same result I've had over the years: a vague sense of audio drama in the background, a notch above but not particularly unlike the music of any number of neo-proggers.
Now I'm not saying that this was a fair and accurate assessment. Only that I'm going to have to really *listen* if I want to really *connect* with this music.
One general impression I can offer from the background listening... Hackett and Collins are more adept, fluid and downright comfortable than their predecessors IMO. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Rottenhat
Date Posted: April 24 2010 at 12:17
|
I envy you a bit progpositively, for being in the position of trying to get into the early Genesis albums for the first time. Oh, those days! Nursery Cryme was really a very important album back in those days. Now it has lost a lot of its magic after hearing zillions of other bands.
I don't want to sound elitist, but nowadays I have to listen to more and more extreme left-field bands to get a impression of hearing something new.
I guess I am an old f**t
Sorry for being a killjoy... ------------- Language is a virus from outer space. -William S. Burroughs |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 24 2010 at 12:23
|
^ He has my envy too Rot. I remember vividly first hearing the Foxtrot album at a friends house. That particular one was in his father's record collection (this had to be late 70's?), and neither I nor my friend had ever heard it (though I already knew Watcher from Genesis Live, which I had on 8-track). Never forget how we were blown away more and more with each consecutive minute.
------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: April 24 2010 at 12:35
I wasn't much of a Genesis fan until I got this: |
Posted By: Rottenhat
Date Posted: April 24 2010 at 12:36
|
Aah, nice story American Khatru. I remember how I first got into Genesis too. I had lent Nursery Cryme from the library, not expecting much, because my only experience with the band was from the newer 80's albums., played on the radio.
The vinyl was in a really bad shape, with years of wear and tear and bad handling. And I was in a kinda bad shape myself, having a cold and fever. But listening to the album, I was blown away more and more each consecutive minute, just as you say, Khatru. The cold and fever also had a very unexpected positive effect on this, I went into a kind of trancelike state because of this, and that made the album even more enjoyable.
------------- Language is a virus from outer space. -William S. Burroughs |
Posted By: Rottenhat
Date Posted: April 24 2010 at 12:42
------------- Language is a virus from outer space. -William S. Burroughs |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 24 2010 at 19:47
|
I believe you should open a new thread for Nursery Cryme, people gets confused because his thread has changed names too many times.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: April 24 2010 at 22:39
I love this box. I also think this is the perfect way to do bonus tracks: on a seperate disc if possible.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 24 2010 at 22:57
| not my favorite early Gen record, but it's growing on me |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: April 24 2010 at 23:42
Seconded.
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 25 2010 at 12:05
|
If Eddie Offord had produced it and had brought in Alan Parsons as the engineer, this would get much more love. -------------
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: April 25 2010 at 12:15
------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 25 2010 at 12:58
|
I appreciate the feedback. Before making a decision, I'd like to share a little of the thought process behind what I've been doing. As always, I welcome your opinions!
This was posted to the "Blog" section of the PA board. I'm still relatively new here, so perhaps someone can help me understand how a Blog could work better on the ProgArchives board.
I've considered opening a new topic many times. That would have resulted in quite a few independent threads all doing "their own little things" by now... This clearly has advantages in terms of simplicity. But I felt there would have been something lost in terms of continuity with respect to the "Blog" concept.
Perhaps, I should ask, in this context, what does ProgArchives consider to be a "Blog"? I've tended to think of it as a journal of sorts... a semi-regularly "updated, chronological publication of personal thoughts".
http://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/blog/ - http://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/blog/
If I were to start up a new "Blog" thread each time another topic of observation came along, it devolves into something quite less than a Blog to me. Perhaps more like a random scattering of various mini-Prog-Editorials here and there.
One answer might be, "Mark, this is a discussion board with *threads* - not a Blog".
And while I'm certainly willing to listen and consider that perspective, at this moment I would be left wondering "why then - is a section of this board set aside and reserved for Blogs?"
Your thoughts? ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 12:58
I'm striving for a "best of both worlds" approach here. I just "spun off" a new topic for Nursery Cryme. The next time a spin-off topic comes up, this thread won't have to change names.  ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Brendan
Date Posted: May 17 2010 at 03:51
Yeah no one wants to imitate the vocals of Greg Lake do they
|
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: May 21 2010 at 03:58
Sorry to come into this thread late, Mark. Whats it all about>? Are you just discussing various songs of Genesis or the whole band history? I have recently been getting into the intertestemental period of Genesis
between Trick of the Tail and Abacab. I am endeavouring to review every Genesis album but its a slow process. ------------- 
|
Posted By: raindance
Date Posted: May 25 2010 at 07:28
| Not a great album! Does Hackett play on it????? |