Genesis Appreciation/Discussion

[Orbert]

My favorite period of Genesis, such as it was, was 1976-77.  The two albums by the four-piece band and the Seconds Out live chronicle of those tours.  Peter Gabriel was great, there's no denying that, and the early progressive stuff is unmatched.  But many of Peter's songs really took on a new dimension when Phil sang them, even if Phil did tend to "over-sing" in spots.  The two studio albums are in my top five, and have the energy and creativity of a band's sophomore effort (which they were in a way) in that they had to prove themselves.  They pushed in new directions, stayed true to the previous body of work, and paved the way for what was to come.

My point is that this period would not be represented by either Selling England by the Pound or Invisible Touch.  It is quite different from either of those, being a transitional period.  Also, five of the eight songs on Invisible Touch received airplay.  It would be difficult to listen to this album and really glean anything new about the band and this period, unless you didn't listen to the radio until after the 80's (which I suppose is possible).  I think a better choice for the latter period would be We Can't Dance.  It's a much more diverse album, and with 12 songs rather than eight and a much longer running time, a better bang for the buck as well.

[Mosh]

I don't disagree, I just think these two albums would be best for new fans to get their foot in the door. It certainly worked for me, at least. You don't get everything the band did on those two albums, but at least get an idea of what Genesis was all about. They might not be the best (though both are favorites of mine), but I find them to be very accessible and "easy" for a new fan.

A good chunk of potential Genesis songs are also going to be people who were too young to listen to radio in the 80's too, so that would be less of an issue.

[Zydar]

"We are very pleased to be able to finally tell you all that the Genesis documentary 'Together And Apart' will be screened on BBC 2 on Saturday 4th October at 9:15pm. The delay in posting this information was unfortunately due to circumstances beyond our control! We hope you enjoy it."

[Orbert]

It always amuses me how bands and other people have to apologize for things "beyond our control" since that's usually code for "because the lawyers and all the other idiots involved couldn't work it out until now".

[sneakyblueberry]

I'm looking forward to it.

[Zydar]

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/steve_hackett_slams_genesis_film.html

The guitarist understood the film would give equal coverage to his band and subsequent solo career, along with those of Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Mike Rutherford and Tony Banks.
Hackett says: "It's certainly a biased account of Genesis history, and totally ignores my solo work. It does not deliver the theme of 'together and apart.'

"In interview I spoke at length as much about my solo career as my time in Genesis, but was not given any editorial involvement. I know the documentary will soon be on sale, but I don't be selling it via my own website."

The film is tied in with the band's "R-KIVE" retrospective package. Hackett says: "The box set represents us all equally; the documentary does the opposite."


___________________


Did anyone catch the documentary this Saturday, by the way?

[Orbert]

Steve Hackett's contributions to Genesis have always been marginalized, and his subsequent solo work generally overlooked, both of which are a shame.  Steve was an integral part of their sound during the time he was in the band, and I always give him at least as much credit for their amazing prog as I do anyone else.  Since leaving Genesis, his solo career has been impressive.  I do have some issues with his "Genesis Revisited" projects, which on the surface seem to be little more than cashing in on the work he did in a band over 30 years ago, but I haven't really dug into them, and others say it's really good music, so there is that.

It doesn't surprise me that Steve is downplayed in this new documentary.  He had the shortest tenure in the band of anyone, and to many, that means he's the least important and thus least worthy of running time in the doc.  I couldn't disagree more.

[The Curious Orange]

I did catch the doc, and it was rather an odd beast. I can sort of see Hackett's point - the five of them were sitting in a room, with Hackett on the extreme left, and most of the shots seemed to be of the other four. You could just make out his knee in some shots. To be fair, though, his solo career has probably been the least commercially sucessful, so it's not surprising they edited his out.

The documentary attracted an amount of criticism in the UK media for featuring Jonathan King, the music imprassario who signed the band and allegedly gave them their name (He was convicted a few years back for crimes involving under-aged rent boys). The film's producers and the BBC defended the decision to feature him as to do otherwise would be to revise history. Which is fair enough, but there was no mention of the Ray Wilson / Calling All Stations era at all. If that's not revisionist history, I don't know what is.

Only other interesting point - Tony Banks is a right miserable git. The documentary did him no favours whatsoever. He came across a bitter that Gabriel became a star, bitter that Gabriel left, bitter that Collins saved songs for his solo career, and bitter that his own solo career didn't take off in the same way. It was pretty obvious that he saw Genesis as "The Tony Banks Band".

[Orbert]

Tony's always been like that, though not as bad in the past.  He sees Genesis as the band that he and Peter Gabriel started, which is not without merit.  I'm sure he recalls many times playing the piano at school and Peter singing, and to him, that was the start of the band.  To others, the band didn't really start until they had a guitarist, bassist, and drummer, and they went through many, and continued to change until the third album.

Banks has always been disappointed with the sale (or lack thereof) and popularity (or lack thereof) of his solo work, and understandably so.  But the fact is, it's just not very interesting.  He's a brilliant composer -- his two classical albums show that very nicely -- but when it comes to songwriting, he clearly needs someone else to work with and temper his ideas.  He's got a couple of real winners in the Genesis catalogue; "Firth of Fifth", "One for the Vine", and a few others, but if you listen to them, what makes them great is Banks' skill as a composer as opposed to a songwriter.  That may be a distinction that only I and a few others make, but if you catch my meaning, it's pretty clear.

Anyway, yeah, Tony gave his best years to Genesis and never felt like his contributions were recognized.  Phil Collins went on to become a pop god.  Mike + The Mechanics were pretty successful as well.  Peter Gabriel of course was quite successful.  Banks had one pretty good solo album (A Curious Feeling) but later put together a string of mediocre pop bands that each released one mediocre pop album before collapsing due to lack of interest.  He used to joke about how no one bought his solo albums the way they bought everyone else's, but even back in the 80's, you could tell that it actually bothered him.  I can see it making him right ornery nowadays.

[jammindude]

What irritates me about Tony's attitude is his inability to really stick it out with something. 

Even the Ray Wilson switch...  Sure, it wasn't commercially accepted, and the US Tour never happened, but if Tony had done ANY homework at all, he would have seen that a decent section of the hardcore fans (while not liking it as much as previous efforts) eventually started to come around to the idea that CAS was not a bad album, had some great ideas, and thought it would be interesting to see where this new incarnation of Genesis might go.     Maybe he was just too old to start from scratch again?  Or too spoiled to start from playing theaters after playing stadiums??

I heard rumors that Jimmy Page was the same way about the Cloverdale/Page project...he put it together because he *thought* that he could go back to playing huge stadiums like with Zeppelin...but when the promoters tried to tell him that he had to start by touring small theaters, he was too proud for it, and dropped the whole project. 

[Orbert]

I see what you're saying about Tony, but I try to give the guy a break.  This is all he's ever known.  He went from being a spoiled rich kid to a spoiled rich adult.  Genesis formed and landed their first album deal when the guys were in high school, and they went nowhere but up for the next 20 years.  Going "back" to players clubs and theaters after playing stadiums was practically an alien concept to these guys.  They played some smaller venues early in their career, but in general did not go through years and years of paying their dues the way most everyone else does.  I don't know if it was his ego preventing Genesis from taking a step back to regroup, working up again from smaller venues, or that they quite literally didn't know how.

Tony definitely saw Genesis as "his" band after Peter left, and all the solo stuff and side projects were just dabbling in other things while waiting for the band to regroup for the next album.  But he saw how easily pop success came to Phil and Mike, and I'm sure there was some jealousy, and that eventually led to bitterness.  I consider him the most musically talented of the three (four if you count Steve), and I'm sure he does, too.  The fact that this would not translate into commercial success anywhere in the same league as the others must bother him to no end.


I never knew that about Coverdale/Page.  I always thought David Coverdale had a very similar style to Robert Plant and the Coverdale/Page project should/could have been the best substitute for Led Zeppelin that we were going to get, since apparently Plant isn't interested in revisiting Led Zeppelin.  Disappointing that it never went anywhere.

[jammindude]

I just feel like he might have had all the "redemption" that he had always wanted if he just would have built a new following around the new incarnation of the band.   It just seemed like he wanted that redemption instantaneously after a single album.   

While it needed some work, I actually thought CAS was a really strong album...certainly better than a couple of their 80's albums.  It showed promise.  And if Tony had just been patient, he had a decent foundation to work with.   But he wanted it all NOW.   It's just disappointing, because I myself would have been interested in seeing where this new, darker incarnation of Genesis would go.     

I just see it as a failed opportunity for re-invention. 

[Orbert]

Calling All Stations is a weird album.  It seems like the band itself wasn't even interested in it enough to do it right.  I gave it a couple of spins when it first came out, gave it a break, came back to it, gave it another, longer break, came back again, and it still disappoints.  Some nice grooves and neat ideas that just never pan out.

Every song except one falls into a groove, then repeats and fades out rather than ending properly.  To some, that's a minor thing, but most Genesis songs have proper endings.  The repeat and fade is reserved for when that is the effect they're going for, not because they couldn't come up with an ending.

By the band's own admission, the songs on Calling All Stations sound and feel incomplete because they actually were.  The album was basically composed by Tony and Mike, working with a drum machine because they didn't have drummer.  The drum tracks were laid down in the studio, but once they got to the studio, they realized that they'd never written endings to the songs, because programming a drum machine to end a tune is complicated.  Seriously guys?  You didn't realize until you were actually recording the songs that they weren't done?  The right thing to do would have been to delay things, take some time to actually finish the writing, then finish the album.

Whether it was a financial decision, or the timing wouldn't work out, or what, I've never heard.  But while Calling All Stations definitely shows a lot of potential, to me it is just that and only that, potential.  They never followed up, and they only gave it a half-assed attempt in the first place.  The album is okay, but absolutely sounds like something that could have been stellar had they taken what they had and gone all the way with it.  Instead, they rushed it, put it out there half-baked, and then eventually cancelled the tour due to poor ticket sales.  What a horrible final chapter in the story of a great band.

[Mosh]

For me, Genesis ended with We Can't Dance. Fading Lights is their swan song, and what a swan song at that.

[Zydar]

For me, Genesis ended with We Can't Dance. Fading Lights is their swan song, and what a swan song at that.

Yeah, I like to pretend that CAS doesn't exist, or that it's a side project instead of a true Genesis album.


Edit: Wanted to clarify that sentence.

[Orbert]

Yep.  Despite the name Genesis on the cover, it's just not the same band.

[ddtonfire]

For me, Genesis ended with We Can't Dance. Fading Lights is their swan song, and what a swan song at that.

Completely agree here. Fading Lights is easily top 3 for me.

[Zydar]

I watched the documentary last night, and I agree that Steve was totally ignored as a solo artist. What a shame, since he had some degree of success both solo and with GTR.

Overall a pretty good documentary, although the Gabriel years kind of flew by - and they barely mentioned my favourite Genesis album: Selling England By The Pound seemed like a footnote compared to the other albums, despite it being a very highly regarded album.

[ytserush]

Haven't seen the recent doc, but I've seen a few others.

Of all the solo "careers" I've always liked Hackett's and Gabriel's best.

I also quite like Calling All Stations and didn't think it was given the proper chance.

Was Banks solo album Still mentioned and his songs with Fish?

[ddtonfire]

I agree with Zydar, they really glossed over Hackett and SEBtP. I'd be pissed if I were Steve, too.

[Orbert]

How long is this documentary?  I'll probably never bother with it; there's very little I could learn from it except how old and cranky these guys are getting.  But when there's only so much time to cover a 40-year career, the relatively short time Hackett was in the band might simply be seen as proportional to the total run time of the doc.  If they spent much time on him at all, the vast majority of fans, who only know the three-piece Genesis, would complain that so much time was spent on the early lineups.  I can see that, even though I don't agree with it.  As with anything else, they're catering to the largest fan segment, not necessarily trying to educate people on the history of the band, even if that's supposedly what a documentary is about.

I'm not saying that a total snubbing is warranted.  When you do something like this, I think you should at least hit every album, and if the idea is to show them "together and apart" then every members' solo career should at least get some screen time.  It sounds like the typical doc that spent most of its time on stuff we already know and what they think most people are interested in.

[KevShmev]

Well, considering how successful the solo careers of Collins and Gabriel have been, it only makes sense to focus on them a lot as far as solo ventures go.  Meanwhile, the solo careers of Hackett and Banks aren't even blips on the mainstream radar, so they need to be a bit more realistic here.  I can understand the frustration by the two, but really, what else did they expect?

[Orbert]

I think they probably expected what they were told to expect, a comprehensive look at the history of the band and its members, together and apart.  Mainstream has nothing to do with it.  If the goal was to explore all facets of the band and its members, then that should have happened.  Instead (and again, I haven't seen it and probably won't) it was yet another regurgitation of the same crap that everyone else has done, focusing on the popular rather than actually attempting to dig any deeper.  In fact, it probably would have been more interesting to focus more on stuff people didn't already know.

Steve specifically speaks of how he was asked and talked about his solo material, and none of it was in the doc.  True, I'm sure they had hours of footage and had to edit it down to a reasonable length.  But if they actually asked you about things and you talked about them, and you were told up front that it would be included, then I think you're justified in thinking that at least some of it would end up in the final product.  Literally not a word?  Group shots with him essentially cut out?  That's just lame.

[ytserush]

I think they probably expected what they were told to expect, a comprehensive look at the history of the band and its members, together and apart.  Mainstream has nothing to do with it.  If the goal was to explore all facets of the band and its members, then that should have happened.  Instead (and again, I haven't seen it and probably won't) it was yet another regurgitation of the same crap that everyone else has done, focusing on the popular rather than actually attempting to dig any deeper.  In fact, it probably would have been more interesting to focus more on stuff people didn't already know.

Steve specifically speaks of how he was asked and talked about his solo material, and none of it was in the doc.  True, I'm sure they had hours of footage and had to edit it down to a reasonable length.  But if they actually asked you about things and you talked about them, and you were told up front that it would be included, then I think you're justified in thinking that at least some of it would end up in the final product.  Literally not a word?  Group shots with him essentially cut out?  That's just lame.

I completely agree with this .

Based on the chatter, it did seem like this time it was going to be a more definitive look, but  perhaps it was engineered that way to get people interested.

[Orbert]

So... I got up from a nap, wife was on the PC so I couldn't game or Internet, decided to watch TV.  I watched the documentary "Sum of the Parts" which presumably is this documentary which I thought was named "Together and Apart" (I don't remember now why I thought it was called that) but it had to be the same one, since it's obviously recent and they haven't done anything else recently.

It wasn't as horrible as I'd been led to believe.  Considering the amount of time and material they covered in 90 minutes, it was actually pretty good.

I noticed a few times when Steve was cut out.  The five of them were sitting there, one of them was talking about something that involved two of the others, so the camera focused on those three.  Or one of them was talking and someone made a funny face or otherwise reacted in a notable way, so they zoomed in to catch that.  There were lots of shots of all five of them, and lots of various subgroups of them, for variety if nothing else.  If they'd done everything with the wide shot of all five of them, you'd feel like you were watching a conversation from across the room.

Tony actually seemed less bitter than I'd seen him recently.  Yeah, there were one or two times he said something negative.  They all did.  It was refreshing to see everybody being honest.  I've seen many, many interviews with these guys over the years, and they're almost always politically correct to an extreme.  Proper English gentlemen, not wishing to insult anyone.  Not so this time.

It was still pretty much what I'd expected.  A reasonably comprehensive look at what they'd already decided most people would be interested in, and that's the popular stuff.  But they did spent more time than I'd thought they would on the origins of the band, including Jonathan King and Anthony Phillips, and that's good.  Not including the final album Calling All Stations was bad, though.  They at least touched on every album except that one.

Overall, not bad, and better than I'd expected, given the buzz and what I already know about the band (which is a lot).

[finn the fisherman]

Have watched the documentary twice now.It's ok,but nothing special.
Now I love this band,have done since i saw them on the Abacab tour in 1982 here in the U.k.,when they performed Suppers Ready in all its glory.The band don't seem to be happy when they're sat together in the studio,and this is sad.Phil and Mike actually are relaxed,but the tension between Tony and Peter is almost too excruciating to watch ! As for Steve Hackett,well you have to feel sorry for him.Why was he asked to participate in this? His opinions were hardly mentioned! Steve has gone on record to express his feeling towards the doc,and he's not a happy bunny!
There's always talk of reunions with the five piece,but after this recording,it will never happen!
Still a great band however,with Gabriel era being my favourite.

[KevShmev]

Being that U-Verse users get all of the movie channels free this weekend, I DVR'd the Genesis documentary off of Showtime and watched it last night.  Pretty good, even if a lot of it was stuff I had seen covered before.  Kinda cool to see them all together now talking about it, although after seeing it, I'd be pissed if I were Steve Hackett, too.  Many of the wide shots of the band were just the other four, and even his contributions to the band were glossed over.  Selling England by the Pound is a legendary album in prog circles, and yet was given like 40 seconds of chatter, 30 of which was a live clip of them playing I Know What I like... Hell, even when they discussed the Firth of Fifth solo, they showed the touring guitar player they got after he left the band playing it, not Hackett, and Banks even said it got better live than it ever was in the studio, which sounded like a shot at Hackett.  Some of those guys are definitely cranky old sods.   And Gabriel, who was probably the most pleasant of them all, looked like he wanted to elbow Banks in the face when he was saying he never liked The Lamb story.

[Orbert]

I guess I didn't notice as many of the "cranky" moments as some of you guys did, but now that you mention them, yeah, there were quite a few.  But it makes sense.  When you're younger and in a band, trying to be as successful as you can, you compromise a lot, being only one of many, for the good of the band.  Now that the band doesn't exist anymore, they feel more comfortable being honest about how they felt about a lot of it.  Stuff they never liked, issues they might have had with the other members but kept quiet about at the time, etc.

[rumborak]

Saw this today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB5Y9G8oYuI

I'm surprised Wilson is allowed to do this. Does he have full reign to play Genesis songs and use the name as he pleases?

[OpenYourEyes311]

Saw this today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB5Y9G8oYuI

I'm surprised Wilson is allowed to do this. Does he have full reign to play Genesis songs and use the name as he pleases?

Pretty sure he does. He's put out multiple live albums with Genesis songs on them. Some are pretty much Genesis shows, too. He even does songs he never did with Genesis (like "That's All").

[rumborak]

Wow, now it gets really weird. They're playing a Mike and the Mechanics song.

I don't know. I find it weird that Wilson keeps on associating himself with Genesis that way, where his involvement really cemented the death of the band, and produced (probably) the least liked album of their career.

[Orbert]

He was officially the lead singer for Genesis, for a while.  I would say that that gives him the right to go out and sing Genesis songs on his solo tours, especially since Genesis no longer exists.

That said, I think it's pretty lame.  To me, it smacks of money-grabbing.  The Genesis brand means big bucks.  What's weird is that people know he's not Phil Collins, I'm sure a lot of them don't even know who Ray Wilson is, but the branding thing works and they go to the shows?

And yeah, even weirder that they do a Mike + The Mechanics song.  Maybe he just likes the song, and the fact that it's from a band which was the side project of someone in Genesis is just a coincidence.  A weird coincidence, but maybe.

Or hey, maybe Ray Wilson has actual fans.

[Lolzeez]

I listened to one of Ray Wilson's albums once. Huge emphasis on "once". Also,will watch the documentary tonight. Will report later.

[rumborak]

Orbert, I think your last sentence is the crux. I don't think Ray Wilson solo draws anything at all these days; the days where people would go because he was part of Genesis are over. So, instead he makes it a "I'll play Genesis, and maybe a few of my own tunes" thing.

[Orbert]

I guess.  I'm far from any kind of authority on who or what can be popular, or why, so if it's not the Genesis thing that draws them, then people going to Ray Wilson concerts must be Ray Wilson fans.  And hey, if they go to his shows, that's cool.  But it still seems weird that there's a huge banner over the band that says "GENESIS" on it when it's clearly not Genesis.