Genesis Appreciation/Discussion

[pg1067]

My only comment is going to sound like a massive burn, but it's not (though it's not really my personal preference):  The band is very VERY good, but it sounds like Mike Portnoy is sitting in with the band, and not Phil.  One of the most beautiful things about Genesis - for me, anyway - is the way the instruments sat with each other.  Phil didn't compete with Tony, who didn't compete with Mike, etc., and here the drums look to be in the same sort of sonic space as the guitars.   Genesis (in my opinion) was very influenced by Zeppelin in that way and after seeing Steve Hackett live earlier this week playing Selling England... in it's entirety, I'm pretty convinced that had some role in his leaving.

I see what you mean by that, but Genesis were the exact opposite (musically speaking) IMHO. Btw, Genesis were the first ever prog band I discovered at age 2 (them and Yes as well, but they were the first band for me. DT came along a lot later, at age 8) and I love them to bits to this day. Never saw them live, sadly. Anyway, massively influential band for Prog as a whole IMHO (and criminally underrated as musicians too IMHO, especially Banksie and PC)

I always thought Banks was pretty highly regarded -- maybe a notch below Wakeman simply because of Wakeman's Royal College of Music pedigree.  Banks's performance on side three of Three Sides Live is probably my favorite recorded keyboard performance of all time.  The problem with Collins is that he's most well-known for Genesis's post-Abacab material and as a solo artist.  He was a beast on the pre-self-titled material.  Rutherford was, IMO, mostly average as a guitarist and a bit better than average as a bassist (although he had a few lines that are really good).  Hackett was very good for what he did, but Steve Howe was far superior in just about every way.

[Lupton]

Hackett's flamenco playing (technically) blows away anything Steve's ever done on the classical guitar IMO.

[Fritzinger]

Good stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhJEcRx6CXc

The guitarist is my former teacher and a good friend of mine. He's a beast on the guitar and a great guy! I love the medleys those guys do. They also have a great one for Toto and one for Pink Floyd.
I've been trying to convince him to do a DT one.

[Silent Man]

Rutherford was, IMO, mostly average as a guitarist and a bit better than average as a bassist (although he had a few lines that are really good).  Hackett was very good for what he did, but Steve Howe was far superior in just about every way.

I'll have to say I disagree. Being a musician myself, I started listening to Genesis from early 70's and on, sucking every note they played. And one thing I can say for sure, they are all excellent musicians, including MR. His performance on Watcher of the Skies f.ex., is, together with the rest of the band, marvellous. Playing that riff throughout the song is an accomplishment in itself. Same as all their epics, where they often used to put in sections of musical madness, he's following the band with ease. And to make someting sound easy, doesn't mean it's also easy to play. On 'The Lady Lies' from 'And Then There Were Three' he starts out with a typical solid MR riff, and then in the section in the middle, they all go crazy in a fusion-type playing style. Again, he does it with ease. 'He had a few lines that are really good' - that's a hilarious statement. MR's playing is strong and full of character, something that you obviously can't grasp. I can only think that you don't know how to listen to music properly.
And then again, he's 'average' as a guitar player? What are you talking about? Would Genesis really play with an 'average guitar player'? The problem is that you don't understand his subtle and elegant style. MR always knew how to dial in a sound which suited perfectly to the song. His playing on 'We Can't Dance' is superb. The tasteful licks on 'Driving The Last Spike' has a quality that is not recognized by someone not familiar with the talents of real musicians.

Hackett was very good for what he did, but Steve Howe was far superior in just about every way.

Again, you fail big time. First, it has no meaning to compare two excellent musicians with a 'mine is bigger than yours' type of proof. Howe being superior in every way? Do you know that Hackett is an accomplished classical guitarist and recorded an album with exclusively classical pieces ('Tribute'). On that he performs a 15 min. composition of Bach's 'Chaconne'. Everyone in the world of classical guitar know how difficult this piece is. I have myself been playing classical guitar for nearly 50 years, and the last 5-6 years I have practised on Chaconne and can play about 5 min. of it without too many errors. But then the difficult parts appear and most are lost here, including myself. Hackett plays the whole piece with ease. And what I mentioned above, playing with ease doesn't mean it's easy. I don't think you know anything about what it takes to reach a level like that on classical guitar. I'll tell you it means 5-6-7 hours of practise EVERY DAY. Howe doesn't play classical guitar, it's not his thing. Do I then say that Hackett is the better player? No. I enjoy listening to both, but they are different players.

[Stadler]

Don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment (don't necessarily agree with it either) but the tone certainly leaves something to be desired. 

You yourself criticize making it a contest - implying there's no set standard - and yet you declare PG "doesn't know how to listen to music properly"?   Can you enlighten us all on "how to listen to music properly"?   

I don't always agree with PG when it comes to musical taste, but I certainly respect his opinions and how he gets there, and I suggest you might want to cut him some slack in that regard. 

I've been a Genesis fan since Abacab, and am (technically speaking) a musician (I suck, but I've been paid for my playing more than once, so...) and while I consider Mike Rutherford a top-level bass player, I consider his writing and arranging skills to be far more relevant to Genesis than his guitar playing, at least as compared to Steves Hackett and Howe.  I'm comfortable that I "know how to listen to music properly". 

[Silent Man]

Can you enlighten us all on "how to listen to music properly"?   

To recognize the talent and musicianship of a gifted musician. Sorry, calling MR a bassist with just 'a 'few interesting bass lines' and an 'average guitar player' triggered me. This is really what ppl without a clue about music and musicianship would say.

[pg1067]

Rutherford was, IMO, mostly average as a guitarist and a bit better than average as a bassist (although he had a few lines that are really good).  Hackett was very good for what he did, but Steve Howe was far superior in just about every way.

I'll have to say I disagree. Being a musician myself, I started listening to Genesis from early 70's and on, sucking every note they played. And one thing I can say for sure, they are all excellent musicians, including MR. His performance on Watcher of the Skies f.ex., is, together with the rest of the band, marvellous. Playing that riff throughout the song is an accomplishment in itself. Same as all their epics, where they often used to put in sections of musical madness, he's following the band with ease. And to make someting sound easy, doesn't mean it's also easy to play. On 'The Lady Lies' from 'And Then There Were Three' he starts out with a typical solid MR riff, and then in the section in the middle, they all go crazy in a fusion-type playing style. Again, he does it with ease. 'He had a few lines that are really good' - that's a hilarious statement. MR's playing is strong and full of character, something that you obviously can't grasp. I can only think that you don't know how to listen to music properly.
And then again, he's 'average' as a guitar player? What are you talking about? Would Genesis really play with an 'average guitar player'? The problem is that you don't understand his subtle and elegant style. MR always knew how to dial in a sound which suited perfectly to the song. His playing on 'We Can't Dance' is superb. The tasteful licks on 'Driving The Last Spike' has a quality that is not recognized by someone not familiar with the talents of real musicians.

Hackett was very good for what he did, but Steve Howe was far superior in just about every way.

Again, you fail big time. First, it has no meaning to compare two excellent musicians with a 'mine is bigger than yours' type of proof. Howe being superior in every way? Do you know that Hackett is an accomplished classical guitarist and recorded an album with exclusively classical pieces ('Tribute'). On that he performs a 15 min. composition of Bach's 'Chaconne'. Everyone in the world of classical guitar know how difficult this piece is. I have myself been playing classical guitar for nearly 50 years, and the last 5-6 years I have practised on Chaconne and can play about 5 min. of it without too many errors. But then the difficult parts appear and most are lost here, including myself. Hackett plays the whole piece with ease. And what I mentioned above, playing with ease doesn't mean it's easy. I don't think you know anything about what it takes to reach a level like that on classical guitar. I'll tell you it means 5-6-7 hours of practise EVERY DAY. Howe doesn't play classical guitar, it's not his thing. Do I then say that Hackett is the better player? No. I enjoy listening to both, but they are different players.

I'll extend you more respect than you deserve and that you extended to me and simply tell you to piss off.  I simply stated my opinions in response to someone else stating his opinions.  I didn't criticize the person whose opinions I responded to.  Nor did I use "a 'mine is bigger than yours' type of proof."  Indeed, I didn't attempt to "prove" my opinions at all (as thought it's possible to prove an opinion).  You're more than welcome to have different opinions and express those opinions, but don't be an asshat about it.

[Silent Man]

Rutherford was, IMO, mostly average as a guitarist and a bit better than average as a bassist (although he had a few lines that are really good).  Hackett was very good for what he did, but Steve Howe was far superior in just about every way.

I'll have to say I disagree. Being a musician myself, I started listening to Genesis from early 70's and on, sucking every note they played. And one thing I can say for sure, they are all excellent musicians, including MR. His performance on Watcher of the Skies f.ex., is, together with the rest of the band, marvellous. Playing that riff throughout the song is an accomplishment in itself. Same as all their epics, where they often used to put in sections of musical madness, he's following the band with ease. And to make someting sound easy, doesn't mean it's also easy to play. On 'The Lady Lies' from 'And Then There Were Three' he starts out with a typical solid MR riff, and then in the section in the middle, they all go crazy in a fusion-type playing style. Again, he does it with ease. 'He had a few lines that are really good' - that's a hilarious statement. MR's playing is strong and full of character, something that you obviously can't grasp. I can only think that you don't know how to listen to music properly.
And then again, he's 'average' as a guitar player? What are you talking about? Would Genesis really play with an 'average guitar player'? The problem is that you don't understand his subtle and elegant style. MR always knew how to dial in a sound which suited perfectly to the song. His playing on 'We Can't Dance' is superb. The tasteful licks on 'Driving The Last Spike' has a quality that is not recognized by someone not familiar with the talents of real musicians.

Hackett was very good for what he did, but Steve Howe was far superior in just about every way.

Again, you fail big time. First, it has no meaning to compare two excellent musicians with a 'mine is bigger than yours' type of proof. Howe being superior in every way? Do you know that Hackett is an accomplished classical guitarist and recorded an album with exclusively classical pieces ('Tribute'). On that he performs a 15 min. composition of Bach's 'Chaconne'. Everyone in the world of classical guitar know how difficult this piece is. I have myself been playing classical guitar for nearly 50 years, and the last 5-6 years I have practised on Chaconne and can play about 5 min. of it without too many errors. But then the difficult parts appear and most are lost here, including myself. Hackett plays the whole piece with ease. And what I mentioned above, playing with ease doesn't mean it's easy. I don't think you know anything about what it takes to reach a level like that on classical guitar. I'll tell you it means 5-6-7 hours of practise EVERY DAY. Howe doesn't play classical guitar, it's not his thing. Do I then say that Hackett is the better player? No. I enjoy listening to both, but they are different players.

I'll extend you more respect than you deserve and that you extended to me and simply tell you to piss off.  I simply stated my opinions in response to someone else stating his opinions.  I didn't criticize the person whose opinions I responded to.  Nor did I use "a 'mine is bigger than yours' type of proof."  Indeed, I didn't attempt to "prove" my opinions at all (as thought it's possible to prove an opinion).  You're more than welcome to have different opinions and express those opinions, but don't be an asshat about it.

Claiming that 'Howe is superior to Hackett in every way' is a 'mine is bigger than yours' type of argument, to specify it. Just as stupid as can be. I think the best for you would be to listen to 'Easy Listening' type of music.

[Stadler]

Yeah, I'm no mod, but I know trolling when I see it.    Sorry, PG, you're on your own here.   

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Good stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhJEcRx6CXc

The guitarist is my former teacher and a good friend of mine. He's a beast on the guitar and a great guy! I love the medleys those guys do. They also have a great one for Toto and one for Pink Floyd.
I've been trying to convince him to do a DT one.

Wow, that's cool! Yea i've seen those, great stuff! 

[pg1067]

Yeah, I'm no mod, but I know trolling when I see it.    Sorry, PG, you're on your own here.   

Fortunately, I know when to disengage from trolls.  Thanks for stepping in briefly.

[Fritzinger]

While I agree with a lot of stuff SilentMan said, he could (and should) have been more respectful in his answers...

Hackett is a monster player, not only on the classical side. Howe is completely different, but also a monster player. Why does one have to be "better" than the other? Guthrie Govan is faster than Petrucci. Does that mean he's better? Nope.

[hefdaddy42]

Silent Man, that's a warning. In this forum, there is absolutely no reason to speak to other people that way. Civility is the way to go. If you can't have a discussion about a difference of opinion without being an asshole, then this may not be the place for you.

[Learning2Live]

So I want to start getting the Genesis catalog, specifically the Gabriel-era and Gabriel-less proggy albums. I was initially given some MP3s of some early songs but now want to expand upon it. In trying to do some research on different remixed/remastered versions that are out there, I'm getting the feeling that some of these remastered versions are sub-par in sonic quality.

So for those that have the knowledge, is there a specific remixed/remastered version that are the ones to get? How is the '70-'75 box set remixes? I've invested in upgrading my home stereo equipment and now am working to get better sonic quality versions of some older albums.

[Orbert]

The box set remixes are mostly improvements over the original mixes, or perhaps it's the cleaned-up production as well.  Genesis, especially early Genesis, had a lot of layered sound.  Acoustic guitars, keyboards, all mixed into a backdrop for Peter Gabriel's vocals.  It's nice hearing each of the parts more clearly.  Where I have a bit of a problem is with the first "Phil era" box.  '76 Genesis (the two without Peter but still with Steve Hackett) kept a lot of layering, maybe even did more of it, but there was still a very dynamic element to the music that I feel got lost in the remixes.  Yeah, I like hearing all the parts, but some parts were meant to be softer or louder than others, not everything the same volume.  That's part of the arrangement as well.

Nursery Cryme is a good starting point because both Phil Collins and Steve Hackett joined on that album, making it the first "classic five-piece" album.

Foxtrot is also a good starting point because it's the next album, and the writing had matured a bit.  It also contains the band's magnum opus, "Supper's Ready".

A Trick of the Tail is a good starting point because it was the first album after Peter left, but the band still had a somewhat proggy sensibility.  The arrangements are simpler, but there are some nice instrumental passages.

Wind & Wuthering was the follow-up, the other four-piece album and, similar to how Foxtrot builds upon Nursery Cryme, Wind & Wuthering finds the four-piece band stretching out a bit and getting a little more proggy.  It is also the mellowist Genesis album overall (not counting Trespass), so it's proggy, but pretty chill.  Lots of instrumental.

So basically either of the first two from the Gabriel era, or the first two from the Gabriel-less era.  If you can afford the box sets, they're great values and perfectly good for building a collection quickly, so either of the first two boxes would also be great.  I bought them both and like them both.

[Fritzinger]

So I want to start getting the Genesis catalog, specifically the Gabriel-era and Gabriel-less proggy albums. I was initially given some MP3s of some early songs but now want to expand upon it. In trying to do some research on different remixed/remastered versions that are out there, I'm getting the feeling that some of these remastered versions are sub-par in sonic quality.

So for those that have the knowledge, is there a specific remixed/remastered version that are the ones to get? How is the '70-'75 box set remixes? I've invested in upgrading my home stereo equipment and now am working to get better sonic quality versions of some older albums.

I have the 2007 remixed versions on CD and vinyl and I like their sound a lot. I am not an audiophile guys though- but neither am I a guy who despises remastered/remixed versions of old songs because they are too far from their original versions.

So - I can in good conscience recommend these box sets to you. I have their albums as original pressings on vinyl too, but I find myself listening to the remixed versions far more often. However, by now they are not easy to get.. I needed years to bring up the money to collect them all  But I am a Genesis fanboy, so I guess what needed to be done.. needed to be done 

[jammindude]

Another thumbs up from me for the boxed sets.  Best investment to my music collection I ever made. 

Still need to get the live one.   

[The Letter M]

Another thumbs up from me for the boxed sets.  Best investment to my music collection I ever made. 

Still need to get the live one.

I will also agree to this. I've got all five CD/DVD box sets, and they're easily some of the crown jewels in my music collection. The remasters are very good over-all, and the presentation of the albums is really nice as well, with some of them being mediabook style. I'm lucky I bought them all for a relatively cheap price not long after they came out, but I had not-long-before completed my Genesis collection from the late 90's remasters, so for awhile, I ended up with 2 sets of Genesis albums on CD! Totally worth getting them, though, but the price will depend on how much you're willing to spend. For the 70-75 box set, there are a couple on eBay right now for less than $80, but unfortunately, the other two are going for fairly high prices (averaging around $180-200 from a cursory glance).

-Marc.

[jammindude]

Wait, five?

The three studio, and the live one....what's the fifth?

[Trav86]

The Movie Box

[The Letter M]

Wait, five?

The three studio, and the live one....what's the fifth?

The Movie Box

Correct! And here's a pic I took of my box sets, way back in January 2011, so please forgive the potato-quality of the picture (taken on a phone's camera):

https://imgur.com/wGrK5hD


Looking back at my Amazon orders, I got the 76-82 set for $88 shipped and the 83-98 set for $73 shipped in Jan 2008. Fast forward, I then got the Live set for $90 shipped and the 70-75 set for $88 shipped back in May 2010, and later that year in December, got the Movie box for $68 shipped. Just a bit over $400 in all in that picture above, but it's totally worth it considering the secondary market prices on some of these box sets alone!

-Marc.

[Fritzinger]

Wait, five?

The three studio, and the live one....what's the fifth?

The Movie Box

Correct! And here's a pic I took of my box sets, way back in January 2011, so please forgive the potato-quality of the picture (taken on a phone's camera):

https://imgur.com/wGrK5hD


Looking back at my Amazon orders, I got the 76-82 set for $88 shipped and the 83-98 set for $73 shipped in Jan 2008. Fast forward, I then got the Live set for $90 shipped and the 70-75 set for $88 shipped back in May 2010, and later that year in December, got the Movie box for $68 shipped. Just a bit over $400 in all in that picture above, but it's totally worth it considering the secondary market prices on some of these box sets alone!

-Marc.

Wow, Marc, I easily paid twice as much for them 
And THEN I started collecting the vinyl box sets.......... 

[Stadler]

Another vote for the boxes; I consider their 5.1 remixes on par with Crimson's, and both are the gold standard for me.

[The Letter M]

Wow, Marc, I easily paid twice as much for them 
And THEN I started collecting the vinyl box sets.......... 

OOF... I am so glad I am not invested into collecting vinyl - those box sets would have KILLED me financially as I am sure they are not cheap.

I guess I got my CD sets at a good time, not too long after they came out, but not right when they were new and people were probably price-gouging them.

-Marc.

[Fritzinger]

Ok, now I have to post my boxsets too 




I got them a few years after they got out. When they were first released I was like 14-15, I couldn't even afford that then. I got the last one (the green vinyl one) in April 2018.

Btw, you guys might also like what's playing right now 

[Learning2Live]

Thank you all for the replies! Box set it is then. Thanks again!

[ytserush]

Wait, five?

The three studio, and the live one....what's the fifth?

The Movie Box

Correct! And here's a pic I took of my box sets, way back in January 2011, so please forgive the potato-quality of the picture (taken on a phone's camera):

https://imgur.com/wGrK5hD


Looking back at my Amazon orders, I got the 76-82 set for $88 shipped and the 83-98 set for $73 shipped in Jan 2008. Fast forward, I then got the Live set for $90 shipped and the 70-75 set for $88 shipped back in May 2010, and later that year in December, got the Movie box for $68 shipped. Just a bit over $400 in all in that picture above, but it's totally worth it considering the secondary market prices on some of these box sets alone!

-Marc.

Nice!  The Blue Box suits my needs but I still consider getting the Red one.  Also have the full set of '90s remasters some original post-Gabriel pressings and and Archive 2)

There are like the box I have but there are some aspects of the '90s remasters and the originals that I like also so I unfortunately have to keep most of that crap around instead of settling on one particular pressing.

[ytserush]

Wow, Marc, I easily paid twice as much for them 
And THEN I started collecting the vinyl box sets.......... 

OOF... I am so glad I am not invested into collecting vinyl - those box sets would have KILLED me financially as I am sure they are not cheap.

I guess I got my CD sets at a good time, not too long after they came out, but not right when they were new and people were probably price-gouging them.

-Marc.

I never jumped on the vinyl resurgence train (well except for Rush) either because I would need to know how these were mastered.

[SoundscapeMN]

The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway Illustrated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JszTrQdL314&feature=emb_title

[emtee]

Recent pics of Banks, Rutherford and Collins hanging together have sparked reunion questions.

It would be amazing for them to put out a new album. Probably not likely but I sure would love it.

[Stadler]

Recent pics of Banks, Rutherford and Collins hanging together have sparked reunion questions.

It would be amazing for them to put out a new album. Probably not likely but I sure would love it.

Don't get my hopes up...  I went through a MASSIVE Genesis kick about a month ago, and it was just so fulfilling (yes, that's the exact word I want to use).   I even debated going to see a Genesis four-man tribute band earlier this month (but ultimately couldn't).   

[jammindude]

The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway Illustrated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JszTrQdL314&feature=emb_title

When I saw this link earlier, I assumed it was just the song.   But it's an hour and a half long video!!  Is it the ENTIRE ALBUM???  THIS IS AWESOME!!!

[ytserush]

Don't get my hopes up...  I went through a MASSIVE Genesis kick about a month ago, and it was just so fulfilling (yes, that's the exact word I want to use).   I even debated going to see a Genesis four-man tribute band earlier this month (but ultimately couldn't).   

I was considering seeing a tribute band doing the Three Sides Live Tour which would be the just about the only Genesis show I would pay to see at this point. I suppose the Duke Tour would be a close runner up to that.

[Zydar]

The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway Illustrated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JszTrQdL314&feature=emb_title

When I saw this link earlier, I assumed it was just the song.   But it's an hour and a half long video!!  Is it the ENTIRE ALBUM???  THIS IS AWESOME!!!

I watched this last night. It's awesome indeed! For me who have zero grasp of the actual concept, it was very helpful of understanding it more. But man, is that a weird and surreal story

[Orbert]

The original album had the entire story written out inside the jacket, first person told by Rael, but it was still pretty weird.  Also, the point of view was that of someone who may have been mentally unstable, and may have been imagining the whole thing, so it didn't really make sense anyway.  I think the idea was to experience the story, complete with confusion, uncertainty, and fear, along with him.  Between that and the lyrics, which were also completely written out on the sleeves, you could get the jist of most of the story.  But I don't know if it has ever made total sense to me, and I've been listening to it for 40+ years.