Why the criticism for Tony Banks?

HackettFan wrote: Moogtron III wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Banks has one problem: He is no improviser. I would for example have loved a live version of "Supper's Ready" in which Banks would go really wild on the keyboards in the "Apocalypse" part, but no; he sticks note for note to what he played in the studio. Which is the main reason why I consider Genesis not to be a good live band. It is in my opinion extremely boring if you don't go and improvise for solos during a live concert. I think I even read that in his later years with Genesis he had a device on his keyboards which corrected him automatically if he played a wrong note. This would make improvising even impossible If I could presume this was an intelligent pitch shifter, then no, all that would do is keep notes within a selected scale. Improvisation would actually be easier.

Okay, you might be right, and I would have jumped to the wrong conclusions.

It's not necessary to improvise in order to make songs more interesting live. As I understand it, many times the artists make new arrangement before going live, and thus end up playing the extended solos and such. However it may be, even though Genesis moslty won't add new bits to their song live, I have liked many live versions much better than the studio ones (from the classic period as well as the pop period). On the classic period they got more energy live, and phill's drumming is much more powerful and enjoyable, and Hackett's guitar often comes heavier; also, I usually like Peter's singing better live. From the pop period, they often sound less plastic and more like a real band playing.

Dellinger wrote: It's not necessary to improvise in order to make songs more interesting live. As I understand it, many times the artists make new arrangement before going live, and thus end up playing the extended solos and such. However it may be, even though Genesis moslty won't add new bits to their song live, I have liked many live versions much better than the studio ones (from the classic period as well as the pop period). On the classic period they got more energy live, and phill's drumming is much more powerful and enjoyable, and Hackett's guitar often comes heavier; also, I usually like Peter's singing better live. From the pop period, they often sound less plastic and more like a real band playing.

I agree with that to a certain extent. When I listen to an album like Three Sides Live, which has, IMHO, every note rehearsed, it is still a great album.

As for the Invisible Touch tour and the We Can't Dance tour, I found it quite disappointing that so few new things were added, and that even the jokes from the earlier tour were used again in the later tour. That is the danger if you are not the improvising kind: if you don't renew your music from time to time, it loses its power.

Edited by Moogtron III - July 29 2015 at 01:59

Well, it's good someone is still playing the old Genesis music that most here love so much, since neither Gabriel nor 80's era Genesis (nor Collins) would play about anything from that period. That's why I'd rather see Hackett live over any of the others.

HackettFan wrote: Sean Trane wrote: I suspect that Hackett's constant reminders (and milking to the last drop) of the early Genesis days (since the late 90's Genesis Revisited album) has increasingly gotten on Tony's nerves. Methinks that if Steve had not done these thingies, Banks might be a lot more agreable with Hackett nowadays. I expect that was all done for the fans, not as any dig at Banks. Hackett understands and courts his fans in a way that the others do not.

http://rockshot.co.uk/dir/14332/interview-tony-banks-detailed-revealing/

Yeah, funny that he tought Mike Rutherford's book was rubbish

He does use the French comic strip "Philémon" by cartoonist Fred for his box set art. I'm a big fan of Fred's work.

The box set, even though I'm a Banks fan, doesn't seem to be for me as a target audience, having most of his albums, and he mixes all his records through one another on the box set. I'm curious about the new tracks, though.

Well, I got them almost all. Enjoying them too.

I've got two Tony Banks albums and don't really like either.  Curious isn't that bad, especially the first side, but Bankstatement did nothing for me.....I still have the LP somewhere but those vocals and the production!  Eeeeek!  Banks should've done the vocals himself.  Did Rutherford seem dismissive?  He seemed the most wishy-washy.....Banks was overbearing; Peter was playful (I think he tried to rile up Tony a bit); Phil was still "the new guy" and, like he said of his role during the Lamb tour, he just had a toot on a joint, put on his headphones and went to work.  To me, Hackett wasn't featured nearly enough - he was there, but seemed absent at times.....he only spoke for a minute, but the whole band seemed on edge when he spoke.

Been listening to A Curious Feeling a lot lately. The playing on that one is so good... and I can tolerate the vocals now as well. Some of his best solos are all over those songs.

Edited by fudgenuts64 - August 02 2015 at 19:21