Why so much Genesis love?

I've replied here before, but I'll say my thoughts right now. As said above, both Tony and Steve rarely play just to play, and often times are both not considered to be on the levels of the other big prog virtuosos. Both guys have an absolute talent for picking out melody, and while Tony does occasionally show off his skills (Firth of Fifth, Down and Out) it's generally used so little that you can appreciate it rather than dismiss it for w**king. As for Steve, he definitely goes for the slow, but atmospheric and amazing style. When you jump into his early solo albums, you notice he can make his guitar do so much with so little. Spectral Mornings has this all over. That's not to say he can't shred when he wants to. Slogans seems like hell to play, and the whole Bay of Kings album really makes you appreciate his classical guitar. A fine player for sure.

Edited by fudgenuts64 - January 11 2016 at 01:31

micky wrote: ^ even if Genesis had never made a pop album... they would have achieved some sort of half-ass Mcimortality with one track and one track alone. Cinema Show man. Genesis sure never hit that level of perfection in the albums previous.. or definitely not afterward...

Yeah, "Cinema Show" is wonderful, but from the same album "Dancing with the Moonlit Knight" and "Firth of Fifth" are at the same level for me. And from previous albums, "Musical Box" and "Supper's Ready" too, of course. Though they do have many pieces of music I don't really like in those albums too.

First and foremost they wrote great songs and had a gift for melody. They eschewed aimless noodling (which was de rigueur in the early seventies). Instrumental passages were always in the service of the song not a show of musical prowess. All of the band were writers. They were always a pop band at heart (initially with a love of The Beatles and The BeeGees) but that was not a bad thing because pop was quite adventurous in this period - unlike today. I love the band (both Gabriel and Collins eras).

Genesis is one of the last prog bands I showed my mates. There are some fairy moments in those Gabriel years

^ even if Genesis had never made a pop album... they would have achieved some sort of half-ass Mcimortality with one track and one track alone.

Cinema Show man. Genesis sure never hit that level of perfection in the albums previous.. or definitely not afterward... 

Kati wrote: From Genesis to being the first wearing weird costumes, i.e. fox ontop of the head while wearing a red dress, etc...

ahem... no



After touring this with this group... THEN they realized their music was drop dead boring in comparison.. AND they looked like a semi pro version early hobo-Tull so after they got back from touring with them. They whipped out the costumes..  if they couldn't make interesting music.. at least they could try to be interesting ON stage.

Gentle Giant is one of those prog bands that I wouldn't even attempt to play to a non prog-nerd. I don't listen to GG as much as I used to - very rarely, actually - but I do still like pretty much all of their stuff from the first album through Power and the Glory. 'Robin Hood's barber shop quartet doing prog rock' is a fine description. 

silverpot wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: I understand why some folks are turned off by GG. They basically sound like Robin Hood's barber shop quartet doing prog rock. Don't get me wrong, just like Micky, I too love those first 4 albums.       I have actually come to the conclusion that it's the singer's fault. He sounds more like a robot than a soulful human. That's why they don't speak to me, at all. I have tried, countless times, back in the day. Had a boyfriend who was a bit obsessed.

the bands sound definitely changed after Phil Shulman left the band... what it is really noticeable is what he brought to the band vocally.  Incredibly distinctive and unique.  It sort of sounded samey afterward... not that Derek was a bad vocalist.. far from it.. he was just very limited in his range as one


Edited by micky - December 13 2015 at 09:09

If interpreted narrowly to imply melancholy and pain, then yeah I don't think GG is particularly soulful.  But that goes for a lot of prog.  It's why I appreciate the hard edge Marillion brought to the first two albums with Fish (thereafter and Hogarth-era is a different story). You need either top notch singing or great lyrics (ideally a combination of both) for soul and neither are in any great abundance in prog.   

Guldbamsen wrote: I understand why some folks are turned off by GG. They basically sound like Robin Hood's barber shop quartet doing prog rock. Don't get me wrong, just like Micky, I too love those first 4 albums.

      I have actually come to the conclusion that it's the singer's fault. He sounds more like a robot than a soulful human. That's why they don't speak to me, at all. I have tried, countless times, back in the day. Had a boyfriend who was a bit obsessed.