Peter Gabriel - Ian Anderson

The costumes were just a great way to up the attitude of the concert,. Though almost distracting from the music, the crazy antics of Peter Gabriel were know WAY outside the prog community.

^ but that's not really a good example because Tull is, for the most part, Ian Anderson... you can't swap for Anderson, he'd turn you into Jethro Tull

Ian Anderson,Ian Anderson,Ian Anderson,Ian Anderson,Ian Anderson

Yorkie X wrote: As far as his costumes go I see this as a reflection of his bi polar personalty more so than an artistic expression.  I believe those costume changes were not necessary and probably got in the way for the rest of the band.

1. Gabriel before the costumes used to sing with his arms crossed in a square meter without any movement.
2. Mike Rutherford was hidding behind the speakers in the left side of the stage (from audience perspective).
3. Steve Hackett sat in a chair and never rised his head.
4. Tony was buried in his keyboards and never was part of the show unlike Wakeman with his capes or Emerson rubbing ribbons in his arse.
5. Phil was the only one capable of helping Pete but he was in his drum kit.

Look at the photto in my signature, that was tyhe exact position they weere almost always

So only the people who really loved their music, went to see them, while Pink Floyd, Yes, ELP. Jethro Tull, etc were doing amazing shows that captured the audience...Lets face it, they were kids in a men business, they were the younger of the pioneers and nobody knew them, so nobody took them seriously.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 25 2007 at 19:14

Difficult choice-I discovered Jethro Tull and Genesis around the same time(Summer of 77), but I'll have to pick Ian...

Lets see:

1. Their vocal ranges have almost the sanme linitations witth the high tones.
2. Both are amazing frontmen.
3. Both were leaders of two of the most iconic Prog bands.

Both seem similar at this point, but the difference is that peter Gabbriel can surpise me much more than Ian, Peter is much more versatile and has a strong solo career something that Ian doesn't (at least not as solid).

Anderson, simply because his flute's better.

I watched genesis live the 16mm film and I wasn't very impressed Gabriel is not a good flute player and he shouts too much! As far as his costumes go I see this as a reflection of his bi polar personalty more so than an artistic expression.  I believe those costume changes were not necessary and probably got in the way for the rest of the band.  Ian Anderson also has faults his ramblings and long winded aqualung persona he portrayed in the 70's the beards the tights the silly hats all got a bit much "see you again sometime heyyyyyyyy"  but his flute playing and vocals were always great live  ...  Anderson gets the vote .   

Edited by Yorkie X - November 22 2007 at 03:58

A flower????

??????

(BTW, I love Ian Anderson as well)


Edited by Teh_Slippermenz - November 21 2007 at 21:30

cynthiasmallet wrote: ProgBagel wrote: cynthiasmallet wrote: ProgBagel wrote: Ian Anderson better by a mile. Anderson created one of the best epics ever recorded. ...And Gabriel didn't? No. Surely your not suggesting that Supper's Ready is an inferior piece of music?

haha. No I like it, but it's very hard for me to call Supper's Ready one song. It really is a collection thrown in were Thick As A Brick flows throughout. It's one a whole 'nother level for me.