Overrated Genesis?

great prog is music that is hard to write. That's the hardest part. Who cares if something is hard to play when the music sounds simply made and non imaginative?

ken4musiq wrote: Not going to shoot you. it's your taste, as valid as anybody's else.>>>   Not to open up any old debates, but just to clarify, music is not about taste, musical appreciation is about taste.

I just was answering to your statement:

[quote]I enjoy Trick of the Tail more than Selling England, for example.  TotT has some great choruses and beautiful tracks.  I have felt that way for thirty years.  What are you going to do shoot me? [/quote]

And I answered: Not going to shoot you. it's your taste, as valid as anybody's else.

So Ken, yes you made a statement 100% about musical taste and I answered you than nobody was going to shoot you for your taste.

Iván

BTW: Don't worry Tony.

 

they got their name, because of their music

In the end, Genesis is one of the seminal progressive rock bands of the 1970s, and love them or hate them, one must accept that fact.

Pseud0 wrote: yeah, suppers ready is a piece of cake to play!!!1 you're all n00bzorz

I'd possibly delete this if I knew what it meant.

 

I Agree with you man.. < =text/>

SlipperFink wrote: Progger wrote: Totally disagree! Genesis music is very easy to play! That is why so many neo-prog bands sound like them. Countless tribute bands! There arn't many musicians around that could reproduce the playing calibre of the Howe's, Emerson's, Wakeman's, Squire, Fripp, Palmer's of this world. I'll agree that Genesis music is difficult to create but to play? No way hosey!!! We got ourselves a non-musician here. Or possibly a dreadful one. Only two option judging by post content.  SM.   >edit.

I have studied some of Hackett's guitar work myself. "Horizon's" is a rather easy tune, but very fun to play. I wouldn't call "Blood on the Rooftops" an easy tune to play, though I can play it pretty well. Hackett's work is just as good as Fripp's or Howe's, although it's difficult to make a comparison due to the fact that their styles are so different. I also know Howe's "Mood for a day" and most of his guitar work from "Yours is no Disgrace". It is possible to reproduce their work, it's just a matter of practice and discipline (don't get Fripp started on discipline) . However, even if Hackett's work was easy to play, music doesn't always have to be technical to be entertaining; it's also about beauty and expression. Often times, it's hard for musicians to combine these two aspects of music. It's not what you play but how well you play it.

From what I've observed in their playing, Hackett is very melodic and above average in technique. Fripp's melodies are so-so (sometimes I can't tell where he's going with his melodies, but that's mostly in his earlier work) but his technique (fast, fast finger movements) are top knotch. Howe has both melody and technique considerably well.

Three different but good styles.

P.S.

I haven't played piano for a while, I switched to guitar about 4 years ago when I was 13. But from what I hear the piano intro to "Firth of Fifth" is not easy, nor is Hackett's solo later on.

Edited by nousommedusolei

ken4musiq wrote: However, even if Hackett's work was easy to play, music doesn't always have to be technical to be entertaining; it's also about beauty and expression. Often times, it's hard for musicians to combine these two aspects of music. It's not what you play but how well you play it.>.   Boy this thread will not die.  Being that I was the one who resurrected it, I will end my contribution here with the young lads insightful words.  The point I was getting at by criticizing Gabriel's voice was two fold but most important to say when a musicianship is not exclusively about ability, like we prog heads tend to believe. I am a drummer and when I was a lad and first heard Bruford, I was struck by that snare drum sound.  Years later I found out it was what made him famous.  It was not a revelation that caused him to do this. He did not have a strong left hand and got that high popping sound to cut through the ensemble on the back beat.  Now a days many snare drums are sold without a mute so you can't even muffle out the higher overtones.  Many older snare drums have had them removed. When a musician does not have a certain ability it gives him the opportunity to be innovative. In that sense, in art, inablity elicits ingenuity.  One can ask if the limitation to Peter Gabriel's voice was the reason why he developed his unique performance style and lyric writing ability.  He did not write lyrics to show off his voice. The other point was just to see how far people will go to defend something that just might not be worth defending.  The acquiescence to fact may bring about more insight.

You seem pretty adamant about the fact that Gabriel has a bad voice, I for one haven't a clue as to where your coming from with this as I find his voice supperb. Its true that he isn't amazing at the absolute top of his range but does have an impressive range. Most importantly he sings in a unique theatrical style and sings it brilliantly, this style has only been reproduced well by Fish but he used it in a much harsher way to add his own mark of individuality. Please don't try proclaim Gabriel singing as lack of ability and present it as fact as the fact is I find him the best singer I have ever heard.

sleeper wrote: ken4musiq wrote: However, even if Hackett's work was easy to play, music doesn't always have to be technical to be entertaining; it's also about beauty and expression. Often times, it's hard for musicians to combine these two aspects of music. It's not what you play but how well you play it.>.   Boy this thread will not die.  Being that I was the one who resurrected it, I will end my contribution here with the young lads insightful words.  The point I was getting at by criticizing Gabriel's voice was two fold but most important to say when a musicianship is not exclusively about ability, like we prog heads tend to believe. I am a drummer and when I was a lad and first heard Bruford, I was struck by that snare drum sound.  Years later I found out it was what made him famous.  It was not a revelation that caused him to do this. He did not have a strong left hand and got that high popping sound to cut through the ensemble on the back beat.  Now a days many snare drums are sold without a mute so you can't even muffle out the higher overtones.  Many older snare drums have had them removed. When a musician does not have a certain ability it gives him the opportunity to be innovative. In that sense, in art, inablity elicits ingenuity.  One can ask if the limitation to Peter Gabriel's voice was the reason why he developed his unique performance style and lyric writing ability.  He did not write lyrics to show off his voice. The other point was just to see how far people will go to defend something that just might not be worth defending.  The acquiescence to fact may bring about more insight. You seem pretty adamant about the fact that Gabriel has a bad voice, I for one haven't a clue as to where your coming from with this as I find his voice supperb. Its true that he isn't amazing at the absolute top of his range but does have an impressive range. Most importantly he sings in a unique theatrical style and sings it brilliantly, this style has only been reproduced well by Fish but he used it in a much harsher way to add his own mark of individuality. Please don't try proclaim Gabriel singing as lack of ability and present it as fact as the fact is I find him the best singer I have ever heard.

Sleeper, I'm a Gabriel fan, but I must accept Ken4musiq got a point, and I've benn pointing it since I cameinto this forum.

Pëter Gabriel's vocal range is not among the best in the Prog scenario, that's true, but he's IMO the best Prog vocalist ever. How can anybody say something so contradictory? Easy:

1. Peter Gabriel has a problem with high ranges, but a good vocalists studies his voice and uses some technique to cover it.
2. Phil Collins has the same problem so he shouts (As in Mama) or repeats the last word of a phrase like in The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway (Seconds Out) And the lamb (Lamb, Lamb, Lamb) lies down (Down, Down Down)....on Broadway... This IMO represents a total lack of technique.
3. Peter Gabriel knows this problem, so he adds a lot of emotion to his song, almost a narrator, but instead of rising his voice or using tricks (very common in old crooners who had already lost their voices) he creates a special and unique semi yodeling. This simple effect adds more drama and feeling to his song, almost like a cru fr help like In the Cage or a repressed lust in The Musical Box.

This is technique, this is what a great vocalist does, he doesn't have a powerful voice as Lake or Wetton, but he replaces all with a great deal of emotion that in some cases reaches the level of aggression. Nobody transmits more feelings than him, and that's a merit.

Another case interesting to study and from whom I talked before also is David Surkamp from Pavlov's Dog, his voice is horrible, even higher than Geddy Lee's but the guy obviously listened Edith Piaff and started to copy her style creating a trembling at the end of each phrase, and he reaches great levels of emotion in songs as Julia that almost break my heart.

A great vocalist on this days doesn't need a great voice, he needs something extra that Peter Gabriel has and most singers don't, some call it technique, others call it soul, I believe booth are important and Pete has both. That's the difference.

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

Tony R wrote: Pseud0 wrote: yeah, suppers ready is a piece of cake to play!!!1you're all n00bzorz I'd possibly delete this if I knew what it meant.