hjhhjij

Our greatest living songwriter without a shadow of a doubt.

Very true... just a matter of millimeters...

It's the opposite for me. Only slightly better than the previous one.

Sure, but you can't skip 3 or 4 tracks on an album and think it's a great record. Those 2 or 3 songs are nice, and that’s it. "So" is a poorly executed album, with amazing musicians and beautiful sounds. If someone else had made it... a masterpiece, but it’s a Gabriel album, and as is natural, it’s had its downward trajectory. Maybe live, with those beasts he has with him, the tracks surely improve. Anyway, "SO" is a modest work. The last effort, perhaps the only one, is that of Shock The Monkeys, or however it's written; that was still a wild album.

Can you rewrite it for me when you’re more clear-headed, please? Otherwise, there’s no basis for a discussion, you see. I only judge a piece as ugly, not to mention skipping four pieces; the others are all remarkable, and we’re operating on pop territory at its highest levels. Honestly, I can barely understand what you wrote, please bear with me. Really, if you don’t like Gabriel in general, not just for this album, I couldn't care less, there’s no problem at all, in fact, I already knew that. But if we want to talk about it, write a couple of sentences in a sensible language; otherwise, I can't follow you. It's not malice, and I’m happy to compare my opinions with different ones, of course.

By the way, I don't even get to "Masterpiece" for "So" (otherwise we might as well throw this term around for everything), but certainly "Poorly executed" is just as wrong a term. Regardless of whether you like it or not, it's a record that succeeded in every way. You might not like the songs, the sounds, or both, but artistically and commercially, Gabriel doesn't miss a beat here. So no, "poorly executed" is not the right description, especially since all the songs are melodically very effective and there's a truly remarkable happiness in the writing. Sure, it's a highly crafted album; it's definitely not wild (but really, all his albums are cleverly constructed and calculated—he's always been like that), very clever, but we're talking about an international music superstar in the mid-'80s. For me, it's a miracle that the results are this valid. For me. Obviously.

I explained myself very poorly. What I meant to say is that the album has 3 or 4 mediocre songs; the rest are nice tracks. For a Peter Gabriel, having a series of 3 or 4 like that is uncharacteristic. Because of this, considering the greatness of the artist, I regard it as a mediocre album. I'm not a fan of Gabriel, but I respect him, so I speak honestly. So, did I make myself clear? But it’s just a simple opinion.

Oh, yes, you expressed yourself clearly, thank you. Look, I have no problem with your opinion at all; it's perfectly fine with me. A respectable opinion is just as valid as another. And yes, I agree with the reasoning as well. It's obvious that if in an album of 9 songs I found 4 mediocre ones, I certainly wouldn't consider it an exceptional album, generally speaking, and especially for an artist (always speaking generally) who has always filled their albums with great tracks. You're right about the reasoning, absolutely. Then, when talking about "So," it depends on how much the songs appeal to the listener, but I'd say that's perfectly normal.

I remember reading somewhere that he openly stated he wanted to create something more accessible to make money, that he got a bit tired of chasing windmills and being in the red at the bank. The situation wasn't that tragic since he had sold with Monkey as well. The level was always high, but for me, Gabriel with a capital G stops at IV.

He also looks at "III" which went well, thinks of a single like "Game Without Frontiers". The problem with being in the red financially didn't come so much from the album sales, which were good and featured highly successful singles, but rather the association with WOMAD, with the first festival held in 1982 that drove Gabriel to bankruptcy, forcing him into that famous reunion concert with Genesis in 1983 to support WOMAD. So yes, it seems obvious to me that he was fed up and at the time made an album intended solely to sell a ton. Thank goodness without compromising overall quality. However, I have my doubts about the fact that the capitalized Gabriel ends with "IV"... Where do you place "Passion", a cornerstone album that broke ground for the so-called "World Music", which remains a work of poignant intensity? And even "Us" from 1992 is, to me, superior to "So" (and to the debut, an uncertain and fluctuating album), a mature album with great songs.

I'm aware of the importance of Passion, but personally, it has never really resonated with me, and I've never been able to get into US; I prefer SO, UP, and a few tracks from OVO.

Yes, "OVO" was an interesting work. "Up," which is the last album by Gabriel that I care about, is still a good work, but it doesn't excite me. Anyway, to each their own, obviously. "Us" is a challenging album, it's true, dark and very intimate, probably Gabriel's most personal work; whether you like it or not, in that case, it seems he really didn't care (which is the complete opposite of "So," basically). Despite this, there were successful tracks; at that time, Gabriel was like King Midas; he would have had success even with an album of burps. :D

As for US, I think that if the value of the album is to be found precisely in what you highlight, the good Peter is reckoning with his skeletons in the closet, because from a strictly musical standpoint, I personally find nothing new. There are the remnants of the sound research from Passion, and I see nothing else. Previously, each of his albums had been a novelty compared to the one before. I’m old enough to remember the singles that came out at the time. I don’t like any of them; Steam seems like a very bad copy of Sledgehammer, and I’ve always found Blood Of Eden and Digging In The Dirt to be poor tracks. The latter even became famous among my peers for its rather nauseating video. On the other hand, I like tracks like Come Talk To Me, where you can clearly feel a Peter singing with his heart in his hand to his daughter, Washing Of The Water, and Secret World.

Alright, I wrote it poorly, but the meaning is clear...

Well, there's the risk of a very intimate and personal record that makes no compromises, the risk of being appreciated only halfway or not at all, the risk of not being digested as you said before, and that's completely understandable. There's also the appreciation or not of the songs, well, that's obvious. You're right, it doesn't propose anything new musically, and there are traces of "Passion," but I wouldn't call them that; maybe "Echoes." I've always seen a good part of "Us" as a musical reinterpretation in a singer-songwriter style of what he had composed in "Passion," a further look into the ethnic, towards the heart of Africa through what "Passion" was, but revisited through a completely personal writing in terms of lyrics and themes where Gabriel takes stock and, as you put it so well, deals with his skeletons in the closet. The strength of "Us" lies in its thematic intimacy, in the lyrics, and in this personal darkness. Here, Gabriel behaves more like a "classic" singer-songwriter, and indeed this is the category that, generalizing a bit, always offers the same style from album to album. However, this is subjective; for me, the level of writing is very high overall, evidently less so for you. Yet musically returning to the sounds of "Passion" is a further step in that sonic exploration that had been ongoing since "IV," if not, at least rhythmically-percussively, since "III." This is the Gabrielian World, obsessed with physical-carnal contact and primordial and ancestral instincts, in contrast, for example, to the greater mysticism of his colleague Sylvian, just to say (right, right, Fripp has had his hands on both, right :-). In any case, I agree quite a bit on "Steam," much less on "Blood" and "Digging," but that's just taste. I completely agree on the tracks you appreciate, all among the most valid on the album.

In short, it’s a complete and mature album that closes a chapter of his life and music, somewhat melancholically and brutally. Then the superb live concert of '94 will draw the final line. Not by chance, from 1994, the biblical, endless production times of good Pietro will begin, and goodbye to everyone, ciao.

Beautiful album! Just think that for me 'Us' is Gabriel's best work after Passion and IV. The opening and closing songs are stunning!
Hi Hj, have a good Sunday! ;)

Well, I almost completely agree; for me, "Us" is on par with "II", just outside the podium, obviously dethroned by the absolutely essential "III", which I prefer over "IV" by a hair's breadth, and I place just behind "Passion". Then comes "So".

As always to my taste, live US really shines, bringing out the best aspect of the album. I have a live DVD (I think it's the one from '94) and Come Talk To Me is fantastic, even kiss that frog comes out well. For me, the best of Gabriel are II, III, IV.

Of course, "Secret World Live" is spectacular. Yes, it enhances its tribal/musical/animalistic side, and moreover, it glorifies the expressive and poignant power of the lyrics and themes.

Bias? You? Come on.

I know Van Der Graaf Generator quite well, but I admit I’ve never delved into Hammill's solo work. At this point, I'll try to listen closely to something... I'll let you know...

Great album. I have the vinyl. As for the rest, like Dragonstar. I haven't really delved into Pietro's solo work too much... if I'm not mistaken, we already talked about it in the past. I will have to get to it sooner or later. As for VDGG, you know what I think instead...

@[Dragonstar] go ahead with this and keep going, I really think you’ll find a lot of great stuff. @[SilasLang] precisely because you like VDGG, I recommend you continue, when you have time, with the solo albums that followed this one; they're all superior at least until 1980, and some even beyond. Moreover, they tackle more varied styles; you would go crazy for albums like "Nadir's Big Chance," "The Future Now," "Over," or "The Black Box." In short, when you can, give them a try, trust me. A more singer-songwriter vein comes out, sometimes even more intimate; plus, he has always evolved and kept up with the times, when he hasn’t anticipated them, with enormous personality and originality. A sure bet.

Thank you for the valuable advice, my dear. I'm particularly drawn to 'Nadir's Big Chance', which from what I've heard is beautiful. As for his solo work, I have "Fool's Mate" and "The Future Now", which is nice; I'll explore the rest. I think I need to go back to visit my father; who knows, maybe I'll find some Hammil solo albums for free... XD

You can be sure they'll have stuff like Chamaleon or Silent Corner, two absolute masterpieces of "Hammillog" (the prog in Hammill style). I was sure you'd like "The Future Now," a New Wave album according to Hammill's vision, it really contributed a lot to the genre. I think you'll love Black Box, even more experimental, dry and claustrophobic, and the almost 20-minute track is the most oppressive and sparse thing (for a "prog" track) he has ever written. A black hole. Stuff for us, or as they say now on Debasio #robappenoi.

I think I have to break the porcelain pig, come on....

#smashtheswine :-D

XD

The fact that he was inspired during those years is evident from a series of things; one of which is the writing of "catchy" pop pieces, but not cloying, like "I Will Find You" or "I'm not The Man."

True. "I Will Find You," by its own standards, compared to other songs here, I like it less but it's beautiful as well.

Yes, definitely one of the best Hammill ever.

But how many albums has he/she made...

35 in the studio and at least 13-14 live + 13 in the studio and 8 live with Van Der Graaf Generator, not counting various demo collections. In total, 48 in the studio and a good two dozen live :D

Hellooooo

Ahahahahahaha

An inspired record that, however, takes off only with the two excellent final songs (both among the top 20 songs of his solo career, and that says a lot considering we're talking about an artist who has written hundreds of songs). For me too, a full 4 stars.

I don't know, for me the first 3-4 are already great songs that I don't find so inferior to "On the Surface." "A Way Out" obviously takes off and goes off on its own, into the stratosphere of immortal songs.

Lynch+The Age of Innocence=we fly

The enormous commercial success achieved by Genesis in the '80s increasingly led them adrift; in a desperate attempt to further consolidate that success (and fill their wallets), they composed increasingly syrupy music, stifling the creative spirit that had distinguished them a decade earlier, when, truth be told, they had still enjoyed considerable success. Yet, it is known that the vile money can make many people lose their heads. That said, credit must be given to Phil Collins, if nothing else, for participating in a fascinating project during that historical period, redeeming his skills as a musician and composer with "Brand X," alongside an embarrassingly (artistically) solo career that, however, would reward him tremendously from a commercial standpoint. I agree that "...But Seriously" and "We Can't Dance" are perhaps the least bad of the more recent production by Phil Collins and Genesis. As for Steve Winwood, once he left Traffic, he embarked on a more "light" solo career with stellar commercial success. However, unlike Genesis and Collins, he has always maintained high-quality standards, without distorting his artistic spirit solely for the sake of mere economic gain, as many other famous artists unfortunately have done.

The Brand X, however, started in 1976, when Genesis were still at their peak. They aren't very parallel, or at least they are only parallel until 1982 (the year of their first breakup) and the year of Collins' second solo album; it must be said that Collins' first two solo records are valid and reflect the fact that at that time, Collins, even though he was in a somewhat pop/soul/soft-jazzy direction, continued to be a musician at a certain level, in addition to the beautiful project of Brand X. When Collins fully embraced commercialism (let's say from 1984), Brand X was no longer around. If you notice in Collins' first two albums, John Giblin also plays, so effectively we have the rhythm section of Brand X from '79-'82 (the two also played together on Gabriel's "III," of course; it's a shame Giblin didn't bring Phil along for "Never for Ever" by Kate Bush, you know how cool that would have been). Collins as a solo artist and the later Brand X are also connected by a good musical quality. Unfortunately, the worst of Collins has never been accompanied by the parallel career of Brand X, only by that with Genesis.

"desperate attempt to further consolidate that success" Not so desperate, Pippo, they managed quite easily, alas. But it’s Banks who decided to ride the wave of Collins’ solo success, certainly happy to make the double hit. First, the only vague examples of super-commercial Genesis were Follow You (which fits in that album like cabbage on Nutella), Turn it on Again (a catchy pop piece but very pleasant), and Misunderstanding, which is terrible.

I agree on Winwood. I'm familiar with his early solo works, which are lighter but of high quality. Then he, but also Collins, bounces back with intense session work, often on interesting albums (just like Richard Thompson, who appears on so many records, although he never needed to "bounce back" from anything, rather he is always at sublime levels; maybe Winwood isn't even, but Collins is :D). The comment about Winwood was more of a joke than anything else.