hellraiser

I don't have the album, but knowing the Byrds... how many leaders were there in this group? In fact, the Byrds were proclaimed the American Beatles, but of course the Los Angeles group was superior in every way, and not by a little compared to the baronets.

In the Byrds, all the members (both original and subsequent) are high-level artists who have proven themselves as soloists as well. They might resemble the Beatles in their early years, but then they take different paths... I love them much more; Lennon and the others were very important and that's undeniable, but in my opinion, they are far superior...

A wonderful album that at the time I literally consumed and that I still listen to with great pleasure today. For me, the Byrds were definitely superior to the Beatles; just think about the role they had in defining, and often anticipating, subgenres like folk-rock, psychedelia, country-rock, etc.

Even for breakfast, you have to listen to it :-D

Well, I think that 5:30 in the morning is a bit much, but I’ll give it a try!

great album to the point that we almost don't realize it's the 1st without Gabriel.

@[zapp] it's quite normal considering that, at least in the studio, the contribution Gabriel made to the group was equivalent to that of the others in composition and inspiration. With a Banks, a Hackett, and a Rutherford so inspired and with a Collins so fresh, full of inventiveness and imagination (see fusion and many projects and collaborations here and there), for me today it’s almost taken for granted that in this masterpiece the absence of Gabriel weighs only minimally. The discussion is different in a live setting.

Certainly. And looking at it from the opposite perspective, the record in question is so beautiful that it amazes future generations, considering the artistic debacle that would follow.

Yes, unfortunately yes. Obviously the problem didn't arise immediately. The Genesis sought simpler paths, pop, sometimes "chart-friendly" (which, after all, they had always done amidst their progressive sound, and usually quite well)? That's fine because there was still inspiration, freshness, and ideas above all, there were prepared, mature musicians in great shape. I think of "Duke" and Collins' corresponding early solo phase, which for me is not a fantastic album, certainly not, but valid, that it is. What happened afterwards, culminating in that disgrace of Ocazzoble Tazz, I swear I can't explain it.

A few typos :D

if they had changed their name, perhaps the criticism and public opinion would have been more benevolent towards them, because as you said, I can accept and maybe even appreciate an Abacab or Duke a little if your name is "pincopallino," but if you have a background like the Genesis did up to A Trick..., you are used to certain things and to demanding more. This doesn’t mean that an artist shouldn’t renew themselves and be anchored to the past, but..............King Crimson! By mentioning this name and their journey, I believe it’s worth more than a million of my words.

So. No, for me the story of "They should have changed their name" is nonsense, and I'll explain why: Genesis as a band have gone through a journey, a rather long one in their case, forming a core (Banks-Rutherford-Collins, who are the authors of "The Cinema Show," for instance...) that has remained solid despite departures and even reductions in the lineup. They’ve always sought public success, always, just like the vast majority of each band and artist, even those who create what we call great music; there are very few who truly make art solely for the sake of art. After achieving that success in a certain type of music ("Selling England by the Pound," as a prog album, sold a boatload of copies, to put it that way) they remained as a trio, having lost the minds furthest from the concept of "charts" (granted, Gabriel is quite close to that, but he has always managed to balance that aspect with musical exploration in a practically equal manner; geniuses are like that) and decided to pursue simpler paths that, year after year, also leveraging Collins’ solo boom, led them to lower their artistic dignity in favor of songs of poor quality. It's not about pop, because pop can often be great music if well done; it’s simply about bad music. But Genesis had become a very famous brand by then. Come on, back in the days of the unnameable abomination, no crazy person would have opted for a name change. If I had been in Banks' shoes, I would have made the same choice; it's obvious, come on, let’s not be dreamers. I'm just sorry that they really got to the point of selling themselves without restraint, partly already from certain sparse episodes of "Duke," but especially from 1983 onwards. As for "Duke," I don't see why they would have needed to change their name even in an artistic sense. They had lightened their offering, it's true; they were decidedly more pop, but it was very good, inspired pop, fresh, with more modern and energetic sounds that I appreciate and that gave a boost after "And Then There Were Three" (which I still appreciate and which has some wonderful things within it).

Yes, "Duke" has 2-3 mediocre songs but the rest is excellent pop and it doesn’t fall short in quality compared to what they had offered before; it’s just different. Yes, I find all the albums up to "Wind and Wuthering" to be comfortably superior (which I keep repeating is, for me, a beautiful record with inspired and remarkable songwriting, stunning tracks, and a chilling atmosphere, where Banks perhaps expresses his poetic essence at its peak). But "Duke," just like Collins' first solo effort, is the work of great musicians exploring lighter paths while still remembering to be musicians and authors of a certain caliber. Just like Mike and his lovely "Smallcreep's Day," also from 1980. The real end for me comes in 1983, even though, as far as Genesis is concerned, it was already well anticipated by "Abacab." However, the nice live album from 1982 had covered up some shortcomings. It's true, I also expect more from a band like that when they present me with "Illegal Alien," actually, it’s not that I expect more; I’m just completely disappointed, but that's not a conversation I think is possible to have with "Duke." As for King Crimson, let’s leave that aside because Fripp is a totally different mind :) And he also participated in chart-topping stuff with Gabriel like "I Don't Remember," which, by the way, is really cool.

Or "Heroes" with Bowie and Eno to stay on theme. But also on "Beat" and "A Three of Perfect Pair" there are, indeed, concessions to pop. Pop made by Fripp, but pop.

One who has always always always minded his own business is Hammill instead :D

I've known you for a short time, but I can see that you really like Genesis, huh? :-) Anyway, to get back to your point, I completely share it. I didn't explain myself well with the "name change" comment, which is a bit… a way of saying that the virtuality of a site can present things differently. Of course, they shouldn't have changed their name! Otherwise, taking my joke literally, the same should have been done by the Stones with some of their albums and many other old names which, due to artistic dryness or completely exhausted creativity, have betrayed not only their original ideology but also the good taste of making quality music. And of course, if they were to change their name, the music would become a joke.

Then, making pop isn't a bad thing; the difference, as always, is the quality level. I used the example of Crimson because I believe they are one of the few multiform examples of music that feeds itself, shedding old skins to renew itself, always seeking new languages and avenues towards something similarly different/new that can then serve as a springboard for something even more innovative in the future to come. Creating pathways for themselves and making investments in the future, so to speak... And it's not easy to achieve that. Not to mention doing it while being credible.

And yes, Fripp has done some commercial things, but that little bespectacled man has made very few concessions over the past 50 years. :-)

Now! Van Der Graaf is another prestigious name that has never given up and has reinvented itself without selling out in search of success; on the contrary, quite the opposite. They were more romantic once upon a time. Now that they're aging, instead of becoming softer, they sound sharper and darker, but that’s a merit. At least their current path is always aimed at capturing one more creative spark that cannot be replicated, and above all, not retracing past footprints… in other words, the same discussion applies to the Crimson, and consequently to Hammill as a solo artist. People who never bend. :-)

Oh, this thing that everyone immediately understands I like Genesis, I just can't explain it, and here I am trying to keep it hidden :D ahahaah No, jokes aside, look, the talk about "changing name" is not directed at you, the fact that you just said it, but more about all the times I've heard it from so many people, too many; then I understood what you meant, don't worry, and I agree, in the sense that yes, it’s true that Genesis ended up betraying their identity if by that we mean their being musicians and researchers of compositions, whether pop or progressive, and high-quality sounds. A thing like "Illegal Alien" or something like "Into Deep" I won't accept from any pop group without too many pretenses, let alone from Genesis. You say "making pop isn't a bad thing, the difference as always is the quality level" Exactly. I won't even start quoting the great names of world POP music, people who have composed true masterpieces, and there are many, I’ll just stick to Genesis and say that between "Duke" and "Invisible Touch" there is an abyss that I can't explain. Not to mention the pop songs scattered throughout their masterpieces of the '70s, the very title track of this wonderful album is a delightful pop song, inspired by the Beatles, as Banks himself admitted. The best side of the Beatles though "in a Genesis way" and it's stunning. So they certainly knew how to write pop, it’s just that from a certain point onward, they stopped caring because they realized that clearly, a lot more people like eating crap.

I'm totally in agreement about Van Der Graaf Generator. However, I believe that Fripp has never produced "commercial" stuff in the pejorative sense of the term. Marketable, yes, but that's normal. Even In the Court was. Also, "Pawn Hearts," in that 1971, was an album suitable for the public, so much so that it reached No. 1 in Italy and stayed there for quite a while.

The chasm between Duke and Invisible Touch, in my opinion, is a bit like when you decide to make a small compromise, or maybe take a small step back. Then you start to enjoy it, you see that the new sound you've embraced is more malleable, profitable; in other words, it requires less effort. Years go by, you get lazy, the stimuli are no longer what they used to be (actually less and less), coupled with the fact that you’re aware that you have proven to yourself and others that you’re great, and before you know it, you find yourself having made a series of compromises that lead you to... Invisible Touch. That’s how I explain it, for Genesis, but also for other big names similar to them as a creative parabola. But... it all stems from that initial small compromise that separates Duke from what came before. Perhaps a conscious feeling of having exhausted oneself to maintain certain levels.

However, if you notice, these big names, when they do the catchy little "pop tune," form and ornamentation they do exceptionally well, only that it often gets panned because certain genuflections to the thoroughbred are unforgivable. But if a song like Into the Deep had been done by the classic festival artist, maybe it would be hailed as a masterpiece.

It’s funny how it’s possible to tear apart or praise the same thing when viewed from two different perspectives.

Talking about Van Der Graaf, look, you catch me in a moment of second infatuation with them. I listened to them in the last century and I liked them for certain things, but I felt like I hadn’t really delved deep as I usually do with certain artists that I become obsessed with. Riding the wave of last year’s album, I revisited their discography with a full immersion approach, and it was like rediscovering them; now I truly feel completely fulfilled by their music and, in my own way, I sense that I’ve stripped down their music in a way I couldn’t in the 90s.
Pawn Hearts is a masterpiece.
But if I want to be picky, with H to He, Who Am the Only One, I felt something stirred within me, even deeper than Pawn managed to... but I realize I’m making a subjective argument.
Then there’s that jewel of Still Life...

Look, maybe we think a bit differently about "Duke," but for the rest, I agree with everything; I would obviously add that your explanation is perfectly logical. One thing, though: those who criticize the songs of Genesis from the '80s (which should be criticized in any case, not because they are Genesis) are likely unaware of who the artist at the Festivalbar is, being fond of their past and thus lovers of a certain type of music. :)

Regarding Van Der Graaf Generator, I can say that for me, H to He is absolutely on par with Pawn, and maybe—just maybe—it’s even my favorite. There’s “Lost,” and nothing has melted me inside like “Lost.”

An extraordinary record.

Well, it remains one of the most unique and exhilarating debuts in the history of rock, in my opinion. Just think of the sketch of medieval folk minstrel style cleverly embedded in the middle of "Why Not." A masterpiece.

for me, it’s also the best, simply perfect among the top 10, perhaps 5, most important albums of the genre.

The beauty is not for the record (which I don't know), but for the punchline. :D

Wow, you got it right away, huh? Well, I agree, from one year to the next Fripp and McDonald (and then just Fripp) will demonstrate all their compositional skills beyond and even more than their instrumental ones (which, don't get me wrong, are absolutely massive), but you can already feel the talent here. "A lively, fun album, far from the glories of King Crimson." Well, that's because there's not much fun in Crimson, just think about the opener of the debut O_O (well, in this trio album, neither Sinfield nor McDonald were present, which I’d say is a bit significant). I'm glad you liked it, but I reiterate the advice: get your hands on the Tapes (always from '68), that's where you'll find both McDonald and Sinfield, and I think they are more interesting.

Yes, as I told you just yesterday evening at Marrillon, I got it yesterday afternoon, paid at a big discount thanks to the fact that I’m a good customer, a friend, and because the seller is a huge fan of the Crimson. I noted down the tapes, I’ll take care of it even though I think it will be difficult to get them... regards!

Oh man, I dare you! Did you look that bald guy with the mustache and the pink jacket in the face? If that doesn’t make you laugh! Anyway, his smile was super tight, you know, the kind you put on when you want to watch the Champions League calmly on Wednesday night and relatives show up at 8:50... By the way, the '80s were beautiful, especially the clothing, I love it :((((

Ahahahahahhahahahaha yes it's true XD "The '80s are beautiful, especially in the clothing department, I love them :((((“ But the King Crimson represent only the best of the '80s (as always, as in the '70s and '90s) they made some monstrous stuff. The one in the pink jacket, that's Adrian Belew (!) but he doesn’t have a mustache, the bald one with the mustache is Tony Levin :D True that the smile is super forced but then there's one that's more natural, it’s just that with this piece, thanks to Belew's crazy-zappaesque-schizoid-grotesque flair, they must have had a lot of fun and in the end, he couldn't help but laugh too.

Come on, it's an album that came out in 2001, it should be fairly easy to find. You have a great record anyway. I missed the comment on the Marillion, but that's fine, it's a good buy, especially if it’s discounted. Enjoy your lunch now, I'm off to eat.

Technically not amazing, but incredibly effective, too strong for me!

Ahahah I instead think this is really great!!! Tight and raw like I've never heard before!! But I don’t want you to misunderstand, I give this a 10/10 and the other a 9/10. After all, you have more class, I have more physique ahahah! A hug!

I know little about this band... Any acrobatic solos you would recommend?

Thanks for the tip, Count. But are you of aristocratic descent or does your nickname simply refer to your nobility of spirit?

I've sent the ascendants to hell! Nobility of spirit remains for those who deserve it, of course. I don't do things by halves! Goodbye, dear!

Caught was the first one I bought on CD, then on vinyl, ages ago. This is just as magnificent as Live 1971. @[Onirico] Farmer wasn't a mega guitarist like Page or Blackmore, but he knew what he was doing, even with the keyboards...

I prefer the first 3 with the devastating live experience included, 4 albums in 18 months! They’re like a caterpillar, but of course, it’s a matter of taste. I still like all of them, even the softer and more "commercial" endings.

Oh my god... you know what? At my place, it's bong o'clock! And there's no ganja therapy session here without a nice record on the turntable... so, I'm putting it on.

What can I say, absurd, wonderful.

Well, masterpiece!

hahaha I didn’t know the backstory!

Very interesting.