Fabulous album, perfect review in my opinion, complete. I still prefer "Selling England By The Pound," but this album by Genesis also deserves a revisit.
I'll read the review later... excellent album... still inferior to Selling England... and Foxtrot... Peter Gabriel is fantastic... just like Phil and Tony...
Can you review an album and give it less than a 5? Genesis, Yes, Emerson—how can you give a 5 with all the (real masterpieces) that came out during that period? Gong, Can, Amon Düül II, Faust, Popol Vuh, etc... what score would they deserve if this album is a 5 for you? The history of rock is full of stars, and Genesis certainly isn’t one of them.
The Beatles didn't invent anything, obviously, (anyway, I invite all DeBaser users to listen to all the albums by the Everly Brothers if they really care about the supremacy of endless invention and primogeniture) Name: popoloitaliano | Date: 6/7/2007 | Vote: — | Vote for the Album: — I quote this insightful DeBaser user to declare that Scaruffi invented dogmatism in music.
"The history of rock is full of stars; in my opinion, Genesis is not among them. There are few certainties in this world, and the fact that Genesis is not among the stars of rock is not one of them."
Someone, due to prior acquaintance, claims that this is not "your own work"; I’m not too concerned about that, so I’ll give it a solid 5. Well-deserved because it perfectly frames the genesis, the evolution, and the consequences of this milestone. I partially agree with the final sentence, which I would edit to: "Gabriel was THE LAMB and Genesis was his band." Because The Lamb is an eminently Gabrielian work, and your review does not fail to emphasize that. I read with dismay and disbelief Lord's comments on Gabriel's solo career. Drawing parallels between his productions and those of the Banks-Collins-Rutherford trio and tossing them into the same pot is genius, pure blasphemous genius! A few moments of healthy pop aren’t enough to save what cannot be saved. What "those three" did is, for me, an abomination, except for ATOTT and W&W. With another name, I might have forgiven them... The solo career did not reach the creative peaks of the Genesis era, but Gabriel has consistently maintained the esprit de recherche; the same cannot be said for the three heads of the Genesis company. With Peter at the helm, the post-Lamb era would certainly have held delightful surprises; he knew full well that the golden age of progressive was waning, yet that doesn’t mean that Genesis couldn’t have taken paths completely different from those pursued by the trio. I think of that marvelous crucible of the Crimson King. Well, another story, other minds... Regards, Maldon
Can you review any albums giving them less than 5? Genesis, Yes, Emerson—but how can you give 5 with all the (true masterpieces) that came out during that period? Gong, Can, Amon Düül II, Faust, Popol Vuh, etc... what rating would they deserve if this album is a 5 for you? The history of rock is full of stars, and Genesis certainly isn’t one of them. Name: igordimi | Date: 8/7/2007 | Rating: 2 | Album Rating: 3 __________________________________________________________ Dear Igor, Personally, I use the highest rating for only a few select productions. This is to dispel any doubts about belonging to the club of "maximum values at all costs." The Lamb may or may not be to your liking, but the "critical" judgement must necessarily contemplate the three functions of Eco: intentio auctoris, intentio operis, intentio lectoris. Practicing only the third function means simply issuing a judgement. In this sense, The Lamb deserves a value higher than any work by Gong or Centipede (whom I adore!). The 1970s production reaches the maximum score, in my personal ranking, in only 5 cases. Just to mention a famous example, The Wall has a "critical" evaluation sufficient enough, and none of the four previous works by Genesis equals The Lamb. The other four? I’ll just name the bands, you guess the titles: Brian Eno, King Crimson, Soft Machine, and Joy Division. Btw, I share the spirit of the post. Often it’s a matter of excessive enthusiasm or inflation of expressions (if you rush to define an Oasis album a masterpiece, when reviewing "Remain in Light" by Talking Heads you have to use expressions like "immortal and transcendental work" to restore a minimum of perspective). Regards, Maldon
Peter had been thinking since '74 that progressive was slowly dying (suicide), he was one of the most visionary and intuitive progmen. In fact, The Lamb is not a progressive album in my opinion... it's rock! This review, if it didn't smell of copying, would deserve a 6 as well.
Dear STIPE, Igordimi, although I am making a rather questionable reasoning, I am naming the groups that are at the top of the music of the twentieth century, for your information.
Yes Arnold, but it will be a bit of a mess for us if we decide to give 5 to Genesis, and it certainly won't be because Igor is outraged that we will stop... and then it's forbidden here to vote according to one's impulses, feelings, beyond the actual quality of the work?? I believe a little mental flexibility wouldn't hurt, and taking these damn votes too seriously is not the way to go... and then, how the hell can you compare Amon Düül II with Genesis, does that even make sense???
Well Stipe, a remedy is urgent, listen to the aforementioned groups and you'll discover new horizons... the fact is that you always review the same old, fried and refried albums that even my cat knows. Never a hidden gem from you, huh? To return to igordimi's reasoning: it's a reasoning from a 12-year-old boy... your post is worth just as much as this, for example, as if I had entered this review and said: how disgusting the Genesis are, I prefer Roxy Music...
arnoldlayne can you read?? I actually wanted to say that those groups are of 5, it’s normal!!! In fact, I said I want to see if those groups are not of 5.
Well, alright, it's good that you reviewed some gems. I know Barclay James Harvest and I think I've listened to something of theirs, while I'm unfamiliar with the Neville Brothers. Thanks!
For maldon, your use (pedantry) of Latin doesn't intimidate me; you cite de wall as a benchmark for your personal 5, but do you realize how many hundreds of '70s records are better than de wall? Obviously, it depends on how many albums from that period you've listened to (not just progressive but folk, blues rock, protopunk, etc...). Besides, the best Floyd are the first two plus relics, certainly not the opera the wall, that's just my opinion. I could also choose not to respond to you, stipe, but given the trend in your reviews, I'll say that if I were to update myself with your albums or reviews of bands like Genesis, whose albums have not stood the test of time (cold, heavy, emotionless, monotonous, etc...), I would be very disappointed in myself at least in the musical field. Also, maldon, have you listened to Continental Circus by Gong? Before saying that this album is better than all the records of some band, one must be familiar with the complete works of the band in question! As for bjorky, I don't know what you mean by a schoolboy reasoning; I'm sure my comment is worth as much as yours, and I'm equally sure that any album by Amon Düül II, Faust, Can, Popol Vuh, Captain Beefheart, Aynsley Dunbar, Richard and Linda Thompson, Nick Drake, Tim Buckley, Groundhogs, Velvet Underground, The Who... I could go on for a long time but I'll stop, is better than this album, which I still bought along with 7 or 8 others by Genesis.
I understood that your point of reference was "the wall," sorry, for the other groups, well, less so for Joy Division, definitely not a 5 for either "Closer" or "U.Pleasure."
X IGOR: This is not about arrogance, much less about empty erudition. Is it possible that the use of our mother tongue always ignites passions? A little healthy nationalism, come on... ;-) Moreover, I would be doing a disservice to our Eco and his learned analysis. But let’s return to the passionate debate: The Wall is a work of Waters, and it retains many similarities with The Lamb. I mentioned it because it’s quite a talked-about album, certainly not for its intrinsic value. It seems I haven't clearly communicated my idea of "Criticism," so I will try to be more intelligible. Dear Igor, you extensively use intentio lectoris and little of the other two functions, if I may say so. In this sense, I could easily throw many sacred monsters from the tower and ascend to the heavens with lesser-known individuals. Among these archangels, I wouldn't miss citing some names that appear in your posts (I think of the immense Tim Buckley, the intimate lyricism of Nick Drake, the true summation of the Canterbury movement: Septober Energy), but that would be gravely mistaken if one intends to follow a "critical" methodology. Of course, to initiate any critical analysis, it is necessary to clarify certain foundational aspects, without which the intelligence of the text goes straight to hell. You ask me if I am familiar with the musical universe of the '70s; well, I wouldn't have dared such choices if I didn't have the awareness to navigate relatively easily through the musical production of that decade (ca va sans dire...). A good critical judgment necessarily starts from the confidence with which the writer maps out the space-time dimension of the object being investigated. A historical critic discussing the economic power of the Dutch in the 1600s, without grounding his reasoning in the territory of the former United Provinces, the Spanish influence, and the Calvinist choice, is doing poor criticism. In this perspective, your citation of Continental Circus (which I know—although I prefer other titles, along with a good part of the Canterbury movement of which I boast a substantial original discography) is out of place, as it only includes intentio lectoris (behind the Gong there are evident inheritances; I think of Zappa to name a brilliant example). The Lamb is superior not purely by an artistic criterion, but because it impacts the history of popular music on a decidedly deeper level. The critique of a punk or a hippie is of no consequence; they certainly won’t undermine the value of this work. Now, my ranking is chronologically oriented (the '70s) and examines popular music (which, as everyone knows, is not folk music) declining the choice based on the innovation the work brought both musically and socially (because popular music cannot disregard social psychology). It is clear that my ranking retains personal criteria, but they fit into a framework that involves the application of intentio auctoris and operis. And this, while allowing me to distance myself from the specter of relativism, also protects me from autarkic judgments. Which, translated into cash, means: adopting a wise critical approach makes it possible to make choices entirely different from mine. Yours sincerely, Maldon
For maldon: I don't want to hyperbolize, but I don't understand who and/or what this album has deeply impacted, and I don't hear Zappa-like influences on Continental Circus, although they might be felt like those between Elvis and punk. I am neither a researcher nor a sociologist; for almost a quarter of a century, I have been striving to find music that leaves something in my soul. The Genesis albums, with all the goodwill to buy and listen to them multiple times, just don't resonate with me! I own many, many records that many consider mediocre, but that shine like comet trails for at least one track (Murdoch and Geordie by Trees, The Blacksmith by Steeleye Span, Dirty Yellow Mist and Melancholie by My Solid Ground, Mc Googan's Blues by Roy Harper, Drip Drip by Comus, etc.), songs like these have left and still leave something with every listen! Regards.
Igordimi, don’t you realize that you’re contradicting yourself? First, you flaunt unassailable certainties (the Genesis are definitely NOT part of the rock stars, I’m sure that any album from etc. etc. is better than this one), then as a justification for all this, you claim that they don’t touch your heartstrings and that they don’t leave anything in your soul, which is the most SUBJECTIVE motivation possible. Don’t you think it’s a bit exaggerated to make your own sensitivity a measure of universal judgment? :D
To oleenair: I don't see much contradiction in saying that for me the Genesis are not part of rock stars and they don't touch my heartstrings, perhaps you haven't understood me! The fact that I'm SURE, as you write, is due to the fact that this album is worth 3 out of 5 for me, not because Scaruffi (happypippo) writes or thinks so, but because I don't like it for the reasons I've already mentioned. Again, for happypippo, I would like to know if your criticisms of Scaruffi (a music critic like many others) are made out of bias or if you've read all the books he has written? If you only limit yourself to going on his website or get upset because he has torn apart some of your myths, you’re speaking for nothing. He has written about music just like Bertoncelli, Sorge, Rizzi, Guglielmi, Cilìa, Vivaldi, Pasetto, etc... If you're going to talk about something, it would be better if you actually knew about it! If the 70s were reduced to the Canterbury phenomenon plus the usual 5 or 6 famous groups, certain music wouldn't exist today. There are many people who write well but know little (ca va sans dire...), or who boast about having collections of records (originals). With the money I've spent on music, I could buy myself a modest little house where I live. I would like to know how many records you have to criticize the 70s. (50-100-500-1000-5000-10000) The 70s are not just punk concentrated primarily in singles and rarely albums!
But what do you know about how much I know about Scaruffi? Do you really think that what he writes is reliable? Sometimes he gets it right; but if you shoot into the crowd, sometimes you hit. The best critique of Scaruffi is the one that said he moves from thesis to solution without proving anything. Have you read all of Scaruffi's books? And doesn’t Scaruffi say that you don’t need to hear everything to understand if it's worth it or not? So instead, I should read all the books, including his delirious poem, by a hysterical know-it-all? Do you really think he’s a normal person? What a pointless effort.
If you talk about something, you'd better know it! If the '70s were reduced to the Canterbury phenomenon plus the usual 5 or 6 famous bands, there wouldn't be certain music today. There are a lot of people who write well but know little (ca va sans dire...), or who boast about having collections of records (originals). With the money I've spent on music, I could buy a modest little house where I live. I would like to know how many records you have to criticize the '70s. (50-100-500-1000-5000-10000) The '70s are not just punk concentrated mainly in singles, EPs, and rarely albums! WHO THE HELL CRITICIZES THE SEVENTIES? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? SCARUFFI SHOULD BUY A PIANO AND START DOING SOME MUSICAL ANALYSIS. I DON'T CARE IF YOU TOUCH SOME OF MY ICONS (COINCIDENTALLY, YOU DON'T TOUCH MY FAVORITES, NICK DRAKE, CAPTAIN BEEFHEART). THE CRITICISM OF THE BEATLES IS NARROW-MINDED. ABOUT STEELY DAN, YOU SHOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE, YOU MESS UP NAMES, TERMS, DEFINITIONS, AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW AN ELECTRIC GUITAR IS MADE.
I don't care what Scaruffi writes; I read books on (music) criticism or music history, so I read all of his too: "Storia del Rock" in 5 volumes, "Guida all'avanguardia" and "New Age" (with included demo CDs), and every now and then I visit his website to get a counterpoint on something I read in newspapers, magazines, etc. I think that in the 1970s, between posthumous reissues of unreleased material and LPs, around 30,000 to 40,000 records were released (more a conservative estimate than excessive). Knowing 2 or 3% of the records from that decade and criticizing it is like trying to describe the Uffizi Gallery after having run away due to the long wait under the porch adjacent to the entrance! As I've already stated, you can't give everyone a 5. For Oleeinar, since I surely write it, it goes without saying for me! I've already found many local smart alecks praising or trashing records perhaps without even having listened to them (like on the first album by Comus), and it bothers me a lot. Knowing as many records as possible helps me both in writing reviews and in critiquing reviews (where criticism doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation)!
bullshit; buy a guitar and play!! shut up 'n' play your guitar and don't tell me I'm talking about things I don't know! you have your head full of information and nothing else
<<I have already found many wise guys from the neighborhood praising or tearing apart albums perhaps without even having listened to them (like with the first Comus album), and it bothers me a lot. Knowing as many albums as possible helps me both to write reviews and to critique reviews (where critique doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation)!>> Sorry, but was that sentence directed at me? Because if it was, I didn't understand it...
<<I've already found many neighborhood smart alecks praising or tearing apart records perhaps without even having listened to them (stipe on the first Comus)>> if you think that the user stipe is worth anything, go read one of his reviews - the ones that aren’t copied - or his comments, and you’ll realize who you’re dealing with, and to your great.. surprise(?) you won’t find the slightest trace of cleverness.
While you stubbornly keep playing, I stubbornly keep listening to records. Differences: you can discuss the few records you’ve listened to from a technical standpoint (only guitar?), while I can’t talk about the technique of individual instruments but can critique the album as a whole much better than you because I have many more points of reference! For you, critics in all arts must necessarily be artists themselves to understand? I picture Sgarbi with brushes and colors, Farinotti and Mereghetti with a camera, etc... it makes me laugh! For oleeinar, for you, it was just the first sentence. As for arnoldlayne, I had already noticed the character in question; after all, we are in his review.
I'm sorry, but aside from the fact that I'm a drummer, I'm 42 years old and have a ton of stuff that you wouldn't even dream of with all your arrogance and your bookish knowledge. Usually, those who fancy themselves musicologists (the serious ones, not you) pick up the piano and do a little musical analysis from time to time. You talk about me without knowing me! And who are you, the magician David Copperfield?
An American study explains why listening to a song brings pleasure "It improves mood as it activates the nerve circuits that level dopamine" Music? A natural drug "It stimulates the hormone of well-being" <B>Music? A natural drug<br>"It stimulates the hormone of well-being"</B> MUSIC? A true drug. Capable of activating the brain just like a chemical stimulant and offering amplified sensations of pleasure, excitement, or satisfaction. Essentially provoking the same feelings provided by sex and drugs. This is supported by Professor and neuroscientist Danile J. Levitin. In the study "Life Soundtracks," he investigates the brain's biological responses to musical stimuli. Famous for his research in the field of music, Levitin teaches at McGill University in Montreal. It is right here that he "recruited" volunteers for his tests. During the research, Levitin's team monitored their biochemical reactions to musical stimuli. They discovered that "music produces a chemical response in every way, through which the relevant nerve circuits help modulate dopamine levels, the so-called 'well-being' hormone in the brain. Just like it happens with sex and some drugs." So, it's sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll, we might say. But, unlike drugs, music doesn't seem to have devastating side effects. When we listen to a song we like, the same reward mechanism activates that also occurs when gamblers win or drug addicts use their favorite substance. By replicating the same type of sensations, music activates circuits in the brain associated with the autonomic nervous system and produces physical reactions such as sweating, sexual excitement, and "chills down the spine." In many cases, this leads to a feeling of euphoria that, according to Levitin, "confirms the idea of a sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll center in the brain." "The hypothesis of such a center in the brain proves that music plays a major role in creating moods and generating reactions," explains Dr. Levitin. "Research shows that music has precise effects on the body's physiology, including heart rate, respiration, sweating, and mental activity. Music is effective in moderating levels of arousal and concentration and helps regulate mood through its impact on the brain's natural chemistry." BUT IF IT'S TRUE, WHY ARE YOU SO UNHAPPY, MY FRIEND?
I'm not unhappy at all, my friend; I have a 3-year-old son who gets excited with me listening to rock records for hours and hours. The problem is that your friend Maldon, wanting to justify the 5 for this album and thinking that my 3 wasn't given fairly, wrote a bunch of nonsense (see above) and didn't answer the two simple questions I asked. (He didn't intervene anymore!). You intervened by writing the other nonsense "there's no better antidote to ‘scaruffisms’ and grievances served with a side of acrimony," without realizing, given the two musical blunders he wrote, that your friend knows very little about music, and by giving a 5 to this little record, getting excited for your friend's writing ability (and nothing else), you don't understand much more than he does. (I'm not infallible, but what you write speaks about you).
I forgot to reply to you. Not all music makes you feel good; have you ever wanted to listen to an album but found it so annoying that you had to turn it off? It happens to me quite often, and sometimes I even find myself getting emotional or feeling down. I don’t know what drugs you've used or are using, but the journey isn’t always a good one. Listening to music doesn’t always mean you can be happy and cheerful, intoxicated and excited. (It also depends on what you’re listening to).
Listen, I'm telling you nicely. This is a great record and you've messed it up. Buy a guitar and play (like Roman Vlad did that time at RAI when explaining Michelangeli's style if he hadn't known how to put two paws on the piano?, as he actually did...). If this is a little record then I want to make a nice little record too!!! Scaruffismi wasn't aimed at you. The story about music being a drug was just a loud joke directed at you and your literary pretentiousness. My favorite artist is Nick Drake, so I know how things work in art... (try to say something against Drake and I'll strike you down) Listen, shut up and enjoy.
Dear Igor, if you think that your mirlitonnades could receive a response from me, well... you are not only naive but also quite ignorant. It seems that you read (I have some reservations), and this only worsens your position. If I have the desire and the time (writing is "work" for me; the content and style of your comments indicate, on the contrary, that you earn your bread otherwise), I will honor you with a few lines, just to make public the soup of nonsense you have served up so far.
Ignorant Maldon, it’s you with your Zappian influences from Continental Circus and the fact that this record "incides in the history of popular music at a decisively deeper level" than Continental Circus. I don’t make a living by writing; not everyone has your abilities (as Arrig would say, a bit more de l'humilité). Could you tell me (or am I not up to it) what and for whom you write? Given your writing skills, I’d love to read something of yours (hoping to be able to understand your exceptionally erudite vocabulary). Can I give you a piece of advice? My partner wrote a piece titled: Le Martyre de Saint Sébastien by Gabriele D'Annunzio at the Théâtre du Châtelet (sorry for the two accents, but I don’t even know how to use the PC) on the synthesis of the arts. You can find it in the faculties of theater, humanities, or by purchasing: Castello di Elsinore. Given your abilities and your strong inclination towards reading, I would like to have your opinion on the piece in question. Thank you in advance for any response (With my face under your feet). For happypippo: from my son you would have much more to learn, and if he grows up listening to musical horrors, I certainly won’t be the one to stop him. I only try to provide him with the tools to understand better and as much as possible. (I also hope he plays).
I don't think so, you little irritating music expert with your four pennies. First of all, learn not to lie (like saying that I haven't listened to or don't own any music material. What the hell do you know? Are you my maid?). But aren't you hot, Igor?
Maybe the heat is frying your brain! I'm appealing to your sensitivity: how can you love Nick Drake and give your all to this album? I just can't understand it. No Genesis album reaches the heights of his, but why do you insist on justifying the 5?
Well, Igor, maybe he just "stubbornly" expresses his opinion, just as you stubbornly express yours, right? Who knows why yours should be worth more. "How can you love Nick Drake and give your all to this album? I don’t get it. No Genesis album reaches the heights of his," that’s funny, I could then say that no rock album reaches the heights of Robert Wyatt’s albums, so should we only give 5 to Rock Bottom??
Igor, listen: before this stupid thing escalates, I'll cut it short and hug you in peace. My nonsense about debaser and the crazy atmosphere makes me prefer to avoid the controversy. ;-) You can love Genesis and Drake... why not? (Oh, Drake is my star, obviously!!! Drake is my patron saint, and just think, I discovered him two years ago... they say age makes you immune to emotions... BULLSHIT!!!!)
You are right, you can love multiple albums, but when I rated this record a 3, it seemed like I had offended the history of rock and many of you. For the late progressive genre, this album is worth less than many others; Drake and Wyatt, for what they express, have no comparisons. I may be too controversial, but this is how I feel. Peaceful regards!
I didn't explain myself well regarding the progressive genre from the early '70s; this Genesis album is not among the best. Drake and Wyatt are in a league of their own (genre aside)! That's why I try not to give 5 stars to too many albums.
Well, I agree on the 5, and in fact, Drake and Wyatt are the peaks of the peaks of the peaks of the peaks.............................. ....., my lari and penati...... let's say that the emotional importance counted, but I still find it a beautiful album today.
Instead, I find that this review is clearly written by someone who knows little and poorly about Genesis and tends to attribute merits to Peter that are not his. It is worth remembering that during the period 1972/75, the band's music was mainly composed by Tony and Mike, with a few contributions from the other three. In particular, "The lamb" was composed almost entirely by the keyboardist and the bassist, with very rare contributions from Peter (a couple of songs) and Steve ("Hairless heart"). Hackett has never liked this album and has openly stated so, claiming that it was mainly the work of Banks. I do not question Pete's role as a singer and experimenter, but it must be said that at the compositional level in Genesis, he didn't do much. Instrumentally, on "The lamb," Collins stands out with drumming parts that are nothing short of astonishing, so much so that in an interview he called it the best album in the history of Genesis.
Dear Paolo, after quite a few months I return to my tracks, and I cannot help but respond to your comment which, I believe, presents several simplifications. I will reiterate what I have already had the opportunity to write elsewhere about the work of Genesis. The musical redundancy that many highlight in THE LAMB LIES DOWN ON BROADWAY is a clear example of how Banks and company composed "under commission." The compositions follow the story of Rael (the STORY, not the lyrics) and his famous costumes on stage, and not vice versa. It is no coincidence that the double album represents a suspension in the Genesis discography. Chronologically, ATOTT should follow, completely integrated into the discourse opened with Trespass. "The Trick of the Tail" has no familial, let alone fraternal, connection with The Lamb. The Lamb is an idea of Gabriel, everything stems from this idea. The participation of the rest of the group is linked to this idea, and this idea is the root of Gabriel's solo career. Material for "A Trick of the Tail" had already been composed beforehand, but at a certain point "The Lamb," and only that, was urgent in Gabriel's mind. I reiterate... THE LAMB is an absolutely Gabrielian work! Those who have seen The LAMB TOUR by Musical Box (the only concrete opportunity to "see" The Lamb - note that the Canadians will be in Italy in November for the ATOTT TOUR. It’s the first time they bring to the stage the first work post-Gabriel) will have solved a large part of the mysteries underlying this work. And, in any case, this does not diminish the compositional wisdom of Banks and Hackett in particular. "The Colony of Slipperman," "The Grand Parade...", "Anyway," "Carpet Crawl," "Back in NYC" are compositions created ad hoc for Peter. A piece like "Silent Sorrow in Empty Boat" was composed solely to allow a costume change for Peter-Rael, just to clarify for someone the reason behind certain supposed redundancies. Of course, "Hairless Heart" is Hackettian, "Ravine" and "The Lamb lies..." are Banksian. Yet the whole is always declined with the Gabrielian verb. Best regards, Maldon
Hello Maldon, it is clear that Genesis were influenced by the narrative development of the Lamb saga, but this does not change the fact that the musical composition of the work was almost entirely up to Tony and Mike. Here’s a statement from Hackett: "The lamb happened in spite of me, more than with me. I couldn’t create anything memorable guitar-wise. I believe Tony never made a better record." And here’s what Genesis historian Mario Giammetti writes: "Musically, the album is the almost exclusive compositional domain of Tony and Mike, with contributions from Hackett and Collins minimized (the guitarist is responsible for 2 tracks, Collins for a good part of Lillywhite Lilith, composed 3 years earlier)." Peter composed only "Counting out time" and a good part of "The chamber of 32 doors." From other interviews, it has emerged with certainty that Tony composed: "The lamb," "In the cage," "Anyway," "Riding the scree," while "Fly," "Back in NYC," "In the rapids" are by Mike. "Carpet crawlers" is ultimately a 4-hand work by Tony and Mike.
Hello Paolo, formally your observations are correct. We have several interviews in which the various members of the band strive to reveal the authors of the various compositions. You see, among the various tasks of historians and critics, there is the need to delve into the words of the protagonists, to strip down their intentions to try to get closer to the essence of the event. The protagonists of the so-called Canterbury scene have always categorically denied the existence of this movement, opposing the radical freedom of their artistic expression. We know very well that their claims are false, legitimate but false. Because while it is true that no one ever planned the movement, it is impossible to deny that a considerable number of Anglo-Saxon musicians developed a common musical poetics, consisting of virtuous collaborations and constant movements of musicians within the Canterbury circle. Canterbury is a convenient definition, but it identifies a concrete musical movement. Tell me, who developed the themes, both textual and musical, present in The Lamb in the course of their career? Banks? Hackett? Collins? Rutherford? It seems to me that Gabriel is the one who continued the discourse begun in The Lamb, and this reasonably leads me to think that Banks and Hackett, in particular, were composing on commission. I reiterate the esteem I have for these two musicians, but The Lamb remains an eminently Gabrielian work. Best regards, Maldon
I would like to say something to paolo1968: you say that Genesis didn’t totally depend on Gabriel, so explain to me why, after The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, the quality of the albums dropped completely... for example, the band’s masterpieces are when the band was complete, and not the subsequent ones. And then, excuse me, in the future it became clear who the true core of the group was... just look at his solo career with So, and other magnificent albums, remember 1968...
Hi stipe: as I’ve mentioned before, for me “A Trick of the Tail” is comfortably on par with their previous works. After 1977, progressive rock was on the brink, and Genesis decided to move towards a pop style, always at least within a dignified level. However, they didn’t lose their taste for instrumental openings of a certain depth (see “Duke’s Travels,” “Second Home by the Sea,” “Fading Lights...”), which are completely absent in Peter’s works. I don’t think Peter was very fond of 70s prog, considering he quickly distanced himself from it in his solo career. I greatly appreciate “3,” “4” (which I consider his absolute masterpiece), “So” (except for a couple of tracks), and “Passion.” I find the first two rather weak and inconclusive, while the more recent works are too cold and calculated. Naturally, this is my personal opinion.
It's a very respectable opinion, and I can see that you're a true connoisseur; everyone's entitled to their own ideas. Since you're passionate about Genesis, tell me, what do you think is their best album...?
It’s difficult to make absolute rankings, but in my opinion, two albums without weak points are "Foxtrot" and "A Trick of the Tail": unassailable, I can't find a song I don’t like. I'm also personally attached to "Nursery Cryme," their first album I listened to, a work of unique freshness that contains "Musical Box," perhaps the most precious gem in their history. "THE LAMB" is a case apart, a challenging listen, with some less convincing moments, but still admirable for its enormous compositional effort and the courage to explore new sounds. Just below the previous ones, I find "Selling" and "Wind," which feature masterpiece tracks but also some weaker moments... Among the pop Genesis, my favorite is "Duke." At this point, let us know your preferences too... ;-)
In my opinion, the best albums by Genesis are: Foxtrot and Nursery Cryme above all (the art and history of music)... then I place The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway on the same level as Selling England, both excellent albums... and then my favorite, And Then There Were Three... a spectacular album and you'll be happy, Paolo 1968, great even without Peter.
A "biased" critique cannot overlook the underlying idea of "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway," which was born in Gabriel's mind. And what was swirling in that wondrous mind? Peter has always insisted on embodying the role of the total artist, and his career is evident proof of that. The Lamb is not simply an album of songs; it is something more. And it is within this overwriting that the many criticisms it has faced become entrenched. In The Lamb, there is an attempt to merge Text, Theater, Cinema, and Music. Visual Art, that is what Peter Gabriel intended to create. Except for a few snippets of footage, which are of poor quality by the way, we have nothing that testifies to the The Lamb tour. The puzzle took on a complete form as soon as I saw the tribute concert by the Musical Box three years ago. The Canadians are doing something entirely different than classic tribute bands, presenting themselves as true clones of Genesis. In Cinema, a similar operation was carried out by Gus Van Sant with Psycho, although there are "moments of freedom." With the Musical Box, however, there is no freedom, everything is calibrated, everything is perfectly studied. From the set designs, to the costumes, to the instrumentation. And it is thanks to them that it is possible to fully appreciate Gabriel's creation, the reasons behind certain assumed redundancies. It is essential to approach the work as visual art; otherwise, one will not come away with anything. Best regards, Maldon
Tasted with all the visual supports, it perhaps takes on a different dimension, listening to the CD (but after all, we're talking about a band, right?) and still, not everything shines... some excellent songs remain, like The lamb, Carpet Crawlers, The chamber of 32 doors, The lamia, In the cage... As for the multimedia aspect, it's well-known that due to various masks and theatricality during this tour, Peter often struggled to sing well (some bootlegs bear witness to this mercilessly), to the point that when the box set was released, he had to re-record many vocal parts. Understandably, this annoyed the other members quite a bit at the time, as they were "just" musicians...
It's not my favorite Genesis album, maybe not even in the top 3, but from Trespass to Wind and Wuthering, I consider them all 5 stars. I've always been fascinated by the story told by The Lamb through songs that, taken individually, can sometimes be masterpieces, or simple songs, or episodes that someone might call 'filler', but in the context of the whole work, which in this case is a concept, that's definitely a definition to be discarded! I really enjoyed the review!
I want to point out to everyone, particularly those who manage the site, that the review is plagiarized. It can be found, similarly to many others 'written' by STIPE, on '100 disxhi ideali per capire il rock'. Specifically, this one is by Mauro Ronconi.
franc'O'brain
8 jul 07MAUROProg
8 jul 07happypippo
8 jul 07Igordimi
8 jul 07happypippo
8 jul 07happypippo
8 jul 07happypippo
8 jul 07Name: popoloitaliano | Date: 6/7/2007 | Vote: — | Vote for the Album: — I quote this insightful DeBaser user to declare that Scaruffi invented dogmatism in music.
Lord
8 jul 07happypippo
8 jul 07MAUROProg
9 jul 07OleEinar
9 jul 07Maldon
10 jul 07I read with dismay and disbelief Lord's comments on Gabriel's solo career.
Drawing parallels between his productions and those of the Banks-Collins-Rutherford trio and tossing them into the same pot is genius, pure blasphemous genius!
A few moments of healthy pop aren’t enough to save what cannot be saved. What "those three" did is, for me, an abomination, except for ATOTT and W&W. With another name, I might have forgiven them...
The solo career did not reach the creative peaks of the Genesis era, but Gabriel has consistently maintained the esprit de recherche; the same cannot be said for the three heads of the Genesis company.
With Peter at the helm, the post-Lamb era would certainly have held delightful surprises; he knew full well that the golden age of progressive was waning, yet that doesn’t mean that Genesis couldn’t have taken paths completely different from those pursued by the trio. I think of that marvelous crucible of the Crimson King. Well, another story, other minds...
Regards,
Maldon
Maldon
10 jul 07Name: igordimi | Date: 8/7/2007 | Rating: 2 | Album Rating: 3 ______________________________ ____________________________
Dear Igor,
Personally, I use the highest rating for only a few select productions. This is to dispel any doubts about belonging to the club of "maximum values at all costs." The Lamb may or may not be to your liking, but the "critical" judgement must necessarily contemplate the three functions of Eco: intentio auctoris, intentio operis, intentio lectoris. Practicing only the third function means simply issuing a judgement. In this sense, The Lamb deserves a value higher than any work by Gong or Centipede (whom I adore!). The 1970s production reaches the maximum score, in my personal ranking, in only 5 cases. Just to mention a famous example, The Wall has a "critical" evaluation sufficient enough, and none of the four previous works by Genesis equals The Lamb. The other four? I’ll just name the bands, you guess the titles:
Brian Eno, King Crimson, Soft Machine, and Joy Division.
Btw, I share the spirit of the post. Often it’s a matter of excessive enthusiasm or inflation of expressions (if you rush to define an Oasis album a masterpiece, when reviewing "Remain in Light" by Talking Heads you have to use expressions like "immortal and transcendental work" to restore a minimum of perspective).
Regards,
Maldon
STIPE
10 jul 07bjorky
10 jul 07bjorky
10 jul 07ArnoldLayne
10 jul 07theknife82
10 jul 07bjorky
10 jul 07ArnoldLayne
10 jul 07bjorky
10 jul 07STIPE
10 jul 07STIPE
10 jul 07theknife82
10 jul 07bjorky
10 jul 07STIPE
10 jul 07STIPE
10 jul 07theknife82
10 jul 07bjorky
10 jul 07theknife82
10 jul 07bjorky
10 jul 07STIPE
10 jul 07ArnoldLayne
10 jul 07STIPE
10 jul 07STIPE
10 jul 07bjorky
10 jul 07theknife82
10 jul 07Hey man! I'm joking!
STIPE
10 jul 07ContatoreDiCasiUmani
11 jul 07Igordimi
11 jul 07Igordimi
11 jul 07Maldon
11 jul 07This is not about arrogance, much less about empty erudition. Is it possible that the use of our mother tongue always ignites passions? A little healthy nationalism, come on... ;-)
Moreover, I would be doing a disservice to our Eco and his learned analysis.
But let’s return to the passionate debate:
The Wall is a work of Waters, and it retains many similarities with The Lamb. I mentioned it because it’s quite a talked-about album, certainly not for its intrinsic value.
It seems I haven't clearly communicated my idea of "Criticism," so I will try to be more intelligible.
Dear Igor, you extensively use intentio lectoris and little of the other two functions, if I may say so. In this sense, I could easily throw many sacred monsters from the tower and ascend to the heavens with lesser-known individuals. Among these archangels, I wouldn't miss citing some names that appear in your posts (I think of the immense Tim Buckley, the intimate lyricism of Nick Drake, the true summation of the Canterbury movement: Septober Energy), but that would be gravely mistaken if one intends to follow a "critical" methodology.
Of course, to initiate any critical analysis, it is necessary to clarify certain foundational aspects, without which the intelligence of the text goes straight to hell.
You ask me if I am familiar with the musical universe of the '70s; well, I wouldn't have dared such choices if I didn't have the awareness to navigate relatively easily through the musical production of that decade (ca va sans dire...). A good critical judgment necessarily starts from the confidence with which the writer maps out the space-time dimension of the object being investigated. A historical critic discussing the economic power of the Dutch in the 1600s, without grounding his reasoning in the territory of the former United Provinces, the Spanish influence, and the Calvinist choice, is doing poor criticism. In this perspective, your citation of Continental Circus (which I know—although I prefer other titles, along with a good part of the Canterbury movement of which I boast a substantial original discography) is out of place, as it only includes intentio lectoris (behind the Gong there are evident inheritances; I think of Zappa to name a brilliant example). The Lamb is superior not purely by an artistic criterion, but because it impacts the history of popular music on a decidedly deeper level. The critique of a punk or a hippie is of no consequence; they certainly won’t undermine the value of this work.
Now, my ranking is chronologically oriented (the '70s) and examines popular music (which, as everyone knows, is not folk music) declining the choice based on the innovation the work brought both musically and socially (because popular music cannot disregard social psychology). It is clear that my ranking retains personal criteria, but they fit into a framework that involves the application of intentio auctoris and operis. And this, while allowing me to distance myself from the specter of relativism, also protects me from autarkic judgments. Which, translated into cash, means: adopting a wise critical approach makes it possible to make choices entirely different from mine.
Yours sincerely,
Maldon
happypippo
11 jul 07happypippo
11 jul 07Igordimi
12 jul 07OleEinar
12 jul 07happypippo
13 jul 07Igordimi
13 jul 07OleEinar
13 jul 07happypippo
14 jul 07happypippo
14 jul 07happypippo
14 jul 07Igordimi
14 jul 07happypippo
14 jul 07OleEinar
14 jul 07ArnoldLayne
14 jul 07Igordimi
17 jul 07OleEinar
17 jul 07happypippo
17 jul 07happypippo
17 jul 07"It improves mood as it activates the nerve circuits that level dopamine"
Music? A natural drug
"It stimulates the hormone of well-being"
<B>Music? A natural drug<br>"It stimulates the hormone of well-being"</B>
MUSIC? A true drug. Capable of activating the brain just like a chemical stimulant and offering amplified sensations of pleasure, excitement, or satisfaction. Essentially provoking the same feelings provided by sex and drugs. This is supported by Professor and neuroscientist Danile J. Levitin. In the study "Life Soundtracks," he investigates the brain's biological responses to musical stimuli.
Famous for his research in the field of music, Levitin teaches at McGill University in Montreal. It is right here that he "recruited" volunteers for his tests. During the research, Levitin's team monitored their biochemical reactions to musical stimuli. They discovered that "music produces a chemical response in every way, through which the relevant nerve circuits help modulate dopamine levels, the so-called 'well-being' hormone in the brain. Just like it happens with sex and some drugs."
So, it's sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll, we might say. But, unlike drugs, music doesn't seem to have devastating side effects. When we listen to a song we like, the same reward mechanism activates that also occurs when gamblers win or drug addicts use their favorite substance. By replicating the same type of sensations, music activates circuits in the brain associated with the autonomic nervous system and produces physical reactions such as sweating, sexual excitement, and "chills down the spine." In many cases, this leads to a feeling of euphoria that, according to Levitin, "confirms the idea of a sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll center in the brain."
"The hypothesis of such a center in the brain proves that music plays a major role in creating moods and generating reactions," explains Dr. Levitin. "Research shows that music has precise effects on the body's physiology, including heart rate, respiration, sweating, and mental activity. Music is effective in moderating levels of arousal and concentration and helps regulate mood through its impact on the brain's natural chemistry."
BUT IF IT'S TRUE, WHY ARE YOU SO UNHAPPY, MY FRIEND?
Igordimi
17 jul 07Igordimi
17 jul 07happypippo
17 jul 07happypippo
17 jul 07happypippo
17 jul 07Maldon
18 jul 07if you think that your mirlitonnades could receive a response from me, well... you are not only naive but also quite ignorant. It seems that you read (I have some reservations), and this only worsens your position. If I have the desire and the time (writing is "work" for me; the content and style of your comments indicate, on the contrary, that you earn your bread otherwise), I will honor you with a few lines, just to make public the soup of nonsense you have served up so far.
best regards,
Maldon
Igordimi
19 jul 07happypippo
19 jul 07happypippo
19 jul 07emofiliaco
19 jul 07happypippo
20 jul 07Igordimi
21 jul 07OleEinar
22 jul 07happypippo
22 jul 07Igordimi
22 jul 07OleEinar
22 jul 07happypippo
22 jul 07Igordimi
23 jul 07happypippo
23 jul 07Intermdiario
31 aug 07mj64
2 nov 07paolo1968
25 may 08Maldon
20 jul 08after quite a few months I return to my tracks, and I cannot help but respond to your comment which, I believe, presents several simplifications. I will reiterate what I have already had the opportunity to write elsewhere about the work of Genesis.
The musical redundancy that many highlight in THE LAMB LIES DOWN ON BROADWAY is a clear example of how Banks and company composed "under commission." The compositions follow the story of Rael (the STORY, not the lyrics) and his famous costumes on stage, and not vice versa. It is no coincidence that the double album represents a suspension in the Genesis discography. Chronologically, ATOTT should follow, completely integrated into the discourse opened with Trespass. "The Trick of the Tail" has no familial, let alone fraternal, connection with The Lamb. The Lamb is an idea of Gabriel, everything stems from this idea. The participation of the rest of the group is linked to this idea, and this idea is the root of Gabriel's solo career. Material for "A Trick of the Tail" had already been composed beforehand, but at a certain point "The Lamb," and only that, was urgent in Gabriel's mind. I reiterate... THE LAMB is an absolutely Gabrielian work! Those who have seen The LAMB TOUR by Musical Box (the only concrete opportunity to "see" The Lamb - note that the Canadians will be in Italy in November for the ATOTT TOUR. It’s the first time they bring to the stage the first work post-Gabriel) will have solved a large part of the mysteries underlying this work. And, in any case, this does not diminish the compositional wisdom of Banks and Hackett in particular. "The Colony of Slipperman," "The Grand Parade...", "Anyway," "Carpet Crawl," "Back in NYC" are compositions created ad hoc for Peter. A piece like "Silent Sorrow in Empty Boat" was composed solely to allow a costume change for Peter-Rael, just to clarify for someone the reason behind certain supposed redundancies. Of course, "Hairless Heart" is Hackettian, "Ravine" and "The Lamb lies..." are Banksian. Yet the whole is always declined with the Gabrielian verb.
Best regards,
Maldon
paolo1968
20 jul 08Maldon
27 jul 08formally your observations are correct.
We have several interviews in which the various members of the band strive to reveal the authors of the various compositions.
You see, among the various tasks of historians and critics, there is the need to delve into the words of the protagonists, to strip down their intentions to try to get closer to the essence of the event.
The protagonists of the so-called Canterbury scene have always categorically denied the existence of this movement, opposing the radical freedom of their artistic expression. We know very well that their claims are false, legitimate but false. Because while it is true that no one ever planned the movement, it is impossible to deny that a considerable number of Anglo-Saxon musicians developed a common musical poetics, consisting of virtuous collaborations and constant movements of musicians within the Canterbury circle. Canterbury is a convenient definition, but it identifies a concrete musical movement.
Tell me, who developed the themes, both textual and musical, present in The Lamb in the course of their career?
Banks? Hackett? Collins? Rutherford?
It seems to me that Gabriel is the one who continued the discourse begun in The Lamb, and this reasonably leads me to think that Banks and Hackett, in particular, were composing on commission.
I reiterate the esteem I have for these two musicians, but The Lamb remains an eminently Gabrielian work.
Best regards,
Maldon
STIPE
28 jul 08joshua
21 aug 16joshua
21 aug 16paolo1968
28 jul 08STIPE
28 jul 08paolo1968
28 jul 08STIPE
28 jul 08Runner
28 jul 08Runner
28 jul 08Maldon
28 jul 08Best regards,
Maldon
paolo1968
28 jul 08STIPE
28 jul 08krito
25 nov 08gigantic
18 oct 12Elia battaglia
24 jun 14joshua
21 aug 16Maldon
18 nov 16Maldon
18 nov 16Well, I redirect my initial positive vote to the rightful author. Thank you for the correction. Stealing someone else's intellectual work is truly dishonest!
Pseudodionigi
22 feb 18