What's the best Genesis album?

I find it very difficult to believe you don't listen to A Trick of the Tail or Wind & Wuthering, both of which prove that Genesis was the Banks'n'Rutherford Show as much as Duke proves that Hackett wasn't really that essential either.

Lol that this is a difficult thing to believe.:)

I'll give them another try some time, though.

I've tried so hard to love let alone like Simple Minds beyond "New Gold Dream" and "Glittering Prize." Jim Kerr is the wrong kind of pompous, with colleagues to match.

― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 13 July 2017 18:31 (two hours ago) Permalink

I'm not sure I'd describe the early albums as remotely pompous!

Ha yeah, I'd say the pomposity happens after New Gold Dream, not before.

Once Upon a Time is one if the grosser arena sellouts.

(I'm aware that it's the consensus pick for the rot-setting-in album.

It's also stylistically about as far away from Reel to Real Cacophony as you can get!

Yeah the transformation of Simple Minds across its first seven albums is almost as extreme as from A Trick of the Tail to Invisible Touch.

I want to host a listening party where I take Alfred and Brad through the first six in chronological order. As with Genesis and Talk Talk the overall progression is fascinating.

It's probably even more extreme when you consider the first two albums - only released six months apart but it feels like there should have been three or four albums in between the two, such is the leap between the two!

this section of the wikipedia article on Once Upon a Time is kind of bathetic

Legacy[edit]

In 2008, Once Upon a Time was listed as the 864th greatest album of all time by the French retail chain Fnac.[8]

In 2013, "All the Things She Said" was featured on a radio station in Grand Theft Auto V, the fourth best-selling video game of all time (as of February 2017).

I'm listening to A Trick of the Tail again now, and fucking hell 'Squonk' is just so good.

There's a good anecdote on the Life in a Day Wikipedia about Kerr hearing Unknown Pleasures shortly after the first album came out and immediately realising they'd fucked up.

It's probably the one that generally gets rated the lowest of the first five records, but I really like Life in a Day! Sparkle in the Rain is the last one I'll go anywhere near, but it's far more tolerable than what came after.

Sparkle is alright, but that's when the vocals go a little bit Bono for the first time. Can tolerate the singles from Once Upon A Time but otherwise the quality just plummets to this sub-U2 wasteland.. I forget the name of that 'I Travel' rehash but it's absolutely putrid. And then came Street Fighting Years.

Genesis lost their original lead singer/songwriter and lead guitarist. Those are pretty drastic changes.

― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r)

way to piss off the "trespass" thread

Ha, well, you got me there. Really, as my list above shows, I just listen to the albums with Gabriel and Hackett.

Oh, i'm pissed; but not for that --it's this talk of Rush that makes me ill.

Never the twain.

Rush were the superior band, though, in terms of energy (no longer-than-they-need-to-be meandering 12 string guitar detours), playing/instrumental proficiency (Peart > Collins, obviously), production (even the early Rush LP's sound better than Trespass and Nursery Cryme), songwriting ('Turn it on Again' is excellent, but not as excellent as 'The Spirit of Radio' ... also '2112' and 'Cygnus X-1: Book II' are superior compositions to 'Supper's Ready'), lyricism ('Subdivisions' alone crushes anything Genesis came up with), adaptability (Rush absorbed new wave elements far more successfully) etc. I could go on and on...

I think I'd disagree on the songwriting, plus both Collins and Gabriel are better vocalists than Geddy Lee. I'd struggle to choose although I'm not a huge fan of either band - though I do really like both in places.

Yeah, Gabriel and Collins are both better singers and have better voices that are easier to listen to and Genesis probably sold more records, but overall Rush crush Genesis in every way.

(and I like Genesis)

but overall Rush crush Genesis in every way.

These kind of statements...

I mean - come on.

Both bands have made their share of good to great albums. What are you basing the crushing power of Rush on lol?

Ok - just saw your post upthread. Wow.

I think Genesis absorbed the New Wave ( and US r&b) influences so well they appeared like almost natural fits when it happened. Rush sounded awkward at times when incorporating New Wave elements.

I disagree, I think that the run of albums from Permanent Waves to Power Windows sound very natural and unforced in their adoption of New Wave styles.

Duke sounds natural and unforced too, but I can't say the same for Abacab and Genesis, particularly the former.

Rush blow after Signals; only drooling fan-boys would fail to see that Genesis have at least a half-dozen classic records where Rush have maybe two.

...and i like Rush

Genesis have 6 classics, whereas Rush have 8 - so there y'go, yet another level on which Rush annihilate Genesis.

i don't think any of the rush albums that absorb new wave are as consistent as duke, abacab, or even shapes

also peart is a terrible lyricist

xpost Not Moving Pictures or Permanent Waves or Signals? I disagree.

Peart > Collins, obviously

No way. They are very different drummers, but Peart is not "clearly" superior, unless you subscribe to the Peart-is-the-greatest-drummer-of-all-time stance. Collins and Peart are equally creative and talented, and for a time equally busy/chops-heavy. Still, not to bash on Peart at all (because he's awesome and I like Rush better than Genesis, too), but I couldn't imagine him filling all the stylistic roles Collins has, from Zep to Motown to fusion to ... I mean, it just goes on. Collins is like one of those great session drummers able to impart his own personality with each performance. And he grooves and swings, which Peart, for all his awesomeness, just doesn't do much of. Or need to do!

80-82 is my favourite era of Rush so I do think they win on the new wave front. That said I've never thought of Genesis as being particularly new wavy anyway bar a handful of songs - their '80s albums are quite eclectic but to me they lean more towards just straight MOR/rock. I guess there was a lot of overlap at that time.

Duke and Invisible Touch are the only two albums that could remotely compete with anything that Rush released 1980-1985. In terms of Rush's discography from the beginning up to 1985 and Genesis' discography in the same period, the Rush albums are relatively filler and fat-free.

@josh oh i was talking mostly about signals, grace under pressure, and power windows. signals is my fav rush record but even then i don't like it as much as duke. idk, maybe it's time to spend more time with the rush catalog lol

...and here i thought we could be friends. Eight classic Rush records... you're high (and Invisible Touch sux).

Josh; you are wise -- my arguments would be better expressed if filtered through your pen.

I find the idea that Peart doesn't "groove" or "swing" really funny and pretty much demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the guy's drumming. Of course, naturally, from a purely technical perspective alone Peart > Collins, but there's more to Peart's drumming than that. He was at his peak for longer too.

oy vey. Can there be a Genesis Vs Rush poll so we can go back to matters at hand? lol

xpost You are totally wrong about Peart. His parts are totally precise, totally arranged, totally deliberate and totally not spontaneous. And totally awesome. That's their brilliance! Even his solos are totally composed! Not a dig on him, just a very different style that does not demand groove or swing or whatever. Anyway, let's go to the tape:

Neil Peart does Buddy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT9333XiR4U

Phil Collins big band:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT5UslpgPUA

I mean, neither is playing the Village Vanguard.

Peart did stay at his peak longer, I'll give you that. But he worked really hard at that, too - taking lessons, reassessing/changing his technique - and it played a big role in his retirement.

Don't get me wrong, they're both great! But Neil Peart is perfect for Rush and only for Rush. Collins is far more versatile.

I mean, Collins doing his best Jaki here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXDrTZMVINo

Through-composing and arranging ones parts has nothing to do with ones ability to "swing" ...

Sure. But it does discredit an occasional looseness and spontaneity as an attribute. Peart is like a machine, which is what I love about him. Not a time-keeping machine, just a total wind-up do his thing machine.

It's a different discussion, but I've often wondered about certain rarified virtuosos, if they're so into their thing that that's all they can do. Again, that's not a dig at Peart at all. But I was really impressed several months ago coming across some video of Mike Portnoy playing the Beatles. Not that I like Portnoy's playing - I hate Dream Theatre - but I was just impressed he could set aside ego and do his best Ringo. Could a guitarist as prima facia virtuoso as, say, Steve Vai, even play a sloppy version of "Wild Thing?" Without doing his weedle-weedle? I saw a clip of Adrian Belew once - he's another guitarist who just does his thing - and he was talking about influences, and it was a bit like pulling teeth. The interviewer finally got him to concede Hendrix, and then it took another round of coaxing to get Belew to even minimally demonstrate some Hendrix-like licks.

Anyway, Peart's, yeah, through-composed approach to drums is (or was) essentially unique. That's what makes him special. But it's also what makes it so hard for me to compare him to other drummers.

Josh has it right -- Peart is a technician; adept, yes, but still a craftsman.

Sure. But it does discredit an occasional looseness and spontaneity as an attribute.

Rush were never about jamming/improvising and neither really were Genesis, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do it and of course being musicians of their calibre I'm sure they could. Basically, your argument boils down to "Collins is a better drummer because he's done more session work", and I disagree.

Peart > Bruford > Palmer > Collins > White

i might as well add to this clusterfuck by asserting that genesis vs. rush is not a great debate to me because i do not feel that Rush is prog qua prog anyway, they are a hard rock band with prog tendencies.

I can't articulate why but trust me I am absolutely right.

..and sh@kedown has it right as well

Yep, they were very much that from 1975-1977 ... but it highlights another strength Rush have over Genesis: they rocked more. Like I said earlier, no far-too-long meandering 12 string guitar detours.

Rush were never about jamming/improvising and neither really were Genesis

the majority of genesis songs were born out of collective jamming