What's the best Genesis album?

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

Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "technician" and "craftsman", this is not at all what I get from Josh's posts. If anything, he seems to be arguing that Collins is superior as a technician while Peart is so idiosyncratic that he only really works with Rush.

I don't think Collins is a superior technician, but I do think they are equally good drummers. Just that Peart's playing is pretty much only suited to Rush, whereas Collins can and does play well in numerous situations. Like, I have no doubt Vinnie Colaiuta could play anything Peart could, and then some, but Peart could not play "Nightshift" by the Commodores. And I have no doubt that Jeff Porcaro could play Rush songs, too, but Peart could not play "Billie Jean." Or Steely Dan, for that matter. Not that he needs to! Peart is perfect for Rush, and exceptional. But it's sort of like a conversation I had with a friend about the Edge. I don't rate the Edge as a guitar player, but if I was forming a U2 tribute band he would absolutely be my first pick. (Except Peart is awesome, of course.)

Porcaro was a great drummer and everything, but... no!

Y'see, Peart has very rarely done any work outside of Rush, but this has little to do with how well Peart would cope outside of Rush, and more to do with... well, if you're in a band with musicians of the calibre as the three members of Rush, then anything else is going to feel like a step down.

and y'know, it's turned into a TS: Collins vs. Peart, but Lee also knocks Rutherford into a cocked hat bass-wise and Lifeson is superior to Hackett. Rush didn't have a keyboard player per se., but they could always be relied on to provide tasteful synthesiser sounds on their records. Some of the synth sounds on Abacab and Genesis are a bit obnoxious.

Lee also knocks Rutherford into a cocked hat bass-wise and Lifeson is superior to Hackett.

No argument on this front.

musicians of the calibre as the three members of Rush, then anything else is going to feel like a step down.

Ha, this is no doubt how someone like, say, John McLaughlin might think of a band like Rush! (No offense to Rush intended.)

yeah i mean i like Rush but like I don't know like there's like several thousand jazz dudes that would knock them on their butts

or like Rik Emmitt from Triumph just to site another Canadian 70s/80s power trio, I'd say he's on par with Lifeson

Seriously? Rik Emmett?

I like Triumph fine on the radio (and own Thunder Seven) but they seem like pretty straightforward AOR to me. I can't recall anything where they've done the ambitious things Rush did with rhythm and harmony; nor do I think Emmett showed a command of a couple of different rock guitar styles like Lifeson did.

Also, you had Banks/Collins/Rutherford as the three-piece Genesis line-up, but they required extra musicians in order to play live - not so with Rush, who could replicate everything with only the three of them. Geddy multitasking with synths, bass, pedals and vocals. That's talent.

Seriously? Rik Emmett?

― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Friday, July 14, 2017 2:14 PM (twenty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha ok i'm trolling but i find this whole conversation really bad IMO

Question: is Rush better or worse musicians than Booker T & the MGs?

Ha

Actually, come to think of it, Tony Banks is no Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman or Patrick Moraz either. Far from that level, I'd say.

Turrican - wanna buy you a beer now; you're taste is yours alone. You can't really like Genesis if you don't appreciate Banks.

Josh/Sund4r -- Peart is like a cabinet maker, in the best sense.

...try Webb or Tate if you like drums

it is i think p widely accepted that beyond collins genesis were kinda not as qualified as other prog bands chops-wise but they had a unusually great pop sensibility

"tony banks is no rick wakeman" wow you're blowing my mind

Thank God

What happened to this thread.

xxpost:

Well, it's true - I'm unsure about them having an "unusally great" pop sensibility too, at least not until later on.

However, despite Genesis' limitations I think they made some great music together - and when it's great, it's really great.

Remember, I never once said that I hated Genesis, just that Rush were the superior band.

I'm unsure about them having an "unusally great" pop sensibility too

supper's ready is catchy as shit

anyway tim f otm

This thread is a prog epic. So many parts!

The message board version of "Gates Of Delirium "!

"X band is clearly superior to Y band on the following Z criteria" is the part of ILM that deservedly gets written out of official history.

X, the band, is clearly superior to Yes on the following Zomg! criteria.

^^^^ allowable

*cranks Moving Pictures*

One thing I was wondering last night was "who was heavily influenced by the post-prog Genesis albums?"

Duke is too prog I think to sound too much like stuff that isn't also at least partially steeped in prog traditions. As I said upthread it reminds me a lot of Marillion's Clutching at Straws, which I guess was an example of a band who had effectively been histrionic early-Genesis understudies grappling with the same question of how to transition to "proper" songwriting (rather than just "pop" per se), and is also the only Marillion album I listen to very much.

But surely there must have been many artists influenced by Abacab / Genesis / Invisible Touch? And I don't mean in a generic "no one got out of the 80s alive" sense, but as in, these particular albums (or maybe just one of them!) were a specific stylistic touchstone??

In some ways these three albums sound very, erm, "Canadian" to me? I wonder if Jane Siberry was a fan of this era of Genesis?

That's an interesting question and one that I've been pondering myself over the last couple of days - the most obvious answer I could come up with was Marillion, who you've mentioned as being heavily influenced by Gabriel-era Genesis, although I'm sure they continued to follow Genesis into the '80s. Ultimately, though, I don't know - a lot of what I'm thinking of that happened after Invisible Touch could be considered to be a reaction against it in some way.

I've always thought that Tears for Fears "Songs from the Big Chair" was very influenced by post prog Genesis. Especially at its, well, proggiest - Broken, Mother's Talk - but also how the drums, Strats and synthesizers sound.

God, "You Might Recall" from the Abacab sessions is insanely good. I don't know why I hadn't heard it before.

xpost oooh yes that's a good answer. Also just the general glassy grandeur of the songs is kind of positioned halfway between Duke and the rest of new pop.

Prog coincidence or no, credits on that TfF album include Jerry Marotta (Peter Gabriel's drummer) and Mel Collins (from King Crimson). Phil himself plays drums on the next album, on "Woman in Chains."

In some ways these three albums sound very, erm, "Canadian" to me? I wonder if Jane Siberry was a fan of this era of Genesis?

Ha, when you put it that way, I bet Gowan was into pop Genesis.

Indio's Big Harvest (also Canadian) has always reminded me of post-So Peter Gabriel. ha, I see that David Rhodes played with both.

But really, Tim, speaking as a Canadian, I have no idea WTF you mean

Songs from the Big Chair doesn't remind me of Genesis at all.

It's basically a mid '80s synthpop record with a bicycle pump shoved up its arse.

Vinnie Colaiuta could play anything Peart could, and then some, but Peart could not play "Nightshift" by the Commodores. And I have no doubt that Jeff Porcaro could play Rush songs, too, but Peart could not play "Billie Jean."

Josh, you complete me.

the "who had better chops" thing is always pretty silly but particularly silly in this case. I mean by any measure both these bands had a buttload of chops, more chops than any band would reasonably need and both used them to make some of the most ludicrous and awesome rock music, by no reasonable standard would you say well the problem with Rush or Genesis? just didn't have the chops, shoulda taken more lessons

Of course not, but Rush do have the superior chops.

Also the idea that Neil Peart couldn't play 'Billie Jean' is hilarious - of course he could, but it probably wouldn't interest him to do so.

Stop now

Of course not, but Rush do have the superior chops.

― The Anti-Climax Blues Band (Turrican), Friday, July 14, 2017 4:58 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

someone get me out of this loop

lol ok man like I just listen to Supper's Ready and all I can't think is man too bad Banks isn't even more of a wanker cuz this really could use Rick Wakeman jizzing Canterbury Tales analog synth all over the track like a frickin firehose

off this topic I think it's interesting, Abacab is 81 and Signals is 82, which at that point the two bands are as stylistically similar as they ever got, like there's not a million miles between Abacab's title track and Subdivisions.

one thing we never considered is a band that was influenced by post Gabriel Genesis might have been Rush themselves

Geddy picked Nursery Chryme as of his favorite albums of all time in The Quietus:

Genesis - Nursery Crime
Well I was a big fan of Genesis and Peter Gabriel. That was when I first discovered the notion of a 'concept' and that it could be an adventurous and lively place and not dull at all. It is a very playful and compelling record. I fell in love with the sound of it. I was totally entranced by it and wanted to know how they had done it. This is part of the roots of Rush. The creation of a flexible concept. The parallels are obvious.

Nah, Signals is just basically natural evolution from Moving Pictures... they were headed in that direction anyway.

It's well known they were influenced by Gabriel-era Genesis, though... Lifeson claims one of the lead guitar parts on 'The Fountain of Lamneth' is influenced by Hackett. It doesn't matter though, the took those influences and improved on them colossally.

Cosigning Tim's request to stop as I'm getting flashbacks to Grade 10