Post by Rabbit on Aug 1, 2014 19:58:00 GMT
I am a great fan of Genesis; especially the early years. I'm not so keen on the later stuff since to me, it becomes a little too commercial. (Who am I to say that eh?) Genesis kind of outgrew themselves and became almost like a popular caricature of themselves.
I know that people go on and and on about the switch from Peter Gabriel to Phil Collins, but I had no problem with 'early' Phil.
The only thing about this music is just how well it fits into the time that it was released in. (Much the same as I feel about myself) it works in the time that it was designed for, but kind of outgrows itself and is best left in that time.
Listening to this album makes me feel very much that digging up this 'time capsule' of sound and reinventing it for 2013 in a venue that it wasn't designed for is a musical error.
First of all, playing this stuff in retrospect kind of makes the musicians play it in a different way that doesn't always improve it. The notes are there, but the original intention is missing. I felt quite similar hearing Penthouse and Pavement revived a couple of years back. It didn't work imo and lacked the original 'kick' and one 'minor' critic who plays nothing significant himself referred to me concerning the reinvention as 'Working Mens Club' music. While it made me laugh, the comment showed that the point of the album had been totally missed in that it was being performed almost like a quaint cabaret act.
That's how I feel about this reinvention. It's quaint. In the wrong venue, so the musicians perform in a more 'extrovert' way, taking into consideration, the large size of the Albert Hall. The original intimacy of Genesis is missing, so that it becomes a quaint showcase; missing the point of the original concept albums that it revives. In any case, is it actually relevant to take single numbers out of a concept album as a concert piece? To me, the idea is weird and shows no respect towards the intentions of the original album.
So playing in retrospect in a venue that doesn't seem to suit the music (dynamically) seems slightly irreverent to me and I have problems with this album because of it.
Steve Hackett is better than this and imo needs to move on. He is capable of far better, so for me, this is a trip through memory lane more than a musical treat. I was disappoiinted to be honest and stopped listening a third of the way through.
Some people need to learn to move on and delve into something newer rather than wallow in old ground.
I know that people go on and and on about the switch from Peter Gabriel to Phil Collins, but I had no problem with 'early' Phil.
The only thing about this music is just how well it fits into the time that it was released in. (Much the same as I feel about myself) it works in the time that it was designed for, but kind of outgrows itself and is best left in that time.
Listening to this album makes me feel very much that digging up this 'time capsule' of sound and reinventing it for 2013 in a venue that it wasn't designed for is a musical error.
First of all, playing this stuff in retrospect kind of makes the musicians play it in a different way that doesn't always improve it. The notes are there, but the original intention is missing. I felt quite similar hearing Penthouse and Pavement revived a couple of years back. It didn't work imo and lacked the original 'kick' and one 'minor' critic who plays nothing significant himself referred to me concerning the reinvention as 'Working Mens Club' music. While it made me laugh, the comment showed that the point of the album had been totally missed in that it was being performed almost like a quaint cabaret act.
That's how I feel about this reinvention. It's quaint. In the wrong venue, so the musicians perform in a more 'extrovert' way, taking into consideration, the large size of the Albert Hall. The original intimacy of Genesis is missing, so that it becomes a quaint showcase; missing the point of the original concept albums that it revives. In any case, is it actually relevant to take single numbers out of a concept album as a concert piece? To me, the idea is weird and shows no respect towards the intentions of the original album.
So playing in retrospect in a venue that doesn't seem to suit the music (dynamically) seems slightly irreverent to me and I have problems with this album because of it.
Steve Hackett is better than this and imo needs to move on. He is capable of far better, so for me, this is a trip through memory lane more than a musical treat. I was disappoiinted to be honest and stopped listening a third of the way through.
Some people need to learn to move on and delve into something newer rather than wallow in old ground.