Genesis - The Movement - News Comments

DomValela	12th Jun 2010
Woah, woah, woah...What? I don't get it. What's he doing NOW to get away from new material?

ABiggerDeal	13th Jun 2010
"Woah, woah, woah...What? I don't get it. What's he doing NOW to get away from new material?" _ _ _ Just so I'm perfectly clear: you can't figure it out from the post/link? He's recording songs from his existing catalogue with an orchestra and/or doing overdubs for a live album.

scoot

13th Jun 2010

What DomV is saying is that, yet again, Peter is taking another side trip, and genuine new material is on the back burner.

Soundtracks, cover albums, mini "warm-up" tours leading to nothing, old tunes done with an orchestra... This has been going on since 1986 really. Only 2 actual albums since then.

It's Peter's life, and who are we to judge really, but for the fans, it is frustrating, and disappointing.

hardylane

13th Jun 2010

I find his current output quite fascinating because he's famous for saying how he likes to "look to the future", and not "dwell on past glories".

Just how DOES an artist turn their back on a high profile 5 year career and then devote their output to solo work only?

Gabriel does what Gabriel wants, basically. Most of the time, increasingly, I find it a classic case of diminishing returns. The New Blood/Scratch My Back stuff utterly unengaging.

Maybe this backward-looking exercise might tweak his interest in the work he did with Genesis.

We can but hope.

genesisdude	14th Jun 2010
If you don't like it, don't buy it! simple!

RaelWander	14th Jun 2010
Peter is having the time of his life, engaging himself in things that envigorate him and his music. I've had my doubt about Scratch My Back, but it turned out to be a really pensive album. What I've seen of his live performences of his old tunes is spectacular, and I'm looking forward to hearing his coming orchestral album AND seeing him live in september. Live and let live!

davi	15th Jun 2010
Yes live and let live but this is a Genesis forum and here we speak about Peter Gabriel as our ex so loved frontman and honestly we can't understand why actually Peter remembers every song from his past and his childhood but the ones from 1969 to 1975. If it's a joke it's not well done

ABiggerDeal	15th Jun 2010
To those lamenting a bit about PG not hitting us all with some new material ... something to foster some discussion ... Can someone point me towards a few musicians/groups in their 60s, who have been at it for 40 plus years who are still churning out new material?

shingouz	15th Jun 2010
The orchestral versions of his own songs were so good that he had to commit them to tape. Hopefully, the record will be ready for the next leg of his tour.

TheBear	15th Jun 2010
ABiggerDeal: David Gilmour springs to mind. "On An Island" came around his 60th birthday. And then he toured massively with material old and new (and friends old and new).

ABiggerDeal	15th Jun 2010
But that is what I mean - Gilmour's last solo album prior to On an Island was 1984. The last Floyd project that wasn't a rehash of existing work (Shine On box set, Wall Live album, Echoes-Best of PF) was 1994. His output is very similar to that of PG.

hosstbl	16th Jun 2010
ABiggerDeal: Mark Knopfler who is the same age as PG released six albums of new material in the last decade - and, yes, the were all quite good.

hardylane

16th Jun 2010

My point is that Gabriel refuses to have anything to do with his Genesis material, which some of us find disappointing.

Gilmour's solo career is far less distinguished than Gabriel's.

As for "oldie groups"?

How about Brian Wilson... acid casualty and yet releasing new work approx every 2 years?

Paul McCartney - three albums in the last decade... same with Jeff Beck.

There's loads of "seasoned" artists still turning out good, new work, and very few of them disregard their early work with the same disdain that Gabriel does.

scoot	16th Jun 2010
A Bigger Deal has a good point. In one way, it is better that Gabriel do these unusual side projects than release mediocre albums. Look at most big bands (U2, Yes, Stones, McCartney, The Who).....eventually they run out of good songs. Gabriel is at least still artistically interesting. The live tour he just finished was certainly more creative than most bands at this stage.

scoot	16th Jun 2010
But..... I do think Gabriel blew it by not releasing albums faster when he was in his prime. 82-92 he could have done 8-10 albums - or at least 5-6. Certainly he should have followed up SO in 88, not 92.

shingouz	16th Jun 2010
@scoot: Peter followed up So in 1989 with Passion, which is the most outstanding record of his career. Allmusic.com says about this album "it is not only Gabriel's best film work but deserving of serious consideration as his finest music of any kind"

TheBear	16th Jun 2010
ABiggerDeal: You conveniently forget that Gilmour in between his limited studio output actually invented the genre "Chamber Rock" and played some ground breaking concerts. Available on DVD.

scoot

17th Jun 2010

@shinqouz:

I agree that Passion was a good, if not excellent side trip. But it was a side trip nonetheless....

At that point, with his songwriting muscles still intact, I feel he should have created some more ROCK music. Gosh, radio could have used some good music around that time, and Gabriel was ready to create it. Instead, for most music fans, he vanished.

Not to diminish Passion, but he should have done that IN ADDITION to other things, IMO. I see it as a lost opportunity. (Of course, easy for me to say sitting here as an armchair critic!....)

ABiggerDeal	17th Jun 2010
Bear - I didn't conveniently forget - it just has nothing to with the question posed, which was "still churning out new material"

DomValela

18th Jun 2010

In response To ABiggerDeal's particularly liberal stance on his qualm about my initial statement: Scoot got it right in the next post; thanks very much.

Also, there are plenty of these dinosaur bands that are still putting out great material. Many people found King Crimson's "The Power To Believe" to be very interesting, for one. Someone mentioned Gilmour's "On an Island;" another prime example. Rush is still at it! Though "Snakes and Arrows" didn't satisfy everybody and I understand it doesn't fare well against their best 70's-80's albums, I still kind of liked it, and am looking forward to their next one. Another one. Hawkwind has been at it for the last little while, and a new album is coming out next month! Most prominently of all, I'd like to mention Magma, for the ProgHeads that have ventured into Zeuhl territory. Kohntarkosz Anteria and Emehntehtt-Re (Pardon my lack of umlauts) are among the most widely recognized and enjoyed albums from the Zeuhl genre, and they came out in 2004 and 2009.

Peter Gabriel, who I consider to be just as talented if not more than most of those on this list, is still very capable of putting out great new material. This question can be answered the same way as "Why doesn't he try to start up a 70-74 line-up Genesis reunion?"

The answer? Even though it's perfectly reasonable, and almost his ENTIRE fan base would like to see it happen; He just doesn't feel like it.

Nobody's "judging" Peter. We all know he's a good man! However this is, as Scoot said, frustrating and disappointing.

-Dom

shingouz

18th Jun 2010

@scoot: I don't think that Passion should be considered as a side project.
Peter probably took even more time to work on it than on his classic rock albums. He spent a large amount of time researching sources, exploring different musical universes and making a synthesis of it all, finding rare recordings and bringing back musicians from all over the world.
It is his most complex album (and all this even lead him to create his own RealWorld record label). It was his first studio double album, Peter Gabriel spent several month working on it after the movie was released and it even bears a different name than the movie. It should really be considered as belonging to his main discography (while Birdy, OVO or Long Walk Home are indeed side projects).

zenslinger

18th Jun 2010

I'd call both Passion and Ovo real albums. He has played at least half of the latter in concerts at this point.

Naturally, Peter does what he wants. That's as it should be.

But as far as his "revisiting" Genesis, there is a major impediment, which is Genesis. That is to say, the songs are not his (unlike Sting's Police catalog, most of which he wrote -- certainly all the classic material.) Peter probably doesn't feel comfortable claiming them as his old songs, because they are Genesis's old songs. They still played them live all these years. Peter felt when he left Genesis that he was leaving his claim to them, and they were all co-written to some degree or another in any case.

moderoy

24th Jun 2010

As much as I'd like to see a Genesis reunion with Gabriel, I have to admire Peter for not doing it. It would be easy for him to take the big money and do a few shows with the old gang. But Peter is so creative and so driven to do new things, explore new territory. His heart just isn't in it. Instead of being disappointing, I think his choices are to be respected...it's all too rare today for people not to take the money and run.

themusicalfox	30th Jun 2010
Funnily I wasn't bowled over by all of the covers. But the reworked material like San Jacinto and especially Downside Up was heart stopping. It would have been criminal to leave these versions unrecorded. So, yes, displacement activity, but - like setting up a major human rights initiative - what a displacement activity!!

leel	15th Jul 2010
Great post Moderoy. The simple truth is that he doesn't aNt a re-union tour, and I have to side with Gabriel on this. As great as they were at times in the early 70s, they have all moved on. Just let him make the music that he wants.