REMIXES, Wikipedia, REMIXES... I think that's only one side of that. Clearly between WCD and Both Sides many things went on in his private life. And he was not getting any younger. He made a priority to be more of a family man, to be more present to his kids and that influenced his working choices. He left Genesis also because he didn't want to get caught int the big tour trap anymore; he got offers and expanded into the soundtrack business, which allowed him good income but more family flexibility, etc. Sure, he was on the downside of his popularity but there was more to his decisions. Wasn't during this time that the "divorce by fax" thing happened? That hurt his public image a lot it seems. What do you mean?
This link seems to list all Collins chart and certifications across most countries https://tsort.info/music/08bmnz.htm
To give the power trio some slack, the whole documentary thing was a disorganized mess. Mike explains that in a later interview and he seems to be frankly disappointed about the Hackett's omission. Basically, they commissioned the documentary to one company, but the first version they received was s***. Boring, no pace, they didn't like it so they required to have another guy to edit it and put it together. The new version took more time than anticipated and they couldn't see it before release. So what's there was not "officially approved" by the band, in strict terms. It's not that they pushed to leave Steve out. Mike recognizes that there is some imbalance in the storytelling, even though he curiously (or funnily, take it does he want) mentions Steve Hackett and the Vari-Lite in the same phrase, as they are missing both from the documentary. Anyway, looking at the documentary itself it was clear enough to me that it followed a rationale, which is the same we adopted in this thread: together and apart, where the second term means following what the remaining members of the band do in-between the Genesis albums. Only that the rationale is not strictly applied, it's just a loose reference. Maybe it was more unconscious than deliberate, maybe the people behind it didn't gave it much of a though... Whatever the case, the others' careers or solo projects are briefly mentioned mostly when there is a narrative connecting them (es: Peter Gabriel rejoins Genesis for one night in 82 - a week connection but it allows to keep him in the radar and to talk about his career - not to speak about the fact that he's tremendously successful as a solo artist and you can't ignore it; a thing that can't be said in the case of Philips or Hackett, regrettably). That remains a debatable choice, but in less than 2 hours you cannot say that much.. you have to cut something out nevertheless.
Thanks for you balanced reply. Yes, unfortunately that issue of envy (?) probably also is a factor, it isn't for me though. I think this is an interesting subject.
This appears to be a worldwide top album sales list ... Phil comes in at 27 for No Jacket Reqired 48 for But Seriously 96 for Face Value 136 for Serious Hits Live 169 for Hello I Must Be Going 188 for Hits Genesis Comes In At 77 for We Can't Dance 151 for Invisible Touch https://tsort.info/music/faq_album_sales.htm Quite remarkable stats really
I had never seen it before. It's a little nice piece of BTS. The things that stroke me the most: The guys don't practice at all and basically get back to shape as they can in rehearsals. Phil can't get the drum pattern at first and bursts off frustrated. Phil and Chester watch themselves on youtube to re-learn the drum duet and they work it out on a stool Phil developing a borderline comical obsession to replicate that on stage, asking the crew guys to bring in the perfect stool The crew guys complaining about having to make the queue to return a stool, like if their time is supposes to be more important than the other customers' Some shows were performed under a pouring rain that somewhat didn't cause short circuits on stage. Tony's bashing the towering ambitions of the stage designer about moving parts of the stage with a dry "I suffer from vertigo, so..." How much Tony Smith is present in every phase of the preparation, rehearsals included. Also, Phil acknowledging that his stage presence in the Eighties was sort of clownish and he won't do that anymore.
The Phil UK backlash was partly political. He made some anti Labour Party comments in the press just before the 1992 election that were seen as tone deaf and hypocritical. The media lambasted him as a symbol of heartless 80s Thatcherism and his ‘cheeky chappie’ Everyman image never really recovered.
Come Rain or Shine is an amazing documentary, much much better then that Sum of its Parts fiasco, and gives you a better insight into the band. hilarious part, at one part they had a whole collection of stools, I was like Wait, lets all form them around Phil, make a drumkit entirely out of stools! The whole stage design was difficult to watch, it seemed like they hired some incapable guys (that guy with the glasses clearly never done shows before, what you mean you need music queues? you cant program the thing? thats not how live music works. Couldnt they let it be done by Showco (wich were they normally let them do the stage design)?
Sum Of It's Parts does have the most focus on the early years of any if their documentaries, which I appreciate. It's not perfect (talking heads anyone?) but also not the disaster some portray it as. Personally I think Phil's downward swing in popularity seems bigger because he stopped making records. He could've settled in to a McCartney-like phase of consistent music making, but he chose not to (perhaps from burn out?). However, despite the backlash, he continued to get a fair amount of radio play and industry support all the way up to Testify.
my main beef with Sum is that a lot of its time is wasted on interviewing celebrities, while you could ask the band themselves? For me, the definitive documentary is still Genesis A History, Its from 1990, so it doesnt cover WCD and after that. They filmed it right before the band reunited for the Knebworth concert. They let the band themselves speak, including previous members and only people related to the band. I remember seeing this on the BBC around that time, it was exciting to see the band together, remember they havent been together since the IT tour. Also it was for me the first time I saw footage of PG era, bits from Shepperton 1973, italian TV parts from 1972, it was all new for me!
TBH, I've seen great documentaries about other bands (Pink Floyd, Queen, Tom Petty come to mind) but just "OK" docs about Genesis. They seemed to be done by the book, and lacking spark. Also, I frequently felt I knew more than the guys who made those films. They lacked that sense of excitement that I got for years every time somebody was telling e the Floyd's story again. (And I loved Genesis much ore than the Floyd). The thing is, outside music Genesis are a pretty boring band. No scandals, no rock and roll life, quite private guys with no bug fuss except the little one that kept getting divorced... No drama, no big internal contrasts (they get along well all the time - at most Peter and Tony bicker a bit)... Also, they don't have hystrionic personalities to put the spotlights on. No Freddie, no Roger... Even Gabriel, offstage, is a reserved and supernice guy. That's great for them of course, and for once kudos to a rock band that keeps things civil... But rockumentaries thrive on that stuff. It's the glam side of it. You gotta put something juicy between an album and a tour. But the filmakers only have a boring narrative to work with: school guys from rich families get together and make a great band. That's it. The only real drama is from key members leaving, it it's not snoozed by an after-the-fact "you know, not a big deal actually". But I also have the impression they never worked with directors or filmmakers that were peculiarly strong in vision and personality. If they got into the nitty-gritty of music making, there could be possibly good material for an audience of music nerds.
What I like about A History is that its filmed in everybody's safe space, so you see the (back then) current line up working in The Farm, Peter is filmed in Real World Studios (I assume), Steve is also seperate, Anthony is at his home (what a lovely garden) I like what they tried to do in Sum, to get everybody together, but you could clearly see it was uncomfortable for everybody. Maybe they were expecting Jerry Springer like things to happen, but come on, they're British so they clam up, and you get this awkward meeting with glances and muted answers, and everybody correcting everybody.
I kind of like doco's that have celebrity's putting their ten cents in, but sometimes it overtakes the actual point of the doco in the first place
These aren't celebrities though, they're music journalists, some of whom are clearly not even old enough to have lived through it. And I would much rather hear stories directly from the people who lived it. It's definitely a drawback on this doc.
I was hired to write the initial pitch for that doc, which was accepted with some enthusiasm (or so I heard). I remember getting an an email shortly after my last draft asking for my availability to interview Peter. My take on the story had the film ending in 1986. Anyway, next thing you know I was bounced from the project without explanation. ‘Twas a bitter pill for a while.
The problem with this modern documentaries is that they seem to rely almost exclusively on a montage of interviews. The voice off narrative is kept to the minimum or remover entirely. But who are you gonna let talk? Who can tell you how things went more than the people involved? Music historians? Music journalists? Yes, they can provide a nice overview, but it's a digested one. Sometimes, I have the feeling that some people are interviewed because they were "remotely there" or passing nearby, so to speak, but mainly because the filmmakers couldn't reach or get a deal with someone more relevant or directly involved. The plot thickens
I don't think I have ever seen the doco in question. It was a general statement about what I tend to see happen these days
My pitch didn’t include pundits, but I think it did involve wives and friends. I will have to take a look for it.
I notice nobody has much to say about “Live Over Europe” or “When In Rome...” I’ve been a bit busy the last couple of weeks so missed the end of CAS and everything since then - but for what it’s worth, I’ve tried to listen to “Live Over Europe” several times and I always give up after a couple of tracks. To me, it serves absolutely no purpose - there are no songs here which aren’t on a previous Genesis Live album in the correct (or at least a more correct) key, and at the correct tempo. Every single time I start trying to listen to this, I take it off and put on “The Way We Walk” instead - which by comparison is the work of a vibrant young bunch of up and coming kids
I know there are many instances of replacing a popular lead singer with an outsider and moving on. Deep Purple and Rainbow made a career out of it and Black Sabbath and Van Halen were very successful although in their cases, the new guy was already a known entity. I'm trying to think of another band that thought it would be a good idea to bring someone in from the cold and carry on as if nothing happened. Bad Company and Foreigner eventually replaced their lead singers but both were irrelevant at the time anyway. Though Genesis saw a dip in popularity from IT to WCD, the decision to put out any non Phil product and call it Genesis always baffled me. It's not like Mike wasn't doing fine with his own thing and Tony was making plenty of coin with soundtracks. I hate that they did this
Here's the interesting thing though ... perhaps in the US Genesis had a dip in popularity with We Can't Dance, but according to the international sales of the albums, We Can't Dance sold quite a bit more than Invisible Touch .... Refer to this Genesis - The Album by Album Thread
True though that may be, WCD certainly didn't yield 5 top 5 singles as IT had (here in the states anyway) and I can't imagine it being anywhere near as omnipresent as Invisible Touch was at the height of Genesis-Mania in 1986. Five years had passed and in some ways, so had the band's hold on the cultural zeitgeist. Yes, the numbers don't lie but IT was part of a phenomenon. We Can't Dance, while successful, didn't take over on anything close to the same level
