Genesis

Abacab

Open up

Review Score:

(8/10)
Well of course there's a difference between old Genesis and Abacab, I never denied that. That's why I was always saying that bands need to change and try new ideas.

Inside And Out is a nice song, I like it for the most part, but yes, it is a self-parody -- everything in that song is a formulated retread of what they had done before (the 12-string acoustic section, the fast instrumental section, the keyboard solo, the guitar solo, etc.) and they don't even do those things as well as they had done before, with the possible exception of Steve's solo, which is quite good. (Listen to "Cinema Show" and then "Inside And Out" -- it follows almost the exact same pattern.) It seems like you "progressive" rock fans just wanted Genesis to keep doing the same things over and over and over and over again, which isn't being "progressive" at all.

How can you call Keep It Dark and Whodunnit "parodies"? They sound absolutely nothing like anything they'd ever done before. I can understand why some people don't like Whodunnit (although I think they need to lighten up), but Keep It Dark is really a gem. Check out the weird structure of the song, like the way the drum beat comes in a split second later than one would normally expect it to, so that each instrument is playing on a different downbeat -- and then during the chorus, every instrument is playing in a different time signature, yet it all comes together at the end before everyone drops out and the drum machine kicks in. And the lyrics use a story about a man being kidnapped and being brought to a utopian world, and then being forced to lie about it as a metaphor for the news media and how everyone seems to prefer bad news to good news. Not exactly your typical pop song.

Of course these songs are nothing like Watcher of the Skies, Supper's Ready, etc., that's comparing apples and oranges. But if you compare them to some of the other short pop songs they did during the 70s, they still hold up -- No Reply At All, in particular, has a very similar arrangement to something you might hear on The Lamb.

I have a bachelor's degree in English, so I have read many books and am certainly not of "limited knowledge." (I also have a minor in music and have listened to many different styles.) I'm well aware of the literary references in early Genesis' lyrics. However, simply making reference to literary works doesn't automatically make your lyrics "intelligent." If you use those references in such a way as to say something personal and make an interesting point (like Pete does on The Lamb), then that shows some creativity. But if you simply make references without any real reason, then all you're doing is just showing off and trying to *appear* like an intellectual. Tony Banks himself admitted that "Firth of Fifth" was one of the silliest lyrics he'd ever written, because all it does is refer to a bunch of literary figures without making any real significant statement. Yeah, "Fountain of Salmacis" is based on a mythological story -- so what? How does simply retelling a story make you "intelligent"? I suppose if I read a book of Einstein's theories and then repeated them in my own words, that would make me a genius?

The thing I wish you and other prog-fans would realize is that there's more than one way to write creative, interesting music. Yes, the instrumental solos and the big climaxes and the literary references are all fine and dandy, but that's only a small percentage of the great spectrum of musical ideas Genesis and other great bands have used. If you refuse to even *try* to appreciate the musical ideas on Duke and Abacab, then you are no better than the so-called "poser" fans who supposedly know nothing about early Genesis (which is total BS, because we do know plenty about it.) Like I said in my first review, I used to be a narrow-minded prog-head like you. I used to think that doing 10-20 minute songs about literary figures or aliens or mythological creatures was the ultimate example of "artisticness", and that writing short songs about love or for people to dance to was never anything more than crass commercialism. Thankfully, I grew out of that phase and learned to appreciate other types of music. I wish the same for you someday.

BTW, you're being rather hypocritical by accusing the other reviewer of not posting his e-mail, and yet refusing to discuss this on e-mail with me.

More Reviews: