Talk:Genesis (band)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regrets

"[Ray Wilson] regretted his time spent with the band" Considering how much he uses Genesis material in his shows nowadays, that's changed; probably for the money. 90.225.121.130 (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We can speculate what Ray meant by his comments and why he does his classic Genesis shows but there's no place for such idle gossip here. In any case the legitimacy of his comment has no bearing on the fact that he made said comment. 109.152.0.171 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Canned Ham?

The second paragraph of "2006–present: Reunion and future" sounds a lot like an advertisement. Bergamote (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Abacab's reception

76.117.58.67 (talk) recently posted again for the third time a paragraph on the poor reception of Abacab during a live show in Leiden Holland. This user's unreferenced and unsourced claim is apparently based on his or her interpretation of a Youtube video of a concert within which a few fans can be heard booing and Collins responds. No inline citation is presented, but a link to a Youtube video was posted in the Edit summary. In addition, quotes by Banks and Collins are given with no source.

YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. (Source) See too Wikipedia:Video links: There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various policies and guidelines. Links should be carefully and individually evaluated for inclusion.

Until consensus on how and if to present this information and how to source it is achieved here in the Talk page I am removing the added content from the article.Coldcreation (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again there were far more than a "few" fans booing. It was the enitre studium booing, otherwise it would have never even been considered a booing concert! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.58.67 (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Phil Collins as lead vocalist and Peter Gabriel as lead vocalist wikilinks

Please see Talk:Turn It On Again: The Hits#Wikilink not to articles but to section of Genesis main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.53.219.212 (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Farm (recording studio)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge The Farm (recording studio) with Genesis (band).

Not important enough for its own article. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a good move to me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as there has been no more discussion on this matter in ten months, and the only two (now three) people who have commented on the matter are in favour of the move, I suggest we close the debate and make the move. If anyone who had viewed the article in that time had an objection they would have listed it by now. Anyone who disagrees with the merger can then come back here and take the issue up by re-opening a new discussion into the matter. This conversation won't be archived for a while yet. 5.80.226.167 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing Live & Compilation releases from Discography

The discography only seems to list studio recordings - there aren't any live albums. Is there a reason for this? The live albums I'm thinking of are (with year of original release)...

GENESIS LIVE (1973)

SECONDS OUT (1977)

THREE SIDES LIVE (1982, though recordings stem from 1977-81)

Also, compilations are missing (e.g. ARCHIVE 1967-75 and ARCHIVE #2 1976-1992)

All of the above releases were officially sanctioned, i.e. they weren't bootlegs.

Taff Hewitt (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The band's discography page is linked to the discography section on the main page. It is the separate page that exists for the listing of all official releases. Only studio albums need be featured on the main page. 5.80.226.167 (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Section title

This may have already been discussed before and I apologise for not searching the TP archives. I am just noticing the article has a section called "the classic years." I could be slow... that may have a long history sitting there. I don't doubt its wording... if discussing with a music fan/friend I would likely use the term myself. But this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia written in such a way as to avoid fancrufty adjectives ... unless they appear as a direct/cited quote. Certainly not in a section title. Its nit-picky but I know back during the FA builds for other bands that same topic came up as a discussion point.... nothing wild or crazy... just an effort to avoid using fan adjectives like "classic" or similar. It's like starting a band's lead paragraph with the sentence "X were an AWESOME progressive rock band of the 1970s" I have no specific alternatives to suggest off the top of my head. Maybe if I have time to think I will come up with a classic answer to that :) Mr Pyles (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Genesis album sales

This seems to be changed a lot on this page. Please let's keep it consistent with the linked page for List of best-selling music artists, which states that Genesis have sold 130 million albums.Rodericksilly (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

needs correction

"The group auditioned reportedly over 400 lead singers to find a replacement for Gabriel." - False rumour. Tony Banks corrects this in a recent radio interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7Qap3pwS4_M#t=642

I don't know how to edit the page correctly can you guys help thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.131.28 (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your input. Coldcreation (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Having got hold of Bowler and Dray's book (which my old copy went missing for about 15 years) for Christmas, p114 says the band received 400 tapes from an anonymous Melody Maker advert, of which most were tossed in the bin. That sounds realistic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Changed Brief Mention of Phil Collins, Previous Text Incorrect

In the article, Phil Collins was incorrectly listed as lead singer and drummer since 2006. Phil Collins had been lead singer on "Genesis", "Invisible Touch" and "We Can't Dance" and that he was lead singer with the group on these three albums, at least. This was incorrect as the article on Phil Collins correctly identifies that Phil Collins became lead singer and drummer in 1976, after Peter Gabriel left the band in 1975. The corrected text in the firstg paragraph has only been changed to reflect the correct date Phil Collins became lead singer. It should be noted that Phil Collins left the band the first time in the 1990's. So, it's not possible that he's been klead singer since 2006, when he was the lead vocalist since the mid 70's. 2001:558:6007:98:310D:47E8:19B3:3A1E (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Genesis Active - Re-evaluation

Whilst I acknowledge the importance of consensus on Wikipedia, and wish to make no alteration that is against the will of the majority, with each passing year since the reunion tour the need to consider whether Genesis is still an 'active' band increases. Like everyone else, I would love to consider the band to be 'together' and hope for more music and/or tour dates in the future, but when forming our consensus we must look at the facts realistically, and consider whether certain changes really should be made, such as the infobox example featured in this discussion.

As pointed out before, there has never been an official announcement made by the band stating anything to the effect that 'Genesis has ceased to exist', but there is no enforced law that forces a band to make such a statement. Also, the last tour was touted as a 'reunion', the same as the 1999 and 2000 one-off performances, and neither of those were followed by a break up announcement. Reunions on Wikipedia are generally not considered to be full reformations, so why is Genesis in 2006/07 an exception?

Additionally, most recent comments made by the five classic band members indicate that Genesis won't regroup again as a band. As supported with sources on the main page, Banks and Collins have suggested that it won't happen, and Gabriel, Hackett, and Rutherford have suggested that it is highly unlikely. Additionally, each time the members have been asked about performing together, they talk about 'reuniting' which would suggest the band dissolved in 2007 anyway, even if they do 'reunite' again in future.

I think it is crucial to the integrity of this page that we start to have discussions on this matter more regularly, as the passage of time makes the chances of future Genesis collaborations more and more unlikely. In addition to this, I think we should debate whether there is a cut-off point at which we start to consider Genesis as inactive as opposed to active (i.e. the tenth anniversary of their last live performance). After all, if they ever do reform then that edit can always be reversed.

Kind regards, 5.80.226.167 (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, I have got hold of some old book sources and will start improving the article slowly once I have reacquainted myself with them. What makes Genesis unusual amongst bands is that they've remained friends (with the possible exception of Steve Hackett) even through periods of inactivity and occasionally chatted to each other - the recent BBC documentary is one instance, an earlier one to plug the archive box sets is another. I don't particularly have a problem with putting the band's activity as "1967 - 1998; 2006-2007" and leave it at that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The issue is certainly a tricky one, particularly given how close the three musicians listed as 'current members' are. I'm not sure about Steve Hackett; what was apparent to me from the recent documentary is that there is still some tension between Tony Banks and Peter Gabriel. However, Gabriel and Hackett weren't part of the last reunion, so any dispute between either of them and any of the other three is probably irrelevant to the current entity of the band. Phil Collins recently reported that both Banks and Mike Rutherford traveled to his hospital bedside when he was ill recently, which shows a profound bond still exists there, even if they haven't worked together for a long time. 5.80.228.250 (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have been slogging through this article and it's like Sysyphus pushing a rock up a hill. I'm carrying on with the book cites, but in the meantime, can I please put out a heartfelt plea to everyone (especially IPs, who seem to be the worst offenders) adding content to cite what you're adding to a reliable source, and include whatever information is necessary for somebody else to verify it. For books and journals, that means title, publisher, page number and ISBN. I know lots of hardcore Genesis fans can't bear the fact that the same group (or some of them) that put together Foxtrot (album) and Selling England by the Pound had the sheer and utter chutzpah to release Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance ... but that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. (And I quite like 80s Genesis, well bits of it anyway). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To 76.117.58.67

76.117.58.67, Please stop undoing my edit. I have made it quite clear why I think the edit is opinionated (your opinion that the band was no longer a "homogenous" band during the Duke era). I feel it is original research, and opinionated at that. I have pointed you toward the appropriate section of the NPOV article dealing with subjective opinions, which you seem to just ignore. And all you do is go on reverting my efforts, and those of others in this matter, calling us "dumbass" and "stupidass" repeatedly. You even created a user page for me, calling me an "asshole" and "motherfucker." Your behavior is childish and disruptive. I care about this article, a former featured article, and feel it is being overloaded with too many details and subjective opinions and summaries. But I'm thinking of giving up on it now, if all I suffer is abuse from you. 147.46.57.248 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

He won't be able to answer you using that IP for the next year unless you visit his talk page. His behavior has been entirely unacceptable; thank you for drawing my attention to the problem and I'm sorry that you and the other editors here have had to endure his abuse.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, he won't be able to answer at his talk page either now. Access revoked for removing the active block notice repeatedly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Genesis (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Genesis Was a band vs Genesis Were a band

the word Genesis is singular. the word band is singular. Why would we use the plural verb for a singular subject? It'd be like saying "The Alan Parson's Project" had more than one member so we should say Were not was? Genesis Was a band. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn by proposer, Brittish English actually treats all bands as plural. so Coldplay are. Sumpertramp are. So for Brittish bands we will use the plural. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete the biased and unnecessary 'Criticism' section

I don't understand the relevance of, or need for, the 'Criticism' section. It should be removed.

Genesis have been selling records since 1970 (or 1967 if you like) and have been hugely successful. Over that time, they've had thousands of news articles and many book written about them. Amongst that lot, plenty of negative comments were written along with lots of positive ones. There is therefore no foundation for having a 'Criticism' section with a cherry-picked selection of the negative comments. It's far from an objective view of the band but it occupies a relatively large percentage of the article.

That gives the articles bias, not objectivity. The wiki pages on Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones don't have a 'Criticism' section, correctly so. Nor do the pages for Kajagoogoo, Adam And The Ants or the Spice Girls so its not musical snobbery. It's just bias in the article.

Pending a discussion here, the 'Criticism' section should be removed because it's biased and a disproportionately long part of the whole wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToaneeM (talk • contribs) 22:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. For this article to improve, this should be addressed. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So delete factual information on the band just because you think it's biased? The general public deserve better than that!

The above, unsigned comment appeared. It is a ridiculous statement. The information is factual; the presentation of it is biased. My above point stands and scornful, flawed one-liners are not a substitute for presentation of a reasoned point of view. The general public deserve better than that 'un. ToaneeM

Criticism of Genesis has been more significant among rock journalists than Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd, who are afforded more respect and critical acknowledgement. The comments by the Q journalist ("perennial whipping boys") and The New Rolling Stone Album Guide ("Genesis has had a hard time getting respect"), plus Gabriel's comment that the band never escaped being regarded as "snotty rich-kids" and Collins' admission that he only knew of one journalist who actually liked the band, tells you all you need to know about why the section is relevant. Rodericksilly (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC),

Rodericksilly, that's an appalling generalisation and a useless argument. An unbiased article cannot be based on your whimsical throwaways like "tells you all you need to know". You quote a few comments. My starting point: "Over that time, they've had thousands of news articles and many book written about them. Amongst that lot, plenty of negative comments were written along with lots of positive ones." Be reasonable. Led Zep, Stones and PF (to use my few examples) have produced their happy share of dud albums and bland patches and been criticised for it. It's part of being a long-lived and successful rock band. Genesis are absolutely no different in that respect. Rutherford once commented that "there were three UK music papers in the 70's and if they didn't like you...". It doesn't mean that their opinions warrant a 'Criticism' section. Again, from my starting note: "Nor do the pages for Kajagoogoo, Adam And The Ants or the Spice Girls so its not musical snobbery. It's just bias in the article." None of the objectors here has put forward a reasoned justification and none can because it's bias. Sorry, but there it is. Therefore it must go as it's against the spirit of Wikipedia.

You only seem to be able to repeat what you've written before. I can take it you've made up your mind and really are not interested in reasoned argument, just your own opinion. The comparison with manufactured pop groups aimed at teenage girls by marketing men is hardly relevant to rock criticism of Genesis. You need to watch the Genesis documentary Together and Apart which addressed this too, with a section on how unfashionable Genesis were and how Al Murray felt he had to "come out" as a fan. This is not a fan page where criticism is to be airbrushed. I suggest you start one instead. Rodericksilly (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If multiple, independent and reliable sources (eg: "He [Phil Collins] has been called "the Antichrist," the sellout who took Peter Gabriel's Genesis, that paragon of prog-rock, and turned it into a lame-o pop act and went on to make all those supercheesy hits that really did define the 1980s" [1]) then it may be suitable for the article (note: "may" does not mean "must"). That's one facet of criticism. Bowler and Dray's biography also documents that Genesis knew full well some fans of Trespass and Nursery Cryme would not particularly warm to "Follow You, Follow Me" and Abacab, but felt its what they needed to do to progress as a songwriter unit - and frankly I'm sick and tired of internet fanboys proclaiming everything after Collins arrival / Gabriel's Departure / Hackett's Departure / Collins writing more (delete as applicable) is crap. It isn't. Anyway, yes, a criticism section is definitely possible for this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this section has now been significantly improved and flows much better with all the heavy and unrelated quotes taken out. Rodericksilly (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

GA

I started improving this to good article status ages ago, then got totally side-tracked to do a few of the albums instead. In my absence I see a few of you, most obviously @LowSelfEstidle: and @Rodericksilly: have picked up the baton and the article seems to be in a much better shape than when I left it in terms of sourcing and factual accuracy. So what have we got left to do? There are a couple of uncited end of paragraphs and I think we're going to have expand the 80s a bit more to give proper due weight - it was their most commercially successful period after all. Anything else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A section definitively explaining the "lamb lies down on Broadway" :P (Jk since I don't think there is a definitive source for that) Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The sales figures were determined to be 130 million by examining several sources. Claiming that 100 million is better because it is listed in List of best-selling music artists is not sufficient, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. A better course of action would be to update that article, since this is a GA and that is not a featured list, implying its quality control has not been checked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought a change would be reverted on that page. They reverted some changes I made a while back and they are absolutely resolute that Genesis's sales have been exaggerrated in some sources according to their certified sales. The bottom line is that there doesn't seem to be ANY consensus on the Genesis sales figure. The band were claiming a few years ago they'd sold 150 million, then it dropped to 130 million, List of best-selling music artists say 100 million, therefore to state on this page one figure as fact is extremely dubious IMHO. Rodericksilly (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"most commercially successful"

Can I get a show of hands for opinions on this diff? I can see arguments for and against NPOV on both sides - the earlier version gives more weight to Collins / Banks / Rutherford, who I would expect "are" Genesis in the eyes of many casual readers, while the changed version puts equal weight on all members. Any preferences? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

To me, the original version is fine. The only thing I can suggest here is something like, "There have been several formations throughout its history, of which the longest serving members include keyboardist Tony Banks, guitarist Mike Rutherford, and drummer/singer Phil Collins. Past line-ups have included original singer Peter Gabriel and guitarist Steve Hackett." LowSelfEstidle (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead stuff

I'd like a bit of chat about this change. Firstly, I don't want to cram up the first paragraph with the history, but I just want to list the members in a short a way as possible while still being factually correct. Just listing Gabriel and Hackett with a supplying sentence ought to do it. Ant Phillips is a marginal case, but I think he can be left out as he was never on anything that reached more than cult success. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty reasonable to me; anyway, I just want to emphasize the "founding member" thing, c'mon is Gabriel!. Regarding the inclusion in the lede of Land of Confusion and the Grammy (concept video) stuff; is this really necessary?; I mean, it was not the Best artist award or Recording of the Year, just my point of view. Greetings. Ajax1995 (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It may not be the "creme de la creme" of the Grammy Awards, per se, but it is perhaps the most major and most recognisable award ceremony of all the awards they won. It's like Yes winning the Grammy for Best Rock Instrumental with "Cinema" in 1985. Pretty notable enough for the lede. Plus, the lede should be a summary of each heading in the article. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Genesis (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Disestablishment in 2012?

I've been wondering about the category "Musical groups disestablished in 2012". While the band is inactive and there does not seem to be any significant expectation that this will change, making Genesis effectively disbanded, there is no indication in the article that anything special happened in 2012 that would warrant this classification. The infobox treats them as still active because there is no official statement cited in the article on the current status of the band, so why the category, which blatantly contradicts it? I've combed through the history and found this edit, which provides an explanation, as a statement by Banks in 2012 that said that Genesis had "come to an end" was removed from the lede without moving it anywhere else. Bad idea, now the category is entirely unsupported. Should it be removed? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I seem to recall there was a bit of a kerfuffle over this some years back, but I think we're now at the stage where to say the band is still active is misleading. I personally would go for 2006-7, as that was when they last had musical activity. Genesis are slightly unusual in that the ex members (except Steve Hackett) all get on and meet up for a nice cup of tea and a sit down, unlike many bands that dissolve in acrimony. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's quite misleading to call them active. If Genesis tour again that will do nothing to change the fact that they were inactive for the last 10 years. The statement from Banks should be sufficient evidence that Genesis are not an active entity. I would certainly love to see Genesis tour again, but in the meantime we should stick to the facts. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead (August 2020)

Can we get some consensus on what to do with band members in the lead? AFAIK, sources generally consider Banks, Rutherford and Collins to be the "core", with cursory mentions to Gabriel and Hackett, everyone else is too minor to mention. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Genesis (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A personnel timeline would be nice

I'm not knowledgeable enough to do this - and don't mean to be selfish in case this turns out to be a lot of work - but if someone can construct one of those multicolored personnel graphs, this would be a good musical group to do it on. Like Fleetwood Mac, the various personnel lineups constituted markedly different stylistic eras, as least according to some; you don't have to make that subjective assertion, but supplying the [objective] graph would accommodate such interpretations by readers.

By the way, there's not one of those on Fleetwood Mac. For such a monumentally large group, with somewhat few personnel changes, it sure would be nice there; it's tedious to have to scan large amounts of text to follow the personnel.72.190.112.100 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There's one already at List of Genesis band members, which is linked in the Members section in the band article. See the Timeline section. --Finlayson (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yikes. Yes, all there in full color. I also agree with using a separate page since that page is so extensive. Thank you for your polite restraint at my high stupidity.

Likewise for Fleetwood Mac. Dooooooooh.72.190.112.100 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

was / were

@Eprossnitz: Will you please STOP changing the article to use the incorrect regional variation of English? See MOS:PLURALS Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, as we now seem to have a consensus as to Genesis' status as "inactive", should the info-box be changed to list all of them as "past members"? As obvious as it seems to me, I know this situation has caused astounding levels of disruption at other articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem from me. I generally go and hide in the corner when arguments about infobox fields rear their ugly head. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the active status being up to 2007, but I find it odd to call them "past members". This term is generally used to classify members who left the band, and Collins, Banks and Rutherford didn't do that, even though the band is no more, which means to say they were the remnant members of the group when it ceased its activity. It would be like calling Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starkey "past members" of the Beatles, when actually that title goes to Best and Sutcliffe. Clausgroi (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The info-box at The Beatles does call John, Paul, Ringo, & George "past members". Joefromrandb (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Even so, I would never call them that. Like I said, "past members" seems to me to imply the members were no longer in the band in its last incarnation, as though they had left. Clausgroi (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you wouldn't, but Wikipedia does. "Past members" were members in the past. "Current members" are members right now. No one is currently a member of Genesis, much are there are no current members of the Beatles or citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That's the thing: the article does not say (or said in previous versions) "CURRENT members", but only "Members". I argue that's a matter of interpretation: who are "members" ? The guys in the band NOW or the guys in the band when it ceased to exist (that is, the last incarnation which actually produced something). I understand it as the latter. In that sense, "PAST members" would obviously be the ones who had left the band prior to that (Hackett, Gabriel, Philips etc.). Do you see what I mean ? Clausgroi (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point. However, throughout the project, Wikipedia lists current members under "Members". There, of course, are no "current" members of a defunct band. We cannot very well change it here and have it conflict with our usage throughout the rest of the project. To change it throughout the project, I'd suggest taking it up at WP:PUMP. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the comment in the lead to this reflecting the consensus in this thread. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Graph of band members

What if the graph below (from the List of Genesis band members article) was added to this article?? Surely it would help readers get an idea of band lineups without it being too cluttered. Just a suggestion. JC7V-constructive zone 06:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC) 

==Timeline==

Genesis Live in Poland : https://www.discogs.com/fr/Genesis-Live-In-Poland/release/4989667

See above thread - consensus is it belongs in List of Genesis band members Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Among the best selling artists

The group are one of the highest selling music groups in the world and they are even listed on the Wikipedia article on that subject.

I’ve tired to mention it on this article but it got remove. Bob3458 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted with the summary "is that necessary for the lead?" because this is a good article and hence certain quality standards have to be upheld for each edit. In this case, the claim for being "one of the best selling acts in world" would need to belong in the article body (probably under the "Legacy" section); however in the article List of best-selling music artists, the only sources for Genesis are to verify 100m record sales (and one is more an anecdote of how Collins passed the audition in August 1970). We would need an actual reliable source (outside merely a mention in a WP article) to put that in the body, and hence the lead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"Second lead guitarist"

At the beginning discussing important members it should say Hackett the "succeeding lead guitarist" rather than "second lead guitarist" as that gives the impression that they had two lead guitarists at once (in the vain of Thin Lizzy or Judas Priest). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c0:8500:3ef0:849d:9d3e:41f4:64b0 (talk)

The article is not protected, be bold and fix it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

What is this, National Don't Leave An Edit Summary and Leave People Guessing Day? I can't read minds. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Moline1: There is a longstanding convention that only official members go in the infobox. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead

I'm not going to revert the lead by Informed analysis (also socking as 2607:fea8:57a0:de0:69ef:efdf:8697:2e80), but I'll critique it.

  • Although some people think "Supper's Ready" is the epitome of Genesis, the fact is that most sources agree the most commercially and critically successful line-up is Banks / Collins / Rutherford. See my comment above from August 2017.
  • Genesis were not particularly folk beyond Nursery Cryme, so mentioning that in the opening sentence is misleading.
  • There is no mention of Jonathan King or the transformation between the debut album and Trespass, nor an explanation of why Gabriel quit. The reader might think it was because of "musical differences", which is not really true.
  • "Hackett left the band, reducing it to three." - three what?
  • "first UK and European top 10 and North American top 30 single" - this is too verbose, which European Countries, and Honduras and Belize are in North America, did it chart there?
  • "multi-country top three album" - what does multi-country mean?
  • "Genesis have sold 21.5 million copies of their albums in the US" - why is the American market important to the British band?

I've got to go and do some snow shovelling, and when I come back I will fix up the lead to be more akin to what it was before, having passed WP:GAN and gained consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had a go at doing the lead again. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, it shouldn't really be more than three paragraphs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure who you are talking to - 4 people have either explicitly or implicitly agreed with my changes. Look at the history. Accept if someone else can find more useful imformation than you can. People want to know a band's first top 10 hit in the UK or the US.or where they had their first big hit. Listing 5 or 6 of their biggest hits and how big a hit they were in how many countries is important. Why only give info on the US for Invisble Touch???? The data I added is found in other leads on bands. Any full analysis of the current lead shows it to be highly accurate and superior to the old info. Don't keep crusading if no one else agrees with you or if a proper analysis finds you are wrong.Informed analysis (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits to adjust poor grammar shall not be construed as explicit nor implicit agreement with your changes. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis, "People want to know a band's first top 10 hit in the UK or the US.or where they had their first big hit." I don't agree with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Mrs 333 doesn't care what chart position a single or album reached anywhere, with very few exceptions such as "Vienna" being kept off the UK number one spot by "Shaddap You Face". Or, if they do care, they'll look for it in the article about the single or album in question. The lead of the overall group's article should have a summary of the important aspects a layman reader who doesn't know the group well would want to know, and excessive verbiage about chart stats just isn't it. MOS:LEADREL has further information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Because this is a WP:GA, I edited down some paragraphs regarding their post-1978 albums to brevity. I thought the information regarding the post-1978 singles, record sales and whatnot was too much for the lead (especially for "good articles"), as some of that information is mentioned throughout both the Genesis article itself and the discography page, so I just wrote something to the effect that they were getting greater success worldwide with the albums between Duke and We Can't Dance. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

MetalDiablo666, Yes, that's the direction I want to go in - the article is a weighty 62K, but even then I think four paragraphs of lead is the outer limit. I trimmed a bit more just to make it a bit easier to parse, plus the sentence, "Genesis achieved greater success outside of the UK ..... all topping the UK charts and entering the top 10 or 20 in the US and numerous European nations" contradicts itself, so I've reworded that. Bottom line is, the lead should be a general introduction for people who aren't particularly fans of the group and who turn up wondering "isn't that the group that did that tune for the old Dairy Milk advert with the gorilla?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am reverting Informed analysis' undiscussed changes. In particular, "no one cares about a record company" strikes me as being rather crass and unaware of the overall story of Genesis', and how important Tony Stratton Smith was in their early career. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Phil Collins

I think Phil Collins should be moved to Past Members in the Quick Facts. This is just one example of an article about it but it’s in many sources. https://people.com/music/phil-collins-cant-hold-drum-sticks-play-instrument-health/ CyberSecurityGuy (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Phil has been confirmed to be performing with Genesis as part of their The Last Domino? Tour. That article merely says he can no longer play the drums - which will be played by his son Nic on the tour - not that he is no longer a member of Genesis Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 22:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Collins is the Genesis singer and not playing the drums doesn't alter that. ToaneeM (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox: Past members section

Hi all,

Earlier today I made an edit to the past members' section of the infobox on the right side of the article, ordering the members by the method prescribed on the Template:Infobox musical artist page which gives us guidance on how to structure these things. For the current and past members' sections this means listing their names in order of which they joined the band and, where two or more members commenced their tenure at the same time, in alphabetical order by surname (it doesn't explicitly state 'surname' but that's the way I believe most of us would interpret it, it certainly is the way I do).

So, in the case of Genesis, the past members should be listed as follows: Peter Gabriel, Anthony Phillips, and Chris Stewart first as they all co-founded the band in 1967, followed by John Silver who replaced Stewart in 1968, John Mayhew who replaced Silver in 1969, Mick Barnard who replaced Phillips in 1970, Steve Hackett who replaced Barnard in 1971, and finally Ray Wilson who replaced Collins as vocalist in 1996.

Later today another contributor altered this listing to move Steve Hackett directly below Peter Gabriel on the basis that Gabriel and Hackett were (and I quote) "far more significant contributors in amount of recorded music and of performances than the others".

I've looked through this talk page and the corresponding archived conversations to see if there was a discussion and subsequent consensus on this issue but either it hasn't been considered or else I've overlooked that respective topic. What are people's thoughts on the matter? I would be in favour of following the template guidance as I don't see Hackett's name being further down the infobox list as being demeaning to his contributions at all and I prefer a standardised structure, but I have no desire to come into conflict with a consensus or even individual contributors who may have made far more substantial contributions to this page than I have.

I look forward to reading your responses. Thank you.

Kind regards, Sburbridge92 (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I made that edit, moving Hackett to second-top. But I hadn't referred to Template:Infobox musical artist before doing so. You're right that my edit was at odds with that template guideline. It looks unusual to me, as contributors are always in order of significance on, say, album listings. They always are in TV programme credits and often are in film credits, though the latter may do 'in order of appearance'. From those examples, it looks strange to me to have two of the 'big five' in the list, one at the top and one second from the bottom. Anyway, I'd acted from that perspective but it's at odds with Wikipedia so I understand your reverting it. ToaneeM (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is that there is no problem with your edit as it were accept that a community-given consensus should dictate a situation where guidelines aren't followed, and in this case I couldn't find one in any of the discussion history related to this page. I know some band pages have deviations from the norm via consensus, The Beatles and Nirvana being two that spring to mind. Personally I am in favour of consistency but respect the democratic choice of the community. In any case I certainly did not mean to imply that Steve Hackett did not contribute more to the band then many of the other former members, his legacy with Genesis speaks for itself. Kind regards, Sburbridge92 (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
In that case, @Sburbridge92, please can you re-instate my edit, as it looks unusual for the reasons I outline above. It will improve the article. Thanks. ToaneeM (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Schrodinger's band

Currently we have "Genesis are..." and at the same time showing PC, TB and MR as past members. Surely, if it's not "Genesis were..." these 3 should still be listed as members. If these 3 are deemed to have left, surely it should be "Genesis were..." MrMarmite (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

What are Wikipedia's criteria to determine if a band has been dissolved? (See also the discussion above.) Mark in wiki (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_(band)/Archive_4&oldid=1210778900"