Talk:Genesis (band)/Archive 2

Sidebar
Um, WTF is the "48 Years of First Holdings" sidebar? This relates to Genesis how exactly? 205.231.25.129 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be looking at a cached version, because I'm not seeing it here. Try reloading the page by bypassing the cache. -- Rodhull andemu  19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Band with this Name
There was, about the time the band Genesis started up in England, a band on the west coast (of the U.S.) with the same name. At least they played on the west coast. The only reason I know this is that there are a few posters from their performances around. I never saw or heard them. It is very unlikely that they were the same band. If anyone finds out anything about them, I am curious. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Will in New Haven 65.79.173.135 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can find a few of their tracks on a compilation called "Bubblegum Motherf___er", which runs to 30 volumes; whether it's actually worth it, I can't say. -- Rodhull andemu  20:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Genres?
Genesis started off as a folk rock/pop rock band with From Genesis to Revelation and had a heavy folk leaning on Trespass. From then on, all the early Genesis albums had either folk/rock songs (ex: Nursery Cryme's "For Absent Friends") or acoustic/folk/progressive folk influences on songs (ex: parts of "Supper's Ready" and "The Cinema Show"). Shouldn't we add folk rock in the genre box for this reason?

Second of all, when did Genesis ever play symphonic rock? I understand they formed songs as if they were classical pieces, like Yes, but this doesn't really make either band symphonic rock. They had some classical/symphonic elements and instrumentation on ...And Then There Were Three..., but that was pretty much it, and one album's style does not mean that the band's overall genre/style is that. I've heard them called "symphonic prog rock" on the ProgressiveRockArchives website, but Wikipedia doesn't delve into the sub-styles of prog rock in their manner. For that reason, I care less about removing symphonic rock than I do about adding folk rock, but if someone could explain the rationale behind adding symphonic rock to the genre box, I would appreciate it. Krobertj (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend against folk rock because although the instrumentation used by Genesis may be similar, the term has a rather specific meaning and the genre dates from Unhalfbricking in the UK and Highway 61 Revisited in the US, perhaps. However, if any reliable source such as Allmusic has described them as such, that might suffice. Agree with not having symphonic rock, because again, that has a fairly specific meaning and as far as I know, Genesis have neither used nor imitated orchestral styles to any great extent. Rodhull  andemu  15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So should we delete symphonic rock? Krobertj (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think so; Allmusic don't cite them as such, and I'll do that now. Rodhull  andemu  17:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Genesis Criticism
I move to remove criticism, since in general music critics hate prog rock and are going to negative. Secondly opinions such as these are subjective, one may find genesis exciting while another may find them dull. The same could be said of any band and artist, such as the Ramones or Elvis or Stravinsky. I therefore believe that criticism section should be removed, or else every other band should have a criticism section. Remember music critics are just people with their own biases, and will overlook their own favourite bands shortcomings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutmi055 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Not everybody may like Genesis, but then again, not every single person in the world has the exact same opinion on every single band. Calling Genesis bad is like calling The Beatles bad. Are they bad? It's up to you to decide, not these music critics who some people think are gods. Just because some white collar writer for some magazine says something sucks, doesn't make it a scientific law. Remove the section, I should think one of wikipedia's goals is to have the least amount of bias as it can, and this just isn't unbiased at all.75.140.241.125 (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here to find out why they are so widely criticised. But I agree, it would be very hard for you to put an encyclopedic criticism section in. The only reason for inclusion for this band, rather than for someone like the Beatles, is because Genesis are widely referred to as a bit naff. If there is a clear an understandable reason for this (more than just personal taste) I think it should be included, but I don't know whether there is (see first sentence!). 131.111.186.95 (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Having had a read of the section, I think it should stay. It's well sourced, and more notable for this band than others. It also isn't too harsh, just points out that they are widely regarded as not very fashionable, which is true - regardless of whether that is fair or not. 131.111.186.95 (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Grammar
I bet Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford never said "Genesis are a rock band". So I'm changing it. WillE (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't do that without seeking consensus first. Longstanding agreement is that UK bands are described here as plural, so I'd suggest you discuss this at WP:ALBUM or WP:MUSIC or WP:ENGVAR first. This applecart does not need upsetting. Rodhull  andemu  20:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that apply to multi national petrol organisations too? Does the Exxon Mobil article say "Exxon Mobil are an organisation?" No? Thought not. 164.36.44.4 (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that you keep using the same strawman argument - the multinational petrol organisation - in every band article. British English does not use 'is' for bands. Deal with it. 84.78.218.118 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Use STV then. Or TfL. Or even Wikipedia, if you will. 164.36.44.4 (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Genesis are not a "multinational petrol organisation", unless they've branched out during their break; and Exxon is American, whereas Genesis are British. Just as corporate tax rules differ between the two nations, so does the usage of language.  Rodhull  andemu  13:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipedia consensus overules the OED, then?164.36.44.4 (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We have own Manual of Style which is drawn from a variety of sources, and has achieved negotiated consensus to a large extent. Meanwhile, your example cites "Leeds United are winning: they have just scored."; how does that differ from "Genesis are playing; they have just finished Supper's Ready"? Rodhull  andemu  13:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Came here to see whether this problem had been tackled before. My opinion on the matter is that although "Genesis" is comprised of several musicians, "Genesis" is still definitively a singular. It seems that both "is" and "are" can be interchangeable in context and still mean the same thing. Incidentally, when Genesis is defined as a rock "band", it is singular, implying the use of the singular "is", rather than "are". Styk0n (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have to tell you this, but our opinions don't make any difference towards what British grammatical conventions are. The fact that they are described as a "band" gives us nothing anyway, since "band" is a group noun and thus has different rules than a normal singular noun.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Genesis show at Besançon in 1975 cancelled ???!!!!
I read in your article that :
 * "a cancelled gig at Besançon in Eastern France"

It is totally wrong ! I'm sure, because I was at this show !!! It was in may 1975 at "Palais des sports" Besançon. I believe it was the last show (or one of the last) of the "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" Tour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.83.244.100 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * According to reliable sources, the last gig played on that tour was St Etienne; there is a vague recollection of a roadie that they didn't play Besançon, but I can't find any source to say it was cancelled, or even scheduled. Accordingly, I'll delete this until a reliable source comes along. Rodhull  andemu  16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Direct quote from Phil Collins in the "Genesis: A History" video: "Everyone had prepared themselves psychologically for the last show which was in Besançon; it was supposed to be in Toulouse but, due to poor ticket sales, it was cancelled. We had all prepared ourselves for] this last show and suddenly it was 'Oh, tonight's the last gig' which was a bit of an anti-climax. Pete played 'The Last Post' on oboe which was strange really..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRae (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that; it can go back in, using cite video but I don't have the details. Rodhull  andemu  17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Genesis-History-VHS/dp/B00004RZKE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260208714&sr=8-1. There doesn't seem to be a Wiki page... MarkRae (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's OK as far as it goes, but it doesn't cite the quote, nor its timing within the video. It needs to be added by someone who has seen the video and can cite these things. Rodhull  andemu  18:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil's memory was incorrect in this interview. The last show that they actually played was in Besançon, 27 May 1975.  It was the gig after that which was cancelled.  For documentation, see Paul Russell, Genesis: A Live Guide 1969 to 1975, p. 121, or Kevin Holm-Hudson, Genesis and the Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, pp. 113, 156.  And for what it's worth, there is another Genesis interview on video (I don't remember which one) in which Phil tells the story and says the last gig was at Besancon, but obviously a person's memory thirty years after the fact in a casual interview is less reliable than printed texts based on extensive research. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 19:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Personnel
An editor keeps adding a list of lineups, with instruments. I think this is redundant as (a) members and former members are already listed in the infobox and (b) the Timeline image already shows the lineups, although not the instruments played- although that information is already in the article text or locatable through wlinks. Bearing in mind this is a WP:FA, and we should strive to keep it that way, I invite comments. Rodhull andemu  21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

yes but king crimson has a timeline and a personnel section. the rolling stones, the grateful dead and wings all have a line ups section, so why cant genesis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.30.220 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a separate page for personnel anyway so there is no need to include one on this actual page. The link to the other page will suffice. Burbridge92 (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1982
Currently, Rolling Stone is reporting that the last time Gabriel sang with the group was in 1982. This fact is not mentioned in the Wiki article. Given that Gabriel reunion talk is still being reported in the mainstream media, I feel that the article should specify that such a reunion last occurred at a show in Milton Keynes, England in 1982, rather than the current, "At the 1982 Milton Keynes reunion show...." Honestly, I thought Milton Keynes was a person when I first read the article. Crusher1 (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)