Talk:Genesis (band)/Archive 3

Carpet Crawlers 1999
The article states (in the section 1998–2005: Partial reunions and hiatus): "In 1999, the 1971–75 lineup of Banks, Collins, Gabriel, Hackett and Rutherford recorded a new version of "The Carpet Crawlers" for the Turn It On Again: The Hits compilation." I think that this track is a remix and reworking (with additional musicians adding new parts) of the *original* recording and that the credit listing of all five Genesis members refers to the original track and not to any new recording involving these members. The lead vocal certainly sounds like the original to me (albeit with different studio treatments). 92.234.49.13 (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAIK they went back to the studio. Surely PG is singing part of it and PC another.MrMarmite (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, you're quite right. I was fooled by how close PG's singing was to the original. Given Trevor Horn's abilities, it was certainly feasible to have reworked it from the original tracks. But the drum track is subtly different as well, and definitely sounds like PC. 92.234.49.13 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Status active???
In the article the Band ist mentioned as active again since 2006 (after a break since 1999). Since Phil Collins has stated that he will retire from music, a probability of new Genesis chapters lies by 0.00000001 % (whereas it was thinkable in the periode 1999-2006 at any time). Therefore my question, whether it is correct to mention Genesis as still active. Casually publication of old material is in my eyes no reason to legitimate the active-status. Otherwise even The Beatles or Elvis Presley would were still active. On the other side there was never a statement of the band, that Genesis became inactive what would document this. But if Genesis is declared inactive there's the question which date is relevant: is it the end of the Turn it on again-tour or a yet missing statement of the band? --Schmeed (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is a difficult question. Normally, the Wikipedia policy would be that if some member of some band said he was leaving the band, he would be removed from "current members" but the band would not be declared defunct.  And in fact when Phil left the band in 1996, Tony and Mike continued without him.  However, Tony and Mike have expressed regret at that move and so I agree with you that the chance is miniscule that they will continue without him this time.  But that's based on my and your speculation; the official website says nothing about the band being defunct and in fact mentions Phil as if he were a band member.


 * When Phil first made his announcement, I agreed with the other Wikipedia editors who would not permit people to change this article to say the band was defunct, because we all expected a public announcement soon. But no such announcement has occurred.  So I think we shouldn't wait forever.  There are plenty of bands on Wikipedia that are listed as defunct even though there was no official announcement, because someone died or retired and many years passed and it became obvious that this band was over.  Maybe it's too soon for us to say that for Genesis.  But I believe that the time has come for those editors who do not want Genesis listed as defunct and do not want Phil Collins listed as a "former member" to state exactly what it is that they are waiting for.  Do any of you doubt that Collins saying "I am retiring from music for the rest of my life" clearly means that he can't be considered an active member of the active band Genesis? &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Concerning the retirement of Phil Collins I think this is a point we do not know what's really going on. On his website there's a new message of Phil Collins and he writes that he only stopped that he can be a full time father to his sons. So I think ther hasn't been said everything to this topic and I think we should leave it for the moment as it is and write nothing about a inactivation of Genesis. Time will tell us the story... --Schmeed (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think people are looking at this in the wrong way. The reformation of Genesis in 2006 was not a reformation with the intent to continue as before, they specifically reformed for a reunion tour. This means that they do not need to issue a statement stating something to the effect of "Genesis are no more", because Genesis was only reuniting for a tour of their music prior to their break up, not for a new creative spell. The reunion tour was in a similar vein to the reunions by Pink Floyd and the Sex Pistols, whereby those artists reunited for some shows (or a show in Pink Floyd's case) and then dissolved again, and this is represented in a logical manner on the pages on Wikipedia for those respective artists, not in the way that Genesis' reunion has been handled here. Yes, there has been talk of possibly recording new material, but Genesis are not a currently ongoing concern. Similar talks occurred in the aftermath of the Pink Floyd reunion, there was talk of proper reformation and a new album from 2005 until Richard Wright's death in September 2008, but Pink Floyd was not considered to be currently functioning during that time, and nor should Genesis, as like Pink Floyd, they have talked but not acted, and have not been active since the tour finished in 2007 (making their years of activity being labled 2006-present incorrect). It would be different if the reunion tour had started a chain of events like Ultravox's reunion did, whereby the band did start functioning in a normal capacity. Burbridge92 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted another editor who moved Collins to the "ex members" section. Please, editors, let us have a discussion on the talk page and reach a consensus rather than changing this back-and-forth in an edit war.

Here are our options:

1. Continue to treat Genesis as an active band, with Banks, Rutherford, and Collins as active members. The problem with this choice is that Collins told the press that he is permanently retiring from music -- his website seems to imply this is temporary -- but either way, it seems wrong to consider him an active member of the band Genesis today.

2. Declare Genesis a defunct band.  If we do that, then Banks-Rutherford-Collins should actually be listed as "members" per Wikipedia policy, because Wikipedia policy is that a defunct band has its most recent lineup listed as "members" (see, for example, The Beatles.)  The problem with this choice is that nobody has publicly said that the band Genesis is defunct. If we do choose this option, we have the further issue of whether to declare Genesis defunct as of 2007 or 2010.

3. Keep Genesis as an active band, but move Collins to the "past members" section.  The problem with this is that it implies that there is currently a band called Genesis consisting of two members (Banks and Rutherford), which we all know is false.

I honestly don't know which of these options I want to vote for yet. Does anyone have a good argument for one of them? &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 02:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would go with option 1, as there is no official word from Genesis or its members on the subject. It might be logically concluded to go with options 2 or 3, but there will always be edit reverts with those options by editors with other opinions. MrMarmite (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would go for option 1 seeing as we can't logically assume Genesis would continue now that Phil Collins has retired unless we are informed of a replacement, but we still haven't heard an official statement suggesting that the band is finished. Obviously if there is never an official statement regarding the breakup of the band and there's never any continuation of the band, there has to be a cut off point where we say "yeah, Genesis are no more", but now is not that time. One thing that interests me is that, if according to Wikipedia policy a band's most recent lineup needs to be listed as the current members even if the band is defunct, then why do some bands (such as the Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd) have all of their members listed as former? SAULGNRFAN (talk)

Good question. I thought that was the rule, but now I can't find it at WP:MOS or any of the subpages. In actual practice there doesn't seem to be any consistency on this issue. For example, The Doors lists all the members rather than the most recent (three-man) lineup. Jefferson Airplane lists everyone, with a dash separating the "important" members from the "unimportant" ones. King Crimson and The Beatles are broken up and yet list the most recent lineups as "members". By the way, King Crimson gives another example of how we could handle Genesis' status today: that article says that the band ended in 2010 followed by the word "speculated". &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The lack of consistency across band pages with regards to this issue makes the topic something to discuss. For the moment I suggest we leave it as it is. However I'm not keen on the idea of listing some dissolved band's last lineup as the present members, seeing as there is no one present in a band which doesn't currently exist. My personal opinion on the matter would be, after a given amount of time or if the band has released an official statement about their dissolution, to list all the members as former and use a dash to separate the most recent lineup (i.e. Tony Banks, Phil Collins, Mike Rutherford) from those that had been in the band in previous lineups. That way the infobox still differentiates between the final lineup and the previous musicians, but doesn't list the final lineup as the "current lineup" which is technically inaccurate. That's just my personal view on what I think would make the most sense of the situation. SAULGNRFAN (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC).


 * The best option to me is to do nothing until a definitive statement on the status of Genesis the band (not Phil Collins the singer/drummer) which is unambiguous. The relevent policy is WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  To claim that Collins retirement means anything, one way or the other, about Genesis as a band, without an official and definitive statement about the band, is impossible.  Default to the status quo, and await official statement.  To propose any other changes to this article is simply our own personal opinions about what will happen to Genesis, and its simply not proper to do so.  Leave everything as it is, maybe note that "Collins has retired from music, but no statement has been made by the band regarding their future" is appropriate; however changing the infobox or the text to indicate they are defunct/on hiatus/replacing Collins/going on as a twopiece without him is just speculation on our part, and we just cannot do that.  -- Jayron  32  02:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Something else which needs to be considered is, if we're going to take Phil Collins' statement of retirement as what it is at face value, and not make any assumptions about Genesis based on it, then what lineup do we consider to be Genesis? Phil Collins can't be included, because that contradicts the facts that we know about him as an individual component in the band. So if Genesis the band continues and we do not let statements regarding individual members effect our overall view of the whole, then the only people we can consider to be in the band are Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford, who have never acted as a two-piece band under the moniker of "Genesis" prior to this. I must also point out that it would be speculation to deem Collins' as a continued member of the band when he himself has made an official statement about retiring altogether. We can't do anything (including leaving the infobox as it is) without speculating. Burbridge92 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, however, there has to be a logical cut off point somewhere in the distant future. There may never be an official band statement, but we can't always assume that the band is still active. For instance, what if one of the two core members dies, and there is still no statement that the band has dissolved? Do we continue to list the band as ongoing? Furthermore, if we do list the band as a going concern, does said member continue to be listed as a current member of the band? My point is merely that there may never be an official statement, and at some point in the future we'll have to decide on a cut-off point, because there's little point in waiting for something that may never arrive if we can logically deduct by that point that Genesis are non-existent.Burbridge92 (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But I suspect we'll hear something soon.  Mike + The Mechanics just released a new album and will be touring for the next three months, and that almost certainly means we will be seeing some interviews with Mike Rutherford.  It seems very likely that the question of Genesis' status will come up in those interviews.  If he says "Genesis is over" or "Genesis is on hold", then we can list the band as defunct.  And if he says "Tony and I are discussing what to do now that Phil has retired," then we can list the band as a two-piece until we hear anything further.  The difficulty we are in now is that Phil's unambiguous statement about "retiring from music" didn't mention Genesis at all, so anything we say about Genesis status is an inference rather than directly supported by his statement.  &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 14:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Genesis' status per Mike Rutherford interview
Mike Rutherford just gave an interview. You can see it here:

The key bits regarding Genesis are these:

"The Mechanics are Mike’s only musical pursuit at the moment, with Genesis in a state of limbo." "Phil Collins’ recent announcement that he’s retiring from music entirely would seen to suggest an end for the prog-pop maestros, but Mike admits he’s unconvinced by his bandmate’s decision." "“There were no plans for Genesis now, anyway” he says." "“I would never say never though. I think time will tell whether Phil’s actually retiring or just having a break. It’d be a big loss to the music world not to have him writing songs, though." "“I’m a great believer in not making huge announcements because things change in four or five years time. It’s his call, but it’ll be a shame if he does. The thing about us is that we’re all still good friends, which is nice." ".... “Who knows what’ll happen next, though…”"

It seems to me that this doesn't really settle the issue. "There are no plans for Genesis now" -- but Genesis went five years between Invisible Touch (1986) and We Can't Dance (1991) and yet we don't consider them "broken up" during that time. "Mike admits he's unconvinced by Phil's statement" -- well, Mike knows Phil better than we do, so if Mike considers Phil's statement to have wiggle-room, who are we to say it doesn't? "It's his call" -- in my opinion, this must mean "If Phil does retire from music permanently, then Genesis is over" -- in other words, we at Wikipedia can say Genesis is active, or on hiatus, or broken up, but we can't say that Genesis today includes Banks and Rutherford but not Collins.

My suggestion: There will probably be a few more interviews with Mike, now that his tour is underway, so let's see how he answers this question in the next few interviews. Maybe Phil will read this and give him a call, and he'll update his statement! &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 23:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The difference between the gap between "Invisible Touch" and "We Can't Dance" and the time they've gone without any activity now is that Genesis were merely working on their solo efforts between 1986 and 1991 and never suggested that the band had broken up at all, whereas the tour that Genesis undertook a few years back was specifically a reunion tour with no definite ties to anything else afterwards.


 * However, Wikipedia does have guidelines on band member infoboxes, they can be seen here: Template:Infobox musical artist. If a band has broken up, all members of the band are to be placed into the "past members" section.Burbridge92 (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there has been no announcement of the band breaking up. MrMarmite (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ...And chances are there never will be. It's happened with other bands, yet they're listed as dissolved (because they are). Either way, it's consistency on Wikipedia that's the main problem. Burbridge92 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

2006-2007 Reunion
I've edited the infobox so that instead of the band's years of activity having listed 2006-present when we know that Genesis hasn't been active since 2006, to show 2006-2007 as a reunion instead, the same way that Pink Floyd's 2005 reunion is represented on their Wikipedia page. This way we do not have to list the band as presently being active when we know for a fact that they are not actually a working outfit at the moment. They only reformed for a reunion tour so that would be the correct manner in which to label the 2006-2007 activity of Genesis.

At the same time, as a result of the aforementioned point, it has occurred to me that maybe we should question our present listing of Tony Banks, Mike Rutherford, and Phil Collins as members of the band, not to argue with the fact that there hasn't been a statement saying that the band is finished, but because we know at this point in time the band isn't an ongoing concern. We may hear members of the band saying that there may be some form of Genesis project in the future, but Genesis is not currently working on any project, be it an album or tour, and everything that they have said is suggestive that Genesis may be an active band in the future, but isn't one at present, and therefore it would make sense to consider the band as currently unactive (especially given Collins' current "retirement"), in the same way that Pink Floyd are inactive, because it was a reunion in the same vein as many other reunions, a possibly one-off celebration of previous work performed by the band, not new work. Burbridge92 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wiki can't be based on what "we all know". it has to backed by citations and references. This was all discussed above, and certainly the consensus does not seem to be to put everyone in Past Members MrMarmite (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware that consensus takes place over commonsense in many areas on Wikipedia. The point is, any lineup we class as the "current lineup of Genesis" is speculated as we don't know anything, and the tour was a "hits" tour, and supposedly a one-of-a-kind event with no suggestion of any definite follow-up. If the logic is that an official statement is required to signal the end of the band then that should be consistent throughout Wikipedia, and yet this is the only page I've seen which is waiting for an official statement. Every page should definitely work by the same rules. Burbridge92 (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Active or not ?
If Genesis "were" a rock band, how can they "currently" comprise members ? 81.83.138.192 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The "are" a Rock Band, until there is an official announcement. MrMarmite (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears the discussion I started has been ignored. The logic of the arguments on this page are weak at best. Not only is a self-proclaimed "retired musician" listed amongst the current members, but the band were on a reunion tour, not a complete reformation. The Sex Pistols, Pink Floyd, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, and many others, have done the same, and many of them have never released an official announcement stating that they are breaking up again, but that doesn't mean they're still together. Genesis clearly haven't done anything as a unit since 2007. It seems that while commonsense prevails on other pages, it will not prevail on this one.


 * Yes, it's speculation, but in fact, any form of listing is speculation:


 * Listing Banks-Collins-Rutherford as the current lineup is speculation due to no statement suggesting there is any work in the pipeline, and the fact that Phil Collins claims to be retired.
 * Listing Banks-Collins-Gabriel-Hackett-Rutherford is speculation for the same reason.
 * Listing Banks-Rutherford as the two sole members is speculation as we have no reason to believe they are going on as a duo.
 * Listing Banks-Rutherford and claiming that the band is going to replace Collins is speculation as we have no reason to believe they are going to do that either.
 * Assuming they are non-existant also seems like speculation due to there not being an official announcement, which is a fact I respect.


 * ...You can't even logically justify the flawed concept of placing the classic lineup in the members section (as done for the Beatles and Nirvana) because there would be arguments as to whether the five-piece or three-piece classic lineup took place in the box.


 * Listing bands as defunct when they clearly are without an official statement is OK on pages such as Pink Floyd's (who never made an official statement but have their year of break up listed as 1996, when they last performed properly), so why not Genesis? If they were to announce that they were doing something now, would the previous 3-4 years be left as years of activity, and if so, why? Burbridge92 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I couldn't care less if the 'are' or 'were', but be consistent! It says active ... -2007, and then right under it says 'members' and 'past members' -- you can't have 'members' v. 'past members' if they ended in 2007. 69.86.147.203 (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems silly to refer to Genesis as "active". The comment above about Pink Floyd makes good sense. At the very least, I think we should put "hiatus", similar to the King Crimson article. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added it. We'll see what happens from here. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion?
First line under "1971-1975: The Classic Era":

'Collins and Hackett made their studio debut in 1971 on Nursery Cryme, which features the epic "The Musical Box"...'

"Epic"? I don't think we can have that. 77.97.181.205 (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the offending word and also the broken link in "The Music Box". No need to link to the album which is linked to five words prior to that. 77.97.181.205 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Genesis/Google Issue
Maybe this article should start with a link to Genesis. If you look up "Genesis" on Google, there is only one link to Wikipedia on the first page and it goes to this article. I was looking for either the Star Trek episode or information about the fictional Genesis device itself. No doubt plenty of other people also use Google to look up other Genesis'es than this band. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have to Genesis (disambiguation). The reason why this happens, is probably that this article has a more links pointing to it on the internet. It's how Google works. If you'd like Google to have, for example, Book of Genesis on top, you might have to create a few thousands (or millions) of websites pointing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis to outnumber the ones pointing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(band). In other words, it looks like the band is more popular than the bible, at least webwise —sounds familiar? ;-) . - DVdm (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Google's search issue can't really be used to disambiguate this page, it's called Genesis (band) so is clearly about the band. If the user wants to search wiki for the term Genesis, there is a wiki search box for that. MrMarmite (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Hm... meanwhile it looks like user  my addition, and for a valid reason, so I personally don't mind the removal, but YMMV. - DVdm (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)