Talk:Genesis (band)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discography Dates

Someone recently added a "note" to the article that Abacab was released in 1981, not 1982 as shown, and this edit was soon reverted away. Now, the revised information wasn't put in the correct spot, but it was *correct*. And now that I'm looking, I see that the release date of FGTR is also incorrect (released March 1969, not 1968). I'm going to change all the dates according to the History section of the official website (http://www.genesis-music.com/), which has a lot of information and appears to be carefully done. Except that I'm not, because I don't know how. I changed the dates in the discography article, but I don't know how to change them in this article.

Good catch. It took me a bit to figure out how to edit that section (It's at "Template:Genesis discography", it turns out), but I made the changes to the correct years. --Ataricodfish 03:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

What is the whole point of having the Infobox with an incomplete list of band members when there's a more comprehensive list a couple of paragraphs down? Can we delete it? Also, the Reunion Image has no source tags and no information on its license — this image may be violating Wikipedia's Image policy and will probably get deleted. Any thoughts? AreJay 17:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright Violations

As mentioned above, the image used in the infobox is copyrighted and cannot be used in this article. Images whose copyright status cannot be ascertained are assumed to be unfree and therefore cannot be used in Wikipedia. The reunion image was rightly deleted by Orphanbot and was reinserted. It has now been deleted again. Please verify that all images used in the Genesis article are in line with Wikipedia's image policies. AreJay 03:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Classic era renamed

I renamed the classic era to the peter gabriel era. Classic is too opinionated for an encyclopedia. Not all of us view the Gabriel era as the definitive period, so I removed that word too.

In several articles that were circulating on 2005 about the possible reunion of Genesis, eg: Rolling Stone magazine, the name "5 men classic line-up" appears.

'Club Scene' Anachronism

I've changed 'one of the most talked-about live acts on the early-70s UK club scene' to 'one of the most talked-about live acts in early-70s UK rock music.' 'club scene' implies they played in night clubs when actually they played in rock venues, and night clubs were in those days called 'discoteques'. PeterGrecian 08:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hackett ad

Wasn't it Steve Hackett, who put the ad in the paper, that was answered by gabriel??

it most certainly was. steve hackett said that he was looking for other musicians to "change the face of music." peter went to go meet him and hired him on the spot. you can read that in the booklet included with the archive 1967-75 box set.

I will go back home and review the boxset and make any appropriate changes, if necessary, based on the info. AreJay 21:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Steve ran the ad and gabriel saw it and showed it to Rutherford and Banks was how i had heard it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.78.4 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Current Status of Genesis

Several people have been listing Genesis on this site as an active group. This is not the case. While it has been confirmed that a reunion may be in the works, they did disband in 1998, with the exception of a one-off reunion in 1999 for their greatest hits album. [[1]]

The band stated in december 2005 that there were no plans for reunion, and that things didnt looked like they were about to change

Swedish newspaper DN claims that a reunion project will be officially announced on May 16th. It's not entirely clear from the article, but the reporter appears to say that he's gotten a confirmation from Tony Banks. See [[2]]

Of what, 2007?. They arent getting any younger in my opinnion, i wonder why is taking so long, they have a large fanbase from the original 5 men line-up and none of the 5 have done anything remarkable since the 80s (their importance as an influential rock band has somewhat declined)

The three-man Phil Collins-led line-up will tour Europe in summer 2007. There will be a "Tour edition" of 'Turn It On Again-The Hits' released in June, expanded to a three-disc set to promote the tour, according to their official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangsmith (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Where Congo Peaked?

hey, just reading the article and it says that congo peaked at #30 during the written part and then in the singles chart it says it peaked at #29. anybody know which is right? also i believe the article makes no reference to the still unreleased tracks like wooden mask, the light, and Masochistic Man. although come to think of it they might be better on the archive page...

The musical box

hey, what happened to the musical box article? for those who dont know the musical box is a great genesis tribute band that performs the tours for foxtrot, SEBTP, and TLLDOB exaclty as they were in the seventies. anyways if that page was deleted it shouldnt have been, and if its not there should be a link to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.125.18 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, they're great. I couldn't find an English Wikpedia article so I've created and linked a new article based on the German article de:The Musical Box (band) - feel free to improve, or if there's a better English article you can restore, please go ahead. AvB ÷ talk 00:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Top 30 of all time?

Cannot find anything about that in the source. And even if it was among the top 30 "of all time" today this does not have to stay like that for all time. There should be a source when it was among the top 30. Añoranza 13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Banks' alleged death

Anonymous users with no other edits have been claiming, in this article, Tony Banks (musician), and June 2, that Tony Banks passed away today as a result of a car accident. Now, if true this obviously belongs in the article (and is terrible to hear), but I cannot find any verification of it online; there is, as far as I can honestly tell, no mention of it in the news media. Moreover, as brand-new, anonymous users, and having cited no source, I am not inclined to put much trust in this - yet. Does anyone know anything for sure? And if this is a hoax, as I'm about 80% sure it is, keep an eye out for any further edits along these lines. PurplePlatypus 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing concerning Banks's alleged death after searching Google, Yahoo, and Genesis's website. I can only think that it is a hoax, and certainly hope that it is. TKD73 22:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I searched a lot more sites than that and drew a blank too. I also poked my nose in rec.music.genesis, where some guys seem to be plugged into news sources I couldn't possibly find by myself, and again, not a thing. This, combined with the total lack of discussion or even attempted reverts here, means I for one am prepared to revise the above 80% figure to 100%; this was some guy trying to violate POINT and failing. PurplePlatypus 07:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The death is concerning ex-labour party member Tony Banks who died a few months ago. Our Tony is alive and well. Snowbound 04:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many samples

There are way too many audio samples on this page. Audio samples of songs should only be used to illustrate a particular musical technique, or a rather important or famous song of the band. They should be used in such a way that they support the text--simply linking to a sample after every song is detrimental unless there is some discussion of the contents of that sample. ~MDD4696 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

It could be further improved, one peek at the Rolling Stone website and i found out that not one review of Genesis was positive, not even for the older albums. Of course, bad reviews for what isnt hype at the time is the staple of Rolling Stone magazine even today.

I wouldnt wipe my arse with Rolling Stone.

Not sure where this should go in your article but I think it reveals a bit of the schism between prog rock and later music and definitely worth putting in, regardless. 'Bored, bored, bored. I'm so bored I could be listening to Genesis' Rick [Rick Mayall] The young Ones. I guess it would need linking etc.

If I had it my way, the "Criticism" section for Genesis would be wiped out. It's insulting to the band and completely unnecessary.AL9000 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Expanding "The Lamb" page

Ive just been to the Pink Floyd page of wikipedia and man, what a page, all litle problems were setled and all tracks have their little info on them, even The Wall. Its a shame that the page of The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway doesnt have the same treatment as The Wall page.

There was once a discography which had lengthy explanations of allusions in Genesis songs. That material could be added. Much of it is not obvious. (Particularly British references lost on Americans, and the utterly baffling concept album concept of Banks' first solo album.) A page of oddities like Big Jim Cooley's "waistcoat" and Rael's "notes and coins" would be interesting, since Genesis frequently put British words into the mouths of their wild-west Americans and Puerto Rican street punks etc which the personas would never use. As far as just The Lamb goes, it is jam-packed with cultural and mythological references. Scott1329m 18:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ray Wilson

I just rv'ed an edit that included Ray Wilson as a part of the current lineup. The logic behind the inclusion of Wilson as a current member apparently stemmed from the fact that Ray, Mike and Tony formed the last active lineup of Genesis. I rv'ed the edits because Ray Wilson's inculsion in the "current members" column gives a wrong impression about the group's status. Wilson was let go from Genesis, and since that point in time, the group (primarily through Tony, Mike and Phil) has come together to release a number of compilation albums, DVDs and the like with little or no Ray Wilson involvement. Also while Tony, Mike and Phil are actively involved in the digitalization drive of older albums, Ray again has little involvement. The point that I'm trying to make here is that while Ray Wilson was indisputably part of the last active, touring lineup of Genesis, he is no longer a member and has not contributed in any capacity to Genesis projects over the last 6 years in ways that Tony, Mike, Phil and even Peter or Steve have. Thanks AreJay 14:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - this wasn't here when I last looked. I'm sorry that argument doesn't hold water. The article is about genesis as a musical band, not Genesis as a business and publishing enterprise. The convention continues to be that a band article lists the last active lineup, and that included Ray Wilson in this context. WP is about verified fact, not right or wrong "impressions". The verification is simple - Wilson was an integral part of the last released album, and the band have produced nothing new since either in recording or in public performance, ergo the final line up was Banks, Rutherford, Wilson. You can't just change convention on a personal whim.

I have no intention of stirring up an edit war, but I am obliged to correct the falsehood. Cain Mosni 14:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but that's where you're wrong. They did release an album, in fact, they released multiple albums, ("Turn it On Again" and the re-recorded single "The Carpet Crawlers 1999" to name but a few) without Ray Wilson. In this case, the "they" would be Mike Rutherford and Tony Banks and both Mike and Tony continue to release material under the Genesis banner, without any involvement on Ray Wilson's part. Please see Genesis discography for a list of albums released after Genesis let go of Ray Wilson. I'm not denying that Ray Wilson wasn't an integral part of the album "Calling all Stations" but he has not been part of the scheme of things post that release. AreJay 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I was overlooking the Carpet Crawlers, and not having a copy myself, I have no reference as to who was responsible. By definition you can't cite archive material and compilation releases as part of the active repertoire, but that's moot - trumped by the single release. Cain Mosni 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The classic lineup of Tony, Mike, Peter, Phil and Steve worked on the latest version of the Carpet Crawlers. I think my argument would hold good even without the single though, because there is no official Wikipedia guidence on these sorts of things, so a lot of it is up to interpretation. When you say things like "by definition" and "convention", the question becomes, what definition and what convention? If it isn't Wikipedia convention, then the article really isn't bound by it. Thanks for pointing it out though. AreJay 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Convention is the commonly accepted (i.e. consensual) practice, whether it be codified in formal policy or not. The definition, in context was the definition of "new material" (if it's compilation or archive, then it's ipso facto not new, active creation). Cain Mosni 17:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon Anderson

The article states:

Phil Collins, whose backing vocals had featured previously in the Genesis sound of the Gabriel era, was given the job of coaching prospective replacements, including Jon Anderson of Yes

Is this true? And if so could we have a source for that?--Mrmusichead 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is true (I know this, being a big Yes fan), but I have no source. Black Max 72.150.167.147 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to remove the hiatus status?

With the official Genesis website confirming that the band are now rehearsing together in New York and Peter Gabriel disclosing this info, as well as the BBC confirming a world tour this morning, is it time to remve the hiatus status from the box? Snowbound 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Music samples

Most of the music samples used in this article are well over 30 seconds in length and should be removed.(Wikipedia:Music samples)

Gabriel re-union

While the information under the Gabriel Reunion section relating to the forum post may be true (although I can't find this alleged post), Peter Gabriel will not be joining the band on 07/07/2007 in Lisbon, because Genesis are playing Twickenham in London on 07/07/2007, and have not scheduled a show in Portugal at all. Unless someone can substantiate or correct this information, I would guess thta that section should be speedily deleted.

Raelthelamb 20:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Great Lost Live Album

So far as I can tell, this is one bootleg among many. If so, is there any point to having this article around? –Unint 03:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As the page references, it is a bootleg of the Rainbow Theater performance of 1973. It is of unusually high quality because, I believe (no source) that it was recorded directly from the sound board. Seems to me that the GLLA page should be incorporated into the entire article. Black Max 72.150.167.147 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Two statements I'd like to question

• "This change of musical direction gave them their first UK #1 album, Duke, as well as their only US #1 single, "Invisible Touch"."

It is, to put it mildly, not obvious that the album that contains "Heathaze", "Cul-De-Sac" and "Duke's Travels" should be mentioned in the same breath as Invisible Touch stylistically. While there are definitely some songs in the band's later pop style on Duke, I would characterize it as more of a transitional album between the still predominantly prog style of A Trick of the Tail and Wind and Wuthering and the pop-dominated Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance.

Well, yes and no. Obviously, when we talk about Genesis' change in musical direction, most often than not people point to either Duke or ...And Then There Were Three. I think the spirit of the statement was to highlight the fact that there was a very conspicious change in musical direction with Duke, and not so much to highlight how Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance were more poppy than Duke. AreJay 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• However... Hackett has said he is only interested in playing as a five-man group.

Where and when did he say this? If it remains uncited, I shall shortly replace it with either nothing at all, or something to the effect that it is not clear why Hackett is not involved. The trio lineup said something along these lines, as part of what was essentially a mealy-mouthed non-answer to a question at the big press conference announcing the reunion. (This was accompanied, I couldn't help but notice, by much uncomfortable shifting about.) I know of no statement verifiably traceable to Hackett to this effect, however. There is a short and reasonably classy statement on his Web site that mentions that he was approached about the five-piece, but it says nothing about him only being interested in such.

You're right. I have tried to go in and delete unsubstantiated rumours that keep cropping up in that section of the article. Some, like the one that you've highlighted, have fallen below my radar. Feel free to delete the line. AreJay 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus 08:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this the second time that Genesis has been a featured article?

If this is the case, then why? I thought that articles could only be featured once.--HisSpaceResearch 03:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm assuming you mean a front page featured article. I've left a note on Raul's talk page asking him to check this. I think it's highly unlikely to be honest, you might have seen them otherwise featured on the front page (Did you know? etc) exolon 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Phil Collins appeared as main page FA in June 2006. Genesis has never appeared as main page FA. Raul654 21:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone apparently thought it would be funny to put a Penthouse picture in place of the band picture in the sidebar. I don't know what the original picture was, nor do I have enough experience with Wikipedia to know how to add a picture, but I did delete the link to the picture that was in its place. The rest of the picture and caption coding is still there for anyone with the means to repair it.

Upon researching the history of this entry, it seems someone out there has something against Genesis for some reason. This was not the first act of vandalism in the past few hours. I suggest putting Genesis in lockdown until this can be settled. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justin The Claw (talk • contribs) 03:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

UK English

I've converted all references to the band to use plural form per UK convention. Please watch for people randomly changing them back. Chris Cunningham 12:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the article - sometimes 'number' is used, and sometimes '#' when referring to chart placings. Should '#' be edited out - it's an abbreviation (not good English for an encyclopaedic article), and besides, it's familiar in the US but not widely used elsewhere. Using 'number' would mean there would be no possible misunderstanding. Also, should 'flat' be substituted for 'apartment'? 86.140.131.243 14:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, this has been previously discussed. Not sure why there seems to be an attempt to revert American English, which is a perfectly acceptable form of the language, to British English. Genesis' nationality (if you can call it that) has no role in this. Just to give you a bit of perspective, I took it upon myself sometime last March, to completely revamp this article and after having done so, nominated the article for WP:FAC. The nomination was successful and I am glad to have played a role in producing a quality article on a band that I love. I'm American and therefore used American English consistantly throughout the article. I don't see why that's not acceptable. I am also mildly offended by your edit summary "commonwealth english again. die, US English, die". I'd like to assume that that was an attempt at sarcasm. AreJay 16:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Where was it discussed? I see no archives, nor any discussion above. The article was very inconsistent, and now it isn't. As policy says that (a) if it ain't broke it shouldn't be fixed, (b) that articles should be left in the native dialect, and (c) it's now wholly consistent, I'd prefer for it to be left in Commonwealth English now. As for acceptability, I find the half-hearted use of the singular that informal US English uses for bands to be rank illiteracy, and while I'm prepared to hold my nose and even use it myself for US articles I'm not putting up with it for UK bands. Please don't take it personally, thanks for all your work on the article. Chris Cunningham 16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. If if ain't broke, don't fix it. It wasn't broke and therefore there's no fixing required. From your argument above, I gather that your issue has more to do with your perceptions of US English. I'm not going to get drawn into an argument over US vs. UK English...suffice to say that the use of the singular is acceptable in our form of the language, and as the major contributor to the article, I employed AmEn throughout the article. This was acceptable during WP:FAC and should be acceptable now. As for where this was discussed, I think we'll need to go through the Talk Archives and History logs of the article (dating back to around the March-April timeframe last year) to determine what was said. I have resisted reverting back to AmEn because I'd like us to discuss this before any further changes are made. Thanks AreJay 16:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are Talk Page archives, they should be linked to in some way or other from the current Talk Page. If there is no link, then surely it ought to be assumed that there are no archives. Also, by doing a very quick check (therefore possibly inaccurate) of the whole Talk Page history, barely anything (if at all) appears to have been removed at all, particularly the first ever comment (as would suggest archiving).
Also, according to WP:ENGVAR, "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect". If nationality isn't a "strong tie", what is? --86.130.21.79 16:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

It was broke. It was inconsistent in a good deal of places (compare, say, uses of "their" to "its" in the pre-edited version). As for the archived discussion, I've checked both the FA review and the edit comments for the quoted period and I can't see anything. Anyway, as the Pink Floyd article showed, it's possible to seriously reduce the amount of times that awkward phrases are used simply by minor sentence restructuring (Floyd being another band who made it front-page and immediately got into this situation). I'll try to work on removing contention whenever I'm back on the article. Once again, thanks; you've clearly put a lot into this article and it's very much appreciated. Chris Cunningham 20:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the actual grammatical accuracy of 'Genesis are'/'Genesis is', both are considered to be technically correct in both BE and AE, though clearly convention determines local usage. However, with regards to usage on Wikipedia, my understanding was that a consensus had emerged, basically depending upon where the band originated and, above all, article consistency. Whilst this would cause problems with trans-atlantic bands such as Placebo, I'd say that for Genesis BE is clearly preferable. newartriot 22:11, 7 January 2007

With regards to the grammatical accuracy of 'Genesis are'/'Genesis is', it shouldn't be considered technically correct to say 'Genesis are.' In the sentence, you are referring to THE BAND "Genesis". You wouldn't say 'The band are playing tonight" when referring to the group. Essentially, that's what you're saying when you say '(The band) Genesis are playing tonight.' I don't believe that works in either BE or AE. BoffoHijinx 02:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)BoffoHijinx

This is exactly the usage most common in Commonwealth English. I'm not arguing whether it's correct, I'm arguing whether it's appropriate for this article. I know it's correct. Chris Cunningham 12:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

More Vandalism

It appears that somebody replaced the entire article with a link to their band myspace. Somebody has since changed that back, although it was not me. I suggest that this page be locked down while it's featured today on the front page. ShadowFox3735 14:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Front page articles don't get locked. The traffic they get means that vandalism usually lasts for less than a minute, and locking them would discourage first-time users from getting stuck in. Chris Cunningham 15:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. Sorry, I'm still relatively new to the rules of Wikipedia. ShadowFox3735 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Some notes

Congrats to everyone on getting featured article status. A few additions might be considered. Brian Eno is credited with "input" on The Lamb, and his trademark tape editing techniques can be heard on several songs, most identifiably "The Waiting Room." Eno, however, is not credited as a songwriter on any tracks. Steve Hackett released a 1997 album, "Genesis Revisted," that includes 20 reworkings of Genesis tracks, including a stunning version of "Firth of Fifth," and features, among others, Tony Levin, Bill Bruford, Paul Carrack, Ian McDonald, Pino Palladino, Chester Thompson, and John Wetton. Annie Haslam, the former Renaissance singer, did a lovely version of "Ripples" on one of her albums. And lastly, the Allmusic biography of Genesis (http://www.allmusic.com/) contains numerous details about the band that could well be incorporated into the article. Black Max 72.150.167.147 18:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see:

• Actually, some time ago Brian Eno was even included in the list of band members within the article. Had to take that out because it was going too far. It is dealt with in greater detail in the Lamb article itself, though.
• Genesis Revisited used to be in the discography, and might have been listed in the main article once. However, the discography seems to have been downgraded since. Also see List of Genesis covers. –Unint 07:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Bruford on template?

I asked this question over at Template talk:Genesis but it hasn't gotten any responses yet. (The template is still protected anyway.) Anyone else think Mr. Bruford should be listed as a former member on the template as well? He did tour with them in '76, and appears on Seconds Out. It seems to me that if the early drummers should be listed, so should this considerably more notable drummer. Robotman1974 13:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not averse to his inclusion in the template. In fact, he is already mentioned in the Genesis Timline template...I will update this template just as soon as page protection is removed. AreJay 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not averse to the inclusion either, but he was never a full band member, although the template includes other non-full band members.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If Bruford is, then Mick Barnard should also be included, even though he did not record with them. 210.50.60.69 (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hackett's non-participation in the reunion

His reasons for his non-participation are not "ambiguous" as the article previously said. He says in the letter on the front page of his webpage and in this interview http://www.genesis-fanclub.de/stevehackett/interviews/wild_orchids_interview_engl.htm that he wants to reunite as a quintet and is ready to do so but is not interested in reuniting without Gabriel. -Anon. 1/19/07

No, he really doesn't. He doesn't say anything either way in the letter, and in the interview he does say he was interested in the five-piece, but does not explicitly say he wouldn't be interested in any other lineup. (He describes four as "unlikely" but makes no mention of why that is.) PurplePlatypus 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He says in the interview "I know what the ideal line-up for everyone is and that’s with five of us. That’s what the fans want to see. I’m on record publicly, saying that I am availabe to do that if that’s what happens." In the letter on his site is says "I was originally approached to discuss the possibility of a five piece which would have included Peter Gabriel and yours truly but since Peter’s schedule precludes this it makes sense for the other three to celebrate the brand in their ‘own special way’" In what way do those statements not mean, "I would be reuniting with Genesis if Gabriel also was?" 219.169.90.2 02:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They mean that, but only that. What you don't seem to understand is that "I would be part of it if Gabriel also were" is a different claim than "I would not be interested in any other possible lineup". (If I say I like the old Genesis music with Gabriel, does that automatically mean I don't like anything else they've done? No, of course it doesn't. Same idea.) Nowhere that I know of has Hackett actually made the second claim. PurplePlatypus 03:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that the policy of wikipedia is "no original research" but come on, use a little reasoning here. Again from that interview he states, "I don’t know if Genesis is likely to re-convene as a three-piece or a five-piece. I suspect it will probably be either three or five. It will be unlikely that it will be four." He is saying that the lineup will be either with Gabriel and Hackett or without either of them. Even in the letter on his site he says he was interested in the reunion until Gabriel's schedule "precluded it." He's being polite by not explicitly saying "I don't want to reunite as a quartet." Anyway if you follow the history of Genesis you know that he was not happy with the direction of the 4-man era and like Gabriel, is not likely to be interested in playing music from the 3-man era. (the 5 man reunion would've been the Lamb Lies Down). Can we at least compromise with something like "Hackett was interested in participating in a reunion as a quintet, however decided to opt out after Gabriel declined to participate."? 219.169.90.2 08:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He is saying that the lineup will be either with Gabriel and Hackett or without either of them. True, but nowhere does he say why. I won't agree to any wording that asserts outright that Hackett was invited to join the forthcoming tour and declined, because it ignores the possibility that he simply wasn't invited in the first place. It's clear that a decision was made after Gabriel declined that Hackett was not to be part of the tour. But it's not clear that it was Hackett who made that decision. It's consistent with everything you point out (not to mention the band's own obvious discomfort and evasive non-answers when asked about the subject) that it was a case of the rest of the band excluding him. I don't think the article should favour one of those two very different possibilities over the other. PurplePlatypus 21:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know Gabriel or Hackett's motives? Isn't anything other than their official statements speculation? There was an attempt at a reunion with Gabriel, but it broke down. Gabriel doesn't seem to want to do it. Hackett knows this, and doesn't want to do it either, but what possible reason would he have for not extending the olive branch and keeping good ties to the rest of the band? If nothing else, the back catalogue is going to be re-released, stimulating a new wave of sales. I think Hackett is genuinely friendly towards the band from a distance, though. His site has kept a lot of Tony and Mike's obscure records available for some time now. Unless they are quoted by reliable sources, it's all speculation. Scott1329m 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'm saying, except that I don't even think it's clear that "Hacket... doesn't want to do it". In other words, not only do we not know Peter Gabriel's or Steve Hackett's motives, but in Hackett's case we don't even know whether his motives have anything to do with the issue in the first place. PurplePlatypus 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on their public statements and common sense I think we can deduce that they were both invited in order to do a reunion of the Lamb Lies Down. Once Gabriel turned down the opportunity, the whole purpose of Hackett was rendered moot (he doesn't want to perform in a 4-man version of Genesis, the reasons being pretty obvious and the 3-man version probably didn't want to do a 4 man lineup either for obvious reasons). Anyway, why would they only invite Gabriel if they were doing a reunion of their "classic" lineup? Hackett is on record saying he's willing and able to do a reunion. The fans want it. It wouldn't make sense to go on tour with Gabriel-Banks-Rutherford-Collins and Daryl Steurmer. In the letter on his website Hackett says he was "approached" about the possibility of a reunion. True it doesn't say he was "invited" but why else would the band contact him regarding a reunion ? It's common knowledge that they're all friendly with each other and I highly doubt that it's just a public facade or anything like that. Gabriel has said things like "I don't want to revisit the past." At the moment he isn't interested in a reunion though he has left it open in the future. What else do you guys need? I think it's pretty definitive but don't feel like getting involved in a stupid edit war. 219.169.90.2 12:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me. Nowhere have I suggested that Hackett wasn't invited when they first discussed a reunion. You are correct that this would be a very silly claim, which is why I haven't made it, not even as a hypothetical. But you're assuming a stronger link between that and the Turn It On Again tour than I think is warranted.

The following facts seem clear: Initially the idea was to have the quintet lineup do some sort of tour behind "Lamb". As soon as Gabriel declined participation, that plan fell apart. At some point - which, given the timing of the initial meeting versus when they started rehearsing, could have been anywhere from right away to several months later, with my money firmly on the latter - the trio decided to heck with it and went ahead with plans for a tour (or "series of shows", as they insisted during the press conference :) of their own.

First of all, is there any dispute over any of that?

Now, a lot depends on that timing. If you're right (I could be wrong but it looks to me like you assume that it was closer to the "right away" end of the scale), then what you are saying makes sense. But that's a big assumption that, given the lengthy gap and the pessimistic tone of the first press release, I think is almost certainly incorrect. Now suppose I am correct that it was closer to "several months later". Then why would Hackett being invited for the originally-planned reunion have anything to do with whether he was invited for this one? This is why I think the assumption that he declined a pre-existing invitation is unwarranted. He could just as easily never have even been considered for TIOA; and, for reasons you've given, that wouldn't necessarily even reflect badly on the rest of the band, yet still explain their obvious discomfort when asked the question directly. They could even both be true - I find a non-invitation, because Tony, Mike and Phil knew he would probably decline anyway, pretty plausible. We simply don't know which of these scenarios is correct. PurplePlatypus 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What's faintly hysterical here is that you old die-hards like to TRULY believe that the world, in the majority, cares more about the Gabriel era than the trio years. If you love that stuff, great. More power to you. But get a grip on reality. Genesis, to the vast majority of the planet, means Phil and the hits - not Peter and the Slipperman. Deal with it already.

Citation Needed - Collins statement

I believe the Collins statement with the citation tag (in the section on the reunion) is from the Q&A period from the big press conference about the current tour, which is available in streaming video on the band's Web site. I have no idea what the proper style for citing that is. PurplePlatypus 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Best I can think of is {{cite press release}}. Set the "format" field to whatever the streaming format is. –Unint 03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Collins's first lead vocal performance on "For Absent Friends""

Is this true? I remember having a great argument on a newsgroup once about this. I maintained it was PC but was pilloried by a vocal majority who said it was PG. As a result, I still listen to it and think it is PC sometimes and PG other times. Is there anything definite on this? Whitespacebug 15:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it's definitely Collins on main vocal line and the overdub. I don't see how someone could possibly mistake his voice for Gabriel's, but the '94 remaster doesn't provide specific credits, other than "voices" for Phil. The upcoming remaster might have more details. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 17:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It was unquestionably Phil Collins. It is fairly well documented that Collins' lead/solo vocal efforts on Genesis studio albums during the Gabriel era consisted of "For Absent Friends" and "More Fool Me". AreJay 18:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured review?

Some users who enjoy this band (like me) may loathe me for this proposal in due time, but I'm afraid the {{fact}} tags may only be enough for this page to undergo a review. (The article was nominated last April and passed.)

Below are the three statements with the "citation needed" tags:

• "However, Collins, in a Genesis history video, explains that the whole story is about a split personality." (referring to The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway)
• "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway strained relations between members of the group, particularly Banks and Gabriel."
• "Phil Collins, whose backing vocals had featured previously in the Genesis sound of the Gabriel era, was given the job of coaching prospective replacements, including Jon Anderson of Yes."

Unfortunately, I must get some sleep, and will try to see about the matter tomorrow. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 04:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Six of the Best

I've just undone a merge and added the proper templates to both articles to get a discussion going on this. The only comment made on the proposed merger was this one made less than an hour before the merge was performed. It appears the merge proposed back in September went completely unnoticed, so it needs at least 5 days here. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 15:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Six of the Best... not included here and it may be a blemish on the good article, wouldn't it? That article seriously in need of cleanup, all created by some IP... but when it fixes up it would be a good idea to link to it here. - Frank 02:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I edited the 'Six Of The Best Page' on 22/3/07 and attempted a merge to the tail end of the 'Peter Gabriel Section' but have been advised to let it be discussed here first. If no one disagrees I will merge again in about a week. Great news about the show now being available! - Andrew 16:45, 22 Mar 2007 (GMT)

An interesting point, the Six Of The Best concert is an important event in the history of Genesis, Peter Gabriel and the WOMAD(World of Music, Arts and Dance) festival and deserve mentions in each, but if anything I think that the concert belongs PRIMARILY under the WOMAD heading as it happened directly because of the financial problems Peter experienced (not to mention the death threats) after the first festival took place. It was fortunate that Genesis were active and finishing their Three Sides Live tour and it was possible to perform this date to help the WOMAD festival and Peter. So I don't agree that Six of the Best should be merged with the Peter Gabriel (or Genesis) article, but should be placed and expanded under the WOMAD heading.

PaulHereNow 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with PaulHereNow the artists on stage that day were the 'classic' Genesis line-up, historically it is important as it's the only time they have played together since Gabriel split with the band to date and is important to the Genesis story because of that. Adw uk 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Six of the Best certainly should be merged with Genesis, not WOMAD. I saw a great Bruce Springsteen concert that benefitted Amnesty International, but that doesn't mean that Bruce's songlist belongs in the Amnesty International article. Similarly, even though 6otB played their concert to benefit WOMAD, they were not WOMAD. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - Not that much info (after removing the OR) which cannot be included within the main article. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Support - However "Six of the Best" needs to be copy edited and the refs should be standardised. Ceoil 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

CommentOppose - I'm not sure that the two articles should be merged. Six of the Best was chosen as a name for the concert mainly because Gabriel was uncomfortable performing under the "Genesis" label again. Basically what that means is this was not a "Genesis" effort. Six of the Best can be mentioned in the Genesis article, but I think it should be an independent article since there's definately enough material on the web around the circumstances that led to the concert; I can assist in researching and improving the article. AreJay 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Ditto. The concert itself was a stand-alone event by a specially created band, for want of better terms, and you could argue that it was a significant event in rock history since there hadn't been any great fund-raisers on that scale for quite a few years previously, plus in some ways it heralded LiveAid – and helped kickstart Womad back into action (and not Gabriel's solo career, as mentioned in the article), a festival that has had a huge impact etc etc etc. nickawde 10:21, 27 March 2007

Oppose - Based on the comments above I don't think it would be appropriate to merge the articles. Waggers 08:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - It was an event significant enough to justify its own article MrMarmite 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Support - what significance does this reunion concert have outside of a paragraph in a Genesis history? It's a footnote, tragically one without a soundboard recording. Don't forget Brand X played at that concert! I have a scan of the promotional poster somewhere. Scott1329m 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Oops ... unreliable info in Wikipedia? First time for everything ... the Brand X opener was the 1978 show (no Gabriel), not the 82 one... there is a poster for it, though. Sorry. Scott1329m 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - As I have said before, in my opinion the concert belongs PRIMARILY under the WOMAD (World of Music, Arts and Dance) heading as it happened directly because of the financial problems Peter experienced after the first festival took place. Genesis happened to be on tour and arranged a gig to pay Peters WOMAD debts.

PaulHereNow 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - There is a soundboard held at 'The Farm' never to be released because of the quality of the performance and Peter Gabriel has video footage. Has anyone downloaded the torrent of the show? Why not merge it into a new section called 'Reunions' especially as the 'Lamb Revisited' tour with Gabriel was again commented on by Phil at the US TIOA press conference. Apparently at their 2005 meeting they all agreed to discuss it again after Gabriels new CD has been released and he's completed the supporting tour.

Adw uk 14:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Not withstanding the above opposes, which I agree with, I should note that concert tours commonly receive their own articles, such as Turn It On Again: The Tour, for a Genesis example, or Madonna tours, each having its own. I view this unique concert no different than the tour articles, and if anything, more Genesis tour articles should be encouraged. It's an individually important event in Genesis history like a tour, although more important for Peter Gabriel as a solo artist and WOMAD. --Ataricodfish 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per above and the current size of this page. Notable enough. - Peregrine Fisher 06:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. The choice of the "Six of the Best" name is worth noting, but it's ultimately no different than Blue Oyster Cult occasionally appearing under the name "Soft White Underbelly". This was not a different group. Nor was it really "six guys playing music they like", since 9 of 11 songs played were from Gabriel-era-Genesis. In conversation, Genesis fans almost always refer to it as "the Milton Keynes concert" or "the 1982 reunion concert", and from what I can tell Hackett himself uses these terms (e.g. on his track "Timelapse at Milton Keynes"). However, I would also support moving most of the data from 6otB to Genesis' article, and reducing the 6otB article to a very short stub, as a compromise plan. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Can we try a merge along the lines suggested by Lawrence King and see how it reads?

Adw uk 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please avoid voting in the poll more than once. If you'd like to add additional comments, please use the '''Comment''' tag. Admins should disregard your second vote of support. Thanks AreJay 01:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: what is the status of this poll? It was created in March...is it still open. It looks like there isn't any consensus right now, so unless anyone can argue in favor of keeping the poll open, I will go ahead and close it and get rid of the merge-template at the top of the article within the next couple of days. AreJay 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are Gabriel and Hackett included in the top line in the Genesis "quick link" box?

I'm not sure what the correct term for it is but I'm talking about the box at the bottom of all Genesis related articles with all the links for the members and albums released. Anyway, why are Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett included in the top line along with current members Collins, Banks and Rutherford? It seems biased towards fans of the so called "classic" lineup rather than NPOV. The standard practice on other bands on Wikipedia would be to only include current members of the band on the top. Example, Pink Floyd's one has Roger Waters as a former member, along with Syd Barrett and Bob Klose. I know that most people who edit this are fans of the classic lineup and that too is my favorite but it seems like the correct thing to do would be to relegate Hackett and Gabriel to the bottom line with Antony Phillips, Bill Bruford, etc. as they are not in the band anymore.

You're right, they (Hackett and Gabriel) shouldn't be listed in the same row as Collins, Rutherford and Banks. I have updated the template. Thanks AreJay 01:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Turn it on Again"

I just moved Turn It On Again to Turn it on Again because I thought I was fixing the capitalisation of the title. Now I'm not so sure. Considering Wikipedia policy and the way the song/tour/album title are written, what is the proper capitalisation for this? Is it Turn it on Again, Turn It on Again or Turn It On Again? Once a clear answer is known I'll make any move requests that have to be made and fix any double redirects from that process. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 18:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the WP: article on it right now, but pronouns are always capped in titles, so it has to be 'It' not 'it'. Some short prepositions are not capped, but I can't remember if 'on' is one of them. In any case, I think it reads much better capped, especially in its Turn It On Again: The Hits and Turn It On Again: The Tour forms ... having one lower case word in those strings looks very off. So I'd put it in all capped. Wasted Time R 16:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSTARD has it. Phrasal verbs, such as "Turn On", always have their "particles" capitalized. –Unint 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Addressing issues

I just noticed that the FARC is still ongoing. I will see what I can do here.

Quick question: how is it that "Home by the Sea" "did particularly well in Asia"? As a single, or by some other means? This statement, unreferenced, seems to have been here for quite a while. –Unint 05:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This line in the opening: "The 1980s saw the band produce more accessible pop music based on melodic hooks..." Seems that I personally inserted the reference to hooks, but right now I think this line needs to be more specific. Something that succinctly distinguishes this from the 1960s-pop era for the uninitiated, preferentially summarizing points already made in the article... More diverse instrumentation? Heavier production? –Unint 05:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have a problem if I switch the section headings back to their longer form, eg "Phil Collins era: 1976–1996". This seems more helpful to me.

The FAR is due to close tomorrow night, bty, any help appreciated. Ceoil 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, go ahead. I had changed the section headings because it didn't seem encyclopedic to me at the time. Phil and Peter were the band's lead singers, but I wouldn't name eras in the band's history after them...at least not in an encyclopedic article. IMO, naming eras after the lead singers of a band like Genesis takes away from the invaluable contributions of Mike Rutherford and Tony Banks (who, in the opinion of the band's manager, was/is the backbone of the band).

However, other contributors to the article have felt that the old section headings were more useful as well, so I appear to be in the minority and am willing to accept the switch back to the original headings. :) AreJay 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try and think of more neutral headings before switching back. Thanks. Ceoil 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should change the headings. Just stating the years "1967-1969" isn`t very descriptive. Someting like 67-69: The Genesis of Genesis 70-75: The "Classic" Lineup 76-77: Phil Collins takes over 78-79: Hackett`s departure and a change of direction 80-86: The rise of a pop giant 87-92: ??? 202.221.129.6 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and its being discussed on talk. The feeling was that the previous headings "The Gabriel ear", the "Collins era", were unfairly biaed towards those two men; its being discussed. Ceoil 23:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is David Langdon, anyway? Is this someone we're supposed to be familiar with? –Unint 03:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found the Nick Davis interview, and it seems that he's a complete unknown. Should we drop that line, then? –Unint 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Hi,

I've added to the external links to cover all key members of the band past and present.

Regards, Adw uk 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Is or are?

Maybe this has been discussed before, but IMHO Genesis is a band rather than Genesis are a band ... Genesis afterall is an entity. See British Isles as an example of standard English usage of is and are with an entity that is itself composed of parts. What do others think?Abtract 13:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be is, but I am apparently in the minority. I've fought the battle before and lost on account of a badly designed Wiki guideline that requires articles to be written using the grammar of the subject's native land. Are sounds incredibly tacky to me, but there's nothing I can do about it. AreJay 14:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't like it either but there does appear to be WP consensus on this as all the other similar bands use "are". Abtract 14:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to change this to "are" again. It is accepted British grammar, and according to Wikipedia policies, we should be using British grammar on this page. Hammer Raccoon 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Genesis' or Genesis's

There is some confusion about the use of the 's at the end of the word Genesis when used in the possessive. Many people have been taught that when a word ends with an s it only takes an apostrophe. However, most sources, including the "apostrophe expert" Lynne Truss and Wikipedia's own article about the apostrophe show this to be inaccurate, . The s is dropped only if the word is a plural. There is some argument as to whether the 's should be added when the word is pronounced without the extra 's. This cannot be claimed here, when talking about an upcoming concert, "I am looking forward to Genesis's concert tomorrow" the word Genesis's would be pronounced Genesisis. Furthermore, the same spelling can be found in: List of Genesis's awards, Hidden Persuaders (band), Follow You, Follow Me, Tonight, Tonight, Tonight, Turn it on Again, Anthony Phillips, Phil Collins (which also uses the correct term "Collins's", Peter Gabriel and many others. Most of the uses of the possessive in this very article are spelled correctly, with the exception of a few recent edit. Although www.genesis-music.com uses the incorrect form, once, I do not feel that a common grammatical error on the part of a web editor should re-write the rules of grammar. I open the floor for discussion, please add your comments. MrMarmite 11:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been no feedback on this issue, so I feel the time is close to when I'll make the corrections. MrMarmite 12:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you make too many changes you might like to note that, on page 56 of ES&L, Lynnne Truss indicates that an exception should be made for words ending in an "iz" sound such as Moses where the possesive is Moses'. This looks to me very similar to Genesis where I believe she would have the possesive as Genesis' ... and for what it's worth so would I.Abtract 16:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a polarising point, the Wiki style guide suggests all names ending with s would take the post-apostrophe s, and I agree with that. However, I can't be bothered to make a big deal of it, life is too short, and your reference to ES&L and the use of "Genesis'" on their own webpage it further leads me to leave it alone. This is clearly not a black and white issue. Thanks for taking the time to respond. MrMarmite 20:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ray Wilson...

I read an article somewhere that Ray was suicidal at one point after leaving the band but I cannot find any references to it online now. Is that worth including somewhere here or on Wilson's own page? 210.50.60.69 (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray Wilson fan club

More and more edits are being made to this page from the same anon editor about Ray Wilson. These are "backed up" by links to a blog style review page. I feel these additions are well beyond what would be required on this page. Other peoples thoughts ?MrMarmite (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just add a user warning template on the anon's talk page asking the user to stop posting links that clearly violate WP:EL. Just add the code: {{subst: Uw-advert1|Genesis (band)}} on their talkpage. If the anon disregards the warning, you can try using Uw-advert2, Uw-advert3, etc. If that doesn't help, we'll ask an admin to temporarily block the IP of the anon. Hope this helps AreJay (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was not the editor's own site that he was linking to, I think, but I have left a comment on their talk page as well as the discussion page of the article in question, as well as removing the un-cited opinions. Thanks for your offer of help. MrMarmite (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Please note that one persons opinions about Genesis do do make it an encyclopedic point. References to blogs, forums and "Joe Public" opinions are not valid references, see WP:EL. Thanks MrMarmite (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Marmite. I am the person who added some of those things. Most of them were sourced from web reviewers. I concede that these people seem to be largely self-appointed critics but what of the likes of George Starostin who seems to be widely respected and has his own Wikipedia entry. Feedback on his forums by other users indicates that a range of people agree with his opinions. Note that I was stating in the article that these were "opinions" held by people, not facts. For that matter I do not personally agree with all of them, such as the amount of criticism directed towards Tony Banks. Thoughts? 210.50.60.19 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As you point out, they are just opinions, and thus have no place in an encyclopaedia. I agree the criticism of TB seems way off base...guess they have never noticed who wrote some of the best Genesis track :) MrMarmite (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?

Why does criticism need to be in the article?? It contains comments such as "genesnooze" and accusing the band of being boring quite bluntly... But if you look up Britney Spears your not going to find criticism of her being too 'poppy' or 'plastic' do you? You don't find criticism on any generic heavymetal band, describing them as being too loud or intimidating do you? Isn't it just an aesthetic opinion? Which only belongs in people's conversations and not listed in encyclopediatic format!??? This is quite uncalled for. Please either put opinionated criticisms on ALL other artist pages (because anyone can look up another person's opinion on whether they like any artist or band can't they?)or simply remove this one... OR give me a GOOD reason why criticism should be listed on this page. 124.171.64.227 (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but these comments are attributed to critics..they aren't statements of fact, they're someone's opinions. The wikipedia article isn't accusing Genesis of being boring; all it's doing is documenting an opinion shared by some. As far as Britney Spears and other heavymetal bands, the last time I checked none of those articles are Featured Articles on Wikipedia. I just took a look at the Britney Spears article...apart from poor text, that article won't get FA'ed anytime soon because of the number of times it gets vandalized. In a (good) Wikipedia article, it is important to ensure that all majority and minority views are represented. I am an unbelievably huge Genesis fan (watched them for the first time last year when they toured the States) and while I do not agree with the views of Ray Lowry and other Genesis critics, I must at least be willing to accept that this is a view that some people subscribe to. AreJay (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Even with references, he makes a good point - that we tend not to have this for other artists, even though critics exist for them. WP:Criticism states that "In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet". Ideally we should integrate it into the main text where relevant, and leave out any random criticisms that are left over. Mdwh (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I go back to the fact that a vast majority of articles on other artists aren't FA. Such articles will almost certainly fail if/when they make it to a FAC review. Keep in mind also that WP:Criticism isn't Wikipedia policy or guideline...in fact, it's not even a recommendation. It's "advice" and contains "opinions" and isn't binding in any way. Thanks AreJay (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Phil Collins's retirement

Regardless of whether PC has retired or not, Genesis have made no announcement of whether this is the end of the line. So, please stop changing -present to -2008 until such an announcement is made on their website or other such reliable format. MrMarmite (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to take this thought a step further, Genesis has existed and has even put out albums without Phil Collins, so PC's retirement does not mean Genesis is history. It hasn't even really been confirmed that Phil Collins has retired...there's nothing to this effect on PC's website or the Genesis website. AreJay (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hackett's guitar techniques

On the subject of Steve Hackett's guitar techniques, the article implies that Hackett first started using his "tapping" and "sweep picking" techniques at the time of SEBTP, specifically on the track "Dancing With The Moonlit Knight". Actually, there are at least two earlier examples of "tapping" by Hackett on record: the introduction to "Return Of The Giant Hogweed" from Nursery Cryme, and the "Ikhnaton..." section of "Supper's Ready" from Foxtrot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychedelephant (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Er.... Sorry if that doesn't make any sense, it doesn't, the autocomplete got me and I only noticed after I had pressed submit. Dammit. Zazaban (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4