Talk:Genesis (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Genesis (band) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Genesis (band) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 7, 2007.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Progressive Rock (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Rock music (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Regrets[edit]

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

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

Canned Ham?[edit]

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

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

Abacab's reception[edit]

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

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

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

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

Phil Collins as lead vocalist and Peter Gabriel as lead vocalist wikilinks[edit]

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

Proposed merge with The Farm (recording studio)[edit]

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

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

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

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Missing Live & Compilation releases from Discography[edit]

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

GENESIS LIVE (1973)

SECONDS OUT (1977)

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

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

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

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

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

Section title[edit]

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

Genesis album sales[edit]

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

needs correction[edit]

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

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

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

Changed Brief Mention of Phil Collins, Previous Text Incorrect[edit]

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

Genesis Active - Re-evaluation[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality[edit]

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

To 76.117.58.67[edit]

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

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

Delete the biased and unnecessary 'Criticism' section[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

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

Genesis Was a band vs Genesis Were a band[edit]

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

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

GA[edit]

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

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

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

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

"most commercially successful"[edit]

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

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

Lead stuff[edit]

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

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