Talk:Supper's Ready

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Revelations[edit]

There is no book of "Revelations" in the Bible. It is the book of "Revelation". Almost everyone gets that wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.225.174 (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

One song or seven?[edit]

I haven't time to rectify this article now but -

- Supper's Ready is not really "a song", it's a medly of 7 different songs (with some recurring music and recurring lyrical themes) - it was not "written by Gabriel"!! All the band contributed to the writing (even Phil Collins ;-)--feline1 07:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

who wrote the lyrics that gabriel didnt?
The other credited songwriters! --feline1 15:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
..yeah but credits dont say whether its lyrics or music they contributed (or both)
I say "Words: Gabriel, Ratchet / Music: Banks, Rutherford, Gabriel, Hackett, Collins". Genesis | Please sell England by the pound*** | on 18:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well you can say what you like......on the http://www.prs.co.uk database, the offical legal songwriting credit is split equally between all 5 of them, for both music and lyrics.--feline1 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if you call this seven songs, it is not a medley -- that word has a specific meaning, and it does not include a musical piece divided into sections (like Supper's Ready or a four-movement symphony), nor does it include a musical piece whose different pieces had different authors (like A Day in the Life. I have revised this text a bit, and added a scholarly reference (by musicologist Nors Josephson). — Lawrence King (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The article you link to says "a medley is a piece composed from parts of existing pieces, played one after another, sometimes overlapping. They are common in popular music, and most medleys are songs rather than instrumental" — this seems a good description of Supper's Ready to me. In particular, several of the elements were [i]pre-existing[/i] songs, which are being strung together (I recall reading Banks explain that several of the bits were things he wrote when at university); Collins also seemed to regard it as a medley of largely pre-existing bits and pieces, and has related in interviews that his main contribution was in finding ways to link them together. Describing it as an example of 'sonata form' and comparing it to Litz seems simply pretentious to me...--feline1 (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the Wikipedia article Medley (music) gives a definition that is so vague that it might seem to include SR. But the way "medley" is used -- and the way it is used in all the examples in that Wikipedia article -- is to refer to multiple already known pieces being strung together in a live performance. Thus, Beethoven's fourth symphony would not be called a "medley" if we discovered that different parts of it were written by him at different times. It is true that some of the pieces of Supper's Ready had been composed at different times by various band members. But at no point were any of those pieces played or released publicly before the composition of the entire piece. Moreover, of all these pieces, only "Willow Farm" was close to a completed song before SR was put together: the other pieces were just fragments intended for future assembly into pieces.
Now, in the case of Willow Farm, there was a nearly-complete song. And it was released as a single (but presumably for length considerations). If SR consisted of several such pieces it would certainly be a medley. Side two of Abbey Road is an excellent example of this: the songs are clearly separate but have been joined together with segues to give a continuous feel. Side one of Queen I and side black of Queen II are also good examples of individual songs joined together in medley fashion, and Queen clearly felt free to play individual tracks from these albums rather than keeping them joined together. Genesis, on the other hand, played Supper's Ready as an intact single piece from its conception until 1982, and after that when they broke off pieces of it (to put in their "Oldies Medley") they didn't even break it based on the seven sectional divisions. In other words, other than Willow Farm, the band did not treat SR as a combination of well-defined individual pieces.
Most importantly, from a musicological perspective, three different themes in the early part of SR recur later in the piece, in a significantly reworked fashion. That is completely unlike a medley, and very much like how thematic material recurs in altered fashion in classical pieces. You may fault Banks and company for trying to emulate classical music, but it cannot be doubted that this is what they were trying to do.
You cited interviews by Banks and Collins; if you can cite these and they contain the word "medley" then certainly this should be included in the article.
The Musical Quarterly is a respected journal, almost a century old. AFAIK, they have published exactly one article that discusses "Supper's Ready", and that article does in fact say that "section 7 may be viewed as a Lisztian, symphonic apotheosis" of the "cyclical fanfares that originated in section 2." I think you can make a very good case that this is, in your words, "pretentious". But even if that were conceded, would it be any less encyclopedic? Edward Macan has written two long books analyzing progressive rock using the categories of classical music, and as sure as eggs is eggs, you can bet that fans of blues-rock and punk rock consider every word in these books to be pretentious. Maybe, in the interests of balance, this article should also include a rebuttal quote (with sources) from one of the many folks who consider such highbrow treatment of prog-rock to be absurd. But we can't omit the only scholarly treatment of this piece from the Wikipedia article simply on the grounds that it seems pretentious. — Lawrence King (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I take the point that the constituent parts of Supper's Ready, although written disparately, weren't individually performed or released prior to Foxtrot, and that once Foxtrot was released, Genesis pretty much always treated "Supper's Ready" as a single number, and didn't play only bits of it... I'm afraid I can't give you references to the Collins & Banks interviews I refer to (I'd have read them 10 or 15 years ago!)... I do feel the article at present could be in danger of giving "undue weight" or even straying from a "neutral point of view" in presenting Supper's Ready as a sonata form "Lisztian, symphonic apotheosis", however :) - because really, one of the important points to note is that is basically *is* just some songs strung together, and about half of them are actually very musically simple, somewhere between church hymns/simple soul songs in form (e.g. the Guarenteed Eternal Sanctuary Man), and this is one of the piece's strengths.--feline1 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I made some changes to reflect some of this. (I don't have sources for everything, but this page -- like all pop-music pages on Wikipedia -- is not very well sourced, so it seems silly to refrain from improving the page just because our improvements are no better sourced than the original page.) What do you think of the changes? — Lawrence King (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Your latest changes are even better. Cool. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Supper's Ready is neither a song nor medly. It is a suite. --119.225.64.161 (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"and on stage the band always performed the complete piece in its entirety"[edit]

This not actually being true ("Old Medley", anyone?) I took it out, because adding "until 1982" or "frequently" to it seemed to only water it down to an unacceptable degree. Anazgnos 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Apocalype to the end was used in one of the later medleys (1987 in the US, IIRC) and, on the Calling All Stations tour, Lover's Leap was played as part of the "acoustic set". MarkRae (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Willow Farm[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what is going on here: is it "Willow Farm (an unrelated interlude" or "Willow Farm (and unrelated interlude)"? The former makes much more sense, but 2 editors appear to disagree. After pulling out both my record and first remaster, I do not even see this parenthetical portion at all. Is this only included as the portion after Willow Farm is a bit out of place with the rest of the song? If so, I believe that this should not be mentioned in the section headline, but should instead be further described within the Willow Farm section so-as not to break the titling of the article sections as it compares with the tracklist on the album itself. Any other thoughts? --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 16:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Bossi. Although putting the thing in brackets serves nicely to clear up any possible confusion, at the end of the day it's just nit-picking to include it. Without it, the mirroring of the song's component pieces as listed on the album cover in the page's headings is maintained, and just looks a lot better. I'd vote for deleting the bugger, but I'll leave that to someone else. Pcgneurotic 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)pcgneurotic.
Alrighty: barring any arguments against, I have removed the part and incorporated into the article text. Feel free to discuss if anyone has any significant issue with this. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 02:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Gabble" Ratchet?[edit]

I'm sure my copy of Foxtrot says "Gable". 193.122.47.162 19:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you have a misprinted version. Is it an LP or CD?
The original Charisma LP clearly said "Gabble". So does the remastered CD today. — Lawrence King (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
All my copies (original UK vinyl, original CD, remastered CD) all say "Gabble". MarkRae (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

I contributed a little tidbit that Peter Gabriel said about "Supper's Ready" in a 1986 radio interview on Rockline, when he said "Supper's Ready is about a journey through several different scenes from the Bible....I'll leave it at that." It has since been deleted. Why? I NAMED A SOURCE. I have the audio tape of this radio interview at home! Why was it deleted?AL9000 18:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources for an encyclopaedia have to be verifiable. You need to reference it with the station name, programme name, and date of broadcast, in this instance. --feline1 18:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to appease the Wikipedia editor gods, I reposted Gabriel's comment, this time with station name, station's dial numbers, station's city, the *exact date* of the broadcast, along with the name of the programme....and it was deleted again.

What was the reason *this* time?AL9000 17:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is OK as a reference & I will replace it. PS - we are no more gods than are you. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Foxtrot72.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Foxtrot72.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jill Gabriel's Supernatural Experience[edit]

I have read both those quotes about Jill and the inspiration for Supper's Ready before. I was wondering if Peter has spoken any more about these incidents in more recent years. Of course, it would seem at first glance to be just another drug-induced incident by a '70s rock star but Gabriel has adamantly denied ever trying drugs more than once (related in the Spencer Bright biography - he was walking across a field under the influence and ultimately fell into a ditch...) I would just be curious to learn if Peter has reflected anymore on the incidents and if he thinks there is a "rational" explanation for what he experienced. Cheers. 210.50.56.100 (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

He also, in telling the story of Jill's experience, specifically stated that "we weren't drinking or drugging". He clearly was frightened by it at the time. But I don't know of him mentioning it since then. (He and Jill got divorced in the 1980s and maybe he talks about her less today.) — Lawrence King (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


I'd like to know more about that too. What does Peter say about it in the Reissues Interview for the Foxtrot Remaster SACD/DVD? He must surely talk about it... 209.132.188.20 (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

children of..?[edit]

Shood there be a parragraph mentoining songs like Grendle and Harvest of Soles which were obviusly influinced by Supper's rEady? I soposse this cood be subjectave, but it wood be a good idea I think to do that or something like that, something simelar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Waverley (talkcontribs) 12:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

divven't forget "Trippin' over the Rainbow" by the American band Lift...

Personnel section[edit]

I'm sorry but this section is seriously buggered.
We want to know who played on the recording, more than what happened during some exotic 1982 performance.
This section should make crystal clear who is on the record, and then if you want concert details after that, fine.
Varlaam (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But I have a more general question: Do we want the information about live performances (1972 to 1998) to have citations and sources? Clearly people have been supplying information from official and unofficial live recordings, and from other sources as well. In principle, I have no objection to this -- while I prefer citations whenever possible, I am certainly not a fan of the deletionists who want to immediately remove everything on Wikipedia that has no footnotes. But in practice, it has led to erroneous and dubious information. For example, a recent addition to this page asserts that in 1982, "Collins would normally announce the song as 'now in a very stark contrast...'." I have no doubt that this happened at least once, but what is the evidence that the song was announced this way "normally"? To mention two counter-examples, both Los Angeles shows in the Summer of 1982 have a very different Collins introduction than that one. — Lawrence King (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not a deletionist either. One of those fanatics will come along eventually. I once saw one of those Red Guards blow away the entire biography of a best-selling author when the text was internally consistent, reasonable, and BLP-conforming.
For sure, it is badly in need of citations.
But I feel that the first pass should be differentiation, then it will be clearer where citations are required.
And I don't have any of my copies of Foxtrot handy.
Varlaam (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Excessive amounts of fanpov[edit]

I've just trimmed out a large amount of what I can only describe as unsourced fancruft, plus the Rainbow '73 story, nice as it is, is actually a copyright violation (although Gabriel might be the sort of person to take an interest in relatively esoteric things like CC-BY-SA, that's not the case here). As you might have gathered, having got several articles to GA, I'm a bit of a Genesis fan, but what we have here is just ridiculous.

Bowler & Dray's biography, although 25 years old, is a pretty definitive account of the group, which more recent sources don't add too much more, and it doesn't devote that much space to the song outside of its basic structure, critical reception, and becoming a millstone round the band's neck. This needs sorting out, or at the extreme case, redirecting to Foxtrot (album). Paging regular Genesis editors Joefromrandb, LowSelfEstidle and Martinevans123. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying it's still too bloated? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
That article's even worse. I shudder to even look up "Duke's Travels", wondering if somebody's written five unsourced paragraphs about the time signature changes :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice work, sir! This and "Close to the Edge" is pretty awful. I'll keep it in mind for future edits. Cheers guys, LowSelfEstidle (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ooooh wow, yes that's a real humdinger. But poor Rick and crew - we must look like real grumps. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)