Genesis - Turn It On Again Tour 2007

Genesis definitely count among the most remarkable pop music bands in the last 40 years. They had their creative peak in the 70s, enjoyed the highest popularity in 80s, in 90s their history seemed to be over, but this year they have announced a reunion tour. As we were so lucky that the concert of 20th June 2007 originally scheduled for Budapest was eventually moved to Prague, I could not miss the opportunity to see this legend. Here I would like to summarize my impressions from the concert.
But first few words about the band itself (for those, who are not Genesis fans). Formed in 1969 Genesis were one of the leading progressive rock bands of the 70s. In the first half of the decade Peter Gabriel was the band leader, but the whole line-up of five members was very strong after 1970 when the guitarist Steve Hackett and drummer Phil Collins joined the group. I should mention at least 2 albums from this era, conceptual double-album "Lamb Lies Down On Broadway" and also my favourite "Foxtrot" with the 23 minutes long epic "Supper's ready".
In 1975 Gabriel left the group followed by Hackett in 1977. Phil Collins has become the new singer and the whole band started to aim towards a much more simple and straight-forward music. In the 80s they have become highly popular poprock band, howerever in their music it is still possible to hear their roots. Radios, which play some Genesis, usually play songs from these years like "Invisible Touch" or "Land Of Confusion".
Phil Collins has left the band later as he has become a big star in his solo career and without him Genesis recorded one not very successful (not bad though!) album in 1997.
Now, 10 years since then they have started touring again. The bad news for the progressive rock fans is that they have rejoined in the 80s line-up, therefore without P. Gabriel and S. Hackett. It was also a reason to worry, whether Genesis will also play something from her 70s era. But here I am already getting to talk about the concert, so lets start at the beginning.
The concert took place at a parking lot near Sazka arena. Strange place, isn't it? However I can say that it was a place for an open-air concert just like any other, simply OK. About 25 thousand people gathered there, perhaps not too many for such a band, but I prefer much smaller concerts, so no complaints.
Genesis played with their standard 3 members (Collins - vocals, drums, Banks - keyboards, Rutheford - guitar, bass) and two additional musicians (Stuermer - bass, guitar, Thompson - drums). The setlist luckily reflected the whole history of the band, therefore we could hear pieces from most of their albums (even though the easier poprock songs were in majority, of course). I am sure that noone could be unhappy from hearing none of his favourite pieces, because the concert took 170 minutes without a break!
For me one of the highlights was already the moment when the band came to the stage. Seeing them was a fulfillment of a dream, which I already did not believe in. And moreover for me (as a fan of the 70s era) Phil Collins is still a drummer, not just a singer. Therefore I was amazed when he came to the stage and directly sat behind the drumkit without saying a word. Generally I was surprised how much time he spent playing the drums (around 1/3 of the concert), sometimes playing alone, sometimes together with Chester Thompson. These parts with double drums were quite impressive, the guys seemed like a powerful and well coordinated clockwork.
The band's performance was really great, unfortunately I can't say the same about the atmosphere at the concert. I was really disappointed from the people around me who looked like they were watching the constitutive assembly of the parliament or something like that. No emotions, bored faces, noone was singing... at least the first half of the concert was affected quite negatively by that. Luckily Phil Collins has shown that he is an experienced professional and also a good entertainer, he managed to cheer up the atmosphere through several interactions with the audience and at the end of the gig the reactions of people were much warmer. It also played a significant role that the concert has started during a daylight and it took more than one hour to get dark. This has finally emphasized the visual show, which was very impressive and it has also helped the atmosphere.
Generally I can say that the concert has shown me that the Genesis music is much more consistent than I thought. The songs from 80s next to the medleys from 70s sounded quite naturally. After all it is still one band and there is something that has not changed over the whole time: Tony Banks playing the keyboards. This guy is not probably famous, but I think he is the main keeper of the Genesis standards. The role of keyboards has always been very important for their music and I think that the main thing that connects all Genesis albums is the sound of Tony Banks and his keyboards.
After few days I can honestly say that it was a great concert, despite the poor spirit at the beginning. Genesis did not set off for a tour after so many years in order to do just some mediocre gigs, they know how to make a wonderful show. The end of the night with one of the biggest Genesis hits "I Can't Dance" and contrary to that an old and very personal song "Carpet Crawlers" from 1974... this will remain in my head for quite a long time. What more can I wish? Well, perhaps a Genesis concert with Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett?:)

Setlist: Behind the Lines / Duke's End / Turn It On Again; No Son of Mine; Land of Confusion; In The Cage/ Cinema Show / Duke's Travels / Afterglow; Hold On My Heart; Home By the Sea / Second Home By the Sea; Follow You Follow Me; Firth of Fifth / I Know What I Like; Mama; Ripples; Throwing It All Away; Domino; Drum Duet; Los Endos; Tonight Tonight Tonight; Invisible Touch; I Can't Dance; Carpet Crawlers.

Is there a good music and bad music?

(This is my sort of "philosofical polemic" - I would really appreciate your reactions and comments:))
This posting is a response to a discussion I had with Paja at her blog (under posting about Sensation White). I would like to summarize here certain thoughts, opinions and views of mine, which sometimes lead to my disagreements with some people.
First of all it is important to say that I am music freak. Probably you have noticed that most of my postings here at this blog are related to music, that's simply because there are not many topics that I really want to share and that kick me enough so that I eventually write something. One of the reasons I write musical postings is that the music, which I love, is not very widely known among people and it is hard to find someone who likes it. I feel that this music deserves much more publicity and this is just my little contribution. I want to show people something new, something that I believe is of much higher quality than what can be usually heard.

And here we've come to the problematic point. A frequent response which I hear goes cca like this: "You can't say that your favourite music is more quality than mine. You prefer that, and I prefer something else, it's relative. If you say that 'your' music is more quality, it is just enforcing your personal taste to someone and it is quite intolerant." The funny thing is that I was using similar argumentation some 10 years ago while talking to my friends, who were just discovering some alternative bands. But I have grown a bit since then, so this is my polemic about such statements.

Existence of Quality in Music

Generalizing such responses as mentioned above we come to the conclusion that there is nothing like a "quality" in music (or even in art generally). It's all relative and subjective, noone can say that this is better and this is worse. This sounds quite postmodern... Basis for such opinion is obvious: art is about feeling, emotion, these are individual, subjective and can never be perfectly transmited. The quality in art can not be measured, it can only be felt... and this is so subjective.

But still there is something that limits the relativness: the criteria. There are certain generally accepted criteria of quality in art, e.g. the originality, certain "depth" (in terms of the ideas and emotions that the artist has put inside, but also those that the piece might inspire or invoke in other people), some technical mastership... And in my opinion the fact that they cannot be measured does not mean they can't be judged. The relativity (which is of course inevitable at certain level) is then reduced by some consensus reached throughout the time by people and based on their experience.

Knowledge & Approach

Now it may seem that I am getting into contradiction, because majority of people prefer music, which I refer to as bad quality. The key word from the previous sentence to answer this problem is "experience". There are certain important factors for a reasonable judgement of music: you should have some sense for music, you should actually listen properly to the music and it is also important to know a bit. I know people who know thousands of albums and they really care about the music, they know the stories of bands, circumstances under which some music was created, they know a lot about the instruments used etc. I like to talk to such people and I take their opinions quite seriously, even though we often don't match in our opinions about particular pieces. I know that maybe (maybe not) I am going to see it differently in some time, it is even possible that the other person will change his mind.

It is not just the amount of music you know, I believe it is mainly the approach. Trying to broaden your horizons, trying to know something more about the music, listening properly and trying to discover something new in the music. If you do this, then you soon know much more about your actual taste, you hear things that you have not heard before. If you hear something and you don't like it, you are much better in guessing, whether it makes sense for you to give it second (third, ...) chance or if it is simply not your cup of tea. At this point it is important to say that the relativity exists: 2 people with the same vast knowledge of music will never have same taste... but they will most probably understand each other. They will be able to draw the line between like/dislike and good/bad. Me personally I don't like jazz very much (there are few exceptions). But for sure I acknowledge the quality in the music. And on the other hand I know that some of the music I like is... if I say questionable, it would be euphemism:) But I just like for some reasons.

What most of people do today is they do not listen to music, they let the music be heard by them. They are overwhelmed by new music, so if they dislike something, they just switch to something else. They rarely stick to the music for a longer time, there is still new and new music coming. This "produce-consume-throw away" system denies the fundamental principles of art. Therefore if we agree that music is art, there is a question whether the teenage-disco-shit-pop you can hear in radios should be still called music. The problem is that the business is powerful enough to persuade people that this is the real music and that it is natural to throw away the few months old and purchase new. This impacts the people's expectations towards music and as a result such person is not ready to listen carefully and to try to get into some more sophisticated music. This paradigm results in the disagreements I have with people.

Why is the "Radio Pop" Music of Poor Quality

It would not be fair to throw all music from mainstream radios in the same cathegory. There are of course better and worse pieces, but generally on average it is quite bad. And why? This music reaches the most possible simplicity in all aspects. The melodies and harmonies are the most simple you can imagine, almost at each moment you can guess what tone will follow, all the time it seems like you have heard this hundred times. Where is some surprise, where is the excitement, the mighty feeling of getting to know something new?
Rhytm: all the time the same, the most simple and regular.
Instrumental part: there is hardly any, it's mostly sterile synthetisers, human touch is completely vanished (where are the emotions?...)
Lyrics: any comments on them would be just wasting of words, we all know what the lyrics are like.

Conclusion

It may seem from the previous text that I am trying to offend people who listen to mainstream music. In fact that's not true. Actually I understand them perfectly, we are all facing world of so many opportunities that it is not possible for an individual to treat everything we want with such passion as for example I invest into music. Btw I know that I am a total ignorant about visual arts. I do not understand it very much, and I even do not care very much. It does not play an important role in my life. But I know there are some masterpieces and that they perhaps bring to some people as much as I get from music. I fully respect that paintings by Monet or Miro are quality art and if I accidentally like some simple picture more than their paintings (and I often do:)), I know the problem is in me and not in the art. And I know it is not absolutely relative.

Therefore I don't want people to stop listening to Britney Spears, Madonna (meaning mainly the new album) or Crazy Frog. (just perhaps the Crazy Frog - is THIS really necessary??). But I would like people, who consider music important for themselves to think about the fact, that there is not just music which is pushed through the musical business. And trying to discover something new may be very rewarding.

If you decide to close your ears to all the alternatives it is your decision and it may be a good decision for you - it is not a shame. Shame is to deny the quality of something you have closed your ears against.

And one more thing: please excuse my occasional desperate reactions. Hearing for example techno version of Pink Floyd classics, that's simply too much for me:)