From: LINDA.DARLING@ey.com
BTW, does it strike other people as being particularly funny, regarding that
German announcement that Jack Beerman so generously translated for us
non-Germanic speakers, that Virgin would call that publication rather than, oh,
Hit & Run for confirmation of a new singer? :-))
Now, just idle speculation, but what the heck, in regards to a new singer (am I
the only one wondering why we're not speculating more on possible drummers --
I'm personally very fond of the drummer in Sarah McLachlan's band -- and he
sings too! :-), but, with all due respect to what I would guess is a very
qualified and talented field of possible singer candidates, and possible fears
that Tony and Mike might not "want a lead singer with that much of a presence
on his own", I'm just wondering how many other factors Mike and Tony have to
consider, other than sheer talent and, I suppose, some degree of compatibility
on a personal basis.
Sure, there's the point that Mike and Tony may want to indeed prove that
Genesis was more than a backing band for first Peter Gabriel and then Phil
Collins, and I suppose using an extremely well known frontman might again lead
many people to suppose that all the talent resided in that front man (let's
say, as a ridiculous example, that they were looking for a front man with known
experience in front of stadium sized crowds, who can sing, play guitar, and has
actually worked with members of Genesis in the studio and in performance (at
least Mike and Phil) and they got Eric Clapton -- well, how many people would
just assume Eric was writing all the material? (VBG)
On the other hand, in many ways I think it's safe to say that many of the
potential singers bandied about on this list are better known to people in the
industry and close followers of certain bands than they would be to the general
population -- I suppose it's a question of how you define 'unknown' -- looked
at that way, Banks and Rutherford, in their own names, are unknowns to most
people, and even veterans like Paul Carrack, Fish, Francis Dunnery, Jack Hues,
would be singers better known to many people if they heard a particular song
than by name alone, unlike someone like Sting, Elton John, Bono, Madonna, or
Phil Collins, for that matter :-)
On the other hand, while way back in the dim and distant 50's and early 60's,
it was the usual practice that singers were known more for their ability to
present and interpret material written by others than for their compositional
abilities; after all, Genesis actually started out to merely write songs for
others, but it was their fortune to have developed as writers in the
post-Beatles era, when the rule became that performers write their own material
for the most part. I would guess most singers in their 30's and 40's rather
expect to contribute to the creative mix (beyond singing material) if they are
part of a band, or even insist on it (especially if they've been in that
position in other musical entities). But, have we actually seen any indication
either way that Mike and Tony are planning to expand the writing collective --
especially given that supposedly they'd composed quite a bit of material prior
to the March announcement -- or could it be that not wanting the singer to do
more than sing and front (admittedly a huge job in itself) poses a problem for
some possible candidates, if that's their position? And what would a potential
singer/drummer think about having to 'replace' one of the best known singers in
the world? Would some rethink taking on that challenge, even if offered the
position? I assume Phil did indeed get really really tired of being asked about
Peter rejoining the band, even after Phil had superstar status both on his own
and in Genesis -- can you imagine some of the questions this next version of
Genesis will have to field?
I also wonder whether it might be an actual disadvantage for any potential
singer to sound too much like either a younger Peter Gabriel or Phil (other
than the ability to cover the back catalog well) -- if Mike and Tony want to
firmly establish that Genesis is indeed more than Peter and/or Phil to the
general public, might they be looking particularly for people who don't sound
too reminiscent of any particular era, or giving even the barest hint that Mike
and Tony are trying to recreate or recapture past glories and fame, rather than
forging a new path? (Yes, most people thought Phil sounded a lot like Peter,
without realizing we'd been listening to Phil for years on vocals -- and, as
Tony said, it took a while for Phil to develop as a singer on his own -- Tony
apparently really liked the 'screaming' Phil more than the 'sweet' Phil on the
early post-PG albums, from what I've read).
Of course this is all just speculation -- I would also guess that candidates
are not supposed to disclose the particulars of any discussions they may have
had with Genesis and/or Hit and Run, including details of whether Mike and Tony
are basically just hiring people, rather than admitting them to full membership
in the band, or, if becoming an actual full-fledged member of Genesis, does the
new person(s) have to assume a financial equity position as well (in which
case, maybe Eric Clapton wouldn't be too far off the mark -- I don't know too
many folks who could toss tens of millions into the pot to join a band -- from
what I understand, Genesis has basically, over the last few albums at least,
paid the bills for album production and tour expenses out of their own pockets
-- sure, they recoup it, but any new album and tour is a risk, both
artistically and commercially, and I do wonder whether Mike and Tony expect new
members to assume that risk; and, is it fair to ask for creative input if
you're not 'putting your money where your mouth is'?); what sort of production
schedule they're projecting for Genesis, now that Phil's schedule no longer
needs to be accommodated -- do the Mechanics go by the wayside as well, and any
Banks solo work, while the 'new' Genesis is establishing itself? And would
some new member candidates object to abandoning any careers they may have been
establishing?
I'm also wondering how Hit & Run is working out tour details, etc.,if Phil were
touring in spring/summer 97 when, by rumor anyway, so many expect a Genesis
album to come out, no doubt followed by a spring/summer tour -- who gets the
most experience tour managerial personnel, the lighting crews, etc., etc.
(BTW, I would guess that Phil's big band gigs are very heavily, if not
totally,subsidized by Phil -- I can't imagine that any possible fees he's
gotten have come close to covering costs,but it's always funny to me that
people criticize Phil for being commercial without mentioning things like this.)
Again, the whole latter part of this is just speculation on my part -- I have
the feeling that no matter what Mike and Tony do, they'll be second-guessed,
criticized, and offered tons of advice after the fact :-)) But, wouldn't it be
great to be a fly on Tony Smith's wall?
Anyway, sorry to babble on and on, but Hisao's and Michele's posts were
thought-provoking and heaven forbid I don't share my meanderings!
Linda Darling
To: " - (052)paperlate(a)ansto.gov.au"
Cc: " - (052)LMDARLING(a)aol.com"
Subject: PG in VH1 Documentary Follow-Up/Speculation :-)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:40:10 -0400
Sender: paperlate-owner@ansto.gov.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: LINDA.DARLING@ey.com
I went back and found this week's Billboard, and it appears that VH1 is running
a series of programs regarding those misty days of the 70's the week of August
19/25. There is one documentary series, VH1 Presents the 70's, , running
between August 19/23, regarding the music industry in the 70's, and apparently
(if I read this all correctly) PG appears in the third program of the series,
"Taking Care of Business" -- the quote in Billboard is "As Peter Gabriel
candidly admits in the program, 'We are in a business. Musicians say that they
are not interested in how many records they sell, [but] try talking to them
after they've played a gig without an audience.'".
