Jump to content

Feelings about Steve Hackett...


Timbale
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, right off the top I have to say that I adore Hackett's guitar playing. He is a monster musician and his departure from Genesis is as big a fundamental change as Gabriel's was. For me I don't really think of the "Collins or Gabriel" era...but the with Hackett and post Hackett years. His contribution as a player in the Gabriel/Banks/Rutherford/Collins/Hackett lineup is huge.

 

It seems that with his touring of the Genesis material, the general consensus is that he is the guy keeping the true spirit of Genesis alive, and the actual version of Genesis that still sorta/kinda exists are the ones who left that gap to be filled by not properly paying tribute to the glory of their classic work.

 

And I can see that perspective - both Collins and Banks seem pretty dismissive of their early work. (Haven't really heard Rutherford speak about it.) And fans seem to see Hackett as the "good" guy in it all... and those other guys as the bitter dudes who won't give fans what they want.

 

But I can't help but wonder if it's the whole truth. I sometimes try to imagine what it's like for someone like Tony Banks, who is pretty much the main composer (along with Gabriel) of the material that Hackett is making his living off of now. To have a guy that it seems like no one in the group got along with all that well (again, I am a fan of Hackett's, but he does seem like an odd duck), to have him hire a bunch of musicians to re-create the sound of band he was in so he can basically play the guitar parts he came up with.... I imagine it must be strange and maybe a little annoying to the guys who are actively (again, sorta) in that band.

 

Obviously it's an extreme and jokey example, but imagine John Rutsey in the 80's hiring a guitarist, bassist and vocalist with a super high range and going around on tour playing songs from "Rush". I think it would have been super weird. And I don't think the Rush men would have liked it much.

 

What do you think?

Edited by Timbale
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I believe Banks when he’s a bit dismissive of the early stuff. He seems like the kind of guy who will always be critical of his own work, and I can imagine it’s a lot harder to be critical of what made you a lot of money and you constantly get complimented for (the pop stuff), than what never got you much more than a cult following and no one but that odd cult seems to care much about anymore. As for Collins, I really doubt he’s ever been as keen on the prog stuff as the pop stuff.

 

And I’d also say this, if Hackett and the rest of the band ever really had that much animosity between each other, they wouldn’t have gotten back together for that documentary some years back. Not to say they must be best buddies or anything, but I do think Hackett’s departure had a lot more to do with the other guys not wanting to use his material than anything personal. Plus, I think you’re forgetting the most important counter argument. If Hackett’s going around making money playing the old Genesis stuff, then he must necessarily have permission from the band to use the name (the Genesis in Genesis Revisited), and from the copyright holders (probably the songwriters) to play the songs. Same deal for Hackett as it is for The Musical Box, the only difference is Hackett was actually in the band, wrote some songs, and has a relationship with the other band members, so he probably has an easier time getting permission.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I believe Banks when he’s a bit dismissive of the early stuff. He seems like the kind of guy who will always be critical of his own work, and I can imagine it’s a lot harder to be critical of what made you a lot of money and you constantly get complimented for (the pop stuff), than what never got you much more than a cult following and no one but that odd cult seems to care much about anymore. As for Collins, I really doubt he’s ever been as keen on the prog stuff as the pop stuff.

 

And I’d also say this, if Hackett and the rest of the band ever really had that much animosity between each other, they wouldn’t have gotten back together for that documentary some years back. Not to say they must be best buddies or anything, but I do think Hackett’s departure had a lot more to do with the other guys not wanting to use his material than anything personal. Plus, I think you’re forgetting the most important counter argument. If Hackett’s going around making money playing the old Genesis stuff, then he must necessarily have permission from the band to use the name (the Genesis in Genesis Revisited), and from the copyright holders (probably the songwriters) to play the songs. Same deal for Hackett as it is for The Musical Box, the only difference is Hackett was actually in the band, wrote some songs, and has a relationship with the other band members, so he probably has an easier time getting permission.

 

That is a very good point on the copyright stuff, and honestly not something I had given a lot of thought to.

 

I agree that it is an interesting circumstance with a band having a cult following for a number of years...and then HUGE pop success. Banks does seem like a very self-critical fellow....but I do think it's interesting that Collins, while not always super keen on the prog stuff, does seem to acknowledge that his best playing as a drummer comes from that era. So in some way they know it's good...even if they don't particularly care for it themselves. I do wonder how they feel about the appetite that fans of Hackett's thing or The Musical Box have for the classic era of the band. Are they befuddled by it?

 

Bands are such a strange thing. I agree with you that I do not think that Hackett left Genesis for any intensely personal reasons, and yes, the fact that they did that doc together does indicate that they all "get along" ok. I've been in many, many bands - none of them remotely famous, of course - and it is a strange thing, where you can have this one, very important thing in common...but can be almost strangers otherwise. I remember seeing clips from that documentary, and I always got the vibe that no one really likes Hackett - like he's this slightly annoying guy who they know is part of the history, part of the story, but not someone any of them would now choose to spend time with. I found those interview sections with the five of them very awkward... like the other 4, Banks in particular, would really rather that he wasn't there. Maybe that's just me. There had been some hard times and bad blood between Peter and Tony over the years, clearly...but they still seem to like each other and respect each other. It just kind of seems like Hackett is the oddball, sort of annoying step brother of the group...and there he is being "Genesis" to thousands and thousands of fans every night he's on tour. I find it so fascinating.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I have documented before on the forum the high regard I hold Steve Hackett in.

In my opinion the body of work Genesis produced when Hackett was a member (especially when Gabriel was also in the band) was miles better than anything produced after he left .. no, I mean light years better.

The live stuff he has been releasing over the last few years containing Genesis material provides a fitting tribute to the golden age of Genesis, and his solo stuff is on a high at the moment.

When I watched the documentary, it seemed to me that the one person who was sniffy about the proceedings was Banks. He just wanted to be somewhere else.

It doesn't really surprise me that he is dismissal of the early works - far too much praise for Gabriel and Hackett which must be galling for someone who is so far up himself.

Anyway, from a musical perspective, I find myself in a similar position with 'early' Genesis v 'later' Genesis and 'early' Rush v 'later' Rush .......... in both cases the earlier stuff wins out easily.

However not all you members feel the same way and may be less enamored with the Gabriel/Hackett era of Genesis. All part of the rich tapestry of life!

Edited by zepphead
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally have no interest in this tour without Hackett. These half bands that are touring on nostalgia and charging hundreds of dollars for a good seat...no thanks. Honestly if I want to see great Genesis music played live, I would go see the Musical Box for a lot less, close my eyes and imagine Hackett and Gabriel are on stage.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I've heard Collins being very enthusiastic about the early prog stuff, and I believe it was him who pushed them to perform Supper's Ready in the 80's
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I've heard Collins being very enthusiastic about the early prog stuff, and I believe it was him who pushed them to perform Supper's Ready in the 80's

 

He really seems to go back and forth on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Collins made a good point when he defended himself against the accusations that he was the main or sole driving force in turning Genesis poppy. He said it was a group decision and quipped - "yeah you try getting Tony to play something he doesn't want to - good luck with that" or something close to that, I'm going from memory.

 

Anyway - saw Hackett's show relatively recent and was great to hear some of those old chestnuts done live. I like Genesis up to and including "3 Side Live" but agree that Hackett's departure was every bit as important as Gabriel's. This upcoming tour would have been a lock for me if SH was along for the ride - but I'm taking a pass - will only regret it if they play the "3 Sides" set list.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was supposed to see Hackett in April of 2020 (now rescheduled to April 2022). I have seen him once before and appreciate what he's doing. As long as he's still drawing a crowd that wants to hear that music, then why not?

 

As far as what the other members of Genesis think...I can't imagine they care very much. They've made much more money throughout the years than Hackett has given that he left not long before the band became a mainstream act. Also, it's something they could all do if they had the ambition. I'm sure it's a pain in the ass to keep a band together that is interested in going around playing old Genesis songs. It's probably not something the other guys would want to deal with along with the constant travel.

 

As far as Genesis turning "poppy", it most likely was a reaction to the success that Phil was having with his solo career. Also, a band can't create epic prog rock forever (think of Rush after the Hemispheres sessions). It becomes a little formulaic after a while and the musical ideas need to be reeled in a bit.

 

I just watched a documentary from the 2007 or so timeframe where Banks says that he was typically the one who was willing to make songs more complicated in their later years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was supposed to see Hackett in April of 2020 (now rescheduled to April 2022). I have seen him once before and appreciate what he's doing. As long as he's still drawing a crowd that wants to hear that music, then why not?

 

As far as what the other members of Genesis think...I can't imagine they care very much. They've made much more money throughout the years than Hackett has given that he left not long before the band became a mainstream act. Also, it's something they could all do if they had the ambition. I'm sure it's a pain in the ass to keep a band together that is interested in going around playing old Genesis songs. It's probably not something the other guys would want to deal with along with the constant travel.

 

As far as Genesis turning "poppy", it most likely was a reaction to the success that Phil was having with his solo career. Also, a band can't create epic prog rock forever (think of Rush after the Hemispheres sessions). It becomes a little formulaic after a while and the musical ideas need to be reeled in a bit.

 

I just watched a documentary from the 2007 or so timeframe where Banks says that he was typically the one who was willing to make songs more complicated in their later years.

 

I think although the poppiness lined up nicely with Phil's solo career, it was also the general direction the band was already headed. Actually throughout 70s their pop instincts seemed to be gradually appearing, especially by Your Own Special Way (which Mike wrote iirc). Then Hackett leaves and they have their first bona fide pop hit before Phil starts his solo work with Follow You Follow Me, and then on Duke they're still kinda walking the pop/prog line before more or less giving in on Abacab (not to imply there's no prog after Duke, it just takes a backseat to their poppy, new wave inclinations.

Edited by Entre_Perpetuo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...