# Questions about Genesis (for fans only)



## Guest (Aug 15, 2019)

A set of interviews with the band members popped up on my YouTube a couple of days ago. Gabriel, Hackett, Banks, Rutherford and Collins are all interviewed (separately) about their recollections of each album. The interviews were released along with the box set reissues of their whole catalogue in 2007/8 (I think). As I already had all the albums I wanted, and I was preoccupied with Radiohead at the time, I didn't buy the set, so missed the interviews.

Here's one link.






So, two questions. Are the remasters worth buying? The snippets I've heard so far don't sound like a significant change (never mind 'improvement') whereas I have invested in the Giles Martin revision of The Beatles (White Album) which do sound different.

Do you think - assuming you've seen the interviews - that the band seem distinctly underwhelmed by their own music? Banks and Rutherford in particular seem somewhat diffident, and critical of their achievements.

Oh, and if you bought, for example, the Box Set for 1970-1975, did you have to pay £388 for it as it now retails on Amazon!?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't recommend the 07/08 remasters. The old CDs sound better. The remasters are on the bright side and they are compressed. I can't even turn up And Then There Were Three. It hurts my ears. I recently found a 30 year old copy of Trick Of The Tail at a local store. I played it back to back with my remastered copy and the old CD blew it away. Warmer sound and deeper bass. Stick with the pre 90s CDs if you have them or can find them.

One other thing. Amazon is not the place to look for used CDs. You don't know what you are getting. And you have those stupid vendors with their rip off prices. Go to discogs where they have detailed info on every edition of an album so you can pick the one you want by year, catalog number and country of origin.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I'm definitely going to respond to this thread more in-depth tomorrow, but for now I just want to say... great thread, Mac. Especially the second question. Progressive era Genesis are my favorite band (should be no surprise to anyone who has followed my posts or viewed my profile), and I think that these interviews contain fascinating insights into the spirit, dynamic, and story of the band as well as into the perspectives of and relationships between the individual members that can potentially lead to a nuanced and constructive discussion not only about Genesis but about prog as a whole.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

About the part about being distinctly underwhelmed by their own music: if you build up the achievements of your past, you're never going to continue to do good work. Artists that revel in their glory days usually stop creating because they never think their new music is good enough. Genesis are smart and they may realize this.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

About remasters: In 99% of cases remasters sound worse than the original. "Remastered" is code for "we've jacked up the volume and destroyed dynamics because, psycho-acoustically, people confuse 'louder' with 'better.'" "Remastered" anything might be better if you're using a portable player with a weak amp or in a noisy environment, but otherwise, for home listening, almost always go with earlier releases. The loudness wars started around the mid-90s, so any CDs released in the late-80s/early-90s are usually going to be your best bet. 

There are a handful of exceptions to the above; one in particular is anything Steven Wilson does. His remasters are excellent, and tend to come with tons of extras that make buying them worth it even if you end up preferring the sound of the originals. I have everything he's done for Yes, King Crimson (all of those mammoth box sets!), XTC, Gentle Giant, et al.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There are a handful of exceptions to the above; one in particular is anything Steven Wilson does. His remasters are excellent, and tend to come with tons of extras that make buying them worth it even if you end up preferring the sound of the originals. I have everything he's done for Yes, King Crimson (all of those mammoth box sets!), XTC, Gentle Giant, et al.


The Steve Wilson editions are re-mixes. That's what he's done with the Jethro Tull, and some Gentle Giant albums among others including Chicago II which had always sounded very flat. It was improved a bit but not a lot could be done with the over-saturated tracks.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2019)

regenmusic said:


> About the part about being distinctly underwhelmed by their own music: if you build up the achievements of your past, you're never going to continue to do good work. Artists that revel in their glory days usually stop creating because they never think their new music is good enough. * Genesis are smart and they may realize this*.


Though too late - unless you know about a reunion?



Eva Yojimbo said:


> About remasters: In 99% of cases remasters sound worse than the original. "Remastered" is code for "we've jacked up the volume and destroyed dynamics because, psycho-acoustically, people confuse 'louder' with 'better.'"


An interesting point of view. Would the Beatles remasters (2009) fit with the 99 or the 1? What about the Giles Martin versions?
And does one dismiss the opinions of the engineers who worked on them simply on the grounds that "they would say that wouldn't they?"?

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/remastering-beatles

I suspect I'll not be splashing out though.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The 2009 Beatles remasters sound good to my ears. The best place to find info on the best sounding edition of an album is at the Steve Hoffman Forum. Just go there and search for whatever album or band's re-issues that sound best. You'll find hundreds of threads.

PS Some of the people at Hoffman Forum are super picky and spend big bucks on audiophile editions. But just for basic info on a release you should be able to find out if a standard re-issue sounds okay or too bright and compressed.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> An interesting point of view. Would the Beatles remasters (2009) fit with the 99 or the 1? What about the Giles Martin versions?
> And does one dismiss the opinions of the engineers who worked on them simply on the grounds that "they would say that wouldn't they?"?
> 
> https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/remastering-beatles
> ...


The 2009 Beatles releases were among the "1," though many still preferred earlier releases. They certainly weren't brickwalled like most of today's music.

In addition to the Steve Hoffman Forums recommended by starthrower, another good resource is http://dr.loudness-war.info/ Though it won't tell you what versions sound best, you can tell which to stay away from by looking at the measured dynamic ranges. One caveat: you can't accurately measure digitized vinyl with dynamic range tools, so you can ignore the numbers given for vinyl releases.


----------

