I’m in the market for a new watch so this is perfect. Thanks Brian!

Comment by Sean — 11/26/2005 @ 8:49 pm

Happy to help Sean! Presently trying to figure out where my Eco-Drive is, so I might have to be consulting it pretty soon too. :-/

Comment by Brian — 11/26/2005 @ 9:00 pm

Well, “don’t hold your breath” is all I’m going to say about that one.

There is, of course, rabid discussion and attendant articles at the
official Genesis site all the time, and it isn’t encouraging.

Peter appears to be the make or break on this one, and he has repeatedly
said that he’s not interested in going backwards, except for perhaps a
one off thing like the Milton Keynes show (which, as we all know, was
designed to bail him out of the initial disaster that was WOMAD). Maybe
if he needs to fund something major he’ll do it. Sadly, that’s the way
it appears these things work.

Steve Hackett seems to be quite content to mine the Genesis songbook in
his solo stuff, so I’m tempted to say that if the “other four” were to
get out there and do a nostalgia thing, I’d be all for it.

Either way, I need *something* to erase the memory of that dreadful self-
cover that they did of “Carpet Crawlers”. Why Trevor Horn? I just don’t
get it.

Comment by Jim — 11/8/2005 @ 6:24 am

That’s fantastic, Brian! Wow! Maybe you’re bionic? I’m going to start calling you The Lamb Sprints Down Broadway.

Comment by Sean — 11/7/2005 @ 6:05 pm

LOL - Thanks Sean. Still trying to figure it out. I’m all rested and mulling a short run tonight… hopefully I won’t totally suck wind.

Comment by Brian — 11/7/2005 @ 8:09 pm

I’m just so excited that MIT allowed me to migrate to FireFox that I had to leave another comment and see if your comment box comes out right (it doesn’t in IE). Hurrah! All the time you spent on your ‘blog is being interpreted correctly!

At any rate, I don’t even know where to begin on the above. We haven’t met face to face in, oh, at least five years so I can’t attach any kind of meaning to your appearance. The Old Brian did have a flair for a certain conservative yet stylish tidiness (I remember that you never, ever wore jeans in your life - did that change?), so that might cover the gay man angle - well, ahem, depending on where their interest lies, that is. As far as married women carrying diamond mines on their fingers, perhaps they are looking to move up in their Sugar Daddy world? A certain reserved demeanor also factors into this, of course. I remember you being more of an observer than a boisterous loudmouth (Jon and I shared that duty: Sesame Street Skirts at Papa Gino’s, anyone?), which a lot of people warm to.

Many people (myself included) have made it known to their SO that a “look but don’t touch” policy is in full effect, which I think might have been the case with Woman #1. Eyes wander. That’s how it works. No sense trying to go with behavioral modification, it’s just too frustrating, and if you get caught looking after months of trying not to, it gets ugly.

As for #2: just about anything can be blamed on Jägermeister (don’t ask), so you could simply write that one off. Refer to the above example, with the added complication of about 90% of usual inhibitions dropped thanks to that dastardly German elixir.

To sum it all up: I would be flattered. You seemingly have much more (or equal) appeal than whoever the hell it is that they agreed to marry. No matter how you look at it (or how demented they are), I think it’s probably a good thing. Regard it as an adventure! Perhaps you could break up an engagement! How empowering…

Comment by Jim — 11/8/2005 @ 11:30 am