On March 26, 2022, as the final seconds ticked away from Genesis’ farewell tour, the crowd at London’s O2 Arena was clearly emotional. The prog-pop band’s most famous lineup—front man Phil Collins, guitarist/bassist Mike Rutherford, and keyboardist Tony Banks—had finally reunited after a 13-year hiatus (and a temporary pandemic delay), and no one wanted this improbable run to end. But there may have been another reason for the sadness: a glaring absence onstage.

Peter Gabriel had co-founded the band in 1967, helping catapult them to rock glory with his golden rasp and surreal stage antics, before leaving in 1975 to launch a solo career. Collins, previously the drummer, got the promotion to lead singer, leading the group through the commercial heights of “Mama” and “Invisible Touch.” Hardcore prog fans pined to hear Gabriel sing Genesis again, but outside of a few powerful one-offs—a tease of their epic “Dancing With the Moonlit Knight” during a 2016 solo tour, a 1999 re-recording of their starry-eyed ballad “The Carpet Crawlers”—that door remained shut.

Now here he was at the O2, seated among the commoners, with an opportunity to help bring the Genesis story full-circle. Instead, he took the unselfish (if, let’s face it, slightly unsatisfying) route: avoiding the spotlight and letting his former bandmates enjoy the curtain call they’d rightly earned. (“Me going was a rite of passage, really,” the singer told Mojo in 2023. “I’d been part of the creation of Genesis, so I wanted to be there at the end.”)

Here’s the thing, though: A lot of casual fans forget that Gabriel had already reunited with Genesis for an entire show—it just happened 20 years earlier. Oh, and it occurred not because of rosy nostalgia but due to mounting debt and death threats.

Gabriel staged the inaugural WOMAD (World of Music, Arts, and Dance) in July 1982, with the noble vision of sparking genuine cultural fusion. The three-day event featured British post-punk (Echo and the Bunnymen, Pigbag) and art-rock (Peter Hammill, Robert Fripp), traditional Irish folk (The Chieftains), Indian sitar players (Imrat Khan), Afro-Caribbean dance companies (Ekomé)—a legit anything-goes atmosphere that remains novel at music festivals decades later, let alone in the early days of MTV. “I [wanted] to celebrate all these fantastic musicians, art, dance, film from around the world that weren’t getting exposure,” Gabriel told filmmaker John Edginton in a raw-footage clip filmed for his 2014 documentary, Genesis: Together and Apart. He had big dreams for WOMAD, and, as he noted in the 2007 book Genesis: Chapter and Verse, the first fest was “magnificent.”

“We put it on during school time, so there were a lot of schools working on projects about world music; it was very exciting, fresh, passionate,” he said. “But the people just didn’t come. There was a rail strike that weekend, and even though we thought we had enough names to pull in an audience, we were hopelessly under each day, and suddenly realized the financial consequences.”

Gabriel found himself in an alarming situation, receiving “horrible phone calls and death threats” from his creditors. “It was a very oppressive nightmare,” he said. Luckily, his old band stepped in—not that anyone involved would have chosen the reunion without this dire prompt.

By 1982, Gabriel had been enjoying a successful solo career, crafting artful pop songs and studio experiments while tinkering with new recording technology (the Fairlight CMI sampling synthesizer, for one). He had little interest in looking backward—outside of a couple early solo tours, where he was forced to play a Genesis song or two, due to a lack of material, he’d more or less distanced himself from his old band. (His debut single, “Solsbury Hill,” is about his desire to leave Genesis—and the music business entirely. “I felt like I was just in the machinery,” he told Rolling Stone, citing a lyric. “We knew what we were going to be doing in 18 months or two years ahead. I just did not enjoy that.”) The band, meanwhile, had soldiered on just fine without their original front man, growing into a stadium act with Collins behind the mic.

When manager Tony Smith reached out to Genesis, seeing if they could help Gabriel escape his dark spiral with a one-off benefit reunion, everyone felt it was the right thing to do. “Whether or not he felt he needed our help to get himself out of trouble, it made sense to us,” Collins wrote in Chapter and Verse, “and it certainly was not a condescending gesture.” Banks added that, beyond the kind act of helping their friend, it made sense as an act of fan service: “People had been asking us to organize some sort of get-together for years and years, and this seemed a very good reason to do it, at the same time as helping Peter pay off this particular debt. We did need a reason because it wasn’t something we were itching to do.”

It’s not like they hated each other: Collins had even played on Gabriel’s self-titled 1980 solo album, helping create the distinctive “gated” drum sound that became ubiquitous throughout the decade. But it was a somewhat awkward fit musically, given how far their respective sounds had diverged. “Having tried for seven years to get away from the image of being ex-Genesis, there’s obviously a certain amount of stepping back,” Gabriel told NME ahead of the show. “I don’t think they would choose at this point to work with me … [but] I’m very grateful and I’m intending to enjoy myself.”

The problem was how to solve their logistical puzzle—Genesis was only still playing a few of their Gabriel-era songs, and their old front man wasn’t up to speed on any of them. They managed to arrange two or three rehearsals at London’s Hammersmith Odeon, where Genesis played a triple-header on September 28, 29, and 30. The quirky set drew from Gabriel’s time in the lineup, sprinkling in one solo cut (“Solsbury Hill,” ironically) and a single ’80s-era track (“Turn It on Again,” with Gabriel on second drums). Understandably, the performances were rather loose—not up to anyone’s respective standards—and the massive downpour of rain probably didn’t improve anyone’s mood.

But in the widely shared bootlegs of that show, fans were just happy to see everyone on stage again. They even saw a brief reunion of the full ‘70s quintet lineup: Former guitarist Steve Hackett, who learned about the event while on vacation in Brazil, flew back to the U.K. to play on “I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe)” and “The Knife.” “As they’d already rehearsed up their stuff, I was only able to join the encores,” he wrote in his 2020 book, A Genesis in My Bed, “but I was thrilled to be involved with the team once more.”

It’s easy to look back on the gig with a what-if feeling. Could they have somehow figured out more rehearsal time? (Probably not.) Should they have professionally recorded the event, no matter how sloppy they expected it to be? (Definitely.) “I regret it now, but I was keen not to record the show,” Rutherford wrote in his 2015 memoir, The Living Years. “I thought it would be a bit rough and ready and that it was better to be there and in the moment.”

Ultimately, what matters is that with Six of the Best, Genesis accomplished their primary goal: rescuing their old friend from a terrifying plight.

“It felt like a bit of a dream,” Banks wrote in Chapter and Verse. “I was very glad when it was over, because I hadn’t particularly enjoyed playing that stuff at the time. I always tended to be into what we were doing either at the time or whatever the next thing was. I was pretty glad to have left some of those old songs behind. But the audience reaction was very good, and I believe that show did go some way to sorting out Peter’s financial problem; now WOMAD is a monster thing.”

Indeed. The festival re-emerged stronger in the mid-’80s and has continued annually—without death threats—ever since.

Gabriel might have been watching the final Genesis show, but he was on stage in spirit. Collins gave him a shout-out during the set, and the band wrapped this historic occasion with their swirling ballad “The Carpet Crawlers,” a track Gabriel helped craft for his Genesis swan song, 1974’s The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway.

Few major rock bands have replaced one iconic singer with another. Even fewer have done it by promoting from within. And while Genesis achieved such longevity because of their songwriting—the imagination, the color, the dynamics—perhaps that familial spirit had something to do with it. They weren’t always on the same page, musically or otherwise—but as Six of the Best proved, they came through for each other when it mattered most.

This article originally appeared in March.

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Ian Taylor PhotographerTwo young children play in the grass.

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Media Stories

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.

Media

A BBC crew broke ‘cardinal rule’ of nature documentaries to save trapped penguins