Help me understand Union!

[progfan915]

First, let me say that this is a serious thread; I am not here to bash Union! I actually like quite a lot of it. I am a fan of both ABWH and the Trevor Rabin-led Yes. I think the first 9 songs are pretty good, and if they had cut the album down to these 9 songs it might (maybe?) be better appreciated. Songs 10-14 just drag the album down, IMO.

Anyway, I need help understanding the album credits. For the ABWH songs it specifically says "All vocals and instruments on above songs performed by JA, BB, RW and SH." (with a bit of help from TL and CS). On the Rabin songs it says "All vocals and instruments performed by JA, TR, CS, AW and TK."

Now maybe I'm being too literal, but to me, all means ALL.

So then who are all these "Additional Musicians" (I count 14 of them!) and what parts do they play?

[TheH]

So then who are all these "Additional Musicians" (I count 14 of them!) and what parts do they play?

Allmost everything on the Album!

[Sean]

Someone lay that Elias interview link on him. Then they will know "the rest of the story".... heh heh

[julioscissors]

So then who are all these "Additional Musicians" (I count 14 of them!) and what parts do they play?

Here's an interview with Jimmy Haun - who played lots of the guitars on the ABWH cuts on Union. In it, he discusses which parts were Howe and which parts were him.

http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/iv/jhinterview.htm

I also like quite a bit of that disc, although I understand why some of the band members take a negative view towards it. I'd be pissed too if my parts were replaced by a session musician!

[Scott Bails]

Here's an interview with Jimmy Haun - who played lots of the guitars on the ABWH cuts on Union. In it, he discusses which parts were Howe and which parts were him.

http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/iv/jhinterview.htm

Very interesting. Thanks.

And thanks, Henry!

[progfan915]

Wow, very interesting! Replace Steve Howe's parts? Insanity!

So going back to my original post, what is printed in the credits is a bald faced lie. How can they do that? Isn't it false advertising? I'm probably quite naive about the music business but it just seems wrong to me.

[rcarlberg]

So going back to my original post, what is printed in the credits is a bald faced lie. How can they do that? Isn't it false advertising? I'm probably quite naive about the music business but it just seems wrong to me.

It all comes down to $$$. Session musicians do not get royalties.

[GuitarGeek]

Wow, very interesting! Replace Steve Howe's parts? Insanity!

So going back to my original post, what is printed in the credits is a bald faced lie. How can they do that? Isn't it false advertising? I'm probably quite naive about the music business but it just seems wrong to me.

Depends on how you look at it. Session musicians have been deputizing for actual band members on records since at least the early 60's. People point at The Monkees as the obvious (and only partially true) example, but it also happened with The Byrds, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Kiss (oh, shut up!), Cheap Trick, Chicago, The Tubes (allegedly, She's A Beauty is essentially Toto pretending to be The Tubes, except for the vocals), and loads of other examples. And in most cases, the session guys weren't credited. So why would should Yes be any exception?

Oh and this is nothing new with Yes. On 90125, the sitar on It Can Happen is played by Indian musician named Dipak, who gets namechecked in the "thanks to" part of the liner notes, but there's no mention of exactly what he did. I think Trevor Rabin said that there's a bit in the middle of Leave It that was played by a session violinist. And did we ever figure out who actually played the keyboards on that record?!

[Scrotum Scissor]

So why would should Yes be any exception?

Right on. Jonathan Elias essentially concluded that the band members were mediocre musicians. And so what.

[calyx]

The session musicians aspect of the ABWH part of the album has been well documented, but the YesWest part is almost equally miscredited. Trevor Rabin has been quoted as saying that his songs on "Union" were really advanced demos, possibly not always featuring all the other nominal members of YesWest - with the possible exception of "Miracle Of Life" perhaps - which Jon Anderson added vocals to. Then there's the separate issue of "The More We Live - Let Go", on which Billy Sherwood handles a significant part of the instrumentation and backing vocals, yet receives no clear credit for this. Not sure if Squire contributes more than vocals, and even less sure whether Kaye or White are even on this.

I believe a book on the making of "Union", one that would reveal everything that really happened, would be a far more worthy proposition than the album itself. Bruford has only scratched the surface in his book, and still falls short of providing a convincing explanation for this debacle. The first ABWH album was, for all its weaknesses, some sort of "prog pride" statement, with all these multi-part suites etc. Was the proposed 2nd album which was absorbed into "Union" originally intended to follow a similar formula or was it decided from the outset to return to more radio-friendly formats with no attempt at long-form pieces whatsoever ? The lack of ambition of the project, lack of musical involvement from Wakeman especially, and Bruford's inability to add his artistic integrity to the mix and make it rise above the formulaic... How did that happen ? Record company interference ? Lack of inspiration ? After the 1989-90 tour so much more could be expected...

[bRETT]

How did that happen ? Record company interference ? Lack of inspiration ? After the 1989-90 so much more could be expected...

All the above and then some. I'm fascinated by the amount of pure trainwreck in the Union story.

[dpt3]

You know... I wonder if there's any possibility that we could someday get a remix of this album with a lot of Howe/Wakeman's parts restored.

[bRETT]

You know... I wonder if there's any possibility that we could someday get a remix of this album with a lot of Howe/Wakeman's parts restored.

Most of those parts were never played in the first place.

[jrw]

And don't forget that Milton McDonald and Matt Clifford, (who'd previously toured with GTR and subsequently toured with the Rolling Stones) played a fair amount of guitar and keys respectively on the ABWH album.

McDonald joined ABWH on the tour. Julian Colbeck replaced Clifford who figured, correctly, that he'd make a lot more money with the Stones.

[jrw]

First, let me say that this is a serious thread; I am not here to bash Union! I actually like quite a lot of it. I am a fan of both ABWH and the Trevor Rabin-led Yes. I think the first 9 songs are pretty good, and if they had cut the album down to these 9 songs it might (maybe?) be better appreciated. Songs 10-14 just drag the album down, IMO.

Anyway, I need help understanding the album credits. For the ABWH songs it specifically says "All vocals and instruments on above songs performed by JA, BB, RW and SH." (with a bit of help from TL and CS). On the Rabin songs it says "All vocals and instruments performed by JA, TR, CS, AW and TK."

Now maybe I'm being too literal, but to me, all means ALL.

So then who are all these "Additional Musicians" (I count 14 of them!) and what parts do they play?

I thought there were more than 14 of them. Nevertheless, why do you need around 10 additional synthesizer players? Wouldn't 1 or 2 or 3 suffice?

[Yanks2014]

Personally I never cared about the controversy over who played what. I liked the album a lot when it first came out, and still do today. I remember be rather shocked at the hatred towards this when I first started posting online at the old rmp newsgroup. Aside from a couple clunkers, I find a lot of music to enjoy on this, whether it's Yes playing, or some guys off the street. Either you like something or you don't.

[GuitarGeek]

McDonald joined ABWH on the tour. Julian Colbeck replaced Clifford who figured, correctly, that he'd make a lot more money with the Stones.

Making more money, with less "heavy lifting" (well, he would have the auxiliary keyboardist on the ABWH, so maybe it would have been about equal), and definitely with better songs.

[cavgator]

Personally I never cared about the controversy over who played what. I liked the album a lot when it first came out, and still do today. I remember be rather shocked at the hatred towards this when I first started posting online at the old rmp newsgroup. Aside from a couple clunkers, I find a lot of music to enjoy on this, whether it's Yes playing, or some guys off the street. Either you like something or you don't.

I agree. But for me, it's not Yes.

[Harbottle]

I thought it was crap when I bought it the day of release, and still think it's crap now. It doesn't even sound much like YES.

[Halmyre]

Right on. Jonathan Elias essentially concluded that the band members were mediocre musicians. And so what.

Quick! Name anything else of note that Elias ever did? Ding! Time's up!

[Dan Roth]

Quick! Name anything else of note that Elias ever did? Ding! Time's up!

Actually, that "Requiem for the Americas" album came to my mind instantly. I bought it mainly because of the 2 Jon A songs on there that I enjoyed quite a bit at the time:

Within The Lost World with Jon A, Tony Levin, Warren Cuccurullo and Jeff Porcaro :


Far Far Cry with Jon A, Tony Levin, Warren Cuccurullo and Tommy Shaw on backing vocals :

[progholio]

I thought it was crap when I bought it the day of release, and still think it's crap now. It doesn't even sound much like YES.

There's a hell of a lot of stuff out there with the 'Yes' brand that doesn't sound much like Yes (present album included), but like Yanks sez either you like it or you don't.

Prior to this thread I had pretty much written off the Union album, certainly nothing I'd go-to when I'm in the mood for Yes and was also completely unaware of any controversial back story. After reading the Jimmy Haun interview and now listening to Union I'm finding I like the album much better than I remember and knowing of Mr. Haun's involvement even more fascinating.

I love the song Silent Talking, definitely a worthy contribution to the Yes canon.
I'd also be curious what % of bass T-Levin contributes, I hear pieces of Squire but to my ears it sounds like Levin is all over the place (which is always a good thing imo)

Glad I reconnected with this album.

[trurl]

Quick! Name anything else of note that Elias ever did? Ding! Time's up!

A couple hundred commercials and 20 or so film scores. Not that I'm out to defend the guy but just because he's not a household name doesn't mean he's not working.

[trurl]

I thought there were more than 14 of them. Nevertheless, why do you need around 10 additional synthesizer players? Wouldn't 1 or 2 or 3 suffice?

It's probably more about who was available on a given date.

[Harbottle]

There's a hell of a lot of stuff out there with the 'Yes' brand that doesn't sound much like Yes (present album included), but like Yanks sez either you like it or you don't.

Prior to this thread I had pretty much written off the Union album, certainly nothing I'd go-to when I'm in the mood for Yes and was also completely unaware of any controversial back story. After reading the Jimmy Haun interview and now listening to Union I'm finding I like the album much better than I remember and knowing of Mr. Haun's involvement even more fascinating.

I love the song Silent Talking, definitely a worthy contribution to the Yes canon.
I'd also be curious what % of bass T-Levin contributes, I hear pieces of Squire but to my ears it sounds like Levin is all over the place (which is always a good thing imo)

Glad I reconnected with this album.

I think Heaven & Earth sounds more like YES than most of the albums since 1980.