Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 78

Thread: Help me understand Union!

  1. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    HAM
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by bondegezou View Post
    Might I ask why you think that, and why in the manner it occurred?

    Henry
    well, ABWH was released in june 1989 and was, by all accounts, classified as a success with 750.000 units sold and most concerts well attended. the tour lasted well into 1990 (japan, add. US dates) and then: relative silence. although rabin had his album out the other members seeme to have disappeared off the face of the earth; at least that is what my perspective was at the time. with the largely beneficial memory of the ABWH project still so fresh i deduct a distinct corporate interest to have the product out as soon as possible in order to capitalise on this good fortune ;-)> – also, both albums having been released on the ARiSTA label may have played a part with a commonality of staff involved. “union” sold roughly the same and yielded an amazing tour experience. another success? that’s open for interpretation.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by bondegezou View Post
    Might I ask why you think that, and why in the manner it occurred?

    Henry
    This isn't any sort of affirmation of intent, but WAY back when Keyboard interviewed Kaye, Wakeman (and had a small bit with Bruford) about Union, during the interview with Kaye the interviewer mentioned the similarity between Dangerous and Owner of a Lonely Heart, and Kaye also commented that Shock to the System was very much akin to City of Love.
    If you're actually reading this then chances are you already have my last album but if NOT and you're curious:
    https://battema.bandcamp.com/

    Also, Ephemeral Sun: it's a thing and we like making things that might be your thing: https://ephemeralsun.bandcamp.com

  3. #53
    Still wondering how it came to that. With ABWH being a success, it would have seemed logical for them to make a follow-up album that would stick to more or less the same "prog revival" vibe, i.e. long multi-part epics with substantial instrumental interplay etc. That didn't happen, and I'm wondering how and why. Was this the plan from the start, whether or not decided by the band or imposed on them by the record company in preparatory meetings etc. Or did they begin work with artistic "free rein" and suffered record company/producer interference only later to make the album more streamlined/commercial ? There's a bunch of extra "working sessions" material available on bootlegs, but if these represent ABWH's initial ideas before the album got turned into something else, they clearly weren't in the vein of the 1st album either.

    Now, I realise I am analysing things as if ABWH was really a "band" with decisions on musical direction resulting from discussions/negotiations between the participants. Based on Jonathan Elias's account, what likely happened was that relationships within the band, especially between main composers Anderson and Howe, had already soured to the point that they were unwilling to communicate, and arrived at the studio with only sketches of ideas, that Elias was left to stitch together in his best attempt to artificially replicate the old "Anderson-Howe" writing partnership; this while keeping in mind the record company's request for commercially viable material.

    I'm not sure there was much more active collaboration between Anderson and Howe on the 1st ABWH album (seems to me Anderson got a bunch of demos from Howe and arranged them into mini-suites without much involvement from Howe, if at all, until he "returned" to add his guitar parts to the album), but at least there seemed to be a "concept" where the goal was to come up with "prog"-style material. Which to a large extent happened. Evidently no such goal was set for the 2nd album.
    Calyx (Canterbury Scene) - http://www.calyx-canterbury.fr
    Legends In Their Own Lunchtime (blog) - https://canterburyscene.wordpress.com/
    My latest books : "Yes" (2017) - https://lemotetlereste.com/musiques/yes/ + "L'Ecole de Canterbury" (2016) - http://lemotetlereste.com/musiques/lecoledecanterbury/ + "King Crimson" (2012/updated 2018) - http://lemotetlereste.com/musiques/kingcrimson/
    Canterbury & prog interviews - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdf...IUPxUMA/videos

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by calyx View Post
    Still wondering how it came to that. With ABWH being a success, it would have seemed logical for them to make a follow-up album that would stick to more or less the same "prog revival" vibe, i.e. long multi-part epics with substantial instrumental interplay etc. .
    I think it comes down to the relations within the band-- You're not going to get the proggy material unless they can spend enough time together to toss ideas around. Since there was effectively no band for the YesEast parts of Union, the songs were basically verses and choruses thrown together-- note how few instrumental sections there are. We're basically getting all the Anderson bits that would have been turned into parts of epics if the band had been functional.

  5. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    52
    From the Jimmy Haun interview:

    So I went to A&M studios in Hollywood to meet Jon Elias and he played me the rough tracks for the new ABWH album. Basically he told me Arista felt Steve's guitar parts were unacceptable and that he had just soloed over all the songs. Now this was partially true.
    Hahahahaha. I'd love to get multitrack tapes of TFTO and Relayer so I could edit out much of Howe's soloing "over all the songs".
    ...or you could love

  6. #56
    Wasn't there an Arista promo released before the album came out that had quite different versions of the ABWH tracks?

  7. #57
    So what's the deal with the bits from Turbulence being incorporated into Union? According to Wikipedia, those recordings are apparently from 1989, so were they always intended as a Steve Howe solo album, or were they demos for ABWH/Yes stuff?

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by znpnine View Post
    Wasn't there an Arista promo released before the album came out that had quite different versions of the ABWH tracks?
    There were some differences, but they weren't radically different.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by dpt3 View Post
    So what's the deal with the bits from Turbulence being incorporated into Union? According to Wikipedia, those recordings are apparently from 1989, so were they always intended as a Steve Howe solo album, or were they demos for ABWH/Yes stuff?
    Howe recorded Turbulence, but the project hit issues and went unreleased. At the time of making Union, Howe thought Turbulence was dead and never going to appear, so he happily raided it for ideas. And then, unexpectedly, the label came through and released it.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  10. #60
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    6,583
    Quote Originally Posted by bondegezou View Post
    Howe recorded Turbulence, but the project hit issues and went unreleased. At the time of making Union, Howe thought Turbulence was dead and never going to appear, so he happily raided it for ideas. And then, unexpectedly, the label came through and released it.

    Henry
    Thank God - I think it's his best.
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  11. #61
    Member chescorph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    351
    If I recall the Elias interview, he took a few shots at Howe, saying basically that Howe was not up to playing well at this time. Which was why Jimmy Haun was brought into the picture.
    I wonder how credible that assessment is, could Howe's playing have eroded that much??

  12. #62
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    6,583
    Quote Originally Posted by chescorph View Post
    If I recall the Elias interview, he took a few shots at Howe, saying basically that Howe was not up to playing well at this time. Which was why Jimmy Haun was brought into the picture.
    I wonder how credible that assessment is, could Howe's playing have eroded that much??
    What's incongruent with that statement is that Howe played fine on the previous ABWH album, played well on the ABWH tour, suddenly lost his talent during the sessions for Union, but then miraculously recovered for the universally well-received Union tour, and has played well ever since.
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  13. #63
    Mod or rocker? Mocker. Frumious B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Smyrna, GA
    Posts
    1,113
    Listen to the version of "Fist of Fire" from the box where Howe noodles around aimlessly like he's barely even listening to the rest of the track. Elias' portrait of Howe and Haun's comments about Howe's Union tracks suddenly make a little bit more sense. The job of the producer, first and foremost, is to deliver a completed album to the label. It seems to me that Elias did what he felt was necessary to fulfill that obligation.
    Last edited by Frumious B; 08-07-2014 at 10:03 AM.

  14. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by iguana View Post
    well, ABWH was released in june 1989 and was, by all accounts, classified as a success with 750.000 units sold and most concerts well attended. the tour lasted well into 1990 (japan, add. US dates) and then: relative silence. although rabin had his album out the other members seeme to have disappeared off the face of the earth; at least that is what my perspective was at the time. with the largely beneficial memory of the ABWH project still so fresh i deduct a distinct corporate interest to have the product out as soon as possible in order to capitalise on this good fortune ;-)> – also, both albums having been released on the ARiSTA label may have played a part with a commonality of staff involved. “union” sold roughly the same and yielded an amazing tour experience. another success? that’s open for interpretation.
    ABWH sold fantastically compared to many Yes albums of the last 20 years, but at the time I believe sales were considered somewhat disappointing. It only made #30 in the US compared to #15 for Big Generator and #5 for 90125 (plus their various hit singles). (That said, in the UK, ABWH made #14 compared to #17 for BG and #16 for 90125.) Arista wanted better sales and the way to better sales was to get the Yes name.

    The band were soon back to work on a new album. The gap between ABWH and Union (which is mostly composed on the second ABWH album) is a bit under 2 years, which was pretty respectable. For ABWH, I can't see that there was a terrible rush. YesWest were in a different position, drifting somewhat, struggling to come up with enough material and feeling the loss of Anderson's vocals: Atlantic were unimpressed with demos done by Rabin/Squire/White/Kaye/Sherwood. But that wasn't ABWH's problem!

    The Union suited the suits: ABWH wanted the Yes name, YesWest didn't have enough material and lacked the iconic voice, stick them together and you've got the complete package. Union sold great, way more than ABWH.

    But at what cost? You can sell millions of a bad album, but you'll hit sales of your next album. And the shenanigans around the making of the album poisoned relationships further.

    ABWH had been falling apart: Howe at least and possibly the others were unhappy with Anderson running the show and mixing their parts out on ABWH. Relations between Howe and Anderson had broken down in 1979: they'd seemed repaired at first, but I think became troubled fairly soon. Work on a new album was going badly. Howe says that he, Bruford and Levin were working on some interesting material, but the others weren't engaging with Anderson. Material began to be put together, but Anderson, Elias and the record company sidelined Howe and Wakeman to make the material we know. This was all happening while the album being worked on was still going to be ABWH 2. The switch to the Yes name and the Union merely dragged more people into the mess. Yes after Union saw the band's reputation and internal relationships damaged. Would Anderson be in Yes today had things been different in 1990/1?

    Who knows if there was a different path possible? An ABWH who took the time to solve their problems might have released a much better album. An 8-way Union that took the time to respect the musicians, finish what were basically demos and get some real cross-fertilisation between the two bands could have been very interesting. So, I understand why the suits wanted what they got, but I don't see why the path taken had to be as it was. Arista and Anderson went for the quick buck rather than considering the long-term consequences. That was probably the right commercial choice for Arista, but I believe it was a stupid move for Yes.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  15. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    HAM
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by bondegezou View Post
    The Union suited the suits: ABWH wanted the Yes name, YesWest didn't have enough material and lacked the iconic voice, stick them together and you've got the complete package. Union sold great, way more than ABWH.
    according to bill bruford (cited, i think, in tim morse’s “yesstories”) both sold roughly the same, which must have been insatisfactory to the freewheelin’ suits that constituted so much of “union”’s scaffolding.

  16. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by calyx View Post
    Still wondering how it came to that. With ABWH being a success, it would have seemed logical for them to make a follow-up album that would stick to more or less the same "prog revival" vibe, i.e. long multi-part epics with substantial instrumental interplay etc. That didn't happen, and I'm wondering how and why. Was this the plan from the start, whether or not decided by the band or imposed on them by the record company in preparatory meetings etc. Or did they begin work with artistic "free rein" and suffered record company/producer interference only later to make the album more streamlined/commercial ? There's a bunch of extra "working sessions" material available on bootlegs, but if these represent ABWH's initial ideas before the album got turned into something else, they clearly weren't in the vein of the 1st album either.

    Now, I realise I am analysing things as if ABWH was really a "band" with decisions on musical direction resulting from discussions/negotiations between the participants. Based on Jonathan Elias's account, what likely happened was that relationships within the band, especially between main composers Anderson and Howe, had already soured to the point that they were unwilling to communicate, and arrived at the studio with only sketches of ideas, that Elias was left to stitch together in his best attempt to artificially replicate the old "Anderson-Howe" writing partnership; this while keeping in mind the record company's request for commercially viable material.

    I'm not sure there was much more active collaboration between Anderson and Howe on the 1st ABWH album (seems to me Anderson got a bunch of demos from Howe and arranged them into mini-suites without much involvement from Howe, if at all, until he "returned" to add his guitar parts to the album), but at least there seemed to be a "concept" where the goal was to come up with "prog"-style material. Which to a large extent happened. Evidently no such goal was set for the 2nd album.
    All good questions. Yes, it does seem like, with the first album, Anderson got a bunch of ideas from Howe and turned them into mini-suites (with the help of his production team?). What happened with the second album? Well, we've got boots of some material. Watching the Flags that Fly has been released and is a set of demos he recorded when B, W and H failed to turn up for planned sessions. As I said in my previous post, Howe has said that he, Bruford and Levin were working on some ideas, but those were never picked up.

    My sense is that it was Anderson who chose to move away from mini-suites to more direct material, but it wouldn't be a surprise if the record company also favoured that approach, their eyes still on YesWest's singles success. I don't get the impression from those interviews with Elias and Haun or from anything Anderson has said that Anderson was being pushed in any particular direction (and it was Anderson who was in charge). Maybe the breakdown in the Anderson/Howe relationship was significant, as that was often the driver of the longer pieces.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by iguana View Post
    according to bill bruford (cited, i think, in tim morse’s “yesstories”) both sold roughly the same, which must have been insatisfactory to the freewheelin’ suits that constituted so much of “union”’s scaffolding.
    Interesting. The Union tour was obviously bigger. Union charted much better.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  18. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by bondegezou View Post
    Anderson, Elias and the record company sidelined Howe and Wakeman to make the material we know.
    We know about the others, but is it known to what extent Bruford and Levin are on the Union tracks?

  19. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by bRETT View Post
    We know about the others, but is it known to what extent Bruford and Levin are on the Union tracks?
    Bruford's electronic drums could easily be captured as MIDI and tweaked as needed. I could be wrong, but I hear Levin's sound in the bass tracks. Besides...why on earth would anyone want use session players to replace Tony Levin, arguably one of the finest session guys you could already have?
    If you're actually reading this then chances are you already have my last album but if NOT and you're curious:
    https://battema.bandcamp.com/

    Also, Ephemeral Sun: it's a thing and we like making things that might be your thing: https://ephemeralsun.bandcamp.com

  20. #70
    The other notable thing is that Anderson approached Rabin for some hit material before the Union. Because he wanted commercial material or because he was responding to record company pressure on him?

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  21. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by bRETT View Post
    We know about the others, but is it known to what extent Bruford and Levin are on the Union tracks?
    Not really. Levin appears to play all the bass on the ABWH tracks. There are other percussionists credited (Jerry Bennett, Allan Schwartzberg), but there have never been the same claims of largescale overdubbing that we've had with Howe and Wakeman.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  22. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by battema View Post
    . Besides...why on earth would anyone want use session players to replace Tony Levin, arguably one of the finest session guys you could already have?
    For the same reason they sidelined the UK's greatest session keyboardist...whatever that was.

  23. #73
    Member realprog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    57
    "The More We Live - Let Go" is one of my favourite more modern-era Yes songs re the lyrics and the way it's performed on Union. Re it being a Squire/Sherwood co-write, I'm curious as to who wrote what? Squire hasn't seemed to be a great lyricist, but I've thought the words quite perfect and it also seems to have his melodic hooky thing. In any case I love it. Perhaps Sherwood's helped out more re the arrangement which I can get the impression Squire can need assistance for?

    I have as well loved "Onward" and I've been a fairly big fan of Fish Out of Water (guess I liked it more for its arrangements again - thought the songs a bit weak).

  24. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by iguana View Post
    well, ABWH was released in june 1989 and was, by all accounts, classified as a success with 750.000 units sold and most concerts well attended.
    750,000?! Holy....

  25. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    282
    Concerning "The More We Live-Let Go" (which also one of my faves from Union)-after listening to the Conspiracy version and Union version back to back, I wondered how many people in YesWest are on the track. I hear Jon, Chris, and Billy singing. The instruments could be all Billy. I asked Billy on MySpace few years ago, and he said the others (YesWest) just used his track as a guide and recorded over them. Whether that is true or not, I'm not sure. Maybe, Billy was being nice or sworn to secrecy about his involvement. Additionally, Billy is not credited with playing on Union though many other people are, at least on the ABWH tracks.

    On the other hand, the two versions of "Love Conquers All" sound quite similar but different enough. Billy and the four members of YesWest are credited in the YesYears book as playing on the track.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •