AAJ Review: Yes, Progeny: Seven Shows from Seventy-Two

[Jay.Dee]

We could have the following acts all at the same time

Of course. YES is not a usual band with a particular lineup and a fixed music style, YES is a way of doing things.

[trurl]

We are all Yes.

[Facelift]

Of course. YES is not a usual band with a particular lineup and a fixed music style, YES is a way of doing things.

What would that be?

[Scott Bails]

Of course. YES is not a usual band with a particular lineup and a fixed music style, YES is a way of doing things.

Yes is a band - no more, no less. They made some truly great music in their time, and have performed numerous amazing shows. But can we stop with this "Yes transcends music" bullshit?

[-=RTFR666=-]

Then they should all fight in a cage match to see who plays the gig that night.

CELEBRITY YES MATCH!

[Jay.Dee]

What would that be?

I do not know, but look, whatever musicians they had on board, whatever stylistic direction they took, the fans were always able to recognize that it was unmistakably YES. How? Most probably because their music had that elusive YES gene.

And you will see, on the upcoming tour without Chris the followers will recognize YES once again, which will only confirm that their music transcends any personal or stylistic details.

[Facelift]

I do not know, but look, whatever musicians they had on board, whatever stylistic direction they took, the fans were always able to recognize that it was unmistakably YES. How? Most probably because their music had that elusive YES gene.
.

I'm at the point now where I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

[Jay.Dee]

I'm at the point now where I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

I wish I were not.

[jkelman]

I do not know, but look, whatever musicians they had on board, whatever stylistic direction they took, the fans were always able to recognize that it was unmistakably YES. How? Most probably because their music had that elusive YES gene.

And you will see, on the upcoming tour without Chris the followers will recognize YES once again, which will only confirm that their music transcends any personal or stylistic details.

I'm sorry, but the only way they'll recognize Yes is because
A. It's their name on the marquee
B. They play Yes music with reasonable credibility if not passion, fire or commitment,

That's not a gene. That's just a group of professional musicians playing a repertoire. That does not, based on what I've seen of the recent incarnation (with Squire) make them special. Listen to Progeny; now that's a group that was special. I wish I could say the same about Yes today, but sadly I cannot.

[Jay.Dee]

I'm sorry, but the only way they'll recognize Yes is because
A. It's their name on the marquee
B. They play Yes music with reasonable credibility if not passion, fire or commitment

These may be just red herrings. Many YES fans tell about spiritual experiences they have had while listening to YES music or attending their concerts. That goes beyond a simple presence of the logo or a staple composition in the set-list.

I suspect that if you are a true YES follower the band may reveal themselves as YES during a performance through their music, not through the name on ticket or album sleeve. I cannot find many more bands, which have such a capacity of transgressing personnel and stylistic boundaries. Can you imagine Rolling Stones without Mick's stage presence and Keith's riffs, imagine Bob Dylan without Bob's wailing? It is simply impossible.

Maybe it is something about prog music, which transcends mundane rock'n'roll norms and customs. Think of A Scarcity of Miracles, for me it was a totally unremarkable effort (euphemistically speaking), but King Crimson followers were able to discern a Crimson gene in that music. And they were dead right, because out of this album a new King Crimson lineup would be born. So you see, you had neither marquee name nor recognizable music on ASoM, but it miraculously revealed itself as King Crimson to the ears of the faithful.

Whenever I read the enunciations of Chris Squire or Robert Fripp I always feel that there is an air of mystique and sanctity around them (and the bands they represent), which they are able to transmit to their audience. I really don't know how it works, but as far as I know you are an ardent KC follower, so maybe you will be able to explain it to me.

[DGuitarist]

I know many who regularly have spiritual experiences at recent Yes concerts.
I must have been at the wrong church.

Look, it's great if they still do something for you.
But I play this music on my own guitars, and whatever pushed me to love it THAT much certainly replaced any desire to see those songs played differently.
Yes gets more slack than just about any band because of mystique and sanctity.
Even to this day.
Which I'll never understand.

[DGuitarist]

We are all Yes.

We all WERE Yes.

[Scott Bails]

I know many who regularly have spiritual experiences at recent Yes concerts.
I must have been at the wrong church.

Look, it's great if they still do something for you.
But I play this music on my own guitars, and whatever pushed me to love it THAT much certainly replaced any desire to see those songs played differently.
Yes gets more slack than just about any band because of mystique and sanctity.
Even to this day.
Which I'll never understand.

[bondegezou]

with all due respect, that "simplistic narrative" was simply a way to grab attention, which is what you try to do with any review...especially one or significant length you also have to consider the audience...which is it solely a progressive rock audience. Jazz folks who will read about Yes will not necessarily want a lengthy exposition as to why Yes of today is not the Yes of yesteryear.

if you follow the rest of the review, the reasons for Yes' decline - at least IMO - are expanded upon - but still,admittedly, to a limited extent - and have to do with such things as no longer being risk-takers; certainly appearing, through years of in-fighting and revolving door personnel, to have lost the fire, the energy and the fun that made them so groundbreaking....but beyond being groundbreaking, as you can't expect that to be relentless over a offer term, thus my feeling that bands alternate hopefully between being revolutionary and evolutionary. When they stop being either, then IMO it's time to pack it in. I've found nothing revolutionary or evolutionary in Yes for some time, though some posters here have given me cause to pause and reconsider just how long (or not so long) that has been.

I write lots, but in a very different context to you as I'm an academic, so I try to say things that are novel, interesting and true. For me, if I can write something that grabs the attention, that's good, but I would never write something simply as a way to grab attention. It's got to be good analysis first, and attention-grabbing second.

What you wrote, in beginning the review, was indeed attention-grabbing. But that's because it's a just-so story, a morality tale, a narrative that fits readers' preconceptions. Reading your reviews and posts here, it is apparent that you (a) don't like recent Yes (where recent means 1978 onwards), and (b) do like recent VdGG. Your Progeny review told me little I didn't already know on this matter. I am very clear on your opinion on these matters. You express those opinions well, in a literate manner. Your Progeny review has a clear and engaging narrative flow. Personally, sometimes that's what I want from a review, a well-expressed opinion, and sometimes I want some analysis, some reflexivity on the part of the writer, something beyond opinion. And, indeed, I think those writing reviews owe the reader clarification on what is opinion, i.e. what is their reaction to the work, and what is historico-musicology.

So, sure, you write the review you want to write for the audience you want. I'm not personally interested in hearing the same simplistic narratives for the umpteenth time, although I am interested in why the simplistic narratives are attractive and persistent. And it is indeed partly because they're attention-grabbing.

Henry

[bondegezou]

If I understand it correctly they invited him to join in 1998 and 2008 as a second guitarist.

1998 was instead of Howe. 2008 was with Howe.

Henry

[DGuitarist]

Or maybe Yes isn't.

[bondegezou]

Things change. Steve may well be at the point of going from "the band is my vehicle for creative and artistic output" which means he'd be aghast at the idea to "the band is my retirement fund and inheritance for my family" in which case he'd be all "hell yeah" to the idea.

I'm uncertain about Howe's position. 3 months ago, I would have said that Howe was not interested in continuing Yes indefinitely, beyond the departure of key members. He has many other interests and I get the sense that he'd happily go into a semi-retirement in which he focused on solo work, with Yes going into total retirement. Now, I'm less sure.

Henry

[2steves]

Yes has left the building.

[jkelman]

I write lots, but in a very different context to you as I'm an academic, so I try to say things that are novel, interesting and true. For me, if I can write something that grabs the attention, that's good, but I would never write something simply as a way to grab attention. It's got to be good analysis first, and attention-grabbing second.

What you wrote, in beginning the review, was indeed attention-grabbing. But that's because it's a just-so story, a morality tale, a narrative that fits readers' preconceptions. Reading your reviews and posts here, it is apparent that you (a) don't like recent Yes (where recent means 1978 onwards), and (b) do like recent VdGG. Your Progeny review told me little I didn't already know on this matter. I am very clear on your opinion on these matters. You express those opinions well, in a literate manner. Your Progeny review has a clear and engaging narrative flow. Personally, sometimes that's what I want from a review, a well-expressed opinion, and sometimes I want some analysis, some reflexivity on the part of the writer, something beyond opinion. And, indeed, I think those writing reviews owe the reader clarification on what is opinion, i.e. what is their reaction to the work, and what is historico-musicology.

So, sure, you write the review you want to write for the audience you want. I'm not personally interested in hearing the same simplistic narratives for the umpteenth time, although I am interested in why the simplistic narratives are attractive and persistent. And it is indeed partly because they're attention-grabbing.

Henry

Henry,
You misunderstand me...or i didn't express myself properly. But one thing about writing for a public forum - like a jazz site/magazine - is you need to have, frankly, as any good review should, a story to tell that has a captivating (hopefully) beginning, middle and end (that wraps things up). It still must be, as you say, "novel, interesting and true." There's nothing I said that, to my ears (and a review is, after all, to a certain degree, subjective), is untrue or factually incorrect. I hope it's novel and interesting, and all I can say is I can measure that by how much it is read and the feedback I get. And you can be attention-grabbing while, at the same time being good analysis. It's the foundation on which my writing rests, in fact.

Actually, to correct you: I don't dislike Yes post-77; I like plenty of albums post that time: Drama, 90125, parts of The Ladder (Homeworld, in particular) and bits of Magnification, to cite four. But I've fallen out of love with the current Yes since Benoit David and Jon Davison, i'm afraid, because I simply don't feel the passion, don't hear the risk, and don't get any energy from their performances.

Do I like VdGG? Sure I do. But the purpose of raising them was comparative. Some people here say "cut Yes a break, they're old men." I say, to a large extent that's bullshit. Beyond VdGG, who still does those three things above with aplomb, you can say the same thing about Peter Gabriel, Robert Plant, the Rolling Stones...lots of other groups that go onstage and play it like they mean it; in the jazz world, there are musicians in their 70s, even 80s who can still "give it." Do they have to adjust how they play to deal with the changes of age? Of course. But they can, and they do. Listening to a recent live CD/DVD of Yes playing TYA and GftO, I absolutely do not hear that; I hear a group trying to be what they once were and failing. Now, that's a subjective thing, of course, but again, it is a review. And while I try to inject plenty of factual information, there's no way that my perception of things can't seep into the mix.

Yes, writing for academia is very different. My sister is a Doctor of Education and teaches at Ryerson. What she publishes is detailed, interesting, I am sure, to her target audience (other academics) and maybe even novel. But it is rather dry, and if you write that way for music publications aimed at readers who range from experts to newbies on the subject, then you are doomed to fail. Your target audience is very different than mine. You must also consider that my audience, beyond the folks here who are kind enough to read it, is largely comprised of jazz folks who (a) I am trying to engage in this music, and (b) don't know anywhere near as much as folks here do. Engaging in a long dissertation about why Yes today is not as appealing to me as Yes of the '70s is counter the purpose of the article, which is to focus attention on Progeny. However, as I've said more than once, as I listened to this box again and again (about 8-10 times before I put virtual pen to paper), I couldn't help but realize just how much those three things - passion, risk-taking, energy - have been missing in current-day Yes.

Now, as I've also said many times, I respect the opinions of people here who may know more than I, so I am planning (when time permits) to give the 2003 Montreux show a relisten, as folks here seem to think highly of it. And if it grabs me and I'm wrong, well then, I'm wrong and mea culpa...maybe enough to change the review, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

But I really do object to your constantly referring to "simplistic narratives." Without wanting to toot my own horn too much, my writing at All About Jazz has led to liner notes on prestigious labels like ECM - who, believe me, are not looking for simplistic narratives. I was also recruited by ECM's Steve Lake as one of 20 commissioned writers to write a chapter in the book Horizons Touched: The Music of ECM (Granta, 2007) - edited by Steve and Paul Griffiths - about where the label is heading. Without putting too much of a point on it, with other labels including Hatology, Criss Cross, HighNote/Savant, Rune Grammofon, Ninja Tune and others all asking me to write liners for them, all I can say is if my narratives were that simplistic, I don't know why they would hire me. It would also not explain why two different book agents in the UK approached me last year to pitch an extensive progressive rock history (which will go into far more detail than a review and have a different purpose of course) for a major UK publisher. Ill health on my part has slowed things down, but the project remains ongoing and as soon as this health problem is resolved (finally closing in on a diagnosis and treatment), then it will be full speed ahead with the book. Perhaps that will be more to your liking as it will be written with a completely different purpose and perspective.

If this sounds defensive, it's frankly because you keep returning to that term "simplistic narrative, and whether or not you think my writing is "simplistic narrative," it would be best to understand target audiences and objectives before critically picking it apart. As most folks here know, I'm always happy to hear constructive criticism and even make corrections if I've made factual errors. But your criticism is not constructive; it's comparative and, frankly, self-aggrandizing - suggesting that what you do is somehow better and, worse, more truthful. If you feel that way about my writing then that is, of course, your right. But I felt, given the confrontational tone of your reply, that a little defence was in order. At this point I've said all I need to say, so don't expect a reply if you choose to engage further. There's not much point, as I see it.

[ssully]

So, I've had this thing for three years now, and I'm still unhappy with the mix. Clean, yes. But erratic and not well balanced -- like, really, it's ridiculous to confine Wakeman to just the right channel (esp during a solo spot like Six Wives), and blast Howe over-loudly out of the left (as on the Durham 'Close to the Edge') so as to create a rigid 'stereo' stage imagery that likely would not have been heard in the audience. And despite apparently heroic work to save it, Squire's Rick sounds MIA (it's supposed to have some treble to it). Yessongs may have its sonic faults -- too *much* top to Squire's bass, on that one -- but it's *exciting*, it sounds *live*; Eddy Offord knew how to make a Yes mix hang together. Yes sounds disjointed and somewhat dryly under a microscope on Progeny, by comparison (though of course they're playing their asses off). Three years on, Progeny is, to me, rather a lost opportunity. I'm glad the multis are safely digitized though, so there could be another crack at them, some day....

[fiberman]

I hear what you are saying here, but for me to go back and listen to these disks transports me to when I was much younger than today. They remind me of how it used to be when you waited a year or more to see Yes, and really most other bands. Back then you saw what you saw, you heard what you heard, you had a very special experience that could not be duplicated, every concert had its own life (warts and all, and there were many), and then, all too quickly it was over. Yes, you still had your tape or LP of the album at home, but for a very long time as far as live that was it. When I listen to Progeny I listen not so much to pick this or that mix, instrument, or sound out and analyze it, but you said it yourself (though of course they're playing their asses off). So for me no lost opportunity, but a return to a really special time when Yes, and I, (ok maybe a few thousand others), appeared together in the same space at the same time. It was pure magic, and still is.

[Sunlight Caller]

I expect this was a one shot deal, they’ll never sell it to us all again, so I think we have to enjoy what we have. Personally I revisit this collection more than most, it’s still a thrill to hear these shows and transport back to when the music was new, cutting edge and the band were young and on fire.

I only wish they could release more early tours in this format, but suspect quality of tapes is the issue. So nothing great that we haven’t heard from the Topographic or Relayer days is likely to surface. There are some decent Buford era early boots though, would like to hear these given an official release.

[jkelman]

While it may, indeed, be true that the sonics could have been better, to me the performances are what make Progeny so worthwhile. And, overall, better than Yessongs, despite Progeny's shorter set list.

Despite having been fortunate enough to have moved into audiophile territory for the first time in my life three years ago - when I upgraded to a Tetra-based system that's like sitting in the control booth of a good studio, listening to playbacks - I've still not changed my overall philosophy when it comes to music: I'd rather hear great music with less-than-ideal sonics, than average (or worse) music with spectacular sound. Music always comes first for me, and great performances like those documented on Progeny only serve to demonstrate the point. I've yet to hear a (legitimately released) live Yes recording where the band sounds as hungry and ready to take risks as they do every night on Prodigy.

Sure, just my opinion, but it works for me

[DocProgger]

I think I've said this before in one of these Progeny threads, but I'd be ready to fork over some dollars for a Progeny-style box of Bruford era Yes recordings.

[jkelman]

I think I've said this before in one of these Progeny threads, but I'd be ready to fork over some dollars for a Progeny-style box of Bruford era Yes recordings.

Damn straight!!