Is there a future for YES? or NO?

[Mister Triscuits]

Now, do I venture to get Heaven & Hell?

Definitely. Great album.



(Just avoid that crappy Heaven and Earth thingie.)

[strawberrybrick]

Definitely. Great album.


(Just avoid that crappy Heaven and Earth thingie.)

LOL!

[JJ88]

I don't "contemptuously sneer at/look down on Yes fans", seeing how I'm a fan of the music they once made. The question of this thread was whether there's a future for 'them'. To imply that "sure, if only they release another album" is at best ignorant, at worst oblivious. Is there a future for serious discussion forums on rock and/ or [what was once partly known as] progressive rock? I'm not so fucking sure. First the participants have to start locating and identify that music.

I've seldom seen you say much positive about any of the more 'popular' bands on here, to be honest.

And thanks for calling me 'ignorant'. I was talking solely about maximising the appeal of a new album to die-hard fans because that's all it's going to appeal to anyway (hence why I wrote about its sales in the section you cleverly didn't quote). But you knew that.

I'm reminded of why I spend more time in the O/T section these days. This place has had it.

[Scrotum Scissor]

I've seldom seen you say much positive about any of the more 'popular' bands on here, to be honest.

And thanks for calling me 'ignorant'. I was talking solely about maximising the appeal of a new album to die-hard fans because that's all it's going to appeal to anyway (hence why I wrote about its sales in the section you cleverly didn't quote). But you knew that.

I'm reminded of why I spend more time in the O/T section these days. This place has had it.

Yes, I suppose this place has had it, seeing how a majority of contributors are -not- participating in discussions on new and happening music.

I seldom "say much" of anything as concerns 'popular' bands on here, which I guess must be a dilemma in itself, seeing how ambiguity often seems to rest more on what one doesn't say rather than what's actually put in. The fact that someone in "the know" spends time and effort outside of the usual frame of reference may pose a significant problem for those who'd rather have confirmation as to how that very frame still represents the epicenter of affairs. But here's the deal; "progressive rock" music arose from a set of perceived virtues evaluated through then-current variables of accomplishment. The 'popular' names are hardly delivering much of it anymore, and there'd be futile exercises in arguing the need for emphasis on those who create as exception rather than as rule. I'm in it for the music - not for "the bands".

An abolutely privileged virtue of all art is the achievement of originality - whether constructed or "organic". Yes' strength was never the speed of playing or the imagined authority of composition, but of communicating something which was heard as groundbreaking and different. Is there a future for an artist whose lack of 'self' - i.e. lack of capacity to reinvent along the scale of self-realization - emanates directly from their proportional lack of understanding for the developments and changes occurring through the spans of time? Someone called Heaven and Earth an "[...] embarrassment" - I personally wouldn't do that, because it would imply a sense of immanent reason for expecting the better. I sincerely believe that album to be a manifest of what they actually mustered at the time of its conception. This band has had 40 years to establish new channels of convincing creativity, and their environments have left them behind.

As for the 'ignorant' part, that was strictly rhetorical. But you knew that.

[Skullhead]

No, Snarky Puppy doesn't sound like Chicago at all. Bill Laurance uses more modern technology, which is a no go for Skullhead.

I agree they don't sound like Chicago at all, they wish they did, but they don't. They lack great songwriters.

[jamesmanzi]

I agree they don't sound like Chicago at all, they wish they did, but they don't. They lack great songwriters.

Is Chicago your only frame of reference for bands with brass sections? Because I've never even thought of Chicago and Snarky Puppy as sharing anything other than some common instruments.

Out of curiosity, I googled Chicago Snarky Puppy, and after 5 pages of returns regarding Snarky Puppy tour dates in Chicago, I gave up on finding any discussion on the internet of similarities between the two bands. Has anyone in the band ever discussed Chicago as an influence?

[battema]

Snarky Puppy's drummer went on record saying that he danced to "You're The Inspiration" at his high school prom. Now excuse me while I open a few windows to clear out all the smoke from this gun...

[Rarebird]

Snarky Puppy's drummer went on record saying that he danced to "You're The Inspiration" at his high school prom. Now excuse me while I open a few windows to clear out all the smoke from this gun...

Yes, and I danced on Child in time. Still I don't consider my music having anything in common with Deep Purple.

[moecurlythanu]

I saw a commercial on TV about "PE blood clots." I'm not a doctor, but was the commercial talking about threads like this one?

[Chichen Itza]

I've seldom seen you say much positive about any of the more 'popular' bands on here, to be honest.

That's because the know it alls are *far* too tasteful to still listen to those bands anymore

They've evolved, they've moved on, while ignorant you is stuck listening to the things that shaped your life, and you still enjoy and love

Just re-read the long winded walk backs, maybe it will all become clearer and you'll see the light!

[infandous]

Definitely. Great album.



(Just avoid that crappy Heaven and Earth thingie.)

No, I'm pretty sure he meant this one:

f81b45573b2587399df9520423348fa9.jpg

I agree about avoiding that crappy Heaven & Earth album though....

[infandous]

To address the thread topic: I can't predict the future. Neither can the members of what now constitutes "Yes".

My personal feeling is that like most legacy bands, they likely don't have any future since the business model that allowed them to have a degree of commercial success and mass popularity has long since disappeared (though the "major" labels are still trying to milk its corpse, with varying degrees of success and a fraction of the profits).

For fans of the band, I suspect only death (of the fans themselves) will spell the true end of Yes for them. Which is fine. If those musicians want to keep playing using that name (or other musicians that have a connection to the name), and people will pay to see them, more power to them.

Personally, I gave up on the "Yes" entity back in 2002 or so, after being a big fan for more than 10 years. I did just recently (thanks to our host, Sean, talking about them on Facebook) pull out the Keys albums and Magnification. They were all much better than I remember them actually, even if they still don't hold a candle to the 70's stuff. Which makes the current situation all the more sad in my opinion, particularly when I remember my one listen to H&E (and a few more listens to Fly From Here). In my opinion, I wish they'd packed it in with their dignity (more or less) intact back in 2002 or so. I don't get to make those decisions for them though, so they continue on. I'm glad people still like to hear them in whatever form they are in now.

[Scrotum Scissor]

That's because the know it alls are *far* too tasteful to still listen to those bands anymore

They've evolved, they've moved on, while ignorant you is stuck listening to the things that shaped your life, and you still enjoy and love

Just re-read the long winded walk backs, maybe it will all become clearer and you'll see the light!

Wise words in extremis. And the know-and-grasp-nones don't even have to bother with actual arguments on the case matter, seeing as they're simply too busy safekeeping their wives from the threats of being hit on by dangerous little pricks in rock bands.

[DocProgger]

I agree they don't sound like Chicago at all, they wish they did, but they don't. They lack great songwriters.

Chicago is a 'hard habit to break'.

[Facelift]

^I am not sure why you post on threads like this other than to contemptuously sneer at/look down on Yes fans. It's beneath you really. The world is not waiting for a new Yes album and I didn't say it was. It's not waiting for a new album by any older rock act, frankly.

But the world *is* waiting for talented musicians to make good music, regardless of age.

And, regardless of age, if a band's thing is to tour on the music of another band, then - surprise! - they're a tribute band!

That's why Yes is now just Steve Howe and his covers band. No ingenuity. No music of their own. Just playing the music of Yes 1970-1980, night after night. There is no reason why these guys could not be a creative unit that wrote and performed their own music, but they clearly have no interest in doing it. They'd rather play other peoples' music, which gets them the biggest crowds ("big" being a relative term, in this case). Nobody's saying they can't do this, but then they can't be considered anything other than a tribute band.

[Scott Bails]

Is Steve Hackett's band a cover band, then?

[Yodelgoat]

Just glad some people are still hoofin' it on the road. This becoming your own cover band thing is not something I'm going to cry about. I'll take it any way I can get it. Just great live music. If it sucks I may not go anymore, but ya gotta give it the benefit of the doubt. I went and saw Bruce Hornsby last year, and they butchered his classic songs - Like it was so passe and not as cool as his current stuff. . I wont be seeing Bruce again He got my 70 bucks, but mocking his own material (I think this was because he was sooo sick of playing it for 25 years) is just kind of sad. The band was Killer, but my experience was, "We only like our new stuff and if you still like our older material, we dont need you as a customer" They should have at least appreciated how they got where they are. Its no longer "The range" its now the "noisemakers" - but they really didn't give any credence to how they came to be able to charge $70 a seat. I suspect Mr Hornsby is a little bitter. It really came accross that way.

I saw nothing in the Yes concert a few years back that would lead me to believe they were just phoning it in. That would piss me off.

[bRETT]

How's this for a workable definition of "cover band": A band exclusively performing music that nobody onstage originally had anything to do with.

[Skullhead]

And, regardless of age, if a band's thing is to tour on the music of another band, then - surprise! - they're a tribute band!

That's why Yes is now just Steve Howe and his covers band. No ingenuity. No music of their own. Just playing the music of Yes 1970-1980, night after night. There is no reason why these guys could not be a creative unit that wrote and performed their own music, but they clearly have no interest in doing it. They'd rather play other peoples' music, which gets them the biggest crowds ("big" being a relative term, in this case). Nobody's saying they can't do this, but then they can't be considered anything other than a tribute band.

This is truth. Amen.

[Skullhead]

Is Steve Hackett's band a cover band, then?

I saw the Musical Box, and within a couple weeks saw Steve Hackett's revisited tour. I have to be honest, the musical box was a much more compelling performance. Now I am a Steve Hackett fan, but I'll tell you that Musical Box band would have been a much better backing band for Steve than the band he had up there hands down. No disrespect to Steve, but it's true.

[Yodelgoat]

So, do I understand that Steve Howe did not have anything to do with creating Yes music? Hmmm.

[Skullhead]

How's this for a workable definition of "cover band": A band exclusively performing music that nobody onstage originally had anything to do with.

This!

[Skullhead]

So, do I understand that Steve Howe did not have anything to do with creating Yes music? Hmmm.

Maybe Steve Howe with The YESMEN Tribute Band.

[Steve983]

How's this for a workable definition of "cover band": A band exclusively performing music that nobody onstage originally had anything to do with.

So every orchestra around the world that plays Mozart, Holst & Beethoven etc are just a covers band.

[JJ88]

Is Steve Hackett's band a cover band, then?

As far as the Genesis stuff is concerned? Yes, of course, that's absolutely what it is. But 'Steve Hackett's Genesis Revisited' is different from calling it 'Genesis'.