Yes -Royal Affair Tour (Live in Las Vegas)

[bondegezou]

^ Always a good pastime, annoying housemates with Yes. I live alone with a cat right now, so he's the only one who has to put up with my music.

My cats are fine with Yes. You have to get to something like Tim Hodgkinson's recent solo work before they object.

My flatmate says she's "confused" by Yes's music.

Henry

[Kcrimso]

My cats are fine with Yes. You have to get to something like Tim Hodgkinson's recent solo work before they object.

My flatmate says she's "confused" by Yes's music.

Henry

My cat did not mind Tim Hodkinson's latest one (Under The Void).

[moecurlythanu]

My cats are fine with Yes. You have to get to something like Tim Hodgkinson's recent solo work before they object.

My flatmate says she's "confused" by Yes's music.

Henry

The cats are feeding her bad reviews.

[floyd umma gumma]

I noticed they had released "All Good People" from this collection, so I checked it out. Not sure why they are putting this record out. Can't imagine how many copies they might sell. There is the one rare cut "No Opportunity" which makes it interesting. The version of "Imagine" on here is a polite nod to the original, that's about all one can say about it. I've purchased more versions of Yessongs, Yesshows, and others than I could count - but each live record this band puts out seems even more watered down than the last. There are dozens of versions of All Good People available, I wish they would stop putting out softer, slower versions of the old classics. If they put out a live album of material which avoided The Yes Album, Fragile and Close to the Edge, perhaps I would pick that up - but to buy this record for the one rare cut isn't so compelling to me.

[bondegezou]

My cat did not mind Tim Hodkinson's latest one (Under The Void).

I think it was Onsets mine really disliked.

Henry

[bondegezou]

I noticed they had released "All Good People" from this collection, so I checked it out. Not sure why they are putting this record out. Can't imagine how many copies they might sell. There is the one rare cut "No Opportunity" which makes it interesting. The version of "Imagine" on here is a polite nod to the original, that's about all one can say about it. I've purchased more versions of Yessongs, Yesshows, and others than I could count - but each live record this band puts out seems even more watered down than the last. There are dozens of versions of All Good People available, I wish they would stop putting out softer, slower versions of the old classics. If they put out a live album of material which avoided The Yes Album, Fragile and Close to the Edge, perhaps I would pick that up - but to buy this record for the one rare cut isn't so compelling to me.

It remains a mystery. There's clearly lots of us online who really don't want another "ISAGP" or "Roundabout", but they resolutely remain on live releases. I presume some competence on the part of the record label and Yes management, so I presume there is a body of less hardcore fans who want the songs they know.

Henry

[Rarebird]

If you count classic-era members, Yes is on 2(ish). I said "original member", so Yes 0, VdGG 1, Focus 1 and Caravan 1, while Kansas and Genesis are on 2 each and Nektar is on 3 if you include Brockett.

It was a rhetorical question, but, OK, let's be more systematic here. To offer a broader audit, I took all band names mentioned in the Wikipedia article on prog that began before 1980 (some of whom are rather prog adjacent). There's 49 of them:
Golden Earring: 2 (which is everyone in their original line-up)
Henry

I'm not sure about that. Because when they had the current line-up with George Kooymans, Rinus Gerritsen (the oldest members) Barry Hay, and Cesar Zuiderwijk, they changed their name from Golden Earrings to Golden Earring.

[Rajaz]

If you count classic-era members, Yes is on 2(ish). I said "original member", so Yes 0, VdGG 1, Focus 1 and Caravan 1, while Kansas and Genesis are on 2 each and Nektar is on 3 if you include Brockett.

It was a rhetorical question, but, OK, let's be more systematic here. To offer a broader audit, I took all band names mentioned in the Wikipedia article on prog that began before 1980 (some of whom are rather prog adjacent). There's 49 of them:

Jethro Tull: 1 original member
Family: 1
East of Eden: no more
Van der Graaf Generator: 1
King Crimson: 1
The Nice: no more
Procol Harum: 1
The Moody Blues: 1
Pink Floyd: no more
Soft Machine: 0
Clouds: no more
Focus: 1
Blood, Sweat & Tears: 0
Chicago: 3
Traffic: no more
Colosseum: 0
If: no more
Caravan: 1
Yes: 0
Genesis: 2
Van der Graaf Generator: 1
ELP: no more
Gentle Giant: no more
Renaissance: 0
Starcastle: 0
Happy the Man: 3
Rush: no more
Captain Beyond: 1
Kansas: 2
Return to Forever: 2
Dixie Dregs: 2
Boston: 1
Styx: 2
Golden Earring: 2 (which is everyone in their original line-up)
Le Orme: 1
PFM: 1
Can: no more
U.K.: no more
Supertramp: no more
10cc: 1
Alan Parsons Project: no more
Electric Light Orchestra: 1
UFO: 2
Scorpions: 1
Van Halen: no more?
Foreigner: 1
Roxy Music: no more
Talking Heads: no more
The Buggles: unclear if they have touring plans, but the 2 original members are intermittently working together

So 17 are no longer touring. Two have 3 original members (Happy the Man and Chicago). [Nektar didn't make the list, but have 3 original members, including Brockett in a non-musical role.] Seven have 2 original members (including Golden Earring, when that's 100% of their original lineup). Seventeen have 1 original member: this is the median and modal number. Six have no original members. The mean number of original members is 1.15.

Congrats to Happy the Man: 3/5 members of the current touring band (60%) are original. No other band can offer a majority of people on stage being original members. Less than a fifth of bands have more than one original member on stage. My point is that the norm is to have one original member.

Henry

Great list but you left out one huge prog band from that era: C A M E L
Have recently toured UK and Europe (not the new world) and only have Andrew Latimer as the sole original member left (1).
Not nitpicking.

[bondegezou]

Great list but you left out one huge prog band from that era: C A M E L
Have recently toured UK and Europe (not the new world) and only have Andrew Latimer as the sole original member left (1).

Yes, Camel should've been in the list. As should 3 bands better known from the '80s, but who did technically start in the '70s, as per my inclusion criteria...

Marillion (as Silmarillion): 1 (although Kelly and Trewavas were also there by the time of their first release in 1982)
Pendragon: 2
Pallas: 1

Henry

[calyx]

Happy the Man have actually been dormant over 15 years, and can be assumed to be in the "no more" category. This being said Frank Wyatt's latest solo project featured ALL past members of the band with a couple of exceptions (original keyboardist David Bach and late-period drummer Coco Roussel are the two that spring to mind).

I think it's a little unfair to say VdGG only has one original member - to me the story really only begins when Banton and Evans joined Hammill. Or to say Renaissance only has one original member - I know there was a continuum with a gradual shift from the original band to the later, non-Yardbirds-related band, but I count Annie Haslam as an original member of what I think of as a different band to the Relf/McCarty-era band. But that's nitpicking, I know. ;-)

[Top Cat]

Yes, Camel should've been in the list. As should 3 bands better known from the '80s, but who did technically start in the '70s, as per my inclusion criteria...

Marillion (as Silmarillion): 1 (although Kelly and Trewavas were also there by the time of their first release in 1982)
Pendragon: 2
Pallas: 1

Henry

ok Henry, I just HAVE to ask...just how long did it take for you compile that first list? lol

[bondegezou]

ok Henry, I just HAVE to ask...just how long did it take for you compile that first list? lol

Not that long... thus the many errors that others have nitpicked! It was a relaxing break from actual work. I was between meetings.

Henry

[bRETT]

Or to say Renaissance only has one original member - I know there was a continuum with a gradual shift from the original band to the later, non-Yardbirds-related band, but I count Annie Haslam as an original member of what I think of as a different band to the Relf/McCarty-era band. But that's nitpicking, I know. ;-)

But, Annie is the only one left from the Annie era band.

[calyx]

But, Annie is the only one left from the Annie era band.

Indeed, that's what I meant - 1 "original member" as opposed to zero.

[bondegezou]

Indeed, that's what I meant - 1 "original member" as opposed to zero.

Ah, but you're declaring Prologue to be, in effect, their first album. But arguably this mark 2 band really began during the making of Illusion with Dunford and Thatcher both becoming involved. Dunford, Thatcher and McCarty write most of Illusion and then between them everything on Prologue, Ashes are Burning and Turn of the Cards. Dunford and Thatcher then write most of Scheherazade and Other Stories and about half of the remaining albums through to Camera Camera.

So I think one can argue that Illusion is really the beginning of "classic" Renaissance. In which case, we're back to 0 original members of Renaissance mark 2 still in the band today. ;-)

Henry

[calyx]

Ah, but you're declaring Prologue to be, in effect, their first album. But arguably this mark 2 band really began during the making of Illusion with Dunford and Thatcher both becoming involved. Dunford, Thatcher and McCarty write most of Illusion and then between them everything on Prologue, Ashes are Burning and Turn of the Cards. Dunford and Thatcher then write most of Scheherazade and Other Stories and about half of the remaining albums through to Camera Camera.

So I think one can argue that Illusion is really the beginning of "classic" Renaissance. In which case, we're back to 0 original members of Renaissance mark 2 still in the band today. ;-)

Well, I'm aware of all of the above - as I said, it's a continuum, so your point is arguable, and indeed technically you're right. But may I argue further. I would say there was a point until which the "new" Renaissance was still a band made up of people who'd gradually replaced the original members and were the continuation of the 1969-70 band. Annie Haslam has recalled that both Relf and McCarty were present at her audition. And indeed McCarty went on to write for the new band, but that was brief. "Things I Don't Understand" on Turn Of The Cards was actually a very early case of McCarty contributing, in this case co-writing with Dunford. This gives the mistaken impression that he was still associated with the band in 1974 when in fact his input dried up much earlier than that.

In 1970, Dunford was just one of several ex-Nashville Teens members drafted in by John Hawken before he himself jumped ship to go on a tour with Spooky Tooth. That he also brought a piece for consideration (the only one on which this pick-up band appears, the rest of the album still a McCarty/Relf concoction for the most part) marked the beginning of something, but hardly an indication of what really was to come, and at this point Betty Thatcher was still McCarty's writing partner, not yet Dunford's.

For me, the real starting point of the second Renaissance was when, at one point in 1971, Miles Copeland, as their new manager, decided to make Annie Haslam and John Tout the centre of attention (male vocalist Terry Crowe was let go at this point) and ordered Mike Dunford to concentrate on songwriting. This really paved the way, conceptually, for what this band was about, and the foundation on which their subsequent output was based, changes in rhythm section notwithstanding.

But I'm sure you know all that and, like me, just wrote the above for the sake of taking our discussion to an absurd level of unimportant detail... ;-)

[Conti]

^Very important non-important details, thanks for the information, Aymeric.

[Paulrus]

I know this is a Yes thread, but all this talk about the transitional Renaissance lineup had me searching again for the German TV program made during that period. The whole thing has been posted in pieces, and here is one of them. Fascinating to see Dunford and Tout back in the very early days, playing music that would -- in part -- live on with the classic 70s lineup.

[bondegezou]

But I'm sure you know all that and, like me, just wrote the above for the sake of taking our discussion to an absurd level of unimportant detail... ;-)

You know me too well. :-)

Henry

[fiberman]

That Frank Wyatt album is very good, IMO.

[bondegezou]

You know me too well. :-)

I think my broader point is that people are quick to talk about "original members", but I am happy to problematise that term. No-one really cares about the actual original members: they care who was there at some subjective beginning, which is generally when they discovered the band. And, more than that, they care about certain people more than others because of their roles in the band. And, more than that, they are more accepting of some changes than others, if the quality of the music is good, if there's some ineffable something about the band that remains the same. And this is all subjective: what works for one person doesn't for another. And... all of that feeling is intertwined with a reality determined by contracts and lawyers over who gets a band name.

It's crude to count how many original members are left. My table wasn't some final mathematical proof: it was a quick way to illustrate a point. The vast majority of bands from the '70s are gone or hanging on by a thread. I don't want to argue with anyone about what works or doesn't work for them. I do think some people need to recognise that there's nothing particularly unusual about Yes's fate here. With rare exceptions, our favourite '70s bands are either gone or severely depleted in "classic" members. You may prefer one fate or another! By 2030, they'll be nearly all gone and we'll be saying the same about our favourite '80s bands.

The question becomes what future is available. There are 3 (non-exclusive) options: a band continues with new faces (e.g. Gong); the music continues to exist in that we play the old recordings; and/or the music continues to be re-interpreted through younger musicians' performance (outside of any continuation of a band name). And this is a whole other thread, but I don't think we give enough attention to the last of those 3.

Henry

[profusion]

The question becomes what future is available. There are 3 (non-exclusive) options: a band continues with new faces (e.g. Gong); the music continues to exist in that we play the old recordings; and/or the music continues to be re-interpreted through younger musicians' performance (outside of any continuation of a band name). And this is a whole other thread, but I don't think we give enough attention to the last of those 3.

Tribute bands contribute to the last of those options, and I think that's entirely appropriate. It's nice to see Howe out there playing music he clearly loves, but it's also obvious that he's no longer capable of playing it at the level he did in 1975. Nothing wrong with having younger people still play that music with the full intensity it deseves.

Where I think the Yes discussion gets interesting is the desire of many fans for new "Yes" music. What does that mean, if few of the old guard are left?

For me, Squire was the magic ingredient in Yes. Put his unique singing voice (even more than his bass playing) along with any competent counter-tenor, and you basically have enough of that 'ingredient' to make me think of it as "Yes." Without him, it's going to be tough for me to think of a vocal mix of Jon Davison and Billy Sherwood as "Yes," regardless of what's happening instrumentally.

By contrast, I always had a harder time with Jon Anderson in other contexts without Squire's voice behind him. The most obvious Yes element is right there up front, but it doesn't feel quite right.

Could a highly dedicated band of younger musicians painstakingly create new "Yes" music in the classic style? Most likely, but the nature of things is that most such people want to pursue their own creative impulses, not those of two generations prior.

[bondegezou]

Tribute bands contribute to the last of those options, and I think that's entirely appropriate. It's nice to see Howe out there playing music he clearly loves, but it's also obvious that he's no longer capable of playing it at the level he did in 1975. Nothing wrong with having younger people still play that music with the full intensity it deseves.

I wouldn't want to limit the last point to tribute bands. How I think music lives on is through the material being performed and re-interpreted by subsequent generations of musicians. That can be through a dedicated project, but it's also about regular bands re-visiting that material. I think Neal Morse playing "No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed", Manticore playing "Release, Release" or Allegaeon playing "Roundabout" are ultimately how Yes's music lives on.

Henry

[arj]

Tribute bands contribute to the last of those options, and I think that's entirely appropriate. It's nice to see Howe out there playing music he clearly loves, but it's also obvious that he's no longer capable of playing it at the level he did in 1975. Nothing wrong with having younger people still play that music with the full intensity it deseves.

Where I think the Yes discussion gets interesting is the desire of many fans for new "Yes" music. What does that mean, if few of the old guard are left?

For me, Squire was the magic ingredient in Yes. Put his unique singing voice (even more than his bass playing) along with any competent counter-tenor, and you basically have enough of that 'ingredient' to make me think of it as "Yes." Without him, it's going to be tough for me to think of a vocal mix of Jon Davison and Billy Sherwood as "Yes," regardless of what's happening instrumentally.

By contrast, I always had a harder time with Jon Anderson in other contexts without Squire's voice behind him. The most obvious Yes element is right there up front, but it doesn't feel quite right.

Could a highly dedicated band of younger musicians painstakingly create new "Yes" music in the classic style? Most likely, but the nature of things is that most such people want to pursue their own creative impulses, not those of two generations prior.

Totally agree re Squire, to the extent that I consider “To the Rescue” by Esquire to be Yes. The obvious presence of White on that track and the bass friendly mix of Horn is the icing.

[bondegezou]

^ Focusing on who's not there feels a bit "half-empty" to me. I like most of what Steve Howe does. I like most of what Alan White does. I like most of what Geoff Downes does. I like most of what Jon Davison does. I like about half of what Billy Sherwood does. Stands to reason I'll probably like an album they do together.

Will it sound the same without Chris Squire there? No. Can I enjoy an album without Chris Squire on it? Obviously: I have hundreds of great albums without Chris Squire on them!

Henry