Chris Squire on Yes Classic Album Tour, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

[tangentmusic]

Originally Posted by rtav

+1

"Drama" is one of my favorite Yes albums, with a hard rock edge (note Steve's snarling guitar sound in "Machine Messiah") not found on other Yes albums. I'm a HUGE Yes fan, have been since the mid 70s, and (unlike some bands, - the Stones, Rush) Yes does not stand or fall on the inclusion or exclusion of any one (or two) musicians.

Indeed, Drama is a very good album, also one of my faves.
Howe's guitar tone is intense throughout. Squire & White are fantastic too. I, like most, had a hard time accepting Trevor Horn as Jon's replacement and Downes as Wakeman's at the time.. Still listen to it a lot.

Fly From Here is an outstanding LP. I listen to it all the time still. Havent grown tired of it at all. Love Benoit's vocals on it.

But... Jon Anderson is the undisputed voice and spiritual leader of the classic YES material. I too have seen them many times since their '70's heyday.

But as long as Squire, Howe & White are there, it's still YES to me and worth going to see them. Got tix for the show in Reno 3/9/13. Can't wait..

[khutch]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

The thing that struck me was something Squire said late in the interview - could there still be a band called Yes 100 years from now? He pointed out that a symphony orchestra's existence doesn't depend on the presence of any particular member or set of members, old members retire and new ones come in. Can a rock band do the same thing?

In rock band parlance a symphony orchestra is a "cover band". They may perform works written by members occasionally, they may commission the writing of works occasionally, but mostly they play works written by others, and many of them would have been written before anyone in the orchestra was born. It is a very different ethos from the rock band ethos. Perhaps some day rock culture will come to value the performance of older works by people who did not write them and lose the pejorative implications of being "just a cover band". If that were to happen then eventually a lot of these future bands would play works written by many "composers" rather than specializing on one, just as orchestras do. You do find orchestras that concentrate on works from a specific period but it is rare to find groups that perform only one composer's works. Chicago's Music of the Baroque is an example of the former, the Tallis Scholars are the only example of the latter that I can think of. I can imagine that people will perform Yes works a hundred years from now, I somewhat doubt there will be a band called Yes.

Ken

[Spectrum]

The Glenn Miller Orchestra was formed in 1938. It's doubtful any of the original members are still alive, Miller himself disappeared in a plane over the English Channel in 1944; yet the band has been reformed several times and still exists today, basically as a tribute to Miller's version. That's about 75 years.

I expect King Crimson may go on forever or so.

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

Based on what criteria? With their prior "cover band singer" they went and put out a new album. It may not have been everyone's favorite Yes album of all time, but that's a pretty high bar to hit. They're talking about doing another one with the new guy.

As far as I can see they're deliberately NOT being the Rolling Stones or whatever, and just repeating their greatest hits ad nauseam - even this tour, when they're playing through 70s albums, that's going to mean a lot of songs that are not the usual faves everybody expects to hear. I say more power to them for continuing to create and not just turning into tired old farts who can't get out of their rocking chairs to play for audiences.

This really is the key, IMHO. As long as a band continues to develop new material, it is endeavoring to keep itself fresh, timely & relevant - and to prevent itself from taking the path of least resistance, merely relying upon past glories...and as a result, stagnating and becoming stale.

Kudos to the members of Yes for keeping the flame of genuine creativity burning - however imperfectly...

MM

[Sundogue]

I find it kind of humorous in some ways, and irritating in other ways (especially coming from musicians), how "fans" have so many expectations of "other" musicians.

How much do any of you musicians like others telling you what to play, how to play it and who to play it with? Maybe all of you should post opinion polls here on what music to play, what other musicians to play it with and then adhere to the results. You know, don't be one of those musicians who want to do your own thing. Do what others want of you.

No? Why then would you expect any member of Yes to adhere to your desires? I think, if anything, Yes members have earned the right to do as they please whether you like it or not.

I have a suspicion Chris Squire doesn't give a rats ass who you think he should play with, or what songs he should be playing on tour. Just a hunch though. I could be wrong. Maybe he plays music solely to satisfy you.

Personally, I love anything Chris Squire and Yes are doing, no matter who they are playing it with. Just the fact they are still doing it is inspiring. I'm never going to stop performing unless I physically can't any longer. I couldn't care less what others opinion of me are in that process. One can't please everyone, so you might as well please yourself. There will always be people who appreciate it. And the ones who don't? Why should they even matter?

[MysticMichael]

It doesn't matter what the fans think?

OK, that's a new one. Whatever...

MM

[Sundogue]

Originally Posted by MysticMichael

It doesn't matter what the fans think?

OK, that's a new one. Whatever...

MM

In the long run? No. Ultimately if all one does (in any creative field) is cater to the masses, then what's gets created is...

Well, look around...it's rather obvious what is being created for mass public consumption.

Now I get to roll my eyes.

[hrodbert696]

Originally Posted by Sundogue

In the long run? No. Ultimately if all one does (in any creative field) is cater to the masses, then what's gets created is...

Well, look around...it's rather obvious what is being created for mass public consumption.

Now I get to roll my eyes.

Sorry, but thorough philosophical disagreement here. It's called a "performing" art because we PERFORM - to AUDIENCES. The audience is part of the art.

There's been this mystique that started with the 19th century romantics of the artist as this lonely soul who is pure individualist and only follows the dictates of his own mystic soul - and yet somehow, magically, does something that is meaningful to the culture. Asinine pop culture, historically, is a CREATION of that myth as the mercenaries sweep in to fill the cultural gap left by avant-gardists who have abandoned the audience.

In my view a more authentic artist understands and values his audience and makes art FOR them. He does so with all of his integrity and artistry, which is what separates him from a mercenary - but he still values the culture he belongs to rather than looking down his nose at it.

That's actually something I've always appreciated about a band like Yes, or Rush, or others. They've always had a clear creative vision of who they were and what they wanted to create; but they never acted like popular appeal and success was some curse to be avoided, and they've always valued their fans.

[MysticMichael]

I'm all for artistic integrity, dude. But aren't you conflating awareness of and sensitivity to the fans' feelings & opinions, with total and absolute creative surrender to the fans' feelings & opinions? It seems to me that you are. Yet I don't know of anybody with a realistic claim to being an artist who would ever advocate such an approach - at least with a straight face.

I'll see your eye roll, and raise you two...



MM

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

Sorry, but thorough philosophical disagreement here. It's called a "performing" art because we PERFORM - to AUDIENCES. The audience is part of the art.

There's been this mystique that started with the 19th century romantics of the artist as this lonely soul who is pure individualist and only follows the dictates of his own mystic soul - and yet somehow, magically, does something that is meaningful to the culture. Asinine pop culture, historically, is a CREATION of that myth as the mercenaries sweep in to fill the cultural gap left by avant-gardists who have abandoned the audience.

In my view a more authentic artist understands and values his audience and makes art FOR them. He does so with all of his integrity and artistry, which is what separates him from a mercenary - but he still values the culture he belongs to rather than looking down his nose at it.

That's actually something I've always appreciated about a band like Yes, or Rush, or others. They've always had a clear creative vision of who they were and what they wanted to create; but they never acted like popular appeal and success was some curse to be avoided, and they've always valued their fans.

Well-stated. Hear, hear...

MM

[4001]

Once again, Anderson got the shaft. You can find all of his and the band's comments on this and come to your own conclusion.
Oh, and as much as I absolutly love Yes, they have lost that edge to their music and live, play at a snails pace.
This tour with The Yes Album, Close to the Edge and Going For The One would be great if Jon Anderson was at the front. They are almosd finished as a band. They are playing to small venues because they cannot pack large venues anymore, because the fan base has eroded due to one major reason. No Jon Anderson.
Every band slows down as they get older but the tempos are completly slowed down and the bright, sharp edge to their sound is lost now. 45th anniversary and no Anderson?? It's not the same anymore and to me it's sad to see this happen. I dont give a "rat's ass" how much of an Anderson impersonator the new guy is, it wont make me spend good $$ to see them. I want to see Yes and that, for me, must include Jon Anderson. I guess my last Yes concert was in 2004. That is a long time ago already.

[Richland123]

Who remembers when original Yes guitarist Peter Banks left to form the band Flash? ex-Yes member, keyboardist Tony Kaye, also appeared on the first Flash album

Well, Yes continued on with many other players but Flash (while a cool band that sounded just like Yes) disappeared.

Flash - Small Beginnings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6HUqiigBA

[4001]

Originally Posted by Richland123

Who remembers when original Yes guitarist Peter Banks left to form the band Flash? ex-Yes member, keyboardist Tony Kaye, also appeared on the first Flash album

Well, Yes continued on with many other players but Flash (while a cool band that sounded just like Yes) disappeared.

Flash - Small Beginnings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6HUqiigBA

I don't think Banks left the band...he was let go. Same for Kaye. The first two Yes albums rank right at the top for me too.

[4001]

On a side note...when Paul DiAnno left Iron Maiden, he wasn't replaced with a singer that was a DiAnno clone, they replaced him with a singer that had a completly different voice. That dosen't work with Yes music but hiring a clone in their case, to me dosen't quite work. Anderson is the only real voice for Yes. He is able to do small tours, just not full-scale marathon world tours. I'd be fine with major cities shows but obviously the band needs to still tour everywhere, all the time, and Anderson cannot do that. Why they cannot just get him back in and start thinking about the final chapter is beyond me.

[secretsound5]

Originally Posted by SactoBass

I have been a die hard YES fan since 1971. I have seen them in concert numerous times over the decades, I played bass in a YES tribute band for a few years in the early 2000's, and I got to meet YES backstage in 2001 and chat with each of them individually. Jon Anderson is very short, and Chris Squire is huge! And when I shook Steve's hand, I was afraid to squeeze it very hard because it felt so....fragile! (no pun intended). They are all very nice guys, btw.

Anyway, as much as I love their music, I just don't have any interest in seeing them in concert without Jon Anderson as the lead singer. When I would listen to Benoit singing in YES on YouTube vids, I would cringe with all of the sour notes he would hit. Thank goodness they finally dumped him! And as for this new guy Jon D, well, based on what I've seen on YT with him singing with YES, he sure sings alot better than Benoit, but JD is still no JA. It's still just not quite "there". There is only one Jon Anderson and that great voice of his.

So, I won't say "no JA = no YES" because YES will continue regardless. But what I will say is "no JA = no concert attendance by me".

I wish YES all the best.

Yes

[jerry]

I thought the last album was great, I think they are still a very valid band. Things change, that's called life.

[hrodbert696]

Originally Posted by 4001

I don't think Banks left the band...he was let go. Same for Kaye. The first two Yes albums rank right at the top for me too.

True, they were both fired. The feeling among the rest of the band (fairly or unfairly) was that Banks was wearing out and his playing was not keeping up to par. With Kaye, the rest of the band wanted to start experimenting with synthesizers and stuff but he was more of an old-school 60s rock organist type. When he was lukewarm about what they wanted to do, they let him go. Bill Bruford was the first person to actually quit the band rather than be fired.

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

True, they were both fired. The feeling among the rest of the band (fairly or unfairly) was that Banks was wearing out and his playing was not keeping up to par. With Kaye, the rest of the band wanted to start experimenting with synthesizers and stuff but he was more of an old-school 60s rock organist type. When he was lukewarm about what they wanted to do, they let him go. Bill Bruford was the first person to actually quit the band rather than be fired.

Well, they certainly landed on their feet with the addition of Steve Howe and Rick Wakeman! Hindsight is always 20/20 of course, but even at the time they must have realized that they were getting two of the most highly-skilled, accomplished, progressive-minded musicians of their generation - players who would soon help to propel the band to new heights of creativity and vision.

It must have been terribly exciting to be a part of all that, to see it all coming together the way that it did. Holy cow!

MM

[R Baer]

As much as I love Jon, I'm still going to see the tour next month. Yeah, Yes without Jon bums me out a bit, but then again, I saw the Drama tour and thought it was amazing, so that's that. Anyway, this time, I'm taking the kids as they have never seen Yes before. You never know how many more times these guys are going to be able to get out there and tour, so I figure I might as well see this one. Maybe the new singer will help. I never had a lot of interest in seeing them with David B. based on the videos I saw. Dude just didn't have what it takes to replace Jon. Jon is more than just the singer. To me he was/is the spiritual lifeblood of the band. Actually got to see him play the Roxy a few years back and it was a great show. Just Jon, his guitar and some backing tracks. What a treat!

[REMBO]

Originally Posted by Jaco Taco

No Jon Anderson = No Yes, imo.

I AGREE! IT'S JUST NOT THE SAME WITHOUT JON!