There are now two bands called Yes

[Roland GR 88]

........ Founding members of companies and partnerships - and bands - leave all the time, quitting or being fired by other shareholders. The company carries on without them.

And this ^^^ pretty much sums up this business - I mean band, for me. They've been a brand for the last 40 yrs and nothing more. It's no surprise that the remaining members and their lawyers are circling the carcass.

 

[Pirate Captain]

Where there not 3 bands calling themselves "Covenant" at one point? Some sort of industrial metal... they existed at the same time. Without knowing about each other, though, as opposed to the Yes WARs...

HEY! I opened up for one of those Covenants back in the late '90s (this one)



(they were really nice guys)

 

[Suncat]

The band Yes is universal. They can be in two places at one time. While each Yes member are in different groups they all hear each other without the need to see each other. That's why there are two groups named Yes.

 

[gttim]

How many of the other bands are carrying on in 2 versions simultaneously?

...Thin Lizzy existed too in two touring versions, one of them later changed name to Black Star Riders or something.
Glam Rock band Sweet, existed in two simulataneous lineups too.
...

Re Thin Lizzy, there were some tributes and projects until '96, but nothing long term. Since then there has been one. They changed the name to Black Star Riders when they began recording new music, out of respect for the Thin Lizzy name and Phil Lynott. Seems like a classy decision. (I am a huge fan of Ricky Warwick's solo work, and he currently handles the lead vocals for BSR.)

There were 3 versions of Sweet for a long time. Two of the respective leaders died, leaving only 2 original members. Of course both of those surviving members now have their own group, so 2 versions still exist!

 

[Linnin]

Would it be legal to name a band "Sí" or "Ja"? You could manage a pretty cool Roger Dean treatment with "Oui".

Da!

 

[woodyng2]

Maybe Anderson, Rabin, and Wakeman can steal Billy Sherwood and then everything would be right...according to ME...

I went to see ARW last November in Portland. Lee Pomeroy did a fabulous job on bass,and backing vocals. (and Lou Molina was great on drums).

 

[woodyng2]

*sigh*

This is just going to wind up another sad situation where guys who probably should retire will sully the name of their original band by fighting and making half @$$ music until they fizzle out. They will sing until they can't hit the notes anymore. Then they will drop the key or just sing lower notes than the original versions.They will play until they can't play the licks anymore. Then they will hire a young gun to play backstage so the original artist can fake it (or some other fake trick). And we will all lament the awful last few shows they did before they finally tucked their collective tails between their legs and wandered off into the night wishing they hadn't done those last two tours. Sad.

*sigh*

Someone needs a hug.

 

[RichardW]

Is this the same as a win-win?

Couple of weeks ago, my wife and I attended a concert by the Philadelphia Orchestra and afterwards I said--"It's odd that this group of musicians has been called the Philadelphia Orchestra for over 100 years and there's not a single person in the "band" today who was in the "band" when it started, and in 50 years there will still be a Philadelphia Orchestra (God willing) and none of the performers we saw tonight will be part of it."

In Pennsylvania, there's actually a law against band's using a name of a famous band if none of the members were in the original. IIRC, there was a group billing itself as "The Platters" (an old 50s doo-wop group) that had none of the original Platters in it. Some legislator who was a fan felt this was false advertising and now it's illegal.

Doesn't apply to orchestras, I guess.

 

[David Vector]

Tony Kaye beat us to the punch with the Yes name variant jokes. His synth solo break on the 90125 tour was called "Si".

To me, the ARW lineup feels more like Yes overall. (But Rick, please...wear a green and purple suit and ask the audience if they've ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight if you feel like being a little goofy...but that t-shirt and cape thing, yikes.) I do wish they had just stuck with ARW, though. This is just going to create confusion in addition to subjecting fans to the spectacle of guys who should be beyond this kind of thing at their ages feuding over a name.

 

[Herrick]

How many of the other bands are carrying on in 2 versions simultaneously?

Wasn't it that with Asia too?
Bill Paynes Asia? Existed at the same time Asia reunited with original members.
Thin Lizzy existed too in two touring versions, one of them later changed name to Black Star Riders or something.
Glam Rock band Sweet, existed in two simulataneous lineups too.
Wishbone Ash existed as Martin Turners Wishbone Ash, and Andy Powells Wishbone ash.
Forgotten someone?

There were two Queensryches for a couple years.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

That's an interesting analogy, as a lot of "Classic" rock has become "Classical Music" to current generations. Bands like the Australian Pink Floyd play note for note recreations of the Floyd "canon", which is great since Floyd is gone as a band. But they don't pretend to be the original band by tacking on a few old members, anymore than the Philharmonic calls itself "Beethoven & Friends". Floyd went through about the ugliest "divorce" imagineable, the brand name is worth a fortune, so you can see why lawyers would eat this up like candy.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

Wishbone Ash existed as Martin Turners Wishbone Ash, and Andy Powells Wishbone ash.

It did until Andy Powell sued Martin Turner and won, preventing him from using the name of the band he had created and as BL hired Andy Powell. But then again Martin Turner quit the band not once but twice...

 

[pholli00]

This must have changed after Squire died. I saw Anderson in NYC a year or two before that & he wasn't using the Yes name at all.

Squier. Oh wait, never mind.

 

[Sixgunn]

He bored the pants off me on his own, so I bolted to go watch Y&T instead.

I've seen Y&T more time than I can count and they have always been very tight and put on great shows. Stadiums, small clubs, you name it. CONSUMMATE pros and really nice guys! Too sad about the recent deaths of 3/4 of the original members but with Dave at the helm, they'll always be Y&T.

 

[Lee Moses]

The irony here is that this isn't how Chris Squire himself saw it at all. When he was asked in interviews about the future of a band that's had such revolving membership and whose original members were aging, he liked to envision a band still carrying on a hundred years from now called "Yes" still making great music, the same way a symphony does with old members moving on and new ones joining. He didn't think they were dragging the name through the mud, he thought it was still a creative enterprise. Fly From Here may not have made the same impression on fans that Fragile did, but the band members saw it as where they had evolved to.

I'm not sure where the irony is . . . I disagreed with Chris on that . . . and I disagree with Steve, Alan, Jon, Rick, etc. Not to say that my opinion carries (or should carry) as much weight as theirs, but I personally wish they would have put the "Yes" name to rest three decades ago and continued to make music based on the music's merit rather than trying to cash in on a once-glorious name.

 

[Honch]

HEY! I opened up for one of those Covenants back in the late '90s (this one)



(they were really nice guys)

Hey, there you go. They're even regional neighbors to me, and I know one of them, that Nachmansson guy. Their BL Eskil Simonsson is nice and humble as possible. Almost so that it is annoying. On stage, they kill, but manages to leave that on stage, when offstage. Eskil has THE drive, passion, enthusiasm, and stamina to work projects through. Although their style isn't really my bag at all (EBM music as they call it) , Eskil is the kind of artist, that has a whole helicopter view of things. He knows what the end result will be, and can manage to bring it there. He's very intelligent. Wouldn't say I know him, but he worked as an interim trainee at Ericsson mobile phone, while I worked there too, and briefly got acquainted with him. If we met and pass each others at concerts these days, we just "nods" towards each other and then moves on. But once they got signed to Sony, they had the upper hand in priority over the actual name. The rest had to ADD something like "The Real Covenant" and so on. They where quite annoyed as they were the first ones to had that name on paper. They bitched and lawsuited and sent "cease or desist" letters, but nothing happened until Big Bad Boy Sony took them under their wings, of course.

- - - - - -

EDIT: Nonsense curiosity: Eskil is THE only one allowed on guest list while/whenever Rammstein plays in Sweden. They're pretty adamant and hardliners when it comes to that. He's personal friend with singer Till Lindemann, and they frequently visit each other when/if time allows. Birthdays and so on. Covenant helped them out, when they were just starting out, and they needed all help they could get. So they're a nice bunch.

 

[hrodbert696]

There WAS a legal issue at one point, as I recall. I think it was determined that only a band with Chris Squire - the sole original member - in it could call itself Yes. I'm guessing that with Squire's death, the gloves are now off.

How long is it before Anderson and Howe sue each other?

I assume you're speaking of the ABWH/Union period. Squire put it succinctly in an interview - "The band is owned by the majority of people currently in the band." It was not that HE had to be in it. It was, as I have been saying all along, institutional continuity. If a band starts out with ABCDE for members, then E quits and is replaced by F, the band is now ABCDF. If D then gets fired and is replaced by G, the band is ABCGF. Then it might be ABHGF, then AIHGF. H, G and F could fire A if they had to, or A could die, and be replaced by J, and JIHGF is still the band, even though A was the last remaining original partner. That's how companies work. The majority of shareholders control the company. A, B and C could then get together and say THEY want to be the company now, but them saying so (and fans liking them better than the company as it currently stands) doesn't make it so.

In Yes' case it's a bit more complicated, because - the major news item in the OP - what no one seems to have known in the public till now is that there are THREE Yes LLCs, Yes '97, Yes 2003, and Yes Touring, and Anderson and Wakeman are majority shareholders (now) in Yes 2003, which must have been set up when they were both in the band and never shut down. Not sure why that happened, but here we are.

I'm not sure where the irony is . . . I disagreed with Chris on that . . . and I disagree with Steve, Alan, Jon, Rick, etc. Not to say that my opinion carries (or should carry) as much weight as theirs, but I personally wish they would have put the "Yes" name to rest three decades ago and continued to make music based on the music's merit rather than trying to cash in on a once-glorious name.

It's ironic that you made Squire the definition of Yes when that's precisely the opposite of his vision. And where some people say "cash in on a once-glorious name," others might say "continue to work at their job." There no obligation for anyone to LIKE anything, of course, and I totally understand not liking a band's more recent output compared with their early days. I couldn't get into Fly From Here they way I got into Fragile, myself. My favorite Indie band, Cold War Kids, has morphed into a mediocre imitation of Coldplay, to my dismay. But I see zero point in trying to say, "That's not Cold War Kids, because it doesn't sound like what I liked about their early albums." It's just where they are now. Lord bless 'em and let 'em do what they want.

 

[Joe Ty]

Besides, the real Rush can never tour again, since John Rutsey died.

Again? I am sure this is a bit TIC, but Rutsey never toured (globally) with Rush. He was on their original eponymous studio LP but was replaced before the tour for that album. He was not up to touring.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Sounds like as long as Squire was alive, they were willing to play nice - now they are going to the last money grab.

 

[Joe Ty]

OT, they agreed to stop suing each other. Gilmore and Mason still hate Waters (with good reason) but they've softened a bit.

Having seen both a Waterless PF concert in Madison WI (Camp Randall) in 1986 followed less than a year later (if memory serves) by Waters solo act at the old Milwaukee Auditorium, there was nothing missing from the Floyd concert, whereas Roger Waters alone was reduced to self indulgent pap.

In fact, Floyd in '86 remains to this day my favorite all time concert, surpassing any of the 12-15 times I've seen my favorite band, Rush.