Yes at 50 - Warning: Prog and Spector content

[wateroftyne]

4 minutes ago, TrevorR said:

One could also say the same of Roger’s post-Roger albums...

Absolutely. All of them apart from his new one, I'd say.

Incidentally, the reason I'm on this thread in the first place is because having willfully managed to resist Yes for the best part of 35 years, I've finally succumbed. I've got a bit of catching up to do.

[ead]

1 hour ago, wateroftyne said:

To be fair, as great a live band Floyd were post-Roger, the albums have been pretty weak.

I was meaning Syd Barrett being replaced by DG.

[ead]

38 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

Absolutely. All of them apart from his new one, I'd say.

Incidentally, the reason I'm on this thread in the first place is because having willfully managed to resist Yes for the best part of 35 years, I've finally succumbed. I've got a bit of catching up to do.

Good man.  I have pretty much all of their output (even some of the tribute material )

[prowla]

4 hours ago, TrevorR said:

I’d better throw away my copies of Yessongs, Going For The One and 90125 then... I never realised they didn’t count as they’re just by some tribute band.

Squire and Anderson...

[steantval]

2 hours ago, ead said:

I was meaning Syd Barrett being replaced by DG.

Thank god Barrett left, the best thing ever.

We would never have had Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here otherwise.

[wateroftyne]

7 minutes ago, steantval said:

Thank god Barrett left, the best thing ever.

We would never have had Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here otherwise.

Yeah.. never a big fan myself. A couple of good tunes, padded out with a load of right old nonsense.

[spectoremg]

7 hours ago, TrevorR said:

I’d better throw away my copies of Yessongs, Going For The One and 90125 then... I never realised they didn’t count as they’re just by some tribute band.

Your point is?

[ead]

1 hour ago, spectoremg said:

Your point is?

Is it maybe that not everybody holds your world view of what a band line up should be.  I personally am quite relaxed about an evolving line up in any band and there have been a few global bands that have done just this.  If this is a red line for you that is fine, but it's not for some of us.

For what it's worth I completely agree that BB was/is a far better drummer than AW, but I've only seen BB once with Yes and AW mulitple times so I associate him with the "classic" line up.  What I choose to spend my hard-earned on is my decision, and if you believe I've been overcharged that's fine too, your choice not to go.

[Bluewine]

On 3/24/2018 at 07:34, steve-bbb said:

indeed this - not knocking them but its not really yes is it - i was struggling with seeing them in their buggles phase but was an enjoyable gig nonetheless but still not a patch on the classic line up imho/ymmv/mcton/etc/etc

Agreed, no Chris Squire, no YES.

Blue

[prowla]

8 hours ago, ead said:

Is it maybe that not everybody holds your world view of what a band line up should be.  I personally am quite relaxed about an evolving line up in any band and there have been a few global bands that have done just this.  If this is a red line for you that is fine, but it's not for some of us.

For what it's worth I completely agree that BB was/is a far better drummer than AW, but I've only seen BB once with Yes and AW mulitple times so I associate him with the "classic" line up.  What I choose to spend my hard-earned on is my decision, and if you believe I've been overcharged that's fine too, your choice not to go.

There are also two versions of Yes doing the rounds at the moment; apparently Steve Howe owns the name and logo, so Jon Anderson's one is something else.

I only saw Yes once, on the Going For The Bum tour, so I missed the classic line-up.

It seems there are quite a few of us who think that red line exists.

 

[ead]

Either way two tribute bands without Mr Squire then, and imho Rabin is not an adequate substitute for Steve Howe.  As I say make your choice and pay your money 

[EssentialTension]

Maybe what some of you consider a tribute band should change its name to No.

[steantval]

6 hours ago, Bluewine said:

Agreed, no Chris Squire, no YES.

Blue

One would question, based on this principle that The Stones aren’t The Stones without Wyman.

[wateroftyne]

2 minutes ago, steantval said:

One would question, based on this principle that The Stones aren’t The Stones without Wyman.

This would be assuming all band members are equal. Now there’s a question...

[TrevorR]

1 hour ago, prowla said:

There are also two versions of Yes doing the rounds at the moment; apparently Steve Howe owns the name and logo, so Jon Anderson's one is something else.

I only saw Yes once, on the Going For The Bum tour, so I missed the classic line-up.

It seems there are quite a few of us who think that red line exists.

 

To be fair, we’ve been through this all before with “Yes West” and ABWH - who also wanted to call themselves “Yes” before m’learned friends got involved. As I recall there was even some legal wrangling over calling the tour “An evening of Yes music plus...” even though that’s just a description of what AWBH delivered live. Cracking gig it was too. As was the 90125 line up live.

Yes has always been and I suspect will always be a soap opera.

Personally with neither Chris nor Jon my appetite to see “Yes” has waned - and you could probably say the same from the Benoit days onward. On the other hand. If I were going to shell out for one “Yes” gig this year I’d probably plump for ARW for no particularly logical reason other than liking Rick’s playing style more than Geoff’s.

[Bluewine]

21 minutes ago, steantval said:

One would question, based on this principle that The Stones aren’t The Stones without Wyman.

No question from my perspective.

They're not.

Blue

[prowla]

10 hours ago, steantval said:

One would question, based on this principle that The Stones aren’t The Stones without Wyman.

No Stones without Jagger & Richard.

[spectoremg]

22 hours ago, ead said:

Is it maybe that not everybody holds your world view of what a band line up should be.  I personally am quite relaxed about an evolving line up in any band and there have been a few global bands that have done just this.  If this is a red line for you that is fine, but it's not for some of us.

For what it's worth I completely agree that BB was/is a far better drummer than AW, but I've only seen BB once with Yes and AW mulitple times so I associate him with the "classic" line up.  What I choose to spend my hard-earned on is my decision, and if you believe I've been overcharged that's fine too, your choice not to go.

To clarify, I consider the line-ups with both Bill and Alan to be the real deal. A line-up without Jon, Chris, Rick and Alan for most of the gig won't do.

[Oopsdabassist]

11 hours ago, TrevorR said:

To be fair, we’ve been through this all before with “Yes West” and ABWH - who also wanted to call themselves “Yes” before m’learned friends got involved. As I recall there was even some legal wrangling over calling the tour “An evening of Yes music plus...” even though that’s just a description of what AWBH delivered live. Cracking gig it was too. As was the 90125 line up live.

Yes has always been and I suspect will always be a soap opera.

Personally with neither Chris nor Jon my appetite to see “Yes” has waned - and you could probably say the same from the Benoit days onward. On the other hand. If I were going to shell out for one “Yes” gig this year I’d probably plump for ARW for no particularly logical reason other than liking Rick’s playing style more than Geoff’s.

I would probably see both incarnations if it were possible, but I would almost certainly enjoy ARW more due to Rick and Jon's presence!

[jacko]

I waa at the Glasgow show and came away very disappointed. First off, alan white only came on 10 minutes from the end and even then could hardly hit the skins. Downs IMO was a waste of space. Howe's not as fast anymore and was stumbling over lines he managed effortlessly 15 years ago. Billy sherwood played the notes but he just didn't have the feel or presence squire had. Harking across to the compression thread, I don't believe sherwood was using any. His highs were inaudible and his lows were painfully loud (8 rows back). I also got the impression they were under rehearsed. The only pleasant surprise was jon davidson who sounded more like jon anderson than anderson has for 20 years or more. It's 40 years since I first saw yes but I won't be bothering again. 

[Bluewine]

28 minutes ago, jacko said:

 It's 40 years since I first saw yes but I won't be bothering again. 

Are there any good examples of bands that are several incarnations away from the initial line up and key members are missing and it works?

Blue

[Bluewine]

Just now, Bluewine said:

Are there any good examples of bands that are several incarnations away from the initial line up and key members are missing and it works?

Blue

Ronnie Wood replacing Mick Taylor

(actually Brian in my book) sort of worked. Actually it really did work quite well.

 

Blue

[steantval]

6 minutes ago, Bluewine said:

Are there any good examples of bands that are several incarnations away from the initial line up and key members are missing and it works?

Blue

Here are four to start with

Journey.

Foreigner.

Fleetwood Mac.

The Eagles.

Edited March 28, 2018 by steantval

[bumnote]

9 minutes ago, Bluewine said:

Are there any good examples of bands that are several incarnations away from the initial line up and key members are missing and it works?

Blue

10cc

[ead]

19 minutes ago, Bluewine said:

Are there any good examples of bands that are several incarnations away from the initial line up and key members are missing and it works?

Blue

Maybe not all have had several incarnations but off the top of my head:  Yardbirds, Deep Purple, Faces, Pretenders, RHCP, Metallica

More controversial maybe, Pink Floyd, AC/DC

Edited March 28, 2018 by ead