"Yes" and "Pink Floyd"

[quicksilver]

This is probably directed more to some of the older members who were around in the 70's such as myself.

Yes is a good band. Their use use of stage design, lighting, sound and visuals rival only Pink Floyd, and in some cases in the past have out done the Floyd. I was recently on a Yes board just doing some research and I read hundreds of short interviews with the band and their fans and I'm of the opinion that real hard core Yes fans feel the Floyd is overrated both musically and in terms of their stage shows. It's almost like they're real stuck up about it. They sort of feel that they never got the credit they deserved, or something like that. In other words they seem to have a real chip on their shoulder about it. I found no direct quote from a band member that says that, but I sort of read between the lines.

Now, I remember a few times in the mid to late 70's when Yes came to Milwaukee that their shows were built up as being for the more "sophisticated" music fans.

I never read any interview with Floyd where they even mentioned Yes. I think there was always an underlying sense of competition between them.

What do you think?

[SomeGhostsStepOut]

Well, it seems that Yesfans do not enjoy Pink Floyd because supposedly they are not Progressive enough or some sort of claim along those lines.

I am listening to Yes right now by the way!

[flashback]

Yes is a killer band,I probally got 6-7 of thier albums.Progressive yes they are but no Floyd.I consider P-F in a class of thier own(IMO) compared to anyone else.I have to say I really like Yes,it's not like I'm kicking thier dog or anything.I always consider Yes of the 70s more Glamor Rock.

[Ivan_2068]

Yes is a great "band", they released amazing albums in the 70's and still are great performers, but I never seen Yes as a real band in the whole sense of the word, they are a group of virtuoso musicians that play together but trying to save their individuality.

I feel more comfortable with Gabriel's Genesis and Pink Floyd, bands who's members even with internal problems worked together for the band leaving their individuality behind (at least while recording). In Yes every member is a star that want's to shine brighter than the rest for example, Wakeman's solos are amazing, but are not part of the central theme, they are like a topping that enhances the music but nothing else, maybe you could take those solos and add them to other songs and still wil sound great.

When you watch a Floyd DVD or Genesis bootleg of the early days, you say what great bands and music, and you keep your mind in the band and music, but if you watch a Yes video you always end paying more attention to Wakeman'a shows or Howe amazing style than watching a band as an entity.

Also I like from Genesis and Floyd that both bands create an atmospheric sound unique in the world of prog', something Yes could never achieve.

Iv

[SomeGhostsStepOut]

Also I like from Genesis and Floyd that both bands create an atmospheric sound unique in the world of prog', something Yes could never achieve.

I agree with you on this...

[mosespa]

When I was in High School, I hung out with the musicians...since I was becoming one myself, it seemed the thing to do. Yes, there was a certain chip on the shoulder of the Yes fans (which were almost all of the musicians.)

They considered Yes in the same league as Mozart and Beethoven...Yes were "REAL" music, not "Cliche" ridden Pop Rock crap, was the argument.

If it wasn't Yes or Rush, it was something that had already been done thousands of times over and represented an inability to think for oneself and seek out new ground. Liking anything else meant that you weren't interested in art for it's own sake...you were a poser...WORSE than a poser.

These same guys would also chide anyone who wouldn't listen to Yes as being "unwilling to open your mind."

Pink Floyd seemed to be the worst offenders to these guys, because they showed Art Rock pretensions with elaborate themes and concepts...but the music was "Cliched and simple" by comparison to Yes, Rush or Crimson.

Rather sad, really.

[quicksilver]

This is a lot of reading but is very interesting. I cut this from a YES newsletter in 1994. YES released an album called "talk" around the same time as Division Bell. Talk was considered by YES fans as a Trevor Rabin solo effort rather than a band effort.




****************
The question may be, why Rabin's solo album (under a big name) has not been as succesfull as Gilmour's effort? How about the fact that for Yes, the cover has already been blown. Everybody may know that every other member of Yes is not closed to what he used to be (Hey Chris?), while for the Floyd people may have forgotten the fact that once they used to be a band(remember Meddle?),long before the dictatorship of Waters, and the enterprenuership of Gilmour.
No. The reason that Pink Floyd is outselling Yes is the fact that Pink Floyd
has always been an eminently more marketable name than Yes, and is particularly so today. It really doesn't matter who is on a Yes album or a Pink Floyd album; the Floyd album will automatically sell well, and the Yes album will automatically have its work cut out for it. You assertion that Yes is a "big name" simply isn't true in this day and age.

Furthermore, your hypothesis that "the cover has been blown" is flawed, because the Roger Waters vs. David Gilmour/Nick Mason/Richard Wright issue, with all of the accompanying questions as to "Is it really Pink Floyd," was one of the single biggest stories in the rock press in 1987, and was afforded far more coverage than any change in Yes personnel ever has been. It's fair to assume that many if not most of the record buyers have heard at least something about the issues involved with Floyd's lineup, and the accusations of invalidity which have accompanied it.

Incidentally, your suggestion that Pink Floyd fans "may have forgotten" what's going on twith the band is one of the flimsier excuses I've heard for anything in quite a while. The fact of the matter, though, is that most listeners don't care who's making the music; they care about whether or not they like it, and whether it moves them in some way. And in this case, they probably dug "Keep Talking," which certainly sounds a lot less silly in today's musical climate than "The Calling" or, in particular, "Walls." Likewise, _90125_ didn't sell so well because it
was a Yes album; it sold well thanks to the success of "Owner Of A Lonely
Heart." People, left to their own devices, will generally listen to music that
they enjoy, and it's as simple as people not liking Yes' ethereal spirituality
and positivism (which to my ears has long since ceased to be exploratory and is now merely hackneyed) as much as Pink Floyd's brooding meditations on basic human conditions. And who can blame them? Which band's output, particularly with regards to their lyrical themes, has more meaning to your typical person trying to get through life in the modern world? Is it coincidental to the success of each band? I think not...

Finally, I have to make a point that you may not appreciate until you've
actually heard _Talk_ (and frankly, I don't think you should be making this sort of comparison judgement until you've heard whereof you speak). In any event, _The Division Bell_ is a lot closer in sound and spirit to the "classic" body of work amassed by Pink Floyd (_Dark Side Of The Moon_, _Wish You Were Here_, _Animals_, _The Wall_) than _Talk_ is to Yes' best moments (_Fragile_,_Close To The Edge_, or even _90125_). I've gone through phases of being heavily into both Yes and Pink Floyd, at more or less the same time, and I can tell you that _TDB_ has come as a rather pleasant surprise, while _Talk_ is a disappointment. You obviously disagree, as do many people, but to my ears, _The Division Bell_ sounds like Pink Floyd, whereas _Talk_ sounds like Trevor Rabin, with special guests: Mark Of The Unicorn's Yes Sound File series.

[flashback]

Quicksilver,glad to see you post that.IMO-Yes at thier best wasn't half the band PinkFloyd was at thiers plain & simple,but still I do like some of the stuff they did.

[drafsack]

In general they were good but they had to many peaks and troughs probably caused by the constent change in personel - it almost seemed impposable to do two good albums in a row.
Yes, Time and a Word, The Yes Album, and Fragile are ok. They hit the target with Close to the Edge but lost it again with Yessongs,Tales From Topographic Oceans, Relayer, and Yesterdays again they were on target with Going for the One but Tormato was a dispointment. Well Drama was more of a Buggles album than a Yes album but again they hit gold with 90125. After that I gave up but I still beleave that Steve Howe is a much underrated gutarist.

[Powderfinger]

(...)
No. The reason that Pink Floyd is outselling Yes is the fact that Pink Floyd
has always been an eminently more marketable name than Yes, and is particularly so today. It really doesn't matter who is on a Yes album or a Pink Floyd album; the Floyd album will automatically sell well, and the Yes album will automatically have its work cut out for it. You assertion that Yes is a "big name" simply isn't true in this day and age.

I think that Pink Floyd is a better band then Yes, because their albums sold much better then Yes (think of DSOTM, TW), but also because I like the music of Pink Floyd more then Yes. When I think of Yes, I think of close to the edge, heart of the sunrise, and then it stops.

[quicksilver]

The individual members of Yes are very musically talented but never could fully work in the framework of a "band". Pink Floyd on the other hand played to their strengths and I think were much more creative.

I actually enjoy the 80's version of Yes the most. I think Trevor Rabin was a good addition. Songs like "Love will find a way" and "Rhythm of Love" are pop oriented but a good listen.

[Vlad The Impaler]

This is probably directed more to some of the older members who were around in the 70's such as myself.

Yes is a good band. Their use use of stage design, lighting, sound and visuals rival only Pink Floyd, and in some cases in the past have out done the Floyd. I was recently on a Yes board just doing some research and I read hundreds of short interviews with the band and their fans and I'm of the opinion that real hard core Yes fans feel the Floyd is overrated both musically and in terms of their stage shows. It's almost like they're real stuck up about it. They sort of feel that they never got the credit they deserved, or something like that. In other words they seem to have a real chip on their shoulder about it. I found no direct quote from a band member that says that, but I sort of read between the lines.

Now, I remember a few times in the mid to late 70's when Yes came to Milwaukee that their shows were built up as being for the more "sophisticated" music fans.

I never read any interview with Floyd where they even mentioned Yes. I think there was always an underlying sense of competition between them.

What do you think?

Not sure about the mutual competition angle. As to certain fans looking down on artists other than their personal favs...that's to be expected given human nature. The bottom line for me though is that the Floyd touched me and Yes left me cold. Not saying they are bad at all....just saying they did nothing for me...and the Floyd did.....and that's the bottom line from where I stand.

[Richter_M.]

What an interesting discussion! I really like both bands, but I'm not into Yes to the same degree I'm into PF. I only have a handful of Yes albums - Fragile, Close to the Edge, The Yes Album, Open Your Eyes, 90125, Tales from Topographic Oceans...actually, my pop has those, I've only got Fragile, Close to the Edge, and Highlights.

Anyway, I think Close to the Edge, And You and I, South Side of the Sky, Going for the One, and a few others are sheer genius, nearly paralleling Dogs, Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Echoes, etc. For whatever reason, I haven't gotten into Yes like I'd like to. But I certainly plan to do so eventually.

I had no idea that Yes fans looked down on PF like this. Every Yes fan I've ever talked to (both of 'em) was a PF fan too. I think it must come down to jealousy, as anybody who can't appreciate the genuine artistic genius of Dogs or Time is clearly unworthy of possessing a musical opinion.

[mosespa]

...anybody who can't appreciate the genuine artistic genius of Dogs or Time is clearly unworthy of possessing a musical opinion.

Unfortunately, that was a big part of their point. You see, Time (for example) uses chord progressions that the Yes fans I knew considered cliche...and, okay...maybe it IS a cliche chord progression, a lot of songs DO use it.

However, Dogs was a song that I played for one of the Yes heads after I discovered Animals in '92. (It was the last of the "Classic" PF albums that I bought...and I only bought it because I was jonesing for some Gilmour guitarwork that I didn't already know how to play myself.)

The Yes head could actually appreciate the song's complexity.

I was impressed that he finally opened up his mind.

[Vlad The Impaler]

...anybody who can't appreciate the genuine artistic genius of Dogs or Time is clearly unworthy of possessing a musical opinion.

Unfortunately, that was a big part of their point. You see, Time (for example) uses chord progressions that the Yes fans I knew considered cliche...and, okay...maybe it IS a cliche chord progression, a lot of songs DO use it.

However, Dogs was a song that I played for one of the Yes heads after I discovered Animals in '92. (It was the last of the "Classic" PF albums that I bought...and I only bought it because I was jonesing for some Gilmour guitarwork that I didn't already know how to play myself.)

The Yes head could actually appreciate the song's complexity.

I was impressed that he finally opened up his mind.

Yeah. sometimes a musician will appreciate something a non-musician can't and vice versa. I learned that from experiencing reactions to Frank Zappa......most musicians I encountered whether they were serious fans or not could appreciate what he put into his music and could respect it AND him whereas alot of non-musicians only heard the "weirdness" or occasionally smutty or funny or smutty/funny lyrics and judged him based on that....or worse yet judged him by his facial hair which I really found odd as a judgement basis. Musicians saw through all that to what lay beneath and were more often than not...impressed even if they didn't own a single one of his records. On the other hand I've encountered musicans who looked down on certain songs or artists because of the "simplicity" or "used-so-many-times-before" chord progressions or whatever musical short-comings they perceived whereas a non-musician only heard the resulting song without taking that other criteria into account.

Ahhhhh, people.