Where Yes should be

[profusion]

I saw Peter Gabriel last night on the last date of his 2012 US tour, and I couldn't help but think that this is where Yes SHOULD be today, not playing summer nostalgia package tours and cruise ships.

Peter put on a *show* with vision, depth and grandeur, not merely a concert, despite the fact that the only thing Peter was promoting was a reissue of So. No new music whatsoever. The show was a thing in itself and not merely tied to the album, even though Peter played the entire album back-to-back as part of the show. Obviously, it was a modern show with modern staging techniques, but it brought to mind the staging of the mid-70s Yes shows, which were more than just concerts. Peter also played fabulous renditions of his music, which seems much more progressive than I remember it being in the '80s.

Yes had a vision this big once, and I mourn its loss:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBAKe...=results_video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0CDP7qWNDs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-nRT...feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XMbKsSnlM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6sAK...eature=related

I don't care if its Jon Anderson, Jon Davison or Fozzy The Bear singing, I'd be like a goofy schoolboy again if Yes could get back to this creative performance level somehow.

[Rabin105]

the one thing i don't get about yes and I guess is my gripe with the band Fly From here sold well no jon no yessers can say what they want but Fly from here hit number 33 i think on the billboard us chart....let's let that sink in the Us Billboard that is usually filled with Katy Perry Madonna and rap albums in all 200 places had a yes album for a week at number 33! I figured that was enough that Yes should be able to do a summer US tour with no supporting act just 2 and half hours of yes music like Europe and Asia gets but nope first Styx then Procul Harum so it's like what is the point yes had a good selling album why can't promotoers in the US do a solo yes tour! I could care less about the opening acts!

sigh

[downbyariver]

When's the last time Peter Gabriel released an album of new material (not covers)?

To me, that's the most important question to ask in terms of whether a musical act is staying dynamic and relevant, and Yes is doing a lot better on that score.

[Rabin105]

When's the last time Peter Gabriel released an album of new material (not covers)?

To me, that's the most important question to ask in terms of whether a musical act is staying dynamic and relevant, and Yes is doing a lot better on that score.

Calling Fly from here relevant I find is becoming more and more controversial lol

[profusion]

I figured that was enough that Yes should be able to do a summer US tour with no supporting act just 2 and half hours of yes music like Europe and Asia gets but nope first Styx then Procul Harum so it's like what is the point yes had a good selling album why can't promotoers in the US do a solo yes tour! I could care less about the opening acts!

I agree. I understand the business logic of the Styx tour, but it's difficult to believe that Procul Harum brought in many people who wouldn't have already been there.

Regardless, this isn't an issue of a single tour or having an opener. Seeing Gabriel's show simply brought home to me how diminished Yes in 2012 really is. They used to put on that caliber of show, but not in a long time. The 2004 tour was a half-hearted attempt to do so, but the last time Yes really "thought big" was the Union tour. I can picture that in-the-round set vividly to this day. The show made the band and the music seem even bigger, somehow.

When's the last time Peter Gabriel released an album of new material (not covers)?

To me, that's the most important question to ask in terms of whether a musical act is staying dynamic and relevant, and Yes is doing a lot better on that score.

I disagree. My point was mostly about live performance.

Gabriel hasn't put out an album of new material since 2002, but it's not a good comparison, since he's been notorious for taking a long time between albums for decades now. He's only released seven solo albums of new rock material (excluding soundtracks, live albums and covers) over his entire career.

Peter is able to take his older material and make a new and compelling show out of it. He's also willing to reinvent the old music when it suits him. I believe Yes could take a lesson from that. I know it's never going to happen--I'm just daydreaming out loud.

[enoesque]

Yes' stint in the stadiums started to end with the album Talk.
Classic Yes fans were disappointed about how Wakeman, Bruford, and Howe got sidelined because of the record label desire to milk the 90125 lineup for one more Owner of A Lonely Heart (which they didn't get) and didn't come out to see them tour to support it. Newer Yes fans were disappointed because Talk didn't have the commercial "hits" that 90125 and BG had.
So Yes moved back to their roots when they reformed the so called "classic" lineup with Wakeman. That's when they started playing smaller venues and the longterm Yes fans of the days of yore were the ones coming to shows. The next handful of albums didn't live up to anything the band put out before so they weren't gaining any new audience.
People want to hang this on kicking Anderson and Wakeman out and moving forward with new members and new ideas, but that's simply not the cause of their decline. FFH was proof of concept and sold well. The next album needs to hit it out of the park in a musical climate where contestants on American Idol are making sh!t records and embryos are getting record contracts.
Gabriel, on the other hand, puts out one album of new material every 4-6 years and rarely tours. Yes has pretty much been touring nearly every year since the 70s. You cannot compare the two. Yes needs to make a brilliant album again and not simply tour on the strength of their past.

[profusion]

Gabriel, on the other hand, puts out one album of new material every 4-6 years and rarely tours. Yes has pretty much been touring nearly every year since the 70s. You cannot compare the two. Yes needs to make a brilliant album again and not simply tour on the strength of their past.

I know you can't directly compare Yes and Peter Gabriel, and I wasn't attempting to do so. My point is to do with artistic and creative ambition. The Yes logo used to signify something special--you knew this wasn't going to be just another rock album or just another rock concert. It's gotten stale from neglect, almost as though the principal participants no longer understand how special their creation really was. Now it's just a cash cow, and it shows in the albums, and especially in the tours. And this was true *before* Jon Anderson left.

When I go to a Yes show or buy a Yes album, I want to be taken on a ride. Moderately competent prog-pop and stiff recreations of 1972 arrangements aren't cutting it. A Yes concert in 2012 isn't bad, but it's not really taking you anywhere you haven't been before. It doesn't take stadium venues or seven-figure touring budgets to pull that off, but it does take artistic ambition.

[enoesque]

I think the band know the standard they need to embrace. Magnification (which I didn't like) and FFh (which I did) were both steps in the right direction. The former only got one tour and then very little of it was layed during the following tour. FFH suffered from 1. Being the first album without Jon Anderson on the heels of a very acrimonious split. 2. Not well rehearsed for a tour to promote the album. 3. Health issues with the new singer of the band. None of which has anything to do with the music itself, which was acutally pretty strong, imo. Now they have a new singer and a renewed sense of purpose. The next release will be the acid test if they return to the standard we've all come to expect.

[profusion]

a renewed sense of purpose.

I question this. Obviously, I'd love for it to be the case. Howe and Squire have more of a "workaday" vision of Yes. Maybe Davison dreams bigger dreams, but he's the new kid on the block and unlikely to hold sway over the others.

[Mr. Holland]

I think there is one big oversight in all that is argued here: money!

To put on a show like Gabriel does, costs a lot of money and for some reason there are people who are willing to put this up for Gabriel, while Yes apparantly doesn't seem able to get the funding to organize a tour in that vein. One of the reasons for that is that I think that over the years, with cancelled tours and all sorts of other issues Yes lost a lot of credibility with promotors and sponsors and when one looses that it's very hard to win it back.

[enoesque]

Gabriel is also a solo artist, with the flexibility of hiring whoever he wants to be his backup band.

[enoesque]

I question this. Obviously, I'd love for it to be the case. Howe and Squire have more of a "workaday" vision of Yes. Maybe Davison dreams bigger dreams, but he's the new kid on the block and unlikely to hold sway over the others.

No member of the band Yes does what they do for charity. It is work. Hard work. They are also in their sixties. Everytime they get a new member in the band, they try to do something that honors what they bring to the table. They have done that with every album and lineup change. You may not like the direction, but I don't think that they are lazy or directionless.

[Mr. Holland]

Gabriel is also a solo artist, with the flexibility of hiring whoever he wants to be his backup band.

True, but these musicians still have to be paid and someone like Tony Levin doesn't come cheap.

[Mr. Holland]

[enoesque]

What amazes me is how people seem to bristle at the notion that people get paid to perform onstage. Not a new or foreign concept.

[crotale2112]

cool vids.. that first one is cool- almost like a 3-D effect.

I could only imagine if Roger dean was given a HUGE budget to create a stage for Yes again..

A 3-D Tales from topographic oceans stage show that looks just like the album would be cool.. flowing water and everytrhing..

3-D fish that would swim all around the crowd during the ambiant moog sections in the remembering..

yeah..

[luna65]

I think there is one big oversight in all that is argued here: money!

Exactly. Unless Yes has a major promoter behind them then the market they're in now is what they're left to.

[Mr. Holland]

What amazes me is how people seem to bristle at the notion that people get paid to perform onstage. Not a new or foreign concept.

Who bristles at that then? I think some of us are actually trying to make clear that money is most probably the main reason why Yes isn't doing what Gabriel is doing.....

[enoesque]

Doesn't work that way. Promoters are getting behind artists and clients that can make them money. A Lady Gaga tour would be easier to book and promote because that's what people are paying to see. They aren't paying to see a 70s band that's been around for 45 years playing to a core audience in their 40s and 50s, who will probably only see one major concert in a year. That's not lucrative. They don't go to shows the way 20-30 year olds do. That's Business 101. So how do you promote a band like Yes? You book smaller venues, theatres, casino ballrooms, creative events like package tours, cruise ships.. That's how that happens. That's also what Yes has been doing for well over a decade. If they manage to have a break out hit that appeals to the 20-somethings again, maybe they have a chance to hit bigger venues, but until then, the band still needs to make a living and this is the best option a touring band like Yes has. The same applies for a lot of other 70s acts, even some 80s acts.

[enoesque]

Who bristles at that then? I think some of us are actually trying to make clear that money is most probably the main reason why Yes isn't doing what Gabriel is doing.....

Yes isn't doing what Gabriel is doing because that's not what they do. Peter Gabriel is his own thing. He tours once every 5-7 years with some grand concept in mind. He also has a much bigger draw than Yes did and a lot more hit albums.
Apples and Grapefruit.