Jay Schellen officially joins Yes

[Mr. Holland]

Good for him. Was there another drummer too or was that my imagination?

Dylan Howe drummed one a US tour with them in 2017.

[downbyariver]

I feel that when Steve retires, it's highly likely the Yes name will be retired as well.

While I can't deny that that's a possibility, because I wouldn't be dreading the possibility of Yes folding at that juncture if I didn't think it could actually happen that way, my *hope* is that Yes continues on indefinitely creating new music past even the retirement of the great Steve Howe (Since I'm typing this and it can be hard to convey tone, I should clarify that I'm in no way being sarcastic- he is one of the all-time great guitar players. Obviously he can't play as well at 77 as he could at 27 and that is an issue for the band, but most men aren't even alive at 77 [Link is to US statistics and Steve is a Brit, but I imagine the statistics are similar], let alone touring the world playing guitar for a rock band turning in good enough performance that people can even argue about whether he's still got it or not. Maybe there's something to that vegetarian diet of his after all. ).

While I am also a fan of Arc of Life, there is a certain magic greater than the some of their parts feeling to Yes. There is also the simple fact that a band with the Yes name has the ability to attract better performers to fill potential vacancies, get better and more frequent contracts for new albums, sell more tickets at the box office, and receive better touring offers from promoters than if some band like Circa: or Arc of Life tried to kind of be Yes without the name in a post-Yes world.

Circa: had to kind of give up on being a touring band after a while (I'm not really even persuaded it still exists in the studio. They can feel free to make an album and prove me wrong. I'd love to hear it- literally. I enjoyed their music.), though it did tour clubs in the early days of it's existence. Arc of Life has yet to see it's first touring contract. Now, one would imagine in the hypothetical absence of Yes, a band like Arc of Life could go further than maybe it could go now, and of course I'm pretty open about caring about studio albums much more than touring, so I don't mind studio-only if it comes down to it for any band (Beats touring-only IMO.).

There's no question in my mind, though, that even if they had the exact same lineup as Arc of Life has today but got to keep the Yes name, Yes would do better across a whole range of industry metrics. Nothing advertises "This is going to sound life a Yes album" better than it actually being a Yes album and nothing advertises "We're a bunch of guys associated with Yes playing Yes songs live" better than them actually being Yes.

Circa: started with Alan White and Tony Kaye at a time Yes was on hiatus and more Yes fans were alive and didn't get lengthy big venue tours. I am not sure Arc of Life would do better without those names later in the timeline even were Yes gone. I mean, I'd be supportive of the effort, just as I am now while it co-exists with Yes. I'd just rather to see Yes and Arc of Life continue to co-exist rather than having Arc of Life have to replace Yes.

For as long as people listen to 70s and 80s rock music, they'll at least probably hear "Roundabout", "Owner of a Lonely Heart", and "I've Seen All Good People", and be able to choose to dive deeper if they like what they hear. If there is still an active Yes touring and making new music, they can benefit from that free advertising.

I don't think past a certain point people would even have the expectation that it's the same lineup as it was in, say, 1969. I actually wound up sitting near someone at a 2016 concert who wasn't shocked at the people who weren't there, but was shocked that people like Steve Howe and Geoff Downes *were* there.

Personally, with any band from that era, I'm at the point where I tend to assume most or all of the people in it now are not original members. That doesn't bother me as long as they continue to make new music under their band's famous band, giving back to the legacy they benefit from on stage.

And if I like the band, as I do with Yes, I understand that oftentimes a lineup without any of the early performers is the best they can do (Given deaths, retirements, personality, conflicts, and so forth).

At some point, one realizes that if something is worth continuing, it will eventually have to do it with new people, and that's what I want for all the bands I love.

If something takes a horrible turn and I don't want to listen to the new music a band makes, I can always choose not to keep listening to the new stuff- no difference from if they folded. I can't make up new albums from a band that has ceased to exist, though.

Yes has had tons of personal changes since the beginning. When they did the Union thing in 1991, they had 8 men on stage and were snubbing 3 others. I think there have been well over 20 members of Yes now.

Yes has always been one of those bands like Chicago where it was about the band's musical identity as a group, with a lot of personnel changes, including key personnel, and people who kept right on listening to new albums and buying tickets to new shows.

It can be harder for bands that have had the exact same lineup forever to tour with new ones. For Yes, the lineup has always been in flux.

[Gilly Goodness]

The last paragraph. U2. Some fans can't accept a new drummer. Talk to Tony O'Reilly.

You wonder why they all bother. YES. I mean.

Like Bobby Dread. They get up. They fish. They got a life to live. They got music to play.

YES exist I posit. To create life affirmin' anthems. To God. To the sun. But most importantly to people. Us. People who hope for good times. Peace. Prosperity. Grandchildren. The future.

Don't give up on humanity. Balance your thoughts.
Know the despots will fall. They always do.

We were down and out in Africa. We were down to just a few groups. But we survived. And we will. In shiny green energy linear cities and in the jungles of Papua New Guinea where in 500 years inter tribal warfare will still result in the winners eatin' the losers.
With fermented fruit drinks. If not chianti.

So as Roger Dean has drawn us on the new album cover. We stand in awe before the stars. The Milky Way. Ignorant of so much but with a beatin' heart and DNA of tens of thousands before us.

The X2a drive to survive.

Incredible.

[Mr. Holland]

While I can't deny that that's a possibility, because I wouldn't be dreading the possibility of Yes folding at that juncture if I didn't think it could actually happen that way, my *hope* is that Yes continues on indefinitely creating new music past even the retirement of the great Steve Howe (Since I'm typing this and it can be hard to convey tone, I should clarify that I'm in no way being sarcastic- he is one of the all-time great guitar players. Obviously he can't play as well at 77 as he could at 27 and that is an issue for the band, but most men aren't even alive at 77 [Link is to US statistics and Steve is a Brit, but I imagine the statistics are similar], let alone touring the world playing guitar for a rock band turning in good enough performance that people can even argue about whether he's still got it or not. Maybe there's something to that vegetarian diet of his after all. ).

While I am also a fan of Arc of Life, there is a certain magic greater than the some of their parts feeling to Yes. There is also the simple fact that a band with the Yes name has the ability to attract better performers to fill potential vacancies, better and more frequent contracts for new albums, more tickets at the box office, and better touring offers from promoters than if some band like Circa: or Arc of Life tried to kind of be Yes without the name in a post-Yes world.

Circa: had to kind of give up on being a touring band after a while (I'm not really even persuaded it still exists in the studio. They can feel free to make an album and prove me wrong. I'd love to hear it- literally. I enjoyed their music.), though it did tour clubs in the early days of it's existence. Arc of Life has yet to see it's first touring contract. Now, one would imagine in the hypothetical absence of Yes, a band like Arc of Life could go further than maybe it could go now, and of course I'm pretty open about caring about studio albums much more than touring, so I don't mind studio-only if it comes down to it for any band (Beats touring-only IMO.).

There's no question in my mind, though, that even if they had the exact same lineup as Arc of Life has today but got to keep the Yes name, Yes would do better across a whole range of industry metrics. Nothing advertises "This is going to sound life a Yes album" better than it actually being a Yes album and nothing advertises "We're a bunch of guys associated with Yes playing Yes songs live" better than them actually being Yes.

Circa: started with Alan White and Tony Kaye at a time Yes was on hiatus and more Yes fans were alive and didn't get lengthy big venue tours. I am not sure Arc of Life would do better without those names later in the timeline even were Yes gone. I mean, I'd be supportive of the effort, just as I am now while it co-exists with Yes. I'd just rather to see Yes and Arc of Life continue to co-exists rather than having Arc of Life have to replace Yes.

For as long as people listen to 70s and 80s rock music, they'll at least probably hear "Roundabout", "Owner of a Lonely Heart", and "I've Seen All Good People", and be able to choose to dive deeper if they like what they hear. If there is still an active Yes touring and making new music, they can benefit from that free advertising.

I don't think past a certain point people would even have the expectation that it's the same lineup as it was in, say, 1969. I actually wound up sitting near someone at a 2016 concert who wasn't shocked at the people who weren't there, but was shocked that people like Steve Howe and Geoff Downes *were* there.

Personally, with any band from that era, I'm at the point where I tend to assume most or all of the people in it now are not original members. That doesn't bother me as long as they continue to make new music under their band's famous band, giving back to the legacy they benefit from on stage.

And if I like the band, as I do with Yes, I understand that oftentimes a lineup without any of the early performers is the best they can do (Given deaths, retirements, personality, conflicts, and so forth).

At some point, one realizes that if something is worth continuing, it will eventually have to do with new people, and that's what I want for all the bands I love.

If something takes a horrible turn and I don't want to listen to the new music a band makes, I can always choose not to keep listening to the new stuff- no difference from if they folded. I can't make up new albums from a band that has ceased to exist, though.

Yes has had tons of personal changes since the beginning. When they did the Union thing in 1991, they had 8 men on stage and were snubbing 3 others. I think there have been well over 20 members of Yes now.

Yes has always been one of those bands like Chicago where it was about the band's musical identity as a group, with a lot of personnel changes, including key personnel, and people who kept right on listening to new albums and buying tickets to new shows.

It can be harder for bands that had the exact same lineup forever to tour with new ones. For Yes, the lineup has always been in flux.

While the membership was in flux, IMO the band's musical identity has always been determined by some of the key members; Anderson, Squire, Howe and Rabin. All the others contributed to it, but those four IMO are and were key factors to that musical identity. Up till Squire's passing there were at least two of those key members in every line up. Only one of those is left now, and a lot of fans already do not recognise that musical identity of Yes anymore. Without any of those four, that musical identity will be gone as well.

[downbyariver]

While the membership was in flux, IMO the band's musical identity has always been determined by some of the key members; Anderson, Squire, Howe and Rabin. All the others contributed to it, but those four IMO are and were key factors to that musical identity. Up till Squire's passing there were at least two of those key members in every line up. Only one of those is left now, and a lot of fans already do not recognise that musical identity of Yes anymore. Without any of those four, that musical identity will be gone as well.

Half of those four aren't original members, and one didn't join the band until 1983 and only just barely stayed in the band over a decade. I am not disagreeing that they all helped create, evolve, and embody the musical spirit of Yes. However, I think what I am disagreeing with is that somehow no one else left in the band embodies that same spirit, or that they couldn't, and the implication that no new members filling future vacancies could either.

Billy Sherwood is very much Yes and you could feel it as far back as Lodgic in the mid-80s and with Yes directly in various roles going back to 1990. It's in a lot of the music he makes, including that outside of Yes. It's like he was Yes before he even met any of the musicians in Yes. That first World Trade album evoked all sorts of comparisons. He arguably saved the band in the 90s at least once.

Geoff Downes joined Yes in 1980 and is responsible for a large part of Drama, a core top half dozen Yes album, as well as the more recent albums like Fly From Here, Heaven & Earth, The Quest, and this year's forthcoming as yet untitled album. He's been touring with the band for over a decade in this, his second stint, and actually has played keyboards so many times with Yes live that he's probably a close third in appearances behind Tony Kaye and Rick Wakeman, and maybe even higher.

Half this thread has been about how Jay Schellen embodies Yes. He had to step in for Alan White in 2016 on eight days notice and played Drama, 2.5 sides of Tales, and more.

Jon Davison has been doing this over a decade and was born with a voice that kind of shouts "This guy would be great singing Yes songs". He also seems to have some lyrical and spiritual feelings, inspirations, and influences similar to the band's first lead singer.

Obviously, Steve Howe is Steve Howe. I doubt think I need to defend his contributions to this band.

I don't understand why these guys would be considered not to embody enough of the spirit of things to carry the torch forward, especially if, in the event of Steve's retirement, they picked a guitarist who really wound up being a great pick who really gets it and can write as well as play and perhaps if Geoff retired, brought back Oliver Wakeman or Tom Brislin.

It seems a bit arbitrary to draw a line like "Hey, if they weren't around before whatever year, they can't embody Yes". All of these guys studied at the feet of the masters. Many of them have played with a lot more older Yes members than one would think, outside as well as inside Yes. Plus, embodying the spirit isn't just about who you've played with and learned from, it implies a sort of inner Yesness that I think they have.

I get that most of that is subjective and obviously not everyone agrees. It pleases me that enough people are giving them a chance to keep Yes going, for now, and I hope, if Yes continues past Steve and/or Geoff, and I hope it will, that people will give that iteration of Yes and the new albums they produce (Which I'd love to be something they prioritize in that scenario) a chance as well.

[Ceasar’s Palace]

While the membership was in flux, IMO the band's musical identity has always been determined by some of the key members; Anderson, Squire, Howe and Rabin. All the others contributed to it, but those four IMO are and were key factors to that musical identity. Up till Squire's passing there were at least two of those key members in every line up. Only one of those is left now, and a lot of fans already do not recognise that musical identity of Yes anymore. Without any of those four, that musical identity will be gone as well.

Even if it’s no rocket science and hard to quantify, I think mr Holland gives a good account on what most of us intuitively would see as the core of Yes.
BTW this should mean that I shouldn’t be very excited about a new Yes album… and yet… I am!

[bondegezou]

Geoff Downes joined Yes in 1980 and is responsible for a large part of Drama, a core top half dozen Yes album, as well as the more recent albums like Fly From Here, Heaven & Earth, The Quest, and this year's forthcoming as yet untitled album. He's been touring with the band for over a decade in this, his second stint, and actually has played keyboards so many times with Yes live that he's probably a close third in appearances behind Tony Kaye and Rick Wakeman, and maybe even higher.

Forgotten Yesterdays says... Tony Kaye 1022 (including 3 Mabel Greer's Toyshop shows), Wakeman (R) 980 (including ABWH, ARW), Downes 711... and then a big gap to Khoroshev on 284.

[bondegezou]

While the membership was in flux, IMO the band's musical identity has always been determined by some of the key members; Anderson, Squire, Howe and Rabin.

The person with the fourth most writing credits in Yes, well ahead of Rabin in 5th, is Alan White.

[Mr. Holland]

Half of those four aren't original members, and one didn't join the band until 1983 and only just barely stayed in the band over a decade. I am not disagreeing that they all helped create, evolve, and embody the musical spirit of Yes. However, I think what I am disagreeing with is that somehow no one else left in the band embodies that same spirit, or that they couldn't, and the implication that no new members filling future vacancies could either.

Billy Sherwood is very much Yes and you could feel it as far back as Lodgic in the mid-80s and with Yes directly in various roles going back to 1990. It's in a lot of the music he makes, including that outside of Yes. It's like he was Yes before he even met any of the musicians in Yes. That first World Trade album evoked all sorts of comparisons. He arguably saved the band in the 90s at least once.

Geoff Downes joined Yes in 1980 and is responsible for a large part of Drama, a core top half dozen Yes album, as well as the more recent albums like Fly From Here, Heaven & Earth, The Quest, and this year's forthcoming as yet untitled album. He's been touring with the band for over a decade in this, his second stint, and actually has played keyboards so many times with Yes live that he's probably a close third in appearances behind Tony Kaye and Rick Wakeman, and maybe even higher.

Half this thread has been about how Jay Schellen embodies Yes. He had to step in for Alan White in 2016 on eight days notice and played Drama, 2.5 sides of Tales, and more.

Jon Davison has been doing this over a decade and was born with a voice that kind of shouts "This guy would be great singing Yes songs". He also seems to have some lyrical and spiritual feelings, inspirations, and influences similar to the band's first lead singer.

Obviously, Steve Howe is Steve Howe. I doubt think I need to defend his contributions to this band.

I don't understand why these guys would be considered not to embody enough of the spirit of things to carry the torch forward, especially if, in the event of Steve's retirement, they picked a guitarist who really wound up being a great pick who really gets it and can write as well as play and perhaps if Geoff retired, brought back Oliver Wakeman or Tom Brislin.

It seems a bit arbitrary to draw a line like "Hey, if they weren't around before whatever year, they can't embody Yes". All of these guys studied at the feet of the masters. Many of them have played with a lot more older Yes members than one would think, outside as well as inside Yes. Plus, embodying the spirit isn't just about who you've played with and learned from, it implies a sort of inner Yesness that I think they have.

I get that most of that is subjective and obviously not everyone agrees. It pleases me that enough people are giving them a chance to keep Yes going, for now, and I hope, if Yes continues past Steve and/or Geoff, and I hope it will, that people will give that iteration of Yes and the new albums they produce (Which I'd love to be something they prioritize in that scenario) a chance as well.

I don't think their musical identity was established on the first two albums. Those are very much characterised by the search for a musical identity. They established their musical identity with the arrival of Howe and The Yes Album and build on that. Their 'second musical identity' was established when Rabin became a member. The 70s by far and 80s (well 90125 first and foremost) and what was created back there and then is what is Yes' musical identity.

While other have contributed to Yes continuing they have not had a key role, as have Anderson, Squire, Howe and Rabin, in creating that musical identity.

Drama is a great album itself, and Geoff contributed much to that album, but it's certainly not a key album when it comes to establishing their musical identity.

Sherwood has helped the band move on much more than I think he has helped the band to move forward. There is a notable difference between the two. In no way did he have a key role in establishing the band's musical identity, nor has Davison or Schellen, no matter their Yes connections or for how many years they've worked with Yes(members) in whatever capacity.

I think it's subjective what albums we like, which members we like the best. I don't think it's that subjective on who have been the key members in establishing Yes' musical identity. Nor The Quest, nor Heaven & Earth have had a role in determining Yes' musical identity, nor have The Ladder or Open Your Eyes for that matter for instance. And nor will any future albums. Yes' musical identity has been established many decades ago and that won't change. If anything some of those albums are more viewed by a majority of fans as diverting from that musical identity.

What keeps Yes going these days is first and foremost touring and playing the classics. Enough people (at the moment) are giving them a chance to keep going, because they still want to see the classics performed in concert. I don't think releasing new albums play a very large role in enough people giving them a chance to keep going. Yes, musical identity is so much attached to the 70s and to a lesser extent the 80s and those key members that it would be rather pointless to continue as Yes beyond any of those key members. Then the others would be better of establishing their own musical identity.

[Mr. Holland]

The person with the fourth most writing credits in Yes, well ahead of Rabin in 5th, is Alan White.

I don't think the amount of writing credits is the only factor in determining who were key members in establishing Yes' musical identity. Someone like Rabin or Howe had a much bigger impact on Yes' overall sound, far beyond writing credits.

[Ash Armstrong]

I don't think their musical identity was established on the first two albums. Those are very much characterised by the search for a musical identity. They established their musical identity with the arrival of Howe and The Yes Album and build on that. Their 'second musical identity' was established when Rabin became a member. The 70s by far and 80s (well 90125 first and foremost) and what was created back there and then is what is Yes' musical identity.

While other have contributed to Yes continuing they have not had a key role, as have Anderson, Squire, Howe and Rabin, in creating that musical identity.

Drama is a great album itself, and Geoff contributed much to that album, but it's certainly not a key album when it comes to establishing their musical identity.

Sherwood has helped the band move on much more than I think he has helped the band to move forward. There is a notable difference between the two. In no way did he have a key role in establishing the band's musical identity, nor has Davison or Schellen, no matter their Yes connections or for how many years they've worked with Yes(members) in whatever capacity.

I think it's subjective what albums we like, which members we like the best. I don't think it's that subjective on who have been the key members in establishing Yes' musical identity. Nor The Quest, nor Heaven & Earth have had a role in determining Yes' musical identity, nor have The Ladder or Open Your Eyes for that matter for instance. And nor will any future albums. Yes' musical identity has been established many decades ago and that won't change. If anything some of those albums are more viewed by a majority of fans as diverting from that musical identity.

What keeps Yes going these days is first and foremost touring and playing the classics. Enough people (at the moment) are giving them a chance to keep going, because they still want to see the classics performed in concert. I don't think releasing new albums play a very large role in enough people giving them a chance to keep going. Yes, musical identity is so much attached to the 70s and to a lesser extent the 80s and those key members that it would be rather pointless to continue as Yes beyond any of those key members. Then the others would be better of establishing their own musical identity.

Brilliantly put Arno. I can't fault your take on the difference between moving on and moving forward, or on the notion of musical identity. The knighthood is in the post.

[bondegezou]

Sherwood has helped the band move on much more than I think he has helped the band to move forward. There is a notable difference between the two. In no way did he have a key role in establishing the band's musical identity, nor has Davison or Schellen, no matter their Yes connections or for how many years they've worked with Yes(members) in whatever capacity.

I think it's subjective what albums we like, which members we like the best. I don't think it's that subjective on who have been the key members in establishing Yes' musical identity. Nor The Quest, nor Heaven & Earth have had a role in determining Yes' musical identity, nor have The Ladder or Open Your Eyes for that matter for instance. And nor will any future albums. Yes' musical identity has been established many decades ago and that won't change. If anything some of those albums are more viewed by a majority of fans as diverting from that musical identity.

Well, yes and no. I think musical identity is still subjective, but that you can argue for a form of objectivity via numbers, which is effectively what you are doing. Yes's musical identity for most people was set by albums like The Yes Album to Close to the Edge in the '70s, or by 90125 in the '80s. And their identity for most people is what will predominate in descriptions of the band. But those aren't the only perspectives on Yes's musical identity. I know someone who got into Yes with "Homeworld" via the computer game. He likes The Ladder and is pretty hazy on any other Yes. For him, that is Yes's musical identity (and obviously Sherwood had a significant role there). Is he wrong in fact, or does he just have a different perspective?

In the present, Yes have been carving out a new musical identity with The Quest and a new album. That's not the face of Yes that matters to most listeners. On the other hand, it is the musical identity that matters to Steve Howe, Geoff Downes, Billy Sherwood, Jon Davison and Jay Schellen today. I think one gets more out of the band's new music if one accepts it on its own terms, as having its own musical identity.

Yes has been around a long time. The band has had many different musical identities. I think you're right that their main identity has been set. I was talking previously about how the band's legacy has been established and is secure, which is kind of saying the same thing. Yet I also think that, albeit to a much smaller audience, Yes continue to evolve their musical identity.

[rabin105]

I would argue Sherwood Davison and Downes have a much stronger voice in yes music now

[Enlighten]

I don't think their musical identity was established on the first two albums. Those are very much characterised by the search for a musical identity. They established their musical identity with the arrival of Howe and The Yes Album and build on that. Their 'second musical identity' was established when Rabin became a member. The 70s by far and 80s (well 90125 first and foremost) and what was created back there and then is what is Yes' musical identity.

While other have contributed to Yes continuing they have not had a key role, as have Anderson, Squire, Howe and Rabin, in creating that musical identity.

Drama is a great album itself, and Geoff contributed much to that album, but it's certainly not a key album when it comes to establishing their musical identity.

Sherwood has helped the band move on much more than I think he has helped the band to move forward. There is a notable difference between the two. In no way did he have a key role in establishing the band's musical identity, nor has Davison or Schellen, no matter their Yes connections or for how many years they've worked with Yes(members) in whatever capacity.

I think it's subjective what albums we like, which members we like the best. I don't think it's that subjective on who have been the key members in establishing Yes' musical identity. Nor The Quest, nor Heaven & Earth have had a role in determining Yes' musical identity, nor have The Ladder or Open Your Eyes for that matter for instance. And nor will any future albums. Yes' musical identity has been established many decades ago and that won't change. If anything some of those albums are more viewed by a majority of fans as diverting from that musical identity.

What keeps Yes going these days is first and foremost touring and playing the classics. Enough people (at the moment) are giving them a chance to keep going, because they still want to see the classics performed in concert. I don't think releasing new albums play a very large role in enough people giving them a chance to keep going. Yes, musical identity is so much attached to the 70s and to a lesser extent the 80s and those key members that it would be rather pointless to continue as Yes beyond any of those key members. Then the others would be better of establishing their own musical identity.

Another great post, my friend. Brilliant what you said about Sherwood helping the band to move on, rather than move forward. For better or worse, this is a band of replacements. They can play, they’re adequate but this is not about creating the kind of vibrant new music that Yes were known for in their heyday. This is about Steve choosing what’s most comfortable for him in terms of interpersonal dynamics within the band and also continuing to play the music that he loves and was instrumental in creating.

[Gilly Goodness]

I get people have favourite lineups.

This new Uncut Mag has 2 words prominently displayed on the cover...





PERPETUAL CHANGE


Isn't that close to the identity of the band?

New players, new concepts, new fans.

It's almost zen buddhism. 😏