Is it time to reassess Yes in the 1990s?

[Soundwaveseeker]

Yep, starting in the mid 90's or so bands started to take full advantage of the cd format. I think with prog rock especially it became a double edged sword particularly with a band like the Flower Kings who insisted on doing at least every other album as a double and then later on at least having a bonus disc. Not just TFK though, bands at some point found it too tempting to not try to take advantage of the capacity of a cd and found it difficult to edit themselves. I'm sure other genres of rock (and not just prog rock) are guilty of this too. I agre with you about Rush though. I actually like their 80's sound and wished they returned to something similar.

In prog, that 'stuff the cd till it pops' approach still stands. With Neal Morse especially, you get double albums and triple live albums with dvds almost every time he puts one out. That's great for fans of a prog or prog metal band that want every note or don't mind paying for a 4 disc deluxe edition which comes out 5 years later with a bonus disc of demos and instrumental 'sketches' and outtakes. Sometimes it may be the artist's inability to edit themselves, but sometimes it's just building the catalogue and giving some fans what they want. But sometimes you just want a 1-disc new album from someone, so you don't feel all 'music-ed out' afterwards.

[Soundwaveseeker]

As much as I like Vapour Trails (mostly) and Snakes and Arrows (quite a lot), I think Rush would have been better to take a few nods from the early 80s: Permanent Waves, 6 songs. Moving Pictures, 7. Signals, 8. 8's a good number for Rush: just enough for each song to shine through. 13 introduces a lot of chaff to get through, not necessarily bad, but 13 diamonds in a row is pretty unrealistic. I think that was the era, though, no one wanted to do a 36 minute album anymore, they all had to stretch the running time of the CD.

Rush never seemed to revisit an era, even though a lot of fans wanted them to. I think I saw an interview where someone asked them if they ever wanted to break out the old mini-moogs and keyboards and they said naw. But I loved the 80's Rush and all of those bright and tinny orchestral synthesizers.

As for Rush 90's, yeah - most of it disappeared from the setlist, with Presto and Test 4 Echo becoming the red-headed stepchild of their catalogue. They leaned the most on 1993's 'Counterparts' for 90's material live - that and 'Dreamline' from 1991's Roll The Bones, which I actually got tired of.

As far as their last era goes, I thought Clockwork Angels was a bit overrated, though 'The Garden' is excellent. I know I'm in minority here, just didn't like the effects on Geddy's voice or the grungey production, with almost every song having to be a tough sounding and steady barrage of guitar blur. It's ok, but I go for Vapor Trails as my favorite 2000's Rush. That has the Rush spirit, more so that the others. Snakes & Arrows is pretty solid too. But by then they had 12 or 13 or so tracks. I would agree that 8 tracks is sometimes enough to actually have 8 diamonds in a row. Most of their 80's albums had exactly 8 tracks(Signals, Grace Under Pressure, and Power Windows). 8 was a good number, or even 10 if you had to stretch it.

[Chris2210]

I have reassessed the 90s [Yes]. It’s worse than I originally thought.

I lost interest in Rush early in the 80s. Even among their best are hints of naffness (they are upholding a fine tradition of Canadian musicians there - I wish that weren’t so true).

I know some people regard all of Anderson’s lyrical output as naff (I did before my Damascene moment), but that’s wrong and I don’t think you find banal music in their great era (perhaps excluding some of Tormato). I wouldn’t say even Genesis were that immaculate in the 70s.

[Soundchaser413]

As much as I like Vapour Trails (mostly) and Snakes and Arrows (quite a lot), I think Rush would have been better to take a few nods from the early 80s: Permanent Waves, 6 songs. Moving Pictures, 7. Signals, 8. 8's a good number for Rush: just enough for each song to shine through. 13 introduces a lot of chaff to get through, not necessarily bad, but 13 diamonds in a row is pretty unrealistic. I think that was the era, though, no one wanted to do a 36 minute album anymore, they all had to stretch the running time of the CD.

Yep, starting in the mid 90's or so bands started to take full advantage of the cd format. I think with prog rock especially it became a double edged sword particularly with a band like the Flower Kings who insisted on doing at least every other album as a double and then later on at least having a bonus disc. Not just TFK though, bands at some point found it too tempting to not try to take advantage of the capacity of a cd and found it difficult to edit themselves. I'm sure other genres of rock (and not just prog rock) are guilty of this too. I agre with you about Rush though. I actually like their 80's sound and wished they returned to something similar.

[Homemade Parachute]

Well, Vapor Trails is rather boring to me and so is most of Snakes and Arrows. Maybe they haven't grown on me yet. I do like TFE for some reason though but I know most don't. Yeah, OYE is a bit of a turkey in the Yes catalog but I think that's because people are comparing it to vintage Yes too much. On its own it's a pretty good pop/ pop-rock album. Soft As A Dove is from Mag so not 90's anyway. You must not think too highly of Heaven And Earth either then ( I still haven't heard that one yet). But if you really feel that way maybe go sign up on The Rush Forum (I'm on there under New World Man).

As much as I like Vapour Trails (mostly) and Snakes and Arrows (quite a lot), I think Rush would have been better to take a few nods from the early 80s: Permanent Waves, 6 songs. Moving Pictures, 7. Signals, 8. 8's a good number for Rush: just enough for each song to shine through. 13 introduces a lot of chaff to get through, not necessarily bad, but 13 diamonds in a row is pretty unrealistic. I think that was the era, though, no one wanted to do a 36 minute album anymore, they all had to stretch the running time of the CD.

[Homemade Parachute]

I disagree. Rush had better quality control from the 90s on. Rush never put out a "Man On the Moon" or a "Soft As A Dove".

Well, maybe yes, maybe no… Even the hardest of hardcore Rush fans I know finds Test for Echo hard to get all the way through… There are some pretty dodgy lyrics in the 90s, and if the music isn't terrible, it can be on the blander side (the only song I remember from Presto is, well, "Presto"). Little from that era really survived the test of time, and disappeared quickly from the setlists, so even the band isn't all that strong behind it, even if they haven't quite disowned it.

[Soundchaser413]

I disagree. Rush had better quality control from the 90s on. Rush never put out a "Man On the Moon" or a "Soft As A Dove".

Well, Vapor Trails is rather boring to me and so is most of Snakes and Arrows. Maybe they haven't grown on me yet. I do like TFE for some reason though but I know most don't. Yeah, OYE is a bit of a turkey in the Yes catalog but I think that's because people are comparing it to vintage Yes too much. On its own it's a pretty good pop/ pop-rock album. Soft As A Dove is from Mag so not 90's anyway. You must not think too highly of Heaven And Earth either then ( I still haven't heard that one yet). But if you really feel that way maybe go sign up on The Rush Forum (I'm on there under New World Man).

[Somis Sound]

I disagree. Rush had better quality control from the 90s on. Rush never put out a "Man On the Moon" or a "Soft As A Dove".

Roll the Bones had a rap section with an animated breakdancer appear on the big screen.... I thought that was way lamer than Man In the Moon, or even Soft As A Duck. Not to mention I loved every Rush album up to Presto... Bravado is a great song too.... After that blah.... I like songs on every Yes album, until The Quest. Which should have been a HOWE/Davison album with Yes pals. That album drove Yes and Squire's legacy into a mediocre derivative bog... In my opinion. I get some fans are loving it... That's great. But listening to FFH, then The Quest, it's not even close. Or to OYE for that matter. I'm going to go eat another bowl of grumpy sauce now... Apologies

[alex peters]

Yes we can agree to disagree. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[rabin105]

If you hit 55 Homers drive in 120 RBI's and have a 335 batting average every year for 10 years you only have 1 way to go and that is down.

That is what Yes did in the 1970's. They had a few really good years after that but the so so albums far outnumbered the good ones.

I just feel yes is as strong today and we can agree to disagree and all is ok

[yamishogun]

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you but "bad" Yes is still pretty good. They are similar to the band Rush that way imo.

I disagree. Rush had better quality control from the 90s on. Rush never put out a "Man On the Moon" or a "Soft As A Dove".

[Davy]

Wow, that's a pretty good list. I'd probably swap Bring Me To The Power and That, That Is for Endless Dream.

[Dantalion Rides Again]

My top ten 90s Yes tracks without fussing over it that much and in no order:

Universal Garden
It Will Be A Good Day
Holding On
Take The Water To The Mountain
I Am Waiting
Bring Me To The Power
That, That Is
To Be Alive (Hep Yadda)
The More We Live - Let Go
Open Your Eyes

[Soundchaser413]

If you hit 55 Homers drive in 120 RBI's and have a 335 batting average every year for 10 years you only have 1 way to go and that is down.

That is what Yes did in the 1970's. They had a few really good years after that but the so so albums far outnumbered the good ones.

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you but "bad" Yes is still pretty good. They are similar to the band Rush that way imo.

[Mr. Holland]

If you hit 55 Homers drive in 120 RBI's and have a 335 batting average every year for 10 years you only have 1 way to go and that is down.

That is what Yes did in the 1970's. They had a few really good years after that but the so so albums far outnumbered the good ones.

That is why comparisons are also sort of useless in the sense that they can get in the way of enjoying something. If I would think with listening to any Yes song after say 1974, how the song stands up to Close to the Edge then most of it would fail. But on their own merit, without comparisons, there are lots of Yes songs after 1974 I greatly enjoy.