Close To The Edge (the track)

It has 20 min, 4 parts:
- more than one part is undeniably great. fine!
- more than one part is pretty good/ok. Fine!
- some are unlistenable. OK!

Pretty close to Getting It if you ask me. Even if you split it in more parts.

BTW
May not be my pick but I'm not surprised by its reputation as a flagship of prog.

 

I understand where you are coming from (maybe).
Not all music can be as smooth as "Silly Love Songs" for instance.
CTTE has moments sublime and others harsh and chaotic. It seems many people's taste in music lands somewhere along the spectrum between totally serene (smooth jazz, easy listening) and total chaos (hardcore punk, noise music). The determining factor is : how much chaos (or noise or harshness) do you want? A lot of Yes songs, especially this one, alternate between the two extremes. For me, a little bit of each is satisfying.
Listening to one extreme helps me appreciate the other.
Another example of this is Straight Life by Freddie Hubbard.

 

That practically rearranged my liver!

 

Why was this thread revived?

 

Anyway, here's my suggestion for a way into why people like this track so much.

The context, of course, is that Yes are a progressive rock or symphonic rock band - ie, a band interested in exploring fusions in music between classical and rock music. It was that era when rock music was still young and being formed, and bands were "progressing" the original blues based format to see what rock was capable of and where it could go. Yes are just one of a number of bands doing this. And like the others at the time they incorporated rock, folk, jazz, and classical ideas into their music.

With "Close To The Edge" they perhaps (perhaps?) were among the most successful in blending classical music ideas into a rock format. The song is listed as being in four parts, like the four movements of a symphony, and the development of the musical theme/idea/riff/refrain in the song does approximate (loosely) to a symphony (though perhaps movements 2 and 3 need to be switched around to more closely approximate the standard arrangement of a symphony where the second movement is slow, and the third movement is light-hearted or jokey because "I Get Up I Get Down" is slow, while "Total Mass Retain" is much more playful). The refrain is developed throughout the song in ways that we would usually only associate with classical music. Quite structured.

Laid into the song are musical ideas and approaches from jazz and folk. But the end effect, despite the classical structure, jazzy drumming and guitar picking, etc, is that of a rock song. We can recognise it as a rock song. And we can recognise it as a rock song perhaps more readily than we can as a piece of classical music. Even though it is not structured or played as a rock song.

So the song interests us, intrigues us, excites us in the way it uses and blends musical structures and motifs from different forms. And does it not crudely, but well. There is a musical harmony and integrity from start to finish. The refrain is explored in several different ways, but is present throughout. The creation and release of musical tension is quite successful, indeed, quite sophisticated.

I would suggest the best way to start getting into the song is to listen first to just the second movement/part/section "Total Mass Retain" - preferably with headphones with the volume turned up. The refrain from the first section is here, but in a more simplified form so it's clearer. The opening is similar to the first section, with some twittering, but instead of birds, this is electronic, but when you return to the first section you'll recognise that sound, and the refrain, and the familiarity will aid your progress. The bass is heavy and fuzzy and stands out as there not much else happening, but when you go back to the first section you'll again notice the similarity in the bass there. And the connection between the two sections will become clearer. Just before Wakeman comes in with his church pipe organ (recorded in St Giles Cripplegate) , Howe starts to become more adventurous with his guitar, and there are again similarities with his guitar plucking on the opening section. This is much slower, far more languid than the opening, but there are elements there that will be familiar when going back to the start. Now go to the third section, "I Get Up, I Get Down". This section is quite accessible, yet you'll note that it contains the same elements as the second section and the first. Just much slower, less dense, more atmospheric. What is particularly nice about this section is that there are two different song lyrics being sung - Anderson's main voice carries one vocal, and the backing voices are singing a different, unconnected lyric, crossing over. Wakeman's keyboards come in, and you'll note it echoes the guitar refrain at that comes in at the end of the first three minutes of the first section.

At this point you'll start to become aware that though this is an 18 minute piece over four sections, each of which sound different, that throuighout there is a unity, a harmony, and a balance, and that motifs are repeated and echoed. The water and bird sound of the start is not just repeated at the end, these sounds crop up in the instruments throughout the piece. The four sections are a whole, and once you are keyed in to that, you can hear it throughout. So the opening three minutes start to sound more familiar and comprehendible. And then you can ask yourself what impact those three minutes have on you. Do you feel a little disturbed, on edge? Is there some tension which increases. And then what happens after the three minutes when the music changes? Do you feel a change not just in the music, but in your own response? And then you reflect on that and realise that the whole piece has more of an impact on you intellectually, emotionally, and physiologically than you first imagined. And then you go back and play it again - as a whole piece and become aware of the music and its impact on you. Hmm. Actually, it's quite profound.

 

Why not?

 

The first three minutes or so of CTTE are among my favorite 3-minute passages of all time. And they managed to do justice to it live most of the time as well.

 

I'm not sure that it is my favourite "prog" track, the field is too broad, and the quality too high.

I think it is my favourite track from Yes's classic years though.
I think it meanders, but I also think that is part of its charm.

Like anything else though, I need to be in the mood for it. If I'm in the mood for Sabbath, Presley, Ultravox or Wilco or whatever ... it probably isn't going to hit me the same.... but if I'm in the mood for seventies Yes, it is probably my number one choice...

I don't think that it is generally a track that most people will hear for the first time and feel they have fully consumed it, even if they enjoyed it. It's a big meal that requires a few return visits to digest, in my opinion.

 

Replies like this are ludicrous. This is a discussion board for music geeks, and this is what we do. We discuss geeky things in great detail. It’s not complicated, and your attitude is ridiculous.

 

It depends on how open you are to it. I think I first heard it on Yessongs when I was 14 or so - 1977, '78. I never thought it was too "out," or weird, or anything like that. Pretty soon, I was into Tales and Relayer, and if CTTE is impenetrable, then what followed will be even moreso.

 

The piece has four sections but it is not structured as a symphony. The sections relate more to the lyrical content and not the musical structure. The piece has clearly identifiable intro, verses, choruses and interlude sections.
There is some loose connection to sonata format.

 

I certainly don't see it as impenetrable....

I guess I meant more, that if you are used to listening to 3-5 minute pop rock songs, it is going to take more than one listen to fully absorb... there is quite a bit going on in the song, and although I liked it pretty much straight away, it took a couple of listens to fully absorb it... if that makes sense....

 

I remember the first time I heard side 1 of Close to the Edge... I was 17, and at the time, the only thing I really liked on that side was the third section (I Get Up I Get Down). The rest of it was the aural equivalent of "hey, did someone get the license number for that runaway truck"?


After a few spins, and especially after hearing Yessongs, then I was all in.

But I completely get why the intro doesn't work for everyone!

 

The intro was the hook for me.

 

I've never heard this song so decided to go listen and give a fair chance even though I'm not a Yes fan. I actually didn't dislike the first 3 minutes. Was getting int a bit. It was afterward that I started losing interest and then was done once the vocals started. Sorry, I tried.

 

The track just passed you by, like seasons.

 

I have sort of fallen out of love with yes over the last couple of years though I still love Starship Trooper. Often times their songs are just a convoluted mess and every instrument is simultaneously so busy to the point that it leaves the music no room to breathe. I know everyone loves Chris Squire but I wish he held back sometimes and played something more subdued instead of constantly shredding.

 

The real question is who can pick out the 18 or 19 edits in this song as it was a jigsaw puzzle of many different 2 minute songs/pieces. I heard once Bruford claims he hears every single edit because the eq's are all different, recorded over 4-6 weeks.

 

Well, hell, if I was Bill Bruford, I'm sure I could hear how it was all put together. Bill lived it.

I seriously doubt any layman could identify all the cuts and splices.

 

This forum has more than just layman music fans

 

Great question....

I can hear a couple... but no way could i possibly hear all of them!!

 

Great track, top shelf prog and signature Yes. My complaint was weak CDs, until I got a Holy Grail Steve Hoffman DCC Close To The Edge last year, WOW!!!

 

Breath-taking fantastic piece of music (both the studio and the Yessongs live version). If you don't like it, simply skip it

 

If you don't like Close to the edge yet, you will after seeing this video

 

I don't think it's so ridiculous. The OP's premise seemed to me to be yet another round of "I hate this music, convince me why I shouldn't," even if it wasn't phrased that way. I have never seen anybody change their mind after such a "discussion", and it didn't happen here, either. It was obvious from the start that he had permanently made his mind up.I don't mind discussing the music, but I do mind starting it off with such a stubbornly negative premise.