Yes!? NO! - The all purpose Yes arguing and complaining thread

Nah, I'm sure Joe Satriani played too many notes for this guy too. I'm curious though, which notes would you take out of the Wakeman arrangements on Close to the Edge, Going for the One and Fragile? Do you think you will pick the same ones Downes left out?

 

The amount of notes played is not what makes music good. What makes it good is that it is creative to the point of being interesting. Some of the most boring music on the planet comes from guys who can play blinding speed licks on a guitar.
Which makes them nothing more than plate spinners. Just trying to see if they can accomplish some physical feat.
Playing the MOST notes is meaningless. Playing the MOST APPROPRIATE notes is what matters.

 

yeah...um I knew that. A few points though. What is "interesting" is subjective. What may be boring to you may be interesting to someone else. Technical excellence is not just plate spinning. So back to my question. Which notes would you take out of the Wakeman arrangements on Close to the Edge, Going for the One and Fragile? Do you think you will pick the same ones Downes left out?

 

That's a silly question. What matters is if you like the result. Personally - I agree, I prefer Wakeman. But I enjoyed the renditions with Downes. And it's not like we have a choice right now.

 

Satriani plays too many notes for me. Mozart wrote just the right amount.

 

I just listened to a few tracks from their performance last night. I think I hear what Scott is getting at--there are places here and there where it sounds like Geoff simplifies the line a bit. On the other hand, it also confirmed what I already felt about his taste in tones and colors--when I listened to "South Side of the Sky," for example, I wasn't nearly as bothered by the fact that Geoff didn't replicate the piano part in the middle note-for-note (though it actually came surprisingly close) as I had been by the way Rick played it in the early '00s, where you couldn't really hear the piano over the cartoony, "breathy" synths in which he smothered the arrangement. I know that Scott is a fan of classical piano (as am I, but perhaps to a lesser degree), so I can understand why he would value accuracy and complexity (which can be measured, to a degree) over the more subjective taste-related issues that those who prefer Geoff's style tend to cite. It's hard for me to explain why I prefer Geoff over current-day Rick, other than that Rick tends to make choices I find annoying, and Geoff plays (and chooses sounds and textures) in a way that I find consistently enjoyable even if it may not be as dazzling on a technical level. There would, of course, be a point where technical deficiencies would bother me, but Geoff doesn't come close to falling below that standard for me (though I accept that he does for Scott).

 

When I perform I don't always play the same notes to everything, and sometimes I leave some out that I use at other times. That is not what is important.
And I normally do it on the spot, so for me to look at someone elses performance and say what notes I would take out would be a bit absurd. I don't know what notes I would take out, and chances are until Mr Wakeman was on stage playing them he wasn't sure which ones he was going to leave out ( or add), when it came time for him to play he likely did what most musicians do he likely played what was right in that particular moment and situation.

 

Out of curiosity, do you guys think John Coltrane plays too many notes on Giant Steps?

 

Actually it's a pointed question. And here is the point. Downes pretty much copied Wakeman's arrangements on those three albums except where the arrangements got particularly technically difficult. Then he really did just start losing notes. I guess Zen sees that as shedding a new light on the music. I see it as a clear case of inadequacy as a keyboardist to play classic Yes material. The consistent pattern of Downes copying Wakeman's arrangements note for note only except for the parts that are particularly difficult to play pretty much is a give away. As for someone else's assertion that Oliver Wakeman lacked "talent" I would say that he at least had the talent to play many of those same arrangements without having to simplify the hard parts.

I'm not going to argue taste with those who prefer Downes but I will argue talent. Clearly Downes lacks the chops to play the Yes repertoire. No, we don't have the choice right now to have a keyboardist who actually can play all of the material as written but that doesn't mean we can't point it out.

 

Downes commented on the issue you have raised in the recent issue of Prog Magazine that covered Close to the Edge.
He said he tries to keep to the original arrangements and cadences, interlude sections etc. but has to make changes due to his ability compared to Rick Wakeman's.

 

fair enough. I actually find any number of composers who wrote far more complex music to be preferable to Mozart. I guess I just like complexity. I am sure that is one of the major appeals for me when it comes to Yes music. So for me Downes is a misfit.

 

So not to pat myself on the back but I was seeing it for exactly what it was.

 

Nope--but does your question imply that anyone who plays as many notes, as quickly, as Coltrane is therefore as musically effective as Coltrane? If not, then there are obviously other factors at play.

One could also turn the question around to ask whether you believe that Miles Davis played too few notes in comparison to someone like Freddie Hubbard.

 

I couldn't say, I am not a fan and therefore it would not be honest of me to make a judgement.

 

Let's just say he plays a lot of notes. I listened to a program that was breaking down his arrangements and they had to slow some of his runs down to 1/16 speed to allow us to hear all the notes clearly. Coltrane was nothing less than astonishing in technical ability, complexity and artistry.

 

You were correct and Downes admits it.

 

I think you miss the point of music, which is to create a pleasant interesting experience for the listener. Not to see who can jump through the most hoops.
Once again, plate spinners.

It isn't athletics.

It's about songs.

It isn't like Yes go out and perform and there are 6 judges sitting at the edge of the stage holding up signs that say "9.6*8.9*9.2*9.7*9.1*9.3"
It ain't about that, it is about making pleasant sound and stimulating people intellectually and emotionally.
Most people just want to hear the music and enjoy it, they could give a rats ass if all the notes are there.
I am a musician that plays much of what I play note for note perfect every time, just because I do, but I don't consider that a necessity. I do it more out of laziness and convenience.
But I sure don't cringe when other musicians don't.

If you want that, then just stay home and put the original album on while staring at a poster of your favorite lineup.

I am just not a big fan of improvisional jazz piano. I am going to have to pick something of his up and give it a listen, but it really is not my thing.

 

I guess I was trying to make a point. The difference between a player like JC and some of the fast guitar players is he played mostly vertical which is amazing considering the chord changes.
One guy that plays fast and vertically is Yngwie Malmsteen. However, most folks here trash him. I think he is amazing and so do thousands of other guitar players. I am not sure why many here say he plays too many notes since his playing is very vertically based.....as is John Coltrane's.
As you said, Coltrane was astonishing. I would like to hear that program where they break down his notes.

 

I may, or may not have listened to YES on the King Biscuit Flour Hour in 1986, while tripping on acid.

 

I admire that guitarists can do that, and I was into that and was doing it for a while back in the 80s.
But I didn't enjoy it. It was simply memorizing scales and training myself to go through routines.
But again, they are plate spinners. It is more about "lets see what I can make my fingers do" than "lets see what my mind and emotions can do".
Don't get me wrong, I am all for technical ability and musical competence, but only when it is there for the purpose of being able to express something musically rather than just a display of what is possible physically to do.
I would far rather hear , for example, Mike Pinders flowing counter melodies on a mellotron in old Moody Blues songs than hear Steve Vai trying to see how many notes he can cram into 5 seconds......

 

I don't think either "side" can be "right" in this discussion, because artistry obviously involves a combination of technical proficiency and other, more subjective factors. All of us, I imagine, enjoy performers who display various levels of technical proficiency, in combination with other talents. We can prove that one artist is more technically proficient than another at certain things, but that says little about the overall effect of the artistry. Rick's technical abilities obviously add tremendously to his artistry, but some people will value those abilities more than others in the big artistic picture, as others will value characteristics that Geoff, or Tony Kaye, or Oliver Wakeman, etc., may bring to the table. Technical proficiency doesn't automatically equal "plate spinning," and a lesser level of that same proficiency doesn't automatically make one a lesser artist--it all has to do with how different talents are combined, and how they relate to the audience's tastes and priorities.

 

Richard Barbieri is an excellent keyboard player. He plays the "right" notes at the right time, and his textures are part of the key that's held my interest in Porcupine Tree from when I first discovered them in the mid/late 90's.

Could he play like Wakeman? Probably not. Does that make him a bad player? Absolutely not.

Downes' playing on the original material he's created has been fine. Trying to imitate Rick Wakeman with 100% accuracy isn't where his interests or strengths lie. He's a different player. Which is fine.

Does he have to try to make the old material sound relatively close to what it did in the 70's, to appease the old folks in the audiences? Yep. Does it have to be exactly the way it was played by Wakeman back in the day? No. Not for me. I like hearing different players with different strengths playing things their own way, and making it their own.

Oliver Wakeman - he played like he had memorized his dad's albums and tried to reproduce those as best he could - but he missed out on the feel of the music. He lacks originality. IMO of course.

 

I know what you mean. I listen far more to the Moody Blues than I do Steve Vai. 90% of the time I would rather hear those melodies than some of Steve Vai's stuff. Some of Vai's slower pieces are OK IMO though.
I am getting way off thread so I will stop commenting.

 

Excellent example. I have one of Mr Barbieris solo albums, it has 17 songs on it but I don't know the name. Great stuff. And you are right, I doubt he could mimic RW.

 

You are wrong. Nothing more to talk about