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

OK if we are talking law it is true. Squire legally owns the rights to the band and it's trademark so legally Jon Anderson is not essential.

 

Subjectively - yes, objectively - hardly. He may not be essential to Squire or Howe, but, in my humble view, they are fooling themselves.

 

As essential as Squire. Do you mean today? You can call anything you want Yes and go on tour today but the band and the music that made them what they are is because of Anderson.

 

it might actually be a good record if he was....instead of some amateur fill in

 

good point

 

I'd say it's the same thing that most classic bands that don't have their original lead singer fall into: they feel they must replicate the true sound of the band. It's the same reason why Journey has found guys that can at least get close to Steve Perry's range & sound. So, to answer your question: to replicate the original material as closely as possible. Yes has found two individuals, so far, that can do it (or at least decently). Can you imagine people's reactions if they did Yes classics with a singer like Glenn Danzig? It wouldn't go over well, obviously.

 

so what you are saying is Yes is not concentrating on moving forward as a band and creating new music and touring that music but concerned about fan's reaction enough to be a nostalgia act with sound-alikes......making Jon Anderson's contribution to the band essential to its sound and songs because that is what they are counting on as far as ticket sales.......a replication to use your words.......I agree

 

Essentially: yes (no pun intended). Yes, though they buck the trend of many classic rock bands other than Deep Purple and few others, still put out original material, but are, for all intents and purposes, a nostalgia act that relies very heavily on their past catalog for popularity. Honestly, do you think the vast majority of Yes fans *really* care about new material? I think most would be satisfied to have the hits played over an over and they'd continue to pay for it. They need those hits to sound as close as possible to the originals when replicated live.

 

Now that I'd like to hear. Obviously most fans are conservative in how much deviation in the sound of a band they are willing to take. But to me Yes are primarily a great instrumental band and are quite capable of putting out good material with a different vocalist ... as proved by Drama. In fact Squires solo album, Fish Out of Water, proves Squire is perfectly capable of taking care of vocal duties if need be ... and it also proved you was at the center of the Yes sound.
Sorry guys, Anderson isn't needed IMO. And David Benoit is just a weak sound-a-like that does not bring any much needed creativity to the band.

 

Yeah, but Trevor Horn was at least in the ballpark in terms of range per Anderson. It wasn't that big of a deviation. Squire singing Yes classics? Probably not, but he'd be miles above Steve Howe on the list! That's for sure.

I believe the singer is Jon Davison now? Benoit David has been gone for some time.

 

Trevor Horn could not hit the notes in concert. It was a big issue.

 

LOL! I'm obviously out of the loop. I had a listen to Jon Davison on youtube and he does a good imitation ... right down to the shirt and hairdo!

 

I saw Benoit front his band opening for Marillion last year.
They were... fine, I guess, whatever, kinda by-the-numbers modern prog.

 

Repeating it over and over does not...


...never mind...

 

As essential as Squire. Do you mean today? You can call anything you want Yes and go on tour today but the band and the music that made them what they are is because of Anderson.

 

This is true of pretty much any band from the 70s. All anyone wants to hear is the old classics. When I saw Neil Young last year nobody - and I mean nobody - was cheering the stuff from Psychedelic Pill.

The irony of course is that in order to hear the old stuff like it used to sound, Yes absolutely have to have a new singer. So the only choice is no Yes, or Yes with a new singer. No other choice is available.

So...my choice, after seeing them with Davison last year...is to see them live as long as they play the old classics I want to hear and to ignore their newer stuff no matter who their singer is because IMO their well ran dry 30 years ago.

 

And if Anderson were still trying to sing the stuff now, that's what we'd be saying about him too in all probability.

 

I don't think so

 

Clearly you repeat yourself when under stress...

 

At 70 years old? Really?

 

As essential as Squire. Do you mean today? You can call anything you want Yes and go on tour today but the band and the music that made them what they are is because of Anderson.

 

No doubt about it. It's no surprise at all that Jon's acoustic live approach in recent years is there for one reason: to keep his voice as strong and healthy as possible.

 

I wish Anderson would put out a press release explaining this to the broken record that's repeating repeating repeating itself all over this thread like a concussed parrot...