From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Subject: Re: Genesis: What everybody misses
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:09:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.020619.21666@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz> ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Thomas Koenig) writes:
>Ryan.J.Victor@dartmouth.edu (Ryan J. Victor) writes:

>If you compare Yes or Rush to Genesis, I think there's a marked difference.
>Both of these bands changed a lot over the years, too. But still, both 
>have retained at least part of their musical edge, and there still is
>complexity in their music. If I want to listen to somebody repeat a
>chorus at least 50 times (as on "No Son of Mine"), I might as well
>listen to Michael Jackson.

Ah ha!  I wondered when somebody was going to make the parallel between
the musical disintegration of Genesis to what happened to Yes.  I
suppose that in some respects it is similar.

Yes in the early days was certainly highly "progressive".  Their music
was different and at times even groundbreaking.  Who else was doing 20
minute long pieces with mystical lyrics and a lead singer who sounded
like a choir boy?  The guitar playing was innovative and experimental.
The keyboards were elevated to a much higher level of sophistication and
importance than in previous rock bands (save ELP, who were concurrent
with Yes).

What happened to this radical format?  Simple.  They got older.  They
got more comfortable with being super stars.  They didn't have to work
so hard to prove themselves as a valid group.

So whaada we get in the 80's?  90125.  A really good album.  I might
even go so far as to say one of the greatest rock albums of the last
decade.  Was it Yes?  Not really.  Personel changes saw to that.  We got
the name of Yes, but not much of what made them famous to begin with,
except a continuation of the Anderson-style of singing.

So there's purists who won't listen to anything Yes did after "Going for
the One", and there's people like me who will listen to just about
anything called Yes (within reason). 

After that we got 90125, part II.  The only problem being that it just
didn't have the same "grab" that the first one pulled off.  (Is this the
Yes equivalent of Abacab?)  The lyrics drifted farther and farther
towards the banal top-40 type.  You know, the ones with "love" in every
title.  Again, "Yes" was merely a name at this point.

Anderson Bruford Wakeman & Howe come out with an album.  Surely, you'd
expect this one to be much like the Yessound of old.  In a lot of ways,
it pulled it off.  "Brother of Mine" reminded me quite a bit of the
"Going for the One" period.  All in all, a pretty good album (I may be
in the minority here) with only a couple of real  stinkers (The Meeting
and Quartet).  Is this album "Yes"?  I think so.  Is it "progressive"?
Not really.

Last but not least.."Union", a big hodge podge of musicians, most of
whom are merely studio players.  I'm sure there must have been a germ of
Yes in there somewhere, but I think it got hopelessly buried in the
post-production phase.  I felt like I was just being duped by Arista
records into believing that I was hearing Yes and not Joe Shmoe's
keyboard overdubs and electronic drum kits.

In the end, I still listen to the stuff.  No, they aren't cutting edge
anymore.  They're approaching 50 for goodness sake.  I don't think that
we can expect men who have wives, families, and other adult
responsibilities and perspectives to write music like they did when they
were 22.  Things change.  Hell, even the classical composers changed
their styles throughout the course of their lives.
 
-- 
--------------
Gary Schroeder		
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov 
Brookhaven National Laboratory     "Home of the Big BNL Burger."