From: storeyr@venus.ycc.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Genesis/Yes - let's end it here!!
Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC)
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:15:32 EDT

In article <1992Apr10.023734.21299@nic.unh.edu>, tcw@kepler.unh.edu (Timothy C Webb) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.235918.10307@gtephx.UUCP> ruckerm@gtephx.UUCP (Mike Rucker) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.235148.15607@nic.unh.edu>, tcw@kepler.unh.edu (Timothy C Webb) writes
>>> >At present they're  o n l y  making money.
>>> 
>>>  Sorry, Hans, you get the play-at-home version. Genesis is only making money,
>>> while Yes has been making excellent music consistently since they originated.
>>> If you knew anything about Yes, you'd know they're not in it for the money.
>>
>>Sorry, Mr. Big .Sig.  I believe this is all in the ear of the beholder.  I
>>bought Union (I listened to it three times total, I believe); I saw the Union
>>tour.  My reaction to both was, "What a rip-off: it's obvious these guys are
>>now in the 90s buck making category."
> 
>    I beg to differ, Mr. No .Sig. Like I said, if you knew anything about Yes,
> you'd know they're not in it for the money. The band members have said
> repeatedly in interviews that the final cuts that made the Union album were
> altered and edited significantly by the producers without the band's consent.
> Rick Wakeman has said that he didn't even recognize his own keyboard parts on
> the edited disc. But even with this, I can still easily see the band's desire
> to continue making incredible music, and they proved this without a doubt on
> tour. Wakeman has also vowed that the next recording will be a YES album, and
> not an album put together by record company execs.
>  


I think we're going around in circles now.  Since I sort of started all this,
please let me say the following:  the answer to whether or not Yes is in it
only for the money is both yes and no.  Bruford has repeatedly said that at
least part of the reason he's in Yes again is for the money, but to fund his
excellent jazz group.  Most all the members have done very strong solo work
in the last few years:  Bruford with Earthworks and Torn, Wakeman's last few
solo albums, Jon with Vangelis (the new one is good!), Howe with his solo
album, and Rabin's solo material and Seal stuff.  In addition, though their
latest albums are something of a concession, all have some excellent material
(Changes, Leave It, I'm Running, Final Eyes, Silent Talking, Miracle of Life,
Teakbois, Brother of Mine, The More We Live, I Would Have Waited, etc.).
And the playing is excellent on all these albums, especially from White and
Bruford.

Genesis, on the other hand, has broke little new ground with their solo 
material unless you count Gabriel.  Their albums have also been VERY commercial
despite being well-played.  The fact is that while Yes still sounds a little
bit daring, Genesis sounds so "the same."  I will grant all you Genesis fans,
(I love their Hackett-era material by the way), that the two long songs on the
new album are quite good, and I like a few of the shorter ones especially
No Son of Mine.  However, they just aren't in the same league.  When I hear
their melodies now, I've heard most of them before.

Of course, in the end,it's all a matter of opinion.  I can listen to both
groups today and be reasonably entertained.  In fact, the more I see this 
debate sprawl, the more I think it's completely worthless.  We should just
let this one lie.

Ross Storey
StoreyR@Venus.YCC.Yale.edu


Newsgroups: rec.music.misc