Yes=Jethro Tull

Was thinking the other day, that these 2 bands had almost a parallel career to each other for the first few years. Their early albums stand side by side in stature, popularity and success and were released about the same time. - Let me explain below and apologies if anyone is offended by my comments on the 2 albums at the bottom of the list.

THIS WAS and STAND UP sound far more self-assured than Yes' first two albums, in my opinion.

fuxi wrote: THIS WAS and STAND UP sound far more self-assured than Yes' first two albums, in my opinion.

Yup, stronger start by Tull by far.
The Yes debut was great though.

Come on, as much as I like This Was, the album was clearly a belated  jumper on to the British blues boom band wagon and derivative in a number of ways.  The eponymous Yes album was more experimental and adventurous, for instance no British rock band had come up with anything similar by that time,  such as the  clever arrangement of a half forgotten Lennon McCartney tune Every Little Thing.

Yeah I agree. The only difference is that Tull didn't release all their strongest songs on their albums as they released some songs as singles and they recorded a couple of more commerical song for albums and left their stronger material off occasionally. The remasters prove that with the bonus tracks and Living in the past is awesome. I rate Tull the better band too . I love the Warchild remaster, but I didnt rate the origainal soundtrack version, but once again it's purposely commercial. If Tull released all the album with the songs they would naturally write they would have many great albums. You won't find a weak remaster apart from Under wraps. Ian is a brilliant song writer who doesnt rely on riffs, keyboard patterns or busy bass lines. I believe Tull songs are harder to write than Geneis and Yes songs

Edited by raindance2007 - September 11 2007 at 23:11

Dick Heath wrote: Come on, as much as I like This Was, the album was clearly a belated  jumper on to the British blues boom band wagon and derivative in a number of ways.  The eponymous Yes album was more experimental and adventurous, for instance no British rock band had come up with anything similar by that time,  such as the  clever arrangement of a half forgotten Lennon McCartney tune Every Little Thing.

I totally agree that THIS WAS is derivative, and "Every Little Thing" is an astonishing track, but as a working band Jethro Tull sound far more self-confident than Yes did at the time, don't they? I can't think of anything on THIS WAS that sounds as messy and amateurish as "Sweetness" or "Survival". But perhaps that's just me; I'm not too familiar with the Bluesbreakers or early Fleetwood Mac, who must have recorded far more convincing blues-rock than Ian A & Co...

fuxi wrote: Dick Heath wrote: Come on, as much as I like This Was, the album was clearly a belated  jumper on to the British blues boom band wagon and derivative in a number of ways.  The eponymous Yes album was more experimental and adventurous, for instance no British rock band had come up with anything similar by that time,  such as the  clever arrangement of a half forgotten Lennon McCartney tune Every Little Thing. I totally agree that THIS WAS is derivative, and "Every Little Thing" is an astonishing track, but as a working band Jethro Tull sound far more self-confident than Yes did at the time, don't they? I can't think of anything on THIS WAS that sounds as messy and amateurish as "Sweetness" or "Survival". But perhaps that's just me; I'm not too familiar with the Bluesbreakers or early Fleetwood Mac, who must have recorded far more convincing blues-rock than Ian A & Co...

fuxi wrote: I totally agree that THIS WAS is derivative, and "Every Little Thing" is an astonishing track, but as a working band Jethro Tull sound far more self-confident than Yes did at the time, don't they? I can't think of anything on THIS WAS that sounds as messy and amateurish as "Sweetness" or "Survival". But perhaps that's just me; I'm not too familiar with the Bluesbreakers or early Fleetwood Mac, who must have recorded far more convincing blues-rock than Ian A & Co...

From a 2007 viewpoint and hindsight maybe. However,  from the context of discovering and hearing this stuff in the 60's.....? In the late 60's we either had bands still working and somewhat limited by what had already progressed during the British blues boom movement - e.g. Cat Squirrel of JT doesn't IMHO take us further than what Cream laid down a few years earlier (and Cream's version was about as primitive - raw bashing blues rock - as they went). OR the underground rock bands who were building on ideas evolving from underground  psychedelic pop (e.g. Mabel Greer's Toyshop) - now and employing musicians who were developing or had developed a fair degree of musical skill and ability, whilst exploring this relatively new thing called "rock", writing/constructing/arranging tunes which would by the time of the Yes Album be called progressive rock. In the meanwhile a lot of the musical language and rules had long been laid down for (electric) blues rock. Inevitably whilst progressing in new territory with few or no reference points, some of this (especially the self-compositions) will sound naive and amateurish nowadays. So did many others, e.g. Jagger-Richards/Nanker-Phledge during the early days of the Rolling Stones; sophistication, especially in progressive music comes with time. Why there were so many blues rock band around already, indicated that sophistication was not a basic requirement. Not until, for instance, Page and Beck took their musical skills (honed over several years) and  formed their respective bands, that blues rock evolved in heavy rock/metal. JT had to lose Mick Abrahams and his blues ambitions (as shown by Blodwyn Pig and the later Mick Abrahams bands), before evolving into their distinctive musical style.

Dick Heath wrote: Inevitably whilst progressing in new territory with few or no reference points, some of this (especially the self-compositions) will sound naive and amateurish nowadays.

I think I see what you mean, Dick. Perhaps the most advanced number early Yes ever did was "Something's Coming", which was not originally on their first album, but recorded at the same time. This sounds musically accomplished and incredibly ambitious. Also, it's a clear forerunner (and soulmate) of the 10-minute "America", which was also rehearsed (maybe even played live?) in pre-Wakeman days. "Something's Coming" is so sophisticated - but hadn't the Nice done similar things just a little earlier?

Interesting idea. However, like some others, I think in terms of creativity 'Yes' runs rings around 'This Was'. I still love Yes' debut album; there's not one track I dislike on it, and in that respect, I prefer it to almost every album they've done since 'Going For The One'. 'Survival' is kind of like a prototype 'Heart Of The Sunrise', IMHO. I think the cover versions are excellent too, but I guess they owe a certain something to Vanilla Fudge, IMHO. 'Beyond And Before' is one of my all time favourite Yes songs, too.