| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
American Khatru 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
 Posted: April 18 2010 at 10:05 |
^ 
|
 Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?
|
 |
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
|
Posted: April 18 2010 at 12:15 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I always believed it's easier to be inspired in a band based mostly in the virtuoso attributes of their members, in the case of YES, Wakeman (one of the most talented musicians) was replaced by Kaye, Moraz and even Briskin (Yes Symphonic) and they all did great jobs, because they were following one man.
Yes with master Steve Howe and Trevor Rabin, sounded almost as good on stage, because Trevor was replacing only Steve Howe, and even when Steve is a genius, his playing is more based in his personal skills than in a tight interplay with the keyboardist..
In the case of Genesis, if you want to replace Banks, you need to replace also Steve Hackett, because the interplay between both was the base of the atmospheric trademark of Genesis, Gabriel left, the band lost a lot, Hackett left and the band was doomed to make Pop music.
Yes was a band with high egos, and a very good musician can replace a great musician who wants to shine over the rest, but you can't do the same with a band like Genesis with 5 extremely talented musicians but with smaller egos, who always gave priority to the band interplay than to their personal shinning.
For God's sake, nobody could imagine Yes without Jon Anderson, and already they had 4 vocalists and always sounded great on stage.
If you want to be inspired in Yes, you have to follow the music and have one or two musicians capable of taking the place of one or two key members of Yes, if you want to be inspired in Genesis, you need 5 musicians able to replace the whole band and willing to leave their personal aspirations for the sake of the band, and that's hard.
My two cents.
Iván |
Oh my.....
So many things wrong with this post I just have to mention them.
1. Wakeman's replacements. Your points are certainly valid for Brislin (although he really shouldn't count as a hired hand) and Kaye (when he even tried to live up to Wakey's rep.) You could throw in Downes there as well. Moraz on the other hand, is a formidable talent in his own right who left his own stamp on the group for a shining brief moment. I'd argue that you could say the same for Khoroshev as well.
2. Trevor just did guitar? Excuse me?
3. Howe and Wakey practically invented that tight interplay between keyboards and guitar, as careful listening of Fragile and CTTE (and GFTO) should convince you.
4. On to Genesis. Yes, Hackett and Banks were the key musical members, but it wasn't their interplay. Banks is one of those good but not great keyboardists you were talking about earlier. He's no Wakeman. He does have a true genius for composition however. On the other hand, Hackett is very nearly the complete package.
5. I suppose that you can justly say that Genesis had small egos compared to Yes. That's like saying a Rhinocerous is smaller than an Elephant, and it kind of kills your argument.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: April 18 2010 at 17:47 |
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
Oh my.....
So many things wrong with this post I just have to mention them.
It's your partial opinion.
1. Wakeman's replacements. Your points are certainly valid for Brislin (although he really shouldn't count as a hired hand) and Kaye (when he even tried to live up to Wakey's rep.) You could throw in Downes there as well. Moraz on the other hand, is a formidable talent in his own right who left his own stamp on the group for a shining brief moment. I'd argue that you could say the same for Khoroshev as well.
Have I said something different?
They all repleced Wakeman in his parts and did them incredibly well THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT, I heard many Yes keybopardists and clones sounding as good as Wakeman, but I never heard a Banks impersonator sounding as him.
2. Trevor just did guitar? Excuse me?
Good, maybe above average IMO guitar player (Trevor Rabin of course) but not in the level of Howe remotely IMO (Still he made Howe's parts accurate), and as a singer...Well, I liked his voice more than Jon's (I like any voice better than Jon's)
3. Howe and Wakey practically invented that tight interplay between keyboards and guitar, as careful listening of Fragile and CTTE (and GFTO) should convince you.
I don't believe so, and a good example is Close to the Edge, the solo by Wakeman is an ornate, you can add it or take it and wouldn't affect the central idea of the music, while you touch a note in Banks music and you ruin the song.
Relayer and GFTO tight?...Funny,
Relayer was almost recorded, they simply changed keyboardist, yes Moraz is a genius and did an outstanding job (nobody replaces Pinder and Emerson without being outstanding), but Genesis could never had worked like that, as a fact the famous tight interplay you mention is a lot of overdubbing according to Patrck Moraz.
When we started to record "Relayer", some of the music had already been written and rehearsed by Chris, Jon, Steve and Alan. I contributed as much as I could to the overall picture of the pieces. However, it is a fact that Steve used quite a lot of tracks for his many overdubs everywhere on the album, except when there is no guitar at all, which is a rare occasion.
|
It's clear, Relayer is a Howe album mainly, where the interplay is secondary, he is the star, and it's ok, it worked for them.
Now, the desription of GFTO is clear, an album worked originally with Moraz (Who IMO is far stronger than Wakeman), they simpy replaced one keyboardsist for another and there they went, they simply changed keyboardists in two albums with recorded material and played it all, that's not exactly tight composition and interplay.
Interview with PATRICK MORAZ
We had written, together, quite a lot of the material which ended up on "Going For The One", like "Awaken", "Wondrous Stories" or even "Parallels" which were as much part my composition as anyone else in the band at that time. I also came up, during the two previous years prior to the recording of "Going For The One", with a lot of ideas and contributions to the band and its sound. The fact that I was not credited as a writer of the songs, does not mean I did not compose for the group. As a member of the band, I composed as much as I could, as much as I was "allowed" to compose by the others.
|
Wakeman and Howe abused of the solos, something Hackett and Banks hardly ever did.
4. On to Genesis. Yes, Hackett and Banks were the key musical members, but it wasn't their interplay. Banks is one of those good but not great keyboardists you were talking about earlier. He's no Wakeman. He does have a true genius for composition however. On the other hand, Hackett is very nearly the complete package.
In first place...Could you please explain me the relation between the supposed lack of interplay of Genesis and your idea that Banks is bellow the standards of Wakeman? ...I used to believe that skills have no relation with the capacity of interplaying.
What? Haven't you heard the trademark sound of the guitar that sounded like a keyboard that was created directly by the interplay between Banks and Hackett,
The central sound of Genesis was based in atmospheres, something you can only get with interplay, it was easier and catchier to make loud and fast solos to shine over the rest (Hackett and Banks could had done it), but they sacrificed their individuality for the band
5. I suppose that you can justly say that Genesis had small egos compared to Yes. That's like saying a Rhinocerous is smaller than an Elephant, and it kind of kills your argument.
What egos?
All the people believed Hackett was nothing special until he left, he never tried to shine, RRutherford being a competent bass player, almost was hiding always as Tony Banks, they only lost some control when Peter left and Steve wanted to write, but before ATOTT, there were only two main voices in Genesis and that was Banks + Gabriel.
Have you read something about Genesis history, they hardly were known individually.
You may disagree with my opinions, it's ok, but before you say they are wrong, mention facts not your own opinions.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 18 2010 at 18:39
|
|
|
|
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
Posted: April 18 2010 at 18:07 |
^ Whew. Ghosty, I've seen people take Iván lightly before. And it always ends this way.  
|
Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: April 18 2010 at 18:35 |
American Khatru wrote:
^ Whew. Ghosty, I've seen people take Iván lightly before. And it always ends this way. |
Don't be afraid, I love a good debate, but statements like this is wrong in an opinion are not correct.
I love what Yes did, if it wasn't for Jon, they would be among my top bands, but their approach is different, than the Genesis approach, Howe can overdub ten times, because his guitar solos are more spectacular if he plays more, but Hackett and Banks duet didn't work like this,
Take Apocalypse in 9/8, there's no place for a solo or an extra performance, everythig is just in it's place, one instrument more or less would ruin everything, in Close to the Edge, you can add more effects to Wakeman's solo and would onlyy be better.
A good example is One for the Vine on "Three Sides Live", The Banks solo at the middle was horrendous, he tried to change it to sound more modern and it seems a Star Wars laser swords fight, the only way he could do it is as it was on Wind & Wuthering, he changed and ruined it.
With this I'm not saying one is better, I like Genesis more, but taste is personal, it's just that a Yes musician has more freeedom than a Classic era Genesis musician, to the point that Hackett was only recognized after he left, while Howe practically has done his career on Yes and still considered an icon.
I'm OK with GoM disagreeing with me, it's healthy, but saying "Everything is wrong in this post" and then adding phrases like "Banks is good but not great" based only in his personal taste as if it was a fact,, is not the best option.
Banks wouldn't be the most followed keyboardist if he wasn only good, and guys at that level are hard to rate, all are outstanding, I believe Moraz and Nocenzzi have a better tecchnique than Emerson and Wakeman, but that's only a consequence of full studies, but wjho is better as a whole? That's hard to tell
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 18 2010 at 18:37
|
|
|
|
progpositivity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: April 18 2010 at 18:41 |
The discussion gets lively! Thank you for your contributions Ivan and Ghost of Morphy!
While I don't personally take exception to the proposition that classic Genesis was more about interplay in their arrangements.than virtuoso performances by individual band members - and that Yes (in contrast) placed more emphasis on individual style and virtuosity on their instruments, I would suggest that the validity of this observation is as much (or more) a function of Genesis neglecting employment of individual virtuoso performances than it is a function of Yes neglecting to employe interplay.in their arrangements.
And to me the key word is *emphasis*... for we could certainly point out passages in 'Close to the Edge', 'And You and I', even 'Roundabout' (which I consider to be a weaker song overall) where interplay is *essential* to the polyphonic genius of Yes compositions. This could become a great excuse to go back and listen to Relayer listening for interplay among the various guitar parts overdubbed on the album. Plus Howe said *some* of the music had been written before he arrived - not *all*. Yes took a clearly Moraz-fusiony direction that I cannot possibly believe Howe composed in a vacuum. Relayer has Moraz fingerprint on it.
I'm also sure we could pick out places where Hackett and Banks are no slouches in their performances. After all, bands like YES and GENESIS don't become TOP TIER Prog Heroes by totally neglecting either of these elements. Nevertheless, I do think the amount of *focus* or *emphasis* is different between the two bands.
Here's a question for everyone Why do you think Genesis didn't put more emphasis on flashy individual virtuoso performances? One reason clearly could be limitations of the performers involved. But that wouldn't be the case with Phil Collins IMO - who could play monster fusion circles around some of the drum parts he put down on Genesis songs. To some extent, was it not that their vision for the music and their personal style dictated their approach? One could even argue that Ant Phillips' less extroverted fingerprint remained on the band quite some time a while after he left.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
|
|
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745
|
Posted: April 18 2010 at 18:48 |
I couldn't agree more with you, Ivan, and that' coming from a guy who grew up listening to Yes rather than Genesis.
Genesis(classic) always sounded me as the team work between Tony Banks and Steve Hackett(or Anthony Phillips) with Peter Gabriel's theatrical and unique input. Phil Collins and Mike Rutherford suited perfectly with the band, Phil had a great drumming and a great backing-voice while Mike added 12-string guitars and appealing and original bass lines.
Yes(classic), on the other hand, always sounded to me more of a virtuosic band in the sense of musicianship, not that they weren't good at composing, but the solos and overall musicianship in Yes has always been a standout of Yes, something that Genesis wasn't acclaimed of because they didn't and hadn't to do that to standout.
|
|
progpositivity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: April 18 2010 at 18:59 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Yes American, seems as if they suspended that chord in a moment, but it's only an effect, the organ seeems to in fact be suspended in time as a hold inthe story (Or "congelarse" -freeze- as we say in Spanish), but the chord is not incomplete, Peter ends with the voice, it's only a fantastic effect that gives credibility to a narration.
I mentioned in a previous post a circle or cyclical chord progression, but it's not that either, because they doesn't repeat it almost exactly or with slight variations to create suspense, they add something extra on each turn and not just a repetition of the same chord.
That's why I consider this song is over looked normally.
Iván |
I'm hearing Dm, C, Bb, Amaj suspended, (usually resolved to Amaj but sometimes left suspended)... in a rather basic and conventional manner. Am I really missing all that much? What is so special there?
I then hear "Bminor, C, Amaj, D maj, E (no third)"
The little turnaround is a nice departure... Is it "Amin, G, D maj... Amaj sus, A major"? Which leads naturally back to the Dm?
Not a bad song. And clearly one need not pursue complex chord progressions only for complexity's sake. It it *works*, it *works*.
Then again, I may be missing something... I once listened to a Gentle Giant song numerous times before recognizing an element that made the whole song come alive. So please don't hesitate to further enlighten me! 
|
|
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
|
|
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745
|
Posted: April 18 2010 at 19:05 |
progpositivity wrote:
Here's a question for everyone Why do you think Genesis didn't put more emphasis on flashy individual virtuoso performances? One reason clearly could be limitations of the performers involved. But that wouldn't be the case with Phil Collins IMO - who could play monster fusion circles around some of the drum parts he put down on Genesis songs. To some extent, was it not that their vision for the music and their personal style dictated their approach? One could even argue that Ant Phillips' less extroverted fingerprint remained on the band quite some time a while after he left.
What are your thoughts? |
I'm sure Ivan has already answered this, but I'll give my input anyway:
Genesis approached their symphonic style of prog in a very different way than Yes did, and listening to both side by side explains this easily.
Yes, imo, always sounded to me more rock-headed with Steve Howe delivering various riffs and electrifying guitar solos, while Genesis, in some way, have always sounded darker and less "rockier", Steve Hackett nor Ant were there delivering guitar riffs, neither was Tony Banks delivering flashy solos. Mind you, this is not disregarding that Genesis were capable of pulling heavy or powerful stuff (The Musical Box, The Knife, etc).
We could argue if Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford were capable of pulling-off the stuff that Wakeman and Squire could pull-off, but I don't think it comes to the discussion since it's clear that Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford were capable, one way or another, to standout by their own but they didn't do that, they preferred to interplay with the rest of the band and give an overall sound/style to the band, something that Wakeman, Squire and Howe clearly didn't do. In this case, I don't want to disregard the approach of Yes to their sympohinc style of prog, they clearly all had chops and composition-wise they knew how to compose some splendid epics.
|
|
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
Posted: April 18 2010 at 20:06 |
progpositivity wrote:
... I once listened to a Gentle Giant song numerous times before recognizing an element that made the whole song come alive. So please don't hesitate to further enlighten me! |
You asked for it  . I'm quite the harmony/orchestration head. I don't have the time at all now. But I can stop back...
|
Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: April 18 2010 at 20:24 |
progpositivity wrote:
Here's a question for everyone Why do you think Genesis didn't put more emphasis on flashy individual virtuoso performances? One reason clearly could be limitations of the performers involved. But that wouldn't be the case with Phil Collins IMO - who could play monster fusion circles around some of the drum parts he put down on Genesis songs. To some extent, was it not that their vision for the music and their personal style dictated their approach? One could even argue that Ant Phillips' less extroverted fingerprint remained on the band quite some time a while after he left.
What are your thoughts? |
Nice question, I thought on this issue several times and believe the reasonds are various:
Different reality:
- Yes was a band with members in their early and mid 20's, all of them with some well known background and ready to be idols, people wouldn't expect watching Wakeman (THe star of The Strawbs) play hiding behind his keys, he had to give solos and a show, it is the least you can expect from a musician in his peak, the guy had a parallel career as solo star, he couldn't be the sitting keyboardist allowing the rest to shine over him.
- Howe, Squire and Anderson had a long background also, they were all capable of being frontmen without any problem, remember that in FRAGILE each one was allowed top tto s solo track, on stage there was no show without Your Move..Genesis never played a non Banks, Gabriel, Rutherfoird Hackett and Collins song...If you ask who did this or that YES song, everybody knows or at least suspects because of the style, Genesis tracks autorship is a mystery except for comments and Gallo's book
- Genesis on the other hand was a band of TEENS, they're previous experience was The Anon and Garden Wall...Two school bands, Banks could had never used capes and make flashy solos, because would had been laughable with his mommy knitted sweaters. Not even Gabriel was a frontman, that role was taken by Ant, who got sick because the panic.
- This guys had to rely in the music exclusively, everybody could forgive a Howe mistake, because his solos were amazing, but Genesis had to be a perfectly working machine, if their interplay didn't worked, they were dead...They couldn't take risks, and of course their music was created to be played on stage exactrly asin the album, no improvisation allowed.
Different music:.
- Yes was a Progresssive ROCK band, their music had to be self indulgent, flashy, even hard if necessary, Genesis was a Symphonic rock Band, lets be honest, their shows sucked ubtil the Foxtrot tour, they could only rely in their music and that gave them a first place in Italy and Belgium, two countries where people cared more about the music, than the show.
- Their approach is so different, that Yes lyrics mean nothing, they just have to sound good and be spectacular sonic poetry, Genesis lyrics were thought, people stopped to listen them and understand the lyrics, sometimes Peter had to force the words and sacrifice phonetics for sense, it was so important, that Peter had to tell stories before the tracks so people would get the idea.
In other words, Yes was a proffesional Rock band with an spectacular and flashy show, Genesis was a group of kids making excellent music.
Just a note, people say "Hey Emerson is better so he could do all that"...This is BS; Wakeman, Kaye, Moraz, Banks, and all guys in their level, could most surely do whatever all the others did, but each one had a different style and personality, there's the difference.
Each band did what they had to do.
My two cents
Iván
|
|
|
|
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 13:10 |
American Khatru wrote:
^ Whew. Ghosty, I've seen people take Iván lightly before. And it always ends this way. |
LOL. Fear not. This will not be a rainbow mudslinging fest. :P
|
|
|
|
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 13:17 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
Oh my.....
3. Howe and Wakey practically invented that tight interplay between keyboards and guitar, as careful listening of Fragile and CTTE (and GFTO) should convince you.
I don't believe so, and a good example is Close to the Edge, the solo by Wakeman is an ornate, you can add it or take it and wouldn't affect the central idea of the music, while you touch a note in Banks music and you ruin the song.
Relayer and GFTO tight?...Funny,
Relayer was almost recorded, they simply changed keyboardist, yes Moraz is a genius and did an outstanding job (nobody replaces Pinder and Emerson without being outstanding), but Genesis could never had worked like that, as a fact the famous tight interplay you mention is a lot of overdubbing according to Patrck Moraz.
When we started to record "Relayer", some of the music had already been written and rehearsed by Chris, Jon, Steve and Alan. I contributed as much as I could to the overall picture of the pieces. However, it is a fact that Steve used quite a lot of tracks for his many overdubs everywhere on the album, except when there is no guitar at all, which is a rare occasion.
|
It's clear, Relayer is a Howe album mainly, where the interplay is secondary, he is the star, and it's ok, it worked for them.
Now, the desription of GFTO is clear, an album worked originally with Moraz (Who IMO is far stronger than Wakeman), they simpy replaced one keyboardsist for another and there they went, they simply changed keyboardists in two albums with recorded material and played it all, that's not exactly tight composition and interplay.
Interview with PATRICK MORAZ
We had written, together, quite a lot of the material which ended up on "Going For The One", like "Awaken", "Wondrous Stories" or even "Parallels" which were as much part my composition as anyone else in the band at that time. I also came up, during the two previous years prior to the recording of "Going For The One", with a lot of ideas and contributions to the band and its sound. The fact that I was not credited as a writer of the songs, does not mean I did not compose for the group. As a member of the band, I composed as much as I could, as much as I was "allowed" to compose by the others.
|
Wakeman and Howe abused of the solos, something Hackett and Banks hardly ever did.
|
|
I'm just going to respond to this one point, because everyone can listen to the albums and make up their own mind.
However I have to point out Ivan's sleazy dishonesty (or alternatively his extreme sloppiness.) Most of his refutation of point 3 is a slamming of Relayer. I invite everyone to look at my original point quoted above to see if I mentioned Relayer. I also invite honest and disinterested parties to join me in pointing out to Ivan that it was Moraz who played on Relayer, not Wakeman, and therefore Relayer has no reason to be included in this point.
|
|
|
|
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 13:19 |
|
Oh, and we should all support the addition of Boston in prog-related!
|
|
|
|
progpositivity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 14:32 |
Ghost, it appears as though Ivan thought you cited Relayer in your examples of Yes albums with pre-planned tight keyboard guitar interplay, which is not the case.
But I think his larger point is that he feels one can basically *erase* the guitarist's (or keyboardist's) parts on most Yes songs, and then overdub a totally different - yet equally virtuosic - part in it's place and the song would not really suffer as a result. The fact that Moraz could come in so late in the process and put his unique virtuosic solo parts on the Relayer album with so much success is provided as evidence that a Yes song can work that way - with extra parts layered on after the fact instead of pre-planned for a synergistic and cohesive "whole". I think he is also saying that if one did that same thing to a Genesis song that was "in process", it would totally ruin the song.
If find this perspective thought provoking, even if I'm not sure I 100% agree with it. I must concede that I intuitively feel there is surely an element of validity. It is worth breaking down into 2 parts.
1) Could someone step in and change the guitar parts on a Genesis song and the song not be totally ruined in the process? Would it be totally impossible for Genesis to have worked that way? This question may be impossible to answer. No doubt, removing an Ant Phillips guitar part and replacing it with an indiscriminately showy performance could wreck the vibe. (But I would suggest that Patrick Moraz didn't work that way either. He didn't just indiscrimiately overdub on top of Relayer. He took the greater whole into account - even if some of his parts were added "after the fact" did he not? Ah, but I'm already getting into the Yes question (#2 below). I'd better defer that line of thought until later on...
The closest glimpse we may ever have of seeing whether classic Genesis could "work that way" or not might be found with a closer inspection of Nursery Cryme. How many of the guitar parts to this album might have been already written by Ant? Then how many of them might Steve Hackett have made an adjustment here or a change there? To whatever extent Steve's guitar parts differ from what Ant would have played, it could be argued that the arrangements *did* change but that the songs were *not* quite ruined as a result. Perhaps a listen to Ant's "F sharp" contrasted with listenings to "The Musical Box" could give us some clues? Just a thought....
On to the 2nd question. Could we really remove a full guitar part from most Yes songs or a full keyboard part from most Yes songs and insert an equally vituosic performance by another guitarist or keyboard player without dramatically changing or diminishing the songs character in so doing?
In the early "classic" years Yes would evidently jam for hours on end until they found parts that were both complex and inter-locking (even recording them on tape so they could capture and then strive to recreate the best parts later). I think this is how they came up with some of those mind blowing simultaneously virtuosic performances with complex interplay in the arrangements. At other times, however, they shined the spotlight clearly on an individual player for a solo. Interplay in the arrangement was *not* the focus at those times. I suspect a totally different - yet equally impressive solo - could "fit in" without damaging the song in these contexts.
Let's focus on Yes' universally revered album "Close to the Edge" Which song(s) could one perform this type of "cut and paste" surgery on successfully? I promise to listen to the song as objectively as possible to see to what extent I agree or disagree.
Good discussion points everyone! Keep the ideas coming!
Edited by progpositivity - April 19 2010 at 16:56
|
|
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 18:25 |
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
I'm just going to respond to this one point, because everyone can listen to the albums and make up their own mind.
However I have to point out Ivan's sleazy dishonesty (or alternatively his extreme sloppiness.) Most of his refutation of point 3 is a slamming of Relayer. I invite everyone to look at my original point quoted above to see if I mentioned Relayer. I also invite honest and disinterested parties to join me in pointing out to Ivan that it was Moraz who played on Relayer, not Wakeman, and therefore Relayer has no reason to be included in this point. |
Please, call me whatever you want, but never dishonest,, I have never insulted, much less give you that right because you don't know me....Calling someone dishonest is an offence, and I'm not willing to accept it
I know that Moraz played on Relayer, but I believe the keyboardists of this bands could be easily changed between without any problem (Of course you need a good musician), As a fact Relayer sounds tighter to me than any previous Yes album.
Now, Of course I mention Relayer after you mention GFTO because the situation is exactly the same in both albums despite the musicians are different
- They recorded part of it with a first keyboardist
- A new one came when unexpected (Well I believe I read that Wakeman's return in GFTO was an agreement between A&M and Atlantic because Wakeman in Yes would be a boost to Rick's sales while Yes fans wanted the caped keyboardist back)
- They were able to release an album because the new members were secondary, he could had been almost anyone and still the album work.
That's my whole point, Yes is mainly based in the skills and virtuosic atributes of their members more than in a team work and close interplay.
Now if you want to make a drama, insult me and focus in the the well known fact that Moraz played in Relayer (You didn't said it, I said it..Are you happy?) and still ask people to help you, it's your problem,. but please control your language, I won't accept any word about my honesty, it took me decades to be who I am, and nobody who knows me by a post has a right to place doubts on it.
Iván.
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 19 2010 at 19:07
|
|
|
|
progpositivity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 19:53 |
Let's not impugn anyone's integrity over what appears to be just an honest mistake.
Ghost wrote "Howe and Wakey practically invented that tight interplay between keyboards and guitar, as careful listening of Fragile and CTTE (and GFTO) should convince you."
and Ivan wrote "Relayer and GFTO tight?...Funny,"
I'm much more interested in exploring the following idea (which I think Ivan is saying in the "bigger picture").
"a good example is Close to the Edge, the solo by Wakeman is an ornate, you can add it or take it and wouldn't affect the central idea of the music, while you touch a note in Banks music and you ruin the song."
Ivan, could you alert me to the location in the song's running time where this solo falls? For example, about 4 minutes into the song... or at about the 8 minute mark, etc.? I'm at work right now, but when I get home, I'm very interested in listening to this particular solo to see to what extent I can hear and/or agree with what you are talking about.
I'll be asking myself "I'm my 'mind's ear' can I envision *erasing* Wakey's solo and then replacing it with an equally virtuosic keyboard solo? When I do so, would the song emerge with very little damage to its overall character?"
Indeed, I may be able to envision this - as long as the solo is performed by someone with a lot of pizazz (like Patrick Moraz) as opposed to someone great yet more sedate like Vangelis.
My next question will be to ask myself about the keyboard parts *overall*. "How integrated into the composition as a whole are they IMO? How critical is interplay in the arrangement of the piece overall?
Can I envision someone else (Patrick Moraz maybe?) playing keys of his own style all over the entire song?"
And then the 'litmus test' question... "With this imaginary change, would the entire piece 'Close to the Edge' emerge with very little damage to its overall character IMO?"
I really don't know what the answer will be to these questions. I'll just have to go through the *fun* of listening to CttE with brand new ears!
For this, I thank you Ivan. Because, whether I end up totally agreeing with you, totally disagreeing with you, or any gradation inbetween, not only are you sharing your perspective with me as I embark on a journey to discover the greatness of classic Genesis... You are also helping to make a time-honored classic Yes album to come alive in a new and interesting way for me!
Ghosts - thanks for your input as well. It is - of course! - highly valued! I invite you to give CttE another listen. Of course, this is only your mission if you so choose to accept it and this post will self destruct in 30 seconds! 
Let's see what we discover. Your result may be different than mine and different from Ivan's as well. That is one of the cool things about art!
Either way, I'm sure Yes' reputation will survive this scandalous allegation!
Edited by progpositivity - April 19 2010 at 20:05
|
|
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
|
|
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 19:57 |
progpositivity wrote:
... Good discussion points everyone! Keep the ideas coming! |
"Keep that popcorn chicken coming Colonel."
|
Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 20:38 |
progpositivity wrote:
Let's not impugn anyone's integrity over what appears to be just an honest mistake.
|
No my new friend, it's not a mistake-
I mentioned Relayer, because it's the exact same case as in Going for the One, and even more radical, because we are talking about a man who replaced the guy who had worked for years with them, we are talking about a totally different keyboardist than Wakeman, but still the album worked incredibly well, as a fact is ,a reinforcement for my point, because Moraz, with a radically different style than Wakeman, and without even having an approach with Yes, came, took the previous recordings, added a couple arrangements and released the best Yes album ever...
This (I believe) makes my point, that with a great replacement, no matter who is, Yes will still work, something I don't believe would be so easy in the case of early Genesis.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 20:56 |
progpositivity wrote:
"a good example is Close to the Edge, the solo by Wakeman is an ornate, you can add it or take it and wouldn't affect the central idea of the music, while you touch a note in Banks music and you ruin the song."
Ivan, could you alert me to the location in the song's running time where this solo falls? For example, about 4 minutes into the song... or at about the 8 minute mark, etc.? I'm at work right now, but when I get home, I'm very interested in listening to this particular solo to see to what extent I can hear and/or agree with what you are talking about.
|
I wasn't talking about any special onel, as a fact I'm talking about any Banks performance in general..
But if you want one ruined, listen Three Sides Live (British version with the old songs) the real song is One For the Vine (Even when due to a mistake of the CD recording appears at the 20 seconds of Fountain of Salmacis)
Tony changes the approach, uses electric piano and instead of organ a cheap synth that sounds like a Casiotrone, it's like a battle of swords in Star Wars, but even that may sound as a joke,
The real problem is when Stuermer ruins the continuity of the guitar (He's a hell of a guitar player, but he can't work Steve's atmospheres), incredibly the problem is that you listen Stuermer too clear when the song requires a more subtle guitar and Phil (Or Chester not sure), makes a killer drum solo, but too complex for the song, if they had left it as in W&W it would had been great.
As a fact is pretty hard to find a bad stage performance in Genesis (Except for technical reasons), because they usually stayed incredibly close to the original version, probably because they knew that a mistake would ruin it all and that there was little place for improvisation, so they played it safe.
Check it., it's interesting.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 19 2010 at 21:07
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
ProgPos Blog - Genesis Studio LP Tour
