yes

YES PLEASE!!

I really dont understand the Genesis enfactuation. I dont think they come close to the mastery of Yes.

fender101 wrote: YES PLEASE!! I really dont understand the Genesis enfactuation. I dont think they come close to the mastery of Yes.

theey are just CLOSE TO THE EDGE

GENESIS

When it comes to YES, I only appreciate the albums of their classic period (1971 - 1978), while I can enjoy all albums by GENESIS - even their less interesting ones (FGTR and WCD). 

I have always thought that YES' music is a bit too dry and clinical compared to GENESIS' music which has more of the ingredients I like in good prog, that is eccentricity, humour, darkness, madness etc.

Olympus wrote: I'm eager to hear the result.

you already know, don't you...

guess who I voted for....

Genesis, though Yes is also great!

Yes get the Edge, for me.

But, I absolutely love Genesis as well.

A difficult choice for sure...

...but in the end it will be Yes

Yes.

Even though both have their crappy ears (ie- the 80s), 80s Yes is more tolerable than 80s Genesis, IMO. Yes's 90's material was better too. Genesis took a dive down and never regained; they just kept getting worse. Yes took a dive as well, but it wasn't as bad and they regained some ground in the 90s and 00's.

As much as I love Genesis, they're not greater than YES for me.

 Good topic. Also, the idea of making a rivalry out of two bands is very interesting. I wish more people would also be explicit why they think one is better than the other. I´ll try to do that with my limited english.

 My personal favorite has always been Genesis, since I was 15 (now 30). By 19 I met Yes. First I thought their music was very uninspired, repetitive and souless. It seemed to have no real human feelings in it. It just sounded too mechanic and with lack of textures. By then, I had heard everything by Genesis. I had not heard many bands by then but still, even after comparing it with others, I knew this should be the most creative and imaginative band ever. Their music has always sounded full of passion, soul, conviction and the number of different moods and images is greater than any other´s.

 Genesis created a variety of styles, sounds, feelings and moods throughout the 70´s that no other band ever matched. Whatsmore, they did that with such a way that no album from that period sounds immature within it´s style. There is no question about the differences between the style, concept and sound of "Foxtrot" and "Selling England". Or between "The Lamb" and "A trick". In the same issue, YES never changed a bit and what´s worse, just turned every time less creative and more repetitive.

 Well, I started liking YES some 5 years ago. I discovered their best albums are "YES" and "Time and a word". Curiously, when they were the least prog, but the most inspired, creative and when they delivered the best songwriting of their carrer. These two pop albums really had conviction and very well expresed feelings. Songs like "I see you", "Every little thing" (great covers), and "Astral traveller" are some of the songs that I consider, expose the best of a musician´s energy and passion. ...After these records they became more prog and less inspired and much less creative.

 Has anybody thought about the possibility of "Close to the edge" (The big epic by YES) being a "Prog-pop" song ?. It is a pop song with the playing of a prog song. The structure is that of a regular pop song and the chorus is repeated more than ..7 times ?. The hooks on this song are the choruses. Oposed to "Supper´s ready" which is as lenghty as "Close" but never uses "the chorus cheap trick". "Supper´s" never waste a second with no music or with simplistic music as "Close" in that pointless "I get up I get down,I get up I get down, I get up I get down" middle section. "Supper´s" never come back to the main theme to close the song like "Close" with the exact same "Close to the edge, down by the corner, close to the edge down by the river" part.

 Also, there is no argument about the Lyrics issue. Read the lyrics on "Close" and the ones in "Supper´s".....No comments.

 Is "Roundabout" supposed to be the prototipe of prog?. Be carefull when telling that to an antiprog person. "Roundabout" is one of many Prog-pop songs by YES. A band than after the third album couldn´t manage to create a song with more than 3 ideas. "Roundabout" is not only repetitive, it also gets boring after 10 listens. Like any commercial song. After you dug on the chorus line, there´s nothing to listen at. Yeah ¡¡, the bass and the playing is great, no question about it, that´s why this is another Prog-pop song. Genesis very rarely repeated a word in their songs. Unless they really tried to make a pop song like "I know what I like". When they made prog, they never made Prog-pop like YES did. Genesis made Prog-pop after ´77, when YES started doing "CRAP-PROG-POP".

 I do really appreciate "South side of the sky". It has everything I like; Passion, conviction, creativity, diversity, good textures, good songwriting. To be fair. By the way, it shows way more ideas than "Close to the edge", and the horrible and repetitive instrumental in "Gates" together.

However, song like "Heart of the sunrise" are impressive on the first 15 listens. Then, there´s nothing in it. After you have heard that playing enough, and start paying attention to the structure of the song and the textures and the rest of the elements (the songwriting included), you will notice this song could have been written in 6 minutes. The instrumental parts are impressive and you may not want them to end, but they are always the same ¡¡. It´s the same as repeating a churus 20 times during a song. After the 15th listen to this song I just thought: "Í know the trick". And most of their songs are like that. Also, some of their songs are made out of nothing, or with one single idea, like "And you and I", which has a nice melody. That would be good for a 3:00 song, but a 10:00 song of a single chorus??¡¡

 I will tell you why YES won this voting excersise. YES is way more conventional than Genesis. While Genesis played "The return of the gisnt hogweed and never sang the same word twice", YES was singing the word "Roundabout" over and over. Or repeating the same 10 imprssive seconds of music over and over in "Heart of the sunrise". Or making 10 minute balads out of a single idea, while Genesis would make short but full of creativity and passion balads like "Harlequin".

While you find underrated and overlooked songs like "Can utility" from "Foxtrot" in Genesis´output, you will find overrated, overlong and simplistic songs like  "To be over" by YES.

YES was always more accesible to the audience, that´s why more people like it. Even among prog-heads like the ones in this site.

Curiously, Genesis managed to make way better pop than YES, when it was time for making POP. Genesis is slammed for making pop. But no one seems to remember YES tried hard being succesfull and never made it. They even tried sooner than Genesis. The reason?, Genesis was more creative and would always make better songs than YES on any field.

Thanks 

Another difficult one! My two fave bands of the 70's. There can be only one choice however, GENESIS! I love Yes from Fragile to Going For The One, all classics, with high musicianship and distinctive style. However, Genesis had some things no other band had, or have. Incredible compositional skills, dark humour, pomposity when necessary, the most charismatic singer - and storyteller - in prog, (Gabriel of course) my favourite keyboard player, and my favourite guitarist. All these things add up to perfection for me. But I do love Yes as well.

Fantômas wrote: None, but if I had to choose, Genesis (Yes must sound like a TORTURE in Hell, done by SATAN himself), because individually it's a good band (I like most members solo careers).

Well, at least you like Genesis

I still can't understand what's wrong with Yes. The intro to CTTE sounds like your beloved Patton, and overall they're pretty avant-garde in some spots.

Like most posters here, I love both the music of Genesis & Yes - mainly the 70s era - and both have contributed so much to prog rock's heritage.

I think Genesis just shade it for me though - to me they are the quintessential prog band.

Since this is PROGarhives, I will limit my assessment to the proggy years of these two bands. (Cheeky me as I haven't really explored either band's pop material yet, ahem... )

Both are great, but overall I do admire the pure musicality of Yes' best moments more than I admire the high points (personal opinion, of course) of Genesis. Also, the sometimes overblown theatrical streak of Genesis songs doesn't sit as well with me as the more sophisticated approach by Yes. Gates of Delirium can certainly get kind of theatrical, too, but it's still a different kind of theatricality than the one found in Supper's Ready or The Musical Box...or The Battle of Epping Forest, for that matter. While Yes can get a bit too hyper sometimes, Genesis can get, well, a bit too pompous for their own good (Apocalypse in 9/8 and the ending of Supper's Ready -yikes)

Then again, we can't forget TFTO, which is far too meandering for its own good...and it doesn't have the hooks that Genesis were very good at even before their pop years.

Still, Yes all the way for me. (One only needs to compare the bass-playing of Squire and Ruthford to come to that conclusion  ) Listening to Yes at their best is for me a more intense experience than listening to the classic Genesis material; it's more assertive somehow, it demands one's concentration to the fullest. To use a rather clumsy analog: the musical gold nuggets of Genesis might be more visible and accessible than those of Yes (which perhaps gives Genesis an emotional edge) but that is also why Yes manages to hold my interest better than Genesis.

Finally, IMO Genesis never made a practically perfect prog record. Yes did. 

eduardossc wrote: YES was always more accesible to the audience, that´s why more people like it. Even among prog-heads like the ones in this site.

That's a really wierd comment.  I'm not critisizing; to each his own, after all.  But it's been said many times that Genesis are the "prettiest sounding" classic prog band.  Yes on the other hand had many dissonant, experimental, improvisational bits, especially in the TFTO/Relayer phase, which is in my opinion their strongest period.  It's not uninspired, it's just further outside the box than Genesis usually went.  That's why I personally prefer Yes.  That, and the fact that I find their music to be more impassioned.  This last point is VERY arguable, however, and it's just me, so feel free to ignore it entirely.

Oh, and just figured I'd mention that CTTE isn't in a pop format, it's in sonata form.  

Not a single doubt, Genesis not only my favorite band, but overall a band.

Yes was based in virtuoso characteristics of their members, Genesis was a team work, nobody tried to prove he was the best, each and every one worked for the band, even Gabriel stories and his costumes had a purpose, to explain the lyrics.

Yes isn't even in my top 5, maybe not even on my top 10, I hate Jon Anderson's voice (Maybe hate is a too strong word, but I don't like his voice at all).

Iván

Sir Hogweed wrote: From Genesis To Hesitation.

Yes for me too

Genesis

keep in mind my band list is

1. Genesis (without a doubt)
2. Yes
3. GG
4. Tull

aftre that who knows

As for songwriting, Yes and Genesis were about the same. Each had their silly-but-brilliant songs ("I've Seen All Good People," "Return if the Giant Hogweed") and each had amazing, conceptual masterpieces ("Close to the Edge," "Supper's Ready").

As for musicianship, Yes wins hands down. Nobody from Genesis was a virtuoso. Though they could play their instruments and write good songs, they by no means matched the Howe-Squire-Wakeman line-up.

As for the singing, it's a matter of taste. Gabriel could emulate many styles and varieties of voices for emotional effect, wheras Anderson could really hit the high notes and sustain a note well. I personally give the advantage to Yes, seeing how Phil Collions was trying to be exactly the same as Gabriel. Now, you may call me a hypocrite, for that is eaxtly what Trevor Horn did for Drama. The difference is that the Horn era of Yes was a lot shorter than the Collins era of Genesis.

As for overall relevance, Yes wins hands down. They are still making great music today. And we all know what happened to Genesis. Calling all Stations

Stonebeard wrote:

Nobody from Genesis was a virtuoso

What about Steve Hackett? Tony Banks, a brilliant performer and better wongwritter than any Yes member?

Stonebeard wrote:

Each had their silly-but-brilliant songs ("I've Seen All Good People," "Return if the Giant Hogweed")

Giant Hogweed silly????? Have you listened the lyrics and read history? Peter Gabriel is IMO the best lyricist ever, nobody could tell complete stories that made sense of almost about anything.

No Yes lyric makes sense, except maybe Don't Kill the Whale which is not one of their most inspired songs.

Stonebeard wrote:

As for overall relevance, Yes wins hands down

I haven't heard of any Prog band except Genesis that has been the fundamental base of any Prog Sub-genre. Without Genesis there's no Neo Prog.

And about playing together yet, that's not relevance, that's enduring, but Rolling Stones lasted longer, so what does that mean?

Iván

Wow! I have read this on bothe the Genesis and the Yes forum and you knew it was a matter of time before this thread would pop up here....

I did not check to see if there were any other similar threads....

Yes was the first true progressive rock band that I got into, but all of that change once I heard Genesis's Second's Out

It has been mentioned, and sometimes we might not want to admit it, but as musicians the Fragile/Close To the Edge line-up were a line-up of five virtuosos, while the classic Genesis line-up took time gel together as musicians...

Anderson and Gabriel nearly cancel out each other, but Gabriel still comes out on top... Only Hammill's lyrics top Gabriel...

Howe VS Hackett... Howe's diversity on strings are matched by Hackett, but Howe's mastery of vast musical styles are on another level.... Classical guitar slight edge towards Hackett...

Rutherford VS Squire... Squire's tone and fluidity has been an influence on many bassists in both the prog and metal genre, but how many times can one person try to improve on the same ole' boring "The Fish" solo? Mike Rutherford sadly is often compared to Chris and alway comes away on the losing edge, but Mike when it comes to his bass abilities is anything but a slouch... One of the best compliments I ever read about Mike's bass playing was from an unlikely source, whom said that listening Mike's bass playing is like listening to Paul McCartney during his day in Beatles.... Excellent rythymic bassist and much more soulful than any of his peers....

Banks VS Wakeman...  Wakeman... a master of many keyboards, great improvisor and could direct music like very few only bettered by Emerson skill wise.... Tony Banks might be the greatest songwriter of the Golden Age of Progressive rock, and arguably the most influential keyboardist from that era.....

Bruford VS Collins.. Collins started out as a devoted Yes fan and worshipped Bill Bruford's polyrythymic drumming, but as Collins' music taste expanded (thanks to Bill) Collins drumming evolved into a wonder that even he nowadays can't physically match.... Bill is obviously Prog's most influential drummer, but Phil is the more assertive style wise...

It's a shame that Peter left as his lyrical vision was getting better and by the time Steve was on the verge of leaving Genesis, his guitar tone was expanding and his improvisational skills were just about to take Genesis to another level... What Genesis could not match Yes in musical skills, Yes were no match for Genesis lyrical and songwriting abilities....

Both Genesis and Yes are considered the benchmarks (no disrespect to ELP, Gentle Giant, Tull and Floyd fans) but the influence Genesis had on bands that did not even venture into the prog realm is still staggering....

If I had to pick between both bands, Genesis wins hands down from FGTR all the way to CAS while post 90125 Yes bores me to tears.....

Charles

Fritha wrote: Finally, IMO Genesis never made a practically perfect prog record. Yes did.

Genesis made three in a row .... Those albums were Foxtrot, Selling England By The Pound and The Lamb Lies down On Broadway......

ivan_2068 wrote: Stonebeard wrote: Nobody from Genesis was a virtuoso What about Steve Hackett? Tony Banks, a brilliant performer and better wongwritter than any Yes member? Stonebeard wrote: Each had their silly-but-brilliant songs ("I've Seen All Good People," "Return if the Giant Hogweed") Giant Hogweed silly????? Have you listened the lyrics and read history? Peter Gabriel is IMO the best lyricist ever, nobody could tell complete stories that made sense of almost about anything. No Yes lyric makes sense, except maybe Don't Kill the Whale which is not one of their most inspired songs. Stonebeard wrote: As for overall relevance, Yes wins hands down I haven't heard of any Prog band except Genesis that has been the fundamental base of any Prog Sub-genre. Without Genesis there's no Neo Prog. And about playing together yet, that's not relevance, that's enduring, but Rolling Stones lasted longer, so what does that mean? Iván

Listen, Ivan. I know you're biased towards Genesis. I love both bands and I stil contend that Yes is better, on a musical level and on an emotional level. OK, I meant endurance, not relevance. Yes has endured longer than Genesis and is still making good albums. In terms of actual relevance, Genesis may win that one.

I cannot believe people can say that without this band, there would be no so-and-so. In the case of Marillion, Genesis was an influence, but I believe the band had enough other influences to still exist and make similar music.

GENESIS !

Quite simple :

• Genesis wins 3 masterpieces to 1 (Foxtrot+Selling England+The Lamb / Close to the edge)
• Lack of charism from Jon Anderson on stage compared with Peter Gabriel, and even with Phil Collins

Pylo wrote: GENESIS ! Quite simple : Genesis wins 3 masterpieces to 1 (Foxtrot+Selling England+The Lamb / Close to the edge) Lack of charism from Jon Anderson on stage compared with Peter Gabriel, and even with Phil Collins

Watch Live at the House of Blues and try to tell me that again.

  Hard question. Both are great in different ways and a bit neck and neck. But the Lamb always trounced that abominable Tales so it is Genesis for me

Yes!!!

Genesis was a great band, who made some extremely good records in the 70-ties.

But Yes is still here, and epics like CTTE/Relayer/Awaken have NEVER been matched, not by any band, ever. But that ofcourse is imho.

stonebeard wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: Stonebeard wrote: Nobody from Genesis was a virtuoso What about Steve Hackett? Tony Banks, a brilliant performer and better wongwritter than any Yes member? Stonebeard wrote: Each had their silly-but-brilliant songs ("I've Seen All Good People," "Return if the Giant Hogweed") Giant Hogweed silly????? Have you listened the lyrics and read history? Peter Gabriel is IMO the best lyricist ever, nobody could tell complete stories that made sense of almost about anything. No Yes lyric makes sense, except maybe Don't Kill the Whale which is not one of their most inspired songs. Stonebeard wrote: As for overall relevance, Yes wins hands down I haven't heard of any Prog band except Genesis that has been the fundamental base of any Prog Sub-genre. Without Genesis there's no Neo Prog. And about playing together yet, that's not relevance, that's enduring, but Rolling Stones lasted longer, so what does that mean? Iván   Listen, Ivan. I know you're biased towards Genesis. I love both bands and I stil contend that Yes is better, on a musical level and on an emotional level. OK, I meant endurance, not relevance. Yes has endured longer than Genesis and is still making good albums. In terms of actual relevance, Genesis may win that one. I cannot believe people can say that without this band, there would be no so-and-so. In the case of Marillion, Genesis was an influence, but I believe the band had enough other influences to still exist and make similar music.

I really don't believe that a movement like Neo Prog would have existed as we know it without Genesis as Prog' would never existed as we know it without the (non Prog') influence of The Beatles.

I'm not talking about Marillion, I really find many Neo Prog' bands that sound even closer to Genesis i than Marillion including Pendragon, the birth of Neo Prog was based mostly in the peculiar sound and style of the "Non vuirtuoso" (in your words), Tony Banks.

What I can't believe is that some people try to deny the quality and virtuosism of Genesis musicians to prove how great Yes was:

Steve Hackett is at least in thesame level of Steve Howe, with the difference that he has better solo career (in quality and number) than Steve Howe.

Tony Banks is a virtuoso keyboardist, maybe he's not spectacular and a showman, but his style is solid (As his classical formation) and he's far a better composer than any other keyboardist in the market. He doesn't have a solid solo career, but no Yes keyboardist created so much music for their band than Tony Banks did for Genesis.

I'm a fan but not blind I always said that Rutherford is not in the level of Squire and that Peter Gabriel doesn't have the most natural gifted voice (Even when he's one of the greatest vocalist despite that problem with the high ranges).

I always stated that Bruford is one of my favorite drummers (Behind Phil Ehart) but Phil Collins is right there, it's only a matter of personal tastes.

So, I would never sat Yes are a bunch of untaleted guys, because even though is not among my top 10 artists, I recognize is a great band and made a lot of great music.

Iván

W.Chuck wrote: They are both on the same level, both have their advantages and disadvantages...

Good point as someone said man by man they are almost in the same level, and both bands made great music. I heard and loved Runabout or You's is no Disgrace before I even knew Genesis existed.

I still  love Yes music, someone said on other thread that I think Close to the Edge has no structure, well I never said something remotely similar, Yes music is wonderful until Relayer (IMO), but I can't simply stand Jon Anderson's voice, that's my only problem with Yes and that's a matter of taste.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: stonebeard wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: Stonebeard wrote: Nobody from Genesis was a virtuoso What about Steve Hackett? Tony Banks, a brilliant performer and better wongwritter than any Yes member? Stonebeard wrote: Each had their silly-but-brilliant songs ("I've Seen All Good People," "Return if the Giant Hogweed") Giant Hogweed silly????? Have you listened the lyrics and read history? Peter Gabriel is IMO the best lyricist ever, nobody could tell complete stories that made sense of almost about anything. No Yes lyric makes sense, except maybe Don't Kill the Whale which is not one of their most inspired songs. Stonebeard wrote: As for overall relevance, Yes wins hands down I haven't heard of any Prog band except Genesis that has been the fundamental base of any Prog Sub-genre. Without Genesis there's no Neo Prog. And about playing together yet, that's not relevance, that's enduring, but Rolling Stones lasted longer, so what does that mean? Iván   Listen, Ivan. I know you're biased towards Genesis. I love both bands and I stil contend that Yes is better, on a musical level and on an emotional level. OK, I meant endurance, not relevance. Yes has endured longer than Genesis and is still making good albums. In terms of actual relevance, Genesis may win that one. I cannot believe people can say that without this band, there would be no so-and-so. In the case of Marillion, Genesis was an influence, but I believe the band had enough other influences to still exist and make similar music. I really don't believe that a movement like Neo Prog would have existed as we know it without Genesis as Prog' would never existed as we know it without the (non Prog') influence of The Beatles. I still don't get that argument. I believe sooner or later another band would have come along and have the same effect on future generations. I'm not talking about Marillion, I really find many Neo Prog' bands that sound even closer to Genesis i than Marillion including Pendragon, the birth of Neo Prog was based mostly in the peculiar sound and style of the "Non vuirtuoso" (in your words), Tony Banks. From what I've heard of Banks, all Genesis abums from Nursury Cryme to Wing and Wuthering at least, I think he is a great keyboardist but only stands at that. What I can't believe is that some people try to deny the quality and virtuosism of Genesis musicians to prove how great Yes was: I'm not really trying to disprove the talent of Genesis musicians for my argument. I simply don't think they're virtuosic. Steve Hackett is at least in thesame level of Steve Howe, with the difference that he has better solo career (in quality and number) than Steve Howe. I have never heard any solo albums from either Howe or Hackett, so I can not bring up an argument on that subject. Based soley on core Yes output and core Genesis output, I still think Howe is better. But then again, Hackett never really got a chance to shine... Tony Banks is a virtuoso keyboardist, maybe he's not spectacular and a showman, but his style is solid (As his classical formation) and he's far a better composer than any other keyboardist in the market. He doesn't have a solid solo career, but no Yes keyboardist created so much music for their band than Tony Banks did for Genesis. I'm a fan but not blind I always said that Rutherford is not in the level of Squire and that Peter Gabriel doesn't have the most natural gifted voice (Even when he's one of the greatest vocalist despite that problem with the high ranges). I always stated that Bruford is one of my favorite drummers (Behind Phil Ehart) but Phil Collins is right there, it's only a matter of personal tastes. Eh, yeah, I suppose (based soley on Phil's Genesis career) So, I would never sat Yes are a bunch of untaleted guys, because even though is not among my top 10 artists, I recognize is a great band and made a lot of great music. Iván

Since much of Yes's music relies on Anderson's vocals, I bet this is a major factor in why you don't like them as much as I do.

micky wrote: NouSomesduSolei wrote: I can't believe the amount of Yes "haters" on here. I completely love Genesis, they are the only prog rock band that you could argue is better then Yes. But Genesis is not better than Yes. Some of the people that have commented on this topic have made just stupid points. Saying that Anderson and Yes are emotionless is just rediculas. These people obviously never have sat at a Yes Show while Howe is sitting with the slide guitar and anderson pouring his heart into "soon".  On the contrary to what most of the people say I think Yes music is more emotional. This is shown by the amazing solos. As far as musicianship, Genesis doesnt hold a candle to Yes.  But im not going to just bable on, obvisously everyone has a good music taste if were argueing about this. Thanks,Mike nice post!

Agreed!  Stunning debut NouSomes!  And for the record, there really aren't that many Yes bashers around here.  It's just all coming out in this one thread.

NouSomesduSolei wrote: I can't believe the amount of Yes "haters" on here. I completely love Genesis, they are the only prog rock band that you could argue is better then Yes. But Genesis is not better than Yes. Some of the people that have commented on this topic have made just stupid points. Saying that Anderson and Yes are emotionless is just rediculas. These people obviously never have sat at a Yes Show while Howe is sitting with the slide guitar and anderson pouring his heart into "soon".  On the contrary to what most of the people say I think Yes music is more emotional. This is shown by the amazing solos. As far as musicianship, Genesis doesnt hold a candle to Yes.  But im not going to just bable on, obvisously everyone has a good music taste if were argueing about this. Thanks,Mike

You can definitely argue King Crimson>Yes.

Stonebeard wrote:

still don't get that argument. I believe sooner or later another band would have come along and have the same effect on future generations.

But would not have been the Neo Prog we know today, I'm sure that Marillion, Arena or Pendragon would have never existed or reached success without Genesis influence,please it's the base of their sound!!!!!

Stonebeard wrote:

From what I've heard of Banks, all Genesis abums from Nursury Cryme to Wing and Wuthering at least, I think he is a great keyboardist but only stands at that..

Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, if you think that the most influential keyboardist of Prog'  si not a virtuoso, OK you can believe it.

Stonebeard wrote: [quote] I have never heard any solo albums from either Howe or Hackett, so I can not bring up an argument on that subject. Based soley on core Yes output and core Genesis output, I still think Howe is better. But then again, Hackett never really got a chance to shine..[/quote]

Then how can you say wuith such a scurity that no Genesis member is a virtuoso musician?

But you make my point, Genesis musicians worked for the band, they were virtuoso players but sacrificed their personal pride for the music, so if you admit Steve Hackett never had the chance to shine, how can you talk about his lack of virtuosity

Stonebeard wrote: [quote] Eh, yeah, I suppose (based soley on Phil's Genesis career)[/quote]

What about Brand X?

Iván

micky wrote: Syntharachnid wrote: micky wrote: NouSomesduSolei wrote: I can't believe the amount of Yes "haters" on here. I completely love Genesis, they are the only prog rock band that you could argue is better then Yes. But Genesis is not better than Yes. Some of the people that have commented on this topic have made just stupid points. Saying that Anderson and Yes are emotionless is just rediculas. These people obviously never have sat at a Yes Show while Howe is sitting with the slide guitar and anderson pouring his heart into "soon".  On the contrary to what most of the people say I think Yes music is more emotional. This is shown by the amazing solos. As far as musicianship, Genesis doesnt hold a candle to Yes.  But im not going to just bable on, obvisously everyone has a good music taste if were argueing about this. Thanks,Mike nice post! Agreed!  Stunning debut NouSomes!  And for the record, there really aren't that many Yes bashers around here.  It's just all coming out in this one thread. it's not like those on the Yes side of this question are any more Genesis haters.  Personally I love the group. Just some things are well known, Genesis was thought of (by themselves) as a rather boring group. Hense the costumes and the stage show.  They were not the instrumentalists that Yes were.  The music is first rate, it's great stuff, but Yes did it as well (or better) for longer and without a doubt IMO  were the benchmark of 70's prog....err... prog period.

Assuming King Crimson didn't exist.

Micky wrote:

it's not like those on the Yes side of this question are any more Genesis haters.  Personally I love the group. Just some things are well known, Genesis was thought of (by themselves) as a rather boring group. Hense the costumes and the stage show.

Genesis considered a boring group for their costumes????

Do you really know what you're talking about?

The costumes and the stories are a visual aid to understand the Genesis lyrics which are really complex and make sense.

It all started because between the songs (And having Genesis only one set of instruments at the beginning of their careers) there was a long period of silence while Genesis members were tuning their instruments, so Peter started to tell stories to keep the attention of the audience during those embarrasisng minutes of silence.

The costumes was a Peter Gabriel thing, to complement the stories, each costume is related to the lyrics of a song.

Phil Collins said clearly that all Genesis members hated those costumes because Peter distracted the audience from the music and because due to the masks he could hardly keep a microphone near to his mouth.

Peter still rises from the basement in telephone booths, ends his concerts with something like a UFO, rides bike while singing Solsbury Hills, uses electric light coats while singing Sledgehammer, etc.

That's the way he feels his concerts, he's a complete artist and probably a theater actor wannabe, I can't assure that but Threefates who talked with him told this on a forum.

Peter Gabriel was not the only Prog' musician with such eccentric behaviour

• Wakeman made A Myth and Legends Concert on the ice. with skaters and everything, this is cheesy.!!!
• Emerson played on flying pianos and stabbed that poor old little organ.
• Fish used costumes,
• Pink Floyd show was almost as important as their music, including the films and flying pigs and/or beds.
• The Wall in Berlin is the most expensive extravaganza in history.
• Jean Michel Jarre's show is a combination of theater, movies and music
• Hawkwind had a naked dancer (Stacia) during their shows.

So according to your criteria each mentioned band or musician considered their music boring, please, this is absurd.

This has no relation with their music being boring, this means some Prog Musicians believe their music is not only an auditive but also a visual form of art.

Iván

micky wrote: No Ivan,  not for their costumes, unless what I've heard/read  is wrong (which of course is always possible) the costumes were a direct result of people saying that " they (Genesis) were so f*cking boring".  (A quote from Charisma Records PR man) Personally I thought it was a brilliant move and definitely got Genesis the desired result...getting noticed.  I may not know everything Ivan, but I don't make stuff up either. I thought it was rather humorous myself, that's why I brought it up.

There is some truth but not as you say it:

• Peter was a very timid guy, Antony Phillips had stage panic, Tony is also very shy and Mike never was a charismatic guy, so nobody was a real frontman in their early years, there was no show or anything, just 5 guys playing heir music in normal clothes.
• When they released Trespass and even Nursery Cryme, Peter didn't used costumes, and if you see the Belgium TV Video, he sings with his arms crossed and also standing in the same spot. By this time they were idols on Italy. This is why Tony Straton Smith from Charisma Records thought the show was boring, Peter hardly moved from a 1 square meter spot and had no interaction with the audience, what was even harder in the case opf Genesis because Steve stayed on his chair at one corner (Almost always the left one), Mike also hided in the left back part of the stage and Tony never took his eyes from the keyboard and Phil the only other charismatic member was too busy with hisdrums, he was the only one who joked with Peter during the concerts.

• Of course as a stage act was boring, but the music wasn't already Nursery Cryme was N° 4 on Italy and I believe N° 2 in Belgium.
• The first time Peter used a costume was in Dublin, he knew the audience was hard, so he decided to shock them, he asked his wife Jill for a red dress and bought a fox mask to make reference to the Foxtrot album, and he acomplished his purpose. (The dress is an exact copy of the cover art of Foxtrot).

• The next day all papers in England were talking about the weirdoe that used a red dress in Ireland, so he decided that bad propaganda was better than no propaganda.
• But the main reason Peter used costumes was to help people understand Genesis Lyrics.
• For example the Song Dancing with the Moonlit Knight is a sarcastic point of view of British society and a complex play of words from UK authors, so nobody understood the concept (This guys had a very solid school formation, and their lyrics were too complex for the average Joe), so he used the Britannia costume (A Roman-British soldier with the UK flag) and he explained somehow the meaning of the lyrics telling the audience he represented the spirit of England.

I don't believe you invent things, but your info is out of context.

Iván

Both rank in my top three, but there has never been, nor will there ever be a band like Yes !!

They are the defenition of Prog to me...

ivan_2068 wrote: Stonebeard wrote: still don't get that argument. I believe sooner or later another band would have come along and have the same effect on future generations. But would not have been the Neo Prog we know today, I'm sure that Marillion, Arena or Pendragon would have never existed or reached success without Genesis influence,please it's the base of their sound!!!!! Stonebeard wrote: From what I've heard of Banks, all Genesis abums from Nursury Cryme to Wing and Wuthering at least, I think he is a great keyboardist but only stands at that.. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, if you think that the most influential keyboardist of Prog'  si not a virtuoso, OK you can believe it. Stonebeard wrote: [quote] I have never heard any solo albums from either Howe or Hackett, so I can not bring up an argument on that subject. Based soley on core Yes output and core Genesis output, I still think Howe is better. But then again, Hackett never really got a chance to shine..[/quote] Then how can you say wuith such a scurity that no Genesis member is a virtuoso musician? But you make my point, Genesis musicians worked for the band, they were virtuoso players but sacrificed their personal pride for the music, so if you admit Steve Hackett never had the chance to shine, how can you talk about his lack of virtuosity Stonebeard wrote: [quote] Eh, yeah, I suppose (based soley on Phil's Genesis career)[/quote] What about Brand X? Iván

1. If you want me to say that Genesis was a major influence in neo-prog bands, then sure, I agree with that. Still, I prefer Yes.

2. I am not "saying with such security" that no member from Genesis was not a virtuoso. From what I've heard, above mentioned, no member from Geneisis is a virtuoso in the sense that they had perticularly amazing chops. They were a  cohesive band and each member complementary to the others, for better. But I doubt Steve Hackett's virtuosity even when I say he doesn't get a chance to "shine" in Genesis because you obviously believe he is a virtuoso guitarist. If that is true, then he was never allowed to truly show that in Genesis, which is sad.

Stonebeard wrote:

I am not "saying with such security" that no member from Genesis was not a virtuoso

No Stonebeard, you clearly said and I quote you:

As for musicianship, Yes wins hands down. Nobody from Genesis was a virtuoso. Though they could play their instruments and write good songs, they by no means matched the Howe-Squire-Wakeman line-up.

This is pretty clear Stonebeard.

Stonebeard wrote:

But I doubt Steve Hackett's virtuosity even when I say he doesn't get a chance to "shine" in Genesis because you obviously believe he is a virtuoso guitarist. If that is true, then he was never allowed to truly show that in Genesis, which is sad.

Again you say youu doubt of someone without even having heard him?

BTW: What about Firth of Fifth and Horizons just to mention two bright Hackett performances.

But you're entitled to dislike Genesis or consider them as low profile musicians, but please don't affirm something with such seccurity without having listened a single solo work by Hackett.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Stonebeard wrote: I am not "saying with such security" that no member from Genesis was not a virtuoso No Stonebeard, you clearly said and I quote you: As for musicianship, Yes wins hands down. Nobody from Genesis was a virtuoso. Though they could play their instruments and write good songs, they by no means matched the Howe-Squire-Wakeman line-up. This is pretty clear Stonebeard. Stonebeard wrote: But I doubt Steve Hackett's virtuosity even when I say he doesn't get a chance to "shine" in Genesis because you obviously believe he is a virtuoso guitarist. If that is true, then he was never allowed to truly show that in Genesis, which is sad. Again you say youu doubt of someone without even having heard him? BTW: What about Firth of Fifth and Horizons just to mention two bright Hackett performances. But you're entitled to dislike Genesis or consider them as low profile musicians, but please don't affirm something with such seccurity without having listened a single solo work by Hackett. Iván

1. Is it required that I listen to every song written by an artist before I make a judgement on them? I am only saying that Hackett did not have a chance to shine in Genesis. If you say that his solo career shows suignificant virtuosity, then I believe you. But after hearing and/or owning all 70s Genesis albums, I feel like I'm allowed to make a statement like I've made.

2. Just so there isn't any confusion, I love Genesis. Here's how I would rate the albums I have:

Trespass: 4/5
Nursery Cryme: 4.5/5
Foxtrot: 5/5
Selling England By the Pound: 5/5
Lamb Lies Down on Broadway: 4 or 4.5/5
Trick of the Tail: 4.5/5
Wind and Wuthering: 4.5/5

I have Duke, Abacab and a few live albums, and I haven't really listened to them enough to judge.

While I love Genesis, I still love Yes more.

3. Yes, "Firth of Filth" has a supurb solo from Hackett, and "Horizons" is beautiful and both are memorable as hell, but those are just a few examples. As I listen to many Genesis songs, once in a while I'll realize "Wow, that is a cool guitar line," or "Hey, that was an interesting riff," but really, those moments occur in numerous bands' music, although I admit I was perticularly floored when I first heard "Dancing with the Moonlit Knight."

Perhaps we have different definitions of virtuosity. I listen to a lot of metal in addition to well as neo-prog and symphonic prog, and coming from that background I try to learn to appreciate and play fast, melodic harmonies in complex time signatures with complex rhythms. One being able to do such things certainly puts them higher up in my book of virtuosity, but still knowing restraint and a "when to play and when to not" philosophy will guarantee my repect and probably a bit of jealosy too.