Here's the perfect review from RYM

I agree with Silly Puppy (sic), this band ain't Yes.  Jon Anderson performs Yes's music all the time, but he doesn't claim to be Yes.  If anyone has a claim to the band's name and legacy, he has. 

There are much better tribute bands out there than Howe's version.  Oh well, I'm not spending money on it.

Asia? GTR? 

twosteves wrote: saw this I think the guy is looking for attention ...

Well, looking for attention is what posting things - on forums, social media or other platforms - is all about, no?

I always like the communicative enthusiasm that Miamiscot puts in his reviews, but I'm not always on the same page regarding appreciation of albums or songs, but that is just about different preferences...

At least, this review incites me to listen to this album, once it's out, although I don't have high expectations.

Hi,

I was wondering if these folks were using steroids in their blarney ... it was ridiculous and I turned it off at about 5 minutes! Never seen anything so bad and so ridiculous. If I was a part of that band/group, I would request that the review be taken down immediately.

 

I like Scot's videos, I watch all of them, subscribed to his channel. It's a rather fresh look at prog over all.....sure he has too much caffeine before recording but hey, we all have faults .

Some of us have to review the bloody thing! 

LOL!!  Thanks, Steve!!  I thought reviewers received free copies??  Cheers, Charles (not the king BTW)

Affirmative 

Dude's style reminds me of this retro commercial from 1988!

His style is as antiquated as this site that won't let a YT video with two equal signs post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3CnvphQs04&ab_channel=TheDiamondMine" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3CnvphQs04&ab_channel=TheDiamondMine

^ so tell me the secret to making a  YT video with two equal signs work.

That would be some good freedom posting advice!

BTW is that the SAME guy? I'd believe it if it was :D

I'm sure bias plays a big part but to be so completely dishonest in trying to push this as something comparable to CTTE, etc is depressing to see. 

thanks!

I'm a diehard Yes fan of Magnifcation and prior. I think these new stuff is crap.

I love albums most don't. The first two. Drama. 90125 even the dreaded remix album!

But this new stuff is basically the prog equivalent of elevator music.

There is a very good review of the album on https://theprogressiveaspect.net/blog/2023/05/08/yes-mirror-to-the-sky/" rel="nofollow - The Progressive Aspect by Peter Hilton. Very good in the sense that it is descriptive, informative and subjective at the same time. However, I'm very dubious regarding his conclusion:

‘Yes’ will continue to have a role to play in shaping the future sounds of prog.

In my opinion they stopped doing that more than 20 years ago...

I know by posting my YouTube videos here I open myself up to derision and ridicule - and that's okay!!!

Prog On!!! And I love you all...

I would rather hear him review it too!!! But you are stuck with me!!!

There's no derision and ridicule from me. It's an excellent review for what promises to be a great album in the  YES canon. It's the long-awaited prog album everyone's talking about this year, even if the comments aren't always positive. From what I've heard of the album so far, I'm sure Mirror to the Sky will turn out to be every bit as good as The Quest album before it. 

I don't think there is any argument amongst most punters that Mirror to the Sky will turn out to be every bit as good as The Quest. Indeed, it is this that worries me about it!

Yeah, it's always fun when people post dumb non-reviews without hearing the work. 

I've been very critical of recent versions of Yes in the past but lately I've come around to liking them very much, mainly because of the truly excellent album they just put out. Also before that I listened to a lot of the recent Yes live albums while reading the thunderously boring Steve Howe autobiography and found that despite the sluggish tempos the music stands up well even in that form and nowadays when I listen to Yes I often listen to the live works from the Jon 2 era. 

If you believe "tarnishing a legacy" is a thing that exists, the earlier lineups of Yes did their very best to achieve it throughout the 80s and 90s. The current Yes is a good group of musicians partly hand-picked and approved by the deceased classic predecessors, not some random guys found from wherever. If they want to continues to call themselves Yes when performing classic Yes material and recording new music sounding like Yes, that's absolutely nobody else's business as long as they hold the legal right to do so. I can't recall anybody complaining about Andy Latimer continuing as Camel after every single classic member and co-writer dropped out and he kept assembling various different line-ups. I wonder why Yes is such a special case as to warrant so much hatred.

If you're comparing Camel and Yes, it's a different situation. Latimer was in the band since day one, he is the heart and soul of the band. Also Camel hasn't released new music since 2002. 

On the other hand, Yes keeps releasing albums that are poorly received by listeners, they even made two versions of the same album.  There are no original members in Yes. It's just Steve Howe's band now, might as well call themselves Steve Howe's Yes. 

Latimer is seen as the heart and the soul of the band exactly because he kept on doing it when others didn't. It was a very even partnership between himself and Peter Bardens up until he left (and especially Andy Ward's drum style was a very integral part of the classic Camel sound), just like Steve Howe was part of a strong songwriting team for the vast majority of the career of Yes. At least I don't care one bit that they made two mediocre albums before he came and made them an infinitely better band. 

The point is that in both cases the membership of the band has been fluctuating organically for decades and the end result is that one classic member is remaining. And in the case of Yes the last two replacements have been exceptionally well handled.

Yes have been releasing albums that have been poorly received by the listeners for decades regardless of who has been in the band at the time, and the sad debacle around Fly From Here is just another proof that they were capable of "tarnishing their legacy" even before Steve Howe's solitary reign. What matters the most to me is that after decades of drifting lost at sea the current line-up has actually been a prolific active group and has finally recorded a great Yes album after a long time.

I don't share your enthusiasm with the new album. 

And that's ok! But I've been glad to see very much positivity surrounding Mirror to the Sky even in Facebook comment sections which are usually a horrible cesspool of negativity and hatred. Seems a lot of people have had their modest expectations surpassed. I had absolutely none and this has been the best musical surprise this year by far.

http:///www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=78495" rel="nofollow - http:///www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=78495

The difference is Squire who owned the Yes brand name was free to do what he wanted. Now that he's gone it seems that the band should simply call themselves something else. It's like simply assuming the identity of your dead grandfather or something and expecting everybody to pretend you are the same person. Actually fans do complain about other bands doing the same. Camel, Gong etc. The smart bands like Gentle Giant simply moved on. Of course they can do what they want. I just thought the review someone published on RYM was interesting as it reflects a popular reaction to the "new" Yes. If the band had changed its name to something else no one would even care. It's only the Yes brand name attached that anybody is listening to this at all. That's what's meant by tarnishing the legacy. When all is said and done they will probably keep cranking out crap to Ok-ish albums but what we find here is that fans are practicing tolerance. I doubt anybody is blown away :)

Despite the reported fact that Squire explicitly told them to continue as Yes after he's gone?

I've spent half my life reading online discussions on Camel and I can't recall a single instance where people loudly complained that Latimer is tarnishing the legacy of Camel and should just call it the Andy Latimer Band or something. Gentle Giant just split altogether and went their different ways so it's an entirely different situation than Yes and Camel. I don't know how smart it would be to abandon your somewhat guaranteed livelihood if one of your co-workers decided they didn't want to continue, just because a portion of the audience holds arbitrary opinions on how a band should be allowed to change. 

Yep. Pretty much. I do like new Gong better than new Yes but ultimately the new stuff isn't remotely close to what classic Gong was. I guess the difference with Gong is that Daevid Allen let Gong go on without him while he was still alive and then came back as well as the greater Gong family branching off in myriad directions which makes it somewhat unique.

Perhaps Yes was simply following Allen's logic. The same goes for Soft Machine Legacy turning into Soft Machine which i personally don't like either (although i do like the music). ALthough the concept that Gong set forth seems to be a noble one, that is to keep a legend alive, unfortunately the talent that created it is gone and therefore no matter how well intended the newer band members are, it'll never be anything remotely similar to the classic sounds of the bands.

I mean what if all the children of the Beatles got together and called themselves The Beatles? Would that fly? I would be an interesting experiment for sure but should they use The Beatles' name? Probably not but then again any band can do whatever they want and if they want to continue in this direction, of course, is totally their prerogative.

Now this is the interesting discussion to be had! I don't put that much weight on being the original member, what's more important to me instead is if you took part in the classic works. So Rick Wakeman to me holds much more stake at the Yes name than Tony Kaye and Steve Howe much more than Peter Banks (if he was alive, that is). If Yes disbanded after two albums they would be a footnote, but the arrival of Howe in large part transformed them into the band most of us here love and Wakeman added the icing on the cake. I bet a lot more people would dispute the legitimacy of a Kaye/Banks led Yes than a Howe/Wakeman version. You can always take the "no original members left" argument to extremes and complain about an Åkerfeldt led Opeth since he's just the random bassist who wrestled control for himself.

Anyhow. It would be a totally different thing if after Yes disbanded in 1981 the next thing we know is years later Steve Howe starting the band up again with one-time minor member Geoff Downes and three random guys called Davison, Sherwood and Schellen. But as it happened the band slowly and organically evolved into the present state with each new member establishing themselves as solid contributors (Davison, Sherwood) or upgrades (Schellen) and not just hired guns (Downes seems to be the closest to that by far with not many writing credits to his name and no technical ability to match Wakeman). As a musical species they're much more in tune with the classic Yes qualities than some earlier formations with more original members. Musically I'm much happier with this Yes being Yes than the almost-Cinema calling themselves Yes back in the 80s. That was a very different species despite many of same names on the record sleeve.

It's an interesting discussion where there's really no right or wrong. I'm happy that they call themselves Yes because I might not have listened to Steve Howe Band's new album Mirror to the Sky at all. Now we have a band called Yes releasing an album sounding like Yes that's better than most other Yes albums since the 70s. Might be somewhere in my top 3 after Magnification which is the best by far.

^ i guess some of us just want MORE than they deliver now. Sure they can crank out an OK album but there's too much great music out to care about OK albums. In many ways people discount the band's first two albums so the Howe connection makes it legit since The Yes Album is what many CONSIDER the first popular Yes album (i actually love the first two albums a lot). Obviously there are enough who share your opinion so i don't blame them for going down this path. I do like that they have continued the Roger Dean album cover art, always loved it. When all is said and done though, i'd still rather listen to Wobbler or other modern day Yes reinterpretations than modern Yes itself :)

When all is said and done i don't care what the band is called. I'm just underwhelmed but i do see your point about the classic lineup carrying more weight than the original lineup. Anyway, like it or not, Yes is here!

Little laptops?!  

I'm posting negativity from my BIG laptop only. 

He posted it in Progressive Ears - there was a massive row about the band there, and Downes bit.

Yuppets is a play on words. Over here, a Muppet is not only a Kermit like puppet, but a fool, clown, dickhead, idiot, & etc. He simply transplanted the Y in front to demonstrate it was Yes "fans" who were the culprits.

Now if they put that much creativity into their music then perhaps no negative reviews would flow from typing fingers, eh?

Well they did just put out their best album in 22 years but it hasn't stopped people from complaining  

Now that I'm actually looking at the discography, my top 5 since the 70s would probably include Magnification as #1 and after that loosely Drama, Mirror to the Sky, Talk and the original Fly From Here. If you view Keystudio as a standalone studio album that would probably edge out one of the last two.

This is admittedly pretty much true. It's interesting how much people still care to talk about Yes even though most of the output for the last 40+ years has been (in my purely subjective opinion!) pretty lukewarm with a couple of gems or in a lesser way fine albums here and there. And that's why I find it so absolutely great that after all this time I actually find myself being excited about a new Yes album, which I never expected to happen.

Coincidentally Wobbler's Dwellers of the Deep is the other prog album I've listened to particularly much this year and a week ago I ordered their first three albums which I never really listened to when they came out.

^ this

Don't forget Janice and Zoot!

For those saying this band isn't Yes consider that this band is descended directly from the lineup that had Alan White and Chris Squire (not to mention at one point Jon Anderson) so technically and legally they are Yes. No Jon Anderson does not equal not Yes. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not Yes. I'm not crazy about everything they have done over the past 20 or 30 years either but I won't say they aren't Yes just because nothing they have done lives up to their classic albums of days gone by.