Petition to get Jon Anderson back into Yes

Dean wrote: Every band that has changed its line-up over the years will have what some fans will consider to be "the definitive" line-up and not all fans will necessarily agree on what that definitive line-up is. My favourite Yes album is Relayer by a very wide margin, but Anderson-Howe-Squire-Moraz-White would not be my definitive line-up. Singers always get the bum deal in a changing line-up because unlike a guitarist, drummer or keyboard player who can adapt, singer's are either unique or sound-a-likes (and a sound-a-like can never compare to the original) - In Marillion Hogarth was never going to be a Fish clone and that changed Marillion more than changing drummers did, and the same is true in Yes..

rogerthat wrote: Maybe they do but that's for them to decide....would they rather do the only thing they have ever known and loved even if no longer as well as they once could or should they move on?  And if they move on, move on to what?  It is a tougher decision for an artist or sportsman than a member of the audience because he's heavily invested emotionally in the whole thing.  Mostly, they only quit when they have lost the motivation to do it on a fulltime, professional basis and make the commitments that go along with it.   In some cases, it happens to be BEFORE they have become the object of ridicule and some cases AFTER.  It doesn't follow that that has a bearing on their decision.  If they were that sensitive to criticism, they probably wouldn't have got to the top of the table in the first place, what with so many know it alls to tell them they are no good and can't possibly make it.

Cut to the chase: Your own choice of the words 'last days' implies that Yes are not only redundant, they are extinct. Your argument is that market forces will deliver the coup de grace. This is probably true at the end of any artist's life, but WE, on a (niche demographic) Prog Rock site can never use market forces as a justification for oblivion. This would be like puncturing the water wings of those who choose to swim against the mainstream tide. Are you asking us to be more compassionate and forgiving with multi millionaires with country retreats as if they were deserving aspirants forging their way through an unfriendly musical landscape?

^ I think WE (the shelf fillers/emptiers) decide their shelf life

rogerthat wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: No-one wants to witness Lionel Messi at 40 shuffling around the centre circle for Deportivo Paella in the Spanish 4th Division in front of 20 spectators and a stray dog. If he loves football that much, why not?  It is we the spectators who make all these players or artists over into demi-god figures.  They didn't know they would get there when they started and they just keep playing.   If they don't get the gig anymore, they will have to quit anyway.

OK, every intelligent artist comes to realize they have a shelf life. I would prefer this realization  to occur BEFORE they become parodies of themselves and force us to start petitions urging them to retire with dignity intact.

No-one wants to witness Lionel Messi at 40 shuffling around the centre circle for Deportivo Paella in the Spanish 4th Division in front of 20 spectators and a stray dog.

Of course I have no problem with bands changing line-up, if they had to change name every time a member changes they would have run out of names long ago

Edited by Gerinski - April 21 2013 at 06:55

^^  For a very famous example, Deep Purple have gone through so many different 'configurations' over the years that you can no longer tell which one member is indispensable to the band.  For some periods, they didn't have Gillan and Blackmore quit more or less for good somewhere down the line.   Who can say his replacement Steve Morse was an embarrassment; Morse is an amazing guitarist in his own right.   

Gerinski wrote: While in agree in principle, it is true that for a band of the relevance of Yes they might want to consider how do they want to finish their career as the Yes band a) with some kind of 'celebration of Yes career' event, for example a one-time macro-concert with Jon Anderson and Rick Wakeman filmed for posterity. If they want to continue releasing music and touring after that, they can always do it under the name 'Davison, Howe, Squire & White' or whatever (and playing Yes songs live if they want to, of course). Fans know them well enough that they will still buy their new albums and go to their shows. b) gradually diluting into line-up changes and finish with a few more albums and tours under the name Yes but a 'Yes' which will be controversial for many fan and may probably not provide any sense of 'big farewell celebration' when they finally stop (and possibly a decaying quality of the music?). I have no problem that Squire and Co feel like still playing and releasing music for a few more years, I'm glad they do, but as the mighty Yes band I would prefer that they would honour it and be remembered with the 'a)' style farewell.

Bands can either choose to fade away and die out or keep the legacy going.  Why should a band's existence have to depend heavily on the presence of one or more members in it?   Doesn't the music itself, the compositions they put together, have a life beyond them?  If a band is just about the members who made it up and nothing more, they might as well call all bands by the names of their members (shortened ) instead of choosing a moniker, which implies that it stands for something more.  I think it would be a great thing if they could carry on the legacy with the help of some younger limbs.  It doesn't affect ME specifically because I can't see any of these bands in concert anyway.  But what about somebody from my generation, we too go out and get their albums and would like to be able to see them in concert.  Why should that be denied?

I think Yes fans should consider whether their bitter feelings have more to do with the manner in which Anderson has parted ways with the band or simply their obsession with getting to see him perform with Yes?  I suspect it's to do a good deal with the former and Squire's attitude.   In either event, it is the band's decision.  Don't like it, don't watch.  They cannot be compelled to do something against their wishes through a petition.    I remember when Shakti came down last year to India, some folks who were hardly 20 minutes away from the venue refused to go because L Shankar is no longer part of the lineup.  Ok, nevermind that another giant U Shrinivas replaced him (and he was fabulous that evening, as usual).  Even more amusing to me was that from the mere presence of Shankar Mahadevan in the lineup, they inferred that Shakti had now sold out and were just a lame, has been classic rock band (from the point of view of a fusion fan, mind).  Their loss, what can I say, it was an incredible experience that they missed.  Though I can somewhat understand where this obsession with personalities comes from, I guess I will never be able to completely relate to it, much less agree with it. 



Edited by rogerthat - April 21 2013 at 04:12

rogerthat wrote: Since they are in indeed in their sixties already, the question is should it be fussed about so much.  By this logic, if one of the persons who co created the music dies, the band should never play again.  I know Led Zep did make that decision (doh, they reunited too!!! ) but it is not a kind of thinking I agree with.   Performance of a piece of music exists independent of the act of conceiving it.  If rock does not accept performance as a legitimate form of art divorced from personalities and names, it will never become 'timeless'.   And Jon Anderson was one part of ABWH so that argument is tenuous anyway.