YES? I think not

We don't need yet another htread opned on this topic. Since the "discussion" has moved to the new thread, I'm closing this one.

Don't regret guys!I think Jon will come back,but the 40th anniversary have to be celebrated.

You must remember that Howe/Squire are well into their sixties now.They probably realise their performing life is nearing the end now.Anderson's illness has probably brought this more into focus.I hope Jon still keeps creating music - he doesn't necessarily need any other of the member's of Yes to still make good music.Perhaps his touring days are over now though???Although I still believe an occasional reunion with the group would seem possible.

peskypesky wrote: I have lost ALL respect for Chris Squire and Steve Howe as people. They are rotten to the core and disgust me.

I'm presuming you're a close family friend, or married to one or both of them, to be so certain. You wouldn't be relying on media reports, would you?

Welcome, miss Galore (I'm the gentleman type of guy).

I think communication never was the best part of this band. Well, they're only human, and let's hope the air is being cleared again in a short time. Let's also hope for some good musical performances in the mean time!

One might as well disagree with your assertion that Jon Anderson was the soul of the group. If you compare Jon's solo albums with Chris Squire's one and only solo album - which in my opinion is a masterpiece - you may find more of Yes in Squire's than in Jon's. The thick roar of his rickenbecker bass which he uses as if it was a rhythm guitar is the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of Yes. In my humble opinion, this idea becomes almost inescapable after hearing the Rhino remasters which did strengthen the bass guitar's contribution to the their music. The title "Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman & Howe" indicated strongly that Squire's absence meant the mentioned group was not Yes, but something else - even if it was just a name adapted to avoid legal complications... 

On each album  Howe's presence - most especially on Tales album - is so strong that sometimes you start to believe Howe is the main man. Wakeman's entrance with Fragile changes Yes so overwhelmingly, - and his absence, too, from Tales album for instance - that he might as well be the core of Yes, at least on the albums he contributed. After hearing Moraz's performance on Relayer - which is my favorite - I was so impressed that I had to find and listen to his solo albums - which are a disappointment as of yet; however he is also marvellous on Squire's solo album Fish Out Of Water...

So what I'm trying to say is that although Jon Anderson is one of the most imitated vocals in the history of progressive rock - and I honestly belive this is rightfully so - and that his voice and vision etc... contributed so much to whatever Yes was and is, other members' contribution to it might even be bigger. No one really can say. Same thing I said for ABWH; they named the band In The Present anyway; which could mean Yes members minus Anderson is not Yes.

Plus, Yes has always been changing personel for each album, and some line-ups re-grouped again for anther album or more. Only Jon Anderson was ever-present. Maybe it's not a crime that it's the other members who gathered to make an album without one of the members, who happens to be Jon this time.

Finding an Anderson clone is another matter, though. Even if they left him out, I wish they had found a completely different voice instead.

Regards to all.

Edited by meurglys0 - November 11 2008 at 18:15

debrewguy wrote: Nothing like a rich person doing something just for the money. Maybe Howe & Squire wanted to play. Letting the management take care of "interpersonal" relations is not uncommon for bands that have been together for a while. The tour was set, then Jon couldn't make it. Steve & Chris thought, hey we still wanna go. Let's get a new singer; we've got one of our drummers on board. And hey eventually, bending to fans' reactions, they changed the name of the band to "In the Present" to distinguish it from the "real" Yes. One member does not a band make, unless you're Robert Fripp. And getting worked up over the world of revolving door membership bands will take up a lot of your time. Enjoy it for what it was supposed to be - many original & important band members that wanted to get out, hit a glitch, fixed it, let fans know some of the differences to expect because of the change, and then allow the fans to decide. Of course, I could be wrong. It could be that Squire and Howe were planning to force people to buy tickets, eh.

I guess we´ll never know

I saw some footage of their very recent live gigs with Benoit......nope not for me, but......they were enjoying themselves and young Wakeman impressed. Check out Yesworld.

Technically they shouldn't have been called Yes since Peter Banks got fired from the band. 

I don't know, Pussy Galore (and welcome by the way).  Just because different people in the same band have a different assessment of the same situation doesn't count as discreditably.

Besides, as much I think Anderson should be touring with Yes (and not someone else touring with "In The Present"), it gives the band (or 3/5 of it) an opportunity to play songs Jon Anderson and Rick Wakeman wouldn't do.

Jon Anderson does seem positive about the future, however.