Will we ever see a "re-produced" Yes Union?

I am a relatively new Yes fan, yet it is obvious to me that Yes's 1991 album Union is hated by critics, fans, and Yes alumni alike. I find it hard to understand why. Perhaps because I was a teenager in the 90's, so I have a soft spot for the music of that decade (although my favorite bands, albums, and songs are mostly from the 70's). What I like about Union is the energy and the heavy sound present in some of the songs, especially the YesWest songs.

Edited by judahbenkenobi - October 11 2020 at 21:39

Removing musicians or portions of what a musician did is not/should not happen on an album, that would change the whole aspect of final version.

I do realize it would be a completely different thing.

I compare it with what Phil Spector did with The Beatles' Let It Be album: overdubs, re-recordings, and orchestration . The end result was not to everyone's liking, especially to Paul McCartney. Which is why he took to himself the work of stripping off all the extra embellishments. What came out, Let It Be... Naked was, to some of us, better than the original release. Of course, not everyone liked it, but it gave us a different thing, another excuse to spend some hard-earned cash on a "new" album from the Fab Four.

I guess I would do the same for a Yes "Union...Naked" or "Re:Union" or something like that.

judahbenkenobi wrote: I am a relatively new Yes fan, yet it is obvious to me that Yes's 1991 album Union is hated by critics, fans, and Yes alumni alike. I find it hard to understand why. Perhaps because I was a teenager in the 90's, so I have a soft spot for the music of that decade (although my favorite bands, albums, and songs are mostly from the 70's). What I like about Union is the energy and the heavy sound present in some of the songs, especially the YesWest songs. The common thread I see in all of the aversion towards Union is the production of the album. The idea of having all those musicians, many of whom didn't get along very well at the time, and hadn't done it for a few years was of course, the first mistake. But the producers, mainly Jon Anderson and especially Jonathan Elias are generally blamed for the outrageous decision of bringing so many session and additional musicians to record, re-record and overdub several parts that resulted in that, as Wakeman said it once, the original Yes musicians' parts were unrecognizable even to them. My question is: is it socially (for lack of a better way of explaning the complex relationships between the Yes Union lineup), technically, legally, artistically, and financially plausible that there will ever be a re-release of Union? Perhaps a Steven Wilson remix, who has worked on some of the classic Yes albums. Or someone else who would dig into the original tapes and have the courage and the technical ability to find true beauty in the work of only those eight musicians (nine if you include Tony Levin's work in the ABWH songs). Is it possible that will ever happen? EDIT: By the way, this is my first post, so if I'm placing this thread on the wrong place, please forgive me

I would actually like to here it remixed with the Wakemen parts restored. 

Edited by Argo2112 - October 12 2020 at 11:07

I don't hate the album, but what you've said sounds like a good idea. Can't see it happening though.

Atavachron wrote: The production on Union is pristine--  the studio sound, mix, all excellent.   I think it was more the sense of piecemeal that was evident in the recording sessions that made Union a flop with fans.   But it sounds great and there are several very fine compositions.

Maybe I'm a curmudgeon in my old age, but there are 21 Yes studio albums and out of those only 2 have a lower rating than Union (2.5)...so maybe the question should be why would anyone want to redo it?

And they just might get that rating up to a 3.

Edited by SteveG - October 12 2020 at 15:26

The odd thing about Union is that the people who like it really love it.