|
Yes or No? Tales from Trollographic Oceans
A new year seems like a good time for a new project, and you know how I love my projects! This one will be big, and possible controversial.
https://i.postimg.cc/SspCmB7Z/image-...-185929631.png Yes or No? Tales from Trollographic Oceans Trollheart Dives Deep into the entire Yes Discography, Looking for Wondrous Stories and the Owner of a Lonely Heart One thing that always seems to shock people when they hear I’m a proghead is the fact that I don’t particularly care for Yes. That’s not quite true of course: anything from the 1980s onwards I do like, but go backwards and there’s very little there I’m interested in. It might help those people to realise that I got into music of my own (as opposed to music I could only hear on the radio or through my elder sister’s record player or from friends) in around 1980, when I began working and was able to afford my first stereo system. I had heard of Yes, vaguely, but only really came to know them through the hit single “Owner of a Lonely Heart”, which played on MTV with a cool video. Even then, meh, I wasn’t too bothered about checking out their album, not until my mate Tony played me Big Generator, their twelfth album, and second produced by The Buggles’ Trevor Horn. I loved that album, and quickly got into its predecessor 90125, from which the single I mention had come, then tried Drama but didn’t think much of it. Tony suggested the one two albums prior to that, 1977’s Going for the One, and while yes (no pun intended: this will of course happen a lot) I was impressed by “Wondrous Stories”, I just didn’t get the album. So I’ve been a forward-looking minor fan of Yes, loving those two albums and then the follow-ups, including the all-but-Yes-in-name Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, Howe album, though after the disappointment of The Ladder I stopped listening to their new stuff. I’ve heard a few tracks in playlists from the later albums; some are good, some are poor. None have really made me want to go and check out the full album. I’ve also been aware of Jon Anderson, mostly through his association with the late Vangelis, of whom I was a big fan in the late 1970s and 1980s, and the two hit singles they had together, but I heard one of Anderson’s solo albums and again I just was underwhelmed. But I’ve never really come across a band, particularly a prog rock one, particularly one of THE prog rock ones, which has so sharply divided my opinion along the basis of time periods. Peter Gabriel Genesis or Phil Collins? Like both. Pre or post-Fish Marillion? Love both. Emerson, Lake and Palmer? Hate them. There hasn’t been, that I can recall anyway, a band or artist who I’ve found I love a certain period of their work and don’t like the rest. Yes remain as a sort of anachronism in my appreciation of prog, and indeed music. Usually, I either like an artist or I don’t, and I can’t think of another where I can answer the question “Do you like Yes?” with both answers, having to qualify that answer by asking one of my own: “Do you mean pre or post 1983?” But it’s always been a slight concern to me that I haven’t been seen to have given 1970s Yes a proper chance. So, while I am under no illusions this will suddenly make me a fan of early Yes, my intention here is to, if not get into them, at least lay out my reasons and thinking behind my dislike of everything before 90125. At the end of this project, I hope to at least be able to say, with some confidence, that I have tried, have listened to the early stuff, and still don’t like it, and if someone does greet me with that air of incredulity, and ask how I can like, say, Union and not Tormato, I will, with some degree of sanguinity, be able to point them to this article for the answers they seek. Or, you know, just tell them to fuck off. The intention here is, then, to listen to every album in Yes’s discography (even the ones I’m familiar with), including any bonus tracks, special mixes, and so forth, and possibly solo efforts too, to do a detailed and descriptive review of each, pointing out its failings in my view, or, if I can, its strengths, and trying to find out and/or explain why a certain album does or does not resonate with me. Comment is invited yadda yaddda see the small print for details, your statutory rights don’t exist etc. One more thing: if you’re going to argue with me about this or that album, and try to convince me I’m wrong and don’t know what I’m talking about (I don’t) then fuck you. While I’ll engage in civilised debate with anyone on any subject, I expect the same sort of courtesy towards my views, and anyone who says something flippant like “You just don’t get it” can eat a big one. This is, primarily, a sort of testament to my dislike of seventies Yes, and why I feel like I do. I want to give the albums a fair chance, and I will, but if, as I assume will be the case, I still don’t like them then that’s it. Don’t try to tell me I need to listen to each album 40,309 times, cos I won’t be doing that. Remember, I’m not necessarily trying to get into seventies Yes here, just explain and demonstrate why I’m not into that period of their work. So to paraphrase Lord Percy in Blackadder II, play fair with me and you will find me a considerate reviewer, but if you cross me by Jove! You will find that beneath this playful, boyish exterior beats the heart of a ruthless, sadistic maniac! And with that, let’s go. As we all know (or if you don’t you should) Yes began when one guy met another in a pub, literally. Chris Squire had been playing bass in a band called “Mabel Greer’s Toyshop” (doesn’t quite have the same ring through, does it? Close to the Edge by Mabel Greer’s Toyshop!) but after leaving that band to their obscure destiny he joined up with barman Jon Anderson, and names were bandied around as they tried to come up with a good one for their new band, suggestions ranging from World to Life. The incredibly simple word for the affirmative was settled upon and with Squire leaving behind childish things, as it were, and the addition of guitarist Peter Banks, drummer Bill Bruford and keyboard player Tony Kaye, Yes were born, and took the world by storm. Um. Not quite. It would take two albums and a lot of touring before Yes began making their name in the nascent progressive rock scene, even as later godfathers of prog Genesis and ELP were both finding their feet, and Andy Latimer was looking for somewhere to water his Camel. It’s fair to say that the first two albums from Yes were not exactly going to shift the units, but there are indications on them of the band they would come to be. So let’s have a listen. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Yes_-_Yes.jpg Album title: Yes Year: 1969 Personnel: Jon Anderson (Vocals, some percussion), Chris Squire (bass), Tony Kaye (Organ, piano), Bill Bruford (Drums, vibraphone), Peter Banks (Guitars) Track by track: “Beyond and Before” Right off this sounds more like a psychedelic rock/hippy shit song with a heavy guitar and some close-harmony vocals, the latter of which would become the trademark of the band. Anderson’s voice is not as strong or confident here as it would grow to be, of course, but it’s relatively strong even so. Definitely too guitar-driven for me, though the lyric is pure what would become prog rock, with a lot of pastoral stuff about nature, lines like ”Sparkling trees of silver foam/Cast shadows soft in winter home/Swaying branches breaking sound/ Lonely forest trembling ground” showing the sort of thing we could expect from this band, lyric wise, though as Jon Anderson would take over most of the songwriting duties and this is not one of his, being written by Chris Squire and Clive Bailey, one of the previous members of Mabel Greer’s Toyshop (was it an MGT song, or one meant for them? Don’t know) we have yet to hear what Anderson will contribute in terms of songwriting to this album. What I like about this: The close-harmony singing, the lyric What I don’t like about this: The over-preponderance of guitar and how harsh it is, the lack of any real keyboard you can hear, the sudden and abrupt start to the song, the album and the career of one of prog’s giants. The tiny little organ flourish near the end seems tacked on. “I See You” While you can understand that a band only getting together and then releasing their debut album a few months later would be necessarily short of material, I don’t like the inclusion of cover versions, and here we have one of The Byrds’ songs, which for me roots Yes even more in the sixties, even as they’re approaching the seventies, and perhaps shows a slight lack of confidence in themselves that they had to have a cover on there. I don’t have a lot to say about it, as there’s really no point. It’s a cover. That’s it. I guess it’s a vehicle for Banks to show off on the guitar, but not much more than that. What I like about this: Banks’ intricate guitar work, more organ than in the previous, the harmony vocals again What I don’t like about this: It’s a cover and sounds very sixties “Yesterday and Today” The first song on the album written by Anderson, and indeed the first one written solo by any member of the band, though I read “Sweetness” was the first collaboration between he and Squire. It’s much shorter, in fact the shortest on the album at just under three minutes, a nice little acoustic sort of ballad with guitar and piano, with Bruford playing the vibraphone, adding a nice touch. To be perfectly honest, it’s nothing special and yet it stands out as far better than the first two tracks, at least for me. Maybe it’s because Anderson gets to exercise his pipes without the others joining in - no harmony vocals here; this is a one-man job other than the chorus where the harmonies come in. Let’s be honest though: the lyric is pretty poor - “Standing in the sea/Sing songs for me/Smiling happily” - oh dear. Still, our Jon will of course do much better, and anyway this is his first attempt at songwriting. Well, maybe not, but his first on the album. What I like about this: Its simplicity, the piano line, the strummed acoustic guitar, the sort of otherworldly feel the vibraphone lends the song What I don’t like about this: The lyric is pretty poor. “Looking Around” Kicks the tempo back up with a big blast of bubbly organ from Kaye, the second song in which Anderson has a hand, this time co-writing with Squire. The keyboard riff does sound a little similar to Genesis’s “Can-Utility and the Coastliners” outro, making me wonder if Tony Banks was listening to this album before recording Foxtrot three years later? There are also elements of “Watcher of the Skies” in the Hammond riff halfway through. Again, the lyric leaves a lot to be desired: ”Songs that I can’t hear/Would take me for a while my smile/ Fares that are too dear/I’d rather walk out another mile.” Right. What I like about this: Despite its similarity to later Genesis, the keyboard runs, got a good energy to it. What I don’t like about this: Maybe a little raw and unfocused, poor lyric “Harold Land” The first to get three songwriting contributions, as Bruford joins Squire and Anderson. This is the first one where we hear the trademark bouncing keyboard arpeggios that would characterise much of Yes’s music, and it’s also the first where they tackle a serious subject, that of men going to war and what it does to them. Was this a response to the Vietnam war? I don’t know; it’s written more as a World War I sort of thing, leading men in charges and such, but they may have been slightly jumping on the bandwagon of protest songs that were emerging at this time. I suppose in that sense it’s the first song on the album you could call dark or even serious. It’s also the first that has what I could call a proper lyric, with the airy-fairy nature/love stuff pushed aside for the band to perhaps make a serious statement and show what they were about. Or not. Anyway it’s a heavier track with a kind of sense of sophomore Supertramp about it, quite organ-driven with some nice vocal harmonies. I like the lines written about Harold after he comes back from the war: ”Stood sadly on the stage/Clutching red ribbons from a badge/But he didn’t look his age.” A really good organ solo in the outro that would surface two decades later on the Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe album in the closing arpeggio to “Brother of Mine”. What I like about this: The serious lyric, the keyboard work What I don’t like about this: Feel it might - might - have been put on there for show? “Every Little Thing” Sadly, a second cover version, and by a rather obvious band to cover in 1969, the Beatles. I don’t know the song, but that kind of doesn’t matter, because where there are cover versions I’m just going to gloss over them. Musicianship is undeniable and I suppose how you cover a song is important in one way, but not to my appreciation of Yes, or the lack of it. What I like about this: Nothing What I don’t like about this: It’s another cover, too guitar-driven, too frenetic, too long and I’m no fan of the Beatles “Sweetness” The first song written by Anderson and Squire, and in terms of track listing, the fourth song on which Anderson has a writing credit. Lovely keyboard intro, reminiscent of Procol Harum, with some reflective guitar and sighing harmonies. Lovely. Another ballad, but I would say better than “Yesterday and Today”, and was in fact the first single released from the album; not surprising to see why. Very relaxing. Kind of nods a little towards The Byrds again, though it’s an original. It’s a pretty simple little love song, but if you think there’s something wrong with that, talk to Paul McCartney. He has his own views on silly love songs. What I like about this: Everything What I don’t like about this: Nothing “Survival” Anderson keeps his fingerprints all over the album as he writes the closer, and it’s heavily drenched in Kaye’s trumpeting keyboard arpeggios, which fade out then to be replaced by Banks’ beautiful, laid-back acoustic guitars then it and the returning organ complement Anderson’s voice really well in what appears to be another ballad. Again the lyric is pretty laughable - ”Mother flew too late/And life within the egg was left to fate” - do what, mate? But you can forgive that due to the dreamy nature of the music and Anderson’s angelic voice. In this mode, he could sing your shopping list and you’d be entranced. What I like about this: The music, the atmosphere, the rising harmonies, the keyboard runs, the acoustic guitar What I don’t like about this: The terrible lyric. Oh well. Bonus Tracks (Only on 2003 remaster) “Everydays” A Stephen Stills song. Good organ opening, sort of a sense of drama about it but you know, it’s a cover. What I like about this: n/a What I don’t like about this: It’s a cover. Again. “Dear Father” The only one of the bonus tracks which is an original song, written by Anderson and Squire, and forming their third collaboration on the album, it kicks off with a big punchy keyboard run then slips down into an almost VDGG style with the organ low in the background and the vocal quite low-key too until the chorus when it bursts up into life. Another heavy song, I wouldn’t be mad about it to be honest. What I like about this: The opening keyboard run What I don’t like about this: Most of the rest of it “Something’s Coming” Seems to me completely pointless to do a cover version of a song from West Side Story, but then Waits covered “Somewhere” on Blue Valentines, so what do I know? Nothing to say about it though. What I like about this: n/a What I don’t like about this: It’s a cover, once again. Note: on the 2003 remaster there are several versions of each of these songs, but I’m only taking one, because, you know, why bother? Two of them are covers anyway. Comments: As a first album this isn’t bad, but it’s by no means a juggernaut that was destined to set Yes at the top of the prog tree. Truth to tell, prog was only really getting going around now, and it would still take the band a while to get established, both as an actual accepted rock band and as a later titan of the scene. For me, this album is massively, massively flawed. It has, for a start, too many covers. Two on an eight-track album is too many. There really shouldn’t even be one. Who can judge you properly if they’re not listening to your own music? Secondly, the lyrics really need work. I mean, I’m a (sort of) writer but no lyricist, so who am I to say, but some of the rhymes, the imagery, the expressions just make me cover my mouth and snigger. Of course, as time went on the lyrics became much better, much deeper, much more well-written, but here I feel they are barely acceptable. There’s very little to single this out or identify it as a prog rock album - even Wiki calls it “proto-prog”, and I would probably agree with that. Yes may have been laying down some of the foundations of what would become progressive rock, but they don’t contribute very much to the movement here. I’d even venture to say, much as I dislike them even more, ELP had more to add to the scene on their debut, released the following year. There are half-formed ideas here, but to me this band doesn’t at this point know what they want to be, or where they’re going. There’s no real direction on this album and it comes across as a mixture of styles, influences and themes. Not something which would be said about Yes after they found their metier of course, but here I think it’s fair to accuse them of being somewhat confused. Not a terrible debut, but other bands have done better even at this point in time. Genesis’s debut was pretty poor in terms of being a progressive rock record, but was better, I feel, than this, and I don’t even like From Genesis to Revelation, and Supertramp’s self-titled debut, released the following year, is a far superior album. And of course, in the same year as this makes its debut you have the stone-cold classic from King Crimson, which does more for the emergent progressive rock genre with In the Court of the Crimson King’s opening lines than Yes do in the whole of this album. Rating: 3/10 Yes or No? Definite No. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlEX8Iye46o |
I used to think the first Yes album was just ok but over the years it's grown on me a lot, yeah it's more psychedelia than prog and the songwriting isn't up to par with what came later but right from the get go the energy is there and the album has such an earnestly positive vibe it's impossible for me to resist, I think it's pretty underrated tbh.
Time and a Word has a stronger collection of songs but aside from a couple of tracks the use of orchestra feels very clumsy, forced and distracting, for that I think the debut is better at showcasing the original lineup, Banks especially, he's no Howe but he was a pretty excellent guitarist in his own right and he got a bit lost in the mix of Time and a Word which was why he left. |
Yeah, it's only really my second foray into the early albums, the first being when I got to them in the History of Prog journal. I agree with your comment about the orchestra, which was pretty silly as it forced Banks to quit. I really don't think it worked out, and perhaps they knew that, since they never did it again. Still, compare Yes's debut to that of Procol Harum, King Crimson or as I said even ELP, and I think if you had, back then, to decide who was going to lead the prog revolution it's few people who would have chosen Yes.
|
Quote:
I like Magnification a lot more too, I think the use of orchestra works much better on that album, they chose to do without a keyboardist for that album and the orchestra fills in the gaps quite nicely. It is overlong and wears me out towards the end but that's a problem a lot of early 00s albums have. I'm curious to see what you think of that one. |
Devoured it in the 70s. for the longest time only listened to side 2 during walks. recently spun it beginning to end and in hindsight it is so easy to see why it tops many people's list of most pretentious album/tour of that decade.
Read an Allan White interview years back where he said that during the entire TFTO tour there was only a single show (out of 77) where the entire band NAILED all 4 sides. Don't suppose I'll ever listen to it again. Nothing was gonna top hearing it the first time while tripping anyway. :love: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not because I abstain from doing drugs, I just don't have connections. :( |
Speaking of psychedelia, you folks ever heard Howe's previous band's big hit?
Pretty cool how Howe's unique style is already easily discernible in 67. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I like your thread title, Trollheart, and your ambition in going for the discography of a band that you have mixed feelings about. I'll be following your thread with interest - which is either a gesture of encouragement or a veiled threat, I haven't quite decided which. ;)
Regarding the first album you've reviewed, may I make plea on behalf of this track?:- Quote:
It could be said that Yes didn't explore very far by doing a Beatles song, but I think they chose well; an often overlooked song with a delicate melody. And this is no slavish copy of the type that many bands were offering their fans at the time. In fact, for the first 1 min 45 seconds, there's no hint of the original song, then in quick succession, Yes plays about 9 secs of Every Little Thing, then 9 secs of Ticket to Ride which morphs straight back into Every Little Thing. And so it continues, with the band stamping the song with various bits of their own, like tempo changes that were not in the original, as well as constantly tweaking the original melody. They fleshed out the song with sounds that would soon to became Yes trademarks. To me, Yes have done a great job of revitalising a song from 1964, freshening it up for a new audience, and at the same time buiding a neat bridge from the older pop of The Beatles to their own particular style of more modern prog. In that sense, it's like a bold statement of intent from Yes, and a stellar choice for their debut album. |
I really enjoy the covers on the first album, they took two songs from the Beatles and Byrds that usually get forgotten and breathed new life into them. I also love their completely bonkers cover of Simon and Garfunkel's America, they take it in so many crazy directions it just barely resembles the original song, those are the kinda covers I like, faithful covers are boring, get sacrilegious.
|
I take your point. You can have it back when you start behaving.
Thing is, I don't know much of the Beatles' music outside of their singles, so whether it was a good or bad cover would not make itself apparent to me, and so I wouldn't/couldn't give them points for it. I did mention in my previous review of the album in the Prog History thread about the "Daytripper" thing, but here, to me, it doesn't matter. I'm looking for original material from a new band, and covers, for me, don't cut it. i want to see what the band can write, not what they can cleverly copy or amend or interpret. Overall, I'm not a fan of covers, but definitely not on the first album. Just me. I mean, they probably did a great version of the Byrds' song too, but how do I know, not being a Byrds fan? (They're for the... no, I won't say it) All I can go on is that it IS a cover, and therefore, to me, on a debut album, wasted space, where the band could have instead written another song. It may not be a popular opinion, but that's mine. Don't give me covers on your first album, and ideally not too many at all unless they're like bonus tracks or you're marking some anniversary maybe. |
Fair enough, Trollheart! And thanks for discreetly putting me right, from Ticket To Ride to Daytripper.
It's an interesting point you raise about cover songs on debut albums. Are the artists saying "We don't have enough of our own ideas for even one album" or are they saying "Give us a minute to honour our influences and find our feet, please." I tend to the second interpretation, in part because of how common it is for artists to have a cover or two on their debut albums. That's artists in general; perhaps in prog the expectations are a little different. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Your personal preferences aside, it should not be considered a negative in hindsight IMO. |
I'm not necessarily calling it a negative, but if you're trying to evaluate a band on the basis of their debut album I feel it's better to have new material, their material. Would I, for instance, have considered Rory Gallagher's debut great if it had been an album of mostly blues covers? What? It is? Ah now stop messin' with me, it isn't. But if it had been, I might not have been so enthusiastic about him, not that I came to his music from the debut anyway.
|
Some artists do a lot of covers but they always make them their own, Grace Jones is my favorite example.
|
Doing covers was mostly a hallmark of the times. The Beatles and Stones both started off doing a lot of them, and even into the late 60s there were heavy psychedelic bands like Vanilla Fudge and Blue Cheer that got a lot of success reinterpreting older songs. So it made sense for an unknown band like Yes to include something familiar for the audience of the times.
|
But now surely they must have known in advance that fifty years later some bespectacled know-it-all in a tiny country to the left of them would have been reviewing their albums and had an issue with covers? Surely they would have taken that into account when deciding if they should include them? I mean, stands to reason, no?
|
Yep, starting out by doing covers is pretty much standard practice for musicians; many get left behind in the rehearsal tapes I suppose, but if one or two make it to the debut album, it doesn't worry me. I quite like the way it acknowledges that the new is actually growing out of the old.
It's the circle of life... :bowdown: Quote:
In England at least, Yes at that time would've been called an underground band. That was the label for any music that wasn't turning up on tv and could only be heard on the radio if you tuned into a pirate station. Reputations and recommendations often came by word of mouth or what was in the local record shop, so yeah, out of sight of mainstream media. |
For a long time "art rock" and "progressive rock" were used interchangeably and they weren't considered seperate categories like they are now, same deal with "punk rock" and "new wave".
A lot of genres are just kinda made up after the fact, there's been a lot of recent examples of this, yacht rock, sophisti-pop, city pop, etc. |
Not sure I ever mentioned anything about "prog rules" (other than PROG RULES, BABY!) so why it's being discussed here confuses me. I think I noted Yes were one of the bands to kickstart the whole prog revolution, so if anything they would have been making up the rules, not following them.
|
Quote:
You are reviewing an album from an era where almost all new bands signed to a record deal chose some covers - whether it was their decision or a demand from the label, the goal was the same. Give potential new fans an easy gateway to your music. A couple of my fave debut covers |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I was wondering when you were going to bring up Led Zeppelin :laughing: |
It's become worth a mention because I noted in the review that I wasn't bothering reviewing or taking note of the two covers on the album, and now people are saying I don't understand why they were there. I do; I just don't feel talking about covers on any album helps very much in assessing the band. I mean, even a really poor band (say, Nickelback) can probably do a competent cover. It's more how creative a band are, how well they write, particularly when dealing with a prog band, that shows you the measure of the artist.
|
Quote:
Would you have skipped "Hey Joe" off of Hendrix's debut for similar reasoning? Or this???? |
Hard to say. It's not apples and oranges. A) I wouldn't be reviewing Hendrix's debut, but B) if I was it would be more about his guitar expertise than his songwriting to be honest, so in all likelihood even an album of all covers would be okay. Lemonheads I don't know, but I think if I knew the cover I might be more interested to see how they handled it. The point about Yes is I knew neither of those songs, so I couldn't even say oh they did a good/crap job with it. If I praised the song, I wasn't really praising them, just the way they covered the songs. And as you know, in prog it's all about dem lyrics.
|
So only their second album and Yes are already courting controversy. They say no press is bad, so the “scandal” over their intention to use the original album cover, showing a naked woman and upsetting the delicate flowers over in the USA, would have at least been good publicity for them. The spat with Peter Banks over the usage of the orchestra, on the other hand, would not. When Jon Anderson decided the guitar and bass parts weren’t enough for the sound he wanted to create, and instead brought in a small orchestra composed of music students (probably got them cheap, maybe even free) Banks walked. He realised his guitar parts would be at best subsumed under the orchestral sounds, at worst not needed at all. Wasn’t it Peter Gabriel who would describe his orchestral work, Scratch My Back (or was it New Blood? One of them anyway) forty years later as “freedom from the tyranny of the guitar”?
So Banks knew, without having to be told, that he would not feature really on this album, and though he played on it he left midway through the tour, which led the band to recruit Steve Howe, who would end up being an integral part of Yes until the 1980s, when he would leave to set up the supergroup Asia, and then return to Yes on staggered occasions over the next three decades. Give his guitar work on the following albums, you would probably say the band got the better deal when Banks left, but even so, it sort of comes across as a hissy fit, as it wasn’t as if they were going full orchestra for the rest of their career. As pointed out by Queen Boo, and to correct my previous assertion, Yes did use an orchestra again, but only once, and it would be another forty years before this would happen. So Banks could have sulked, played, toured and then been part of what was quickly going to become a legendary and wildly successful band. Instead, he took his ball and went home. Ah well. What might have been, eh, Peter? The things we do in anger, and have all our lives to regret. But bollocks to him. Let’s check out the second Yes album, the last one on which he worked and the one on which Yes did something which I don’t think anyone had done before in the emerging progressive rock arena (though I’m sure Her Highness will correct me if I’m wrong), and which gave them their first chart placing. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ront_cover.jpg Album title: Time and a Word Year: 1970 Personnel: Jon Anderson (Vocals, some percussion), Chris Squire (bass), Tony Kaye (Organ, piano), Bill Bruford (Drums, vibraphone), Peter Banks (Guitars) Track by track: “No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed” At least it kicks off with a big meaty Hammond run, but then for reasons I’ve never been able to divine they put in the riff from Jerome Moross’s superb western The Big Country. It’s a cover, too. I mean, come on! I know I went on about covers on the other album, and despite what comments have been sent my way, I still don’t like the idea, especially when a band is trying to get themselves established. Well I guess I can’t blame Yes for the composition of this song, but damn does it annoy me. That theme is one of my favourites - used to have it as a ringtone - and to hear it used in such a pointless way pisses me off. Anyway other than that the song is pretty decent organ-led rockout material, and certainly closer to what would become prog rock than nearly anything off the first album. And what in the name of blue jumping fuck does the title mean, eh? What I like about this: The Hammond intro What I don’t like about this: It’s a cover, and the use of the film theme, which makes no sense to me. “Then” The first of three written solo by Anderson (the other two co-written with David Foster - that one? No, don’t think so) it’s a decent kind of psychedelic tune with some fine noodling on the organ by Kaye, and I do have to be honest here, as I think I may have noted in my original review in the Prog Rock History journal: I don’t hear any orchestra. I mean, they were on the first track, sure, but I don’t hear them here. Don’t, to be fair, hear a lot of Banks’ guitar either; mostly it’s very much organ-driven with Kaye front and centre, especially for the extended instrumental parts. Okay I heard a little brass there, but it’s hardly an orchestra now is it? The reflective part in the last minute or so is nice, Squire gets to soothe us with a lovely hypnotic bass line and Anderson sings like a choir boy, everything else dropping away. Nice idea in the lyric: ”Love is the only answer/Hate is the root of cancer.” What I like about this: The keyboard parts What I don’t like about this: Seems a little busy to my ears. A lot going on, and I get slightly confused. “Everydays” Okay well I can definitely hear the orchestra now, but this is a song we’ve already covered as part of the bonus tracks on the 2003 re-release of the debut, so other than the atmosphere the strings and such set up within the song, not much else to say really. Oh and I clearly hear Banks going wild on the guitar solo here, so what his problem was I don’t know, but again, you know. What I like about this: Orchestra is nice, as is the organ. Also that it’s the final cover. What I don’t like about this: Cover, and heard it already. “Sweet Dreams” And there he is, leading the line before Kaye comes thumping in with the organ. This is the first of the Anderson/Foster collaborations, and I must say it does sound good. I miss the close vocal harmonies though - there’s one now, so not lost entirely. But scarcer than they were on the debut for sure. Once more, don’t really hear any contribution by this orchestra as such. Certainly not taking over the track or anything. Have to wonder if Banks was just being a big girl about this whole situation, and if he was precipitous in leaving? What I like about this: Everything What I don’t like about this: “The Prophet” The Keyboard intro is really powerful here, and Banks gets to strut his stuff too. A long intro, about two and a half minutes, the theme of this song would be revisited in a slightly different manner by Genesis on their 1976 album Wind and Wuthering on the track “One for the Vine”. The orchestra comes through clearly here, and it definitely adds something to the melody. What I like about this: Everything, particularly the instrumental bits. What I don’t like about this: “Clear Days” This I guess is the ballad, a simple love song that perhaps presages Anderson's later hit with Vangelis, “So Long Ago, So Clear”. Or maybe not. Nice song though. A great opportunity for the orchestra to shine. What I like about this: Everything What I don’t like about this: “Astral Traveller” This is all right but there’s just something about it that I can’t put my finger on. Oh yeah: I’m bored with it. The keyboard solo in the midsection is pretty fine, but the rest of it can take a flying leap. It’s also too long. What I like about this: Keyboard solo, guitar solo What I don’t like about this: Everything else “Time and a Word” Nice little acoustic guitar intro with some bubbly organ and the harder percussion from Bruford works very well here. See I can follow the melody here, whereas on “Astral Traveller” I was, perhaps appropriately, lost. This is pretty catchy, and a good closer too. What I like about this: Everything What I don’t like about this: Bonus Tracks Nothing that hasn’t been already reviewed, or else special mixes of songs already here. Meh. Not doing those. Comments: I think I very much prefer this album to the previous one. It seems more together, the songwriting is better, and despite the annoying covers, it works better. I really don’t get all the fuss about using the orchestra; I mean, you can certainly hear it throughout most - but not all - of the album, but I don’t think Banks had anything much to worry about. It doesn’t overshadow or drown out or make superfluous the guitar parts. If anything, they’re almost more pronounced here than they were on the debut. I can also see how this album managed to make it into the charts (just) and could be seen as more of a marker along the path to their career than the first one could. The first real glimmers of brilliance here I think. Rating: 7/10 Yes or No? Yes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYiWlnXppb0 |
The orchestra itself sounds nice it's just the way it's mixed with the band sounds a little rough and not quite seamless, compare it to a record like Days of Future Past where the orchestra is only used for transitions between the songs so the orchestra and the band never get in each other's way, here the orchestra is fully integrated with the band and it sounds a little busy especially with the muddy production. That being said Clear Days which is just Jon and the orchestra is quite lovely.
The songs themselves are very good, the title track is the most simple song here but it's also my favorite and the build up of the orchestra at the end actually works really well. The songwriting is definitely an improvement over the first album but I think the debut had more charm and energy. Both of the Peter Banks era albums are underrated and need more love, really. |
I've recently bought a few of Yes' albums that I did not have (or, had not had possession of in a very long time) and have been listening to them (in fact I'm listening to Going For The One as I write this). One of them was Tales From Topographic Oceans. I think that one, plus Relayer, you really need to approach listening to them differently. Those two (especially TFTO) you need to listen to it more like you're listening to Allan Holdsworth or some Fusion Jazz group. It's not like typical rock/pop songs that are going to have a hook that jumps out at you and grabs you, you need to think of it more as an adventure rather than a destination.
|
I disagree. Tales absolutely has hooks for days or I wouldn't like it as much as I do. It slaps.
|
I found a copy of Tales at an anitiques store yesterday, I was gonna get it but there was a bunch of other records I wanted to get and I didn't want to spend all my money.
Hopefully it will wait for me and there are no other Yes fans in the area lol. |
That's a great review of Time And A Word Trollheart! Full of facts, details and opinions that I largely agree with.
Yes, Astral Traveller has something boring about it. If I ever skip a track, that's the one I skip. The rest of the album has some of my favourite Yes tracks, and I'd disagree with Queen Boo about the use of orchestra, tbh; I think the orchestral instruments blend in very well, although The Big Country theme in No Opportunity is a bit startling - luckily it's such a great piece of music that I don't mind its sudden intrusion there at all. Elsewhere though, the orchestra meshes well with the band imo, partly because it's often just one or two instruments woven into the songs, (Clear Days and Everydays ), or the gradual crescendo of Time And A Word. Isn't that a subtler use of orchestra than Days of Future Past, where they had a bunch of Moody Blues songs, but with a bit of orchestra stuck on at the front and back? Personally, I'd give Time And A Word a higher ranking than TH's 7, perhaps because I like Everydays more than TH does. That jazzy touch to the intro is an album highlight for me. |
I get what Drive is saying, Tales has no Roundabout or Yours Is No Disgrace or Starship Trooper or anything like their more digestible tracks. It's all the proggiest, most epic in scope elements of Yes assembled together into those four tracks.
I personally love it, have listened to it hundreds of times and know it like the back of my hand, but I know a heck of a lot of people, including some who were fans in the 70s, who were confused at its lack of immediacy. Relayer on the other hand is more immediate but also a lot more wild and unhinged. |
I went for a walk yesterday while listening Close to the Edge on Spotify, which was an amazing experience, but for some stupid reason the Spotify version cuts off the first few seconds of Siberian Khatru.
Spotify is full of f*ck ups like this apparently. :mad: |
Quote:
Will it be trans femmes who put to rest the myth that girls don't like prog once and for all? :laughing: |
I’ve known a few other women who were into it. I used to play Magic the Gathering with this dude and his wife who were very DND, Renaissance fair types who were both huge King Crimson fans.
I like plenty of stereotypically “girly” music too. There’s just something about watching Peter Gabriel prancing around the stage dressed as a flower that just hits right for me, y’know? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:30 PM. |
© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.