Talk:Yes (band)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Very Poor Quality Article

This is little more than a fan's essay. It's rambling, unstructured, full of superlative adjectives and unnecessary hyperbole. There are no sourced facts whatsoever -- and yet a large amount of conjecture, hearsay and speculation presented as "fact". This article needs completely rewritten by an expert who has sourced facts to back up their non POV writing.

OK... WP:SOFIXIT -Thibbs (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

There's lots of POW here. Very much salvagable, and good work in general, but such comments as "probably their best album since" and "uniformly excellent" belong in reviews, not encyclopedias.--Teeks 18:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree- I actually tried to NPOV this article once but gave up fairly quickly! quercus robur 18:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) (closet progster and punk rocker and no problems with the apparent contradictions- but then again I like free improvisation as well...)

I've taken the POV tag off this article as reading through it it looks much better and NPOV to me now. Cheers quercus robur 22:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyway "uniformly excellent" gives good info, especially with a band like this one, prone to lose himself in bizarre sounds. I bet it was adresed to 90125...

Founders/Early Days redundancy

I agree that this article is looking great - I don't think it needs any more details (put those in individual album and member pages - THEY need work), but it does need cleaning up. Why on earth is there a tiny "founders" section and then a seperate, and also quite short, "early days" section??? It seems very silly to me; I'd put the "Founders" paragraph as the first paragraph of "early days" right now, but I'm a newbie so I'll leave this comment here for a while first and see if anyone objects. --DreamsReign 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and music

Does the first part, about the English word, belong in the same article as the band? It doesn't seem right, somehow. Alfvaen 04:51, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Probably not; if you want to edit it down to more manageable size, I wouldn't be arguing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All right. I've moved the section about the band to Yes (band). As far as I can tell, there's precedent(like with Rush and Rush (band)). I haven't gotten around to fixing all the links yet, though. -- Alfvaen 07:04, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'm reverting. If it needs to be moved, it should be done with the Move tab. See discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Niteowlneils 03:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm still a newbie at this, but I was trying to be bold. I thought of it more as separating the band from other uses of the word, the same way Cake and Rush are dealt with. If "Move" fixes up all the linkages, though, that would've been a hell of a lot easier than what I was doing. I thought of that about halfway through. I'll take a look at that discussion. Alfvaen 06:29, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes → Yes (band)

This move has already taken place by doing a copy/paste. Someone needs to delete the Yes (band), which was a redirect to Yes, and then move the Yes to [[Yes (band). The reason for this request is that the vast majority of edits to Yes were related to the band and not the word. -- DCEdwards1966 01:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes is currently a simple dictdef. Yes (band) should be at Yes with a link to Wiktionary for the word. violet/riga (t) 01:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with that. I didn't move the article, I just wanted to get the page history straightened out. DCEdwards1966 01:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• I've reverted it, and left a note on the Talk page to bring the argument here, and to use the Move tab if it should be moved. IMHO, someone looking for the word will go to Wiktionary, while someone looking for Yes at Wikipedia is more likely looking for the band, so I think it should stay that way. (i.e. 'what violet/riga said') Niteowlneils 03:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • That works for me. DCEdwards1966 04:07, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support move to Yes (band). Yes should be a disambig. See Yes (disambiguation) for some ideas. -- Netoholic @ 17:04, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
• Unless someone presents some other well-known things known only by the name Yes, then the band should be at Yes. I see nothing at Special:Allpages/Yes that would be referred to primarily (or even occasionally) by only the word Yes. older≠wiser 17:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• I was the original editor, and I'm willing to admit that I may have goofed. I saw some similarity between Yes and Rush, both of which are common words with other uses, but I admit that the band may be the commonest use of Yes. A quick search at IMDB, for instance, showed one art-house film, some foreign films, and a couple of shorts. And I probably didn't wait long enough for a consensus, didn't use "Move", etc. I haven't been around here long enough to know which way the precedents point. Alfvaen 06:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. Support the move. Jonathunder 06:42, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• Support the move. As the name of a band, 'Yes' will only be known to a minority of readers. --Auximines 12:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. My rule would be that a secondary meaning always calls for disambiguation. — Ford 19:28, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
• Support. Agreed, secondary meaning always calls for disambig, bands should probably always fall under the (band) naming scheme ... though that will probably be some work to make uniform across the board. JubalHarshaw 21:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

By my tally, the vote above was not conclusive, with half saying the band article should be at Yes (band) and half saying the band article should be at Yes. Since the band article was originally at Yes, it should remain there until there is a clear consensus to move it. older≠wiser 20:22, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note for future album articles

I have recently compiled a list of album covers designed by Roger Dean for the Roger Dean article and have began illustrating it. The list of Dean Yes covers is now full and contains images of albums for which there are no articles written yet. These covers are Drama, Yesshows, Classic Yes, Yesyears, Open Your Eyes, The Ladder, House of Yes, Keystudio, In a Word - Yes and The Ultimate Yes. - Justin Foote 22:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Membership Overview

Spikebrennan 22:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) asks: should Tony Levin (who, with Bill Bruford, is credited with co-writing, and performing, a song on the Union album, be treated as a member of Yes?

No, he was more of a hired gun.Sposato (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Discography

The discography section is a bit of a mess and a bit painful to read, IMO. Anyone else think it would look better in a table? For instance:

Release Date	Name	Members	Chart Positions
1969, July	Yes	(Anderson/Squire/Kaye/Bruford/Banks)	-

--Jeffthejiff | Talk 18:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a table would be VERY helpful for the discography (and also for the singles). --Comics 03:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 195.188.152.16

Could somebody please look over the recent slew of edits by 195.188.152.16? This IP/user has a history of vandalism on Wikipedia and was even banned, according to the talk page. Some of the additions seem a bit odd to be especially since there are absolutely no sources for most of these additions or comments. I'm tempted to revert as I feel there's something fishy. Could somebody else look at this? --Comics 03:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rick Wakeman

It may be worth noting that, while Rick Wakeman has unofficially had five seperate stints in Yes, according to Rick himself, the last time he "left" Yes per se was in 1980. This is touched on at present, but from the source I linked, it seems to be a bit more complicated than "Rick refused to leave his management and so couldn't join Yes on Talk" (And the fourth time he "leaves", which in reality was nothing more than a massive miscommunication--long story short, Rick was told there was no Yes tour and that he could do a solo tour, he did, and then Yes ended up getting a tour at that same time and Rick was never informed--isn't mentioned at all). --64.213.188.94 22:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The statement With Wakeman, Yes cut two LPs. is factually incorrect (or at least, particularly incomplete). In Wakeman's discography on his Wikipedia page, he is credited with having featured on ten Yes albums. During his initial stint with the band alone, he cut four albums (Fragile, Close to the Edge, Tales from Topographic Oceans and the live Yessongs album). I'm wondering what the best way of amending the article is (referring to "four in his initial stint", to the total number, or removing the number completely). comment added by Robhogg (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment from user in article space

This was left in the article- I moved here to the talk- would someone be able to put something in this page about the actually movie Yes? Sam Neill stars in it.--Adam ^(talk) 04:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom Brislin was NOT a member of Yes

He was a session musician

Could we agree that at least Brislin, as far as we know DID NOT contribute to the rest of Yes's writing material; and if so, can we also say that anyone in YES so far has contributed musically? If this is the case, then maybe we shouldn't consider Brislin as a "member" of Yes any time (2001 Tour or later)? But maybe he could be called "personnel", if we all agree that the term "personnel" excludes writing contributions.--Mikepope 01:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And Billy Sherwood was? I thought the column said "personnel", and not "members". Brislin discussed vegetarian diet extensively with Steve Howe, and he went to a night club in Lithuania with Chris Squire after a show. He appears on the tour DVD as the Yes keyboardist. I would say that constitutes "personnel" status beyond "session musician". --User:Thekohser ^(talk) 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Billy Sherwood WAS a member of Yes. He wrote a huge amount of songs for the Open Your Eyes album, he was listen as a member of Yes on the Ladder, Open Your Eyes, and HOB albums. His picture was in the press releases and on the videos and albums as a member.

Tom Brislin was NOT listed as a member of Yes on the Symphonic DVD. It clearly states that Yes is Howe, Anderson, Squire, White. He was NOT in band photos. He was NOT a contributing member of the band. He never wrote a song and did not have any say in the creative aspects of the band.

Personnel, members, whatever.......it's clearly meant to display YES band members. If we list Brislin....clearly a hired employee....as a Yes member in 2001, then we must list every single member of all the orchestras that Yes played with. He was no different.

And since when does talking about food with Steve Howe or partying with Chris Squire qualify someone as a Yes band member? if we included everyone who got drunk with Chris Squire in the personnel box, it'd be a pretty long list.

Hmmm... I'm not sure. On one hand, the section is "personnel", and it is clearly listed that he was only "on tour" with them. On the other hand, as you say, where do we draw the line? I don't think any form of compositional participation is necessary to be considered a member, as there are so many bands out there where one or two members compose the music and the others just play. For the moment, I ask you to not remove the Tom Brislin entry, and I would like to get some feedback and input from others in order to first reach a consensus. —Comics (Talk) 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a very good reason why Brislin SHOULD be included as "personnel" in 2001: every other iteration in the box shows that there was a keyboardist playing in support of the band, at all stages of their history. An uninformed reader of this page would come to the conclusion that Yes abandoned a keyboard element in the band during 2001, or that Wikipedia sucks because it forgot the keyboardist in 2001. Neither conclusion is true. There WAS a keyboardist who played nearly EVERY song, at EVERY concert throughout the USA and Europe in 2001 -- named Tom Brislin. What if it says: Tom Brislin - keyboards (session player on tour)? Would that make everyone calm down? --User:Thekohser ^(talk) 19:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone. First of all, there was no keyboardist on the Yes studio album from 2001. So 2001 was without question a period of no keyboards. Yes was clearly a four man band. They needed a keyboard to replicate the old songs on tour, so they hired a sideman (as opposed to welcoming a fifth band member). I created the Yes personnel box. It was intended, like all other personnel boxes related to bands, to show the history of official band members. I don't think people are going to think Wikipedia is "stupid"....hundreds of contributors have worked on this page. The difference between keyboardists being listed prior is that Tom Bislin was not a band member. The only true source we should consider is YES themselves......did YES consider Tom Brislin a band member? No, they did not. Otherwise he would have been listed as a band member. If you are so intent on keeping this kid in the band member history (which I think is factually erroneous, unless someone can produce an official press photo of Yes in 2001 with Brislin in it), take a look at the Genesis page and their personnel box....it should be done like that in my opinion. nomoretears 19:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - Brislin MUST be removed! Anderson is quoted as saying (in Welch's book) that Brislin "never wrote any songs with us" - he was purely a hired gun to play on one tour. I cannot believe that he is on the list of Yes personnel; anyone who concludes that Yes had no keyboards at the time would be spot on - there was no keyboard player on Magnification and no keyboard band member on the tour. I think that listing significant session musicians for Yes (such as Tony Levin and Jonathon Elias) would be an excellent secondary list, but even then Brislin should NOT be included as he never did session work, song writing, nothing. You may as well list every member of the European Festival Orchestra as members of Yes, just in case people "conclude" that the tour was done without an orchestra. Help me. He's GOT to go...but will this start a revert war I wonder? BTW, there was ALSO NO featured keyboard player during OYE, and Squire even boasts about this during an interview on YesSpeak - let's get our facts straight PLEEEESE... --DreamsReign 21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[And furthermore,] I've been doing a fair deal of work to keep this page POV free. There seems to be a determined effort at work to turn this into a REVIEW PAGE - I beg all of the nameless, faceless editors of this page to RESPECT that THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA - reviews and value judgements about the merit, style and effectiveness of Yes songs and band members DOES NOT BELONG HERE. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - no reviews, opinions, soapboxing...

Oh, and as for Tom Brislin, I'm now going to list some reasons why he should be permanently removed from the personnel list. I'll leave this post here for a while before re-removing him. I will leave him in if these points can be responded to:

• He never wrote any songs with Yes. If we want to include everyone who has played with Yes, the list MUST include every member of European festival orchestra. There is absolutely no basis to include Brislen but leave them out.
• He was never involved with any album production; he was a ring in to do keyboard parts on one tour.
• He was NOT a session musician. Wikipedia seems to be going to la la land here. A session musician contributes instrumentals to an album.
• I just don't know how to respond to Brislin's dabbling in vegetarianism and him going to a club with Squire. Should we include the Yes roadie who went on all their tours in the 70's (the one who ran to vegetarian shop Yes always went to; pictured in Welch's book)? He was a vegetarian, always went to clubs after shows, organised the girls and the balloons. It is a travesty to Wikipedia to say that vegetarianism and having a drink makes you a Yes personnel. Contributing to Yesmusic must be the standard, and Brislin has never done that.
• He is not listed as a contributing member to any album, and did no creative work behind the Symphonic tour. By contrast, Levin and Elias have contributed EXTENSIVELY to a number of Yessongs. These people should be included a secondary list, but Brislin should not be on any such list.
• We MUST show people that Magnification, like Open Your Eyes had NO FEATURED KEYBOARDIST INVOLVED. The current state of the article is misleading.
• It is ridiculous to list Brislin as the solitary "live performances" personnel, since Wilhiem Keitel, as the composer, was a far more significant contributer to the sound of that tour than Brislin, who just played the music he was given.
• The idea of including a single tour ring-in in the Yes personnel undermines the validity of the entire list. Anderson has clearly stated that Brislin was not involved in the creation or writing of any songs for that tour or at any other time.
• If someone wants to begin a list of the many musicians who have contributed to Yes' live performances, I welcome them to begin this as a separate list. (Lets make sure we include Damien Anderson on this one, who's voice track was played during the Tormato tour of '78).--DreamsReign 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope we don't mind my moving DreamsReign's second diatribe about Tom Brislin where it belongs -- in the Talk section that was set up for Tom Brislin. There's no need to open up a "take 2" heading to further talk about Tom Brislin. That is, unless one REALLY has their knickers in a twist. I have removed the "Other personnel" cell that featured Tom Brislin. I honestly had hoped that it would expand to include other PERSONNEL (note, not "Members") who have contributed to the YesSound (note, not "YesMusic") throughout the years, but it apparently can't be stomached by most of you. Since I was the one who kept re-posting the "Other personnel", you all can hope that now you are safe from its ever defiling this noble encyclopedia entry ever again. Thank God. We shan't besmirch the fine reputation of what it means to be an "official" member of Yes, since the "official" lineup has been so permanent over the years. --Thekohser 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that someone has taken it upon themselves to dredge this up again and added Brislin back to the list. I reverted the change but we should keep a close eye to make sure it doesn't go right back. TEMcGee 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes (disambiguation)

I've been redirecting links to Yes that should go to Yes (band), and it's ended up being a much bigger job than I anticipated. If anyone would like to help I'd be eternally grateful. --djrobgordon 05:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting piece of info

• Steve Howe performed the flamenco guitar solo on the #1 hit Innuendo in 1991. I'm not sure if this should go into the article...feel free to add, or not. TheImpossibleMan 00:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This piece of information has nothing to do with Yes - but it definitely belongs on Steve Howe's page.--DreamsReign 05:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits on current events

I've made a number of corrections and updates to the current status of various members' solo projects. I forgot to log in, so they'll appear under an IP.

• Squire did not spearhead the Syn reunion, they got together without him initially being involved and he joined later.
  • I omitted all mention of Banks in the context of Syn, as the previous version was misleading and a more accurate version would just confuse matters (he was involved in the reformed band for a while, but his involvement did not overlap Squire's).
• White's album came out in April.
• Squire is no longer in Syn, but White now is.
  • In an interesting coincidence, Squire's departure from Syn and the Asia reunion tour were announced on the same day.

I may refine some of this further, including perhaps adding a link for the White album. PurplePlatypus 07:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alan White played on one tour by The Syn on a session basis, partly as a favour to Squire. He has not joined the band and isn't a member as such. I suspect he won't do any more with the band while Squire is no longer involved either. Bondegezou 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Incredibly pretentious and awful

There seems to be pretty wide agreement now that Yes were (a) really awful and (b) insanely pretentious. Shouldn't we allude to that widespread view in the intro?MarkThomas 09:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wide agreement? I'd like to see some facts on that. And probably the worst place for that 'info' is on top. Jimcripps 01:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment - they were not as pretentious as Emerson, Lake and Palmer. They were however really really awful. MarkThomas 08:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

MarkThomas is clearly trolling, but actually, he has the beginnings of a point. A lot of articles like this one (the better ones, anyway, not the ones that are mere fanwank) contain a section on the artists' general critical reception. That may be a good thing to add, though the article is arguably getting a bit long. (Many of the asides in the history sections, and especially the editorializing that seems to have crept in, could be cut to make room). Whether we like it or not, it is a notable fact about Yes that, for example, TfTO is seen as the height of pretentiousness and often the butt of jokes on the part of music critics. PurplePlatypus 05:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand how this would serve any purpose. If this was the case, all of the band pages on Wikipedia should probably contain a section of critisism and I really don't see the point of it. We are talking about an artform so people have different opions on any band. --ZagMac 12:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the pretentiousness hit should be mentioned (and I'm a big Yes fan). The tension between 70s punk rockers and progressive rock, which the punk rock article alludes to in "eschewing the perceived excesses of mainstream 1970s rock" was definitely there. The British musical press Melody Maker and NME really played the two "sides" off. The trick is to avoid original research and find supporting quotes and articles from the time. -- Skierpage 00:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In a ´similar discussion on "pretentious bands" at IMDB's music board, someone pointed out, very sensibly, that bands such as Yes, Sparks and Kraftwerk are not really pretentious; the're not stretching into something they can't grasp or pretending to be something they're not. No trendy wannabe quality. The stuff they do comes out of what they really want to do and spontaneously know how, so "ambitious" or "constructed" is the word rather than pretentious. Michael Jackson, Supertramp or Peter Greenaway might be called pretentgious, but not Yes. Besides, many people don't realize the amount of laid-back grace in their performing.Strausszek September 17, 2006, 02:45 (CEST)

That's true! Those bands are so fucking pretentgious! There's too much pretentgiosity in this place! We need less total pretentgitude and more straight dealing from our Pomp! MarkThomas 21:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree; pretentiousness as you describe is a feature of most pop groups. Yes, in that sense can be described as that; but the music they produced was a cut above the rest. At least they knew a thing or two about their own instruments and music, which cannot be said of many other groups (esp. the punk ones who seem to be the darlings of music criticism. User:veplaini

Yes(Band) is a foreign-featured article! What? Which band? Anyway, back to this wierd page. This Yes page is still way way too long, even after Anger22, the angriest and yet somehow coolest editor of Pomposity on these very pages, deleted 800 pages of gunk just now. I still feel far from sated however. The mere mention of Jon and Vangelis is enough to make me physically sick, so much so I had to sign up for Yacht Rock classes and move to the Hall & Oates page. No seriously. Let's delete everything after "have long been cherished by fans" in line 10 or 14.1A or wherever it is. Supreme Editors, save us from Pompous Heck. Can I mention the purple cashmir carpet that ELP used to play on? Wow. And another thing - this page should be purple. The band Deep Purple now there was a real groop. Those guys could play. But not as well as Rick Wakeman or Boz Scaggs or the Doobies or the Amazing Twosome or Elephant Man or Testosterone. Man there was a band. That f****** editor who dominates Steely Dan stole my keyboard and I can't even appeal under WPR:CCD-LX-PPSQAAA-MF!

The Rolling Stones are extremely pretentious. The reality is that they are old fart billionaires. Uh, the exact opposite of rock-n-roll. At least Yes is unpretentious because the music they play, they essentially originally created. The exact opposite of pretentious. I just wish people would stop pretending that they write for Rolling Stone magazine by using old terms like "pretentious" and "pomp." I first read those description of Yes 30 years ago. It is you Mr. Thomas who have been bought and sold the "rock-n-roll image." Others choose to make their own decisions, outside of the pop culture manifesto. Time to crack a cold one in the name of true rebellion. Long live Yes and may the same pop machine that brought you David Cassidy, Britney Spears and The Rock-and-Roll Hall of Fame melt it's plastic facade into oblivion. Or, more realistically, just once recognize professional musicianship for the good that it is.

Incredibly good and musically daring

Is Yes not one of the most interesting rock groups? They dared to look beyond the stupidity, cliche and obviousness of the 3-minute pop tune. And they were good musicians too ! I think this needs to be said somewhere in the article. Perhaps at the beginning User:veplaini.

The article must adhere to WP:NPOV. No opinions or fancrufty poetic adjectives allowed. "stupidity, cliche and obviousness of the 3-minute pop tune"??? That's one of the most musically impaired statements I've read in quite a while on this project. The Beatles, The Kinks, The Stones, The Who... all made their early careers on the 3 minute pop song. All were amazingly good at it. And all were massive inspirations on the members of Yes. Most young people forget that, at one time, Pop was an artform. Modern Britney Pop, on the other hand, now that's crap.

156.34.219.252 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That is probably because you do not really understand much of music. In the end, what you say is also not more than you opinion; we should have more informed or expert insight instead of fanzine stuff. I cannot believe no one spotted the irony of my lines above. When I read sections such as the previous one to this, I see that much of the rock/pop entries are in the hands of people that really are neither musically informed or objective in any way. My lines above were no more musically impaired than any other similar comments on this page (either pro or against this music), including the one I am replying to. User:veplaini

Citation needed?

I wrote the sentence, "Their multi-layered, highly structured soundscapes have long been cherished by fans and panned by critics who have accused them of being pretentious and over-produced." in the first paragraph of the article off the top of my head. I am no music expert, but I have been listening to Yes and reading about them for thirty years, so, many sources have contributed to my knowledge of them, their music and their reputation. How do you cite that? Rdikeman 23:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

After three weeks, no rationale for it has been given, so I have removed the "citation needed" tag from the first paragraph. Rdikeman 14:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think a citation is needed, but I have edited the sentence, because it implied that all critics accuse them of such and such. This is rubbish; many critics rate at least some Yes work very highly. I completely disagree that Yes have ever been pretentious - they have never PRETENDED to be anything they aren't. But enough people have this unfounded and false opinion that I'm willing to let it be mentioned in the article. (If someone thinks that producing an 80 minute symphony is automatically pretentious then they should just go back and keep listening to Britney Spears). --DreamsReign 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "critic" can mean either "one who appraises the works of others" or "one who finds fault." I intended the latter sense, in opposition to "fans." Certainly, not all appraisals of the group are negative, but it seems the negative ones tend to include the type of accusations mentioned. Rdikeman 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence "Their multi-layered, highly structured soundscapes have long been cherished by fans", because it doesn't add anything. One can safely assume that fans like the bands because of their typical sound. --Soetermans 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Magnification not the first album...

...with no full time featured keyboardist. I believe that this dubious honour goes to Open Your Eyes, where Sherwood filled in most of the keys in the absence of...any full time keyboardist. Squire even says so in the YesSpeak documentary. Why am I even writing this? I'm just going to go delete the false claim. --DreamsReign 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Magnification was the first album without a featured full time keyboardist. Billy Sherwood was a full band member during the Open Your Eyes/The Ladder period. --The guy with the axe - aaaaaaargh!!! (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Article too long or not??? Informal 'Request for Comments'

It seems to me that this article is way way too long. Having said that, I've looked at other Featured articles about Bands and some of them, such as The KLF are significantly longer than the Yes article, even though the KLF were only active for 6 or 7 years, a mere fraction of Yes' long and complicated existence. IF this article is too long, then it should be broken down into sub-pages - Yes have an extremely long and very complicated history - there's simply no getting around that fact. They aren't like 99%+ bands that are only around for a while and then go. And their fame and significance warrants decent coverage on Wikipedia. So I think we either (1.) accept the article needs to be about this long or (2.) break into subpages (early days, 70's, 80's, 90's and beyond). I'd like to break it into sub-pages, with summaries for each period on the main page - that way people stumbling across/skimming over the page (vast majority of readers) can get that quick overview of everything, and fans/investigators who want all the details can dip into them as well. I'd love to know other people's opinions about what should be done. --DreamsReign 04:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Clouds

Noted the comments about Clouds. I agree that the edit was clumsy - haven't worked out the Wiki way to add citations, and also agree that it can be annoying to have additions you've been previously unaware of, but the fact is - Yes DID take the blueprint for the band from 1-2-3/Clouds, and the proof is out there. That part about Yes taking other people's songs and re-arranging them was pure 1-2-3 territory - Read 'The History of Scottish Rock'; Mojo Magazine nov 1994, particularly David Bowie's comments, 'The Illustrated History of Rock', Clouds by Ed Ward, this passage for instance - 'there was the legacy they left; to Yes went the baroque structures of improvisation that were virtual re-writes of known material'. So the question is, do we want to add authentic history, or leave it at bullshit history? I'm content to let any of you guys add a comment about this rather than myself, 1), you're not biased in the way I am 2) you can do it better in any case! "Matthew.hartington 09:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)"

Citations

This article is missing a load of citations. So I'm adding a flag for this. In addition, anywhere there is anything like, "It is said, ", "Some people say.:", "It si thought .." needs to be removed. Wikipedia is not a rumour/rumor mill. Candy 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes lyrics

Is this the place to write an article about Yes's lyrics? I read so much analysis and comments about their music, but never do I read anything about what their lyrics are saying. It ties in to what certain "New Age types and 2012-ers are saying, and they've been saying it for years in their bizarre lyrics. I My email address is safelton_11@yahoo.com if anyone wants to email me. Safelton 11 22:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No. See WP:OR for further wikipedia policy on this and similar issues. In short, if it can't be properly cited outside of the Wikirealm, then it likely isn't acceptable content. You are, however, more than welcome to contribute ruminations on their lyrics that have been published in another source provided that you cite them properly.

C. M. Reed 05:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

enumerate some musician awards?!

In the mid-70s, Yes and Eddie Offord won readers polls, e.g. Melody Maker and NME, plus specialist magazines like Guitar Player Magazine. That's important NPOV fact -- people into music rated them the best band and musicians in the world! I can't find the papers' poll awards online, but http://yesmuseum.org/Awards.html lists awards. -- Skierpage 01:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading these in the '70s. Chris Squires was rated as best bass player several times. Just hearing his bass thumping and grumbling with White tinkling his snares on "The Fish'...! Minorhistorian (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, that's Bill Bruford behind the drums on that one. White didn't join the band until after the Close to the Edge album. --The guy with the axe - aaaaaaargh!!! (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

I've added a 'contradicts' tag as the section on the band's formation is confused. David Watkinson's "Perpetual Change" book may be of use here. Bondegezou 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed it as there is no support or detail given to the assertion made here, nor has the wikipedia article allegedly in conflict been identified in the weeks since the tag was added. Anazgnos 23:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Montreux Jazz Festival 2003

Added a paragraph on this event. DVD is well worth watching. http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=25246 Minorhistorian (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cover art

Why is there no mention of the incredibly awesome cover art of the latter Yes albums? It was this that led me to buy my first Yes CD, whose actual content turned out to be awfully boring. JIP | Talk 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Which albums are you referring to? There's info about Roger Dean in the article already. Are you talking about non-Dean covers like Magnification? ` Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's think. If the content turned out to be awfully boring, then I would hazard a guess that it was that Tales from Topographic Oceans fiasco. Which does feature a Roger Dean cover. --The guy with the axe - aaaaaaargh!!! (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we please stop speculating on a "Yes 40 Year Reunion Tour"?

I'd love to see the boys back together as much as any of you, but this is not the place to spread gossip, rumors and heresay about a Yes tour in 2008. If/when they officially announce one, I'll be more than happy to eat these words, but until then, let's try to stick to the facts like an encyclopedia should. I removed the following line (which, upon investigation, I found NO evidence of!) "the official websites of Chris Squire and Rick Wakeman both suggest a Yes reunion sometime in 2008, with a tour proposed for summer." To the contrary, here is what Rick really says in his latest post (Nov 2007): I'm sure there will be more discussion in the near future and then decisions will be made as to how, where and why the band have reached the eventual chosen route. Until this happens, anything that is said or written can only be speculation. Louisgroovy (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Try doing a little research for such evidence on the websites that were specifically mentioned before deleting valid info and spouting off about it! Squire's site (http://www.chrissquire.net/welcome.html) clearly says "I'm looking forward to seeing many of you in the proposed Yes summer tour as much are looking forward to seeing the shows". Delete the reference to Wakeman if you wish, but the Squire note is pretty solid. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to pick a fight, Shubo[...], I was pointing out the blatant misinformation regarding rwcc.com. DO NOT ADD IT BACK.Louisgroovy (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire last paragraph should be scrapped; it offers nothing that is encyclopedia worthy. Citing something Jon casually mentioned on a radio programme a year ago? This stuff is obviously inserted by hopeful fans and has no relevance to the band's official position. But people keep adding it back to the article nonetheless. I make a motion to delete the entire last paragraph (under heading "2000") until the band officially releases a statement. Leave gossip to the forums and newsgroups. Wikisicky (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last paragraph which, to me, sounded like a bunch of useless "he said-she said" babble. There is no point in mentioning a tour until the band agrees upon it and issues a formal statement.Wikisicky (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to make sure that valid information is included, without overly hasty edits, and that people aren't "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". The Wakeman edit was valid, but it's not "speculation" that Chris Squire himself announced to fans that there is a proposed summer tour! He obviously wasn't speculating, and I think this is worth noting, along with the fact that 2008 marks the 40th anniversary, which is true whether anything is going on or not. In the end, an announcement from Squire about a tour is almost as worth noting as one from the Yes website itself. Who better to speak for the band than its longest-running member?? - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's looking almost definite that Yes will tour either late this year or early next year in SOME capacity (may just be 1 big show in New York for all we know), but there has been NO announcement. Verifiability, not truth. Squire saying that he "looks forward" to a "proposed" show is NOT an announcement - it's Squire being hopeful. Now we are all hopeful, but this is an encyclopedia. There needs to be something official from the BAND (not one member), the management, a tour organizer or presenter, or at least a ticketing agency or venue. We are a far cry from any of this. The tour is not yet scheduled or officially announced, and as yet has no place in an encyclopedia. --DreamsReign (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Valid points, but the article clearly points out that a tour is not confirmed, and sticks to the fact that a tour is "proposed". Whether Squire's statement about a proposed tour is an "announcement" or not is irrelevant. The article is not a repository for "announcements". It's a verifiable fact, via Squire's official statement, that a tour is "proposed", and that's how the article reads. As it serves as a reference of information that may be found elsewhere, I think it's valid to include this. That last paragraph could certainly be a bit shorter, though, and cutting the bits about Anderson and Howe could be a way to achieve that. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pansy Ass and the Clan

I want to know when Pansy Ass and the Clan are going to tour again I am beginning to wear out my keys disc and want to hear the Voice of Fag live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.222.103 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited "Personell" Table

I edited the Personell table to make it easier to read and much more compact. Mobus (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mobus, you are a champion. When I saw it, I was astounded by it's clarity and awesomeness. The first time ever anyone has made it so clear and readable and informative. Brilliant work. --DreamsReign (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain?

The article rightly says that 90125 was departure from their classic sound, but then adds this truly bizarre statement: "It was more visceral, with then-modern electronic effects". Now, the article has explained that with Wakeman Yes championed modern electronic effect back in the 70s (as was hallmark of all prog music). As for 90125 being "visceral" - to me songs like 'Sound Chaser' and 'The Ancient' are far more visceral than 'Owner of a Lonely Heart' or 'Our Song'. There must be something I'm missing - the sentence looks like complete rubbish to me, but I don't know how to fix it... Because of 'Hearts' you can't just say that 90125 had short songs. Because of 'Cinema' you can't just say it had simple songs. What the hell makes the album different? A crap cover? I think this point is pretty important for people reading the article (the musical difference, that is, not the pathetic album cover). --DreamsReign (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to imagine that "visceral" is mainly a reference to the "punchy" guitar and drum sounds of the album. The opening guitar riff of "Owner of a Lonely Heart" was a shocking sonic departure from any previous Yes record, at least, so some mention must be made of the change in sound. "Visceral" could also refer to the more danceable sound of the album -- as far as I know, the only Yes album to be played extensively in dance clubs.

The point about the electronic production techniques is partly explained in the 90125 article -- 90125's commercial impact had a lot to do with its production techniques, which were novel at the time and widely imitated over the next two decades, so it's a point that needs to be mentioned, though the wording could be better.--Siberianmetal (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One specific technical point that could be mentioned in connection with the production and sound of 90125 is the introduction of the orchestral hit.--Siberianmetal (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In my view, "visceral" seems a bit vague, and sounds like an opinion. I think something more descriptive would be appropriate. Also, the "orchestra hit" bit could be interesting to include, IF there's a source to verify it was one of the first uses. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe

It seems to me the section on Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe mostly repeats information from the Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe article, so perhaps this section should be removed. To piece together the history of Yes one only needs to know that Jon Anderson left to record with ABWH and that ABWH led into the Union album and tour. Siberianmetal (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the article currently treats ABWH as if it's an album, even an era, of Yes itself. Whether that's right or wrong should be discussed here. (I'm torn on this). If it's considered like other solo or spin-off projects, it should be as Simerianmetal says, just a passing note. But if it's considered part of the Yes history proper, it should remain as is. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BS About Oliver Wakeman

Stop taking away my entry, which I have cited, about the 2008 tour, and replacing it with crap about Oliver Wakeman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyolf (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Section Titles

Apparently we have a bit of an edit war about this. Can we please discuss? I really don't think "In The Presence Of" makes the tiniest bit of sense in relation to a section about the 40th anniversary tour. For one thing, that's a reference to a song from a different era, and it just doesn't have anything to do subject-wise with what that section is about. It was previously "Future Times..." which makes much more sense at least. But my view is that it should be something descriptive and informative (you know... like an "encyclopedia") such as "40th Anniversary Tour". I've noted my reasoning for the change along with my edits, while Dyolf continues to revert those change without a single comment or explanation. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. This is an encyclopedia, not a fancy table top book full of band photos. I'd go even further: all section titles for "history" are just pathetic. "Time is Time...", "All Good People"... this may mean something to someone who is well familiar with the band - even sound cute - but it's definitely not the appropriate way to present the subject to someone who's never had contact with Yes. I'm not going to edit myself because I'm way too new here, but in my opinion this chapter should be formated to the high encyclopedic standard Wikipedia deserves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.26.122.106 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points. This should read as information about Yes, as if the reader has never heard of the band before. I've just changed several of them to this end. However, if a chapter title gives small nods to song titles, while still being appropriate to the subject, I think it makes sense. "Perpetual Change" and the one I just added: "Turn of the Century" seem appropriate. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

RE-added the trivia about the album 90125. I'm not sure why Shubopshadangalang deleted it, as the information can be verified at the Trevor Rabin wikipedia page which is cross-referenced.Chazella (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have an external source then cite it. Another Wikipedia article is not a valid reference. Regardless, I don't see how you can justify "generally considered the 'least Yes' of all the Yes albums". As for "I'm not sure why" - if you look at the revision history, reasons are usually cited with each change, so you should not have to question, as a reason was clearly given. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Schlong, I'm not going to get into a playground wikipedia battle with you, since the above discussions clearly show that you love to thrive on this sort of thing. Have fun playing hall monitor here; I declare you king of the Yes wikipedia page; you win; you're better than all of us. Lighten up someday, eh? The end.Chazella (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. *I* added it back. Chazella, that was interesting information, and Shubopshadangalang was (yet again) way out of line deleting it. Just to make the boyscouts happy, I added the original reference--although I personally feel it was plenty fine the old way, cross referencing the Trevor Rabin page. Shubopshadangalang, please stop picking fights and creating edit wars. This is not your personal Yes diary. This is a community effort. I suggest you pay attention to the Wikipedia rules "Assume good faith" and "Be welcoming". Btw Chazella, welcome to wikipedia as I see you're new here. Ignore the trolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisicky (talk • contribs) 11:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Where is all this animosity coming from? I don't claim any ownership of the article... I've been making edits here for less than a year. That was the first edit I've made in almost 2 weeks... and I was clearly removing comments that were not encyclopedic. Just trying to keep this article accurate, up to date, and neutral where possible, when I have time to chime in. And, again, another WP article can't be a valid reference. But the new edit of this info looks ok to me for whatever that's worth. As for the bit about "Be welcoming", I never pay attention to how long someone has been editing (and often not even to who had made the previous edit... just content) and to quote a famous pirate movie "they're really more guidelines, than actual rules" :) Sorry for any offense, but seriously... get off my case. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes in concert in Switzerland (2004)

This part is completely missing. Yes gave an outstanding recent, near 2-hour gig in Lugano, Switzerland on July 8, 2004 at the Festival Jazz Lugano. -andy 78.51.106.27 (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Foreign language?

It says at the top of the page that WikiProject Echoes has identified this page as a featured foreign language article or something. I don't get it. The band Yes, to best my knowledge, sang primarily in English. Why in the world is it thusly considered a featured foreign language article? Pippin the Mercury (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It means that the German (or wherever) Wikipedia article on Yes had featured status once.Bondegezou (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Rumors about new lineup

Ok, I'm as excited as everybody else about the rumors that the band will tour in some form (I think we'll all take whatever we can get!) but let's make sure we keep in mind that this is intended to be an encyclopedia-type of article, so we can't list rumors or speculation in the article, and any piece of new information needs to have a source to be included - and even then, sometimes the validity of a source can be questioned. The idea that Rabin turned down an offer to be in the new lineup is very interesting, and it would be great to include it, if there's a source. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right that this is a difficult one to play. Source for Trevor Rabin news is his website. I've added some more on the new line-up with some citations, including my own page, so could others review my edit for appropriateness? By the way, the Personnel table is all screwy and I can't see how to fix it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your site is obviously considered a great resource among fans (myself included), but it's essentially "self-published material" and thus not really a good source as far as Wikipedia's standards are concerned. Please don't take offense to that, but I'm not sure it can really justify inclusion of information here. For that matter, I'm not sure "it has been unofficially announced" has any weight either. Isn't that pretty much the same thing as saying "rumor has it" ? As for the Personnel table, yes... really screwed up. I have no idea how to fix it either... I always avoid those things :) —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 00:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I also included a cite to Classic Rock magazine, who I think are more clearly a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jon Anderson should be listed as a former member, as he's only out the rest of the year at best. It's much different than when he left in 1980 and 1988.Sposato (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your interpretation of Anderson's status is in error. In the initial press release[1] (subsequently described on YesWorld as being "unofficial" and "not approved"[2]), Squire says he "is hopeful" Anderson will be back next year. In the approved press release,[3] there is no such quote. To interpret that as saying that Anderson is "only out the rest of the year" is clutching at straws! Anderson has no active role in the band at present; the Yes name and business is owned by Squire/Howe/White[4] and not Anderson. Who knows what the future might hold, but we should avoid crystal ball gazing. As of now, there is a Yes and it doesn't have Jon Anderson in it.Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Politely disagree with Bondegezou. Reading the link he provided to Squire's site, it says: "Chris has always been credited as the owner of the 'Yes' name. However, the name is co-owned by Chris, Alan White and Jon Anderson. ... Yes, LLC is co-owned by Chris, Alan and Steve Howe." -- G4 Fan (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, that's actually a typo with name and corporate entity both co-owned by Squire/White/Howe. I'll look for a reliable source on that. Bondegezou (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the confusion is. The press release and AP article both quote Squire saying that they are not replacing Anderson and that he hopes he will be well enough to continue on next year. Jon Anderson has not quit the band. I agree with the user who listed his name in the infobox under "on hiatus." That seems to be a compromise. Trendlists (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Being "hopeful" that someone will be back cannot be equated with saying they are a current member (and that quote didn't even make the official press release text). Saying they are not replacing him is just spin. The reality is that Anderson has no role in the band, he isn't touring with them, he's not working with them in any capacity. Unless someone can demonstrate that Anderson has any role in the band at present or that there is a firm commitment for his return, then I think it is against common sense to describe him as a current member. Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A report on Henry Potts's site has him working on new material via the Internet with the band as recent as July. You're right, he probably isn't working with them in any capacity but until a press release of interview or site update comes out stating that Jon Anderson has officially quit Yes, then it is only speculation. WHen the official site has the press release of the new tour right next to a huge picture of Jon Anderson under "member sites," it's tough to say he has officially quit the band. The press release seems to suggest that David and Wakeman are touring musicians, much like Daryl Steurmer and Chester Thompson in Genesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.30.49 (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A press release has come out that they're touring without him: is that not enough? The quotes from Squire are just politeness and PR: they do not demonstrate Anderson remains a member. Drawing conclusions from YesWorld's graphics is original research: not without interest, but not appropriate for determining Wikipedia article content.Bondegezou (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not Yes?

OK, it gets more complicated! This report says that Squire/Howe/White/David/O. Wakeman will be touring as "Steve Howe, Chris Squire and Alan White of Yes" rather than as "Yes". It's early on Monday morning and I have no idea how to represent that! I guess we put Yes qua Yes back on hiatus status, but how do we list this new band without a name? Bondegezou (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is exactly like Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe....therefore, technically, this is a side project or solo tour. Anderson & Wakeman toured together last year, and Howe/Squire/White are touring as their own entity....so (you're gonna hate me for this!) this is NOT Yes and should not be listed as such. CloseToTheRelayer (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, then you're right. It's not "Yes" - worth a mention in the article of course, but wouldn't affect "active" and "member" status etc. But I'm not convinced that it's accurate. With nothing on the Yes site to support it, I wonder if their source is right? Of course it's Variety, but it's not the main magazine... it's their "blog" section, isn't it? Is that reliable? Should we wait a couple days to see how it plays out? —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for CloseToTheRelayer's position. On the other hand, with ABWH, that band existed in parallel to an ongoing Yes. Here, this project (Steve Howe, Chris Squire and Alan White of Yes, or SHCSAAWOY for short) is more closely connected to Yes, managed by Yes management, covered by YesWorld (Yes's official website) and explicitly incorporating "of Yes" into their billing. Nearly all the reliable source media reports just call them Yes. As such, I think they inhabit a liminal zone and I feel it would be better to cover them here. Bondegezou (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All we can accurately go by is the press release issued by the band. The past week of leaked releases and reports has confused us all, but at the end of the day, Howe/Squire/White are doing a tour as Howe/Squire/White according to the official release. There has been no release from the Yes camp of Jon Anderson leaving, nor has their been any activity as "Yes" unveiled by the band. If Squire Howe White is a band, then let's start a page for them. It seems, according to Henry's site, that a rough draft of the press release was printed accidentally by the AP and that's what led to media reports calling it Yes. As bad as the Yesworld site it, it IS the official site and we, as good Wikipedians :), can only alter information based on the band's official press releases. I disagree with ClosetotheRelayer that this is like ABHW. Bondegezou is right....that band existed parallel to Yes (although an inactive Yes). I see this as much more like the Jon Anderson & Rick Wakeman tour last year. Neither person had officially left Yes (this was before Wakeman's announcement) and they went out on tour together, two official Yes members, as Anderson Wakeman. Now we have three official Yes members, Squire Howe White, going out as Squire Howe White. SO techincally, based on official press releses by the band itself, this project is not Yes. Trendlists (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The official press release is ambiguous: it neither clearly says that this line-up is or is not Yes. Personally, I'd like to see that (I believe, deliberate) ambiguity represented in the article, by including details about this touring line-up while also noting their complex stance as not being quite Yes. Howe/Squire/White are not functioning as an independent entity (as the Anderson & Wakeman tour did), they are acting with the full weight of the Yes business (Yes LLC) and management behind them, but nor do they seem to be clamining to be fully Yes. Such a complex stance is not unique and other Wikipedia articles often solve the problem by covering the spin-off in the main article: The Future Sound of London includes coverage of side project Amorphous Androgynous; Gong covers a number of Gong off-shoots with subtly different names; Soft Heap includes Soft Head; and Soft Machine includes Soft Machine Legacy.

That all said, Wikipedia policy favours "reliable sources" like newspapers over self-published material like press releases. The vast bulk of the media reports say this is Yes, with the one I mentioned above saying otherwise. A strict interpretation of Wikipedia policy would say that this is Yes, or would present both views. Bondegezou (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: And, after lengthy debate and edit wars, Asia has two infoboxes, one under the other, to represent two competing bands (Asia and Asia Featuring John Payne). Bondegezou (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That all makes since but why do we have this "project" listed as Yes's current members on the front page? The infobox makes it look like Anderson has quit or been fired, and the new band is called Yes.Trendlists (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does the press release state that they will be billed as anything other than "Yes." Given that it's the official website and the official press release of the band Yes, I think we must assume that it's Yes unless they state otherwise. The Variety blogger most likely read the press release's headline (STEVE HOWE, CHRIS SQUIRE AND ALAN WHITE OF GROUNDBREAKING ROCK GROUP YES UNITE FOR “IN THE PRESENT” U.S. TOUR) incorrectly. I don't think there's enough information to establish some kind of new entity in the article. For the time being, I think it should remain as a new lineup of Yes. As for the "members" listing - must that word have so much weight? Clearly, Oliver Wakeman and Benoit David have been announced as "members" of the touring band, and Jon Anderson is not. Shouldn't this reflect the "current lineup" ? —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 16:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Further sourcing that it is "YES": from the Associated Press: "The classic rock band Yes... has decided to relaunch the tour with an "understudy" -- a Yes tribute-band singer." ... "It's not the first time Yes has had a singer besides Anderson. Trevor Horn...." —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that was released BEFORE the updated press release came out. Remember the press printed an unapproved press release according to a couple of Yes sites. Either way....I guess there's one thing we all can agree on. None of us know for sure what it will be called until tickets go onsale. Whatever name is on the ticket sites, ticket stubs, official marquee, etc., is the name we're gonna have to go with. Who knows, maybe it will be Yes. Trendlists (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

To go back to some earlier points, I've checked and the Yes name is co-owned by Squire/White/Anderson, while Yes, LLC (i.e., the band as a business entity) is co-owned by Squire/White/Howe. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC) YesWorld is making this look more and more like it is Yes. I don't know what to believe now! Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

THIS STRIKES ME AS, UM, NIT-PICKING EPITOMIZED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --The guy with the axe - aaaaaaargh!!! (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To pick those nits some more... I think Shubopshadangalang's approach is correct, but my understanding is that Howe/Squire/White will be touring as a somewhat distinct entity and are not claiming to be (quite) Yes. Thus, I expect there to be reliable sources in support of that in due course, at which point we're back to square one. Until those reliable sources are available, I'm happy with Shubopshadangalang's edit. Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it appears right now (everything appears as though it is "Yes"), but of course you always seem to have the inside info about these sorts of things, so just add sources for any not-quite-Yes (which I guess would be "probably" or "most likely" :P ) info when you have them. —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

With the full tour dates announced, all of which appear to be billed as "Yes", and the NFTE article which indicates that Oliver Wakeman is touring "with Yes" - I can't see anything that indicates it's anything other than "Yes"? And no, I don't think this is nitpicking. Whether this is a Yes tour or a side project makes a difference for the article in several aspects. —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 04:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Some shows now being advertised as "Howe, Squire and White of Yes", e.g. This Ticketmaster list. Bondegezou (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not Yes, Yes?

Several recent reports, like this one in USA Today, are clear that Howe/Squire/White/O. Wakeman/David are not touring as Yes, but as "Howe, Squire and White of Yes" or under the tour name of "In the Present". At the same time, other reports and even parts of the band's website don't bother with the distinction and just call them Yes. Yesworld describes the band membership as being Anderson, Squire, Howe and White. Squire says in the USA Today article that Anderson "[wi]ll always be a member of Yes". An interview with Alan White had him saying of R Wakeman that "he's not really out of the band—he'll never really be out of the band." Oliver Wakeman has also said that Rick is not out of the band. Rick Wakeman e-mailed me this week (which I realise probably doesn't count as a reliable source citation) to say that the Yes name is co-owned by him, Howe, Squire, White and Anderson. So, where does that leave us? It seems to me that the "Members"/"Former members" distinction required by the infobox is just too simplistic to capture the reality of what's going on. In some sense, Anderson and R Wakeman are both still members (although only Anderson is currently listed as a current member), but clearly their membership is of a different quality to Howe's, Squire's and White's. Meanwhile, David and O Wakeman are in a line-up that is, to most purposes, Yes. I'm going to try re-writing the infobox presentation, but all suggestions for how best to represent the situation welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

On tour, the band are pretty much just describing themselves as Yes and David and O. Wakeman as new members. I still feel the infobox needs to represent this some how. Bondegezou (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

2000s membership

I thought it was controversial at best whether David and Wakeman Junior should be considered members, and uncontroversial that Tom Brislin should not. And why is Anderson listed as a current member but not Wakeman Senior? However these two should be treated (and I recognize that as a thorny issue) they should at least be treated the same, unless there's a press release or something about Rick Wakeman leaving that I don't know about. 69.154.180.230 (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources quote Squire and White as saying that Anderson remains a member. They haven't said the same about Rick Wakeman, and the planned summer 2008 tour with Anderson was to be without R. Wakeman too. So that's the difference. On the other hand, I think in some ways you're right, that Rick's status is effectively the same as Anderson's: if he wanted to (and was healthy enough to), he could probably walk back into the band anytime he wanted. I wouldn't describe Brislin as having been a member myself. Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If Anderson is still a "member" why is he touring as a solo act at the same time as Yes is touring? If his membership was hanging on for the fact that he was unable to tour, then that reasoning is now null and void. —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 16:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that: Anderson himself has said that his tour is more a "holiday". It's a low key tour in a one-man acoustic setting and doesn't demonstrate he is fit enough to tour with Yes. That said, Anderson's relationship with Yes is clearly complicated and I refer to my earlier comments. Bondegezou (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Pop Rock

Ok, in what way could Yes be considered "Pop Rock"? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 05:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the material on albums like Yes, 90125, Big Generator, Talk and Open Your Eyes would seem to fit a "pop-rock" description to me, as well as scattered songs from throughout their history (e.g. "Don't Go" on Magnification, various songs on The Ladder). Genre definitions on Wikipedia are often quite tricky because they can be difficult to source, but here's a recent, reliable source article describing "Owner of a Lonely Heart" (the band's biggest single) as "pop". Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the trouble comes with that term having such negative "backstreet-britney" feelings. In reality The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks were all Pop rock bands (they made a true art-form out of it) and Yes' 80s output is loaded with all kinds of "pop as an artform"... as in the examples given in the earlier post. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Personnel diagram

I've removed the graph of band membership. There are a couple of errors on this diagram. Howe remained in the band during the Open Your Eyes/The Ladder period, and Igor Khoroshev transliterates his name with a "K". Bondegezou (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a new album lineup chart. I based it pretty heavily on the King Crimson chart. The current personnel chart does a good job of illustrating the time line. I'm just getting into the band now and I thought a graph of the lineups for each album would be more useful for me and people like me though. But both charts have their uses so I left both up. If you have any feedback on how to make it better let me know. Also, this is the first edit I've made so if there's anything I forgot to do let me know that too. Babaganewsh (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Bondegezou's recent (correct) note on Rabin playing studio keyboards in Yes - is it worth adding Rabin's name into the "Keyboards 2" slot for the 1983-1987 period and for the 1994-1995 period (especially as he played keyboards onstage during the latter)? - Dann Chinn (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Union presents a problem. On the album, there's more keyboard work by Rabin than by Kaye (possibly only on one track) or probably Wakeman, and Sherwood's playing keys and bass on "The More We Live", and Jimmy Haun is playing more guitar than Steve Howe, etc. I have no solution for this predicament! Bondegezou (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The way of getting around the Union debacle is to follow the official line that those people credited as Yes members for the recording are the ones credited in the timeline. Most of us now know that Union was something of a "forged" Yes album, with most of the compositions coming from Anderson (and, for YesWest, Rabin) and most of the actual playing being by various hirees from Elias Associates or friends of YesWest (due to both iterations of the band being basically incapable as collective creative units). However, thanks to Arista's tinkering, at the time the composition of Yes was arguably more of a legal matter than a mechanical one (with the Union tour providing a kind of practical and moral backup after the event). If it makes us feel better, we could say that more of the Union period involved the world tour, and thus justifies using the ABWH-RSWK lineup as the official lineup for the time... - Dann Chinn (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tormato

The article says it was first album to go platinum, but this does not tie up with the discography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.76.80 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Platinum didn't exist as a categorisation earlier in the 1970s, as I understand it, so Tormato was the first album to be certified Platinum, but subsequently some of the earlier albums were certified so too. The article should probably make clear that Tormato being the first has more to do with the category coming in than respective sales. Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)