The Article
Yes: When A Band Is No Longer ‘Fit For Purpose’
29th December 2017
Title: Topographic Drama
Label: Rhino
During it’s 2016 tour, Yes played its 1980 album Drama in its entirety. The first time it had ever done such a thing. More than that, it also played sides one and four from the 1973 double-album Tales From Topographic Oceans. Startling because these are arguably the two most contentious LPs in the band’s entire discography. The first because Trevor Horn was on vocals for the former original album and nearly ripped his voice to shreds trying to be lead vocalist, Jon Anderson, instead of doing what he did best. Being Trevor Horn.
The latter LP was the symbol of so much prog excess that it, quite possibly, single-handedly forged punk. It was also disliked by many rock fans, some prog fans and even former Yes band members. And now both were being played on stage!
This new triple-LP features live performances from 12 dates recorded on the same tour in February 2017, by the current Yes line-up: Steve Howe (guitars), Alan White (drums), Geoff Downes (keyboards), Billy Sherwood (bass), Jon Davison (vocals, replacing Jon Anderson) and additional drummer for this tour, Jay Schellen.
With the addition of And You And I from 1972’s Close To The Edge and Heart Of The Sunrise from 1971’s Fragile, the elaborate gatefold package also arrives with a full size, 6-page booklet.
Mastering is very nice indeed. Despite revealing the give-away spacious auditorium feel the music has been mastered remarkably quietly, prompting a gain boost, further opening up the detail and midrange insight which is both smooth and very pleasant to the ear.
There are a few irritations. The audience gives a standing ovation when anyone so much as lifts an eyebrow while Davison is a pleasant but weak vocalist – he’s no Jon Anderson. He’s too meek and, fragile (sorry) in his delivery. No, um, drama (sorry, again). The lack of emotional uplift and punch harms the songs, I’m afraid and gives the music a tribute band feel making Davison sound like a young Aled Jones.
End of review.
My thoughts continued beyond it, however.
There is something about the lead singer of any band that forges that band’s inherent personality, don’t you think? Instrumental bands have a much easier time of it, in this respect (stand up Tangerine Dream which features not one original member and yet sounds exactly like TD of yore).
Not bands encumbered with singers though. One such band, Yes, has been through varying guitar players and drummers and keyboard merchants and now a new bass player. You may feel sorry and sad that old instrumentalist favourites have left the fold to explore pastures new or they may have sadly passed away but the band has always felt like Yes because Jon Anderson’s vocal was still there, piercing the upper atmosphere with his strong, impassioned, wholly spiritual and rather high pitched vocal stylings. His vocals have always acted as a sort of spine to the Yes sound. A sunlit core around which the music has been formed.
Anderson doesn’t just sing the songs, he believes in each and every word. His unique vocal approach is – has to be – the very personality of the band. If you hear a few words of his sung on the radio then you immediately think, “Yes!” You hear a solo Steve Howe on the radio or Alan White in a different band and you’d respond with, “Hang on…that sounds a bit like…is it…?” And other delaying tactics before a rough, educated guess can be made.
The late and lamented Chris Squire’s bass sound was iconic in Yes terms but you can just – just – about get away with Billy Sherwood as his replacement. Kinda. If you squint a bit. As long as Anderson’s soaring vocal formed the spine of the band’s sound, then it could cushion the tragic Squire loss a bit. Turn that around, though. When Squire was still with us and Anderson was not singing with him, Yes always sounded odd. Unfinished.
With Anderson, there will always be Yes. Without Anderson, there is no Yes. The equation is as simple as that.
You doubt me? Let me give you examples of other bands who thought they could carry on without their main vocal man. Whether those delusions be based on “Sure, it’ll be fine. The fans are too dumb to notice,” or even “You’ll pay us how much if we carry on?” Whatever the reasons, The Doors thought that they could continue being The Doors without Jim Morrison. Hang on, though, this was the same band except for Jim wasn’t it? In terms of personnel, yes it was, sure. Yet, the heart had been pulled from the core of The Doors. In fact, The Doors was all about Morrison’s personality, his delivery, his articulation. As frustrating and annoying and irritating as these important facts might have been to the other three band members, the band was Mr Morrison.
Queen. Freddie dies and the rest of the band haul…Paul Rodgers (?!) into the front man slot. Rodgers? George Michael would have done a far better job, I have to add but George, for once in his life, made the right decision and exclaimed, something like, “No fear, I’m off.” The Rodgers result? Well it wasn’t Queen. I’m not suggesting that Paul Rodgers wasn’t/isn’t allowed to play music with the Freddie Mercury backing band but that collected group of people should never have been called Queen. Even with all of the other original members in tow. It was not Queen. It can never really be Queen.
I could say the same about Thin Lizzy. I could say the same about…well, the list grows. Even Deep Purple have given their band different names when they change their front man but they sneak a silly appellation to it: Deep Purple Mk.I, Deep Purple Mk.II, Deep Purple Mk.III, etc. These are mere twists to the brand name but the band get away with it in that manner.
The only band who can truly get away with changing their front man every five minutes and retain their original band name is King Crimson. The Mighty Crim are unique, though. Their soul sits on a stool at the side of the stage (sometimes in deep shadow), stares at the floor and noodles on a guitar. Fripp, the true leader of that band, is the sole exception.
This is because Fripp constantly and completely reinvents King Crimson. Compare the 70s KQ with the early 80s version. The two cannot be compared. Hence, if Fripp ever leaves for good. King Crimson will die.
Yes find it difficult to reinvent. They find it much easier to clone.
Generally, when all is said and done and in broad terms, you remove the front man? You kill the band. Once you’ve done that, you have to have the guts to start afresh.
Nirvana ceased to exist artistically but also physically, wholly and completely when Kurt Cobain died, didn’t they? You see? Sometimes bands do the right thing.
So, as much as I respect Jon Davison, he does fine work with Glass Hammer, the only reason that he’s in the band is because his name is also Jon and it saves the other ageing band members, whose memories are tending to fade as they approach or reside in their 70s, having to remember a brand new first name. Surely, that’s the reason he’s in the band?
Oh, and I say that I respect Jon Davison? I do. I really do. Much more, it seems, than Yes itself actually does. Why? Because, all joking side, the Yes establishment has, once again, chosen a new lead singer because he sounds like Jon Anderson. That, my friends, is a complete and total lack of respect to the other Jon, Mr Jon Davison. You bring in an independent artist, a human being with his own thoughts and feelings, his own artistic vision and ambitions, likes and dislikes and the only reason, the ONLY reason he is there is because he vaguely sounds…like…another…guy.
Yes, as an organisation and a band, do this sort of thing over and over (i.e. Trevor Horn, Benoît David and now Jon Davison). The only reason that former lead singer Trevor Rabin got away with singing in his God-given voice was because Jon Anderson was standing next to him, at the time. Goodness knows what despicable medical operation Rabin would have had to endure, in order to reach the highest registers, if Anderson would have left while Rabin was still treading the boards with Yes. You need to watch the contract small print, you know.
If Yes is dead without Jon Anderson, as I postulate, then the band should, by all means, carry on but adopt a new band moniker, bring in a new singer (maybe one that has a deep voice? How about that? Something a bit Johnny Cash perhaps?) and produce new work while, if the old songs must be sung, reinterpret them with the new vocalist in a new fashion and allow that new vocalist to impose his creative will on the band not the other way around.
Jon Anderson had the decency to change the name of his new band when he temporarily split with Yes back in 1988. He called his quartet ABWH. Not Yes 2. Or some bastardisation of a classic Yes song title transformed into a band name or somesuch. Just ABWH. Funny thing was, when ABWH were in action they were, arguably, more Yes than Yes were at that time.
So, as far the current band is concerned, just don’t call it Yes. Don’t pretend that we cannot tell the difference. If you want Jon Anderson. Get bloody Jon bloody Anderson bloody. Please do not rope in some poor sap who is acting like some sort of Jon Anderson puppet. A Jon Anderson impersonator. A Jon Anderson doppelgänger. It surely does nothing for Davison’s self esteem, his reputation, his future career or even his dignity to be constantly compared to Jon Anderson. It’s actually distasteful. Davison will never be as good as Jon Anderson because, well, he’s Jon Davison isn’t he?
A message to Yes? Do import top quality band members who are individuals and talented people who will bring new and amazing ideas to the group dynamic. But stop – I repeat, stop – dragging in sub-standard band impersonators. You’ve heard of Fake News? This is Fake Yes. Now there’s a name for a tribute band. Time for a name change Mr White, Howe et al?
I agree with your point in principle, but some bands have succeeded without a name change when the key artist has left, although usually by taking the band in a different direction. Examples here are Peter Green leaving Fleetwood Mac, and Peter Gabriel leaving Genesis. Nirvana did the right thing, but has the world been deprived of their unique artistry, or were they really just your average session musicians?
I strongly disagreed with Fleetwood Mac retaining their original name when Green had to leave. I felt that it was a marketing exercise. In fact, so does every writer and critic who has ever refered to the band. The earlier version of the band is always referred to as ‘Peter Green’s Fleetwood Mac’. Which, by default, is the media/public actually renaming the band on their behalf. In effect, the public demanded a name change. Same with Genesis. PG leaving Genesis crated a wholly different band with a completely different musical direction which was instigated by Collins. Once more, the labels are split by the public using a similar method. That is: ‘Peter Gabriel’s Genesis’ and Phil Collins’ Genesis’.
As for the Nirvana thing? There’s been absolutely no deprivation as the member of the band who actually wanted to carry on has and does.
The PG FM thing refers to their first album to differentiate from the first one with LB and SN. No one calls the band that unless they are uneducated.
Paul , nobody on the bloody Earth could or would have been as honest as you.I couldn’t agree more. However, I think the motivation base to be MONEY. It certainly is not creativity. I do believe the same thing applies with with replacing Jerry Garcia… even if they
Call it Dead & Co.,… Some things need go with Dignity!
Paul, I have to thank you for such a brilliantly written piece that shows amazing insight.
Have a great New Year… Mitch Baron
Absolutely Mitch. Dead on. Money. It’s a pension plan. Why import a Jon Anderson impersonator otherwise? Thanks you for your kind words, incidentally.
They should have a singer who sounds like Barry White maybe? Do you have ANY actual experience playing music?
Well I certainly don’t approve of JA clones. And I’m also familiar with many (thousands) of popular songs successfully reinterpreted by (thousands) of top quality singers. Yes refuse to do this because money is upper-most in their vision.
Genesis stayed in a Gabriel direction for 3 or 4 albums before they changed direction. In fact, early Collins-era Genesis (Trick, Wuthering, Three, Seconds) sounds more like classic Genesis than anything Peter Gabriel was doing at the same time.
And when they did finally change, all prog bands were moving to shorter, stripped down songs to stay current, so that’s hardly a Collins imprint.
Collins himself stated on several occasions – I myself distinctly remember him saying this on the children’s Saturday morning ITV programme Tiswas – that he was fed up singing about fantasy worlds that related little to real life (as in the PG Genesis variant) and wanted to direct his creativity to the latter.
From his perspective – possibly because of what was going on in the background – that meant relationships between a man and a woman.
Yet Collins is and was no fool. He was running a band and a business. He wasn’t about to shoot himself in the foot so he knew that a sudden change would be commercial suicide. His tenure did begin immediately with a transition though. Collins was never ever as hard core as PG in terms of the musical direction of Genesis.
I remember clearly the outrage, the sheer outrage that rose up from the Genesis faithful when PG left the band. The accusations that Collins had ‘watered down’ the original Genesis ethos were heard far and wide. The issues were with those very albums you listed.
Collins’ own pop-related influences were just a happy accident in terms of the band’s later commercial success. I would like to bet, at some point during that time, that Collins turned to the other band members and declared, “There, I told you so.”
Yes, his tenure did retain elements of the original band’s signature sound but to please the old fogeys and to retain as much of the original core audience as possible (again, I remember Mike Rutherford was also interviewed on TV defending the pop ‘sell out’ before a gig I remember, stating that the band still played long, more complex pieces for the older fans).
What a great article, the truth has been needing to be told on this matter for quite some time. They are in their current form a joke, and Davision is a poor substitute for Anderson. Listening to him singing some of the Yes songs would bring a tear to a glass eye. I cannot understand for a moment why Yes fans continue to support them as they do. I for one don’t and wish they’d pack it in and end this torture. Bottom line is it’s all about money than anything else. Howe you should be ashamed of yourself.
I think it might have worked for Genesis (brilliantly) because Phil was able do a pretty good Peter Gabriel at first to ease fans in, and was already singing quite a bit, whether in his two little ballads or in unison with Peter. Though I also do think his transition to lead also was a season of reinvention, and in the end they became a brand new band. But Genesis always were innovating, even in the midst of PG and PC periods. Yes have always kinda been the same (“Owner of a Lonely Heart” era excepted).
I always saw Genesis as two bands under the same name, Tom. To my mind there should have been a band name change and there wasn’t because it would have ‘lost the audience’ or ‘hurt the figures’ or some such. Saying that, I’ll give Phil this: he was his own man. He didn’t pretend to be PG. He did things his way. I wish Yes had that same courage.
the interesting thing is, I’m age 59, for many people of my age group their favorite Genesis album is A Trick Of The Tail, the first one with Collins on lead vocals, then we went back to the brilliance of the Gabriel years but as someone else pointed out here, and it’s true, after Gabriel left Genesis essentially stayed true to the prog ethos with Trick, Wind and Wuthering and …And Then There Were Three (with much shorter songs but still prog-ish) but Gabriel’s first solo album, 1977, was not prog, was more pop, really. So perhaps he would have taken them there, too. And as Collins said, Genesis would not have survived had it stayed a true prog band as Yes found out although it later returned to prog. the only band that seems to be able to do this is King Crimson. And as much as I tend to go ‘yecch’ even freaking Invisible Touch has its moments.
Good point on the ‘survival’ issue, Karlo. Thanks for your thoughts.
The real change in direction for Genesis came with the loss of Steve Hackett. Peter wrote much of the lyrics, and contributed ideas, but the rest of the band did the music–Banks was always core to the music, but listen to Steve’s solo stuff–he thinks outside the box, sees unconventional ideas. I think he was the ‘wild side’ to their music–IMO.
I agree Pete. I do enjoy the current Hackett Genesis Revisited band and Steve is still a master guitarsman. I think Nad Sylvan does a good job on the vocals and find his voice somewhere between Peter and Phil. His solo albums are good Prog. But as to Yes. I have to agree with the author, No Jon Anderson, no Yes. Like the Beatles with Klaus Voorman on bass and hmmm vocals?
That’s true, I remember Rutherford in an interview said that Hackett was the one in the band who was most serious about advancing in music. Look at his works after leaving Genesis, and his accomplishment of becoming a competent classical guitarist.
please correct the identification below the pics of the two Jons. that will add a bit of credibility to your article, which btw, I tend to agree with
No. No I won’t, I’m afraid Mr D. I did that for a very real reason. Have a think. 🙂
I think the issue was a problem of page design – I’ve corrected that now. The ‘mis-caption’ is a standard point of irony, first used by the political weekly, Private Eye. I think the design tweak makes more sense now. Thanks for the kick though 🙂
Kind of ironic that in the midst of this commentary about these two singers, you mixed their names up underneath their pictures.
Hi AlexD
You say that I mixed up the names?
Yes.
I know.
Give it a bit of thought and you might realise why 🙂
Hi Alex D – I think the issue was a problem of page design – I’ve corrected that now. The ‘mis-caption’ is a standard point of irony, first used by the political weekly, Private Eye. I think the design tweak makes more sense now. Thanks for the kick though 🙂
about time ( and a word?) someone remarks on the varied monikers vis a vis impersonators of the YES dynasty…Wakeman will always be Rick…just like Keith will never be surpassed ( albeit I’m always composing in that vein..and since 1971)…Jon will always be Jon… and Chris well,he was the second Jon regarding his choral abilities whist being the consummate bassist of all time… And Howe is dramatically one of the most stylistic guitarists of many epochs…So YES is not YES now but MAYBE? btw I have been using the Squire bass sound for many years in my compositions …. also composed the Keith Emerson /YES suites of 2017…there are over 300 youtubes of mine of many genre’s..btw Rick and I did a dbl CD on Arcade Records Germany circa 1992
Thanks for your interesting points Dr Bill
As for Fleetwood Mac,they still have the 2 band members whose names the band‚Äôs name are derived from…….and famously one of Rock‚Äôs best rhythm sections.
True Woody – and I take your point which is well made. Peter Green was the soul and the direction for that band, though. To such an extent that, when he left, that band changed completely.
Opinions, opinions, opinions. Everyone’s got one…
Nick – I would have respected your own opinion on this topic but posting over 1,000 words of comment from, what, 13 other critics [now edited] tells me nothing about you and your own thoughts. That’s all I care about, not them. If those critics actually want to post their thoughts here (and nothing tells me that they do at this time) then they are welcome but I cannot accept second hand reviews here, I’m afraid. Please post again and tell me about your views.
How many times can you say the same thing over and over and over? Just ask Rigby because he’ll tell you, over and over and over… We get it. You don’t like Davison singing in Yes. You don’t like Davison singing in Yes. You don’t like Davison singing in Yes. You don’t like Davison singing in Yes. Not sure whether you’re trying to convince yourself or others that very point. Guess what? They’re Yes. Officially and in the heart of many of us fans. They have the name, and you don’t, so your opinion is worth sh*t. Enjoy your denial.
I don’t either, surely you don’t!
REALLY!
This is not Yes, it’s a sham and I cannot understand why people like you continue to support them.
“Jon Anderson had the decency to change the name of his new band when he temporarily split with Yes back in 1988. He called his quartet ABWH. Not Yes 2. Or some bastardisation of a classic Yes song title transformed into a band name or somesuch. Just ABWH. Funny thing was, when ABWH were in action they were, arguably, more Yes than Yes were at that time.”
Erm, perhaps because A = Jon Anderson; B = Bill Bruford; W = Rick Wakeman & H = Steve Howe; the “Close To The Edge”/”Fragile” line up of Yes, minus Chris Squire, in other words … just saying 😉
Thanks Rob – yes indeed. I was pointing out the irony.
Better yet:
Just go see Yes featuring Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman. I‚Äôve seen them four times and have been moved to tears at points during their shows. And that happened because of this writer‚Äôs contention that Jon Anderson doesn‚Äôt sing these songs…he wears them like a cloak and embodies them. And you just can‚Äôt go wrong with Rick Wakeman. As for the naysayers that ‚ÄúTrevor Rabin is no Steve Howe‚Äù…correct…he‚Äôs not. He is his own musician! He‚Äôs not trying to immitate anyone. And that‚Äôs why Yes with ARW completely works and moves this middle-aged guy to tears.
Blimey yes, I can just imagine because Yes as a band has brought me to the brink of tears on many occasion.
Minor quibble, but when Paul Rodgers sang with two of the surviving members of Queen, the act was billed as “Queen Paul Rodgers”, not Queen, and they performed his songs as well as theirs.
Bang on Mark, good point and thanks for the clarification. I’d quibble even further though and question why the Queen brand was made at all. I notice the Rodgers uses his name and doesn’t call himself Free 🙂
If Led Zeppelin can dissolve its band after losing its drummer (I’d argue that that tragic loss was not as severe as losing a lead singer) then Queen can do the decent thing too. Or is it a money thing?