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?
Hi Paul. You said: “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.” Jon Anderson now CALLED his band YES FEATURING RABIN & WAKEMAN, which is more sad. Yes without Jon Anderson is also Yes, and Steve Howe is much more important to the sound of the band than Trevor Rabin and sounds a lot better. I love Jon Anderson but he isnt Yes, Yes is THIS BAND like it or not.
Hi Guido – It’s interesting that Anderson did actually add the ‘Featuring…’ bit, though 🙂 The original Yes band don’t even do that and, what do you think, should they? Should they be labelling it as ‘Yes featuring Downes, Sherwood and Davison’?
I like the premise of your article. While I am not opposed to people covering beautiful music done by others, people creating new original music or very innovative covers of others creations is still a much nicer proposition. Sometime back I heard a very interesting cover of the Beatles’ What goes on by Sufjan Stevens; it made me think that it was the kind of cover that YeS used to do. Sufjan sounds nothing at all like Jon Anderson. I was left, however, fantasizing of what YeS would sound like with Sufjan as their lead singer. Don’t get me wrong; he could not cover the classic YeS songs and sound like JA; however, maybe he could make sweet new music with some of those talented musicians.
I agree, Sergio. Covers are fine and revisiting past glories of an established band doubly so. To maintain an artistic vitality, though, that artist has to move forward and create anew. If they do not, then they are consigned to the cabaret/hits circuit and have lost that creative element.
Paul, I would like to offer an alternative take on view that Anderson is the main supporting pillar of the Yes-sound. The executive summary is: I don’t think he is.
And now I’ll explain the experiences that led me to that view.
I neither love nor hate the ‘Drama’ album. It’s no masterpiece, but I’ve ive heard much worse from Yes, and I find some bits quite good. The first time I heard a song from ‘Drama’ (Tempus Fugit), I was fully aware I would not be hearing Anderson’s vocals, and I wasn’t expecting it to sound like yes.
But to me, it did sound like Yes.
The other side of the coin is ABWH. I watched their live concert video expecting it to sound like Yes, but to me it didn’t.
Anderson’s solo work does not sound like Yes either, in my opinion.
From the above experiences I realized that, to me, the most important pillar the ayes sound was Chris Squire, especially his backing vocals. Squire’s harmonizing with Horn on ‘Tenpus Fugit’, sling with his bass, is what made that song sound like Yes to me. The absence Squire on ABWH is what made them not sound like Yes, to me.
The second pillar, closely following Squire, is Howe. He is such a unique guitarist that his sound can not be mistaken for another guitarist. One only has to listen to a Rabin-era live recording of a 70s Yes song to realize his importance. Yet, Squires prescience still makes it sound “a bit like Yes”, but not completely.
Bruford, off course, deserves a mention. He is a unique drummer, in the same way Howe is a unique guitarist, but his tenure was so long ago that I won’t consider him in this discussion.
To me, you could replace Wakeman, Anderson and White, and it would still sound very much Yes.
I do not think that Wakeman’s absence on the 1998-2002 tours (‘Open Your Eyes Tour, ”The Ladder Tour”, “Masterworks Tour”, or “Symphonic Tour”) took anything away from the shows musically. Neither do I think his prescience on the 2003-2004 tours added anything musically, although his personality and presence were a bonus. Khoroshev and Brislin did a fine job.
Although I would prefer to have Anderson on vocals over anybody else, i would rather replace him than Squire or Howe.
I always thought they should have tried to bring in a mature female vocalist to replace him rather than find another “Anderson Clone”
At the time of Squire’s sad demise, I had already stopped taking an interest in Yes’s live performances, despite Squire and Howes presence. Not because Anderson was not there, but because they no longer had that “wow-factor” impact of yore. The song tempos, energy, enthusiasm on stage, and technical musicianship had all declined. Age sadly does this.
I’ll end on a tangent, referring to your comments on Paul Rodgers replacing Mercury In Queen. My take is that Rodgers didn’t replace Mercury. The entity going on tour in 2005 was not called “Queen” or even “Queen featuring Paul Rodgers”. The entity was was called “Queen Paul Rodgers”, ie a partnership between two individual acts.
Queen was careful to choose a partner that was very different from Freddie, so ensure that it did not come across as an attempt to replace Freddie. Stylistically Freddie and Rodgers come opposite ends of the scale. Freddie was grounded in melodic classical traditions and Rodgers was a blues-man, through and through.
May and Taylor was always the core of Queen. They partnered with Staffel in Smile, then with Mercury in Queen, then as “Queen & Ben Elton” for the “We Will Rock You” theater project, then “Queen Paul Rodgers” and “Queen and Adam Lambert”.
A drummer and a guitarist can’t do much on their own, so they need external partners to work with. But no new members have ever been admitted to the Queen family since Freddie died.
Thanks for your considered reply Arvid. I appreciate you taking the time.
Actually, I feel that you’ve proven my case in terms of Yes. For Drama, when Horn was brought in, the rest of Yes didn’t say, “Thanks for helping us out, Trev. Right, let’s make this new album utilising your talents and your style with your unique input. OK? Right, 1…2…3…4.” Oh no, they said, “Trev, can you sing as high as John Anderson please?” Which nearly ruined his voice and is one of the reasons why he ducked out in the end because he couldn’t hack it.
Next? Don’t forget that Rabin *was* Yes at one point. If it wasn’t for Rabin, the Yes concept may very well have shrivelled on the vine. Rabin got Yes into the charts. Imagine that! Unthinkable! Rabin is a case in point. And maybe it’s because Rabin is a strong character that he appears to be unique in this fashion. The case being, this is what happens when a talent is brought into the group and is actually allowed (or demands?) to do his own thing. He’s not bullied to sound like Steve Howe. He is allowed to sound like Trevor Rabin. Which is why Rabin-era Yes sounds so, so different to Howe-era Yes. We should surely be saying that about Davison shouldn’t we? Why isn’t there a Davison-era Yes? Why aren’t we arguing about which era of vocal Yes sounds best? Because he sounds too much like Jon Anderson, that’s why. He’s copying another man’s style. Trevor Rabin never did that. Not once. Still doesn’t.
Now, I agree with you. Howe is a unique guitarist. When Rabin tries to play And You And I, its a disaster. Only Howe can do that. He has the delicacy and the touch. Only Howe translates the fragility of that song to the listener. Rabin is too muscular. Hence, when you hear the current Yes spin off, the Rabin-infused spin-off, most of the Yes stuff they play sounds wrong. Because Rabin cannot interpret the Howe guitar. Wakeman and Anderson are also damaged when Rabin plays early Yes. The balance is off. When Rabin plays 90215 stuff, though, well that’s a different matter. Which, again, proves that he was able to infuse the band with his own unique talents.
In terms of who sounds/doesn’t sound like Yes when solo, etc. That surely proves my case further. That each individual has their own talents and should be able to have the freedom to sound like themselves and to sound unique. John Davison has his own talents too but is forced to sound like Jon Anderson in Yes. Instead of sounding like John Davison and infusing Yes with Davison ideas and Davison styles and Davison techniques. As Rabin did.
We reasoned Squire is indeed irreplaceable as a vocal partner for Jon Anderson. Squires choir boy vocal training helped make Yes a powerhouse vocal band. His counterpoint to Jon is one of their stylistic high points. Squires bass wasn’t his only gift he was a phenomenal vocal arranger. but also he was Chris Squire one of rocks greatest stylistically and technically. it is my opinion that Anderson and Squire are the foundation of Yes music with how tied closely because of his chord structures and choppy rhythms. Rabin gave Yes their biggest hits and all the fantastic vocal things that the 80s years Yes created was pure Chris and Jon. It didn’t hurt that Trevor is an outstanding singer in his own right. I feel like the writer has a good point with Davison. He lacks depth and charisma and Jon is one of the loveliest people on earth and he has power in that high Tenor voice that Davison lacks. I did get goose bumps from Jon Davison’s “Awaken” he hist the notes he respects and loves the music he is also a lovely singer. He just doesn’t grab me by the heart in the way Jon does.
Although I am not an insider by any stretch of the imagination, I believe that the reason we are not seeing a reunion between the two versions of Yes currently out there stem from an unwillingness to embrace Yes material– All Yes material– on behalf of Jon Anderson. No one has ever heard Jon Anderson sing any of the songs off of the Drama album, and this is because I believe he refuses to do so as he was not a part of its creation and probably looks upon it with a degree of condescension. Steve Howe, Chris Squire and Alan White wrote these songs with Geoff Downes and Trevor Horn, and they have become a part of the Yes canon, like it or not, and they are good and appropriate for the time in which they were created; they are not the masterworks that Jon was been striving to create in the 70s, but they still rock and have their place in Yes history. I think the current lineup makes a definite point to play songs from all of the eras (I saw Yes on this last “Royal Affair” tour), including the early days before even Steve was in the band. True, Yes did not play “Owner of a Lonely Heart” on this tour, but Steve and the band has played it on past tours, and Steve played Bass on the song at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, so I do not think it is a general unwillingness on his part to play that material, as it is also part of the Yes canon. I think there are other issues that tend to make a reunion unlikely (I think that Rick Wakeman is probably still upset at the treatment his son Oliver received when he was in the band, even though Oliver himself has been very gracious about the whole matter), but I do think that Jon Anderson’s unwillingness to do all eras of Yes music is the main sticking point with Steve Howe, and as both men are in their seventies, this will probably not create a good atmosphere for any type of reunion. Of course all of this is speculation, but I do believe that both versions have something to offer, and are playing well, but when you compare both to each other, it is easy to reminisce about when the band was in its heyday; each version brings something different to the table. As it is, I truly enjoy both versions, and the attitude of both bands seems to be, the more Yes music out there, the better. As a fan for over 40 years, I am also embracing that philosophy. Sure, I understand that many of these decisions to reform, tour, etc. are based on the finances rather than the integrity of the music, but if it was ALL about the money, the price to get them all back together again could be negotiated and paid. While a reunion of the two versions would be great, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame performance was so palpably tense that it affected the performance, and I would prefer not to see that happen again. Although weird, I think the world is better off with two versions rather than a “Union” version that cannot get along with each other. Yes music has always been greater than the sum of its parts to its fans, and that is why I think they are not like other bands and can survive the loss of Jon Anderson, and are doing so. I will not argue with what others have posted, as some great points have been made… My comment is an attempt to answer the question about why a reunion would be unlikely going forward.
Thanks for you comments Alan – I hadn’t heard the talk about the Drama, etc, music disagreements before, I must admit.
surprised you didn’t mention Roger “Syd” Barret and the Pink Floyd while you were at it.
Hi Jamie – I see PF as a different entity. Two groups of equal stature and strength of output. Pre- and post-Syd, I felt, took two different creative pathways. Both as creative, both unique and innovative, both offering their own inherent styles, both offering strong and bold voices and both appealing to core fans.
Jon Anderson’s Band on the 1000 Hands tour kills all the Yes material they do. There are horns and violin, completely new arraignments with killer band members reinterpreting the classics of Yes and Jon’s catalogue. Jon said recently in an interview that he has new material for a Yes record and would love to record a last Yes album with Steve. here is hoping they can overcome their personal and economic hurdles to playing together.
Thanks for your thoughts, Willard.
No surprise, Jon is also into classical and contemporary classical, he mentioned he studied Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring.
Old article, I know, but the central points of the article remain relevant. When a band hires a soundalike, as Yes did with Jon Anderson and Styx did with Dennis DeYoung, you can be assured it’s a business decision, designed to keep filling the seats on the summer shed tours in hopes that the casual fans won’t notice the difference — or at least won’t be too put out by the replacement, so long as they get to hear the hit songs. I mean, the remaining band members obviously have every right to keep milking their legacy and pad their nest eggs, but it’s just sad to see all that great old music being reduced to a commodity, played half by creaky old musicians who struggle to play what they did in their prime, and half by faceless replacements who are playing a role as much as they’re playing an instrument.
Yes took a gamble and altered their sound by hiring Steve Howe and Rick Wakeman. Neither one tried to mimic their predecessors, Peter Banks or Tony Kaye, and thank God they didn’t. Otherwise Yes would never have evolved past the sound of their embyonic first two albums and developed the classic Yes mystique we all know and love. Then along came Trevor Rabin, who sounded nothing like Steve Howe, and Yes released their most successful album ever.
Of course, Trevor Rabin didn’t join Yes; he joined a band that morphed into a reunited Yes. But the point remains that Yes thrived, more often than not, when they brought in someone who put his own signature on the band and didn’t just try to sound like someone else. I realize Yes is just catering to nostalgia now, but it would be nice to have seen them try, say, a female singer in place of Jon, instead of a guy who just checks all the marks for sounding enough like Jon Anderson to be passable.
But as sad and dispiriting as it all is, it doesn’t really matter much to me anymore. I’ve been a fan for more than 30 years. I’ve seen Yes in concert with Jon and Chris onstage. I have the memories, and I can always pull out the albums. Part of me is glad Yes is still around, but I have no interest in ever seeing them live again. Even if Jon and Steve did manage to mend fences long enough for one last album and/or tour, Chris isn’t there, and Alan is a shadow of his former self (not his fault, but the point remains). Even if Rick came along for the ride, it wouldn’t be enough for me. Yes represents a moment in time that’s fading away, and that’s OK. All things must pass.
Incidentally, I got a good laugh out of the poster who insinuated that Rabin can’t hold a candle to Howe. Rabin is a classically trained virtuoso, probably the most technically accomplished musician Yes has ever had. Howe’s forte was always his eclecticism and originality, which is certainly nothing to sniff at, but from a purely technical standpoint, Rabin can play circles around Steve Howe. He could probably play anything you set in front of him with incredible ease. I realize a lot of Yes fans don’t like him, but at least give credit where it’s due.
Thanks Adrian – and good point re. the keyboard players.
Thanks Paul. Hard hitting but all true sadly.
What are your thoughts on the current situation?
I thought the latest album was dreadful.
Hi John – I’ve drifted away from the group now (as a current entity, that is) and am looking elsewhere but very happy to revisit their earlier works and listen to older live recordings. If there’s ever a reissue or issue of rarities, etc then I’ll be there, of course 🙂 The band still and always will have a special place in my heart. The recent shenanigans won’t damage that feeling. I still enjoy their earlier works.
Hi Paul
Thanks for getting back to me, your piece was very apt and I couldn’t have said it better myself. I feel the same way you do about their music from the past though am saddened and quite angry at the current state of affiars with what they call Yes. All very sad and a lot of it due to blinkered die hard fans who would accept anything thrown at them, along with Mr Howe’s stewardshp.
I agree with Paul Rigby. With Alan White passed away, it is really Steve Howe & Friends, ‘Yes’ ?