Call it morning driving through the sound and in and out the valley
Introduction
Yes, oh yes! I suppose you all know the band that had a hit with "Owner of a lonely fart" and thus helped write the 80's into the history books as the most obnoxious period in modern history. I also suppose that you know that before all that, they epitomized the infamous progressive rock movement with ridiculously sprawling and overblown epics, lasting for eternities and thus could make even the most good-natured pop-loving (or headbangning) soul throw beer bottles at whoever had the nerve of queuing snorefests like "Close to the edge" at the party. Now, I'm not gonna play the fool and pretend that they're not among my all-time favourite bands, up there with Beatles, Who and Zeppelin, because they are, and I'm not apologizing for it one bit! That in turn, however, doesn't mean that I don't spot their flaws, potential as well as actual. First of all, they ruined the 80's (or the 80's ruined them, but most accurately it was Trevor Rabin that ruined them both) with the aforementioned piece of crap that to this day seem to be one of the few artefacts that remain in people's conciousness. But that's not really surprising since, as any good prog band of the 70's, they fell victim of the times and just had to reset their course in order to survive the acid test of punk and new wave, so they cannot really be held responsible for that. The asshole guitarist Trevor Rabin can though, since the relative success of Asia, in which their former axeman Steve Howe resided at the time, cannot be explained lest one takes a little time to scorn that Rabin dude for capitalizing on the musical values of the 80's.
Enough about the 80's though, it's for the glory days of topographic oceans Yes should be remembered, and through the course of 1971-77 they released some of the finest prog rock ever created by five disorganized hippies that hardly could even remember what they had been playing an hour ago. They may have been formulaic in that they constantly strived for making even longer, even more complicated songs, awash in rapid-fire guitar lines on courtesy of Steve Howe, soaring mellotrons and intergalactic synthesizers on courtesy of Rick Wakeman, otherworldly bass riffs on courtesy of Chris Squire, incomprehensible but angelic vocals of Jon Anderson and swirling vocal harmonies on courtesy of them all. Oh, and Bill Bruford and Alan White on drums, they're alright too. See, their lineup changed almost constantly, sort of stabilizing itself around the quartet of Anderson, Howe, Squire and Wakeman and a shift between the two mentioned drummers around 1973. But they took that formula as far as it could possibly go (before thousands of crappy neo-prog acts started to abuse it to death from the 90's onward) while still fresh and exciting. The one thing I believe is their main schtick that made them unique is their ability to drag you through various musical landscapes, partly accompanied by the marvellous cover artworks of Roger Dean (who also designed their famous logotype) as well as the imaginative lyrics, and end the whole journey in a sheer climax absolutely overflowing with emotion. When they were at the top of their game, this is what they did best.
Now, I can easily understand why people don't like them, even disregarding the fact that they made looooong songs, which is an argument I simply don't buy as the same people don't seem to have any problems with live Zeppelin (in whose extented songs there is but a tenth as much going on as in any given Yes epic), Pink Floyd (in which there is but a tenth as much going on in even some of the normal-length songs, not least overrated crap like "Comfortably numb") or even your average modern-day stoner behemoth (in which there isn't anything going on at all). No, the problem may as well be that Yes were indeed dead serious about what they were doing. Just about any of the other major prog acts of the era, be it Genesis, ELP or Jethro Tull, all had that humorous side to them which shined through on their albums musically and/or lyrically. Yes meant business and you just have to dig in to their dedicated face-value sincerity or you won't have a chance of 'getting' them. Furthermore, they took good care of fucking up their often very pretty melodies with sudden shifts in tempo, harmony, arrangement, structure, whatever, and thus rendering them quite inaccessible for the average listener. Once again you'll have to dig in to the general approach of prog rock in which you're supposed to tweak the traditional values, and either you 'get' that very approach and enjoy the fact that they pulled all the stops to expand the horizons of what could be done with a seemingly simple melodic stanza given enough imagination, or you don't get it in which case you might as well stick to your "Dark side of the moon" and continue to play the part of the artful stoner.
Well, as for the seriousness, I'd say: The Who cares? If I want a laugh I'll go and listen to Ween (or "Harold the Barrel"), and I don't see how it could ever be held against them that they actually mean what they play (even if the stream-of-conciousness lyrics of Jon Anderson may be seen as ridiculous, but I don't have to share his vision to the bone in order to appreciate it). And the fucking-up-of-the-melodies is just their thing, and I for one think that it's nice to have something to chew on that can grow upon you over time instead of having an onslaught of hookey hooks that wear off upon the tenth listen. In fact, the 'inaccessible' passages help to balance out the more direct ones, and often make the latter even more emotional and climactic in their beauty (case in point: The "Soon" part of "Gates of delirium") where more simple-minded art bands like Pink Floyd just threshed on in the same pentatonic key throughout their epics. What I'm trying to say is that Yes takes some time to get used to, but in the end, if the stars are aligned, you will eventually be rewarded with some of the most fantastiwastic art rock ever magnetized on tape. Sort of a high-stake stock share.
Like I said, they were as bad in the 80's as they were good in the 70's, but I wouldn't really blow my horn for their most recent 20 years either even if one has to give them props for not only reuniting but actually continuing making new music which thusly affirms their place in the same league as Rolling Stones and the Genesis-less Peter Gabriel. On the other hand it's not that exciting, since what they're actually doing is more or less the same thing that all those neo-prog bands are doing, albeit somewhat more justified since Yes were among the originators after all. Their most recent move is questionable though, as Jon Anderson has decided to indulge in some kind of solo performance venture and the other guys hired a dude they found on YouTube to stand in for him. Well, at least it means that they're still alive and kickin' and might as well stop by a town near you for an aural treat, even if it means that you'll have to endure the sight of an ageing Steve Howe, looking as hideous today as he looked cool in the 70's.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar