Jon Anderson has officially retired from Yes
El Spamito!
committed to his solo career and will never play with Yes again. I
thought you all deserved to know that.
BTW, he's feeling fine. Not well enough to tour, but fine, and is
hard at work on his next album.
TZ_Keyz
> He has informed his friends and colleagues that he is completely
> committed to his solo career and will never play with Yes again. I
> thought you all deserved to know that.
This IS very sad news. TZ
ed...@ccil.org
Did Jon say that he was retiring from touring or from Yes as a venture
entirely?
Steven Sullivan
> He has informed his friends and colleagues that he is completely
> committed to his solo career and will never play with Yes again. I
> thought you all deserved to know that.
Well, you know Jon and his 'plans'.
--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.
Meng
Right. I think I need at least one more source - preferably not called
El Spamito - until I start to think of this as a possibility.
vide...@aol.com
>
> Right. I think I need at least one more source - preferably not called
> El Spamito - until I start to think of this as a possibility.
Yeah.
But if true, it would give the boys in the band a credible/face saving
justification to find a replacement.
Bill
rob...@aol.com
> He has informed his friends and colleagues that he is completely
> committed to his solo career and will never play with Yes again. �I
> thought you all deserved to know that.
how did you find out about this...er...ted?
> BTW, he's feeling fine. �
I've no doubt that part is true.
>Not well enough to tour, but fine, and is
> hard at work on his next album.
but I've significant doubt about most of that...but if that last part
*is* true then he's decided against doctor's orders and is working
with as much as half the year still to go...does he not realize that
he was "near death"?
Rob "the re-release of State of Independence was timed perfectly"
Allen
Chet
sheet.
Chet
att slut
"El Spamito!" <ted_shut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:496e52cb-4965-41f4...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> He has informed his friends and colleagues that he is completely
> committed to his solo career and will never play with Yes again. I
> thought you all deserved to know that.
You forgot to mention all the cum, dicks, asses and gay sex, troll.
Relayer
I don't believe a single word of this. Before he got sick, he was rah-
rah for the tour, new music etc. All of a sudden, he will never play
with Yes again. If it's true, THAT is the reason for the tour
cancellation.
Just BS..thats all..not a lick of truth.
progea
Right. Any normally developed person should have stopped reading that
posting right after reading a screen name like "El Spamito!". No such
news is on Jon's MySpace (ok, no login for one month), Jon's official
site, yesworld, Deborah hasn't blogged about it either (and it's
usually her who blogs for him too when it's not himself), nor such
news has come from Henry Potts. Like, wtf is going on here, even
people who collaborated with him can be such an easy prey for the
spreading of that kind of news? What's your credibility criterion for
that kind of news, please? Give me a reason to trust it.
Chuck
"Hard at work"? I doubt that, notably the word "hard", so soon after
his life threatening illness.
If it is true that he is retired from Yes, I would imagine that it's
just a realization that his days of long term touring are over. He has
stated that his solo career and mini tours are much less stressful on
the body.
With respiration and singing so closely entwined, it is hard to
imagine, with his recent history, that belting out 2 1/2 hours of Yes
songs night after night is plausible.(or all that safe). Seems Rick
was right after all.
Get well, JA
CB
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
I am entirely unable to confirm this report. However, it is consistent
with two other reports: (1) that Yes are planning an Oct-Dec North
American tour with a new lead singer; and (2) that Yes are auditioning
a Yes tribute band vocalist to replace Jon. I am unable to confirm
these either, but they do all fit together.
--
Henry
Steven Sullivan
Follow the money!
Jeremy Weissenburger
8b843e2d-0c82-4a00...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com,
And this idea worked out so well for other bands. Like Judas Priest. And
Journey.
--Jeremy
--
"The problem, when solved, will be simple." -- Charles Kettering
Chet
Re: Jon Anderson has officially retired from Yes
Group: alt.music.yes Date: Tue, Jul 8, 2008, 3:59pm (PDT+7) From:
ssu...@panix.com (Steven Sullivan)
On Jul 7, 5:56 pm, Meng <nos...@fnarg.co.uk> wrote:
El Spamito! wrote:
He has informed his friends and colleagues that he is completely
committed to his solo career and will never play with Yes again. I
thought you all deserved to know that.
BTW, he's feeling fine. Not well enough to tour, but fine, and is hard
at work on his next album.
Right. I think I need at least one more source - preferably not called
El Spamito - until I start to think of this as a possibility.
I am entirely unable to confirm this report. However, it is consistent
with two other reports: (1) that Yes are planning an Oct-Dec North
American tour with a new lead singer; and (2) that Yes are auditioning a
Yes tribute band vocalist to replace Jon. I am unable to confirm these
either, but they do all fit together.
Follow the money!
--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a
----
Moneys' your god
Chuck
> I don't believe a single word of this. �Before he got sick, he was rah-
> rah for the tour, new music etc. All of a sudden, he will never play
> with Yes again. If it's true, THAT is the reason for the tour
> cancellation.
>
> Just BS..thats all..not a lick of truth.
Do you see black helicopters encircling as well? So his daughter is in
on the hoax... perhaps the doctors, the hospital, his wife, Rolling
Stone magazine ....................? With how closely respiration and
singing are entwined, it is quite plausible that he realizes that his
days of singing for Yes; 2 1/2 hours, night after night on an extended
tour is not feasible (nor safe, health wise). Perhaps his physician
advised him of this. He has stated that he finds his solo shows and
brief tours much less taxing. I doubt he see's a point in making new
music with Yes without touring it, thus this decision as he approaches
64 years of age. All makes sense -minus your silly, cynical
conspiracy. I wish him well whatever his final decision.
CB
ccjemmett
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8b843e2d-0c82-4a00...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
I'm not going.
Jeff Blanks
You mean you just *believed* it?
--
"There is no excellent beauty which hath not some
strangeness in the proportion." --Francis Bacon
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
So his daughter blogging about Jon's "near death experience" didn't
convince you that he really has been seriously ill?
--
Henry
rob...@aol.com
well hopefully someone named Wakeman will still be with the band...
Rob "I'm not going" Allen
rob...@aol.com
> >Relayer
> > I don't believe a single word of this. �Before he got sick, he was rah-
> > rah for the tour, new music etc. All of a sudden, he will never play
> > with Yes again. If it's true, THAT is the reason for the tour
> > cancellation.
>
> > Just BS..thats all..not a lick of truth.
>
> Do you see black helicopters encircling as well?
Do you understand *anything* that you read here, moron?
>So his daughter is in
> on the hoax... perhaps the doctors, the hospital, his wife, Rolling
> Stone magazine ....................?
I don't believe a single word of this.
>With how closely respiration and
> singing are entwined, it is quite plausible that he realizes that his
> days of singing for Yes; 2 1/2 hours, night after night on an extended
> tour is not feasible (nor safe, health wise).
it could be that he sees black helicopters encircling, moron.
>Perhaps his physician advised him of this.
Dr. Slowonthediagnosis? Well, at least the good Dr. is able to see
patients on weekends.
>He has stated that he finds his solo shows and
> brief tours much less taxing. I doubt he see's a point in making new
> music with Yes without touring it, thus this decision as he approaches
> 64 years of age.
He's also stated that he's seen fairies...so certainly black
helicopters are about...somewhere...moron.
>All makes sense -minus your silly, cynical
> conspiracy.
it really is funny how you manage to up your level of moron on such a
regular basis...at this point I'm almost convinced that your moron is
*limitless*.
>I wish him well whatever his final decision.
what if he decides to fly off on one of those black helicopters?
Rob "what if he decides to write a thousand more songs like 'Don't
Go'?" Allen
Relayer
Because someone named " EL Spamito" is such a reliable source.
Relayer
ccjemmett
<rob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eae7a026-e2cb-4060...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...> > I don't believe a single word of this. ?Before he got sick, he was rah-
> > rah for the tour, new music etc. All of a sudden, he will never play
> > with Yes again. If it's true, THAT is the reason for the tour
> > cancellation.
>
> > Just BS..thats all..not a lick of truth.
>
> Do you see black helicopters encircling as well?
Do you understand *anything* that you read here, moron?
He does not. However, it seems that at least one other has also tripped on
the Relayer Random Placement of Thoughts Wire.
This is where Chuck pops in to thank you sincerely for your thought
provoking post.
rob...@aol.com
shouldn't Henry wait for some sort of confirmation before reporting?
Rob "maybe not...so Henry should report when Henry is ready to report"
Allen
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
I think it is entirely possible that Anderson has other reasons for
not wanting to work with the others in Yes beyond his health and that
these are part of any decision, if there is one and the report is
accurate, to leave Yes. That said, that Anderson may very well have
other reasons does not mean that his ill health is as mythical as
Relayer believes. He certainly was severely ill and there are, at
least for now, significant limitations on what he can do in the way of
touring.
--
Henry
Kevin Caffrey
wrote:
> On 7/8/08 6:13 AM, in article
>
>
>
>
>
> "use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk" <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 5:56 pm, Meng <nos...@fnarg.co.uk> wrote:
> >> El Spamito! wrote:
>
> >>> He has informed his friends and colleagues that he is completely
> >>> committed to his solo career and will never play with Yes again. I
> >>> thought you all deserved to know that.
>
> >>> BTW, he's feeling fine. Not well enough to tour, but fine, and is
> >>> hard at work on his next album.
>
> >> Right. I think I need at least one more source - preferably not called
> >> El Spamito - until I start to think of this as a possibility.
>
> > I am entirely unable to confirm this report. However, it is consistent
> > with two other reports: (1) that Yes are planning an Oct-Dec North
> > American tour with a new lead singer; and (2) that Yes are auditioning
> > a Yes tribute band vocalist to replace Jon.
>
> And this idea worked out so well for other bands. Like Judas Priest. And
> Journey.
>
> --Jeremy
It put money in the members' pockets...
Sad news.
Kevin
http://www.kevincaffrey.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/caffrey2
Michel Forest
(groan)
Do they really think anybody will go to the show if Jon is not there?
This would be beyond depressing: Yes with a backup singer, playing to
a couple of hundreds in some small venue.
Just call it a day, guys.
Michel Forest
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 5:56 pm, Meng <nos...@fnarg.co.uk> wrote:
> > > El Spamito! wrote:
> > > > He has informed his friends and colleagues that he is completely
> > > > committed to his solo career and will never play with Yes again. I
> > > > thought you all deserved to know that.
>
> > > > BTW, he's feeling fine. Not well enough to tour, but fine, and is
> > > > hard at work on his next album.
>
> > > Right. I think I need at least one more source - preferably not called
> > > El Spamito - until I start to think of this as a possibility.
> > I am entirely unable to confirm this report. However, it is consistent
> > with two other reports: (1) that Yes are planning an Oct-Dec North
> > American tour with a new lead singer; and (2) that Yes are auditioning
> > a Yes tribute band vocalist to replace Jon. I am unable to confirm
> > these either, but they do all fit together.
>
> Follow the money!
What money? They can't ask for a lot of money if Jon's not there.
Chuck
> I'm not going.-
Ditto. A Jon sub and Oliver Wakeman on keys? That would be a sad end
to a great run, IMO. I don't see tickets selling all that great either
(if the buyers are aware of exactly who is and is not in the band).
That may sound silly but in pre-show tailgating lo these may years, it
seems many are there only because of the name of the band ; "Is Rick
in the band tonight, what about Howe, Bruford, Trevor whats his
name.............?"
CB
Todd Mitchell
> On 7/8/08 6:13 AM, in article
>
>
>
> "use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk" <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 5:56 pm, Meng <nos...@fnarg.co.uk> wrote:
> >> El Spamito! wrote:
>
> >>> He has informed his friends and colleagues that he is completely
> >>> committed to his solo career and will never play with Yes again. I
> >>> thought you all deserved to know that.
>
> >>> BTW, he's feeling fine. Not well enough to tour, but fine, and is
> >>> hard at work on his next album.
>
> >> Right. I think I need at least one more source - preferably not called
> >> El Spamito - until I start to think of this as a possibility.
>
> > I am entirely unable to confirm this report. However, it is consistent
> > with two other reports: (1) that Yes are planning an Oct-Dec North
> > American tour with a new lead singer; and (2) that Yes are auditioning
> > a Yes tribute band vocalist to replace Jon.
>
> And this idea worked out so well for other bands. Like Judas Priest. And
> Journey.
I dunno about Judas Priest, but it's working very well with Journey.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-et-albums12-2008jun12,0,3115995.story
The tour is also selling very well. And look who seems to be a fan of
the new lineup:
http://www.journeymusic.com/home.html
Maybe he was there taking notes.
--
Todd Mitchell: Open Arms
rob...@aol.com
it convinced me that the Anderson bunch should have one of those
stupid reality shows.
Rob "where they could relax back to a _near drama_ experience" Allen
rojon
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I am entirely unable to confirm this report. However, it is consistent
> with two other reports: (1) that Yes are planning an Oct-Dec North
> American tour with a new lead singer; and (2) that Yes are auditioning
> a Yes tribute band vocalist to replace Jon. I am unable to confirm
> these either, but they do all fit together.
> --
> Henry
It would be a very VERY unwise move to opt for short term gains above
the overall credibility of Yes. Lets not forget the various canceled
tours associated with peripheral Yes acts in recent history Vs the
healthy turnout overall during Yes' tours.
---
*VERY*
Chuck
>
> So his daughter blogging about Jon's "near death experience" didn't
> convince you that he really has been seriously ill?
> --
> Henry
It's unfortunate that it would probably take Jon's passing to convince
'Relayer' that the cancellation was *not* about ticket sales. (or
anything else, other than his illness).
CB
rob...@aol.com
even Jon's passing probably wouldn't do it.
Rob "how about a video?" Allen
rob...@aol.com
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Chuck <ShorThi...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >Relayer
> > > I don't believe a single word of this. �Before he got sick, he was rah-
> > > rah for the tour, new music etc. All of a sudden, he will never play
> > > with Yes again. If it's true, THAT is the reason for the tour
> > > cancellation.
>
> > > Just BS..thats all..not a lick of truth.
>
> > Do you see black helicopters encircling as well? So his daughter is in
> > on the hoax... perhaps the doctors, the hospital, his wife, Rolling
> > Stone magazine ....................? With how closely respiration and
> > singing are entwined, it is quite plausible that he realizes that his
> > days of singing for Yes; 2 1/2 hours, night after night on an extended
> > tour is not feasible (nor safe, health wise). Perhaps his physician
> > advised him of this. He has stated that he finds his solo shows and
> > brief tours much less taxing. I doubt he see's a point in making new
> > music with Yes without touring it, thus this decision as he approaches
> > 64 years of age. All makes sense -minus your silly, cynical
> > conspiracy. I wish him well whatever his final decision.
>
> I think it is entirely possible that Anderson has other reasons for
> not wanting to work with the others in Yes beyond his health and that
> these are part of any decision, if there is one and the report is
> accurate, to leave Yes.
<gasp>
er...other...reasons...?
This is just too fucking shocking, Henry...just way too fucking
shocking.
>That said, that Anderson may very well have
> other reasons does not mean that his ill health is as mythical as
> Relayer believes.
*Relayer*
(that bastard)
>He certainly was severely ill and there are, at
> least for now, significant limitations on what he can do in the way of
> touring.
er...but does that mean that he *might* be "hard at work" on his next
solo record? Is it possible the *right now* he's bucking Dr.'s orders
and is indeed *working*?
*Anderson*
Rob "that _sick_ *bastard*" Allen
progea
No, no, Henry, I think he actually meant he, like me too, didn't
believe a single word in the original posting in this thread.
progea
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
that Anderson may very well have
> other reasons does not mean that his ill health is as mythical as
> Relayer believes.
No, no, Henry, I think he only meant he, like me too, didn't trust the
original posting in this thread. About Jon's health: no one should
dispute it when word comes from Deb,
Chuck
> > other reasons does not mean that his ill health is as mythical as
> > Relayer believes.
>
> No, no, Henry, I think he only meant he, like me too, didn't trust the
> original posting in this thread. About Jon's health: no one should
> dispute it when word comes from Deb,
You may not have been following 'Relayer's history of doubting the
severity of Jon's illness and his statements about how simple "asthma"
should not stop someone from touring. He has strongly stated in the
past that it was poor ticket sales that caused cancellation and the
illness was used as an "out". I believe Henry (and I) responded to him
in that context. Just FYI.
CB
Chuck
> This would be beyond depressing: Yes with a backup singer, playing to
> a couple of hundreds in some small venue.
>
> Just call it a day, guys.
Indeed. Ironically, I heard 'Video killed the radio star"
yesterday................. uggggh!!
No new music, no Jon, no Rick................... ticket sales ----->
plonk!
It's been a great run. Know when to hold/fold'm
CB
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> "ccjemmett" <ccjemmettSPAA...@rogers.com>
> > I'm not going.-
>
> Ditto. A Jon sub and Oliver Wakeman on keys? That would be a sad end
> to a great run, IMO. I don't see tickets selling all that great either
> (if the buyers are aware of exactly who is and is not in the band).
Steve Howe is a great guitarist and I have hugely enjoyed the multiple
shows I've seen with him, be they Asia, the Trio or solo. Chris Squire
is a great bassist and, again, I've seen great shows with him over the
last few years (in Yes and The Syn). Alan White too, great drummer,
really enjoyed the CIRCA: DVD. I would happily go see any show with
Steve Howe in it, any show with Chris Squire in it and any show with
Alan White in it. I would have thought many Yes fans would agree with
that position.
So, why wouldn't people want to see a show with Howe *and* Squire
*and* White? Is this a glass half-full (Squire, Howe and White there)
or half-empy (no Anderson or R. Wakeman) thing? It seems to me that
something is always better than nothing, so a Yes with a new line-up
is better than no Yes at all.
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > I am entirely unable to confirm this report. However, it is consistent
> > with two other reports: (1) that Yes are planning an Oct-Dec North
> > American tour with a new lead singer; and (2) that Yes are auditioning
> > a Yes tribute band vocalist to replace Jon. I am unable to confirm
> > these either, but they do all fit together.
>
I do now. The details of these various reports may be completely
wrong, but the basic story is true to the best of my knowledge:
Squire, Howe and White are looking to continue Yes with Oliver Wakeman
+ a replacement vocalist.
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> Do they really think anybody will go to the show if Jon is not there?
>
> This would be beyond depressing: Yes with a backup singer, playing to
> a couple of hundreds in some small venue.
People go to see the Steve Howe Trio, people go to see CIRCA:. I don't
see how this new Yes can fail to attract a bigger audience than those
acts. As big as they'd get with Anderson? Of course not, but some
people would go, enough to be commercially viable at some level.
Precisely how many, I've no idea!
Is that depressing? Well, I enjoyed seeing the Steve Howe Trio no less
because it was in a small venue rather than a big one. If anything, I
prefer small clubs: better atmosphere, closer to the performers. Of
course I'd like for my favourite musicians to be more popular and to
be able to attract those bigger audiences, but a smaller audience
doesn't make for a worse show.
Do you think Steve Howe should never do solo shows, or Trio shows,
because he's playing to a couple of hundred or less? Should White,
Kaye, Sherwood and Haun abandon CIRCA:? Should Chris Squire not think
about solo shows? Are you really saying that there is no valid musical
expression possible if you're not filling an arena?
And if Howe, Squire and White should continue with solo and other
projects, despite smaller audiences, why should they be not allowed to
play together? Is it just that you object to their using the "Yes"
name, because a rose by any other name...
> Just call it a day, guys.
Why should Squire, Howe and White be forced into early retirement
because of Anderson's (and Wakeman's) issues? They're still performing
and creating great: I think they should go on as long as they want to.
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I am entirely unable to confirm this report. However, it is consistent
> > with two other reports: (1) that Yes are planning an Oct-Dec North
> > American tour with a new lead singer; and (2) that Yes are auditioning
> > a Yes tribute band vocalist to replace Jon. I am unable to confirm
> > these either, but they do all fit together.
>
I think that's true. However, I'm not certain this is about short term
gain above overall credibility. This may be about Yes ending now
forever, or not.
--
Henry
rob...@aol.com
er...yeah...she comes off just as solid as a rock in that blog.
But really, I don't know that anyone...even *Relayer* has disputed
"Jon's health"...instead I think it's more that some view his asthma
episode as providing a convenient excuse to get out of a tour that
should never have been planned (when and how is was) in the first
place...and wasn't going to do very well anyway.
Rob "when is her 'Paperthin' album/book coming out?" Allen
rob...@aol.com
> On Jul 9, 10:25�pm, progea <pro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > other reasons does not mean that his ill health is as mythical as
> > > Relayer believes.
>
> > No, no, Henry, I think he only meant he, like me too, didn't trust the
> > original posting in this thread. About Jon's health: no one should
> > dispute it when word comes from Deb,
>
> You may not have been following 'Relayer's history of doubting the
> severity of Jon's illness and his statements about how simple "asthma"
> should not stop someone from touring.
*Relayer* may be an insensitive bastard...I"m not sure...but I'm
absolutely certain that you are _pure moron_.
>He has strongly stated in the
> past that it was poor ticket sales that caused cancellation and the
> illness was used as an "out".
of course now that we've got the drama of the "near death blog" we can
know that *Relayer* is just wrong about that. But of course it was
clear that he was wrong from the outset...poor ticket sales could ever
only have been *one* of the reasons for cancelling that bad idea they
were calling a tour...it was just one that they could never speak
about.
>I believe Henry (and I) responded to him
> in that context. Just FYI.
you are a moron that might do better only speaking to your own moronic
responses. Just FYI.
Rob "Chuckles and Henry...two peas in a pod?" Allen
rob...@aol.com
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Chuck <ShorThi...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "ccjemmett" <ccjemmettSPAA...@rogers.com>
> > > I'm not going.-
>
> > Ditto. A Jon sub and Oliver Wakeman on keys? That would be a sad end
> > to a great run, IMO. I don't see tickets selling all that great either
> > (if the buyers are aware of exactly who is and is not in the band).
>
> Steve Howe is a great guitarist and I have hugely enjoyed the multiple
> shows I've seen with him, be they Asia, the Trio or solo. Chris Squire
> is a great bassist and, again, I've seen great shows with him over the
> last few years (in Yes and The Syn). Alan White too, great drummer,
> really enjoyed the CIRCA: DVD. I would happily go see any show with
> Steve Howe in it, any show with Chris Squire in it and any show with
> Alan White in it. I would have thought many Yes fans would agree with
> that position.
I'd rather not see a tired and ineffective Yes come back to fight
Larry Holmes...or Trevor Berbick.
>
> So, why wouldn't people want to see a show with Howe *and* Squire
> *and* White? Is this a glass half-full (Squire, Howe and White there)
> or half-empy (no Anderson or R. Wakeman) thing? It seems to me that
> something is always better than nothing, so a Yes with a new line-up
> is better than no Yes at all.
the Holmes and Berbick fights were something that were much worse than
nothing.
Rob "that's ok, we've no shame so you've no need to feel for us...just
send money" Allen
Chuck
> something is always better than nothing, so a Yes with a new line-up
> is better than no Yes at all.
> --
> Henry
Your points are well-taken. Jon is by far my favorite member of Yes.
His voice is (to me), the heart of the band. Perhaps It would just be
disheartening sitting through a "Yes" show w/o him - or even worse,
having someone painfully trying to sound like him.
Hey, I criticized the recent Genesis tour but ended up going to
Chicago with a friend and sitting second row center, so never count me
out.
CB
Michel Forest
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Michel Forest <fore...@sympatico.ca> wrote [...]
>
> > Do they really think anybody will go to the show if Jon is not there?
>
> > This would be beyond depressing: Yes with a backup singer, playing to
> > a couple of hundreds in some small venue.
>
> People go to see the Steve Howe Trio, people go to see CIRCA:. I don't
> see how this new Yes can fail to attract a bigger audience than those
> acts.
How many people go to these shows? 200? 300?
> As big as they'd get with Anderson? Of course not, but some
> people would go, enough to be commercially viable at some level.
> Precisely how many, I've no idea!
That's the real question, isn't it? Look at "Drama": even the band
members, in retrospect, agree that the lineup did not work with many
Yes fans because Jon was not there. And that was in 1980, when Yes was
still a major band. In 2008-2009, at a time when Yes is largely a
nostalgia act (and at a time when the American economy is struggling),
I can't imagine an Anderson-less Yes attracting more than 1,000
people. You may think that's fine but I don't: this is Yes, not Great
White or some other third rate heavy metal bar band.
> Is that depressing? Well, I enjoyed seeing the Steve Howe Trio no less
> because it was in a small venue rather than a big one. If anything, I
> prefer small clubs: better atmosphere, closer to the performers. Of
> course I'd like for my favourite musicians to be more popular and to
> be able to attract those bigger audiences, but a smaller audience
> doesn't make for a worse show.
When it comes to Yes, I disagree with you on this. To me, the music of
Yes suggests a rather large venue, a big show, not a club.
> Do you think Steve Howe should never do solo shows, or Trio shows,
> because he's playing to a couple of hundred or less? Should White,
> Kaye, Sherwood and Haun abandon CIRCA:? Should Chris Squire not think
> about solo shows? Are you really saying that there is no valid musical
> expression possible if you're not filling an arena?
Of course not, but, again, Yes is a different kind of project. All the
above solo/group projects you name above are much smaller. Yes is a
group that has sold millions of albums and has a legitimate place in
rock history. There is a certain... legacy, if you want, attached to
the name Yes. It's not the same as a new band like Circa which is
known only to diehard Yes fans.
>
> And if Howe, Squire and White should continue with solo and other
> projects, despite smaller audiences, why should they be not allowed to
> play together? Is it just that you object to their using the "Yes"
> name, because a rose by any other name...
Well, yes, I do think the Yes name is special and should remain
special. It's not just some solo project, it has a whole different
status.
> > Just call it a day, guys.
>
> Why should Squire, Howe and White be forced into early retirement
> because of Anderson's (and Wakeman's) issues? They're still performing
> and creating great: I think they should go on as long as they want to.
I'm not suggesting that they should quit the music business. But I do
believe that Yes cannot go on without Anderson.
Steven Sullivan
Henry, HSW would be interesting, and I'd go, though one wonders what setlist could
fill a whole concert. What would be bathetic would be another attempt at
Buggles-ry -- just as another attempt at Yes without Howe would be.
--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.
Steven Sullivan
> Michel Forest <fore...@sympatico.ca> wrote [...]
> > Do they really think anybody will go to the show if Jon is not there?
> >
> > This would be beyond depressing: Yes with a backup singer, playing to
> > a couple of hundreds in some small venue.
> People go to see the Steve Howe Trio, people go to see CIRCA:. I don't
> see how this new Yes can fail to attract a bigger audience than those
> acts.
People going to see Howe and Circa aren't under the impression that
they're seeing Yes.
> As big as they'd get with Anderson? Of course not, but some
> people would go, enough to be commercially viable at some level.
> Precisely how many, I've no idea!
> Is that depressing? Well, I enjoyed seeing the Steve Howe Trio no less
> because it was in a small venue rather than a big one.
No one expects, or remembers, a Steve Howe Trio selling out
arenas.
> > Just call it a day, guys.
> Why should Squire, Howe and White be forced into early retirement
> because of Anderson's (and Wakeman's) issues? They're still performing
> and creating great: I think they should go on as long as they want to.
They should at least not call it Yes, for god's sake...if they have any
respect for their own history.
rojon
Certainly fans would still like to see Howe and Squire etc., but
casual fans will be disappointed to go to a Yes show only to find some
substitute singer. Paul McCartney didn't try to force the name the
Beatles on his group Wings. This would have had disastrous results.
Wings simply had to be accepted for what they were. So as I said
before, to try to pull a slick move and sell a substitution as Yes
will have disastrous consequences for any future Yes might have.
Which by they way, despite the current hysteria, you do realize that
Yes still has a very probable future to protect here. Even if certain
Yes members may not see it today. A 41st anniversary tour is every bit
as good as a 40th. Besides, some Yes members have a history of making
rash statements that after the smoke clears and tempers subside are
able to see things more clearly eventually. So again I say that it
would be a very VERY unwise move to opt for short term gains above the
overall credibility of Yes.
---
NP: Vitriol Killed the Radio Star..
Chet
The media hates YES. YES couldn't save this planet, no matter how hard
they've tried. What's the use? The media hates YES, because of the way
they've used their music. Rock & roll is suppossed to be seen as stupid
at all times.
Jeremiah Harbottle
They could always ask Roger Hodgson from Supertramp. He sounds high pitched
and squeaky. Or Les Holroyd from Barclay James Harvest.:-)
rob...@aol.com
> The media hates YES.
�
there's a story that won't draw any intrst.
>YES couldn't save this planet, no matter how hard
> they've tried. �
Yes couldn't save themselves, let alone the planet...but then I don't
think they ever *really* tried.
>What's the use? �
indeed...
>The media hates YES, because of the way
> they've used their music. �
a fairly famous LA based rock critic once told me that he didn't like
Yes because just werent' "hero-like" at all. I was never really clear
on WTF he was talking about...but maybe he thought rock stars were
supposed to save the planet...or something...I'm not really sure...but
I know it seemed less about music and more about image, for *that*
media guy.
>Rock & roll is suppossed to be seen as stupid
> at all times. �
kinda like: *Here we come, to save the day*...
btw, Chet, here's that film from 7-6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQNRFubW9KA
Rob Allen
NP: The Syn, _Syndestructible_
Michel Forest
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Chuck <ShorThi...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > "ccjemmett" <ccjemmettSPAA...@rogers.com>
> > > > I'm not going.-
>
> > > Ditto. A Jon sub and Oliver Wakeman on keys? That would be a sad end
> > > to a great run, IMO. I don't see tickets selling all that great either
> > > (if the buyers are aware of exactly who is and is not in the band).
> > Steve Howe is a great guitarist and I have hugely enjoyed the multiple
> > shows I've seen with him, be they Asia, the Trio or solo. Chris Squire
> > is a great bassist and, again, I've seen great shows with him over the
> > last few years (in Yes and The Syn). Alan White too, great drummer,
> > really enjoyed the CIRCA: DVD. I would happily go see any show with
> > Steve Howe in it, any show with Chris Squire in it and any show with
> > Alan White in it. I would have thought many Yes fans would agree with
> > that position.
> > So, why wouldn't people want to see a show with Howe *and* Squire
> > *and* White? Is this a glass half-full (Squire, Howe and White there)
> > or half-empy (no Anderson or R. Wakeman) thing? It seems to me that
> > something is always better than nothing, so a Yes with a new line-up
> > is better than no Yes at all.
>
> Henry, HSW would be interesting, and I'd go, though one wonders what setlist could
> fill a whole concert.
Two words: "Jazz Odyssey".
"On bass, Chris Squire. He wrote this."
Chris Jemmett
> because of Anderson's (and Wakeman's) issues? They're still performing
> and creating great: I think they should go on as long as they want to.
Yes, they should go on as long as they want. If Squire,Howe, White and
(hotshot keyboard) want to tour, I will be happy to see them as an
instrumental band, or with a different vocalist if they want to tour
all new material.
However, the idea of them touring as Yes with some poor singer trying
to contort his/her voice into a Yes song is terribly sad. If they want
to do something constructive Yes-wise they might consider becoming a
tight band for when Jon is healthy again. Say, for next summer.
Hopefully any name singer will know better than to try delivering
those songs.(Hodgson knew enough to refuse)
I am a bit afraid of the idea of some tribute band "sound-a-like" who
is used to doing a few shows a month, 10 shows into a tour with
nothing left but a croak.
Chris "The Jon Can't Come But We Need the Money Tour" Jemmett
progea
> What would be bathetic
You got a cold or something?
Chet
Re: Jon Anderson has officially retired from Yes
Group: alt.music.yes Date: Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 5:12pm From:
rob...@aol.com
On Jul 10, 11:02�am, TheTimeTrave...@webtv.net (Chet) babbled:
The media hates YES.
�
YES couldn't save this planet, no matter how hard they've tried.
think they ever *really* tried.
The media hates YES, because of the way
Yes because just werent' "hero-like" at all. I was never really clear on
WTF he was talking about...but maybe he thought rock stars were supposed
to save the planet...or something...I'm not really sure...but I know it
seemed less about music and more about image, for *that* media guy.
btw, Chet, here's that film from 7-6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQNRFubW9KA
Rob Allen
NP: The Syn, _Syndestructible_
---
I can't see the movie. My computer doesn't work anymore. ....and this
webtv can't see it either.
amy
rob...@aol.com
> Re: Jon Anderson has officially retired from Yes �
>
> Group: alt.music.yes Date: Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 5:12pm From:
> On Jul 10, 11:02�am, TheTimeTrave...@webtv.net (Chet) babbled:
> The media hates YES.
> �
> there's a story that won't draw any intrst.
> YES couldn't save this planet, no matter how hard they've tried.
> Yes couldn't save themselves, let alone the planet...but then I don't
> think they ever *really* tried.
> indeed...
> The media hates YES, because of the way
> a fairly famous LA based rock critic once told me that he didn't like
> Yes because just werent' "hero-like" at all. I was never really clear on
> WTF he was talking about...but maybe he thought rock stars were supposed
> to save the planet...or something...I'm not really sure...but I know it
> seemed less about music and more about image, for *that* media guy.
> kinda like: *Here we come, to save the day*...
>
> btw, Chet, here's that film from 7-6:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQNRFubW9KA
> Rob Allen
> NP: The Syn, _Syndestructible_
> ---
>
> I can't see the movie. �My computer doesn't work anymore. �....and this
> webtv can't see it either.
so stop complaining...you wanted it, I posted it, but you can't see it
because you are a COSSHF.
Rob "it's all your fault" Allen
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> Henry, HSW would be interesting, and I'd go, though one wonders what setlist could
> fill a whole concert. What would be bathetic would be another attempt at
> Buggles-ry -- just as another attempt at Yes without Howe would be.
I'm sure SHW could do something really good, and I'm sure they could
do something pretty terrible. As such, they will be continuing in the
Yes tradition! You agree that _Drama_ was a good album, so I don't
know why you think "another attempt at Buggles-ry" would be a bad
idea: what do you mean by "Buggles-ry"?
My best guess as to what we'll get (if this comes off) is a set with
some classics and some less-played songs, with the less-played songs
probably including some _Drama_ and other Squire/Howe-heavy pieces.
Whether they'd pad out the set with some Squire or Howe solo numbers,
I don't know, although a lengthy Howe acoustic solo section would be
unsurprising. What I hope for, but is uncertain, is some new material.
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> Certainly fans would still like to see Howe and Squire etc., but
> casual fans will be disappointed to go to a Yes show only to find some
> substitute singer. Paul McCartney didn't try to force the name the
> Beatles on his group Wings. This would have had disastrous results.
> Wings simply had to be accepted for what they were. So as I said
> before, to try to pull a slick move and sell a substitution as Yes
> will have disastrous consequences for any future Yes might have.
I hope any new Yes line-up would be clearly publicised as being with a
new vocalist, and in today's information age it's hard to imagine the
same situation as occurred in 1980. The comparison with Wings is poor:
this would be more like if Lennon, Harrison, Starr and Billy Preston
had continued without McCartney!
> Which by they way, despite the current hysteria, you do realize that
> Yes still has a very probable future to protect here. Even if certain
> Yes members may not see it today. A 41st anniversary tour is every bit
> as good as a 40th. Besides, some Yes members have a history of making
> rash statements that after the smoke clears and tempers subside are
> able to see things more clearly eventually. So again I say that it
> would be a very VERY unwise move to opt for short term gains above the
> overall credibility of Yes.
Yes have a long history of splits and reunions. The difference this
time is that Anderson's health issues may represent a permanent block
on him touring with Yes.
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> They could always ask Roger Hodgson from Supertramp. He sounds high pitched
> and squeaky. Or Les Holroyd from Barclay James Harvest.:-)
Last I knew, Squire remained keen on Hodgson. Whether Hodgson is keen
is another matter...
--
Henry
rob...@aol.com
I'd hope for something from FooW 2.
Rob "waitaminnit" Allen
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk:
[...]
> > > Just call it a day, guys.
> >
> > Why should Squire, Howe and White be forced into early retirement
> > because of Anderson's (and Wakeman's) issues? They're still performing
> > and creating great: I think they should go on as long as they want to.
>
> I'm not suggesting that they should quit the music business. But I do
> believe that Yes cannot go on without Anderson.
So, if they shouldn't quit, presumably you don't object to them
working together. But if they're going to work together, are you
saying it makes a different whether they do something under the Yes
name or under some other name? I'm with Juliet on this one:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
If they're going to perform together, I'll go see them whatever they
call themselves.
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> > Why should Squire, Howe and White be forced into early retirement
> > because of Anderson's (and Wakeman's) issues? They're still performing
> > and creating great: I think they should go on as long as they want to.
>
> They should at least not call it Yes, for god's sake...if they have any
> respect for their own history.
I'm not worried about history and respect: what Yes achieved in the
early to mid-seventies has stood the test of time despite numerous
stupid later decisions so I doubt anything now will make a difference
to that.
I think a project like this could produce some good music. If they
call it Yes, they'll sell more tickets and that means more shows, so
call it Yes, say I.
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> Yes, they should go on as long as they want. If Squire,Howe, White and
> (hotshot keyboard) want to tour, I will be happy to see them as an
> instrumental band, or with a different vocalist if they want to tour
> all new material.
> However, the idea of them touring as Yes with some poor singer trying
> to contort his/her voice into a Yes song is terribly sad. If they want
> to do something constructive Yes-wise they might consider becoming a
> tight band for when Jon is healthy again. Say, for next summer.
> Hopefully any name singer will know better than to try delivering
> those songs.(Hodgson knew enough to refuse)
> I am a bit afraid of the idea of some tribute band "sound-a-like" who
> is used to doing a few shows a month, 10 shows into a tour with
> nothing left but a croak.
If they do it, of course they should do it right. We'll just have to
hope they pick someone with stamina and the right voice.
As for waiting until Anderson is healthy, and indeed willing, again...
I don't know that that's ever going to happen. Waiting for Anderson
wasted four years from 2004-8 and the indications now is that Anderson
isn't waiting for them any more.
--
Henry
Peter Smith
He never said that.
Just taking a rest from fame.
I bet he is feeling better, everyday.
Gotta go, Beer truck here.
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote
> > Henry, HSW would be interesting, and I'd go, though one wonders what setlist could
> > fill a whole concert. What would be bathetic would be another attempt at
> > Buggles-ry -- just as another attempt at Yes without Howe would be.
> I'm sure SHW could do something really good, and I'm sure they could
> do something pretty terrible. As such, they will be continuing in the
> Yes tradition! You agree that _Drama_ was a good album, so I don't
> know why you think "another attempt at Buggles-ry" would be a bad
> idea: what do you mean by "Buggles-ry"?
I mean an attempt to perform Yes music without Jon Anderson, in that
particular instance. On record, the Drama lineup was fine. Live,
not so much, and particualrly not when attempting Anderson-era
Yes. As even Trevor Horn seems to agree.
Peter Smith
NP: latter
Peter Smith
With all this bullshit.
Peter Smith
Chet
cheer. ...Gotta get rid of all the guru god babblers
Peter Smith
Peter Smith
What about it?
Michel Forest
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 3:09 pm, Michel Forest <fore...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk:
> [...]
> > > > Just call it a day, guys.
>
> > > Why should Squire, Howe and White be forced into early retirement
> > > because of Anderson's (and Wakeman's) issues? They're still performing
> > > and creating great: I think they should go on as long as they want to.
>
> > I'm not suggesting that they should quit the music business. But I do
> > believe that Yes cannot go on without Anderson.
>
> So, if they shouldn't quit, presumably you don't object to them
> working together.
Of course not.
> But if they're going to work together, are you
> saying it makes a different whether they do something under the Yes
> name or under some other name?
Yep, it does. Because a key element of the Yes sound will be missing.
It just won't be the same. Billy Sherwood wrote pretty much the same
thing on his My Space page.
Let me put it this way: "Drama" is a terrific album and that lineup
was, in my opinion, great. The only problem was Horn, who could not
sing Jon's vocals. So it was a mistake to keep the Yes name because it
created a high level of expectations that the group could not match,
so they decided to split up after the tour... Well, I see the same
situation now: If Steve, Chris and Alan want to work together, they
should do it under another name. That way, there's far less pressure
to live up to the legacy of the Yes name. It may not be as lucrative,
but on the other hand, if they do tour as Yes with a new singer, I can
bet you there will be plenty of angry fans who will say that they miss
Jon, that it was not as good, etc. And they probably will not go back
the next time around.
> I'm with Juliet on this one:
>
> "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
> By any other name would smell as sweet."
> If they're going to perform together, I'll go see them whatever they
> call themselves.
That's fine, but I still think that the name makes a big difference.
As I wrote, "Yes" is special to me, and I don't want that name used
lightly. Ideally, I'd like them to record some new music, as a trio or
with guest musicians on vocals and keys, and tour to support that new
music. Obviously, they'll play some Yes music but maybe they'll be
able to try some new twists on it.
rojon
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> rojon <Rojont...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Certainly fans would still like to see Howe and Squire etc., but
> > casual fans will be disappointed to go to a Yes show only to find some
> > substitute singer. Paul McCartney didn't try to force the name the
> > Beatles on his group Wings. This would have had disastrous results.
> > Wings simply had to be accepted for what they were. So as I said
> > before, to try to pull a slick move and sell a substitution as Yes
> > will have disastrous consequences for any future Yes might have.
>
> I hope any new Yes line-up would be clearly publicised as being with a
> new vocalist, and in today's information age it's hard to imagine the
> same situation as occurred in 1980. The comparison with Wings is poor:
> this would be more like if Lennon, Harrison, Starr and Billy Preston
> had continued without McCartney!
>
...which would have been a terrible idea, Yes?
> > Which by they way, despite the current hysteria, you do realize that
> > Yes still has a very probable future to protect here. Even if certain
> > Yes members may not see it today. A 41st anniversary tour is every bit
> > as good as a 40th. Besides, some Yes members have a history of making
> > rash statements that after the smoke clears and tempers subside are
> > able to see things more clearly eventually. So again I say that it
> > would be a very VERY unwise move to opt for short term gains above the
> > overall credibility of Yes.
>
> Yes have a long history of splits and reunions. The difference this
> time is that Anderson's health issues may represent a permanent block
> on him touring with Yes.
may is the operative word. So why gamble on Yes future for short term
gain?
rojon
Short sighted. More $ today maybe, maybe not. But certainly no way
this nets Yes more respect among fans and promoters in the long run.
rojon
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As for waiting until Anderson is healthy, and indeed willing, again...
> I don't know that that's ever going to happen. Waiting for Anderson
> wasted four years from 2004-8 and the indications now is that Anderson
> isn't waiting for them any more.
Doesn't make sense. After a song like sooner than later are we to
think there has suddenly been a schizophrenic turnaround and Jon
simply doesn't feel like touring with Yes?
The only thing that makes sense of the scenario is that since Jon is
not able to move forward "NOW - TODAY DAMN IT", that the other three
say well we are moving on anyway.
Jon's statements more reflect a sense of betrayal than disinterest.
Paul Goodwin
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11ca2ab7-429f-4b54...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> So, why wouldn't people want to see a show with Howe *and* Squire
> *and* White?
I would like to see that show.
Just don't call it "Yes"
>It seems to me that
> something is always better than nothing, so a Yes with a new line-up
> is better than no Yes at all.
Sometimes it's best not to carry on right down to the bitter end.
Hey I have a great idea--- why not rename Ringo's "All Star Band" & call it
"The Beatles".
--
Paul
rob...@aol.com
"The Beatles" are playing Pechanga?
Rob "I'm going" Allen
Peter
> > So, why wouldn't people want to see a show with Howe *and* Squire
> > *and* White?
>
> I would like to see that show.
>
> Just don't call it "Yes"
Agreed!
body count
"Paul Goodwin" <yess1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:98Zdk.16777$tN1....@newsfe17.phx...
>
> <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:11ca2ab7-429f-4b54...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> So, why wouldn't people want to see a show with Howe *and* Squire
>> *and* White?
>
>
> I would like to see that show.
>
>
> Just don't call it "Yes"
Wall it what? No?
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> Short sighted. More $ today maybe, maybe not. But certainly no way
> this nets Yes more respect among fans and promoters in the long run.
At this point, I'm not certain there *is* a long run to worry about!
--
Henry
rob...@aol.com
so I guess they should just look to get as much money as they can, any
way they can get it.
Rob "respect and legacy are overrated anyway" Allen
Michel Forest
> On Jul 14, 2:43�pm, "use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
>
> <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 4:57�am, rojon <Rojont...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Short sighted. More $ today maybe, maybe not. But certainly no way
> > > this nets Yes more respect among fans and promoters in the long run.
>
> > At this point, I'm not certain there *is* a long run to worry about!
>
> so I guess they should just look to get as much money as they can, any
> way they can get it.
Errr... what else is new? They've been doing that since... the Union
tour? (and maybe before...)
rob...@aol.com
I completely disagree on the timing...they've really only been doing
that since Wakeman rejoined after the Symphonic Tour.
Rob "and so they're still on that tip, only without Napoleon and
Skater" Allen
Steven Sullivan
> On 14 juil, 19:06, "robm...@aol.com" <robm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Jul 12, 4:57?am, rojon <Rojont...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Short sighted. More $ today maybe, maybe not. But certainly no way
> > > > this nets Yes more respect among fans and promoters in the long run.
> >
> > > At this point, I'm not certain there *is* a long run to worry about!
> >
> > so I guess they should just look to get as much money as they can, any
> > way they can get it.
> Errr... what else is new? They've been doing that since... the Union
> tour? (and maybe before...)
Anyone got Wakeman's 'Money' rap handy?
--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)
Michel Forest
In a way, I agree with you. But Yes is known to having made decisions
based on short-term goals (i.e. money). Take the whole Drama episode,
which was in part necessary because the band had already sold out a US
tour. And the Union thing smells like a "take the money and run" deal.
Michel Forest
> Michel Forest <fore...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > On 14 juil, 19:06, "robm...@aol.com" <robm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 14, 2:43?pm, "use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
>
> > > <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 12, 4:57?am, rojon <Rojont...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Short sighted. More $ today maybe, maybe not. But certainly no way
> > > > > this nets Yes more respect among fans and promoters in the long run.
>
> > > > At this point, I'm not certain there *is* a long run to worry about!
>
> > > so I guess they should just look to get as much money as they can, any
> > > way they can get it.
> > Errr... what else is new? They've been doing that since... the Union
> > tour? (and maybe before...)
>
> Anyone got Wakeman's 'Money' rap handy?
Isn't that rap mainly a rant against the UK tax laws? I never paid
much attention, because the song sucks.
rojon
It seems that rampant negativity that has taken over all the Yes fora.
But there still could be smart alternatives for Yes to make today for
ALL concerned and not offend anyone or any potential future.
Remember ABWH? Actual Yes members were able to tour without calling
themselves Yes by using phrases like "an evening of Yes music." My
point here is not so much about the legal use of the name Yes as it is
about not damaging the profitability of the name.
It is being said that the 3 remaining members have the right to tour
as Yes because Jon held Yes off the market for years. But seriously,
how often was it said during the last tours that Yes had over
saturated the market?
It was the wise move to sit out a bit. Look how long it is between
Floyd tours. The very reason this tour had moved forward when it
finally did was due to the willingness of ALL MEMBERS. But
unfortunately health issue played a part at a critical time. Rather
than roll with this misfortune, the 3 members are testing the waters
of touring as YES but with a surrogate singer.
But now, today, no matter how you cut it, you are faced with some
version of "the goose that laid the golden egg". If you call yourself
Yes and tour with a surrogate, the general public will feel swindled
and angry that they have been tricked. Enjoy your golden egg TODAY
because it will probably be the death of using the name Yes with any
credibility TOMORROW.
Better to be up front with the public and not force that golden egg
todayand kill the goose. Why not simply tour as SHW or maybe yesSHOWs
(the O is for Oliver).
jonathan
> Anyone got Wakeman's 'Money' rap handy?
Money high, Money low
Money come , Money go.
'Don*t worry me
'Don*t worry me
(Money don*t buy)
The things that we like, the things that we love
The things that we have, so high above
Don*t bother me
(It doesn*t even matter to you)
Don*t bother me
(Money doesn*t grow on trees)
Just don*t worry!
Now listen!
Suns do shine, moons do glow
Simplicity everyone knows
Don*t hurry me
(I*m in the middle of a dream)
Don*t hurry me
(It*s not at all the way it seems)
Now!
Money so high, money so low
Money to count, money to go
It won*t be there where I go
(Where is that you*re going to?)
It won*t be there where I go
(Where is that you*re going to?)
Just won*t be there
No way!
[...Screw anything you can... and I*m trying
to do that with the country...]
Do wop...
Da da da...