Source for Wakeman rumors?
Chris Hosford
or recording plans that this Wakeman stuff starts up again and never actually
comes to any sort of fruition. I remember this time last year people were all
nuts over whether he was going to be brought back to help with the
orchestration on _Magnification_. What I'd like to know is if Yes has made any
particular efforts at courting Wakeman and if there is any source for the
current crop of rumors or if this is simply an instance of fans playing
matchmaker?
"We stare at our screens all our lives. What a waste of eyes." Steve Hogarth
VidEOSMM
announcement be if it said "Yes will tour yet again next summer, once again
playing all there old favorites from 30 years ago... borrring....." Right?
They probably have no clue as to what they are going to do, other than get
together to make some money on a summer tour. Concept will come later. After
three ideas have been tried and fall apart, they will proudly proclaim that the
fourth idea was really the one they always wanted to do, for the past ten,
twenty... fill in the blank years. Jon will say it's what he has been waiting
for. Steve will grin and bear it.
They probably could entice Trevor AND Rick into a short tour. Tervor would do
it for fun if it was short. Rick would hold out for money... and he's worth it.
He also would only want a short tour of larger dates.
ELP was long rumored to be set to return for a 30th anniversary tour. Money
conquers all differences.
I believe the special tour could be anything. ..... we had Masterworks, with
orchestra.... now what?
Bill
Chris Hosford
>do
>it for fun if it was short. Rick would hold out for money... and he's worth
>it.
>He also would only want a short tour of larger dates.
The one thing that gives this stuff a measure of credibility for me is the box
set. If I'm Rhino and I'm putting together an exhaustive and thorough Yes
package then I darned well want Yes on tour promoting it and, from a
promotional perspective, I would definitely prefer that Wakeman and Rabin be
there.
Paul Goodwin
"VidEOSMM" <vide...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020126214132...@mb-cq.aol.com...
I think Jon has the right idea. Scrap the spring/summer tour, and take some
time off.
I think maybe a couple of years off, take some time to write some *quality*
material, maybe try to do a 30-40+ minute epic, but do it *properly*, taking
lots of time to iron out any kinks, making sure it works, not rushing it to
tape like Keys.
Work on some solo stuff, recharge the batteries, _then_ think about
regrouping & touring, with or without Wakeman.
I think the band have oversaturated themselves the last few years, there's
too much previously released material being released yet again (A
Magnification double disk?? good grief.).
I understand they need to eat, but people are going to stop giving a damn
whether they go to the shows or not, because after all, miss them this time
& they'll be back in a few months...........
--
Paul
"There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the
streets?"
-Dick Cavett
Yann Clochec
uncle...@aol.com.TARDIS (Chris Hosford), lost in all the noise,
silently whispered :
>What I'd like to know is if Yes has made any
>particular efforts at courting Wakeman and if there is any source for the
>current crop of rumors or if this is simply an instance of fans playing
>matchmaker?
Source I have : Paul Silveira and Alan White, after-show party, London
12/5/2001. Seems Wakeman's return was a given for both of them as
early as that.
harry.wj
some
> time off.
> I think maybe a couple of years off, take some time to write some
*quality*
> material, maybe try to do a 30-40+ minute epic, but do it *properly*,
taking
> lots of time to iron out any kinks, making sure it works, not rushing it
to
> tape like Keys.
> Work on some solo stuff, recharge the batteries, _then_ think about
> regrouping & touring, with or without Wakeman.
> I think the band have oversaturated themselves the last few years, there's
> too much previously released material being released yet again (A
> Magnification double disk?? good grief.).
> I understand they need to eat, but people are going to stop giving a damn
> whether they go to the shows or not, because after all, miss them this
time
> & they'll be back in a few months...........
Paul, your words here are the first to get me genuinely excited about Yes's
immediate prospects, even if it's only an idea (All that is except two
words: "with Wakeman" - which would be a bad move IMHO).
harry.wj
Goon
"Some of the sources seem reputable. I can't say which ones, though,
sorry." - Steven Sullivan
"...according to several credible sources close to Yes' management."
- Paul Rogers
"...the current surge of rumours are plausible and do seem
qualitatively different from false alarms in the recent past." - Henry
Potts
--
Jon P. Moran
Goon
> 12/5/2001. Seems Wakeman's return was a given for both of them as
> early as that.
Come on, Yann, spill the beans! What was said?
Bravo; it makes a nice change from 'reputable sources!'
--
Jon P. Moran
Yann Clochec
go...@emulationzone.org (Goon), lost in all the noise, silently
whispered :
>> Source I have : Paul Silveira and Alan White, after-show party, London
>> 12/5/2001. Seems Wakeman's return was a given for both of them as
>> early as that.
>
>Come on, Yann, spill the beans! What was said?
That the next tour (meaning at that time April in the USA) would have
Wakeman on keys. That Rick was (and probably still is) broke because
of the divorce and agreed to do the Yes tour for the money. That all
solo tour plans for 2002 announced by Rick would be cancelled. At
least the last point should be easy to verify by now.
froy
"VidEOSMM" <vide...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020126214132...@mb-cq.aol.com...
> It is all speculation
>
> Bill
>
>
froy
"Chris Hosford" <uncle...@aol.com.TARDIS> wrote in message
news:20020126204814...@mb-cr.aol.com...
> You know, it seems like every time Yes is in a down period with no current
tour
> or recording plans that this Wakeman stuff starts up again and never
actually
> comes to any sort of fruition. I remember this time last year people were
all
> nuts over whether he was going to be brought back to help with the
> orchestration on _Magnification_. What I'd like to know is if Yes has
made any
> particular efforts at courting Wakeman and if there is any source for the
> current crop of rumors or if this is simply an instance of fans playing
> matchmaker?
Yes and No .
Scott Bassin
Chris Hosford wrote:
> >They probably could entice Trevor AND Rick into a short tour. Tervor would
> >do
> >it for fun if it was short. Rick would hold out for money... and he's worth
> >it.
> >He also would only want a short tour of larger dates.
>
> The one thing that gives this stuff a measure of credibility for me is the box
> set. If I'm Rhino and I'm putting together an exhaustive and thorough Yes
> package then I darned well want Yes on tour promoting it and, from a
> promotional perspective, I would definitely prefer that Wakeman and Rabin be
> there.
Except the folks at Rhino don't think like regular record label execs. They are
primarily a reissue label and don't really care if the artist is touring or not as
their specialty is compilations.
Scott
Henry Potts
>I think Jon has the right idea. Scrap the spring/summer tour, and take some
>time off.
>I think maybe a couple of years off, take some time to write some *quality*
>material, maybe try to do a 30-40+ minute epic, but do it *properly*, taking
When has spending a long time on a Yes album ensured quality? Some of
their best material was written and recorded preposterously quickly
(_Fragile_, _Close to the Edge_, _Drama_), as was some of their worst
(_Open Your Eyes_). Albums like _Tales..._ and _Relayer_ didn't need a
couple of years; albums like _Big Generator_ and _Talk_ took a couple of
years.
--
Henry
Henry Potts
wsp
"VidEOSMM" <vide...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020126214132...@mb-cq.aol.com...
Zen Cat36
regrouping & touring, with or without Wakeman. I think the band have
oversaturated themselves the last few years,>>
These guys are pushing 60. I don't think they have that kind of luxury anymore
if they want to keep Yes productive and going strong. If Rick is coming back,
they have an incredible opportunity to reform the classic band, the classic
sound. Magnification is such a high, imo. Keep it going!
Paul Goodwin
"Henry Potts" <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.ukREMOVETOEMAIL> wrote in message
news:Dz0BDmAw...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk...
That comes as no surprise.
--
Paul
"I worry that the person who thought up Muzak may be thinking up something
else"
- Lily Tomlin
gmelin
Paul Goodwin <pgoodwin2N...@cogeco.ca> wrote in article
<a31bfk$14nend$1...@ID-46095.news.dfncis.de>...
|
| "Henry Potts" <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.ukREMOVETOEMAIL> wrote in
message
| news:Dz0BDmAw...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk...
| > I liked mine the best.
| > --
|
| That comes as no surprise.
Indeed.
--
gmelin
Not everyone is a manipulative lech. Or so I've been told.
-- Jane Lane
Nic Caciappo
Yann Clochec wrote:
>
>
> That the next tour (meaning at that time April in the USA) would have
> Wakeman on keys. That Rick was (and probably still is) broke because
> of the divorce and agreed to do the Yes tour for the money. That all
> solo tour plans for 2002 announced by Rick would be cancelled. At
> least the last point should be easy to verify by now.
It should be known that a year ago in January before the Magnafication
recording and tour, the band was interested in bringing Rick on board,
especially to do the orchestration and tour. This invitation came a half year
after Nina and Rick split. Rick didn't take the offer "for the money" then.
He couldn't do it at the time (once again) due to prior commitments. But if
Rick is going to clear his schedule this time for 2002. then that's a step in
the right direction, right?
Nic
Paul Goodwin
"Zen Cat36" <zenc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020127113443...@mb-fd.aol.com...
> <<Work on some solo stuff, recharge the batteries, _then_ think about
> regrouping & touring, with or without Wakeman. I think the band have
> oversaturated themselves the last few years,>>
>
> These guys are pushing 60. I don't think they have that kind of luxury
anymore
> if they want to keep Yes productive and going strong. If Rick is coming
back,
> they have an incredible opportunity to reform the classic band, the
classic
> sound.
.............and no doubt playing the same "classics" that we've been
hearing every tour or every other tour for *decades* now.
Bye bye Gates.
Bye bye Ritual
Sorry you couldn't come to the party To Be Over, Sound Chaser, The
Remembering, The Ancient, Homeworld, Dreamtime and others.
Why HELLO Awaken! Haven't seen you in a couple of years, and who's that
with you-- why it's Close To The Edge...again.
Hi there Heart Of The Sunrise.
gah.
Theus
What makes you think that Wakeman will make any difference? I've found
most of his recent work rather disappointing. He can obviously play well
and I don't think anyone would debate that, it is composing, arranging,
choice in sounds and what he chooses to play that I've had problems with.
Sometimes Wakeman does get it right, but it seems that is far less often
than it used to.
I honestly think someone else should program the sounds of his synths
for him. I also think that when Wakeman keeps it simple he can occasionally
pull off something special. This would be much like his New Age piano
albums, that were quite good and relatively relaxing. A series of concerts
with Wakeman may be good, but it is hardly any guarantee. The main reason
for Yes to attempt would be to play the reunion card again, IMHO.
--
Michael E.J. Smith
One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and
in the darkness bind them
In honour of Bill Gates
Goon
> Wakeman on keys. That Rick was (and probably still is) broke because
> of the divorce and agreed to do the Yes tour for the money. That all
> solo tour plans for 2002 announced by Rick would be cancelled. At
> least the last point should be easy to verify by now.
My god! That's pretty convincing, isn't it? Thanks, Yann! It's not
often we get such direct information here, and it makes a refreshing
change.
--
Jon P. Moran
Henry Potts
>They probably have no clue as to what they are going to do, other than get
>together to make some money on a summer tour. Concept will come later. After
>three ideas have been tried and fall apart, they will proudly proclaim that the
>fourth idea was really the one they always wanted to do, for the past ten,
>twenty... fill in the blank years. Jon will say it's what he has been waiting
>for. Steve will grin and bear it.
I'm sure they will put the best spin on whatever they decide to do, but
the logistics of a tour mean that they better have at least some idea of
what they are doing this summer or it will be too late to organise the
tour! Now is precisely when we would expect the band and management to
be thinking about these sorts of questions: where, should they still be
with an orchestra and who will be on keys?
>They probably could entice Trevor AND Rick into a short tour. Tervor
>would do it for fun if it was short.
Although there appears to be some justification for speculation about a
possible return for Wakeman, suggestions that Rabin could tour with Yes
seem wholly speculative to me. What strikes me as more likely is that
Rabin might join a Conspiracy tour, which would then see Squire, White,
Sherwood and Rabin playing YesWest tunes live.
>Rick would hold out for money... and he's worth it. He also would only
>want a short tour of larger dates. [...]
That seems quite likely, which might be welcome to Jon Anderson in
particular, who seems the most tired out from touring. However, while
possibly commercially and logistically favourable to the band, I know I
as a fan will miss seeing them in more intimate venues.
--
Henry
Yes and Yes members news: <http://www.bondegezou.demon.co.uk/wnyesm.htm>
David Rheault
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:01c1a753$8f501980$83f9fc9e@computer...
>
> | "Henry Potts" <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.ukREMOVETOEMAIL> wrote in
> message
> | news:Dz0BDmAw...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk...
> | > I liked mine the best.
> | > --
> |
> | That comes as no surprise.
>
> Indeed.
His is no disgrace.
dcr
Nic Caciappo
Theus wrote:
>
>
> What makes you think that Wakeman will make any difference?
Because he always has, right from the start with Fragile and even with his
"return" on GFTO (Awaken especially), not to forget his return with KTA 1+2.
> I've found
> most of his recent work rather disappointing. He can obviously play well
> and I don't think anyone would debate that, it is composing, arranging,
> choice in sounds and what he chooses to play that I've had problems with.
Well, I could agree with you here, though there are exceptions. This point you
make could be pinned on all Yes men and their projects outside of Yes. Jon has
made some great stuff, but he too is responsible for some clunkers, as well as
Steve. Let's not hold it against them, because when you put all of these parts
together = it's simply awesome. Enjoy it......
Nic
Mark Erasure
Oh, I liked your follow-up *alot* better. I found it to be more
informative, a little less open to (mis)interpretation... You laid a
few more cards on the table, didn't beat around the bush... all 'IMHO'
of course. :-)
"As well as the discussions on public fora, I've also been sent
private e-mails in support of the rumours by sources, as I said, who I
would not simply dismiss."
gmelin
David Rheault <drhe...@erols.com> wrote in article
<a32db3$k2a$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
A shining flying purple wolfhound is our Henry.
Theus
news:3C54352A...@mlode.com...
>
>
> Theus wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > What makes you think that Wakeman will make any difference?
>
> Because he always has, right from the start with Fragile and even with his
> "return" on GFTO (Awaken especially), not to forget his return with KTA
1+2.
Still, other keyboardists have done an adequate job, as well. I suspect
the reason is to draw in casual Yesfans with Wakeman's name. This makes
sense, on some level, but really won't work well for them unless there is a
long term commitment from both Yes and Wakeman.
>
> > I've found
> > most of his recent work rather disappointing. He can obviously play
well
> > and I don't think anyone would debate that, it is composing, arranging,
> > choice in sounds and what he chooses to play that I've had problems
with.
>
> Well, I could agree with you here, though there are exceptions. This point
you
> make could be pinned on all Yes men and their projects outside of Yes. Jon
has
> made some great stuff, but he too is responsible for some clunkers, as
well as
> Steve. Let's not hold it against them, because when you put all of these
parts
> together = it's simply awesome. Enjoy it......
I think Wakeman is fine when he plays to his strengths. He should not
be arranging orchestras. He is clearly a capable keyboard player and should
focus his efforts there. Some of his basic ideas are good, as is seen on
his New Age albums, but what he does with them is sometimes horrendous.
The same with Steve Howe. Here is a man who should never be allowed to
sing. His instrumental stuff is excellent, IMO. The problem is, that Howe
seems to insist on releasing albums where he does sing and I really loathe
his vocals.
As for Jon, he really does better when he isn't trying to make a pop
album.
Robert Dubnicka
>
> "Nic Caciappo" <nic...@mlode.com> wrote in message
> news:3C54352A...@mlode.com...
> >
> >
> > Theus wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > What makes you think that Wakeman will make any difference?
> >
> > Because he always has, right from the start with Fragile and even with his
> > "return" on GFTO (Awaken especially), not to forget his return with KTA
> 1+2.
>
> Still, other keyboardists have done an adequate job, as well. I suspect
> the reason is to draw in casual Yesfans with Wakeman's name. This makes
> sense, on some level, but really won't work well for them unless there is a
> long term commitment from both Yes and Wakeman.
Commitment is a two-way street, and I suspect that both parties need to
re-learn how to navigate it.
> >
> > > I've found
> > > most of his recent work rather disappointing. He can obviously play
> well
> > > and I don't think anyone would debate that, it is composing, arranging,
> > > choice in sounds and what he chooses to play that I've had problems
> with.
> >
> > Well, I could agree with you here, though there are exceptions. This point
> you
> > make could be pinned on all Yes men and their projects outside of Yes. Jon
> has
> > made some great stuff, but he too is responsible for some clunkers, as
> well as
> > Steve. Let's not hold it against them, because when you put all of these
> parts
> > together = it's simply awesome. Enjoy it......
>
> I think Wakeman is fine when he plays to his strengths. He should not
> be arranging orchestras.
Interesting, because this was something Yes had apparently approached
him with for Magnification.
> He is clearly a capable keyboard player and should
> focus his efforts there. Some of his basic ideas are good, as is seen on
> his New Age albums, but what he does with them is sometimes horrendous.
LOL. This couldn't be said of Anderson? This couldn't be said of
Squire and his OYE/Conspiracy writing?
Or is it merely Wakeman's *quantity* of horrendous ideas involved here?
> The same with Steve Howe. Here is a man who should never be allowed to
> sing.
Even in harmony with Squire and Anderson?
I happen to like his singing on his own material. That doesn't mean I
think he's a fabulous singer. I take it for what it is.
> His instrumental stuff is excellent, IMO. The problem is, that Howe
> seems to insist on releasing albums where he does sing and I really loathe
> his vocals.
That's too bad. I manage to find a way to not let them bug me too much.
gmelin
Robert Dubnicka <dubn...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in article
<3C55A500...@richmond.infi.net>...
but really won't work well for them unless there is a
| > long term commitment from both Yes and Wakeman.
|
| Commitment is a two-way street, and I suspect that both parties need to
| re-learn how to navigate it.
Old dogs, new tricks. . . nah.
| > I think Wakeman is fine when he plays to his strengths. He should
not
| > be arranging orchestras.
|
| Interesting, because this was something Yes had apparently approached
| him with for Magnification.
That would hardly be the first time Yes had a really bad idea. How
fortunate for us all that one didn't pan out.
| > He is clearly a capable keyboard player and should
| > focus his efforts there. Some of his basic ideas are good, as is seen
on
| > his New Age albums, but what he does with them is sometimes horrendous.
|
| LOL. This couldn't be said of Anderson? This couldn't be said of
| Squire and his OYE/Conspiracy writing?
|
| Or is it merely Wakeman's *quantity* of horrendous ideas involved here?
Indeed. At least Anderson and Squire have the good taste to show
restraint. Perhaps Squire's most admirable quality is that he keeps not
releasing that 2nd solo album.
| > The same with Steve Howe. Here is a man who should never be
allowed to
| > sing.
|
| Even in harmony with Squire and Anderson?
|
| I happen to like his singing on his own material. That doesn't mean I
| think he's a fabulous singer. I take it for what it is.
There's a certain folksy charm, especially on his first two albums. On the
other hand, I don't really care for the way he sang the Yes stuff. He's
not Anderson, and he insists on singing his own part, even though it's a
harmony part, and doesn't work without the melody.
Todd Mitchell
If indeed this is his reasoning (that he got taken to the cleaners in a divorce
and needs the cash, which incidentally is *odd* given his born-again
proclivities), then here's hoping the "special" tour, if indeed it is *with*
Wankman, is a "farewell" tour. If the group is that desperate, to take back a
keysman who only needs them to pay off a divorce, chuck their new material,
etc., then they should hang it up.
BTW Yann, where are my royalties on your new screenname? I'm sensing a bit of
*likeness* here that's making me concerned ;>
Todd
"Check the machine to see if you accidentally dropped an ash on it." Chet Klock
Steven Sullivan
: noussomme...@ifrance.com (Yann Clochec) writes:
: If indeed this is his reasoning (that he got taken to the cleaners in a divorce
: and needs the cash, which incidentally is *odd* given his born-again
: proclivities),
Not really. Who's to say how that went down? Perhaps his wife wanted a
divorce. Born-again Xtian couples, AFAIK, are supposed to *try really
hard* to stay married, but I don't think divorce is forbidden (esp, when
there are no kids involved).
: then here's hoping the "special" tour, if indeed it is *with*
: Wankman, is a "farewell" tour. If the group is that desperate, to take back a
: keysman who only needs them to pay off a divorce, chuck their new material,
: etc., then they should hang it up.
Given that they didn't hang it up after Talk, or after hiring Sherwood,
and managed to produce some good music since those things happened, I
don't see why they should hang it up' for this.
Yes taking a long hiatus can be a good idea -- I wish they'd done so after
Drama, personally, or even after 'Relayer' -- but I don't get this fannish
gloom that 'this is the end' or somesuch. It's *never* been the end for
Yes, so far. Again, I doubt anything short of death of one of them will
lead these guys to 'hang it up'.
--
-S.
That's because you're not to bright.
YesELPkCrimson
<< I think Wakeman is fine when he plays to his strengths. He should not be
arranging orchestras. >>
Robert Dubnicka wrote:
<< Interesting, because this was something Yes had apparently approached him
with for Magnification. >>
... and Wakeman himself seems to feel that arranging orchestras *is* one of his
personal strengths. Here, Rick is quoted from Henry's FAQ pages:
(excerpted from an admittedly now-outdated September '01 interview)
" [...] I have strong views about how the orchestra arrangements should be
done, and I wouldn't like to come in and play on other people's arrangements.
[...] I love the guys [in Yes], but I can't afford to go to the concert and
remain disappointed with the orchestral arrangements. The fact is that they
have also small orchestras with them this time, and I like big orchestras!"
I *should* point out that Wakeman used a puny 47 piece orchestra (not counting
the chorus members) to record _The Myths & Legends of..._ compared to the 65
piece ensemble on _Mag_. Well, I should point that out but I won't... since I'm
sure Rick meant 'on tour', right? ;-)
--
'YesELPkCrimson'
MAFortFam<at>aol<dot>com (MarkF)
"Does anybody remember laughter?"
- Robert Plant
Steven Sullivan
And when he said he can't afford to go to a Yes concert...he meant that
literally. ;>
Henry Potts
>[...] I've found most of [Wakeman's] recent work rather disappointing.
>He can obviously play well and I don't think anyone would debate that,
I'd debate that he can play well! Well, no, I agree he can play OK --
better on his own material than others, but that's not unusual -- but
there is absolutely no shortage of better players. Twice now Yes has
picked an unknown who is technically better (Khoroshev, Brislin) and
they would have no trouble doing it again.
>it is composing, arranging, choice in sounds and what he chooses to
>play that I've had problems with. [...]
Well, that too! ;)
>I honestly think someone else should program the sounds of his synths
>for him. I also think that when Wakeman keeps it simple he can
>occasionally pull off something special. [...] A series of concerts
>with Wakeman may be good, but it is hardly any guarantee. The main
>reason for Yes to attempt would be to play the reunion card again,
>IMHO.
Yes brings out the best in Rick Wakeman, I believe. I enjoy his work on
the _Keys..._ studio material. He can do good work and I do not wish at
all to deny his important role in the band's development in the first
half of the seventies, but as far as I am concerned, he is not the best
person for the job now.
--
Henry
Theus
news:20020128152922...@mb-dd.aol.com...
show with figure skating to theme of King Arthur and his knights with full
orchestral back up. Truly a man with bizarre tastes. Still, I think I
would've gone to see the travesty. Such things truly are once in a
lifetime.
Theus
news:3C55A500...@richmond.infi.net...
> Theus wrote:
> >
> > "Nic Caciappo" <nic...@mlode.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C54352A...@mlode.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Theus wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What makes you think that Wakeman will make any difference?
> > >
> > > Because he always has, right from the start with Fragile and even with
his
> > > "return" on GFTO (Awaken especially), not to forget his return with
KTA
> > 1+2.
> >
> > Still, other keyboardists have done an adequate job, as well. I
suspect
> > the reason is to draw in casual Yesfans with Wakeman's name. This makes
> > sense, on some level, but really won't work well for them unless there
is a
> > long term commitment from both Yes and Wakeman.
>
> Commitment is a two-way street, and I suspect that both parties need to
> re-learn how to navigate it.
I think this has been a problem with both Wakeman and Yes.
>
> > >
> > > > I've found
> > > > most of his recent work rather disappointing. He can obviously play
> > well
> > > > and I don't think anyone would debate that, it is composing,
arranging,
> > > > choice in sounds and what he chooses to play that I've had problems
> > with.
> > >
> > > Well, I could agree with you here, though there are exceptions. This
point
> > you
> > > make could be pinned on all Yes men and their projects outside of Yes.
Jon
> > has
> > > made some great stuff, but he too is responsible for some clunkers, as
> > well as
> > > Steve. Let's not hold it against them, because when you put all of
these
> > parts
> > > together = it's simply awesome. Enjoy it......
> >
> > I think Wakeman is fine when he plays to his strengths. He should
not
> > be arranging orchestras.
>
> Interesting, because this was something Yes had apparently approached
> him with for Magnification.
Which would've been a big mistake.
>
> > He is clearly a capable keyboard player and should
> > focus his efforts there. Some of his basic ideas are good, as is seen
on
> > his New Age albums, but what he does with them is sometimes horrendous.
>
> LOL. This couldn't be said of Anderson? This couldn't be said of
> Squire and his OYE/Conspiracy writing?
To some extent it is a matter of taste. I find the worst Anderson stuff
just bores me, but he done some very nice stuff. Squire's worse stuff is
just typical AOR fodder, not really bad, just not very good, IMO.
>
> Or is it merely Wakeman's *quantity* of horrendous ideas involved here?
.........well that too.
>
> > The same with Steve Howe. Here is a man who should never be allowed
to
> > sing.
>
> Even in harmony with Squire and Anderson?
In harmony he isn't too bad, but their harmonies with Trevor Rabin
generally sounded better. Unfortunately, the music was not as interesting
to listen to.
>
> I happen to like his singing on his own material. That doesn't mean I
> think he's a fabulous singer. I take it for what it is.
I suppose it is a matter of taste, but his voice sounds awful to me.
His playing guitar is always enjoyable to watch and listen to.
>
> > His instrumental stuff is excellent, IMO. The problem is, that Howe
> > seems to insist on releasing albums where he does sing and I really
loathe
> > his vocals.
>
> That's too bad. I manage to find a way to not let them bug me too much.
To some extent I agree. Howe has had some nice albums where the vocals
have generally ruined them for me. I liked his solo albums where he doesn't
sing, the most. The others are undoubtedly enjoyable, to some extent. I do
wish I could get past his singing.
Todd Mitchell
>Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.comatose> wrote:
>: noussomme...@ifrance.com (Yann Clochec) writes:
>: If indeed this is his reasoning (that he got taken to the cleaners in a
divorce
>: and needs the cash, which incidentally is *odd* given his born-again
>: proclivities),
>Not really. Who's to say how that went down? Perhaps his wife wanted a
>divorce. Born-again Xtian couples, AFAIK, are supposed to *try really
>hard* to stay married, but I don't think divorce is forbidden (esp, when
>there are no kids involved).
Forbidden, no, but it seems extolling the virtues of born-again-ism would make
one *less* likely to get a divorce, and though I only have anectdotal evidence,
it seems as if more and more "born-agains" are divorcing everyday. What
*really* happened is unknown, and perhaps he had good reason to get out, but
isn't the irony a bit thick when you have a guy who cites the rock-n-roll
lifestyle of "touring" as being at odds with his "faith", then gets divorced
and rejoins the band?
>: then here's hoping the "special" tour, if indeed it is *with*
>: Wankman, is a "farewell" tour. If the group is that desperate, to take back
a
>: keysman who only needs them to pay off a divorce, chuck their new material,
>: etc., then they should hang it up.
>Given that they didn't hang it up after Talk, or after hiring Sherwood,
>and managed to produce some good music since those things happened, I
>don't see why they should hang it up' for this.
Maybe I should rephrase and say how disappointed I am that the band would just
roll over for a guy who has repeatedly told them to buzz off, on and off, for
so many decades. It seems as if the move is born of desperation and a
willingness to bend over, grab their ankles and let Wakeman do whatever what he
wants. If it's *that bad*, why go on? Are they that desperate?
>Yes taking a long hiatus can be a good idea -- I wish they'd done so after
>Drama, personally, or even after 'Relayer' -- but I don't get this fannish
>gloom that 'this is the end' or somesuch. It's *never* been the end for
>Yes, so far. Again, I doubt anything short of death of one of them will
>lead these guys to 'hang it up'.
I agree. I don't think they'll *ever* hang it up until one croaks. My thought
is that they *should* hang it up if they're really that desperate. What's the
point, especially after the good Ladder/Magnification press and the "Yes will
continue to break new ground"isms coming out of Jon all these years? If they
bring him back and do a "Classic Yes Lineup tour with Rick Wakeman", then the
band takes *another* giant step towards becoming the novelty act many have
feared. Besides, wasn't the Mag tour supposed to be the end for awhile anyway?
And if so, wouldn't that make a summer '02 tour with Wakemen even *more* of a
one-off novelty act than anything?
Maybe I should wait and see what the setlist might entail, but at this point I
would vote for a hiatus; take two or three years off and then come back with a
new "five year plan".
gmelin
Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in article
<Azi58.428$hi5...@grover.nit.gwu.edu>...
| And when he said he can't afford to go to a Yes concert...he meant that
| literally. ;>
My kind of guy. So much for Wakeman being the TYF.
Henry Potts
>If indeed this is his reasoning (that he got taken to the cleaners in a divorce
>and needs the cash, which incidentally is *odd* given his born-again
>proclivities),
Even an amicable divorce with a reasonable division of assets is costly.
I don't think we need to assume that Rick's been "taken to the cleaners"
by Nina.
--
Henry
Rick Wakeman news: <http://www.bondegezou.demon.co.uk/wnyesm.htm#wakeman>
Steven Sullivan
: Steven Sullivan sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu writes:
:
:>Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.comatose> wrote:
:>: noussomme...@ifrance.com (Yann Clochec) writes:
:>: If indeed this is his reasoning (that he got taken to the cleaners in a
: divorce
:>: and needs the cash, which incidentally is *odd* given his born-again
:>: proclivities),
:>Not really. Who's to say how that went down? Perhaps his wife wanted a
:>divorce. Born-again Xtian couples, AFAIK, are supposed to *try really
:>hard* to stay married, but I don't think divorce is forbidden (esp, when
:>there are no kids involved).
: Forbidden, no, but it seems extolling the virtues of born-again-ism
would make : one *less* likely to get a divorce, and though I only have
anectdotal evidence, : it seems as if more and more "born-agains" are
divorcing everyday. What : *really* happened is unknown, and perhaps he
had good reason to get out, but : isn't the irony a bit thick when you
have a guy who cites the rock-n-roll : lifestyle of "touring" as being at
odds with his "faith", then gets divorced : and rejoins the band?
I've always seen Wakeman as a more a 'regular guy' than a holy roller.
People have blown his relatively few references to religion way out of
proportion, IMO.
:>: then here's hoping the "special" tour, if indeed it is *with*
:>: Wankman, is a "farewell" tour. If the group is that desperate, to take back
: a
:>: keysman who only needs them to pay off a divorce, chuck their new material,
:>: etc., then they should hang it up.
:>Given that they didn't hang it up after Talk, or after hiring Sherwood,
:>and managed to produce some good music since those things happened, I
:>don't see why they should hang it up' for this.
: Maybe I should rephrase and say how disappointed I am that the band
would just : roll over for a guy who has repeatedly told them to buzz off,
on and off, for : so many decades. It seems as if the move is born of
desperation and a : willingness to bend over, grab their ankles and let
Wakeman do whatever what he : wants. If it's *that bad*, why go on? Are
they that desperate?
This idea that Wakeman is somehow pulling a fast one on Yes is absurd;
it's far more likely that *at the very least* there's a two-way need
going on here (if in fact Yes didn't court Wakeman outright).
In other words, yes, they might well be 'that desperate'. Whether this
means wakeman can 'do whatever he wants' is far from established.
Don't you think *maybe* you should adjust your rhetoric to account for
the tiny amount of information available so far?
:>Yes taking a long hiatus can be a good idea -- I wish they'd done so after
:>Drama, personally, or even after 'Relayer' -- but I don't get this fannish
:>gloom that 'this is the end' or somesuch. It's *never* been the end for
:>Yes, so far. Again, I doubt anything short of death of one of them will
:>lead these guys to 'hang it up'.
: I agree. I don't think they'll *ever* hang it up until one croaks. My thought
: is that they *should* hang it up if they're really that desperate. What's the
: point, especially after the good Ladder/Magnification press and the "Yes will
: continue to break new ground"isms coming out of Jon all these years?
This presumes that new ground cannot be broken with Wakeman on keys ; it
also assumes that Wakeman will be a permanent member of Yes.
: If they
: bring him back and do a "Classic Yes Lineup tour with Rick Wakeman", then the
: band takes *another* giant step towards becoming the novelty act many have
: feared.
Many have feared that?
: Besides, wasn't the Mag tour supposed to be the end for awhile anyway?
Depends on who is talking. There was talk of a second leg of the Mag tour
this year, too.
: And if so, wouldn't that make a summer '02 tour with Wakemen even *more* of a
: one-off novelty act than anything?
See above.
I really don't get this attitude -- have you been told that Yes *won't*
play any Magnification material, if Wakeman rejoins for a tour? It could
turn out that way; it could turn out they play KTA material; it could turn
out *a lot of things*. Some better than others.
: Maybe I should wait and see what the setlist might entail,
gee...D'YA THINK?
David Rheault
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>
>
> David Rheault <drhe...@erols.com> wrote in article
> <a32db3$k2a$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> |
> | "gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> | news:01c1a753$8f501980$83f9fc9e@computer...
> | >
> | > | "Henry Potts" <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.ukREMOVETOEMAIL> wrote in
> | > message
> | > | news:Dz0BDmAw...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk...
> | > | > I liked mine the best.
> | > | > --
> | > |
> | > | That comes as no surprise.
> | >
> | > Indeed.
> |
> | His is no disgrace.
>
> A shining flying purple wolfhound is our Henry.
Be sparse in your praise gmelin. For I think he might have us both
kill-filed.
dcr
David Rheault
"Henry Potts" <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.ukREMOVETOEMAIL> wrote in message
> Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.comatose> wrote [...]
> >If indeed this is his reasoning (that he got taken to the cleaners in a
divorce
> >and needs the cash, which incidentally is *odd* given his born-again
> >proclivities),
>
> Even an amicable divorce with a reasonable division of assets is costly.
> I don't think we need to assume that Rick's been "taken to the cleaners"
> by Nina.
> --
> Henry
Was Anderson's divorce from his first wife amicable?
dcr
Robert Dubnicka
Todd Mitchell wrote:
>
> noussomme...@ifrance.com (Yann Clochec) writes:
>
> >On 27 Jan 2002 03:49:49 -0800, from all of eternity,
> >go...@emulationzone.org (Goon), lost in all the noise, silently
> >whispered :
> >
> >>> Source I have : Paul Silveira and Alan White, after-show party, London
> >>> 12/5/2001. Seems Wakeman's return was a given for both of them as
> >>> early as that.
> >>
> >>Come on, Yann, spill the beans! What was said?
> >
> >That the next tour (meaning at that time April in the USA) would have
> >Wakeman on keys. That Rick was (and probably still is) broke because
> >of the divorce and agreed to do the Yes tour for the money. That all
> >solo tour plans for 2002 announced by Rick would be cancelled. At
> >least the last point should be easy to verify by now.
>
> If indeed this is his reasoning (that he got taken to the cleaners in a divorce
> and needs the cash, which incidentally is *odd* given his born-again
> proclivities),
???
I don't understand what is so odd.
> then here's hoping the "special" tour, if indeed it is *with*
> Wankman, is a "farewell" tour. If the group is that desperate, to take back a
> keysman who only needs them to pay off a divorce, chuck their new material,
> etc., then they should hang it up.
>
It's possible that Wakeman's priorities have changed since his divorce -
and I'm not just talking about money.
I don't think the band is about to embark on what amounts to a Wakeman
Benefit Tour, and there is no reason to believe that they will "chuck
their new material".
Robert Dubnicka
>
> "Robert Dubnicka" <dubn...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in message
> news:3C55A500...@richmond.infi.net...
<snip>
> > Commitment is a two-way street, and I suspect that both parties need to
> > re-learn how to navigate it.
>
> I think this has been a problem with both Wakeman and Yes.
Um. Yeah. That's why I wrote *both* parties. One party being Yes, the
other being Wakeman.
<snip>
> > Interesting, because this was something Yes had apparently approached
> > him with for Magnification.
>
> Which would've been a big mistake.
There's really no way of knowing for sure, is there?
<snip>
>
> In harmony he isn't too bad, but their harmonies with Trevor Rabin
> generally sounded better. Unfortunately, the music was not as interesting
> to listen to.
I disagree about their harmonies with Rabin.
Robert Dubnicka
Todd Mitchell wrote:
>
> Steven Sullivan sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu writes:
>
> >Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.comatose> wrote:
> >: noussomme...@ifrance.com (Yann Clochec) writes:
>
> >: If indeed this is his reasoning (that he got taken to the cleaners in a
> divorce
> >: and needs the cash, which incidentally is *odd* given his born-again
> >: proclivities),
>
> >Not really. Who's to say how that went down? Perhaps his wife wanted a
> >divorce. Born-again Xtian couples, AFAIK, are supposed to *try really
> >hard* to stay married, but I don't think divorce is forbidden (esp, when
> >there are no kids involved).
>
> Forbidden, no, but it seems extolling the virtues of born-again-ism would make
> one *less* likely to get a divorce, and though I only have anectdotal evidence,
> it seems as if more and more "born-agains" are divorcing everyday.
How shocking.
> What
> *really* happened is unknown, and perhaps he had good reason to get out,
Or vice-versa. Or maybe it wasn't his choice and there wasn't much of
anything he could do about it.
People divorce for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes the reasons can be
real stupid. Sometimes, the people involved just agree it's over and
move on.
> but
> isn't the irony a bit thick when you have a guy who cites the rock-n-roll
> lifestyle of "touring" as being at odds with his "faith",
Where'd he say that?
Yes manufactured a similar explanation for his not being in the band
following KTA - and even tested a 'Rick has stage fright' explanation.
What's ironic is that Wakeman's toured quite a bit in the last few
years, even going to South America if I'm not mistaken, despite other
people claiming this for him.
> then gets divorced
> and rejoins the band?
>
> >: then here's hoping the "special" tour, if indeed it is *with*
> >: Wankman, is a "farewell" tour. If the group is that desperate, to take back
> a
> >: keysman who only needs them to pay off a divorce, chuck their new material,
> >: etc., then they should hang it up.
>
> >Given that they didn't hang it up after Talk, or after hiring Sherwood,
> >and managed to produce some good music since those things happened, I
> >don't see why they should hang it up' for this.
>
> Maybe I should rephrase and say how disappointed I am that the band would just
> roll over for a guy who has repeatedly told them to buzz off, on and off, for
> so many decades.
Let's see: he kinda did that following Tales, buzzed off *with* Jon
Anderson after Tormato, was left out after Union, and either told them
to buzz off or was told to buzz off after KTA (depending on whose story
you believe).
This is "repeatedly"?
> It seems as if the move is born of desperation and a
> willingness to bend over, grab their ankles and let Wakeman do whatever what he
> wants.
Yeah - that sounds *just* *like* Anderson's and Squire's M.O.
WTF?
> If it's *that bad*, why go on? Are they that desperate?
Maybe they see some intrinsic value that you don't? Or maybe they're
fucked.
I'd say 'take your pick', but it looks like you've already selected...
>
> >Yes taking a long hiatus can be a good idea -- I wish they'd done so after
> >Drama, personally, or even after 'Relayer' -- but I don't get this fannish
> >gloom that 'this is the end' or somesuch. It's *never* been the end for
> >Yes, so far. Again, I doubt anything short of death of one of them will
> >lead these guys to 'hang it up'.
>
> I agree. I don't think they'll *ever* hang it up until one croaks. My thought
> is that they *should* hang it up if they're really that desperate.
What'll they do for a living?
What's the
> point, especially after the good Ladder/Magnification press and the "Yes will
> continue to break new ground"isms coming out of Jon all these years?
A few of the members with a history of poor financial management will
still be able to afford to eat?
> If they
> bring him back and do a "Classic Yes Lineup tour with Rick Wakeman", then the
> band takes *another* giant step towards becoming the novelty act many have
> feared. Besides, wasn't the Mag tour supposed to be the end for awhile anyway?
> And if so, wouldn't that make a summer '02 tour with Wakemen even *more* of a
> one-off novelty act than anything?
>
> Maybe I should wait and see what the setlist might entail, but at this point I
> would vote for a hiatus; take two or three years off and then come back with a
> new "five year plan".
<shaking head> No Yes is better than a tour with Wakeman?
Isn't it at all a possibility that if they take two or three years off,
then there won't be much chance to get that new five year plan rolling?
Bill Wade
>
>"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>news:01c1a81f$398ed8c0$b3f8fc9e@computer...
>> A shining flying purple wolfhound is our Henry.
>
>Be sparse in your praise gmelin. For I think he might have us both
>kill-filed.
Obsess much?
YesELPkCrimson
<< Born-again Xtian couples, AFAIK, are supposed to *try really hard* to stay
married, but I don't think divorce is forbidden
(esp, when there are no kids involved). >>
Not that it would make their decision to divorce any more 'forbidden', but in
the case of Rick & Nina, I thought they had at least two kids from their
marriage: Gemma and Oscar.
John T/CountV
say:
> If it's *that bad*, why go on? Are they that desperate?
I think this perfectly captures why this less-than-baseless rumor leaves
such a bad aftertaste.
Sad, is what it is.
--
CountV/John T
"The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the
Boston Strangler is to the woman alone." - Jack Valenti, MPAA, 1982
The alt.music.yes shop: http://www.cafepress.com/amystore
Loz
<sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> , on a snipper monster safari, said :
>I've always seen Wakeman as a more a 'regular guy' than a holy roller.
>People have blown his relatively few references to religion way out of
>proportion, IMO.
Having seen RW's performance on a UK quiz show, "Never Mind the
Buzzcocks", I'd have to agree with this. Example cited:
"It's alright, I'm not gay - I just like it the other way.
We just did it in a camper van, it's the only way to get an all-round
tan." (To the tune of "Staying Alive" by the Bee Gees - it was
hilarious at the time.)
Loz
NP: Family - Family Entertainment
Theus
> Theus wrote:
> >
> > "Robert Dubnicka" <dubn...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C55A500...@richmond.infi.net...
>
> > > him with for Magnification.
> >
> > Which would've been a big mistake.
>
> There's really no way of knowing for sure, is there?
We can make an educated guess based on his solo work. I've hated his
orchestral arrangements on many of his solo records, therefore I would
likely hate what he would arrange with Yes.
Robert Dubnicka
>
> "Robert Dubnicka" <dubn...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in message
> news:3C5609B6...@richmond.infi.net...
> > Theus wrote:
> > >
> > > "Robert Dubnicka" <dubn...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3C55A500...@richmond.infi.net...
> >
> > > > Interesting, because this was something Yes had apparently approached
> > > > him with for Magnification.
> > >
> > > Which would've been a big mistake.
> >
> > There's really no way of knowing for sure, is there?
>
> We can make an educated guess based on his solo work. I've hated his
> orchestral arrangements on many of his solo records, therefore I would
> likely hate what he would arrange with Yes.
>
It's a pretty faulty conclusion - it supposes that Yes would give him
carte blanche.
It's equally likely that, given a *group* effort, his arrangements
(orchestral and otherwise) could be as good or better than his arranging
on Fragile and Close to the Edge.
Todd Mitchell
news:<bnl58.434$hi5...@grover.nit.gwu.edu>...
> Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.comatose> wrote:
> : Steven Sullivan sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu writes:
> :
> :>Given that they didn't hang it up after Talk, or after hiring Sherwood,
> :>and managed to produce some good music since those things happened, I
> :>don't see why they should hang it up' for this.
>
> : Maybe I should rephrase and say how disappointed I am that the band
> would just : roll over for a guy who has repeatedly told them to buzz off,
> on and off, for : so many decades. It seems as if the move is born of
> desperation and a : willingness to bend over, grab their ankles and let
> Wakeman do whatever what he : wants. If it's *that bad*, why go on? Are
> they that desperate?
>
> This idea that Wakeman is somehow pulling a fast one on Yes is absurd;
> it's far more likely that *at the very least* there's a two-way need
> going on here (if in fact Yes didn't court Wakeman outright).
>
> In other words, yes, they might well be 'that desperate'. Whether this
> means wakeman can 'do whatever he wants' is far from established.
> Don't you think *maybe* you should adjust your rhetoric to account for
> the tiny amount of information available so far?
Sure, but my gut reaction is that the band is making a huge mistake.
I hope I'm wrong.
> :>Yes taking a long hiatus can be a good idea -- I wish they'd done so after
> :>Drama, personally, or even after 'Relayer' -- but I don't get this fannish
> :>gloom that 'this is the end' or somesuch. It's *never* been the end for
> :>Yes, so far. Again, I doubt anything short of death of one of them will
> :>lead these guys to 'hang it up'.
>
> : I agree. I don't think they'll *ever* hang it up until one croaks. My thought
> : is that they *should* hang it up if they're really that desperate. What's the
> : point, especially after the good Ladder/Magnification press and the "Yes will
> : continue to break new ground"isms coming out of Jon all these years?
>
> This presumes that new ground cannot be broken with Wakeman on keys ; it
> also assumes that Wakeman will be a permanent member of Yes.
Neither of which, in my opinion, will come to pass. But again, I hope
I'm wrong.
> : If they
> : bring him back and do a "Classic Yes Lineup tour with Rick Wakeman", then the
> : band takes *another* giant step towards becoming the novelty act many have
> : feared.
>
> Many have feared that?
Many on this ng have.
> I really don't get this attitude -- have you been told that Yes *won't*
> play any Magnification material, if Wakeman rejoins for a tour? It could
> turn out that way; it could turn out they play KTA material; it could turn
> out *a lot of things*. Some better than others.
I think playing the KTA material would be great, but given the way
certain members have joined, exited, re-joined, and then *refused* to
play certain songs from certain albums (and I'm mainly referring to
Howe and Anderson) it seems a logical leap to assume Wakey would have
no intrest in playing material from Mag, *especially* since it's
basically an album to "prove we don't need a keysman."
> : Maybe I should wait and see what the setlist might entail,
>
>
> gee...D'YA THINK?
LOL. I'm feeling suddenly like a *YesFan*.
Todd
Todd Mitchell
news:<3C560D90...@richmond.infi.net>...
> Todd Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > Steven Sullivan sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu writes:
> >
> > >Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.comatose> wrote:
>
> > but
> > isn't the irony a bit thick when you have a guy who cites the rock-n-roll
> > lifestyle of "touring" as being at odds with his "faith",
>
> Where'd he say that?
I think that was from the 80's, before the health problems set in, but
I'm not sure.
> > Maybe I should rephrase and say how disappointed I am that the band would just
> > roll over for a guy who has repeatedly told them to buzz off, on and off, for
> > so many decades.
>
> Let's see: he kinda did that following Tales, buzzed off *with* Jon
> Anderson after Tormato, was left out after Union, and either told them
> to buzz off or was told to buzz off after KTA (depending on whose story
> you believe).
>
> This is "repeatedly"?
Lessee, that's once in the 70's, once at the beginning of the 80's,
and twice in the 90's. Yeah, I'd say that qualifies as "repeatedly".
> > It seems as if the move is born of desperation and a
> > willingness to bend over, grab their ankles and let Wakeman do whatever what he
> > wants.
>
> Yeah - that sounds *just* *like* Anderson's and Squire's M.O.
>
> WTF?
Again, on the surface of things, it smacks of desperation. As I've
also stated, I hope I'm wrong.
> > If it's *that bad*, why go on? Are they that desperate?
>
> Maybe they see some intrinsic value that you don't? Or maybe they're
> fucked.
>
> I'd say 'take your pick', but it looks like you've already selected...
See above.
> > I agree. I don't think they'll *ever* hang it up until one croaks. My thought
> > is that they *should* hang it up if they're really that desperate.
> What'll they do for a living?
>
> What's the
> > point, especially after the good Ladder/Magnification press and the "Yes will
> > continue to break new ground"isms coming out of Jon all these years?
>
> A few of the members with a history of poor financial management will
> still be able to afford to eat?
<snicker> If "screw that, we gotta eat" is good enough for you to plop
down big bucks for a show, then that's your deal. Coming out of the
Union shows and the things said about that (mainly Brufy's comments
about being in it "only for the money") I think I would pass,
particularly if that's all Wakeman's re-joining boils down to in the
end.
> > If they
> > bring him back and do a "Classic Yes Lineup tour with Rick Wakeman", then the
> > band takes *another* giant step towards becoming the novelty act many have
> > feared. Besides, wasn't the Mag tour supposed to be the end for awhile anyway?
> > And if so, wouldn't that make a summer '02 tour with Wakemen even *more* of a
> > one-off novelty act than anything?
> >
> > Maybe I should wait and see what the setlist might entail, but at this point I
> > would vote for a hiatus; take two or three years off and then come back with a
> > new "five year plan".
>
> <shaking head> No Yes is better than a tour with Wakeman?
If it ends up being another "re-Union" type of rip-off, yes,
absolutely (but again, I hope I'm wrong).
> Isn't it at all a possibility that if they take two or three years off,
> then there won't be much chance to get that new five year plan rolling?
After having toured for five straight summers now (or is it four?) I
think some time off is called for.
Todd
gmelin
David Rheault <drhe...@erols.com> wrote in article
<a34vub$khh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
| Be sparse in your praise gmelin. For I think he might have us both
| kill-filed.
I don't think so. He has replied directly to a post or two of mine in
recent times. I think he just employs tremendous restraint. That's part
of his being so above it all, y'know.
Nic Caciappo
Todd Mitchell wrote:
>
>
> Forbidden, no, but it seems extolling the virtues of born-again-ism would make
> one *less* likely to get a divorce, and though I only have anectdotal evidence,
> it seems as if more and more "born-agains" are divorcing everyday. What
> *really* happened is unknown, and perhaps he had good reason to get out,
Todd- what *really* happened is known- you simply didn't know. Nina had an affair
with a very young man while Rick was touring. While Nina stumbled with her own
faith, it had nothing to do with the strength of Rick's. In fact, Rick is probably
a stronger man because of what he went through- which I wouldn't wish on anyone.
I'd like to tell you that Rick has never been quoted as being "born again". Show
me where you've seen that. Rick has shared that his faith is Christian and that he
is a believer of Christ.
> but
> isn't the irony a bit thick when you have a guy who cites the rock-n-roll
> lifestyle of "touring" as being at odds with his "faith", then gets divorced
> and rejoins the band?
Certainly the legendary lifestyles of the touring rock stars of the world would be
at odds with Rick's beliefs. But as for the here and now, I don't think Yes or Rick
Wakeman have mis-behaved in a long long time. I have toured before with Rick and
most evenings he would retire to his room early or as soon as possible.
> Maybe I should rephrase and say how disappointed I am that the band would just
> roll over for a guy who has repeatedly told them to buzz off, on and off, for
> so many decades.
Actually- I suppose you are uninformed again.... The last time Rick departed Yes
(1997) was for very good reasons, many have been detailed here and in the media
already. I think it could be turned around that it was Yes who told Rick to buzz
off by trying to change agreements, contracts, no pay, not including him in major
legal decisions, arranging/schedualing and selling a tour without considering his
own pending surgery, charging personals to the record label ($15,000 wine!), firing
manager without his knowledge, hiring new manager without his knowledge, going over
budget when all recording was done and over, wanting to add new songs by Sherwood
that were terrible and not very "classic-Yes-like"..... the list goes on and on
too! After all this Rick deserved to split, but I still think he should have stuck
around to make his point and to get what he did have coming to him: respect and
pay.
The occasion that many refer to Rick's previous departure had nothing to do with
his choice to leave, he was simply not included in the Victory/Talk contract
following the Union tour.
Before that Rick had joined up with Jon to do ABWH.... only for that to become
Yes/Union, much to the dismay of Bruford. Rick was hopeful it would NOT lead to a
big falling apart of what he and Steve and Bill joined Jon for... but it did, and
that could be blamed on someone other than Rick!
Rick did split from Yes in 1974 and once more (with Jon) in 1979, but he has not
"told them to buzz off, on and off, for so many decades."
> It seems as if the move is born of desperation and a
> willingness to bend over, grab their ankles and let Wakeman do whatever what he
> wants. If it's *that bad*, why go on? Are they that desperate?
Yes? Desperate? No. They have done okay without Rick, but not as good as they could
have if they had him.
Nic
Nic Caciappo
Todd Mitchell wrote:
>
>
> Lessee, that's once in the 70's, once at the beginning of the 80's,
> and twice in the 90's. Yeah, I'd say that qualifies as "repeatedly".
Let's hope that you don't do anyone's books for a living.
Nic
gmelin
Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.com> wrote in article
<ed19fddd.0201...@posting.google.com>...
| Lessee, that's once in the 70's, once at the beginning of the 80's,
| and twice in the 90's. Yeah, I'd say that qualifies as "repeatedly".
Bear in mind that you are talking to people here who consider "Close to the
Edge" underplayed if it is not played on every tour.
gmelin
Nic Caciappo <nic...@mlode.com> wrote in article
<3C56C9F7...@mlode.com>...
| Todd- what *really* happened is known- you simply didn't know. Nina had
an affair
| with a very young man while Rick was touring. While Nina stumbled with
her own
| faith, it had nothing to do with the strength of Rick's.
Nic, is this a matter of public knowledge? If not, it seems highly
inappropriate for you to be babbling something so personal here, especially
given the way you usually love to go around crowing, "I know something, but
I can't say what it is," all the time.
Steven Sullivan
: Todd Mitchell wrote:
:>
:>
:> Forbidden, no, but it seems extolling the virtues of born-again-ism would make
:> one *less* likely to get a divorce, and though I only have anectdotal evidence,
:> it seems as if more and more "born-agains" are divorcing everyday. What
:> *really* happened is unknown, and perhaps he had good reason to get out,
: Todd- what *really* happened is known- you simply didn't know. Nina had an affair
: with a very young man while Rick was touring.
I had heard something to this effect...but didn't know it was for public
consumption.
HRMMGY
develop some new synth sounds for him to use on at least some of the songs--I'm
not too impressed with his sounds on Keys 2---which is why I'm always a
cheerleader for Moraz--i think he knows to try to use newer sounds---MM
Theus
> Theus wrote:
> >
> > "Robert Dubnicka" <dubn...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C5609B6...@richmond.infi.net...
> > > Theus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Robert Dubnicka" <dubn...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3C55A500...@richmond.infi.net...
> > >
> > > > > Interesting, because this was something Yes had apparently
approached
> > > > > him with for Magnification.
> > > >
> > > > Which would've been a big mistake.
> > >
> > > There's really no way of knowing for sure, is there?
> >
> > We can make an educated guess based on his solo work. I've hated
his
> > orchestral arrangements on many of his solo records, therefore I would
> > likely hate what he would arrange with Yes.
> >
>
> It's a pretty faulty conclusion - it supposes that Yes would give him
> carte blanche.
I think that Wakeman, if he comes back, should stick to playing
keyboards and arranging the parts for his keyboard.
>
> It's equally likely that, given a *group* effort, his arrangements
> (orchestral and otherwise) could be as good or better than his arranging
> on Fragile and Close to the Edge.
Possibly, but one doubts it. If he just sticks to his arranging his
keyboard parts, then that may be possible.
Theus
>
>
> Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <ed19fddd.0201...@posting.google.com>...
> | Lessee, that's once in the 70's, once at the beginning of the 80's,
> | and twice in the 90's. Yeah, I'd say that qualifies as "repeatedly".
>
> Bear in mind that you are talking to people here who consider "Close to
the
> Edge" underplayed if it is not played on every tour.
>
Robert Dubnicka
>
> Robert Dubnicka <dubn...@richmond.infi.net> writes in message
> news:<3C560D90...@richmond.infi.net>...
>
> > Todd Mitchell wrote:
> > >
> > > Steven Sullivan sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu writes:
> > >
> > > >Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.comatose> wrote:
> >
> > > but
> > > isn't the irony a bit thick when you have a guy who cites the rock-n-roll
> > > lifestyle of "touring" as being at odds with his "faith",
> >
> > Where'd he say that?
>
> I think that was from the 80's, before the health problems set in, but
> I'm not sure.
>
I didn't think you had your facts straight.
> > > Maybe I should rephrase and say how disappointed I am that the band would just
> > > roll over for a guy who has repeatedly told them to buzz off, on and off, for
> > > so many decades.
> >
> > Let's see: he kinda did that following Tales, buzzed off *with* Jon
> > Anderson after Tormato, was left out after Union, and either told them
> > to buzz off or was told to buzz off after KTA (depending on whose story
> > you believe).
> >
> > This is "repeatedly"?
>
> Lessee, that's once in the 70's, once at the beginning of the 80's,
> and twice in the 90's. Yeah, I'd say that qualifies as "repeatedly".
There is a one definitive "Wakeman tells Yes to buzz off", after Tales.
Post Tormato was more an "Anderson and Wakeman felt the rest of Yes
wanted them to buzz off". Post Union was not "Wakeman tells Yes to buzz
off" but a "Buzz off Wakeman, you aren't part of the contract after
all". After KTA could go either way - either Wakeman was told to buzz
off or he told them to buzz off.
One definitive "Wakeman tells Yes to buzz off" in the mid 70s, and
possibly one in the late 90s.
This clearly does *not* constitute "Wakeman repeatedly tells Yes to buzz
off".
>
> > > It seems as if the move is born of desperation and a
> > > willingness to bend over, grab their ankles and let Wakeman do whatever what he
> > > wants.
> >
> > Yeah - that sounds *just* *like* Anderson's and Squire's M.O.
> >
> > WTF?
>
> Again, on the surface of things, it smacks of desperation. As I've
> also stated, I hope I'm wrong.
If you aren't wrong, it will only be coincidence.
>
> > > If it's *that bad*, why go on? Are they that desperate?
> >
> > Maybe they see some intrinsic value that you don't? Or maybe they're
> > fucked.
> >
> > I'd say 'take your pick', but it looks like you've already selected...
>
> See above.
>
> > > I agree. I don't think they'll *ever* hang it up until one croaks. My thought
> > > is that they *should* hang it up if they're really that desperate.
> > What'll they do for a living?
> >
> > What's the
> > > point, especially after the good Ladder/Magnification press and the "Yes will
> > > continue to break new ground"isms coming out of Jon all these years?
> >
> > A few of the members with a history of poor financial management will
> > still be able to afford to eat?
>
> <snicker> If "screw that, we gotta eat" is good enough for you to plop
> down big bucks for a show, then that's your deal.
Yes' motivations for touring are completely unrelated to my motivations
for seeing the show.
Why are you so concerned about their motivations? Either you will want
to see a tour with Wakeman back or not.
> Coming out of the
> Union shows and the things said about that (mainly Brufy's comments
> about being in it "only for the money") I think I would pass,
> particularly if that's all Wakeman's re-joining boils down to in the
> end.
<shrug> It's your choice.
>
> > > If they
> > > bring him back and do a "Classic Yes Lineup tour with Rick Wakeman", then the
> > > band takes *another* giant step towards becoming the novelty act many have
> > > feared. Besides, wasn't the Mag tour supposed to be the end for awhile anyway?
> > > And if so, wouldn't that make a summer '02 tour with Wakemen even *more* of a
> > > one-off novelty act than anything?
> > >
> > > Maybe I should wait and see what the setlist might entail, but at this point I
> > > would vote for a hiatus; take two or three years off and then come back with a
> > > new "five year plan".
> >
> > <shaking head> No Yes is better than a tour with Wakeman?
>
> If it ends up being another "re-Union" type of rip-off, yes,
> absolutely (but again, I hope I'm wrong).
The rip-off was the Union album. I don't recall a lot of people saying
they felt ripped off by the tour.
Why should people feel ripped off by a tour with Wakeman, if that is
something they are interested in seeing?
There may be casual/lost fans who are lured into seeing the show because
Wakeman is with the band, might they not feel ripped off if the show was
heavy on stuff they weren't familiar with (Magnification, KTA)?
>
> > Isn't it at all a possibility that if they take two or three years off,
> > then there won't be much chance to get that new five year plan rolling?
>
> After having toured for five straight summers now (or is it four?) I
> think some time off is called for.
I don't. But them, I'm a selfish fuck.
Zemborato
> The rip-off was the Union album. I don't recall a lot of people saying
> they felt ripped off by the tour.
I felt ripped off by the tour. They cancelled here, DAMNIT!
Zem
JT
> I think Jon has the right idea. Scrap the spring/summer tour, and take some
> time off.
> I think maybe a couple of years off, take some time to write some *quality*
> material, maybe try to do a 30-40+ minute epic, but do it *properly*, taking
> lots of time to iron out any kinks, making sure it works, not rushing it to
> tape like Keys.
> Work on some solo stuff, recharge the batteries, _then_ think about
> regrouping & touring, with or without Wakeman.
> I think the band have oversaturated themselves the last few years, there's
> too much previously released material being released yet again (A
> Magnification double disk?? good grief.).
> I understand they need to eat, but people are going to stop giving a damn
> whether they go to the shows or not, because after all, miss them this time
> & they'll be back in a few months...........
Taking a break because they have saturated the market or fans
pocketbooks might make sense, but musically, their best work (CTTE)
followed closely on the heels of a solid work (Fragile). GFTO came
after doing solo projects, making a change in keyboard player and was
not up to par with Relayer. Magnification is the best they have done
in years...if they are not retiring all together then I would hope
they get back in the studio soon and record some more. The next
hiatus beyond a six month breather from touring will be their last.
Jim
Henry Potts
>Steven Sullivan sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu writes
>>Todd Mitchell wrote:
[...]
>>: If indeed this is his reasoning (that he got taken to the cleaners
>>: in a divorce and needs the cash, which incidentally is *odd* given
>>: his born-again proclivities),
>
>>Not really. Who's to say how that went down? Perhaps his wife wanted a
>>hard* to stay married, but I don't think divorce is forbidden (esp, when
>>there are no kids involved).
>
>one *less* likely to get a divorce, and though I only have anectdotal evidence,
>it seems as if more and more "born-agains" are divorcing everyday. What
>*really* happened is unknown,
Nina told all to the UK tabloids not long ago, so I feel as though I
know far more then I ever wanted to. We do know that she dumped him.
>[...] isn't the irony a bit thick when you have a guy who cites the
>rock-n-roll lifestyle of "touring" as being at odds with his "faith",
>then gets divorced and rejoins the band? [...]
I can't remember Wakeman saying that the "rock-n-roll lifestyle of
"touring" [is] at odds with his "faith""...?
--
Henry
Christopher J Currie
> On 27 Jan 2002 03:49:49 -0800, from all of eternity,
> go...@emulationzone.org (Goon), lost in all the noise, silently
> whispered :
>>> Source I have : Paul Silveira and Alan White, after-show party, London
>>> 12/5/2001. Seems Wakeman's return was a given for both of them as
>>> early as that.
>>
>>Come on, Yann, spill the beans! What was said?
> That the next tour (meaning at that time April in the USA) would have
> Wakeman on keys. That Rick was (and probably still is) broke because
> of the divorce and agreed to do the Yes tour for the money.
A few years ago, Wakeman claimed that he would only return to Yes if very
large sums of money were involved. Perhaps the divorce caused him to
rethink his priorities; in any event, I'm glad to see that his mercenary
streak is still running strong. :P
Now: let's hope his compromised financial situation makes it impossible
for him to make any musical demands on the rest of the band.
Christopher
Christopher J Currie
> I really don't get this attitude -- have you been told that Yes *won't*
> play any Magnification material, if Wakeman rejoins for a tour? It could
> turn out that way; it could turn out they play KTA material; it could turn
> out *a lot of things*. Some better than others.
Which is a fair point to consider.
I'll admit that I wasn't happy when I first heard the new reports about
Wakeman's possible return, considering the past politics between Wakeman
and Yes (not to mention Wakeman's generally lousy record in songwriting
and arranging). The fiasco of 1996/7 was enough to sour me on even the
vague chance of a sequel.
But ...
(i) Wakeman's last work with Yes was on _KtA 2_, which I still consider
to be the band's best work since *at least* _Drama_.
(ii) There were high expectations for the band in 1997, prior to
Wakeman's departure.
(iii) The last time Wakeman played live with Yes was at SLO. Which, of
course, was the first definite sign of Yes's "return", after the Rabin
years.
*
As long as Wakeman isn't given too much in the way of artistic lisence,
this could turn out to be something worth seeing.
Christopher
Eric Donin
HRMMGY wrote:
Right, and not to mention, he's not afraid to try bold variations on familiar
musical lines...boogie on PM...
Steven Sullivan
: Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
:> I really don't get this attitude -- have you been told that Yes *won't*
:> play any Magnification material, if Wakeman rejoins for a tour? It could
:> turn out that way; it could turn out they play KTA material; it could turn
:> out *a lot of things*. Some better than others.
: Which is a fair point to consider.
: I'll admit that I wasn't happy when I first heard the new reports about
: Wakeman's possible return, considering the past politics between Wakeman
: and Yes (not to mention Wakeman's generally lousy record in songwriting
: and arranging). The fiasco of 1996/7 was enough to sour me on even the
: vague chance of a sequel.
: But ...
: (i) Wakeman's last work with Yes was on _KtA 2_, which I still consider
: to be the band's best work since *at least* _Drama_.
(i.1) In his last NFTE interview Wakeman was hot to do the KTA 2 material
live (while pretty much dismissing the KTA I material as a 'calling card'
sort of thing).
: As long as Wakeman isn't given too much in the way of artistic lisence,
: this could turn out to be something worth seeing.
I *predict* Yes will take an easy road out and load the next setlist with
'classics' ...but I don't *automatically* rule out that something more
interesting could happen. In either case I'd still go to see the old
bastards at least once. This seems to be where I differ from the gloom
and doom faction.
Christopher J Currie
> Christopher J Currie <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
> : Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
> :> I really don't get this attitude -- have you been told that Yes *won't*
> :> play any Magnification material, if Wakeman rejoins for a tour? It could
> :> turn out that way; it could turn out they play KTA material; it could turn
> :> out *a lot of things*. Some better than others.
> : Which is a fair point to consider.
> : I'll admit that I wasn't happy when I first heard the new reports about
> : Wakeman's possible return, considering the past politics between Wakeman
> : and Yes (not to mention Wakeman's generally lousy record in songwriting
> : and arranging). The fiasco of 1996/7 was enough to sour me on even the
> : vague chance of a sequel.
> : But ...
> : (i) Wakeman's last work with Yes was on _KtA 2_, which I still consider
> : to be the band's best work since *at least* _Drama_.
> (i.1) In his last NFTE interview Wakeman was hot to do the KTA 2 material
> live (while pretty much dismissing the KTA I material as a 'calling card'
> sort of thing).
Which it pretty much was, as far as Wakeman's own contributions went.
> : As long as Wakeman isn't given too much in the way of artistic lisence,
> : this could turn out to be something worth seeing.
> I *predict* Yes will take an easy road out and load the next setlist with
> 'classics' ...but I don't *automatically* rule out that something more
> interesting could happen. In either case I'd still go to see the old
> bastards at least once. This seems to be where I differ from the gloom
> and doom faction.
A 'classics'-heavy setlist + "Mind Drive" wouldn't necessarily be the
worst of all possible worlds.
The Christopher Currie
gmelin
Christopher J Currie <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote in article
<a377o1$oa$1...@knot.queensu.ca>...
| A 'classics'-heavy setlist + "Mind Drive" wouldn't necessarily be the
| worst of all possible worlds.
It would be awfually close.
Eric Donin
this round, reagardless of the keyboardist. Mind Drive would be cool.
Other classics that haven't seen the light of day since half this
newsgroup's readership was born would be fine too. But the same handful of
songs yet again? Too many long-buried Yes gems for that.
I think someone else said it best on their dearly departed bootleg site. He
was talking about the umpteenth rendition of Howe's "The Clap", but he
might as well have been taking about the band's narrow-minded set list
mindset when he sarcastically said something like "Howe digs deep into his
treasure drove to offer this rare chestnut."
(I love that line, though I'm sure I butchered it)
Paul Goodwin
"Eric Donin" <edo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C572DE7...@bellsouth.net...
> If 'classics'-heavy setlist" means the same ol', same ol' I'm staying
home
> this round, reagardless of the keyboardist.
I could *say* that, but I know deep inside I'll end up going, and likely
more than once. Problem for me is the band set the bar pretty damn high last
tour, they were better than I was expecting and even hoping for, that
Columbus show is etched in my brain forever as being Yes at the top of their
game, so any "Greatest Hits" show with Wakeman is almost certain to be
somewhat disappointing by comparison, unless they play a good chunk of
material we've not heard recently. And by "recently" I mean before the OYE
tour.
The list someone posted the other day of songs they *don't* want to hear for
awhile would be a good place for the band to start.
--
Paul
"I worry that the person who thought up Muzak may be thinking up something
else"
- Lily Tomlin
Christopher J Currie
> Christopher J Currie <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote in article
> | A 'classics'-heavy setlist + "Mind Drive" wouldn't necessarily be the
> | worst of all possible worlds.
> It would be awfually close.
Not into _KtA 2_, I take it?
Christopher
Yann Clochec
Currie <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca>, lost in all the noise, silently
whispered :
>A 'classics'-heavy setlist + "Mind Drive" wouldn't necessarily be the
>worst of all possible worlds.
>The Christopher Currie
Best prediction : Wakeman comes back, Yes dictate their own terms for
half of the setlist and negociate with Rick for the other half. Alan
is *very* eager on playing MAGNIFICATION material live. Steve wants
"To be over". Chris doesn't care as long as he has a bass solo ;-) Jon
will do whatever the others want as long as there is something from
TFTO ;-)
Probable setlist :
Siberian kathru
Mind drive
We agree
And you and I
The revealing science of God
In the presence of
To be over
Heart of the sunrise
Dreamtime
Awaken
I've seen all good people
Roundabout
Starship trooper
Theus
> | A 'classics'-heavy setlist + "Mind Drive" wouldn't necessarily be the
> | worst of all possible worlds.
>
>
Theus
news:9RE58.457$hi5...@grover.nit.gwu.edu...
> Christopher J Currie <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
> : Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>
> :> I really don't get this attitude -- have you been told that Yes
*won't*
> :> play any Magnification material, if Wakeman rejoins for a tour? It
could
> :> turn out that way; it could turn out they play KTA material; it could
turn
> :> out *a lot of things*. Some better than others.
>
>
> : Which is a fair point to consider.
>
> : I'll admit that I wasn't happy when I first heard the new reports about
> : Wakeman's possible return, considering the past politics between
Wakeman
> : and Yes (not to mention Wakeman's generally lousy record in songwriting
> : and arranging). The fiasco of 1996/7 was enough to sour me on even the
> : vague chance of a sequel.
>
> : But ...
>
> : (i) Wakeman's last work with Yes was on _KtA 2_, which I still
consider
> : to be the band's best work since *at least* _Drama_.
>
> (i.1) In his last NFTE interview Wakeman was hot to do the KTA 2
material
> live (while pretty much dismissing the KTA I material as a 'calling card'
> sort of thing).
>
> : this could turn out to be something worth seeing.
>
> I *predict* Yes will take an easy road out and load the next setlist with
> 'classics' ...but I don't *automatically* rule out that something more
> interesting could happen. In either case I'd still go to see the old
> bastards at least once. This seems to be where I differ from the gloom
> and doom faction.
>
outweighed by the fact that the keyboards would likely be played equal to
the rest of the band. Besides, it may very well work out well, which is my
hope on the whole thing. Maybe this line-up can at least stay together
long
enough to do more than two albums in a row and stick to a reasonably
progressive direction. If so, then Wakeman's return can't be all bad.
Paul Goodwin
"Yann Clochec" <noussomme...@ifrance.com> wrote in message
news:3c572e8b...@news.club-internet.fr...
If anybody needs me I'll be at Ticketmaster, lining up ;-)
Steven Sullivan
Steven Sullivan
: On 29 Jan 2002 22:29:21 GMT, from all of eternity, Christopher J
:>A 'classics'-heavy setlist + "Mind Drive" wouldn't necessarily be the
:>worst of all possible worlds.
:>The Christopher Currie
: Best prediction : Wakeman comes back, Yes dictate their own terms for
: half of the setlist and negociate with Rick for the other half.
Wakeman is on record (that NFTE interview again) as saying he believes Yes
should *always* play certain tunes the crowd expects to hear (he
likens it to Sinatra fans going away disappointed unless they hear 'My
Way'). He didn't specify which.
: "To be over". Chris doesn't care as long as he has a bass solo ;-) Jon
: will do whatever the others want as long as there is something from
: TFTO ;-)
If only. Jon's not *that* consistent a supporter of TFTO -- e.g., he
wanted to do a shortened version of Revealing Science on the OYE tour, but
Howe vetoed that idea.
Todd Mitchell
> Todd Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > Robert Dubnicka <dubn...@richmond.infi.net> writes in message
> > news:<3C560D90...@richmond.infi.net>...
> >
> > > Todd Mitchell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steven Sullivan sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu writes:
> > > >
> > > > >Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.comatose> wrote:
>
> > > > but
> > > > isn't the irony a bit thick when you have a guy who cites the rock-n-roll
> > > > lifestyle of "touring" as being at odds with his "faith",
> > >
> > > Where'd he say that?
> >
> > I think that was from the 80's, before the health problems set in, but
> > I'm not sure.
> >
>
> I didn't think you had your facts straight.
Yeah, a "paraphrase" is so *unfactual*.
> > > > Maybe I should rephrase and say how disappointed I am that the band would just
> > > > roll over for a guy who has repeatedly told them to buzz off, on and off, for
> > > > so many decades.
> > >
> > > Let's see: he kinda did that following Tales, buzzed off *with* Jon
> > > Anderson after Tormato, was left out after Union, and either told them
> > > to buzz off or was told to buzz off after KTA (depending on whose story
> > > you believe).
> > >
> > > This is "repeatedly"?
> >
> > Lessee, that's once in the 70's, once at the beginning of the 80's,
> > and twice in the 90's. Yeah, I'd say that qualifies as "repeatedly".
>
> There is a one definitive "Wakeman tells Yes to buzz off", after Tales.
> Post Tormato was more an "Anderson and Wakeman felt the rest of Yes
> wanted them to buzz off".
Which is *one* interpretation.
> Post Union was not "Wakeman tells Yes to buzz
> off" but a "Buzz off Wakeman, you aren't part of the contract after
> all".
Which is *another* interpretation.
> After KTA could go either way - either Wakeman was told to buzz
> off or he told them to buzz off.
>
> One definitive "Wakeman tells Yes to buzz off" in the mid 70s, and
> possibly one in the late 90s.
>
> This clearly does *not* constitute "Wakeman repeatedly tells Yes to buzz
> off".
Which is a *third* interpretation. It also strikes me as <gasp>
*repeated*.
> >
> > > > It seems as if the move is born of desperation and a
> > > > willingness to bend over, grab their ankles and let Wakeman do whatever what he
> > > > wants.
> > >
> > > Yeah - that sounds *just* *like* Anderson's and Squire's M.O.
> > >
> > > WTF?
> >
> > Again, on the surface of things, it smacks of desperation. As I've
> > also stated, I hope I'm wrong.
>
> If you aren't wrong, it will only be coincidence.
LOL. Which would make the off-chance you were right, uh, divine
intervention?
> >
> > > > If it's *that bad*, why go on? Are they that desperate?
> > >
> > > Maybe they see some intrinsic value that you don't? Or maybe they're
> > > fucked.
> > >
> > > I'd say 'take your pick', but it looks like you've already selected...
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > > > I agree. I don't think they'll *ever* hang it up until one croaks. My thought
> > > > is that they *should* hang it up if they're really that desperate.
> > > What'll they do for a living?
> > >
> > > What's the
> > > > point, especially after the good Ladder/Magnification press and the "Yes will
> > > > continue to break new ground"isms coming out of Jon all these years?
> > >
> > > A few of the members with a history of poor financial management will
> > > still be able to afford to eat?
> >
> > <snicker> If "screw that, we gotta eat" is good enough for you to plop
> > down big bucks for a show, then that's your deal.
>
> Yes' motivations for touring are completely unrelated to my motivations
> for seeing the show.
>
> Why are you so concerned about their motivations?
Why wouldn't I be?
> Either you will want
> to see a tour with Wakeman back or not.
Not, if it's a "strictly in it for the money" type of gig (but that
goes to that *motiviation* thing).
> > Coming out of the
> > Union shows and the things said about that (mainly Brufy's comments
> > about being in it "only for the money") I think I would pass,
> > particularly if that's all Wakeman's re-joining boils down to in the
> > end.
>
> <shrug> It's your choice.
It's yours as well.
> > > > If they
> > > > bring him back and do a "Classic Yes Lineup tour with Rick Wakeman", then the
> > > > band takes *another* giant step towards becoming the novelty act many have
> > > > feared. Besides, wasn't the Mag tour supposed to be the end for awhile anyway?
> > > > And if so, wouldn't that make a summer '02 tour with Wakemen even *more* of a
> > > > one-off novelty act than anything?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I should wait and see what the setlist might entail, but at this point I
> > > > would vote for a hiatus; take two or three years off and then come back with a
> > > > new "five year plan".
> > >
> > > <shaking head> No Yes is better than a tour with Wakeman?
> >
> > If it ends up being another "re-Union" type of rip-off, yes,
> > absolutely (but again, I hope I'm wrong).
>
> The rip-off was the Union album. I don't recall a lot of people saying
> they felt ripped off by the tour.
I remember plenty of people saying they felt ripped off by the tour.
> Why should people feel ripped off by a tour with Wakeman, if that is
> something they are interested in seeing?
>
> There may be casual/lost fans who are lured into seeing the show because
> Wakeman is with the band, might they not feel ripped off if the show was
> heavy on stuff they weren't familiar with (Magnification, KTA)?
Might those who supported the band by buying those albums not feel the
same way?
> >
> > > Isn't it at all a possibility that if they take two or three years off,
> > > then there won't be much chance to get that new five year plan rolling?
> >
> > After having toured for five straight summers now (or is it four?) I
> > think some time off is called for.
>
> I don't. But them, I'm a selfish fuck.
You said it.
Todd
Eric Donin
Paul Goodwin wrote:
> "Eric Donin" <edo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3C572DE7...@bellsouth.net...
> > If 'classics'-heavy setlist" means the same ol', same ol' I'm staying
> home
> > this round, reagardless of the keyboardist.
>
> I could *say* that, but I know deep inside I'll end up going, and likely
> more than once. Problem for me is the band set the bar pretty damn high last
> tour, they were better than I was expecting and even hoping for, that
> Columbus show is etched in my brain forever as being Yes at the top of their
> game, so any "Greatest Hits" show with Wakeman is almost certain to be
> somewhat disappointing by comparison, unless they play a good chunk of
> material we've not heard recently. And by "recently" I mean before the OYE
> tour.
Amen to that brother
Todd Mitchell
news:<3C56C9F7...@mlode.com>...
> Todd Mitchell wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Forbidden, no, but it seems extolling the virtues of born-again-ism would make
> > one *less* likely to get a divorce, and though I only have anectdotal evidence,
> > it seems as if more and more "born-agains" are divorcing everyday. What
> > *really* happened is unknown, and perhaps he had good reason to get out,
>
> Todd- what *really* happened is known- you simply didn't know. Nina had an affair
> with a very young man while Rick was touring. While Nina stumbled with her own
> faith, it had nothing to do with the strength of Rick's. In fact, Rick is probably
> a stronger man because of what he went through- which I wouldn't wish on anyone.
I'm surprised you'd just dump that out here on usenet for all to see.
I'm happy he's "stronger", but I'm still not sure I needed to be, uh,
*that* informed.
> I'd like to tell you that Rick has never been quoted as being "born again". Show
> me where you've seen that. Rick has shared that his faith is Christian and that he
> is a believer of Christ.
Good for him. I thought those who leave the faith, only to come back
to it again, are "born-again".
> > but
> > isn't the irony a bit thick when you have a guy who cites the rock-n-roll
> > lifestyle of "touring" as being at odds with his "faith", then gets divorced
> > and rejoins the band?
>
> Certainly the legendary lifestyles of the touring rock stars of the world would be
> at odds with Rick's beliefs. But as for the here and now, I don't think Yes or Rick
> Wakeman have mis-behaved in a long long time. I have toured before with Rick and
> most evenings he would retire to his room early or as soon as possible.
I would hope so, after the health problems he had, but it's his
choice.
> > Maybe I should rephrase and say how disappointed I am that the band would just
> > roll over for a guy who has repeatedly told them to buzz off, on and off, for
> > so many decades.
>
> Actually- I suppose you are uninformed again.... The last time Rick departed Yes
> (1997) was for very good reasons, many have been detailed here and in the media
> already. I think it could be turned around that it was Yes who told Rick to buzz
> off by trying to change agreements, contracts, no pay, not including him in major
> legal decisions, arranging/schedualing and selling a tour without considering his
> own pending surgery, charging personals to the record label ($15,000 wine!), firing
> manager without his knowledge, hiring new manager without his knowledge, going over
> budget when all recording was done and over, wanting to add new songs by Sherwood
> that were terrible and not very "classic-Yes-like"..... the list goes on and on
> too! After all this Rick deserved to split, but I still think he should have stuck
> around to make his point and to get what he did have coming to him: respect and
> pay.
Which is your interpretation, based on whatever he's said to you. I'm
sure the others in the band would probably disagree or offer different
"versions".
> The occasion that many refer to Rick's previous departure had nothing to do with
> his choice to leave, he was simply not included in the Victory/Talk contract
> following the Union tour.
>
> Before that Rick had joined up with Jon to do ABWH.... only for that to become
> Yes/Union, much to the dismay of Bruford. Rick was hopeful it would NOT lead to a
> big falling apart of what he and Steve and Bill joined Jon for... but it did, and
> that could be blamed on someone other than Rick!
>
> Rick did split from Yes in 1974 and once more (with Jon) in 1979, but he has not
> "told them to buzz off, on and off, for so many decades."
And again, that's his take on it. I'm sure the others might offer
different one's.
> > It seems as if the move is born of desperation and a
> > willingness to bend over, grab their ankles and let Wakeman do whatever what he
> > wants. If it's *that bad*, why go on? Are they that desperate?
>
> Yes? Desperate? No. They have done okay without Rick, but not as good as they could
> have if they had him.
We definitely *disagree* there.
Todd
Robert Dubnicka
<snip>
> > I don't. But them, I'm a selfish fuck.
>
> You said it.
Let's recap:
You claim to paraphrasing something that Wakeman probably never said
(his religious beliefs prevent him from touring) and attributing it to
Wakeman.
You claim that Wakeman repeatedly told Yes to "buzz off", when all
indications (not *interpretations*) are he definitely did so after
Tales, and possibly, but perhaps not without justifiable provocation if
he did, after KTA. Once, possibly twice in 20 plus years, is *not*
"repeatedly" telling Yes to buzz off.
You claim that you won't see a tour if you conclude the band's main
motivation is"only for the money", because the *band's* motivation is an
important concern to you. (LOL - what the fuck else would they tour for
besides to make as much money as they can, either off the tour itself
and/or by promoting a current album?)
You know, I can always quit being a selfish fuck, but it seems it's
unavoidable that you'll *always* be a stupid fuck (or fucking stupid -
take your pick).
Eric Donin
Yann Clochec wrote:
Now that's a set list I could abide by, especially Mind Drive, TRSOG, the
Mag cuts and TBO! The rest I'll concede to the band and those cave
dwellers who never heard 'em live before. Even if you have to take a pay
cut, be sure to accept the Tour Program Director position, Yann.
Yann Clochec
Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>, lost in all the noise,
silently whispered :
>: "To be over". Chris doesn't care as long as he has a bass solo ;-) Jon
>: will do whatever the others want as long as there is something from
>: TFTO ;-)
>
>If only. Jon's not *that* consistent a supporter of TFTO -- e.g., he
>wanted to do a shortened version of Revealing Science on the OYE tour, but
>Howe vetoed that idea.
Should we deduce from this overly serious contribution to the debate
that Doctor Sullivan is unaware of the profound significance of those
little and quite commonly used things called "smileys" <vbg> ?
Chris Jemmett
"Christopher J Currie" <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:a377o1$oa$1...@knot.queensu.ca...
> A 'classics'-heavy setlist + "Mind Drive" wouldn't necessarily be the
> worst of all possible worlds.
Or even a setlist made up of SC,TBO, SSotS, MD and a bunch of classics.
A pretty high percentage of the audiences would be going home thinking they
heard a bunch of new stuff along with their favorites.
Nic Caciappo
gmelin wrote:
> Nic Caciappo <nic...@mlode.com> wrote in article
> <3C56C9F7...@mlode.com>...
> | Todd- what *really* happened is known- you simply didn't know. Nina had
> an affair
> | with a very young man while Rick was touring. While Nina stumbled with
> her own
> | faith, it had nothing to do with the strength of Rick's.
>
> Nic, is this a matter of public knowledge? If not, it seems highly
> inappropriate for you to be babbling something so personal here, especially
> given the way you usually love to go around crowing, "I know something, but
> I can't say what it is," all the time.
It is public, especially in the U.K., which is where Nina sold the story to
sleezy tabloids. In the past I have only said what I could responsibly say
here. It's more fun to share information. But not being able to give it isn't
"crowing"...... something I do not "love". You don't know me pal, so stop short
of acting like you do.
Nic
Nic Caciappo
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Nic Caciappo <nic...@mlode.com> wrote:
>
> : Todd Mitchell wrote:
>
> :>
> :>
> :> Forbidden, no, but it seems extolling the virtues of born-again-ism would make
> :> one *less* likely to get a divorce, and though I only have anectdotal evidence,
> :> it seems as if more and more "born-agains" are divorcing everyday. What
> :> *really* happened is unknown, and perhaps he had good reason to get out,
>
> : Todd- what *really* happened is known- you simply didn't know. Nina had an affair
> : with a very young man while Rick was touring.
>
> I had heard something to this effect...but didn't know it was for public
> consumption.
Again.... the story was sold to the British tabloids. That's about as public as you can
get Steven. It was also previously mentioned by others on this newsgroup as well as the
Wakeman List.
Nic
Nic Caciappo
HRMMGY wrote:
> if rick does rejoin and record--I hope he brings in some cool guys to help him
> develop some new synth sounds for him to use on at least some of the songs--I'm
> not too impressed with his sounds on Keys 2---
You mean you heard RW on the KTA's ?
Nic
Nic Caciappo
Todd Mitchell wrote:
> Nic Caciappo <nic...@mlode.com> writes in message
> news:<3C56C9F7...@mlode.com>...
>
>
> I'm surprised you'd just dump that out here on usenet for all to see.
> I'm happy he's "stronger", but I'm still not sure I needed to be, uh,
> *that* informed.
Again- This has been said on a.m.y. before as well as the Wakeman list, in addition the
story was sold to the British press. Perhaps you didn't need to be *that* informed, yet
you were the one flapping your mouth off about something you had no knowledge of.
>
> Good for him. I thought those who leave the faith, only to come back
> to it again, are "born-again".
Wrong again. Something else you know nothing about. Jesus says in the NT that "you must
be born again" (like a new child, new). Unfortunately, Christians wreck this comment from
Jesus and use it in a way that has become something legalistic. I really don't like the
heavy use of this term, and Rick has told me the same.
>
>
> Which is your interpretation, based on whatever he's said to you. I'm
> sure the others in the band would probably disagree or offer different
> "versions".
Wrong again. This is not an interpretation. Unfortunately I was an involved party, a
witness and very privy to all of the 1997/Easter weekend fiasco. There was much more than
just what Rick told me.... there was Jon, Alan and Chris as well....
>
>
> And again, that's his take on it. I'm sure the others might offer
> different one's.
That's your choice, to remain ignorant.
>
> > Yes? Desperate? No. They have done okay without Rick, but not as good as they could
> > have if they had him.
>
> We definitely *disagree* there.
Yes did so good with OYE and even the latest Magnification, eh?
Nic
gmelin
Nic Caciappo <nic...@mlode.com> wrote in article
| It is public, especially in the U.K., which is where Nina sold the story
to
| sleezy tabloids.
Okay. Not surprisingly, it didn't get much press here. Wakeman's not the
household name here that he is in the UK, I guess.
In the past I have only said what I could responsibly say
| here. It's more fun to share information. But not being able to give it
isn't
| "crowing"...... something I do not "love". You don't know me pal, so stop
short
| of acting like you do.
I know how you behave on this forum. Enough said.
gmelin
Christopher J Currie <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote in article
<a37ah7$oa$9...@knot.queensu.ca>...
Where have you been?
gmelin
Nic Caciappo <nic...@mlode.com> wrote in article
|
| Yes did so good with OYE and even the latest Magnification, eh?
They did extremely *well* with _Mag_. It's easily the best thing they've
done in over two decades. A whole hell of a lot better use of orchestra
than in Wakeman's _Return_. Every time I think of how Yes wanted him to do
the orchestrations for _Mag_, the phrase "dodged a bullet" leaps to mind.
gmelin
Theus <mejs...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<nfG58.14667$yi5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
| "gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
| news:01c1a919$7ae6b0e0$97f8fc9e@computer...
| >
| >
| > Christopher J Currie <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote in article
| > <a377o1$oa$1...@knot.queensu.ca>...
| > | A 'classics'-heavy setlist + "Mind Drive" wouldn't necessarily be
the
| > | worst of all possible worlds.
| >
| > It would be awfually close.
| >
| An all Yeswest set might be far worse.
And the chances of that *ever* happening are. . .
Theus
news:3C5770C7...@mlode.com...
Wakeman generally seems like a friendly guy, so I hope he bounces back from
it.
Theus
>
>
> Theus <mejs...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <nfG58.14667$yi5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> | "gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> | news:01c1a919$7ae6b0e0$97f8fc9e@computer...
> | >
> | >
> | > Christopher J Currie <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote in article
> | > <a377o1$oa$1...@knot.queensu.ca>...
> | > | A 'classics'-heavy setlist + "Mind Drive" wouldn't necessarily be
> the
> | > | worst of all possible worlds.
> | >
> | > It would be awfually close.
> | >
> | An all Yeswest set might be far worse.
>
> And the chances of that *ever* happening are. . .
>
Todd Mitchell
> Todd Mitchell wrote:
>
> > Nic Caciappo <nic...@mlode.com> writes in message
> > news:<3C56C9F7...@mlode.com>...
> >
> >
> > I'm surprised you'd just dump that out here on usenet for all to see.
> > I'm happy he's "stronger", but I'm still not sure I needed to be, uh,
> > *that* informed.
>
> Again- This has been said on a.m.y. before as well as the Wakeman list, in addition the
> story was sold to the British press.
Where has it "been said on a.m.y. before, and why are there other
posts on this thread wondering the same thing?
> Perhaps you didn't need to be *that* informed, yet
> you were the one flapping your mouth off about something you had no knowledge of.
Coming from a guy who goes to the "inflatable blow-up doll" card on
occasion, it also makes your "word", so, uh, *believable*.
> > Good for him. I thought those who leave the faith, only to come back
> > to it again, are "born-again".
>
> Wrong again. Something else you know nothing about. Jesus says in the NT that "you must
> be born again" (like a new child, new). Unfortunately, Christians wreck this comment from
> Jesus and use it in a way that has become something legalistic.
WTF does that mean? "Wreck" the comment? "Legalisitic"? Born-Again
means to "pursue the personal experience of God's and Jesus' presence"
if you need a precise defintion, which obviously you do since you seem
to know nothign about the topic.
> I really don't like the
> heavy use of this term, and Rick has told me the same.
> >
> >
> > Which is your interpretation, based on whatever he's said to you. I'm
> > sure the others in the band would probably disagree or offer different
> > "versions".
>
> Wrong again. This is not an interpretation. Unfortunately I was an involved party, a
> witness and very privy to all of the 1997/Easter weekend fiasco. There was much more than
> just what Rick told me.... there was Jon, Alan and Chris as well....
>
So they all told you the same thing? That they wanted to screw
Wakeman? I'd like to see where that was said by *all* of them.
> > And again, that's his take on it. I'm sure the others might offer
> > different one's.
>
> That's your choice, to remain ignorant.
Damn those *YesMen*.
> >
> > > Yes? Desperate? No. They have done okay without Rick, but not as good as they could
> > > have if they had him.
> >
> > We definitely *disagree* there.
>
> Yes did so good with OYE and even the latest Magnification, eh?
>
Much better on the latter than they did on KTA parts 1 and 2 (and I
don't even like Mag all that much).
Todd