Talk:Yes (band)

Article getting very long - history section separated?

I think that the article is getting very long. This is because the (very well written) history section dominates. The history section is not in itself too long, but it's length does IMHO unbalance the article, not a good thing as it pushes other significant sections rather too far down the page. Would wikipedians consider hiving off the history section into a separate article?CecilWard (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes have a long and complex history, there's no need to be apologetic about that. The problem is that if 'History' were moved to a separate article, there'd be nothing left of this one except a couple of charts! The reality is that this *is* a Yes history article and nothing more. (It is crying out for 'Styles and Influences' section just like the King Crimson article. I just don't know enough to do it but I think if someone just got bold and put one in and started off a few sections, it would attract a huge amount of good work and end up like the KC one.)--119.225.64.161 (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There's not a whole lot else to tell about a band that's been existence for 42 years than history. Sure, you could add a bit more about critical reception, influences & followers, etc, but the history is still going to be the major portion of the article because there's just so darn much of it to tell :) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Associated acts

Bondgezou recently suggested

(Associated acts should have more than one member in common)

But that would take out both King Crimson and UK (both firmly established as contemporary prog acts with a contextual relationship to Yes) while leaving in both Cinema and XYZ (neither of which, despite featuring two or more Yes members, ever gigged or played outside rehearsal rooms or released a record). With respect, I suggest that in this context context should trump numbers. As for the inclusion/exclusion of Jon & Vangelis, I'd suggest that an act which featured the very distinctive voice and lyrics of the Yes frontman, also contained a onetime major contender for their keyboard-player position and had at least some pop success should be restored to the list. - Dann Chinn (talk)

I see where you're coming from. Obviously, the "associated acts" tag is only one part of the article, so it seems to me that these contextual relationships are apparent in other ways (through links in the article, through links to the band members in the infobox and in the band's genre description in the infobox). There is guidance on use at Template:Infobox musical artist#Associated acts and this calls for a fairly constrained list of acts. Clearly, the "associated acts" tag is often used in a broader sense than that, but I can see why it makes sense to avoid a long list of bands. The infobox is not somewhere for a comprehensive list to go.

In that context, I've previously opted for a loose interpretation of the guidance and included King Crimson (given links through Levin as well as Bruford, Anderson guesting with Crimson, and Fripp being asked to join Yes) and UK (a tenuous additional link through Jobson's brief membership of Yes), but I can see that a similar argument can be made for Jon & Vangelis, as you have done above (we even have 2 J&V songs being recycled into Yes/ABWH pieces), so I won't object to the re-inclusion of J&V.

You raise also the point that J&V was a significant act with commercial success, while Cinema and XYZ were abortive projects without releases to their name. The guidance says nothing on this point, but it seems a valid one that notability should matter if we're trying to keep the list short. You/we can, of course, also discuss this at Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Bondegezou (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is significant that Anderson sung on Lizard and that Levin sessioned for Union - those facts plus of course Bill Bruford makes King Crimson a strongly associated act. The links with UK are incredibly tenuous, however, and UK only ever put out 1 studio album anyway so I do not see it as a big deal at all. I think that the rule of thumb about having at least 2 members in common is a very good one. --119.225.64.161 (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for a solid rule here, but if one is necessary, I would suggest that "more than one member in common" be amended with "or generally any collaborative project that either Anderson, Squire, or Howe are involved in" would make sense. They have more "Yesness" than other members. I'm sure others would debate that (likely a Rabin-era fanatic), but I think most of us are on the same page there (like Dann Chinn suggests about the "distinctive" sound that defines the act). —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 01:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"generally any collaborative project that either Anderson, Squire, or Howe are involved in" would make sense. They have more "Yesness" than other members." I strongly disagree. Bruford, White and Wakeman are incredibly distinctive musicians and you can hear their contributions/style and "Yesness" immediately. Candy (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a better reason than any of the above to unilaterally start re-writing Template:Infobox musical artist#Associated acts. Why are Yes so different to every other musical act that completely different rules should apply? Bondegezou (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Bondegezou makes a good point here, and if it is to be countered it should be countered fairly. As far as I can see, the major bones of contention in this case (re Template:Infobox musical artist#Associated acts) are that we're advised that "Groups with only one member in common" and "Association of groups with members' solo careers" should be avoided as regards citations and links in this area. This regulation has presumably been set up to avoid overzealous and over-pedantic editors of music articles from - for example - connecting a succession of bands which happen to have all featured the same jobbing bass player regardless of whether said musician has played any significant role in the music other than filling a basic musical role. As an example of a musical group which has a greater stress on musicality, performance skill and creativity (and on the individuals chosen to make this happen), Yes are something of an exception to this situation. (The same can be said for jazz bands, King Crimson, The Grateful Dead, Can, etc - make your own list!) Having said that, I think that we should at least attempt to police ourselves in adding all-and-sundry connected acts. How about a guideline of saying that Yes-related acts should always have contained one full Yes member? (So any acts which have, for example, just employed Tony Levin or Tom Brislin do not count.) Also, that member should have been a permanent member of said associated act, as well as having played a significant creative role within it. (Ie, acts who have simply featured guesting Yes members, such as Mike Oldfield or Queen, should not included.) This may be stating the obvious, but it's important not to create too much friction between Wiki guidelines and our interpretation of same. - Dann Chinn (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike Oldfield is an interesting example given he's worked with three Yesmen (Anderson, Horn, Downes). Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point! :-) But how integral was their work in each case? Anderson sang on one album track and one single, IIRC, while Horn and Downes acted as Oldfield's producers at various times (neither of which had any more than incidental connections to their Yeswork). The collaboration with Anderson would give most weight to Oldfield as an associated act (especially as Anderson wrote lyrics and possibly vocal melodies on both occasions) but I reckon that it's safer to say that overall Anderson guested with Oldfield rather than being a significant collaborator. I would say that that's less significant than King Crimson (one longtime member share involving composition, plus an Anderson guest appearance) or Jon & Vangelis (three whole albums involving a Yes member as half of a creative duo). It's a good example of where we might draw the line, though. - Dann Chinn (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I had no idea there was a Wikipedia guideline for this. I withdraw my previous suggestion (though I stand by my personal opinion about "Yesness") ;) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Verifying or removing anecdotes

Recent edits have been removing assorted anecdotal material used for colour in the article. There's an argument for removing all such material from Wikipedia (whether verified via citation or not), but assuming that we want to keep some of it, could I request a use of the ^{[citation needed]} tag rather than outright deletion? I believe quite a lot of the material being removed is covered in the published biography by Chris Welch, even though it remains uncited in the article. (In fairness, I must confess that a lot of this is my own fault for adding material from memory and being lazy about providing citation tags and proper page refs. Sorry. Will improve this.) - Dann Chinn (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Welch is a goldmine, agreed. Sensible use of citation-needed tags, agreed. If you feel material has been removed unnecessarily, you can always revert, adding a citation-needed tag yourself (presuming the material does not raise any WP:BLP concerns). If material is in the article for some time, still tagged as needing a citation, then it should be deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

All sounds good to me. I'll dig out my Welch book... :-) - Dann Chinn (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

re the recording of "America" - can someone with access to references please clarify whether or not Bruford really did play the Mellotron at the end of the track. It's a minor point but it really bugs the hell out of me. There is film/video footage (currently viewable on YouTube here: [1]) taken at the "America" sessions which clearly shows Wakeman playing the keyboards, and he looks pretty happy to me. It doesn't make sense that he would play all the other parts and not do a few bars of comping at the end. Unfortunately the video is not help here as at that point in the track the vision is of the band listening to the playback in the control room. Anyway, this is an unverified assertion that needs to either be confirmed or removed. Thanks. Dunks (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's described in one of the Yes biographies. I'll look out for it. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just been reading through the article again, and have noticed that some of the edits deleting material have been done without any apparent regard for whether the removal of said material has any consequent effect on following sentences or paragraphs. Consequently some sections of the article are losing coherence as sentences refer back to material or developments which have been arbitrarily removed. Could those editors who consider it their duty to fully erase "unencyclopaedic" or "non-verifiable" material please bear this in mind when working on the article? Despite plenty of good efforts with editing here, some of the more proscriptive examples are verging on seagull management. - Dann Chinn (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Shouldn't the subheading "Early days" be changed to "Early years"?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Bondegezou (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Early days" is common in British English, which is what this article should be in as I had to edit again. FotoPhest (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It is, but "early years" works just as well in British English, and also works in American English, so it seems more sensible. Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Very well. FotoPhest (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet another lineup change and returning member

I just heard Oliver Wakeman has left the band and Geoff Downes is back after three decades. Can we add that yet? Bondegezou, you're usually the first to report these things. FotoPhest (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Downes is recording the new album with them (Fly from Here)... plenty of sources there for that. Hadn't seen anyplace that Oliver Wakeman left, though, just that Trevor Horn wanted Downes to do the keyboard work on the album. 28bytes (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Generally Noted"?

The second paragraph seems to indicate that although Chris Squire is the longest running member, the band is "generally noted" by the distinctive sound of practically everyone else who's ever been in the band. Not only does this not make sense, but it downplays Squire's influence on the success and distinctiveness of the band. Thoughts? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 18:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the word "also" makes it okay. As it stands right now it basically says Squire and also every one elses sounds are generally noted. But it is all worded in a rather, parson the pun, roundabout way. What do you recommend? I agree a change should be made. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that there shouldn't be an "although" at all. It should be noted that Squire is a key part of the distinctive sound, and an "oh by the way" that he's the one consistent member. And then there needs to be some consensus about who defines the distinctive sound, or else the part that goes on to list every member in history is pointless. I know there's bound to be some disagreement about this, but I mean, really? Igor Khoroshev and Billy Sherwood are part of the distinctive sound of Yes? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 02:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be definitely be noted that Squire is the sole consistent member, but the distinctive sound of Yes? I disagree. What about Jon Anderson's high vocals? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Anderson is listed there too… along with every other member who was ever in the band (which is still a problem in my opinion). —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just made an edit to further this clarification. If the point of the paragraph is to tell us what kind of sound Yes is "generally noted" for (as it was originally stated), then I think most would agree this is accurate, rather than the previous version which seemed to indicate that every person who had ever been in the band were what Yes were "generally noted" for. I kept most of the name with wikilinks in there so they weren't excluded from being mentioned, but phrased it differently. Of course I welcome further discussion. Thanks. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 03:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the first sentence of the second para should be split. A full-stop (period) after "style" and then an intro to a sentence about core members would seem to be more neutral. Misericord (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The claim that the classic line is considered to be Anderson/Squire/Howe/Wakeman/White ought to have some reference backing - who considers that ? There is certainly a case for replacing White with Bruford RGCorris (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(And we Can ) Fly From Here...redux

It may be good to connect the old 'Yuggles' version of 'Fly From Here' with the new one-a sidenote in the first Downes/Horn portion of the Wiki, but seems to have a miraculous nascence in the latter part. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5N_UiWI-cg A 1980 tour rendition.

Reducing section titles / table of contents

I know this article has a lot of history to tell, but the table of contents is practically the size of a small article itself. A few of the shorter sections could really be combined (ie. Relayer->Drama) and some just don't seem deserving of their own section (ie. "Fourth Return of Rick Wakeman"). Thoughts? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As someone who's probably more responsible for the multiple section breaks than most, I should chip in here. :-) Having had a look back at the article, I'd say that the section with multiple subheadings could really lose some of those subheadings and be retitled. I'd suggest 1.6 A New Yes for a New Decade) could just lose its subheadings; 1.7 The years of two Yeses (1989–1992) could lose the subheadings and be retitled 1.7 The years of two Yeses: ABWH and Union (1989-1992). The sections from 1.9 onwards could also be divided up better. Ideally, each section should represent a significant change in the band's style (which would mean keeping the Relayer and Drama sections as each represents such a change). So the KTA years deserve their own section, with Open Your Eyes and The Ladder as the next one (as they have Khoroshev in common and were an attempt to salvage the KTA revival after Wakeman's departure), Magnification as the one after that (band goes orchestral) with Wakeman's return included as a postscript. The 2004-2008 hiatus could still do with its own section, but the 2008 new lineup and everything since should all be included in one section as it's an ongoing story. How about that? Yes' history has been complex and volatile for more reasons than band-member squabbling, so any section listing is likely to be fairly long. - Dann Chinn (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now done this. - Dann Chinn (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, thanks!!! Big improvement. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• For future reference, {{TOC_limit=2}} is also a good way to reduce the length of the TOC without making sections extra long. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I see that the Yes Wikia, Ticket Master, YesWorld.com, Bondegezou and websites from the band members are being used for sources. They are not considered reliable for Wikipedia, and should be replaced. 94.31.32.30 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

2004

This is in Trevor Rabin's article. I think it should be in here as well:

In 2004 Rabin performed in aid of the Prince's Trust with Yes at the Wembley Arena in London, where he served as lead guitarist and lead singer. The show was a tribute to producer Trevor Horn. The concert DVD is called Slaves to the Rhythm."

YouTube video of the venue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjuFAoP53BQ Yup, Anderson was not invited.

--Hatredman (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

[*] Another one: On 9 July 2010 Rabin accompanied Yes for the first time in 6 years at the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles and played the encore, "Owner of a Lonely Heart". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatredman (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)