Was Benoit David the best Yes could do?

Dellinger wrote: First of all, I must say I don't really think Squire, Howe, White should stop calling themselves Yes if they have the legal rights and want to do so, as long as they don't release the album or tour saying Anderson is with them when he actually isn't, which they haven't done. Whether we like what they are doing and how they call themselves is our own problem and we have to deal with it.      On the other hand, I too have seen Yes with Benoit (and sadly, not with Anderson), and I think they did a good job, and Benoit was OK... however, though he was a very good replacement, he is not Jon Anderson, and lacks that one special touch Anderson has, which makes a huge difference in the end; and he did look somewhat weird, like out of place in the stage with Yes (though certainly he did look like he was having a lot of fun). I'm rather interested in seing what he will do when stamping his personal touch in new songs. Still, I would rather they had looked for some other talented singer without trying to find an Anderson impersonator, because in the end the odds (and the actual result) is that he will be a dissapointment (hardly anyone will ever replace Anderson). The Haslam sugestion would have been a very nice thing to see, though I guess that's just a dream, I bet we will more likeley see Anderson back on Yes than Haslam.      Also, about 90125, if they wanted to call it Yes that was their choice, and I'm sure commercially it was a very successful choice, first it allowed them to get some attention more easily, and then lot's of people who got to know Yes because of the new songs must have looked for their earlier albums and become a Yes fan, I'm sure more than one person here in PA got to know Yes that way, perhaps even prog in general. So keeping the name Yes for 90125 helped them to sell more of the new album, as well as to sell more of their older albums. As for the Anderson, Wakeman, Rabin project, I'm at least as excited about it as I am about the actual Yes album (perhaps even more), and I really hope it comes to happen. If they choose to do it as a full prog album, and Wakeman decides to take a more active role in the songwriting than he usually does on Yes albums, I'm sure it could be great; many of Wakeman's albums are just about as good as the best Yes albums, and in the last decade he release 3 brilliant albums (Out there would be the best for me, and both Retro albums had some really good songs included).      So, in the end, I just hope both Yes, and Anderson, Wakmeman, Rabin release some really great material this year. I'll have to wait to judge.

First of all, I must say I don't really think Squire, Howe, White should stop calling themselves Yes if they have the legal rights and want to do so, as long as they don't release the album or tour saying Anderson is with them when he actually isn't, which they haven't done. Whether we like what they are doing and how they call themselves is our own problem and we have to deal with it.

     On the other hand, I too have seen Yes with Benoit (and sadly, not with Anderson), and I think they did a good job, and Benoit was OK... however, though he was a very good replacement, he is not Jon Anderson, and lacks that one special touch Anderson has, which makes a huge difference in the end; and he did look somewhat weird, like out of place in the stage with Yes (though certainly he did look like he was having a lot of fun). I'm rather interested in seing what he will do when stamping his personal touch in new songs. Still, I would rather they had looked for some other talented singer without trying to find an Anderson impersonator, because in the end the odds (and the actual result) is that he will be a dissapointment (hardly anyone will ever replace Anderson). The Haslam sugestion would have been a very nice thing to see, though I guess that's just a dream, I bet we will more likeley see Anderson back on Yes than Haslam.

     Also, about 90125, if they wanted to call it Yes that was their choice, and I'm sure commercially it was a very successful choice, first it allowed them to get some attention more easily, and then lot's of people who got to know Yes because of the new songs must have looked for their earlier albums and become a Yes fan, I'm sure more than one person here in PA got to know Yes that way, perhaps even prog in general. So keeping the name Yes for 90125 helped them to sell more of the new album, as well as to sell more of their older albums.
As for the Anderson, Wakeman, Rabin project, I'm at least as excited about it as I am about the actual Yes album (perhaps even more), and I really hope it comes to happen. If they choose to do it as a full prog album, and Wakeman decides to take a more active role in the songwriting than he usually does on Yes albums, I'm sure it could be great; many of Wakeman's albums are just about as good as the best Yes albums, and in the last decade he release 3 brilliant albums (Out there would be the best for me, and both Retro albums had some really good songs included).

     So, in the end, I just hope both Yes, and Anderson, Wakmeman, Rabin release some really great material this year. I'll have to wait to judge.

The "Keys to Ascension" sessions were the origin of some of the best moments in Yes' history ("Mind Drive", to mention only the most obvious one), and even "Magnification" was better than all that 80s stuff, including "Drama" to me (personally). So Yes are finally on their way back to old glory, and Wakeman/Anderson have never really been important for Yes' music style. (Wakeman enthusiasts might want to hear "Relayer" again and tell me why he would have been a better choice.)

Who would be a reasonable alternative? Another "let's sing like someone who tries to imitate Jon Anderson badly" guy? Trevor Horn? Oh, come on...

The best person to replace Jon Anderson is someone who tries to be Jon Anderson. I presume B. David does a great job...

el böthy wrote: Horizons wrote: When i saw this version of yes at Janus Landing in Florida, i was very pleased with his performance. He interacted with the band well, was happy, and played around with the acoustic alot. And, in my opinion he does his job cloning Anderson's vocals.   Smae thing here, in Argentina he was fine

infandous wrote: thehallway wrote: Even if Cinema didn't have any Yes members in it, if everyone from Yes/Cinema agreed on the name Yes, then it merely represents a change in direction for Yes.   If it "wasn't Yes" to some people's ears, then they obviously just have a less broad definition of Yes than the musicians themselves. Who cares what it's called or how it is justified or warranted to be called Yes....... just listen t it or avoid it. The same applies to Yes in 2011. Denying that the band is even allowed to be called Yes is taking things a bit personally....... Listen or avoid!!!  I don't think any of us have any illusions that the members of the current Yes care at all what we think.  Your point is also a good one.  I just say that for ME, personally, 90125 was not Yes.  Of course bands are entitled to determine what is or is not "them".  I also am completely entitled to my own feeling about that subject.

I suppose it is a natural extension from "disliking" a certain band's new direction, to say that this new direction "isn't them".........but ultimately, it still is them. Of course we, as fans, can have an opinion on it. But the denial aspect is perhaps a little childish, typical of fanboyism (no disrespect to fanboys!)....... i.e. It is better and easier to admit that a band you love has gone so far downhill that they are no longer the same band, than it is to admit that the band made some crappy albums.

Although I love 90125, I really don't like Love Beach, which was a significant change in direction for ELP. Would I say the album doesn't qualify as ELP (not just in terms of categorisation, but artistically)? I wouldn't. I would say ELP have developed, and that I don't like them anymore!

Rick Wakeman saying that the current Yes isn't Yes...... is a silly thing to say, especially as a member who himself left the band more times than is countable. Yes is the music, not the band. Jon's presence or absence doesn't make it Yes or un-Yes.......... just less like typical Yes.

Is the band worse without Jon though? DEFINATELY.

Even if Cinema didn't have any Yes members in it, if everyone from Yes/Cinema agreed on the name Yes, then it merely represents a change in direction for Yes.  

If it "wasn't Yes" to some people's ears, then they obviously just have a less broad definition of Yes than the musicians themselves. Who cares what it's called or how it is justified or warranted to be called Yes....... just listen t it or avoid it.

The same applies to Yes in 2011. Denying that the band is even allowed to be called Yes is taking things a bit personally.......

Listen or avoid!!! 

cstack3 wrote: lazland wrote: Wakeman never mentioned himself, he put Anderson at the heart of Yes, as he did when Anderson first left after Tormato. He has always been consistent about that. I will stick rigidly to my opinion that Yes should have ceased, and this lot called themselves a new name. Squire & Rabin were going to release 90125 under the name Cinema - it was only Anderson's return that forced a change back to Yes. There are some singer's who are irreplaceable. Rush without Lee, Zep without Plant, Who without Daltrey. My favourite band, Marillion, IMHO, should have renamed themselves following Fish's departure, and I prefer Hogarth. Someone mentioned the B word - business. Maybe so, but I would naively like to think that bands would, sometimes, have a little bit more respect for those, like me, who have spent a fortune on them over the years. Sadly, we see these business shenanigans all too often in prog!  Flash have had a dust-up over their name, and it would have been quite easy to negotiate a "blessing" and guest-track by Pete Banks on the (forever delayed) new Flash CD.   Wishbone Ash is another classic, with two touring versions, Andy Powell's and Martin Turner's versions.  Two bands playing tug-of-war over the same songs.  I agree, the honest thing would have been for Squire to re-name the thing and start fresh, as Howe & Co. did with their very successful Asia project.    Squire never seems to succeed on his own without being surrounded by Yes-men, if you think about it.....one rather ancient solo LP, a few so-so "Conspiracy" CDs and that's about it.   If the Wakeman/Anderson/Rabin project takes hold, I'll be very happy to stand in the ticket line.  I've already passed on this version of Yes and don't anticipate seeing the Styx/Yes traveling circus.

Funny you should mention Asia.  I think John Payne might have a perspective on this that would enforce the "cashing in" accusation of the fairly recent "original Asia" reformation

Personally, I think they should have still called the 90125 band Cinema, as it certainly wasn't (and isn't) Yes to my ears.  Of course, going by the Fripp definition of band, I suppose just about anything released by Chris Squire would be Yes in some form (since he is the only truly original member left in the band..........though Howe and White have been their long enough for it to not really matter and in any case are part of the "definitive" line up).  He also has had ownership of the name for a more consistent and unbroken time than any other member.

In any case, I'm still willing to listen to the thing, but I have no interest in seeing them live (wish I would have seen one of the Keys performances though........that would have been magical).

lazland wrote: Wakeman never mentioned himself, he put Anderson at the heart of Yes, as he did when Anderson first left after Tormato. He has always been consistent about that. I will stick rigidly to my opinion that Yes should have ceased, and this lot called themselves a new name. Squire & Rabin were going to release 90125 under the name Cinema - it was only Anderson's return that forced a change back to Yes. There are some singer's who are irreplaceable. Rush without Lee, Zep without Plant, Who without Daltrey. My favourite band, Marillion, IMHO, should have renamed themselves following Fish's departure, and I prefer Hogarth. Someone mentioned the B word - business. Maybe so, but I would naively like to think that bands would, sometimes, have a little bit more respect for those, like me, who have spent a fortune on them over the years.

lazland wrote: Wakeman never mentioned himself, he put Anderson at the heart of Yes, as he did when Anderson first left after Tormato. He has always been consistent about that. I will stick rigidly to my opinion that Yes should have ceased, and this lot called themselves a new name. Squire & Rabin were going to release 90125 under the name Cinema - it was only Anderson's return that forced a change back to Yes. There are some singer's who are irreplaceable. Rush without Lee, Zep without Plant, Who without Daltrey. My favourite band, Marillion, IMHO, should have renamed themselves following Fish's departure, and I prefer Hogarth. Someone mentioned the B word - business. Maybe so, but I would naively like to think that bands would, sometimes, have a little bit more respect for those, like me, who have spent a fortune on them over the years.

Regardless of how a band's financial motives are particularly moral or immoral....... I don't see how it transcends to a disrespect for fans. I mean, with all due respect, you chose to spend your money on Yes albums and next month you will also have that choice. While I agree that some bands, and particularly Yes over the years, have made poor artistic decisions with dollar signs in their eyes, I don't think they will ever "owe" anything to fans...... because part of being a music fan is accepting the risk involved with investing in potentially bad music.

You may be familiar with Fripp's writings on fans who "have paid their hard-earned cash" to go to his concerts and been disappointed afterwards........ he couldn't care less! And why should he? Making music to please fans is equally untrue to a musician's artistic self as making music to please a record company.

Jon Anderson's voice is indeed irreplaceable. His songwriting, his charm and optimism, within and without Yes, are irreplaceable. But who says Beniot David is a replacement? And even if he is, why should Yes change their name? Bands can change direction. The Who without Daltrey sounds very un-Who...... but maybe if history was different they would have changed Daltrey for someone else. It doesn't mean Daltrey is replaceable, it just means the band have changed direction and no longer need "a Daltrey", real or fake. Yes with Beniot are not replacing Jon, they are moving on from Jon (albeit for the wrong reasons). And the name Yes is only defined by what the band are doing, not what they did or what they were most famous for. To borrow from Fripp again, it is "a way of doing things" rather than a group of particular people.

I avoided listening to Drama for the longest time, because I though "it's not Yes".  However, it IS a decent album, if not really anything special (in my view).  I will likely get the new album at some point, as the clips sound pretty good compared to the previous several albums.  Of course, they are just clips so the whole package might be lacking still.

I was very unhappy to hear about Anderson leaving, and felt that it wasn't Yes anymore.  Of course, when I think about it, they haven't been the Yes that I loved since at least Going For The One.  I did love the Keys To Ascension albums, even if a few of the new songs didn't sound like Yes to me (and the rest really didn't come close to the greatness of the past).  I passed up the chance to see the "classic" lineup back in 2002 or so because I didn't think it would be worth $70 (crappy venue played into that decision as well), and I have still never seen Yes live (though based on DVD's I've seen from Keys and Masterworks, they still have the ability to move me at times).  No regrets here, and not the least interest in seeing them live with Benoit.

Personally, I don't get excited about any aging "legends" anymore (and I'm over 40 and obviously not getting any younger).  I just don't understand why they can't just move on and create something brand new.  Look at Peter Gabriel as a good "prog" example.  He doesn't look back, just keeps moving forward.  I'm not crazy about a lot of his output, but I totally respect that ethos.  I wish these old proggers would tool, but at the same time understand the need to have a comfortable old age which is probably easier to do by playing the nostalgia circuit.........certainly there are more than enough people interested to make that profitable.  For myself, I'll pass.  I'd rather find new and interesting music while occasionally being blown away by how good those bands used to be as I listen to the albums they made when the had a drive and ambition for something other then money and recognition.

Edit:  Just realized I didn't address the actual topic of this thread   So, to put it simply, they could very easily have done better than Benoit.  They could have invited Anderson back.


Edited by infandous - June 06 2011 at 14:57