Hi Folks,

It has been stated, many times, that ('70s) critics of Genesis denounced them as being "Yes rip-offs"; "the poor man's Yes", etc. I've never personally found the two great bands to be terribly similar, at all.

There are a few commonalities:

1. Some songs in multi-part suites, usually involving some sort of concept.

2. Fluent jazz-rock drummer(s), often using odd time signatures.

3. Most songs have a pastoral, or, 'spacey' feel.

4. Hackett and Howe made great use of the volume pedal.

But now the distinctions begin:

Genesis relied much more heavily on mellotron; Yes harldy ever used one.

Yes made use of improvised soloing in concert, Genesis did not.

Genesis had a full-time flute (Gabriel); Yes no use of flute.

Genesis used tambourine during chorus's; Yes hardly ever.

Yes built their sounds upon the shoulders a really dynamic bass line (Squire); Genesis instead opted for the lighter 12-string texture.

Genesis employed theatrical lighting, props and effects in their shows; Yes a little more typical with their staging.

Anybody have anything else to add? Similar or dissimilar? 70s-80s?

very different bands anyone who calls Genesis a Yes rip off is a moron.  (That would be Starcastle)

Genesis don't use Moogs, and they are much more keyboard based compared to Yes

There songs are more structured than Yes's as well, with emphasis on the ensemble playing as oppose to Yes having many solos

Lets see:

• Yes is based in the individual skills of their members while Genesis is a band that bases their sound in team work, so much that usually people believe they have no virtuoso players (what is wrong).
• Yes lyrics make almost no sense except for poetical purpose, Genesis lyrics are deep, narrative and make sense, almost as short stories.
• Yes made many multi part epics along their career, Genesis has only one epic, their songs are shorter but concise.
• Genesis is an atmospheric band, Yes is weak in atmosphere.
• Yes makes a lot of solos in their albums, Genesis only in a few rare situations.
• Yes was always sober at stage (except for Wakeman capes) while Genesis was theatrical.
• Keyboards in Yes are based in minimoog and organ solos, Genesis is based in a mixture between guitar, keys and mellotron.
• Vocal ranges are totally opposite.

I agree with NetsNJFan, the guy that bvelieve Genesis is a rip-off of Yes is an idiot, because except for the symphonic influence in both bands there's no relation between them.

Both bands are in the same level and are considered into the top 5 of most proggers.

Iván

they only have one thing in common in my mind:

THEY'RE PROG!!!

Hey....this is a switch.....I'm going to AGREE with NetsNJFan......the sound of YES and Genesis are indeed different.....However, I must be me for a bit......I question whether Genesis songs are MORE structured than YES songs......YES music is incredibly well structured.....I've never heard a band with that much structure.

Now before you jump down my throat NetsNJFan...it's just my opinion as your opinion is yours......we agree to disagree.....just thought I'd throw in another point of view.

ivan_2068 wrote: Lets see: Yes is based in the individual skills of their members while Genesis is a band that bases their sound in team work, so much that usually people believe they have no virtuoso players (what is wrong). Yes lyrics make almost no sense except for poetical purpose, Genesis lyrics are deep, narrative and make sense, almost as short stories. Genesis is an atmospheric band, Yes is weak in atmosphere. Yes was always sober at stage (except for Wakeman capes) while Genesis was theatrical. I agree with NetsNJFan, the guy that bvelieve Genesis is a rip-off of Yes is an idiot, because except for the symphonic influence in both bands there's no relation between them. Both bands are in the same level and are considered into the top 5 of most proggers. Iván

Those are some real generalisations Ivan.All those points are debatable.Yes had plenty of teamwork going on in their music.Genesis don't have a monopoly of teamwork in music.

Suppers Ready makes a great deal of sense doesn't it? Genesis could be pretty obscure at times.Most Yes songs makes some sort of sense to me.Anderson writes lots of lyrics about God ..ie Awaken being one of the most obvious ones and wants to bring peace and harmony to the planet.Those 'hippy' themes are revisited many times.

If you think that Yes hasn't any atmosphere then you need to dig out Fragile or Going for The One.Both are strong on atmosphere.

The final comment baffled me.Yes always 'sober'.What about the giant mushrooms set on the Topographic tour? I therefore prove that Genesis and Yes were exactly the same band

Yes and Genesis - Both progressive Giants of the early seventies.

Both Five peice - Vocal, Drum, Bass, Lead Guitar and Keys.

Both English.

Both heavily influenced by classical music.

Both bands are a vehicle for musical excellence and compositional superiority.

A lot of people were simultaneously fans of both.....

Both bands wanted a visually striking stage-show, with good sound and the best lighting/effects etc...

The similarities are there for all to see thats why these bands are 1 & 2 in the all time prog hall of fame (for most prog fans - butt- out floyd and ELP fanatics).

As far as vocals and fascinating riffs are concerned- GENESIS is *by far* the better band. I never imagined Yes would be paired with them will I came across this thread.

Proglover wrote: Hey....this is a switch.....I'm going to AGREE with NetsNJFan......the sound of YES and Genesis are indeed different.....However, I must be me for a bit......I question whether Genesis songs are MORE structured than YES songs......YES music is incredibly well structured.....I've never heard a band with that much structure. Now before you jump down my throat NetsNJFan...it's just my opinion as your opinion is yours......we agree to disagree.....just thought I'd throw in another point of view.

No this time I won't jump down your throat ---- you mean like you did to me last time when I said KC is better off without Fripp.

P.S. - - I am glad to see you've learned the meaning of OPINION proglover

Does anyone know if YES and Genesis ever went on tour together??....that would have been an amazing show!!

I know the YES shared the same stage with the likes of King Crimson, Gentle Giant, ELP, and Jethro Tull...but I never heard anything about Genesis.

Me, being the silly goose I am...would have loved to see these bands play back to back in their prime, simply to compare the bands.

Dragon Phoenix wrote: Mr. Krinkle wrote: For me they both have this sort of tuneful, sweet, melodic feeling. But they are indeed very diffrent. Interesting. For me the main difference between the two bands is the melody. I like Yes a lot, but there is a distinct lack of great melodies in their work. I love Genesis (until the departure of Hacket), and I think one of their strongpoints is the marvellous melodies.

How does Yes lack melodies?

Similarities:

They were both great in the early/mid 70s

They both played wuss music in the 80s

They both had guitarists named Steve (had to throw that in, as stupid as it is)

Both known for their live acts.

Both guitarists were self-taught

Both keyboardists were classically trained (Tony Kaye doesn't count)

Neither had a Chinese drummer

Neither band ever did any real improv live

Differences:

Steve Hackett sits on down the entire show, Steve Howe looks like he just did an eight-ball before Firebird Suite

Genesis is keyboard driven, Yes is guitar driven (I'm sure someone disagrees, but that's how I feel)

The Yes epics were full of recurring musical themes while Genesis epics (which, I guess, is really only Supper's Ready) goes from one section to the next without looking back (with exception to the final minute of the song).

Yes had a revolving personnel door, Genesis was exit only.

ivan_2068 wrote: Lets see: Yes is based in the individual skills of their members while Genesis is a band that bases their sound in team work, so much that usually people believe they have no virtuoso players (what is wrong). Yes lyrics make almost no sense except for poetical purpose, Genesis lyrics are deep, narrative and make sense, almost as short stories. Genesis is an atmospheric band, Yes is weak in atmosphere. Yes was always sober at stage (except for Wakeman capes) while Genesis was theatrical. I agree with NetsNJFan, the guy that bvelieve Genesis is a rip-off of Yes is an idiot, because except for the symphonic influence in both bands there's no relation between them. Both bands are in the same level and are considered into the top 5 of most proggers. Iván   Those are some real generalisations Ivan.All those points are debatable.Yes had plenty of teamwork going on in their music.Genesis don't have a monopoly of teamwork in music. Suppers Ready makes a great deal of sense doesn't it? Genesis could be pretty obscure at times.Most Yes songs makes some sort of sense to me.Anderson writes lots of lyrics about God ..ie Awaken being one of the most obvious ones and wants to bring peace and harmony to the planet.Those 'hippy' themes are revisited many times. If you think that Yes hasn't any atmosphere then you need to dig out Fragile or Going for The One.Both are strong on atmosphere. The final comment baffled me.Yes always 'sober'.What about the giant mushrooms set on the Topographic tour? I therefore prove that Genesis and Yes were exactly the same band

In first place Richardh, I talk about general rules not about specific cases.

Everybody knows almost no Yes lyric makes sense, and that the most important characteristic is how good the words of their songs sound and not what they say, of course there are exceptions like Awaken or Don't Kill the Whale, but it's not the main characteristic of Yes music.

Genesis lyrics are mainly short stories that make sense, even Supper's Ready which is full of images makes sense as a whole, being a fight of good against evil, it's important to remember that this epic is based in the Book of Revelations which is also a text full of symbols, so why this song wouldn't.

Yes as any band has a deal of team work, but the solos of each and every member are as important  as the musical concept. In Genesis you don't have many solos and the few times you get some, it's the product of two or more instruments, so I still believe Genesis is based mostly on team work rather than in virtuoso atributes of their members.

Please Yes is not an atmospheric band, you can tell me Pink Floyd is because that is true but Yes is full of solos and they don't create an atmosphere except in a couple of songs.

But everything I say is based in a general rule, there will be solos in Genesis and some atmospheric tracks on Yes but that's theexception.

Iván

I think the bands are complete similar, except ...

they sound different.

Swinton MCR wrote: Yes and Genesis - Both progressive Giants of the early seventies. Both Five peice - Vocal, Drum, Bass, Lead Guitar and Keys. Both English. Both heavily influenced by classical music. Both bands are a vehicle for musical excellence and compositional superiority. A lot of people were simultaneously fans of both..... Both bands wanted a visually striking stage-show, with good sound and the best lighting/effects etc... The similarities are there for all to see thats why these bands are 1 & 2 in the all time prog hall of fame (for most prog fans - butt- out floyd and ELP fanatics).

Those are all really good points. My feeling has been that two Genesis albums, "Trespass" and Nursery Cryme" seemed to feed-off of the appeal of In the Court of the Crimson King ....but not Yes. The only two Genesis tracks that somewhat resembled the music of Yes were "Watcher of the Skies" and (the instrumental breaks in) "Dancing with the Moonlit Knight". The biggest difference I see is that Yes was actually much stronger - musically and in sound - but Genesis were much, much more thoughtful in what they composed. Like night 'n' day, there.

And then there's the 'cover' factor: Yes (like Deep Purple in '68) first made a name for themselves by doing really good remakes of other's songs. Genesis is one of the very, very few in bands in Rock history that never put any type of cover tune on any of their albums.

Collins and Bruford were identical in style, early on - Hackett and Howe were nearly identical. And yet I still think that Collins was ingenious, later on in the 70s and into the early 80s, by capitalizing on the loud, crisp "big drum" sound. Many other rock groups seemed to try to emulate this novel sound, afterward.

Jools wrote: There is only one time they got anywhere near sounding like each other and that was the instrumental at the end of "Inside and Out" by Genesis (B-Side Spot The Pigeon EP) which is almost Yes pastiche.  Anyone else noticed this?

What about Yes 'A Venture'? I always thought that had a very Genesis feel to it.

alan_pfeifer wrote: Dragon Phoenix wrote: Mr. Krinkle wrote: For me they both have this sort of tuneful, sweet, melodic feeling. But they are indeed very diffrent. Interesting. For me the main difference between the two bands is the melody. I like Yes a lot, but there is a distinct lack of great melodies in their work. I love Genesis (until the departure of Hacket), and I think one of their strongpoints is the marvellous melodies. How does Yes lack melodies?

They do not lack melodies, but their melodies are not great melodies, let alone marvellous melodies. IMHO of course.

jojim wrote:  Bill Bruford (drums) played for YES and later on GENESIS tours, when Collins was the frontman - singing.

I guess alot of you already know that Phil Collins, in 1972, set his sights on taking Bruford's place in Yes when the latter left. (Source: some autobiography by Collins I was reading in one of those huge, suburban bookstores). Jon Anderson replied to Phil that he could try out for Bruford's slot. Afterward, Phil had some sort of last minute change of heart. So it didn't happen.

Can you imagine what that might've been like though? Phil would have inserted "More Fool Me" somewhere into Tales from Topographic Oceans. Ok, so I'm getting a little carried away here...

Another near-connection is not truly a factoid, because I cannot readily confirm it: I recall reading (somewhere? sorry...titles always escape me) that after Steve Hackett abruptly left Genesis, the band immediately made gestures to the very independant Jeff Beck for replacement. But apparently Beck would only join if a certain price, or agreement, was met. And Genesis, after thinking it over, decided not to try to meet Beck's bottom line.

And then there's the Elton John - King Crimson thing (1970). Fripp decided not to take E.J. for Greg Lake's vocal spot. I think the voice would have fit really well, but I guess Fripp didn't want to get into a position of butting heads with an up-and-coming talent.

The Critics are only looking at the fact that they are both progressive rock bands.

The thing you have to remeber about them is that....

The Critics are big dumbasses.

Titan wrote:

its simply, Genesis is keyboard (piano, mellotron etc.) band mainly + guitar, bass, flute and drums

I agree with all your post Titan except with the quoted phrase, I love Yes but as you, I believe Genesis was far better, even when this is a matter of personaltaste.

Now back to your quote, Genesis is not just mainly keyboards plus the rest, Genesis trademark and unique sound is based in the blending of Tony's keys and Steve guitar, both created a new sound absolutely atmospheric especially whith Tony's mellotron suporting Steve's guitar.

This is so clear that some people can't discriminate when Steve is making a solo like in Firth of Fifth and believe this sound is produced by Tony's keys and more evident when Steve left, at this point the change was dramatic, that society guitar - keyboards disapeared and Genesis lost that mysterious sound that was so classical in them.

This society is the base for my first post when I said that Genesis was more a team work than Yes, because Steve Howe never did something similar with Wakeman, Moraz, Kaye or Downes, in Yes keyboards and guitar go each one by their own side, and this worked for them.

Mik the Prik wrote:

Yes were experimenting while Genesis were getting closer to the hard rock roots (the Lamb) and smooth, soft, symphonic pop (beginning with Trick of the Tail).

So, according to you The Lamb which is considered the most adventurous conceptual album in history of Progressive Rock is not experimental? Please Mik, Gabriel and Genesis mixed all styles in a short song format in comparison with most Prog bands who still were going for the epic format.

If there's an experimental album that never lost the sense of melody we're talking about The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway.

It's true that A Trick of the Tail is softer and more Pop oriented than the previous albums but this was a transitional album between two eras and released by a band who had lost their frontman and main lyricist, also it's important to notice that Wind & Wuthering except Your Own Special Way is a return to the roots.

And what experimental music was done during those years by Yes?  Let me remember you that from 1974 to  July 1977 Yes didn't released a single studio album with new material,  returning with Going for the One and Tormato which IMO are much simpler than anything done before by them.

I love both bands but Genesis is by large my N° 1.

Iván

to me, Yes have a more rocking sound. They sound happy a lot. Lots of just raw energy in their music.....and i agree with those who say its more based on the guitar/bass.

Vocalists are also very different. Jon Anderson's vocals fly high........Gabriels Vocals are down to earth. Both are super super good in their own way.

At the moment i prefer Yes.....but i recently discovered Selling England by the Pound and Lamb Lies down on broadway.......in a month i might think they're equal, or i might like Genesis more.

Everything i just said about genesis was sort of based on a first impression of them.

ivan_2068 wrote: Titan wrote: [quote]its simply, Genesis is keyboard (piano, mellotron etc.) band mainly + guitar, bass, flute and drums

Ivan wrote:

I agree with all your post Titan except with the quoted phrase, I love Yes but as you, I believe Genesis was far better, even when this is a matter of personaltaste.

Now back to your quote, Genesis is not just mainly keyboards plus the rest, Genesis trademark and unique sound is based in the blending of Tony's keys and Steve guitar, both created a new sound absolutely atmospheric especially whith Tony's mellotron suporting Steve's guitar.

This is so clear that some people can't discriminate when Steve is making a solo like in Firth of Fifth and believe this sound is produced by Tony's keys and more evident when Steve left, at this point the change was dramatic, that society guitar - keyboards disapeared and Genesis lost that mysterious sound that was so classical in them.

This society is the base for my first post when I said that Genesis was more a team work than Yes, because Steve Howe never did something similar with Wakeman, Moraz, Kaye or Downes, in Yes keyboards and guitar go each one by their own side, and this worked for them.

There's only one thing we all should know.....Tales From Topographic Oceans kicks the sh*t outta The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway..........HAHA..I'm just kidding!!.....I Love both YES and Genesis....and while I do prefer Tales over the Lamb....the Lamb IS one of my favorite prog albums.

To me, it's all about what band reached it's highest peak....and I must say that YES reached places in the musical heavens that Genesis never touched.....not to say that they could not have...but in my opinion it just never happened. I mean come on guys.....when a band writes something the magnitude of Awaken...which was sent from angels in heaven to bless our lives, can ANY band truly compete with such a grand effort.....The majesty of YES music is their ability to think over large formal structures...YES thinks BIG....If I were comparing the two bands using classical terminology.....YES is a symphony while Genesis is more of a chamber ensemble....not to say that there is anything wrong with that. Some people prefer a string quartet over a 200 piece orchestra.

Recently I have had the great fortune of rediscovering Genesis....Let me praise Genesis for a minute or two.....Genesis is nothing short of MAGICAL...their music is just pure MAGIC....thats the only word that really fits....it's mystical music. I LOVE GENESIS.....however at the same time I also rediscovered YES' RELAYER......OH MY GOD......what a Gargantuan Piece of music!!!!!!....YES is COLOSSAL, YES is a JUGGERNAULT!!!.......Genesis, while being an extremely potent  and cerebral and absolutely effective band...never reached Mount Olympus as YES did.

Genesis were more easy for my adolescent brain to enjoy - thus from 10 - 16 years old - Genesis were mu No 1 band by a country mile.

Then (about 1978-1980) when I was 13-15 I started listening to Yes and as I matured - yes became my favourite band as I got into Relayer, TFTO and Close to the edge more and more.

Since my late twenties I have developed a far bigger CD collection and my taste has widened to accept more classical music...

My liking for Metal was strong in the early-eighties, but I have have developed a liking for power-music again in my late thirties......

Yes - bright and happy most of the time.

Genesis - Dark and twisted most of the time.

GENESIS always had humour while YES' music lacks humour.

GENESIS have more memorable melodies and meaningful lyrics. YES' emphasis and strength seems to be the technical prowess.

GENESIS would be totally unthinkable (to me at least) without Tony Banks. Any member of YES is replaceable (perhaps not Chris Squire).

Genesis are cripled with phil collins singing.

Gianthogwed has right.

But Yes don't have Suppers ready, and the quality of Lamb lies (because they didn't have Brian Eno)

Proglover wrote: There's only one thing we all should know.....Tales From Topographic Oceans kicks the sh*t outta The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway..........HAHA..I'm just kidding!!.....I Love both YES and Genesis....and while I do prefer Tales over the Lamb....the Lamb IS one of my favorite prog albums. To me, it's all about what band reached it's highest peak....and I must say that YES reached places in the musical heavens that Genesis never touched.....not to say that they could not have...but in my opinion it just never happened. I mean come on guys.....when a band writes something the magnitude of Awaken...which was sent from angels in heaven to bless our lives, can ANY band truly compete with such a grand effort.....The majesty of YES music is their ability to think over large formal structures...YES thinks BIG....If I were comparing the two bands using classical terminology.....YES is a symphony while Genesis is more of a chamber ensemble....not to say that there is anything wrong with that. Some people prefer a string quartet over a 200 piece orchestra. Recently I have had the great fortune of rediscovering Genesis....Let me praise Genesis for a minute or two.....Genesis is nothing short of MAGICAL...their music is just pure MAGIC....thats the only word that really fits....it's mystical music. I LOVE GENESIS.....however at the same time I also rediscovered YES' RELAYER......OH MY GOD......what a Gargantuan Piece of music!!!!!!....YES is COLOSSAL, YES is a JUGGERNAULT!!!.......Genesis, while being an extremely potent  and cerebral and absolutely effective band...never reached Mount Olympus as YES did.

I completely agree. They were definitely different in terms of "grandiosity", and Genesis WERE grandiose!!!(is that correct? sorry for my sometimes crappy english...although I'm almost a graduate) I don't think that Genesis could ever do something like CTTE, for example, not because they wouldn't be capable of it, but because of their different mentality, they just thought of music in a different way than Anderson & co.

I have to add that (IMHO and for my personal taste) Yes were more skillful musicians. I mean, I hate to make comparisons, but there is (almost) no doubt that the musicianship in Yes was at a (slightly) higher level. I even think that Steve Howe is better as a guitar player than Steve Hackett (I'm ready to be stoned now); being a guitar player myself I think I can notice many differences that make me like Steve Howe best.

First, I disagree with the basic premise here: that music critics and other pundits generally denounce(d) Genesis as a Yes rip-off.  I have followed the music press since my teens, and was "there" when Yes and Genesis (and prog as a whole) was being talked about regularly.  I rarely saw Genesis referred to as a Yes rip-off.  Indeed, although many critics and pundits may have seen many similarities (as many of you have pointed out), it was a rare moment when Genesis was called a Yes rip-off (or vice versa, since the two bands emerged simultaneously).

As for the two bands' similarities and differences, it would seem to me that only one question need be asked to understand just how different they were: can anyone imagine either group having written or performed any of the other groups' compositions?  If one really considers this, one comes to the conculsion that, despite their similarities, for whatever reasons - definable and undefinable - these two bands were completely different, and equally creative and original.

Thus sayeth the Lord...

Peace.

Duncan wrote: Genesis used tambourine during chorus's; Yes hardly ever. Funniest criterion for judging bands EVER.

That's funny cause Jon Anderson uses tambourines all the time.....atleast when I've seen them perform live.

ldlanberg wrote: Genesis relied much more heavily on mellotron; Yes harldy ever used one.

Hardly ever.. isn't that a bit of an exaggeration.

But I don't think Keith Emerson EVER played a mellotron.  

Mategra wrote: GENESIS always had humour while YES' music lacks humour. GENESIS have more memorable melodies and meaningful lyrics. YES' emphasis and strength seems to be the technical prowess. GENESIS would be totally unthinkable (to me at least) without Tony Banks. Any member of YES is replaceable (perhaps not Chris Squire).

I think everything that you said is questionable and indeed debatable......it's obvious you like Genesis more.....but those statements are based on nothing but pure opinion...which is absolutely fine. Yet you state them as if they are facts. I for example COMPLETELY disagree that Genesis has more memorable melodies and meaningful lyrics....I don't know how anyone could make a statement like that and put it up to the light as truth.

....and as far as bands not being able to carry on without a particular band member....well that's really all hypothetical thinking is it not.......because we have never seen Genesis without Tony Banks, we have never seen YES without Chris Squire. I personally think both bands could go on regardless who ever they lost at a particular time.

porter wrote: Proglover wrote: There's only one thing we all should know.....Tales From Topographic Oceans kicks the sh*t outta The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway..........HAHA..I'm just kidding!!.....I Love both YES and Genesis....and while I do prefer Tales over the Lamb....the Lamb IS one of my favorite prog albums. To me, it's all about what band reached it's highest peak....and I must say that YES reached places in the musical heavens that Genesis never touched.....not to say that they could not have...but in my opinion it just never happened. I mean come on guys.....when a band writes something the magnitude of Awaken...which was sent from angels in heaven to bless our lives, can ANY band truly compete with such a grand effort.....The majesty of YES music is their ability to think over large formal structures...YES thinks BIG....If I were comparing the two bands using classical terminology.....YES is a symphony while Genesis is more of a chamber ensemble....not to say that there is anything wrong with that. Some people prefer a string quartet over a 200 piece orchestra. Recently I have had the great fortune of rediscovering Genesis....Let me praise Genesis for a minute or two.....Genesis is nothing short of MAGICAL...their music is just pure MAGIC....thats the only word that really fits....it's mystical music. I LOVE GENESIS.....however at the same time I also rediscovered YES' RELAYER......OH MY GOD......what a Gargantuan Piece of music!!!!!!....YES is COLOSSAL, YES is a JUGGERNAULT!!!.......Genesis, while being an extremely potent  and cerebral and absolutely effective band...never reached Mount Olympus as YES did. I completely agree. They were definitely different in terms of "grandiosity", and Genesis WERE grandiose!!!(is that correct? sorry for my sometimes crappy english...although I'm almost a graduate) I don't think that Genesis could ever do something like CTTE, for example, not because they wouldn't be capable of it, but because of their different mentality, they just thought of music in a different way than Anderson & co. I have to add that (IMHO and for my personal taste) Yes were more skillful musicians. I mean, I hate to make comparisons, but there is (almost) no doubt that the musicianship in Yes was at a (slightly) higher level. I even think that Steve Howe is better as a guitar player than Steve Hackett (I'm ready to be stoned now); being a guitar player myself I think I can notice many differences that make me like Steve Howe best.

I completely agree with you. Steve Howe is certainly (IMHO).....a much better guitarist than Steve Hackett. But then again Steve Howe is one of my favorite rock guitarists...there aren't too many people I would put above Howe.....I must also say that I feel that Chris Squire as a bassist certainly had more prominence than Mike Rutherford. I would also have to favor Rick Wakeman and Patrick Moraz for that matter over Tony Banks....although I would place Tony Banks over Tony Kaye.......

As far as drumming is concerned I think we all now that Bruford is one of the best drummers around. But Phil Collins is great as well. I think sometimes we forget just how good of a drummer Phil really is. However for my money I would certainly have to go with Bruford. Although Alan White's drumming on RELAYER is AMAZING!!!!!!!!!,,,,,,,,,,

Gianthogweed wrote: Yes - bright and happy most of the time. Genesis - Dark and twisted most of the time.

Relayer...atleast the first two tracks are surprisingly dark for YES....I think the word happy is too shallow of a word. It doesn't convey much. I wouldn't call YES music bright.

Proglover:

"We have never seen YES without Chris Squire."  Ever heard of "Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, Howe?"

Re Tales vs The Lamb, it's time that we disagreed again...  "Tales" sux!   Well, okay, its' merely weak.  It was created under the almost unilateral control by Jon Anderson, with little input from any of the other members - and caused Wakeman to leave the band.  It is lyrically "wanting," and the music ranges from a few truly orgasmic highs to near-abysmal. The Lamb, on the other hand, is a work of pure genius, brilliant in every way, with all of the members at the peak of their musical and creative powers.

Sorry, Charlie, but only good tunas get to be star-kissed...

Peace.

Mik the Prik wrote: And who the **** said Genesis don't use moogs?? What about their best pieces on Selling England and Lamb Lies Down?? Cinema Show, I know what I like, Battle Of Epping Forest, Slippermen, Firth Of Fifth, Riding The Scree, and, last but not least, In the Cage with a beautiful baroque theme on minimoog and many others! The typical Banks combo in the "mature" Genesis (from Selling to And Wind and Wuthering) was a mellotron and a Hammond, altogether with a piano (all like in the early years) and a moog to play solos!!! Banks' moogs is one of the few things for which I like Genesis!!!

Whoever said Genesis don't use Moogs was right.  Tony uses ARPs. 

My take on the issue is more or less the same as manni's.  Neither band could have written or performed any one of the other band's compositions.  Therefore, they're equal.

I'd like to add that I don't think they sounded that similar until Genesis released SEBTP.  Trespass, Cryme and Foxtrot have a "choppier", less fluid sound.  SEBTP had better production, and introduced the ARP into their music, and here, it really sounded like Yes, but with a more "baroque" feel.  The Lamb is kind of an entity of its own.  My personal favorite of Genesis's back catalogue, and their most experimental.  It also has the most keyboard solos!

I personally prefer Yes for the same reason that Ivan like Genesis better than them.  I like the fact that the individual members get their opporitunities to show off.

Oh, and I'll just restate the fact that Tales is the best album of all time.

maani wrote: Proglover: "We have never seen YES without Chris Squire."  Ever heard of "Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, Howe?" Re Tales vs The Lamb, it's time that we disagreed again...  "Tales" sux!   Well, okay, its' merely weak.  It was created under the almost unilateral control by Jon Anderson, with little input from any of the other members - and caused Wakeman to leave the band.  It is lyrically "wanting," and the music ranges from a few truly orgasmic highs to near-abysmal. The Lamb, on the other hand, is a work of pure genius, brilliant in every way, with all of the members at the peak of their musical and creative powers. Sorry, Charlie, but only good tunas get to be star-kissed... Peace.

HAHAHHAHA...awww I've missed you maani.......but yes you are absolutely right...it is once again time for us to disagree. First off Tales is a masterpiece and reaches heights that Genesis never touched. I've said it before...the greatness of YES is their ability to think larger than life. YES stared in the face of of the gods on Mount Olympus. Genesis never accomplished such a feat. Their musical mindset was completely different, and their is nothing wrong with that. I LOVE Genesis....and I indeed LOVE The Lamb.....BUT....in my opinion it IS NOT more brilliant than Tales. If I've said it once I've said it a million times.....YES should have continued writing 20 more albums like Tales. I simply do not understand how anyone could call that album weak.....it most certainly is not. It is a testament to will power and daring to be great. It is a milestone not only for prog rock but also for all of rock. It is the CLOSEST thing that prog rock gets to identifying with the classical symphony. It pays honor and is indebted to classical structure and ideal. It is an absolutely beautiful piece of music.

Once again I LOVE The Lamb....but it is certainly NOT Tales. As far as Wakeman leaving the band....although I love Wakeman I don't think his leaving was such a bad thing. Th band was moving in a specific direction and Wakeman disagreed with that. THAT'S FINE.....that's life.....things happen....he decided to leave....that was HIS problem. Quite frankly with Wakenman out of the way YES embarked on their most creative, outstanding, epic album they ever did....RELAYER.....Relayer is the epitome of YES music and in my opinion their biggest achievement. Wakeman has said many times that he also disliked Relayer....I'm personally glad he was gone. To be quite honest I would have liked to have seen YES do atleast one more album with Patrick Moraz. So lets look at the facts.....YES accomplished their most successful and most brilliant (and unfortunately most underated) work WITHOUT Wakeman. On another tip, Wakeman was suppose to take off as a HUGE solo keyboardist, and that was a dream which NEVER took off.....he did his career a favor my going back to YES.

Thirdly I don't know what the heck you are listening too.....but ALL five members on the Tales album are in top form. Steve Howe is amazing as ALWAYS...Chris Squire is amazing as ALWAYS.....Wakeman despite his lack of enthusiasm for the project I feel contributed quite nicely contrary to his own opinion that he COULD NOT contribute. Alan White for his first bang with the band, I felt added to the style of the piece, which perhaps Bruford would not have been able to as effectively.

Fourth.....In my humble opinion.....anyone who says that the music on this album lacks direction.....I fear does not understand the concept of musical structure. I wrote a whole HUGE thread praising Tales for it's solid and concrete sructure. I have never heard a band with such a high understanding of musical composition....or rather I should say form.

Personally I FIND HUGE FLAWS with The Lamb. Pure Genius???????......I think not my dear friend.

This is also a point that I brought up in the past....but if it is true that Tales was a failure (although I don't believe that it is)....BUT if it is....what is wrong with that???????.......why is failure a bad thing??????........These guys pushed the envelope....some people liked it, some people didn't.........that is in no way reflective of a failure. If anything it is the total opposite. Throughout Classical music history many great composers have experienced "failure" or rather set backs.....it's apart of life and it's nothing that should hinder you.Many works by many great composers were considered worthless at the time, but are now praised for being masterpieces, we've even seen cases of great operas or great symphonies having a horrible or failed debut, but now are cherished and a part of the repertoire.....this I feel will be the path for Tales. I'll tell you a quick story.......

I'm not sure if many of you are aware...but I am a music student majoring in composition. During my undergrad, I composed a piece on synthesizer. Which was quite a stir considering that the atmosphere was very, very classically oriented. In any event I performed the piece, and to say the least the reactions were mixed. Some people loved it, some people hated it, some people thought it was strange, some people didn't know what to make of it...the reactions ran the spectrum. Well I was a bit depressed because I thought that I had failed as a composer. I called one of my other composer friends who I highly regard...and I told him the story. And he changed my life completely with a few little words....he said......"Cory...(that's my name)............."Cory....if EVERYONE LIKED your piece then it was probably a mediocre piece.....if EVERYONE HATED your piece, then it was probably a bad piece.....but the fact that you received so many different reactions is proof, just how good your piece is. And it made sense. Then fastforward a bit, I was talking to another of my composer friends, who I also highly regard and respect.....and we were talking about Mozart...and he said..."You know Cory, Mozart stands the test of time....Mozart has passed the test. We know that Mozart is a great composer because his music causes such different reactions in so many people. Some people hate Mozart and some people love Mozart."......and I thought to myself again....wow he's absolutely right!!!

The greatness of Tales From Topographic Oceans lies in its ability to be able to bring forth so many different opinions and reactions from so many different people. The mere fact that Tales DIVIDES prog fans is a testament to its greatness and landmark quality. As far as I am concerned...put Tales alongside the Mona Lisa, and the pages of Shakespeare....TALES IS ART!!!................

And last but certainly not least.....I do not consider ABWH to be YES....

The music of the two bands is poles apart in terms of composition and obvious areas like lyrics (abstract vs meaningful?) They are united only by the fact they are both 'prog rock' but I really cant think of ANY two BIG prog bands from the 'glory days' that sounded alike.

As for Yes being a 'happy' or 'bright' band, I agree. A lot of their music has an uplifting optimism about it even if the lyrics dont always give much away. This is missing from the Genesis formula. Genesis are indeed darker in that they were more melancholy. In contrast there was always more humour in Genesis, with or without Gabriel.

Both superb bands!  

Blacksword wrote: The music of the two bands is poles apart in terms of composition and obvious areas like lyrics (abstract vs meaningful?) They are united only by the fact they are both 'prog rock' but I really cant think of ANY two BIG prog bands from the 'glory days' that sounded alike. As for Yes being a 'happy' or 'bright' band, I agree. A lot of their music has an uplifting optimism about it even if the lyrics dont always give much away. This is missing from the Genesis formula. Genesis are indeed darker in that they were more melancholy. In contrast there was always more humour in Genesis, with or without Gabriel. Both superb bands!

I think if you want to compare Genesis and YES lyrics, perhaps it would be best to say....abstract and non-abstract.....RATHER than abstract and meningful.....because it gives the impression that Jon Anderson's lyrics aren't meaningful which I believe could not be further from the truth. Regardless of what most people think, Jon's lyrics are not meaningless rambling. If you mean...that Genesis has more DIRECT meaning, then yes I agree with you. Although there are times where I feel Genesis lyrics are indeed quite abstract. One example that comes to mind is Supper's Ready.

Proglover wrote: Gianthogweed wrote: Yes - bright and happy most of the time. Genesis - Dark and twisted most of the time. Relayer...atleast the first two tracks are surprisingly dark for YES....I think the word happy is too shallow of a word. It doesn't convey much. I wouldn't call YES music bright.

Joyful is the word I like for yesmusic!

First of all:

Gianthogweed wrote:
"Genesis - Dark and twisted most of the time."

What a stupid statement!  Genesis were not "dark and twisted most of the time".  There songs were/are full of color, expression, depth, and beauty.  Mr. Gianthogweed sounds like he's been smoking too much of the foul hogweed himself!  It's distorted his fragile and weak mind!

Now back to the original question.  The bands are obviously similar in that they were/are famous prog. bands, with their glory years being in the 70's.  And both bands had the basic vocals/guitar/bass/keyboards/drums configuration.  But musical style and songwriting were quite different.  Although I like Yes somewhat, Genesis is much more my kind of group.  The high pitched singing, excessive harmonies, and overindulgent solos in Yes are annoying.  Of course, both bands are also guilty of getting too commercial and poppy in their later histories, so that's not good either.