Yah, me no fan of theirs neither. I think they were/are overrated. I barely like Owner of a Lonely Heart and that is their most popular or known song lolI can't stand Yes, and am yet to find a listenable,or at least a thoroughly engaging record by them. But then, I've only listened to Relayer and Close to the Edge. Nothing in their sound beckons me, saying: "play me again, man".
Controversial non-metal opinions
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
I can't stand Yes, and am yet to find a listenable,or at least a thoroughly engaging record by them. But then, I've only listened to Relayer and Close to the Edge. Nothing in their sound beckons me, saying: "play me again, man".
I have seen you mention issues with progressive music elsewhere and to me this all seems at odds considering your appreaciation of Queen. While not the most progressive band in the world they were still a bit off the hook.
Something I can never understand is how people disect bands within similiar approaches and determine one is good and another is not. I only have issues with certain few genres or direct clones
DarkBliss
...And okra for all
It's very simple, man. Yes' arrangements are not tight since they're not unified by coherent drumming. They're just all over the place, or at least seem to be on a cursory listen; (I haven't listened to either of those two albums enough, though). I need something more rigidly structured.
Do you mean a steady drum beat ?
I suppose Yes was somewhat experimental, a bit like fusion, a bit choatic, I never evaluated them but have heard plenty of inspireing music by them, but Im into musical passages, adventures.
It is possible that this kind of music is too deep/complex for a mind trapped within borders of conforming expectations, such as steady groove. For many odd timing, multi directional instrumentation, chromatics, accidentals, is as abrasive as non melodic rap or cookie monster vocals are to me.
I like good steady grooves too but am also into tangents and see them as further musical expression
DarkBliss
...And okra for all
I added another paragraph to that, case you missed it while I was editing. I think its a good theory as to why some dont like more progressive music. Others might not have an idea of what they are listeneing to but like it just the same because it sounds "awesome".
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
I can't stand Yes, and am yet to find a listenable,or at least a thoroughly engaging record by them. But then, I've only listened to Relayer and Close to the Edge. Nothing in their sound beckons me, saying: "play me again, man".
You haven't heard their best albums.
That song is a terrible standard to hold them by.
Einherjar86
Active Member
God that song is awful.
Listen to "Heart of the Sunrise." I think that's my favorite Yes song.
That and "Wondrous Stories," strangely enough; great little fantasy tune.
Listen to "Heart of the Sunrise." I think that's my favorite Yes song.
That and "Wondrous Stories," strangely enough; great little fantasy tune.
I thought that was a great commercial song, more than a great commercial song, it was a great progressive commercial song. Stands out more to me than most of its competition at that time.
DarkBliss
...And okra for all
Basically, the more deviations from flow, the worse. A song has to sustain a certain mood.Don't need any 30 minute suites with a gazillion of interludes. Anything spastic and overblown is a no-no for me.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Badbird
Never banned
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Rush is ok, but a lot of their stuff is really boring, and in no way do they come close to the 'classic' prog bands.
Badbird
Never banned
I would disagree here, I perfer Rush to most due to a harder edge and they even have better overall "groove" than the more experimental bands, but then I grew up in the dawn of Rush and was on board as soon as Fly by Night and Caress of Steel came out, so they always sound right to me. I guess I missed the more electronic/keyboard era though, I was less enthousiastic with what I heard on the radio and have no idea how many Rush recordings Im behind on.... lol
I just watched some concert, maybe it was called "Rush In Rio", it was pretty inspiring.
Biggest critizm I remember about Rush was Gettys shrill voice.
DarkBliss
...And okra for all
No, I like structured prog rock.Magma are structured, whilst Yes are erratic, or at least strike me as such.Magma's transitions are comprehensible while Yes' are confusing.
I enjoy both, much like life I suppose which in theory is part of what modern progressive music is suppose to paint, much like the classics.
Since we have been talking I've determined to make a Yes CD as well as a early Queen CD my next musical purchase. I wasnt into Yes back in the day because they were not course enough but all I ever tried to listen to was my sisters Fragile album.
I didnt like her Chicago II album much either but today one would need to pry it from my fingers.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
How "hard" an "edge" Rush has is completely irrelevant to their talent/creativity, of which they are vastly lacking compared to bands like Crimson, Genesis, Floyd, Tull, GG, etc. These bands practically redefined rock music - Rush was just a hard rock band with funny time signatures, and imo they seem watered down both by prog standards and by hard rock / metal standards as they are somewhere in-between. They certainly have their charm, but they are no geniuses.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
I suspect there may be zero overlap in the Yes you've heard vs. the Yes I've heard, so I can't say what you're basing this off of, but you seriously need to listen to The Yes Album and Fragile before writing them off. Seriously.
Imo Yes's charm is in their uplifting, happy-go-lucky mood and they way they take a style so 'serious business' as prog rock and turn it into something fun and heart-warming that just makes you want to sing/dance along. They've got a vibe all their own, and it's a wonderful thing.
You just arent into them. Rush was as much if not more re-defineing and impacting than those bands depending on the band. Equal or higher skilled instrumentalists. Equally doing thier own thing with no lack of creativity. Just a hard rock band with odd time signatures... geeze thers alot more to it than that, Im not sure how much they even stray in timing, their flow is great and they are a power house three piece who set the ground work for current progressive metal. In my opinion one would be brave to place Crimson and Genesis beyond or of more relevance than Rush. Tull and Floyd had a different angle done well, thats about it.
"harder edged" had to do with my preference and I clearly stated that and should not have been adressed against the band.
Similar threads
