70's Yes vs. 70's Pink Floyd?

[Orbert]

I hadn't thought of Yes music as "every instrument is playing lead" but I've heard their music described that way before, or at least something pretty close to that.  Same with Dream Theater.  While I don't quite agree, I get it.  Guitar, keys, bass, drums, vocals, and when they're all firing on all eight cylinders, it's amazing.  Early Pink Floyd was the same way, just in a different direction.

Also, fuck yeah Animals!  My favorite Pink Floyd album, right up there with my favorite Yes.  Not that it's a competition.

I think the approach Yes followed was very different from DT's. Sure, in DT there is a lot of soloing, but it's mostly during parts that are deliberately constructed to be "solo parts" (I hope you guys get what I'm saying). Still, sometimes Jordan Rudess plays completely freaky stuff during verses or short interludes (his reprise of JP's guitar solo in The Glass Prison at 3:56 or that awesome organ line between an verse and a chorus in Pale Blue Dot at 2:49). Mangini sometimes does a huge fill somewhere and Petrucci subtly shows what he's got outside a solo (About To Crash at 0:23). But most of the time, whenever there is singing, the musicians restrain themselves.

Concerning Yes, I think that "everybody plays lead" thing is especially true on Close To The Edge up to Tormato. That is the part of Yes' career in which they went far away from conventional rock music in terms of arrangement, construction of melodic lines and instrumentation.
Drama has conventional riffs in E minor, Fragile has blues- and Jon Lord-influenced organ solos. But Yes 72-78 has cembalo solos (Siberian Khatru, Madrigal), minute-long church organ parts (Close To The Edge, Awaken), chaotic sound collages (The Gates Of Delirium, Sound Chaser), tribal percussion instead of drums (The Ancient, Ritual), mocking country guitar solos (To Be Over, Going For The One), voices used as an instrument (Sound Chaser) ... I could go on. I think, in those songs there is so much going on that the "everybody is soloing"-thought is true. And I don't think I know another band that managed this approach as masterful as Yes did.

Aside from being the quintessential classical/symphonic prog band, the thing I love about Yes is the way they harken back to Bach. The idea of ‘every instrument playing lead’ might seem a rather modern one, but it’s really not. It’s all about what Bach did when he composed his toccatas, fugues and 2 and 3-part inventions and whatnot. He was about creating multiple voices that wove themselves into the broader fabric of the music. A tertiary voice or theme would suddenly become the primary, and vice versa. And the way that Yes accomplished it within the rock band framework is nothing short of brilliant.

So maybe the more correct phrase would be ‘every instrument with its own voice’. That said, this style can come across as clinical and mathematical, leaving some people feeling cold and dispassionate. For myself, both Bach and Yes don’t give me the feelings of intimacy and warmth that Pink Floyd or Brahms does.

Yeah, I think that's closer to the edge concept here, and more like what I meant.  It's not like everyone is playing lead all the time, or everyone soloing all the time, but each part is distinct and has its own voice and contributes to the whole in a way that's more than just placekeeping.  During verses or even instrumentals when you're not the focus, you can be doing something more than just playing chords, thumping roots on the bass, or keeping basic four on the drums.  Do something that fills the space but also adds something interesting to the tapestry you're weaving.

[Fritzinger]

It's a shame that Yes seems to have forgotten to arrange music like that. On Heaven & Earth, it seems there's always a guy standing somewhere in the corner boredly strumming an acoustic guitar just to cover a missing frequency spectrum.

[Max Kuehnau]

It's a shame that Yes seems to have forgotten to arrange music like that. On Heaven & Earth, it seems there's always a guy standing somewhere in the corner boredly strumming an acoustic guitar just to cover a missing frequency spectrum.

right, but I have to say I really like Fly From Here though.

[IDontNotDoThings]

I adore FFH (the 2011 version), & I like H&E as a sort of "chill" album when I feel like relaxing, but if the insane complexity of Close To The Edge or Relayer is the main reason you like the band, then H&E will be sorely disappointing.

Though, now I wonder how a "Heaven & Earth vs The Endless River" poll would turn out.

[Fritzinger]

I adore FFH (the 2011 version), & I like H&E as a sort of "chill" album when I feel like relaxing, but if the insane complexity of Close To The Edge or Relayer is the main reason you like the band, then H&E will be sorely disappointing.

Though, now I wonder how a "Heaven & Earth vs The Endless River" poll would turn out.

The insane complexity of those albums is one but not the only reason I love Yes. I also love songs like Onward, Owner Of A Lonely Heart, Rhythm Of Love, I Would Have Waited Forever, Open Your Eyes (there, I said it), In The Presence, Give Love Each Day, The Calling, Don't Go.

Fly From Here has some very cool moments, I agree. And a great production and sound (duh, Trevor Horn). Sometimes I feel like not all of the songs' potential has been used though. Life Of A Film Set and Madman At The Screens are my two favorites. But I think the whole FFH suite feels a little disjointed. And Bumpy Ride hints what Heaven & Earth will be. Sure, there are some 7/8 bars in there, but harmonies are mostly T-S-D-T material, and most importantly, the melodies sound like children's songs. I just don't understand Steve Howe. After the release of every album since The Ladder, he says Yes should be composing symphonies and huge gestures, and then goes on writing and releasing songs like Hour Of Need.

My favorite post-Drama album is Magnification though. I feel like they really found back their strengths on this one. Dreamtime, In The Presence Of, We Agree, Spirit Of Survival, all great songs.


I voted for Yes in this poll, but in an Endless River vs. Heaven & Earth poll I would vote for Endless River, without a second of thinking about it.

[Orbert]

I just don't understand Steve Howe. After the release of every album since The Ladder, he says Yes should be composing symphonies and huge gestures, and then goes on writing and releasing songs like Hour Of Need.

Have you ever heard the full version of Hour of Need?  The U.S. version of Fly From Here doesn't have the intro or outro.  On the Japanese release, there's an instrumental intro and an instrumental outro, making the total track length 6:45.  Still no Close to the Edge, but it doubles the track length, features some nice Howe jamming, and pushes the prog factor up a bit.  Your comment about "symphonies and huge gestures" actually brought that to mind, because the instrumental bits sound pretty grand and glorious.  Apparently the version on Return Trip restores most of this, but not all.  I've never bothered with Return Trip, but I saw the the version of Hour of Need is longer, though still not as long as the Japanese cut with Benoit on vocals.

[Stadler]

I adore FFH (the 2011 version), & I like H&E as a sort of "chill" album when I feel like relaxing, but if the insane complexity of Close To The Edge or Relayer is the main reason you like the band, then H&E will be sorely disappointing.

Though, now I wonder how a "Heaven & Earth vs The Endless River" poll would turn out.

I was thinking in a similar way, but with songs:

"Seamus" versus "Arriving UFO"?   
"Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict" versus "Circus Of Heaven"?   

Haha.

[Pettor]

Pink Floyd. The 70s era Pink Floyd is game changing. Dark Side, Wish you Where Here, Animals and The Wall is maybe the strongest 4 albums in a row I know of. They all feel so unique and paints the music with all color palettes and a creativity I just think few bands ever had. The music is still mainly easy to listen to. It doesn't feel complex. The complexity is mainly that nothing follows a template. I also appreciate every aspect of the music for 70s Pink Floyd. The music is strong, the lyrics are fantastic and the fidelity is still talked about to this date. Felt like they had something to say in every aspect of music. It's funny how quickly that changed when Roger went away, for me at least.

A small analysis BTW. I do think this is quite an interesting poll. Progressive has always felt like you can, for simplistic reasons, divide it in a scale of:

Pink Floyd <------------|-----------> YES
                        Dream Theater

I think those two bands have little in common if you look at why they wrote the music they did etc. YES is highly technical, writes music that doesn't follow the standard template and that's in their DNA and a conscious decision I think. 70s Pink Floyd writes music that creatively goes into unusual structure and can be technical but mainly so because it suites what they envisioned. Something like that. Neither is better than the other just somehow describes something that always felt like a divide in progressive. You have bands like Pain of Salvation and Riverside that continuously claim to not be progressive since the technicality and structure is a side effect of the vision. They aren't inspired by progressive bands but they happen to be very free of how music can be built and find that important to achieve what they want to say. Then you have Dream Theater that is technical because it's a conscious decision but also that Pink Floyd DNA.

If you go to Progarchives you will see Pink Floyd and YES being at the top basically. So for me, being interested in progressive, I thought I would just follow the highest ranked bands there. However I quickly find that the YES-like bands (Flower Kings etc.) doesn't work for me while the top Pink Floyd like bands (Riverside etc.) work for me. Funny enough Dream Theater was the first highly technical band that got my attention. Maybe because they do have that strong Pink Floyd part as well.

I am ofc oversimplifying this and giving maybe a bit too much credit to Pink Floyd, but that's intentional to not get into the complexity of what's what