Jump to content

Talk:Yes (band)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4


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 'Buggles' 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)

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)

It is entirely appropriate for an article about a band to cite that band's official website, YesWorld in this case. That is accepted on Wikipedia. Ditto each band member's official site (or sites). I would have thought that Ticket Master would qualify as a reliable source, although I'm not certain why it's being used. Bondegezou's Where Are They Now? website is, of course, the most wonderful and useful Yes-related resource, but, no, it doesn't constitute a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2012 (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)

Anderson was invited but declined. Ditto Rick Wakeman. Bondegezou (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2012 (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)

Member list

My apologies if this topic has been raised before (I haven't spotted it), but what are people's thoughts on including a simple member list along with the chronology that already exists? Personally I would think that it would serve a good purpose as a summation of who is and who was in the band. Considering that lineup chronologies of the grandeur of the one on this page are usually created after a list of members was already present indicates that this may have been a previous topic and that there is a consensus against it. My apologies in this case. Burbridge92 (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Awkward opening

When I first read the opening sentence, "Yes are an English rock band who achieved worldwide success with their progressive, art, and symphonic style of rock music" I thought it was mis-punctuated and should have read "Yes are an English rock band who achieved worldwide success with their progressive art and symphonic style of rock music" (as in 'progressive art' and 'symphonic style'). But after noticing the links to progressive rock, art rock, and symphonic rock, I realized that it is actually intending to say that they achieved success with these three styles of music. This would mean that simply pluralizing "style" to "styles" would make the sentence read correctly: "Yes are an English rock band who achieved worldwide success with their progressive, art, and symphonic styles of rock music." Would this change be sufficient, or does the sentence need further tweaking? FF9 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds fair enough! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Plural?

There is an inconsistency with respect to the plurality of the band name "Yes", with varying opinions from "Yes was" to "Yes are" and this should be discussed and then made consistent throughout the article. In my opinion, "Yes" refers to a single group name, just like one might use the term "faculty", and so even though it may contain several members, when referring to it "Yes" is singular. --Wjmelements (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See MOS:PLURALS. Since they are currently an active band, it is "Yes are"; if they disband, it will be "Yes were". Radiopathy •talk• 23:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't familiar with the British collective rule. Thanks for the clarification! --Wjmelements (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Radiopathy, you are aptly named! (And so colorful!) The reason Wjmelements wasn't "familiar" with "the British collective rule" (he's still alive, but notice, I didn't write "Wjmelements are") is that it doesn't exist. One employs either the singular for a group of members or the collective plural. The rule is neither British nor American; it only requires consistency throughout the article: When discussing aspects of the band as a whole--and most of this article concerns those aspects, including the introductory paragraph, by the way--the collective singular "is" applies. When discussing traits of members, such as their individual musicianship or personal lives, the collective plural can but needn't be used. And whether or not a band still performs has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the verb's number! In America, England, or Burkina Faso! (That would change the verb's tense, not its number. LOL!) Whatever country you're writing from or about, it's safest to use the collective singular about a group and the collective plural only when describing details of the group's members that do not pertain in any way to their activities as that group, such as the spouses, children, recreational drug addictions, etc., of a rock band's members.

Timeline diagram

The timeline diagram is a wonderful graphic, but I suggest it is trying to capture too fine a level of detail and, in the process, leaving inconsistencies. White is indicated as playing keys on Magnification, but Bruford playing on "America" isn't covered. Horn played bass on one track of Drama, and a few bits of keys and guitar on Fly from Here. Sherwood plays bass on "The More We Live - Let Go" on Union. Squire and Rabin have had significant vocal roles; Squire sings lead on songs on Magnification and Fly from Here. There's lots of these examples: trying to capture all of them isn't going to be feasible, so perhaps the timeline diagram should just stick to the main instrument of each player. Bondegezou (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

... Davison plays some keyboards live with the band, as Anderson used to too. Sherwood plays bass and drums on Talk. Squire plays harmonica. Anderson played harp. And so on, and so on... Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The timeline has become a wonderful mix of different colours, but, again, I think trying to be more detailed becomes too complicated and inconsistencies and inaccuracies creep in. Why is Horn's studio bass and live guitar paying in 1989 omitted, for example? Downes does a few backing vocals. Rabin was almost a co-lead vocalist. And so on. So, do we gain accuracy by not being detailed? Bondegezou (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

ABWH a Yes album?

The ABWH album was by ABWH, not Yes, regardless of who owned the name contractually. It should not be included in the Yes discography. It is certainly worth a mention in this article, but not so detailed as presented now. 94.31.32.30 (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of a Wikipedia article? Is it to categorise: something is or is not a Yes album? Or is it to explain? I suggest the latter. To tell the story of Yes in that period, you need to tell the story of ABWH. The jump from Big Generator to Union makes no sense without ABWH. Indeed, most of Union was recorded as an ABWH album. So, I am comfortable with the current arrangement: ABWH is described in the article and the ABWH album is listed in the right (chronological) place in the discography list, while it is made clear that ABWH did not control rights to the Yes name and the album was not formally a Yes album.
I feel more comfortable in that position given that Yes's own career-spanning anthology, In a Word: Yes (1969–), includes two ABWH tracks in the right chronological order (and does not include any other non-Yes material) and Yes live, in the early 2000s, included ABWH's "The Meeting" in the set list.
I also thought it would be useful to consider what articles have done in similar situations. In 1981, Robert Fripp, Bill Bruford, Adrian Belew and Tony Levin toured under the band name Discipline. 6 months later, they decided to switch to calling themselves King Crimson. This is all described in the King Crimson article and there isn't even an article for the band called Discipline. (Obviously there is an article for the album later called that.)
For that matter, Squire, White and Rabin initially got together under the name Cinema, not Yes, and that's all also described in the Yes article. Despite Cinema having had less independent existence than Discipline, there is also a Cinema article.
Now, ABWH did have a greater independent existence than Discipline or Cinema. Crucially here, ABWH released an album (and live albums too). However, if Discipline and Cinema, as short-lived spin-offs that later became (re)incorporated under the main band name, are described at length under the main band name, then I suggest so should ABWH be described in the Yes article, while there is also a more detailed ABWH article.
Other bands have other histories with their own complexities. Examination of other comparable cases may also prove useful.
So, what do other people think? Bondegezou (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It shouldn't be included in the Discography list, that's all that was said. 92.8.104.125 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
These are good points. I think all agree that ABWH is not a Yes album. I think the question is whether or not it is appropriate to include an album that is not a Yes album in a Yes discography. I think that given the research above, it makes sense to include it with the understanding that all agree it is not a Yes album.Tligda (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear 92.8.104.125, I was also responding to your comment that, "It is certainly worth a mention in this article, but not so detailed as presented now." Bondegezou (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Personnel instrument listing

As with the timeline diagram (see discussion above), we now have an issue with the personnel section and what instruments/roles are listed for each band member. I suggest it is more sensible to give less detail, to focus on the main roles.

With respect to my most recent edit and Hyliad's good faith revert... Davison has been playing the harp part in "Awaken" on keyboards live. Squire plays harmonica at most Yes shows. Horn played some keyboards on 90125 and some guitar on Fly from Here, so why only list his backing vocals role? Sherwood played bass and keyboards on "The More You Live -- Let Go" on Union; he played bass and drums on Talk and played keys, guitar and a little bass on the supporting tour; and, IIRC, he played some percussion on The Ladder.

I don't particularly want all this detail listed, but I think listing some detail (e.g. Horn contributing backing vocals in 1983 and 2011), but not other details is misleading. Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

At first I only added some more instruments, but then I found that almost all the musicians in Yes history played various instruments. So finally almost everyone on the list has "various others" and now I believe it's too much.
It's probably more to have a limit: except from the main instruments, we should put an instrument played often on studio (even if not every time) like Jon Anderson who made a lot of harp, percussion and guitar, on the other side he played timpani on Topographic Oceans but it's mentioned in the article of the album and that's enough. We could also add the instruments they're playing a lot live, maybe not at every live show, like Jon Davison who plays tambourine very often during the instrumental parts (when not playing guitar or keyboards) but unlike Geoff Downes who played keytar, but only a few times. The difficult part will be to choose for every one of them what is a "various other" and what is a real recurring instrument. --Hyliad (d) 22:58, 2 February 2013 (CEST)

MGT = Yes?

There's a serious problem in the intro of the article. If Mabel Greer's Toyshop aren't a band pre-Yes but the first incarnation of Yes, then we have to change the birth year of Yes in 1967 and add other members of the band (Clive Bayley, Bob Hagger, Paul Rutledge). What do you think about it? --L'Eremita (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yesgigs say clearly that the first concert of MGT was in September 7 1967!!! Advertisement of Melody Maker. --L'Eremita (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes evolved out of Mabel Greer's Toy Shop. So, there were gigs with Squire/Anderson/Bruford under the MGTS name earlier in 1968 that were very similar in content to gigs later that year under the Yes name. (Bruford's much-told anecdote about the first Yes gig was played under the MGTS name.) However, MGTS began earlier without any of the later Yes names involved. In other words, the final incarnation of MGTS was basically Yes, but that doesn't mean earlier incarnations of MGTS should be considered incarnations of Yes. Let's keep the birth year of Yes as 1968 as per all the reliable sources, but let the text note this evolution from a band still using the MGTS name into one using the Yes name. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
For Yesgigs Peter Banks (the proposer of the name Yes!) joined the band in July 26 1968 Then there were some gigs of Yes under the MGT name, before the concert of East Mersey. So 07/26/1968 or 07/27/1968 were probably the Yes birthday. --L'Eremita (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I have a problem with using Yesgigs as a source. Some of it - that sourced from Welch's biography and Bacon's book on Marquee dates - is okay, but dates coming from random emails surely can't be reliable. The site even says "This list is by no means complete, and is only as accurate as my sources -- which means that some gigs that were advertised may not actually have been played." Therefore I would suggest it's not a particularly reliable source. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
In this circumstance, i think it's reliable. Yesgigs and Bruford's anecdote correspond. Bruford says the first Yes gig was played under the MGTS name and Yesgigs list one MGTS concert, in 27 July 1968 (between the return of Banks in 26 July and the first gig under the new name in 3-4 August). So, Yes were born probably in 26 or 27 July. What's the source about Bruford? --79.46.72.236 (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

– Similar to common English words like Yesterday or Something, this classic band existing since 40+ years has enough notability to appear as the primary topic for the term "Yes", can't see anyone on the dab competing for it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, thus a link to yes and no and the dab is appropriate here. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Sorry, couldn't resist that temptation. Looks like the band is more in demand. Favonian (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. So on a brief look, Yes (band) is accessed over 10 times as much, which would appear to argue against Skookum1's position. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (Typos corrected. Bondegezou (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC))
Clarification in view of Lugnuts' !vote below: I wasn't stating my opinion, merely answering Bondegezou's question with a link to the access statistics service. Favonian (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Yes-West"

One of the lineups of Yes is incorrectly referred to several times as "Yes-West". Surely the band should be referred to throughout by its proper name. As it stands, it gives the impression of personal bias in the editing of the article. 176.249.26.217 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

How ABWH is listed in the discography section?

We have previously agreed to list ABWH in the discography section. Until recently, the ABWH albums were listed chronologically, mixed up with the regular Yes albums. They were then moved to a separate sub-section, but that was then reverted. I've just put the article back to the sub-section approach, but let's talk about it here and come to a resolution rather than just editing back and forth.

Personally, I think having a separate sub-section makes clear ABWH's distinct separate identity to Yes, while still acknowledging their connection, whereas having them all mixed up overstates the connection. But what do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

ABWH were a side project. Remove all from discography. --82.55.82.39 (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The previous consensus has been to include ABWH in the discography. I feel it would be inappropriate to remove them unless it is clear that the consensus has now shifted. Bondegezou (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't Pop rock be in the infobox?

Yes' sole #1 hit (Owner of a Lonely Heart) was pop rock. And two of their biggest albums were pop rock. So wouldn't it make sense to add that to the infobox? Twyfan714 (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is getting a bit tiresome. Radiopathy •talk• 14:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Has there been a discussion on this? Can you direct me towards it? Twyfan714 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes have been around for a long time and encompassed a number of styles. I think it's appropriate for the infobox to reflect that. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph Two -- did the rise of punk lead to a decline of Yes's creativity? How?

"The rise of punk rock at the end of the decade led to a decline in creativity and sales.." Okay, sure, the public's changing tastes led to a decline in sales, and sure, the rise of punk rock was emblematic of that change. But that the rise of punk LED TO the decline in Yes's creativity is just nonsense. I'd edit the paragraph myself, and I may later, but before I do I wanted to throw the topic out there in the Talk page... -- David James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.205.74.23 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole lede should be re-written, IMHO. But yes, I would think "contributed to" would sound better? Or, not even mention punk rock at all? Tormato even reached Platinum certification and Drama went to number two in the UK after all. Suggestion: "Following Tormato (1978), internal disputes over the band's musical direction contributed to unsuccessful recording sessions for a new album in Paris in late 1979." LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

ABWH as an alias of Yes in the info box

I strenuously object to the info box stating that Yes were also known as "Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe". The info box is meant to contain quick basic facts for the casual reader. Calling ABWH "Yes" will be confusing at best and misleading at worst. Yes were never officially known as ABWH, and whether or not they were ever "unofficially" known as ABWH is a complex and nuanced situation. This is precisely the sort of thing that doesn't belong in the info box. Furthermore, this info box has it bass-ackwards. During the "Yes-East–Yes-West" years, ABWH were often casually referred to as "Yes", but Yes were never known as "ABWH". Joefromrandb (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Having protested at User:Joefromrandb's edits and suggest s/he come here to seek consensus, I must apologise for being slow to respond!
We have on several occasions addressed this thorny issue of the relationship of ABWH to Yes. I think we all recognise that the relationship is, as Joefromrandb rightly put it, "complex and nuanced". In text, we can discuss and explain that, but we run into problems with infoboxes etc. because these can't cope with complex and nuanced. The infobox has a line and you're meant to say something or not say something on that line. Consensus in the past has tended to err on including ABWH in lists, but using notes as far as possible to flag up the nuance. That's how we ended up with the phrasing used until recently, see here, that include ABWH in the "Also known as" part of the infobox, but with a note. Joefromrandb, in good faith given the lack of discussion here, recently removed that.
I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here. I prefer the inclusion of ABWH in that part of the infobox, even though it doesn't fit perfectly, because it acts as a marker that can lead the reader to find out more, at which point they will encounter text explaining the complex and nuanced situation -- and that seems to me exactly the sort of thing that does belong in the infobox. In the past, other editors have also been keen on the more inclusive approach. (However, if consensus has shifted, I respect that.) Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Graphic timeline of band members

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus for this question. AlbinoFerret 21:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Should the graphic timeline of band members be presented in two place, here and also at the List of Yes band members? Or should it be presented only at the List of Yes band members? Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • List article only. The graphic timeline is a resource hog, and its information is quite detailed. I think that the band's biography should concentrate on generalities, and it should be trimmed of finer detail. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Both articles. If anything, I think it fits very well in the main article, as a summary of the rather confusing succession of members (information which is already presented in both "personnel" and "history" sections. Perhaps a good compromise would be to fold the timeline under a hide/show link on the main article? –GlottalFricative(talk) 20:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. I say we just have a simple bullet list of current band members and have a link to the List of Yes band members article. Though should it be kept on this article, I like the idea of a show/hide feature for it. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. It keeps things nice and clean, and gives the list article a distinct purpose. –GlottalFricative(talk) 15:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Right; I'm a fan of the Members section of the Motörhead article. It just lists the current members, and links to its members page with all the details and timeline graphics over there. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I did the same for the Girlschool members section with a direct link to the List of Girlschool band members article, where the timeline is placed. I support this solution. Lewismaster (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brislin

Should he be in the graphic timeline (which makes it look as though he appeared on a studio album)? Look at recent edits to this article and you can see the dispute. I reverted his addition as this article otherwise does not treat him the same as "full" members of the band. I can't see any RS describing him in those terms, but then the whole notion of who is or is not a "full" member is fraught. Bondegezou (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, Bondegezou. He was a touring member and did not contribute to any studio album. Hulu has been known to cause editing problems in the past, as you know. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
To contradict myself, I note Yes's official website lists Brislin as an alumnus, undifferentiated from others. Bondegezou (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

English group 'YES'

Hello,

Your article about the English Group "YES" quotes the following sentence.

In February 1972, Yes recorded a cover version of "America" by Paul Simon.

I think this is an error. The group 'Yes' recorded a song called 'America', which is the one of the soundtracks from the movie West Side Story. It was an instrumental version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.236.31.234 (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No. It is correct that Yes covered Paul Simon's "America". Yes also covered "Something's Coming" from West Side Story, but they never did a full cover of Bernstein's "America". Another English prog band, The Nice, did cover that "America". Bondegezou (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Yes (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yes_(band)/Archive_2&oldid=1144313093"