Why is a ten minute Neil Young song better than a 10 minute Yessong

their weakness is that they hadn't a *clue* about sustained length: all of their songs are constructed of many many disconnected hook-chunks of unfinished potentially great pop songs... you lose interest bcz they keep changing the subject, basically

i don't know if this is bcz they hate-ph34r pop, in standard prog-punk-indie fashion, or some other less silly reason

non-repetition is interesting, but it's a high-risk strategy: you have to give the listener a reason to want to multiple-repeat-play the records, to get the information bedded down as a pleasure => newbies who approach it via live performance (= esp.recordings of same) are quite likely being asked much too much of

(thesis: the establishment of non-repetition as an avant-garde virtue is a direct result of the arrival of recording technology: aural equiv of the anti-figurative in art as a product of the arrival of photography)

However, I would like to be around when it is revealed that Yes were actually a *better* pop band than they were a prog one.

i think the micro-episodes (= hook-chunks) dissolve the clarity of the macro-episodes (= movements)

plus if overall constuctional linkage isn't motivic or harmonic development-oid or tone-poem narrative , what is it? montage-contrastive? but w/o a newbie-recognisible index of variation (or like-unlike) in re sonic texture (which can for example definitely have) (czukay = pupil of stockhausen!!) it's as likely to feel as if it falls apart on repeated listening, rather than coheres

modern descendents of prog (merzbow/mego/etc) have inherited early electronica's modes of variation ie [sound a] is a variation of [sound b] if you can turn a dial to get from one to the other (even if only a notional dial); the coherence is instrumentalist, even if the instruments are only virtual, really

Well, I should've said something like "as opposed to stringing together melodies, Yes appears to have gone for vast movements -- including developments which didn't necessary have anything to do with the 'primary themes'". But then you probably already nailed the key: newbie-recognition. The whole prejudice agains bands like Yes, as I see it, is that their appeal is something of a Jedi mind trick: "you cannot see what we are doing, therefore you believe we are not doing it -- or doing it incorrectly". They call them pompous and long-winded -- "but we are singing of the Dawn of a New Civilization!!!! (Plus if you could play these bass riffs, wouldn't you?)"

Anyway, maybe if it so easily feels as if it's falling apart, it isn't worth the trouble -- and maybe they're just no good. Where I run into problems is that by the same logic, I should never listen to Ruins, perhaps the most "keep changing the subject" band of all time. (However, they generally do refrain from one-piece-per-side indulgences.)

that said, if i'm going to hear a 10-minute song, i'd rather have medicine or spacemen 3 or something. medicine = BIG prog fans, and a better band for it, if you ask me.

Mark, can you expand on this thought?

er, like, let's get off the Yes & Neil - they were just examples ..

mark's idea that Yes's thoughts are disjointed is interesting - but I'm not sure I agree - if you listen to the second Steppenwolf LP (I know - you hate Steppenwolf), there's a series of disconnected ideas that work well together .. Abbey Road is another example...

Mark: I would agree in the case of "Heart Of the Sunrise" but not in the case of "Starship Trooper", for example. I am not even sure that's a valid criticism of "South Side Of the Sky" or "Close To the Edge" or "And You and I", really. Also, Yes was pop, probably more so in the 70s. Agree about the rhythm section, though.

amateurist: yes i can, so keep prodding me if i don't (haha soon u will be prodding to stop me)

dwh: i had a nice gentle xmas w/o alarums or excursions = just what wz needed to recharge batteries (ilm: ":( uh oh")

Contrarily, Bill Bruford left the band because he couldn't stand another minute of that group of rock-heads trying to spontaneously bang out Fine Art as if they were serious composers. I wonder if they were trying to clump together 20 different ideas, or trying to come up with one huge one all at once -- in either case, I guess there have been better ideas. Furthermore, has this come back to intent vs perception again?

anyway it's time for my supper

Actually, IIRC, with "Big Generator" (rather forgettable late 80s/AOR/Rabin-era album with some good moments), Yes originally wanted to make something of a Side 2 Abbey Road homage with segueing of tracks, etc. Didn't work out, though.

I think Yes' 10-minute tracks have a fair degree of repetition/structure, myself. It's more a question of development and the way they 'tweak' the basic components, as Dominique pointed out.

As an example, "Yours is No Disgrace":

A. Cowboy intro
B. Upbeat moog and guitar theme
C1. "Yesterday a morning came..." (1st verse; organ only)
C2. "Battleships confide..." (2nd verse, exactly like the 1st except with full band, electric)
B. Upbeat moog and guitar theme repeated
C3. "Yesterday a morning came..." (1st verse repeated; soft shuffle, full band)
A2. Cowboy intro (modified), repeated
D. Lengthy middle section with jazzy guitar
C4. "Armies gather the earth..." (1st verse in different key, gradually with full band, acoustic)
C2. "Battleships confide..." (2nd verse repeated)
B. Upbeat moog and guitar theme repeated, with spacey keyboard glissandos tacked on as an ending

joe, ok, fair enough: but this still feels to me like trying on yr mum's make-up and high heels — it's not as if they stuck with such structural principles as they moved through topographic oceans and relayer (which i note no one much is juggling around and cheering here...) (norman?)

I think the meanderings and deviations in the middle of Yes tracks often serve to re-emphasise the pop stuff when it comes back, often at the end. 'Heart of the Sunrise' and 'The Revealing Science Of God' are good examples.
But mark is pretty much on point throughout above.

Interesting here, because immediately afterwards, they retreated into ultra formalism/semi-pop, and even later into actual pop (actually Buggles were hired in 1980!). I can't really speak to the C/D status of these records, only having heard them a couple of times -- but remember the thread about general music fans vs obsessive fans picks? Relayer is a perennial obsessive Yes fan fave. I don't know whether that says anything about newbie recognition or not.

Are 'Gates of delirum' or 'Awaken' ultra formalism/semi-pop?

That being said, I rather agree with the premise of the question. I would rather listen to "Cortez the Killer" for twenty minutes than "Siberian Khatru" for nine. I disagree with the idea that Yes wrote pop suites a la "Abbey Road" -- I think Yes went into the studio with the idea of creating one long piece around a single theme already formulated, rather than the McCartney tactic of sewing together a bunch of little pieces. Cf. Joe's post above. And that, to me, is the problem--"Cortez" is basically a droney jam, whereas "And You and I" has higher aspirations regarding structure. The reason why classical structures worked is because they were relatively fixed -- the symphonic form developed variations over time, but the basic format remained the same for hundreds of years. This is very much UNTRUE of most prog.

Awaken - no, but Going for the One and Wonderous Stories were. Certainly stuff like Don't Kill the Whale, though I think Gates was Relayer.

this 'thesis' is something I often think abt. Improv recs have no 'hooks' so I can't remember a thing abt them once they are finished, no matter how many times I play them. Which is why I don't get bored as quickly by them as songs (though of course now you have videos, and i'd rather watch pop as videos: shakira shaking her ass during 'whenever wherever' is far better than buying the CD as you don't have the visual 'stimulant' heh).

Hmmm, I'd disagree here, I'd argue they did pretty much stick to those same principles, but these became more ambitious over time, so maybe are less immediately noticeable.

As an example, I was listening to Tales from Topographic Oceans tonight, and composed this (pretty excruciating) musical summation of the whole album:

1st Track: REVEALING SCIENCE OF GOD

A. Chanting Intro: "Dawn of light" etc. (0:00)

B1. Main Theme I (1:37)
B2. Main Theme II (1:58)
B1. repeated (2:34)
B3. Main Theme III (3:05)

C. Verse ("Called out a tune...") (3:36); 2 verses
D. Chorus Theme ("What happened...") (4:24)
B3. repeated (5:01)
C-D. repeated
B3. repeated (6:37)

E. Rapid Theme ("Starlight Movement Reason...") (6:53)
B3. repeated; slower, no lyrics (7:48)
B1. repeated (8:48)
B3. repeated; played on mellotron, still slow (9:02)

F. "They move fast..." Theme (9:45)
G. "Getting over overhanging trees..." Theme (10:14)
F. repeated (10:46)
E. repeated; quote of Heart of the Sunrise piano riff (11:12)

[Guitar-led instrumental break] (11:51) with brief foreshadowing quote of Guitar Theme from The Remembering (12:34) on guitar; rhythm guitar quotes Main Theme III in various keys (12:39), then falls back into original key at 13:00
H. "And through the rhythm..." interlude (13:58); 2 verses; guitar still quoting Main Theme III
B1. repeated; hazy, key change (15:06)
B3. repeated; back to original key (15:18);
B3. repeated; slowed down, key change (16:01), foreshadowing quotes of Main Theme from The Ancient (16:23) on synthesizer and Main Theme I variation from Ritual (16:34) on guitar

[moog solo] (16:55)
F. repeated (17:40)
G. repeated (18:12)
F. repeated (18:43)
B2. repeated (18:58)
D. repeated (19:05)

A. Chanting Outro: w/ Main Theme III on guitar (19:44)

2ND TRACK: THE REMEMBERING

A1. Intro of Bright Theme I music w/out lyrics (0:00)
B. Verses (0:15)
C1. "Ours..." Theme (2:36)
C2. "And I Do Think Very Well..." Theme (2:56)
C3. "They move fast..." Theme (3:04)
C1-3. repeated
D. Foreshadowing quote of Main Theme I from Ritual (4:21)
E. Main Keyboard Theme without melody (4:35)
B. repeated (5:09)

A1. Bright Theme I: "I reach over..." (5:40)
A2. Bright Theme II: "Out in the city..." (6:08)
A1-2. repeated (6:53)
E. repeated (7:43), the melody arrives at 8:10 and is played twice

F1. Folky Theme ("Don the cap...") (9:11)
F2. Guitar Theme first quoted in Revealing Science in God (10:18)
F3. "Relayer..." Theme (10:38)
E. repeated (11:19)
F1-3. repeated (11:53)
B. verse melody played on moog and guitar (13:43)
F3. repeated; melody played on moog and mellotron (14:14)
A1-2. repeated (14:39)
E. variation/extended interlude (15:46)

C1-3. repeated (17:34)
Quote of Main Theme II from Revealing Science of God (18:29)
C3. repeated (18:45)
E. repeated (19:53)

3RD TRACK: THE ANCIENT

A1. Rhythmic Motif, percussion only (0:00)
B1. Opening Jam (0:31)
B2. Chromatic Theme, briefly stated on guitar (1:18)
B1. Modulates into another key (1:25) with B3. Wobbily guitar theme (2:10)

A2. Rhythmic Motif w/ full band in short verse (3:42)
A3. Main Theme (played on mellotron), with Rhythmic Motif (4:40)

C1. Dark Theme without words (6:08)
C2. Lighter Theme w/ words (6:23)
C1-2. repeated
A3. repeated (6:40) without Rhythmic Motif
B2. repeated
C1-2. repeated twice (7:30)
A3. repeated (7:56)

Extended instrumental section based on B1 (i.e. slide guitar, wah-wah bass, percussion), with constant punctuations of Motif (8:26)

D. Brief Interlude ("So the flowering creativity...") (12:30)

E1. Classical Guitar piece introducing "Leaves of Green" (12:54)
E2. "Leaves of Green" song w/ versus and chorus (14:42)
E1. repeated (17:05)
B3. repeated (17:46)
A2. repeated (18:07)

4TH TRACK: RITUAL

A1. Bass Theme (0:00)
A2. Main Theme I, guitar (0:18)
A3. Main Theme II, guitar and vocals (1:45)
A4. Main Theme III (2:12)

Guitar solo (4:03) quotes: Main Theme III from Revealing Science of God (4:09), Close to the Edge (4:23), Main Theme from The Ancient (4:29), repeats Main Theme I (4:45), Main Theme II from Revealing Science of God (4:50), Main Theme I from Revealing Science of God (5:00), Guitar Theme from The Remembering (5:08)

A5. Main Theme IV ("Nous Sommes du Soleil...") (5:24)
B1. Verses ("Open doors we find our way...") (6:48); 2 times
B2. "We receive all we venture to give..." (8:12)
repeat of Main Theme I from "Revealing Science of God" (8:27)
B1-2. repeated (8:45)
B3. Lyrical bridge ("Then I Will Be There/They Don’t Seem to Matter at All...") (9:47)

A1. variation in different key (11:07)
A4. repeated w/ brief bass solo (12:04)
A3. repeated on bass and guitar (12:56)

C. Percussion section (14:18)
C. repeated with electronics, quotes Main Theme II from Revealing Science of God (15:45)

A6. variation of Main Theme I first quoted in Revealing Science of God (16:55)
A5. repeated on solo guitar (17:06)
A5. then becomes a full song with vocals (17:20)

Closing guitar solo, recapitulates: Main Theme I (19:56) and Main Theme II from Revealing Science of God (20:29)

So, not only is there thematic repetition and development within tracks as before with "Yours is No Disgrace", but by this point you also have thematic references between tracks and even to previous material on other albums (Magma is another prog band that does this a lot). Yet in spite of all this, I believe Steve Howe once said that at heart, he really thinks of Tales of Topographic Oceans as a bunch of pop songs tied together!

Anyway, I think that fans of this music like the thematic landmarks, and the pleasure of the lightbulb finally going off after repeated listening: "Aha! Didn't I just hear that bit in slightly-to-very different form a few minutes ago?"

That always struck me as "deeper" than any 28 minute prog opus.

I know, but I meant after that one and Tales, as Mark had said they hadn't stuck with structural principals as they moved through them. I'm guessing this is due to me not quoting all of Mark's line, sorry.

So do you think that in the 19th c. and earlier, concision (not necessarily brevity) was just one of several values of equal weight when people evaluated the various forerunners of popular music?

I don't know how relevant this is, but ballads as sung in the 19th c. and earlier often comprised dozens of verses, sometimes without a chorus at all. Obviously the singer was at liberty to introduce melodic and other variation but still, ballads performed in the "old style" often bore modern audiences who place a high value on concision and brevity.

recording meant that repetition AS AN INTRINSIC PART OF THE WORK wasn't really a practical necessity any more, in quite the same way, and music then began to move towards an assumption of compression => i assume the pressure being the continued existence of a lot of mediocre copycat music — now long forgotten — still aping the forms of its predecessors, including endless da capos, seeming not only artistically tired but acutely tedious in a world where technological repetition was to hand

(the analogy being the vanishing of the delivery of mimetic likeness as a duty in painting, when photography arrived, often claimed to be the spur for the gradual rise of abstract art)

the problem with the theory is that the pressures are somewhat indirect: but i think it's interesting that, as pop music settles comfortably into the exploitation of a longer-form recording medium (the LP), a fight starts — cf whole of this thread — about the artistic worth of the song (with its in-built repetitions) versus longer kinds of music (which are accused of impenetrable formelessness, and whose forms and recapitulations and structure DON'T just jump out at the non-musician listener); and that when an even more extended medium arrives (the CD), it coincides with music being made which uses extremes of repetition as textural detail

this is really really schematic, i know, and i don't think the causal link is actually much more than a vague opening of possibility, somewhat guided by boredom and flight from earlier habits, but i *do* think there's a link

this is a huge topic really: one of the reasons i think there's a tension between the way i'm analyising yes and joe is analysing it is that themes in the sense that he's discussing them seem to me to be belong in the world of music that exists in written (ie notated) form before it's recorded, whereas hooks belong in the world of music that's recorded before it's then transcribed (which it has to be for purposes of claiming copyright, though not necessrily very exactly) (obviously there's a huge grey area here, and difft prog groups probably fall all over this area)

i completely agree abt the reification of "pop music", though i think it's a very drawn-out process, which was already beginning with street-hawkers of ballad sheet music in the 18th century, or the albums of parlour songs for piano that were popular in the 19th century

Could you expand on this, J? Are you saying that the symphonic form works not because of any intrinsic aesthetic quality but because it is or was used in an essentially conservative manner? Why did that make it work? Would you say then that it ceased to 'work' in the 20th century, when the basic format did not remain the same?

Question #3: Why is a 10 minute King Crimson song better than a 10 minute Yes one? After a few more comparisons, it really starts to look like Yes were an incredible pop band! (But who I don't think were trying write pop songs in the early 70s.)

I wish I had something to say about Neil Young. :( Joe, look forward top seeing new stuff from you when G&S starts up again.

important disclaimer: seeing as my book when finished (ha!) = A Critical History of Music and Technology, my attitude here is also known as "rubbishing the opposition"!!

Why is that? My guess is that you just think ST sounds better than those bands (though, my god, even John Wetton couldn't stop the greatness of Red!!).

I picked HC because I think they would agree with mark s about Yes, and I picked KC because I think they wouldn't -- in fact, I think KC is in many ways the non-identical twin of Yes, approaching things from the same angle, but in a different color.

dleone: Basically, yeah. Much better singer, first of all. Much better melodies than anything I've heard by those other two, though I do recognize that's probably not what HC were going for (and maybe not KC some of the time). More fluid-sounding. Lovely textures. And it really does sound better constructed to me in its overall form than any KC or HC I've heard. I've mostly found HC to sound a little clunky and gratuitous. The couple tracks I've heard from Red didn't appeal to me that much. It's hard to explain why. It's pompous in a way I don't care for, though I do like a lot of pompous things? A stiff, stuffy quality? Also, it didn't strike me as being as technically accomplished as I'd expected?

question redux: Why would I rather listen to "Yoo Doo Right" than "Dark Star" ?

In other words - I should have asked the question about songs, not bands - because "Yours Is No Disgrace" is a bit better than "Moonchild" yet I like Crimson way more than Yes...

I think the "Dark Star" / "Yoo Doo Right" comparison may be better - neither song really goes anywhere or does anything, yet Can could go on forever and the Dead are torture after about 3 minutes.

.. Or another example - Traffic - the studio version of "Uninspired" is horrible, but the "On the Road" version is the only redeeming 10 minutes on the record.

?

Geir Hongro in chronic misuse of language SHOCKAH!

It can, but not if the same chords are being repeated over and over again all the time in the backing track below it.

I don't think there was ever a 28 minute opus in prog. ELP's "Karn Evil" was a 29 minute one though. :-)

ELP

it's as likely to feel as if it falls apart on repeated listening, rather than coheres

That argument looks like it should work....and yet, in my whippersnapper days of listening to Yes & other progsters this was just what didn't happen - on the contrary, the perceptual/memory processes involved in repeated listening joined the dots/sections into a pattern of expectation and resolution quite effectively.
(perhaps this was an altogether simpler process than what you meant by 'coheres' though)

(and then the prog-'chunks' are themselves much more recognisable as coherent structures on a smaller scale - whereas the much more random-sounding nature of some jazz and improv on smaller scales keeps me away - in those cases it usually isn't rescued by enjoying the textural aspects either/instead (unlike the case with some early abstract electronic stuff which sounds like serialism on 'new' instruments)

They have nothing to do with each other. This isn't about relativity - it's really a prettty simple question: What makes some songs get annoying after 5 minutes whereas other songs could go on for hours without getting annoying?

Another case: Chris Butler's "The Devil Glitch" - which is the same pop verse (different words) repeated for 69 minutes. I can listen to it for about 15 minutes before it starts to wear thin, although I could maybe go a bit longer depending on my mood. 15 minutes is pretty long though for something so repetitive. That's contrary to the idea that the theme needs to change... In this case, I think it's the shortness of the verse & quick resolution that allows it to go on for so long. Longer musical phrases may be too hard to memorize, so repetition doesn't work.

Often songs that slowly build up or change can be interesting in a suspensful way, and Songs that are repetative can be hypnotizing, but songs that rapidly change cut the suspense or hypotized state too easily.

listenable long songs are often more closly related to classical music genre
unlistenable long songs are often more closly related to popular music genre.

too much candy can make you sick to your stomach

This is the question you wanted to ask? It seems like trying to compare Neil Young and Yes is more interesting.

saw him & his ensemble perform this work live having never heard it before (though was already plenty familiar with his other work), and found this section, even though it went on for ages (like the other 11 parts), and was >90% repetition each time round the loop, electrifying -
gradually being able to pick out the path round the loop each time and decode the swirling into contours and shapes felt like that kind of hang-on-by-the-fingernails hard-thinking which makes you feel more alive, and it made the tension and expectation as you recognised the point approaching where the NEW phrase was to be added really effective.

and because it was all being played live with this amazing speed-accuracy rather than sequenced it also had that circus-tension element in it of watching someone gradually set up 20-odd plates spinning on sticks...or build a tottering structure of wooden blocks and go just one block higher each time they did it...

typical ilm to spin an entire thread out of the side comparison the o.p. didn't want much made of!

10 minute neil young song = extended improv section = musicians intensely focused on listening to each other, communicating, staying interesting without the stricture/enabler of a larger-scale structure than the measure-to-measure / refrain-to-refrain repetition

quite like old ilm

"what makes me like some songs, and not like other songs?"
This is the question you wanted to ask? It seems like trying to compare Neil Young and Yes is more interesting.

I was expecting a punchline.