Early YES -- great pop band!?

During that process, a good pop song did occasionally appear, particularly on the "Time And The Word" album.

those early records are kind of OK. "the yes album" has one great song on it, "your move"/"all good people." the guitar work is of course superb. "america" is close to brilliant. there are some nice moments of musical interaction on "fragile" and of course "roundabout" is a classic, even given it's just as stupid as all their other songs--great arrangement, undeniable bad '70s art that somehow is good. "close to the edge" i actually listened to in its entirety recently--it's also quite stupid but there are some fine moments there, especially in "and you and i" and even in the title track, which is kinda mahavishnu-lite in some places. "siberian khatru" is the one absolutely stunning yes track--again, what the fuck it means i dunno. "owner of a lonely heart" is actually a great song. but their first two albums and their work in general illustrates how '70s prog supposedly "built upon" and improved what byrds, love, beatles, etc., did earlier. if you actually prefer the moody blues to the bee gees or love, or yes to the byrds and the beatles, or king crimon's stuff to mingus or beefheart or any of the above, then hey-ho! but i don't.

I kind of agree with your last point, Eddie; I'm not saying I prefer prog to sixties pop, mind you, but I can see the connection; one of things that draws me to Yes particularly is how amazingly catchy they are, even after the early albums. Parts of "Close To The Edge" stick in my head relentlessly.

No it isn't. ;)

I agree with you there--except for the words "bad" and "somehow"...

their "I See You" is pretty hot, tougher and rockinger than the Byrds original, but then Peter Banks comes along and ruins it with his shitty Bach volume-pedal solo.

I'll admit I'm a bit prejudiced, 'cause "I See You" is ABSOLUTELY my favourite Byrds song; but seriously, so many things gone wrong. I miss the reverbing title ("I see yooOoOooOoO"), the harmony vocals, the crackling 12-string "Eight Miles High" soloing stuffed into every spare crack, galloping drums, mysterious lyric - just SO MUCH stuff crammed into 2:38. And to my ears, it rocks harder than the cover. I'll admit that the original didn't 'swing' like the cover, but that's hardly the point. There's no denying that Bruford/Squire is a better rhythm section than Clarke/Hillman, so ultimately, my main complaint is the lyrics. What the hell possessed Anderson to change "empathize" to "sympathize" and "I know you" to "I love you" and the ENTIRE FUCKING FIRST VERSE to "La la la"?!?! Laziness? Unfamiliarity? Arrogance? Either way it pisses me off. If only he'd sung the correct words and retained the harmony vocals throughout (EDGY harmonies like in the original)(or "Yours Is No Disgrace", for that matter!) I'd be a lot more charitable.

(But their Beatles and "West Side Story" covers are just fine!)

I'm afraid I don't know what is meant by "pure formalism". Are you referring to something which has a form but doesn't have any underlying meaning beneath it? Or to lyrics that 'shouldn't' be there but are? If this is the case, what would make Yes any more egregious than several other bands who use a similar approach--say, Damo Suzuki's ramblings in Can? Liz Fraser in Cocteau Twins? Should "Black Angel's Death Song" or "Smells Like Teen Spirit" be instrumentals because their lyrics are 'dumb'?

There seems to be several assumed ideals from the tone of your post...not keeping it simple = 'artifice', pointless; abstract lyrics = dumb; writing about Rembrandt = gawd!

As a listener, I don't really share any of these, as a priori ideals. Good music can be incredibly simple or it can be unbelievably complex (and let's not forget, Yes aren't really *that* musically complicated at all, at least relative to some other rock bands). It can have lyrics that are very straightforward, or are highly abstracted/don't make any sense/'dumb'...and so on and so on.

From my own perspective, I quite like the abstract nature of the "Heart of the Sunrise" lyrics, and feel that it adds something special to the song. The way it is sung, it is sung with a drive like in any other song with a meaningful text, and there's also this sort of intuitive connection--like in Anderson's voice on the final line ("How can the wind with so many around me?"). It is the emotion in what is being sung (i.e., sense of yearning, abandonment, perhaps bewilderment or disbelief)--over just simply the meaning or content of the line--that will make the connection with the listener who is open to it. When I hear that last line (always makes my hairs stand on end), it's like I know exactly what Anderson is singing about and can relate to the feeling conveyed in the delivery, even though of course on the face of it the lyrics don't mean anything. Similarly, I like the title to "Siberian Khatru", even though no, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense--but why should it have to? Is it really inferior to lyrics and subject matter so blindingly obvious (and often delivered overwrought) like Animals or The Wall?

RIP Peter Banks :(

The very first one (yes-yes) is a great listen for anyone who's a fan of theirs.

Aw, I didn't know it was Peter Banks who formed Flash (of dodgy album covers fame) after he departed from Yes. RIP :(

I got cropped out my highschool radio station's yearbook photo for holding up Flash's dodgy "In The Can" gatefold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn6d770bRQ4