nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (07/15/85)
[Warning: the following article contains biased and predjudiced opinions. Please sprinkle with grains of salt to taste.] > From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) >>> [jer:] Here is an essence of what makes Yes succeed where groups >>> like King Crimson don't (in my opinion). Yes always kept in touch >>> with the "guiding lines" of traditional musical forms. >> [Me:] King Crimson is at least an order of magnitude better than Yes, >> for precisely the reason you state! This is just one person's >> opinion though, but while I'm on the topic, Yes's lyrics often border >> on silly too (border?). > [jer:] ...how about substantiating these claims?... Well, like you said, (if you are right) Yes always kept in touch with the "guiding lines" of traditional musical forms. This makes them sound more familiar and less new and fresh and interesting than music that strays farther from what has already been accepted as music for a long time. In any case, it's really just a matter of gross opinion, but I'll try anyway to say more why I'm not so crazy about Yes. Don't get too offended if I rag on Yes, because I think they're worthwhile -- I just don't like them so much. (I don't like ELP much either). I don't know anything about music theory, or anything like that, so I can't throw lots of technical facts at you -- just what it sounds like to me. Also, I'm not too familiar with all of Yes's music, since I only have "Close to The Edge" and "Fragile", but I've heard lots of other stuff around too, and none of it greatly impressed me. > Also, which King Crimson are you referring to? I'm referring to the one > that recorded, e.g., "Starless and Bible Black," not the one you quoted in > your signature line (who I think is just great).... I'm refering to all the King Crimson lineups (I've heard). Every King Crimson album I have (with the exception of "Beat", is great). Those albums are "In The Court...", "Lark's Tongue...", "Red", "Starless...", "Discipline", "Beat", and "Three of...". > If you can explain WHY King Crimson is so good (and not just "Wow, > it's neat that they can start up and stop again all at once like that > there," which Kate Bush also can do just fine), I would feel greatly > enlightened and might even buy a replacement copy of S&BB.... King Crimson just sounds a lot fresher and interesting to me. It sounds less familiar and less predictable. Perhaps their good use of well-placed silence is part of it (I don't think I'd word it the way you did). Like Tony Sumrall said about Peter Gabriel in comparing him to Yes: > From: acs@amdahl.UUCP (Tony Sumrall) > I recently purchased my FIRST Peter Gabriel album and was FLAT-OUT > AMAZED at how well his music/style survived the years--I can tell it's > Gabriel/old Genesis. Pete's music STILL has the power that was present > waaaaay back when while sounding "fresh".... Which Peter Gabriel album did you get, Tony? I'd agree with you about III and IV. I and II aren't so great (with the notable exception of several exceptional songs...). > I believe that he is one of the few artists who understands the use of > silence in his music. A half-second of well-placed silence is VERY > effective. He also is a master of his instrument (his voice) and > plays it better than anyone I've heard in years. This is so true, and brings up another problem with Yes. Jon Anderson just doesn't know how to evoke emotion with his voice. He always sounds to me like he's on qualudes. Jon Anderson probably has a better voice than Peter Gabriel technically, but Peter Gabriel just does so much with what he has, that he's one of my very favorite vocalists. (Oh by the way Tony, there is another singer who can use their voice even better than Peter Gabriel, not to mention that it's also technically perfect and four ocatves...) But back to silence... I feel that proper use of it is very important. Kate Bush has this to say about it (I have Kate Bush quotes for all occasions): I've begun to value silence much more because I think even from the start I realized silence is as important as the notes. But actually getting your songs to realize that is so much harder, and also knowing where to put the silence. Also: The space inbetween is as important as the words. There is of course a lot more than just use of silence and vocal emotions that I don't feel is adequate in Yes's music. Their music just never seemed to have much bite to it. It has no cutting edge. It always seemed way too sweet and syrupy. It isn't actually all that bad until vocals come in. Some of the instrumental stuff I find very interesting. But the vocal melodies are almost always too sweet (catchy), and that distracts greatly from anything else interesting that might be happening at the same time. (At least with Jon and Vangelis, everything is over-syrupy, so at least I don't feel like I'm being distracted...) Lets move on to lyrics now. Most of Yes's lyrics that I've listened to strike me as being pretty silly. Even the lyrics you (jer) posted seemed that way, so lets look at those. > Counting form through rhythm, > electric freedom moves to counterbalance. > Stars expound our conscience, > All to know and see the look in your eyes. Blech. I mean these lyrics seem pretty meaniningless -- which isn't by itself damning, since there's lots of great nonsense poetry -- but it doesn't even seem that if I could decipher them, I'd find anything particulalry interesting. Also they seem pretty damn sappy. The King Crimson lyrics I mentioned before are a good example of lyrics for which I can't figure out the meaning, but which I find truly excellent: Cat's foot iron claw Neuro-surgeons scream for more At paranoia's poison door I have only very vague ideas of what Peter Sinfield is trying to say, but still the lyrics strike deep psychological resonances, if not convey precise meaning. I actually think that many of the best poets (and lyricists) do complicated things with layering and ambiguity. Individual little bits might seem to have precise meanings, but perhaps at first the little bits don't seem to fit together into one coherent picture. But when you study them some more they do eventually seem to fit together, perhaps even in several different ways, giving a whole splattering of meanings, rather than just one (see E.E. Cummings for some perfect examples of this). > Passing time will reach as nature relays to set the scene. > New encounters spark a true fruition. More Blech! > From the moment I reached out to hold, > I felt a sound; > And what touches our soul slowly moves, > As touch rebounds... > And to know that tempo > Will > Continue > Lost in trance of dances... > As rhythm takes another turn... > As is my wont, I only reach > To look in your eyes. This was sort of almost good, until the last line. Looking in people's eyes is really cliche, and should only be talked about if one really knows what one is doing. About this sappiness bit. Actually sometimes a bit of sappiness is okay. It just has to be done right. Kate Bush's early lyrics (the ones she wrote when she was still a sheltered teenager) were kind of sappy, but pleasantly so. The emotional power of the lyrics overcomes any bad sappiness effects: The thoughts of you send me shivery I'm dressed in lace sailing down a black reverie My heart is thrown to the pebbles And the boatmen All the time I find I'm living in that evening With that feeling of sticky love inside Of course the bit of risqueness doesn't hurt either.... Of course she eventually matured into bringing us such incredible lyrics as In Malta, catch a swallow For all of the guilty to set them free Wings fill the window And they beat and bleed They hold the sky On the other side Of border lines Here's some more great lyrics (by Peter Gabriel) for you to mull over Light creeps through her secret tunnels Sucked into the open spaces Burning out in sudden flashes Draining blood from well-fed faces Desires form in subtle whispers Flex the muscles in denial Up and down its pristine cage So the music, so the trial -Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)