| | Ok, I wasn't going to do this...and I have no intention of defending my choice (no need, the poll criteria asks for my judgment), so don't expect any arguments from me. But I just watched my new YES SYMPHONIC DVD, and was so inspired that I had to vote.
In a word, I vote YES.
( Mumbling naysayers:"Voting for a rock group! BAH!" There, it's been said, no need for you to read any further.)
Why Yes? Why a rock group? First things first: Yes is not a rock group. They have rock elements, but are much more than that. Second, why vote a group as a composer? Read on...
Books like THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO are written about groups like Yes. They set out with nothing more than to be a pop group, and instead reached out for the sun with nothing less than "a total passion for the total height." And they did so with a non-exclusive attitude, offering a vision of paradise for those willing to work for it, those willing to transcend wars of gender and race, class and circumstance. They rejected the art/entertainment dichotomy, and proved great music need not remain defined by the static view of classical music being confined to the domain of stuffy museum artifacts.
- Yes are a group of virtuoso musicians, who can write and perform (and improvise) in a wide range of styles. Yet, while the performances offer ample room for virtuoso displays of glory, they are more than an end in themselves, but part of the larger whole, and serve a purpose musically.
- Yes is more than the sum of its parts. There is a guiding voice of vision in singer and multi-instrumentalist Jon Anderson, who brings a very spiritual sunlit vision to the music, which is grounded by the earthiness of bassist Chris Squire. This vision is shared and expanded on by the compositions of each member, notably classically trained keyboard wizard Rick Wakeman, guitarist Steve Howe, who is one of the most proficient guitarists ever, and even drummers (they compose, too)! Bill Bruford, who brought the syncopated taint of jazz and Alan White, who replaced Bruford's distinct style with his more powerful orchestral style.
-By having a team of composers, they defied the traditional view of composer as lone hero, and formed a veritable "Galt's Gulch" of great musicians working together to form some of the most complex, mind expanding music. In doing this, they demonstrate the uniqueness of music in relation to the other arts: put five powerfully architects on the same project, and you get a jumble of styles. Put five writes together to write a novel...forget it. Music is able to incorporate the vision of multiple artists in a way that no other art can.
-Yes incorporates a variety of styles from classical to jazz to rock to Indian to Native American to country and bluegrass to Celtic to...well, they were world music before world music came along, without appropriating the music for mere exoticness. They assimilated the great music before them into a unique sound that was all their own, not merely rock posing as classical as jazz, but something unique and new.
-Not only did Yes master the traditional forms of musical instrumentation and composition, they pioneered new paths into the future, without abandoning tonality (though they do tread "Close to the Edge" on occasion...). They've worked orchestrally, and bridged the past musical greatness with the new synthesizers and studio technology, without going the "Switched on Bach" route. They, like Roark, did not tack on classical motifs to rococo buildings, they developed their own Reardon Steel.
-They unite the music with a philosophic vision, exploring the interplay between images and words, words and music, on a scale that can only be described as "Wagnerian." No mere libretto pasted on to the music, the lyrics, music and art form a united whole.
-The work of Yes presents a sense of life that can only be described by Rand's favored term "sunlit universe." Though religion is a motivating factor, they use religion in the best sense that one can, one that Rand would approve of. The music of Yes is an anthem to life. The very name of the group is a reflection of that. (Compare Wynand's naming his yacht the "I DO" to the recurring theme of "It can Happen" in Yes music.
-Yes is not ignorant to pain and suffering. Despite the cynical critics who claim that Yes is all sunshine and rainbows, Yes address the suffering in the world in relation to their songs of elation...theirs is not a Pollyanna solution. And they offer no sanction of the victim. "If the summer changed to winter, yours is no disgrace!"
-The music itself? "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." One has to hear it and judge for themselves. But I will say that I chose Yes above other "progressive rock bands" (for lack of a better moniker) including ELP, King Crimson, and my favorite, Pink Floyd, for the totality of their work. The virtuosity is missing from Pink Floyd, ELP succumbed to excessive showmanship and virtuoso "wanking," and King Crimson, while greater improvisers, lacked the larger philosophical vision as well as vocal ability. (Though I do consider King Crimson to be the dark twin to Yes...Crimson is the shadow cast by the sunlit universe of Yes.)
I vote Yes because I believe they paved the way for the next great musical accomplishment that members of SOLO have clamored for. Some people say that they can only express themselves in full musically through classical (another term that has no real meaning) music, after Yes I find classical music too limiting. The scope, the vision, the variety of sonic possibilities are endless. Sadly, the twin forces of the cynical punk revolution as well as the continuing view of great music being confined to the so-called classical composer has stunted the growth of such development. But there is still hope. We've had Yes and King Crimson, who represent the last stages of musical development in the traditional Judeo-Christian/Pagan worldview. What is needed next is the Objectivist equivalent, who will take the innovations of both bands, replace the philosophy with a secular guiding spirit that takes the musical achievements of the past with the technological sonic possibilities of now, and create a true post modern sound that listens to the future. Sadly, as much as I wish it would be me, I know that my own musical skills are not up to such a lofty ambition, but I hope to spread the provide some fuel and direction for the composers who will lead the way.
That's my vote. Some will say no, but I say "Yes."
|
|
