True wrote:
Just was this interview by Jeb Wright at Classic Rock Revisited
wherein Wakeman also says that Yes is no longer a part of his life and
refers to the current act as a tribute band:

http://classicrockrevisited.com/interviewrickwakeman.htm

Hm.  Wakeman says you have to have Anderson for it to be Yes.  Anderson
says you need both himself *and* Wakeman.  Is Jon just being nice?  Is
either one correct?  (Yes, of course it's totally a matter of opinion -
I'm just playing with matches. ;-)

--
Mike "Anderson yes, Wakeman - meh, not so much" Smith

On Oct 23, 3:56 pm, Mike Smith <smit... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:

True wrote:
Just was this interview by Jeb Wright at Classic Rock Revisited
wherein Wakeman also says that Yes is no longer a part of his life and
refers to the current act as a tribute band:

http://classicrockrevisited.com/interviewrickwakeman.htm

Hm.  Wakeman says you have to have Anderson for it to be Yes.  Anderson
says you need both himself *and* Wakeman.  Is Jon just being nice?  Is
either one correct?  (Yes, of course it's totally a matter of opinion -
I'm just playing with matches. ;-)

--
Mike "Anderson yes, Wakeman - meh, not so much" Smith

Well, obviously both are incorrect because what we actually have is a
Yes that dosn't include either of them.

True wrote:
Just was this interview by Jeb Wright at Classic Rock Revisited
wherein Wakeman also says that Yes is no longer a part of his life and
refers to the current act as a tribute band:

http://classicrockrevisited.com/interviewrickwakeman.htm

Hm.  Wakeman says you have to have Anderson for it to be Yes.  Anderson
says you need both himself *and* Wakeman.  Is Jon just being nice?  Is
either one correct?

Just was this interview by Jeb Wright at Classic Rock Revisited
wherein Wakeman also says that Yes is no longer a part of his life and
refers to the current act as a tribute band:

http://classicrockrevisited.com/interviewrickwakeman.htm

On 22 oct, 22:56, Mike Smith <smit... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
True wrote:
Just was this interview by Jeb Wright at Classic Rock Revisited
wherein Wakeman also says that Yes is no longer a part of his life and
refers to the current act as a tribute band:

http://classicrockrevisited.com/interviewrickwakeman.htm

Hm.  Wakeman says you have to have Anderson for it to be Yes.  Anderson
says you need both himself *and* Wakeman.  Is Jon just being nice?  Is
either one correct?

Maybe Jon is nice, he seems to get on well with Rick at the moment.
But Wakeman is absolutely right.

On Oct 23, 3:56 pm, Mike Smith <smit... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:

True wrote:
Just was this interview by Jeb Wright at Classic Rock Revisited
wherein Wakeman also says that Yes is no longer a part of his life and
refers to the current act as a tribute band:

http://classicrockrevisited.com/interviewrickwakeman.htm

Hm. Wakeman says you have to have Anderson for it to be Yes. Anderson
says you need both himself *and* Wakeman. Is Jon just being nice? Is
either one correct? (Yes, of course it's totally a matter of opinion -
I'm just playing with matches. ;-)

--
Mike "Anderson yes, Wakeman - meh, not so much" Smith

Well, obviously both are incorrect because what we actually have is a
Yes that dosn't include either of them.

Lineup, but enough
members to still call it Yes.

Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 22 oct, 22:56, Mike Smith <smit... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
True wrote:
Just was this interview by Jeb Wright at Classic Rock Revisited
wherein Wakeman also says that Yes is no longer a part of his life and
refers to the current act as a tribute band:

http://classicrockrevisited.com/interviewrickwakeman.htm

Hm.  Wakeman says you have to have Anderson for it to be Yes.  Anderson
says you need both himself *and* Wakeman.  Is Jon just being nice?  Is
either one correct?

Maybe Jon is nice, he seems to get on well with Rick at the moment.
But Wakeman is absolutely right.

I've used this for the latest poll on my Yes news website: seehttp://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm

Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 22 oct, 22:56, Mike Smith <smit... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
True wrote:
Just was this interview by Jeb Wright at Classic Rock Revisited
wherein Wakeman also says that Yes is no longer a part of his life and
refers to the current act as a tribute band:

http://classicrockrevisited.com/interviewrickwakeman.htm

Hm.  Wakeman says you have to have Anderson for it to be Yes.  Anderson
says you need both himself *and* Wakeman.  Is Jon just being nice?  Is
either one correct?

Maybe Jon is nice, he seems to get on well with Rick at the moment.
But Wakeman is absolutely right.

I've used this for the latest poll on my Yes news website: seehttp://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm

On 23 oct, 05:47, "use... at (no spam) bondegezou.demon.co.uk"





use... at (no spam) bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 22 oct, 22:56, Mike Smith <smit... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
True wrote:
Just was this interview by Jeb Wright at Classic Rock Revisited
wherein Wakeman also says that Yes is no longer a part of his life and
refers to the current act as a tribute band:

http://classicrockrevisited.com/interviewrickwakeman.htm

Hm.  Wakeman says you have to have Anderson for it to be Yes.  Anderson
says you need both himself *and* Wakeman.  Is Jon just being nice?  Is
either one correct?

Maybe Jon is nice, he seems to get on well with Rick at the moment.
But Wakeman is absolutely right.

I've used this for the latest poll on my Yes news website: seehttp://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm

I would vote for "Yes has to include Jon and the current line-up
shouldn't call themselves Yes".

Depends on what you consider Yes to be.
The Yes of the first 2 albums didn't include Howe or Wakeman.  Could that
group tour
and still be Yes?
When Wakeman quit back in the 70s and Patrick Moraz took his place, was it
still Yes?
When Wakeman, Howe, and Anderson left in the 80s and Yes got new members,
was it Yes?
Or the lineup that played on the House of Yes album?
Or the Magnification lineup which didn't include Wakeman or any other
keyboard player?
Yes has had a fluctuating lineup over the years and what we
have now is just another fluctuation.  It's Yes.  Not Yes:The Classic
Lineup, but enough
members to still call it Yes.

On Oct 23, 7:50 am, Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:



On 23 oct, 05:47, "use... at (no spam) bondegezou.demon.co.uk"

use... at (no spam) bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 22 oct, 22:56, Mike Smith <smit... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
True wrote:
Just was this interview by Jeb Wright at Classic Rock Revisited
wherein Wakeman also says that Yes is no longer a part of his life and
refers to the current act as a tribute band:

http://classicrockrevisited.com/interviewrickwakeman.htm

Hm.  Wakeman says you have to have Anderson for it to be Yes.  Anderson
says you need both himself *and* Wakeman.  Is Jon just being nice?  Is
either one correct?

Maybe Jon is nice, he seems to get on well with Rick at the moment.
But Wakeman is absolutely right.

I've used this for the latest poll on my Yes news website: seehttp://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm

I would vote for "Yes has to include Jon and the current line-up
shouldn't call themselves Yes".

waitaminnit...isn't that what Wakeman said?

Yeah, it's just another fluctuation. And that... err... fluctuation
sucks.

there's been at least a couple of bands that had as many (or more)
"members" as this tribute band...but only the tribute band pretends to
be Yes.