"Michel Forest" <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:6be65907-57d7-4803-a969-b053b2056fa5 at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On 24 oct, 02:35, "ED  WILKINSON" <edw... at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote:

robm... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
I don't care whether they call it Yes or Squire, Howe, and White formerly
of
Yes.
Actually, that was the idea at first. It was supposed to be "Howe,
Squire and White of Yes". Then it just became "Yes", without warning.
Just like Jon Anderson was suddenly and discreetly demoted to the
"alumni" section of the Yesworld site. I wonder if Mike Tiano gave a
call to Jon before doing that...

Yeah, I had a ticket to see them under the earlier name, but they canceled
because someone
got injured, then last summer resumed touring with the same line up, but
calling
it "Yes".  Either way, I was interested in seeing them.  Now I'd pay more to
see the classic lineup, but in light of all the 60s, 70s, 80s bands who tour
with different band members and the fact that Yes never had a stable
lineup, even in the classic days, I don't have a problem with them calling
themselves "Yes".

Well, I'm a real fan, so I know what's going on. And that's *exactly*
why I think the whole thing is a freakin' joke. But you're right, the
few remaining people who care about Yes know that Jon isn't the singer
anymore.

The name change may have been a faux paus, but it was good to see Steve Howe
in particular playing the classic stuff both with Yes and Asia.  Oliver
Wakeman and
Benoit David  provided reasonably adequate support.

robm... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
I don't care whether they call it Yes or Squire, Howe, and White formerly
of
Yes.

Actually, that was the idea at first. It was supposed to be "Howe,
Squire and White of Yes". Then it just became "Yes", without warning.
Just like Jon Anderson was suddenly and discreetly demoted to the
"alumni" section of the Yesworld site. I wonder if Mike Tiano gave a
call to Jon before doing that...

Well, I'm a real fan, so I know what's going on. And that's *exactly*
why I think the whole thing is a freakin' joke. But you're right, the
few remaining people who care about Yes know that Jon isn't the singer
anymore.

On 24 oct, 02:35, "ED  WILKINSON" <edw... at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote:
[...]
I don't care whether they call it Yes or Squire, Howe, and White formerly of
Yes.

Actually, that was the idea at first. It was supposed to be "Howe,
Squire and White of Yes". Then it just became "Yes",

without warning.

Just like Jon Anderson was suddenly and discreetly demoted to the
"alumni" section of the Yesworld site. I wonder if Mike Tiano gave a
call to Jon before doing that...

On Oct 25, 1:03�am, Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:

On 24 oct, 02:35, "ED �WILKINSON" <edw... at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote:
[...]
I don't care whether they call it Yes or Squire, Howe, and White formerly of
Yes.

Actually, that was the idea at first. It was supposed to be "Howe,
Squire and White of Yes". Then it just became "Yes",

Squire was asked about this name change in an interview this month. He
said, "The fans seemed to just love both the new additions [on the In
the Present tour]. There were no complaints at all, from anyone I
could see. So, after, y'know, a respectful amount of time, we thought,
obviously, this is who Yes is now, so this is why it's being called
Yes."

"No complaints at all" does appear to be an odd perception of
events...

without warning.

??? I'm not certain what sort of "warning" one could have for this
sort of thing.

Just like Jon Anderson was suddenly and discreetly demoted to the
"alumni" section of the Yesworld site. I wonder if Mike Tiano gave a
call to Jon before doing that...

Michel, this is not how YesWorld works. They act under instructions
from the band members and their management (and Jon and Yes share the
same manager). Jon Anderson absolutely knew about this before the
change. It's Jon who has been keen in interviews to make sure everyone
knows he's *not* in the band at present.

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 Oct 25, 1:03 am, Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:

On 24 oct, 02:35, "ED  WILKINSON" <edw... at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote:
[...]
I don't care whether they call it Yes or Squire, Howe, and White formerly of
Yes.

Actually, that was the idea at first. It was supposed to be "Howe,
Squire and White of Yes". Then it just became "Yes",

Squire was asked about this name change in an interview this month. He
said, "The fans seemed to just love both the new additions [on the In
the Present tour]. There were no complaints at all, from anyone I
could see. So, after, y'know, a respectful amount of time, we thought,
obviously, this is who Yes is now, so this is why it's being called
Yes."

"No complaints at all" does appear to be an odd perception of
events...

without warning.

??? I'm not certain what sort of "warning" one could have for this
sort of thing.

Just like Jon Anderson was suddenly and discreetly demoted to the
"alumni" section of the Yesworld site. I wonder if Mike Tiano gave a
call to Jon before doing that...

Michel, this is not how YesWorld works. They act under instructions
from the band members and their management (and Jon and Yes share the
same manager). Jon Anderson absolutely knew about this before the
change. It's Jon who has been keen in interviews to make sure everyone
knows he's *not* in the band at present.
--
Henry

On Oct 25, 1:03 am, Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:

On 24 oct, 02:35, "ED  WILKINSON" <edw... at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote:
[...]
I don't care whether they call it Yes or Squire, Howe, and White formerly of
Yes.

Actually, that was the idea at first. It was supposed to be "Howe,
Squire and White of Yes". Then it just became "Yes",

Squire was asked about this name change in an interview this month. He
said, "The fans seemed to just love both the new additions [on the In
the Present tour]. There were no complaints at all, from anyone I
could see. So, after, y'know, a respectful amount of time, we thought,
obviously, this is who Yes is now, so this is why it's being called
Yes."

"No complaints at all" does appear to be an odd perception of
events...

without warning.

??? I'm not certain what sort of "warning" one could have for this
sort of thing.

Just like Jon Anderson was suddenly and discreetly demoted to the
"alumni" section of the Yesworld site. I wonder if Mike Tiano gave a
call to Jon before doing that...

Michel, this is not how YesWorld works. They act under instructions
from the band members and their management (and Jon and Yes share the
same manager). Jon Anderson absolutely knew about this before the
change. It's Jon who has been keen in interviews to make sure everyone
knows he's *not* in the band at present.

On 25 oct, 04:12, "use... at (no spam) bondegezou.demon.co.uk"





use... at (no spam) bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:03 am, Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:

On 24 oct, 02:35, "ED  WILKINSON" <edw... at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote:
[...]
I don't care whether they call it Yes or Squire, Howe, and White formerly of
Yes.

Actually, that was the idea at first. It was supposed to be "Howe,
Squire and White of Yes". Then it just became "Yes",

Squire was asked about this name change in an interview this month. He
said, "The fans seemed to just love both the new additions [on the In
the Present tour]. There were no complaints at all, from anyone I
could see. So, after, y'know, a respectful amount of time, we thought,
obviously, this is who Yes is now, so this is why it's being called
Yes."

"No complaints at all" does appear to be an odd perception of
events...

From Squire's point of view, it makes sense. The only fans he meets
are those who go out of their way to meet the band and I'm sure
they're the ones who like what they hear. The unhappy fans (like me)
don't bother...

I'm sure that Squire never reads this newsgroup, or other forums for
that matter. It's very easy for these guys to become isolated from the
real world.

without warning.

??? I'm not certain what sort of "warning" one could have for this
sort of thing.

Just like Jon Anderson was suddenly and discreetly demoted to the
"alumni" section of the Yesworld site. I wonder if Mike Tiano gave a
call to Jon before doing that...

Michel, this is not how YesWorld works. They act under instructions
from the band members and their management (and Jon and Yes share the
same manager). Jon Anderson absolutely knew about this before the
change. It's Jon who has been keen in interviews to make sure everyone
knows he's *not* in the band at present.

Interesting. Still, I find it strange that there was no official
announcement that Jon has left the group for the 3rd time. (And that's
why I wrote that HSW of Yes became simply Yes "without warning", or
maybe I should simply have written "without an official announcement.)

[...] Still, I find it strange that there was no official
announcement that Jon has left the group for the 3rd time. (And that's
why I wrote that HSW of Yes became simply Yes "without warning", or
maybe I should simply have written "without an official announcement.)

Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...] Still, I find it strange that there was no official
announcement that Jon has left the group for the 3rd time. (And that's
why I wrote that HSW of Yes became simply Yes "without warning", or
maybe I should simply have written "without an official announcement.)

I take your point. I guess this is partly because, instead of a clear
breakpoint where Anderson left, it's been more a gradual elision, from
his quasi-departure in 2004, the abortive 2008 tour, the SHCSAAWOY
tour without Jon, SHCSAAWOY just call themselves Yes, and now Jon's
non-return now or in the near future.

The question is whether that gradualism was a result of events
unfolding that way, or whether it was a deliberate ploy to ease people
into a Jon-less Yes.

It seems to me that it was mostly the former:
that is, HSW hadn't shut the door on Anderson until fairly recently,
that each step in the chain was tentative and experimental.

However, I
also think that there has been a strategy of ambiguity by HSW, and
perhaps also by Anderson, that both reflected their own uncertainty
and avoided PR-unfriendly decisions.

Squire was asked about this name change in an interview this month. He
said, "The fans seemed to just love both the new additions [on the In
the Present tour]. There were no complaints at all, from anyone I
could see.

On Oct 26, 3:08�pm, Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:


On 25 oct, 04:12, "use... at (no spam) bondegezou.demon.co.uk"

use... at (no spam) bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:03�am, Michel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:

On 24 oct, 02:35, "ED �WILKINSON" <edw... at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote:
[...]
I don't care whether they call it Yes or Squire, Howe, and White formerly of
Yes.

Actually, that was the idea at first. It was supposed to be "Howe,
Squire and White of Yes". Then it just became "Yes",

Squire was asked about this name change in an interview this month. He
said, "The fans seemed to just love both the new additions [on the In
the Present tour]. There were no complaints at all, from anyone I
could see. So, after, y'know, a respectful amount of time, we thought,
obviously, this is who Yes is now, so this is why it's being called
Yes."

"No complaints at all" does appear to be an odd perception of
events...

From Squire's point of view, it makes sense. The only fans he meets
are those who go out of their way to meet the band and I'm sure
they're the ones who like what they hear. The unhappy fans (like me)
don't bother...

I'm sure that Squire never reads this newsgroup, or other forums for
that matter. It's very easy for these guys to become isolated from the
real world.

Squires wife, Scotland, posts on yesfans.com often on behalf of Chris
and he's posted on there at times himself too.

Sherwood's a regular over at yesfans and progressive ears.

From memory , only Jordan Berliant and Geoff Downes have posted to amy
although White and Anderson have made claims that they "read" the fan
forums.

That said, Its obvious that yes fans who frequent amy, yesfans, prog
ears, ssots, yesfanz, yesswap etc are a small minority of the bands
following so I'm not sure how that constitutes "the real world" in
your comment above.

Michel, this is not how YesWorld works. They act under instructions
from the band members and their management (and Jon and Yes share the
same manager). Jon Anderson absolutely knew about this before the
change. It's Jon who has been keen in interviews to make sure everyone
knows he's *not* in the band at present.

Interesting. Still, I find it strange that there was no official
announcement that Jon has left the group for the 3rd time. (And that's
why I wrote that HSW of Yes became simply Yes "without warning", or
maybe I should simply have written "without an official announcement.)

Look for that announcement either during or after the european tour.

If that dosn't happen then it could mean that that particular door is
being propped slightly open by a miniscule block of hope.

On Oct 25, 4:12 am, "use... at (no spam) bondegezou.demon.co.uk"

Squire was asked about this name change in an interview this month. He
said, "The fans seemed to just love both the new additions [on the In
the Present tour]. There were no complaints at all, from anyone I
could see.

His sight is extremely poor because his brain is "Very Beri Beri"
damaged, IMO.

Re: Wakeman says "it's all over with regards to the classic lineup" �

Group: alt.music.yes Date: Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 3:05am From:
use... at (no spam) bondegezou.demon.co.ukMichel Forest <fore... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:

[...] Still, I find it strange that there was no official announcement
that Jon has left the group for the 3rd time. (And that's why I wrote
that HSW of Yes became simply Yes "without warning", or maybe I should
simply have written "without an official announcement.)
I take your point. I guess this is partly because, instead of a clear
breakpoint where Anderson left, it's been more a gradual elision, from
his quasi-departure in 2004, the abortive 2008 tour, the SHCSAAWOY tour
without Jon, SHCSAAWOY just call themselves Yes, and now Jon's
non-return now or in the near future.

The question is whether that gradualism was a result of events unfolding
that way, or whether it was a deliberate ploy to ease people into a
Jon-less Yes. It seems to me that it was mostly the former: that is, HSW
hadn't shut the door on Anderson until fairly recently, that each step
in the chain was tentative and experimental. However, I also think that
there has been a strategy of ambiguity by HSW, and perhaps also by
Anderson, that both reflected their own uncertainty and avoided
PR-unfriendly decisions.
--
Henry �
---

You and Sullivan won't be able to shit on Jon's YES work now. �He won't
have to take the time to imagine YES lyrics for you to hate and joke on
about, here at your offical atheist site.