Customer Reviews

Music of Yes: Structure and Vision in Progressive Rock (Feedback)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

A book that dares to analyze the music of a major modern band against the history of music and composers may be somewhat challeging, but it certainly is a breath of fresh air next to the utter nonsense that passes for criticism. This job is in the capable hands of Bill Martin, philosopher and musician, who traces the development of Yes music through a study in theory, structure, and culture. Yes, of all bands, is most deserving of this given its aesthetic ambitions and triumphs particularly in the 70's, the decade the bulk of this book is devoted to. Many non-musician Yes fans have often wondered how this golden period fares next to Tchaikovsky's, Stravinsky's, and Sibelius' works, to name a few. Martin makes the comparisons studying the merits of Yes vis a vis notable classical composers and delivers the results. This is definately one of the most rewarding aspects of the book, since it gives readers at once an understanding of classical standards and rates Yes next to these. Fans have often felt that Yes was a cut above all rock bands in their musical vision and achievement, yet found it difficult to justify or explain this in the context of rock, where analysis is usually discouraged and fashions rule. I, for one, am not partial to the idea that explaining something good takes the excitement out of it. If you are someone who can handle emotion and thought at the same time without falling off your seat, you'll find this book a rare treat!

I have hardly been more disappointed with a book than I was with Bill Martin's "Music of Yes". The promise was there: that this book - written by an academic, musician, and long-time Yes fan - would fill the gap so sorely felt by the average Yes fan. Up until the publication of "Music of Yes", there had been only one book written about Yes in its then 25-year history - Dan Hedges' excellent "Yes" - and this book was only published in Britain in 1979, and long out of print.

So one could hope to understand the veritable desert that existed when Martin's book hit the scene. This would - I think - explain the rather puzzling praise "Music of Yes" has garnered in certain circles: finally, Yes fans had something - anything - to read about their favorite band. Fans somehow were able to forgive the obvious flaws of this book.

Those flaws are glaring, and have succeeded in making "Music of Yes" practically unreadable.

Let's start with the prose. Martin is a cloistered academic, vehemently pro-Marxist, and his writing style is more suited to the stuffy papers with which like-minded folks regale themselves in the name of "research". Unless one is familiar with this style of writing - pedantic, halting, self-indulgent - it is very difficult to figure out where Martin is heading in his work; even within the confines of a single paragraph! One comes away with the impression that Martin himself doesn't know his path, and often founders for something coherent to say.

Reading is therefore a chore: you have to force yourself through the book with a will. As you do so, you notice three things: 1. "Music of Yes" is entirely subjective and offers no new information about Yes - only Martin's opinion, 2. Martin has very little knowledge of music theory on which to pin his conclusions (he talks a great deal about counterpoint, but very little about anything else), and 3. His pro-Marxist leanings often get in the way and color his conclusions.

This book seems to be more a polemic about Marxism than about Yes. Martin takes every opportunity he can to not only trash capitalism, but to equate Yes' ideology with his dogma in the process (he desperately wants Yes to be about Marxism, but no matter how hard he tries to wedge them into that box, they just don't fit). Talking about the "jaded, cynical world of post-modern capitalism," he often digresses wildly from the topic at hand to deliver a whining broadside to western culture; a broadside that usually misses its mark.

He even manages to drag the Gulf War into the book! I had a difficult time figuring out what that had to do with Yes, but Martin never expostulates: his political ideals, which litter the book like cast-off socks, often hang without any visible means of support.

One comes away from this book with the impression that Martin is out of his depth in writing about music. It's too bad this attempt had to be made in the name of Yes.

After buying the Rhino Yes re-issues, I was pleased by more than their superior sound quality -- I found myself charmed by the liner notes, written by one Bill Martin. It didn't take long until I ordered a copy of his book.

In "Music of Yes," Bill Martin makes a valuable contribution to the growing field of "serious" prog rock criticism. An analyses of their music from "Yes" to "Talk," the book focuses on "the main sequence," the series of remarkable albums from "The Yes Album" to "Going for the One." Martin's song-by-song look at these works forms the heart of the book, and his comments are generally both enlightening and enjoyable.

However, sad to say, his book as a whole suffers under several burdens. The first and foremost is Martin's political agenda. A committed Marxist, Martin can't help but see the music of Yes -- and the entire recording industry as well -- through a Marxist viewpoint. His constant tirades against capitalism, while certainly containing some thought-provoking critique, begin to grow tiresome very quickly. For the most part, the reader may just chuckle at Martin's tendentious attempts to shoehorn Yes into a Marxist mold; but when he begins to quote Mao and Lenin -- without irony! -- it's more difficult to indulge his polemical approach. Secondly, Martin feels the need to bring his topic under the full battery of modern academia. While I feel that the music of Yes is clearly worthy of critical discussion, Martin's attempt to drag Derrida, Benjamin and Kant into the analyses is often labored to the point of ridiculousness. (Though his comments regarding Blake and the English Romantics seem more on-target.) Finally, all too often, Martin comes across like yet another nostalgic and cranky Boomer, pining for the glory days of rock and roll while viewing the modern world with a school-marm's scorn. Endlessly lamenting the death of vinyl, Martin seems blissfully unaware of how silly he sounds at times, especially when he admonishes rappers with a sentence like "You can't change the world by dissin' the sisters."

If one is willing to overlook the many flaws and idiosyncrasies of the work, however, Martin does have some useful things to say, and his passion for his subject is beyond question. While I don't always agree to his interpretations of Anderson's lyrics, it's refreshing to hear them treated like something other than "nonsense." Being a bassist himself, Martin grants Chris Squire the lion's share of attention -- but then again, he makes a good case for the unique genius of Squire. While his apologies for Trevor Rabin left me baffled, I think Martin has a pretty good overall grasp on what works -- and what doesn't work -- in the important music of Yes.

Yes burst onto the musical scene in the early 1970's with a string of remarkably creative musical works. Radio hits like "Roundabout," and the epic "Close to the Edge" exhibited that instrumental virtuosity, esthetic merit, and commercial appeal could co-exist in Rock music. As the decade progressed even more ambitious works were attempted such as "Tales from Topographic Oceans" and "The Gates of Delirium" showing that Yes was willing to take risks in the pursuit of a genuinely artistic vision. The Times of London even went so far as to suggest that Yes' music would be played and studied for centuries to come. But many Rock critics were unconvinced and outright dismissive. Yes fans, however, knew better, hoping that serious criticism and evaluation would eventually arrive. Bill Martin, a philosopher, musician, and social critic, provides just such a fascinating, thought provoking examination of Yes' music in his "The Music of Yes." Martin delves into a variety of aspects of Yes' music including: 1) the utopian character of Yes music. 2) He situates Yes in the context of the Romantic tradition (Blake and Wordsworth) of which they are a part. 3) And as a musician he discusses Yes' classical influences and considerable theory behind their music. Martin handles all these topics with passion, intelligence, and he rises to the occasion with vivid, rich, and suggestive descriptions and analysis of Yes' best works. Martin's style is often digressive, but the range of topics discussed, and the richness of his associations, make for a very edifying experience. The more the reader puts into this engaging book, the more he or she will benefit. Martin's book, is in many ways, similar to the best of Yes' music: it is long, eclectic, idiosyncratic, ambitious, often brilliant, occasionally awkward, but ultimately a mesmerizing tour-de-force.

Martin is good when he confines himself to considering music. He is himself a musician and understands nuances that have usually escaped the average rock critic over the years when they look at Yes music; those critics were often not real musicians.

The problem with Martin's book is he apparently has little or no comprehension to the messages that Yes music has projected through most of their life as a band: the outlook being communicated to the listeners besides the presentation of sound itself in what YES did. To make up for this, or perhaps because he has no other way of doing it, Martin looks at the lyrical product of Yes through the eyes of a Marxist economic philosopher. Viewing the Yes message of positive spiritual seeking in terms of such a materialistic and political philosophy is just not a compatible enterprise. And so it becomes apparent that Martin has never understood what Jon Anderson or Steve Howe or Chris Squire were talking about when they put pen to paper. As part and parcel of this we get Martin's predictable (it is predictable once one understands he is a Marxist) view that the music industry is criminally dominated by "market forces" which are evil and poisonous to music. In Martin's summary, then, Yes and other groups like Genesis attained success by virtue of a fluke atmosphere which prevailed in the late 60s and early 70s (almost like Yes 'fell through the cracks' of the market forces' roadblock to popular acclaim) and they have been fighting against those forces ever since 1973 or so. (When Actually, the cross which Yes has been bearing is that of getting reviewed constantly by rock and pop critics who should not be reviewing anything that has a musical validity beyond 12 bars or three chords).

But for a Yes fan, the book is worth it, because when Martin does confine himself to the substance of the music sound and the performance of it he has some good insights.

Bill Martin's "Music of Yes" offers a lot of promise, with its Roger Dean artwork on the cover and a mouth-watering subtitle: "Structure and Vision in Progressive Rock." Clearly this is a book any serious Yes fan must have, right? Alas, while there are a good number of interesting musings here and there, the book disappoints in many ways.

The most serious drawback is the writing style. Mr. Martin could have used a good editor. He constantly gets sidetracked. Sometimes he jumps ahead to a subject that he hasn't covered yet, discusses it for a few sentences, then stops himself and assures the reader that there will be "more later" on the subject. Other times he makes tangential comments that have little direct connection with the book's subject at all, such as his lamentation over the death of vinyl. He usually employs parentheses to set off these tangents. Almost every paragraph is littered with such parentheses. Sometimes an entire paragraph is parenthetical. The overall effect is wearing on the reader.

The other main problem with this book is the technical nature of the writing. Mr. Martin is a professor of philosophy and a social theorist. Undoubtedly he is extremely bright and a credit to his field. However, his application of academic theories clutters up the book. The introduction, ominously titled "The ideologies of form," is enough to discourage most intelligent readers from reading the rest of the book. Martin is even aware of this, and occasionally apologizes for the heaviness of the writing. When he finally gets around to discussing Yes music, I for one did not feel as if the theoretical points helped me understand his discussion any better.

That discussion itself is a mixed bag. Like me, Martin clearly enjoys most Yes music, and his excitement about it is addictive. I found myself mentally listening along to songs as I read. However, I guess I was looking for more insight. Martin is selective about discussing lyrics. While he devotes a good deal of space to ! "Yours Is No Disgrace," for instance, "Awaken" seemed to get the short shrift. Early on, there is an entire technical discussion devoted to whether we should even try to analyze lyrics. He is also selective about songs. In discussing ABWH, he even admits that he's only going to go over the songs he likes!

All in all, an uneven book. If it were a Yes album, I would rate it like Tormato: some very good parts in places, but leaves you feeling somehow dissatisfied in the end.

Bill Martin surveys the recorded music of Yes, concentrating on the sequence from "The Yes Album" (1971) to "Going for the One" (1977) -- what Martin terms the "main sequence" (I would have excluded the latter from the primary discussion, concentrating on the five studio (plus one live)albums from 1971 to 1974, setting aside the 1977 effort that followed the almost three years of absence of group effort). I recommend this book to fans of Yes music (those unfamiliar with Yes would be lost, I'm afraid), with the following two reservations: (1) Often, the author writes as if he is addressing an academic audience -- the lengthy asides do demonstrate that he is familiar with the literature to which he refers, but (I think) are unnecessary in this book. (2) The discussion of Yes' work is less about the "structure" of the music than it is about the lyrics (with the notable exception, in places, of Squire's bass work). Furthermore, it is explicitly about the author's interpretation of the lyrics, rather than about (e.g.) Anderson's intent ("I have not relied on interviews.... I have also not attempted to contact band members", pg xxiv). There's nothing wrong with this approach, but the reader should be forewarned... In my opinion, the lyrics don't really matter; they are just part of the song, and don't necessarily need to have deeper meaning.

Finally, I note that the author is the "series editor" for this series of books -- perhaps the book could have used another editor.

If you're a Yes fan, this is a worthwhile read. Just be prepared to skim a page here and there.

Martin takes you by the hand behind the lines of the lyrics of the most influencial prog band of the 70's. Although some background on phylosophical concepts might be helpful, the essay goes quite well for us average mortals (specially non-English native speakers as me!). Cross references with other outstanding bands such as King Crimson and Genesis make the reading not only enjoyable but very enlightening. If someone wants to understand what Yes meant in their work, this is the book on your bedside table!

A really interesting account of the best band in the progressive rock genre. At odds with the cynical punk-philosophy that has destroyed rock journalism, this is heart-warming for people who care about MUSIC.

Any book that recognises Yes' contrbution to modern music is a good thing. This book is a bit over the top though. Alot of things are eye openers and quite interesting, but in reality alot of Yes lyrics simply contribute to the big picture rather than have a direct thought-out meeting. That's part of their magic. This book gets over anaylitical, especially about song meanings. Kinda like trying to understand 2001:A Space Odessey. Perhaps the meaning is geared to be interpreted by the individual.

A good read for fans, but a little too deep for its own good.