Yes or No? Tales from Trollographic Oceans

[Lisnaholic]

Thanks for transfering this thread to SCD Trollheart: I imagine it must've taken some time to do.

Yes or No? No, no, a thousand times no.

Do I detect a note of disappointment running through your review, TH? It's an excellent review, and has prompted me to do two things: (i) listen to parts of the album again after a long absence, and (ii) try to defend an album that I grew to like a lot.

I say "grew to like" because this was an album that (having spent the enormous sum of £4 or so) I had to work hard at to justify the expense of: quite a few baffled listenings, feeling very much as you describe in your review. But in the end the subtle joys on three of the four sides won me over. Today I'd count those 3 sides/tracks as among my fave Yes songs. I like that they have various rather wandering interludes, but the band comes back again and again to some great, up-tempo sections.

On track one (Yes, you're right "The Revealing Science of God (Dance of the Dawn)" is an embarrassingly pretentious title) there is the sing-along hook of "What happened to this song we once knew so well", which the band do not overplay; we hear it a few times, then forget it as furthur into this side we are swept up by the soaring synths during the "Getting over overhanging trees" part. But then about 10 mins later, they play just one more time the "what happened..?" line, which by now we recognise like an old friend.

Those are the things I like about this album: the control and care about the way the songs are constructed. Yes, they're long, and therefore a little demanding and the hooks are not in-your-face rockers, but musically there's plenty going on and each 20-min song has moments of unusual beauty imo.

I am more in agreement with you more about the lyrics, TH. Jon Anderson's approach of "words for the sound of them" is one thing, but on this album, it's like he only chose words from a Dictionary of Mystical Terms, and that really brings out the negatives of this album: the overblown, arrogant, pretentiousness that you mention. Syd Barratt was another writer whose lyrics make about as much sense as JA's , but Syd at least had fun with vernacular language, which of course would've deflated the high tone of JA's concept, but might've made the lyrics more accessible, or more rooted in common experience. Here's a bit a Syd for comparative purposes:-

Honey love you, honey little
Honey funny sunny morning
Love you more funny love in the skyline baby
Ice-cream 'scuse me
I seen you looking good the other evening

Good-time rocker woman we'll stray our pieces
Little creepy we shine so sleepy
So whoopee!
That's how you look

A final point: hats off to you, TH for listening to the album all the way though! I don't think I've ever managed more than one side at a time, then I take a break. If you ever feel like trying this album again, you might enjoy listening to it that way - I especially recommend giving "The Remembering: High The Memory" another go. I rate as the best side of all. In structure, it reminds me a bit of Ommadawn: you think it's slow, begin to dismiss it, then realise that your head is being blown off by all the powerful crescendos.

[Trollheart]

Couple of things: first, thanks so much for bothering to read and then comment on the thread. It's always great when someone takes an interest. Second: as for transferring the thread, well, I hope in time to transfer all my "significant" threads, including journals, but yes, it does take time (I have nightly nightmares about transferring my History of Prog Rock journal, which I will definitely have to at some point!) but I don't want them to just languish over at MB, where the tumbleweed now seem to hold sway. I've also moved the King Crimson one and my other prog-related ones, and will transfer others as I get the time: right now, as you might see if you check my Hall of Journals, I'm concentrating on moving and fully updating those, with the most recent being the WWII one, the Most Evil one and the American West one. Next up are Animation, Country Music, Classical Music and Comics I think. So a lot of work, even if I'm just transferring. NB: In case you think I just copy and paste, I don't: I read them through completely as I re-post each article, so it does take time.

Third, and more specifically, the album: well, I respect that you have good things to say about it, though it's telling that even for someone who likes it, you maintain you've only listened to it once or twice all the way through, and also that you agree it can be very wearing in places. Most reviewers appear to agree with me: as Yes albums go, this is probably the hardest to defend against those accusations later, mostly by the punk fraternity and sorority. It's massive. It's long-winded. It's hard, even impossible to understand. It's indulgent with a capital indulge. And it takes up nearly ninety minutes of your time that you'll never get back.

On my one and only listen to it, no, I heard nothing that made me think of changing my mind, and honestly, though at some point (if I get back to it) I will have to relisten to it for the History of Prog, I am not looking forward to it. Some of the Yes albums I've listened to and hated up to this I could pick out the odd track I liked. On this, nothing. To me, it's like. almost, going to see a three-hour Korean movie in black and white with no subtitles. In a Korean movie theatre. While suffering from a bad cold, and then being mugged outside the theatre. I doubt I'll ever listen to it again.

Actually, I take your point on Barrett's lyrics, which to be honest never bothered me that much. Short, snappy, humourous nonsense I can live with. Long, boring, indulgent and up itself nonsense I cannot.

But thanks for the comments, and I'll get back to this as soon as I have a chance. Good to know you're reading anyway. Can always rely on you! 

[Lisnaholic]

^ No need to thank me, TH : we all owe you a debt of gratitude for the amount of reviewing etc you have done for us- which yes, means a mountain of material for you to consider shifting, I'm afraid.

... and more specifically, the album: well, I respect that you have good things to say about it, though it's telling that even for someone who likes it, you maintain you've only listened to it once or twice all the way through, and also that you agree it can be very wearing in places. Most reviewers appear to agree with me: as Yes albums go, this is probably the hardest to defend against those accusations later, mostly by the punk fraternity and sorority. It's massive. It's long-winded. It's hard, even impossible to understand. It's indulgent with a capital indulge. And it takes up nearly ninety minutes of your time that you'll never get back.

^ As to listening to Topographic Oceans all the way through, I've addressed that aspect of our discussion in a new thread
( https://scd.community/index.php?topic=779.msg26589#new ) and, stung by your comment about "Most reviewers agree...", I checked it out on the Progarchives website: TFTO gets a very worthy average rating of 4 out of 5 stars.

TBH, though, I am quite happy to drop the topic because every time you mention the album, your opinion of it drops even furthur down a chasm of dislike, and will finally land, I imagine, with a subdued thump on the sandy seafloor that we can see on the cover of the album itself: 

On my one and only listen to it, no, I heard nothing that made me think of changing my mind, and honestly, though at some point (if I get back to it) I will have to relisten to it for the History of Prog, I am not looking forward to it. Some of the Yes albums I've listened to and hated up to this I could pick out the odd track I liked. On this, nothing. To me, it's like. almost, going to see a three-hour Korean movie in black and white with no subtitles. In a Korean movie theatre. While suffering from a bad cold, and then being mugged outside the theatre. I doubt I'll ever listen to it again.

^

Actually, I take your point on Barrett's lyrics, which to be honest never bothered me that much. Short, snappy, humourous nonsense I can live with. Long, boring, indulgent and up itself nonsense I cannot.

^ Very well put, TH ! I feel the same, though I didn't realize it until you just spelled out the distinction for me.

[Trollheart]

Yeah, I won't labour the point, but good ratings or not, when most of your exclusively-invited audience fecks off before your new album is done, the phrase "voting with your feet" comes to mind!  While there were positive reviews, I've done gone cherry-picked from them to suit me, and find comments such as "Wishy washy tales from the deep" and "Close to boredom" (Sounds); "Brilliant in patches, but often taking far too long to make its various points, and curiously lacking in warmth or personal expression". He thought "Ritual" brought the "first enjoyable moments" of the entire album, "where Alan's driving drums have something to grip on to and the lyrics of la la la speak volumes. But even this cannot last long and cohesion is lost once more to the gods of drab self-indulgence" (Chris Welch for Melody Maker, and he's a Yes biographer!); "a great disappointment" (NME) and Gordon Fletcher described the record as "psychedelic doodles" and thought it suffers from "over-elaboration" compared to more successful songs on Fragile and Close to the Edge. He complained about the album's length, Howe's guitar solos on "The Ancient", and the percussion section on "Ritual", but praised Wakeman for his "stellar performance" throughout and believed the keyboardist was the "most human of the group". (Rolling Stone).

Of course, there were other opinions, so I'm not saying everyone hated it, but in terms of commercial success, though it got to number 1 in the UK and 6 in the US, it never rose above the Gold status in either territories, a mere 100,000 units shifted in the UK and half a million in the States, as compared to Close to the Edge, which had poorer chart success but sold more units (over a million Stateside), Fragile, which outsold it by a factor of four in the US and three at home (though again performing more poorly chartwise in the UK) and even The Yes Album, which racked up a Platinum certification in the US, so doubling its sales there. Yes, I do love my statistics, don't I? I should maybe quit my job and become a fulltime... statistics... guy. 

[Lexi Darling]

I love Tales personally. I tend to think of it in a different way than I do most other Yes albums, more akin to more freeform or less structured forms of music than tighter, more definitively "song-based" styles. I don't always listen to it all at once, but when I'm in the mood it's very captivating.

But I also like a lot of mystical new age hippie mumbo jumbo, stuff way more in that realm than Tales is, so it's very much up my alley in that respect.

[Trollheart]

Yeah see that's where we differ. I can listen to some new age music and I do like ambient, but I always prefer something more structured; basically, something I can, if I like it, hum afterwards. I couldn't even try to hum any of TFTO!

[Trollheart]

Album title: Relayer
Year: 1974
Personnel: Jon Anderson (Vocals, acoustic guitar, piccolo, percussion), Chris Squire (bass), Patrick Moraz (Hammond organ, pianos, MiniMoog, Mellotron), Alan White (Drums, percussion), Steve Howe (Guitars, electric sitar, pedal steel)


Comments: I'm not surprised at all, but I am rather disappointed that again I'm presented with an album of three tracks. My track (hah!) record with Yes on this has not been good; any time I can handle early seventies Yes it's been on the somewhat shorter tracks, so I don't hold out a whole lot of hope for this. It's also unfortunate - though of course I knew this - that Wakeman is gone, replaced by Patrick Moraz, of whom I know nothing. I have a vague recollection of his being involved in some disco hit? Maybe that was someone else. Can't see anything about it, and now it says he was involved with the Moody Blues, so yeah, maybe I'm confusing him with someone else. Either way I'm sad to see Wakeman go, as for me, other than Anderson's distinctive vocal, his keys were what made Yes.

You have to love the cover though, which for me follows on a little from the previous behemoth. Reviews for the album seem to be mostly complimentary, whereas they had a lot of bad things to say about Tales from Topographic Oceans, so it will be interesting to see how this goes. It kicks off with the epic, and it is an epic: twenty-three minutes of "The Gates of Delirium", not even broken up into sections, so you can't call it a suite, but one long unbroken piece of music. Good thing or bad thing? Well I must say it sounds a little like the band tuning up as it opens, and it's really about two minutes before it settles down into anything cohesive, and when it does it is again on mostly Steve Howe's guitar and of course Anderson's vocals that it finds its shape. I can't say I notice much of the new guy's work yet, but there are still nearly twenty minutes to go.

Yeah. Twenty boring minutes. Again, the old problem. I really couldn't care about this and my attention is wandering, especially as I read about the album on Wiki. It's just not holding my interest, and now we're into a bouncing, uptempo section about halfway through, which I guess, from what I read, is the "charge" section of the piece, and there's of course some great musicianship in it, but I just can't make myself care. At least I can hear Moraz's keyboard parts now, but to be honest, for me, they're not a patch on Wakeman, who used to take over the melody when he was required to. It's kind of another long jam, as I find - probably incorrectly, but certainly to me - most of the longer Yes pieces are. Y is for Yawn.

Sixteen minutes in then and it's slowed down (aftermath of the battle?) on a humming keyboard line with some squeaky lines that could very well be on slide guitar or keys, I don't know, and I don't much care. Does remind me though of later Pink Floyd, especially on The Division Bell. Seems an age since we've heard Anderson sing, and it is. Now he comes in with the soft and soulful ending, which is nice, but there's no way this track would ever grow on me. I'm just too bored with and uninterested in it. Dare I retitle it "The Gates of Tedium"? Oh, you know I do.
I see my friends Pendragon robbed part of the closing melody, something I have accused them of doing with a few other well-known bands, including Floyd, Supertramp and Genesis. Not that you care about that.

So that's the big epic over, but Yes being Yes, the two remaining tracks can also be classed as epics, or perhaps mini-epics, over nine minutes each. To my delight (!) "Sound Chaser" turns out to be a jazz fusion jam that just sets my teeth on edge for nine minutes and twenty-five seconds, almost an abstract expression of musical ideas. You know, it's not that bad: Anderson sings like an angel as usual, and there's to me more cohesion to this at times than there was to the previous track, but it does tend to degenerate (sorry) into what sounds to my untrained ear musical chaos too often. I will give it this: it's holding my attention, which the other piece did not. I still wouldn't sing or hum it, or even remember it, but I'm not drifting away from it in boredom as I did with "The Gates of Delirium".

And that leaves us with one track, as "To Be Over" closes out the album with another nine-minuter, which has a nice relaxed feel to it, almost the calm after the storm if you will. A nice gentle instrumental intro on which I think I detect use of this electric sitar Howe is shown as playing, then the vocal is low-key and sedate. I read the song was written after experiencing a boat ride down the Serpentine River, and that certainly shows in the relaxed, almost drifting style of the music. There's one bonus track, which is "Soon", and I must say it's really nice, kind of reminds me a little of "Holy Lamb" off Big Generator. Isn't it though using parts of the closing melody from "The Gates of Delirium"?


Rating: 5/10
Yes or No? No

[Lisnaholic]

I love Tales personally. I tend to think of it in a different way than I do most other Yes albums, more akin to more freeform or less structured forms of music than tighter, more definitively "song-based" styles. I don't always listen to it all at once, but when I'm in the mood it's very captivating.

But I also like a lot of mystical new age hippie mumbo jumbo, stuff way more in that realm than Tales is, so it's very much up my alley in that respect.

^ Perhaps you listen to TFTO the way I often do: put it on, go do something else, then get a nice surprise when the best bits force me to pay more attention to the music again.

Yeah see that's where we differ. I can listen to some new age music and I do like ambient, but I always prefer something more structured; basically, something I can, if I like it, hum afterwards. I couldn't even try to hum any of TFTO!

^ Sorry to labour a point, but there are plenty of hummable bits in TFTO, but it takes a few plays to identify them.
__________________________________

At least I can agree completely with your review of Relayer, Trollheart. I really identified with your "...but I just can't make myself care". Despite all the energy, skill and complexity of Gates Of Delirium, that was exactly how I felt. I thought To Be Over was nice enough, but this album pretty much killed my interest in Yes, and caused me to abandon complex prog for something like 35 years. In that sense it was an important album for me: "never buy stuff like this again".

[Trollheart]

^ Perhaps you listen to TFTO the way I often do: put it on, go do something else, then get a nice surprise when the best bits force me to pay more attention to the music again.

^ Sorry to labour a point, but there are plenty of hummable bits in TFTO, but it takes a few plays to identify them.
__________________________________

At least I can agree completely with your review of Relayer, Trollheart. I really identified with your "...but I just can't make myself care". Despite all the energy, skill and complexity of Gates Of Delirium, that was exactly how I felt. I thought To Be Over was nice enough, but this album pretty much killed my interest in Yes, and caused me to abandon complex prog for something like 35 years. In that sense it was an important album for me: "never buy stuff like this again".

Guess it relayed the wrong message, huh?   

[Trollheart]

Album title: Going for the One
Year: 1977
Personnel: Jon Anderson (Vocals, harp), Chris Squire (bass), Rick Wakeman (Organ, piano), Alan White (Drums, percussion), Steve Howe (Guitars)
Track by track:
Note: I'm cancelling this "What I like/don't like about this" as it's getting boring. I keep saying the same things and while you're used to me droning on and probably block me out as white noise I ---------- so that's what I'm going to do now. Sorry? Weren't listening? White noise, was it? Hah. Tough. Maybe next time you'll pay more ------------ and it's your own fault. I can't help it if ----------- and is perhaps one of the most profound things I have ever written, I think you'll agree. Anyway, on we go.


Comments: Seems this may in fact be a slight turning point for me with Yes, not only for the return of Rick Wakeman but the idea of the songs being shorter and more accessible, and a distinct lack of suites. Plus there's one song on this I already know, and love, so I'm one-fifth of the way there. Mind you, I'm not naive enough to think that this is going to be the album that opens Yes up for me, but I hope it will be less of a struggle than the last three or four have been. I do mark the similarities between this and Rush's Hemispheres, both of which would no doubt have ended with a black bar across the bottom - literally - in order to be sold in record shops later. Ooh! Cheeky! Is that meant to be Anderson? Looks to me, always did, like the guy is staring up at some graphs or charts on a board.

Kicks off with the title track, and I must admit, the rock and roll guitar at the beginning took me by surprise; no gentle fade-in or ambient opening here. I almost feel like I'm back in the days of the first two or three albums, when Yes seemed to be searching for their sound and had not yet settled on the intricate multi-part compositions that characterised most of their later seventies albums. There's a sense of exuberant energy here though, particularly evident both in Howe's almost blues-like guitar work and Wakeman's sprightly piano. Anderson is in fine voice, and it's a fun song. Not something I've been saying about Yes, I have to admit. Good start.

I have to wonder about the title of "Turn of the Century": is it a little too reminiscent of Supertramp's 1974 album? Hmm. Possibility of not copying, but taking from, two other big groups in the prog scene at the time. What to make of that? This is a nice reflective, introspective little song, led by Howe's this time Spanish guitar I think with that sort of spiritual idea in the vocal, very restrained. Some really nice piano from Wakeman, though I do admit I have yet to see him really stamp his authority on this album, mark it as his triumphant return. But I'm impressed so far.

The only song into which Anderson has no input, "Parallels" is a Chris Squire solo effort. Ah and here comes Wakeman now with a sonorous throaty church organ. Nice one, Rick! This to me sounds really close to something off later 90125 or even the ABWH album. Class. Howe still holds court, of course, but the keyboard wizard is clearly back, and letting everyone know it. Then we get to the single, and of course the song I know. "Wondrous Stories" was a single, and quite a successful one too, a first real hit for them. It's easy to see why. Anderson's voice is the glue that holds the melody together here, and it's a lovely song that always gives me the idea of slowly drifting along on a river. Does the basic melody sound familiar though? Bowie? Lovely ethereal work from Rick Wakeman here. I guess this qualifies as a ballad, though I wouldn't really consider it one, as such.

But it wouldn't be Yes without at least one track that ran into double digits, would it, and indeed the closer, "Awaken", chops fifteen out of the overall running time, almost half of it in fact. Opens on a very upbeat and sprinkly piano run from Wakeman, utilising his love of classical music, and while I would hope this isn't a throwback to the overwrought style of the last few albums, even if it is, there's been enough of a real seachange here that I can allow them one indulgent track. There's some really fine guitar from Squire, and though as with most of Yes's epic pieces I find it hard to follow the idea, or even the melody, it's not as attention-losing as some of the other songs off previous albums.

The piece slows down in the midsection for a nice instrumental passage that for me gives something of a nod to western movies. The choral stuff is good too, using two different choirs that ties in well with the church organ. A nice sort of ambient, atmospheric ending with Anderson's voice floating in the air like a songbird, fading into the music.

Other than, as usual, unfinished or different versions of almost every song on the album, there are three bonus tracks, one, a nice little guitar-driven instrumental which somehow manages to rise above itself and become more than the sum of its parts, or something. Nice. Again, "Vevey Revisited" (huh?) mostly runs on Howe's guitar, though Wakeman backs it nicely with some lush deep organ and keys which really give him a chance to add to the overall melody and make it complete. And then we have one of my favourite songs of all time. Shut up, and put that damned crucifix away! No, no I'm not a vampire. Well...

You can slag off or even question the inclusion of an old Christian hymn on a supposedly modern, forward-looking, progressive rock album, and ask what the hell they were smoking when they decided to cover it, but I always love hearing "Amazing Grace". Perhaps an odd one to choose, given Anderson at least is more into spirituality than religion, but then, I love it and I'm a pagan, so what harm? Always stirring, always emotional, always impressive whether it's sung with a full choir or against a single acoustic guitar. This reminds me a little of Jimi doing "The Star-Spangled Banner" and it's mostly Howe again. I think they could have done a better job, especially with a church organ at their disposal, but however.


Afterword: (What? Weren't you listening when I said... ah. White noise again? I see. Well, I said I'm going to have this new bit after I've reviewed the album, commenting overall on what I thought of it.

And here it is.

Much has been made of Yes re-inventing themselves on this album, and I would agree. Gone, mostly, are the weird, esoteric lyrics, the long multi-part suites and the melodies that - in my opinion - went nowhere. As most prog bands would find as the seventies wound on towards the new decade, and even as their successors would discover in the decades ahead, though prog fans love their epics, the world at large does not, and if you want to make it as a band, particularly a prog rock one, you have to be able to write those shorter, snappier and more commercial tunes and get radio airplay. It's all very well writing a twenty-minutes masterpiece, but who's going to play it?

So here I think Yes realised that, targeted their audience and began to make their music more accessible. It immediately benefitted them with a number one album and a top ten single in the UK, which remains their highest-charting single there. The return of Wakeman helped, I believe, but for me it's the shorter and more relatable tracks that make this album different to its predecessors, and points the way towards what Yes would begin to evolve into.

Rating: 8.5/10
Yes or No? Yes

[Trollheart]

Album title: Tormato
Year: 1978
Personnel: Jon Anderson (Vocals), Chris Squire (bass), Rick Wakeman (Keyboards, piano), Alan White (Drums, percussion), Steve Howe (Guitars)

Comments: I used to wonder in passing what the title meant - obviously a play on the word tomato - but I read that the album was originally to have been called Yes Tor - referring to one of the hills in Dartmoor, but that someone didn't like the artwork and threw a tomato at it, so we get a kind of not-quite-portmanteau but a slightly corrupted word for tomato mixed with tor, and so tormato. Right. Well, if they had kept the original title it might have been interesting to have had a retrospective collection called Yes Tor Days. No? As you will. On we go anyway. This is apparently the last album to feature Anderson on vocals before he  rejoined for 90125, so what that says about how I'll view the next album is anyone's guess. There is one song on this I sort of know, but other than that I've heard nothing from it. At least I note a marked absence of suites, which in the case of Yes, for me can only be good.

We kick off with "Future Times/Rejoice", which is a pretty uptempo kind of marching style, Howe as usual making sure he's front and centre, though Wakeman is giving as good as he gets. I wonder why Anderson left? Must research; he's certainly in fine vocal form here as usual. Ah right; nothing special. The usual "creative differences", and he and Rick took their football home with them.This quote from Wiki does confuse me though: "This way of working caused internal issues as Wakeman recalled: "No one was afraid to say, 'Well, Jon, I think you should sing this part.' Or 'Steve, that's a bad guitar part.' Tempers got frayed."[12] Howe agreed with the view, and believed such tensions affected the album's sound quality and tone as a result". should that not read "everyone was afraid"? Otherwise it doesn't make sense, or is that just me? Hmm. Bit of "Can-Utility and the Coastliners" there in the keyboard riff, Rick me old son!

So far, I'd say it's a far more accessible album than the likes of Relayer or even Close to the Edge (and don't even get me started - again - on Tales from Topographic Oceans!), nice bit of vocal harmony there near the end, and there's that riff again. A decent opener which gives me hope that what I experienced on Going for the One might continue here. "Don't Kill the Whale" is the song I know, though I must admit I've only heard it once or twice, and possibly not all the way through, but it is catchy, and for once a good vehicle for Howe's riffs, which really drive it. Of course, it's also an obvious single, and was, and did relatively well for them. Well, not that great actually: got into the top forty, but only barely.  See, this is the kind of melody I can follow, even consider humming along with; simpler, shorter, more straight forward and basic, while yet retaining all the Yes flourishes. I have to say, Wiki says Wakeman used synth sounds which mimic whale song, but I don't hear it.

"Madrigal" is, well, a madrigal, and very pleasant for what it is, but there's not a terrible amount you can do with an old English medieval melody, even if you're writing it new. I do like it though; sort of takes the tempo, such as it is, down a little, and while not really considering it a ballad, it is the slowest song on the album yet, some ideas there which would resurface on the later Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, Howe album. Very short too, just over two minutes. "Release, Release" puts me in mind of one of those old suites by ELP for some reason, like something off Tarkus, but then becomes its own animal (sorry) and picks up nicely. It's certainly exuberant, but there's something missing there, for me. It's okay. The faux crowd applause and the god-damn drum solo knock it down another notch, and I'd say this is my least favourite so far.

Look, drum solos should only ever be produced live. There is no reason to have them on a studio album, at least I don't think so. Even Rush's YYZ bores the hell out of me. I refer you once again to the Bad News mockumentary: "He did a twenty-minute drum solo as his audition. Would have been longer, but I hate drum solos!" So do I, mate. Bloody pointless. I read too that that crowd bit was taken from a football match. Jesus. Next up is "Arriving UFO" which is again okay but I don't consider it anything particularly special. Some almost AOR-style keyboard arpeggios, which is interesting, but again Wakeman uses that ending riff used by Genesis to close out the first side of Foxtrot. Why, I ask? It's annoying, and unoriginal. Yeah I find this song too long for what it is, and that goes for the previous one too. They're not actually that long in Yes terms - about six minutes each - but they seem much longer.

Overall, the good feeling I was initially getting from this album is beginning to sour, and I wonder if it's likely to recover from what I see as the slump it's descended into with the last two tracks? I would have to be cruel and say I would see UFO as standing for Uninterested; Fuck Off. From science fiction then it's on to fantasy/children's stories for "Circus of Heaven", with the music a sort of carnival-style backdrop to the lyric, which for once seems to be more upfront and important in this song, but it doesn't engage me, I'm sorry to say. Am I hearing "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" here? Oh Christ no! Children's voices! Save me! Christ it's like listening to the Happy Little Elves or something! Get me out of here! Awful. Oh it's gone thank the Great Pixie. I'll be cleaning the sugar out of my teeth for weeks after that!

Thankfully, "Onward", which really slows everything down and brings things back onto some sort of an even keel, is far better, and more like something from the beginning of the album. Slowly marching along in a stately, grandiose way, it does its best to re-establish order and save the album before the end, and with its beautiful double vocal it almost manages it, a true ballad and it even sounds like it has some sort of orchestral arrangement, though I see no credit for such. Given that it's a Chris Squire solo penned effort, he has to be given credit for one of the better, even best song on the album. Divine. We close then with the almost eight-minute "On the Silent Wings of Freedom", which starts off as one of those things I hate the most, a jam, which has already run for two minutes without any vocal, and I do hope it's not going to turn out to be an instrumental. But it might. I mean, it's not bad but it again reminds me of Genesis, maybe "Firth of Fifth" or "Cinema Show" and oh there's Anderson now, so it's not instrumental. That's something. But still not really for me.

Be that as it may, we have no less than EIGHT bonus tracks (not including an instrumental of "Onward", which since I really liked it I may include, but will certainly listen to) thanks to the 2004 reissue. Might as well get on with it then. "Abilene" has a nice acoustic style to it, with wind noises and, for some reason, horses neighing. It has a sort of country twinge to it, and I already like it more than most of what's on the original album. "Money", on the other hand, far from being a cover of the Pink Floyd classic, is a kind of rock-and-roll rockabilly effort, pretty throwaway honestly, with some sort of speech track running behind it, a bit pointless as I have no idea what the voices are saying. It's alright I guess; still better than most of the album was. Definitely catchy and more accessible; keyboard puts me in mind of Dire Straits' "Walk of Life", kind of. Hell, it's a fun song, and it doesn't seem you get many of those on a Yes album.

There's a lovely bass and piano line leading "Picasso", again reminds me of that Beatles classic in certain ways and I think there must be a steel guitar in there, though oddly that does not make it sound country, but does add to the song somehow. Possible mandolin too? Howe plays so many stringed instruments it's often hard to tell. Quite nice again. And short, which can't be said of the next one, "Some Are Born", which runs for almost six minutes. Oh but I really like it. Just great; has a simple but very infectious melody line, and the lyric is also simple, showing that on occasion Yes don't need banks of keys and overdubs and choirs and esoteric lyrics to make a decent song. It does, to be fair, become fairly anthemic about halfway through, but this actually works in its favour, as it goes back to the simple style afterwards, and the two balance each other out very well. This song easily justifies its length.

I would have to say there's more than a little of the late Vangelis in "You Can Be Saved", also a look forward to their work on ABWH, especially "The Meeting". It's another slow song with a shimmering Wakeman synthscape pushing it along and lovely vocal harmonies. Interestingly, it's another one written by Squire on his own, and shows his talent for songwriting (though I assume that's just music is it? Yeah, I think Anderson does all the lyrics) while it's no surprise to find that "High" is a Howe effort, drowning in guitars, the vocal almost subsumed beneath the layers. Yeah, unless that's poor production then Steve is either intentionally or accidentally blocking Jon out so that you can hardly hear what he sings. It's okay but the first of the bonus tracks I'm not quite enthusing over, while "Days" is the shortest of them all, one minute long, an a capella and not surprisingly again to find that Jon wrote this one. I can't say it's that engaging, but as they say, it is what it is.

The last two have, to be fair, been pretty poor, so can "Countryside" recover things for us? Again, it leans quite heavily on Howe, but when it takes an upswing in the melody it does seem to become a different song, with a kind of samba or salsa or some sort of Latin beat anyway, very upbeat and catchy. Not bad. That leaves the longest of these tracks, almost seven minutes of "Everybody's Song" (Elton would not be impressed) which has a kind of climbing bass line running through it at the start, and something like movie music in the keys, like a suspense or horror movie maybe. Pretty odd I feel. Given how prominent the bass is, I would have put money on it being another of Squire's compositions, but no: the whole band were involved in writing it. Can't really say it does anything for me. And then we have the instrumental version of "Onward", which has a full orchestra (I think) on it, and was definitely worth listening to. I'm glad I did.


Afterword: Given the supposed low regard in which this album is said to be held by fans and critics, I'm perhaps surprised to see most of the reviews positive. While I wouldn't call this a terrible album, it's not the progression (sorry) I had hoped for from the previous, though at the same time it's not a case of backsliding towards the likes of Relayer et al. I of course know what happens after the next one, so whether this - and Drama - would be seen as stepping stones to those albums I don't know. I'm pretty sure I heard Drama once, and did not come away with a favourable impression of it. But we'll see. For now, this one did not impress me although it started well, and there were some good songs on it. Not quite a rotten Tormato (sorry) but I certainly wouldn't be frying it up with my egg and chips.

That comment has to be qualified though by clarifying that it refers to the original album, whereas I really have nothing bad to say about the 2004 reissue bonus tracks, which could have made another album on their own, and should, perhaps, have been included on the original, maybe even dropping one or two of the weaker tracks. Would have been a far different beast.

Rating: 5/10 (I would give it higher, based on the bonus tracks, but I have to judge the album on its original issue)
Yes or No? Maybe

[Lexi Darling]

I don't love Tormato like I do most of the 1971-1980 albums but I do like it. I think the opener is strong, the last two tracks are great, Madrigal is quite pretty, I used to not like Circus of Heaven but these days I find it a fun little singalong number.

It's my least favorite album from what I consider their golden age, and it's certainly nowhere close to CTTE or the Yes Album or Relayer but for me it's worth an occasional relisten.