-----------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 6, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------
Source: Innerviews
http://www.innerviews.org/inner/howe.html
Steve Howe: Small acts of human kindness
By Anil Prasad
In these turbulent times, art espousing the benefits of small acts of human
kindness are welcome indeed. That idea is the focus of guitarist Steve
Howe’s new solo album Skyline.
“People are usually nice to each other, but not always. I guess that’s
because we fail to keep the highest goals in our sights at all times,” Howe
told Innerviews. “The music on Skyline tries to put forth small acts of
human kindness as a suggestion. When you do something for somebody, when
you help somebody, when you advise, when you console, when you cheer up
somebody, the next physical stage is holding your hand out. You physically
do something for them that helps them out, even if it’s just that
assistance. It can be a cuddle, a hug or any sort of affection. It’s what
parents do for their children because of their great love. I wanted the
music to convey those ideas. I believe music should be beautiful. I wanted
to try and paint beautiful sounds with my music and create a soothing
feeling for the listener. I hope the music has a kind service to provide.”
Skyline is the most meditative record Howe has released to date. Also
featuring keyboardist and percussionist Paul Sutin, the album is a melodic,
ambient affair with nods to the progressive rock, classical and jazz realms.
“The new album is a departure, a change — a new shift, if you like,” said
Howe. “I haven’t made records like this before. My other records have a lot
of guitar-isms that are strong, as well as stuff that is rocking, but most
of the records I like are very relaxing. I didn’t over-design the music,
but I definitely wanted to fulfill the intent of it being smooth and
relaxing, and passing that enjoyment onto the listener.”
Howe’s other recent release Masterpiece Guitars also has a specific intent.
The duo project created with jazz guitarist Martin Taylor was designed to
showcase an array of more than 60 guitars from the collection of the late
Scott Chinery. Chinery was a devoted collector of rare and vintage American
guitars who amassed more than 1,000 instruments. To accomplish its mission,
the duo chose to record standards such as “Moon River” and “Blue Bossa,” in
addition to several kinetic originals.
Of course, Howe is best known for his role as lead guitarist for Yes. He’s
served with the group off-and-on during the past four decades. Howe has
experienced intense highs and lows with the band — from its
stadium-filling, multi-platinum peak in the ‘70s to the myriad line-up
changes and politics of the late ‘80s and ‘90s. The group currently exists
in its most popular, classic incarnation, featuring Howe along with Jon
Anderson, Chris Squire, Rick Wakeman and Alan White.
Howe provided Innerviews with many insights into the making of Skyline and
Masterpiece Guitars, as well as a glimpse into the inner workings of Yes.
Does Skyline serve as a statement about the turbulent times in which we live?
I sometimes have a different view to some of the musicians I work with
about my responsibilities as a musician. I don’t feel compelled to get up
and say “Oh, this is horrible” and “Those people are wrong and these people
are right.” In a way, who am I to do that? Who are these people that know
so much that they can tell everybody else that they’re wrong? If it were
that clear cut, it would be easy. We could then simply say “We have a
dilemma of right and wrong.” So, no, this isn’t the record that reflects
September 11. It was conceived prior to that. In a way, that’s not a bad
thing. There will be art that comes after September 11 that isn’t a
response to it, but rather, a predecessor to it. Maybe it reminds one that
without the hope of peace, there’s not much to be hopeful about. Peace is
so essential to the future.
I’m not in any way underestimating the tragedy of September 11, but other
tragedies like AIDS have also altered my consciousness. I do like to write
music that is deeply affected by those things, but not on the surface.
During interviews, I like to put my opinion forward, but I’m not a big
soapbox guy. I did once write a song called “Blinded by science” that was a
put-down about food additives, but I hate the bandwagon feeling of people
saying “Oh dear, my new album has some songs very blatantly about September
11.”
I have to admit that the mood and reality of Europe were only a few steps
away while I was recording Skyline. I wrote 12 songs and one of them was
called “Hour of need.” It says that during the hour of need we need to
strengthen our communication.
Describe your working relationship with Paul Sutin.
We have an arrangement I like very much. Previously, I worked with Paul on
a record called Voyages which was a joint Steve Howe and Paul Sutin record.
Prior to that, I did Paul’s record called Seraphim in the late ‘80s.
Skyline is a Steve Howe record and I’ve used Paul as my accompanist on
eight tracks and I do the other four pieces myself. We looked at the
writing stance he had and the ideas we were going to map out together. The
working relationship is quite unusual in that Paul writes music and takes
it so far and then he’ll look to me to take it further. I’m drawing quite a
bit from his writing and he’s leaving a lot for me to complete. It’s like a
little picture. Sometimes, I’m lucky enough to have a huge five-or-six
minute structure to redesign and pick out anything I don’t want and put in
other things that I do. It’s a genuine writing relationship, but not one
where you start with nothing.
Contrast working in a duo versus a group such as Yes.
They are very different. Within a duo — and what was so great about early
Yes and what Yes needs to recapture — is you have tremendous freedom to go
off more in a direction as one person. You create a balance. Some tracks
lean towards someone’s writing more than another’s. One guy brings in one
piece and another person brings another one in. There’s a dualism. The only
time this is similar to a group is when two of the group’s members write
together and bring a song into the group, like the Anderson/Howe songs we
used to do. We would actually do a lot of the construction and then bring
the song into the group and try to get the others to play it with the
conviction that it is a good song. But usually with Yes, we quite often
have written in the collective sense where everybody’s got something and
trying to find bits which fit together. Though that’s fun and creative, it
doesn’t allow any single person to see out their dream, which you can do in
a duo.
In a duo, you can have one song leaning one way with one guy taking
control, but the other guy is happy because he can take the lead on another
track. I guess that’s the basic formula for a couple of guys writing in a
band too. With Yes, everybody wants to write, so everybody kind of throws
things into the center. Without a producer, it’s very, very difficult to
get a record everybody is happy with at the end of it. [laughs] The
producer is there to balance it and get the record to be a bit like
everybody wants it. For that reason, hopefully it’s a better record. But if
the producer doesn’t think that’s the way to go, he’ll steer it more his
way or the singer’s way or the guitarist’s way — whichever way is more in
the money or has the clarity of making a great record that’s going to sell
millions of copies. [laughs]
Creating the running order for Skyline proved somewhat thorny. Describe the
process of coming up with an ideal album sequence.
When you are preparing a record, you can invent a running order quite early
on or later on as I do it. And what can happen is you walk out of the
studio one day completely convinced that the running order is a right one.
You’re happy you’ve got the flow. But it doesn’t take much outside input to
make you question it. Then the doubts come in. I react to input from people
like my wife, my manager and the engineer. But I only invite their input
once I’m in doubt. If I’m really, really sure, the best thing to do is keep
being sure, because a running order can become very problematic.
For instance, there can be something about going from track three to four
that you don’t like. Perhaps it’s in the same key or tempo. There’s
something wrong, so you move it and inadvertently start an avalanche. Now,
another track doesn’t fit so well somewhere else. Skyline took an extra
ounce from me in this regard. Other albums like Natural Timbre weren’t
quite so difficult to track.
Another thing to consider is If you’ve just come out of a hairy rocker and
go into another hairy rocker, yeah that’s okay. But for the third piece,
maybe you’ve got to cool it off a bit and show a twist. There’s a
sequencing plan or formulation that’s a bit like making a movie. You don’t
want to go to a movie and start by seeing the end — the guy walking off
into the sunset happily with his wife. Like a movie, a record needs a sense
of drama. Some people maybe don’t think it’s as important as I do. But I
think it’s a very important finishing touch. Tracks should be allocated by
their importance in the feeling of flow at a certain time.
With Skyline, the beauty of it was I was never saying “Let’s put a heavy
track before a laid back track,” because it’s all laid back. I had enough
tracks that were very casual and non-chalant, yet confident. So, I had to
pattern those tracks at a slower pace — a half-pace.
Skyline’s artwork features some of your own photography. Are there any
parallels between your interests in photography and music?
The one similarity that comes to mind is just looking around and seeing
nature looking amazing. It’s something I want to capture. Those types of
pictures relate quite closely to my sense of improvising, when I’m in an
environment that I want to expand and expound upon in a sequence or
structure. I’ll be playing a tune and then I’ll want to color the tune. I
like weirdness in photographs. I like them to be a little surreal. I like
them to have something that’s a little not quite right, like so many of my
pictures.
If my photos aren’t about nature, they’re about something being wrong.
[laughs] For instance, there’s a roundabout in England in which there was a
lorry turned over on its side. I’ve got a picture of it. When you look at
it, you know there’s something wrong immediately, but you don’t quite
understand it at first because you tend not to see lorries turned on their
side. [laughs] So, I like the surprise, the wildness, the obscure elements
of photography. It’s a bit like what rock and roll is even after 50 years.
We’re still redesigning rock and roll a sense. There’s a weirdness
associated with my rock and roll sense. It’s my more secretly wild side and
it fuels Yes a great deal.
Take me through the making of Masterpiece Guitars.
The project came about through Scott Chinery, a recently-deceased
gentleman. Masterpiece Guitars features his collection, one that had nearly
1,000 guitars. He wanted a book of his own similar to my book The Steve
Howe Guitar Collection. He got Tony Bacon, who helped me with my book to do
a book for him. While he was doing the book, we got closer to a good idea
about recording his guitars. I suggested to him that Martin [Taylor] and I
collaborate with Martin doing most of the playing and me doing all of the
production, guesting on some tracks and doing some solo tracks. Working
with Martin is a joy. He’s a remarkable player and a warm person. We also
knew each other. I’d already produced his album Artistry as well in the
mid-‘90s. Scott thought it was a great idea and it turned out to be a
really nice, little package.
So, we worked out how to do it. The day before the session started, we
booked two weeks in a Pennsylvania studio and moved the guitars there from
New Jersey in a truck with security. How we achieved the selection was
based on what Tony Bacon was going to feature in the book — the cream of
the guitars. We used different guitars for different period tunes. We knew
that on the new tunes and compositions, we could more or less choose our
guitars as long as we pinned down the standards and what guitars needed to
be used for them. We ended up choosing 50-60 guitars and went to the studio
— with a repairman there at all times. Every guitar was detailed, restrung
and cleaned up. For two weeks, Martin and I sat there inventing this album
and coming up with the tunes.
I helped choose most of the album and Martin had a fair bit of input into
what he preferred and what he didn’t want to do. It went very on course.
During that two weeks, we recorded everything but “Blue Bossa,” which we
did during another two-day session. Martin helped invent the vehicle for
the tune which was something we could play for six-and-a-half minutes and
feature roughly 20 guitars doing 16 bars each. It was a mathematical plan
that came up.
Scott was very happy with all of the tracks. He was very intuitive and
skillful about the spotting of his guitars on various recordings which was
amazing. Scott kind of sat on the album for some time. There wasn’t a
market opportunity to release it the way we wanted. We thought it was a
very valuable and important record. We played it for some jazz labels and
missed a few opportunities, but it eventually started to come together for
release this year. It’s been a long time coming. Sadly, Scott passed away.
He was a very big guy. I don’t know what happened to him exactly.
Scott’s collection is now governed by his wife Cathy. We’re going to try
and keep it alive. We think this is an important record. One of the
criteria Scott wanted us to achieve was a good piece of music, not just a
vehicle for demonstrating guitars. We wanted excitement, emotion, romance
and all the moods music can have. Martin and I went for that instinctively.
You’ve been prolific as a solo artist since the early ‘90s. How do you look
back on the last decade or so as a body of work?
I look at each album as an individual painting. They represent a big chunk
of my energy and each has specific colors, flavors, looks and styles. I
hope that through the ‘90s and beyond, I’m getting better at making records
that hang together. Beginnings and Grand Scheme of Things didn’t hang
together at all, they were just everything I could do at any one time.
[laughs] They were like jamborees or carnivals of Steve Howe music.
I like the ones that were fun to do, the ones that have a style. I don’t
judge them by their quality of style or their stylistic-ness. I don’t want
them to be so easily dated. My best records are not easy to date. You won’t
be able to say “Oh, because you’ve got drums like that, it was made then.”
I try not to be terribly trendy, but not out of sync. I enjoy the breadth
of the writing experience, because funnily enough, it wasn’t long after I
started playing guitar that I really made my mind up that I was not just
going to play guitar, but write music. So, that became a parallel
challenge. It gives me a lot of satisfaction.
So, yeah, I like that body of work. I like its clarity. As opposed to some
of the group work, with my solo work, you can stand back and really see
what I do. You can see what kind of guy I am. I’m a guitarist. I play the
bloody guitar. What do you think I do? [laughs] Thankfully, it’s a lot of fun.
You’re known as Yes’ most outspoken public critic when the band does
something that goes against your leanings. Do you use public forums as a
sort of megaphone that potentially has an influence on the group?
Slightly, yes. I think I also do it to reflect my frustrations about them
maybe not listening to me enough. I guess there’s no point in saying that
to them through the media because I talk to them every week. But I guess
it’s not relevant to talk about old matters every day with Yes. However, in
interviews, of course I do this. I talk about whether or not I liked Open
Yours Eyes or Magnification. These issues don’t come up much in the group
because they’re retrospective. I suppose it’s reasonably good that we take
that approach to keep the band going, rather than squabbling about what
went wrong in the past. At the end of the day, you do have to write things
off sometimes.
Yeah, if I’m questioned about something and I’m feeling a bit mouthy, I say
things. But more than that, I try to state things a little more accurately
and talk about things not only in terms of my occasional personal
disappointments, but also from what I have to gain from being very honest
with our fan base and people I respect about what Yes is supposed to be
living up to. I guess that fuels me.
People ought to know if I’ve had some reservations. I’m happy to say that
now Rick’s back, I have a lot less. [laughs] Rick being with the band makes
a lot of difference to me, but yeah, there’s been some struggle. Having
another guitarist in the band who didn’t really have a big reason to be
there isn’t cruel to Billy [Sherwood] for me to say. I like Billy. He’s a
lovely, lovely guy and I know The Ladder was quite good and an enjoyable
CD. I guess I want to be as critical as I am because without that, I’d be
believing my own publicity. I live in England, which is a very realistic
country. There’s no padding here. People don’t stroke me. I don’t walk into
a coffee shop and have people say “Ooh, it’s Steve Howe from Yes! How nice
to see you!” No, people just go “Oh, it’s that dude. It’s that guy.” I
think that keeps me really close to the ground. It’s a balancing factor.
When talking about Yes, I can’t be unbiased. I can say that I do need more
space sometimes to clarify where I stand on things. The Homebrew series of
CDs is really a mouthpiece for my writing too. Hopefully, Homebrew Volume
Three will come along later this year. The Homebrew discs have ideas which
were developed by the band and you can kind of really see what I do, as
opposed to the blanket credits in Yes, which we’re not going to be doing
anymore. The blanket statement “This album was written by Yes” frustrated
me. That’s why volume one of Homebrew really goes into the ABWH stuff. ABWH
was another blanket writing credit where you couldn’t see what anybody
wrote. So, when I did Homebrew, I put on a whole series of tracks that were
the basis for quite a lot of the ABWH stuff.
I don’t expect very many people to be interested, but you can listen to
Homebrew and see where my direction affects Yes. I like that clarification
and understanding. I’m an artist that likes to be understood. There are
blanket thoughts like “Jon writes all the lyrics for Yes” and at times he
has done that, but other times he hasn’t. Those things made me want to try
and gain some ground. I don’t think it’s purely ego. I’ll tell you what I
think it is — it’s recognition for what I actually do. I’m not interested
in getting recognition for something I didn’t do. I don’t want songwriting
credits for songs I didn’t write and this is something that goes on. But
there again, this is something that’s supposed to create smoothness in the
group and less drive to get any one specific song out there.
There’s an awful lot of complicated balancing acts going on in groups. I’ve
given you a few seeds and self-acknowledgements here. I sometimes regret
being a bit mouthy about the guys, but they probably don’t read it anyway.
I don’t want to give the wrong impression. These are only my convictions
about what Yes is. It’s less flexible than my convictions about myself. I
can go off and do country picking guitar. I can play rock and roll. I can
play Skyline stuff. I can do whatever I please. But Yes has a duty. Yes has
a function. It has a role and a reputation and it doesn’t always quite get
there. The reasons aren’t stupid ones, but they’re not impossible to solve.
It takes a lot of self-control, sharing and appreciation to make Yes
records as integral, highly arranged and exploitive of what we are.
I was quite surprised by the alternate mix of “Fist of Fire” by ABWH
[Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe] on the new Yes In A Word boxed set. I
didn’t know the ABWH material was so compromised.
When I’m not visible at the mix, guitars get lost completely. With “Fist of
Fire,” I thought it was ridiculous, because I’m not even that loud on the
[boxed set] mix. My presence is important. It’s called ABWH, thank you very
much! I don’t need to be on every track, but my presence has to be felt in
a balanced way. This is when some of my struggles start.
The second Asia record was the first really big problem I encountered about
mixing, but nobody in the group liked it either. GTR was not really mixed
the way Steve Hackett and I wanted. It was a bit too wet and soggy. I was
around during the GTR mixes, but not during the second Asia record. And
then ABWH, which had so much of my writing in it, got mixed without me.
The first Asia record reeks of me being there — of everybody being there.
When everybody is there and the producer is working with everybody, you get
a great finished product. But when some schmuck decides they can do
everything themselves and doesn’t need the band who’s written and played
the music, that’s ridiculous. “Don’t need them! We’re just going to mix
that without them!” I reckon the band should have a lot of input. And when
I don’t get input, I usually don’t like the record. That happened on ABWH.
I thought the guitar mixing was very bad. I was available to be part of it,
but I wasn’t invited. Those things annoy me.
Maybe I shouldn’t be voicing my disappointment too much because it’s over.
But with “Fist of Fire,” there you are. There’s more of that stuff. I’ve
got a lot of other mixes that show I was rocking and rolling, and going
nuts a lot more than is audible. So, that is disappointing, because I know
my sound needs projection to carry. You can’t put Steve Howe in the
background and say “Oh, that’s just as good.” You’ve got to hear me in
context and at times, this is why Yes was great, because you heard the bass
and guitar throughout — it was a clarity of mixing.
The marketing hype at the time of the ABWH release stated the record was
something true to the vision of the four of you.
No, it was very much Jon’s vision. We were in agreement with that. We
agreed that Jon was masterminding it. He was taking my songs and then
running off with everybody’s things. He was concocting it. If it had more
of a group sensibility about the mix, it may have lived up to the standard
you described more closely.
There was a quote from you in Guitar Shop a few years ago I found
intriguing. You said “I saw a picture the other day that almost made me
cry. It was a photo of Jon, Chris and I singing onstage around 1971-72 and
you could see that we were tight, harmonizing and creating together. We
were the artistic nucleus of Yes, no matter whether we had Bill and Tony or
Alan and Patrick. It reminded me of a time when we were all leading Yes.”
How does that contrast with the way the band works today?
I think underneath it all, we would like to get back to where we were, but
not to repeat ourselves. We want to be able to get into the flow and create
in the way that we used to. It’s like chasing a childhood dream, because
were comparatively childlike then. Each album has been shifting a little
bit. With The Ladder, we brought into play an idea that we get together,
write together and come up with these songs, work on them and mix them. We
had a long rehearsal period like we used to do on Fragile and Close to the
Edge. For The Yes Album, we rehearsed for about two months. We rehearsed
about six weeks to do Topographic. Sometimes people would get fed up with
these periods and think we didn’t need them and that in fact we can just go
into the studio and create, which is what we did with Magnification. For
that record, we just went out to the studio and started recording stuff,
then went back to the material and re-recorded all that material. That’s
one way of doing it, if you get things off-and-running and put everything
on tape, like people like to do now.
In the old days, it had to be done much more via rehearsal and in the mind
or on somebody’s cassette or quarter-inch Revox reel. It had to be quite
simply demoed and then updated in the studio. Of course, now you can go
about it — excuse the expression — ass about face as we say in England. You
can start at the bottom and work upwards instead of starting at the top and
working down because of ProTools. You can take the intro off and stick it
at the end and nobody will every know. There’s so much rearranging that can
happen. The temptation is to record what you think you want and then spend
weeks changing it to what you now know you want. Due to a lack of
technology in the early days, you had to really be able to just go in and
play a bunch. Overdubs were still overdubs and things were still fixed
though. Separation was always vital. If you wanted to take something out or
increase or decrease it, without separation, you had no control. Lessons
like that haven’t been learned very easily. Those lessons don’t seem to be
remembered, but the basic criteria of good recording hasn’t changed. The
aftermath has changed.
Many long-time Yes listeners believe the studio material on Keys to
Ascension 2 contains some of the strongest output the band released during
the past two decades. Why has the group largely ignored that material in
the live context?
The situation was disappointing to us. The Keys to Ascension packages
weren’t want people wanted. Therefore, the new songs on Volume One got
lost. Then, the 45 minutes of new stuff on Volume Two — which was quite
substantial — got lost too. But that material eventually came out on
Keystudio, which is a nicer package of studio material from that period.
Having said that, you are so right. The most unfortunate part is we mostly
didn’t play any of it onstage. The media and charts didn’t react in a
massive way, so we got little sense of feedback until a bit later. We
eventually realized that “Mind Drive” in particular was being heralded and
requested by the fan base. I’ve recently made it known that there is a
feeling among the fans that we don’t pay enough to respect to what was
great about our ’90s recordings. I think we should reinvestigate that
material. The Keystudio material is challenging. It’s not easy pickings.
These aren’t tunes you just strum along to while sitting on your backside.
They’re very much works of craft and arrangement and were well-conceived.
There’s a lot of mood and dynamics in there.
We’ve been very focused on Magnification and the idea of having an
orchestra, along with the retrospective orchestrations of old songs. That’s
kept us a little bit away from considering the pieces from Keystudio. It’d
be incredibly easy to pick up on that now because Rick is back. Although he
wasn’t ever present in the studio at the time we made that material — he
was only giving us a smaller commitment at that time — his input was still
important.
Wakeman claimed some of his contributions were left off Keys to Ascension 2
because of bad feelings regarding his subsequent departure from the group.
I think it’s fair to say we worked with everything he gave us, but it was
constructed by us without Rick. So, obviously his role was never going to
be as big as if he had been there all that month when we were recording it.
It was no sour grapes. Rick only had so much time and he could only do so
many keyboards. I think the ones that were recorded are very nicely
audible. But I’ll leave a margin of gap to reinvestigate that. Certainly,
his Moog and feature work was all very well heard. He really didn’t have
much to do with the background work as we’d done a lot of it ourselves.
Tell me about your involvement in the recent Rhino Yes reissues.
If you can imagine months of weekly and biweekly calls where we’re talking
about tapes and songs Yes has not released, you’ll have some idea. We were
talking about the In A Word boxed set, then the live boxed set, then the
reissues. I’ve been constantly involved in different facets of providing
tapes. I have 50 tapes ready to ship now and we’re already a long way down
the line. There’s been a lot of research. Bill Inglot at Rhino is very
thorough and likes to get the best version. My tape library has been
compared to what they call finished masters at Atlantic. So, they want to
see if in fact what I have is better. Occasionally it has been. I’m just
happy to be of service. I’m a polling point you can call to ask “What kind
of tapes do you have for this year?” I’ve always collected tapes. Way back
in 1967, I was handed a tape of the group Tomorrow in concert. Eventually,
I released that 30 years later in 1997 on a record called Tomorrow: The 50
Minute Technicolor Dream. That live recording was very exciting.
For 30 years, I’ve kept tapes on quarter inch and on cassette — everything
I could get my hands on. So, I’m a useful source for tapes, particularly
for archive stuff that wasn’t released and rehearsal stuff. I’ve got tapes
of Yes playing songs you’ve never heard. There’s a couple of things from
the Paris tapes on the boxed set, but there’s a whole lot of stuff Yes
don’t really want to release because it’s not that great. There are no
“Close to the Edges” that we’ve recorded but didn’t release. Everybody’s
got our major works, but there’s some fun stuff and things that are really
hilarious and should be considered. I haven’t got the guys to see the funny
side of it yet.
How do you look back at the making of The Yes Album?
That’s when I first joined the band. I was pretty much all over the place
and was thrilled to be in the band. I had “Clap” and they liked it and said
“Let’s put it on the record.” I thought “Well, that’s a great move!”
[laughs] I had only just joined the band and suddenly I have a solo on my
first record with them! I thought that was nice. What mostly sticks in my
mind is working on things like “Starship Trooper,” “Yours is No Disgrace”
and “Perpetual Change.” Those were songs we went into the studio knowing
really well. “Starship Trooper” was slightly reinvented in the studio, if
not introduced in the studio. “South Side of the Sky” was never played
onstage until we recorded it, and then, only a few times over the next few
decades.
The Yes Album was my golden opportunity. Tony Kaye was a great Hammond
player and provided great support playing for me. I was very much more the
instrumentalist because I had more room and because Tony was doing a great
job doing what he was doing. It did allow me an awful lot of moments on
that record. There were many great moments to inject my style. It was a
very happy, but challenging period. Yes was almost scuppered into
non-existence on a couple of occasions then. Once because of a manager and
once because Atlantic almost dropped the band. But when The Yes Album came
out, it raced up the charts and they weren’t thinking about that any
longer. [laughs]
You recently said Bill Bruford, Rick Wakeman and yourself were disappointed
with the way the Union tour was set-up. My understanding was that although
the album was disastrous, the tour was largely considered a success.
The tour started incredibly well. It had periods of being what everybody
wanted, particularly when we played England and during the first American
tour. It was a very present thing. It was about satisfying everybody and
indeed, there was a feeling of satisfaction. But there were other legs
which were much more problematic during which people were falling out or
were bugged by what I was doing and they had to understand why I was bugged
in the first place. [laughs]
I found it difficult to share “Yours Is No Disgrace.” Sometimes a guitar
solo I invented became what I do, then what Trevor [Rabin] does. I should
have seen a better light of that maybe, but sometimes I didn’t necessarily
like where he went with that song. I didn’t like him to — dare I say —
trash it by going over the top with wacky, out there guitar, when in fact
“Yours Is No Disgrace” was never about that. So, things were easier when
they were closer to everybody’s center and there was less spotlight
stealing and less way out stuff.
I would say the tour started with the right temperament and lost it in
Europe. Then we went to England and everyone was as good as gold and we did
some of the best shows of the tour. Then we went back to America and seemed
to lose it again. What I mean by losing it is though it was great to see,
if one of us wasn’t looking happy, we were struggling.
The ABWH guys didn’t think we were always going to be onstage, but the
other guys really had this idea that they weren’t going to leave the stage.
They thought they were going to be there all
night. So, that’s what I mean when I talk about it as being disappointing.
No-one ever left the stage except for me when I left during “Owner Of A
Lonely Heart.” I feel loads of people should have left the stage. People
should have been popping off, having a cup of tea, then coming back to give
the show air, light and space. It should have featured one line-up, then
featured another one. Why should I be there playing “Changes?” What can I
do? What? Strum an acoustic guitar? What’s the point? But I did it.
To this day, you don’t exactly look thrilled playing “Owner of a Lonely
Heart,” when it’s called for.
I guess I’m always going to have a problem about it to some extent. But
I’ve tried to work on it and tried to be friendly and group-like.
You had a plan to make a follow-up record to Union that involved all eight
members in an equitable way. What was it and why didn’t it pan out?
I had a plan, but I didn’t think of it. I helped to make an attempt to
present it to the band, but it was basically an idea that came from Arista.
Roy Lott [Arista’s General Manager at the time] said “You guys are nuts.
You’re always playing together.” He said to me “There should be a song with
three of you on, then a song with two of you on, then a song with five of
you on, then a song with eight of you on. Those are the contrasts that will
make an even better record than Union.” So, I went to the guys and said
“This makes sense. When we did Union, it was a bit like two camps. This
makes it more camps, but there will be more interaction. We don’t have to
play on each other’s music all the time.” But nobody liked the idea.
What’s next for Yes?
We have Japanese and Australian dates coming up in September. And then, we
may start a record together with Rick, assuming we’ve got all the pieces in
place and know what the hell we’re doing. [laughs] There are always things
to resolve and plan. I’m a great believer in plans. You have to be prepared
to change the plans sometimes, but you have to have them. Plans are what
ideas are made of.
Close Window
YesInThePress.com
For site comments, problems, corrections, or additions, contact YesinthePress@aol.com
|
|
|