[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: John and Chris again



Jim wrote about what others wrote:
>>Chris has admitted being influenced heavily by John's playing, but Chris
to me is melodic for melodic's sake. 
>And what is John? John is melodic for the sake of being heard.  

        John is melodic but it is not for the sake of being heard. John is
playing lead instrument alternately with Keith and Pete and when he is not
the lead instrument he will often play root notes like in Magic Bus and
through much of Tommy. John does have his moments of going off, but it is a
more crucial interplay between him and Keith and Pete than Chris with the
other Yes players. Chris is melodic for the sake of being melodic because
that is what Yes set out to be. Interconnected melodic movements that allow
each player to solo and be featured. Even with Bruford their drummer.

>Entwistle is the *only* member who opted not to carry that over into his
>stage show, as well.

John is a typically reserved middle to upper class Brit. It's not in him to
jump around. Eventually his choice of weighty custom weapons and the
complexity of his playing would prevent his jumping around... 

>>[Chris Squire] doesn't carry the songs the way John does
>This is purely your opinion.

Absolutely it is.

>if [Chris Squire] is replaced with a quieter and less busy player like on the
>Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman and Howe tour he is not  missed

because he has Wakeman and his 20+ keyboards, Bruford and electronic midi
kit, Howe and his battalion of guitars, and on later tours they had a
second guitarist/singer and a second keyboard player to fill in his gaps. He
is missing more sorely as a vocalist. That's his real mark in that band. You
lose a lot when he is not the second vocalist. John holds up a lot more when
it's just him holding together the chaos of Keith Moon and Pete's strumming
and jumping  around. IMO the live early Tommy stuff definitely shows John's
solid bass work and vocals to be the big lynch pin holding the show together.

>>In the Who, John is too important to maintaining the structure of the
>>songs and would definitely be missed if he was not playing with the >>group.
>The same is true of Squire even if you can't see it or accept it.

What's to see or accept? I agree with you. Though not as strongly as I feel
about John. Tony Levin filled in nicely for Chris on the AWBH tour. He's
even a better player. The only thing I missed in AWBH was his vocals for the
older Yes material.

>>Chris' style is distinctive, but is not as important to the music as John
>>is by far, IMO.
>Gotta disagree.  Go back and get some Yes albums out. Try envisioning
>"Roundabout" without the bass line, or "Tempus Fugit," or "Long Distance
>Runaround," or "Sound Chaser," or "City of Love," or "Heart of the
>Sunrise,"or "Siberian Khatru."

I absolutely agree with this, but its not the point. The arrangement of the
music on the lp's without Chris would be vastly different and definately
weaker. But that is not the same thing as his vitality as a live musician in
a particular dynamic of musicians.

>I think what it comes down to for you is that you prefer the Who to Yes,
>which is fine.  But that shouldn't mean that you misinterpret Chris
>Squire's importance as a rock bassist just because you like the Who better. 

I'm not. As a long time Yes/Bruford fan, I can't point to a Yes album fast
enough when people want to talk about music compostion in the rock format. 

Someone else wrote:
>>If that's so, then why was his bass turned down so low at MSG?  I
>>realize everything had to be quieter for Pete's sake

>It's just a guess on my part, but maybe the bass was lower in the mix at
>MSG because John didn't care enough to argue on his own behalf. 

I sincerely doubt it. I give John more credit than that. He suffered through
the same thing on the Tommy tour... His comment: "I feel a bit redundant."

Eddie