Talk:Yes (band)

Moraz's contribution

Patrick Moraz

@Tbf62: @Tenebra Blu: anonymous edit diff

Re: recent edits on Moraz's contribution:

This message turned out quite a bit longer than I intended. I looked into three sources: my copy of Close to the Edge: The Story of Yes (Welch, 2008 edition), All My Yesterdays (Howe, 2021), and this interview recorded by the website DMME.

I think we all love the work that Patrick Moraz did on Relayer! At the same time, we would do best (and give Moraz's work the most justice) to lean on what the sources have to say on the matter. On Relayer, a large portion of the writing work was already done before Moraz rehearsed and was selected to join the band. According to Howe:

Jon and I had written ‘To Be Over’ while ‘Sound Chaser’ and ‘The Gates Of Delirium’ were group compositions.

— Steve Howe, All My Yesterdays

and Welch, describing the timeline of Moraz's additions to the album:

The group hastily recruited Patrick Moraz who stayed for three productive years...

— Welch (2008)

Patrick finally made his decision and told Brian Lane he would be happy to join Yes. "I was always fascinated by their music and I thought they were brilliant. I went to the rehearsal and Brian Lane almost ran over me in his car! It was late, it was raining and he didn’t recognise me. He took me in his car to Rickmansworth and saw the very core of the band at work. They had already been preparing material for the Relayer album. When I heard them play ‘Sound Chaser’ I was blown away. It was unbelievable. They had already been there a couple of months so they had the best sound possible." Eddie Offord was there with a 24-track recording desk and Patrick’s contribution to ‘Sound Chaser’ was recorded that same day and ended up on the album.

— Welch (2008)

In the DMME interview (I suspect it to be reliable, though should be used carefully in accordance with WP:USESPS), Moraz agrees his contributions were somewhat more limited in the album, but also claims he was uncredited for contributions to Going for the One:

[DMME:] “Relayer” is a great piece of work. But don’t you think that you weren’t given as much space as was Rick and the album is dominated by Steve Howe’s guitar?

[Moraz:] When we started to record “Relayer”, some of the music had already been written and rehearsed by Chris, Jon, Steve and Alan. I contributed as much as I could to the overall picture of the pieces. However, it is a fact that Steve used quite a lot of tracks for his many overdubs everywhere on the album, except when there is no guitar at all, which is a rare occasion.

[D:] All the tracks on the album are credited to all YES members. Who do you used to compose with and who you were close with the most?

[M:] We all participated in the compositions and the final arrangements, even if most of the “songs” were originally composed somewhat more by Jon, and Steve in some instances. I liked to work with Jon and Chris, especially. Alan was always contributing some very good rhythmic ideas. I also worked quite a lot with Steve during the whole time I was in YES.

[D:] You left YES while writing material for the upcoming “Going For The One” album. What was written before you left that ended up on the record?

[M:] We had written, together, quite a lot of the material which ended up on “Going For The One”, like “Awaken”, “Wondrous Stories” or even “Parallels” which were as much part my composition as anyone else in the band at that time. I also came up, during the two previous years prior to the recording of “Going For The One”, with a lot of ideas and contributions to the band and its sound. The fact that I was not credited as a writer of the songs, does not mean I did not compose for the group. As a member of the band, I composed as much as I could, as much as I was “allowed” to compose by the others.

[D:] Were you forced to leave or parting company was friendly?

[M:] Unfortunately, I was forced to leave....

— Interview with PATRICK MORAZ, December 2000

Despite the apparently short timeline on the recording for "Sound Chaser" (see Welch above), multiple sources note Moraz's distinctive keyboard work and unique jazz influence on the sound, especially on "Sound Chaser" and "Gates of Delirium"; however, it is also described as being overshadowed in "fighting to be heard" over Howe's guitar tracks:

‘The Gates Of Delirium’, inspired by Tolstoy’s War And Peace, reaches a fever pitch of instrumental intensity in which Patrick Moraz fights to be heard amidst the dense layers of guitar tracks...

— Welch (2008)

‘Sound Chaser’ contained some brilliant instrumental work and some of Chris Squire’s best bass work on record. Patrick Moraz also made his presence felt here. But the confused structure of the piece, with its changes in tempo and violent excesses, helps explain why Rick Wakeman didn’t want tobe [sic] involved.

— Welch (2008)

For Howe's part, I find it telling that he seems to have more to say about Moraz's contributions to his solo album, Beginnings, than his contributions to Yes itself, in his autobiography (All My Yesterdays), devoting many more pages to the topic. In the Acknowledgments, speaking about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ceremony, he credits Moraz, in a list along with many others who “so deserved a mention on that night”, “for his amazing keyboards on Relayer.” (All my Yesterdays, p. 328). In the pages describing the development of Relayer, he specifically praises Moraz's stage presence: "“Live, he was a secret weapon, deployed to attack preconceptions, displace loyalties and perform as inspiringly as Vangelis might have done.” (p. 110). However, the most he says about Moraz's work for the Relayer recording itself is on "Sound Chaser": "The point where Patrick joins with the string chords really took some working out." (p. 112)

For Moraz's part, he describes his tenure with Yes in very fond terms, but also as somewhat of a learning experience (having already been a fan of the band before):

I saw Yes as a school. I recorded an album with them and did many tours, and really got into the way they arranged and composed their music. It gave me a deep insight into that kind of music. Yes music is vastly superior to any other group’s music I have heard...

— Welch (2008)

Finally, ending with a couple of more minor mentions, here's Igor Khoroshev on Moraz's musical versatility:

"[Igor Khoroshev:] Wakeman is into synthesisers and piano, but Tony Kaye is into organ, while Patrick Moraz can do it all. That was his problem really. He should try not to solo so much on top of tunes like ‘Roundabout’. He plays like a non-stop machine! I love the guy but he’s constantly soloing!"

— Welch (2008)

and Howe on his contributions to Going for the One and departure:

We began work with Patrick Moraz still on keyboards but after first two weeks he felt it wasn’t working. He wanted us to be a bit jazzier. ‘Nope, that’s never going to happen,’ we told him. We did make a big effort to get going again with him, before realising it was all over.”

— Steve Howe, All My Yesterdays

Overall, it's clear that Moraz contributed somewhat to Relayer, and to a lesser extent, to Going for the One, even though his contributions aren't described in a way that I would interpret as being a major (or, say, majority) influence on the way either album turned out (that probably goes to Anderson and Howe, for Relayer). At the same time, that caps his overall contribution at, at most, significantly impacting one album and partially impacting another (and neither album that was quite as commercially successful as the previous Fragile era). Add to that the fact that Rock and Roll Hall of Fame chooses not to credit him for the big award, and the overall effect is that I'm not sure that's enough for him to be one of the "most notable members" of the band.

All that being said: I'm in favor of keeping the mention of him in the lead, when we say that he joins for Relayer. That is, I like best the version of the article after Tenebra Blue's edit here.

Did I miss anything from the other sources I didn't look at? Thoughts and input welcome! Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Caleb. Thank you for all that info. For my part i'm happy to leave Moraz out of the opening paragraph, although I think he deserves at least a mention somewhere in the lead, considering that Trevor Horn and Benoit David, both of whom were also only members for one studio album (not counting Horn's work as a producer), get a mention. I agree that Tenebra Blue's edit is probably the best compromise. Tbf62 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford: Thank you for documenting this information on Moraz's contributions. If it hasn't been done already, I encourage you to add some of these references and quotes to the Wikipedia pages to Patrick Moraz, Relayer, and Going for the One, where applicable. These articles are already comprehensive, but further context is often appreciated. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tbf62: Sounds good, thanks! Absolutely re: mentioning in lead.

@Dobbyelf62: Thanks! That is a much appreciated suggestion & I will see if I have time to do so! Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I join in the thanks to Caleb. I simply made a minor edit as I did not find the previous anonymous edit to be incorrect. Although Relayer is one of the most appreciated Yes albums, I am not sure that Moraz can be counted among the most notable members. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with your conclusions. Honestly, I find it hard to defend mentioning Moraz as a most notable member and leaving Billy Sherwood out, considering that Sherwood has been working for the band in different positions for the last 35 years. I mean, I think it is hard to find objective reasons. Better the way it is now. Gorpik (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I also think that Moraz does not warrant being mentioned in the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph currently mentions the 8 members who were on Union. They were all on multiple studio albums each. I think they are generally seen as the names most associated with Yes. If you are going to expand that list, there are arguments that Banks, Horn, Downes or Sherwood warrant inclusion before Moraz. (Downes and Sherwood do get mentioned later in the paragraph for being in the current line-up, which makes sense.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Article review

In September I reviewed this article and posted some observations. After reviewing the article today, I see that there are still lots of uncited statements, and the article is still quite large (at over 10,000 words). Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest continuing via WP:BRD instead; if you see something specific that needs improving… improve it. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 02:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Shubopshadangalang: I have neither the time nor expertise to fix up this article. I am happy to re-review if improvements are made. Z1720 (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You do that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: Maybe you should go do Admin stuff somewhere else. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I'm not sure what is meant by "admin stuff": article reviews are not an admin action and anyone can undertake them (or address the issues raised). If this is in reference to how I spend my wikitime, then I would like to point out that Wikipedia is a volunteer service and editors can choose where they spend their time. Concerns about my reviews can be posted at WT:GAN, on my talk page, or in the appropriate noticeboard. Z1720 (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

OMG, stright out of the Admin handbook :P. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems like time isn't such as issue after all. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 02:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead image

See proposed lead image

The current lead image

I boldly changed the article's lead image to this photograph of the Union octet lineup in 1991, moving the current 1977 photo to the article body. I anticipated there could be pushback, and it was quickly reverted by User:FlightTime. Now I take the discussion here to see if editors can reach consensus on whether this would be a worthwhile change.

This is how it would look in practice

My justification for using this image is as follows: it displays, in one photo at the top of the page, the most notable members of the band who are also listed in the lead. It includes all the musicians that played on the band's most successful singles, and the members that were inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2017. The only information that is lost from removing the current image in the lead is how the band looked performing in the 70s, but I believe this is made up for by the added clarity of the 1991 image which features all the same band members, along with Rabin and Kaye from their successful 80s era and Bruford (+ Kaye) from their earlier years. I see this as a better depiction of the important people that made up the band through the years, and it is convenient for readers to be able to see the most notable members in one place. I also dislike how the 1977 image is engulfed in shadow and doesn't show any of the members' faces well.

As an example of this practice, using a fair use image to illustrate more band members in the infobox than would otherwise be possible has already been used to good effect in Pink Floyd's article since 2009. Any of your thoughts are appreciated! Miklogfeather (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Union-era image is more informative in that context. Keeping the classic era live photo prominently in the article is good too. Curious to hear any arguments against. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 20:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree also. With 3 votes in favor I think this can be considered a tentative consensus to use Union (agree keeping the current lead image in the body or underneath the header also). Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Is it possible to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons for use on other wikis? --Tenebra Blu (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m not certain what policy is relevant here, but I too prefer the Union image. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I also believe that the Union photo would work well. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to contribute to the consensus, I also agree with the image change. Gorpik (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Yes (band)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 10,000 words long, this article is WP:TOOBIG and has too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

There are indeed several unsourced statements within the article. Are there any sections in particular that you believe are too detailed? If you can identify some areas for improvement, I can try to scale it back a bit. In terms of references, I do not possess any Yes books, so any sources I add will likely be limited to websites, newspapers, magazines, and online texts that are available through the Internet Archive. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all - I have access to the Yes books (at least the main ones we rely on in the article), so happy to help out I have time or if you want me to look up a citation! Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The "WP:TOOBIG" policy mentions "though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." This article concerns the history and ongoing activity of a band that has so far spanned 56 years, 20+ members, numerous other collaborators, 24 studio albums, cultural impact, etc. Numerous pages on bands with similarly long histories have similarly long word counts. OP - do you have an example of an article of parallel topic complexity that should be a model for the level of brevity you believe is appropriate? ` —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Shubopshadangalang: AC/DC was promoted in 2023 and might be a good model for a band (although their achivements might be a bit bloated, but I haven't taken a thorough look). Beyonce is about 9,300 words and I would argue that she has a lot more information that needs to be included in her article: this article is getting ready for an WP:FAC. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on those examples, which have shorter, less complex histories (with fewer lineup changes, and fewer album releases, for example), are only slightly shorter than this article. If anything, these examples tell me that this article could easily justify being longer. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

We could always skip huge sections of the band history for the sake of brevity, and employ the very well-received Star Wars sequel trilogy method, and open a section of the article with "Somehow, Rick Wakeman returned." —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I just tested this, and we can reduce the article length by nearly 3000 words by removing the 15 years of history between Tormato and Keys to Ascension. I recommend making this change and seeing whether there's any negative feedback from other editors. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Skipping 15 years of history is probably not to solution. However, there is information that can be removed such as what individual band members did during the band's hiatus (these can be moved to the person's biography). I went through the first paragraph of the article and made lots of edits to reduce the prose. This included WP:TMI about rehearsal space, their last performance, a quote with no context that did not influence actions, and some word redundancies. I think with a copyedit of the whole article lots of this information can be spun out or removed as WP:TMI. Please note that none of this resolves the uncited text that is in the article, which I can highlight with "citation needed" templates if asked. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced such removals are warranted, based on previous editors' consensus, but as a good faith experiment, I've made edits to the haitus section based on your suggestion, removing all side/non-Yes projects from that period. Curious to see how this is viewed by other editors. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 19:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the removals, either - for instance, some of the info removed in this diff provides context on the formation of the band that could be considered important, and it's not obvious that removing it is doing the article any favors. Would it be better to trim down some of the later sections (1995 to present), perhaps forking some of it off to a separate article, and to keep these important details about the early history? The edits to the Hiatus section look good to me. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

P.S. The cn templates would be helpful! Though I assume you are just looking for all uncited sentences to be cited? I.e. we could aim to cite throughout at the sentence level (I generally prefer this style anyway). Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

LOL! :) Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

As a follow-up, in the last month, for better or worse, about 10% of the article length has been reduced, and this is largely in response to this thread and its OP's stated opinion that the article is too long. I'm curious whether the original goal here has been satisfied. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 19:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Z1720 as above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping AJ29, sorry that I didn't see this sooner. @Shubopshadangalang: At ~9,100 words, I think the article length is basically fine. After the citation needed templates are resolved (either by adding inline citations or removing the unsourced prose) I will try to do a copyedit to remove redundant phrases (WP:REDEX helps with this) and suggest sentences that could be removed because they are too detailed/off-topic/not necessary. I encourage others to also copyedit the article for added improvements. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford and Dobbyelf62: are either of you interested in resolving the citation needed tags? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I would like to! Looks like there are 26 of them. I am not sure I have time to go through all of them at the moment but I could take a section or two. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a look at the article and help with web and newspaper sources. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Caleb Stanford and other interested editors: I have added citation needed tags to the article. I am happy for any of my deleted prose to be returned to the article, but please note here if something is put back so there can be a discussion if necessary. As someone who does not know this band, I my goal was to remove information that I thought was more trivia or not needed to understand who this band was and their accomplishments. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The citation needed tags will help users identify areas of improvement. In terms of trimming the article, it is my opinion that the band's 50+ year history necessitates a relatively long article to accommodate for the band's numerous personnel changes, releases, tours, and any other notable event worth mentioning. Of course, if anyone would like to flag certain passages for removal, I am receptive to assessing the merits of the contested content.

Upon looking at the article again, I have also identified another issue: On no less than 21 occasions, AllMusic is used as a reference to cite chart positions in the United States. While AllMusic used to provide chart histories for bands and solo artists, this feature is no longer present. As such, it would be advisable to swap out the AllMusic references with information from Billboard. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)