Yes piece by Dave Q

He never says it isn't that. He says that it "would be remembered" as that but is generally not because Wakeman's contributions obscure its discoid aspects.

If Trevor Horn, who was in Yes during the making of the two Yes albums in question, went on to produce that particular Priest album, it probably plenty to do with Horn, who was helping guide Yes, so yeah, there is a connection there, a really obvious one.

The Corey Hart point and the Judas Priest point are separate and distinct points, and read as such.

or he could mean it's the Yes album that sounds like the Buggles, which would work even if Horn hadn't been in both groups. "Buggles" here is a modifying adjective, like referring to someone's "Sabbath album" or "acoustic album" or "jazz-rock album."

"ce·ta·cean n.
Any of various aquatic, chiefly marine mammals of the order Cetacea, including the whales, dolphins, and porpoises, characterized by a nearly hairless body, anterior limbs modified into broad flippers, vestigial posterior limbs, and a flat notched tail."--Dictionary.com

As to ~~~~~~~'s point, none of this is obscure if you happen to be within a certain age range and have paid attention to the same details of music history as Dave Q. But, I'll bet there's a buttload of people who never heard Turbo, can't remember what Corey Hart sounds like (if they can even remember the name), aren't too familiar with a New Zealand accent, don't know who the Buggles are and either only know Yes from the 80s hits or didn't realize Yes sang those 80's songs and didn't know they hired the singer from the Buggles. And since all of this was taken for granted, it is both obscure and obtuse. While all of the above bands had a few popular hits, at this point, they are musical footnotes to many people with completely different interests; the stuff future trivia boardgames are made of. Yes is one of those bands whose music turns up in enough places that many might recognize it, but would have no clue who the band is, nevermind all the details of their historic timeline.

As to prince rupert's point, that may be true, which is why I asked "WHO is this written for?" It seems to me, about 10 people on ILM. I get the joke and I don't particularly care about Yes as people or defending them as musicians. I just think the article is completely stupid and funny for reasons that were never intended, much like j blount's comment, "reading's hard." Funny! For reasons never intended!

It reads to me as "stoner" in a really forced, dorky way.

EXCEPT that he wrote: ""Was this the same Trevor Horn who didn’t produce Judas Priest’s Turbo (1986)?"

I will take issue with this. What should a writer expect their audience to know? Should you never mention any artist other than the one you're talking about in a given article? Is it really THAT much of a leap of faith to assume people reading the music section of a Seattle weekly know who the fucking Buggles and Judas Preist are? Come on.

My point is that it is a total non sequitur, since he goes on to say something that has nothing to do with Corey Hart or Trevor Horn, except that Trevor Horn didn't produce "Turbo." I'm sure a lot of other people didn't produce Turbo, too!

xpost: Trevor Horn is one of the lynchpins of the entire article. Corey Hart has a walk-on appearance as a point of comparison.

"Come on?!" Are you fucking kidding? I had to strain my brain to remember Corey Hart. My friend didn't understand word one of this because as popular as all of these bands are to some people, it's not generally an overlapping group of people. And plenty of people, such as my friend, would be completely lost. If you're going to mention an artist, at least write clearly.

xpost: wowie, I made a typo!

Yeah, that would. I guess you're not very creative.

What was your point?

And you just proved you did as well.

HAHAHA!

The overwrought run-on sentences and the myriad varied reference points were meant to mimic the winding and challenging multi-layered aspects of an epic prog Yes tune as well as the ever-changing sound of the band's continual evolution over 3 decades as well as the fact that their self-satisfying extended masturbatory musicianship was something many found difficult to sit through.

1. dave q's article reads nicely (he frustrates some of my friends - they say things like "oooh! isn't HE clever" - these are same friends who think they're writers but don't actually write anything)

2. inside outside, you seem sort of dumm

3. i started listening to yes right after seeing buffalo 66, too!

haha I read it fine; I just allowed that my interpretation might be off.