Why are there no prog-rock groups in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.Blondie,but not Yes? Sheesh!!

I have no idea! And what about The Ventures? How crazy is that? They have been making great music since the early 60s and still are! Its all political BS just like the Grammy's, same thing different day.

Sounds like a wise decision by MFSL to make a Gold Utradisc II version of Fragile. I can only imagine the subtleties that this remastering picked up. It was a well crafted album to begin with.

Have I ever told anybody that I'm really fond of South Side Of The Sky? ;&)

Why are there no prog-rock groups in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?

Well, Pink Floyd is in there. And The Staple Singers. Oh, wait, The Staple Singers aren't prog, are they?

Ummm .... because they pay too much attention to their music and not enough to their image?

Only music geeks like them?

No one ever plays Yes at parties?

You can't dance to it?

So, what, are you suggesting that The Staple Singers should be bumped for a pretentious, self-indulgent group of brilliant musicians who have produced some of the most powerful music ever? Nah, that ain't Rock 'n' Roll.

The reason why they aren't in the Rock HOF is because inn some ways, what Yes & other proggers do is the antithesis of rock and roll. Sure, prog shares some characteristics with other forms of popular music, but at its heart, you have to be a musician first in order to play prog, whereas with rock, the requirements are simply that you have to be a rock 'n roller, and if you've got some musical talent, then you get to be in the band.

And if you don't have any musical talent, you get to party.

What parties you hangin' out at Duane? I think we know why the floyd is in.I just thought that the idea of having a hall of fame is to have acts that have made rock what it is today,not just popularity or whatever Jan Wenner thinks is cool.you have acts from many diverse areas of rock music that deserve to be in the hall but are not because they didn't sell a gazillion records.no one is suggesting that the performers in the hall don't belong.what is being suggested is the fact that the choices should be based on a little more than how many records you have sold.and for the record,I don't think the staple singers(whom I do enjoy) would consider the rock group Yes as self-indulgent,brilliant yes,powerful yes but not self-indulgent.no,wait, I take that back,maybe you have a point,what act isn't to a certain extent self-indulgent? most musicians make music for the love of it,not for anyone else but for the love of it and for their own personal enjoyment.groups that make music for the sake of sex,drugs and rock and roll just don't last.it's called substance and in their sub-genre of rock no-one has more substance than yes.

To The Haze: I was attempting to voice disgust with the situation. Now, it's not for me to decide who should or shouldn't be in the hall of fame. I don't really care who's in the hall of fame. I despise the entire concept of handing out awards for entertainment --- Oscars, Grammys, etc. But I was apalled when I went over to the hall of fame website and looked through the roster of winners, deciding that this isn't about music, it's about money and culture, which I guess I knew already.

Yes is/was self-indulgent and Yes is/was pretentious. That's one reason why they are/were so damn good. Beethoven was a self-indulgent bastard, too. These are the criticisms that are taken seriously by music critics and by much of the music-listening public.

Yes is not rock 'n' roll. They are light years away from Chuck Berry, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and the Sex Pistols, you know the simple A-D-E7 groups. Yes is not particularly influential, either, not in the scheme of things. Yes is not rebellious. They have no clear political message. They are not cool. They were never a part of any social movement. They do not fight for any social or political causes. They are stripped down musicians. That's seems to be all they cared about -- music.

That's part of it.

Duane,

You obviously no nothing about Yes. They do sing for their causes i.e. "Save The Whale" etc. and they have been very influential over the years to countless prog groups. You need to read more and listen before making these statements, as you are way off base and are obviously making statements in the frame of mind that is purely assumption rather than true knowledge of the band and the music. And everyone is rock 'n' roll in some form, its classical music played and or broken down into different forms.

Correction! "Don't Kill The Whale" is the title I was referring to.

Keith: You obviously no nothing about Yes.

Keith, I think that should read

You obviously know nothing about Yes.

Thank you for your comment. I am quite familiar with the whale song. I suppose you think that they show at UFO conferences advocating SETI research funding because of their UFO song.

I think you might be under the mistaken impression that I am criticizing Yes, when, in fact, they are one of my favorites. It sounds like maybe I put you on the defensive.

Concerning their influence, bah. I am sure they have influenced a few prog bands here and there. They influenced me too. But that doesn't really amount to much, unfortunately. As I said, in the scheme of things, prog rock is not important to popular music, and Yes makes up only a fraction of prog rock. It is an underexposed, underappreciated sub-genre, one that I happen to enjoy. But it is not taken seriously by the vast majority of music consumers and critics.

And concerning your opinion that rock 'n' roll is classical music ... ummm ... huh? Brahms is undoubtedly turning in his grave.

Rock 'n' roll is supposed to be folk music - made by regular folk. Maybe it was once, but nowadays it seems to be made mostly by professionals. Louie Louie by the Kingsmen is the sound of rock and roll - a crappy recording made by some guys in a little studio for a couople of bucks. Heart of the Sunrise is a beautiful song, but not rock 'n' roll. It's not even made by regular folk - it's made by talented musicians.

I bet the total studio cost for Louie Louie wasn't even enough money to cover the daily lunch expenses for Yes while they were recording Fragile. Which is fine - the world needs all kinds of tunes to keep it spinnin'.

It's semantics fellas. We all love music...no matter what"kind" it is.Somewhere,somehow music changed,just like all of the "old things" we thought were pure and simple(lol). I'd like to point the finger at the MTV generation.At this point in time I very rarely listen to "new music" on a regular basis,although I keep the ears ready for anything I feel is worthy.I just don't hear any substance in these new bands today.There used to be a time when you played an album and there was at least half a dozen decent tunes. Now your lucky if there are three good ones.I really don't think we will ever see another time in music like we did from 1965 - 1980.and I don't care for the term"classic rock"either or oldies or any of those other things they call it.music is timeless.

I think you meant to say CHRIS SQUIRE on bass not Chris Howe.

Yes music is moving, mystical, intelligent, emotional, inspiring, beautiful. It is not earthy. I think thats the reason RRHOF has not inducted them, all the acts that have been inducted have an earthyness to them. Also Yes hasnt really had the type of G audience mass appeal that alot of the inducted acts have. Yes is sort of like the Greatful Dead; you either get it or you dont. I personally couldnt give a sh*t whether or not they ever get inducted, it wont diminish their work in the least. I have a sneaking suspicion that in the years to come they will be remembered when a lot of other bands are long forgotten.

'Tis but the truth, Carl.