So, what exactly are the songs on this album even about?

So, what exactly are the songs on this album even about?
I still have no idea how mutant enemies or white lace dresses or khatrus have anything to do with the album at all.

Yes often wrote songs with little meaning, they just liked how the words sound together
(especially on Siberian Khatru)

It's pretty much just "painting pictures with words", a-la Van Dyke Parks on SMiLE. The lyrics don't mean anything, but damn if they don't sound great.

this. i love the album, tho. as my father, who owned the vinyl said: typical pro-rog with three songs about nothing

>typical pro-rog with three songs about nothing
This is why I hate Yes. Thanks to them and their shit lyrics, ALL prog gets the narrative of having gibberish nonsensical lyrics and bloated noodling songs that go nowhere.
Pic related is just ONE example of prog that does none of that. And it's not even the best by the band!

>tfw i'm the only person on earth who actually likes Yes' lyrics
Sure, they're meaningless, but you cannot deny that they flow well and fit the music to a t

>Sure, they're meaningless, but you cannot deny that they flow well and fit the music to a t
Eh, I only really felt that on Siberian Khatru. In the others, Anderson's delivery just kind of falls flat. Like he's just reading the lyrics off a sheet.

Listen to Heart of the Sunrise off of Fragile. Good lyrics, and probably Anderson's best vocal performance.

>listening to songs for lyrical content

stay prog, frog

>stay prog, frog
thats the goal, thanks!

Why is this always the go-to Yesfag response?

If lyrics are literally worthless to a song, then why didn't Yes SOLELY compose instrumentals? Why did they fucking bother to write and perform lyrics at all?

You're confusing lyrics and lyrical content. Yes has lyrics because they make the song sound better, but judging an album based off of what the lyrics ARE instead of the sound, then that's what's being criticized.

So you're basically criticizing most songs on the planet for daring to have meaning at all? They should all be like Yes and have no meaning whatsoever?

>implying any frog response is completely serious
hahAA

That's a good question. Yes would be one of my favorite bands if they were strictly instrumental. But I hate their vocals on everything they do and it ruins the band for me. I'm indifferent toward lyrics though.

>tfw know before opening the thread that **THAT** user will be commenting

Who is **THAT** user?

the one user who, whenever the word "prog" or "Yes" is mentioned, argues with everyone about lyrical content

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, there is more than one person who disagrees with you?

Alright, so I guess I'm just supposed to assume that everyone who likes Yes is actually just retarded and hates songs that actually have meaning.

No you dunce learn to do some critical thinking. He meant that its fine for a songs lyrics to have meaning or not, but its dumb to criticize the music on account of the words. Ultimately yes' vocals serve the same function a horn section would, they give the song color. If it was all instrumental most people wouldnt even bother. Perfect example is how people praise Bob Dylan and write entire books about his music without mentioning anything about the actual notes/melody/harmony. If you like words so much just read somegod damn poetry and leave us musicians alone

>its fine for a songs lyrics to have meaning or not, but its dumb to criticize the music on account of the words
correct. this is what i was implying

>color
>poetry
>Bob Dylan
>le reaaaal musicians
Keep going, I've almost filled out my Yesfag bingo!

what are you getting at?

What I'm getting at is that these trite non-arguments are repeated ad infinitum by Yesfags. All the fucking time. If you like sounds so much, take a walk in the park and leave us alone.

which non-arguments? (not the last, cherrypicked, sentence about reading poetry)

so what you're saying is it is wrong to like sounds if you like music because it doesn't make sense?