My readership has likely been tsk-tsk'ing me for not realizing that Trevor had originally revealed his tuba-playing aspirations via Facebook a couple months before I attended his recent public appearance and I fully admit I totally missed that part of his post (wherein he shared a couple of his favorite YouTube videos) from June 20th. And so now we have to hold him to his promise of heavy metal on the next album. :op
(To sum up: me = fallible. I'm so glad we sorted that out.)
A better example of being entirely fallible comes courtesy of two articles which I was rather irked by this month. The articles are what I refer to as "secondary-sourced" in that they are merely restatings of other articles, both of which are interviews: one with Trevor and one with Jon Anderson.
Both take statements completely out of context resulting in misreporting (and as this is the Internet, that kind of thing can go viral in a matter of hours or days). And these items are what I consider to be "political" concerns because they invoke the spectre of Yes, an endeavor which in the past has been challenging, one might say, in regards to its collective operation.
An ongoing debate in fandom has been the continuation of the band despite the absence of Anderson, one of its founding members. It's happened before but now there seems to be rather a finality to its occurrence. It's not my aim to debate the issue, however one of the writers at PROG took it upon himself to use Trevor to advance the "No Jon, No Yes" viewpoint in this recap of an interview on Blogdegezou:
http://www.progrockmag.com/news/trevor-rabin-you-cant-have-yes-without-jon-anderson/
What you may notice, however, is nowhere does Trevor actually state any of what the writer would have you believe in regards to the current status of Yes or the legitimacy thereof. Ever the diplomat, Trevor did not take one side or the other in regards to the question posed to him by Henry Potts. And so I wonder why Martin Kielty sees fit to drag Trevor into the middle of the ongoing argument when it's blatant misrepresentation and therefore bad journalism.
As for the other item, I have my opinion concerning the collective which - despite never having actually collaborated as of yet - is known as AWR - and I'll refrain from stating it save that I believe the hype and expectations which have been piled onto this idea since it was first brought up by Rick Wakeman in 2010 are altogether ridiculous.
The article which does something equally as bad is courtesy of Something Else!, a website which featured an interview with Trevor a couple months back. Last week Jon Anderson gave an interview to CBS affiliate WZLK and the website posted a recap which also took his comments about the status of AWR entirely out of context, causing fans to believe the project is in the works now, and that is simply not true.
http://somethingelsereviews.com/2012/09/08/recording-as-we-speak-new-album-in-works-from-yes-alums-jon-anderson-rick-wakeman-and-trevor-rabin/
I believe interviewers should cease inquiring as to the status of the project because how many times can one hear the same answer? Or answers which are speculative and not actual. What is the use of that? Granted, a collaboration between Trevor, Rick and Jon would be wonderful, and something I would love to hear. But it until it actually happens I don't plan to waste any time pining for it, nor would I (or did I) ask about it.
Instead, I'll be enjoying the music Trevor is making now, and in the (definitely foreseeable) future...especially if it involves the tuba.
