A series examining recordings from the Around the World in 80 Dates tour of 1991-92 in relation to the Union Live 30th Anniversary reissue.
 |
| The boys in the band(s). courtesy of The Groovy Archives |
Before I get into the shows which comprise this upcoming release, let's consider the tour as a thing unto itself, and certainly one of the most unique elements of Yes' history as a band.
In 1991 it could be acknowledged that Yes did not possess the kind of following which would have made the Around the World in 80 Dates tour an absolute blockbuster in all major markets, but as an example of an Event type of tour with the stunt casting of the opposing lineups uniting, it could have been the tour which set the precedent for the modern-day touring infrastructure.
Instead, that was accomplished by Irving Azoff with the Hell Freezes Over reunion tour of the Eagles in 1994. Which is not to say that this tour did not at least point the way towards what was possible.
And we can still appreciate that the Around the World in 80 Dates tour was indeed a special occasion not only in Yes fandom, but the touring landscape of the time. There was a shift occurring which would thoroughly impact the Progressive genre over the course of the decade and so the release of Union and this tour was likely a perfect example of right place, right time in order to deliver one of Yes' greatest moments of cultural impact, even if the tour itself was the actual carrot for fans and casual observers, supported by the very slender stick of the Union album. This was the first tour in which the album to be promoted was not actually the true focus of the promotional efforts. The two factions - ABWH & YesWest, or, as I'm more likely to categorize it: the merging of Classic Yes and YesWest - setting aside their litigious differences and agreeing to share a stage, could be seen by many as nothing short of a miracle.
But the modern age of reunions had begun and nothing was necessarily impossible, just likely difficult and expensive. So I am characterizing the Around the World in 80 Dates tour as the right thing to do, but for all the wrong reasons. And if you're a student of Yesstory, then you know exactly what I mean by that.
Another interesting consideration is the touring history post-1987. As has been noted in various histories and fandom discussion, many considered The BIG Tour to be a missed opportunity in terms of worldwide markets, with five months' worth of performances in North America (and two separate cancellations of multiple dates) and a seven-date Japanese tour in 1988 the only activity beyond those boundaries. On the other hand, ABWH undertook extensive touring beginning in the summer of 1989 throughout North America, which was almost derailed by Tony Levin's illness towards the end, but they were able to finish out the scheduled West Coast dates with the aid of Jeff Berlin. In the fall they moved on to the UK and Europe, and then in 1990 toured in Spain, Japan, and returned to the US for a month's worth of performances, including an appearance at the Arista Records' 15th Anniversary Concert at Radio City Music Hall in NYC. So it's not like there was an entire absence of Yes music in the marketplace, and one can surmise that this tour was successful and hopes were high for the follow-up album...
But I'm not here to discuss Union or my opinion of it, save that it's one of the most ironic album titles EVER. There is Rick Wakeman's joke of calling it Onion because it made him cry, but as clever a pun as that is, it doesn't really speak to what a fragmented disaster it was to actually record and the fact that a narrative had to be created in order to both justify its' existence and create anticipation for the tour. A narrative which appears in the liner notes and I'm imagining caused more than a bit of derisive laughter from long-time fans as they read it. But here's an interesting tidbit - Union's peak position on the Billboard Top 200 was exactly the same as Big Generator: number 15.
So given the touring activity of those prior years with ABWH and also Trevor's club tour, we have to assume that the real draw of the 80 Dates tour had to do with those personages audiences would be witnessing sharing a stage, playing songs from all eras, all together at once. And in the round, no less (though that type of staging also had a precedent in Yes touring history). And thus what we have, in fact, is eight egos on a Lazy Susan with side bets among any number of attendees (and maybe even the crew) regarding how long will this crazy idea last?
To the credit of everyone involved, it actually came off and at least at the outset was documented for further monetization, which came a few months later in the form of the documentary YesYears: A Retrospective which was included in the YesYears boxset. Only one date in Greece was cancelled due to lack of sales (with the following date in Hungary also a victim of logistics) and a couple of US dates postponed to give Jon's voice a rest. Even the Japanese tour, which was originally supposed to be a seven-man show, was saved because Bill Bruford decided to at least let the charade play out to the bitter end.
But despite whatever typical dysfunction was occurring in the background (to the point where there are both pleasant and unpleasant recollections of the tour from the participants) the shows themselves were incredibly entertaining for the audience. And it is from this perspective, I believe, where the frustration from fans regarding actual official audio-visual evidence resides. There was pro-recorded audio and footage broadcast of several shows while the tour was happening. But the only show which was officially released was only in Japan, and it was eight years after the fact. Another decade went by before anything was done, and only then because it was the 20th anniversary of the tour.
Arguably one of the biggest, most historically-significant tours for this band, and there was nothing officially available on the mass market for 20 years. Why?!
What would appear to be the answer - beyond the aforementioned organizational dysfunction - is likely the participants' overall ambivalence for the situation entire: the situation they put themselves into and accepted for the sake of money and career and relevance. It was fun, sure, but not for everyone at every moment. Not even money can make everything palatable and the fact that the eight-man lineup barely lasted the tour is proof enough of that.
But also, one could point out, there was a then-thriving grey market of bootlegs circulating and being sold, depending on the source, and thus fans had what they craved: both pro and audience-sourced recordings of a once-in-a-lifetime beloved event. And one that I believe Yes could have profited from had they actually worked to do so.
Unless...and this is where I move into the conspiratorial, but keen observers will note that the press release for the 30th Anniversary release states that it was curated with "the consent of Larry Magid Management" which leads me to speculate...perhaps Yes never had the rights to any of the recorded archives at all. Magid was responsible for spearheading the 80 Dates tour as one of the most successful and well-placed concert promoters in North America at the time, and reportedly suggested to Anderson during the ABWH tour that he could book an 84-city world tour if the two lineups would be willing to unite.
If we can believe this, then the real story of Union is somewhat different than previously recounted. Different, certainly, than the narrative created and packaged for public consumption.
But again, stunt casting for an event-type attraction - this is a cornerstone of the modern touring philosophy. And Yes played a role in that evolution.
However, if the band had no real stake in profiting from any chronicle of the tour ever, then why even bother to advance the idea? Given the evidence, this would appear to make the most sense in terms of an explanation. And perhaps also not the best of business decisions to have made, but if the rights were granted to Magid as compensation against the massive amount of money required to make the tour happen, why didn't he take advantage of this at some point? That is an interesting question which someone should ask him, though I wonder if he'd answer it truthfully.
However, this still leaves us with a less than satisfying archival release which could have been so much more, and although those involved would be right to say that I'm not aware of the logistics in doing so, I would say that as long as there is no transparency involved in the project then I will be as critical as I believe is necessary. Because a chronicle of this tour, with its' strange bandfellows, deserves a better fate than what we have received.
 |
| Whatever was going on in Frankfurt, it probably involved alcohol. 5/28/91 |
