Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Yes (band) (3rd Submission)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Yes (band)

thehallway 19:34, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Has it really been a month since my last review? Anyways, I'm taking this. ~ 04:02, Jun 7, 2010

Oh my god, that's like one whole month of bottled-up criticisms finally let out in a torrent. Feels good like diarrhea. ~ 07:46, Jun 7, 2010

Thanks very much for this incredibly in-depth review, much appreciated. And making changes will be easier due to the detail you put in, I was a little worried nobody would review given that it's a third submission! Changes on the way. --thehallway 18:40, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Humour:	7.5	General Comments. Surprisingly awesome, and long like a Yes song. I'm also liking your structure and presentation, especially formatting of the song titles (the song titles themselves is another story). Now, I'm not a Yes fan and only have a cursory knowledge of the band, so your article is great in that it can even be funny to a non-fan. Plus, if the reader know about progressive rock they'll get most of the jokes in this article, and I'm sure there are gems for real fans to find as well. However, because of its length and number of paragraphs, some jokes are a bit less funny than others, and some of them also looked a bit random. The thing I liked most about your style of writing is that almost every sentence is a well-worded joke. If you don't like the first one you can just move on to the next one, which sometimes doesn't work, but yours does. This makes your article a very smooth and fast-paced read, despite its length. Originally I gave you a score of "8", because your first few paragraphs were really good. But your middle paragraphs were mostly average, your end paragraphs are slightly better. That made me go back to change your score. If all your writings were like your first few paragraphs I would vote for it on VFH for sure (or nom it). Lead-in (7, pretty good) - Do you have to have quotes? I really don't like them in this format, mainly because they are a sign of those crappy averagey Uncyclopedia articles, as opposed to the sign of a featured article. And I didn't actually find them that funny. I recommend moving some quotes to their relevant sections, for instance "John Anderson said in an interview that...", and get rid of others, especially that Oscar Wilde one. The Lead-in paragraph is nice and decent. It is slightly amusing, a very smooth read, and touches on your main jokes. The Origins (7.5, amusing) - What I didn't like was "Yellow Spunk Elephant" and being sued by the custard company. It looks random. Normally I wouldn't mind a random flat joke here and there, but I'll explain to you why I find your flat jokes less than tolerable. The style of humour in your article is a bit absurd, and a bit trippy at times, probably as a reference to Yes lyrics, but you still managed to stay grounded in reality most of the time, which is essential for satire. This is very hard to do, and I commend you for achieving this. But sometimes you fall a bit short, and when you do, it will look unforgivably random (at least to me). Also, if it's a reference to something that I don't know, I suppose that'll be ok occasionally, but not too much. It is better that you try to keep your humour as tight as possible. I liked your second paragraph more than your first - an example of being absurd while grounded in reality. Yes (7.5, amusing) - I also didn't like how you changed the titles around. If they're supposed to refer to something I don't know what. They tell me nothing about the songs, nothing about the band or the music. However I like song titles like No Rhythm Necessary, No Drummer Needed, which actually tells me something. This is where you fall into the random trap. I would say that you made up titles are not actually that bad but not actually that good. Very flat. Ok occasionally, but when you have 30 flat jokes lined up after one another (ie. your song titles), it doesn't look good. What I would recommend is swap most of them back to their originals, but keep the ones that say something about the song, band or music like the example I've just given. What happened to the body for "Wime and a Turd"? Classic Yes Period (8.5, like) - Didn't like the UFO. It seemed like a contradiction from the previous paragraph, and sounds random. But I liked "create some very accessible 10 to 25 minute songs.", "his ability to clap jeopardised Bill Bruford’s position as occasional drum hitter"(my favourite line), "achieved enlightenment every night.". I liked jokes that says something about the band's music and the personality of its members. Yes Albatross (8, good) - Don't know how "Yes Albatross" is funnier than "Yes Album". But I liked "Yours Has Been Replaced, which was dedicated to all the past (and future) Yes members who would be bullied out of the band." And I don't really understand why the keyboard is "maximum security", maybe you should mention that Peter Kay was insane or something. The random use of the word khatru, seen throughout the article, is a nice touch. Easily Broken (7.5, some good (8), some average(7)) - Hows "Easily Broken" funnier than "Fragile"? Liked "“I Must Play as Many Different Keyboard Instruments as is Physically Possible during This Song” disorder, the exact opposite of what Peter Kay had.", but didn't get "a fact proved by Steve Howe’s face" - what does that refer to? This is another song title that I liked: We have High-pitched Vocal Hell. By the Border (6.5, can be improved) - Again, how's "By the Border" funnier than "Close to the Edge"? This paragraph is ok, but a bit less funny than others because it focuses on too many things at once. You probably have a lot of ground to cover, but remember that this is Uncyclopedia so you don't actually need to cover all of them. Your previous paragraphs focus on the muscial style, but this one is a bit all over the place. It's kind of not actually about the songs in the album but about what the band members where doing when not recording the album. Why don't you, for instance, elaborate on the Buddhist inspiration, and devote less room to King Crimson and random goldfishes? What happened to the body for "Yessongs"? Stories From Geographic Seas (6, unrealised potential) - Album title. This paragraph has too many brackets, very distracting from flow. Make into individual sentences or footnotes. Also not actually that funny, which I think can be improved by the old rule of "illustrating and not telling". Wikipedia says that this album is "an example of the worst excesses of "prog rock"". Why don't you quote some lyrics or name some techniques? Can also use some exaggeration to show how this is the worst excess of prog rock. This paragraph seems kind of tame compared to your previous ones. Even though you reference some aspects of the album, on the whole, you didn't really bring out the musical and lyrical styles through your paragraph. The first quote got a laugh out of me, that's about it. But the fish thing - I think you should mention somewhere that all the songs in this album were inspired by fish, which sets up the rest of the fish jokes. Otherwise it seems kind of sudden for the goldfish things. Transmitter (6.5, weak beginning but saves itself towards the end) - Album title. "Swiss-roll keyboard-slapper" - liked keyboard slapper, not Swiss roll. "he only speaks Welsh" - you said he was Swiss. Looks random and not funny. "Yes and their arch nemesis No, a hugely successful and talented pop-group from a parallel universe." - that's a bit childish - not bad enough to get rid of, but can be improved with a little elaboration. For instance, it would be funny to highlight some differences between the popular No and Yes. Like, No songs are all 3 minutes long with only 3 chords, and nobody ever gets fired. Or something. Anything to shine more light on Yes as a band, even by contrast. However, "Sued" is a nice touch, quite cynical. Going For The Bum (5, doesn't tell me anything) - Album title, and even worse this one is a gay joke for no reason. "his crime-fighting career" - don't get this reference. "progressive hookers" - don't know what that means but I laughed. "enormous cost of this venture has now been confirmed unnecessary; it turns out Steve was actually talking about the quality of Wakeman’s keyboard playing, not the quality of the phone line." - didn't like this one, sounds a bit half-hearted for a punchline. But I think "sent down a phone line back to the studio" and "the entire country’s phone lines were uprooted and subsequently improved" can be seen as examples of the band's self-indulging excesses. But, your title says "Return to Normality". How's Yes supposed to return to normality with this album you didn't show. How's the songs in this album compared to it's previous one? You didn't show that. Portato (4, poor plus random) - Just because I stopped talking about the album titles doesn't mean I like them. Quite random. Seems a bit too wacky. You should have stopped at "locked in a room" and "unwanted quantities of facial hair" respectively. It also seems that the names of the people mentioned can be replaced by just anyone else, which is the hallmark of random. Karma (5, no likey, except for that 1 joke) - "filled by Trevor Horny and Geoff Downie (formally of Buggles fame, and before that a comedy duo) all the remaining members could do was accept the seemingly random change." - I found that funny for some reason, nicely illustrates the random lineup changes. "Trevor and Geoff did not murder Jon and Rick, they survived the attack and after recovery would both return to Yes several times." - you said that Jon Anderson was dead, and Rick left the band. Inconsistencies look really bad, because to me it tells me you didn't have a idea of your concept, or random IPs came and add one-liners without reading the whole article. Saying someone is dead, then not dead, then dead again, with no reason (unless he thinks he's the Messiah, which is likely) is not funny. Unless the inconsistency is delibrate, which you should make clear to your reader somewhere, but that's another matter entirely. Rebirth "the bold decision to do what Genesis considered a last resort. They turned to 80s pop." - good. 90210 (3, no likey at all) - This is so random that it almost looks like an article that would be tagged with a "hard rewrite". Random references, impossibly large numbers, not very well thought out jokes. Large Mechanism (7, redeems self, but marked down for Jon Anderson resurrection joke) - However, I liked "the enormous device would produce a random series of electronic sounds known formally as 80s music." Also "a Khatru who climbed to the summit of Scarfell Pike and had a spiritual awakening, using only the chords of Bb Minor and F# Major Seventh played on a giant didgeridoo with an accompanying banjo that was put through a Leslie Speaker." - very nice. But try to reduce tangental references to other things, like "the formation of Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe, a progressive barbershop quartet", as your article is pretty confusing already. Also I really don't like how Jon Anderson keeps dying and getting resurrected, unless you really joke about him being the Messiah (or something). Onion (7, not bad, but still can be improved) - I liked some song titles like "The More We Play, The More We Dissapoint", "Holding On To Our Fans", and "Take The Water To The Robert Plant". "Yes and Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe were becoming less and less rich, and eventually the two separate parties gave in and amalgamated in the great big orgasmic jam session that was Onion." - nice. Also like - "then drenched in the capable hands of some 200 underpaid session musicians". However I didn't really like the Bon Jovi reference. It could be anyone else with a 90's sound, and as another very capable reviewer once said, "If a joke can be replaced by anyone it's probably not worth making". Also in my opinion your previous paragraph doesn't transition very well into this. Even though both are producing cheesy and Un-proggy music, they don't flow into each other at all. Maybe you can say something like "Instead of using large song-generating machines", they opted for two bands and 200 session musicians, which produced the same result." Or something. For transition. Yestalk (5, due to the only sentence I liked) - "Themed around Jon Anderson’s often incomprehensible language and general manner of speaking, Yestalk was as fun to listen to as the Queen’s speech." - like. "Words in Bold interchangable)" - I don't get it, don't like it. How can you say Yestalk was as pleasant as the Queen, but yet "Yestalk was a huge success."? You should stick to one story, seriously. Open Your Fucking Eyes: We're Not Making Any Money! (8) - I liked the title, which alone warrants an 8. Like - "The presence of a 23 minute epic, inordinate swearing content, and a paedophile keyboardist just proves how child-friendly Open Your Fucking Eyes was." and "New recruit Igorkhoroshevvylevvykhatru helped out by financing his own keyboards (hence the use of the Stylophone) and Alan Black agreed to fire himself for a couple of months to save more money; the cost of the album was ultimately totalled at around £1.20.". Good paragraph. The Stair Lift (7.5) - To me, old rockstar jokes are always funny. Liked them all. Other jokes are fine. Magnification (One Last Try) (8) - Nobody who works on this album must be younger than 90 years old”. - Like. Incidentally, when I was skimming through this article I read the first few good paragraphs and I skipped right down to "Open your Eyes etc", for some reason, which your article look like a reallly good article. I wish you didn't have those middle sections. In the Present (6, the good and the bad) - I didn't like the falling in love part. The mentioning of something gay doesn't make your article automatically funny. But I liked "for the first time ever, what he said made perfect sense." "(Steve Howe has none of his orginal face remaining, Chris Squire has a gold left leg, and Benoît David is of course, a robot)." - that's random. Trivia (1) - None of this is funny. Even wikipedia discourages trivia sections. They're just so half-hearted and bad.
Concept:	7.5	Well, this is a straightforward band article, playing on the stereotype of an old prog rock band, which works very well. Good concept, solid, nothing weird or innovative. Failure to stay consistent in some parts. So, when I started reading this I was like "damn, feature! I wish I could write band articles like that", but then it was like "That's not that good", and then I was like "Oh noes that's bad", but then I was like "Slightly better", and then I was like "Good, I wish you didn't have those middle parts". Sort of like Yes's albums, huh? Anywho, I've rated all your paragraphs individually to help you identify which ones I think are the weak ones. If you haven't got this already, I prefer jokes that tell me something about the band's music, style, trademarks, and personality. And I can't believe how you can swing from an 8.5 to a 3 in an article. Those good paragraphs tell me you can definitely write, so all you need to do is to fix up those bad ones with the same kind of jokes.
Prose and formatting:	7	Found one - "His signing voice was sampled from Jon himself". Marks taken off for the red links and random bolding.
Images:	7.5	The first one was funny, despite looking a bit bad. I also like the ones about the khatrus and how you make that word mean whatever you want. And then the one about the old man on the stairs I also liked. Others were meh. A lot of them looked badly photoshopped, not that I can help you with that. I would prefer distinctive pictures about Yes's members, for instance, so that I can tell who is who, or pictures of a concert. I also think it wouldn't hurt if you have one more image, since your article is very long.
Miscellaneous:	7	Due to oscillation between very good and very bad, it is averaged a 7.
Final Score:	36.5	I would vote for on VFH if you didn't have those middle sections. Since they're needed, you should fix them up.
Reviewer:	~ 07:44, Jun 7, 2010