Added: 6 months ago
From: Mezisto8
Views: 4,990
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (12)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Awesome. I really like that they covered this song. I'm not gonna argue about stupid shit like "NO THE ORIGINAL IS BETTER"

    I think the original is brilliant, as is this cover.

    Good day

  • Thank you so much for posting this! :-)

  • Interpretive brilliance.

  • I like it! But I think I like their more modern version of this song. NICE 60s sound, though!

  • @zkxby you're right...In my opinion, Beatles are only an easy-good band,but they are silly in front of Yes! Yes can match against Genesis,not Beatles of course!

  • Awesome version!!!!!! I love Yes <3

  • Ah, the "Yes treatment" - best interpretive band ever?

  • @Wazabooz In the Yes version, the intro alone is 2 minutes and 5 seconds long. In The Beatles' version, the entire song is 2 minutes and 1 second long. These guys could really play their instruments, so why not jam awhile ?

  • @zkxb because it's dull.

  • @Wazabooz .........answer: No - am off to listen the Beatles original, and clear my ears out after this meaningless sub-jazz sacrilege.

  • @InParticularNobody I totally agree with you.Meaningless.The only track that I can understand from the first two albums of yes is "i see you".Then they came out with the yes album,one of the best prog rock albums ever re corded

  • @renemill yep - agree with that assessment too - they should have given all the covers a wide berth and just backed their own (very considerable) talent from the word go.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more