Jethro Tull And ELP - Milwaukee review
The Winkster
A couple of weeks ago if someone had told me I would be sitting at the
Marcus Amphitheater watching Jethro Tull and Emerson, Lake, Palmer, I
would have laughed in their face. But, when last Wednesday rolled
around I was thumbing through the entertainment section of the
newspaper looking for a movie to see, when I noticed an article about
the joint concert that was only hours away. Nothing at the movies
looked all that wonderful, so I figured "Why not?"
Let me pause at this point and say that I was around when these bands
were at their prime. I saw Tull on their "Aqualung" tour and their
"Passion Play" tour. I saw ELP do the "Lucky Man" tour as well as the
tour with the 100 piece orchestra. I was, you might say, a devoted fan
of both these groups.
As one might suspect, the crowd at the Marcus was very mixed. It
ranged from ex-hippies pushing 50 looking to relive something from
their glory years to sixteenish gen-X'ers looking to find something
they missed the first time around. Both groups shared an unabashed
enthusiasm for what they were about to see.
ELP was the opening act, starting their set with "Hoedown". The first
thing I noticed when the performance began was the apparent paucity of
equipment. Not surprisingly, ELP no longer travels with the
mega-truckloads of equipment they had in the seventies. Also, gone
were the elaborate lighting and stage effects. Not even Palmer's
rotating drum set made it onto the truck. The performance had an
almost casual atmosphere about it. More like old friends getting
together to reminisce, than a bunch of young hellions about to
challenge the borders of reality. Fortunately, none of this negatively
affected ELP's performance. They sounded very much as they did almost
two decades ago. A slight edge has gone from Greg Lake's magnificent
voice, but only a slight edge. Keith and Carl's solo's were
abbreviated as compared to the seventies, but that has to be expected
for the opening act of a nostalgia tour. Predictably, their set was a
"Best of ELP" sampler. They ran through "Lucky Man", "You Turn Me On",
"Tarkus", and "The Great Gate of Kiev", among others. For their
encore to what to me was all to brief a set, they performed "Fanfare
for the Common Man". At this point, much to my delight, Emerson even
dragged out that old Hammond organ he was so famous for brutalizing
during the seventies. What a hoot! There's Keith Emerson on his back,
with the organ on top of him, playing "The Toccata and Fugue in D
Minor" upside down. Who'd have thunk it. All and all their performance
was perfectly delightful. My only regret was that it didn't last any
longer than it did.
I wish I could say the same for Jethro Tull, but alas, that's not
possible. The first problem was that the band wasn't Jethro Tull, but
rather it was Ian Anderson and four other guys playing old Tull songs.
The second problem was that Anderson's voice is simply gone. He
sounded extremely thin; often times drowned out by the rest of the
band. He was often off key and out of time (hearing gone too?). The
wild, frenetic prancing about stage that once was Anderson's trademark
has disappeared as well. There was a porch swing on stage that he made
frequent use of. Often performing from a sitting position.
Fortunately, Anderson's skills with the flute have not diminished.
That is unless you count his ability to toss it forty feet in the air,
catch it, and continue playing without missing a beat. The
instrumental portions of the program were thoroughly enjoyable. So,
was Anderson's banter between songs. His famous wit remains intact.
The songs performed followed ELP's format of best known tunes. They
led off with "Aqualung" (!?) and went through other favorites such as
'Thick as a Brick", "Songs from The Wood", "Locomotive Breath", and
"Cross Eyed Mary". Too bad, though, that Anderson's voice has betrayed
him.
To the "kids" that were in attendance last Wednesday, let me say this.
If you think you saw Jethro Tull the other night, you are mistaken.
What you saw was only a shadow of what was once one of the greatest
live bands of all time. As for ELP, well that was much, much closer to
the real deal. If these two groups should ever tour together again,
let the band that is best preserved have the most limelight. ELP
should be granted the top billing position.
;-)
Christopher Norman
The Winkster wrote:
>
>
> I wish I could say the same for Jethro Tull, but alas, that's not
> possible. The first problem was that the band wasn't Jethro Tull, but
> rather it was Ian Anderson and four other guys playing old Tull songs.
Er, no, actually, it was Jethro Tull.
Christopher Norman
William A. Dingwall
In article <323b1050...@news.execpc.com>, ove...@execpc.com says...
My wife and I saw the bands perfom on Sep 10 in Minneapolis, MN. What I had
hoped was just a sound problem with Jethro Tull aparently was nothing more than
the downward slide of a great band.
All that could be heard of the band was a bass drum that drowned out all the
other instruments, Anderson's mouth of marbles, and his extrordinary flute
ability. It was a shame that people seeing the band for the first time weren't
given lyrics to follow along with. But as you say, the wit is still there :)
As for the set....they lead off with Aqualung and did the said classics. For
the encore, what there was of it, they did a garbled versoin of Cross-eyed
Mary. We were surprised that they didn't play a longer encore, and that they
left out popular classics as Bungle and Skating Away.
In contrast, ELP put on a great opening show which lead off with "Welcome back
my friends, to the show that never ends...." It was the first time my wife had
seen or heard anything other than Lucky Man. She was quite impressed by the
classical undertones in their music. And when that old Hammond came out, the
dossile crowd was immediately on its feet :)
Final verdict: ELP still carrying on strong.... Jethro Tull should stick to the
studio or play acoustics.
Robert Burns
Christopher Norman (cano...@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: The Winkster wrote:
: > I wish I could say the same for Jethro Tull, but alas, that's not
: > possible. The first problem was that the band wasn't Jethro Tull, but
: > rather it was Ian Anderson and four other guys playing old Tull songs.
: Er, no, actually, it was Jethro Tull.
Agreed - after 25+ years, you're allowed to have different members - I'll
concede when they replace Ian and Martin though.
R. Andrew Bowyer
>has disappeared as well. There was a porch swing on stage that he made
>frequent use of. Often performing from a sitting position.
Excuse me, but have you been on Mars, or something? Haven't you heard about
the "Lima Peru Busted Up Knee Crisis?" Oh, and it was a PARK BENCH. Get it?
Aqualung? Sitting on a park bench? RIIIIGGGHHHHTT!
>
>To the "kids" that were in attendance last Wednesday, let me say this.
>If you think you saw Jethro Tull the other night, you are mistaken.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm----NO. Make NO mistake: you saw one of the most dedicated,
professional bands around, one that believes that the show truly MUST go on in
spite of personal discomfort.
>If these two groups should ever tour together again,
>let the band that is best preserved have the most limelight. ELP
>should be granted the top billing position.
If that ever happened, I'd eat a hand grenade just so I could have the pleasure
of rolling over in my grave.
Andy
Jeff Blanks
In article <323b1050...@news.execpc.com>, ove...@execpc.com (The
Winkster) wrote:
> I wish I could say the same for Jethro Tull, but alas, that's not
> possible. The first problem was that the band wasn't Jethro Tull, but
> rather it was Ian Anderson and four other guys playing old Tull songs.
Don't forget, Martin Barre was there, too. He's lost all his weight (and
the beard) and looks literally like a different person now. But I know
what you mean. (Most folks on this NG have accepted the new members,
though; there would've been at least a different rhythm section anyway,
even without the _A_ flap from 1980.
> The wild, frenetic prancing about stage that once was Anderson's trademark
> has disappeared as well. There was a porch swing on stage that he made
> frequent use of. Often performing from a sitting position.
Have you heard about his recent leg injury? That might clarify things.
He did a number of gigs earlier this year from a wheelchair until a blood
clot which had developed in his leg made it too tough to bear. They
weren't sure he'd be able to make it here at all for a while.
> ELP should be granted the top billing position.
I understand this, but you may notice ELP doesn't have a new album out,
which, I have to say, tips the balance. FWIW!
YESWOLF1
Having seen Tull numerous times through the years, beginning with the
Thick As A Brick Tour in 1972 and as recently as the Roots To Branches
Tour I can say that the current line up of Tull -- Martin Barre, Doane
Perry, Andy Giddings, and Steve Bailey is the best Tull since the lineup
lost John Evan and Barriemore Barlow. This Tull rocks -- and roots to
branches shows it.
As for Ian's voice, he long ago had surgery on the vocal chords and his
voice has never been the same since. It is true that he is difficult to
hear in concert sometimes but I can attest that that is due to the sound
engineer and his mix -- I have heard Ian recently SOUND EXCELLENT VOCALLY
when the mix was right.
Adrian Burd
R. Andrew Bowyer wrote:
>
> In article <323b1050...@news.execpc.com>, ove...@execpc.com says...
> >
> >The wild, frenetic prancing about stage that once was Anderson's trademark
> >has disappeared as well. There was a porch swing on stage that he made
> >frequent use of. Often performing from a sitting position.
>
> the "Lima Peru Busted Up Knee Crisis?" Oh, and it was a PARK BENCH. Get it?
> Aqualung? Sitting on a park bench? RIIIIGGGHHHHTT!
> >
> >If you think you saw Jethro Tull the other night, you are mistaken.
>
> professional bands around, one that believes that the show truly MUST go on in
> spite of personal discomfort.
I think I would have to agree to this, having seen Tull in various locations
around the world at various times over the last 10 or so years. They have
without a doubt changed, heck I don't play squash the way I did when I was
20 years younger. As for Ian's lack of mobility, he is apparently still in
considerable disomfort. Several times over the years Ian has referred
to the fact that his passport says he is musician and for him that means
his clients are the people who pay money to see him and the band perform, no
matter what. Personally I applaud them for their commitment, professional
attitude and for acknowledging their responsibilities (even if they are self
imposed). Contrast this with the recent fiasco concerning Oasis.
On the issue of personel, the Tull line up has changed continually almost from
the inception of the band.
And lastly, as for the ELP solo's not being of similar length to those in the
past, you might be unaware that Keith has had major surjury on the nerves in
one of his wrists. At one point last year it was unclear if he would ever play
live again. I would imagine that ELP is only playing short sets so as not
to aggravate his wrist further.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
|
Adrian Burd, | Quidquid Latinae dictum sit,
Dpt. of Oceanography, | altum videtur.
Texas A&M University, |
College Station , |
Texas 77843 |
F: (409) 847 8879 |
W: (409) 845 1115 |
_____________________________|______________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am not the official spokesperson for anyone, for which
organisations that use spokespersons are profoundly
grateful.
____________________________________________________________________________
Eric J. Holtman
In article <51js6s$n...@kirk.nrv.net>, rabo...@nrv.net says...
>
>>
>>To the "kids" that were in attendance last Wednesday, let me say this.
>>If you think you saw Jethro Tull the other night, you are mistaken.
>
>professional bands around, one that believes that the show truly MUST go on in
>spite of personal discomfort.
>
>>let the band that is best preserved have the most limelight. ELP
>>should be granted the top billing position.
>
>of rolling over in my grave.
>
Sigh.... this, children, is called denial.
Look Andy, the band sucks, and should quit touring. Get over yourself.
--
------
Eric J. Holtman | Managing programmers is like herding cats.
#include <stdjunk.h> |
http://www2.cybernex.net/~jaeger/ | There's no government like no government
Brian Trosko
Eric J. Holtman <jae...@cybernex.net> wrote:
: Look Andy, the band sucks, and should quit touring. Get over yourself.
Oh, bite me.
I saw them in Philly, before they went down to Australia and canceled that
tour, and they sounded great. Ian sang well, things were mixed well, and
the show just generally kicked ass. He was rolling around on stage in his
wheelchair, cracking jokes, playing his little guitar. Andy was loose,
Doane was spectacular, and the new guy even got appreciative appluase with
his bass solo.
Christ, listening to the griping about Ian's voice on this group, I went
to the show expecting to hear something akin to Bobcat Goldthwait at a
karaoke bar. Bullshit. He sounded just fine.
The Winkster
Well, I see that not surprisingly my post has generated some differing
opinions on the quality of JT's performance.
Let me first clarify a couple of things. I was a Tull fan in their
heyday back in the seventies. After "Songs From the Wood" I pretty
much lost interest in the band. So, the Milwaukee concert was a sort
of "Gee, look who's playing tonight. We've got nothing better to do,
let's check it out" kind of nostalgia trip. I really didn't expect
either group to be at their top form. As some of you have speculated,
not having followed either group for sometime, I was unaware of IA's
leg problems or Emerson's wrist surgery for that matter. My comment on
the brevity of Keith's solo's was a lament because I would have liked
to have heard more, not a knock on KE.
I give IA credit for persevering when he was hurt, but my observations
on his voice still stand. Sometimes the best thing is knowing when to
quit, and not tarnish the memory of all that you did accomplish. Some
of you will undoubtedly remember Willie Mays struggling through his
last few years in the big leagues long after his age had caught up
with him. It wasn't a good decision on Willie's part.
One thing I am curious about is the relative age of people with
opposing views about Ian's voice. I suspect that those who think his
voice is ok, weren't around to hear him in the seventies and vice
versa. Anyone care to own up?
;-)
Christopher Norman
The Winkster wrote:
>
> Well, I see that not surprisingly my post has generated some differing
> opinions on the quality of JT's performance.
>
> Let me first clarify a couple of things. I was a Tull fan in their
> heyday back in the seventies. After "Songs From the Wood" I pretty
> much lost interest in the band. So, the Milwaukee concert was a sort
> of "Gee, look who's playing tonight. We've got nothing better to do,
> let's check it out" kind of nostalgia trip. I really didn't expect
> either group to be at their top form. As some of you have speculated,
> not having followed either group for sometime, I was unaware of IA's
> leg problems or Emerson's wrist surgery for that matter. My comment on
> the brevity of Keith's solo's was a lament because I would have liked
> to have heard more, not a knock on KE.
>
> I give IA credit for persevering when he was hurt, but my observations
> on his voice still stand.
I can't argue with those observations, but what was that "that
wasn't Jethro Tull" crack?
Sometimes the best thing is knowing when to
> quit, and not tarnish the memory of all that you did accomplish. Some
> of you will undoubtedly remember Willie Mays struggling through his
> last few years in the big leagues long after his age had caught up
> with him. It wasn't a good decision on Willie's part.
>
> One thing I am curious about is the relative age of people with
> opposing views about Ian's voice. I suspect that those who think his
> voice is ok, weren't around to hear him in the seventies and vice
> versa. Anyone care to own up?
Um, what difference could that possibly make? The old albums
are all still available, there's a couple of live albums from
the 70s, so how could anyone, regardless of their age, not
know what Ian used to sound like?
Christopher Norman
Mark Miles
>Let me first clarify a couple of things. I was a Tull fan in their
>of "Gee, look who's playing tonight.
Well as one of the "youngsters" I have quite a different attitude
about seeing them. I am flying to Vegas to see them for my 1st time ever.
I can barely sleep in anxiety of the show.
> I suspect that those who think his
>voice is ok, weren't around to hear him in the seventies and vice
>versa. Anyone care to own up?
Well I think his voice is fine. Although I wasn't around in the
seventies (until birth in '77 {same time you quit listening I believe}) I have
heard numerous tapes and seen several videos of the performances dating back to
'66. Although his voice is clearly not what it was way back then, it's quite
amazing still for a man who's been performing professionally for 30+ years. I
doubt even you can say your voice is the same as it was in the seventies and
(to the best of my knowledge) you aren't even singing 5 nights a week.
Personally, I will gladly take the slight vocal loss in exchange for the
vastly improved flute playing gained through the years.
Sue G.
The Winkster wrote:
>
> Well, I see that not surprisingly my post has generated some differing
> opinions on the quality of JT's performance.
(stuff cut)
> One thing I am curious about is the relative age of people with
> opposing views about Ian's voice. I suspect that those who think his
> voice is ok, weren't around to hear him in the seventies and vice
> versa. Anyone care to own up?
Yeah, I've been going to Tull concerts since Warchild. As I live in
LA, I won't be seeing the concerts till this weekend, so I can only
comment on past concerts.
Everything changes. That is called 'life.' I remember people ragging
on Tull after Stormwatch (and they've been bitching ever since about
one thing or another.) If they had stopped touring *then*, we would
have been deprived of some excellent music, not to mention some fine
concert memories.
So they ain't like you remember them--now that's a crime! Their
punishment--being banned from ever stepping on to a stage
again, so people who are disappointed that a band has changed in 25 years
won't have to be forced to spend money and get off the couch and
be forced to go to a concert!
The ability to change and adapt are vital to living organisms. It is
also a sign of intelligence.
While I did mourn the passing of a truely great voice, I have to admit
I also like the 'new' one. I love the experience he has gained, the
emotion, the phrasing that is the mark of a gifted singer.
Well, that's my two cents. Sorry it started off heated, but I tend to
simply pass by the posts that will probably aggravate me.
--Sue--
kel...@earthlink.net
Alex Brands
On 16 Sep 1996, YESWOLF1 wrote:
>
> As for Ian's voice, he long ago had surgery on the vocal chords and his
> voice has never been the same since.
What?! Surgery? In all the interviews with Ian that I have read, and all
the discussion about Ian's voice around here, I have never heard about
this operation. Has anyone else?
Todd Lowenstein
Christopher Norman <cano...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>The Winkster wrote:
>>
>> Well, I see that not surprisingly my post has generated some differing
>> opinions on the quality of JT's performance.
>>
>> much lost interest in the band. So, the Milwaukee concert was a sort
>> of "Gee, look who's playing tonight. We've got nothing better to do,
>> let's check it out" kind of nostalgia trip. I really didn't expect
>> either group to be at their top form. As some of you have speculated,
>> not having followed either group for sometime, I was unaware of IA's
>> leg problems or Emerson's wrist surgery for that matter. My comment on
>> the brevity of Keith's solo's was a lament because I would have liked
>> to have heard more, not a knock on KE.
>>
>> I give IA credit for persevering when he was hurt, but my observations
>> on his voice still stand.
>
>I can't argue with those observations, but what was that "that
>wasn't Jethro Tull" crack?
>
> Sometimes the best thing is knowing when to
>> quit, and not tarnish the memory of all that you did accomplish. Some
>> of you will undoubtedly remember Willie Mays struggling through his
>> last few years in the big leagues long after his age had caught up
>> with him. It wasn't a good decision on Willie's part.
>>
>> opposing views about Ian's voice. I suspect that those who think his
>> voice is ok, weren't around to hear him in the seventies and vice
>> versa. Anyone care to own up?
>
>are all still available, there's a couple of live albums from
>the 70s, so how could anyone, regardless of their age, not
>know what Ian used to sound like?
>
like live in the 70s. So unless you have a lot of bootlegs (because
Bursting Out was sanitized for general consumption), you don't know the
point that Christopher was making. There was a power and energy,
particularly electrical guitar and Ian's vocals, that are not there
anymore. I would agree that those that say Ian's voice is pretty good are
probably the younger fans.
However, the mistake the older fans make is not adjusting their
expectations. Christopher says he attended the show as a last minute "oh,
look who's playing tonight", so I am not surprised he was not aware that
Ian's style has changed. As an anology, don't expect Jack Daniels because
you are going to get a vintage wine now. Look forward to a leisurly sip,
not a gut burning shot. In this case, it is the younger fan that is in a
more objective position to opine on whether Ian still has it.
I liked the Willie Mays analogy, but I don't agree. To make it
comparable, assume Willie sacrificed and bunted when he would have swung
away 10 years earlier. The old fan would say he is washed up, the young
fan would say that was the right thing to do. I see both sides, but at
the moment I do not feel Ian is washed up and embarrassing himself.
Todd
Paul Tarvydas
The Winkster wrote:
> Let me first clarify a couple of things. I was a Tull fan in their
> heyday back in the seventies. After "Songs From the Wood" I pretty
I've been a fan since Aqualung. I've gone on record in this newsgroup
stating that A Passion Play and Thick As A Brick were the "heyday" of
Tull. I will now go on record (if I haven't already :-) stating that
the "heyday" of Tull is Divinities and Roots to Branches (with the
caveat that I think that better is yet to come).
The writing - lyrical and musical - of Tull has steadily progressed over
the years. It has become more concise, yet complex. TAAB, APP, SftW
were just teenage meanderings compared to the works which Tull is
producing now.
> much lost interest in the band. So, the Milwaukee concert was a sort
> of "Gee, look who's playing tonight. We've got nothing better to do,
I resurrected my interest in Tull during their 25th anniv tour (when
I've finally bought my first CD player :-).
> I give IA credit for persevering when he was hurt, but my observations
> on his voice still stand. Sometimes the best thing is knowing when to
> quit, and not tarnish the memory of all that you did accomplish. Some
> of you will undoubtedly remember Willie Mays struggling through his
> last few years in the big leagues long after his age had caught up
> with him. It wasn't a good decision on Willie's part.
This is the wrong analogy. Ian can't jump as high as he used to, nor
can he sing with as full a range (but was he ever, really, a great
*singer*?). Athletics has little to do with music (athletic ability
draws in new neophytes (as it did with myself) but it has little lasting
musical quality).
Try, instead, an analogy with Beethoven. Beethoven played an instrument
until he went deaf, late in his life. Only then, did he start
composing. We don't remember Beethoven as an instrumentalist, only as a
composer.
> One thing I am curious about is the relative age of people with
> opposing views about Ian's voice. I suspect that those who think his
> voice is ok, weren't around to hear him in the seventies and vice
> versa. Anyone care to own up?
I heard Ian during the Thick As A Brick tour in '71. I heard him just a
month ago. His voice is not bad. It has changed, but it is not bad.
Ian's and Martin's musicianship have definitely increased. Ian's
songwriting abilities have definitely increased (to the point of being
epic). I dunno - what more could one expect?
If you wanted to see a well-preserved time capsule of some band you
witnessed in the 70's, but with no visibile progress since then, you
should have satiated yourself with ELP and left before Tull walked on
stage. Tull have moved with time. As usual, Tull tends to leave its
audience behind and move into new areas - maybe they're the only
Progressive band which we still have?
pt
Adrian Burd
Todd Lowenstein wrote:
>
> You cannot listen to the albums to even get a clue of what Jethro Tull was
> like live in the 70s. So unless you have a lot of bootlegs (because
> Bursting Out was sanitized for general consumption), you don't know the
> point that Christopher was making. There was a power and energy,
> particularly electrical guitar and Ian's vocals, that are not there
> anymore. I would agree that those that say Ian's voice is pretty good are
> probably the younger fans.
Not entirely true. As someone who has been surrounded by Tull from the 70's,
I still think Ian's voice is a good one...different from what it used to be
but still good.
> However, the mistake the older fans make is not adjusting their
> expectations.
This I would agree with entirely!
Timfish
yesw...@aol.com wrote:
.Having seen Tull numerous times through the years, beginning with the
.Thick As A Brick Tour in 1972 and as recently as the Roots To Branches
.Tour I can say that the current line up of Tull -- Martin Barre, Doane
.Perry, Andy Giddings, and Steve Bailey is the best Tull since the lineup
.lost John Evan and Barriemore Barlow. This Tull rocks -- and roots to
.branches shows it.
After the KC show I'd have to agree. This was perhaps the most "musical"
Tull I"ve ever seen (and I've seen most of the lineups) and while I did
miss some of the stage antics I often wondered how much they distracted
from the music. Ian seemed less the showman and more the musician and it
really paid off. All in all I thought it was a tremendous show- the medley
of "Songs from the Wood, Too Old to R&R, and Heavy Horses" makes me hope
this tour makes it onto disc!
Tim
Christopher Norman
Paul Tarvydas wrote:
>
> The Winkster wrote:
> > Let me first clarify a couple of things. I was a Tull fan in their
> > heyday back in the seventies. After "Songs From the Wood" I pretty
>
> I've been a fan since Aqualung. I've gone on record in this newsgroup
> stating that A Passion Play and Thick As A Brick were the "heyday" of
> Tull. I will now go on record (if I haven't already :-) stating that
> the "heyday" of Tull is Divinities and Roots to Branches (with the
> caveat that I think that better is yet to come).
>
> The writing - lyrical and musical - of Tull has steadily progressed over
> the years. It has become more concise, yet complex. TAAB, APP, SftW
> were just teenage meanderings compared to the works which Tull is
> producing now.
Hold on there, hold on there. _Roots_ might be less wild than
their 70s albums, and I suppose on that count could be called
more "mature", but that's not the primary criterion for
greatness. Where have all the melodies gone? *That's* the
strength of albums like TAAB, APP, SftW...melodies like
"Fire At Midnight" and "Cup of Wonder" and "There was a
rush.." and "we sleep by the ever-bright hole in the door...".
I like _Roots_ a lot, but there isn't one melody on the
album to match their "immature" ones.
>
> > I give IA credit for persevering when he was hurt, but my observations
> > on his voice still stand. Sometimes the best thing is knowing when to
> > quit, and not tarnish the memory of all that you did accomplish. Some
> > of you will undoubtedly remember Willie Mays struggling through his
> > last few years in the big leagues long after his age had caught up
> > with him. It wasn't a good decision on Willie's part.
>
> This is the wrong analogy. Ian can't jump as high as he used to, nor
> can he sing with as full a range (but was he ever, really, a great
> *singer*?).
Yes, he certainly was. In performance, he had a pitch and
precision that was practically unmatched by any other rock
singer.
Athletics has little to do with music (athletic ability
> draws in new neophytes (as it did with myself) but it has little lasting
> musical quality).
>
> Try, instead, an analogy with Beethoven. Beethoven played an instrument
> until he went deaf, late in his life. Only then, did he start
> composing. We don't remember Beethoven as an instrumentalist, only as a
> composer.
Actually, no. Beethoven was composing music from his 20s onward.
He wrote tons of music before he went deaf. But
>
> If you wanted to see a well-preserved time capsule of some band you
> witnessed in the 70's, but with no visibile progress since then, you
> should have satiated yourself with ELP and left before Tull walked on
> stage. Tull have moved with time. As usual, Tull tends to leave its
> audience behind and move into new areas - maybe they're the only
> Progressive band which we still have?
Two words: King Crimson.
Christopher Norman
Christopher Norman
Todd Lowenstein wrote:
>
> Christopher Norman <cano...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >The Winkster wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, I see that not surprisingly my post has generated some differing
> >> opinions on the quality of JT's performance.
> >>
> >> heyday back in the seventies. After "Songs From the Wood" I pretty
> >> of "Gee, look who's playing tonight. We've got nothing better to do,
> >> either group to be at their top form. As some of you have speculated,
> >> not having followed either group for sometime, I was unaware of IA's
> >> leg problems or Emerson's wrist surgery for that matter. My comment on
> >> the brevity of Keith's solo's was a lament because I would have liked
> >> to have heard more, not a knock on KE.
> >>
> >> on his voice still stand.
> >
> >wasn't Jethro Tull" crack?
> >
> >> quit, and not tarnish the memory of all that you did accomplish. Some
> >> of you will undoubtedly remember Willie Mays struggling through his
> >> last few years in the big leagues long after his age had caught up
> >> with him. It wasn't a good decision on Willie's part.
> >>
> >> opposing views about Ian's voice. I suspect that those who think his
> >> voice is ok, weren't around to hear him in the seventies and vice
> >> versa. Anyone care to own up?
> >
> >are all still available, there's a couple of live albums from
> >the 70s, so how could anyone, regardless of their age, not
> >know what Ian used to sound like?
> >
>
> like live in the 70s. So unless you have a lot of bootlegs (because
> Bursting Out was sanitized for general consumption), you don't know the
> point that Christopher was making. There was a power and energy,
> particularly electrical guitar and Ian's vocals, that are not there
> anymore. I would agree that those that say Ian's voice is pretty good are
> probably the younger fans.
>
> look who's playing tonight", so I am not surprised he was not aware that
> Ian's style has changed. As an anology, don't expect Jack Daniels because
> you are going to get a vintage wine now. Look forward to a leisurly sip,
> not a gut burning shot. In this case, it is the younger fan that is in a
> more objective position to opine on whether Ian still has it.
>
> I liked the Willie Mays analogy, but I don't agree. To make it
> comparable, assume Willie sacrificed and bunted when he would have swung
> away 10 years earlier. The old fan would say he is washed up, the young
> fan would say that was the right thing to do. I see both sides, but at
> the moment I do not feel Ian is washed up and embarrassing himself.
Watch your attributions there, son. I'm "Christopher", and
i was replying to the guy who went to the show, not the
other way around. Anyway, the idea that younger fans would
unaware of how good Ian's voice used to sound is just plain
stupid. We've all heard _Aqualung_, we've all heard _WarChild_...
everybody *knows* he used to sound a lot better.
Christopher Norman
Sarah Wishnevsky
In article <323f0e94...@news.execpc.com>, ove...@execpc.com
says...
>
>One thing I am curious about is the relative age of people with
>opposing views about Ian's voice. I suspect that those who think his
>voice is ok, weren't around to hear him in the seventies and vice
>versa. Anyone care to own up?
>
Well, I wasn't around to hear him in the seventies, But I thought he
sounded awful on the 25 years tour and just fine last moonth. No, he
doesn't have the range he used to have... but I certainly think that
he's managed to arrange Tull's songs and setlist so that he doesn't
need to.
I had a great time... and I'll be at the next tour, too...
-Sarah Bear
Mark Miles
In article <51ph35$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tim...@aol.com (Timfish) writes...
>All in all I thought it was a tremendous show- the medley
>of "Songs from the Wood, Too Old to R&R, and Heavy Horses" makes me hope
>this tour makes it onto disc!
Actually, Tull played this medley during the 1993 25th Anniversary tour
also. It varied slightly, but is still basically the same medley. I'm pretty
sure there are a few '93 show discs around so maybe you can try your luck
there.
Paul Tarvydas
YESWOLF1 wrote:
> Tour I can say that the current line up of Tull -- Martin Barre, Doane
Jonathan Noyce, not Steve Bailey, plays bass on this tour. Bailey
played only in the studio on the Roots to Branches album (during which
Pegg vascillated on whether to stay with Tull or to leave).
> As for Ian's voice, he long ago had surgery on the vocal chords and his
> voice has never been the same since. It is true that he is difficult to
Ian has not had vocal chord surgery, as far as I know. Tull stopped the
Under Wraps tour because of problems with his voice. Most people seem
to think that that was when his voiced changed.
In my opinion, his voice was worst during This Was, Stand Up and
Benefit. Then it changed, miraculously, for Aqualung and has never sunk
back to the early version, since (thankfully).
I think that his "current voice" was developed over many years. I hear
strains of his "current" singing style at least as early as Heavy
Horses.
Ian states, in an interview, that his best singing was done on Under
Wraps.
pt
G Sumner Hayes
ove...@execpc.com (The Winkster) writes:
> Well, I see that not surprisingly my post has generated some differing
> opinions on the quality of JT's performance.
>
>
> I give IA credit for persevering when he was hurt, but my observations
> quit, and not tarnish the memory of all that you did accomplish. Some
> of you will undoubtedly remember Willie Mays struggling through his
> last few years in the big leagues long after his age had caught up
> with him. It wasn't a good decision on Willie's part.
>
> opposing views about Ian's voice. I suspect that those who think his
> voice is ok, weren't around to hear him in the seventies and vice
> versa. Anyone care to own up?
>
For the record: I'm 21 years old. I've been listening to Tull for
all of 2 and a half years. On the other hand, I own all of their
official full-length releases except the two Hammersmith concerts, a
few albums that contain no new material, Repeat, and A Classic Case; I
have heard all of those, though, as well as at least 15 bootlegs from
the 60s and 70s. I've also seen plenty of live footage from days of
yore. I think Ian's voice is okay.
Allow me to clarify: in 1979, on the Stormwatch tour, Ian's voice was
simply astounding. In 1970, at the Carnegie hall concert we all know
and love, Ian's voice was remarkable. In 1995, on the Roots to
Branches tour, Ian's voice was mediocre. In 1996, at the Tull/ELP
concert, Ian's voice was pretty good. It certainly isn't what it used
to be; it is still a reasonably decent singing voice, though. It is
certainly much better than it was on the last tour.
I don't expect Ian to be able to get up there and do Songs From the
Wood's intro live these days, but neither in the 70s would I have seen
guitar work as precise and moving as I saw in 1996, nor would I have
seen flute work like Ian is currently capable of. To me, Tull is and
always will be a live band. Ian loves performing, and I love
watching. As long as he can keep playing at the incredible level I
have become accustomed to, I'll certainly keep going to see him.
There are other bands I like a lot in the studio, and I certainly like
Tull's studio efforts. Unlike many of those other bands, though, Tull
is always able to bring something fresh to a live performance.
TTFN,
Sumner
Todd Lowenstein
>
>Watch your attributions there, son. I'm "Christopher", and
>i was replying to the guy who went to the show, not the
>other way around. Anyway, the idea that younger fans would
>unaware of how good Ian's voice used to sound is just plain
>stupid. We've all heard _Aqualung_, we've all heard _WarChild_...
>everybody *knows* he used to sound a lot better.
>
>Christopher Norman
Sorry about the mistake, Chrostopher. The reply-to-a-reply-to-a-reply had
everyone's comments mixed in and I guess I lost track of who actually said
what. For this mistake, you get away with the "stupid" comment. My point
was not just that Ian sounded better on the 70s album, but rather the live
Ian had even more powerful vocals than the albums at that time. If you
want to understand why the "older" fans say Ian LIVE today is a shadow of
himself, you have to compare to the LIVE Ian of the 70s, which means go
to the bootlegs.
But once again I will remind everyone that by now, we should know Ian is
not the same. Adjust your expectations and you may find today's Ian quite
delightful.
Todd Lowenstein
"Sue G." <kel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The Winkster wrote:
>>
>> Well, I see that not surprisingly my post has generated some differing
>> opinions on the quality of JT's performance.
>
>
>> One thing I am curious about is the relative age of people with
>> opposing views about Ian's voice. I suspect that those who think his
>> voice is ok, weren't around to hear him in the seventies and vice
>> versa. Anyone care to own up?
>
>LA, I won't be seeing the concerts till this weekend, so I can only
>comment on past concerts.
>
>Everything changes. That is called 'life.' I remember people ragging
>on Tull after Stormwatch (and they've been bitching ever since about
>one thing or another.) If they had stopped touring *then*, we would
>have been deprived of some excellent music, not to mention some fine
>concert memories.
>
>So they ain't like you remember them--now that's a crime! Their
>punishment--being banned from ever stepping on to a stage
>again, so people who are disappointed that a band has changed in 25 years
>won't have to be forced to spend money and get off the couch and
>be forced to go to a concert!
>
>The ability to change and adapt are vital to living organisms. It is
>also a sign of intelligence.
>
>While I did mourn the passing of a truely great voice, I have to admit
>I also like the 'new' one. I love the experience he has gained, the
>emotion, the phrasing that is the mark of a gifted singer.
>
>Well, that's my two cents. Sorry it started off heated, but I tend to
>simply pass by the posts that will probably aggravate me.
>
>--Sue--
>kel...@earthlink.net
Thanks, Sue, for saying what I was trying to say. Todd
Michael Wicks
Brian Trosko wrote:
>
> Eric J. Holtman <jae...@cybernex.net> wrote:
>
> : Look Andy, the band sucks, and should quit touring. Get over yourself.
>
> Oh, bite me.
GREAT RESPONSE!!!
I'm sick and tired of hearing all the crap about Ian's voice
and the band isn't what it was, blah, blah, blah. If you don't care
for Tull anymore, mebbe you shouldn't be contributing to this forum any
more, folks!
//mlw
>
> I saw them in Philly, before they went down to Australia and canceled that
> tour, and they sounded great. Ian sang well, things were mixed well, and
> the show just generally kicked ass. He was rolling around on stage in his
> wheelchair, cracking jokes, playing his little guitar. Andy was loose,
> Doane was spectacular, and the new guy even got appreciative appluase with
> his bass solo.
>
> Christ, listening to the griping about Ian's voice on this group, I went
> to the show expecting to hear something akin to Bobcat Goldthwait at a
> karaoke bar. Bullshit. He sounded just fine.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
name: Wicks, Mike | |
phone: 408 526-6286 | |
department: Fusion Software ||| |||
pager: 408 237-0746 ||||| |||||
email to: mwi...@cisco.com ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:..
title: Lab Administrator c i s c o S y s t e m s
"It was A New Day Yesterday, but it's an old day now." --I.A.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Norman
Todd Lowenstein wrote:
>
> >
> >Watch your attributions there, son. I'm "Christopher", and
> >i was replying to the guy who went to the show, not the
> >other way around. Anyway, the idea that younger fans would
> >unaware of how good Ian's voice used to sound is just plain
> >stupid. We've all heard _Aqualung_, we've all heard _WarChild_...
> >everybody *knows* he used to sound a lot better.
> >
> >Christopher Norman
>
> Sorry about the mistake, Chrostopher. The reply-to-a-reply-to-a-reply had
> everyone's comments mixed in and I guess I lost track of who actually said
> what. For this mistake, you get away with the "stupid" comment. My point
> was not just that Ian sounded better on the 70s album, but rather the live
> Ian had even more powerful vocals than the albums at that time. If you
> want to understand why the "older" fans say Ian LIVE today is a shadow of
> himself, you have to compare to the LIVE Ian of the 70s, which means go
> to the bootlegs.
Not necessarily. You're correct about his vocals being very
powerful in concert, but although this is obvious on bootlegs
I have from 1973 and 75, I can also hear it very plainly on
the live tracks from the 25th Anniversary Box Set. The
Passion Play excerpt, for instance, is quite a mind-blower.
> But once again I will remind everyone that by now, we should know Ian is
> not the same. Adjust your expectations and you may find today's Ian quite
> delightful.
I've been to three concerts since 1991, and my only real problem
is that his voice has never been mixed high enough. I can
sort of mentally compensate for it because I know all the
words and I can imagine how he *would* sound if he was
audible, but I really hope this mix problem is fixed by
the time I see Tull on the 27th.
Christopher NOrman
Christopher Norman
Michael Wicks wrote:
>
> Brian Trosko wrote:
> >
> > Eric J. Holtman <jae...@cybernex.net> wrote:
> >
> > : Look Andy, the band sucks, and should quit touring. Get over yourself.
> >
> > Oh, bite me.
>
> GREAT RESPONSE!!!
>
> I'm sick and tired of hearing all the crap about Ian's voice
> and the band isn't what it was, blah, blah, blah. If you don't care
> for Tull anymore, mebbe you shouldn't be contributing to this forum any
> more, folks!
>
> //mlw
> >
> > I saw them in Philly, before they went down to Australia and canceled that
> > tour, and they sounded great. Ian sang well, things were mixed well, and
> > the show just generally kicked ass. He was rolling around on stage in his
> > wheelchair, cracking jokes, playing his little guitar. Andy was loose,
> > Doane was spectacular, and the new guy even got appreciative appluase with
> > his bass solo.
> >
> > Christ, listening to the griping about Ian's voice on this group, I went
> > to the show expecting to hear something akin to Bobcat Goldthwait at a
> > karaoke bar. Bullshit. He sounded just fine.
Yeah, and this demonstrates the dangers of paying too much
attention to what people say on the internet. Usenet people
have a tendency to overreact.
Chris Norman
Diametrx
This is what was written:
"To the "kids" that were in attendance last Wednesday, let me say this.
If you think you saw Jethro Tull the other night, you are mistaken.
What you saw was only a shadow of what was once one of the greatest
live bands of all time. As for ELP, well that was much, much closer to
the real deal. If these two groups should ever tour together again,
let the band that is best preserved have the most limelight. ELP
should be granted the top billing position."
I must say that I was there THOUGHOUT the 1970s. I remember the monster
ELP and Tull tours. Along with Yes, in my opinion of course, the three put
on the biggest and best tours the world has ever seen and perhaps ever
will. Apparently, the author stopped following them because for one thing,
the 'rotating drum-set' you saw was sold to Ringo Starr years and years
ago. It's obvious that time has passed for both bands. I saw the recent
tour. I'm not blind or deaf but my vision goes beyond what's in front of
my nose. All of these great players (and by the way, the writer failed to
identify Martin as one of the old Tullians), have lives and have had
experiences. Most especially, of late. When I heard of Ian's illness, I
was surprised that the tour went on at all. It was insult to injury when I
heard of Martin's father. How many bands would go on with scheduled tours
after such events? I think I make my point. There has never been anything
like Jethro Tull and these other two bands on vinyl or live. They have
have given everything back to their fans and admirers and have inspired an
entire generation of musicians. Could the author cut them just a little
slack today - especially now, during this tour played under such duress?
-Pete
The Winkster
>entire generation of musicians. Could the author cut them just a little
>slack today - especially now, during this tour played under such duress?
>-Pete
Ok, Ok, just to keep all of you rationalizationists with your rose
colored glasses happy here's my revised review.
Jethro Tull played Milwaukee the other night. They were with some
other band that sounded great, but that was probably a fluke. Tull
came on stage and totally blew me away by throwing away their most
famous number as the opening song. Wow, man. Three of the original
members of the band were no shows. Apparently they prefer living
quietly in England to embarrassing themselves on stage in America.
Cowards! To show how much he has matured as a performer Ian hobbled
around the stage like a man in his 80s. I guess he hurt his leg real
bad a while back trying to do what he used to do back in the 70s. But
hey, he's an old man, you have to cut him some slack. His thin, off
key, out of sync voice, which occasionally broke up altogether, often
made it appear as though he was performing a different set than the
rest of the band. But, that was great because I was able to compensate
for it intellectually. I know in my heart that Ian's voice is as good
as the day he was born, so it must have been a bad sound mix or some
strange alignment of the planets that accounts for the way he sounded.
After all, I've heard all the bootlegs, and that makes me an expert. I
know that JT has made some absolutely bitchin' music in the eighties
and nineties. I guess they didn't play any of it for fear that it
might be too much for the audience of Wisconsin cheeseheads to take.
The medical facilities at the Marcus amphitheater, after all, are very
limited. They probably wouldn't be able to cope with the flood of
swooning damsels had JT deemed to play something less than twenty
years old. As far as I'm concerned the way they totally ignore their
post 70s music on stage demonstrates to me just how on top of today's
music scene JT really is. And the canned intro to _Songs from the
Wood_ as well as the canned flute stuff, wasn't that to die for? Milli
Vinilli, eat your heart out. Personally, I believe that Ian Anderson
is the second coming of Christ and the rest of his band, whoever they
may be at the moment, are his disciples resurrected. I hope I live
another 40 years or more so that I can go see Tull when they perform
in the next century. This great group can only get better and better.
Imagine how they will the sound in the year 2030!
david
Winkster,
With each post you continue to show not only your ignorance of Jethro
Tull, but just your plain ignorance. Since you originally said that you
had stopped following the band around the time of SFTW, we can forgive
you for the former. But what is your excuse for the latter?
Why can't you accept the fact that some of us who have been following
this band for years still enjoy Ian and the band for what they are now
as well as what for what they once were?
We are not blind devotees. We know Ian's voice has weakened and that on
some nights it's plain terrible. We know that he is 49 years old and no
longer has the physical capabilities of a 25 year old. We can still
enjoy his music and his persona because we are mature enough and
intelligent enough to realize that things change with time. People age.
Now, to clear up some of your ignorance about Jethro Tull.
Ian is the only original member left. The three other original members
left in 1968, 1970, and 1971. So they haven't been around to "embarass"
themselves for a long time. Martin has been in the band since Dec.1968.
Jethro Tull always features new songs when they tour in support of an
album. In 1987, they featured at least 4 from Crest of a Knave. In 1989,
they played 6 from Rock Island and 3 from CoaK. In 1991, they played at
least 6 from Catfish Rising. In 1992 and 1993 when there were no new
studio albums, they played greatist hits sets. In 1995, Ian toured
behind Divinities, playing the entire album, and the Tull tour featured
at least 7 songs from Roots to Branches and 2 from Divinities. In 1996,
the tour is again a greatist hits set since their is no new album out.
Jethro Tull is not embarassed by their recent output. No one forces you
to buy it and no one forces you to listen to it. According to the
mainstream media, it doesn't even exist; so you never even have to be
exposed to it. Therefore, if you don't like it, just stop listening to
it. Jethro Tull does not need the support of people like you.
D. Neal
Steven Sullivan
Paul Tarvydas (tarv...@flexnet.com) wrote:
: Try, instead, an analogy with Beethoven. Beethoven played an instrument
: until he went deaf, late in his life. Only then, did he start
: composing. We don't remember Beethoven as an instrumentalist, only as a
: composer.
Nonsense. Beethoven was composing long before his hearing started to go.
The Winkster
david <dn...@wku.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>Winkster,
>
>With each post you continue to show not only your ignorance of Jethro
>Tull, but just your plain ignorance. Since you originally said that you
>had stopped following the band around the time of SFTW, we can forgive
>you for the former. But what is your excuse for the latter?
>
I wasn't aware that I needed forgivness for losing interest in a band
whose creativity had been on the downslide for some time (IMHO of
course).
>Why can't you accept the fact that some of us who have been following
>this band for years still enjoy Ian and the band for what they are now
>as well as what for what they once were?
>
Fine with me. Enjoy yourself to death. My first post was just an
offhand *objective* review I did one night when I was bored. My
problem started when people starting Re:ing to my thread and calling
me the anti-Christ simply because I had been honest about what I saw.
Why can't the people in you're camp express themselves without being
so loutish about it? After all, it's only rock n' roll. I think the
real question here is, "Why can't Tull fans accept that those of us
who think Tull's performances have degenerated below the point of
acceptabilty have just as much a right to that opinion as the pro-Tull
people have to their opinion?"
>We are not blind devotees. We know Ian's voice has weakened and that on
>some nights it's plain terrible. We know that he is 49 years old and no
>longer has the physical capabilities of a 25 year old. We can still
>enjoy his music and his persona because we are mature enough and
>intelligent enough to realize that things change with time. People age.
>
To me that's pure rationalization. He's old, sick, can't sing, but we
enjoy it anyway. (?!) For $20 - $30 a pop I think fans are entitled to
a lot more than what I saw the other night. Mind you now I never for
an instant expected to see the kind of show I saw in the seventies.
But, I did expect to see some level of artistic competence. with ELP
that's what I saw. With Tull it wasn't. Things change, that's true.
But, they do not always change for the better. To me maturity is
realizing when to put something down because its time has past. I
don't think clinging to something that once was, but is no more is a
sign of maturity. Maturity is knowing when to move on. That's what its
about.
I'm within a couple of years of IA's age, and not in perfect health
myself, so watching him in his decline was painful to me on a personal
level as well as an artistic one. I couldn't help but be reminded of
my own mortality. If memory serves another post in this thread said
something to the effect that "I bet you're not out on stage singing
five nights a week." Well, they're right. On the other hand I'm not
charging people $30 to listen to me. As I've aged I've had to walk
away from things that meant a lot to me. I just think that IA should
be wise enough to do the same. What does he have to do, die on stage,
to make you people happy?
>Now, to clear up some of your ignorance about Jethro Tull.
>
>Ian is the only original member left. The three other original members
>left in 1968, 1970, and 1971. So they haven't been around to "embarass"
>themselves for a long time. Martin has been in the band since Dec.1968.
>
To be honest with you I don't really care. In my original post I was
just trying to make the point that unlike ELP the JT is not the same
group of people that they were in their prime.
>Jethro Tull always features new songs when they tour in support of an
>album. In 1987, they featured at least 4 from Crest of a Knave. In 1989,
>they played 6 from Rock Island and 3 from CoaK. In 1991, they played at
>least 6 from Catfish Rising. In 1992 and 1993 when there were no new
>studio albums, they played greatist hits sets. In 1995, Ian toured
>behind Divinities, playing the entire album, and the Tull tour featured
>at least 7 songs from Roots to Branches and 2 from Divinities. In 1996,
>the tour is again a greatist hits set since their is no new album out.
>
So, in other words all their greatest hits (i.e. their best music) was
made in the 70s.
>Jethro Tull is not embarassed by their recent output. No one forces you
>to buy it and no one forces you to listen to it. According to the
>mainstream media, it doesn't even exist; so you never even have to be
>exposed to it. Therefore, if you don't like it, just stop listening to
>it. Jethro Tull does not need the support of people like you.
>
Modern pop music has moved into a much different place than in JTs
glory years. Frankly, I don't care for it too much. Even if it hadn't
though, I don't think you'd see much of Tull getting on the air.
I was a devoted Tull fan in the 70s. I would have loved nothing better
than to have honestly been able to post a glowing review about the
band's performance. What I saw the other night made me sad. The
personal attacks I've seen in this thread over the last couple of
weeks posted by people whos perspective differed from mine made me
angry. It's rock n' roll, people. If you've got so much invested in it
that you can't be civil to someone who disagrees with you about this
or that band, you maybe need to take a long hard look at yourselves.
Jeez.
;-)
Susan Glasgow
ove...@execpc.com (The Winkster) wrote:
>
>
>>entire generation of musicians. Could the author cut them just a
little
>>slack today - especially now, during this tour played under such duress?
>>-Pete
>
>Ok, Ok, just to keep all of you rationalizationists with your rose
>colored glasses happy here's my revised review.
(major snipping of insulting, sarcastic, ill-mannered twistings of
other
people's words and opinions.)
Hmmmm....Turns out there is nothing left to reply to. Sorry.
--Sue--
drift...@usa.pipeline.com
Maybe there should be two groups for each artist on the internet.
One group still enjoys the music and is willing to see where the band is
going.
The other group would rather sit back and say the band was really great
<whenever> but they should be quit now.
It would settle a lot of arguments, do you think it would make anyone feel
better?
I remember a sentiment once expressed, might be appropriate here, You're
never too old to rock and roll, if you're too young to die.
Reinder Dijkhuis
In article <52139e$2...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
Still, Paul is at least half right. We do remember Beethoven for his later
work - Symphony no. 6 and onward, when his disability was already manifest,
and not as an instrumentalist. The same may well apply to Ian.
On the other hand, there does seem to be a larger percentage of negative
reviews this time around, and more over-the-top negative ones as well. This
worries me. Ian is an instrumentalist and a singer as well as a composer, and
I wouldn't like to see him alienate his audience in one capacity, especially
if that means they will ignore his other capacities as well. If there's one
concession to age that Ian should make, it's that he should be a little bit
easier on himself.
(milw.general snipped off the newsgroups list)
Reinder
Take a look at my comics! http://www.noord.bart/~samizdat/rovers.htm
Alex Brands
On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, The Winkster wrote:
> So, in other words all their greatest hits (i.e. their best music) was
> made in the 70s.
I've kept out of this thread until now, but I have to disagree with your
statement. I think "greatest hits" refers to songs that got the most
radio play, had the most immediate appeal to the masses. These songs are
not necessarily their best music. Ian has said that he doesn't enjoy
making the simple, single stroke kind of songs that he did when he was
younger, and these are the kinds of songs that get radio play and are
easily accessible to the casual fans. I suppose if that's your definition
of "best music" then we are at an impasse. Otherwise, I don't think there
is any doubt that the songs Ian has written recently stand up (no pun
intended) to anything else he wrote back then. In many ways, the new
songs surpass the old, even if you don't here them on the radio.
Alex Brands
Washington University
Christopher Norman
I've been thinking he should pay attention to his lyrics to
"Driving Song" more closely.
Christopher Norman
R. Andrew Bowyer
What an amazing thread this is....I've never been fortunate enough to hear so
many DIFFERING opinions on the same thing...Kind of like to story of the car
accident: It was seen by fifteen different people who gave fifteen different
stories as to what happened and whose fault it was.
I think we should all agree to disagree here. The Winkster, while a
bit...emphatic...about his point of view is entitled to it. And we should not
condemn him for it. On the other hand, Winkster, we are also entitled to ours
(by this I mean the imperical "we" who feel that all things Tull are just fine,
thank you very much), and should not be condemned either.
It all comes down to expectation, I think. We who have been following Tull for
the past several years have seen the (and I flinch as I type the word)
"degeneration" of the voice. It MUST have been a shock for one only accustomed
to hearing '70s Tull.
But there again, there ARE extenuating circumstances here (again I flinch as I
open myself up for "making excuses"). I recall a show in June of 1995 where
Ian was strong, quick witted, and in good health: A remarkable experience.
And I recall the "wheelchair" show from March of 1996: A downright PHENOMENAL
experience. In fact, that show ranks at the TOP of my list of favorite Tull
shows. From my vantage point in August of '96 at Merriwether Post Pavillion, I
was not as impressed for the same reasons (flinching again) as Winkie posted.
But, moreover, I was still able to walk away realizing that this, too, shall
come to pass. If Ian has proven anything to the fans over the years, it's that
he is able to rise above all the day to day crap that life hands out and
continue on. I look forward to the next tour. Given rest, relaxation, and a
chance to "regroup" I think we all will be pleasantly surprised at what is yet
to come.
Sorry for the length of this post--it wasn't meant to go this far. Actually,
the original went something like this:
"Each to his own way, I'll go mine.
Best of luck with what you find,
But for your own sake remember times
We used to know...."
Appropriate, no?
Andy
Paul Tarvydas
Christopher Norman wrote:
> Hold on there, hold on there. _Roots_ might be less wild than
> their 70s albums, and I suppose on that count could be called
> more "mature", but that's not the primary criterion for
> greatness. Where have all the melodies gone? *That's* the
> strength of albums like TAAB, APP, SftW...melodies like
> "Fire At Midnight" and "Cup of Wonder" and "There was a
> rush.." and "we sleep by the ever-bright hole in the door...".
> I like _Roots_ a lot, but there isn't one melody on the
> album to match their "immature" ones.
This is a very reasonable reply and a year ago (before Divinities), I
would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Somewhere over the past
year, probably due to the one-two-punch of Divinities followed by Roots,
I started to appreciate the intricacy of Tull's later works.
I, honestly, think that the melody hasn't gone away. Tunes like "Fire
at Midnight" are few and far between, I can only think of a few songs
which fall into this class - Rock Island's "Another Christmas Song" and
Nightcap's "Broadford Bazaar" (there's probably a few more which aren't
dawning on me at this moment). The "old" albums didn't have a high
proportion of such songs, so it shouldn't be surprising that the new
albums don't either. Notwithstanding, "August Rain" comes mighty close
IMHO (as might "Beside Myself" and "Another Hairy Spar").
Divinities is full of melody. Your example of "we sleep by the
every-bright..." would have fit in perfectly with Divinities, had it
been played on bamboo flute.
RtB clinched it for me last spring when I examined the lyrics and tried
to explain my thoughts on this newsgroup. I decided to respond to what
I thought were naive questions about the lyrics on various songs (At
Last, Forever, Valley, etc). As I listened to the pieces over and over
again while trying to formulate my postings, I began to realize just how
intricately woven the fabric of RtB is.
Even more amazing, to me, is the fact that most people disagree about
what they hear musically and lyrically on RtB - a sign of artistic
complexity. I hear lots of Eastern (Indian?) influence - others don't.
Some people swear that At Last, Forever is a ripoff of Jack-a-Lynn - I
can't see any similarity. I read the words "She peeled from a stretch
black snake" one way, and others see it completely differently. I
thought that "Valley" was an obvious (thereby simplistic) song, while
others revere it.
Certainly, TAAB and APP managed to confuse me in the same ways. But,
now, Ian's got the art-form down to the point where he can do it to me
in one 3-minute song instead of a 45-minute epic.
One of my hobbies is trying to make competition-quality wine. The
judges have a good word for what I experience in Ian's music -
"complexity". The more you savour it, the more different "memories" it
stirs up. The more buttons get pushed. I enjoy listening to TAAB and
APP just like I enjoy a straight-up, young, fruity red, but I find more
depth and complexity in Divinities and RtB (for the same reasons -
they've aged longer :-).
> > stage. Tull have moved with time. As usual, Tull tends to leave its
> > audience behind and move into new areas - maybe they're the only
> > Progressive band which we still have?
>
> Two words: King Crimson.
I thought of this and of David Bowie and Captain Beefheart and Frank
Zappa (well, and even the Beatles) as I wrote the previous posting. I
clicked on SEND anyway. I might be interpreting the word "Progressive"
differently than most. In the 70's, "progressive" meant "off the beaten
track" ("alternative" these days). I've decided to use the word in its
English sense - to mean something which changes. It seems to me that
Ian has ultimate control of whichever musical style he latches onto. He
tends to produce a few albums (2-3) with the same look and feel, then
vectors off into something completely different. In my perception, none
of the artists above have managed to produce such a wide range of
musical styles (Bowie comes the closest). [My perception might be
caused by ignorance - I know more about Ian's music than that of most
others. I'd love to find just one other band with the dynamic range of
Tull, so feel free to inform me of my ignorance :-].
This is what I found disappointing about ELP's performance in August.
They haven't moved anywhere. They're locked in a time-capsule - just a
nostalgia band, whereas Tull is sprouting new branches all of the time
(while not being afraid to show their roots).
Just a rhetorical question: after remarking on the lack of melody in
later-Tull, you use King Crimson as an example? The few KC songs with
melody (e.g. Fallen Angel) are truly epic, but I would say that KC is
one of the more amelodic bands around. They play with incredibly
complex rhythms and musical structures, but pure, simple melody is not
one of their mainstays (is it? if so, what have I missed?).
To elaborate on what I mean by musical dynamic range, consider that (in
my perception) Fripp started out with aharmonic off-the-beaten-track
music. Then went to aharmonic tape-loop off-the-beaten-track music.
Then went back to aharmonic off-the-beaten-track music. Then he played
aharmonic beat music with Sylvian. And inspired the League of Crafty
Guitarists, who play somewhat-aharmonic stacatto (on instruments which
are probably guitars :-).
Ian changes between whole musical styles every few albums. Jazz, folk,
concept "progressive" rock, celtic/gaelic, synth-pop, hard-rock,
rock-operas, unplugged, blues, symphonic and Eastern. Has Fripp ever
changed ("progressed") so violently as Ian has during the shift from
SftW through to Under Wraps? It seems that only Bowie has made such
major jumps ("progressions"), but it seems that even he's been stuck in
a rut for a long time now. Zappa has always sounded like Zappa
(mocking, jazz fusion). Beefheart - well, every musical style run
through a Cuisinart :-).
pt
Timfish
Overdog wrote:
> "Why can't Tull fans accept that those of us
>who think Tull's performances have degenerated below the point of
>acceptabilty have just as much a right to that opinion as the pro-Tull
>people have to their opinion?"
I saw Tull first w/Passion Play. To me it remains one of the most amazing
shows I've ever seen. As the years have gone by I've seen Tull on most
every tour. To be honest, no show has ever lived up to PP. I finally gave
up about ten years ago hoping Ian would top himself and just enjoyed what
I got. I was delighted with "Nothing is Easy" and the medley of
Songs/Horses/TOTRNR made the show for me. Money well spent and another
enjoyable evening. Face it: Aqualung Ian ain't comin' back, he can't.
Neither will SFTW Ian. But that's OK. I, too, miss John Evans and was more
than a little irritated that what's his name- the new guy (It'll come to
me as soon as I sign off) wore the same white shirt w/red hankie that
Evans used to. But again, that's unimportant. I think this is the most
"musical" Tull show I've ever seen. The band was tight, the song selection
good, all in all a good show. Also, listen to Stand Up, Minstrel, Songs,
and then Crest. Gee, Ian's voice sounds different on each! Amazing!
I guess all I'm trying to say is I enjoyed the show. It wasn't PP, but I
got my money's worth! Come back, JT, and I'll go again!
Tim
Christopher Norman
Paul Tarvydas wrote:
>
> Christopher Norman wrote:
> > Hold on there, hold on there. _Roots_ might be less wild than
> > their 70s albums, and I suppose on that count could be called
> > more "mature", but that's not the primary criterion for
> > greatness. Where have all the melodies gone? *That's* the
> > strength of albums like TAAB, APP, SftW...melodies like
> > "Fire At Midnight" and "Cup of Wonder" and "There was a
> > rush.." and "we sleep by the ever-bright hole in the door...".
> > I like _Roots_ a lot, but there isn't one melody on the
> > album to match their "immature" ones.
>
> This is a very reasonable reply and a year ago (before Divinities), I
> would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Somewhere over the past
> year, probably due to the one-two-punch of Divinities followed by Roots,
> I started to appreciate the intricacy of Tull's later works.
>
> I, honestly, think that the melody hasn't gone away.
I don't think it's gone away; in fact there's more melody on
_RtB_ than there has been for quite some time. I'm very
satisfied with the album, and even the songs that aren't
particularly melodic ("Out of the Noise", "Valley") make
up for it with other strengths. However, I don't think
that even the best melodies on the album have anything
like the length and breadth and perfection of, say,
"A Small Cigar".
> Tunes like "Fire
> at Midnight" are few and far between, I can only think of a few songs
> which fall into this class - Rock Island's "Another Christmas Song" and
> Nightcap's "Broadford Bazaar" (there's probably a few more which aren't
> dawning on me at this moment). The "old" albums didn't have a high
> proportion of such songs, so it shouldn't be surprising that the new
> albums don't either.
I don't agree here. It used to be that *every* song on every
album was centred around melody, as opposed to, say, a
guitar riff. Think about the _Heavy Horses_ album, for
instance. They're not always *pretty* melodies, but they
are strong, interesting ones. There's less of that in _RtB_.
> Notwithstanding, "August Rain" comes mighty close
> IMHO (as might "Beside Myself" and "Another Hairy Spar").
Hmm, I'd say "Beside Myself" and "Harry" are among the less
memorable songs, tune-wise. "At Last, Forever" and "Dangerous
Veils" and "Rare and Precious Chain" and "This Free Will"
and even the title song do it for me, though.
> Divinities is full of melody. Your example of "we sleep by the
> every-bright..." would have fit in perfectly with Divinities, had it
> been played on bamboo flute.
Yes, Divinities *has* to be full of melody, because it's
instrumental. The human voice can get away without really
singing anything in particular, because we're distracted
by the lyrics, but you can't play two or three notes on
a flute over and over again and expect it to sound good.
> RtB clinched it for me last spring when I examined the lyrics and tried
> to explain my thoughts on this newsgroup. I decided to respond to what
> I thought were naive questions about the lyrics on various songs (At
> Last, Forever, Valley, etc). As I listened to the pieces over and over
> again while trying to formulate my postings, I began to realize just how
> intricately woven the fabric of RtB is.
>
> Even more amazing, to me, is the fact that most people disagree about
> what they hear musically and lyrically on RtB - a sign of artistic
> complexity. I hear lots of Eastern (Indian?) influence - others don't.
> Some people swear that At Last, Forever is a ripoff of Jack-a-Lynn - I
> can't see any similarity.
The similarity is very tenuous...it's about the same as the
similarity between "Thick As A Brick" and "Dun Ringill".
>
> > > stage. Tull have moved with time. As usual, Tull tends to leave its
> > > audience behind and move into new areas - maybe they're the only
> > > Progressive band which we still have?
> >
> > Two words: King Crimson.
>
> I thought of this and of David Bowie and Captain Beefheart and Frank
> Zappa (well, and even the Beatles) as I wrote the previous posting. I
> clicked on SEND anyway. I might be interpreting the word "Progressive"
> differently than most. In the 70's, "progressive" meant "off the beaten
> track" ("alternative" these days).
And this is certainly a good definition of King Crimson nowadays.
(Or indeed in any day.)
I've decided to use the word in its
> English sense - to mean something which changes.
And this describes King Crimson more closely than almost any
other rock band ever.
It seems to me that
> Ian has ultimate control of whichever musical style he latches onto. He
> tends to produce a few albums (2-3) with the same look and feel, then
> vectors off into something completely different. In my perception, none
> of the artists above have managed to produce such a wide range of
> musical styles (Bowie comes the closest). [My perception might be
> caused by ignorance - I know more about Ian's music than that of most
> others. I'd love to find just one other band with the dynamic range of
> Tull, so feel free to inform me of my ignorance :-].
I mentioned King Crimson precisely because they *have* gone
through the sort of dynamic range that you refer to. If
you don't know their work, you should go to the store and
pick out a few CDs at random.
>
> This is what I found disappointing about ELP's performance in August.
> They haven't moved anywhere. They're locked in a time-capsule - just a
> nostalgia band, whereas Tull is sprouting new branches all of the time
> (while not being afraid to show their roots).
>
> Just a rhetorical question: after remarking on the lack of melody in
> later-Tull, you use King Crimson as an example? The few KC songs with
> melody (e.g. Fallen Angel) are truly epic, but I would say that KC is
> one of the more amelodic bands around. They play with incredibly
> complex rhythms and musical structures, but pure, simple melody is not
> one of their mainstays (is it? if so, what have I missed?).
Well, I was responding to the comment "Jethro Tull may be the
only progressive band left", because King Crimson are still
going strong and are more "progressive" in every sense than
Jethro Tull are now. (That doesn't mean I think they're
better.) But yes, a lot of KC work is centred around melody.
How about "Cadence and Cascade", "Book of Saturday", "Exiles",
"Fracture" (all of which is developed out of a short melodic
phrase), "The Night Watch", "Starless", "Matte Kudesai",
"The Sheltering Sky", "Discipline", "Two Hands", "Three of
a Perfect Pair", "Walking on Air", "Dinosaur"? I could think
of more if I had my CDs in front of me.
> To elaborate on what I mean by musical dynamic range, consider that (in
> my perception) Fripp started out with aharmonic off-the-beaten-track
> music.
Aharmonic is definitely *not* the way to describe the first
period of King Crimson.
> Then went to aharmonic tape-loop off-the-beaten-track music.
The mid-70s King Crimson never actually used the Frippertronics
in their music, although Fripp played around with them on
his own.
> Then went back to aharmonic off-the-beaten-track music. Then he played
> aharmonic beat music with Sylvian. And inspired the League of Crafty
> Guitarists, who play somewhat-aharmonic stacatto (on instruments which
> are probably guitars :-).
What about _Thrak_ and _ThrakAttack_?
> Ian changes between whole musical styles every few albums. Jazz, folk,
> concept "progressive" rock, celtic/gaelic, synth-pop, hard-rock,
> rock-operas, unplugged, blues, symphonic and Eastern. Has Fripp ever
> changed ("progressed") so violently as Ian has during the shift from
> SftW through to Under Wraps?
Sure: _Islands_ to _Larks Tongues In Aspic_. Or _Red_ to
_Discipline_. Or _In the Court of the Crimson King_ to
_Three of a Perfect Pair_. Or _Discipline_ to _ThrakAttack_.
Your generalizations about the various periods of KC are
far too simplistic. If that's all you're getting out of
it, you need to listen to them more closely.
Christopher Norman
The Palindrome
"You are old, Father William," The young man said,
And your hair has become very white.
"And yet you incessantly stand on your head-
Do you think, at your age, it is right?"
"In my youth", Father William replied to his son,
"I feared it might injure the brain;
But now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again."
"You are old," said the youth, "as I mentioned before.
And have grown most uncommonly fat;
Yet you turned a back somersault in at the door-
Pray, what is the meaning of that? "
"In my youth," said the sage, as he shook his grey locks,
"I kept all my limbs very supple
By the use of this ointment-one shilling the box-
Allow me to sell you a coulple?"
"You are old," said the youth, "and your jaws are too weak
For anything tougher than suet;
Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak-
Pray, how did you manage to do it?"
'In my youth," said his father, "I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw
Has lasted the rest of my life."
"You are old," said the youth, "one would hardly suppose
That your eye was as steady as ever;
Yet you balanced an eel on the end of your nose-
What made you so awfully clever?"
'I have answered three questions, and that is enough,"
Said his father. "Don't give yourself airs!
Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
Be off, or I'll kick you down-stairs!"
--Lewis Carroll
*******************************************************
-The Palindrome, AvivA
"So our virtues lie in th' interpretation of the times..."
-Tullus Aufidius
gates
>"You are old, Father William,"
My God! I haven't seen this since I was at school, thankyou for
reminding me.
"You are strange, Lewis Carroll,"
said the press long ago,
"and your liking for girls might queer?
With the rumours surrounding your life nowadays
Answer what is your preference dear?"
"I am old!" said L Carroll "And exceedingly grey.
but in my youth I loved music and noise.
But it was girls I love most, but they had to be young
and I hated the though of young boys!"
"I see! Lewis Carroll."
said the press in reply,
"Is it true you're a peodiophile?
when you take little girls on the river to ride
and stories to tell on the Nile?."
"It is true!" said L Carroll,
"I like little girls,
to watch them play gayly and free,
my thoughts may be on them but todays society
hush it up so no-one can see!"
"You are old Lewis Carroll!" the media said,
"And your devience is a dare!
how on earth can you keep it a secret so long
that your thoughts are exceedingly rare!"
"I have answered three questions." L Carroll he said,
"And my answers were straight to the point
the answer is simple I just write a book
in this guise I can do what I want!!!!"
-- Wild, Vivid and Shocking!
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Semtpb
In article <51nnkk$7...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Todd Lowenstein
<todd...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>You cannot listen to the albums to even get a clue of what Jethro Tull
was
>like live in the 70s. So unless you have a lot of bootlegs (because
>Bursting Out was sanitized for general consumption), you don't know the
>point that Christopher was making. There was a power and energy,
>particularly electrical guitar and Ian's vocals, that are not there
>anymore. I would agree that those that say Ian's voice is pretty good
are
>probably the younger fans.
THIS POINT IS 100% CORRECT. WHILE I STILL LOVE TULL, THERE IS NO
COMPARISON TO THE OLD TULL LINE UPS PRIOR TO THE A TOUR. FOR ME TULL
CEASED TO EXIST AS A COMPLETE BAND AFTER THAT POINT. I HAVE SEEN ALMOST
60 SHOWS SINCE 1971 AND FEEL THAT OVER THE YEARS THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE
BAND HAVE GONE FROM ACTUAL BAND MEMBERS WITH DYMANIC PERSONALITIES OF
THEIR OWN TO MORE OR LESS SUPPORT PLAYERS FOR IAN. MARTIN IS THE OBVIOUS
EXCEPTION, BUT HE HAS ALWAYS DEFERRED TO IAN, BUT DOES STILL INSURE THAT
THE TRUE TULL SOUND IS INTACT.
AS FOR IAN'S VOICE, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT HIS VOICE WAS 1000 TIMES
BETTER, BUT THE QUALITY OF HIS VOICE HAS NOT DIMINISHED TO THE POINT THAT
THE SHOWS ARE STILL NOT GREAT. THE MUSICIANSHIP OVERALL IS AS GOOD AS
EVER AND IAN'S WIT IS DEFINITELY A HIGHLIGHT OF ANY SHOW. HOWEVER, THE
ONLY WAY TO DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TULL SHOWS NOW AND IN THE
SEVENTIES IS THAT IN THE SEVENTIES THE SHOWS WERE MUCH MORE THAN MERELY A
CONCERT, THEY WERE A TRUE MYSITICAL EXPERIENCE THAT TRANSENDED THE SHOW
ITSELF. NO OTHER GROUPS WERE, IN MY OPINION, ABLE TO CREATE ANYTHING
CLOSE TO THIS, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF LED ZEPPLIN; HOWEVER, TULL
WAS MUCH BETTER LIVE.
YOUNGER PEOPLE READING THIS WILL PROBABLY NOT BE ABLE TO COMPREHEND MY
REFERENCE TO TULL SHOWS AS CONSTITUTING A "MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE," BUT THESE
SHOWS TRULY WERE. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN OTHER OLDER TULL FANS COMMENTS
ON THIS POINT. I AM WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT PART OF THE REASON THESE
SHOWS WERE LARGER THAN LIFE WAS BECAUSE WE WERE ALL IMPRESSIONABLE
TEENAGERS AT THE TIME. I AM NOT SURE I WOULD HAVE FELT THAT WAY IF I HAD
ATTENDED THE AQUALUNG TOUR IN 1971 AT THE FORUM IN L.A. WHEN I WAS FORTY
INSTEAD OF FIFTEEN, BUT I CAN SAY THAT NO OTHER GROUP COULD DUPLICATE THE
THE FEEL OF THESE SHOWS, WHICH WAS ALMOST SUPERNATURAL. FOR EXAMPLE,
JEFFREY COULD NOT PLAY BASS WORTH A SHIT, BUT HE WAS A DYNAMIC PERSONALITY
ONSTAGE IN HIS OWN RIGHT AND WAS PROBABLY THE ONLY PERSON IN THE BAND THAT
IAN FELT MEASURURED UP TO HIM (ALMOST) INTELLECTUALLY AND CREATIVELY. IAN
WAS DEVISTATED WHEN JEFFREY LEFT THE BAND, WHICH REALLY HURT IAN, BECAUSE
HE DID NOT SEE IT COMING AND BECAUSE I BELIEVE HE FELT THAT HE HAD GONE
WAY OUT OF HIS WAY TO GET JEFFREY INTO THE BAND (AS WELL AS THE OTHER GUYS
WHO WERE IN THE ORIGINAL JOHN EVAN BAND - BUT THAT IS ANOTHER STORY
ENTIRELY) AND WHEN JEFFREY HAD MADE ENOUGH MONEY AND WAS SICK OF TOURING,
HE QUIT AND LITERALLY BECAME RECLUSIVE. I THINK IT IS ALSO FAIR TO SAY
THAT BARRIEMORE BARLOW, JEFFREY( AND LATER JOHN GLASCOCK ALTHOUGH TO A
LESSER DEGREE), JOHN EVAN, MARTIN AND IAN WERE A REAL UNIQUE COMBINATION
AND THAT THE WHOLE WAS GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BAND. NOW IT IS REALLY
JUST IAN CARRYING THE LOAD, BUT BACK THEN THE OTHER MEMBERS WERE AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE GROUP.
THE PERSON WHO SAID OR SUGGESTED THAT JOHN EVAN (BARRIE OR DAVID PALMER
FOR THAT MATTER) LEFT THE BAND VOLUNTARILY IS SADLY MISTAKEN. IAN FLAT
OUT FIRED THEM ALL. I REALLY FEEL THAT HE FELT THAT BY THE END OF THE
"STORM WATCH" TOUR, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC, IAN FELT
THAT THE MEMBERS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DAVE PEGG, WHO HAS JUST JOINED THE
GROUP AFTER JOHN GLASCOCK DIED, HAD TAKEN THE WHOLE TULL OPPORTUNITY FOR
GRANTED AND DID NOT APPRECIATE IT. AS I ALLUDED TO EARLIER, IAN, WHO IS
AN EXTREMELY CALCULATING AND MANIPULATIVE PERSON (THIS IS NOT A NEGATIVE
COMMENT) BROUGHT ALL OF THE FORMER MEMBERS OF THE JOHN EVAN BAND INTO
TULL. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT STICK IT OUT LIKE IAN DID. I
BELIEVE THAT IAN FELT THAT SINCE THEY NO LONGER SEEMED TO APPRECIATE WHAT
IAN HAD DONE FOR THEM, THAT IAN DECIDED TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE BAND JUST
AS HE HAD BROUGHT THEM IN, WHICH WAS A TOTAL SHOCK AND I BELIEVE HAS
ADVERSELY AFFECTED TULL EVER SINCE. THE CRAP ABOUT TERRY ELLIS PUTTING
OUT A PRESS RELEASE WITHOUT IAN'S CONSENT ABOUT "A" BEING A JETHRO TULL
ALBUM INSTEAD OF AN IAN ANDERSON SOLO ALBUM AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY
CHARACTERIZED AND THAT JOBSON AND CRANEY HAD JOINED TULL AND WOULD
SUBSEQUENTLY TOURING AS "JETHRO TULL" IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT. IAN KNEW
EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING.
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT, ALTHOUGH I STILL ENJOY THE SHOWS A LOT THEY DO NOT
EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE SHOWS OF THE SEVENTIES. EVEN THOUGH MARTIN IS
STILL IN THE BAND, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE GUY WHO SAID THAT THOSE WHO
SAW TULL ON THIS TOUR DID NOT SEE THE "REAL JETHRO TULL." I HAVE HAD THAT
FEELING TO VARYING DEGREES SINCE THE "A" TOUR. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS
ASSESSMENT, I THINK THEY ARE STILL GREAT. TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, I AM SURE
THAT IN 10 YEARS PAMELA LEE WILL NOT BE AS GOOD AS SHE USED TO BE, BUT I
AM QUITE CONFIDENT I WOULD STILL FUCK HER. SORRY. SEE YOU LATER -- YOUR
PLACE!!!
TIM BENNETT
SEPARATE ENTITY MANAGEMENT
P.S. I REALLY LIKE BOTH ROOTS TO BRANCHES AND DIVINITES (DESPITE THE FACT
THAT ONE OF MY CLOSEST FRIENDS LIKES TO REFER TO DIVINITES AS "JOHN TESH -
LIVE AT RED ROCKS," BUT HE IS FULL OF SHIT). THE SONGS FROM BOTH SOUND
ESPECIALLY GREAT LIVE.
Larkid Deerhorn
Semtpb (sem...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <51nnkk$7...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Todd Lowenstein
: <todd...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
: >You cannot listen to the albums to even get a clue of what Jethro Tull
: was
: >like live in the 70s. So unless you have a lot of bootlegs (because
: >Bursting Out was sanitized for general consumption), you don't know the
: >point that Christopher was making. There was a power and energy,
: >particularly electrical guitar and Ian's vocals, that are not there
: >anymore. I would agree that those that say Ian's voice is pretty good
: are
: >probably the younger fans.
: THIS POINT IS 100% CORRECT. WHILE I STILL LOVE TULL, THERE IS NO
: COMPARISON TO THE OLD TULL LINE UPS PRIOR TO THE A TOUR. FOR ME TULL
: CEASED TO EXIST AS A COMPLETE BAND AFTER THAT POINT. I HAVE SEEN ALMOST
: 60 SHOWS SINCE 1971 AND FEEL THAT OVER THE YEARS THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE
: BAND HAVE GONE FROM ACTUAL BAND MEMBERS WITH DYMANIC PERSONALITIES OF
: THEIR OWN TO MORE OR LESS SUPPORT PLAYERS FOR IAN. MARTIN IS THE OBVIOUS
: EXCEPTION, BUT HE HAS ALWAYS DEFERRED TO IAN, BUT DOES STILL INSURE THAT
: THE TRUE TULL SOUND IS INTACT.
Maybe its because I'm a 'younger fan', but caps lock hurts my eyes and
annoys me.
Anyway, I've been to exactly 2 Tull shows, those being last years
Roots to Branches tour and this years Whatever This Is tour with ELP.
And yes, even I can safely say that Ian's voice has become a little
burned out over the past 28 years. Wouldn't yours? I'm sure all of us here can
listen to 'Song for Jeffery' and then 'Another Harry's Bar' and hear the
differences in the voice.
It's called old age, happens to everyone and I still like Tull, not
because of Ian's voice or Martin's individuality but because they make damn
good music and that's hard to come by.
-Larkid
Mahesh K. Rengaswamy
Classic...thats all I will say....great write up. I did a meet a few
ardent fans here at the Syrcause show, who shared your opinion....great
--
Mahesh
Biffyshrew
sem...@aol.com (Semtpb) wrote, while searching for his shift key:
>THE PERSON WHO SAID OR SUGGESTED THAT JOHN EVAN (BARRIE OR DAVID PALMER
>FOR THAT MATTER) LEFT THE BAND VOLUNTARILY IS SADLY MISTAKEN. IAN FLAT
>OUT FIRED THEM ALL.
It's well known that Barrie was planning to leave anyway. I don't know
who suggested that John Evan left the band voluntarily; he was in fact the
only one who was really hit hard by the split, as I think Christopher
Norman recently mentioned.
>I REALLY FEEL THAT HE FELT THAT BY THE END OF THE
>"STORM WATCH" TOUR, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC, IAN FELT
>THAT THE MEMBERS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DAVE PEGG, WHO HAS JUST JOINED
THE
>GROUP AFTER JOHN GLASCOCK DIED, HAD TAKEN THE WHOLE TULL OPPORTUNITY FOR
>GRANTED AND DID NOT APPRECIATE IT.
JUST FOR THE RECORD...sorry, I mean, Just for the record, Dave Pegg joined
*before* John Glascock died. In fact, as fate would have it, I first saw
Peggy playing with Tull in San Diego on what was apparently the same day
that John G. passed away.
>AS I ALLUDED TO EARLIER, IAN, WHO IS
>AN EXTREMELY CALCULATING AND MANIPULATIVE PERSON (THIS IS NOT A NEGATIVE
>COMMENT)
Sure sounds like one to me, but what the hell...negative or not, I
certainly don't know Ian well enough to say whether it's true or not.
>BROUGHT ALL OF THE FORMER MEMBERS OF THE JOHN EVAN BAND INTO
>TULL. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT STICK IT OUT LIKE IAN DID. I
>BELIEVE THAT IAN FELT THAT SINCE THEY NO LONGER SEEMED TO APPRECIATE WHAT
>IAN HAD DONE FOR THEM, THAT IAN DECIDED TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE BAND JUST
>AS HE HAD BROUGHT THEM IN, WHICH WAS A TOTAL SHOCK AND I BELIEVE HAS
>ADVERSELY AFFECTED TULL EVER SINCE.
If true, that would explain why Barrie and John E. got the axe, but not
David Palmer, who had nothing to do with Ian's pre-Tull days.
>THE CRAP ABOUT TERRY ELLIS PUTTING
>OUT A PRESS RELEASE WITHOUT IAN'S CONSENT ABOUT "A" BEING A JETHRO TULL
>ALBUM INSTEAD OF AN IAN ANDERSON SOLO ALBUM AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY
>CHARACTERIZED AND THAT JOBSON AND CRANEY HAD JOINED TULL AND WOULD
>SUBSEQUENTLY TOURING AS "JETHRO TULL" IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
Really? What's your evidence for this? And why do the other band members
tell the same "crap" story? Did Ian fool *them* into believing the press
release story, but not you?
BTW, I actually agree to some extent with Tim's main point that Tull has
suffered somewhat in the '80s and '90s from not being a really full-time,
integral band. Divinities and Roots To Branches are terrific (and a
welcome comeback after what I personally regard as a couple of not really
*bad*, but disturbingly sub-par albums), but it can't be a coincidence
that my favorite Tull albums, then and now, were all made by the same
band, and that's the one with the maximum number of Ian's old cronies: the
Ian/Martin/John E./Jeffrey/Barrie lineup.
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew @}-`--}----
Visit me at http://users.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
"How hip is a computer? I went by somebody's house, a woman was making
love to a computer! But she didn't have no...you know, she didn't get no
satisfaction."--Rahsaan Roland Kirk
Christopher Norman
Semtpb wrote:
> FOR EXAMPLE,
> JEFFREY COULD NOT PLAY BASS WORTH A SHIT,
He most certainly could by the time they got out onstage in
1971, and I have tapes to prove it.
BUT HE WAS A DYNAMIC PERSONALITY
> ONSTAGE IN HIS OWN RIGHT AND WAS PROBABLY THE ONLY PERSON IN THE BAND THAT
> IAN FELT MEASURURED UP TO HIM (ALMOST) INTELLECTUALLY AND CREATIVELY. IAN
> WAS DEVISTATED WHEN JEFFREY LEFT THE BAND, WHICH REALLY HURT IAN, BECAUSE
> HE DID NOT SEE IT COMING AND BECAUSE I BELIEVE HE FELT THAT HE HAD GONE
> WAY OUT OF HIS WAY TO GET JEFFREY INTO THE BAND (AS WELL AS THE OTHER GUYS
> WHO WERE IN THE ORIGINAL JOHN EVAN BAND - BUT THAT IS ANOTHER STORY
> ENTIRELY) AND WHEN JEFFREY HAD MADE ENOUGH MONEY AND WAS SICK OF TOURING,
> HE QUIT AND LITERALLY BECAME RECLUSIVE. I THINK IT IS ALSO FAIR TO SAY
> THAT BARRIEMORE BARLOW, JEFFREY( AND LATER JOHN GLASCOCK ALTHOUGH TO A
> LESSER DEGREE), JOHN EVAN, MARTIN AND IAN WERE A REAL UNIQUE COMBINATION
> AND THAT THE WHOLE WAS GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE INDIVIDUAL
> CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BAND. NOW IT IS REALLY
> JUST IAN CARRYING THE LOAD, BUT BACK THEN THE OTHER MEMBERS WERE AN
> INTEGRAL PART OF THE GROUP.
>
> THE PERSON WHO SAID OR SUGGESTED THAT JOHN EVAN (BARRIE OR DAVID PALMER
> FOR THAT MATTER) LEFT THE BAND VOLUNTARILY IS SADLY MISTAKEN. IAN FLAT
> OUT FIRED THEM ALL.
Nope. Evans and Palmer were more-or-less fired by omission, but
Barrie had already decided to leave at the end of the tour
because of Glascock's death.
I REALLY FEEL THAT HE FELT THAT BY THE END OF THE
> "STORM WATCH" TOUR, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC, IAN FELT
> THAT THE MEMBERS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DAVE PEGG, WHO HAS JUST JOINED THE
> GROUP AFTER JOHN GLASCOCK DIED, HAD TAKEN THE WHOLE TULL OPPORTUNITY FOR
> GRANTED AND DID NOT APPRECIATE IT. AS I ALLUDED TO EARLIER, IAN, WHO IS
> AN EXTREMELY CALCULATING AND MANIPULATIVE PERSON (THIS IS NOT A NEGATIVE
> COMMENT) BROUGHT ALL OF THE FORMER MEMBERS OF THE JOHN EVAN BAND INTO
> TULL. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT STICK IT OUT LIKE IAN DID. I
> BELIEVE THAT IAN FELT THAT SINCE THEY NO LONGER SEEMED TO APPRECIATE WHAT
> IAN HAD DONE FOR THEM, THAT IAN DECIDED TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE BAND JUST
> AS HE HAD BROUGHT THEM IN, WHICH WAS A TOTAL SHOCK AND I BELIEVE HAS
> ADVERSELY AFFECTED TULL EVER SINCE. THE CRAP ABOUT TERRY ELLIS PUTTING
> OUT A PRESS RELEASE WITHOUT IAN'S CONSENT ABOUT "A" BEING A JETHRO TULL
> ALBUM INSTEAD OF AN IAN ANDERSON SOLO ALBUM AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY
> CHARACTERIZED AND THAT JOBSON AND CRANEY HAD JOINED TULL AND WOULD
> SUBSEQUENTLY TOURING AS "JETHRO TULL" IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT. IAN KNEW
> EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING.
Your evidence for this is?...Why should I believe you instead
of Jethro Tull, who have always been pretty honest and
forthright about their history? Frankly, their story sounds
more believable to me than yours.
Christopher Norman
Jeff Blanks
> And yes, even I can safely say that Ian's voice has become a little
> burned out over the past 28 years. Wouldn't yours?
Not if I knew how to take care of it. Have you heard _Jon_ Anderson
lately? Three years older than Ian, I believe (he just turned 52). And
let's not even start with the many superstar classical singers who can
keep up fine, world-class voices well into their fifties (and occasionally
even sixties--Pavarotti's about to hit 60, in fact).
Joseph Trum
I think, and Ian probably agrees, that it was ciggarettes matched with the
constant use of his vocal chords plus the possible added strain that the
flute playing caused that caused his voice change.
But we're still a'livin' so everything's okay.
Joey Trum.
Semtpb
I did not mean to say that Jeffrey was incapable of playing the bass, but
it is common knowledge that he was an artist and not a musician. Ian and
Martin wrote all his bass parts and in fact had to show him where to put
his fingers as he did not understand nor read music. However, they say he
learned very fast and rarely had to be shown more than one time.
I like Jeffrey a lot and also liked the way he played bass. That is
actually my point. Jeffrey as an entity was much more than a bass player.
I had the opportunity to meet him in 1975 and he is a great guy. Tull was
never quite the same after Jeffrey left. I think Ian really enjoyed
having him in the band and went way out of his way to bring Jeffrey back
into the band despite his lack of musical knowledge.
As the for comments about Barrie leaving, I do not doubt that perhaps
Barrie thought about leaving after John Glascock died, but the fact is he
did not. John had been dead for a while and although they were very close
and Barrie was responsible in large part for bringing John into Tull after
Carmen toured with Tull, his death was not sufficient to cause him to give
up what had up to that point been an extremely lucrative venture embarked
on with his childhood friends. Despite what he may have said, they were
all fired.
Further, the whole original story surrounding the firing is stupid and
does not make sense. A, which was to have originally been a solo Ian
Anderson, but turned into a Jethro Tull album, had nothing to do with it.
I mean if it is now a Jethro Tull album the then existing members of Tull
could have still toured and played that album. Even if Jobson and Craney
went out on the A tour, what would have prevented the line up that existed
on Storm Watch from getting back together to continue as Tull if Ian
permitted Jobson and Craney to tour to support A to appease Terry Ellis.
The obvious answer was nothing. The whole problem with the press release
was that Terry Ellis issued it before Ian had a chance to inform the guys
that he had decided to get rid of them, which is why Ian was forced to
make the hurried phone calls just prior to the press release.
My source for the fact that they were fired as opposed to "pursuing solo
projects" was Martin Barre, who confirmed the obvious for me on October
12, 1982 in Tallahassee Florida. I asked him what really happened and he
said " basically they were just sacked." Knowing how close Martin was to
those members, I asked him if he was upset by it. He said that although
he did not like it, he had gotten used to it over the years.
The bottom line is that if Ian wants you in the band you are in and if he
does not, then you are not. If you have further doubt, please check "A
New Day." I think that John Evan, Barrie and even Ian have commented on
the situation. Also, rewind your 25th Ann. video and try to figure out why
Glenn Cornick gets irritated and refused to reveal why he departed from
Tull - if the answer is not painfully obvious. JEFFREY JOINED RIGHT AFTER
AND I CAN ASSURE YOU HE DID NOT NOT AUDITION, NOR WERE ANY OTHER MUSICIANS
CONSIDERED. I am very glad that Jeffrey Joined Tull; however, the facts
remain the facts. Regardless of whether you agree with my assessment, the
plain truth of the matter was that the "spin" Ian tried to give it in
several interviews was bullshit.
I think you have to understand the way Ian operates. I am not calling him
a liar, but he likes to say things that are not true to ammuse himself.
He does this to interviewers all the times as well as to some well meaning
fans who may or may not pick up on the fact that he has said something in
all seriousness that is totally untrue. It is in actually an inside joke.
When he does it to interviewers who are not well versed on Tull, then all
of us who know are highly amused, but he also does it to people who ask
questions he just does not want to answer.
Once I heard a fan ask Ian on the Crest tour why they did not play
anything from Underwraps as the person really liked the album. Ian said to
him (100% seriously) "You will have to ask Martin, because he is the one
who decides which songs we play." I believe that those who heard the
response actually believed it apparently not realizing that nothing
happens at least without Ian's seal of approval at the very least. The
problem with Ian's response is that the question was a legitimate question
from a real Tull fan who really wanted to know and if that person
subsequently found out or realized at the time that Ian was, in essence
blowing him off because he did not want to deal with the question, then it
think that person would be hurt.
I found the response so amusing (but I felt sorry for the person who asked
it) I could not wait to tell Martin about it when I saw him about an hour
later. When I told him, Martin just got this really wierd look on his
face and said something like "yeah, right." Athough Ian is extremely
brilliant, he is not really a "warm and fuzzy" type of person. He can be
quite difficult to deal with and be very sarcastic and sometimes does not
hesitate to shred people when he is not in a good mood (I personally
admire this quality in Ian, but I think he would be better served to try
to keep it in check, especially with band members and true Tull fans -- as
for the lame ass interviewers who really do not know anything about Tull,
I think it is perfectly appropriate, unless they are sincerely trying to
do a good job with the interview).
There are countless other examples of this type of thing. I do not
personally think that there is anything wrong with it. However, it
disturbs me that there is a significant faction of Tull fans that seem to
take whatever Ian says as 100% accurate. Regardless of whether or not he
likes to amuse himself in this way, it is always wrong to accept what
people say at face value. I think Ian would be the first one to agree
with this.
I am not trying to be critical. Maybe I am just the Sam Donaldson of the
newsgroup.
Tim.
Christopher Norman
Semtpb wrote:
>
> I did not mean to say that Jeffrey was incapable of playing the bass, but
> it is common knowledge that he was an artist and not a musician. Ian and
> Martin wrote all his bass parts and in fact had to show him where to put
> his fingers as he did not understand nor read music. However, they say he
> learned very fast and rarely had to be shown more than one time.
>
> I like Jeffrey a lot and also liked the way he played bass. That is
> actually my point. Jeffrey as an entity was much more than a bass player.
> I had the opportunity to meet him in 1975 and he is a great guy. Tull was
> never quite the same after Jeffrey left. I think Ian really enjoyed
> having him in the band and went way out of his way to bring Jeffrey back
> into the band despite his lack of musical knowledge.
>
> As the for comments about Barrie leaving, I do not doubt that perhaps
> Barrie thought about leaving after John Glascock died, but the fact is he
> did not. John had been dead for a while and although they were very close
> and Barrie was responsible in large part for bringing John into Tull after
> Carmen toured with Tull, his death was not sufficient to cause him to give
> up what had up to that point been an extremely lucrative venture embarked
> on with his childhood friends. Despite what he may have said, they were
> all fired.
He's said himself that he'd planned to leave once the Stormwatch
tour was over. Seems simple enough to me; why is there any
reason to think otherwise? I mean, if he was instructed
by Ian to say that just so it wouldn't look like he was fired,
wouldn't he have taken similar precautions with Evans and
Palmer?
> Further, the whole original story surrounding the firing is stupid and
> does not make sense. A, which was to have originally been a solo Ian
> Anderson, but turned into a Jethro Tull album, had nothing to do with it.
> I mean if it is now a Jethro Tull album the then existing members of Tull
> could have still toured and played that album. Even if Jobson and Craney
> went out on the A tour, what would have prevented the line up that existed
> on Storm Watch from getting back together to continue as Tull if Ian
> permitted Jobson and Craney to tour to support A to appease Terry Ellis.
> The obvious answer was nothing. The whole problem with the press release
> was that Terry Ellis issued it before Ian had a chance to inform the guys
> that he had decided to get rid of them, which is why Ian was forced to
> make the hurried phone calls just prior to the press release.
>
> My source for the fact that they were fired as opposed to "pursuing solo
> projects" was Martin Barre, who confirmed the obvious for me on October
> 12, 1982 in Tallahassee Florida. I asked him what really happened and he
> said " basically they were just sacked." Knowing how close Martin was to
> those members, I asked him if he was upset by it. He said that although
> he did not like it, he had gotten used to it over the years.
Presumably it became apparent to Ian that it was time for a
change, and maybe he felt like playing with new musicians.
I don't condone that, or the way that he fired Evans
and Palmer, but the "story" about how A came about is
not incompatible with what you or Martin Barre have
said. I still don't believe that a deliberate
decision was made to sack the rest of the band *before*
the A project was even started.
> The bottom line is that if Ian wants you in the band you are in and if he
> does not, then you are not. If you have further doubt, please check "A
> New Day." I think that John Evan, Barrie and even Ian have commented on
> the situation. Also, rewind your 25th Ann. video and try to figure out why
> Glenn Cornick gets irritated and refused to reveal why he departed from
> Tull - if the answer is not painfully obvious.
Yeah, he was fired. Obviously. Nobody was denying the fact that
Ian has tossed people out of the band, I just don't think
all the decisions were the result of some clever conspiracy.
Sure. You're right; we shouldn't take everything he says at
face value. But on the other hand, I don't see any reason
to go to the other extreme and assume that everything he
says is a carefully constructed lie to make himself look
good. Although he kids around a lot, and gets sarcastic
on occasion, I think he's been basically honest and
forthright about most things...it's not like he tries to
completely rewrite the band's history, like the members
of, for instance, Yes.
> I am not trying to be critical. Maybe I am just the Sam Donaldson of the
> newsgroup.
I sure hope not...Sam Donaldson's a yahoo.
Christopher Norman
Biffyshrew
Jeezuz, I'm gonna have to split it in THREE!
PART TWO:
>My source for the fact that they were fired as opposed to "pursuing solo
>projects" was Martin Barre, who confirmed the obvious for me on October
>12, 1982 in Tallahassee Florida.
I don't think it was ever claimed that anyone other than Barrie left to
pursue other projects.
>I asked him what really happened and he
>said " basically they were just sacked." Knowing how close Martin was to
>those members, I asked him if he was upset by it. He said that although
>he did not like it, he had gotten used to it over the years.
>
>The bottom line is that if Ian wants you in the band you are in and if he
>does not, then you are not. If you have further doubt, please check "A
>New Day." I think that John Evan, Barrie and even Ian have commented on
>the situation.
I have checked A New Day. I posted Barrie's account above. Here's what
John E. said:
"At the end of tours we used to go our own ways and people would get in
touch with us when something was organized, like the next album or tour.
... Around about July [1980] I got a letter through the post. I opened it
and it was a second copy, a carbon copy from a typewriter, and it said
something along the lines of...'Dear Barrie, David and John. I'm sorry
this is so rushed, but basically Melody Maker is coming out tomorrow and
the story in it--which I couldn't prevent, I didn't want it but Terry
Ellis put it in without my knowledge--is that the group has split up.
Really, I'm going to do something on my own, maybe called Jethro Tull,
maybe not. But I am using different people and I thought I ought to let
you know.' I can't remember whether Ian signed it, or whether that was a
bloody carbon as well." (A New Day #15, 1988)
In A New Day #16 none other than Martin Barre confirms this story. You
don't mention whether your conversation with Martin was a proper interview
or one of those harried backstage crush scenes. If the latter, it's not
surprising you didn't get the full story from Martin. I don't think that
brief comment of his necessarily contradicts the
press-release-forced-Ian's-hand story. Basically, John E. and David P.
WERE "just sacked." But I'm still not clear on why you don't believe the
story that everyone involved tells about how the sacking was carried out.
Your "bottom line" comment is, of course, true.
>Also, rewind your 25th Ann. video and try to figure out why
>Glenn Cornick gets irritated and refused to reveal why he departed from
>Tull - if the answer is not painfully obvious. JEFFREY JOINED RIGHT AFTER
>AND I CAN ASSURE YOU HE DID NOT NOT AUDITION, NOR WERE ANY OTHER
MUSICIANS
>CONSIDERED.
You're probably right about the last part, since Jeffrey had been on the
fringes of Jethro Tull all along, running the short-lived fan club and so
on. Why should Ian look any further than his bass-playing buddy from the
old days? But if you're saying that the sole reason for Glenn's being
fired was that Ian suddenly wanted Jeffrey in the band, I think not.
(Sorry if that's not in fact what you mean.) I don't know the exact
circumstances behind Glenn's departure, so I don't want to speculate here,
but enough hints have been dropped to suggest that he was fired as a
result of certain excesses on the road.
Stay tuned for the thrilling conclusion!!!
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew @}-`--}----
Visit me at http://users.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
"I left my yo-yo in Nashville."--Richard M. Nixon
Biffyshrew
Finally: PART THREE:
Re: Jethro Tull And ELP - Milwaukee review
>I think you have to understand the way Ian operates. I am not calling
him
>a liar, but he likes to say things that are not true to ammuse himself.
You're not calling him a liar, but you're saying he tells lies. Gotcha.
Let's at least call him a "truth-embellisher"...
>Once I heard a fan ask Ian on the Crest tour why they did not play
>anything from Underwraps as the person really liked the album. Ian said
to
>him (100% seriously) "You will have to ask Martin, because he is the one
>who decides which songs we play." I believe that those who heard the
>response actually believed it apparently not realizing that nothing
>happens at least without Ian's seal of approval at the very least. [snip]
>I found the response so amusing (but I felt sorry for the person who
asked
>it) [snip]
The joke's on you, it seems. It IS Martin's job to decide what songs to
do on tours. Of course, you're absolutely right that Ian has the final
say (and frequently vetoes Martin's suggestions), so although Ian was
telling the truth, it was not the whole truth, and he really was avoiding
that fan's question. Not that I blame him. "Why don't you play [insert
song here]" must be one of the most frequent and tiresome questions Ian
gets asked by fans. The real answer--"You can't play
everything"--wouldn't satisfy anyone.
>it disturbs me that there is a significant faction of Tull fans that seem
to
>take whatever Ian says as 100% accurate. Regardless of whether or not he
>likes to amuse himself in this way, it is always wrong to accept what
>people say at face value. I think Ian would be the first one to agree
>with this.
This brings us back to the beginning of this post: I think we shouldn't
take Ian's comments about Jeffrey's total lack of ability on the bass at
face value. I think that was always a gross exaggeration, which Ian
repeated because it made for a colorful story. And I hope you WILL take
what I've said here at face value. Not a flame or an argument--just
trying to establish the facts.
Hey Ian--how come Tull never plays "Aeroplane" live?
Reinder Dijkhuis
In article <553e7c$k...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven Sullivan) wrote:
>Pavarotti's been coasting on reputation more than excellence of singing for
>years now, from what I'm told.
It's hard to tell with those opera singers. He still sounds good to my ears,
but how many people are experts on that style of singing anyway.
A better example of an older singer who still has most of his voice is Ian
Gillan on the latest Deep Purple tour. He is in a better shape than he was 8
years ago, or 3 years ago, and sounding close to his voice in the olden days -
although he has to pace himself more now to achieve that result.
Reinder Dijkhuis