|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 14, 2010 23:03:15 GMT -5
Does anyone haunt this site: rateyourmusic.com/I have been enthralled for the past several months reading and writing reviews (I'm up over 135 reviews and 160 ratings currently), as well as disagreeing with everyone that is wrong (ie., those that don't agree with my point of view). Ratings run from 0.5 (lowest) to 5 stars (highest) for each album. There are literally thousands of albums reviewed and tens of thousands actual reviews. Currently, the highest rated Tull albums are as follows (with over 500 member ratings): Thick as a Brick, 4.17 stars (3199 ratings) Living in the Past, 4.11 stars (553 ratings) Aqualung, 4.07 stars (4274 ratings) Stand Up, 3.96 stars (1668 ratings) Songs from the Wood, 3.95 stars (1373 ratings) Between original albums, band compilations, bootlegs, singles, videos, out-of-print lp's, etc. there are well over 100 items in the Tull catalog reviewed. Intriguing site. You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll curse the lunacy of the misinformed critics who obviously have tin ears and irritable bowel syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 16, 2010 21:55:52 GMT -5
Hmmm...well, I expected a bit more discussion regarding the site, but there seems to be a dearth of dialogue. So, I'll post some Tull reviews I did for RYM and you can scream and rant and rave regarding the depravity of my critique. I try to be succinct, keeping each review to no more than three paragraphs. Hey, I'm not getting paid by the word, and getting to the crux of the biscuit (to paraphrase Frank Zappa) trumps verbosity.
This Was (1968) -- 4 stars Oh no! not another 1960's British blues band! One would think the English invented the blues the way these Muddy Waters-wannabes proliferate. Wait a minute...wait a minute! What's up with these Jethro Toe fellas? What? Tull? Jethro Tull? They're named after an 18th British agronomist known most notably for inventing the seed drill? A seed drill -- really? It must be a very tiny drill to bore into a seed. But as I was saying, there is something off here -- this blues band is playing jazz! If my ears don't deceive me, that's 'Serenade to a Cuckoo', a Roland Kirk composition. Yes, that Roland Kirk: the guy who plays a nose flute. Hey, what gives here...that Ian Anderson is playing flute and harmonica in 'My Sunday Feeling'. You can't play flute and harmonica in a blues song, it just isn't done! Oh yeah, you're right, there's flute and blues harp in John Mayall's 'Room to Move'. Damn British innovations!
I really like 'Some Day the Sun Won't Shine For You'. It reminds me of the little jam sessions we had in my mother's basement in the late 70's. Of course we were stoned! One doesn't sit in one's mother's basement playing acoustic blues tunes without being stoned! Now they're playing 'Cat's Squirrel'. Every 60' British blues band must have a recording of 'Cat's Squirrel'. It must be some weird rite of passage thing for the Brits, sort of like the occult spanking scene in 'Animal House'. Oh, I get it, these Jethro Tull fellas are only disguised as a British blues band. Underneath they are a hard-folk-prog-Elizabethan-blues-rock, concept-album-making bunch of freakish free-spirits who the critics will despise, and who will eventually steal a Grammy award from Metallica -- yes, that's right, a Grammy winner for an album that is maybe the thirteenth best record in their discography! What do you mean I'm full of shit? It could happen! Anyway, I really like this album. No, really, it is good. No, I'm not being paid to say this! I'm just practicing my stream-of-consciousness literary style.
Stand Up (1969) -- 5 stars[/u] Tull had just parted ways with guitarist Mick Abrahams (who went on to make a a really good blues album with Blodwyn Pig, by the way), and had chosen Martin Barre as the their new lead guitarist. Tull took a u-turn on the blues highway and went off-road and did some camping on this is stunning folk-rock opus. I have long been of the thought that no one in rock really writes beautiful, reflective tunes anymore. Ian Anderson can turn them out by the bucketful but still rock on the same album. 'Look Into the Sun', 'Reasons for Waiting' and 'For a Thousand Mothers' are just beautifully rendered, mellow pieces; conversely, 'Nothing is Easy' (a personal favorite), 'A New Day Yesterday' and 'We Used to Know' rock along quite well. Top it off with what Anderson refers to as cocktail jazz 'Bouree', and the frenetic 'Fat Man' (another favorite), and one finds the direction Tull took was an important step in becoming one of the greatest prog-rock bands of all time. Or folk-rock band. Or concept band. You get the general idea -- if you get Tull.
Beyond the act of turning out excellent compositions, 'Stand Up' is an important album in the synthesis of several different musical elements and genres into the rock idiom: jazz, blues, classical, folk. Name any other rock bands that have the artistic grasp to successfully fuse these all into one recording. Take your time. Get back to me when you can come up with a few.
Benefit (1970) -- 3.5 stars Sandwiched between two great albums 'Stand Up' and 'Aqualung', 'Benefit' just does not reach the heights of the former or the latter. There are some nice songs like 'Nothing to Say', 'To Cry You a Song', 'Teacher', 'Play in Time' and 'With You There to Help Me', but the album lacks fire and is merely Tull going through the motions. Of course, Tull going through the motions is better, comparatively speaking, than most bands have to offer, but considering the amazing amount of great songs Tull produced in and around the time 'Benefit' was released, this album is a let down.
Unlike either 'Stand Up' or 'Aqualung', there is relatively little differentiation from song to song, and I suppose it is the sameness that rankles. Ian Anderson sounds like he's singing the same song with different time signatures, which is odd, given his passionate live performances in the same era. Of course the 2001 digital remaster offers extra tunes such as 'Singing all Day', 'Witches Promise', 'Alive and Well and Living In' and 'Just Trying to Be', and one wonders why these weren't selected for inclusion in the first place. But these are already recognizable from the superlative collection 'Living in the Past' and no longer seem appropriate here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2010 4:06:58 GMT -5
Hmmm...well, I expected a bit more discussion regarding the site, but there seems to be a dearth of dialogue. So, I'll post some Tull reviews I did for RYM and you can scream and rant and rave regarding the depravity of my critique. I try to be succinct, keeping each review to no more than three paragraphs. Hey, I'm not getting paid by the word, and getting to the crux of the biscuit (to paraphrase Frank Zappa) trumps verbosity. This Was (1968) -- four starsOh no! not another 1960's British blues band! One would think the English invented the blues the way these Muddy Waters-wannabes proliferate. Wait a minute...wait a minute! What's up with these Jethro Toe fellas? What? Tull? Jethro Tull? They're named after an 18th British agronomist known most notably for inventing the seed drill? A seed drill -- really? It must be a very tiny drill to bore into a seed. But as I was saying, there is something off here -- this blues band is playing jazz! If my ears don't deceive me, that's 'Serenade to a Cuckoo', a Roland Kirk composition. Yes, that Roland Kirk: the guy who plays a nose flute. Hey, what gives here...that Ian Anderson is playing flute and harmonica in 'My Sunday Feeling'. You can't play flute and harmonica in a blues song, it just isn't done! Oh yeah, you're right, there's flute and blues harp in John Mayall's 'Room to Move'. Damn British innovations! I really like 'Some Day the Sun Won't Shine For You'. It reminds me of the little jam sessions we had in my mother's basement in the late 70's. Of course we were stoned! One doesn't sit in one's mother's basement playing acoustic blues tunes without being stoned! Now they're playing 'Cat's Squirrel'. Every 60' British blues band must have a recording of 'Cat's Squirrel'. It must be some weird rite of passage thing for the Brits, sort of like the occult spanking scene in 'Animal House'. Oh, I get it, these Jethro Tull fellas are only disguised as a British blues band. Underneath they are a hard-folk-prog-Elizabethan-blues-rock, concept-album-making bunch of freakish free-spirits who the critics will despise, and who will eventually steal a Grammy award from Metallica -- yes, that's right, a Grammy winner for an album that is maybe the thirteenth best record in their discography! What do you mean I'm full of shit? It could happen! Anyway, I really like this album. No, really, it is good. No, I'm not being paid to say this! I'm just practicing my stream-of-consciousness literary style. Stand Up (1969) -- 5 stars[/u] Tull had just parted ways with guitarist Mick Abrahams (who went on to make a a really good blues album with Blodwyn Pig, by the way), and had chosen Martin Barre as the their new lead guitarist. Tull took a u-turn off the blues highway and went off-road and did some camping on this is stunning folk-rock opus. I have long been of the thought that no one in rock really writes beautiful, reflective tunes anymore. Ian Anderson can turn them out by the bucketful but still rock on the same album. 'Look Into the Sun', 'Reasons for Waiting' and 'For a Thousand Mothers' are just beautifully rendered, mellow pieces; conversely, 'Nothing is Easy' (a personal favorite), 'A New Day Yesterday' and 'We Used to Know' rock along quite well. Top it off with what Anderson refers to as cocktail jazz 'Bouree', and the frenetic 'Fat Man' (another favorite), and one finds the direction Tull took was an important step in becoming one of the greatest prog-rock bands of all time. Or folk-rock band. Or concept band. You get the general idea -- if you get Tull. Beyond the act of turning out excellent compositions, 'Stand Up' is an important album in the synthesis of several different musical elements and genres into the rock idiom: jazz, blues, classical, folk. Name any other rock bands that have the artistic grasp to successfully fuse these all into one recording. Take your time. Get back to me when you can come up with a few. Benefit (1970) -- 3.5 starsSandwiched between two great albums 'Stand Up' and 'Aqualung', 'Benefit' just does not reach the heights of the former or the latter. There are some nice songs like 'Nothing to Say', 'To Cry You a Song', 'Teacher', 'Play in Time' and 'With You There to Help Me', but the album lacks fire and is merely Tull going through the motions. Of course, Tull going through the motions is better, comparatively speaking, than most bands have to offer, but considering the amazing amount of great songs Tull produced in and around the time 'Benefit' was released, this album is a let down. Unlike either 'Stand Up' or 'Aqualung', there is relatively little differentiation from song to song, and I suppose it is the sameness that rankles. Ian Anderson sounds like he's singing the same song with different time signatures, which is odd, given his passionate live performances in the same era. Of course the 2001 digital remaster offers extra tunes such as 'Singing all Day', 'Witches Promise', 'Alive and Well and Living In' and 'Just Trying to Be', and one wonders why these weren't selected for inclusion in the first place. But these are already recognizable from the superlative collection 'Living in the Past' and no longer seem appropriate here. [/quote] Morthoron Apologies, I did look at it and to be honest found myself going off on loads of tangential searches of other bands. I should have posted and said thanks for providing the link. It's well worth a visit and repeated visits, some nice reviews on there from people who offer very constructive critiques and reviews, clearly some, like the ones you quote above, are constructed well enough to make a judgement on whether to buy an album or not. It's just a pity, as with any site like this, that you get the odd 'reviewer' who simply wants to express their opinion that 'the band are a total bunch of morons' or 'the band stink' [or worse]; still they're easy enough to by-pass. I'll be re-visitng it on a regular basis, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 17, 2010 17:59:35 GMT -5
...clearly some, like the ones you quote above, are constructed well enough to make a judgement on whether to buy an album or not. The ones I quoted are constructed well 'enough' because I wrote them. It's one of the few value-added points to having an English Degree. But yes, taken with a grain with a grain of salt and plus or minus a point or so, the overall ratings are not too far off for most albums, and do allow for educated CD purchases. Another nice feature is 'your predicted rating' which shows up after you've listed your favorite groups and began reviewing albums. It calculates an album rating based on other people who have similar tastes and rating patterns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2010 2:30:44 GMT -5
...clearly some, like the ones you quote above, are constructed well enough to make a judgement on whether to buy an album or not. The ones I quoted are constructed well 'enough' because I wrote them. It's one of the few value-added points to having an English Degree. Whoops, I better watch my P's and Q's, dot my i's and cross my t's! Thanks for the link though, it's an addictive site, I think I'm about ten percent of the way through comparing my record collection list with the reviews, fascinating to see how others judge your own favourites.
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 18, 2010 21:54:15 GMT -5
Here are a few more reviews I did for RYM.com:
Aqualung (1971) -- 5 stars Aqualung is an essential album, and one of the greatest examples of 1970's rock, and Jethro Tull remains one of the few bands to create albums on their own terms, rather than the profligate whims of record corporations. Conformity was never one of Ian Anderson's strong suits, which is why you won't be seeing Tull in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame anytime soon, but you will see the Bee Gees (and ABBA, for Christ's sake! who the hell votes for these inanities?).
Critics have often tried to pigeonhole Aqualung into one of several genres: concept album, progressive rock, folk-rock, et cetera, ad nauseam, but the brilliance of the album is that it transcended what was termed 'hard-rock' back in 1971, and offered a refreshing synthesis of several styles and moods. The lyrics are dryly witty and sarcastic at times, particularly regarding Christian hypocrisy (like in 'My God', 'Hymn 43' and 'Wind Up'), whimsical ('Mother Goose'), reflective ('Wond'ring Aloud'), or vulgar ('Cross-eyed Mary'), but the overall effect is a seemless travelogue of England itself, a journey that includes both the pastoral landscapes of Hampstead and the gritty streets of London or Birmingham. We hobnob with whores, pedophiles, losers and bums, as well as schoolboys, nurses and bishops at tea.
The title song 'Aqualung' is a microcosmic mini-epic of the album itself, containing bits and pieces of the album's philosophy and irreverence (the lyric 'snot is running down his nose' made all middle school boys giggle with glee in '71 -- no one referred to snot on an album prior to this!), and it is still played daily on every classic rock station 'round the world, just like 'Stairway to Heaven' and the 'Bohemian Rhapsody'. The poetic allusiveness of the lyrics is exceptionally strong and evokes England to its very core ('feeling alone, the armies of the road, salvation a la mode, and a cup of tea'), while reminding us that the death of the homeless beggar, who snatches his last rattling breath with 'deep-sea diver sounds', is the reason the album is called 'Aqualung' in the first place (an 'aqualung' is a breathing apparatus used by deep-sea divers, consisting of a mouthpiece attached to air cylinders, causing the distinctive echoed gasping sounds as oxygen is breathed in).
The flute, that rock music novelty which has become indeliby identified with Tull, is not necessarily the focal point of this album; in fact, the album's greatest hit, the song 'Aqualung', contains not a hint of flute. Of course, Ian Anderson's virtuousity on the instrument is present on 'Locomotive Breath' and 'My God' where the flute becomes a weapon and not some effeminate, whimpering thing.
But it is Anderson's interludes on acoustic guitar that really sets this album apart from the run-of-the-mill 70's rock offerings. The acoustic guitar work on songs such as 'Aqualung', 'Mother Goose', 'My God' and 'Cheap Day Return' is integral to the overall effect of the album, sometimes subtle and nuanced, and at other times biting and inflected.
When Aqualung rocks, it really rocks, but it also presents other tonal dimensions that make it a unique and exceptionally strong album.
Thick as a Brick (1972) -- 4.5 stars The album should rate highly simply on the strength of having one of the best album covers ever designed: a fold-out newspaper complete with comics, ads and a crossword puzzle! A CD jewel case does not do justice to the album design (which is the case for many of the albums from the 60's and 70's). Not my favorite Tull album, but I cannot underestimate the effect 'Thick as a Brick' had on folks growing up in the 70's. It was irreverent! It was rebellious! It mentioned both blackheads and peeing oneself in the night! And even though this is not a personal Tull favorite of mine, the album trumps all the rest of the pedestrian crap out there.
The first twenty minutes of the piece is magnificent, more than making up for a lack of differentiation in the movements thereafter, and it does plod in sections, although the last 10 minutes or so it returns to form.
The lyrics (supplied by a precociously Miltonic adolescent named Gerald Bostock -- an alter ego of Ian Anderson) are slyly superb throughout. And they are very sly -- a send-up of the progressive rock of the time. It is purposely pretentious mockery, holding a jaded mirror up to Tull's rock counterparts, except the mirror is one of those that is found in a carnival, warped and wavy, a pompous overture to wretched excess. It succeeds magnificently. Many reviewers don't get it and take it at face value, which is even more ironic. Or moronic as the case may be.
As a parody 'Thick as a Brick' is a five star classic; for all it brilliance, however, it is merely a very, very good album from a musical standpoint.
Living in the Past (1972) -- 5 stars[/u] Throw-offs, castaways, b-sides...this should be dreadful, shouldn't it? Well, it's not, in fact it is relevatory. 'Living in the Past' is an amazing trek through the first four years of Tull bandhood, and what a remarkable trip it was.
The album cuts a wide swath and shows a range of musical depth that very few bands possess. Truthfully, this is an album that most bands haven't the wherewithal to release in their entire careers. From 'Christmas Song', one of the best Christmas songs ever written ("Hey, Santa, pass us that bottle, will you?"), to some flawlessly executed acoustic tunes like 'Witches Promise', 'Just trying to Be', 'Life is a Long Song', 'Singing All Day', 'Up the Pool' and 'Nursie', to some great rock such as 'Living in the Past', 'Driving Song', 'Sweet Dream', Hymn #43 and 'Teacher', to a lively mini-set from Carnegie Hall (nice piano solo), and one can well see that the period from 68-71 was very fruitful and the harbinger of great things to come.
'Living in the Past' succeeds because it is not a greatest hits package that bands occasionally vomit up in lieu of something tangible to offer (and god knows Tull has regurgitated far too many unnecessary repackagings in their 40 year career), and it is more than just a snapshot of the band. It's more like a family album, complete with the embarrassing photos of drunken Uncle Earl dry-humping the jungle gym at the last family picnic. Well, maybe not that undignified, but you get what I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 20, 2010 7:56:12 GMT -5
Three more reviews.
A Passion Play (1973) -- 4 stars Tull did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever the hell they wanted -- which is why critics can't stand them, but their fans love them. They release Thick as a Brick, an unconventional album containing just one song (or at least one poem with music composed around it), and so what do they do for an encore? They release another 'concept' album with no discernible hit single and no real segue from one movement to the next, with the only interruption an Aldous Huxley meets Lewis Carroll while humping Beatrix Potter pseudo-children's story 'The Hare Who Lost His Spectacles' smack dab in the middle. I would rate this album higher than 'Thick as a Brick' based on sheer audacity alone (but that would be silly). But, as there is so little audacity in the rock music industry, it gives one pause to consider the merits of this album.
The lyrics, filled with allusions and allegory are at times profound and at other times slyly witty ('and your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George, who stole surreptitiously into her geography vision -- the examining body examined her body!'). The dreaded concept that this album is based on regards the polemic passion plays -- precursors to our stage plays -- that were prevalent on the streets of English towns throughout the 14th and 15th centuries. English Passion Plays dealt mainly with biblical themes (ie., the Passion of Christ'), although they eventually expanded to include morality plays (whores redeemed, prodigal sons and cuckolded husbands getting their revenge). The album better emphasizes the aspects of a 'morality play', but the title would not have been as sexy in that case.
The instrumentation for A Passion Play is flawless, and the ever-changing themes and moods undulate like ocean waves, now stormy, now subdued, now playfully lapping. This is one of the curious relics of early 70's progressive rock, an album that defies corporate record producers and promoters, and presents a band that refused to knuckle under to the 'conventional wisdom' of said greedy producers and promoters, and gave them nothing to spin as far as a hit single. Naturally, the album went to #1 in the U.S. without any conventional wisdom. This album would not have been released in any later decade or currently, and this speaks volumes as to how mass-produced music has all but destroyed creativity and innovation. Thumbs up for Tull and the middle finger to commercialized, pre-package muzak!
War Child (1974) -- 3.5 stars A rag-tag selection of songs from other sessions, including the Chateau D'isaster sessions in France (that eventually spawned the eccentric Passion Play), War Child has so many peaks and valleys that Tull should have named it 'The Alps'.
That is not to say that this is a dreadful album; on the contrary, it has much going for it. But in hindsight, one can see that Jethro Tull, at the peak of their popularity (A Passion Play had just reached #1 on the U.S. charts), was being run ragged and were evidently getting dizzy running in and out of studios, airports and tour buses as they criss-crossed the globe. Evidently, a new release was required, and rather than a unified album, what we have here is a Jethrocopia (or would that be a Tullpourri?) of songs that seem a bit off-kilter.
The peaks, 'Skating Away' (from the infamous Chateau D'isaster sessions), 'Sealion' (a personal favorite), 'Only Solitaire' (another favorite) and 'The Third Hoorah' are all exceptional Tull pieces; unfortunately, this album contains 'Bungle in the Jungle', the most contrived, commercial piece of crap Tull ever recorded, as well as a few sub-par tunes like 'Queen and Country', 'Ladies' and 'Back-Door Angels'. 'Two Fingers' (from Chateau) and 'War-Child' are solid Tull tunes. The title song 'War Child' presciently presents the musical mucking-about and odd beats that would mar later albums (particularly on the flat 'Too Old to Rock and Roll' release). For the song's true glory, check out the CD 'A Classic Case' where 'War Child' is superbly reinvented as a classical composition by David (Dee) Palmer and the London Symhony Orchestra.
Minstrel in the Gallery (1975) -- 4.5 stars A return to form by the band after a long, strange trip that took Tull on consecutive visits to the 'concept album' trough (Thick as a Brick and A Passion Play), and the uneven and hastily released War Child. With Minstrel in the Gallery we finally get a studio album that is cohesive, consistent and does not merely contain a single song stretching over an entire album, which is not a bad thing (particularly in the case of a band like Tull with immense compositional skills), but it is rather nice to hear a range of songs every now and again.
Minstrel in the Gallery is a very underrated album from Tull. The late 60's and 70's for Tull offered some truly great albums (Stand Up, Aqualung, Living in the Past, Songs From the Wood), some fair-to middling-to good efforts (Benefit, Too Old To Rock and Roll, War Child, Heavy Horses, Stormwatch), and three, in my estimation that teeter on the brink of greatness, Thick as a Brick, Passion Play and Minstrel in the Gallery. With Minstrel, I believe one really sees Ian Anderson's lyrical genius. The man was a poet during a time when most rock bands sang monosyllabic, three or four chord love songs.
There is a lot of depth on the album, particularly the 'Baker St. Muse' song-cycle, with its bawdy, sometimes touching and other times raucous wordplay. And once again, we find the exquisite acoustic guitar work of Anderson on the title song, 'Cold Wind to Valhalla', 'Nothing At All' and throughout 'Baker St. Muse'. Many fans consider the flute as the defining instrument in a Tull composition, but it is really the interplay of Martin Barre's electric and Ian Anderson's acoustic guitars. The variation of the two sounds, the hard and the soft, is what makes Tull albums truly unique. Rembrandt offered chiaroscuro to the art world, and Tull offers the same shadow and light in a musical sense. So, If you are interested in Tull but are rather bored of overplayed stuff from Aqualung, give this a play.
|
|
|
Post by Nonfatman on Jun 20, 2010 20:17:35 GMT -5
These are great reviews, Greg, I have been skimming them but need to go back over and read them in depth. I could tell that you are an excellent writer and I agree with much of what you say in your reviews. Definitely agree on War Child, I thoght that was one of Tull's weaker efforts, but I understand the tour was tremendous. (I didn't see them for the first time until 1977.) I'll have more comments now that I am "back" here after being upset for the last day or two at what I thought was the imminent cancellation of the Israel shows. The situation is still unclear, but at least there is reason to hope. Cheers, Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 21, 2010 22:09:39 GMT -5
These are great reviews, Greg, I have been skimming them but need to go back over and read them in depth. I could tell that you are an excellent writer and I agree with much of what you say in your reviews. Definitely agree on War Child, I thoght that was one of Tull's weaker efforts, but I understand the tour was tremendous. (I didn't see them for the first time until 1977.) Thanks for the reply and the kind words, Jeff. And yes, please do comment as I tick down to Tull oblivion. Here's a few more: Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young to Die! (1976) -- 3 starsAnother offbeat outing from Tull sandwiched between two greater albums ('Minstrel in the Gallery' and 'Songs from the Wood'). Truth to tell, I never particularly cared for this album. Rolling Stone referred to this album as 'a canard'. At the time, I wasn't sure of the definition, so I grabbed ol' Merriam-Webster and found the following: canard -- 1 a : a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report b : a groundless rumor or belief. I suppose RS was merely hoisting Ian Anderson on his own petard for bemoaning the fact that he was 'too old to rock and roll and too young to die', which, of course, was ridiculous because Ian was not even 30 years old at the time. And although I rarely agree with Rolling Stone in regard to their reviews of Tull albums, I have to agree with the unfavorable nature of their critique. That being said, there are some really stunning songs like 'Salamander' (one of the best acoustic pieces in the Tull discography) and 'Taxi Grab' (why doesn't Ian use the blues harp more often?!), as well as Tull stalwarts like 'Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll' and 'From a Deadbeat', but the rest of the album is pretty forgettable. Ummm...what were we talking about again? Songs From the Wood (1977) -- 5 starsThe last truly superb Tull album. I saw Tull for the first time when this came out, and I have been a fan for life. Anyone who has seen concerts from this period will tell you, they just don't do concerts like that anymore (add Yes, Floyd, Zeppelin, Queen, Zappa, Neil Young, etc. to the equation, if you'd like). Nowadays, it's $10 for parking, $10 for a beer, and a 1.5 hour commercial. I'm surprised musicians don't have sponsor tattoos inked onto their chests. Anyway, back to the album. The musicianship is outstanding, particularly on 'Velvet Green', 'The Whistler' and 'Pibroch' (or Pee-break, for you Tull concert-goers). This album rocks and relaxes, sometimes in the same song. The lyrics are occasionaly very funny (read the lyrics of 'Hunting Girl' -- it has nothing to do with riding a horse, wink, wink, nudge, nudge), in other songs supremely ironic and full of regret (I mention 'Pibroch' again because of the lyrics, as well as the downright evil guitarwork of Martin Barre), and wistfully contented ('Fire at Midnight'). From an historic perspective, this will be the last time a lengthy composition from Tull doesn't come off labored and repetitive (which plagues longer tunes on 'Heavy Horses' and 'Stormwatch', although both are still very commendable albums). Both 'Velvet Green' at 6:04, and 'Pibroch' clocking in at 8:35, not only shine from a storytelling aspect, but musically the boys from Tull pull out all the stops, proving once again that the punk mantra of 'keep it simple, keep it short and spike your hair with snot and semen' is not necessarily what makes great rock music. Contrary to popular rock sentiment, I've always considered being able to play more than four chords as a mark of great musicianship. Ogres, like onions, have layers, and Tull is the onion in the rock salad -- many-layered, lyrically accomplished and able to shift from acoustic to electric instrumentation with the greatest alacrity, nuance and ability. Tull gets back to nature and causes and Elizabethan storm. Heavy Horses (1978) -- four starsNot as lively as 'Songs From the Wood' and not as inspired perhaps, but there are still several great songs on 'HH', such as 'Acres Wild' (a personal favorite), 'One Brown Mouse' (yet another) and 'Weathercock' (*snickers* he said 'cock'), and such tunes as 'Moths', 'Rover' and 'Never Sleeps the Mouse Police' are also worthy additions to the Tull Corpus. However (ah, you were waiting for the other shoe to drop, yes?), there is a bit of noodling about here that lessens my interest. For instance, both 'No Lullaby' and 'Heavy Horses' slog on a bit too long. Both compositions would be truly great if they were trimmed of fat ('Heavy Horses' indeed). Note to Ian: repetition is not praiseworthy, particularly in a song nine minutes long. All in all, a very solid effort, but as I have noted, a notch below a really great album like 'Songs From The Wood'.
|
|
|
Post by Nonfatman on Jun 21, 2010 22:36:55 GMT -5
Hi, Greg, I just read your latest reviews, nice work on those. I used to think HH was a notch below SFTW, but HH has grown on me in recent years, so now I have them neck and neck. A bit futile to compare the two, they are both so great, almost like comparing Brick and Passion Play, although I would choose Brick in that contest. I know what you are saying about No Lullaby going on too long, and the title track also goes on a bit, but I think that one changes up enough in tempo, etc., so that it avoids feeling formulaic or repetitive in the same way No Lullaby does. I also think HH is Tull's most complete song (excluding album-length songs), because it really has got it all, great acoustic and electric guitar, strong vocals, hard driving rock and gentle acoustic passages, flute, lyrics, poetry, imagery, it's all there. That is one of my desert island Tull songs for sure.
TOTRNR is the first new album that came out after I just started to get into Tull some time after Minstrel was released. So, as is very often the case, I have a soft spot for it. I think it's really underated. So much of that album has a kind of coffeehouse feel to it, just Ian picking and strumming on his acoustic guitar and playing the flute, much of it could really be a solo album. Plus, I like the simple basic rockers, the title track, Taxi Grab, Big Dipper, and especially Quizz Kid. Good solid rock. I think it is one of Tull's most eccentric and quirky albums, and certainly a lot of fun, vulgar lyrics and imagery. Musically there are a lot of interesting touches, harmonica, slide guitar, backing female vocals, saxophone, the pizzicato plucking of Pied Piper. And I love the defiant cover art and the Ray Lomas comic strip. (I am soon going to be featuring the artists who did that work in my Tull Album Cover Art thread.) I don't know, I just really like the album a lot, and I actually prefer it over War Child and Minstrel in that I am more inclined to put that one on than the others.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 21, 2010 23:39:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the swift reply, Jeff! I was hoping sooner or later we could compare notes regarding the Tull discography. Hopefully I really piss someone off and get into a really heady debate (and believe me, from a chronoligical standpoint, the ratings get uglier as we get into the eighties). Hi, Greg, I just read your latest reviews, nice work on those. I used to think HH was a notch below SFTW, but HH has grown on me in recent years, so now I have them neck and neck. A bit futile to compare the two, they are both so great, almost like comparing Brick and Passion Play, although I would choose Brick in that contest. I know what you are saying about No Lullaby going on too long, and the title track also goes on a bit, but I think that one changes up enough in tempo, etc., so that it avoids feeling formulaic or repetitive in the same way No Lullaby does. I also think HH is Tull's most complete song (excluding album-length songs), because it really has got it all, great acoustic and electric guitar, strong vocals, hard driving rock and gentle acoustic passages, flute, lyrics, poetry, imagery, it's all there. That is one of my desert island Tull songs for sure. I just think that SFTW has more fire than HH, and is genuinely a more virtuoso performance by Tull. Three songs in particular set that album apart: 'The Whistler' with its incredibly fast flute/fife interludes, the guitarwork on Pibroch (nowhere before or since has Mr. Anderson allowed Mr. Barre the amount of space to jam --and jam hard -- as on that song), and Velvet Green, with its variation and use of so many different time signatures and instruments. As I said, I really cherish the Robt. Burns-based One Brown Mouse, and Acres Wild is a top ten Tull tune for me, but I think SFTW succeeds on a far greater scale than HH. I would place SFTW behind only Aqualung, Living in the Past and Stand Up in order of importance (it certainly is their last 'great' album, in my opinion of course). Not surprisingly, SFTW was one of the few Tull albums to garner great praise from a consensus of reviewers as well. Not that that sways me at all. ;D TOTRNR is the first new album that came out after I just started to get into Tull some time after Minstrel was released. So, as is very often the case, I have a soft spot for it. I think it's really underated. So much of that album has a kind of coffeehouse feel to it, just Ian picking and strumming on his acoustic guitar and playing the flute, much of it could really be a solo album. Plus, I like the simple basic rockers, the title track, Taxi Grab, Big Dipper, and especially Quizz Kid. Good solid rock. I think it is one of Tull's most eccentric and quirky albums, and certainly a lot of fun, vulgar lyrics and imagery. Musically there are a lot of interesting touches, harmonica, slide guitar, backing female vocals, saxophone, the pizzicato plucking of Pied Piper. And I love the defiant cover art and the Ray Lomas comic strip. (I am soon going to be featuring the artists who did that work in my Tull Album Cover Art thread.) I don't know, I just really like the album a lot, and I actually prefer it over War Child and Minstrel in that I am more inclined to put that one on than the others. Truthfully, TOTRNR bores me to tears. Again, Salamander, Deadbeat and Taxi Grab are personal favorites, but I think that a fair album like War Child has a better overall lineup of tunes than TOTRNR. Many of the songs are introspective, almost tenuous or listless. There is not a lot of rollicking on that album. And you are right, it is very quirky -- almost too much so for its own good.
|
|
Tullist
One of the Youngest of the Family
Posts: 63
|
Post by Tullist on Jun 22, 2010 0:31:11 GMT -5
I am curious as to where you saw these great reviews of SFTW as it was universally reviled or ignored at the time of its release. I can cite from memory the case of Rolling Stone, this was 33 years ago and I think rags like Creem and Crawdaddy or NME and the like overseas by that point did not review Tull records at all lest Johnny Rotten notice them. I recall Rolling Stone at the time of its release gave it one star, alongside a rear page review of the show under the title "Thick as Kitsch". I then picked up a Rolling Stone record review book, maybe 10 years ago, and there was SFTW with 5 stars. Some ever so kind and tactful individual informed me recently that the current review is 3 stars or the like, but, the point being, when it was current, it was anything but well received, it received jack radio play in Chicago, and doubtless elsewhere. Anybody remember hearing copious amounts of Velvet Green or Pibroch. Yeah I know The Whistler was the radio friendly track, that received jack as well. Any far overdue positive response to possibly Tull's greatest record, (I still mark that as TAAB) I take with a huge grain of salt, unless its from the likes of Dirty Linen or the Green Man. Its like is it safe to like the Jethro man again? I tell the lot to sod off.
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 22, 2010 2:17:46 GMT -5
I am curious as to where you saw these great reviews of SFTW as it was universally reviled or ignored at the time of its release. Funny how the memory works -- or doesn't in my case. I remember very positive reviews in both Detroit papers. As far as Lester Bangs, he was a Hunter S. Thompson wannabe and a failed literati. He never said anything good about any band outside of his very tiny sphere of light -- and Tull was anathema to him. But perhaps I waxed too ebulliently regarding positive reviews at the time. The accumulated strata of reviews on the internet for SFTW have been positive. My apologies. I see that it has upset you greatly and caused you indigestion. ...but, the point being, when it was current, it was anything but well received, it received jack radio play in Chicago, and doubtless elsewhere. Anybody remember hearing copious amounts of Velvet Green or Pibroch. Yeah I know The Whistler was the radio friendly track, that received jack as well. Well, see, that's where we have to disagree. Again, in the Detroit market, which is of course nowhere near as urbane as cosmopolitan Chicagoland, 'Songs From the Wood' was played at great length. I even remember a BBC 1 In Concert presentation of 'Songs from the Wood' being played (or was it King Biscuit?). But then again, at the time Detroit had probably some of the best and most progressive rock stations in the country (WRIF, WWWW, WABX). Whole albums played, perfect album sides, exclusives and such. Hell, Tull came to Detroit twice in '77 for two sold-out shows each time (the first instance at the Masonic Auditorium and then later at Cobo Hall). 'Songs From the Wood' tunes were featured in both venues. But then, Detroit had the best concerts in the 70's. Rock bands loved to come here. ;D Any far overdue positive response to possibly Tull's greatest record, (I still mark that as TAAB) I take with a huge grain of salt, unless its from the likes of Dirty Linen or the Green Man. Its like is it safe to like the Jethro man again? I tell the lot to sod off. Who exactly are you referring to regarding 'Any far overdue positive response to possibly Tull's greatest record'? I am not following your train of thought here.
|
|
Tullist
One of the Youngest of the Family
Posts: 63
|
Post by Tullist on Jun 22, 2010 10:25:28 GMT -5
Darn it, just had a nice long response to your post that I don't have time to re create. In any case a joy to have u around brother D town, always grateful to see creative wordplay, and positively delighted if it involves music generally, and Tull specifically! Hope u stick around!
|
|
Mikeytull
One of the Youngest of the Family
Posts: 62
|
Post by Mikeytull on Jun 22, 2010 14:02:18 GMT -5
I have an old copy of NME with a review of SFTW and they liked it . Ranking better than the previous 3 albums. And even calling Aqualung a masterpiece. Their four stand out tracks on the album are "cup of wonder, hunting girl, fire at midnight, and pibroch cap in hand". They end the review with " sftw won't restore tull's flagging prestige in Britain. Nor will it be seen as a real downer. It's place lies somewhere in between those two poles, an offering from a band that displays new potential without fully realising it. File under resonably popular." Praise indeed, bastards.
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 22, 2010 15:22:15 GMT -5
The oddest comment regarding a Tull album comes from a 1979 edition of The Rolling Stone Record Guide, in which they say of Aqualung:
'Typically, Aqualung can be hummed, but it is not danceable.'
Ummm...huh?
Oh, and in the '79 RS guide rates 'Living in the Past' as the highest rated Tull album (5 stars), followed by 'This Was', 'Stand Up', 'A' ('A'? They've got to be kidding!), 'Minstrel in the Gallery' and 'Songs from the Wood' (all 4 stars). Aqualung rates 3 stars and TAAB weighs in with a whopping 2 stars.
|
|
|
Post by Nonfatman on Jun 22, 2010 21:39:49 GMT -5
I won't quibble with you too much on SFTW and HH, I think both are superb, similar in some ways yet different in others. SFTW is more lively, nature is viewed as beneficient and fun, HH more serious, with nature taking on a more sinister aspect. SFTW has an Elizabethan feel, HH a Victorian feel. I like Martin's guitar better on HH. It seems a little out of place on SFTW, like it was grafted onto the music.
TOTRNR was never boring to me at all, I thiought it was a brilliant and humorous social commentary about the changing and cyclical nature of fashion. It was released just before the dawn of punk rock, almost as if Ian sensed that the dinosaur bands were about to become very unfashionable, and he was right. I believe he also coined that expression. To me, it is one of Tull's most interesting and unique records. What teenage boy could resist the defiant up yours gesture on the cover?
I found War Child tedious in places. The meanings weren't all that clear to me either. For some reason I never really connected with the lyrics on that album, and I thought some of the songs were just so-so compared to pretty much all of Tull's previous work. And it was just so heavy-handed and bombastic, even for Tull. Something about the vocals on that album that I'm not crazy about either, but I can't quite put a finger on it. The vocals just seem to stand out on more than they do on other albums.
Minstrel is another one I don't connect with very well. Musically it is fine, right up three with Tull's best, but I hate the condescending lyrics to the title track (even though it's one of my favorite songs muscially), I am not very interested in the Nordic mythology of Cold Wind, and on much of the rest of the album I think he overdoes it with the wordplay and puns. Lyrically my favorite passages are in One White Duck, Requiem and Crash Barrier Waltzer, but most of the rest of the lyrics I just do not connect with that much.
I am sure we will agree on some things, disagree on others,for instance I can tell you right now that I love the A album, so don't you go dissing my A!
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 23, 2010 22:49:12 GMT -5
I am sure we will agree on some things, disagree on others,for instance I can tell you right now that I love the A album, so don't you go dissing my A! And this is the point where the fur starts flying! ;D Stormwatch (1979) -- 3.5 starsLike every album from the 70's for Tull, this is a good album. The musicianship is superior to all but a select few bands, and there are many stunning moments; however, one does notice a perceptible drop-off in energy level from one album to the next. The humor and jesting has dropped in stages as well. From their last great album, 'Songs from the Wood' to the solid 'Heavy Horses' to 'Stormwatch', there is a decided...ummmm...what would you call it? Perhaps a lack of enthusiasm. I dearly cherish the song 'Dun Ringill' with it's superb multiple-tracked vocal lead-in and mysterious minor chord arrangement. and 'Something's on the Move' is a catchy tune ('a needle in a spiral in a groove' -- catchy line), but a song like 'Dark Ages', although interesting in spots, drags on a bit too long (like the tune 'Heavy Horses' on their previous album, there is a propensity for repetition -- and, again, clocking in at 9:07 minutes, I think we got the point somewhere around 7:30, or perhaps 6:45). 'Orion' is nice, as is 'Old Ghosts' and 'Warm Sporran', and 'Elegy' is certainly ...errr...elegaic, but I just don't get too worked up for this material. Good, but not great. A prelude to the deluge. A (1980) -- 2 starsAn aborted Ian Anderson solo album foisted onto the unwitting public as a Tull release. Imagine, if you will, the band Asia having anal sex with Jethro Tull. Not a pretty sight. Very sterile-sounding and lacking in the warmth of previous albums. And it is boring! I don't think I've ever said that about an entire Tull album up to this point. Very disappointing. Ed Jobson does what he can with the material, but he and the rest of the folks are in over their collective heads. It seems that poor Ian Anderson was having feelings of irrelevancy due to the punk and new wave movements sweeping England, and in some nightmarish backlash decided to rent every hi-tech gadget available at the local music shoppe: vocoders, synths, electric fiddles, drum machines -- I believe Ian unwittingly influenced Orchestral Manuevers in the Dark. Or the Buggles. It would take a few albums for Tull to return to form (and some sense of equilibrium). This album alienated Tull fans in droves. Note to Ian: if it aint broke, don't fix it. One doesn't need to update a Stradivarius with a chrome kickstand, fer chrissakes! Broadsword and the Beast (1982) -- 3 starsHumorously, 'Broadsword and the Beast' gets three stars ONLY if one includes the extra tracks available on the 2005 digital remaster, like 'Jack Frost and the Hooded Crow', 'Jack A Lynn', and 'Mayhem Maybe'. Otherwise, this is an over-synthed 80's parody of Tull -- even the cover is a parody of Ian Anderson gone fey. If your copy of 'BatB' does not have the aforementioned additional tracks, throw it with great gusto back at the sales clerk and repeat the entire piece 'The Hare That Lost its Spectacles' over and over till the bad memories have been washed away. Of course, from a comparative standpoint 'Broadsword and the Beast' is better than the previous album 'A', but listening to old, scratched-up 45's on a Kenner Close 'n' Play phonograph missing its needle would sound better than 'A'. If I looked really hard, stretched my realm of credulity and pretended that the synth-power pop was really orchestration from the Minstrel in the Gallery era, then 'Pussy Willow','Cheerio' and 'Slow Marching Band' would be decent Tull tunes. Next.
|
|
|
Post by Nonfatman on Jun 24, 2010 9:41:01 GMT -5
Okay, buddy, now I've got a bone to pick with you. A is on my A-list. Not now, though, later. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Nonfatman on Jun 25, 2010 16:47:21 GMT -5
I am sure we will agree on some things, disagree on others,for instance I can tell you right now that I love the A album, so don't you go dissing my A! And this is the point where the fur starts flying! ;D Stormwatch (1979) -- 3.5 starsLike every album from the 70's for Tull, this is a good album. The musicianship is superior to all but a select few bands, and there are many stunning moments; however, one does notice a perceptible drop-off in energy level from one album to the next. The humor and jesting has dropped in stages as well. From their last great album, 'Songs from the Wood' to the solid 'Heavy Horses' to 'Stormwatch', there is a decided...ummmm...what would you call it? Perhaps a lack of enthusiasm. I dearly cherish the song 'Dun Ringill' with it's superb multiple-tracked vocal lead-in and mysterious minor chord arrangement. and 'Something's on the Move' is a catchy tune ('a needle in a spiral in a groove' -- catchy line), but a song like 'Dark Ages', although interesting in spots, drags on a bit too long (like the tune 'Heavy Horses' on their previous album, there is a propensity for repetition -- and, again, clocking in at 9:07 minutes, I think we got the point somewhere around 7:30, or perhaps 6:45). 'Orion' is nice, as is 'Old Ghosts' and 'Warm Sporran', and 'Elegy' is certainly ...errr...elegaic, but I just don't get too worked up for this material. Good, but not great. A prelude to the deluge. I think you're a little harsh on this album, Gregger. The lyrics, imagery and singing are top notch, and Barriemore Barlow saves his best drumming for this album. The only songs that I don't love are Home, because it sounds too much like a 70's power ballad...I would prefer it done without the electric guitar, which sounds out of place. Also I don't think Something's on the Move is a great song, although it is certainly energetic and good. But Orion is beautiful, I love the strings on that song, the crunching electric guitar and the fact that it is flute-free. The notion of a benign celestial being looking down sympathetically and lovingly on this sad world is something that I find very appealing. I like North Sea Oil quite a bit, (it seems very relevant now doesn't it?), and obviously Flying Dutchman -- a musical and lyrical masterpiece which we have discussed here on the Look into the Song subboard which we really need to revive - Old Ghosts is beautiful too, pure poetry, and need I even mention Dun Ringill? I think both instrumentals are superb, and although you perhaps have a point about Dark Ages going on a little t0o long, it is just a classic Tull song. The fact that the album lacks humor is just because it is a serious album, like a lot of prior Tull albums were, but it definitely does not lack heart or warmth. I give Stormwatch at least 4 stars, and probably 4.5. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 25, 2010 21:37:37 GMT -5
And this is the point where the fur starts flying! ;D Stormwatch (1979) -- 3.5 starsLike every album from the 70's for Tull, this is a good album. The musicianship is superior to all but a select few bands, and there are many stunning moments; however, one does notice a perceptible drop-off in energy level from one album to the next. The humor and jesting has dropped in stages as well. From their last great album, 'Songs from the Wood' to the solid 'Heavy Horses' to 'Stormwatch', there is a decided...ummmm...what would you call it? Perhaps a lack of enthusiasm. I dearly cherish the song 'Dun Ringill' with it's superb multiple-tracked vocal lead-in and mysterious minor chord arrangement. and 'Something's on the Move' is a catchy tune ('a needle in a spiral in a groove' -- catchy line), but a song like 'Dark Ages', although interesting in spots, drags on a bit too long (like the tune 'Heavy Horses' on their previous album, there is a propensity for repetition -- and, again, clocking in at 9:07 minutes, I think we got the point somewhere around 7:30, or perhaps 6:45). 'Orion' is nice, as is 'Old Ghosts' and 'Warm Sporran', and 'Elegy' is certainly ...errr...elegaic, but I just don't get too worked up for this material. Good, but not great. A prelude to the deluge. I think you're a little harsh on this album, Gregger. The lyrics, imagery and singing are top notch, and Barriemore Barlow saves his best drumming for this album. The only songs that I don't love are Home, because it sounds too much like a 70's power ballad...I would prefer it done without the electric guitar, which sounds out of place. Also I don't think Something's on the Move is a great song, although it is certainly energetic and good. But Orion is beautiful, I love the strings on that song, the crunching electric guitar and the fact that it is flute-free. The notion of a benign celestial being looking down sympathetically and lovingly on this sad world is something that I find very appealing. I like North Sea Oil quite a bit, (it seems very relevant now doesn't it?), and obviously Flying Dutchman -- a musical and lyrical masterpiece which we have discussed here on the Look into the Song subboard which we really need to revive - Old Ghosts is beautiful too, pure poetry, and need I even mention Dun Ringill? I think both instrumentals are superb, and although you perhaps have a point about Dark Ages going on a little t0o long, it is just a classic Tull song. The fact that the album lacks humor is just because it is a serious album, like a lot of prior Tull albums were, but it definitely does not lack heart or warmth. I give Stormwatch at least 4 stars, and probably 4.5. Jeff, in my reviews for Tull I am giving each album a rating in the hierarchical structure of all the albums released. Given that there were 12 studio albums prior to Stormwatch, you have to ask yourself, how many albums of the 12 were worse than Stormwatch? One, maybe two? Are War Child, Benefit or Too Old To Rock and Roll, three albums I rated 3 or 3.5 stars, worse than Stormwatch? I don't think so, or at least they are very close; yet they are not 4 or 4.5 star albums. That would mean that the first 12 Tull albums were 4 stars or better, which is ridiculous, and simply not true. Does Stormwatch warrant a 4 or 4.5 star rating when the only albums I have rated at that level are Thick as a Brick, Passion Play, Minstrel in the Gallery, This Was and Heavy Horses? I simply don't believe Stormwatch is on the same level as TaaB, PP, MitG or HH. In fact, 3.5 is an appropriate rating because Stormwatch is not on par with those albums, nor the albums I rated at 5 star (Aqualung, Stand Up, Living in the Past and Songs from the Wood). I just isn't a 4 or 4.5 star album based on the context and protocols set. There are of course limits to a five star rating system, but I have been following the guidelines of RYM.com for these reviews. There would obviously be more leeway in a 10 point system, but the hierarchy of the albums, from best to worst, would not change. In addition, although we all love Jethro Tull, not all albums from Tull are four or five stars if we are being totally honest and not sycophantic fanboys. Let me explain further. To me, a 5 star album is essential to any rock album collection, and I simply don't dole out 5 stars to many albums (and I've reviewed a couple hundred albums aside from Tull). Anything 4 star and above is excellent. I just don't see Stormwatch as excellent. It is very good (ie., 3.5 stars).
|
|
|
Post by Nonfatman on Jun 25, 2010 22:01:05 GMT -5
It's quite difficult to establish an objective rating system, though, because so much of it is in the ear and mind of the beholder. Albums like Passion Play, War Child and Minstrel do very little for me lyrically, although I love most of the music on those three albums, I can't really connect with the lyrics on an emotional level, and so personally I would rate those beneath Stormwatch, but that's my subjective preference. Just as there are a lot of Tull fans, the majority of Tull fans in fact, who love Broadsword whereas in my opinion that one is Tull's weakest effort. I am also in the minority about A, you and others loathe it, but to me it is a very solid album in terms of melody, lyrics and meaning.
Plus, objectively speaking, I thought a lot of the War Child songs were just average for Tull, so I would most definitely not place it in the same category as Stormwatch, and would only give it 2 or 3 stars at most. The Stormwatch album and tour stand out to me as among Tull's finest.
So really I guess what I am saying is that the star system is kind of meaningless. Your stars may differ from mine, but your stars are no more accurate than mine and vice versa. If we asked everyone here to rate the entire catalogue, we would come up with 229 different variations, and they all would be valid because what matters is how an individiual person reacts to the art.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 26, 2010 5:13:14 GMT -5
All true, Jeff. But they are my stars -- for my reviews.
|
|
|
Post by Nonfatman on Jun 26, 2010 7:18:42 GMT -5
All true, Jeff. But they are my stars -- for my reviews. And I am enjoying reading them and exchanging views with you, Greg, so please let's continue! I'll comment on A and Broadsword a little later. This is a little like the Album Wars thread, where we have been comparing notes and giving detailed analyses on each aspect of the albums, trying to use objective criteria as a measure of greatness. But in the end that really is futile, because it is impossible to keep subjective preferences out of the equation. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Jun 26, 2010 23:32:52 GMT -5
Plus, objectively speaking, I thought a lot of the War Child songs were just average for Tull, so I would most definitely not place it in the same category as Stormwatch, and would only give it 2 or 3 stars at most. The Stormwatch album and tour stand out to me as among Tull's finest. War Child, because it is an amalgam of different sessions, does not have the usual continuity and consistency of a Tull album of the period. In relation to Stormwatch, I would say that Stormwatch is a more consistent album; however, Stormwatch has only one truly outstanding and memorable cut: Dun Ringill, whereas Warchild has the equally stunning Skating Away, and in addition Sealion, Solitaire and The Third Hoorah. Warchild hits more highs and has more memorable tunes, but it also has more substandard material (I have been able to listen to Bungle in the Jungle in its entirety since the mid-70's). To be honest, I would say either album is better than Too Old to Rock and Roll.
|
|