|
|
Post by TM on Apr 11, 2014 8:49:13 GMT -5
Now I know how most Tull fans feel about the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, but let's just at least admit it would be nice to see Ian Anderson and Tull recognized for their contribution to rock music. And with that in mind, just a quick thought about Tull and the HOF. This year KISS is to be inducted. Apparently the HOF is only recognizing the original members, or most famous members and not the current band. So while KISS was invited to perform at the ceremony, Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley have declined in protest. You can read more about it here: KISS won't play at HOF induction So in the unlikely event that the HOF would even consider Jethro Tull do you think the band members would become an issue, and do you think the revolving door of musicians has hurt the bands chances of getting in? |
|
Heavy Horse
One of the Youngest of the Family
Posts: 92
|
Post by Heavy Horse on Apr 11, 2014 14:50:04 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me if Ian had turned down the HoF. They must ask potential inductees in advance, not just spring it on them. I guess we'll never know...
|
|
Mttbsh
Ethnic Piano Accordian-ist
Posts: 115
|
Post by Mttbsh on Apr 11, 2014 19:13:52 GMT -5
I can't imagine Ian wanting to be included in any music "Hall of Fame" that even considered KISS as a contender.
|
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 11, 2014 21:15:09 GMT -5
I can't imagine Ian wanting to be included in any music "Hall of Fame" that even considered KISS as a contender. At least KISS is rock and roll even if it is pretty unlistenable. Remember back in 1977 when Ian stated that KISS had "another 6 months maybe"? Just a bit off with that one... |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Crowe on Apr 12, 2014 0:01:05 GMT -5
I can't imagine Ian wanting to be included in any music "Hall of Fame" that even considered KISS as a contender. At least KISS is rock and roll even if it is pretty unlistenable. Remember back in 1977 when Ian stated that KISS had "another 6 months maybe"? Just a bit off with that one... I'm not so sure. |
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 12, 2014 8:49:39 GMT -5
At least KISS is rock and roll even if it is pretty unlistenable. Remember back in 1977 when Ian stated that KISS had "another 6 months maybe"? Just a bit off with that one... I'm not so sure. Not sure of what, that they are rock and roll or still have an audience? |
|
|
|
Post by Lucas on Apr 12, 2014 11:36:20 GMT -5
To me it doesn't make a difference whether Tull is or not on the HoF. I suspect Ian couldn't care less either.
Although I have no doubt he would accept and play in the ceremony.
|
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 12, 2014 16:09:00 GMT -5
To me it doesn't make a difference whether Tull is or not on the HoF. I suspect Ian couldn't care less either. Although I have no doubt he would accept and play in the ceremony. Thanks for the reply Lucas, and I agree with you that Ian would accept if inducted. But my question really was focused on the band members and whether or not the fact that Tull has had 28 of them is detrimental to them being inducted. This year, the E Street Band is being inducted for Pete's sake. Next year I'm hoping The Pips and The Supremes get in.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lucas on Apr 12, 2014 16:17:12 GMT -5
Yes, Tull had a lot of members.
I didn't know the members where taken into account for the HoF, but who would they consider? The original ones? The ones spanning from 68 to 79? All of them?
That's confusing!
|
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 12, 2014 16:31:10 GMT -5
Yes, Tull had a lot of members. I didn't know the members where taken into account for the HoF, but who would they consider? The original ones? The ones spanning from 68 to 79? All of them? That's confusing! Based on what's happening to KISS, I don't see them allowing all of them. That means the HOF would decide which members define the band and not Ian. Hey, maybe he would decline after all.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lucas on Apr 12, 2014 16:40:51 GMT -5
Well, it would be certainly difficult for the chosen members to play in the ceremony.
But if playing is not mandatory, I think he would accept it. New album and lots of remixes and all coming out, free publicity like that is not easy to come by.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Crowe on Apr 13, 2014 0:49:19 GMT -5
Not sure of what, that they are rock and roll or still have an audience? Not so sure that Ian was just a bit off with that. Just my sarcastic opinion that Kiss has been a Kiss tribute band for some forty years now, but then I really don't have a horse in the race as I never liked them. Sort of like more theater and comic books than music. Sort of the Monkeys with more attitude and more makeup. Same with Van Halen. I mean, they were a bubblegum California party band. Can you really play "Hot For Teacher" in your sixties with any conviction? Perhaps, but nostalgia has it's limits I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Apr 13, 2014 11:08:23 GMT -5
Not sure of what, that they are rock and roll or still have an audience? Not so sure that Ian was just a bit off with that. Just my sarcastic opinion that Kiss has been a Kiss tribute band for some forty years now, but then I really don't have a horse in the race as I never liked them. Sort of like more theater and comic books than music. Sort of the Monkeys with more attitude and more makeup. Same with Van Halen. I mean, they were a bubblegum California party band. Can you really play "Hot For Teacher" in your sixties with any conviction? Perhaps, but nostalgia has it's limits I think. Whether you care for Kiss or not (and I decidedly do not), they are an embodiment of a certain style of rock and roll (however distasteful), and they had a huge following with several platinum albums. So their inclusion in a "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" fits whatever parameter you care to make. Likewise, Van Halen was the biggest thing since sliced bread in the early 80s and Eddie Van Halen was worshipped as a guitar god at the time. Again, they had a huge following, sold platinum albums, sold out stadiums and even had constant airtime on MTV -- there shouldn't be an argument for their inclusion. As far as "Hot for Teacher" being played in one's 60s, I recently saw Paul McCartney sing "I Saw Her Standing There" (and with a 70 year-old geezer singing the lines "Well she was just 17, you know what I mean" sounded like it bordered on pedophelia). Great drum intro in "Hot for Teacher" by the way. My issue is the abject subjectivity of this alleged Hall of Fame. In the case of either Kiss or Van Halen, they tick off all the marks as far as inclusion: they were hugely successful, they were influential and they played rock music. That makes sense to me, whether I care for the band or not. What does not make any sense is this asinine Hall picking performers for induction that were never, ever ever considered rock, rock and roll, hard rock, prog rock, folk rock or whatever rock definer you care to add. Then they ignore actual rock bands and performers that do tick off all the marks: The Moody Blues, Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Chicago, etc. -- hugely successful with multi-platinum albums, influential, and they played what we all would consider some form of rock. It is almost with begrudging acceptance that bands like Alice Cooper, Rush, Kiss, etc. finally got in over 30 years after their major successes, but more recent performers without the same rock credibility are literally thrown in without a thought. Rappers like Grandmaster Flash, Public Enemy and Run-DMC? Really? When was rap ever considered rock and roll. Donna Summers? ABBA? Michael Jackson inducted TWO TIMES? Curtis Mayfield inducted TWO TIMES? Don't get me wrong, I have Curtis Mayfield albums, but I never considered him in any rock genre whatsoever. Stupid fucking Hall. |
|
|
|
Post by Lucas on Apr 13, 2014 11:24:23 GMT -5
What makes me uneasy about Kiss is the approach Gene Simmons has towards his music. He sees it as merely a bussiness. Nothing more, nothing less. In an interview he said that he did a market study to understand what would make more sucess and everything. Even those silly outfits where designed by measure according to market studies. I mean, as silly as they are, if they were genuine, original and all, it would be more honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 13, 2014 12:01:08 GMT -5
Not so sure that Ian was just a bit off with that. Just my sarcastic opinion that Kiss has been a Kiss tribute band for some forty years now, but then I really don't have a horse in the race as I never liked them. Sort of like more theater and comic books than music. Sort of the Monkeys with more attitude and more makeup. Same with Van Halen. I mean, they were a bubblegum California party band. Can you really play "Hot For Teacher" in your sixties with any conviction? Perhaps, but nostalgia has it's limits I think. Whether you care for Kiss or not (and I decidedly do not), they are an embodiment of a certain style of rock and roll (however distasteful), and they had a huge following with several platinum albums. So their inclusion in a "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" fits whatever parameter you care to make. Likewise, Van Halen was the biggest thing since sliced bread in the early 80s and Eddie Van Halen was worshipped as a guitar god at the time. Again, they had a huge following, sold platinum albums, sold out stadiums and even had constant airtime on MTV -- there shouldn't be an argument for their inclusion. As far as "Hot for Teacher" being played in one's 60s, I recently saw Paul McCartney sing "I Saw Her Standing There" (and with a 70 year-old geezer singing the lines "Well she was just 17, you know what I mean" sounded like it bordered on pedophelia). Great drum intro in "Hot for Teacher" by the way. My issue is the abject subjectivity of this alleged Hall of Fame. In the case of either Kiss or Van Halen, they tick off all the marks as far as inclusion: they were hugely successful, they were influential and they played rock music. That makes sense to me, whether I care for the band or not. What does not make any sense is this asinine Hall picking performers for induction that were never, ever ever considered rock, rock and roll, hard rock, prog rock, folk rock or whatever rock definer you care to add. Then they ignore actual rock bands and performers that do tick off all the marks: The Moody Blues, Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Chicago, etc. -- hugely successful with multi-platinum albums, influential, and they played what we all would consider some form of rock. It is almost with begrudging acceptance that bands like Alice Cooper, Rush, Kiss, etc. finally got in over 30 years after their major successes, but more recent performers without the same rock credibility are literally thrown in without a thought. Rappers like Grandmaster Flash, Public Enemy and Run-DMC? Really? When was rap ever considered rock and roll. Donna Summers? ABBA? Michael Jackson inducted TWO TIMES? Curtis Mayfield inducted TWO TIMES? Don't get me wrong, I have Curtis Mayfield albums, but I never considered him in any rock genre whatsoever. Stupid fucking Hall. Very well said. I agree totally. |
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Apr 13, 2014 12:03:36 GMT -5
"Stupid fucking Hall."
e'nuff said
|
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 13, 2014 12:12:34 GMT -5
What makes me uneasy about Kiss is the approach Gene Simmons has towards his music. He sees it as merely a bussiness. Nothing more, nothing less. In an interview he said that he did a market study to understand what would make more sucess and everything. Even those silly outfits where designed by measure according to market studies. I mean, as silly as they are, it they were genuine, original and all, it would be more honest. Interesting topic - honesty in music. I was talking with David Goodier after a show a few years back and he was suggesting it's the "act" that makes you successful on stage. A lot of people can play, but you need to be able to act the part as well. |
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 13, 2014 12:36:44 GMT -5
Not sure of what, that they are rock and roll or still have an audience? Not so sure that Ian was just a bit off with that. Just my sarcastic opinion that Kiss has been a Kiss tribute band for some forty years now, but then I really don't have a horse in the race as I never liked them. Sort of like more theater and comic books than music. Sort of the Monkeys with more attitude and more makeup. Same with Van Halen. I mean, they were a bubblegum California party band. Can you really play "Hot For Teacher" in your sixties with any conviction? Perhaps, but nostalgia has it's limits I think. Content aside, Ian singled out Alice Cooper and Kiss as two American bands with a short shelf life and he was dead wrong as they have stood pretty much toe-to-toe with him. In terms of record sales alone Tull has sold about 60 million units while Kiss has sold over 100 million, and Alice Cooper 50 million. |
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Apr 13, 2014 12:43:22 GMT -5
What makes me uneasy about Kiss is the approach Gene Simmons has towards his music. He sees it as merely a bussiness. Nothing more, nothing less. In an interview he said that he did a market study to understand what would make more sucess and everything. Even those silly outfits where designed by measure according to market studies. I mean, as silly as they are, it they were genuine, original and all, it would be more honest. Interesting topic - honesty in music. I was talking with David Goodier after a show a few years back and he was suggesting it's the "act" that makes you successful on stage. A lot of people can play, but you need to be able to act the part as well. Everyone in music has a cultivated persona (even those that pretend not to have one, like Eddie Vedder). Everyone makes business decisions for their careers. Some we as fans like, others we don't. I loved Alice Cooper as a youth, but gave up on him when he split from the original band and appeared with the Muppets. Tull (or Ian Anderson) decided to ditch his band and sound for synths in the 80s, and I never really felt the same for the band going forward. The same can be said for Genesis after Peter Gabriel, and Steve Hackett in particular, left the band. When Pink Floyd split, I went along with the David Gilmour camp because Roger Waters never seemed to move beyond the sarcasm and cynicism of The Wall. Kiss was a novelty even in 1976, and I knew it even as a teenager. They had a few catchy tunes early on, but received an inordinate amount of attention an adulation from fans. They had frickin' Kiss dolls, and individual albums with a portrait of each performer for Christ's sake. They were mediocre musicians but the greatest mass marketers of the 70s. The Beatles, for all their masterful musicianship and great compositions, were carefully marketed in the 60s with matching nehru suits, Christmas messages and even a Saturday morning cartoon. It is a business, whether we love the music or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Lucas on Apr 13, 2014 14:05:10 GMT -5
I understand it is a bussiness, and needs marketing and everything. Of course musicians have their own stage persona, Ian being an excelent example of this.
What I am saying, what I understood Gene said in thw interview I watched, it that he would be playing anything that showed itself to be more profitable. It happened to be the straight foward simple rock Kiss plays. That bothers me.
Anyway, I'm not a big fan either, but there is one piece of music I really love, Black Diamond.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Apr 13, 2014 14:51:33 GMT -5
I understand it is a bussiness, and needs marketing and everything. Of course musicians have their own stage persona, Ian being an excelent example of this. What I am saying, what I understood Gene said in thw interview I watched, it that he would be playing anything that showed itself to be more profitable. It happened to be the straight foward simple rock Kiss plays. That bothers me. Anyway, I'm not a big fan either, but there is one piece of music I really love, Black Diamond. Hmmm...so you don't think Ian went with synths in the early 80s to be more profitable, given the change in the music scene? Or was that an "artistic decision?  He dumped band members and recruited hired hands so he could gain more money. You don't think Ian releasing a ridiculous amount of remasters, greatest hits packages, anthologies and various Christmas albums was meant to maximize profit and squeeze every dollar out of fans? What's a Homo Erraticus super-duper special deluxe 4 CD limited edition going for? $89.00 US? The materials probably cost a buck-fifty to throw together. Even those we loved the most are out for our money. |
|
|
|
Post by Lucas on Apr 13, 2014 15:01:14 GMT -5
Of course he does those things, specially nowadays.
But think 70's. I truly don't see Tull following any musical tendencies or whetever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Crowe on Apr 14, 2014 0:16:34 GMT -5
Not so sure that Ian was just a bit off with that. Just my sarcastic opinion that Kiss has been a Kiss tribute band for some forty years now, but then I really don't have a horse in the race as I never liked them. Sort of like more theater and comic books than music. Sort of the Monkeys with more attitude and more makeup. Same with Van Halen. I mean, they were a bubblegum California party band. Can you really play "Hot For Teacher" in your sixties with any conviction? Perhaps, but nostalgia has it's limits I think. Whether you care for Kiss or not (and I decidedly do not), they are an embodiment of a certain style of rock and roll (however distasteful), and they had a huge following with several platinum albums. So their inclusion in a "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" fits whatever parameter you care to make. Likewise, Van Halen was the biggest thing since sliced bread in the early 80s and Eddie Van Halen was worshipped as a guitar god at the time. Again, they had a huge following, sold platinum albums, sold out stadiums and even had constant airtime on MTV -- there shouldn't be an argument for their inclusion. As far as "Hot for Teacher" being played in one's 60s, I recently saw Paul McCartney sing "I Saw Her Standing There" (and with a 70 year-old geezer singing the lines "Well she was just 17, you know what I mean" sounded like it bordered on pedophelia). Great drum intro in "Hot for Teacher" by the way. My issue is the abject subjectivity of this alleged Hall of Fame. In the case of either Kiss or Van Halen, they tick off all the marks as far as inclusion: they were hugely successful, they were influential and they played rock music. That makes sense to me, whether I care for the band or not. What does not make any sense is this asinine Hall picking performers for induction that were never, ever ever considered rock, rock and roll, hard rock, prog rock, folk rock or whatever rock definer you care to add. Then they ignore actual rock bands and performers that do tick off all the marks: The Moody Blues, Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Chicago, etc. -- hugely successful with multi-platinum albums, influential, and they played what we all would consider some form of rock. It is almost with begrudging acceptance that bands like Alice Cooper, Rush, Kiss, etc. finally got in over 30 years after their major successes, but more recent performers without the same rock credibility are literally thrown in without a thought. Rappers like Grandmaster Flash, Public Enemy and Run-DMC? Really? When was rap ever considered rock and roll. Donna Summers? ABBA? Michael Jackson inducted TWO TIMES? Curtis Mayfield inducted TWO TIMES? Don't get me wrong, I have Curtis Mayfield albums, but I never considered him in any rock genre whatsoever. Stupid fucking Hall. Well said, and I agree I think. I really shouldn't have commented really because I do have a rather undistilled take on music as a whole. I've been in the music business at some point or other since the late 60s but I'm not really a fan overall. I like a very small percentage of a very wide range of music. I don't particularly like rock music as a whole. I had rather hear the sounds of Korean slap fighting with sound effects at 6 AM in a tin barn than to hear one note from REM. I don't like anything much that can be used as background music except New Age which is benign. Not only do I not like the Eagles, but I would prefer that you didn't either, even though they are quite good at whatever boring thing it is they do. Johnny Rotten once said, "I am irritated by everything and everybody and I just bloody well can't help it." I'm not that bad, but I pretty much think Black Sabbath wrote the book, and will close it, on Heavy Metal. So to me, Metalica and that ilk are an unlistenalbe joke that I just can't take seriously, and Kiss, and Van Halen. Great musicians Van Halen (yes, great drum intro to HFT) but I just don't give a rats. As far as the HOF, who cares. Well, a lot of people obvioulsy. I think they take the old line of mostly blues based rock, rockabilly, soul, primitive guidlines or whatever so prog has trouble getting their attention. Suits me. So I'm not qualified to comment which I did only because I couldn't resist being sarcastic for a moment. Anything to do with the HOF doesn't interest me, nor does a Grammy, or anything competitive in art. Grace Slick retired from music because she thought old people playing teen music was silly. I can see that, so thankfully most of Ian's music doesn't fall into that theater. I will now take my leave, and apologize for quoting Johnny Rotten on a prog website. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Crowe on Apr 14, 2014 0:55:20 GMT -5
Not so sure that Ian was just a bit off with that. Just my sarcastic opinion that Kiss has been a Kiss tribute band for some forty years now, but then I really don't have a horse in the race as I never liked them. Sort of like more theater and comic books than music. Sort of the Monkeys with more attitude and more makeup. Same with Van Halen. I mean, they were a bubblegum California party band. Can you really play "Hot For Teacher" in your sixties with any conviction? Perhaps, but nostalgia has it's limits I think. Content aside, Ian singled out Alice Cooper and Kiss as two American bands with a short shelf life and he was dead wrong as they have stood pretty much toe-to-toe with him. In terms of record sales alone Tull has sold about 60 million units while Kiss has sold over 100 million, and Alice Cooper 50 million. I would have singled out Kiss back then as having a short shelf life, but Alice was one of the first to do the Glam/shock thing and didn't appear at the time to be so much of a fad or bandwagon jumper. Alice Cooper was a pretty good band early on, whereas Kiss (as they've admitted) couldn't really even play their instruments very well. It was about the "show" for them and being as big as possible. But there's no accounting for taste (I certainly question my own). Recently I sat and watched (for ten minutes anyway) a fellow that failed our band auditions a few years back because he basically couldn't play - on Live From Lincoln Center on PBS. Seems somebody thought otherwise. Garth Brooks sold more records than Carter has liver pills, and Neil Young is in the R&R HOF where I think he deserves to be, based on my opinon of that fabulous establishment, along with his one note guitar solo being ranked among the best of all time in .... Rolling Stone I think it was, or maybe not. So when it comes to stats I don't think, from an artistic point of view, it proves anything other than who had the best management, catchiest hook that appealed to the lowest human denominator, or the most money behind them - exceptions not withstanding. But then I may have not understood the question. |
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 14, 2014 9:46:56 GMT -5
Content aside, Ian singled out Alice Cooper and Kiss as two American bands with a short shelf life and he was dead wrong as they have stood pretty much toe-to-toe with him. In terms of record sales alone Tull has sold about 60 million units while Kiss has sold over 100 million, and Alice Cooper 50 million. I would have singled out Kiss back then as having a short shelf life, but Alice was one of the first to do the Glam/shock thing and didn't appear at the time to be so much of a fad or bandwagon jumper. Alice Cooper was a pretty good band early on, whereas Kiss (as they've admitted) couldn't really even play their instruments very well. It was about the "show" for them and being as big as possible. But there's no accounting for taste (I certainly question my own). Recently I sat and watched (for ten minutes anyway) a fellow that failed our band auditions a few years back because he basically couldn't play - on Live From Lincoln Center on PBS. Seems somebody thought otherwise. Garth Brooks sold more records than Carter has liver pills, and Neil Young is in the R&R HOF where I think he deserves to be, based on my opinon of that fabulous establishment, along with his one note guitar solo being ranked among the best of all time in .... Rolling Stone I think it was, or maybe not. So when it comes to stats I don't think, from an artistic point of view, it proves anything other than who had the best management, catchiest hook that appealed to the lowest human denominator, or the most money behind them - exceptions not withstanding. But then I may have not understood the question. It was simply a question about longevity and Ian used those two as examples of American bands who while popular at the time, would soon fall by the wayside. |
|
He dumped band members and recruited hired hands so he could gain more money. You don't think Ian releasing a ridiculous amount of remasters, greatest hits packages, anthologies and various Christmas albums was meant to maximize profit and squeeze every dollar out of fans? What's a Homo Erraticus super-duper special deluxe 4 CD limited edition going for? $89.00 US? The materials probably cost a buck-fifty to throw together.