Bogenbroom
One of the Youngest of the Family
Posts: 63
|
Post by Bogenbroom on Jan 22, 2010 12:07:36 GMT -5
Regarding comments about Ian as a singer made at the start of this thread: am I the only one who thinks Ian was a great singer? I mean take his voice at its peak around SFTW/HH. He was awesome and I love the sound of his voice. Nope. I absolutely LOVE the sound of Ian's voice and many of his vocal affections. On some songs when I'm singing along I wish I could sing like him. His voice and delivery suited him perfectly. The cynicism expressed in his voice on Back To The Family, the urgency in Jack-A-Lynn, the honest affection of Inside. :love: Very expressive and, to my ears, quite pleasant. But like Mix said " I'm sure the Ian Anderson of 20+ years ago would agree. If there comes a time when you cannot deliver then you have to take action. Ian doesn't, he appears to be in denial or just doesn't care." He just doesn't have it anymore. The Christmas album was IMO pretty good for his current singing voice. I still don't care for the off-beat stressing.
|
|
|
Post by TM on Jan 22, 2010 12:31:21 GMT -5
I'm not suggesting Mix that his vocals are as poor on the albums as they are on stage. But, what I am saying is that he started singing in the 'style' of the way he sings live with the release of Roots to Branches. I'm not sure if it was deliberate or not but he either could not mask the deficiencies any longer or he chose not to. Again, I'm not arguing the $$$ angle. You may well be right. But it may be something more important than money, it may be ego driven... Sorry TM, I misunderstood what you meant about the vocals. Regarding comments about Ian as a singer made at the start of this thread: am I the only one who thinks Ian was a great singer? I mean take his voice at its peak around SFTW/HH. He was awesome and I love the sound of his voice. I certainly can't fault him. His voice did change though but jump forward to Rock Island and I still think he's sounding great. Catfish is the first album to show the signs although I think he did some great vocal work on that album. Roots, as TM points out has less adventurous vocal work which has been the case ever since. I don't mind that. Its common for male singer to loose their voice a bit as they age. Mind you, McCartney still has it. Re: the ego. I think you are right TM. But if Ian wanted the kinda praise and success of his past he needs to put some effort in and come up with the goods. He's too lazy when it comes to working as a band. The idea to him of shacking up with the band for months while they work through the construction of an album just doesn't appeal. It's all too easy to email parts in and for Ian to work alone at his pace. I can respect that but if he wants Tull to be on top again its going to take a different approach and perhaps some more unique talent in the band that matches Ian and Martin. I thought his vocals on Catfish were good even though many weren't "touring-friendly" vocals wise. I wonder if Ian is actually capable of putting out some music that would appeal to a larger audience. I really don't think he can any longer. He just doesn't have the vocals any longer....
|
|
Tullite
Ethnic Piano Accordian-ist
Posts: 174
|
Post by Tullite on Jan 22, 2010 14:39:50 GMT -5
well said mix, i would like to disagree but i cant ! because i agree with all you have said , every uk tour every year i end up turning out for the tull shows wishing and expecting things to change !! but alas they never have not for a long time only the line up changes , my exscuse to myself and my wife is that it may be our last chance of seeing them " live" so we keep going . even the " official site " hardly changes now just a sprinkling of news and one yearly xmas message from ian which was short and sweet this year ! i am making exscuses now but maybe he has health problems ie with the DVT or the tinitus he suffers from but then again if they were so bad he wouldent tour so much so i dont know the reasoning behind no new album maybe hes lost a lot of his motivation and creativity with age who knows. but as long as they are around we will probably still be at the shows cus one day it will finish for good then it will be all albums !!
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jan 22, 2010 21:13:02 GMT -5
Nothing to do musicianship, but ..I miss the balloons !
|
|
|
Post by Mothfairy on Jan 22, 2010 21:59:02 GMT -5
Nothing to do musicianship, but ..I miss the balloons ! You're just like a big kid, aren't you?
|
|
Cup of Wondering
Claghornist
Teacher
"I tried to catch my eye but I looked the other way"
Posts: 48
|
Post by Cup of Wondering on Jan 23, 2010 17:12:50 GMT -5
Talking about trashing, bashing, clashing and smashing Jethro Tull... Here's my 2 cts. 1968-1973Well let me spin you down to the days of my youth, late 1968, when I became a Tull fan.... The press and the prog radiostations (who also favoured underground music) were very positieve about JT. This augmented in 69 up to 72, when TAAB and ther extensive touring gave them a status comparable to the Stones. Then something strange happened. Two years after the band gad truly arrived, the tables were turned. It all started when APP was released. This was too much for the press guys, and although the album sold very well worldwide, Tull suffered from a severe trashing. I noticed that here in Europe the album worked as a watershed. The fancommunity was split in two. Most fans turned their back on the band, and a small army of TullSkulls remained loyal. 1973-1978Every album that was released during the seventies was the not reviewed as a release of its own, but most of the time compared to the work before APP, which by the press was always considered as their best.. Only the SFTW album was reviewed positively. The band was not hammered now, but more and more ignored. 1978-1982The Punk era of 78-82 did no good to Tull and other prog bands. They all were considered as obsolete, classic rock bands. However, the album sales went well and concerts were still sold out. 1995Up to that moment every Tull album was innovative. And that would be the case until 1995: the release of RTB. I would personally have appreciated it when the band had decided then to split. One should leave the party at its climax, imho. Tull didn't. What then started was hard for longtime fans to endure, for we aw a great innovative and powerful band becoming more and more a charicature of itself - and yes: here starts my trashing: 1995-2010:Irritation 1: The Voice that started to deteriorate in 1984 grew worse and worse. I've witnessed concerts (1993!!) were Ian could hardly be heard. It was a shame. On other ocassions he sounded outstanding. Irritation 2: The lack of new albums. When I spoke to Doane in 2001 he said that a great bunch of songs were recorded for a new album, mind you: NOT for the Christmas album. There is no release of the same level of RTB. Why? Because Ian doesn't want the world to download his songs. Irritation 3: The setlists have hardly changed since The Stand on 1 Leg tour of 1999-2000. There is a load of great songs we will never hear live. Irritation 4: The total lack of improvisation during the concerts. There are rearranged songs, but that is not the improvisation early Tull was fanous for. Some people call this "professionalism". Irritation 5: The lack of interest in the fan base. They takes us all for granted. Their site shows it all in the lack of updates. And for hardworking Tullwebmasters there is no recognition from the band ever, not any possibility to get info directly from the bandmembers themselves. Irritation 6: Jethro Tull is not a band anymore, but a "family of musicians" on both sides of the ocean, whatever that may be. Irritation 7: The muzac Tull is playing since DotCom suits elevators, hospitals, homes for aged people and airfields departure halls very well, but not the fan who waits for any musical adventures. Ian changed his gritty steamy fluteplaying into "proper" flute playing, since he worked on Divinities. Why? To make his music more accessable? Iritation 8: The endless stream of best ofs, rereleases (remastered or not), that by now will have exceeded the number of original studioalbums. Milking the old cow over and over again. Irritation 9: And last but not least at all: the way Ian Anderson treats longtime band members as Andy and Jon. I thought he would have learned something from the 1979 break-up... Sorry for spoiling your evening. In the meantime I keep on listening to my fab Tull era: 1968-1995 and ignore the muzak of the last decennium. Cheers! Jan "All things come to pass'- George Harrison In loving memory....:
|
|
|
Post by Nonfatman on Jan 23, 2010 17:51:18 GMT -5
You speak the truth, Teacher, a very compelling argument. I agree with everything except that, despite it all, I'm still happy they are around, although they almost lost me completely two years ago when I witnessed the worst Tull show I had ever seen. It was at the New Jersey Pac Center in November 2007.
Also, I'm not sure I would date my period of extreme unhappiness as far back as 1995. The four years from 1999 to 2003 were very active and relatively good years, with four new studio Tull and IA albums released, a heck of a lot of Tull shows and two separate RE tours. Sure, Dot-Com was mostly re-treads and the Xmas album not really a proper studio album, but the latter did have it's moments, SLOB was excellent and Rupi had a mix of very good and so-so stuff. But the last seven years have been just brutal, especially the IA + orchestra release and tour, which was just not my cup of tea at all, plus obviously the lack of any new material.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Preston Platform on Jan 23, 2010 17:58:50 GMT -5
Jan totally agree with your thesis ....sad but true. I put some of these points to John O'Hara at Martins gig with Dan Crisp at Wellington last year. His view then was that Ian was still a creative force giving the example of music he had then just written for the Indian gigs with Ravi Shankars daughter. I was not convinced though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2010 22:10:47 GMT -5
Very nicely stated, I can not disagree with that statement by Teacher, I think the way Ian dismissed Andy and Jon did Suck
also nothing against Florian,(very talented guitarist but Ian stated back in 93 interview no Martin no Jethro Tull. So with that said, if Ian tours with Florian it best be under The Ian Anderson Band not Jethro Tull
|
|
Tullite
Ethnic Piano Accordian-ist
Posts: 174
|
Post by Tullite on Jan 24, 2010 19:02:13 GMT -5
i am not over enthusiastic about the orchestral thing but i do think its clever and another " concept " can you imagine mick jagger doing it ? ive noticed a few other oldies doing the same sort of thing ie rod stuart ! ian has had to slow down due to age and tinnitus ( ringin in the ears ) all that whacked up music on stage over the years must have played hell on his body !! and hes probably got arthritus which stops him jumpin about so the shows were never gonna be the same after he had dvt. its good to let off steam here but it aint ever gonna change things with tull no matter how much we gripe !!.
|
|
Bogenbroom
One of the Youngest of the Family
Posts: 63
|
Post by Bogenbroom on Jan 24, 2010 21:56:51 GMT -5
Talking about trashing, bashing, clashing and smashing Jethro Tull... Bravo! I am will you on all points. Particularly Irritation 7.
|
|
|
Post by Nonfatman on Feb 4, 2010 10:31:33 GMT -5
It appears that Joan is certainly no Jett-hro Tull fan. According to this article, she was quoted as saying: "I hate Jethro Tull and I hate his fucking flute." fusion45.com/the-three-best-songs-by-jethro-tull/A Jett fan responds: "That's punk rock! Long Live Joan Jett! Jeff
|
|
StanDup
One of the Youngest of the Family
Posts: 85
|
Post by StanDup on Apr 7, 2015 23:04:01 GMT -5
Here's a rancid story that the haters might enjoy. Ian Anderson, Jethro Tull Shea Stadium, New York, 1976
I stood with the rest of the band at the top of the ramp leading down to the field of Shea Stadium. As with the Beatles' Shea show 10 years earlier, this was not to be an artistic success, to say the least. Commercial jets on final approach to the adjacent La Guardia airport drowned out the sound, when it wasn't being drowned out by the firecrackers, whistles, hoots and hollers of the crowd. In those final moments before walking out on to the field, I was suddenly drenched with warm, sticky liquid from high above, where some of the rowdy, 50,000-strong audience looked down on to the players' access ramp. Only as I began the inaudible first verse of Thick as a Brick on acoustic guitar, did I realise with resigned horror that the liquid I assumed to be beer, was not, in fact, beer at all. It was urine. The unmistakable pong wafting from my then-ample head of damp hair and freshly laundered stage-clothing would remain for the duration of the show. An unholy baptism from above.
I could have picked the gig at Denver's Red Rocks Amphitheatre in 1971, when riots and police tear gas threatened to stop the show. Or being hit hard in the larynx by a baseball at Philadelphia Spectrum arena. Or anointment by the freshly plucked but seriously used tampon hurled with uncanny accuracy at another enormodome. Or the 10in steel spike impaled in the stage next to me at soundcheck when "fans" climbed into a roof gantry over the stage at soundcheck. Or the live rounds of automatic pistol ammunition thrown on to the stage during a show. But no – the bucket of piss, delivered with loving precision, wins out every time. You have to laugh. And count the money.
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Apr 8, 2015 0:23:41 GMT -5
...it seems as if the details of this story keep changing. I recall Ian saying he was entering the arena, getting showered, then looking up to see somebody with their dick out pissing on his head. But if he prefers to say it was from a bucket.. so be it. And what about the Frisbee in the eye incident? ..or has that now become the baseball in the larynx story? what a bunch of bullshit ..er, I mean tullshit.
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 8, 2015 15:06:03 GMT -5
I remember back in the late 70's hearing about people throwing things at Ian. I thought it was a rose that hit him in the eye back in 79? But I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that. I can understand not liking someone, but if that was the case why go?
|
|
StanDup
One of the Youngest of the Family
Posts: 85
|
Post by StanDup on Apr 8, 2015 18:27:58 GMT -5
I remember some firecrackers and M-80's going off prior to Tull taking the stage for TAAB shows in 72. I also remember being at a Mountain concert at the same venue, Cobo Hall in Detroit, and some guy was tossing ladyfingers off the upperdeck down on to the crowd below.
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Apr 9, 2015 23:11:03 GMT -5
Detroit had a strange but dedicated Tull fan base in the early 70's. Back then there was always a small sort of derelict element in the crowd. They were fans, yet always trying to see if they could create chaos (maybe MC5 throw-backs). I remember people throwing rolls of toilet paper, firecrackers, tossing lit matches in the trash cans, and lots of drug use. But some bands didn't tolerate this kind of crap. I heard Traffic came to town for the Low Spark tour and someone lobbed an M80 at Steve Winwood after 1 or 2 songs. That was it, the band left the stage, lights came on, show over.
"Daaa.. I loves these guys so I'm going to throw this at them, ha ha, it'll be funny!"
What were they thinking?
|
|
|
Post by piscesguy on Apr 11, 2015 13:26:57 GMT -5
This is my first post and i'm delighted there is such a place to exchange views and information. I'm not interested in trashing IA but know it is a difficult situation when you love someone's music so much that you want to love them as well and then realize they have a darker side that is hard to reconcile with the beauty and joy of the music. So I'll just share a few thoughts, to anyone who cares. He is a complex person, and these are what I believe to be the major elements of that complexity. One, he is blessed with tremendous energy. Two, while many of us have great energy his is modified by a great intensity, which is a different quality. Three, he full of high spirits and loves having a great time celebrating life. Four, he is very sensitive to all sense impressions in the way that makes for art, or the desire to articulate the experience of reality impacting the senses. Five, he experiences depression or moodiness that typically springs from harsh or unkind treatment from a parent as a child, and tends to make one hard or capable of insensitivity toward others. Six, he is very narcissistic or egotistical; he believes and has in fact demonstrated he is exceptional. Seven, he is brave or courageous, unafraid to assert himself. Eight, he is a genius. Nine, he is a perfectionist. Ten, he is well-coordinated, like an athlete. Eleven, he is blessed with hard-headed practical sense. Twelve, he feels moved to dominate others in his circle; a natural executive. Thirteen, he is blessed with a naturasl ability to express himself with language quite fluently; a gift for gab. Fourteen, he has a capacity for sentimentality that suprises given the other qualities. Lastly, he is honest, blunt and proud of it in a way that makes for inflexible stubborness whether he is right or wrong, and is so rich, famous and self-sufficient with legions of adoring fans that he can damn well do what he bloody well pleases for the rest of his life. I welcome any comments, disagreements, and additional insights, but that is the perspective I have come to in reconciling his music with how he has treated others in the band and I hope it is helpful to others trying to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 11, 2015 18:42:28 GMT -5
This is my first post and i'm delighted there is such a place to exchange views and information. I'm not interested in trashing IA but know it is a difficult situation when you love someone's music so much that you want to love them as well and then realize they have a darker side that is hard to reconcile with the beauty and joy of the music. So I'll just share a few thoughts, to anyone who cares. He is a complex person, and these are what I believe to be the major elements of that complexity. One, he is blessed with tremendous energy. Two, while many of us have great energy his is modified by a great intensity, which is a different quality. Three, he full of high spirits and loves having a great time celebrating life. Four, he is very sensitive to all sense impressions in the way that makes for art, or the desire to articulate the experience of reality impacting the senses. Five, he experiences depression or moodiness that typically springs from harsh or unkind treatment from a parent as a child, and tends to make one hard or capable of insensitivity toward others. Six, he is very narcissistic or egotistical; he believes and has in fact demonstrated he is exceptional. Seven, he is brave or courageous, unafraid to assert himself. Eight, he is a genius. Nine, he is a perfectionist. Ten, he is well-coordinated, like an athlete. Eleven, he is blessed with hard-headed practical sense. Twelve, he feels moved to dominate others in his circle; a natural executive. Thirteen, he is blessed with a naturasl ability to express himself with language quite fluently; a gift for gab. Fourteen, he has a capacity for sentimentality that suprises given the other qualities. Lastly, he is honest, blunt and proud of it in a way that makes for inflexible stubborness whether he is right or wrong, and is so rich, famous and self-sufficient with legions of adoring fans that he can damn well do what he bloody well pleases for the rest of his life. I welcome any comments, disagreements, and additional insights, but that is the perspective I have come to in reconciling his music with how he has treated others in the band and I hope it is helpful to others trying to do the same. Hi, and welcome to the board. I think you described Ian very well, although I do question his honesty over the last few years as he seems inclined to try and rewrite the bands history.
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Apr 12, 2015 0:15:05 GMT -5
This is my first post and i'm delighted there is such a place to exchange views and information. I'm not interested in trashing IA but know it is a difficult situation when you love someone's music so much that you want to love them as well and then realize they have a darker side that is hard to reconcile with the beauty and joy of the music. So I'll just share a few thoughts, to anyone who cares. He is a complex person, and these are what I believe to be the major elements of that complexity. One, he is blessed with tremendous energy. Two, while many of us have great energy his is modified by a great intensity, which is a different quality. Three, he full of high spirits and loves having a great time celebrating life. Four, he is very sensitive to all sense impressions in the way that makes for art, or the desire to articulate the experience of reality impacting the senses. Five, he experiences depression or moodiness that typically springs from harsh or unkind treatment from a parent as a child, and tends to make one hard or capable of insensitivity toward others. Six, he is very narcissistic or egotistical; he believes and has in fact demonstrated he is exceptional. Seven, he is brave or courageous, unafraid to assert himself. Eight, he is a genius. Nine, he is a perfectionist. Ten, he is well-coordinated, like an athlete. Eleven, he is blessed with hard-headed practical sense. Twelve, he feels moved to dominate others in his circle; a natural executive. Thirteen, he is blessed with a naturasl ability to express himself with language quite fluently; a gift for gab. Fourteen, he has a capacity for sentimentality that suprises given the other qualities. Lastly, he is honest, blunt and proud of it in a way that makes for inflexible stubborness whether he is right or wrong, and is so rich, famous and self-sufficient with legions of adoring fans that he can damn well do what he bloody well pleases for the rest of his life. I welcome any comments, disagreements, and additional insights, but that is the perspective I have come to in reconciling his music with how he has treated others in the band and I hope it is helpful to others trying to do the same. Welcome to the board. I enjoyed your analysis of IA. The original post "Trashing Jethro Tull" goes back to 2010 and was just recently revived. Although we grumble about some of the decisions IA has made over the last couple of years, you'll find that most of us always comeback for the music. I cannot tell you haw many times I've said "I'm skipping this tour" or "this is the last time", yet there I sit in 'BEST AVAILABLE'. I have my favorite quitar players, keyboardist, drummers, etc... But all around singer/songwriter/musician/entertainer? Ian Anderson! Maybe I'll see you at the Opera (no, no!, I am not going) well, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by piscesguy on Apr 12, 2015 16:51:55 GMT -5
Thanks, and I appreciate your point about his honesty. It led me to further think about his personality. which led to a few more thoughts i should have noted in the first place. First, I think I understand what you mean about his revisionist history, which not exclusive to him, and I think it is fairly common for some of us to perceive, interpret or remember events thought the lens of our emotions or desires. I believe IA has that trait in spades and it extends to his memories of band members, band history and even his current point of view on any things that may pique his interest. His thoughts are strongly biased by his feelings. Two other traits I wanted to add are that he is a classic Lone Wolf. By nature he is inclined to want to be alone, whether eating lunch with the band or on a greater scale of seeking privacy or solitude. Those people often end up lonely but he has Shona. It makes sense he apparently sees her less than half the year. Ultmately his whole trip is Only Solitaire. Lastly, he is an exhibitionist, which is different than being narcissistic though they can compliment each other well.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 13, 2015 20:07:15 GMT -5
Great points about being a "lone wolf" and "exhibitionist". Ian, it is safe to say, is 'eccentric'. But he's also exceptional. I know Jethro Tull was a 'band'... and there can be no doubt the 'sound' of the band is a result of all its contributors. But if I'm to be honest, without Ian steering the vessel I never would have gotten on board. I'm not sure I can say that for anyone else in the band. Ian's sardonic and entirely unique lyrical wit, his world-perspective, his whimsy, his poly-instrumental-virtuosity... he may at times be a jerk, he may not be entirely honest (or at least revisionist), he may not always make the choices I'd personally like him to make... but he is the fulcrum around which my love of Tull turns.
Good thing I judge musicians by the art they produce, and not by the individuals they may happen to be. Long live Ian Anderson in all his revisionist, misguided, curmudgeoning, frustrating, insulting... and ultimately inimitable splendour.
|
|
|
Post by Nonfatman on Apr 14, 2015 10:28:52 GMT -5
This is my first post and i'm delighted there is such a place to exchange views and information. I'm not interested in trashing IA but know it is a difficult situation when you love someone's music so much that you want to love them as well and then realize they have a darker side that is hard to reconcile with the beauty and joy of the music. So I'll just share a few thoughts, to anyone who cares. He is a complex person, and these are what I believe to be the major elements of that complexity. One, he is blessed with tremendous energy. Two, while many of us have great energy his is modified by a great intensity, which is a different quality. Three, he full of high spirits and loves having a great time celebrating life. Four, he is very sensitive to all sense impressions in the way that makes for art, or the desire to articulate the experience of reality impacting the senses. Five, he experiences depression or moodiness that typically springs from harsh or unkind treatment from a parent as a child, and tends to make one hard or capable of insensitivity toward others. Six, he is very narcissistic or egotistical; he believes and has in fact demonstrated he is exceptional. Seven, he is brave or courageous, unafraid to assert himself. Eight, he is a genius. Nine, he is a perfectionist. Ten, he is well-coordinated, like an athlete. Eleven, he is blessed with hard-headed practical sense. Twelve, he feels moved to dominate others in his circle; a natural executive. Thirteen, he is blessed with a naturasl ability to express himself with language quite fluently; a gift for gab. Fourteen, he has a capacity for sentimentality that suprises given the other qualities. Lastly, he is honest, blunt and proud of it in a way that makes for inflexible stubborness whether he is right or wrong, and is so rich, famous and self-sufficient with legions of adoring fans that he can damn well do what he bloody well pleases for the rest of his life. I welcome any comments, disagreements, and additional insights, but that is the perspective I have come to in reconciling his music with how he has treated others in the band and I hope it is helpful to others trying to do the same. Welcome to the board. I enjoyed your analysis of IA. The original post "Trashing Jethro Tull" goes back to 2010 and was just recently revived. Although we grumble about some of the decisions IA has made over the last couple of years, you'll find that most of us always comeback for the music. I cannot tell you haw many times I've said "I'm skipping this tour" or "this is the last time", yet there I sit in 'BEST AVAILABLE'. I have my favorite quitar players, keyboardist, drummers, etc... But all around singer/songwriter/musician/entertainer? Ian Anderson! Maybe I'll see you at the Opera (no, no!, I am not going) well, maybe. I feel the same way, Brian. When I first read about this idea, I thought it was ridiculous, especially the part about re-writing lyrics to classic Tull songs to fit the 'real Jethro Tull' theme. I would prefer an entire new album of new material instead of only 4 or 5 new songs. The rewriting of classic lyrics just seems bizarre to me, and if it is going to be awkward, cluttered and poorly rhymed lyrics (like much of Homo Erraticus), then that will really suck. I have low expectations for this show, and was thinking of skipping it altogether. But there is always the possibility of Ian putting together a highly entertaining show, despite what seems like a lame idea. So I will see the Brooklyn show with Paul and Dennis, but that show only, and it will be a cheap seat, because there is no way I am spending $175 on this! Jeff
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 15, 2015 10:30:20 GMT -5
Thanks, and I appreciate your point about his honesty. It led me to further think about his personality. which led to a few more thoughts i should have noted in the first place. First, I think I understand what you mean about his revisionist history, which not exclusive to him, and I think it is fairly common for some of us to perceive, interpret or remember events thought the lens of our emotions or desires. I believe IA has that trait in spades and it extends to his memories of band members, band history and even his current point of view on any things that may pique his interest. His thoughts are strongly biased by his feelings. Two other traits I wanted to add are that he is a classic Lone Wolf. By nature he is inclined to want to be alone, whether eating lunch with the band or on a greater scale of seeking privacy or solitude. Those people often end up lonely but he has Shona. It makes sense he apparently sees her less than half the year. Ultmately his whole trip is Only Solitaire. Lastly, he is an exhibitionist, which is different than being narcissistic though they can compliment each other well. I think it's normal to look back on things with a different perspective, but it's something quite different to deliberately try and change the history of the band. Especially since his words have been recorded. Here's an example of such a case. Someone sent me the spoken word audio right after the release of TAAB2 and I set it into a Youtube clip.
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Apr 15, 2015 21:49:39 GMT -5
LOL! Nice job TM
|
|