Bill Baurle
Claghornist
My sperm's in the gutter
Posts: 18
|
Post by Bill Baurle on Apr 24, 2012 10:51:24 GMT -5
Audacity and humility are the seemingly contrary ingredients of great, enduring art, and IA has both of those traits in spades.
Ultimately, while I have written many critiques and read thousands, critics of any stripe, be they wise, objective, scholarly, or just plain third-rate, vitriolic, jealous, and vindictive (which defines most paid critics), the great artist is orders of magnitude above the judgmental masses who seethe and writhe below, wanting to be heard, wanting to somehow matter in the world.
Of course, I am one of those seethers and writhers, and I know it. Some are, and do not, which is very sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by egrorian on Apr 24, 2012 12:39:36 GMT -5
I've enjoyed reading all these comments. Personally, although a big fan of some 20 years, I don't have a musician's "ear" and must admit I am oblivious to what Martin's playing brings to the material that Florian's doesn't and the bottom line for me is TAAB2 is a great album - more enjoyable than most Tulll albums released in the past 30 years. No, it's not as brilliant as the original Brick or A Passion Play or Minstrel or Songs from the Wood but nevertheless better than I ever expected to hear from IA/Tull again - so what's to complain about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Apr 24, 2012 12:44:14 GMT -5
Audacity and humility are the seemingly contrary ingredients of great, enduring art, and IA has both of those traits in spades. I have never in my life heard anyone use the word "humility" and Ian Anderson in the same sentence, let alone refer to him in that unlikely manner. If he were 'umble, guv'nor, I 'spect he'd 'ave done quoite a few things a' might differently - if'n you get me meanin'. ;D Ultimately, while I have written many critiques and read thousands, critics of any stripe, be they wise, objective, scholarly, or just plain third-rate, vitriolic, jealous, and vindictive (which defines most paid critics), the great artist is orders of magnitude above the judgmental masses who seethe and writhe below, wanting to be heard, wanting to somehow matter in the world. Of course, I am one of those seethers and writhers, and I know it. Some are, and do not, which is very sad. It's nice that you know your place. But don't assume the intentions of others. It aint 'umble. |
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 24, 2012 13:17:17 GMT -5
I've enjoyed reading all these comments. Personally, although a big fan of some 20 years, I don't have a musician's "ear" and must admit I am oblivious to what Martin's playing brings to the material that Florian's doesn't and the bottom line for me is TAAB2 is a great album - more enjoyable than most Tulll albums released in the past 30 years. No, it's not as brilliant as the original Brick or A Passion Play or Minstrel or Songs from the Wood but nevertheless better than I ever expected to hear from IA/Tull again - so what's to complain about? How about Barrie Barlow - can you hear the difference with and without Barrie? Barrie was a musical drummer whereas most are just beat keepers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2012 16:02:20 GMT -5
Even Ian Anderson himself woudn't say TAAB2=TULL I'm sure everyone at your record store was qualified enough to know the difference though 
|
|
|
|
Post by jtul07 on Apr 24, 2012 16:14:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tootull on Apr 24, 2012 16:21:32 GMT -5
Ian Anderson = Jethro Tull
Ian Anderson is the best part of the trip, the trip....best part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2012 16:44:41 GMT -5
For those who need a reminder of what "Tull" is
|
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 24, 2012 16:52:49 GMT -5
Even Ian Anderson himself woudn't say TAAB2=TULL I'm sure everyone at your record store was qualified enough to know the difference though What's a record store? |
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 24, 2012 16:55:37 GMT -5
For those who need a reminder of what "Tull" is Bloody fantastic! |
|
|
|
Post by tootull on Apr 24, 2012 17:17:42 GMT -5
For those who need a reminder of what "Tull" is They really slowed down at this point. I always post Ian Anderson = Jethro Tull because I know you are out there, providing great videos on this command. |
|
|
|
Post by tootull on Apr 24, 2012 17:18:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tootull on Apr 24, 2012 17:20:45 GMT -5
For those who need a reminder of what "Tull" is Bloody fantastic! Fantastic! Take me back to '72.  |
|
revderek
Claghornist
Do you still see me, even here?
Posts: 20
|
Post by revderek on Apr 24, 2012 17:37:45 GMT -5
For those who need a reminder of what "Tull" is Since a few people on here are quick to point out when "proper" members of the band are missing, it's worth noting that Tony Williams is standing in on bass for this gig. Nevertheless the video is Tull at their very best. Ian Anderson's current album and tour is nothing like that. But it's still very enjoyable for different reasons. |
|
Nags
Claghornist
Posts: 30
|
Post by Nags on Apr 24, 2012 17:54:44 GMT -5
I wish I could agree with your view. Unfortunately, I don't consider TAAB2 to be a masterpiece at all. Initially I was very happy with it because I was afraid that Ian would fail miserably in this endeavor. Well, IMO, he obviously didn't fail, but it in no way compares to the original. I also don't think it should have been called TAAB2 without getting the input of the original members. The original is a masterpiece. Probably a once in a lifetime masterpiece. An album that was able to raise my spirits on an almost daily basis for at least a decade or more. The new piece can never have that same impact on me ... not with Ian's current vocals and not without the input of the other band members. It has been my experience that the great works by Tull ceased when the band stopped working as a close-knit unit. Ian has said many times that the most recent material is done in a much more isolated manner. Ian writes the stuff and then sends the score to the other members wherever they happen to be on the globe. I think this is probably the biggest problem with the newer material. Moreover, I really think he should give up singing. Hey Ian, how about a progressive album of stunning instrumentals ... with flowing acoustic guitar, flute, Martin, and a great drummer. Now, that could be a masterpiece. By original members are we talking Glenn, Mick and Clive? Or the replacement guys sourounding the only original Tull member, sorta like the current outing? |
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Apr 24, 2012 17:54:45 GMT -5
For those who need a reminder of what "Tull" is Yes, I think that expresses what "Tull is" quite elegantly. A great band. I was comparing drumming styles and I think these two clips show the difference between Barriemore Barlow and other, later, Tull drummers (in this case, Gerry Conway) . The difference is shocking, and it shows really what Tull (the entity) had in the 70s. Again, pay close attention to the drums (also the remarkable Martin Barre): Tull, 1976Tull, 1982: |
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Apr 24, 2012 18:26:47 GMT -5
I wish I could agree with your view. Unfortunately, I don't consider TAAB2 to be a masterpiece at all. Initially I was very happy with it because I was afraid that Ian would fail miserably in this endeavor. Well, IMO, he obviously didn't fail, but it in no way compares to the original. I also don't think it should have been called TAAB2 without getting the input of the original members. The original is a masterpiece. Probably a once in a lifetime masterpiece. An album that was able to raise my spirits on an almost daily basis for at least a decade or more. The new piece can never have that same impact on me ... not with Ian's current vocals and not without the input of the other band members. It has been my experience that the great works by Tull ceased when the band stopped working as a close-knit unit. Ian has said many times that the most recent material is done in a much more isolated manner. Ian writes the stuff and then sends the score to the other members wherever they happen to be on the globe. I think this is probably the biggest problem with the newer material. Moreover, I really think he should give up singing. Hey Ian, how about a progressive album of stunning instrumentals ... with flowing acoustic guitar, flute, Martin, and a great drummer. Now, that could be a masterpiece. By original members are we talking Glenn, Mick and Clive? Or the replacement guys sourounding the only original Tull member, sorta like the current outing? You need a history lesson before you make such callow remark. There's much more to it than Ian hiring studio musicians as he has for the past two decades. You forgot David Palmer, who appears in one form or the other on all Tull albums in the 60s and 70s (including their first, "This Was" and every other except "A Passion Play"). John Evan, Jeffrey Hammond and Barrie Barlow were actually playing with Ian before Tull (as early as 1962 and 1963), Evan and Hammond returning in 70 and Barlow in 1971. Saying Martin Barre is not an original Tull member, while technically correct (he started after the album "This Was" was released in late 68), is rather like saying David Gilmour was not original to Pink Floyd, just a hired toady. Too funny. |
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 24, 2012 18:42:32 GMT -5
For those who need a reminder of what "Tull" is Since a few people on here are quick to point out when "proper" members of the band are missing, it's worth noting that Tony Williams is standing in on bass for this gig. Nevertheless the video is Tull at their very best. Ian Anderson's current album and tour is nothing like that. But it's still very enjoyable for different reasons. Yes, sadly I never saw John Glascock live. I was looking forward to seeing him on this tour and found out after the show that Tony filled in for him. |
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 24, 2012 18:52:50 GMT -5
I wish I could agree with your view. Unfortunately, I don't consider TAAB2 to be a masterpiece at all. Initially I was very happy with it because I was afraid that Ian would fail miserably in this endeavor. Well, IMO, he obviously didn't fail, but it in no way compares to the original. I also don't think it should have been called TAAB2 without getting the input of the original members. The original is a masterpiece. Probably a once in a lifetime masterpiece. An album that was able to raise my spirits on an almost daily basis for at least a decade or more. The new piece can never have that same impact on me ... not with Ian's current vocals and not without the input of the other band members. It has been my experience that the great works by Tull ceased when the band stopped working as a close-knit unit. Ian has said many times that the most recent material is done in a much more isolated manner. Ian writes the stuff and then sends the score to the other members wherever they happen to be on the globe. I think this is probably the biggest problem with the newer material. Moreover, I really think he should give up singing. Hey Ian, how about a progressive album of stunning instrumentals ... with flowing acoustic guitar, flute, Martin, and a great drummer. Now, that could be a masterpiece. By original members are we talking Glenn, Mick and Clive? Or the replacement guys sourounding the only original Tull member, sorta like the current outing? This of course is laughable. You cannot seriously try to compare his current solo band with Jethro Tull in 1972. |
|
|
|
Post by TM on Apr 24, 2012 18:54:49 GMT -5
For those who need a reminder of what "Tull" is Yes, I think that expresses what "Tull is" quite elegantly. A great band. I was comparing drumming styles and I think these two clips show the difference between Barriemore Barlow and other, later, Tull drummers (in this case, Gerry Conway) . The difference is shocking, and it shows really what Tull (the entity) had in the 70s. Again, pay close attention to the drums (also the remarkable Martin Barre): Tull, 1976Tull, 1982:Ouch. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2012 19:02:36 GMT -5
Fantastic! Take me back to '72. Well here..... and for a little taste of John Barrie and Martins blatant contributions see 3:53 onward Darin |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2012 19:40:15 GMT -5
1: Ian=Tull
2: No he isn't
1: Yes he is
2: No he isn't, I can prove it!
1: No you can't
2: Yes I can!
1: No you can't
2: This is futile!
1: No it isn't
|
|
Nags
Claghornist
Posts: 30
|
Post by Nags on Apr 24, 2012 20:01:00 GMT -5
By original members are we talking Glenn, Mick and Clive? Or the replacement guys sourounding the only original Tull member, sorta like the current outing? You need a history lesson before you make such callow remark. There's much more to it than Ian hiring studio musicians as he has for the past two decades. You forgot David Palmer, who appears in one form or the other on all Tull albums in the 60s and 70s (including their first, "This Was" and every other except "A Passion Play"). John Evan, Jeffrey Hammond and Barrie Barlow were actually playing with Ian before Tull (as early as 1962 and 1963), Evan and Hammond returning in 70 and Barlow in 1971. Saying Martin Barre is not an original Tull member, while technically correct (he started after the album "This Was" was released in late 68), is rather like saying David Gilmour was not original to Pink Floyd, just a hired toady. Too funny. Well thanks for the lesson, but I think I can find a legion of Floyd fans who might mension Sid Barrett. The reality is that you can parse Tull in so many ways based on when you started listening to the band. There is no argument that the Tull I saw perform the original TAAB in 72 had balls and energy, and a certain style that made them exciting. The good thing is that as the energy waned (after APP), their playing improved, I would argue that the two key elements that made them a better band was the music Anderson provided, and the changing cast. Where do you draw the line, when JHH left, when JG died, seems everyone had no issues with Pegg. I think it is unfair to characterise everyone in the last 20 years as hired players only, especially since many of the "heroes" were hired help too, but no one seemed to care. Not to take away anything from the old John, I think the new John brings a solid talent and skills, he allows Ian to do things differently than before, he is certainly better than Giddings. It just seems people like to live in the past, when new John is replaced, you will miss him, and shit on his replacement. There was an interview with IAN with Wakeman, (check you tube),well before TAAB2 was on the scene, when Rick asked him what Ian's favourite Tull was. I found his response interesting, he said the most current, because they had to learn and adopt everything that came before. Everyone on this board who has seen the current tour has spoken well of how TAAB1 was performed by the current band, so why get caught up in stuff only Ian and Martin know the facts about. I understand that some MB fans miss him, but many of us card carrying Tull Freaks don't, I'd welcome him back, although I don't see a scenario where that can happen. As I read the reviews of shows by respected members of this board, I don't see many who are missing Martin. It is mostly the ones with an agenda who take cheap shots at Florien. History will show JT=IA, with a series of footnotes relating to the other 20 some odd supporting cast, some bigger than others, with an extra bigger asterisk for Barre, who is good, legendary in the minds of many, but he is one of many, not the one and only (think Ian). But hey, I can always use a history lesson, as I am the first to admit that I have only seen them for the past 42 years, I am sure I missed something, right?!? |
|
Rrrrrrrray
One of the Youngest of the Family
Posts: 91
|
Post by Rrrrrrrray on Apr 24, 2012 20:13:46 GMT -5
You need a history lesson before you make such callow remark. There's much more to it than Ian hiring studio musicians as he has for the past two decades. You forgot David Palmer, who appears in one form or the other on all Tull albums in the 60s and 70s (including their first, "This Was" and every other except "A Passion Play"). John Evan, Jeffrey Hammond and Barrie Barlow were actually playing with Ian before Tull (as early as 1962 and 1963), Evan and Hammond returning in 70 and Barlow in 1971. Saying Martin Barre is not an original Tull member, while technically correct (he started after the album "This Was" was released in late 68), is rather like saying David Gilmour was not original to Pink Floyd, just a hired toady. Too funny. Well thanks for the lesson, but I think I can find a legion of Floyd fans who might mension Sid Barrett. The reality is that you can parse Tull in so many ways based on when you started listening to the band. There is no argument that the Tull I saw perform the original TAAB in 72 had balls and energy, and a certain style that made them exciting. The good thing is that as the energy waned (after APP), their playing improved, I would argue that the two key elements that made them a better band was the music Anderson provided, and the changing cast. Where do you draw the line, when JHH left, when JG died, seems everyone had no issues with Pegg. I think it is unfair to characterise everyone in the last 20 years as hired players only, especially since many of the "heroes" were hired help too, but no one seemed to care. Not to take away anything from the old John, I think the new John brings a solid talent and skills, he allows Ian to do things differently than before, he is certainly better than Giddings. It just seems people like to live in the past, when new John is replaced, you will miss him, and shit on his replacement. There was an interview with IAN with Wakeman, (check you tube),well before TAAB2 was on the scene, when Rick asked him what Ian's favourite Tull was. I found his response interesting, he said the most current, because they had to learn and adopt everything that came before. Everyone on this board who has seen the current tour has spoken well of how TAAB1 was performed by the current band, so why get caught up in stuff only Ian and Martin know the facts about. I understand that some MB fans miss him, but many of us card carrying Tull Freaks don't, I'd welcome him back, although I don't see a scenario where that can happen. As I read the reviews of shows by respected members of this board, I don't see many who are missing Martin. It is mostly the ones with an agenda who take cheap shots at Florien. History will show JT=IA, with a series of footnotes relating to the other 20 some odd supporting cast, some bigger than others, with an extra bigger asterisk for Barre, who is good, legendary in the minds of many, but he is one of many, not the one and only (think Ian). But hey, I can always use a history lesson, as I am the first to admit that I have only seen them for the past 42 years, I am sure I missed something, right?!? As someone of about the exact same Tull duration as you, my first show, Jun 72, and every one without fail until 07, when only financial constraints, NOT Ian Anderson's voice or choice of material forced me to miss a handful. I believe folks confuse Tull having been a bit more of an energized rock band in the 70's with necessarily being a better band. To me the idea that several of those guys in the seventies were hands down, no questions asked, the best musicians to have performed with them is laughable, not worthy of consideration. Also brings to mind another interview with IA, might have been on one of the anniversary tapes, when he specifically addressed the emotion of nostalgia, and its implicit dangers, remembering things as being better than they actually were. I can name all the following years in the 70's as having provided lesser shows than I expected, 73, 75, 77, 78. Now 75, 7 and 8 I saw more than once but in the sports arenas they used to play in, if you were not situated properly the bass would go boom a little too much, and I know of no band who's music suffers more with the audio even being a teensy weensy out of focus, let alone a big booming bass arena rocker, the stuff of nightmares when attached to something I put so much belief in, coupled with the galoot bellowing for Aqualung like...nonstop. And one man's crap is another man's gold, to me little doubt that the back to back to back releases of PPlay, WarChild, and Minstrel dealt Tull a critical blow, in part earned as some of that material does reek of self importance, albeit with a nice triplet or paradiddle maybe from Barrie Barlow, but, for instance, in any way imaginable every inch, for instance, Dave Mattacks superior? I think not. |
|
|
|
Post by jtul07 on Apr 24, 2012 20:18:02 GMT -5
TAAB 2 = Tull ?Only to those who still feel the magic every time Ian or whomever is in the Band. I was sure there would be those that would disagree. My only hope is to give this album a sense of continuity to all albums before. Once this tour began, I realized how special it would be.  This may be the best performance ever. IMHO> ;D
|
|
answer YES. ;D 
