Tull didn't finish at Heavy Horses

Sure, TULL were great in the earlier years and yes, everyone's going to have their favourites. I know I have . Like many have suggested here, I like 'A', 'Broadsword','20th.Anniversary' and later albums like 'Catfish','Roots to Branches', 'Crest...', 'Dotcom' and the Christmas album to name a few.

While it's all very interesting to self indulge about how wonderful TULL WAS back when, what about NOW.

Let's please all remember that albums are a vehicle for bands to make money, broaden fan base and earn recognition and critical acclaim among other things, but in case you've all forgotten,the band members actually play instruments and sing LIVE on stage or in the studio if recording. People have this tendency,imo, to talk about TULL as if they're dead or no longer with us somehow. Are they not alive and well and living in...?

As far as I'm concerned, I saw TULL a little over 12 months ago in Brisbane [Aust]. with the current band which has been together for quite a while now, and, apart from Ian's voice which is showing signs of the wear and tear singing over the years brings, the band was great. They played a great cross-section of old and new with some of the older songs I hadn't heard them do live such as 'With you there to help me', 'Up to me' as well as some of the well tried older tunes. 'Budapest' and 'Farm on the Freeway' were superb. It's the same band as on the 'Living with the Past' DVD which I also think is excellent for the songs, not so much the info. in between.

I'm sorry to have to say it ,but when it comes to TULL, too many of you are 'living in the past'and need to extricate your heads from your sphincters. If you have seen TULL recently or get the chance to in the future and don't like what you see and hear then you're not a true TULL fan in my book - you'd be what I describe as a fair weather fan . They deserve to be admired and apreciated for what they are now as much as for what they used to be or were in our own little self indulgent worlds.

VIVA TULL! For what it's worth ,I agree. TULL did not finish with HH ....they're not finished yet - or at least this fan hopes they're not.

Any fan of prog honestly should be praising albums such as A, Roots and Dotcom. They are just as good as the overrated Aqualung and better than Minstrel imo. Doesn't make sense why a fan of 70s Tull would be disappointed in A, Roots or Dotcom. Plenty of very good songs in those 3 albums which surely match the quality of 70s Tull songs. I think people just dislike A because the band lost 4 members. As long as Ian and Martin are there you know you will get quality music apart from the experimental Under wraps and the tired sounding Rock island. Just looking at 1999, Awol is just as cool as Teacher, Dotcom is just as cool as Fire at midnight, Dog ear years is just as good as TAAB edit 1, Wicked windows is just as good as A time for everything, Far Alaska is just as good as North sea oil, It all trickles down is just as good as Jeffrey goes to Leicester square. Looking at 1980, Fylingdale flyer is just as good as Cross eyed Mary, Uniform is just as good as Crossword, And further on is just as good as Sossity, Pine Martens jig is just as good as Salamander, Protect and Survive is just as good as Cup of wonder. And all of the above songs are better than Wind up and My god ;). I think I remember Sean Trane was mentioning how much better Warchild could have been if it used several of the bonus tracks instead. Same can be said for Broadsword and Catfish. Tull were still quality in 1980, 1982 and the 90s if you look into it fully ;)

Edited by smithers - November 23 2006 at 03:28

fuxi wrote: Aren't you a little harsh on that poor Palmer? I've always thought his string arrangements were quite imaginative, and that they went well with Ian's singing and acoustic guitar. But I guess you got fed up with the very idea of Tull using strings. >> yup, this was getting too systematic since he was a full band member. And he had to do something , right? I mean Tull had been using strings almost right from the debut, but by Stormwatch it seemed that every trackks had them. I feel confident that Palmer was responsible for writing many of the most quirky band arrangements for SONGS FROM THE WOOD and BURSTING OUT. Take the harpsichord, the glockenspiel and the sudden tempo changes on 'Velvet Green', for instance. Isn't that a magnificent piece? And don't you think Palmer had a hand in arranging it? >> Yes Palmer's arrangements on other instruments than the strings were excellent; although I am not sure he was playing the harpsichord or the glockenspiegel >> my guess is Evans on both counts, but as I said I am not sure. By the way, Palmer and Evan(s) DID record one album with a new band called Tallis, which was not a success. Apparently there's no CD version. If anyone knows this album, please tell me all about it! >> never heard but you got me intrigued Finally, Palmer had a sex change a few years ago and now calls himself 'Dee'. Strange if you think of the pics of him sporting a beard, on BURSTING OUT. Wonder if he still smokes a pipe?  >> Anderson has been a bit too vocal about this issue publically I think. I prefer transexuals to transvestites. I think they at least have "the balls" ()  to go through with it all the way of the dreams

smithers wrote: Sean's quote at progears about slipstream   Sean Trane wrote: I found them atriciously flat and uninspired and completely lacking energy >> a parody of themselves. anderson even takes cheap shots at his concept albums If you want to see Tull live, check out the DVD libve at Isle Of Wight (70) or check out their two bootlegs at Madison Gardens (78) and Green Hyppodrome (77) Then you'll know how listless and poor is Slipstream   Are you sure that someone didn't swap the cd and dvd discs in your A remaster for another band before you bought it? lol. If you don't like those 2 discs, then I wonder what you even see in Tull and many great prog bands at all :)

Sean Trane wrote: fuxi wrote: It looks as if the departure of Palmer and Evans was due, to some extent, to Ian's decision that ONLY HE was going to be Jethro Tull - with a little help from Martin Barre. Unfortunately Ian went through a bare patch (of not being able to write very good songs) in the first half of the eighties. It seems as if only the example of Dire Straits got him out of this rut. >> there is a theory that the rest of the band quit after a NME article saying that the band was dead and Anderson was recording a solo album (which was "A"), but I cannot believe that they would've quit on a t(h)rashy NME article (these NME  journalists did a lot of damages in those years) without them asking Anderson and him denying it if it was not true. What a shame Evans and Palmer didn't start a great instrumental prog band! But I guess in the early eighties no one was willing to let them record great instumental prog anyway... >> Evans (I think neverwrote a single note) and palmer was completely irritating with those systyematical string arrangements. I started getting sick of those by the War Child and Minstrel Period, then he had calmed down until HH and SW . So I do not think these guys had it in them to make a band up, much less their own where they would be king. Don't forget this was punk years too.

Stormwatch and A do indeed have some strong songs, but let's be honest... they ain't prog, are they?

I think when people on this forum suggest that Tull aren't as interesting after Heavy Horses they are speaking purely in terms of Tull as a PROG band. Very few songs in their post-Horses catalogue can match the complexity, unpredictability and outlandishness of their earlier albums.

To smithers. You come across as a dullard. Not everybody here shares your love of Jethro Tull.

I find 'A' just as progressive as Heavy horses. Fylingdale flyer, Protect and survive, Pine martens jig, Uniform, Black SUnday etc are all prog songs. Definately. It surely isn't hard rock. People will call Yes's Drama a prog album but they would say Tulls A is not prog? 'A' is more prog than Drama if you open your ears ;). Hey Trane, I was talking about how I rate the BAND each year in the studio. I wasn't talking about album ratings ;). Now that we have all songs available we can put all the songs together, such as the 20 odd songs from Warchild and say the band recorded a dozen pretty damn cool prog songs that year. But if you gave someone the original Warchild album of 10 songs, they would probably think Tull were not very good in 1974. But if the album had different songs, that person might think wow, cool stuff. Warchild is a commercial album made for a movie and it doesn't represent the bands best work of 1974 mainly. You are rating them from a commercial point of view(which is very unprog of you) ;)

Edited by smithers - November 24 2006 at 17:33

Kimoi wrote: To smithers. You come across as a dullard. Not everybody here shares your love of Jethro Tull.

Trouserpress wrote: Stormwatch and A do indeed have some strong songs, but let's be honest... they ain't prog, are they? I think when people on this forum suggest that Tull aren't as interesting after Heavy Horses they are speaking purely in terms of Tull as a PROG band. Very few songs in their post-Horses catalogue can match the complexity, unpredictability and outlandishness of their earlier albums.