| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
smithers 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 30 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 223
|
 Posted: November 22 2006 at 05:07 |
 The Whistler wrote:
Ah, smithers, my old nemesis. Let's see how we're doing...
smithers wrote:
I think the standard Tull set in 1977, 78 and 79 was pretty much continued in 1980 and 82. The band had the wait until the 90s to regain that great standard again. Look at the high quality songs from each year. I get high enjoyment from the following below and I rate all the songs below fairly equal. There are some other fairly good songs I left off the list too which rate slightly less than the strong songs below. The years 1982 and 1991 had the most songs recorded in those years and the % of very good songs was less, but there were so many songs recorded that you could find about 10 fairly good songs from each of those 2 years anyway
1977-jack in the green, cup of wonder, velvet green, whistler, fire at midnight
Agree in all cases, although one above all should stand out... And where's Songs? Songs isn't far behind, but I'm not crazy about Ians voice and lyrics during the verses of this song
1978-mouse police, acres wild, no lullaby, rover, one brown mouse, moths, blues instrumental
Where's Horses? No matter, the rest are good (especialy Wild and Moths). Except for maybe No Lullaby...what's that instrumental? I find horses a touch too traditionally folk for my likings and Ians voice and lyrics aren't too my liking in this song
1979-north sea oil, dun ringill, orion, crossword, stitch in time, elegy, king henrys madrigal
Ringhill reigns, but the rest are good too. Ringill is great, but the others are just as good and have a bit more to them
1980-fylingdale flyer, uniform, and further on, pine martens jig, protect and survive
Flyer and...uh...Black Sunday. In a pinch, Crossfire. Protect and survive? Do you mean the instrumental version? I find Black Sunday to suffer from a weak bass line during the verses and the verses are a touch too long and Ian is about to run out of breath
1982-seal driver, clasp, watching me watching you, fallen on hard times, I'm your gun
This album's chock-full of good songs, but you only chose Clasp and Hard Times? What about Pussy Willow, Marching Band, Jack-a-lynn and Hooded Crow? I only like the version of Jackalynn which has no drums which is not on the remaster. Slow marching band is a bit slow
1991-rocks on the road, roll yer own, silver river turning, night in the wilderness
Rocks, love rocks. Forget ye not This is Not Love and Thinking Round Corners.
1995-out of the noise, stuck in the august rain, dangerous veils, rare and precious chain
1999-awol, dotcom, far alaska, dog ear years, wicked windows, it all trickles down
Haven't heard these albums...yet... |
How'd I do? |
|
 |
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20838
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 05:15 |
smithers wrote:
I get annoyed when people say Tull were never the same after 1978. >> it was all over after TAAB really !!   just kidding, but even HH is not quite as good as SFTW
Even though Heavy horse is a very good album, I actually think the Stormwatch remaster has just as many strong songs as the Horses remaster. The 4 bonuses on the Stormwatch are a great addition to the cd. They probably match the best 4 or 5 songs on the original Stormwatch release. >> but bonus tracks do not count on the original album. While they are adding value to the the album, we must be careful of not doing any revisionism >> these tracks were not released at the time (for whatever reasons >> second choice material, lazck of space or not finished or unsuitable by the artistes) and to consider those bonus tracks as complete and integral part of the album is not only wrong but called revisionim. Just how can yopu be sure those bonus tracks were not tampered with or written a few years later?
There is also a bluesy instrumental with a touch of fusion from my 20 year box set. I'm not sure if it would lump onto Horses or Stormwatch, but it was recorded around 1978. Anyway, the band were in top form in 1978 and 79. >> Stormwatch is a tired album, uninspired (and the bonus track do not add up that much) and the systematic use of orcghestral arragements is bothersome. The group was breaking up (Glascock being sick and soon RIP) , Anderson played bass and drove Barlow nuts and he quit? Evan, Palmer would follow soon after the album's release. All these tensions surface on the overall quality of the album
But I also think that 'A' has a number of strong songs. This is one of the bands proggiest albums and I rate it just as good an album as SFTW. Both A and SFTW have about 5 very good tracks and maybe a couple of album fillers. I'm not crazy about Hunting girl really. No need to underrated A, it's a strong complex album. >> A is really an aborted Anderson album ("A" for Anderson) and a rather poor group effort since the new line-up was still trying to find its musical grounds (so the mad flauter could do his one-legged stance). The "group" is really trying (too hard) and experimenting (forced) in many directions, none convincing. No matter what bonus tracks, this album is not really Tull
Broadsword and the Beast also has some very good stuff and about 2 or 3 fillers. The band had a pretty good sound still apart from Beastie which is a bit of a stinker. Seal driver is excellent, Clasp and Watching me watching you are quite cool. All 3 songs are fairly progressive. Fallen on hard times is a good one too. A couple of other solid songs too. The album is fairly decent. Some very good bonus songs on the Broadsword remaster too. >> even a total fan (even a fanboy) like you can not talk in really good terms, so to more discerning Tull fans (like me ) this is a very sub-par album for the very same reasons that A was also
I'm you gun is very catchy and fairly progressive in nature. Too many too and Down at the end of your road are cool ones as well. My 20 year box set also has a cool song called Motoreyes from 1982. I found another version of Jackalynn(not the one on the remaster) which was quite strong and much better than the other version. So 1982 has at least 10 very good tunes which would be the equivalent to the quality of SFTW or A. >> but these were not available until 2005, so they could not possibly count as the same value as the albums >> you are guilty or revisionism
Have a listen to them. I'm also very fond of Dotcom and Roots to branches. If these albums were shortened to 10 songs, they would have been just as good as SFTW and A imo. I can find quite a few very good songs on each. I'm also quite fond of the Dotcom single "trickles down" which should have been on the album. RTB is a good album (the best since SFTW), but please never insult RTB by comparing it with the dreadful A. DotCom is only for confirmed and unconditional fans like you
I also quite enjoy half the songs on Catfish also, while there are some fillers too. The album should have been cut to 10 songs also. But there are some quality songs from the same era on Nightcap and Night in the wilderness is a cool one too. Average everyday journeyman business-as-usual blues-rock
So honestly, Tull in the 90s and early 80s(1980-1982) is pretty much at the same level as SFTW(not as good as Heavy horses or TAAB), Aqualung(which is overrated >> IYNSHO << in your not-so humble opinion  ). Taking away the occasional song from the 80s and 90s albums and adding some of the lesser known bonus and session material. >> only in your wet dreams buddy!!!  
Don't forget the Crest of a knave remaster. Songs like The Waking edge, Farm on the freeway, She said she was a dancer, Part of the machine anad Jump start are a pretty cool bunch of songs which are fairly well recorded for their time. It's only really 1984 and 1989 where Tull were not at the level we expected of them. At least you do not try to save UW.
Forget those bonus tracks when making a historical judgment >> this is your really weak point in your theory, because they cannot be considered historically valid.
|
Sorry for destroying your arguments without leaving you the slightest chance of replying validly |
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
White Duck
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 248
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 05:37 |
|
For me the best years are 71,72,75,77,78 and 79. Minstrel is one of the best efforts in rock history but is a very introspective work. Stormwatch is a great work too. Tull didnīt finish in 78 but the great years were the seventies . No doubt. A really treasure, an unique sound.
|
|
smithers
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 30 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 223
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 05:39 |
Sean Trane wrote:
smithers wrote:
I get annoyed when people say Tull were never the same after 1978. >> it was all over after TAAB really !! just kidding, but even HH is not quite as good as SFTW
Even though Heavy horse is a very good album, I actually think the Stormwatch remaster has just as many strong songs as the Horses remaster. The 4 bonuses on the Stormwatch are a great addition to the cd. They probably match the best 4 or 5 songs on the original Stormwatch release. >> but bonus tracks do not count on the original album. While they are adding value to the the album, we must be careful of not doing any revisionism >> these tracks were not released at the time (for whatever reasons >> second choice material, lazck of space or not finished or unsuitable by the artistes) and to consider those bonus tracks as complete and integral part of the album is not only wrong but called revisionim. Just how can yopu be sure those bonus tracks were not tampered with or written a few years later?
There is also a bluesy instrumental with a touch of fusion from my 20 year box set. I'm not sure if it would lump onto Horses or Stormwatch, but it was recorded around 1978. Anyway, the band were in top form in 1978 and 79. >> Stormwatch is a tired album, uninspired (and the bonus track do not add up that much) and the systematic use of orcghestral arragements is bothersome. The group was breaking up (Glascock being sick and soon RIP) , Anderson played bass and drove Barlow nuts and he quit? Evan, Palmer would follow soon after the album's release. All these tensions surface on the overall quality of the album
But I also think that 'A' has a number of strong songs. This is one of the bands proggiest albums and I rate it just as good an album as SFTW. Both A and SFTW have about 5 very good tracks and maybe a couple of album fillers. I'm not crazy about Hunting girl really. No need to underrated A, it's a strong complex album. >> A is really an aborted Anderson album ("A" for Anderson) and a rather poor group effort since the new line-up was still trying to find its musical grounds (so the mad flauter could do his one-legged stance). The "group" is really trying (too hard) and experimenting (forced) in many directions, none convincing. No matter what bonus tracks, this album is not really Tull
Broadsword and the Beast also has some very good stuff and about 2 or 3 fillers. The band had a pretty good sound still apart from Beastie which is a bit of a stinker. Seal driver is excellent, Clasp and Watching me watching you are quite cool. All 3 songs are fairly progressive. Fallen on hard times is a good one too. A couple of other solid songs too. The album is fairly decent. Some very good bonus songs on the Broadsword remaster too. >> even a total fan (even a fanboy) like you can not talk in really good terms, so to more discerning Tull fans (like me ) this is a very sub-par album for the very same reasons that A was also
I'm you gun is very catchy and fairly progressive in nature. Too many too and Down at the end of your road are cool ones as well. My 20 year box set also has a cool song called Motoreyes from 1982. I found another version of Jackalynn(not the one on the remaster) which was quite strong and much better than the other version. So 1982 has at least 10 very good tunes which would be the equivalent to the quality of SFTW or A. >> but these were not available until 2005, so they could not possibly count as the same value as the albums >> you are guilty or revisionism
Have a listen to them. I'm also very fond of Dotcom and Roots to branches. If these albums were shortened to 10 songs, they would have been just as good as SFTW and A imo. I can find quite a few very good songs on each. I'm also quite fond of the Dotcom single "trickles down" which should have been on the album. RTB is a good album (the best since SFTW), but please never insult RTB by comparing it with the dreadful A. DotCom is only for confirmed and unconditional fans like you
I also quite enjoy half the songs on Catfish also, while there are some fillers too. The album should have been cut to 10 songs also. But there are some quality songs from the same era on Nightcap and Night in the wilderness is a cool one too. Average everyday journeyman business-as-usual blues-rock
So honestly, Tull in the 90s and early 80s(1980-1982) is pretty much at the same level as SFTW(not as good as Heavy horses or TAAB), Aqualung(which is overrated >> IYNSHO << in your not-so humble opinion ). Taking away the occasional song from the 80s and 90s albums and adding some of the lesser known bonus and session material. >> only in your wet dreams buddy!!!
Don't forget the Crest of a knave remaster. Songs like The Waking edge, Farm on the freeway, She said she was a dancer, Part of the machine anad Jump start are a pretty cool bunch of songs which are fairly well recorded for their time. It's only really 1984 and 1989 where Tull were not at the level we expected of them. At least you do not try to save UW.
Forget those bonus tracks when making a historical judgment >> this is your really weak point in your theory, because they cannot be considered historically valid.
|
Sorry for destroying your arguments without leaving you the slightest chance of replying validly |
I'm rating the band year by year. Whether the songs were on the album or they were bonus tracks. All great songs should count, that's why 1979 is a strong year imo. I think Heavy horses has a heavy and more progressive edge over SFTW. A is a more interesting album than Minstrel and the songs are more well written. It features Ian and Martin and 3 other great musicans including Conway who was a great drummer. I can find 6 songs on Dotcom which are better than all of side 2 of Aqualung(which is mainly hard rock). Dotcom is Tull playing 90s music better and more unique than any other 90s band. Broadsword isn't a bad album at all and there are 26 songs to choose from. If you only rank bands on their albums, then do you ignore that Tull recorded classics like Witches promise and Teacher? An album is just a bunch of songs usually anyway and a single or an EP is just another bunch of songs. Looking at 1971, I like In the land of the grey and pink more than Aqualung. But Tull were the better band in 1971 because they recorded more great songs that year including the songs on LITP. Look at the overall picture and not just the albums ;). We are rating tull on quality songs. We are not rating them on album track lists or album sales
Edited by smithers - November 22 2006 at 05:41
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20838
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 06:05 |
[QUOTE=smithers]
I'm rating the band year by year. Whether the songs were on the album or they were bonus tracks. Yes, but if those bonus tracks were not available to anyone but themselves, they do not count.
All great songs should count, that's why 1979 is a strong year imo. I think Heavy horses has a heavy and more progressive edge over SFTW. But it is heavy (but not just musically) , the tracks feel like they weigh a ton each, they are lumbering affairs and often folw much less naturally than SFTW.
A is a more interesting album than Minstrel and the songs are more well written. >> again only in your wet dreams. It features Ian and Martin and 3 other great musicans including Conway who was a great drummer. I can find 6 songs on Dotcom which are better than all of side 2 of Aqualung(which is mainly hard rock). >> better than My God or Hymn 43??? Wow!! That'l be a first I heard this. But I do admit not being familiar with .com
Dotcom is Tull playing 90s music better and more unique than any other 90s band. Broadsword isn't a bad album at all and there are 26 songs to choose from. No, my friend. You only had the tracks on the original album to choose from. This is why TB&TB is not a good album
If you only rank bands on their albums, then do you ignore that Tull recorded classics like Witches promise and Teacher? >> those were available on 71's Living With The Past
An album is just a bunch of songs usually anyway and a single or an EP is just another bunch of songs. >>> disagree with this strongly. Aqualung is much more than a bunch of songs. they are almost like suites and both sides occupied by a theme (npot really a concept album)
Looking at 1971, I like In the land of the grey and pink more than Aqualung.Agreed
But Tull were the better band in 1971 Why ???  because they recorded more great songs that year including the songs on LITP. >>> You are again guilty of revisionism here, but in reverse this time: Most of LTIP was not recorded in 71; a good deal of those were non-album singles and album tracks from previous years and the third side is from 70.
Look at the overall picture and not just the albums ;). We are rating tull on quality songs. We are not rating them on album track lists or album sales >> sorry but the database of the Artchives (and almost all other sites) rate albums not songs. Albums are viewed as the primary format of prog
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2488
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 06:54 |
Sean Trane wrote:
Forget those bonus tracks when making a historical judgment >> this is your really weak point in your theory, because they cannot be considered historically valid.[/B |
I'm not so sure about this. I'll agree you can't judge an album by its bonus tracks if these were only released twenty or thirty years later, but you CAN say valuable things about the status of Jethro Tull at the time.
Of course it's weird that the bonus tracks on BROADSWORD are so much better than the sludge on the original album.
I definitely agree with Sean Trane that HEAVY HORSES is not a first-rate Tull album. Ian's voice sounds hoarse and dry, many of the melodies are uninteresting, and the band's star musicians (Barre, Evans, Palmer) get too little to do. (CREST OF A KNAVE would prove to be much better, albeit ten years later.)
I haven't heard STORMWATCH since it first came out, but I remember a friend played it to me back then and I just couldn't BELIEVE how weak it sounded.
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.
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...
|
|
smithers
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 30 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 223
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 07:18 |
A is musically busier and more advanced than Minstrel ;). The title song on Minstrel is almost glam rock. Listen to the verses, it's just a bit of riffing and helium voiced vocals. Good song, but not great by Tulls standards. Cold Wind to Valhalla is good but it sounds like the needle jumped on the record player a couple of times ;). Requiem is nice, but I'm not usually in the mood to listen to it. I think songs like Wind up and My god are more for a hard rock fan than a prog fan :). Whether a song from 1982 was released in 1982 or on a box set in 1993, that song was written and recorded in 1982. Therefore it should be counted as part of the session. All those songs are available and the bands studio efforts of 1982 can be more fairly judged. Broadsword was not a great album, but it was not a bad album, but Tull had a better year in the studio in 1982 than what that album suggests alone. Most of these bonus tracks were released as singles and EPs when they were recorded anyway. LITP is not an album, it is a compilation. I judge a band on the quality and quantity of songs throughtout their career. I'm too involved in the music to think about album concepts and I think the lyrics come after all the music has been digested ;)
|
|
smithers
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 30 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 223
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 07:21 |
fuxi wrote:
I'm not so sure about this. I'll agree you can't judge an album by its bonus tracks if these were only released twenty or thirty years later, but you CAN say valuable things about the status of Jethro Tull at the time.
Of course it's weird that the bonus tracks on BROADSWORD are so much better than the sludge on the original album.
I definitely agree with Sean Trane that HEAVY HORSES is not a first-rate Tull album. Ian's voice sounds hoarse and dry, many of the melodies are uninteresting, and the band's star musicians (Barre, Evans, Palmer) get too little to do. (CREST OF A KNAVE would prove to be much better, albeit ten years later.)
I haven't heard STORMWATCH since it first came out, but I remember a friend played it to me back then and I just couldn't BELIEVE how weak it sounded.
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.
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...
|
Heavy horses has some of the coolest acoustics of all time. Acres wild, Rover, Moths, Brown mouse, Mouse police. No lullaby sound amazing on bursting out.
Edited by smithers - November 22 2006 at 07:22
|
|
White Duck
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 248
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 07:34 |
I donīt understand how somebody prefer A (not a bad album in the other hand) against Minstrel. I canīt understand it. The seven songs and the bonus are pearls.
Heavy Horses is another great work.I agree with this, this album has some of the coolest acoustics,but Songs from the wood too and MINSTREL too.
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20838
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 07:35 |
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.
|
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
The Wizard
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 18 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7341
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 08:27 |
|
Lets see. Tull were at there best in there early days. By that I mean the debut up to Thick as a Brick. Thick as a Brick is my all-time favorite prog album. After that they slowly declined. I like A Passion Play, Minstrel, and Too Old to Rock'n'roll, but not as much as I love the classics like Aqualung, Benefit, Stand Up, and all those great singles. After Thick as a Brick, Tull made little music that holds a candle to there classic era. In Songs From the Woods and Heavy Horses they almost made a glorious come-back, but then again ego killed it all. Jethro Tull are one of my favorite bands, but I can recognize that they were far from perfect.
|
|
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2488
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 12:30 |
Sean Trane wrote:
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 39933]. 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. |
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.
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?
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!
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?
For more information, follow this link:
http://www.j-tull.com/musicians/pastmembers/davidpalmer.html
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2488
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 12:34 |
smithers wrote:
Heavy horses has some of the coolest acoustics of all time. Acres wild, Rover, Moths, Brown mouse, Mouse police. No lullaby sound amazing on bursting out. |
I agree that 'Moths' and 'One Brown Mouse' are charming. I also like the live version of 'No Lullaby'. 
|
|
Evans
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 15 2006
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 3004
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 13:01 |
|
Off topic, but am i the only one who hates (loathes!) the last few second of mouse police? Actually, i think that if HH had begum with acres wild, it would have gotten a lot of more play time, but i just... can't listen to that horrid creation that is the outro..
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2488
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 14:39 |
|
You're right, Evans, it's a pretty annoying outro.
Great avatar, by the way, from one of my favourite Japanese films!
|
|
Evans
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 15 2006
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 3004
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 14:46 |
|
Thanks, although i would have liked one with the Cat-Bus as well, but he's harder to fit in such a small picture :)
|
|
The Whistler
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: LA, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 7113
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 16:34 |
fuxi wrote:
smithers wrote:
Heavy horses has some of the coolest acoustics of all time. Acres wild, Rover, Moths, Brown mouse, Mouse police. No lullaby sound amazing on bursting out. |
I agree that 'Moths' and 'One Brown Mouse' are charming. I also like the live version of 'No Lullaby'. |
The Live Version (from Bursting Owt) of No Lullaby carefully, gently, takes the original, lays it into a crib, then smashes each and every one of its teeth in with AWESOMENESS. I find the original slow and kinda boring at parts. The live version is a perfect album opener.
Edited by The Whistler - November 22 2006 at 16:35
|
|
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
|
The Whistler
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: LA, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 7113
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 16:36 |
Evans wrote:
Off topic, but am i the only one who hates (loathes!) the last few second of mouse police? Actually, i think that if HH had begum with acres wild, it would have gotten a lot of more play time, but i just... can't listen to that horrid creation that is the outro..
|
What? Surely you don't mean "The mouse police never sleepthe mouse police never sleepsthe mouse police never sleepsthe (cough-cough!)" bit? That's the best part of rock history!
|
|
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
|
smithers
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 30 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 223
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 21:16 |
|
|
|
Asyte2c00
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 15 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2099
|
Posted: November 22 2006 at 21:21 |
True
Edited by Asyte2c00 - November 22 2006 at 21:21
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Tull didn't finish at Heavy Horses
