Jethro Tull vs Rush TOP 6 Albums

thief wrote: verslibre wrote: Remove Stand Up and add Stormwatch and it will be a much closer race.  dr wu23 wrote: Tull........; I do like those classic Rush albums but the songwriting by Anderson and Tull eclipses Rush , but I would rather see Benefit on that list than Horses. The thing with Tull is that we have 4-5 albums most people regard as "Tier 1" (Superelite) and then a plethora of "Tier 2" LPs, very similar level when it comes to songwriting, hooks, arrangements etc. Instead of Stand Up or Minstrel in the Gallery we could easily have: Benefit, Living in the Past, A Passion Play (!), War Child or Stormwatch... and I don't even touch 80s/90s material (there is a lot of Crest, Branches or Broadsword fans out there). So I went with average ratings according to PA, although differences between #4 and #8 are miniscule.

Mortte wrote: Well, have to say that mostly Rush is just rubbish after Power Windows (well Presto was ok), but Jethro has never done totally bad album. And I am not provoking, that´s my opinion.

verslibre wrote: Mortte wrote: Well, have to say that mostly Rush is just rubbish after Power Windows (well Presto was ok), but Jethro has never done totally bad album. And I am not provoking, that´s my opinion. Both Rush and Tull have released inconsistent/subpar albums, e.g. Snakes & Arrows and Rock Island, respectively.

Well, I like Rock Island much more than Snakes & Arrows. For example title song, "the Whaler´s Dues" & "Big Riff & Mando" rises almost their greatest stuff level. In Snakes & Arrows there is really good playing and great sounds, but no songs I remember at the moment (well remember that catchy starting of first piece). As many other also thinks, "Underwraps" is the weakest Jethro album, but even that is better than Rush weak albums and lot better than it´s reputation. There are good songs, but eighties production again is the one that makes album little weak.

verslibre wrote: thief wrote: verslibre wrote: Remove Stand Up and add Stormwatch and it will be a much closer race.  dr wu23 wrote: Tull........; I do like those classic Rush albums but the songwriting by Anderson and Tull eclipses Rush , but I would rather see Benefit on that list than Horses. The thing with Tull is that we have 4-5 albums most people regard as "Tier 1" (Superelite) and then a plethora of "Tier 2" LPs, very similar level when it comes to songwriting, hooks, arrangements etc. Instead of Stand Up or Minstrel in the Gallery we could easily have: Benefit, Living in the Past, A Passion Play (!), War Child or Stormwatch... and I don't even touch 80s/90s material (there is a lot of Crest, Branches or Broadsword fans out there). So I went with average ratings according to PA, although differences between #4 and #8 are miniscule. Nah, not Benefit – that's early early Tull. Living in the Past is not a studio album, it's a pre-TAAB compilation.

verslibre wrote: thief wrote: Living in the Past deserves mention as a "studio album", considering that most of it is singles/EP material. Which is why it's a compilation album, i.e. it consists of material recorded ca. 1968-71. It's not a "studio album" that occurs between Aqualung and TAAB. http://jethrotull.com/living-in-the-past/

Edited by The Dark Elf - July 25 2020 at 13:37

verslibre wrote: "Unreleased" gems, sure — recorded at different times (and at least one re-recorded song, and bonus live material on the 2CD remaster). Still not the definition of studio album as it is used in these parts.

Tull quite easily.

Rush were one of the most consistent bands in rock history. The idea that they turned out 'mostly rubbish' after Power Windows is complete nonsense. Vapor Trails and Counterparts kick ass (admittedly more hard rock in style but still great) and they carried on making decent albums right to the end.