Tull didn't finish at Heavy Horses
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31367
Printed Date: August 19 2025 at 10:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Tull didn't finish at Heavy Horses
Posted By: smithers
Subject: Tull didn't finish at Heavy Horses
Date Posted: November 21 2006 at 21:34
| I get annoyed when people say Tull were never the same after 1978. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). Taking away the occasional song from the 80s and 90s albums and adding some of the lesser known bonus and session material. 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. |
Replies:
Posted By: An old fart
Date Posted: November 21 2006 at 22:34
|
I agree with most of what you said, Smithers. The main point being, I assume, that Tull has always been an excellent band. I would also add that in my opinion Rock Island (didn't that come out in 1989?) was a great album too.
20 Years of Jethro Tull, which you often refer to in your post, is a real treasure, by the way. Lots of rarities there that have been later added as bonus tracks to period remastered albums. Back to your statement on Tull after Heavy Horses... Personally I think that relatively late albums in the Tull repertoire, such as Crest of a Crave and Roots to Branches are among their best in their whole career. The only album I still have a disliking for is Under Wraps. Even A, which I earlier ignored (but bought some time ago, mostly for the bonus DVD) has several good songs, just like you pointed out. Also, the new tracks on Christmas Album and on Anderson's solo albums The Secret Language of Birds and Rupi's Dance prove that Anderson still has an ability to create catchy, yet ambitious music. Really hoping for them to go to the studio in the near future... It would be high time! When it happens, I expect another link in a row of glorious Tull albums. ------------- "Make tea, not love" |
Posted By: lunaticviolist
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 00:51
|
I haven't heard much after Broadsword, but I do agree with you that
Tull were still a good band through the '80s and '90s, but they were
definitely nowhere near the greatness of their '70s period. What
is this alternate version of Jack-a-Lynn you speak of? I would
love to hear it. Was it released officially?
------------- My recent purchases: 
|
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 02:55
|
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 songs ranging from fairly good-very good from each of those 2 years anyway
1977-jack in the green, cup of wonder, velvet green, whistler, fire at midnight
1978-mouse police, acres wild, no lullaby, rover, one brown mouse, moths, blues instrumental
1979-north sea oil, dun ringill, orion, crossword, stitch in time, elegy, king henrys madrigal
1980-fylingdale flyer, uniform, and further on, pine martens jig, protect and survive
1982-seal driver, clasp, watching me watching you, fallen on hard times, I'm your gun
1991-rocks on the road, roll yer own, silver river turning, night in the wilderness
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
The 3 super years were 1978, 79 and 99 I believe, while the other years were still very good. I also consider 1971 and 72 to be super years, while 1969, 70, 73 and 74 were very good
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:01
They finished in 1973, not in 78'!! |
smithers wrote:Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:09
|
Ah, smithers, my old nemesis. Let's see how we're doing...
How'd I do? ------------- "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 |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:12
You DARE knock the mighty mightiness that is Minstrel? ------------- "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 |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:18
Only 1971 and 1972 are super years imo. Aqualung was only great on side 1 and LITP had several rippers from 1971. TAAB is excellent. Those 2 years sit nicely along side 1978, 79 and 99 ;). So 1971, 72, 78, 79 and 99 are Tulls greatest years in the studio imo :)
This was, Stand up and Benefit are greatly improved by the classic bonus tracks that came from LITP. 1969 and 70 were very good years and 1968 fairly good
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:18
|
I know Ministrel, have a look at my review. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:19
|
I can't believe that some people under rate "This was" and "Stand up" because it's too "bluesy" and that they over rate the mid/late 70's albums... |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:22
Both four-star efforts, in my frequently corrected opinion. With You There to Whatever has since become a personal favorite number. ------------- "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 |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:24
|
Four stars, we agree, but there are essential as a unique cross of blues/Folk and psychedelic/early progresive rock. Essential! |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:27
|
Gah-gah-gasp! I can understand how someone might consider Minstrel a three-star effort, and I'll allow the second star off (you liked the bonuses; I found Mad Scientist great, Sand okay, Pandance disappointing, and the like tracks "suck-tacular"), but how can you deny that Minstrel, the song, is an instant classic, if not greatest Tull song ever? ------------- "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 |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:28
Need my With You There. We Used to Know ain't too bad neither. ------------- "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 |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:31
This Was is not what I call advanced music for it's time. Love story and Move on alone are before their time and are very good songs, but there isn't enough originality or excitement amongst most of the other songs although there are some good tunes. On Stand up, Living in the past and Look into the sun are great and there are a few other quality songs. But I think A new day yesterday is ruined by Ians singing, For a thousand mothers just gets a bit messy and the distorted flute doesn't help. We used to know is a good song, but it does become repetitive and it lack the class i know Tull have. Back to the family is a bit of a snoozer. But most of the other songs are fairly good especially Sweet dream, Jeffrey goes to Leicester square etc. 1969 is a very good year for the band and slightly better than 1975 and 1976 imo. But 1974 is greatly greatly improved by the bonus tracks. Without the bonus tracks Warchild ranks low among Tull albums, but the 7 bonus tracks are almost the makings of a very good prog folk rock album and much better than the original album material which was purposely written for a movie
|
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:33
I only give Minstrel a 3 and a half star. But the bonus tracks March the mad scientist and Summerday sands are great, so the remaster gets 4 stars. This Was remaster also gets 4 stars, but without the bonus tracks it only gets 3 stars
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:37
|
I'm sorry, I read "Benefit" when it said "This Was." Oh well. This Was is still great; I love the blues (smithers, what was that instrumental again?); Song for Jeffrey is, as I've said, THE underrated Tull piece. ------------- "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 |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:48
|
Even if Jethro Tull went downhill in the early eighties, they came back triumphantly with CREST OF A KNAVE, which I agree is a thoroughly enjoyable album. Only 'Mountain Men' disappoints me a little; it recycles the main theme from THICK AS A BRICK without adding anything. But much of the rest of this album is superb. 'Budapest' is definitely one of their best extended workouts, comparable with MINSTREL's 'Valhalla'. But what a shame Barrie and Jeffrey aren't there anymore. Who the hell needs a drum machine?
Does anyone actually know WHY Ian Anderson fired most of his band at the end of the seventies? I seem to remember reading (in the book MINSTRELS IN THE GALLERY) that he was fed-up with the old formula and longed to experiment with new kinds of music. I also seem to remember that long-time band members such as John Evan felt shocked. How could Ian do this to them? And why couldn't he keep them for new projects? |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 03:54
Well, according to Ian...
A was supposed to be a solo album, but Martin was there, and so the studio stuck "Tull" on the sleeve. Ian said, "Nay!" The studio said, "Yeah!" Ian said, "...okay."
Barrie was gonna quit anyways, and John (God rest his soul) was dead (choke on your bass in hell). However, David Palmer and John Evans were all like, "Dude! We thought we were still in the band! That, like...sucks!" So they formed their own band.
End result, Ian kept Martin and bass player from the Stormwatch tour...that guy whose name has slipped from my head. Bald dude. Was in another band...Phil Collins? No! Pegg! Dave Pegg.
And they all recorded crappy music ever after. Th ind. ------------- "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 |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 04:50
Barrie, oh Barrie, why did you quit? 
And another question: has anyone heard that album by John Evans and David Palmer's band? And is it any good? |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 05:07
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 05:15
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 |
). 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!!! 
Posted By: White Duck
Date 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. |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 05:39
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
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date 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 .comDotcom 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 |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 06:54
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... |
Posted By: smithers
Date 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 ;) |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 07:21
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.
|
Posted By: White Duck
Date 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. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 07:35
------------- 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 |
journalists did a lot of damages in those years
) without them asking Anderson and him denying it if it was not true.Posted By: The Wizard
Date 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. -------------  
|
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 12:30
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 |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 12:34
I agree that 'Moths' and 'One Brown Mouse' are charming. I also like the live version of 'No Lullaby'. 
|
Posted By: Evans
Date 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.. |
Posted By: fuxi
Date 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! |
Posted By: Evans
Date 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 :) |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 16:34
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. ------------- "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 |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 16:36
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 |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 21:16
u crazy man ;)
|
Posted By: Asyte2c00
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 21:21
|
True |
Posted By: mrgd
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 02:23
|
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. ------------- Looking still the same after all these years... mrgd |
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 02:53
I agree completely! Roots to Branches for instance is a wonderful album...and I saw them live in 2003: man, what a band! One of the few bands ever to propose in a concert songs that span over an entire career from the first releases down to the last records! I'm looking forward to hearing something new from Mr. Anderson & friends...  ------------- A flower? 
|
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 03:14
| 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 ;) |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 03:32
Well, that's true, too. I saw the same incarnation live in the u.k. a few years ago and it was great fun - in spite of Ian's (lack of a) voice. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 03:46
------------- 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 |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 06:48
|
Sean's quote at progears about 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 :)
|
or check out their two bootlegs at Madison Gardens (78) 
[/QUOTE wrote:Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 08:18
actually, I refused to buy "A", so I found the slipstream DVD (distributed by the semi-legit FNM) quite cheap and got that instead, but it is the same.
Check out those footages I tell you about ansd see how slipstream is poor;
AND FOR YOU LIKING THOSE TWO DISC, I WONDER HOW YOU CAN TELL ANYONE THAT ANYTHING IS ANY GOOD AT ALL.
you appear to like everything from an artiste undiscerningly. Nothing is worse than fanboys. They know diddley over squat and their opinions are more than doubtfull.
A is nothing more than a two star record and a three star at most.Llike it or not, A is certainly not essential (anything but, really) and except for To Old To RnR ------------- 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 |
Posted By: mrgd
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 19:04
|
As I have said, I like 'A' a lot. The first 4 tracks ,in particular, are excellent imo. True, it falls away in quality a little but then finishes off well with 'Pine Marten's Jig' and 'And further on.'
It seems to me that those who have difficulty with 'A' are the sort of people who resist change.If you look at the album objectively, the songs ,on the whole, are good [some v. good imo]. Now, the band - we all know it was controversially different, but that doesn't make the band unworthy of recognition does it? I think Mark Craney is an excellent drummer and added a real crispness to the rhythm section. Dave Pegg seems to improve with age and introduces the textures of the fretlees bass to TULL's music and the two work wonderfully imo [ie. fretless and Tull's music and I lament Jonathan Noyce has not chosen to continue its use]. Then, add Jobson - say no more. It helps to be a Jobson fan, of which I am one but he ads some new and more powerful keyboard dimensions to the music imo. So, if we are entirely honest with ourselves, this is some prog band. Of course, we all have our own opinions but my view is that too many unfairly dismiss 'A' because of the background from which it was produced [a background of change, including what was happening in progressive music at the time] rather than on the merits of the music and the band. I also think there are too many doomsayers out there when it comes to 'Crest of a Knave' but maybe that's another story! ------------- Looking still the same after all these years... mrgd |
Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 20:43
"Moths" and "Heavy Horses" are songs which necessarily need the "systematical" string arrangements... without them, those songs lose a lot of the beauty they evoke (not saying the compositions are bad, but the string arrangements really increase their charm)... same goes for "Old Ghosts", "Elegy", "Black Satin Dancer" or "Baker St. Muse....
So what if they were systematic?... the mellotron became an almost obbligatory instrument in symphonic progressive, and it came to a point when it was as formulaic as Palmer's string arrangements... so if they used a mellotron or an orchestron, would it had been different? ------------- Jesus Gabriel |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 24 2006 at 00:35
2 star? I give it 4 stars. I don't like Tull music for no reason. You'll always see me knocking lots of Tulls songs they chose to be released on most of their ORIGINAL albums. I don't rate any of the songs on side 2 of Aqualung very highly. I don't rate half of the songs on Warchild very highly. I don't rate half of the Broadsword album very highly. I don't rate half of Minstrel highly. I don't rate half of Stand up highly. I don't rate half of This was highly. I don't rate half of Too old highly. I don't rate half of Catfish highly. I don't rate half of Under wraps highly. I don't rate half of Rock island highly. In fact I rate most of the songs above just decent songs and the occasional song is mediocre. You'll wonder if I'm much of a Tull fan now ;). But I do rate the other halfs of all the albums above fairly highly and I rate most of the remaster bonus tracks highly too, plus other bonus tracks that missed the remasters. I think you are more of Tull fan boy Mr Trane since you worship Wind up and My god. But I'm more interested in Tulls better songs which are more well written and more complex hehe.
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: November 24 2006 at 07:26
|
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. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: November 24 2006 at 08:36
------------- 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 |
) that the albums should be rated without considering the bonus tracks... Posted By: Kimoi
Date Posted: November 24 2006 at 10:11
|
To smithers. You come across as a dullard. Not everybody here shares your love of Jethro Tull. |
Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: November 24 2006 at 11:21
Tull were always complex somehow... have you listened to Protect and Survive? Uniform? Heavy Horses? you agree they probably were... but what about Out Of The Noise? Wounded, Old and Treacherous?... and tons more... they all have complex arrangements, despite some cheesy electronic effects or mainstreamish sound... from about 1974 they managed to be complex without the need to "shove it in your face" like many other prog bands tend to do... and (despite the somewhat crappy 80's Dire Straits wannabe phase, starting from UW) they made some challenging songs in the 80's and 90's (Budapest, Out Of The Noise, Dangerous Veils, Black Mamba, etc...)... just not in the exact same mood they had in the 70's
Genesis, on the other hand, sold themselves quite cheaply in the 80's ------------- Jesus Gabriel |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 24 2006 at 17:32
|
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) ;) |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 24 2006 at 17:36
shuttup Dan
 |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 25 2006 at 02:41
He's right smithers. You don't love Tull enough. What's wrong with you? ------------- "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 |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 25 2006 at 03:20
|
Right. I'll go bold--AND I'll criticize your choices as well as your absences. Yeah!
Although now, I'm curious...what must you think of Under Wraps? ------------- "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 |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 25 2006 at 03:34
Okay, whoah! I can understand how you could sell off A as not prog. Electro pop. Maybe. Under Wraps is more so, of course, and you'd be utterly wrong. A is way to un-commercial to be pop. But 4WD...(shudder).
But Stormwatch? Strom-watch? Impossible! That thing's artsier than a Pink Floyd album. First off, it's a "concept album." Apocaylpse. End of the world. Doom. Gloom. Bannanas cost twleve bucks a bunch. That sorta thing.
Secondly, the songs are arranged in the neatest of orders. It goes hard rocker, softer rocker, atmospheric bitter/sweet song, super-song, instrumental, side two, repeat. So you get a couple of eight minute songs and instrumentals!
Then, there's a buncha sound effects (North Sea Oil and Dun Ring'ill mostly). Like I said, combined with the gloomy, doomy, dark atmospheric annomally throughout, it's like a good old Pink Floyd album. Everyone wins! ------------- "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 |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 25 2006 at 03:40
Ugh. Fourth post. It's all for Ian, of course...
 OKAY! Enough of that. If I were to grade the A package, I would give it a three-star lot. A itself is two stars at best. I find the material on A more offensive than on Under Wraps, but that's mostly because the material on Wraps was mostly unmemmorable. HOWEVER, Slipstream gets four stars. Easy. Skating Away made me cry. That's such a great song. As is Aqualung. Rocks. Rocks on ice.
Heavy Horses though, that's the best. The way they castrated that thing on the Very Best of, I had no idea how good it was. But Slipstream, THAT'S how you edit something. Brilliant. And the videos are, of course, hilarious. Flyer and Too Olde. Awesome. Minor complaints (fanboy that I am) over Songs, which I've found looses power on stage, and a really, really choppy Locomotive Breath. But, considering the outfit they had, I suppose it was the best they could do... ------------- "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 |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 25 2006 at 04:57
ur crazy ;). Uniform and And further on are great. Protect and survive has an awesome intro
|
Posted By: White Duck
Date Posted: November 25 2006 at 05:51
|
Jethro Tull is my favourite band and i donīt agree with smithers at all |
Posted By: smithers
Date Posted: November 25 2006 at 07:25
In what way? Tull are my fave band too. But I guess I'm more a fan of complex prog and interesting heavy folk rock music and greater song writing. I think Tull tried to make many of their albums a mix of great prog/folk/heavy rock for half an album worth and the other half album worth of simplish/commercial rock music. I find this to be case with the bands first 4 albums from This was-Aqualung and also Warchild, Too old to RnR, Broadsword and Catfish. But all those simplish/commercial songs on all the albums mentioned above are songs written for the radio or other commercial puposes. So obviously they are not songs the band would write naturally. Tull are better than that and they prove this with all of their fine album extras on the remasters and box sets. Obviously the band were looking for extra dollars with some of their commercial songs. But I think their repution would have been much greater if they stuck with non commercial album track lists
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 25 2006 at 16:02
Well...can't argue with that. Protect and Survive has a pretty decent intro. In fact, compared to Flyer and Black Sunday, it's the brilliant-est intro on the album. ------------- "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 |