In the David Crosby book, 'Long Time Gone' he claims that The New Christy Minstrels had at least two touring bands at the height of their fame but that band is a bit of an outlier, more synonymous with a touring symphony orchestra. It's one of the reasons CSN were so named - you couldn't fire a member and carry on. Nearer to home, my hom…
In the David Crosby book, 'Long Time Gone' he claims that The New Christy Minstrels had at least two touring bands at the height of their fame but that band is a bit of an outlier, more synonymous with a touring symphony orchestra. It's one of the reasons CSN were so named - you couldn't fire a member and carry on. Nearer to home, my home anyway, is the curious case of Jethro Tull. They have undergone numerous personnel changes in their 50 odd years of existence and as a fan I find Ian Anderson's hiring and firing a bit odd. It remains the case unfortunately that Jethro Tull has only been Jethro Tull if Anderson was in it. At least after the first three albums. In that sense the sound, the look and the vibe that propelled them to superstardom has long gone. This was brought home to me when at one point, Tull had fewer original members in it than other bands with former Tull members - and it sounded a lot livelier. I know this muddies the water as far as your thesis goes, but it is irksome when you find you are listening to what is, in effect, a tribute band.
As a longtime fellow Tull fan (on them since '68's "This Was" release--I was 13; and, I've seen them about 1/2-dozen times, mostly in the early-'70s), my dos centavos: Generally speaking, Tull has always been Ian's baby, from not only a PR standpoint (silhouette of him playing flute), but musically. If, literally, every living track was written by him (and I haven't checked to verify), Ian can be Tull a little more (if not a lot more) than a gaggle of cats who used to be Tull, and now tour sans Ian, IMO.
I saw Ian in a little club in Austin, TX just shy of a decade ago, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't billed as "Jethro Tull" (but, I can't recall)..."Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull"? More probable.
As Eddie Trunk has always said, make sure you know who'll be on stage when you buy your ticket. That should be the end of it. We can debate, all day, this, that, and the other regarding "artistic merits"....but, as we're decades, now, into the "rock era," we shoulda seen this day coming, at least to some degree, with EVERY band/act/artist. Be aware, consumer....period.
Oh Brad, I am normally quite rational about bands but for some reason Tull got under my skin at the beginning. I know a little of the dynamics of Jethro Tull because Glenn Cornick was a friend for many years. So I get very anal about them. You are right when you say that IA wrote every track but in the early days the others put a lot of their own ideas in. Of late IA just hires good players and they play it the way he says it should be played, albeit with key changes to accommodate Ian's voice. All Glenn's parts were Glenn. The bouncy, melodic, jazzy stuff was all his. When he was given the push (at the airport, by the manager) they never really had a bass player after Glenn who could add anything. This Was partly to do with the fact that the band members were employees and they did what they were told. You would think Martin Barre would have had some loyalty due after over 30 years of membership, but no. He was taken to a room by Ian and told JT was over. Sometime later JT appears, sans Barre. Go figure.
It gets worse. I have never believed that the sound quality on their albums have been first rate. Ian blamed new equipment for Aqualung and then there was the notorious Chateau D'Isaster stuff. The production on later albums was frankly ordinary. At some point, I think it was Stand Up, Paul McCartney offered to produce it and was given the polite thank you and no. Notwithstanding, some embryo called Steve Wilson has remixed the albums and the result is tragic. Compare this farrago of tatterdemalion blackboard scraping with Tull contemporaries, The Strawbs, who have gone from great to completely fantastic over the years and despite the odd change of personnel, are full of energy and grace and a delight to see live.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful and thorough reply, Titus! I certainly understand your feelings....so few of us get to know those inner workings, and how treatment within bands sounds, so often, like the way workers get treated at our various companies and offices!!
That's amazing that Paul OFFERED to produce "Stand Up".....I'd-a had a hard time believing he'd even know (or care) about Tull back in that day! I hear he was a bit busy in 1969, anyway! But, at the same time I'd be jaw-dropped at ANY band who turned down an offer by Paul to produce your SECOND album, I guess it shouldn't surprise me a head-strong band and/or Ian would even WANT anyone (even Paul) to "interfere" with the vision they had for their soph effort. All the "what-ifs" and "might've beens" there are in rock! Thanks again, Titus!
In the David Crosby book, 'Long Time Gone' he claims that The New Christy Minstrels had at least two touring bands at the height of their fame but that band is a bit of an outlier, more synonymous with a touring symphony orchestra. It's one of the reasons CSN were so named - you couldn't fire a member and carry on. Nearer to home, my home anyway, is the curious case of Jethro Tull. They have undergone numerous personnel changes in their 50 odd years of existence and as a fan I find Ian Anderson's hiring and firing a bit odd. It remains the case unfortunately that Jethro Tull has only been Jethro Tull if Anderson was in it. At least after the first three albums. In that sense the sound, the look and the vibe that propelled them to superstardom has long gone. This was brought home to me when at one point, Tull had fewer original members in it than other bands with former Tull members - and it sounded a lot livelier. I know this muddies the water as far as your thesis goes, but it is irksome when you find you are listening to what is, in effect, a tribute band.
As a longtime fellow Tull fan (on them since '68's "This Was" release--I was 13; and, I've seen them about 1/2-dozen times, mostly in the early-'70s), my dos centavos: Generally speaking, Tull has always been Ian's baby, from not only a PR standpoint (silhouette of him playing flute), but musically. If, literally, every living track was written by him (and I haven't checked to verify), Ian can be Tull a little more (if not a lot more) than a gaggle of cats who used to be Tull, and now tour sans Ian, IMO.
I saw Ian in a little club in Austin, TX just shy of a decade ago, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't billed as "Jethro Tull" (but, I can't recall)..."Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull"? More probable.
As Eddie Trunk has always said, make sure you know who'll be on stage when you buy your ticket. That should be the end of it. We can debate, all day, this, that, and the other regarding "artistic merits"....but, as we're decades, now, into the "rock era," we shoulda seen this day coming, at least to some degree, with EVERY band/act/artist. Be aware, consumer....period.
Oh Brad, I am normally quite rational about bands but for some reason Tull got under my skin at the beginning. I know a little of the dynamics of Jethro Tull because Glenn Cornick was a friend for many years. So I get very anal about them. You are right when you say that IA wrote every track but in the early days the others put a lot of their own ideas in. Of late IA just hires good players and they play it the way he says it should be played, albeit with key changes to accommodate Ian's voice. All Glenn's parts were Glenn. The bouncy, melodic, jazzy stuff was all his. When he was given the push (at the airport, by the manager) they never really had a bass player after Glenn who could add anything. This Was partly to do with the fact that the band members were employees and they did what they were told. You would think Martin Barre would have had some loyalty due after over 30 years of membership, but no. He was taken to a room by Ian and told JT was over. Sometime later JT appears, sans Barre. Go figure.
It gets worse. I have never believed that the sound quality on their albums have been first rate. Ian blamed new equipment for Aqualung and then there was the notorious Chateau D'Isaster stuff. The production on later albums was frankly ordinary. At some point, I think it was Stand Up, Paul McCartney offered to produce it and was given the polite thank you and no. Notwithstanding, some embryo called Steve Wilson has remixed the albums and the result is tragic. Compare this farrago of tatterdemalion blackboard scraping with Tull contemporaries, The Strawbs, who have gone from great to completely fantastic over the years and despite the odd change of personnel, are full of energy and grace and a delight to see live.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful and thorough reply, Titus! I certainly understand your feelings....so few of us get to know those inner workings, and how treatment within bands sounds, so often, like the way workers get treated at our various companies and offices!!
That's amazing that Paul OFFERED to produce "Stand Up".....I'd-a had a hard time believing he'd even know (or care) about Tull back in that day! I hear he was a bit busy in 1969, anyway! But, at the same time I'd be jaw-dropped at ANY band who turned down an offer by Paul to produce your SECOND album, I guess it shouldn't surprise me a head-strong band and/or Ian would even WANT anyone (even Paul) to "interfere" with the vision they had for their soph effort. All the "what-ifs" and "might've beens" there are in rock! Thanks again, Titus!