|
Post by steelmonkey on Sept 16, 2010 15:14:38 GMT
I can't remember where i read it, nor have i ever seen it on 'Tullpress' but i clearly remember a very impressive description of Ian Anderson written by one of the big boys of rock criticism ( Christgau? Hilburn? Bangs?) who baiscally said: " Ian Anderson is the kind of guy you'd be lucky to meet first if you moved into a medium sized town...heck...he might even be Bob Dylan in that setting...but if he joined you on a trip down to London, after awhile, his jadedness and know-it-all piousness would bring you down and you'd have to ditch him and take in the big city sights through your own eyes'
I've always understood that assessment of our man....a provincial Dylan a bit too narrow-minded to fully accept or enjoy the metropolis. What do you think of this assessment?
|
|
|
Post by maddogfagin on Sept 16, 2010 17:23:38 GMT
I can't remember where i read it, nor have i ever seen it on 'Tullpress' but i clearly remember a very impressive description of Ian Anderson written by one of the big boys of rock criticism ( Christgau? Hilburn? Bangs?) who baiscally said: " Ian Anderson is the kind of guy you'd be lucky to meet first if you moved into a medium sized town...heck...he might even be Bob Dylan in that setting...but if he joined you on a trip down to London, after awhile, his jadedness and know-it-all piousness would bring you down and you'd have to ditch him and take in the big city sights through your own eyes' I've always understood that assessment of our man....a provincial Dylan a bit too narrow-minded to fully accept or enjoy the metropolis. What do you think of this assessment? I don't think he's narrow minded - more an impression of someone who's been there, read the book and got the T shirt. He certainly doesn't accept fools gladly but is probably happy being surrounded by family and friends who treat him as a person and not a one legged flute player. Next please ;D
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on Sept 16, 2010 19:57:37 GMT
Not narrow minded in the sense of being a dumbass or a bigot...narrow-minded more in a limited definition...not the guy you would want as your tour guide thru the chemical and romantic wonders of the late sixties....I mean, let's face it...no one wishes he was long dead or in detox like so many momentary space cowboys and pioneers...but on the other hand, he speaks rather strongly about marijuana, LSD and other drugs for someone who claims to have barely tried the benign ones (weed) and certainly never tripped at a Pink Floyd concert or whatever else was downright mainstream in 1968....there is something 'not of his time' about Ian that is endearing and admirable but also led to many a knee jerk reaction/condemnation of some of the adventurous and mind expanding/blowing aspects of the late sixties despite the way they appear now in the rear view mirror of time....I don't condemn the guy...I damn near worship him...but i wish he had dipped his toesies a little deeper into the other side of life back in the era when that kind of experimentation, psychic risk and outside of the box lifestyle was de riguer.
|
|
|
Post by nonrabbit on Sept 17, 2010 7:33:30 GMT
mmm i suppose it depends on what you wanted from him. In some ways he does sound like he would have been a bit pompous and judgemental if you had turned to him to "share the experience" at an illegal drugs soiree of the last century. However he would have scored brownie points (and much much more) in coolness and attractability if he just sat in the corner and wrote a song (about me) ;D There was always something alluring and cool about the one who wafted through the party and stayed in the background watching without joining in (mmmm) ;D edited to add ...and I don't mean boring
|
|
|
Post by maddogfagin on Sept 17, 2010 17:40:49 GMT
I read somewhere many moons ago that it is wise never to get too close to the people you admire as one could be very disapointed. Many years ago I met one of the members of a "progressive" rock band, someone who I rated as a top musician and all round "good egg" but I was sorely disapointed. Not for an instance would I regard our Mr Anderson in the above catagory, but it's a lesson I learnt in my youth and an experience I've never forgotten.
On the couple of occassions I've met IA, coupled with dealings with other members of the band both past and present, I've always found them top blokes, together with the few lady guests, which is not that common with many artists.
|
|
|
Post by earsoftin on Sept 28, 2010 19:03:11 GMT
Perhaps the key words here are 'provincial' and 'metropolitan'. There's something about London-based critics (if I can use a UK example) that means that they are always looking for the next thing that will make them look cool and different. This often means that they will champion the weird and frankly unlistenable (that seems to be the position of critics who write for, say, the Guardian) and sneer at more popular artists. There's something similar in literature when they look down their noses at writers like Nick Hornby who deal with 'ordinary' subject matter (in their eyes). A good example, although I haven't read it in detail yet, is the recent book by Nick Kent, in which he rubbishes Tull in particular whilst revealing in his own words that he knows nothing about them. But accuracy is not what is desired - it's effect which is more important.
We could have a whole other discussion about the assumptions about Dylan by the way - influential of course, but not always in a good way. So I'd like to know who the quote was from, because it would be interesting to see how the argument was developed.
Sorry to take a while to respond - holidays and work - but lots of interesting thoughts here.
|
|
|
Post by nonrabbit on Sept 29, 2010 7:56:57 GMT
a question asked to Martin in an interview recently.. "GN: There was an article published in Montreal last year from a popular journalist who said that rock music should only be played by twenty-year olds. That musicians in their fifties and sixties should retire because they have nothing important to say. He specifically mentioned a few bands that should retire. One of them was Jethro Tull. What would you answer to something like that? MB: From somebody who’s a journalist, that’s an incredibly naive statement. It sounds like something you would have read thirty years ago. I don’t think anybody who would’ve read something like that would’ve taken any notice of it. I think he’s doing himself more harm than the people he’s talking about. The Stones, Peter Gabriel, Dire Straits, The Eagles… there are so many bands from my era that’re still on the road, and people still enjoy them. I think nothing more need be said.full interview www.guitarnoise.com/profile/martin-barre-interview/
|
|