|
Post by futureshock on Mar 3, 2013 7:30:56 GMT
If Martin Barre returns to the list of musicians, what should the name of the band be? The old name of "Jethro Tull" seems to be a buried fossil and hopefully they'd be concentrating on new music, new look, new hip record art.
Also, list the names of those you'd prefer to be in that band.
|
|
|
Post by maddogfagin on Mar 3, 2013 11:19:23 GMT
If Martin Barre returns to the list of musicians, what should the name of the band be? The old name of "Jethro Tull" seems to be a buried fossil and hopefully they'd be concentrating on new music, new look, new hip record art. Also, list the names of those you'd prefer to be in that band. Questions such as the above are so subjective but (a) I would prefer to keep the Jethro Tull name - in any case IA has probably copyrighted it and (b) Martin and Florian as twin guitar attack, Andy Giddings on keyboards, Doane on drums and Peggy on bass. I've chosen the line up on the basis that these musicians are still available to tour and are still around. If Peggy didn't want to participate then David Goodier would be an able and willing deputy.
|
|
|
Post by nonrabbit on Mar 3, 2013 11:22:30 GMT
If Martin Barre returns to the list of musicians, what should the name of the band be? The old name of "Jethro Tull" seems to be a buried fossil and hopefully they'd be concentrating on new music, new look, new hip record art. Also, list the names of those you'd prefer to be in that band. I wouldn't bother about names - Ian isn't..... Fanzmosis) Fans are wondering, "Why not Jethro Tull?". Just as in the first version, the composition of TAAB2 are yours. What did you introduce the sequence as a solo project and not a Jethro Tull’s project? Ian Anderson) I tend to use the "Jethro Tull" name these days for generic best-of Tull tours, featuring Martin Barre as guitarist if he wants to do them. For project tours like orchestral, string quartet, acoustic, Christmas shows - or the TAAB tours - I use my own name. But, from where I am standing, on the stage, they are all the same - whatever it says on the ticket.
|
|
|
Post by broadsword on Mar 3, 2013 13:26:14 GMT
If Martin Barre returns to the list of musicians, what should the name of the band be? The old name of "Jethro Tull" seems to be a buried fossil and hopefully they'd be concentrating on new music, new look, new hip record art. Also, list the names of those you'd prefer to be in that band. I wouldn't bother about names - Ian isn't..... Fanzmosis) Fans are wondering, "Why not Jethro Tull?". Just as in the first version, the composition of TAAB2 are yours. What did you introduce the sequence as a solo project and not a Jethro Tull’s project? Ian Anderson) I tend to use the "Jethro Tull" name these days for generic best-of Tull tours, featuring Martin Barre as guitarist if he wants to do them. For project tours like orchestral, string quartet, acoustic, Christmas shows - or the TAAB tours - I use my own name. But, from where I am standing, on the stage, they are all the same - whatever it says on the ticket. ".....featuring Martin Barre as guitarist if he wants to do them.....", hardly a ringing endorsement. Can't see Florian and Martin on the same stage, we await developments.
|
|
|
Post by Tull50 on Mar 3, 2013 16:02:36 GMT
Of course for me, has been, is, and will be Jethro Tull, provided that Anderson is in the band. I don't like to speculate about the distant future
|
|
tullist
Master Craftsman
Posts: 478
|
Post by tullist on Mar 3, 2013 16:11:32 GMT
Yeah. If he wants to do them. Nothing more. Nothing less. No announcement of a cessation of marriage. Whether or not people like what Martin is doing, likely just respect from Ian that Martin may or may not be available. But there is a chance Tull could be over not from bad blood, but because they are freaking old. Yeah I know this guy or that guy can still re create their youth, I do regularly read defences of other guys his age or older who ALLEGEDLY can do it, bringing about a mindset of yeah Ian, turn back into the Minstrel or Passion Play guy. In some respects I would like to be the me of 73 or 75. But its not 1974, Its 2013. I would lay 10 to 1 odds that they will play together again, presuming they remain alive, and their relationship remains the same as ever, largely businesslike, with some love thrown in from so long and fruitful an association. In this format I have heard less complaints about his voice, the job of Ian Anderson of a thundering Jethro Tull could well be at an end. Yeah I know about the alleged "heavy metal" record. But who's to say Ian would be singing on it. I don't like pretty much any of metal but the element of it was never the problem. I think that Eastern European metal band that opened for them somewhere over there a couple years agp with the female lead singer had an influence on them as oddly, they actually were good, not perceiving the singers role as having to imitate their comic book notions of what a voice from the bowels of hell might sound like.
|
|
|
Post by JTull 007 on Mar 3, 2013 16:14:26 GMT
".....featuring Martin Barre as guitarist if he wants to do them.....", hardly a ringing endorsement. Can't see Florian and Martin on the same stage, we await developments. I'm still wondering why Ian would use Martin at all? His preference for the chemistry he has with this group of musicians is probably stronger than ever. If there is a short term arrangement where Martin is like a "Reunion" member, it won't last long. Considering the future as a group name, I like 'keeping things simple'. 'K.I.S.S.' - Keep it simple stupid. Since "Tull" is a 4 letter word which could be used on all occasions, just use "Tull". It takes too long to say or type "Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson". Ian does not like the name "Jethro" either. [glow=red,6,300]TULL[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on Mar 3, 2013 16:21:44 GMT
I'm with ray on odds we have not seen the last of martin and Ian together...in the meantime, I don't care what they call the band...how about 'Flo and not Eddie?'
|
|
tullist
Master Craftsman
Posts: 478
|
Post by tullist on Mar 3, 2013 16:24:55 GMT
Incorrect. Ian has ALWAYS been a man of his word. And among those words are no Martin, no Jethro Tull. Ian never liked the name anyway. Florian is a lovely player, but I would also estimate the highly unlikely scenario that Ian has a better chemistry with him or them than individuals like Martin or Doane that he has spent a signifigant slice of his life with as being awfully small. Nor do I think the performance I saw this year was in any way superior, or particularly worse for that matter, than the last Tull show I saw which was their last, to this point, on American soil. Both highly excellent and thoroughly professional shows, though an Ian Anderson show is decades removed from being the best I see in a calendar year, but always nearly, an absolutely astonishing 45 year run of quality. In some respects anything he has done since 72 has been extra to me, those first 4 years left almost nothing left to say. But there was alot more to say, and man, it has been so good.
|
|
tullist
Master Craftsman
Posts: 478
|
Post by tullist on Mar 3, 2013 16:51:24 GMT
If Martin Barre returns to the list of musicians, what should the name of the band be? The old name of "Jethro Tull" seems to be a buried fossil and hopefully they'd be concentrating on new music, new look, new hip record art. Also, list the names of those you'd prefer to be in that band. Barring Ian and Martin coming out on a duo tour, a possibility I guess, there is no need for speculation. It and only it is Jethro Tull and without even the tiniest speculation will remain so. As to hip, when was that, in their entire history was that when Tull was hip. Relatively popular their first 3 years, but very certainly never hip, thank god. Leave that world to people like Lou Reed, or people who actually were "hip" like Miles Davis. The Tull way is to run screaming from whatever the world has adorned as "hip", and may it ever be so.
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on Mar 5, 2013 19:17:58 GMT
I'm crushed...no one...not a one of you...thinks 'Flo and not Eddie' is pretty fun? Damn....I've lost my touch and my judgement...I still crack myself up but that doesn't count for much....I'm semi-hysterical at baseline.
|
|
|
Post by nobodyspecial on Mar 5, 2013 20:35:29 GMT
MB won't be returning - just guessing - no read tea leaves or anything - just the unlikely-hood that he and IA will produce new music together seem distant at best, certainly not as JT album. Elsewhere, IA says he's booked uo through 2014, time keeps moving on and the light of JT keeps fading - I say, let it go. The JT 'finish' was/seems relatively non-descript yet obvious. Too, IA also intimated that Gerald Bostock is up to something new - I said elsewhere that I wish/want TAAB to be left alone - no more TAAB sequences. As was said by 'Tullist', the musicians are older now, and they/JT had a good/great run. In deference to IA, JT and IA solo tours/concerts ARE NOT the same - they don't sound the same, aren't palyed the same, etc. FOR IA, it may seem that way - but from the seats, is doesn't sound that way. Just call me a tough task master, so for me, no new 'band' name, no more JT history tours with 'JT's IA' in front and different musicians. IA, play something different that has no link with the past and I'll give it the attention it deserves. Peace-out.
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Mar 5, 2013 21:13:01 GMT
".....featuring Martin Barre as guitarist if he wants to do them.....", hardly a ringing endorsement. Can't see Florian and Martin on the same stage, we await developments. I'm still wondering why Ian would use Martin at all? His preference for the chemistry he has with this group of musicians is probably stronger than ever. If there is a short term arrangement where Martin is like a "Reunion" member, it won't last long. Considering the future as a group name, I like 'keeping things simple'. 'K.I.S.S.' - Keep it simple stupid. Since "Tull" is a 4 letter word which could be used on all occasions, just use "Tull". It takes too long to say or type "Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson". Ian does not like the name "Jethro" either. [glow=red,6,300]TULL[/glow]You know what Jim, I was thinking just the same thing before I read your post. Why not just call the band "Tull"? That's what I call them anyway. It's a great name. Tull!
|
|
|
Post by Tull50 on Mar 5, 2013 21:34:30 GMT
You know what Jim, I was thinking just the same thing before I read your post. Why not just call the band "Tull"? That's what I call them anyway. It's a great name. Tull! I agree, in fact always been Tull
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 22:00:04 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 22:07:03 GMT
I'm crushed...no one...not a one of you...thinks 'Flo and not Eddie' is pretty fun? Damn....I've lost my touch and my judgement...I still crack myself up but that doesn't count for much....I'm semi-hysterical at baseline. This is funny. Mildly...
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on Mar 5, 2013 22:23:17 GMT
I'll take it...I'm not greedy.
|
|
|
Post by nonrabbit on Mar 5, 2013 22:29:12 GMT
i48.images obliterated by tinypic/2hi56dc.jpg[/IMG] TULL
|
|
|
Post by JTull 007 on Mar 6, 2013 1:25:29 GMT
You know what Jim, I was thinking just the same thing before I read your post. Why not just call the band "Tull"? That's what I call them anyway. It's a great name. Tull! Thanks Kai, Nonrabbit, Remy, and others too. Is this the Battle of Tull ? We shall see...
|
|
|
Post by Teacher on Mar 6, 2013 1:31:56 GMT
Me too! I'm a Tull fan. Easily recognizable, short and sweet. Tull's what I'm talking about.
|
|
tullist
Master Craftsman
Posts: 478
|
Post by tullist on Mar 6, 2013 2:08:28 GMT
I realize this is just wistful time passing wonderings, at least I hope so, but if the question is being posed seriously the answer, without equivocation, is no. Jethro Tull has been known as Tull since at least 1970, it would be like looking for a funky loophole, and I know IA don't play like that. The decision for Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson is not without merit however. Frankly folks, our boy just is not that famous to go on name alone for some, though not all, of the hall's he plays, in the main a business decision. Remembering that some few of the people who were at the original tour when they were known by millions are now dead, and even then not everyone was certain who Ian Anderson was.
|
|
|
Post by maddogfagin on Mar 6, 2013 8:56:14 GMT
Me too! I'm a Tull fan. Easily recognizable, short and sweet. Tull's what I'm talking about. Reckon I'd go along with that as well. As you say, it's easily recognizable and most people would know of the band anyway, even if they have other favourites.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 15:04:06 GMT
It's not Tull without Martin Barre. - tootull&Co.
No reply required. ;D
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on Mar 6, 2013 18:08:39 GMT
Yeah..'.Tull 'without jethro as a loophole re: " no jethro Tull without Martin barre' is, in plain german, Doof. The way it is now is fine...Billed as jethro Tull when martin and, as available and healthy, Doane are along...'Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson' when Ian tours with other iterations of the beast we know of as Tull.....ray's right, there are people out there...and i don't want to meet any of them, who may not know the diff between ian and jethro.
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Mar 6, 2013 18:54:18 GMT
Yeah..'.Tull 'without jethro as a loophole re: " no jethro Tull without Martin barre' is, in plain german, Doof. The way it is now is fine...Billed as jethro Tull when martin and, as available and healthy, Doane are along...'Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson' when Ian tours with other iterations of the beast we know of as Tull.....ray's right, there are people out there...and i don't want to meet any of them, who may not know the diff between ian and jethro. steelmonkey (I've yet to know your name and hope to make friends with you), I will respectfully disagree. I suspect that Martin and Doane do not specifically pay much heed to this sort of puritism of Jethro Tull. The topic of this thread is a simple musing in my eyes. The people you speak of who do not know the difference of Jethro Tull and Ian Anderson may just as well experience the power of the music, the fever we catch, just as much as you or me or anyone else on this forum--but why are they less entitled to your acknowledgement? This name game is a trivial thing. We are talking about a group of musicians nearing their retirement. Why not let them deal with their own preferences without making it a question of what is the "true Tull"? We have decades of "Jethro Tull" material in the forms of albums, live albums, concert videos, bootlegs, pro-shot videos on youtube, 8 and 16mm videos on youtube, and we are still arguing over a name? Tullist, sure Jethro Tull has been known as "Tull" since 1970, but why make the association so serious? We're talking about an old rock band. Let's enjoy the ongoing material and entertainment without being so serious about it. This thread is just a fantastical day-dream anyway.
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on Mar 6, 2013 19:10:49 GMT
Good points...you can call them Jethro, You can call them Tull, you can call THEM anything...just don't call me late for the opening notes of the concert. And as far as people who are not Tull fanatics but have a passing interest or acknowledgement of their talent or place in the big world of music, I guess they are, in fact, entitled to live and be respected...how about if I revise my earlier snark to: 'I just don't want my daughter to marry one'.?
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Mar 6, 2013 19:25:17 GMT
Good points...you can call them Jethro, You can call them Tull, you can call THEM anything...just don't call me late for the opening notes of the concert. And as far as people who are not Tull fanatics but have a passing interest or acknowledgement of their talent or place in the big world of music, I guess they are, in fact, entitled to live and be respected...how about if I revise my earlier snark to: 'I just don't want my daughter to marry one'.? Clever I think the idea that you can call them anything is a very good one. Perhaps it mattered in 1973, but nowadays I think the question of what the name is really depends on how to attract the people you mentioned--those who acknowledge their talent in passing. Which is most of the ticket-sales really, and one of the reasons we are still able to see Jethro Tull or Ian Anderson or whatever the name on the bill is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 19:43:42 GMT
What's in a name? To survive "Jethro" the music has got to be good. By 1973 most people recognized Aqualung/Thick as a Brick before they would recognize the name Jethro Tull. 1973 goes like this: Q: You heard of Jethro Tull? A: Who? Q: You know, "Aqualung, Thick as a Brick? A: Oh yeah, that guy. your mileage may vary;->
|
|
|
Post by nonrabbit on Mar 6, 2013 20:14:25 GMT
I think Ray's point is valid. Ian Anderson without the word "Tull" probably wouldn't sell as many tickets. The way I see it the band Jethro Tull is like any other organisation that's survived over the years. There's been staff changes, there's been adaptions to the brand however the basic product and the Chairman have survived. He's now giving us surprises to wet our appetite to keep our loyalty and still selling a recognisable product. He never really liked the "Jethro" part of the name, in fact we were just chatting about it the other night on Skype, so it's Tull for me.
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on Mar 6, 2013 21:23:47 GMT
So that's why he didn't get back to me...you're hogging his time again.
|
|