|
Post by wyrdskein on Feb 27, 2015 12:54:01 GMT
I wonder why Tull have not remained in the public consciousness as much as other bands/singers with a 1970s heyday. Tull sold more records than bands such as Fleetwood mac, ELO, and even Sabbath, and more than solo artists Stevie Wonder, Eric Clapton and Paul Simon, yet those artists are remembered much more by the average Joe, and in my opionion were not as good. According to one source I found Tull were the 24th biggest selling act of the 1970s. Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by maddogfagin on Feb 27, 2015 15:27:42 GMT
I wonder why Tull have not remained in the public consciousness as much as other bands/singers with a 1970s heyday. Tull sold more records than bands such as Fleetwood mac, ELO, and even Sabbath, and more than solo artists Stevie Wonder, Eric Clapton and Paul Simon, yet those artists are remembered much more by the average Joe, and in my opionion were not as good. According to one source I found Tull were the 24th biggest selling act of the 1970s. Any ideas? It's all down to originality and IA writing songs which are, for the most part, not about the usual subjects such as boy meets girl/girl dumps boy/boy throws himself off s bridge only to land in the arms of another etc., etc. He's composed songs about agricultural farm horses, moths, construction workers, cats et al and when it's been about male/female relationships there's been a unique approach to the lyrics - Fire At Midnight is a good example. IA has admitted in the past that he's not a party animal, doesn't have a flute shaped swimming pool (only a normal shaped one as per any old country mansion) and has shunned, if music press reports are to believed, the eccentricities of a rock star's life, preferring a quiet night in with a curry and watching The Walking Dead.
|
|
|
Post by jackinthegreen on Feb 27, 2015 21:45:28 GMT
I wonder why Tull have not remained in the public consciousness as much as other bands/singers with a 1970s heyday. Tull sold more records than bands such as Fleetwood mac, ELO, and even Sabbath, and more than solo artists Stevie Wonder, Eric Clapton and Paul Simon, yet those artists are remembered much more by the average Joe, and in my opionion were not as good. According to one source I found Tull were the 24th biggest selling act of the 1970s. Any ideas? I kind of know what you mean, but.......I don't agree that Tull are under-rated.... With over 60,000,000 albums sold, some of us must like them...... Those acts you mention appeal to the masses, well, maybe not Sabbath, but the others certainly do. The later Fleetwood Mac are still huge today, and are you sure that Tull sold more records than them... ...I wouldn't think so. Stevie Wonder is a massive act, he will have sold lots more than Tull. Same with Clapton I'm sure. But that's OK, Ian Anderson still did quite well... ....considering the average Joe doesn't know anything about them...... I don't think Ian expects the average Joe to like his music... ...gearing toward the exceptional, rather than the average perhaps.....
|
|
|
Post by jethrotull on Feb 28, 2015 2:18:11 GMT
Not to blow our own horn, but Tull's music, lyrics and general humor - being far from mainstream - require a certain intelligence and discernment to appreciate.
|
|
|
Post by JTull 007 on Feb 28, 2015 3:09:11 GMT
Not to blow our own horn, but Tull's music, lyrics and general humor - being far from mainstream - require a certain intelligence and discernment to appreciate. True. It's not for everyone which would make it too pop-ular. I prefer it be just like it is. TULL is something you have to be wired for. I don't even care about awards from the RnR Hall of Lame.
|
|
Aqualung1989
Journeyman
I'd give up my halo for a horn, and the horn for the hat I once had
Posts: 106
|
Post by Aqualung1989 on Feb 28, 2015 15:27:11 GMT
They certainly haven't aged very well, not many people my age (25) know them, and very few people who are a bit younger than me do. I recently met a 18 year old English girl who is an au pair in Madrid to do some language exchange, and she had no idea who Ian and the boys are (and she's certainly "weird" enough to like them). Also, I guess they weren't that big in Spain.
If we link what I just said with what was written before about needing a certain intelligente and discernment, which I think is true even if it sounds pretentious (or at least some willingness to step out of the comfort zone comprised of all that auto-tune crap), today's kids... well... damn, they can be dull.
A few years ago, I was taking care of my younger cousin when my uncle and aunt were away. I was listening to the ALLM versioin of Bouree and then, my cousin, who was around 11 at the time, stepped out of the toilet, looked at me with disgust and asked me "do you really like this?". Of course, she listens to the dullest pop and rock you can imagine.
|
|
stevep
Master Craftsman
Posts: 430
|
Post by stevep on Feb 28, 2015 22:43:17 GMT
I was talking to an Italian lady at the concert in Brescia last Summer. She told me that she had been at the Rolling Stones concert in Rome shortly before attending the Ian Anderson concert. I asked what the Stones concert had been like and she said it was a huge stage show and audience and that the music was easy for everyone to like. She then said that in her opinion Tull music was for people with much better taste and it was not music for the masses.
I kind of understand what she means. Tull have never been ones for hit singles and most folk do not know what hits they had. IA once that Tull were never really in the premier league of the music business but sat near the top of the second division. Not sure if he thinks they are under rated
|
|
|
Post by wyrdskein on Mar 2, 2015 8:40:42 GMT
I guess you're right. They don't really make music for the masses. Maybe underrated was the wrong word, as the critics always praise their ability. Sometimes I think it's a shame though that people are missing out on such great music, just because the media don't give them much attention. Hey ho.
It was only one source I found that put them above Wonder and Mac, so it could have been way off.
|
|
|
Post by nonrabbit on Mar 2, 2015 8:50:25 GMT
We should consider ourselves elite; we the Tull fans that have limited time allocated to browsing the web in the high security units we are currently residing in. Seriously though and very firmly blowing our own flute - you wouldn't get this kind of thread in any old band,fan forum. jethrotull.proboards.com/thread/2661/erraticus-complexus
|
|
|
Post by nonrabbit on Mar 2, 2015 8:56:08 GMT
I think also too that in the early to mid seventies certainly in central Scotland, mentioned because musical tastes can be geographical as well,Tull were considered too folky for the Zep, Sabbath and Purple fans and too rocky for what was going on in the folk world then.
|
|
|
Post by maddogfagin on Mar 2, 2015 9:25:18 GMT
I think also too that in the early to mid seventies certainly in central Scotland, mentioned because musical tastes can be geographical as well,Tull were considered too folky for the Zep, Sabbath and Purple fans and too rocky for what was going on in the folk world then. There is certainly a case to be made that the music of Jethro Tull has stood the test of time better than many other groups that seem to be lumped together with them by the music press - Steeleye Span, Fairport, etc spring to mind. Also a lot of the British blues groups round in 1968 have bitten the dust many years ago or changed their musical style to such an extent that they are almost unrecognisable in relation to their original music style.
|
|