FrontDoorAngel
Journeyman
so take the stage, spin down the ages
Posts: 76
|
Post by FrontDoorAngel on May 18, 2015 4:43:02 GMT
Egads.
I went to the Boy Scout Manual site and was looking around. I found this photo of a review of MITG, written shortly after the album's release (I think - it's '75 anyway), and I just couldn't believe what I was reading!
www.theboyscoutmanual.com/galleries/?id=899
While the review is fairly glowing, the author, Barbara Charone, says a number of things that to my mind are just plain silly. It makes me wonder how such a person could ever get a job reviewing music for major publications. But what do I know? Could be she is/was a classically trained violinist/composer writing reviews for Rolling Stone just for sh%ts & giggles?
First off, she refers to Barriemore Barlow. She says, "Drummer Barriemore Barlow has stopped thrashing about at random..."
?
Thrashing about at random? Excuse me? This is a drummer whom John Bonham called the best in the UK, if memory serves. A highly skilled musician. Next she goes on to say about Martin: "Martin Barre is still not a great guitarist — one suspects he will never quite make it — but as on "Aqualung" the lead guitar work is unimaginative but more than adequate." What is that supposed to mean? I don't mind so much if she says that Martin is not a great guitarist. Martin would not call himself great, and in the grand scheme of things there are scads of players who are on a much higher level, guys like Steve Vai, and virtuosos in that strata; but what exactly does unimaginative but more than adequate mean? To me it sounds like vacuous critic-speak. It sounds like something that's supposed to sound insightful but actually doesn't mean much of anything. If Martin is not what one might call a 'great' guitarist, he is most certainly an imaginative one; and an unimaginative lead guitar play could never be adequate in a top-selling, world famous rock band, let alone 'more than adequate." I just don't get it. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain it to me? And what about "one suspects he will never quite make it"? Make it? Hello, Ms. Charone, by 1975 Martin had already "made it", in spades no less! What do such words mean?
In what sense does she want Martin to "make it"?
She says this about Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond: "Bassist Hammond-Hammond lays low..."
?
Jeffrey may have laid a bit low on Aqualung, when he was learning the instrument. The bass is rather low in the mix on that LP; but by 1975, and especially on MITG, Jeffrey is doing quite the opposite of 'laying low': He is upfront and banging on all cylinders, not only in the eponymous track - where he really shines - but all over Baker St. Muse, Black Satin Dancer, and Cold Wind to Valhalla: just about the whole album!
Could it be Ms. Charone was being punny with 'laying low', as in laying down the basso profundo parts?
The author of the review goes on to say that the title track to MITG is "standard fare."
Standard fare? Minstrel in the Gallery — the song— is standard fare by what standard? No, Ms. Charone. Brown Sugar, and Honkey Tonk Woman, though both brilliant songs (I love them), might be called standard fare from the Rolling Stones, since while they were, and are, a great rock band, and while they did pursue some proggy threads early on, as in Their Satanic Majesty's Request and elsewhere, they essentially stuck with their winning formula throughout the last 50 years.
But "Minstrel in the Gallery" was probably the exact opposite of standard fare for Ian Anderson and Jethro Tull, at the time it was made. It was miles away from anything on WarChild, save for that incredible Martin Barre extravaganza in Back Door Angels, and it was not quite like anything they had ever done. The Aqualung album was heavy for its time, and particularly heavy for Tull, but MITG is far more powerful, and far heavier than anything on that seminal 1971 record. MITG might be the heaviest piece of music in the Tull catalog. Once it gets past the acoustic opening it is unrelenting, beating the listener around the ears, and soul, until it finally fades away.
Martin talks about the unusual nature of MITG, its challenges, etc., here.
I looked up Barbara Charone and did a little reading. Not much mind you. Seems she wrote a biography of Keith Richards, and this page says she grew up "on a steady diet of Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan." < That may help to explain things.
***
^ All that being said, I realize this board has been around for a while and this is probably old hat for you folk. I suppose I could do a search and look up old threads that refer to this review, MITG, and the Martin video on Youtube; but then again, maybe we can have a fresh discussion? It's good I think to revisit discussions and arguments that have occurred before. What would the world of philosophy be without the ages-old Freewill versus Determinism (Liberty versus Necessity) debate? How many pages have been filled with that one topic alone, over the past 3,000 + years?
If this has been hashed and rehashed hereabouts, I have no problem with admins or mods directing me to prior threads. I just got a wee tad flabbergasted and felt like feeling out my fellow TullIANs on this article.
|
|
|
Post by maddogfagin on May 18, 2015 9:08:55 GMT
Critics are a strange bunch of people, many seem to know very little about the subject they are asked to comment on and, when they do, make assumptions that are either factually wrong or totally untrue and incorrect.
So many of the well known critics of the 70s and 80s are now queuing up to give vox pops on tv documentaries and still, after many years, seem to have their own agendas. For example last week one was "talking" about the supergroups of the late 60s and he mentioned, and I quote, "Jimi Hendrix and his group" - not even a word about Mitch or Noel or even the fact that it was the Jimi Hendrix Experience.
Still I suppose they need to make a living which seems to be rubbishing the musicians who originally enabled them to earn a wage in an attempt to further their dwindling careers and make them seem hip and vibrant in the 21st century.
OK so they could be named and shamed but it would only fuel their tiny egos.
|
|
|
Post by bunkerfan on May 18, 2015 11:06:20 GMT
You can't talk about critics and Jethro Tull without mentioning "Only Solitaire" which was Ian's way of taking a swipe at the critics for there bad publicity of 'A Passion Play'. Although Ian maintained that the song was written before AAP. I'll leave it up to you to make your own mind up on that.
|
|
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 May 18, 2015 19:13:22 GMT
You can't talk about critics and Jethro Tull without mentioning "Only Solitaire" which was Ian's way of taking a swipe at the critics for there bad publicity of 'A Passion Play'. Although Ian maintained that the song was written before AAP. I'll leave it up to you to make your own mind up on that. Well, you can find "Solitaire" (which is the exact same as Only Solitaire) in the Chateau D'Isaster tapes, so I guess it was indeed made before A Passion Play.
|
|
sherwood
Prentice Jack
" And when I am called by my right name, i am Guy of Good Gisbourne"
Posts: 14
|
Post by sherwood on May 18, 2015 23:40:09 GMT
If i listened to most of the reviews I'd read over the years regarding Jethro Tull,I'd probably wouldn't be here writing this now!The majority of critics are complete idiots who still believe that Ian Anderson is Jethro Tull!!!That myth began way back in the sixties folks!Critics are here to give an honest assessment of the product,and where applicable give criticism!There have been many times where i feel like criticizing the critic!Critics? No Thank You!
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on May 19, 2015 1:48:31 GMT
The virtue and value of Tull is so far beyond average critic understanding.
|
|
FrontDoorAngel
Journeyman
so take the stage, spin down the ages
Posts: 76
|
Post by FrontDoorAngel on May 19, 2015 3:09:12 GMT
Critics are a strange bunch of people, many seem to know very little about the subject they are asked to comment on and, when they do, make assumptions that are either factually wrong or totally untrue and incorrect. So many of the well known critics of the 70s and 80s are now queuing up to give vox pops on tv documentaries and still, after many years, seem to have their own agendas. For example last week one was "talking" about the supergroups of the late 60s and he mentioned, and I quote, "Jimi Hendrix and his group" - not even a word about Mitch or Noel or even the fact that it was the Jimi Hendrix Experience. Still I suppose they need to make a living which seems to be rubbishing the musicians who originally enabled them to earn a wage in an attempt to further their dwindling careers and make them seem hip and vibrant in the 21st century. OK so they could be named and shamed but it would only fuel their tiny egos. Nietzsche said something to the effect that one of the most immoral things a person could do is intentionally try to shame them. I realize that maybe that's what I was trying to do, if not consciously, when I reacted to the now 40 year old article. That was not nice of me.
|
|
FrontDoorAngel
Journeyman
so take the stage, spin down the ages
Posts: 76
|
Post by FrontDoorAngel on May 19, 2015 3:21:57 GMT
I thought I saw another post in here? Perhaps he/she removed it? Anyway, I recall something that poster said: that some of the worst critics are Tull fans.
That is no doubt true, if reviews at Amazon are any indication, which no doubt they are. I adopted a phrase used by one user there who referred to the "5 star Tull junkies"** who give every album 5 stars and post glowing reviews without much objective consideration. I have a few reviews there, and I think I gave Aqualung 4 stars, and 3 stars to Under Wraps. TAAB was my only 5 star review.
The point I was trying to get across about this particular review was that she was a professional critic working for what is arguably the most prestigious music journal in the world. Such a person, in my opinion, should have some considerable level of musical knowledge if they are going to be paid to write for such a publication. Please note I said in my opinion. I could be wrong and often am, and I love being corrected, which is why I asked for my fellow Tullians to join in and perhaps explain some of Charone's comments to me.
No harm meant, and I still allow for the possibility that Charone knows far more about music than I do.
** 5 Star Tull Junkies. I think that'd be a great name for a Tull tribute band.
|
|
FrontDoorAngel
Journeyman
so take the stage, spin down the ages
Posts: 76
|
Post by FrontDoorAngel on May 19, 2015 4:04:18 GMT
The virtue and value of Tull is so far beyond average critic understanding. I read somewhere (can I be more vague?) that appreciation for Tull and Ian Anderson are on the upswing (Upgrade. Upgrade?).
I think the initial snarkiness and even outright contempt for Tull, as well as other big-name bands in 70s, was due to the idea that rock music should be loud, obnoxious, simple, and above all, accessible to the average joe (whoever the hell that is). Prog bands, as well as big ticket acts like Black Sabbath, Queen, Rush, etc., were taking rock music into all kinds of different directions. In a documentary about progressive music, Bill Bruford rightly points out that for such bands being unique, being different, was the objective, whereas nowadays it seems like bands want to look and sound the same. I for one can't tell much difference between any dozen grunge and/or metal bands that came out in the 90s and 00's. Especially in the metal genres, there are so many bands, and when I listen to samples it mostly sounds the same. Forget about top 40, or country-western. All sounds alike to me.
I got a bit off the track there -
It seems to me that the acts professional critics seem to drool the most over (forgetting armchair critics, like moi) were/are artists like Lou Reed, Neil Young, Tom Waits, Tom Petty, Springsteen, Bob Seger, The Ramones, R.E.M., etc. In my view, while I enjoy some of these artists, and love some of their songs (R.E.M. is one of my favorite bands!), their music seems rather formulaic to me, fundamental, accessible. I hate to use the word 'simplistic', but there you go. Not that that's a bad thing. If it works, it works. AC/DC and ZZ Top are two bands whose music I really like, and they both admit they've been making the same album for decades.
Prog bands rubbed critics the wrong way because they were really not rock bands, when you get down to it, though they played music often based in blues and/or rock, and often rocked as hard as anybody. Those bands were different. Frank Zappa, Yes, Genesis, Floyd, Tull, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, and many others that just aren't occurring to me - the music they made was as much classical music, or jazz, as it was rock, and often much more leaning towards classical. I think this irritated the critics because many of them just weren't qualified to critique that kind of music, and rather than show their lack of musical acumen, they found it easier to fling easy labels around: Pompous, pretentious, bombastic, egotistical. As if any music of any quality could be produced by an artist without an ego?
I'm rambling. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by karma41 on May 19, 2015 6:16:13 GMT
Egads.
I went to the Boy Scout Manual site and was looking around. I found this photo of a review of MITG, written shortly after the album's release (I think - it's '75 anyway), and I just couldn't believe what I was reading!
www.theboyscoutmanual.com/galleries/?id=899
While the review is fairly glowing, the author, Barbara Charone, says a number of things that to my mind are just plain silly. It makes me wonder how such a person could ever get a job reviewing music for major publications. But what do I know? Could be she is/was a classically trained violinist/composer writing reviews for Rolling Stone just for sh%ts & giggles?
First off, she refers to Barriemore Barlow. She says, "Drummer Barriemore Barlow has stopped thrashing about at random..."
?
Thrashing about at random? Excuse me? This is a drummer whom John Bonham called the best in the UK, if memory serves. A highly skilled musician. Next she goes on to say about Martin: "Martin Barre is still not a great guitarist — one suspects he will never quite make it — but as on "Aqualung" the lead guitar work is unimaginative but more than adequate." What is that supposed to mean? I don't mind so much if she says that Martin is not a great guitarist. Martin would not call himself great, and in the grand scheme of things there are scads of players who are on a much higher level, guys like Steve Vai, and virtuosos in that strata; but what exactly does unimaginative but more than adequate mean? To me it sounds like vacuous critic-speak. It sounds like something that's supposed to sound insightful but actually doesn't mean much of anything. If Martin is not what one might call a 'great' guitarist, he is most certainly an imaginative one; and an unimaginative lead guitar play could never be adequate in a top-selling, world famous rock band, let alone 'more than adequate." I just don't get it. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain it to me? And what about "one suspects he will never quite make it"? Make it? Hello, Ms. Charone, by 1975 Martin had already "made it", in spades no less! What do such words mean?
In what sense does she want Martin to "make it"?
She says this about Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond: "Bassist Hammond-Hammond lays low..."
?
Jeffrey may have laid a bit low on Aqualung, when he was learning the instrument. The bass is rather low in the mix on that LP; but by 1975, and especially on MITG, Jeffrey is doing quite the opposite of 'laying low': He is upfront and banging on all cylinders, not only in the eponymous track - where he really shines - but all over Baker St. Muse, Black Satin Dancer, and Cold Wind to Valhalla: just about the whole album!
Could it be Ms. Charone was being punny with 'laying low', as in laying down the basso profundo parts?
The author of the review goes on to say that the title track to MITG is "standard fare."
Standard fare? Minstrel in the Gallery — the song— is standard fare by what standard? No, Ms. Charone. Brown Sugar, and Honkey Tonk Woman, though both brilliant songs (I love them), might be called standard fare from the Rolling Stones, since while they were, and are, a great rock band, and while they did pursue some proggy threads early on, as in Their Satanic Majesty's Request and elsewhere, they essentially stuck with their winning formula throughout the last 50 years.
But "Minstrel in the Gallery" was probably the exact opposite of standard fare for Ian Anderson and Jethro Tull, at the time it was made. It was miles away from anything on WarChild, save for that incredible Martin Barre extravaganza in Back Door Angels, and it was not quite like anything they had ever done. The Aqualung album was heavy for its time, and particularly heavy for Tull, but MITG is far more powerful, and far heavier than anything on that seminal 1971 record. MITG might be the heaviest piece of music in the Tull catalog. Once it gets past the acoustic opening it is unrelenting, beating the listener around the ears, and soul, until it finally fades away.
Martin talks about the unusual nature of MITG, its challenges, etc., here.
I looked up Barbara Charone and did a little reading. Not much mind you. Seems she wrote a biography of Keith Richards, and this page says she grew up "on a steady diet of Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan." < That may help to explain things.
***
^ All that being said, I realize this board has been around for a while and this is probably old hat for you folk. I suppose I could do a search and look up old threads that refer to this review, MITG, and the Martin video on Youtube; but then again, maybe we can have a fresh discussion? It's good I think to revisit discussions and arguments that have occurred before. What would the world of philosophy be without the ages-old Freewill versus Determinism (Liberty versus Necessity) debate? How many pages have been filled with that one topic alone, over the past 3,000 + years?
If this has been hashed and rehashed hereabouts, I have no problem with admins or mods directing me to prior threads. I just got a wee tad flabbergasted and felt like feeling out my fellow TullIANs on this article.
Listening to what critics have to say regarding Tull has been futile at best. However I agree with a little of wha the author said and disagree with you regarding Martin. First, I must admit that I never cared for the title track and don't really think Martin shines on it the way most seem to, which is OK because everyone has their own unique experience to a particular song or artist. The rest of the album, for me, however, is close to a masterpiece. As for Martin, I was driving around lately listening to Hendrix and caught myself thinking that even Jimi doesn't get the subtle tone dynamics that Martin gets. I had recently been attempting to learn some of Martin's techniques with my guitar teacher, aa I'd like to play a few of the old bluesy Tull tunes with my band. My teacher is quite an acclaimed musician and played for a couple of years with Miles Davis. Even he couldn't play Martin's parts in a way that does them justice. He admitted that Martin gets tones out of his guitar that are uniquely Martin and unlike any other. I'm also a huge Zappa fan and love Steve Vai, but even Vai, IMO, doesn't get the advanced tone that Martin gets. There's more than one way to judge a guitar player ... and even those "virtuoso" guitar players aren't necessarily better at their instrument than Barre. It is all very personal and I tend to go for those who play the perfect note with an economy of note style, say like BB King. It's one thing to wail on a guitar and quite another to find the perfect note which I think Martin does as well as anybody.
|
|
FrontDoorAngel
Journeyman
so take the stage, spin down the ages
Posts: 76
|
Post by FrontDoorAngel on May 19, 2015 7:53:00 GMT
I agree with much of what you say. Response to music is a subjective thing. Even the arch-Objectivist, Ayn Rand, said as much in one of her non-fiction pieces. There is a certain mystery about how music - periodic vibrations - affects each individual. Musicologists and various other professionals have done studies to the nth, but IMHO, they will never quite pin it down. Alright, let's not say never. But I think a comprehensive, scientific, quantitative (as opposed to qualitative) understanding of the operation of periodic vibrations on human beings and other animals is far off in the future. That being said, when I listen to Steve Vai, or when I watch him play (sadly for me only on video), particularly a song like "Tender Surrender" , I literally cannot imagine anyone else doing what he does with the instrument, or doing it that well. By that I mean his stage presence, his movements, everything. Sure, he's gifted in the looks department, but it took years of practice and determination to master the guitar the way he has. I'm sort of a "spiritual" guy myself and I believe that people like Steve Vai might actually be gifted, in a quite literal sense. Please note I say "might". I'm just venturing a gut feeling here. And I certainly don't want to wind up in an argument over religion or faith.
^ All that being said, I love Martin Barre, and if I had a choice of getting a chance to meet Vai or Martin, there would be no contest. It's my objective, somewhat cooler nature that must tip the hat to someone like Vai; my heart belongs to Martin (guitar-wise. My heart belongs to Ian even more. Not like that! ). I've been listening to Jethro Tull since 1979, when I was 15. They got me through some rough times. I had to wear a back brace due to scoliosis for nearly two years, and that experience has left me leary of getting terribly close to someone to this very day. Tull is without question my favorite band and I don't even have to think about it, though objectively I can name any number of bands I think are better than Tull in various ways. Rush is mind-blowingly talented; Queen knocks my socks off every time I listen to them; Frank Zappa is a god, and his noodly appendages embrace me!
Didn't Mark Knopfler say that he envied Martin's tone, or something like that? That's quite a compliment, right there, if he actually said it. I've looked for confirmation of that but haven't been able to find it.
My favorite guitarists are guys like Martin who play with finesse rather than flash or speed: Joe Perry (terribly underrated), Billy Gibbons, Jeff Beck (Where Were You), Dave Gilmour, Robin Trower, Davey Johnstone, and the legendary Waddy Wachtel. And Martin Barre. Love him!
|
|
|
Post by maddogfagin on May 19, 2015 9:37:01 GMT
Didn't Mark Knopfler say that he envied Martin's tone, or something like that? That's quite a compliment, right there, if he actually said it. I've looked for confirmation of that but haven't been able to find it. z7.invisionfree.com/Silvertown_Blues/index.php?showtopic=241[Question to Mark Knopfler in a Q & A] Martin Barre of Jethro Tull spoke very highly of you. I believe you once called him up about his guitar sound?
Yeah, I love his guitar work. Ian Anderson acknowledged that there would be no Jethro Tull minus Martin. He plays rock with a blues and heavy metal influence. His technical riffs are in harmony with Ian’s flute which is fantastic. He had studied jazz and classical music and it shows. and paulroland.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/paul-interviews-ian-anderson-of-jethro-tull/Paul interviews… Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull
As far as the guitar sound is concerned I know for a fact that in 1981 Mark Knopfler rang up Martin’s guitar maker and ordered some new guitars. When asked what kind of sound he wanted, he said, ‘I want the sound that Martin Barre of Jethro Tull gets’. At that time Knopfler appeared to be playing an off-the-shelf Stratocaster with single coil pickups. Martin was playing Hamer’s with humbucking pickups and was just about to get some single coil Hamers made with the five-way switch and out-of-phase position and all the things that are now associated with Knopfler. I mean, there’s only so many sounds you can get out of the electric guitar; if you’re playing the blues—and it was on our bluesier tracks that it was most noticeable—, then you’re going to sound like Knopfler who made that sound his trademark. Knopfler was using that old Hank Marvin sound, but beautifully and cleverly adapted to his own music—so he got away with it. It’s the same as when I came out with the breathy flute sound, singing through it and so on and made it my trademark. If you’d have been into jazz you’d have heard Roland Kirk doing much the same thing, but I put it to a different backdrop and brought it to mass acceptance at a certain time making it my trademark and making it impossible for anyone in a rock band to use the flute without being compared to Jethro Tull [Ian obviously hadn’t heard ‘Captain Blood’!]. You wouldn’t have to stand on one leg to get stick, you’d get it anyway just by virtue playing it within the context of rock music.
|
|
|
Post by maddogfagin on May 19, 2015 9:52:27 GMT
If i listened to most of the reviews I'd read over the years regarding Jethro Tull,I'd probably wouldn't be here writing this now!The majority of critics are complete idiots who still believe that Ian Anderson is Jethro Tull!!!That myth began way back in the sixties folks!Critics are here to give an honest assessment of the product,and where applicable give criticism!There have been many times where i feel like criticizing the critic!Critics? No Thank You! Where a critic has a genuine criticism of a band, book, theatrical play etc., then fine - that's their right and that's also what they're employed to do so long as there's no intent to deliberately mock or ridicule the performer or author. What I dislike above most things is what I witnessed many years ago which was a venerable music journalist writing a "review", in The Ship in Wardour Street, of a band (I think it was either The Who or Genesis) who were performing at The Marquee before he had actually seen them. Whether it was good or bad I can't remember but that sucks big time.
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on May 19, 2015 16:38:32 GMT
Knopfler's 'Private Investigations' and other songs from that era ( Love Over Gold) sound a lot like Martin influence on board....Due to timing, however...and Dire Straits being more popular than Tull at that juncture, it was perceived that Martin's sound on' Crest of a Knave' was influenced by Knopler.
|
|
|
Post by Equus on May 20, 2015 6:45:30 GMT
If i listened to most of the reviews I'd read over the years regarding Jethro Tull,I'd probably wouldn't be here writing this now!The majority of critics are complete idiots who still believe that Ian Anderson is Jethro Tull!!!That myth began way back in the sixties folks!Critics are here to give an honest assessment of the product,and where applicable give criticism!There have been many times where i feel like criticizing the critic!Critics? No Thank You! I am not quite sure if I understand you correctly... What exactly do you mean when you say that Ian Anderson is not Jethro Tull? Personally I don't say that Ian Anderson is Jethro Tull, but then again there wouldn't be any Jethro Tull if it hadn't been for Ian... I don't think that the majority of these critics are complete idiots, but maybe just people with an opinion that differs from yours...
|
|
|
Post by JTull 007 on May 20, 2015 12:30:58 GMT
Not to say anything new but the name JETHRO TULL is like a trademark. Like Coca-Cola
When someone identifies Ian Anderson as J.T. it is usually with respect and being aware of history. Certainly there are some that just found out from casual reading that the band Jethro Tull exists.
I can't relate to the music of many bands and the name is sometimes part of the reason. Ian probably could care less and makes the issue an occasional topic in interviews. His new ideas are more about using the name to pass along some wisdom about climate change and the limited resources we have on the planet.
Regardless, some 'Critics' are less informed and use the name in a generic way. Like me. I feel the name represents what Ian has produced as a musician and leader of a band. I've been aware of Ian Anderson since 1973 but to me he is always TULL with or without JETHRO. Ian Anderson TULL...It's the Real Thing
|
|
FrontDoorAngel
Journeyman
so take the stage, spin down the ages
Posts: 76
|
Post by FrontDoorAngel on May 21, 2015 3:00:03 GMT
If i listened to most of the reviews I'd read over the years regarding Jethro Tull,I'd probably wouldn't be here writing this now!The majority of critics are complete idiots who still believe that Ian Anderson is Jethro Tull!!!That myth began way back in the sixties folks!Critics are here to give an honest assessment of the product,and where applicable give criticism!There have been many times where i feel like criticizing the critic!Critics? No Thank You! I am not quite sure if I understand you correctly... What exactly do you mean when you say that Ian Anderson is not Jethro Tull? Personally I don't say that Ian Anderson is Jethro Tull, but then again there wouldn't be any Jethro Tull if it hadn't been for Ian... I don't think that the majority of these critics are complete idiots, but maybe just people with an opinion that differs from yours... I took the comment to mean that some critics think Ian Anderson's name is Jethro Tull? Maybe I'm wrong, but I do know some people who have said something like: "I saw Tull in concert. Jethro really rocks on that flute, man!"
I don't believe that any professional critic would make such a gaff, and if they did, it most likely wouldn't make it past an editor's desk and into print? But surely stranger things have happened: Like the libertarian candidate's name in the last POTUS election being spelled wrong on the early mail-in ballot I filled out!
I agree, Equus, that the majority of critics are not idiots. In fact, I don't think any professional critic is an idiot. But some of them may be far more pompous, pretentious, and egotistical than the artists they impute those characteristics to.
|
|
|
Post by Equus on May 21, 2015 5:01:42 GMT
I am not quite sure if I understand you correctly... What exactly do you mean when you say that Ian Anderson is not Jethro Tull? Personally I don't say that Ian Anderson is Jethro Tull, but then again there wouldn't be any Jethro Tull if it hadn't been for Ian... I don't think that the majority of these critics are complete idiots, but maybe just people with an opinion that differs from yours... I took the comment to mean that some critics think Ian Anderson's name is Jethro Tull? Maybe I'm wrong, but I do know some people who have said something like: "I saw Tull in concert. Jethro really rocks on that flute, man!"
I don't believe that any professional critic would make such a gaff, and if they did, it most likely wouldn't make it past an editor's desk and into print? But surely stranger things have happened: Like the libertarian candidate's name in the last POTUS election being spelled wrong on the early mail-in ballot I filled out!
I agree, Equus, that the majority of critics are not idiots. In fact, I don't think any professional critic is an idiot. But some of them may be far more pompous, pretentious, and egotistical than the artists they impute those characteristics to.
Yes, it's a common mistake that Ian's name is Jethro Tull... Maybe that mistake is slowly being eliminated with the new name, Jethro Tull's Ian Andersons... I personally always smile a little when I hear fellow Danes talking about Denmark's reputation in the world... I mean... Do we really have a reputation? So, I think that making the mistake that Ian's name is Jethro Tull is a minor one... Let's face it... not everyone loves Jethro Tull as much as us... and like the infinite unimportant country of Denmark, Jethro Tull is to, too many people of the world not even a part of their thinking... Okay... maybe Sir Sherwood meant that critics don't even know that Ian Anderson's name isn't Jethro Tull, or maybe it's about the different opinions about how important Ian Anderson is when it comes to the band of Jethro Tull... A very old discussion that have left Jethro Tull fans at each other's throats... These differences have been so devastating for the Jethro Tull community, because of fundamentalism within this community... The idea that if you don't think like us, we will ridicule you in the most shameless way possible... (... and I'm sorry if this looks a little harsh on print...) ... or we will call you an idiot... So, please don't call anyone idiots... It usually don't do anyone any good...
|
|
|
Post by maddogfagin on May 21, 2015 8:03:17 GMT
I agree, Equus, that the majority of critics are not idiots. In fact, I don't think any professional critic is an idiot. But some of them may be far more pompous, pretentious, and egotistical than the artists they impute those characteristics to. Apologies for jumping in but that is so correct. Add to that the pompous DJs who thankfully seem to be less prevalent these day, at least here in the UK, and you've hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
Post by Equus on May 21, 2015 19:37:06 GMT
I agree, Equus, that the majority of critics are not idiots. In fact, I don't think any professional critic is an idiot. But some of them may be far more pompous, pretentious, and egotistical than the artists they impute those characteristics to. Apologies for jumping in but that is so correct. Add to that the pompous DJs who thankfully seem to be less prevalent these day, at least here in the UK, and you've hit the nail on the head. Jump right in Graham... I agree with you, by the way...
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on May 21, 2015 20:13:08 GMT
According to St. Francis (Zappa):
Critics are people who can't write, writing for people who can't read, about people who can't play.
|
|
|
Post by jackinthegreen on May 21, 2015 22:54:05 GMT
Someone mentioned "tone".......and how Martin was better than someone else etc....... "Tone" is not about the player.......it's about the "rig", the guitar, the pedals, the amplifier. Technique is something else........... PS - I saw Mark Knopfler in concert in Glasgow on Tuesday, brilliant.......
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on May 22, 2015 18:25:31 GMT
So when Martin plays it's a Barre-a-tone?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 19:27:10 GMT
So when Martin plays it's a Barre-a-tone? Good one! Barre-a-tulltone
|
|
FrontDoorAngel
Journeyman
so take the stage, spin down the ages
Posts: 76
|
Post by FrontDoorAngel on May 22, 2015 20:14:16 GMT
Someone mentioned "tone".......and how Martin was better than someone else etc....... "Tone" is not about the player.......it's about the "rig", the guitar, the pedals, the amplifier. Technique is something else........... PS - I saw Mark Knopfler in concert in Glasgow on Tuesday, brilliant....... That was me about the tone. My bad, but I don't think I said Martin was "better than someone else".
It still requires a good player's ear to achieve a good tone, no matter what the guitar and rig. There are multiple opportunities to EQ along the stages of recording and mixing.
Witch of course everybody knows.
Forgive me, I was kissed by a witch one night in the woods.
|
|
|
Post by karma41 on May 23, 2015 16:43:17 GMT
Someone mentioned "tone".......and how Martin was better than someone else etc....... "Tone" is not about the player.......it's about the "rig", the guitar, the pedals, the amplifier. Technique is something else........... PS - I saw Mark Knopfler in concert in Glasgow on Tuesday, brilliant....... Perhaps "tone" is the wrong word but an individual's sound has a lot to do with technique ... how one utilizes tne instrument ... and the" rig". It is tis that I was referring too and Martin is a master and very hard to emulate ... even if one had his rig at their disposal.
|
|
|
Post by karma41 on May 23, 2015 16:48:04 GMT
Someone mentioned "tone".......and how Martin was better than someone else etc....... "Tone" is not about the player.......it's about the "rig", the guitar, the pedals, the amplifier. Technique is something else........... PS - I saw Mark Knopfler in concert in Glasgow on Tuesday, brilliant....... Glad to hear the show was brilliant. I have enjoyed numerous Knopfler shows but the last one I saw a couple of years ago was a real snoozer. I had been telling a friend how good Knopfler was live and he decided to attend the show with me. I was almost embarrassed afterwards and my friend was not impressed.
|
|
FrontDoorAngel
Journeyman
so take the stage, spin down the ages
Posts: 76
|
Post by FrontDoorAngel on May 24, 2015 3:06:33 GMT
Someone mentioned "tone".......and how Martin was better than someone else etc....... "Tone" is not about the player.......it's about the "rig", the guitar, the pedals, the amplifier. Technique is something else........... PS - I saw Mark Knopfler in concert in Glasgow on Tuesday, brilliant....... Perhaps "tone" is the wrong word but an individual's sound has a lot to do with technique ... how one utilizes tne instrument ... and the" rig". It is tis that I was referring too and Martin is a master and very hard to emulate ... even if one had his rig at their disposal. True! Give a lousy player Martin's guitar and rig, and he/she still won't sound good. A lot of times tone can come down to things like what plectrum one is using, force of attack, use of vibrato with fretting fingers, all kinds of things. Billy Gibbons uses a Mexican peso to get his unique sound, Mark Knopfler and Lindsay Buckingham use their fingers, or fingerpicks, and a total genius like Brian May can play so seamlessly his runs sound like they were played on a violin. Then there are players whose tone is not so good, in my book, like Neil Young and Carlos Santana. Neil's sound is almost as grating as his voice, and though Santana is a brilliant player, sometimes his tone is shrill and hollow - to my ear. *Ducks for cover from the fury of Neil Young fans.*
I do admire Neil Young's songwriting skills, and he is a great performer and I can't shine his shoes when it comes to playing guitar. But dang, that tone!
|
|
|
Post by karma41 on May 24, 2015 8:32:16 GMT
I didn't admire Neil's guitar playing until I learned guitar and studied his style. There is genius there for sure, but his sound is not to everyone's liking. I happen to think his raunchy guitar sound defines him. Moreover, given the length and quality of his his career, he has written more incredible licks than Jimmy Page and Brian May combined.
|
|
FrontDoorAngel
Journeyman
so take the stage, spin down the ages
Posts: 76
|
Post by FrontDoorAngel on May 24, 2015 9:03:28 GMT
I didn't admire Neil's guitar playing until I learned guitar and studied his style. There is genius there for sure, but his sound is not to everyone's liking. I happen to think his raunchy guitar sound defines him. Moreover, given the length and quality of his his career, he has written more incredible licks than Jimmy Page and Brian May combined. I have to respectfully disagree with your last sentence.
*Silly middle part deleted*
Also, it seems we've (I've) strayed very far from the OP and turned the thread into a discussion about guitar playing. Like Anakin Skywalker, I'm becoming the very thing I set out to rain my wrath upon! Arrghhhhh! Foiled again!
|
|