|
Post by Col on Apr 21, 2008 14:01:58 GMT
For anyone interested...there is a big Tull feature in May 2008 issue of Mojo magazine.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 22, 2008 8:28:58 GMT
Thanks for posting that. Just picked up a copy and it's a good article. Well worth seeking out. It's nice to see Tull getting decent exposure in a big music magazine again. It's been a while.
|
|
|
Post by warchild on Apr 25, 2008 22:06:34 GMT
Where do I find one of those?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 27, 2008 20:57:40 GMT
From all good newsagents it would seem. The UK edition looks like this And this is the US edition (not sure where you are!) I would get in there quick though, the latest edition is imminent so you might have trouble tracking it down othwerwise.
|
|
|
Post by tullistray on May 1, 2008 3:21:22 GMT
Having read it in Borders this afternoon, and acknowledging Mojo as a truly excellent magazine, won't deny the article is well written and original, however, not surprisingly, while acknowledging the 40 th year, nothing in the article extended beyond 1972. Surprised to see Nick Cave amongst the people acknowledging Tull, but nothing beyond Aqualung and TAAB, admitting he did not like their folky stuff. The Decemberist individual did cite SFTW. And mention that Johnny Rotten liked Aqualung as a child, never sure what to make of some one liking Aqualung, while amongst the most "serious" rock records ever at the time of its release, for 35 yrs it has been trivialized into classic rock, occupying, in particular the song Aqualung and its references to snot and panties, and Loco Breath a space not dissimilar to Stairway to Heaven, Nights in White Satin, Smoke on the Water and Won't Get Fooled Again when I believe it was much weightier in content at the time of its release. At least its better than being remembered for Bungle in the Jungle or 17! And of course the obligatory mentions of the codpiece and D Palmer's sex change. Tull to the world at large remains as it has been nearly forever, either completely forgotten or remembered for efforts so long ago its nearly another lifetime, and considering some of the people I had sitting next to or near me throughout the seventies that may be not at all a bad thing. And of course they could not leave out Tony Iommi's two minutes non playing stint w the band, for me the single most embarassing element in the Tull legend, as much that people find that interesting and want to draw some sort of parallell between Tull and Sabbath who were, with the possible exception of Uriah Heep or the Guess Who, the most correctly reviled band of their time when it was actually happening. If Ozzy or his audience got an actual look into the heart of evil that they foolishly embrace I do believe they would be saying their prayers the rest of their days.
|
|
|
Post by steelmonkey on Jun 8, 2008 16:34:11 GMT
Yeah, considering the kind of super-magnified, no stone left unturned, sifting through the sands articles MOJO does on the usual suspects (beatlesstonesdylanhendrixfloydoasisetc), they shoulda/coulda done better than the FAQ plus a little same old on Tull...oh well, a little is better than nothing....more respected musos comments on Tull would have been nice...the line about the Velvets ( they only had a few fans but each one started a band) might apply to Tull as well...I think there is a whole generation of musicians out there who listened too and air-fluted Tull in their adolescent bedrooms...too cool to admit it mostly, but slowly 'coming out' and giving credit where credit is deserved!
|
|