Jethro Tull didn't quite translate through the generations

The other night my grandson stopped over our house with one of his friends to pick up a pair of shoes he left here. While they were here he asked if I could "loan" him a couple cds for to listen to in his car. As there is very little rap or hip hop in my collection I asked him what he might listen to. He said The Who, The Doors or Hendrix would work so grabbed a greatest hits cd by The Doors which he was happy to take.

I started looking on a shelf with a lot of duplicate cds where I found a copy of Jethro Tull's Aqualung. I asked if either of them knew who Jethro Tull was and they both said, "never heard of him." This surprised me as I always think of JT as one of those bands just below The Doors, Who and Hendrix.

My grandson is 17 and a high school junior; the exact point in life I was at when Aqualung was released. This album was one of those albums that had a significant impact on my young, impressionable mind. I put the cd in and jumped around tracks a little to give them a feel for it and they declined to take it. Bummer.

 

Just the fact that you have a relationship where your grandson feels comfortable borrowing music from you is, in my opinion, unbelievably cool!

 

Actually in high school I showed my work buddy 'Benefit' and he actually loved it! But in general, I think you're right.

 

Well I have to say despite my love for 60's and 70's rock JT only does it for me on a couple songs.

 

I wouldn't make too much out of a one time listen. Your grandson might need some exposure to JT to make an impression.

Scott

 

I hadn't listened to Aqualung in a while and I enjoyed it. Had totally forgotten the long intro to Locomotive Breath. Also, I realized there is not one typical "love" song on the entire album.

 

I remember a "Rolling Stone" article about which 1960s groups were liked or not like by the current generation of young whippersnappers. The group that translated the least well was Creedence Clearwater Revival.

 

It surprises me that a 17 year old familiar with-and a fan of-the other artists you mention never heard of JT. Maybe try playing Led Zeppelin IV and "Aqualung", pointing out the similarities between those albums and the fact that they were recorded at the same studios at the same time-might at least pique your grandson's interest. If not, no harm, no foul.

 

A couple of years ago I mentioned Jethro Tull to a coworker. She was young, like 20 or so, and said she hadn't heard of them. I gave her like a 30 second spiel about the band and said they were good. She had this quizzical look on her face and after a beat said, "...A flute?"

 

I'd have to buy a copy of Led Zeppelin's fourth album to do that.

I see you're located in NH. I was living in Merrimack, NH when in high school. A wonderful place to go through my teen years.

 

I'm going to guess that one of the reasons for that is that there is very little going on in modern pop/rock that sounds like Creedence. In other words , the younger generation's appreciation for older music is directly correlated to how much the music of their generation is influenced by it. Their are echoes of Pink Floyd , Led Zeppelin, Hendrix and a few others in today's sounds, and very little that sounds like CCR. It should be noted that even at the height of their hit-making popularity, Creedence was something of an anomaly.
I think the elusive quality known as "mystique" has something to do with it too. Artists who died young (Hendrix, Jim Morrison) and bands that broke up due to a member's death (Zeppelin) retain that quality, whereas artists that keep chugging along (The Who, The Stones, Springsteen) don't. Their are exceptions to the rule of course, and all of this is subject to change at a moment's notice--as the ebb and flow of taste ( and marketing) shift....

 

That makes a lot of sense, IMO. I recall in the 90s, CCR was extremely popular. I went to college somewhat later in life-mid to late 20s-and I knew of *a lot* of kids 18-22 years of age that were CCR fans. Today, not so much. Maybe it's that roots music isn't as "hip" with rock as it is in country these days; it will come back though. It always does. I remember that CCR weren't all that fashionable in the 80s either.

 

I agree. I think Aqualung is fantastic, but aside from some odd tracks here and there ( "We Used to Know"; "Teacher"--which sounds like it could have been on AQL), there is not much that interests me about Tull; I've never been able to get through any other of their albums.

 

I also believe roots rock will come back into fashion at some point-- because it's so basic.

 

Agree to a t.

 

Well back in my day Jethro Tull were it. And I still love them dearly. They had a run from 1968-1980 where every album was great in my opinion.
From 1968 - 1975 are years that any band are hard to beat! This Was, Stand Up, Benefit, Aqualung, Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, War Child, Minstrel in the Gallery and the Excellent comp Living in the Past are hard to beat and one hell of a run!

 

JT didn't translate all that well to today's parents either, most likely - a few "hits" on AOR radio when I was young (I'm closing in towards 50 now), but they didn't get near as much airplay as The Doors / Zeppelin / Beatles / Stones / Who etc. I think I heard more CCR than I did JT, in my youth.

 

Interesting. I have a bazillion CDs and some of every artist I have ever seen live, and yet, nothing by Tull and I've seen them live and they were great. For some reason, I just can't really get into their albums more than a few times, despite some are stout albums, and had friends who were really into them. I have no CDs by them surprisingly and it isn't because I don't like them.

My guess is they dropped off in the 90s in mainstream popularity with the younger generation. For some of the reasons above. Old Tull & singles is generally all you would hear on the radio for the last 20 years.

 

I always found Tull to be an acquired taste.

I remember when I was 14 in Grade 9, in 1982, our history professor was teaching us about Jethro Tull, the agriculturist. He invented the seed drill:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_(agriculturist)

My history teacher said something like, "And, no, not the rock band!" Nobody in the class (including myself) had heard of them. He said that this was the first year that no one had. There were less and less each year until.. pfft.

 

That's to bad you guys missed the big show!

 

JT is worthy of super group status imo. Classic rock radio never did them justice tho as it just scratched the surface of JT's best material and focused on a few "hits".

 

I would have been three, when Aqualung came out.

 

But in seven years, Jethro Tull would beat out Metallica and win a Grammy with Crest of a Knave for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance.

 

I think Tull's problem was that they hung around way too long and started churning out dreck. If they had fallen over a cliff after Benefit or Living In The Past, they'd have been legends. Led Zeppelin is huge but it is pretty well known that Jimmy Page used them as a yardstick early on, and there was scads of hip cred. But post Cornick and Bunker it becomes a machine. A is embarrassing and that was not even the end of it. Tours went from stadiums to casinos and clubs and revolving door musicians. Ian Anderson kept going years after Barre finally quit. There were lots of FM hits but nothing was pop in the US, so they are largely fading, except for being a joke in Anchor Man. Tragic. The Grammy thing was goofy, but the original Tull was and is a more happening rock band than Mettalica. Not fair to compare as one aimed at a different strata of fan.

 

My now 23 year son has seen Tull 3 times but after this last tour I doubt he'll or I will see them again. He has very varied musical taste everything but Country, Opera and Jam bands especially the Dead however with the exception of Aqualung, Tull never grabbed him and this is a guy who visits the NYC Jazz clubs with me regularly.