Jethro Tull didn't quite translate through the generations

There's a folk metal scene going on right now that cite Jethro Tull as a big influence. It seems a lot of young kids are discovering them IMO.

 

The comp is merely for discussion.

I was in the Jethro Dull camp.

IMO- Aqualung and a few more good songs.
Just my preferances.

Cheers!

 

Tull is like a lot of 60's and 70's bands: they didn't translate well to the 80's and beyond. If they had stopped after, perhaps, Aqualung maybe they'd have a more lasting reputation with younger audiences as their legacy would be intact. Also, Tull did not have an iconic figure like Morrison to transcend their popularity nor has any member done anything solo that would keep them in the public eye (Plant, Collins, McCartney, etc).

Tull was often too pastoral, too bluesy (maybe), and too progressive for mainstream audiences. Certainly around the time of Thick as a Brick there was not much that could be released as a single, though I believe there is a radio edit of TaaB.

 

Blood Ceremony for sure. I hear a lot of Tull phrasing in bands like Wolf People, Witchcraft, and such, too. You're absolutely right.

Edit: The stuff I mentioned is more retro/stoner stuff, but there is a big folk metal thing, too.

 

I was 17 in 1984. That's a long ass time ago, and even then Tull seemed very dated and uncool to me. I can only imagine what they sound like to someone 17 today.

 

A lot of music that sounded "uncool" to me at age 17 sounded great to me by age 30. Whereas most of the music I found cool when I was a teenager I never listen to any longer. To me, the 1980s sound horribly dated now, while music from the 60s and 70s sounds better than ever.

By and large, 17 year olds don't know sh**.

 

That's what is so hard to grasp for some here. They just assume that pretty much all classic rock should be universally loved by all generations. A 20 year old today was born in 1994. That's 20 years after Tull's heyday. Compare that to a 60 year old born in 1954. How many of them are heavily into the music of the early 1930s? Not many I suspect.

There will always be a small percentage of young music fans that will also dig into the past. I most certainly did but it's the exception not the rule. A 20 year old listening to Nirvana today is the equivalent to a 20 year old in 1991 listening to Tull or any early 70s classic rock.

BTW not dissing Tull here. Some I like, some not so much.

 

A local college radio station here in NJ (WSOU 89.5) has been playing Iron Maiden's cover of Crosseyed Mary a lot recently. The young college dj even mentions that it's originally done by JT. I think that's pretty cool.

 

You hear their influence in bands like The Decembrists, Wolf Mother, Wolf People, Magellan, etc. Also, I don't see why someone who's into Mumford And Sons would have problem with Heavy Horses or Songs From the Wood.

Our station still plays Bungle, TAAB, and some stuff off Benefit and Stand Up. Actually, they don't hit Aqualung much, I think they may have played Cross Eyed Mary, but I don't recall ever hearing the title track or Locomotive Breath on The Ride.

 

Just my own feelings...I'm 33, so I grew up with 'classic rock' radio when I was a kid. Many of the then-current bands I ended up being most drawn to in the 90's, looking back, were really just what I'd call 'modern classic rock' bands: Pearl Jam, Dream Theater, Oasis, the Black Crowes, Counting Crows, etc.

Discovered Yes in the late 90's, I think I had the YesStory compilation, and I enjoyed it, but then my high school girlfriend's dad was listening to The Ladder one day around the time it came out, and a light went on. (Yeah, I know it's not their best, but it was new at the time, and it's a fantastic-sounding album). Was already a huge Yes and Genesis fan, also Kansas, a bit of Deep Purple, all that.

For some reason, while I knew Tull's radio staples, I just never got around to getting into them. I have Thick As A Brick on vinyl, but that's really the only one I've ever been compelled to get. There's nothing I dislike about Tull, but nothing that really drew me into their music the way I got into other 70's prog. So perhaps I'm not the only one.

 

I wasn't around at the time, but TAAB and Passion Play were back to back #1 albums, and Tull was one of the top concert draws of the early 70s. I think they started shedding some of their audience starting with the obtuse Passion Play, and it's "play the whole album in concert" tour. Then two of their next three albums were sort of leftovers from visual projects that fell through. Plus "Too Old To Rock and Roll" hurt their image in England, though I doubt it had any effect in the US, as punk was strictly an underground thing at that time.

 

neither did anyone else ;0)

 

A, Broadsword, and Crest of a Knave, with it's ZZ Top drum machines, also would count, IMO, though the music is far better on those three!

 

Tull did a worldwide satellite broadcast from a sold-out Madison Square Garden in 1978 (Heavy Horses tour), that is not something a band on a commercial decline are going to pull off.

 

That should be the forum "Music Motto", for some at least!

 

Yep. I'm 56. I wouldn't have been caught dead listening to stuff from the 1950's when I was in my teens or twenties.

 

But they were in commercial decline at that point. Though both Heavy Horses and Songs from the Wood are good albums, there was nothing released as singles that did anything substantially on radio. They might have sold out Madison Square Garden on reputation and, there is no doubt they were a big draw in the 70's and 80's, but in terms of popularity on radio, they didn't have any at the time. By Stormwatch things were pretty much in the toilet.

 

Another potentially good forum motto: my little world is not the larger world....

 

I am still a huge Tull fan to this day. However, JT was on the cutting edge up until around "Too Old to Rock and Roll and too Young to Die". After that, the records were more mediocre than those issue before. Without a huge record behind them for many years their popularity was on the wain. The second blow came when the beat "Metallica" for that heavy metal award. They got negative attention in the wrong ways.

JT was never a metal band even in their wildest days. Another problem was that they went through musicians like water. It became the Ian Anderson show after a while.

All the JT records have some great moments on them, but the all around great albums stopped around "Minstrel in the Gallery" in my opinion. I was not a big fan of "Heavy Horses" like some are.

 

I would have imagined it's one of Jethro Tull's strongest selling points that they are capable of translating very well through the generations. To me they have always sounded being somewhat out of place in their own time - even in the mid-70's when I first got to know them - and come across as some implausible rock 'n' roll relic from the 18th century (or thereabouts). For me personally the music of Jethro Tull was one of the most important factors in making me realize that music does not have to be "contemporary" in any imaginable way to be exciting and interesting.

 

It is a good thing you did not preview some tracks from Benefit or Stand Up. He probably would have stopped asking for CDs to try out.


Anyway, JT is a little too proggy to like right out of the box for most folks. My nephew did the same thing to me when I gave him Benefit to listen to.

 

Here's an example of the rhythm/beat based music we're seeing in the mainstream (and other areas):

 

I don't agree Tull had to move in a more Progressive direction which started with Benefit. Cornick and Bunker were awesome, we all know Cornick was let go and
Bunker left because the music was getting to complex for him. John Evan was brought in on the Benefit tour and stayed ten years to give more depth to there sound. Barrie Barlow was a more complex drummer then Bunker and fit perfectly with the new Progressive sound and also stayed almost ten years. Jeffrey Hammond was also brought in by Ian because they were in the John Evan band and good friends. From 1972-79 these guys made some awesome music together.
The only change in personal was John Glascock who replaced Hammond so they had a stable lineup for almost ten years. From 1970-79 Jethro Tull did there best work and were a world class band. In your opinion if you left after Benefit you missed there most substantial work!

 

Heavy Horses and Songs From The Wood got no airplay in 1978 but the older "hits" were still in heavy rotation.

 

Look at the crap that did well on the radio in 1978:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_1978

Not surprising Tull's folk-rock didn't translate well in that era.