Jethro Tull didn't quite translate through the generations

Thank you so much for ****ting in this thread.

 

Brilliant observation! This subject went right over you're head.

 

With the very short cycles of change and influence in popular music, the taste may swing around back to some of the seemingly-forgotten bands. There are plenty here old enough to remember when the Beach Boys were beyond square...that rep has reversed a fair amount.

 

Jethro Tull didn't quite translate through the generations...

That's the highest praise I can think of.

 

Awesome outlook.

 

This is interesting. I'd imagine that the immediate reaction someone who had NEVER heard John Fogerty before would be that the loudest, angriest, orneriest southern dude this side of Yosemite Sam was crouched inside the iPod ready to come storming out dressed as a confederate and ready to scare one's nonwhite and gay friendly friends half to death!!! as it was said.. Creedence was always an acquired taste.. but a taste more EASILY acquired if you have at least a sense memory of Screaming Jay Hawkins & Little Richard. These are humbling times for those of us who are aging out. The quizzical looks I see on the faces of coworkers when songs are played from the 60s and 70s are a rather opaque mask of confusion and complete misunderstanding and this ain't getting any better. I don't know... play Nirvana's Come As You Are next to Creedence and MAYBE there is a connection in some minds but hey... even nirvana was 2 decades ago!!!!!

As for Tull.... sure they have a musical connection to their 70s hard rock and folk rock colleagues but is THIS an example of how far the MIGHTY British Empire has fallen? Think about it... if you are a milennial .... brits are rather eurotrashy oasis or urban earthy types like adele or amy winehouse or the actors in superhero movies. they are either very foreign in a bad way or very familiar in an extremely americanized way.. think of the current spiderman or christian bale.. or benedict cumberbatch and his watson/hobbit co-star as these rather starchy angry guys or poor put upon but really short smart people. I don't KNOW if Milennials still have that image of Brits that WE had in our time that allowed us to look at Jon Anderson, Greg Lake, David Gilmour, or IAN ANDERSON of Jethro Tull who could open their mouths and "look at us all... see the love... there that's sleeping". The BRITISH VOICES OF GOD that used to rule within rock and roll in the 70s may be in the past tense. Robert Plant, Roger Daltrey or Freddie Mercury might get away with it because they are so over the top and constantly break down towards lustful carnality. But the MOMENT you hear Ian burst forth with that flute and his highly mannered vocals.. you are suddenly venturing through the misty moors trying to rescue maidens and you HAD to have lived through the 70s or been forced to attend renaissance fairs to really get there in just a moment.

I say this because I remember how so many WOMEN responded to Tull in high school. they just couldn't take the sound of Ian's voice for very long... I mean Jethro Tull couldn't do EMO singing or shoegaze or whatever... the moment Ian Anderson gazed at his shoes he would comment on the elf like points at the end of them and AWAY we would be to the forests of agarnon with a fistful of gold and a a star child swathed in soft garments!!!!

 

That was a huge deal, everyone was clamoring for tickets, good times.

 

Yeah, I think eventually the coolness/hipness/harshness/distancing ironic stance loses out to exquisite, moving, heartfelt beauty (even if it can be kinda square). In the long run.

Tull was a complex band, though, like Genesis. They could roar with power but also by turns be delicate, with great beauty, which was at times juxtaposed with strange and exotic lyrical concerns. They had an eclectic mix of different musical styles together with an idiosyncratic singer. They were great enough to make it all work together and create unique sounds. Great enough to become what I would call semi-popular, mostly by musical merit alone.

 

I'm open to someone finding examples of any musicologists or classically trained musicians in the 1970s describing ELP, Yes or Tull as "super-safe" or "manufactured". I've never seen it but it may exist.

I agree we're old and expendable and such is life, but if we're having a conversation the craft of creating music -- and using Jethro Tull as an example -- I can't see any comparison that makes Tull/Yes/King Crimson, etc. as disposable pop the way today's highly popular music is. Does that make today's music less valid? Only to us older guys!

 

Part of the problem may be how strongly they were identified with Anderson alone, to the extent that a lot of us thought Jethro Tull was his name (I also once thought Robert Plant's name was Led Zeppelin, but that's another thread). He didn't exactly have a cool image. Like, when we see this gnomish-looking character posing on one leg and playing a flute, our first instinct is to walk over to him and push him over, a la Dustin Hoffman with the mime in Tootsie.

 

I'm 25, and love Jethro Tull. About 6 years ago I explored and listened to most of the popular rock bands of the 70s and Tull are one of the few that I still listen to. I can't say the same for The Who, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and a whole host of others.

 

Both Songs from the Wood and Heavy Horses are seen as albums having pastoral leanings. Many reviews from over the years have stated this. Songs from the Wood especially. But they are, as noted, "folk-rock" albums all the same.

 

And the band still has enough economic clout to justify box sets for Aqualung, Thick as a Brick, and even War Child, 40 years on. And that's what someone hear called a "2nd tier" band. The box sets for other classic rock bands have been equally impressive decades later.

I know we've had this debate in other threads, but I doubt many, if any, of today's bands will have similar validations of their staying power around the year 2050 (and thus, one could argue, the older music is more "valid" -- just kidding!) But I bet Hendrix, Beatles, possibly U2, Zep definitely, will still be listened to (on SiriusXM "so last century radio" )

 

Okay I'll buy that. I can't get used to your new Avatar Jason.

 

I'm a huge Tull fan for the period Aqualung through Heavy Horses, and I'm past age 50, but I think this comment hits the nail on the head. By the mid-1980s Tull's sound just did not fit, and I don't think really has since then. But it stands alone, IMHO, and the period of albums to me is timeless. But getting someone in today's "make it happen quick" environment to actually sit down and absorb those albums? Good luck.

 

Doesn't the fact that they don't translate well to other generations and that the other generations have shunned the band mean that they are in fact disposable?

 

Then you consider Benny Goodman, e.g., disposable? Or, say, Beethoven? What, exactly, is your point?

Mine is that Tull, like other classic era bands, still have the economic clout to convince a company to issue these quite pricey items and SELL them, meaning we consumers are prepared to part with hard-earned cash to have outtakes, better quality, etc. I'll have to check this thread in the year 2054 to see how many artists from this millennium, who issued music through 2014, have that kind of clout. I am quite comfortable saying the number will be a few less than the number of fingers on the hand of the Six Fingered Man , if not 0 or 1 (and I can't say who the 1 would be at this point).

 

Good point! Never thought of it that way.

 

Again, if we're having the "disposable" debate, in 2054 who will be listening to Jethro Tull? If young people are actively shunning Jethro Tull, obviously they feel it's a disposable band. The young people of today are going to be around a lot longer than the older people of today. Sure, old people may be enjoying Tull NOW, but in the future, who will be enjoying Tull? No one.

 

50's blues...that was fine. The rest of it...nope. I used to skip over Heep doing that rock and roll medley on their live album. Didn't appreciate the 50's "sound" ,until the Stray Cats.

 

You have entirely missed the point. Tull IS still around 40+ years later. And selling out concerts, and issuing new material, and important enough to sell such incredible box sets. I listen to a lot of today's music and I just don't hear staying power. Lack of innovation, lack of melody in many cases, lack of songwriting craft (that's "3 chords and the truth" right there) are probably the 3 main culprits (while interchangability is another).

 

You're missing the point. The people buying these box sets are older people. Absolutely no one who's younger is listening Tull, at least in large numbers. That's the entire point of this thread. That's why this thread exists. Obviously the younger generation in general has absolutely no interest in Tull, but they DO have interest in the mainstream pop you are eschewing.

As far as "current mainstream pop won't be around in 40 years" - that's way too early to predict. You can wait 40 years and see if you're right, but to start proclaiming it's dead/over with as soon as it comes out, you're way off base.

 

How do you know no younger people are listening to Tull because one example the OP's? That's a blanket statement if there ever was one.
I think you are missing the point. There are young people buying all the remixed super deluxe editions. I have seen many young people on this forum stating so.

 

He wasn't off to the moors and/ or forests until Songs From the Wood!

 

You're on a classic rock forum asking if people are fans of a classic rock band. This isn't real life.