Why does Ian Anderson keep singing?

As much as I love Jethro Tull and respect Ian Anderson as a top musician, it surprises me that, given his professionalism, he keeps singing live, despite his vocals are absolutely painful to hear. And the only response to this is a BIG EGO. Let`s be honest: It should be hard to bear that voice onstage even for his band mates I guess...
Ian´s voice was rough but cool from the start up to 73. Supreme between 74-76, good until 84 and then, as we all know, lost his voice due to those throat problems.

 

Haven't heard him lately, but I'm sorry to hear he's having voice problems.

 

Better than what Paul Stanley calls singing at KISS' live shows nowadays..

 

In recent years he's written to accommodate the change in his voice.

On the last 2 tours of the UK (supporting TAAB2 and Homo Erraticus) he's done a show of two halves. Playing the new albums in full either first or second, either preceding or following Jethro Tull material.

I loved hearing the new stuff which on both occasions were very strong vocal performances throughout. The JT stuff, not so strong, but supplemented by an additional vocalist.

I did prefer the new stuff personally as I enjoyed both albums but it was nice to hear some JT stuff too. However I felt the focus was more on the new stuff.

IA cannot escape his past and should be applauded and respected for attempting to perform a lot of the JT he has in the last few years.

The majority of the audience at both shows were clearly of an age group that were probably there in the 70s and I only saw their adoration. Sold out shows each time.

This years tour will be mostly JT, which for some would be a big pull, for me I don't intend to go. My reason... I've enjoyed the full performances of new albums recently and with no new album to perform (maybe a couple of new songs) I think I wouldn't enjoy it this time around.

I do think that IA should carrying on singing as long as he feel he wants to. He obviously enjoys it.

 

He should tour all he wants, sing all he wants, but he should concentrate on material he can handle (which would cover everything from :"Crest of a Knave" onwards). Sadly, he's not doing that. Whatever happened to his voice (and nobody knows what that really was) makes it painful to hear him do the earliest Tull stuff, which is still the bulk of what he's performing. Not just the lack of range, but the way he has to struggle to reach notes at all, and how he falls out of step with the tempo while doing that.

As noted he sounds fine when doing the recent albums-- On the TAAb tour #1 was painful (having the kid do the vocals wasn't a help), but #2 was really enjoyable. If he was doing a tour built around music from the last 20 years I'd go in a minute-- His personality and flute playing will always be a draw, but he's making it tough on his fans.

 

Of course I love his music, adore the man´s work, but he really can`t sing the old stuff anymore. Even the latest official DVDs suffer from vocals. I think the old TUll stuff could be approached as instrumental music only these days. A much better deal IMHO.

 

Because people pay him.

 

Or their musicianship and songwriting, for that matter.

 

I'm not sure why many of these guys (Ian, Geddy) keep singing when it's clear that their voices just can't do it anymore. Both Rush and Tull (or Ian solo I guess now) could just move forward making instrumental music, but I guess the audiences are too connected to the old material.

 

I have not heard him lately, but I love his singing on the old albums. Check out Cheap Day Return.

 

He sounded like an old man on rock island. Should have used vocal effects for that album

 

I suppose when you're old and can no longer do things you did when you were in your 20s and 30s, you'll understand why these guys -- Ian Anderson, Paul Stanley, etc. -- have a hard time giving up doing what they love to do.

 

I don't think it's simply aging in IA's case-- Something serious happened to his voice around 1984, when he was only around 40. We know he was warned by his doctors not to do the Under Wraps tour, but nobody knows the details (and he got much worse about five years later). As noted though, nobody's telling him not to sing-- He's since written loads of great material he can easily handle, but chooses to do the very worst stuff for his current voice.

 

If he is still singing I suspect it is because people are still listening.
Good for him.

 

Because he can!

 

Fair enough -- but I can't imagine a Jethro Tull (or "Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull") concert in which they stuck to doing latter-day material, and didn't focus on the early, well known material.

Diehards would probably be fine never hearing him do "Aqualung" again, but I know if I was going to see him for the first time in 2015 (I've never seen Ian or Tull) and he didn't do those tunes, I'd be disappointed, to say the least.

 

I thought he had someone else singing on his tours. For at least part of the set. Is that not true?

 

I think if he did a few of those songs, most casual fans would be fine-- and I'm sure he could handle "Aqualung," "Cross-Eyed Mary" and "Locomotive Breath" at the end of the night. But he does that era (first five albums) for most of every set, even "Homo Erraticus" he chopped that album down to get more oldies ion. And I think he's lost as many people who know what the oldies are going to sound like.

 

I see your point. Lead singers in bands where nobody else can sing a freakin note will all be facing a decision. For example Anderson could find a younger "Tull tribute Ian Anderson" to sing. He could retire or just play flute/guitar and narrate the shows.
Eventually they will all have to do something like this when age prevents singing 2 hour rock shows as an only singer frontman.

 

As simplistic and as cynical as this post is, I think it's the truth. Ian is a great business man, and if he sees that the demand is still there, he'll do it whether the quality lacks or not.

Coupled with that, Ian is a musician, first and foremost, and will continue to create until he's reached critical mass and cannot/doesn't want to do it anymore. He doesn't need the money, so he's motivated to still create.

 

I saw him in 2010 and he got by OK, mostly by talking the lyrics. On the occasions when singing was required, the results were somewhat painful.

 

I think he sounds fine on record....live, no. I'd be happy with him continuing studio albums where he has actual control over what his voice sounds like.

 

Supply and demand. Are people willing to buy a ticket? Can he fill (or come close to filling) an arena or theater? Then there's your answer.

If you don't care for his singing at this stage, voice your opinion by not buying a ticket.

 

He could do what Brian Wilson does and let somebody in the band double him during the most difficult passages.

 

Yeah, but with today's climate with recorded music, Ian's not making much doing studio work. He'll continue to tour and pay his musicians scale and reap the $ for as long as he can.