JETHRO TULL | Did it Really All End in 1979?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- Many argue that this band were finished after the disbanding of that classic line up of the 1970s. I this video, I argue that really is not the case
If you like my channel and appreciate the work that goes into my videos, please support my channel. You can -
Become a Patron! - Be part of a Classic Rock Community!
There is a fine body of work on there now. / classicrock
Make a one-time donation!
Help me to make more videos or buy stuff to annoy my wife with and unbox on my channel: www.paypal.com...
Gift me something to unbox from my Amazon Wish List: www.amazon.co....
Buy me a coffee. All that talk is thirsty work: ko-fi.com/clas...
Join Amazon Music: www.amazon.co....
Like the Facebook page:
I add stuff on a daily basis: / 1968rock
DISCLAIMER: This video features materials protected by the Fair Use guidelines of Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Clips are used with commentary for educational purposes.
#jethrotull #ranking #classicalbum
The classic Jethro Tull ended in April 1980 when the Stormwatch tour ended and Barriemore Barlow and John Evans left the band.
For me Jethro Tull is Benefit. A beautiful album. Their best.
I love benefit. The deluxe box set is outstanding.
'Tis indeed! But, for me, it's Thick as a Brick!
"Benefit" was my first Tull album, purchased on a whim, having never heard the band before. It remains one of my Top 3 favorite albums of all-time to this day!!! Cheers!!
@hurdygurdyguy1 a monumental album, to be sure!!
Absolutely love benefit. Desert island album for sure!
I think what happened was .... the 80's, MTV and the new digital technology.
What happened to Tull happened to other bands like Yes, for example.
Music videos became paramount. Synths stopped being analogue and samplers were invented. It changed every band, many for the worst. ZZ Top put out three DISCO videos. Dire Straits used primitive CGI. Ozzy dressed up as a werewolf.
It took a while to recover from this.
Sure, the ZZ Top videos and records were really great though. I'm still waiting for the remaster of Afterburner!
@@pfzt ..amazing
Styx were robotos who turned into the band. Pink Floyd had a live video with German shepherds with yellow eyes.
Checks calendar sees its 2024. And yet out there is still someone, long flowing hair from a bald top, bell bottom blue jeans and covering up a huge middle age beer belly is a DISCO SUCKS T-shirt.
Tull's foray into synths and Ian sacking the analog keyboardists occurred prior to MTV existing. Plus they barely ever got any MTV airplay, even with some decent videos off Crest of a Knave. Hell, Kissing Willie was outright banned for being to naughty for morally upright MTV.
Songs from the wood and heavy horses are the pinnacle of Jethro Tull for me.
I'll 2nd that emotion.
Agreed
Benefit and Minstrel!
Agreed.
I agree with you. I think Heavy Horses is under valued, but it's probably my favorite. Being an American, it is for me a beautiful look into a different world.
It was over when Martin Barre left. Not to mention others who left earlier, John Evan and Barriemore Barlow.
You forgot David Palmer.
I agree with this assessment
I think A and Broardsword are excellent. But after 1980, with the exception of Barre and maybe Pegg, what is called Jethro Tull is like an ever changing line up of hired session/touring musicians chosen by Anderson. It wasn't like that with the 70s line ups. Each member brought something very special, unique and memorable to the band and the live performance. This has not been replicated since.
My favourites are the ones with the amazing Barriemore Barlow on them - extraordinary drummer that I wish we had more of. And I remember when the my main record shop was WH Smiths and they classified the band under T!
I agree, Barriemore Barlow is an amazing drummer!!
Barrie Barlow is one of the all time greatest drummers! He was even being considered to replace John Bonham as drummer for Led Zeppelin (had they carried on...)
I'll give you an answer that's not just merely obvious, but incredibly obvious. Jethro Tull has always been know as just Tull. If you look at the drum set on stage, the word Tull is on it.
@@ricenglish4556 - I think the OP's point was that many people, including some record store employees, thought Jethro Tull was a music artist/person and filed the records as if alphabetical, by the person's name. The proper filing is by band name, under J. I've seen their records under T, as well.
Here is yet another comment that no one will read:
I was introduced to Jethro Tull in the mid-80s by two Deadheads I worked with (Roy & Linda). They had me play Songs From the Wood on the cassette player and it was a musical revelation to me.
To that point I did not have much interest in music but that tape changed everything.
Not long after, I bought most of Tull's catalog on CDs. I think each Tull era is great but I checked out after Crest of a Knave (which I really enjoy to this day). I do not think I have ever had a single listen through the A album but Broadsword and the Beast harken enough back to the English Folk era to make it one of my favorites as well.
Got me. I read it. Was on board in the early 70's. Feel the same about "A".
@@spooge33 Black Sunday is an amazing track but the album betrayed the inheritance
well i read it!
I saw Tull in 2008 at Red Rocks. In fact a riot at their 1971 show got all rock acts banned from Red Rocks for years, and this was their first show since then.
I had zero expectations, but they blew me away. They opened with Thick as a Brick, and although Ian’s voice has aged, and he isn’t as acrobatic anymore, his talent as an entertainer and storyteller were scarcely affected. A great show I will always remember.
I think Tull did some great albums after '79 (most of all "Broadsword and the Beast" and "Roots to Branches"), but although Anderson always had been the boss, Tull appearing as a band ended around 1979 and changed to Ian Anderson plus a group of musicians.
@murdockreviews
Yeah, I can get behind this.
I would like to hear A less electronic-y version of under wraps tho...!
( no I don't live with me mum 😂😂)
@grimble6261i very much have to agree.
agree!
@grimble6261 The Ian Anderson music of his own often proves that without talented members closely involved, he produces very little that isn't stilted, distant and artificial. His voice has been horrid for many years too which doesn't help a thing.
Those who don't think Tull was always Ian Anderon plus a group of musicians were taken in by pop music marketing. The addition of Jeffrey, Ian's good friend, to the band when he did not even know how to play bass proves this, and it was pretty early. The other bandmembers facilitated Ian's success and added to the music and image, but not that much as beautiful music post whatever is anyone's best phase was proves.
I think fortunately for Ian he had his team that could add to the magic to his tunes, and they were all focused together for the adventure. With each member leaving, it probably shrunk the replacements into just session and concert members and not collaborators. I think John Lennon, Roger Waters also were in that same boat. They wanted to go somewhere else, but they wound up lost at sea.
Thanks Barry… great insights on Tull as per usual. The best Tull lineup in my view was with John Evan and Barry Barlow in the line up. I have heard Ian say that he thought his mate Jeffery was the best. The jury is out on the bass for me. I have always thought that John Evans’ contribution has been grossly underestimated. Martin’s contribution on minstrel was magnificent… he should have got songwriting credits for that. Barlow was brilliant on his contribution… I’m a Tull tragic … aqualung,tab & passion play are my favs… keep up the good work mate
@bradprescott2101: Old geezer and long long-time Tull fanatic that I am, I seem to remember that when the original "Minstrel" LP came out in 1975 Martin Barre WAS given a writing credit, but over the years with all the CD re-issues and such that credit seems to have disappeared. But if you can come across an original '75 LP I do believe you'll see that it gives Martin his proper credit.
@@ijustgottasay1281 He definitely was. That was the only other credit on the whole album.
Crest of a Knave is one of my favourite Tull albums.
The reason many say that Tull ended in 79/80 is because after then they simply lost a lot of what made them interesting in the first place. They turned into a rather old fashioned rock band with a flute where one of the guitars should be. Gone the jazzy, folky, bluesy, slightly arch medieval/renaissance stylings, the deep and fascinating lyrical content, the thrilling complexity, to be replaced with comparative crap of lap of luxury, big riff and mando, kissing Willie, all sounding like it was played by passionless sessioners…. That’s why they ended for me (don’t get me started on the last two “Tull” albums) , but that first 12 years of Tull produced the best music ever made and because of that they are STILL my favourite band.
Thanks for the interesting, almost surreal, Tull perspective! For me, post 79 marked the end of the explosive magic for most of the prog rock bands that were spawned out of the 69, 70, 71 big bang!
I agree that Tull was never the same after ‘79
I first went to a Tull concerti in 1988, and for me the line-up Anderson/Barre/Pegg/Perry/Allcock(Giddings) was a real pleasure to hear live. The first half of the '90s was a great time to attend gigs of a band that was already considered a "classic". And I agree with you that since (I'd say Dot Com) it was still Tull. Some compositions are really good also on the later albums, but they aren't Tull anymore; just Anderson's solo (and the vocals are greatly compromised). Also because of the lack of personality of the musicians the followed the last Tull lineup (95/95 onwards). Thank you for your videos, it's a pleasure hearing you. Would love to do it in front of a fireplace, after a nice italian dinner till 2 or 3 a.m.; drinking some good wine. If you ever come in Italy you are my guest.
For me, Tull as an actual 'band' ended when Jon Noyce, Andy Giddings and Doane Perry left/were 'let go'. Those guys were the last to put real creative substance into the music.Since then it's been a revolving door of characterless session players obviously doing as they're told.
I just wrote nearly the same exact thing.
I'd argue this 'line-up' were only creative live. There was little studio output from them -- I think "Dot Com (99) and the semi-comp Xmas Album (02?03?) were the only actual studio recordings they did. (Giddings did help a lot with the lovely Divinities). However, I would agree it was the last line-up that boasted something of an identity.
@@kingkillah101Good point. Giddings and Perry played on Roots to Branches though. I saw them on that tour and it really was a great live band.
@@kingkillah101 there are lots of groups that made only two good albums, so I agree with the original posters comment that that was really when the "Jethro Tull group concept" officially ended. As much as I admire Ian's talent, I feel like he's always been a bit of a git.. he never was really very humble and tolerant ime. At least I've never seen it..
very plausible..
I agree.👍
Stormwatch was the last truly great Tull album.
I found Stormwatch to be rather poor. I adore the last few albums. Rokflute is bloody wonderful.
@@schragemusikReally? There really is no accounting for taste. The last few albums have really been Ian Anderson solo albums with hired hands. The last real Jethro Tull album (apart from the Christmas album) was 'Dotcom'. The last decent album, in my opinion, was 'Roots to Branches' in 1995.
@@portcullis5622 I agree. Dot Com had a few classics like "Gift of Roses" and "Bends Like a Willow" but was overall lacking and I thought Roots to Branches was really good. I'm having a lot of trouble getting into anything after the Christmas album though; there just seems something lacking.
@@Clyde-x1x Yes, I also thought that they were the two best tracks on Dot Com. I have only heard a few tracks from recent albums, but one thing that is definitely missing is a decent vocalist! Ian Anderson has virtually been reduced to spoken word on recent recordings.
@@portcullis5622 - I'd say Dot Com is decent, while Roots To Branches is great.
I got into Jethro Tull back in 1970. I have pretty much everything they have released, both on LP and CD. Most of the albums released after Crest of a Knave have only been listened to once or twice ....
Yeah, I get that point of view for sure. Crest of a Knave sounds, to me, like a kind of a Dire Staits clone album, it's good but it just isn't the JT that we all knew and loved.
Agreed. Crest of a Knave is a terrific album but thereafter……
@@usaturnuranus At least it's...good!
@@Tangerine229 Personally, I felt that about half of Catfish Rising was good stuff too.
@@alwilson3204, agreed. It was an interesting effort.
My love for Jethro Tull has always been tied to a sense of frustration. I discovered the band in 1982 as a teenager with Broadsword, and then went back frantically to all of their 70's catalogue. Aqualung was a cornerstone of my education as a listener and as a boy. When Under Wraps came out one year later, I had decides that my favorite JT album was Songs from the Wood, and the clash between these two sonic worlds couldn't have been sharper. I hated Under Wraps, and I kind of resented Ian for making this kind of detestable sound in my young lifetime, as I resented myself for not having been born ten years earlier. So stupid, and so unfair, but I couldn't help but losing interest in the albums that came out later on. I've never stopped loving Aqualung, Minstrel in the Gallery, Songs from the Wood and Heavy Horses.
Agreed. I discovered them in 87 with Crest of a Knave and then went back in time. Under Wraps and A are my least favourite....didn’t even buy Under Wraps. I stopped at Catfish rising as I too prefer the 70’s stuff best.
Under Wraps! Brings back cringey memories. My girlfriend brought the album to my house, very excited to play it for me as she liked it a lot but I looked down my nose at it, gave it a big "meh!" dissed it pretty good! What was behind the dissing was I was thinking of breaking up with her so of course nothing she could do would be right! Iirc we did break up for a time but I thank my lucky stars and God she took me back later and we've been married for 34 years! ❤
Maybe I should give Under Wraps another listen! 😂
@@hurdygurdyguy1 - Don't bother. It sucks even worse now.
My favorite Jethro Tull album is Stormwatch. I started with Tull in October 1971, with Aqualung- played Thick as A Brick everyday after purchase in June 1972!
A was ...eh...OK. I saw the tour, with Eddie, 1980;
Broadsword, Crest - fabulous albums...
So whatever, Tull up until Martin's departure. After Martin- one band member in my opinion too many that has departed...
Heavy Horses was the last Tull album I’ve been interested in.
I can only speak for myself but I agree that the 70’s Tull was the best. Favorite albums TAAB , SFTW, HH, SW. Remember being very disappointed when “A” came out. Mistake # 1 and most importantly sacking the best lineup after Stormwatch. Mistake # 2 Over using the horrible keyboards and electronics a la Under Wraps. Imagine replacing Barlow with a drum machine. Mistake # 3 Ian is a genius but also I believe he couldn’t conquer his ego and it was shameful the way he just summarily dismissed Barlow, Evans, David Palmer, Jonathan Noyce, Duane Perrv, Andrew Giddings ( see a pattern here?) and only relatively recently loyal , faithful Martin Barre. Ian can still write songs with the best of them but can’t sing live anymore . Though there were a few average to good albums after SW, Jethro Tulls best work was up to and including Stormwatch.
Jethro Tull…
I split their career in two.
I think for most Tull fans This Was
to Stormwatch is the period we think
of when we think of Tull.
A to Rok Flote is a different Jethro Tull.
Their catalogue became a little more sketchy
but there were still some pretty good albums
like Broadsword and Roots and even Rok Flote.
But when we talk about Tull we’re talking about
an A tier band so we get kinda nit picky.
It’s like picking your favourite child really.
Another thing that should be said in regards to
a band’s history. Great careers are marked with
up and downs, peaks and valleys. All of the great
artists are the same. Think Bowie and Sparks.
What about Dylan? So something like Under Wraps
adds to the richness of their careers…sorta.
Yes have a very similar thing going on.
Yes to Drama…then
90125 to Mirror to the Sky.
Practically the same as Tull’s discography.
🤘😳🤘
I'm definitely one of those who consider "This Was" to "Stormwatch" as the only real Tull albums. After Stormwatch, I didn't like whatever it was that came next, and never bought or listened to any more of their albums. But I still consider them my favorite band of all time. I listen to all those albums up to 1979 frequently, and don't really need or care about anything else from the band.
I have been a huge Jethro Tull fan and own pretty much every record…Ian has always attracted stellar musicians and I have enjoyed everything up to and including the Tull Christmas album. I do find the latest releases to be less inspiring…
Ian's post-Christmas Album material is so luke warm and watered down. Ugh. It's painful to hear!
I think you’re probably right in citing 1995 as the end of the real Jethro Tull.
Crest of a Knave & Roots to Branches are terrific albums, although the live performances were probably a little more restrained by then.
My first experience of them live was 1984 and although thoroughly enjoyable, I am envious of anyone who saw the 1973-80 lineup live.
My first Tull concert was the Thick As A Brick tour, and that still stands for me as the best evening of showbiz I’ve ever experienced. I saw them three times after that, and all of the concerts were entertaining. But the firing of Martin Barre was the end for me. It may have been justified, but it seemed rather cold to me, given his contribution to the band.
I am not a Tull fan as such…
But Thick as a Brick is amazingly tight and skillfully played. I could live happily with just that one Tull album, but yes, I also enjoy many of Aqualung’s songs and the general heaviness of Benefit. Usually bands create their best stuff within their first six studio albums anyway.
I'd agree that 1979's Stormwatch was the last "classic" Tull album. 1987's Crest of a Knave is clearly their last "best" album. Though I'd say even up to J-Tull Dot Com we get great songs like The Dog-Ear Years. Honestly, I haven't paid attention to Tull's new music for 25 years. Still one of the best back catalogs in rock history. Thanks for another great video. Cheers!
Most fans know that ‘A’ was an Ian Anderson solo album. The members assumed that they’d been fired when they heard the news that it was going to be called Jethro Tull. Ian just didn’t fight it because he was ready to move on anyway. To say they were “sacked” is pretty misleading. And the previous lineup change was only 3-4 years earlier when Jeffrey left, not in the early ‘70’s. So the idea that they ever had a stable classic lineup for a long while is kind of a stretch.
I have a pretty unique opinion on the 80’s. I believe that A and Under Wraps are both Ian Anderson solo albums. So if you remove those then the sequence is Stormwatch, Browdsword, Crest… Yes, there are still lineup changes and an increase of drum machine and 80’s synth sounds but the essence of Tull is fully intact. I would recommend any fan look at it this way unless they’re as obsessive as I am and aim to devour every single recording he has ever produced.
Crest, Catfish and Rock Island were a few of the first ones I heard at age 10, not long after their release and I was hooked right away. So when I eventually heard Songs from the Wood and Thick as a Brick, it was just more awesome stuff from my already favorite band. Not anything that could lessen the value of the first ones I heard. It’s too bad others don’t get to share that experience.
No. One thing you can't deny is that the band led by Ian Anderson were masters of reinvention. They never could be put in a box. That's the greatest thing about them IMO.
For me, the peak Tull years were wiith Jeffrey Hammond and barrie barlow. My first concert, and the first time I heard tull , was the thick as a brick tour in 1972 at msg nyc. How's that for a first concert? Instant tull freak. I had just entered high school and didn't miss a show for years. But I noticed when Hammond left something was different or missing. Hammond stage presence was equal to Anderson. I also think being they were friends long before Hammond entered the band there was a chemistry between the two. Anderson even wrote a couple of songs that mentions Jeffrey on previous albums. I think Hammonds personality counterbalanced Anderson's. Anderson was quite serious and intense while Jeffreys humor took the edge off. Anything quirky, offbeat and tongue in cheek came from jeffery. He added a charm, a sense of not taking themselves too serious. Unless you were following tull in those years you wouldn't understand the unique subtleties that Jeffrey brought to the band and the music. the only other bass player I ever saaw who was more active on stage was verdin white of Earth wind & fire.
I share your perspective on Jeffrey.John Glascock was musicaly speaking probably better bass player, but on the live shows Jeffrey's presence was irreplaceable.I saw Tull 6 times live, but the best show was 75. with Jeffrey in his famous zebra outfit.I'll never forget the begining of this concert - they started with this heavy rock part of "Wind Up", and Martin & Jeffrey literally fly up to the stage using some spring-boards!The impression was every member of this band have real fun (I use to call them "happy Jethros")Later (after Jefrey left) was still great live performances, but.....(you describe it realy well)
Agreed, after Stormwatch, albums were different, save a song or three
Tull without Martin Barre isn‘t really Tull
Ian Anderson is Tull. End of. If he’s goes on stage with his dog he can call it what he wants.
@@alewis998 The proof is cover of the first album! (This Was) 😜😜
@@alewis998 -- Wrong, he needs Martin's guitar to forge that Tull sound.
@@ricenglish4556 Great Guitarist but my point is that it’s IA’s band and that band is Jethro Tull
@@alewis998 -- Ian once said that he is Ian Anderson, singer/songwriter/flute and acoustic guitar player. Martin makes it Tull. I still don't understand why you didn't mention Martin. I suspect you didn't realize he was in the band and thought Ian was playing all that lead guitar work. That's no crime, now you know.
I concur with your viewpoint ,
They ended for me after Roots to Branches .
I couldn’t bring myself to see them live after the 1992 tour .
While that was a good concert in 1992 , it was a shadow of the wildly exciting shows that I saw throughout the 70 s and 80s .
For that very same reason , I couldn’t go watch Genesis on their final tour .
While I admired Phil Collins’ fortitude , I just couldn’t watch him doing vocals from a chair .
I preferred to remember his performances throughout the 70s and 80s .
Thanks .
Tull was my number 1 band through 1979. I went to 3 or 4 concerts, one in England (I was already there). As much as I like "Stand Up", it's so different and really a jazz album. Having been a percussionist myself, I really liked the Barrymore Barlow years of Tull.
Dave Pegg was a great asset for Tull in the 80s & mid 90s
Indeed
If we are talking about pure, top tier Jethro Tull then yes that band really did end with Stormwatch as the last true JT album. But Tull did have an ace up their sleeve and I thought Broadsword was a return to form with an 80's production value that I don't mind. I could give Broadsword a 3.5 out of 5 rating which to me says it's a good rock album. I happen to like a lot of A as well. But yeah I think if we have to define Tull as a band with certain characteristics it seems Stormwatch and the end of the 70's really closed that unstoppable run that defined Jethro Tull.
I think Stormwatch possibly signalled the end of Jethro Tull's ubiquitous phase when considering the behemoths of 60s / 70s rock. For the likes of Genesis and Yes (although more fleeting) the transformation into a more accessible form of music was met with some commercial success. Unfortunately with Tull's attempt to integrate the more electronic sounds of the day this was met with a degree of apathy from which their formative status was never reached again. These days Martin Barre suggests that the current version of the band is Tull lite and having witnessed their performance at Ephraim Gardens in 2023 i tend to sadly agree. Competent musically of course but lacking character as they come across as simply backing musicians. BTW special mention for Roots to Branches as suggested is a strong late period Tull album.
I think the very existence of Broadsword And The Beast proves that 1979 was indeed not the end.
Well said. That was as Tull a sounding album as they ever had.
I have a theory that what people really like about Broadsword is the album cover. I never thought much of the actual songs, with the one exception of Slow Marching Band. I can live without the rest.
@@crusheverything4449 -- That's funny. Since the only song on the album I don't like is "Slow Marching Band," your comment borders on the hysterical.
Roots to Branches is my favourite Tull album. No other Tull album I played more than this one and I love the Giddings/Noyce line up. For me after this line-up ended Tull stopped being a real band.
I agree, and posted the same. They were a very powerful, hugely entertaining band with that line-up.
@@slowmarchingband1 Agreed.
you are absolutely correct in that statement. I personally think that tull ended after that album.
Stormwatch is the last Tull album that I unreservedly love every track on, but I love almost all of Broadsword, ditto with Rock Island (c'mon, Kissing Willie is a hoot! How can you not love lyrics like "Willie hangs his head behind grey factory walls"?), and the lion's share of Roots to Branches. So (imho) they certainly didn't end in 1979. I haven't heard anything post Roots to Branches that I give a tinker's cuss for, so I think I agree with your conclusion that Roots to Branches was probably the last great Tull long-player.
For me Yes! Anderson got far too cocky, he sacked or caused the best musicians in Jethro Tull to leave all except Martin Barre. He lost his direction and his muse, never to regain them.
I'm an ardent tull fan and i agree totally with your comment. I've got all the albums except zealot gene & rockflote, the 70's is my favourite period.
I gave in and bought a copy of Rokflote in the hope that Mr Anderson had somehow found his mojo, alas I was again disappointed, Ian should have hung up his flute and codpiece after Broadsword and made a dignified exit. Just my opinion of course.
Yeah, as founder, focus and songwriter for the band, how dare he make the music he wanted to.
You're really missing out on The Zealot Gene and RökFlöte then. @@morrisanderson3180
@@richard127gm Absolutely, but the sad fact is, he just couldn't cut it any longer.
I hate long comments, but here goes. I don't think so, no. It's always down to taste, and for me, I love their first three '80s albums (and I also love Walk Into Light), I like Crest of a Knave quite a lot, and I like enough of Rock Island to keep it on the thumb drive in the car. But Rock Island is where the self-consciousness, the sense that Ian was no longer making music, he was making Jethro Tull product, gets too intense to tolerate ("Big Riff and Mando"-ugh). By Catfish Rising it's beyond saving ("White Innocence"-argh). So I would say that they ended in 1989. One of the things that defined Tull was boldly going where no Tull had gone before, and they did so through Under Wraps. They didn't do so on Crest, but the material was solid enough to overcome it. By Rock Island, their days of doing something interesting were over. (Yes, Roots to Branches is a bit of a return to form, but frankly, I don't see a brief focus on exotic scales and instruments as out of left field for Tull, so I don't count it.)
I see it differently: like many other famous groups (Deep Purple or Manfred Mann's Earth Band for example), Jethro Tull simply had several eras, not only two: First it was very bluesy, then it was the peak in the 70s (the best indeed), then experiments (imposed by the inevitable 80s which ruined the general quality of the music in terms of arrangements, production and format), then a gentle slope towards weakness in the 90s, and a resurgence of maturity in starting from the Christmas Album (which I find good), including the latest two which I consider more as solo Ian Anderson, and moreover I include in this last era The Secret Language Of Birds and his three following solos albums as well.
I first became aware of Tull at Hyde Park when I was in the 6th form. I admired Anderson's frenetic flute playing, but I was not in tune with bluesy music in general. The revelation came with Stand Up after Mick Abrahams had left. I was a solid Tull fan throughout the Seventies but only an episodic one after the A album, when the 'ironing board' players turned up
WTF … inlets I missed something … not a mention of Martin Barre … love your channel, but I cannot figure out why you completely ignored his contributions over this vast catalogue … a great disservice on your part I think, Could you take a minute and explain that one please
Martin is so underrated. Ian seems to have an interest in casting Martin as just another member of the large Tull family. And I suspect Classic Album Review tries to toe this line to stay in sync with Ian. Though sometimes spotty, there is brilliance in Tull through year 2000.
Legendary band forever. Ian is a genius. I respect all of their releases over the years. Seems like most of the super 70s bands peaked in new music creativity around that timeframe. The Who, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath to name a few. Although that might be the case their music lives on..only the Stones seemed to have the ability based on their last release to reach previous high standards.
Yes, I rather agree! For me it’s everything from Aqualung to Stormwatcher, the first 3 albums and Broadsword, and Roots to Branches get an occasional listen.
The end of Tull for me was 1980, and I left home when I was 18!
I have been a Jethro Tull fan since my high school days, back in the late 80s, when the 20th anniversary box set was issued, those records were a crash course on learning the JT universe that fascinated me until these present days. In my opinion, what makes JT one of the greatest bands ever to exist, with Ian Anderson as its sole driving force, is precisely the permanent musical innovation that makes each album a unique work of art. I do enjoy their “prog rock” period (1970-1975) better than their other periods (A Passion Play is my all time favorite JT album) however, the whole JT discography constitutes a musical legacy worth listening to, as well as preserving it for posterity.
" The tale of a wandering bard " was undoubtedly his best performance...IMO of course. Thx. ✌️👍
I think Heavy Horses was the last great Jethro Tull album. After that, Ian stopped evolving his music and the albums became more inconsistent, I think. He did try to adapt to the sound of the time with the album Under Wraps, but that was an exception. I think it works but the album is as uneven as most of the other Tull albums from eighties and nineties. I think the problem was that he started to divide his time between music and other interests. In the seventies, I believe he was only engaged in his music.
What's wrong with Stormwatch? It's very similar to Heavy Horses, style-wise and is full of great songs.
I would say aside from the very first album anything with Ian Anderson and Martin Barre is what I considered Tull. Stuff without Martin feels more like solo albums which isn't necessarily A Bad Thing. Martins contributions are unique and he is a singular guitarist. Losing Barrie Barlowe was massive but Anderson was on to something when he hired Mark Craney. I wish that he'd stuck with him
Tull always had brilliant musicians but my favourite line up is Barre, Evan, Barlow and Glascock.
And Palmer.
The most famous line up in JT was the "Thick as a Brick" onward band, but it slowly unraveled starting with Jeffery H-H leaving and Glascock & Palmer joining. After the Stormwatch album, JT was blown up and major changes occurred. Maybe it was time for a change as B. Barlow in 1980 commented on how the band's songs and formula were starting to wear thin. Perhaps new blood was needed to give energy to the idea of JT in the 80's, and they had a few solid albums in that era. I loved that 70's band lineup the most and enjoy those albums even to this day.
Tenho todos os discos de 1968 a 1979, vários grandes discos nesse período, a partir de 1980 perdi o interesse pela banda. Mas até 1979 foi uma das maiores e mais criativas bandas da história da música. Uma das minhas bandas preferidas, sem dúvida.
For me, Jeffrey Hammond leaving the band was the end of the very exciting live shows Tull were known for. Strange but my favorite period was when their hair was the longest. Particularly "Thick as a Brick". John Glascock was a great player and "Songs from the Wood" was an incredible album, but the interplay between Barlow, Evan, Barre, Hammond and Anderson was the most exciting.
I'd argue they ended with Songs From The Wood, or Bursting Out. It's hard to say because there was a fair number of duds before that (Passion Play, Too Old.., War Child etc). However, they were really sunk a little later, when they embraced the horrors of Mark Knopfler-style guitars, 80s production and big synthesiser sounds. I like 80s music as much as anyone, but none of those things suited them. Add in an over-emphasis on musicianship rather than song-writing and you've got a dead band.
I really don't mind if you sit this one out...
I first heard Tull, Aqualung, at a friends home in '72, and was hooked. Every album was a Gem, with no filler songs (Too Old, and Heavy as exceptions IMHO) through Broadsword. That and not getting stuck in the mold of a fixed sound / theme keep me hooked. (the opposite of BTO whom many claimed all their songs sounded the same)
I always felt Martin was much underappreciated by fans as a guitarist, as his was a big part of the Classic Tull Sound that I love.
If Ian and Martin are on it, it sounds like a Tull Album to me. I'm not as familiar with Tull's later work as after Broadsword as I only bought Knave and it seemed like Ian's songwriting had went past its peak by then. That High Quality I loved seemed to be waning and I'd rather live in their Hay-day than listen to lesser works.
mike
Living in the past
IMO, Too Old To Rock 'n' Roll is mostly filler (Salamander is fantastic), while Heavy Horses is great front to back.
In my view A is a great album, as great as several other Tull albums in the 1970s. I like the comments that Tull albums are significantly different from each other.
As one of Tull's biggest fans, I consider the band existing up to and including The Christmas Album. Not that every album in there was excellent mind you. There were some weak ones including Crest, (yes Crest. I got so sick of hearing the safe to play/easy to handle for old Ian "Budapest" in concert). Rock Island, Catfish. Several good songs there, but not entirely classic albums. By the way, as late a release as it was in the history of Tull, Roots to Branches is a modern classic, and one of my favorites.
This is my humble opinion and feeling. I don't like the latest Ian solo albums, so it's not just the current matter of Tull?/NOT Tull! I personally think the writing has dried up and is relying more on rehashing. As far as the current band, well, it definitely is Tull only in name. The band has always been made up of members with unique style, talent AND personality. All which to me is sorely lacking now. Besides Ian's been too old to rock 'n' roll indeed, for some time now. I know he does as he wishes (and good for him), as far as continuing to release albums and tours, but I'll remain content with the rich library of genius he's already given us a long time ago.
Happy new year from New York's Hudson Valley. Cheers and keep up the good work.
Aside from my feeling that Crest of a Knave was a very strong album (I actually never cared that much about Budapest), I totally agree with everything you said...and I am also sitting in the Hudson Valley! Lower HV, in my case. Cheers!
@grumpy-6890 - I agree with everything you said, except I don't see Budapest as safe and easy; I see it quite simply as one of Ian's greatest compositions. And Roots To Branches is a phenomenal album and was by miles the best since Stormwatch, for me.
I think Tull did end in 1979.
Indeed, I saw them in 1994 and it was basically a concert of old songs, supporting the view of the 1979 division
New subscriber here. I never gave “A” much of a chance back in the day, but today I really enjoy it. I have always loved “Crest Of A Knave” and all of the later albums have their moments. I was also pleasantly surprised by “The Zealot Gene” that came out a few years ago. Anderson is the only Tull regular on it, but the album is solid.
Man.....Nothing beats that 1978 lineup. My first ever exposure to the band was Bursting Out.
Don't think I've ever been insulted so much and yet agree with every word uttered. My mother upstairs agrees.
Hi Barry, I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that Tull definitely did NOT end in 1979 despite the lineup changes. While the albums from A onward were not back-to-front gems like everything from Stand Up to Stormwatch, each featured a fair share of great songs. Those who stop listening to Tull's output with SW (or, mistakenly, with HH) are missing out on some outstanding material. I disagree, however, that Tull ended with RTB. I would argue that the Anderson/Barre/Giddings/Noyce/Perry lineup was indeed a legitimate version of Tull; their shows in the mid- and late 2000s were still excellent. Things went off the rails for me when those fellows were all sacked around 2010 and Anderson went with his current crop of musicians. Of course, he recorded and toured as "Ian Anderson" back then, so one could argue that it wasn't technically Tull. But we all know it was. Lifeless performances mixed with Ian's failing voice caused me to jump of the train at that point.
Yes, there is an alternative date for the end of Tull i.e. when Anderson's voice went completely. I would date that to the late 1990s. At that point, Tull's live shows became progressively more embarrassing.
'A' is, as you say, rather sterile and after that I drifted away from new Tull albums. But for some unremembered reason I gave 'Roots To Branches' a closer listen and was very pleasantly surprised at how strong it was, and so too Anderson's 'The Secret Language Of Birds'. Other than those two nothing else after 'A' has impressed me. But my favourites are 'Aqualung' and 'Too Old To Rock ’n’ Roll: Too Young To Die'.
Yes, April 1980 in fact after the Stormwatch tour, where Dave Pegg replaced the late John Glascock. Had some nice moments until the late 90's though with the Anderson/Barre/Pegg band.
I largely agree although I should say that My first Tull gig was May 1980 on the Stormwatch tour. Dave Pegg went into the big line-up replacing the late, great John Glascock of course. It was fantastic and the best of the 10+ Tull gigs I've seen. With hindsight, I wished they'd packed up before A.
I saw them three times - 78, 80 and 82. The first (Heavy Horses tour, with John Glascock on bass) was by far the best, but the other two were also excellent shows. The April 1980 show was one of the final shows to feature Barlow, Palmer and Evan(s), and was genuinely the end of an era. It was sad the way the band broke up that year. I have zero interest in seeing them live now, given the painful decline in IA's once-magnificent voice and the changes in personnel.
@@8ackbiter434 Completely agree. Similarly, I wish Yes had finished after Drama and Genesis after Duke. Incidentally, Pegg once told me that the Australian leg of the Stormwatch tour was the most depressing he'd ever undertaken.
Yes I see the point, but I think Tull really ended in 1999. Stormwatch was my first Tull concert, and I'm glad to have seen the original lineup. But I continued to follow them quite intensely for long after that. There were some some great albums right up to end. After 2000 he should have quit before he lost his voice. I saw the 50th anniversary and it was frankly sad and embarrassing to see him struggling to sing and sounding lousy. Also I think Tull really drove the final nail into its coffin when Ian fired Martin Barre, who was his right hand man since 1969. That made me lose repect for him totally. But I still really appreciate all the good times I had listening to Tull since high school.
They lost me after Heavy Horses. Some of that album seems weak to me and all of it seems like a swan song: "I'm a country squire family man now and I wrote some songs about my horse, dog, cat, mouse, and some moths. Thanks for listening and here's some fish." It's clear he struggled to put out A. He had to bring back Martin and so lacked confidence in it that he caved to the label to release it as a Jethro Tull. His work ethic/fear of failure and penury make for poor inspiration and everything after HH is uninspired. It's not the changing personnel or the changing styles, it's the lack of authenticity. He really should have summoned up the courage to stay home with the wife and kids, rest his voice, and wait for the muse to return.
I think that Ian said that after the A album, that he just couldn't go back to the old lineup. I still think that it was a mistake by the record company to brand that album as a Tull album. The classic period of Tull ended there, at least for me. There were a few bright spots, here and there going forward, but just not enough. The fact that his voice went away and the COPD just made it impossible to perform like he used to were just nails in the Tull coffin. Too bad, really, they were a great band.
I like every Lp from This Was to Roots To Branches, so I agree with you, that's where it ended.
Passion Play was an attempt to do a"serious" prog album whereas Thick as a Brick was a bit tongue in cheek. After that, Ian pretty much rehashed his classic style, occasionally grabbing some inspiration from other bands here and there. The playing was always stellar, as was the production, but the material was very hit and miss. For anyone who followed them fomo the beginning, there wasn't anything post "Minstral" that was especially interesting, no less innovative. And yes, by the 80's, his voice was shot. The fact that he still performs live is a mockery and an insult to his legacy. The quintessential Tull album? STAND UP.
Album-wise, for me it ended in 1975 with Minstrel. After three great albums that were very different to what had come before and from each other, Tull delivered their final classic album and for me at least returned partly to their earlier pre-TAAB style. Too Old ... was a big disappointment when it came out and despite not being terrible, we felt this looks like the end of the Tull we know and love. Songs from the Wood was a good album in many ways but not what we wanted from Tull and after Heavy Horses I checked out. I saw them on the HH tour and that was great. A few years later someone lent me Broadsword and I thought this just isn't for me. I'm sure there'll always be individual great tracks and I have cherry picked some of the later albums second hand as part of my attempt to get physical media while it's still out there.
How can you not mention Dave Pegg!! Because I agree with you that Roots to Branches was the end,,,,, and it’s the last one with Pegg. This is coming from a Tull fan who didn’t miss a tour from 74 to 95
It may be that a band is like a car. Is it mechanically sound? If so, is it still powerful? Is it stylish? If so is it classic? An MGB-GT is a classic, let’s say, but the one in my backyard is rusty and inoperable. It makes no sense to speak of that particular MGB-GT as either representative of the car model while in disrepair or, if fully restored and functioning as a new vehicle. Same with Tull. There were many models. Many breakdowns. Many restorations. The best we can do is to properly admire the band’s overall style and design. Time isn’t typically kind to cars nor bands, in particular and in model.
That which solidified the classic JT sound was truly a '70's band'. In the 40 or so years since "A" Ian's trotted out about ten 'band studio' albums, and the very best of them (TB&TB '82, Crest of a Knave '87, Roots to Branches '95) were STILL dozens of years ago. It could be argued the 'late classic period of Tull' round the turn of the century (Andy Giddings, John Noyce, Doane Perry et. al.) were mostly a hits live band. So honestly, as big a fan as I am, I've been unable to get into anything beyond Rupi's Dance (03). What of the modern catalog holds up to "Living in the Past"? Nada.
Yes.
Without Martin Barre and John Evan it's not Jethro Tull anymore.
I've got 16 Jethro Tull albums in my physical collection. I don't have "A". I've never wanted to listen to "A". Its not meant to be a band album but, according to the label on the cover, it is. I have watched an interview with Martin Barre where he said he had asked Anderson to redo "Under Wraps" because he thought the songs were good. Apart from those two albums, I listen to everything up to, but excluding, "The Jethro Tull Christmas Album". As for the most recent two albums? In my opinion, they are stinkers and I don't want to add them to my collection.
you're not missing much regarding the 'A' album. not keen on it but martin is superb as ever on guitar.
It is fair to say that Tull's Classical period ended circe 1979. But only time would tell. And Tull still perpetuates whether or not Martin must be on the inside. But who am I to fast confirm or deny... ask Brian Meyers the Author of "To Be The Play". Summoned by name, tell us if the overseer, master playwright and green man ended or still flies.
Tull still makes better music than most everyone. Shame about Ian's vocals.
Absolutely it all ended in 1979. Having said that I did watch a good live performance of Locomotive Breath from 1982 the other day and they did seem pretty good. In general though I think it all went pretty badly wrong from 'A' onwards. And then there was that awful Under Wraps business. I can remember being so upset about it all with that feeling that Ian Anderson had really let me down. The final nail in the coffin for me though has been Ian's continuing and dreadful voice problems. This has resulted in some pretty awful and awkward sounding albums ever since. I agree with Martin Barre who I think said that Ian has really diluted the product in continuing to release new albums under the Jethro Tull name. These awkward sounding and forgettable releases really do seem to damage the back catalogue and could possibly lead to younger Jethro Tull fans being bullied at school. And quickly, concerning the Hall of Fame....Jethro Tull should definitely not be in it due to Ian still insisting on touring with his awful voice problems. It makes for an embarrassing spectacle. Everyone thinks it's awful but everyone is too polite to say so. Having said all that I am still a huge Jethro Tull fan but not really after 1979. And here ends the lesson.
I agree and another thing I'll toss on the pile is that Ian is stuck in some kind of loop with the pentameter of his lyrics and spoken-word delivery, which makes his recent albums all sound like one long, very uneventful song. He can't sing, so there's no vocal melodies whatsoever and that's a huge loss for the songs. It's a far cry from Roots To Branches, let alone Songs From The Wood, Aqualung, Thick As A Brick, Minstrel In The Gallery, etc. I decided after seeing Ian in 2007 that I couldn't watch him ever again struggling so hard to throw notes out, while plugging his ear, that he's way out of time and devoid of melody - even if the concert was free, which they certainly are not. I'm happy at home with my Steven Wilson vinyl remixes and DVD sets.
Yes. Jethro Tull ended in 1979. The last Tull tune was Dun Ringill.
I was still enjoying Jethro Tull up to and including Crest of a Knave. Then came Rock Island. For me that was really the end. But all the albums between Stormwatch and Crest were patchy, some very good stuff and some not so good.
As long as the humanity lives rock and roll will not die.
I concur. 'Roots to Branches' was a fine album. The follow up, 'Dotcom' wasn't, but it was, in my opinion, the last real Jethro Tull album (unless we count The Christmas Album).
What I like about Jethro Tull, or rather another one of the things I like about Jethro Tull is that an
album like Roots to Branches which I did not immediately take to, can be returned to in time and
listened to and rediscovered. All IA/JT music is good for me. Same with the new albums. Almost
universally I find new albums to be a real challenge. I usually do not hear what is in the music
the first times I listen to an new album, but over time I start to like the things that initially sounded
difficulte. People are too quick to judge.
I like most of Tulls incarnations (slight or heavy differences) with each album. My favorite being The Broadsword and the Beast. I actually very much enjoyed Catfish Rising (especially the last track When Jesus Came to Play- GREAT track). Roots to Branches was just okay for me- Barres guitar on This Free Will is exemplary of his importance in the band. Obviously Jethro Tulls DNA is Ian Anderson but it doesn’t seem to work without Barre as it’s counterpart. Still….I enjoy them to this day- thought Shoshana Sleeping off The Zealot Gene was PHENOMENAL!
It ended long before then Barry, when it effectively became the Ian Anderson band. The early collective that was Jethro Tull gave Ian's songs their sound and feel and that beautiful lightness of touch. The 'sprung rhythm' section of Cornick and Bunker provided a jazz feel and rhythmic counterpoint to Abrahams/Barre's heavy electric guitar. They were key to the early magic. Barry Barlow was a great rock drummer but it didn't suit the band's unique identity for me. The biggest loss of all was Glenn. Listen to his playing on Beggar's Farm off the first album. That was Jethro Tull.
I am glad that you like Roots To Branches. It is a fun album.
I have always loved Jethro Tull. Through all the years even though the line up and albums during the 70-ties before A were the best. I don't mind the change of style during the years and also Ian's solo albums. Many songs are great. I listen now very much on Zealot Gene and Rök Flöte wich I consider as a step back (forward) to the 70-ties.
I think you are probably right. I think up until 1979 they were forging their own path. In the 80s they started to react to trends, electronic music and Crest of A Knave had a bit of a Dire Straights sound... But understandable - to react to trends, they would have just been forgotten if they were recording more rustic music. Crest of a Knave was great, the following albums up to 1995 were good. After that they start to sound samey... due largely to Ian's voice sadly.
From TAAB II to the present, they are samey to the point of being one looooong, boring song.
Saw Tull last in 2019 and it sounded like classic Tull to me, it was part of the Jethro Tull Christmas series, maybe a lot of technical help with his vocals but it was very enjoyable! Seen them something like 10 times in total!
‘A’ was the first Tull album I bought and really liked it, played it a lot. My brother was the big Tull fan and still is, but he didn’t buy that one. Strange because I think it still essentially sounds like Tull. Yes the guitars were turned down and the synths were creeping in, It certainly isn’t awash with synths as some would lead you to believe. Also made me go back to the albums that preceded it, Heavy Horses now being my favourite not all. The period from 77-80 being my most player of Tull music. I think ‘A’ needs reappraisal, listening to the Steven Wilson mix it brings out the guitars more and you can hear some of Martin Barre’s best guitar work here.
A is a better album than it gets credit for. I think the change, not only in musical style, with synths becoming more prominent, but also the solid white coveralls with the red A on the chest fed into the New Wave aesthetic to the point that it shocked the hardcore Tull fans and scared a lot of them away. I posit that Black Sunday and Protect and Survive are both great, classic Tull songs. It would've been better, however, if A was released as Ian's solo album. Having said that, I don't see Broadsword as a return to form. I think it's a weak, dated-sounding record and feel that the cover is what people really connected with and, in the same way the A image projected more New Wave than was actually present in the music, the BATB cover projected more of the classic, rustic Tull of SFTW and HH than was present in the music. (Long-winded post - my apologies.)
I love Under Wraps, and A.
The only Tull albums I am not head of heels over are "Warchild" and "Too Old To Rock And Roll Too Young To Die".
There are three bands, the original up to "Aqualung", and then the monster band until "A", and those albums are still
good, and then the Ian/Martin partnership still that ended. Everything else has been Ian's solo stuff.
My biggest question about Tull this year in 2024 is, did Ian start the year at 9am Jan 1st beginning work on yet another new album?
That would really be something ... because we already know there will be a new album scheduled for October of 2024.
Zealot Gene
Rok Flote
the new 2024
and maybe a new 2025? I hope.
I mostly stopped following after “Rock Island” (saw the tour). I would check in occasionally and be disappointed. TAAB2 (billed as a solo record) was a forgettable, nearly tuneless mess.
However… I think the most recent one, RökFlöte, is a return to form. Yes, I wish they used a real producer. The album’s sound is brittle and thin… But the concept works. The words are interesting. And best of all, it rocks hard for Tull. With long and memorable instrumental passages. More than good enough for 2023. And it followed a year on the heels of the previous Tull album, which wasn’t a bad album itself.
Keep up the pace, Ian! I look forward to a new Tull album in 2024!
... who are probably still at home, living with their mothers ... Brilliant.