jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (04/29/85)
Alright, already, I BLEW it. Ian Anderson did indeed appear on Jethro Tulls' first album "This Was" (1969, Chrysalis). But he did not play flute, and did not really dominate the album as he did later releases. in fact, the best part of the first album was guitarist Mick Abrahams who was replaced with Martin Barre in subsequent releases. A note about Anderson's (since I don't know him personally, I don't call him Ian :-)) flute-playing. He got the basic idea from Rahsaan Roland Kirk, from whom he stole most of his style too. Nothing original about singing into a flute - fife players in this country were doing it 100 years ago, and it was done in Africa long before that. Now, I received a number of absolutely vociferous and near-hysterical letters about this. You'd think I slandered the Queen Mum (did Kenneth Clarke or didn't he ?). It amazes me that people can get so wrought up over a band that hasn't had an original thought since 1978 (some would say never). The case could be made that a fair percentage of this newsgroup is mired in mediocrity and past glories. We have the devoted followers of a Dead band, the young men trying to get into Kate's bush (pardon the vulgarity, Fred), the aural wallpaper of Andreas Vollenwieder, and Rush, which (together with Triumph) must be Canada's answer to acid rain. Not that there aren't also lots of people with different tastes - we've seen Los Lobos, U2, John Cale, Einsturzende Neubatten (means "collapsing new buildings", by the way) and dirge music discussed also. But can we have more ? What about R&B ? Is anyone into the Staple Singers or Sade' (pr. "Shar-day") ? Japanese jazz ? Surely someone must have an opinion (pro or con) about Madonna ? Sunny Ade and the African Beats ? Guess I should sit back now and let the flames roll in. Hop and down all you want but I *promise* I won't reply to any letter that has nothing better to say than to call my opinions 'moosepoop' (yes, I've gotten some of those). I'd rather see the argument go on in the newsgroup, liven things up a bit (seems awfully Dead around here...). -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
plutchak@uwmacc.UUCP (Joel Plutchak) (04/30/85)
In article <268@osiris.UUCP> jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) writes: > >He got the basic idea from Rahsaan Roland >Kirk, from whom he stole most of his style too. Nothing original about >singing into a flute - fife players in this country were doing it 100 >years ago, and it was done in Africa long before that. >It amazes me that people >can get so wrought up over a band that hasn't had an original thought >since 1978 (some would say never). The case could be made that a fair >percentage of this newsgroup is mired in mediocrity and past glories. > Guess I should sit back now and let the flames roll in. Hop and >down all you want but I *promise* I won't reply to any letter that has >nothing better to say than to call my opinions 'moosepoop' (yes, I've >gotten some of those). I'd rather see the argument go on in the >newsgroup, liven things up a bit (seems awfully Dead around here...). >-- >jcpatilla Since I think it was a response to my posting that got you all the flames, I thought I'd put in a few words. You seem awfully down on Mr. Anderson. I realize that he may not be the most original flautist around, and I agree that the earlier music was much better than what we've seen lately (the last Tull album I really enjoyed was Minstrel in the Gallery). But, I ask in all earnestness, what does lack of "originality" in flute technique have to do with enjoyment of music? I don't know that I've EVER experienced anything truly original, be it in music, politics, philosophy, etc. What originality seems to mean to most people is "something I personally have never encountered before" (and there's *plenty* of that in MY life...). That brings me to the my second disagreement with your posting. Just because some of us enjoy older music now just as much as we did back then does NOT mean that we don't listen to newer music (speaking for myself, of course, although I'm sure I can find some agreement with this). I enjoy older Tull, older Pink Floyd, older Yes, old Eric Clapton (Cream, Blind Faith, etc)... the list goes on and on. I also enjoy XTC, King Crimson (it is a very different band these days), Madness, a bit of Black Flag-type music every now and again, and other new (not necessarily original) music. The older music brings me as much enjoyment as the new, and will probably continue to do so. When the enjoyment stops, I'll take several hundred pounds of albums and stereo equipment to the used stores and get enough money back for a cabin in the north woods, where I'll live with only the sounds of nature for the rest of my life (:-). I find your postings enjoyable and interesting, and I thank you for your invitation to discuss them (moosepoop or not). Now, do you have any newer music you can recommend to me, knowing a bit about my current tastes? One of the reasons I read nets like this one is to get recommendations on new music (although I've been so busy reading books mentioned in SF-lovers that I've not been to the record stores in a while, but I'll get there eventually). -joel plutchak "Shut your face or I'll tear out your windpipe and make you eat it." (Thanks and apologies to SKZB).
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (05/02/85)
Bullcookies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jethro Tull can be called a lot of things but relatively unoriginal?
How about your article: every Tull hater at one time, or another, has always
pinned the blame for their annoyance on Ian ripping off Roland Kirk. Steve
Simels, in Sterno Review, legitimizes his disdain for Tull quite frequently
in print using this approach, for example.
I'll admit, "This Was" doesn't make the Accuphase and ADS's sound quite
as impressive as Kajagoogoo (or "Shar-de"). A Passion Play just isn't as
comprehensible as the intellectual depth of Murray Head. And how can you
possibly get 22 minutes/hr of commercial avails when "This Was" is playing?
On the other hand, Sade' is a ripoff of Boz Scaggs (no need toaaaaaask)
--it is indeed so wonderful to have ersatz glitzoid ultra-slick production
numbers backing up someone singing under the influence of a giant phlem-wad
stuck in their throat. Boz perfected this about 10 years ago!
I suppose I should feel patently inadequate as a human being for turning
off all the lights and permitting the "My God" side of "Aqualung" to
positively reinforce those behaviours which seem to occur on the side of
my head that "understands" music nonverbally. Instead, for real intellectual
stimulation, one should sit and listen to those two boys who tattle on
each other's sexual idiosyncrasies, living at Home like Real Men at 21,
singing about the Real Problems of Social Intercourse, its locus being the
Dance-Floor. After all, Tull fans have things completely wrong; objectivist
philosophy and negative utopias exist in those nondescript books in the
University stacks, and songs longer than 3:20 always come on Daddy's
Beethoven RCA Red Seals. None of this bears any resemblance to the real
world of how one's stance should be to show the world that you and your
beau are really "
beau are really "together."
Seriously, Jethro Tull does offer at worst "singing into a flute,"
sometimes, the lyrical themes are a bit trite; but the musical part of this
brain just "understands emotionally" what the band is trying to communicate,
it may be different than the "meaning" of the lyrics. Call it old-fart-
listening-to-10-year-old-records attenuated behaviour; but try as I might,
I just can't extract anything from Madonna or Sade' other than a vehicle
for pseudosexual stimulation. Then again, Mona and I have never seriously
considered how our body posture whilst queueing for tickets at O'Hare
communicated our "togetherness" to the Smooth Operator or Wham set. After
all, some people don't have millions of dollars from singing about this
stuff, and certainly wouldn't live at home if they did. WHILE THIS
ARGUMENT CANNOT BE PHILOSOPHICALLY DEFENDED (as has been attempted numerous
times in this forum) Jethro Tull does seem to reinforce "critical listening
behaviour" far more than Frankie Goes to Hollywood...it all depends what
you're into...
--- --- ---
David Anthony
Sr. Video Engineer
DataSpan, Inc.
.jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (05/05/85)
> > Bullcookies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Jethro Tull can be called a lot of things but relatively unoriginal? > How about your article: every Tull hater at one time, or another, has always > pinned the blame for their annoyance on Ian ripping off Roland Kirk. Steve > Simels, in Sterno Review, legitimizes his disdain for Tull quite frequently > in print using this approach, for example. > > David Anthony > Hey, whoa, slow down. Y'all extract the wrong message from things. I said, "hasn't had an original thought since 1978". That was "Heavy Horses", which was, in my opinion, the last good Tull album. Like alot of other folks on the net, "Minstel in the Gallery" is my favorite Tull album and still worth a listen, but recent albums went down in quality quite a bit, more hot air than music. I wasn't trying to be down on Anderson for his flute playing, but I wanted to make it clear where his primary influence came from (and where Roland Kirk's came from, too, remember). I liked Tull alot because I also liked bands like Fairport Convention, but where menebers of that band have gone on to new and better things, Tull just hasn't gone anywhere in recent years, except maybe to more elaborate costumes. As for Madonna, well, I can't stand her, but I wanted to hear someone else's opinion without necessarily influencing anyone. -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."