jethro tull

All non-Smiths music chat goes here.

Postby chicken » Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:53 am

first off, if you don't have this website bookmarked, you'll be happy when you do:

<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page' target='_blank'>everything you ever wanted to know and didn't know you did</a>

jethro tull, the man, from this site:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Jethro Tull (agriculturist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
This article is about the English agriculturalist. For the progressive rock band named after him, see Jethro Tull (band).
Jethro Tull (1674–1741) was an English agricultural pioneer.

Tull was born in Basildon, Berkshire, and is considered one of the fathers of scientific agriculture. He was instrumental in designing numerous agricultural implements that transformed agriculture, most notably the seed drill in 1708. Prior to Tull, seed was simply cast upon the ground, to grow or lie fallow as it landed. The seed drill opened a hole of a prescribed depth, dropped in a seed, and covered it over, three rows at a time. The result was a greater germination rate, and a much-improved crop yield.

Tull also invented a horse-drawn hoe for clearing weeds, and made changes to the design of the plough that are still visible in modern versions. His interest in ploughing came from his war against weeds, and his belief that plants took their nourishment solely from the minerals in the soil and that organic emendation was not necessary. He knew that horse manure was filled with weed seeds, and hoped to avoid using it as fertiliser by pulverising the soil to make the minerals more available.

Although Tull was in error on this latter point – the error of a pioneer, it should be noted – as a whole his innovations form part of the foundation of productive modern farming. His inventions were controversial at the time and were not adopted for many years.

Tull died on 21 February 1741 in Shalbourne, Berkshire.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

and jethro tull the band, well, look it up yourself.
they say it has "complex song construction"....i prefer to call it rock and roll for the intelligent. there is only one band of whose music i have more cd's (that being nusrat fateh ali khan).
so in this context, we say "they" and not "him".
ian anderson was the leader, and he was known to play the flute stilted on one leg, and would absolutely rock the house in that way. how he can sing to their unusual rythms is beyond me.
Image

among my absolute favs in their prolific catalogue, is
Image
which is actually one (yes, just ONE) very long song. the transitions are utterly amazing.

i put these guys among the ranks of the smiths, the beatles, frank black/pixies, beck, and led zeppelin. never enough stars to rate them.

<!--emo&:ph34r:-->Image<!--endemo-->
and would love to hear from a fellow tullian.
Image
chicken
Smiths Nut!
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: an insomnia rehab centre; Salina, Kansas

Postby rubygirl » Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:14 pm

I've heard this band being mentioned so many times, but strangely enough, i've never heard them. Perhaps I should.
Image
Color me red when I'm feeling blue.
rubygirl
Smiths Nut!
 
Posts: 4015
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:18 pm
Location: the room downstairs...

Postby elko » Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:27 pm

I must say, I have always considered this band the very epitome of prog rocks foolishness, taking the word 'progression' out of the equation and replacing it with gimmicks like stupid titles and standing on one leg.

BUT...I've never heard them.

I'll check some stuff out, cos a chicken recommendation is like, I dunno. A michelin star.
elko
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 9:55 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Postby Still Ill » Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:33 pm

I'm familiar with their music having heard their stuff by default, way back when AOR music ruled the airwaves. I'm not a big fan of their stuff, but isn't this type of constructed music that you mention chicken, kind of the music that's been recently labeled math music? I think of groups like Rush (think Tom Sawyer and Limelight, great drumming) or maybe Yes. I don't have much else to add to this, but very interesting where the name Jethro Tull came from.

Why is progressive rock foolish? Isn't Steely Dan a progressive rock band? Great stuff there. Who else, anyone?
Last edited by Still Ill on Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Still Ill
Smiths Nut!
 
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 4:14 am
Location: California

Postby chicken » Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:01 pm

<!--QuoteBegin-elko+Sep 2 2005, 05:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (elko @ Sep 2 2005, 05:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I must say, I have always considered this band the very epitome of prog rocks foolishness, taking the word 'progression' out of the equation and replacing it with gimmicks like stupid titles and standing on one leg.

BUT...I've never heard them.

I'll check some stuff out, cos a chicken recommendation is like, I dunno. A michelin star. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
certainly we must take into account a bit of an age difference, too.
if would have started breeding at age 20, i'd have children your age elkster.

i'll also say that their music is quirky, not for your average listener. again, i call this stuff rock for the intelligent because it is frequently unpredictable in how it is constructed.

frequently they draw upon celtic and medieval history for the context of their songs. there's a strange historical romance about much of their music.


and still ill: WOW!!! even before the term "math music" became urbane, i have always always called Rush mathematical. their precision impresses me up one side and down the other. (and of course, i've played "red barchetta" at obscene levels while cruising about town in my porsche.) i think you hit the nail on the head with your observation.

yet while some of jethro tull's work is heavily worked, other works are lyrically acoustic and smooth.
Image
chicken
Smiths Nut!
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: an insomnia rehab centre; Salina, Kansas

Postby elko » Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:04 pm

Prog rock, to me, is wanky solos and ridiculously pretentious lyrics.

I'll admit to never having properly got into it, so my opinions are entirely the product of brief snatches of Yes, King Crimson, etc, and Rick Wakeman being a complete divot.
elko
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 9:55 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Postby chicken » Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:09 pm

wanky solos.......yes, i find them distasteful as well.

though i am a fan of Yes for reasons i've yet to unravel. hopefully i won't be flamed too much for that admission of musical proclivities. <!--emo&;)-->Image<!--endemo--> <!--emo&:lol:-->Image<!--endemo-->

perhaps it would be helpful to bear in mind the era from which the music came? maybe??....
Image
chicken
Smiths Nut!
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: an insomnia rehab centre; Salina, Kansas

Postby Still Ill » Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:03 am

Well, before 'alternative' music and the unhinging of indie for music fans to explore and love, there was plain old rock. It's all I knew until english punk and then the whole 8o's thing took me by storm. There's a lot of the old rock that I still love and appreciate. Yep chicken, I suspect there are some bands out there I might like that people would go 'wha?!' to. <!--emo&:lol:-->Image<!--endemo--> <!--emo&:ph34r:-->Image<!--endemo-->

Oh, and wanky solos. Gotta agree. To me they're the equivalent of pretentious lyrics!
User avatar
Still Ill
Smiths Nut!
 
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 4:14 am
Location: California

Postby chicken » Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:10 am

<!--QuoteBegin-Still Ill+Sep 3 2005, 12:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Still Ill @ Sep 3 2005, 12:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, before 'alternative' music and the unhinging of indie for music fans to explore and love, there was plain old rock. It's all I knew until english punk and then the whole 8o's thing took me by storm. There's a lot of the old rock that I still love and appreciate. Yep chicken, I suspect there are some bands out there I might like that people would go 'wha?!' to. <!--emo&:lol:-->Image<!--endemo--> <!--emo&:ph34r:-->Image<!--endemo-->

Oh, and wanky solos. Gotta agree. To me they're the equivalent of pretentious lyrics! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
you know, and that really addresses the oft-debated question of where/when "indie" started. i read what younger folks have to say about it and think to myself: "ha, i heard that stuff ten years before you were born."

perhaps indie has always been around and only 'became' indie when the term was invented?


what you say also goes back to the origin of rock. it came out of blues.

which is why i get drunk on old blues music, stuff from the 1920's-1940's with one man (usually blind), one beat up old ass guitar, a broken bottle-kneck, and scars to sing about.

and of course, blues came out of tribal rhythms. that seems to be painfully clear.
Image
chicken
Smiths Nut!
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: an insomnia rehab centre; Salina, Kansas

Postby Still Ill » Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:21 am

Well I'm more of a romantic when it comes to the history of music. My favorite time period is the 20's, I love F. Scott Fitzgerald, therefore I love all the fun stuff from the period. The Charleston, the grandeur of it all. And then the big bands from the late 30's and 40's. Somehow I didn't have the patience to appreciate the blues!
User avatar
Still Ill
Smiths Nut!
 
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 4:14 am
Location: California

Postby elko » Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:25 am

This thread and the MP3 one are coming together in subject, so my thoughts are all here.

Indie is such a difficult term. Some people I know will only use it to refer to things that literally fit the description (stuff on an indie label), or that is rather off the beaten track in terms of both reputation and musical style. Whereas most would say that something as obvious as The Killers fall under Indie, or god forbid, 'Alternative'.

To me, vainly, Indie is simply what music I like, through the history of popular music. So all that post-punk stuff, that's indie, the C86 and twee stuff, that's indie, all the alt hip-hop, the lo-fi stuff, etc.

One thing, is that Indie seemed to be a mainly British thing for me, but I would say from the 90's on, America has produced far more exciting and inventive music. 90's indie, I don't think Blur or Oasis, but Pavement, NMH, OTC, etc. British guitar music is totally immersed in a retro obsession. No-one agrees on when the golden age was, but it must be reproduced, and soon! The only really forward thinking British music at the moment is basically our strand of hip-hop, which gets called Grime. I quite like that label, actually, it's suited like Punk.

The origin of rock, I don't have a clue. But you do get the feeling that if a couple of bands weren't so successful, everything would have been completely different. There really is so much scope. I guess that's less true now, where literally every genre is totally crammed full of artists. There's too much music, a movement is impossible. Nothing like the Beatles, or even the Smiths, I think.

I've really started losing it now, I could type for years just making it up as I go along, on music at least.
elko
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 9:55 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Postby Still Ill » Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:37 am

Nicely written elko. I agree that we could go on and on. May have to revisit this on another posting binge night.
User avatar
Still Ill
Smiths Nut!
 
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 4:14 am
Location: California

Postby chicken » Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:51 am

<!--QuoteBegin-elko+Sep 3 2005, 12:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (elko @ Sep 3 2005, 12:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I could type for years just making it up as I go along, on music at least. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
and most, if not all, of us would be content to read it for years.
you've assembled one helluva line of thought there elko, and still ill is right, it deserves a revisit.

the only thing i'll throw out for the constituents here (and i know i get far too wordy most of the time) is that rock truly came from blues. it is rather blatent at first, but once it established its own genre, it grew into its own. this is something i've read about for as long as i can remember, and then public television ran a week-long special about two years ago about blues music and the point was driven home like a spike in my head...rock = revamped and jazzed-up blues. simple as that.
uuuhhh...the other thing is that 'the golden age' is only determined by one's current state. there's been enough golden ages, in my opinion, to believe that it is merely a state of perception based on context and experience.


opinions are like arm-pits. we all have more than one and they all stink. <!--emo&:P-->Image<!--endemo-->
Image
chicken
Smiths Nut!
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: an insomnia rehab centre; Salina, Kansas

Postby elko » Sat Sep 03, 2005 1:11 am

The blues, I'd say rock'n'roll came from there. But if rock came just from the blues, it would be the blues. To me rock music was initially about taking the style of the blues, and attaching to it the songcraft of what had been popular music before it; jazz, music hall, or musicals, whathaveyou.

The Beatles are the perfect embodiment of this, Lennon being blues, the gritty rock'n'roller, McCartney being music hall, the showman and the classicist.

And funny to think that almost all popular Western music of the last thirty has come from rock. Or as you might say, blues <!--emo&;)-->Image<!--endemo-->
elko
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 9:55 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Postby chicken » Sat Sep 03, 2005 1:29 am

<!--QuoteBegin-elko+Sep 3 2005, 01:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (elko @ Sep 3 2005, 01:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And funny to think that almost all popular Western music of the last thirty has come from rock. Or as you might say, blues <!--emo&;)-->Image<!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
you must hear some 'serious' blues at some point. you'll hear old school clapton, ridiculous led zeppelin, and the yardbirds.
the beatles, now that's almost not even fair. they took what they grew up with on the radio (the aforementioned) and transmutated it in a way that few great musical minds could do. except, of course, moz. and maybe mangum.
Image
chicken
Smiths Nut!
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: an insomnia rehab centre; Salina, Kansas

Next

Return to Music Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron