Ian Anderson addresses fan criticism of band member choices

[ronmac]

He clearly is not legally entitled to use the Jethro Tull name, because otherwise he'd be doing it.

What I'm looking at is a situation where IA has seized every chance imaginable in the last three years to use the words "Jethro Tull" in conjunction with his work. ...

No other explanation makes any sense at all...

Clearly, it's a conspiracy to confuse you.

[BarryLI]

Admittedly I haven't been paying close attention, but I thought I read that he was doing a concept tour, not an album. (Although it would not be surprising to see a live album or video release afterwards)

You thought right. It's a tour, but there will be five new songs worked in, nothing was said about an album.

[davis]

fwiw

[BarryLI]

Then prove it.

What I'm looking at is a situation where IA has seized every chance imaginable in the last three years to use the words "Jethro Tull" in conjunction with his work. He made a sequel to one one of Jethro Tull's best-known albums (Thick as a Brick 2). He toured under the banner of himself playing Jethro Tull music. And now, he's making a concept album about Jethro Tull the actual historical person, which will give IA another opportunity to emblazon "Jethro Tull" in big letters across the upcoming album. Basically, he has done everything that he could possibly do to get that Jethro Tull name on his music since the split with Barre, without actually declaring that it is the product of the band Jethro Tull. Yet, because the projects are supposedly "different" from Jethro Tull (they aren't) we're supposed to believe that this is actually just a common-sense choice by IA to distinguish his own work from that of Jethro Tull.

Right.

He either doesn't doesn't have the sole right to the name (meaning that if he uses "Jethro Tull" on anything he would have to share royalties with Barre), or he came to some sort of binding agreement with Barre at the time of their split.

No other explanation makes any sense at all, given what has actually transpired over the last three years with respect to the music. And to top it off, we're dealing with someone who has a history of making false statements to the press abouut personnel issues. The fact is that if IA had kept making music in the vein of Secret Language of Birds or Divinities or even gone off in another direction entirely, he might have some credibility in this regard. As it stands right now, he doesn't.

If you've listened to or read Ian's various explanations they go something like this: Some people expect to see MB when they come to a JT show, as Martin has gone on to greener pastures Ian decided to use his name as headliner instead of JT. That's pretty much it, if you think someone whose business acumen is as good as Ian's wouldn't have the intelligence to see that he could use the name of the band who he's fronted and written every song for since 1967 well I don't know what to tell you.

[Dave (in MA)]

If you've listened to or read Ian's various explanations they go something like this: Some people expect to see MB when they come to a JT show, as Martin has gone on to greener pastures Ian decided to use his name as headliner instead of JT. That's pretty much it, if you think someone whose business acumen is as good as Ian's wouldn't have the intelligence to see that he could use the name of the band who he's fronted and written every song for since 1967 well I don't know what to tell you.

That's pretty much not it, if you've read interviews with Barre from the past few years.
One such excerpt:

Yeah, well, it’s not something I really want to talk about. I think the fact of the matter is, I know nothing about it. When Ian announced on the American tour last year that he didn’t want to do any more Jethro Tull shows, Doane and I had no idea that he was planning to do “Thick As A Brick 2.” This was all stuff he had planned before he had told us anything. He told us nothing, yet, obviously, he had thought this through for a long time. It is what it is. Everybody has to draw their own conclusions. - See more at: http://www.goldminemag.com/article/j....wOjiZOUR.dpuf

[Adrian]

For what it's worth ...

http://dmme.net/interviews/ia.html

[interviewer] Now, temporarily away from TULL, could you imagine anybody else fronting the group? Thijs Van Leer, perhaps? Ian McDonald? Or Martin Barre who also plays a flute? I mean if you allow it.

[IA] I can’t imagine it for two good reasons. Number one: the copyright on the name JETHRO TULL for purposes of a musical group is owned by my company, so legally it will be impossible for somebody else to use the name without my giving it up. ...

[jkelman]

I think Steven Wilson's comment about why go solo when he was effectively the leader of Porcupine Tree - primary writer and singer - is similarly relevant and applicable when it comes to Ian Anderson and Tull, since Anderson owns Tull, making Facelift's comment about ownership and the rest of the fallout incorrect, so I'll quote it:

But beyond the issue of whether or not Porcupine Tree could play Wilson's current music is the question of would or should it do so. Back to Wilson's discussion of brand name, there may be more risks in going out under his own name now, with Porcupine Tree's 20-year history, but there's also more freedom and, paradoxically, more control. "I think the difference is that I would never ask the guys in Porcupine Tree to play music that I did not feel they would enjoy playing" says Wilson. "Whereas the difference, when you're hiring guys, is that although you still want them to enjoy playing the music, because they know it's my thing, they are more willing to try their hand at something else. Sort of like, 'You know, it's not what I'm into, but you know what? I'll go with it and I'll play it.'

"When you have a band that's been together as long as Porcupine Tree, there are all sorts of internal politics, and I simply wouldn't want to be performing something with them if I didn't think they were enjoying it," Wilson continues. "By definition, that then becomes the band sound, and although that is limiting, I use the word in the sense that it can also be positive. Porcupine Tree has a very distinct sound which people instantly recognize, and that sound comes from what we can all agree to play. Another way of putting it might be to say, if you took an artist like Frank Zappa, can you imagine a catalog that eclectic being made ever by the same group of musicians? That sort of democracy is just not possible. Only a solo artist could create such an eclectic catalog. In many respects, he's been my role model—to be able to be in a situation where I can surprise people with my next move. I think that's the difference. I mean, this is a band, but it's not a band [laughs]; and this time I'm going to keep it that way."

Hopefully this possible explanation makes sense...

[trurl]

The thing is, if MB does have a stake in the name then everything Ian says is true- he does own rights to the name, no one else can use it without his say-so, etc. But what Facelift says would also be true. If Ian and Martin have a contract that no band will be billed as Jethro Tull without the two of them it would make perfect sense for Ian to be doing what he's doing. Ian may own a rights to the Tull name but not exclusively. Or he may be bound by another agreement with Martin. In which case he's only telling part of the story.

[BarryLI]

The thing is, if MB does have a stake in the name then everything Ian says is true- he does own rights to the name, no one else can use it without his say-so, etc. But what Facelift says would also be true. If Ian and Martin have a contract that no band will be billed as Jethro Tull without the two of them it would make perfect sense for Ian to be doing what he's doing. Ian may own a rights to the Tull name but not exclusively. Or he may be bound by another agreement with Martin. In which case he's only telling part of the story.

Knowing the way Anderson conducts business, Fred, do you think he would have given over those rights? I sure don't. Especially in light of the John Glascock/Barrie Barlow funeral story, and other examples along the way. Ian has also talked about the fact he grew tired of the rude louts the Jethro Tull moniker attracted, and started doing his separate Ian Anderson tours to get away from those audiences.

[trurl]

Absolutely. I would be shocked if MB didn't own some share of the name. And the idea of Ian distancing himself from a certain aspect of the Tull audience is ludicrous. He does nothing without the Tull name prominently attached.

[BarryLI]

Absolutely. I would be shocked if MB didn't own some share of the name. And the idea of Ian distancing himself from a certain aspect of the Tull audience is ludicrous. He does nothing without the Tull name prominently attached.

We'll agree to disagree as to MB owning the name, as to the second it is a source of amusement that he said he's annoyed by fans shouting for Aqualung or Locomotive Breath, yet he always does play them, doesn't he?

[Reginod]

Absolutely. I would be shocked if MB didn't own some share of the name. And the idea of Ian distancing himself from a certain aspect of the Tull audience is ludicrous. He does nothing without the Tull name prominently attached.

Legal or via some kind of "Gentlemen's Agreement" or some hybrid of both, I would agree that it shouldn't be billed as Jethro Tull if Martin isn't there. If you've heard the last two rekkids or been to the shows, (I've done both) it's completely obvious that Ian is still "doing" Jethro Tull in every way possible EXCEPT putting the Tull name at the top of the Marquee.

The oddest thing about all of this, to me anyway, is how disappointing Martin's rekkids (Especially the most recent one) have been since he "left" Tull. He has a chance to really create something fresh and new, and show what he could have brought to Tull with a little more room to breathe, yet he seems to be "living in the past" even more than Ian.

I for one have really enjoyed (and am still enjoying) TAAB2 and Homo Erraticus. It's typical Ian and it's obviously Tull, albeit without Martin's unique presence.

Anybody noticed how Florian Opahle kinda resembles a younger, plumper Martin?

[martiprog]

Without any comment from Mr Barre, we're unlikely to learn whether he has a "share" in the name, but I doubt it. There may well be an understanding between the two, and of all the people who've passed through Tull, Martin is the one Ian obviously respects the most, although some will no doubt ask just how far that respect goes given Martin's comments about TAAB2 & Tull ending. Either way, Tull is over as far as new music is concerned.

[arturs]

Without any comment from Mr Barre, we're unlikely to learn whether he has a "share" in the name, but I doubt it. There may well be an understanding between the two, and of all the people who've passed through Tull, Martin is the one Ian obviously respects the most, although some will no doubt ask just how far that respect goes given Martin's comments about TAAB2 & Tull ending. Either way, Tull is over as far as new music is concerned.

I remember reading an interview circa 1990 where Anderson explained that the Tull name was owned by him, Martin and Dave Pegg collectively. With DP dropping out in 1995 I assume he would have given up his share. But that would still leave Martin as half owner.

[BarryLI]

I remember reading an interview circa 1990 where Anderson explained that the Tull name was owned by him, Martin and Dave Pegg collectively. With DP dropping out in 1995 I assume he would have given up his share. But that would still leave Martin as half owner.

Dave Pegg an owner of the name Jethro Tull? Just say no.

[martiprog]

I remember reading an interview circa 1990 where Anderson explained that the Tull name was owned by him, Martin and Dave Pegg collectively. With DP dropping out in 1995 I assume he would have given up his share. But that would still leave Martin as half owner.

Interesting - I'd not heard that. It is a long time ago, but if Pegg "dropped out", there would have been some legal alteration to reflect the change in ownership and of course, that may have meant some renegotiation of the deal with MB. There is no guarantee that ownership was equal shares, then or now (and if I was Ian, I would never have given away two thirds of the name to Peggy & Barre, or even 50% to just Martin) but if your memory serves you well, it is a sure thing that Martin would have been keen to retain his entitlement, whatever percentage that might be - and I suspect it would be a small percentage.

[Facelift]

I remember reading an interview circa 1990 where Anderson explained that the Tull name was owned by him, Martin and Dave Pegg collectively. With DP dropping out in 1995 I assume he would have given up his share. But that would still leave Martin as half owner.

Just a speculation, but if any kind of papers about name ownership shares were ever drawn up, I would expect that any shares for members who left the band would revert to IA, not get split amongst remaining members.

Anyway, based on the musical activities of IA, it seems to me that MB does have some degree of ownership of the name (even if it's just limited to receiving a share of royalties for projects undertaken using the name) or there was some kind of binding agreement made between the two that neither could call themselves Jethro Tull without the other. Nothing else would explain IA's "Jethro Tull in all but name" direction ever since the split.

[jkelman]

Absolutely. I would be shocked if MB didn't own some share of the name. And the idea of Ian distancing himself from a certain aspect of the Tull audience is ludicrous. He does nothing without the Tull name prominently attached.

How could he not? He's been Tull for 40+ years - the only remaining founder - writing and singing all the material. Just because he's deserting the Tull name in favour of his own on the marquee doesn't mean he can ignore his entire life's work...or close to. Again, like Wilson who, with the Raven tour, began very slowly reintroducing PT material and I've every expectation there'll be more to come on this tour.

[ronmac]

I love all the speculation around here. AFAIC, Ian is and will always be "Jethro Tull." He is the writer, voice, persona, attitude and torch-bearer, for better or worse. If MB was able to hold onto some ownership of the name, good for him. If not, he will still survive.

I'm willing to bet that they spend far less energy on the issue than we do here.

Sometimes, this place sounds like The Every Other Wednesday Afternoon Women's Auxiliary Club.

[ronmac]

Re: his attitude toward the audience, I think, after all these years, he's shown quite a bit of restraint.

[Facelift]

I love all the speculation around here. AFAIC, Ian is and will always be "Jethro Tull." He is the writer, voice, persona, attitude and torch-bearer, for better or worse. If MB was able to hold onto some ownership of the name, good for him. If not, he will still survive.

I'm willing to bet that they spend far less energy on the issue than we do here.

Sometimes, this place sounds like The Every Other Wednesday Afternoon Women's Auxiliary Club.

In all fairness, this discussion arose out of a lengthy piece on the subject that *he* wrote. Nobody is talking about this right now if he didn't raise the issue.

[BarryLI]

In all fairness, this discussion arose out of a lengthy piece on the subject that *he* wrote. Nobody is talking about this right now if he didn't raise the issue.

I think it's funny that despite Ian's protestations to the contrary one member claims he heard a line in a 35-year old interview and there are those treating it as fact, which it most assuredly isn't. As anal as Ian is with his business affairs I find the recollection to be dubious at best.

[ronmac]

In all fairness...

Yeah, right. Much of this discussion arose from unfounded claims.

[Garyhead]

One thing I took away from that statement.....Some of the former members, for health issues, can't play anymore.......

[Jerjo]

Sometimes, this place sounds like The Every Other Wednesday Afternoon Women's Auxiliary Club.

Except in Yes threads, where it's more like every day in a middle school girls drama club