Ian Anderson addresses fan criticism of band member choices

[Progatron]

https://www.facebook.com/officialjethrotull

The repertoire of Jethro Tull has been a huge part of my life over the last forty-seven years so it is great fun to find a new way to present some of my best-known songs in a different and fitting context.

As a tribute to the original 18th Century agriculturalist whose name our agent “borrowed” back in February 1968, I have imagined a scenario where the pioneering pursuit of improved crop-growing and farming methodology might apply to the world of today and tomorrow. (Yawn, yawn but who else is going to feed the planet?)

When this notion first occurred to me last Summer, I had no inkling that, when I examined all of my song material – especially the lyrics, there would be so many perfect fits in regard to song subject and references.

The life story of the original Tull (in as much as we have recorded historical detail of it) has so many interesting and workable parallels. Wind Up, Heavy Horses, Aqualung, Back to the family, Farm On The Freeway and Songs From The Wood amongst others were natural inclusions. A few others were bent into shape with a slight re-write of lyrics and five new songs round off the intended setlist.

Some of the material will be accompanied by brief performance inserts of our “virtual guests” on the big HD video screen. Instead of spoken introductions to the songs in the show, there will be the use of that operatic device, the “recitative”, where the links are made by short sung vocal segments in a usually-simple musical backdrop, making it a little easier and more entertaining for non-English-speaking audiences.

Putting this material in a quasi-operatic setting might annoy some. The use of the term “rock opera” may annoy yet others. I rather hate it myself but can't think of a universally-understood alternative. And, as we use some of the theatrical devices of opera, it can be defended. At a pinch! Forgive, forgive.

Tours for 2015 in the UK and USA are set in stone. Latin America, Russia are also in the intended schedule for the last four months of 2015 and many further dates are proposed in 2016.

And, of course, there will be a good few shows to come when different set lists can bring various other songs back from the repertoire in the venues and festivals where we can't do the full video production.

A word or two (OK – make it 730) about band members: I am rather bemused by the fan gossip surrounding who might be, or should be, at my side in concert. All of the musicians in the current band have performed as members of Jethro Tull during the last decade. They are fine musicians, wonderful people and my closest friends. I have seen some of them naked and all of them in their scanty panties.

There have been, arguably, 26 members of Jethro Tull over the years; a big extended family of musicians. A family who are usually delighted to see each other again after a period of absence but sometimes with the proviso that after a warm and welcoming cup of tea, they won't stay for lunch. You know how it is.

Of course, all Tull fans have their favourite line-up from a particular period. And, of course, Martin Barre features in most of them having been the stalwart Tull guitarist from 1969 to 2011. That he now fronts his own band and, as he says, enjoying the best musical time of his life, is a great and fitting place for him to be in his life right now. I wish my dear, twanging pal nothing less the than the best of fortune and happiness. For one, I had urged him to do more of his own band and solo work many years ago and so, even a little late in the game, he is making up for it now. Check out his website http://www.martinbarre.com for details of concerts and records.

Many other past band members went on to considerable success, sometimes even outside the musical world. Guitarist Mick and bassist Glenn from the first line-up formed their own bands and enjoyed periods of achievement (with a little help from Terry Ellis and Chris Wright of Chrysalis records...).

Others, like Jeffrey Hammond and John Evan left Tull to follow completely new paths in life. Some, like Barrie Barlow and Peter Vettese became record producers and studio owners.

Sadly, there have been some losses along the way. Glenn Cornick, John Glascock and Mark Craney passed following longstanding illness. A few plucky survivors have endured health ordeals and are still alive and reasonably well but no longer able to play today.

In some ways, it is like wishing for your favourite England football team of the last forty years to reconvene for the 2018 World Cup. David Beckham, Gazza, Gary Lineker et al. Good fun to fantasize but let's have in the Tull line-up Robert Plant on vocals and Ian Paice on drums while we are at it.

Being told by well-meaning friends that your girlfriend of forty-five years ago is the true love that you should have married for life, does not sit well with anyone. Or, if you split with a loved one, that somehow you owe it to the world to get back together when the relationship is no longer fulfilling to both parties, for whatever reason.

I treasure my musical relationships with all of the Tull musical family. I would have been nowhere without them. Each one of them has brought great joy and musical success to me in their different and unique ways. But forgive us if we don't actually want to wake up in bed next to each other in the present day. I am sure they will feel the same, especially after a veggie curry the night before.

Jethro Tull (the music band) goes on. In both the legacy of recorded repertoire and in live performance today. Happily, I remain reasonably fit and very committed to enjoying a few more years of recording and performing in concert.

But forgive me if I would like you to remember my name before I go. That is why – and call it vanity, if you will – I use my own real name in concert billing these days. That I should play my music under whatever name I choose is the same right that I would afford to you. Or Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens). Farrokh Bulsara, (Freddie Mercury), Don Van Vliet (Captain Beefheart) etc.

Mr Gordon Sting can be himself. So can Roger Waters and Peter Gabriel. Like Peter, at any rate, I still love and get on with my past band-mates. I have played on stage or on record with many of them over the years and hope that I continue to do so as opportunities arise.

For now, I still have my repertoire. Forty-seven years of making music as writer, performer and record producer with some 300-odd songs to show for it. Some of them are actually not too bad, I still think, after all these years. A few stinkers but we all miss some easy goals (back to the football analogy).

Hope to see you along the way in the months to come. If not, then I think as fondly of you as I hope you do of me.

Goodness me! It's almost noon. And one of my former band members (name withheld) is coming for Sunday lunch today. No, really: it's true! Time to chill the red wine and put the powdered gravy in the microwave.

Ian Anderson

[Sputnik]

To me, it doesn't matter much who's in Ian's band at this point. He gives them blessed little space to do anything meaningful. I saw the TAAB2 tour and everyone in the band was highly competent. Their true talents were more apparent on the older material which gave them more room to display them, but they rendered the new material as competently as the album. I'm not clear having Martin or whoever up there would have changed the game that much, or that working with any of the older Tull musicians would substantially change the nature of Anderson's current output.

Bill

[eporter66]

I must admit, that it was hard for me to accept that Martin was no longer part of the band. It did seem like a bitter split initially, and from what I've read (that needs to be said, because who knows what the real truth is), I dont think Ian handled it particularly well. Martin deserved better. It does seem that Ian understands the fan perspective from his statement above, we all have a favorite "period", or our favorite player at some point in the bands history. I am thankful that Ian is still creating, and touring, we are lucky that he is this active at this stage in his career. Tull's music has been an important part of my life, and I still enjoy listening to the music. So, rock on Ian, Martin, and all those who have delivered this great music of these many years!

[jkelman]

A great, characteristically well-thought out post from Anderson....with just a hint of humour as ever, too.

Im with him 100%. Sometimes, eventually, it's time for a change, and I think Tull has exemplified that as a regular way of doing business. More power to him.

[ronmac]

A great, characteristically well-thought out post from Anderson....with just a hint of humour as ever, too.

Im with him 100%. Sometimes, eventually, it's time for a change, and I think Tull has exemplified that as a regular way of doing business. More power to him.

+1

[mogrooves]

it was hard for me to accept that Martin was no longer part of the band. It did seem like a bitter split initially, and from what I've read ... I dont think Ian handled it particularly well. Martin deserved better.

I didn't follow JT after about '73; what's the story here?

[JKL2000]

I didn't follow JT after about '73; what's the story here?

They're became a heavy metal band.

[GuitarGeek]

I remember seeing Tull on The Tonight Show back in 92 or so, it was just after Jay Leno took over as host. Anyway, Tull were on to promote the 25 Years Of... boxset, and after doing one song (Living In The Past), Jay interviews Ian. At some point, the topic of the band name, and how it confuses people who think "Jethro Tull" is a solo artist came up. Ian mentions that there had been something like 20 people in the band over the years at that point, and that audience applauds, as if not being able to maintain a stable band lineup was some kind of remarkable achievement or something.

I also like how he mentions Sting, Roger Waters and Peter Gabriel, then tosses in, "Like Peter, at any rate, I still love and get on with my past band-mates", which sort of seems like a dig at Roger and Sting, and their respective inability to get along with their former bandmates.

And any time anyone brings up the origins of the name Jethro Tull, I'm always reminded of the European History class I took in the 10th grade. At one point, we were learning about the Industrial Revolution, which of course entails learning about the original Tull. So we had the "end of the chapter" test, and one of the essay questions was, "Who was Jethro Tull". Now, this one of those times where I had actually studied, so I knew I was going to be pass the test, so I thought I'd be a smart ass, and give him a few sentences about the band. However, before I could actually implement this plan, the teacher says, "I realize the name Jethro Tull has been used more recently, but I don't want you tell me about that Jethro Tull. I want to know about the original Jethro Tull". Clearly, this teacher had come across the likes of me before (well, sort of, I imagine that, as Mr. Hand would say, there could only be one me).

[Jerjo]

I wish him luck in his new enterprise and he has every right to do whatever the hell he wants. Don't know if I'll buy the new disc but that's beside the point.

[Digital_Man]

I wonder if that former band member coming over for Sunday lunch was Martin. Who knows?

So, I'm a bit confused here. Is Jethro Tull still a band or is Ian just putting together a back up band and calling it Jethro Tull. It seems he has a lot in common with "Ol' Bobby" as far as how he is the last man standing so to speak.

[Progatron]

I also like how he mentions Sting, Roger Waters and Peter Gabriel, then tosses in, "Like Peter, at any rate, I still love and get on with my past band-mates", which sort of seems like a dig at Roger and Sting, and their respective inability to get along with their former bandmates.

I highly doubt that's a dig at anybody. It's well known that those two have had major issues with former bandmates, whereas the Genesis crew all get along still, or at the very least they have mutual respect.




So, I'm a bit confused here. Is Jethro Tull still a band or is Ian just putting together a back up band and calling it Jethro Tull. It seems he has a lot in common with "Ol' Bobby" as far as how he is the last man standing so to speak.

Ian has said Tull is finished, and he wants his remaining years to be under his own name without the expectations that come with JT. He's been playing with these guys for years now. Obviously he's still going to play JT classics, as those are an enormous part of his career, and it may not be an interesting show to many people if the material played was entirely from his IA solo albums.

[Reginod]

Well it's pretty much Jethro Tull without the name up front, these days. "Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull" or something to that effect. The musical fabric is pretty much the same, minus Martin's ability to "weave" with Ian in that inimitable way.
Anyway IMO, without Martin, it isn't really appropriate to call it Jethro Tull. Even if it sorta kinda is.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Powered gravy sounds awful.

[trurl]

As much as I love and respect his body of work, sometimes Ian writes like a college debate team sophist prat. But, this is a pretty solid defense of where he's at and what he's up to. I'm cool with it.

[Facelift]

He clearly is not legally entitled to use the Jethro Tull name, because otherwise he'd be doing it. Would be nice if he would just own up to this, but he's always lied when it suited him, it's of little surprise that he's choosing to do so again now.

[ronmac]

He clearly is not legally entitled to use the Jethro Tull name, because otherwise he'd be doing it. Would be nice if he would just own up to this, but he's always lied when it suited him, it's of little surprise that he's choosing to do so again now.

Oh, Bullshit. He is using it. He's simply not calling the band by that name, which is fine with me. Seems to me that he's trying to distinguish himself from the band. It's not like he's totally disavowed his past.

[TheLongshot]

Given that Jethro Tull hasn't made any new music in 15 years, but Ian Anderson has written plenty of material under his own name, the band needed to be put to rest at some point. It finally got to the point where it needed to be and it was, so now it is time for people to move on.

[Progatron]

He clearly is not legally entitled to use the Jethro Tull name, because otherwise he'd be doing it. Would be nice if he would just own up to this, but he's always lied when it suited him, it's of little surprise that he's choosing to do so again now.

Completely false.


Given that Jethro Tull hasn't made any new music in 15 years, but Ian Anderson has written plenty of material under his own name, the band needed to be put to rest at some point. It finally got to the point where it needed to be and it was, so now it is time for people to move on.

Technically, new music was made for the Christmas album if you want to count that...but even that is now over 11 years old! I actually like Dot Com, which is not a popular opinion but what can I say, I'm a lover of all things JT/IA.

[BarryLI]

He clearly is not legally entitled to use the Jethro Tull name, because otherwise he'd be doing it. Would be nice if he would just own up to this, but he's always lied when it suited him, it's of little surprise that he's choosing to do so again now. No doubt, I've heard from various sources Mick Abrahams has control.

[Facelift]

Completely false.


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.

[Progatron]

Then prove it.

Nope, I don't feel I need to. You've got it all figured out, more power to ya.

[Facelift]

Nope, I don't feel I need to. You've got it all figured out, more power to ya.

OK then.

Well, in any event, I will give any new IA music a chance, as '70s Tull was a big part of my intoduction to prog. As long as he and Martin Barre are happy with where they are in their careers, that's all that really matters.

[Progatron]

Well, in any event, I will give any new IA music a chance, as '70s Tull was a big part of my intoduction to prog. As long as he and Martin Barre are happy with where they are in their careers, that's all that really matters.

Agreed, and nice to hear, as there are a lot of people who do not give new music from Ian a chance. It's often criticized before it's even released! I tend to like pretty much everything he does, aside from a song here and there. I don't think the latter-day albums are on par with the 70s stuff by any stretch, but they're still good IMO, and aside from the narration on TAAB2, I enjoy spinning them on a semi-regular basis.

[progeezer]

(Tosses grenade into the room) Ian, while perhaps a bit pompous and condescending imo in that treatise, could still give Geoff Downes lessons in tact and self-control.

[Dave (in MA)]

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.
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)

[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.

:lol

[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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deI8xftmDdg

[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/jethro-tull-guitarist-martin-barre-takes-high-road-on-taab2-rift#sthash.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...

:lol

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

[arturs]

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.

Of course I might be misremembering, but the interview left an impression b/c I personally was surprised that Pegg was a part owner.

My only aim in posting my recollection was to provide some relevant info for the discussion. Accept it or not, totally up to you. But I don't think Ian says anything that contradicts my information, as you seem to think.

[BarryLI]

Of course I might be misremembering, but the interview left an impression b/c I personally was surprised that Pegg was a part owner.

My only aim in posting my recollection was to provide some relevant info for the discussion. Accept it or not, totally up to you. But I don't think Ian says anything that contradicts my information, as you seem to think. All I'm saying is I've seen/read a ton of stuff Ian has written/taped over the past 46 years, never heard that in any way, shape, or form. Is it possible? Absolutely, but it would shock the hell outta me if true.

[Dave (in MA)]

5011

[arturs]

All I'm saying is I've seen/read a ton of stuff Ian has written/taped over the past 46 years, never heard that in any way, shape, or form. Is it possible? Absolutely, but it would shock the hell outta me if true.

Understood, no worries... Among all the interviews you have seen/read have you ever heard Ian say anything about the band name ownership?

[BarryLI]

Understood, no worries... Among all the interviews you have seen/read have you ever heard Ian say anything about the band name ownership? Were I on the witness stand my answer would have to be "no." As I'm not (trust me) I've been an avid follower of Tull since Benefit, have seen them (him) every year since, sometimes multiple shows while in the area, have read all (and I do mean all) of the various Tull books, watched every interview I could find (and continue to do so), having studied the type of person Ian is (OK, a megalomaniac but I don't work for him, thank God) I cannot fathom that he would relinquish control of anything regarding the music he writes, arranges, produces and sings, and that includes the name of his band. That's all I've got.

[chalkpie]

Let's keep talking about this but start over again from scratch. :)

[Facelift]

Were I on the witness stand my answer would have to be "no." As I'm not (trust me) I've been an avid follower of Tull since Benefit, have seen them (him) every year since, sometimes multiple shows while in the area, have read all (and I do mean all) of the various Tull books, watched every interview I could find (and continue to do so), having studied the type of person Ian is (OK, a megalomaniac but I don't work for him, thank God) I cannot fathom that he would relinquish control of anything regarding the music he writes, arranges, produces and sings, and that includes the name of his band. That's all I've got.

And yet IA's actual behavior over the last three years would suggest otherwise.

Why wouldn't a share of the revenue generated under the Jethro Tull name be something that other long-standing members (Martin Barre) would get, as part of their compensation? It happens all the time in other business enterprises. Business owners frequently "relinquish" some of their ownership to compensate other important contributors. Barre had been there since 1969, which was well before IA was running things from the top down. Common sense would dictae that Barre has some ownership in the name, and manner in which IA has run and promoted his own recent musical enterprises is indicative of this as well. Again, it's not necessarily as if IA would be legally prohibited from using the JT name, but that he may have to share some of the money with Barre (at a minimum) if he did so.

[ronmac]

And yet IA's actual behavior over the last three years would suggest otherwise.

Why wouldn't a share of the revenue generated under the Jethro Tull name be something that other long-standing members (Martin Barre) would get, as part of their compensation? It happens all the time in other business enterprises. Business owners frequently "relinquish" some of their ownership to compensate other important contributors. Barre had been there since 1969, which was well before IA was running things from the top down. Common sense would dictae that Barre has some ownership in the name, and manner in which IA has run and promoted his own recent musical enterprises is indicative of this as well. Again, it's not necessarily as if IA would be legally prohibited from using the JT name, but that he may have to share some of the money with Barre (at a minimum) if he did so.

This is all conjecture. Do you know for a fact that MB gets no royalties?

[Facelift]

This is all conjecture. Do you know for a fact that MB gets no royalties?

I don't know that this is important, since nobody else does, either. I was simply supplementing one person's conjecture with my own.

People draw conlcusions from circumstances all of the time.

[BarryLI]

This is all conjecture. Do you know for a fact that MB gets no royalties? My turn to recall: When questions about the former members of Tull who didn't enjoy their experience in the band are tossed at Ian his glib response is usually that they do like him at least one day a year, the day the royalty checks arrive. Assuming the accuracy of that statement do you think that means that Mick Abrahams or Glenn Cornick own the name Jethro Tull? You can be eligible for a royalty without a controlling interest in the band, no?

[ronmac]

My turn to recall: When questions about the former members of Tull who didn't enjoy their experience in the band are tossed at Ian his glib response is usually that they do like him at least one day a year, the day the royalty checks arrive. Assuming the accuracy of that statement do you think that means that Mick Abrahams or Glenn Cornick own the name Jethro Tull? You can be eligible for a royalty without a controlling interest in the band, no?

I was specifically referring to royalties. I was not referring to controlling interests.

[BarryLI]

I was specifically referring to royalties. I was not referring to controlling interests. And I was not answering you, I was answering the gentleman who insists that Ian decided to share the name Jethro Tull with his fellow bandmembers so he's no longer able to use it without their consent.

[Facelift]

And I was not answering you, I was answering the gentleman who insists that Ian decided to share the name Jethro Tull with his fellow bandmembers so he's no longer able to use it without their consent.

I only raised this as one possibility. Another possibility is that he can use the name Jethro Tull, but would then have to pay a share of the revenue generated from any use of the name to Martin Barre and, possibly, others. One way around this would be to not perform or record under the working name "Jethro Tull," but to nevertheless make it abundantly clear to the audience that this is, more or less, exactly what is going on. Like, for example, working under the name Ian Anderson, but doing a sequel to one of the best-loved '70s Jethro Tull albums, using the name Jethro Tull in conjunction the tours, and doing a rock opera about the person that the band name "Jethro Tull" was named after. And, at every opportunity in the press, re-affirming that Ian Anderson, for all intents and purposes, *is* Jethro Tull, and has been since around the time that Mick Abrahams left. You know, stuff like that.

There are all kinds of ways for stakes in a name to be apportioned. Having a stake in the name of the band does not necessarily mean that the band cannot exist without all stake-holders participating (though it certainly *could*). More often than not, it all just boils down to who is owed what in terms of money.

[BarryLI]

I only raised this as one possibility. Another possibility is that he can use the name Jethro Tull, but would then have to pay a share of the revenue generated from any use of the name to Martin Barre and, possibly, others. One way around this would be to not perform or record under the working name "Jethro Tull," but to nevertheless make it abundantly clear to the audience that this is, more or less, exactly what is going on. Like, for example, working under the name Ian Anderson, but doing a sequel to one of the best-loved '70s Jethro Tull albums, using the name Jethro Tull in conjunction the tours, and doing a rock opera about the person that the band name "Jethro Tull" was named after. And, at every opportunity in the press, re-affirming that Ian Anderson, for all intents and purposes, *is* Jethro Tull, and has been since around the time that Mick Abrahams left. You know, stuff like that.

There are all kinds of ways for stakes in a name to be apportioned. Having a stake in the name of the band does not necessarily mean that the band cannot exist without all stake-holders participating (though it certainly *could*). More often than not, it all just boils down to who is owed what in terms of money.My own opinion (based on nothing) is that having MB having played guitar with Tull since '69, and outlasting all other members except Ian in the process sent the signal that when you went to see Tull you'd also be seeing Martin. I'm surprised that he survived the Great Purge of 1980 actually, in any event Ian had taken his solo show on the road for years playing with different musicians from those in Tull, and after sacking Martin (he was surely sacked) decided to carry on with his solo act musicians, and by not using the Tull moniker nobody would be disappointed when Martin went MIA from the line-up. You could even consider it a compliment to Martin, no Martin, no Tull, which at the end of the day makes no difference to me as I've always considered Anderson as JT, with perhaps the exception of the 1972-79 band who had their own special flavor as well.

[ronmac]

And I was not answering you, I was answering the gentleman who insists that Ian decided to share the name Jethro Tull with his fellow bandmembers so he's no longer able to use it without their consent.

Okay, well, you replied to my quote, didn't you?

Seems we agree, then.

[Facelift]

I'm surprised that he survived the Great Purge of 1980 actually.

I don't know... who else was he going to use? He liked him enough to play on his solo album (which turned into A), so I don't know why he wouldn't have continued to play with him in Tull, presuming that he had envisioned the band continuing into the '80s before the record company weighed in on the matter.

[BarryLI]

I don't know... who else was he going to use? He liked him enough to play on his solo album (which turned into A), so I don't know why he wouldn't have continued to play with him in Tull, presuming that he had envisioned the band continuing into the '80s before the record company weighed in on the matter.Another recollection: Ian asked Martin to play guitar for him on the then solo album A, and Martin attempted to disuade him saying that it might be good for Ian to record with different bandmates seeing as it was a solo venture, but Ian insisted that Martin come along for the ride. I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that the other 3 members were not included (and were eventually sacked), only Martin knows.

[bondegezou]

Being told by well-meaning friends that your girlfriend of forty-five years ago is the true love that you should have married for life, does not sit well with anyone. Or, if you split with a loved one, that somehow you owe it to the world to get back together when the relationship is no longer fulfilling to both parties, for whatever reason.

An analogy Steve Howe has used as well.

Henry

[jkelman]

People draw conlcusions from circumstances all of the time.

Yeah, and in some cases folks get sent to prison for decades for precisely that reason, only to be released when the true facts come out :)

Not saying this is in the same league, of course; but I'm a big believer in not making assumptions based on a collection of circumstances that only might suggest something; I'd rather wait until I got the real information.

We all do, as you say, make assumptions based on circumstances - and that includes me. But it's something I try very hard to avoid, especially as a writer, because it impacts credibility in a big way. And once you lose credibility....you ain't got much else left to stand on.

Cheers!
John

[Dan Roth]

Martin Barre speaks out a bit on Anderson's decision to pull the plug on Tull:

http://prog.teamrock.com/news/2015-10-22/jethro-tull-end-was-big-shock-martin-barre

One of his quotes from that article: “Now there is not a Jethro Tull. Maybe there will be in five or 10 years, but probably not. It’s sad, because I see bands like Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles and Toto out there having very successful tours. They’re very special bands, and they’re enjoying a resurgence of interest from that era. But unfortunately we’re not part of that.”

[Jondon4]

Part of the confusion is that there are different types of royalties. Under U.S. copyright law, when a Jethro Tull album is sold the musicians get royalties for their performance as well as the composers. When someone else performs a Jethro Tull song, only the composer(s) gets a royalty. It's unlikely Ian could legally change copyright law although UK performance rights may differ from the U.S. But, over the years, the constantly changing line-up under Ian's management would suggest that the entity known as Jethro Tull is a business in which he was the sole owner, thus meaning the others were paid employees hired for specific tours and album recordings. Yes did the same thing as its been reported that Squire owned the Yes name, although the evolution of LLC's has made it easier for a group to form a business for a limited time before dissolution. If Martin had been part owner I find it hard to believe the company was dissolved without his knowing. More likely he was a paid employee like all the other (26)? members had been over the years but out of friendship and undeniable talent was retained until Ian made the decision to begin performing under his own moniker. I also understand his desire to stop playing for the rowdy drunks that show up at Jethro Tull concerts. He may still enjoy playing the songs. My final conclusion is that Ian is telling the truth and people are just looking for drama.

[BarryLI]

Part of the confusion is that there are different types of royalties. Under U.S. copyright law, when a Jethro Tull album is sold the musicians get royalties for their performance as well as the composers. When someone else performs a Jethro Tull song, only the composer(s) gets a royalty. It's unlikely Ian could legally change copyright law although UK performance rights may differ from the U.S. But, over the years, the constantly changing line-up under Ian's management would suggest that the entity known as Jethro Tull is a business in which he was the sole owner, thus meaning the others were paid employees hired for specific tours and album recordings. Yes did the same thing as its been reported that Squire owned the Yes name, although the evolution of LLC's has made it easier for a group to form a business for a limited time before dissolution. If Martin had been part owner I find it hard to believe the company was dissolved without his knowing. More likely he was a paid employee like all the other (26)? members had been over the years but out of friendship and undeniable talent was retained until Ian made the decision to begin performing under his own moniker. I also understand his desire to stop playing for the rowdy drunks that show up at Jethro Tull concerts. He may still enjoy playing the songs. My final conclusion is that Ian is telling the truth and people are just looking for drama.

In all fairness Ian brings some of that on himself with his occasional missives, like the one above.

[Facelift]

Part of the confusion is that there are different types of royalties. Under U.S. copyright law, when a Jethro Tull album is sold the musicians get royalties for their performance as well as the composers. When someone else performs a Jethro Tull song, only the composer(s) gets a royalty. It's unlikely Ian could legally change copyright law although UK performance rights may differ from the U.S. But, over the years, the constantly changing line-up under Ian's management would suggest that the entity known as Jethro Tull is a business in which he was the sole owner, thus meaning the others were paid employees hired for specific tours and album recordings. Yes did the same thing as its been reported that Squire owned the Yes name, although the evolution of LLC's has made it easier for a group to form a business for a limited time before dissolution. If Martin had been part owner I find it hard to believe the company was dissolved without his knowing.

Why? If Barre had an ownership share, I'm sure it wasn't equal to IA's, and that's all that would matter.

Anyway, even if - hypothetically - Barre could legally assemble a band and call it Jethro Tull without IA being in it, would anybody care all that much?

[RapidRefresh]

The idea of Anderson performing without Barre is outrageous. Martin still tours and plays Tull music and this is a slap in the face. Shame on Ian and his lousy newer albums.:mad

[Facelift]

The idea of Anderson performing without Barre is outrageous. Martin still tours and plays Tull music and this is a slap in the face. Shame on Ian and his lousy newer albums.:mad

Outrageous? I don't think so. I mean it sucks for Barre to more or less get dumped, but Ian (whether because he had to or because he wanted to - we don't know) created a situation where the name is used by neither, but both can play all of the Tull songs that they want in their own shows.

As far as the new IA albums... yeah, I don't think that they're very good at all, but I like the fact that they exist. I like that there is one of the old classic rockers out there making new albums and trying to make his career about his new stuff as much or even more than the old stuff. The old stuff had its day and those days are gone. Now, it's certainly true that IA has been linking his new stuff quite strongly with the past work of Tull, so it's not like his new material represents an actual break from the past, but neither is he an overt nostalgia act the way that so many other of the older bands have become.

It certainly puzzles me Thick as a Brick II was the first thing he did *after* dissolving Tull, but it just confirms to me that there is probably more to the Anderson/Barre split than has yet been reported.

[Harbottle]

Part of the confusion is that there are different types of royalties. Under U.S. copyright law, when a Jethro Tull album is sold the musicians get royalties for their performance as well as the composers. When someone else performs a Jethro Tull song, only the composer(s) gets a royalty. It's unlikely Ian could legally change copyright law although UK performance rights may differ from the U.S. But, over the years, the constantly changing line-up under Ian's management would suggest that the entity known as Jethro Tull is a business in which he was the sole owner, thus meaning the others were paid employees hired for specific tours and album recordings. Yes did the same thing as its been reported that Squire owned the Yes name, although the evolution of LLC's has made it easier for a group to form a business for a limited time before dissolution. If Martin had been part owner I find it hard to believe the company was dissolved without his knowing. More likely he was a paid employee like all the other (26)? members had been over the years but out of friendship and undeniable talent was retained until Ian made the decision to begin performing under his own moniker. I also understand his desire to stop playing for the rowdy drunks that show up at Jethro Tull concerts. He may still enjoy playing the songs. My final conclusion is that Ian is telling the truth and people are just looking for drama.

Ex-members of Tull do, apparently, get songwriting royalties for the songs. I read an interview with Ian where he talked about working out the royalties for ex members who had written riffs or passages of songs.

[pb2015]

Ian had a commentary post a few years back about UK copyrights where he mentioned that some former members of the band lived off of their royalties.

[Jerjo]

You know, I got no problem with the last two Ian albums: TaaB2 and Homo Erraticus. They might not grip me as emotionally as the 70s stuff but they are still respectable pieces of work and do nothing to diminish Ian in my eyes.

[wilcox660]

You know, I got no problem with the last two Ian albums: TaaB2 and Homo Erraticus. They might not grip me as emotionally as the 70s stuff but they are still respectable pieces of work and do nothing to diminish Ian in my eyes. This. :)

[Progatron]

You know, I got no problem with the last two Ian albums: TaaB2 and Homo Erraticus. They might not grip me as emotionally as the 70s stuff but they are still respectable pieces of work and do nothing to diminish Ian in my eyes.


This. :)

Yeah, I agree here as well. There are several strong tracks that I enjoy between those albums.

[Mstove]

Yeah, I agree here as well. There are several strong tracks that I enjoy between those albums.

Same here. Both were better than I expected going in. Particularly TaaB2 as I thought that would not be much - I had higher expectations after that.

[Jondon4]

That's certainly possible, but if so their name(s) would join his as legal composers, though anytime I see the attribution the songs always say "Written by Ian Anderson." He himself has bragged that he has been the sole composer of Jethro Tull music over the years. Other artists have followed the Beatles, Genesis and Yes' lead. The Beatles listed most everything as "Lennon/McCartney," although many of their most famous songs were exclusively written by one or the other. Genesis usually attributed the writing to the whole group (Written my Genesis), whereas Yes simply listed everyone as contributors (Anderson, Squire, White and ((add your favorite name)), which effectively resolves any legal disputes as to who wrote what. Most likely the reports of Tull bandmates' royalties refers to their performances and not the composition but I suppose Ian could have arranged something that provided income without legal recognition.

[trurl]

It's well known that Barre wrote things like the instrumental section of Minstrel in the Gallery. Publishing can be set up so that there can be people credited as writers for royalty purposes that are not publicly credited as songwriters. It's very common ;)

[Mister Triscuits]

It's well known that Barre wrote things like the instrumental section of Minstrel in the Gallery.

That's one of the very few songs he did get a co-writing credit on...although Anderson was careful to credit him only on the album version, not the single edit which didn't include that section!

[pb2015]

A few of the Tull albums have credits for "additional material" to Barre and other members.

[RapidRefresh]

Outrageous? I don't think so. I mean it sucks for Barre to more or less get dumped, but Ian (whether because he had to or because he wanted to - we don't know) created a situation where the name is used by neither, but both can play all of the Tull songs that they want in their own shows.

As far as the new IA albums... yeah, I don't think that they're very good at all, but I like the fact that they exist. I like that there is one of the old classic rockers out there making new albums and trying to make his career about his new stuff as much or even more than the old stuff. The old stuff had its day and those days are gone. Now, it's certainly true that IA has been linking his new stuff quite strongly with the past work of Tull, so it's not like his new material represents an actual break from the past, but neither is he an overt nostalgia act the way that so many other of the older bands have become.

It certainly puzzles me Thick as a Brick II was the first thing he did *after* dissolving Tull, but it just confirms to me that there is probably more to the Anderson/Barre split than has yet been reported. Huh? Could not Ian have done the decent thing and credited Barre as a guest player on his solo albums. Colin Blunstone did the same after the Zombies broke up in the 60's and used Rod Argent as both a player and/or producer on his 2nd and 3rd solo albums. No ego nonsense there. Sorry, but Anderson is an ass, IMHO.

[Progression/John]

I must admit, that it was hard for me to accept that Martin was no longer part of the band. It did seem like a bitter split initially, and from what I've read (that needs to be said, because who knows what the real truth is), I dont think Ian handled it particularly well. Martin deserved better. It does seem that Ian understands the fan perspective from his statement above, we all have a favorite "period", or our favorite player at some point in the bands history. I am thankful that Ian is still creating, and touring, we are lucky that he is this active at this stage in his career. Tull's music has been an important part of my life, and I still enjoy listening to the music. So, rock on Ian, Martin, and all those who have delivered this great music of these many years! I interviewed Martin Barre a few days ago. Suffice to say he has moved on but considers the demise of Jethro Tull a huge opportunity lost, especially on the concert stage.

[martiprog]

I interviewed Martin Barre a few days ago. Suffice to say he has moved on but considers the demise of Jethro Tull a huge opportunity lost, especially on the concert stage.

And that I have to agree with

[bondegezou]

over the years, the constantly changing line-up under Ian's management would suggest that the entity known as Jethro Tull is a business in which he was the sole owner, thus meaning the others were paid employees hired for specific tours and album recordings. Yes did the same thing as its been reported that Squire owned the Yes name, although the evolution of LLC's has made it easier for a group to form a business for a limited time before dissolution.

Squire has never had sole ownership of the Yes name: that's purely a fan myth. The band was run as an LLC co-owned, of late, by Squire, Howe and White. Davison, David, O. Wakeman &c. have been paid employees.

Henry

[bondegezou]

Outrageous? I don't think so. I mean it sucks for Barre to more or less get dumped, but Ian (whether because he had to or because he wanted to - we don't know) created a situation where the name is used by neither, but both can play all of the Tull songs that they want in their own shows.

Anyone can play any song by anyone else live whenever they want. There was no situation whereby both wouldn't be able to play all of the Tull songs they wanted in their own shows.

Henry

[bondegezou]

That's certainly possible, but if so their name(s) would join his as legal composers, though anytime I see the attribution the songs always say "Written by Ian Anderson." He himself has bragged that he has been the sole composer of Jethro Tull music over the years. Other artists have followed the Beatles, Genesis and Yes' lead. The Beatles listed most everything as "Lennon/McCartney," although many of their most famous songs were exclusively written by one or the other. Genesis usually attributed the writing to the whole group (Written my Genesis), whereas Yes simply listed everyone as contributors (Anderson, Squire, White and ((add your favorite name)), which effectively resolves any legal disputes as to who wrote what. Most likely the reports of Tull bandmates' royalties refers to their performances and not the composition but I suppose Ian could have arranged something that provided income without legal recognition.

Yes went back and forth on who to list as composers. Early on, they tended to just list the person with the basic idea for the song, probably unjustly ignoring significant contributions by others. By CttE, you're getting quite complicated songwriting credits, before they switch to just crediting everything to everyone for the next two albums, and then back to varying credits on a song-by-song basis for the next two albums, and then back to group credits... and so on and so on.

Fly from Here and Heaven & Earth had distinct credits, whereas Magnification and The Ladder hadn't, in part reportedly because Howe didn't like the credit-everything-to-everyone approach.

Henry

[Facelift]

Anyone can play any song by anyone else live whenever they want. There was no situation whereby both wouldn't be able to play all of the Tull songs they wanted in their own shows.

Henry

Yes, I'm aware of that. What I meant was that, by breaking up with Barre, Anderson nevertheless left a situation where both men could play Jethro Tull songs on their own tours. I'm psyched to see his band play in NYC in December.

[kid_runningfox]

I interviewed Martin Barre a few days ago. Suffice to say he has moved on but considers the demise of Jethro Tull a huge opportunity lost, especially on the concert stage.

Really? I'm somewhat surprised by that, as Barre has said subsequently that he was becoming distinctly concerned about the stagnant nature of JT's in-concert repertoire and the increasingly obvious inability of IA to sing those songs he was still prepared to do in concert. Moreover, I was under the impression that there were tensions over IA's unwillingness to make any new Jethro Tull studio albums. Seems to me that the demise of JT was inevitable and probably the best thing for both sides, under the circumstances, though it does appear that it was very badly handled by Anderson. Certainly Martin's sets with his own band are far more adventurous than anything Tull have done for decades, though I wouldn't imagine they're anywhere near as lucrative as a Tull tour.

[Progression/John]

Really? I'm somewhat surprised by that, as Barre has said subsequently that he was becoming distinctly concerned about the stagnant nature of JT's in-concert repertoire and the increasingly obvious inability of IA to sing those songs he was still prepared to do in concert. Moreover, I was under the impression that there were tensions over IA's unwillingness to make any new Jethro Tull studio albums. Seems to me that the demise of JT was inevitable and probably the best thing for both sides, under the circumstances, though it does appear that it was very badly handled by Anderson. Certainly Martin's sets with his own band are far more adventurous than anything Tull have done for decades, though I wouldn't imagine they're anywhere near as lucrative as a Tull tour. Without giving too much away from what will appear in print: Martin said he campaigned hard and long with Ian to embellish stage production (including addition of guest musicians) and diversify the set list in later years. Essentially, he said Jethro Tull could've re-established itself as a "big" touring band with all the theatrical bells and whistles of the '70s and '80s but Ian just wasn't interested. Ian's voice limitations could've been "worked around" but the main issue appears to be that Anderson considered Tull as somewhat of an albatross and unceremoniously pulled the plug. Barre said he still is saddened by that.

[trurl]

Moreover, I was under the impression that there were tensions over IA's unwillingness to make any new Jethro Tull studio albums.

Which was really odd because the moment he dissolved Tull from a technical standpoint he he made two Tull albums. If I were Martin that would have truly chapped my ass. "Nope. Don't want to make albums sorry. Oh- now you're gone. OK, I'll make albums." I'd be, like, dude- F**k you. :p

[bondegezou]

Which was really odd because the moment he dissolved Tull from a technical standpoint he he made two Tull albums. If I were Martin that would have truly chapped my ass. "Nope. Don't want to make albums sorry. Oh- now you're gone. OK, I'll make albums." I'd be, like, dude- F**k you. :p

Indeed. It's like when my cat wants belly strokes, and then turns round and scratches me. But, you know, less cute.

Henry

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

I think it is cool and amazing that Ian even acknowledges shit like this. Like its any of our business what he chooses to do artistically, in name, or in any other way.

[Facelift]

Indeed. It's like when my cat wants belly strokes, and then turns round and scratches me. But, you know, less cute.

Henry

He hasn't exactly got a reputation for being either nice, fair or equitable.

[bondegezou]

He hasn't exactly got a reputation for being either nice, fair or equitable.

Yes, but he's got a very cute, fluffy tummy.

Hold on, are we talking about my cat or Ian Anderson?

Henry