Originally Posted by rcarlberg
Maybe each could hire the guy who sings in Journey to cover the vocals?
Maybe each could hire the guy who sings in Journey to cover the vocals?
Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
Ian has the rep of being incredibly egotistical. Putting his name out front on the road may be his motive.
To be or not to be? That is the point. - Harry Nilsson.
Looks like Martin Barre will be doing an anniversary tour next year with some ex-Tull members aboard. But of course it won't be called Jethro Tull.
Ian has more $ than you can shake a stick at.
There was a feature in one of the big British newspapers about Ian's country estate a few years ago. We discussed it here on PE. IIRC his house is worth 10 million pounds or more...
Facelift, my point was:
Your concerns for the Tull customers honors you, but if their enjoyment of a JT concert primarily depends on MB’s participation (1), they could simply go to www.martinbarre.com (2), which unequivocally states that he is not part of the band at this point; in 2017, this sort of information can be obtained effortlessly. It’s not arcane knowledge.
As for the casual fans going to the gig without gleaning the supposedly requisite information beforehand: They most likely just don’t care enough about who is and who isn’t in the band, as chalkpie said. Those who do suddenly discover during the concert that JT sans MB is an unacceptable proposition can still (probably) get refunds. Or they could rock out to Aqualoco, have a good time . . . and then go get refunds afterwards. Because, you know, that Jethro Tull bloke totally conned them. Oh, he is an awful fellow.
PS: Your suggested disclaimer arbitrarily limits itself to MB and I wonder why. Many of the other musicians mentioned in my “misquote” significantly shaped JT’s sound during their tenure in the band, some of them arguably as much as MB (3).
(1) Totally understandable, though I don’t share that view.
(2) 85 % of European households have internet access from home; more than 70% have smartphones; those who have neither can still go online by visiting a local library.
(3) IMO, the formula IA plus MB equals JT is crude reductionism (unless one only has ears for the lead guitar).
"Dem Glücklichen legt auch der Hahn ein Ei."
And Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond.
You're using fallacious logic.
Jethro Tull ceased to exist *because* Ian Anderson and Martin Barre split. They clearly have some kind of agreement regarding this, since Ian Anderson has used every permutation and juxtaposition of the words "Jethro Tull" and himself over the last 5+ years, without ever actually calling his group Jethro Tull. He even released a solo album called "Thick as a Brick 2," but did so under his own name.
I never said that most people who like Jethro Tull identify Martin Barre as being either the most important or an indispensable component of Jethro Tull. What I did say was that most people who still cared about Jethro Tull in 2011 were aware that the reason why they broke up was because Ian Anderson and Martin Barre stopped working together. It would stand to reason, then, that if Jethro Tull was suddenly become an active entity (and it's important to establish here that this is NOT happening - this is still the Ian Anderson solo band playing the music of Jethro Tull) it is my opinion that most people who cared about Jethro Tull in 2011 and still care about them in 2017 would assume (and would be totally right in doing so) that Martin Barre and Ian Anderson had reunited.
In any event, like I said, this hasn't happened. Ian Anderson has NOT revived the Jethro Tull name. This is just another permutation that Ian Anderson - ever the unrepentant narcissist (see the ongoing thread about being able to like the music of artists who are assholes for further enlightenment - IA figures prominently in the thread) is using to get around the agreement/legal barrier in place that prohibits him from using the name outright.
I’m not claiming that IA and MB have not decided to stop working together as JT. Obviously, MB has gone solo and is enjoying it. AFAIK, that was his decision. Does that mean that JT has “ceased to be” or that there are legalities preventing IA from reviving JT? If so, how come the recent string quartet album was released as JT?
Make of that what you will, but my fallacious logic suggests that IA actually does have the right to work as JT.
So what if he assembles a group of players (sans MB) and tours under the JT banner again? There is no evidence that this constitutes a breach of contract. Besides, Anderson has stated (in 2015) that “Jethro Tull (the music band) goes on”. It may not be your or my idea of JT, but who cares? If we don’t like the new lineup, nobody’s forcing us to go.
"Dem Glücklichen legt auch der Hahn ein Ei."
No Pete, No Beatles!
What a silly thread this is becoming.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
Correct. I ain't goin'. It's not Jethro Tull.
Gnish-gnosh borble wiff, shlauuffin oople tirk.
The guy who wrote the music and lyrics, sang, played, arranged, hired and fired countless musicians tours but isn't Jethro Tull because of one musician's firing? Don't see it.
Or put another way does Jethro Tull exist without MB? You bet your bippy it does, and would.
Would it exist without IA? Silly question.
The legalities of the name Jethro Tull have not been made public. I'm not claiming that I know what they are, but I also highly doubt that anybody other than IA, MB, their lawyers, and perhaps a few other people close to the situation know, either. So we can work forward from the perspective that neither of us know.
So, all we have to go on is what has actually happened. What actually happened was the immediate cessation of the the use of the name Jethro Tull as an active entity, with IA and MB embarking on solo careers that both heavily lean on the Jethro Tull material. Over the years, IA has used his own name in conjunction with the words Jethro Tull, without ever claiming that his band *is* Jethro Tull. Quite clearly, he is being prohibited - either legally, or by his word to MB - from doing so. Why in the world would he release a sequel to Jethro Tull's best-selling album and not call it a Jethro Tull album? It would stand to reason that it's because he can't.
As I said before, it's good to see that he knows his place.
It usually happens when Bart Simpson shows up. Sad.
Seeing the kind of person IA is (he hasn't accumulated $20M+ by being a dummy), and the kind of influence he deals to his hired hands (a control freak in the extreme) I'd be shocked to learn he allowed MB to wrangle himself a financial interest in the JT name. Besides it's the name of a deceased person, I'm not sure what legal entity would be created to enforce exclusivity, my guess is it's a handshake agreement.
In all fairness, the thread was started because of something that happened that indicated that Ian Anderson had decided to officially change the designation of his solo band to the latest incarnation of Jethro Tull. What could the resulting conversation reasonably be expected to consist of? Surely a debate about the the appropriateness of this would have to be pretty high on the list of on-point discussion.
As for back-and-forth, there surely is no faster way to start one than the 'ol "fixed it for ya" variations on quote modification; for that the culprit is 100 dead, not Bart Simpson.
I can assure you that the fact that "Jethro Tull" is also a deceased person has exactly zero to do with Jethro Tull the music band. One has nothing at all to do with the other.
In any event, we have established that IA is NOT calling his covers band Jethro Tull. And it's very clearly because he can't.
A. The name was taken from the inventor of the seed drill (I think the name of the employee who borrowed it was Dave Robeson (don't quote me), and B) either he can't or he won't, you just finished saying we don't know the facts, changed your mind?
Hurtleturtled Out of Heaven - an electronic music composition, on CD and vinyl
https://michaelpdawson.bandcamp.com
http://www.waysidemusic.com/Music-Pr...MCD-spc-7.aspx
No - I stated that I have concluded, by overwhelming facts, that IA cannot call his band Jethro Tull. Because if he could, he obviously would, based on the way in which the words "Jethro Tull" have been shoe-horned into the albums and tours. I'm supposing that the reason why he can't is either because of a legal prohibition or because of some contractual prohibition from a deal he made with MB - again, I don't know those details and you don't either. But it seems quite certain that he can't do it.
I agree it certainly does appear that way, at least up to this point.
I'd be perfectly happy goin' if I thought there was any chance the singin' wouldn't make me wish I'd stayed home.
Years ago when Tull was together I remember Ian saying that Jethro Tull wouldn't exist without Martin. I'm not saying there's no legality to it but maybe Ian just wants to stick to his own philosophy while still utilizing the Tull name.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I saw Tull in Toronto about 8 years ago and Ian's voice was totally shot. I said that was my last time.
Well, it was a lot better when he had Ryan O'Donnell to share the heavy lifting. I thought he was a terrific asset to the band both vocally and in terms of stage presence. But it looks like Kommissar Anderson has declared O'Donnell an un-person: he doesn't appear on the Tull website under "Ian Anderson Band Musicians (2012 – present)." Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. At least Martin didn't get kicked out of the band retroactively!
Hurtleturtled Out of Heaven - an electronic music composition, on CD and vinyl
https://michaelpdawson.bandcamp.com
http://www.waysidemusic.com/Music-Pr...MCD-spc-7.aspx
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks