Thick as a Brick 2- question

**Werbinox** · 03-31-2013

Originally Posted by Vic2012

I know this won't make sense to most (and I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way) but I would've been inclined to get TAAB2 if it was a "Jethro Tull" album and not an Ian Anderson solo album. Jethro Tull is like Alice Cooper (and probably a few other examples exist). The frontman/visionary/main songwriter/whatever is the "brand." I think Ian became Jethro with Aqualung. The three previous albums seemed more like a "band" that was still finding it's way. With Aqualung Jethro Tull became a brand, and then came all the personell changes. I know it all sounds kinda dumb but I think TAAB2 should've just been a Jethro Tull album, period.

Most reviews I've read of TAAB2 have mostly leaned toward the negative. I may get it someday but I don't consider it a must-have. I don't even have the Christmas album (which everyone raves about). I've held off getting the Christmas album on the principle that I just don't do Christmas albums. J-Tull.com was a fine album. If that was the proper bands "swan song" then I'm okay with it. Still, I'd love for Tull to be a proper band again and squeeze one more album out before they call it a day. It'd be great if they put together one more, epic, proggy album.

To me, especially after seeing them live, the band on TAAB 2 IS a proper Tull band, and only aren't in name out of deference to Martin. That's it. A very symbolic thing. But TAAB 2 is as Tull as Tull gets. So much of what has caused me to fall in love with their music over the years is here on this recording. I think you do yourself a real disservice to abstain from adding it to your neural net by name alone (Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson vs Jethro Tull) And the Xmas album is the best Xmas album out there. Well worth getting, and playing sparingly at that time of year. It can cheer!

**ribors** · 03-31-2013

Originally Posted by JKL2000

I'm sure you've been told this before, but the Christmas album is excellent and more like a Tull album than a Christmas album. If you skip it, IMO you're skipping a great Tull album.

+1

**BarryLI** · 03-31-2013

Originally Posted by JIF

I agree with what you say. I usually don't buy solo album from people in bands. I have made a few exceptions for certain people(Peter Gabriel) who aren't in their bands anymore(Genesis), and make groundbreaking albums(So). I consider TAAB 2 as a Tull album. Tull shouldn't die, because Ian and Martin have a spat.

Ian Anderson isn't a "person in a band", all the music that came from Jethro Tull came from Ian, hence Ian=Tull.

**JIF** · 03-31-2013

Originally Posted by BarryLI

Ian Anderson isn't a "person in a band", all the music that came from Jethro Tull came from Ian, hence Ian=Tull.

Martin Bare is a Tull member as well. Martin came along for the second album. Jethro Tull was not just Ian, it was Martin too. Can Ian play guitar solos? Martin is a big part of Tull.

**Sputnik** · 03-31-2013

Originally Posted by JIF

Martin Bare is a Tull member as well. Martin came along for the second album. Jethro Tull was not just Ian, it was Martin too. Can Ian play guitar solos? Martin is a big part of Tull.

I'm not especially happy to say it, but after 30+ years of (IMO) mediocrity from Martin, I think he's made himself expendable. Tull needs a guitarist, but the dude on TAAB2 is every bit as good as Martin, and maybe even a touch better in some ways. I saw the TAAB2 tour, and the dude simply rocked with the simplest setup you could imagine. IMO, Martin could take a few lessons from this guy.

Tull has replaced fantastic keyboard players, bassits, and drummers and remained Tull to one extent or another. IMO, TAAB2 is the best thing Tull has done in 20+ years, whether the "Tull" name is on it or not. Any failings the album has have less to do with the guitar presence than with the rhythm section; for which I blame Anderson solely, not the players that rendered the parts Anderson told them to play.

I'm not sure what happened between Barre and Anderson. But if Martin didn't want to be involved in TAAB2, then I wish him well in whatever he wants to do. But to me, TAAB2 is better by far than anything "Tull" has done since Crest of a Knave, and if Martin didn't want to be part of it, I can live with that.

Bill

**BarryLI** · 03-31-2013

Originally Posted by JIF

Martin Bare is a Tull member as well. Martin came along for the second album. Jethro Tull was not just Ian, it was Martin too. Can Ian play guitar solos? Martin is a big part of Tull.

There are plenty of competant musicians that can play guitar solos, how many can create music like Ian Anderson? What happened when Glenn Cornick left the band? Or Barry Barlow? Did you continue to listen, or quit because there was a new drummer or bassist to perfom Ian's music? The music happens in Ian's head, the musicians play it, if you like Tull music and Ian records with a different band to refuse to listen because they don't have the bassist/drummer/guitar/keys player of your choice makes zero sense, to me, anyway. The one constant from beginning to end is Ian as creator, period, the musicians are essential but secondary to the muse.

**JIF** · 03-31-2013

Originally Posted by BarryLI

There are plenty of competant musicians that can play guitar solos, how many can create music like Ian Anderson? What happened when Glenn Cornick left the band? Or Barry Barlow? Did you continue to listen, or quit because there was a new drummer or bassist to perfom Ian's music? The music happens in Ian's head, the musicians play it, if you like Tull music and Ian records with a different band to refuse to listen because they don't have the bassist/drummer/guitar/keys player of your choice makes zero sense, to me, anyway. The one constant from beginning to end is Ian as creator, period, the musicians are essential but secondary to the muse.

Those are different situations to Martin's. Martin has been with Tull(or had been with Tull) for 40+, Glen was only in Tull for the first three albums, Barry was in Tull from '72-'79. Didn't someone make a point in this thread that the quality in Tull's music went down when Barry left?

**Garden Dreamer** · 04-01-2013

Originally Posted by Casey

I don't know why I haven't picked up TAAB2. I like JT & I like solo IA. So what's not to like about TAAB2?

For someone like myself who's been lukewarm to Tull from the 80's onward, TAAB2 greatly exceeded my expectations.

**Guitarplyrjvb** · 04-01-2013

TAAB2 is a quality record, regardless of whether it's Tull or not!

**Casey** · 04-01-2013

Thank you, everyone for your imput. I'm placing my order for TAAB2 today!

**expresso** · 04-01-2013

Originally Posted by BarryLI

There are plenty of competant musicians that can play guitar solos, how many can create music like Ian Anderson? What happened when Glenn Cornick left the band? Or Barry Barlow? Did you continue to listen, or quit because there was a new drummer or bassist to perfom Ian's music? The music happens in Ian's head, the musicians play it, if you like Tull music and Ian records with a different band to refuse to listen because they don't have the bassist/drummer/guitar/keys player of your choice makes zero sense, to me, anyway. The one constant from beginning to end is Ian as creator, period, the musicians are essential but secondary to the muse.

Ian is Jethro Tull, but no one can deny the importance of the musicians that play his music.

Musicians like Barlow, Bunker, Jobson, Craney, Palmer really complimented Ian's music and i kinda miss that in his latest albums.
Ophale mostly follows the Tull legacy without contributing much. The same goes for most of the other current members.

**Guitarplyrjvb** · 04-01-2013

Chiming in on the Martin Barre issue, it was my impression that he, along with other Tull members along the way, created bits and pieces of music that were incorporated into Ian Anderson's compositions. Given the way Anderson runs the band, these contributing writers were never given credit. I'd have to say, though, that having band members add little tid bits here and there shouldn't give them a writing credit, unless they agreed from the start that that was how they were going to do it.

**trurl** · 04-01-2013

^^^^^^^
That, and Ian openly acknowledges that the band, and I presume mainly Martin and John, did the arranging and main work of developing Ian's acoustic songs into full blown band pieces, including many important instrumental linking bits and thematic development, to say nothing of David (Dee)'s string arrangements. It's that sort of thing that is lacking in Tull since the original band broke up, and that's very apparent on TaaB 2 for me.

**ajcmixer** · 04-01-2013

Originally Posted by trurl

^^^^^^^
That, and Ian openly acknowledges that the band, and I presume mainly Martin and John, did the arranging and main work of developing Ian's acoustic songs into full blown band pieces, including many important instrumental linking bits and thematic development, to say nothing of David (Dee)'s string arrangements. It's that sort of thing that is lacking in Tull since the original band broke up, and that's very apparent on TaaB 2 for me.

QFT IMHO. it is the "little things" that the individual members bought to the musical table that made JT what JT was back in the day. TAAB2 is a nice album and all that but certainly is nothing to my ears in comparison to the original TAAB. And that's why Roots to Branches still remains my favorite album covering the 90's to today, I find the songwriting much on it much stronger than just about anything on TAAB2. But I'm threading on double-edged sword material here. Without TAAB2, I probably would have gone my lifetime without seeing TAAB recreated live. So I'm forever grateful to Ian for TAAB2 for it allowed me to see/hear my favorite song. By anyone. Period. End of sentence. Live in concert. But, quite frankly, otherwise I could easily live without TAAB2. I could not say the same about Roots to Branches. Or the Christmas album for that matter.

So I'm basically dissing Ian for TAAB2 and its songwriting, not the current band because they were pretty excellent recreating TAAB. But there is nothing on TAAB2 that makes my blood boil over in a good way like TAAB did and still does. And that is why Ian will always remain one of my musical heroes. TAAB2 is not going to blemish his overall musical legacy in my mind.

Peace,
Alex

**spacefreak** · 04-02-2013

Originally Posted by Trane

ok, ok, ok, ok, but this has been discussed many times in many threads before since its release less than 12 months ago....

Welcome to Progressive Ears.

**Facelift** · 04-02-2013

Originally Posted by BarryLI

Ian Anderson isn't a "person in a band", all the music that came from Jethro Tull came from Ian, hence Ian=Tull.

This just isn't true. The amount of collaboration has varied, over the years (and since the '80s, it's been mostly IA and a bit of MB), but in the '70s it was a more collaborative unit, albeit with IA as the leader. The decision not to continue with the JT name without Martin Barre is a very sound and responsible one. Just wish that more bands would have this kind of respect for themselves and their legacy.

**bRETT** · 04-02-2013

Originally Posted by ajcmixer

QFT IMHO. it is the "little things" that the individual members bought to the musical table that made JT what JT was back in the day. TAAB2 is a nice album and all that but certainly is nothing to my ears in comparison to the original TAAB. And that's why Roots to Branches still remains my favorite album covering the 90's to today, I find the songwriting much on it much stronger than just about anything on TAAB2.

I agree that the songwriting was really good on RTB, but I hated Andy Giddings' keyboard sounds. Except for Eddie Jobson, whose style is more lyrical and individual, I don't think heavy orchestral synthesizers ever worked in Tull. I like that TAB2 harks back to the EVan-like B3 and piano.

**Garden Dreamer** · 04-02-2013

Originally Posted by ajcmixer

r.
But there is nothing on TAAB2 that makes my blood boil over in a good way like TAAB did and still does.

Considering TAAB is my desert island disc, nothing can live up to that. The last Tull album that made my "blood boil over in a good way" was Heavy Horses. Since then it's been a string of albums with some good moments, but nothing that gets my synapses crackling like my favorite 70's Tull albums. Consequently I've come to expect a dip in quality from rockers once they pass 40. I've come to expect that nothing from the Tull camp will ever impact me the way their 70's material has, but when something comes along with the quality of TAAB2, I find it to exceed my lowered expectations. It doesn't stand with the 70's material, but it's much better than I was expecting from a guy in his 60's.

I've gone through the same trend with Rush. My last 5-star Rush album was Power Windows back in '84. After finding Snakes & Arrows to be excruciating, I was pleasantly surprised with the new Clockwork Angels. Again, it doesn't stand alongside my favorite old Rush, but it's much more than I was expecting at this stage in their career.

**JIF** · 04-02-2013

Originally Posted by bRETT

I agree that the songwriting was really good on RTB, but I hated Andy Giddings' keyboard sounds. Except for Eddie Jobson, whose style is more lyrical and individual, I don't think heavy orchestral synthesizers ever worked in Tull. I like that TAB2 harks back to the EVan-like B3 and piano.

I have the Roots To Branches remaster and Andrew isn't credited. How come? Synths were used on APP, SFTW, HH, and A and I like those albums just fine.

**progholio** · 04-05-2013

Originally Posted by Garden Dreamer

It doesn't stand with the 70's material, but it's much better than I was expecting from a guy in his 60's.

I've gone through the same trend with Rush. My last 5-star Rush album was Power Windows back in '84. After finding Snakes & Arrows to be excruciating, I was pleasantly surprised with the new Clockwork Angels. Again, it doesn't stand alongside my favorite old Rush, but it's much more than I was expecting at this stage in their career.

i went into TAAB2 with great skepticism and was also very surprised, found my self quite liking it actually.

Snakes & Arrows - (sorry to derail) am i the only one on this list who loves this album? for my money it was waaay better than things like Presto or Vapor Trails, i still listen to it a lot.

(back on topic) i wasn't going to give in to this since i have been very disappointed at recent Tull concerts but today i couldn't help myself, TAAB 1 & 2 concert tix went on sale so i pulled the trigger on a pair of 8th row center seats. should be great fun (somebody please tell me Ian's done away with the groin-pulling stage antics for these shows).

**Progatron** · 04-05-2013

Originally Posted by progholio

Snakes & Arrows - (sorry to derail) am i the only one on this list who loves this album? for my money it was waaay better than things like Presto or Vapor Trails, i still listen to it a lot.

Not at all - I love it, and I've been a Rush fan all my life. I think "Far Cry" is one of the best tracks they've ever done, and I love "Workin' Them Angels" and "We Hold On" too! I should point out that I like every album though, and the 80s synth period is my absolute favourite, so I may be in the minority on a forum like this one.

**JIF** · 04-05-2013

Originally Posted by Progatron

Not at all - I love it, and I've been a Rush fan all my life. I think "Far Cry" is one of the best tracks they've ever done, and I love "Workin' Them Angels" and "We Hold On" too! I should point out that I like every album though, and the 80s synth period is my absolute favourite, so I may be in the minority on a forum like this one.

I love Rush's '80s synth period, too.

**BarryLI** · 04-05-2013

Originally Posted by Facelift

This just isn't true. The amount of collaboration has varied, over the years (and since the '80s, it's been mostly IA and a bit of MB), but in the '70s it was a more collaborative unit, albeit with IA as the leader. The decision not to continue with the JT name without Martin Barre is a very sound and responsible one. Just wish that more bands would have this kind of respect for themselves and their legacy.

The songwriter hears (writes) the song, let's assume does a demo and brings it to the band for their contributions to the finished product. While the otber musicians could most assuredly shape the final arrangement the song was created in the songwriter's head, so deciding not to listen to new music of someone who's hit the spot with you before just because the musicians have changed doesn't make sense, to me, anyway. Isn't it possible the new musicians might contribute just as the former ones did? I agree with Fred that the 72-79 Tull was the quintessential Tull, but I enjoyed TAAB 2 plenty, the rhythm section left something to be desired but the songwriting was fine, although I don't think the name was appropriate as the music wasn't really related to the earlier work.