Let's here it for Ian Anderson and Jethro Tull. For almost forty years, they have been putting out original music unconcerned about popular trends. Hence they go in an out of fashion. This is one of my all-time favourite bands... along with Pink Floyd and The Beatles. I saw them in '74, '76 and '82. U2 opened for them one concert!
My wife's favourite song I play for her on acoustic is JT's "Wond'ring Aloud".
Jethro Tull
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
) The sound and the atmosphere were unbelievable!
-
revolver323
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:48 am
- Contact:
Here's a comment that's related to Tull but more to sound -- it's my perception that, by and large, English bands have better sound than American bands. Yes, Genesis, ELP, Tull, Elton John, the Stones, Crowded House, UK, Greg Lake, Sting, Peter Gabriel, Procol Harum, all sounded great when I heard them (in venues from a 2,000 seat theater to an outdoor shed to a baseball stadium. I heard the Elton/Billy Joel "Face to Face" tour back in the mid-90s, and (using the same PA but different sound men) Elton's sound was crystal clear, distinct and kickin'. Joel's was distorted mush. So, all you Brits -- why is this? Do American engineers have bad ears? Different training? I have heard some excellent sound from American bands -- Tom Petty, Don Henley/Eagles, Steely Dan and Bruce Hornsby come to mind -- but most of what I've heard was too loud and badly mixed. All vocal and guitar (Bon Jovi), or no vocal and all guitar (Extreme), no definition to the low end (everyone), drums way too loud (Edgar Winter) or not loud enough (very few). Even the country band Alabama was at the pain level. I haven't heard any of the newer American bands, but I'll bet the problem still exists.
-
jwr2
Canada has a good band ... Rush ...
a good american band that has a good balanced sound ... The Eagles ... but they sound even better as solo artists ...
The old allman brothers bands was good ... and the USA spawned Blues and jazz which inspired a lot of the British bands ...
And UK has a lame *** band ... The Rolling Stones ...
But I do love English Progressive Rock bands ...
a good american band that has a good balanced sound ... The Eagles ... but they sound even better as solo artists ...
The old allman brothers bands was good ... and the USA spawned Blues and jazz which inspired a lot of the British bands ...
And UK has a lame *** band ... The Rolling Stones ...
But I do love English Progressive Rock bands ...
Hahahaha, I thought I was the only one who disliked the Rolling Stones . . .
I haven't been to as many shows most of the other people here, but I think I can safely say that, at least, in my experience, how bands sound in the studio has little if anything to do with how they sound live. Yellowcard's previous album, "Ocean Avenue" has some of the worst mixing I've ever heard . . . it really emphasis crunching guitar mids and has reverb-heavy, echo-y cymbals . . . live, even in a small, dank club crowded with screaming people, their sound was beautifully clear and they didn't fail to impress.
Dream Theater, who have had both good mixes on their albums ("Awake", "Scenes From a Memory", "Six Degrees"), have also had badly mixed albums ("Train of Thought", "When Dream & Day Unite"). Live, the vocals and drums were mixed perfectly, but the bass mix was TERRIBLE (I chalk that up to the ****** single-humbucker Yamaha that John Myung is using these days), and the keyboards needed more presence.
Studio-wise, producers and mixers these days seem like they really don't know what they're doing. If you have a very intricate, multi-layer sound, you either get lucky (Coheed & Cambria) with your producer, or you sound like very, very, very loud mud. If you have a sparse mix (most of the singer-songwriter people, Keane, Franz Ferdinand, The White Stripes), the mixes today still tend to be pretty good, simply because there's not so much stuff to overcompress and go gain-crazy with. There were plenty of well-mixed American bands back in the 70s and 80s . . . Kansas, Boston, The Talking Heads, The Police (well, partly American),
I guess Rush, though they're Canadian . . . the Eagles had SPOTLESS sound . . . I really think it's more of a time-based trend rather than a difference between English and American recording mentality. There were far more well-mixed bands in any given year in the '70s than there are right now. Or at least, if there are well-mixed bands, I haven't heard many of them.
Live shows I think just depend on the venue and maybe the equipment being used during the tour.
I haven't been to as many shows most of the other people here, but I think I can safely say that, at least, in my experience, how bands sound in the studio has little if anything to do with how they sound live. Yellowcard's previous album, "Ocean Avenue" has some of the worst mixing I've ever heard . . . it really emphasis crunching guitar mids and has reverb-heavy, echo-y cymbals . . . live, even in a small, dank club crowded with screaming people, their sound was beautifully clear and they didn't fail to impress.
Dream Theater, who have had both good mixes on their albums ("Awake", "Scenes From a Memory", "Six Degrees"), have also had badly mixed albums ("Train of Thought", "When Dream & Day Unite"). Live, the vocals and drums were mixed perfectly, but the bass mix was TERRIBLE (I chalk that up to the ****** single-humbucker Yamaha that John Myung is using these days), and the keyboards needed more presence.
Studio-wise, producers and mixers these days seem like they really don't know what they're doing. If you have a very intricate, multi-layer sound, you either get lucky (Coheed & Cambria) with your producer, or you sound like very, very, very loud mud. If you have a sparse mix (most of the singer-songwriter people, Keane, Franz Ferdinand, The White Stripes), the mixes today still tend to be pretty good, simply because there's not so much stuff to overcompress and go gain-crazy with. There were plenty of well-mixed American bands back in the 70s and 80s . . . Kansas, Boston, The Talking Heads, The Police (well, partly American),
I guess Rush, though they're Canadian . . . the Eagles had SPOTLESS sound . . . I really think it's more of a time-based trend rather than a difference between English and American recording mentality. There were far more well-mixed bands in any given year in the '70s than there are right now. Or at least, if there are well-mixed bands, I haven't heard many of them.
Live shows I think just depend on the venue and maybe the equipment being used during the tour.
And the sand-castle virtues are all swept away in
The tidal destruction
The moral melee.
The elastic retreat rings the close of play as the last wave uncovers
The newfangled way.
But your new shoes are worn at the heels and
Your suntan does rapidly peel and
Your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick as a brick.
The tidal destruction
The moral melee.
The elastic retreat rings the close of play as the last wave uncovers
The newfangled way.
But your new shoes are worn at the heels and
Your suntan does rapidly peel and
Your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick as a brick.
I've seen the Stones many times in the last 25 years both in the UK and the US and performances/sound have varied greatly.
The UK shows have always been better to my ears and eyes, but then again they have been "home town gigs" so to speak...
In Miami in 2002 they put on one of the best shows I had seen from them in many years. Last years show in Tampa was by far the worst, with little energy and awful acoustics.
The UK shows have always been better to my ears and eyes, but then again they have been "home town gigs" so to speak...
In Miami in 2002 they put on one of the best shows I had seen from them in many years. Last years show in Tampa was by far the worst, with little energy and awful acoustics.
"See there a son is born
And we pronounce him fit to fight
There are blackheads on his shoulders
And he pees himself in the night
We'll make a man of him
Put him to trade!
Teach him to play monopoly
And how to sing in the rain!"
Oh man . . . and how awesome is it that they made that album WITHOUT heavy substance abuse?
And we pronounce him fit to fight
There are blackheads on his shoulders
And he pees himself in the night
We'll make a man of him
Put him to trade!
Teach him to play monopoly
And how to sing in the rain!"
Oh man . . . and how awesome is it that they made that album WITHOUT heavy substance abuse?
-
revolver323
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:48 am
- Contact:
Jethro Tull was the very first concert I ever saw - in Maple Leaf Gardens (1983-84?) - the Under Wraps tour anyway. Also, they were one of the most recent concerts I've seen. Fantastic shows, both of them. Ian Anderson is the consummate showman. I absolutely love the sound of his acoustic, recorded and live. Again, kudos to the soundmen (producers).