Talk:Jethro Tull (band)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New tour in 2016?

It appears that contrary to the current content of the article, tickets are being sold for JT tour in Fall 2016: http://www.songkick.com/artists/111953-jethro-tull Would be nice if someone could update the article with whatever is the background of this (presumed) comeback... 2602:306:835D:E270:C8BE:684C:2487:42FB (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The wesite you link to is wrong. If you consult the Jethro Tull website (http://jethrotull.com/april-2016-usa-tour-dates-announced/) you'll see that what is touring is "Jethro Tull" performed by Ian Anderson. Not Jethro Tull the band, but Anderson performing a show called "Jethro Tull". Probably a hair-splitting difference, but that's the way it's being marketed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I second Escape Orbit's comment. It's an Ian Anderson solo show, not a Jethro Tull show. It is well documented across the internet that Ian is finished with Jethro Tull. Martin Barre is also on a solo tour, and is not part of Ian's band. His tour info is here: (http://www.martinbarre.com/index.cfm/events) I changed the infobox back to 2012, and "are" to "were". Sorry folks. Not trying to crush people's hopes, just stating the facts. Tkd73 ^(Talk) 01:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, Jethro Tull (billed as such, and described as such by Ian Anderson in interviews) played at Bluesfest in Byron Bay, Australia, in April 2017. I believe that they also had a couple of shows around the country. 2017, and probably not a tour though. and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.168 (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Timeline errors

@RealTull: Here, I've started the discussion for you. Please describe your concerns for the band's timeline. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The timeline is inaccurate and you keep reverting my changes. The timeline does not reflect the content of the article or the album articles. It does not reflect the liner notes. It does not even reflect the listing of years in the text above it. This is simple matter. It has no references currently so according to you the whole thing should be deleted, yes? RealTull (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of this specific edit, why can't liner notes be cited as a source? All it takes is someone else saying that's not what they say for it to become an issue.Timtempleton (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This image shows John Evan listed on the Benefit liner notes, from 1970.[[1]] This page says he was unofficially playing with the band.[[2]] So the only question seems to be do we put him in as a member starting in 1970, or as a guest in 1970, with him also listed as a member starting in 1971?Timtempleton (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I found a better source and changed John Evan's start date to 1971, and added him to the guest list in 1970. The colored timeline isn't affected.Timtempleton (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My sourced fix of Evan's start and guesting years was immediately reverted by @Ritchie333:, with unsourced comments. Shouldn't this be sourced or reverted as well? Your thoughts @Mlpearc:?Timtempleton (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree but it seems Wikipedia is a mess. I tried to have timeline show the difference of guest and member. You can see the change I made that was reverted. This is futile. RealTull (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I look at revert you are correct. but he joined in 1970 after Benefit was released. Using year alone is not useful. RealTull (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to get a response as to why my sourced info was replaced with unsourced info, and why the edit wasn't challenged by the editor who threatened to block you for doing the same thing.Timtempleton (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Needs a total re-write

Unsourced, POV'd, amateurish, non-historical. Ugh. Should be scrapped and re-written from the ground up. 104.169.37.15 (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Curious sentence

"The album treats of prehistory to the future forecasted eight thousand years of human migration."

This appears in the "After Tull" section and appears to make no sense. Anyone have an idea of the intended thought?THX1136 (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Jethro Tull 50

There seem to be some unclear information regarding the 50th anniversary tour. One source says the line-up will consist of the entirety of Ian Anderson's live band, while others say the line-up will include Martin Barre and Doane Perry.

Can we even say with full certainty that Jethro Tull is active again to begin with? (TheWiselyStupidOne (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC))

The official information currently leans heavily towards suggesting it's another Ian Anderson project. "JETHRO TULL’s IAN ANDERSON TO TOUR THE UK IN APRIL 2018", "Join me and the current band for a nostalgic evening of...". Personally I would advise steering clear of posting anything that says that Tull have reformed until there is official information confirming what's going on. Example - a guest slot for Martin Barre for a couple of songs on one date obviously wouldn't mean the band have reformed. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; this seems like a wait-and-see kind of situation. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a lack of clarity here. Previously it was reported that Anderson had said that Tull was over, and the fact that he then toured as himself "performing the music of" Tull appeared to back that up. But then sources appeared with Anderson saying he had been misquoted/taken out of context, and Tull was not over. You half suspect that Anderson himself isn't clear on it and is happy for it to remain ambiguous. But perhaps it will become clear in time... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

One thing that is certain. There will be no Barre and no Perry. It will be Ian Anderson with the band that he has been touring with since 2011. This article makes it quite clear. "The longtime frontman and songwriter for Jethro Tull continues to play that group’s best-loved songs but now goes by his name rather than that of the group." AND "He formally ended Jethro Tull a few years ago, figuring it was probably time that it was his name on the marquee." This was from August, 2017. Others on here appear to be less certain and still seem to want to claim that a Jethro Tull reformation has taken place. SMH!--Hooter13 (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a long-time Tull fan chiming in. The line is obviously blurred on the official Jethro Tull site since Ian Anderson is also using it for his solo work, but as I am observing it the current tour is Ian Anderson is presenting a Jethro Tull 50th anniversary tour as a "tribute" more than he just decided one day that his longtime solo band is now Jethro Tull.

People Editing Jethro Tull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_(band)

A number of users are editing the Jethro Tull information page and claiming that the band has reformed. The band has not reformed.

Jethro Tull broke up when Martin Barre left the band. Ian Anderson has toured as Ian Anderson since 2011. There is a setlist site here:

https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/jethro-tull-3d6b523.html As you can see, the last setlist for Jethro Tull was July 31, 2011.

Ian Anderson setlists begin after that: https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/ian-anderson-1bd69578.html

Other references for you: https://www.songkick.com/artists/111953-jethro-tull

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/apr/15/ian-anderson-end-of-jethro-tull Ian Anderson has called an end to Jethro Tull, announcing that from here on out he will record and tour exclusively under his own name. After half a century and almost two dozen albums, Anderson said he is ready for Jethro Tull to live on as "the vast body of [its] repertoire".

Ian Anderson has never stated that the band is reforming, only that there will be a 50th anniversary to celebrate the music of Jethro Tull. Stating that the band has reformed is misleading. They have not. The confusion stems from the fact that Ian uses "Jethro Tull" in naming his tours such as "Jethro Tull by Ian Anderson" or "The Best of Jethro Tull". He does this because of the name recognition and to help sell tickets. He is entitled to do this; after all there would never have been a "Jethro Tull" without Ian Anderson. Unless Ian gets together with Martin Barre, there will not be a reformation. The current band is Ian Anderson's band, not Jethro Tull, and has been since 2012, though two of them, O'Hara and Goodier, did play in the last incarnation of Tull.

Moved from Talk:Jethro Tull, I missed guided the posting user. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I was the original posting user.--Hooter13 (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

50th anniversary tour

Thank you to FlightTime for moving my post above. The 50th anniversary tour is not a reformation of Jethro Tull. As Ian Anderson has stated: “I am not usually a birthday or anniversary kind of guy but, just for once, I won’t be a party-pooper either! I treasure the memories of the earlier years of Jethro Tull repertoire, associated as it is with the adventures of visiting so many countries for the first time to connect with new fans around the world. And this is a celebration of all the 33 band members who graced our ranks – musicians who brought their talents, skills and styles to bear on the performances live and in the studio. Join me and the current band for a nostalgic evening of varied music, representative of my ever-changing songwriting as our careers progressed through the years.” Notice that Ian has stated the "current band".

The current band is Ian Anderson's band - not Jethro Tull. My sources are listed in the previous section. There will be no Martin Barre and no Doane Perry. I have suggested an edit of the page to reflect the fact that "Jethro Tull" has not toured since 2011. All subsequent tours are lablled as Ian Anderson tours as indicated here: https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/jethro-tull-3d6b523.html and here: https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/ian-anderson-1bd69578.html

Jethro Tull is no more. It is Ian Anderson playing the music of Jethro Tull.

(Hooter13 (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC))

Concerned

I am not sure why it has been suggested that I started an edit war. I changed an information page because I saw incorrect information. Please....read the links that I posted. Jethro Tull is no more. It is now Ian Anderson and his accompanying band playing the music of Jethro Tull. Ian Anderson has made that quite clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooter13 (talk • contribs) --Hooter13 (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hooter13: There is no exemption from WP:3RR for posting correct information. If this is a content dispute, then you need to discuss the matter on the talk page and get support for your desired change. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

C.Fred, this sounds a lot like what I just posted on my talk page. Am I your sock, or you mine? Drmies (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I follow everything you are saying, Hooter13, but as I said, the situation remains unclear. It appears that Anderson has changed his tune on this at least once, or at the very least has been unclear, or has been misunderstood. Personally, I think he's not too bothered either way. From his point of view; Jethro Tull is he plus others, and he plus others is Jethro Tull, what does it matter what they call themselves? But referring back to a newspaper article from over three years ago does not clarify anything. Things could easily have changed. If you have anything more recent that clears up the matter I'm sure we'd all be happy to read it.

In the meantime, edit warring over the issue will get you no-where, other than blocked. Please try and collaborate with others and we may get to the bottom of things. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

See this article here for a more recent take on the matter and a quote from Anderson. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think the issue is unclear. Neither do the people on the https://www.setlist.fm/ Website. They are sticklers for detail and accuracy. There has not been a Jethro Tull concert since July 31, 2011. All concerts since that date have been billed as Ian Anderson concerts, but as I mentioned, the confusion stems from the fact the Ian often uses "Jethro Tull" as part of his tour name. Also there is a Facebook group I belong to (https://www.facebook.com/groups/tullgroup/) and have come across some of the most knowledgeable Tull fans anywhere. Some even personally know Ian and/or Martin and they too will tell you that both Ian and Martin are now solo artists, each with their own band. It was a comment there, expressing bewilderment about the reformation section here that led me to the edit I made. So yes, Ian still has a band; it is just not called Jethro Tull.--Hooter13 (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It would help everyone if a few things were made clear, because, like Anderson's responses to questions, your position is ambiguous. Please answer Yes/No to the following;

1. Jethro Tull is defunct band, never to return. (Yes/No)
2. Jethro Tull, the band, has not toured since 2011. (Yes/No)
3. Those who believe they have seen Jethro Tull, the band, since then have been confused by Anderson performing a tour called "Jethro Tull..." (Yes/No)
4. The band that Anderson is currently performing with is not an incarnation of the band Jethro Tull. (Yes/No)
5. The band that Anderson is currently performing with is nothing more than Anderson, plus his band. (Yes/No)
6. Anderson has not ruled out the possibility that an incarnation of the band Jethro Tull, consisting of Anderson plus others, may tour/perform/record in the future. (Yes/No)
7. Anderson has ruled out the possibility of the original Jethro Tull touring/performing/recording in the future. (Yes/No)
8. The band Jethro Tull can not exist without both Anderson and Barre as members. (Yes/No)

As I've said before, I'm uncertain to the answer to all of the above, because sources differ.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

1. Never say never but Ian Anderson stated the following in 2017: "But I think I prefer, in my twilight years, to use my own name for the most part, being composer of virtually all Tull songs and music since 1968.” Both 2012’s Thick as a Brick II and 2014’s Homo Erraticus appeared under his name. https://www.northernexpress.com/news/feature/jethro-tull-frontman-steps-out-on-his-own/

2. No they have not. Since July 31, 2011, all setlists are listed under Ian Anderson's name. https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/ian-anderson-1bd69578.html

3. Yes. Using "Jethro Tull" as part of the tour name has caused confusion among fans. There are even fans out there who think that Ian Anderson is actually Jethro Tull. It sells tickets though, so I understand why he does it and after all Ian is playing the music of Jethro Tull.

4. No they are not. They are Ian Anderson's band, not Jethro Tull.

5. Yes. Ian Anderson's Band.

6. Yes, I think he has ruled this out with the statement: “When I think of Jethro Tull, I think of the repertoire. There were 33 different musicians. When I think of Beethoven, I don’t mean Beethoven the man. We love the music. The same thing applies to Beethoven [as to Jethro Tull] — we think of the repertoire.”

7. Yes. Not sure what you mean by original Tull members, but it is highly unlikely.

8. No. Anderson has made it very clear that without Martin Barre, there is no Jethro Tull.

On a side note, it is also interesting to see that Martin Barre now tours with his own band, like Ian. Martin bills his shows as "Jethro Tull's Martin Barre Band. Like Ian, he is capitalizing on the Tull name. --Hooter13 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

So, I can refer you again to this article. Here Anderson says;

"What I was saying was that I didn't really see there being the likelihood of there being a regrouping of the original members of Jethro Tull," he says. "But to portray that as [the band being] over, as all gone ... no"

and

"There have been 26 members of Jethro Tull over the years, so I can't any longer think of Jethro Tull as a big group of viable performing musicians because we've never really been that. We've been maybe more in the tradition of band leaders, like John Mayall, or James Brown, or whoever it might be."

The article then goes on to say; "When Anderson arrives with the current line-up behind him.." Not "his" current line up, but "the" current line up, something that can only mean .. of Jethro Tull.

This suggests to me that Anderson and band are fine with being referred to as Jethro Tull. Whether they legally are, or not, is likely to be a question for the lawyers and not for us to determine. So we go with the sources. Anderson has said what appears to be contradictory things about this is the past, so we go with the most recent statement. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You asked me to come up with a more recent source than some that I have used. You cannot get much more recent than Aug. 12, 2017. In this article, it clearly states: "The longtime frontman and songwriter for Jethro Tull continues to play that group’s best-loved songs but now goes by his name rather than that of the group." It goes on: "He formally ended Jethro Tull a few years ago, figuring it was probably time that it was his name on the marquee." Some people seem to understand this. I do. Die hard Tull fans do as I discovered on Facebook. The people over at The Setlist Wiki do. Yes, there still is a band. Yes, the band continues to play the music of Jethro Tull. Whether it is "his current lineup" or "the current lineup" is just a matter of semantics. The shows are billed as Ian Anderson shows with tour names like "Jethro Tull by Ian Anderson" or Ian Anderson plays "The Best of Jethro Tull".

All that being said, I take it your mind is made up. If you wish to provide erroneous information, please feel free to do so. I will attempt no more edits.--Hooter13 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Escape Orbit, I agree the information should say as it is with the current references. @Hooter13: this article is not going anywhere, if anything more permanent is announced or happens we can always change it. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Did you even bother to read this article? It is far more current than the article provided by Escape Orbit.--Hooter13 (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article does seem to suggest the opposite. As I've said repeatedly, Anderson's statements appear to be deliberately blurring the line between Jethro Tull, the band, and Jethro Tull, performances of the body of work. I'm not sure that anyone is buying into his concept and it is either only confusing people, or being completely missed by them. It could be suggested that as long as Anderson owns the rights to Jethro Tull, tours with the name Jethro Tull, runs publicity from jethrotull.com, and reliable sources call them Jethro Tull, then this is what the article should reflect.

Here are a few more recent sources;

http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/849008/Jethro-Tull-anniversary-tour-new-album-Ian-Anderson - the journalist throughout refers to "the band", no distinction between past and present

http://www.folkradio.co.uk/2017/08/jethro-tull-announces-50th-anniversary-tour/ - Anderson says; "Join me and the current band" directly after talking about past Tull members

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU1704/S00323/never-too-old-to-rock-roll-jethro-tull.htm - "Now back on the road again, and with Anderson still firmly in the driving seat, Tull have aged gracefully"

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/ian-anderson-jethro-tull-2017/ Here Anderson explains; "when I’m performing today, I’m performing ‘the music of Jethro Tull.”". But the article also says; "It might sound like a fairly fine distinction, but Anderson sees it as part of a long tradition of music outliving the artists who made it." Except the artists who made it aren't dead.

However, you need to calm down and stop throwing accusations about. What we are trying to do here is reach a consensus that can be best supported by reliable sources. Approaching the discussion as if it is a battle between right (yourself) and wrong (all others) is not helpful. If you look back through previous discussion, you'll see I was equally convinced that Anderson was touring as a solo artist, but his statements and sources since then have made it not so clear cut. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So how about we take a look at this interview from May 10, 2018. "These days, Anderson still performs Jethro Tull's music, albeit now as a solo artist." Then this: "You are carrying the torch of the group's legacy now as a solo artist through the shows as well as the records. It seems like a testament that the music still touches people after five decades." There is also discussion on the release of a new solo album and of course Ian has released two solo albums since Jethro Tull disbanded in 2011: "Thick as a Brick 2" and Home Erraticus". https://www.popmatters.com/jethro-tull-2018-interview-2566517482.html Hooter13 (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning Barre and Perry in the last sentence of lead

Regardless of the discussion that has been going on on this talk page as to whether the group has truly reformed or not, I wanted to bring up an edit I made a few weeks back that was removed. I edited the last sentence of the lead (describing the Sep. 2017 reunion) to mention that the newly reunited band does not feature Barre or Perry. I think it would be very important to mention at the very least Barre in this sentence, as the sentence as it is written now can give the impression that some original incarnation of the band has reformed, when the fact as we all know is that the "band" as it is now is still essentially an Anderson solo band and that the second most important member in the band's history is still not present. I think this distinction is worth mentioning and doesn't harm the lead at all. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, without Barre it is indeed an Ian Anderson solo band, so any statement that the band has "reunited" should be qualified as you suggest. Assambrew (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

This page is the only place I saw saying Tull is reformed. Hey, seriously, fix that. It's laughable. I am a long time Tull fan, a Tullhead, if you wish, I read about it daily and participate in several Tull communities. I would have know if something even close to a return of the band was about to happen. IT'S NOT! Ian Anderson tours under his own name and will continue to do so even in the 50th anniversary tour. Martin Barre will have a anniversary tour also, will we start to call his band Jethro Tull as well?

The facts are as follows: JT is over, Ian tours under his own name. That's OFFICIAL. Any indication otherwise comes from press articles of people who do not know the band's history and got understandably confused that the 50th anniversary tour done by the guy that plays the flute is not JT. Many people think is name is Jethro. The decision that has to be made here is, are we going to make this article reflect confused press articles or dubious statements, or are we going to stick to the FACT that JT is on a break since 2011?

And why 2017? I mean, from 2012 to 2017 there have been many best of JT concerts and tours. By that way of thinking, it was never over!

This article has become a JOKE. It has to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraz.lucas (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I wonder could you point out exactly where the article claims that the band has reformed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's all over it!

1967–2012, 2017–present : There is no present. It was over in 2012!

The 50th Anniversary Tour topic should be inside the After Tour topic, because, well, it's after Tull!

There's also a current line-up with all members of Ian's solo band. Guess what, there's no current line-up! Florian and Scott Hammond were never in Tull!

Look, I understand there has been many problems about this and that's why I did not do the edits myself, and decided to unwind in here.

I am sorry if I sound rude, and just wanted to make it very clear that this article should be fixed according to the facts at hand, to what was made official, and not follow rumours and erroneous press articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraz.lucas (talk • contribs) 10:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, the article doesn't actually state categorically that the band has reformed. But I see what you mean. It sounds to me as if all material after 2012 should be moved to the Ian Anderson article, even though he continues to perform the music of JT and to celebrate it's anniversaries. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that Anderson himself has been less than clear and contradictory about the status of the band. If you look further up this page you'll see that every time he says anything he simply muddies the waters more. Consequently many of the sources we have are just as confused, or simply assume that the band touring is Tull. This article tries to tread a line between the two positions, but naturally it is vague. But the sources are all we have to go on. If you have an official, unambiguous statement, please do share it.

It would almost appear that Anderson has his own reasons for allowing the matter to be uncertain. It isn't hard to think of some reasons why.... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Contractually, I'd say he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to find something. But I strongly question this choice. I can't understand why it was over in 2012 and suddenly is active again in 2017 because the press is confused. This doesn't make sense. There has been statements about Tull being on a break in the past, but there has never been any statement that it is back. So, what makes sense to me is, either it remains over (and the press confusion is just that, confusion, and shoudn't be used as a source) or it never ceased being active (which also doens't make sense). Nevertheless, I appreciate the caution taken with the article. I think its better to have a wrong article due to excess of caution than the opposite. I'll come back as soon as I find something to provide us with the sources to fix this. Cheers! -- Ferraz.lucas (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The status of aging rock bands is notoriously confused, often with competing legal claims on who has copyright claim on the use of the name. Pink Floyd immediately springs to mind. I seem to remember a similar state of confusion when Black Sabbath were supposed to have finally disbanded earlier this year. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

An interview from May 10, 2018. "These days, Anderson still performs Jethro Tull's music, albeit now as a solo artist." Then this: "You are carrying the torch of the group's legacy now as a solo artist through the shows as well as the records. It seems like a testament that the music still touches people after five decades." https://www.popmatters.com/jethro-tull-2018-interview-2566517482.html Hooter13 (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

ALL the current members have already been part of the band still labelled Jethro Tull. Barre and Opahle alternated on the guitar in the last phase of the band when it was only touring and not releasing new material; when Barre left, two new studio albums labelled as Ian Anderson were released. I ALWAYS found it moot to differentiate between Tull and Anderson solo since he is the driving force and composes nearly all of the material. The band continuity concerning the personnel was way more in question in 1980. --79.223.53.6 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not done (non-admin closure)  samee  ^talk 07:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Jethro Tull (band) → Jethro Tull – Only two uses on the dab page and there is already a hatnote on this one. Compare search results for terms like "Jethro Tull + Aqualung" or "Jehtro Tull + rock" versus "Jethro Tull + seed drill" or "Jethro Tull + agriculture" and it's pretty clear which one is the common name. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose typo in nom "WP:COMMONNAME" presumably means WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? But no; the band is named after the more encyclopaedic topic so fails PT2. Having them both labelled properly is working, as is the dab bot, please don't disable it. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Band is named after the agriculturist. Counting search results is no indication of anything. Nothing wrong here that needs fixed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Directing readers to look at the agriculturist's page might give them some learnin'. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  the agriwhat, mate? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stage image

"Because he was living in a cold bedsit, Anderson bought a large overcoat to keep him warm, and, along with the flute, it became part of his early stage image." I definitely remember reading or hearing an interview where Anderson stated that the famous coat was a parting gift from his father when Anderson announced he was leaving home and going to London to play music - a move his father was apparently quite skeptical about. In the same interview, he also mentioned that the coat was eventually stolen from a dressing room during an American tour. I'd change this sentence if I could only remember the source. :( Jah77 (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You remember correctly as Ian Anderson himself repeats the story in "The Ballad of Jethro Tull" but that was only published in autumn of 2019. I've updated the article text to reflect this and also cites the book.Stroness (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Giddings

I find it sad that the Tull keyboard player with the longest tenure with the band does not have his own Wiki page, but simply redirects to the Tull page. I was a big fan of his period with the band. Pekoebrew (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Giddings has a new Wiki page. Cheers! Assambrew (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit Dispute: Giddings and Noyce as "significant members"

I have reverted the edit of Basil the Bat Lord, re-adding Andrew Giddings and Jonathan Noyce to the list of "significant members" in the article lead. When I added them originally, it was reverted by Basil who stated that significant members' "contributions to the band or length of service were notable enough to its legacy to warrant mention". I replaced my edit, noting that "Noyce and Giddings are significant members exactly because of their notable lengths of service. Noyce was the 2nd-longest serving bassist, and Giddings the longest serving keyboardist."

Giddings and Noyce should be considered significant members. Basil's stated reason for denying them is demonstrably false: their lengths of service are indeed notable enough to warrant mention. Thank you! (comments from others welcome). Assambrew (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Gonna explain some of my thoughts here:

The lead is I think already kind of long and cluttered and so I think we should be avoiding adding even more onto lists like these. I also just think it’s a slippery slope to be mentioning members who were so far removed from the band’s successful period just because they were “the 2nd longest” of something.

The other members listed in the section I think deserve to be there because they had a significant impact on the band’s sound. I think it’s a huge stretch to say that Giddings or Noyce did during their time with the band. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

With (genuine) respect, you appear to be shifting the goalposts, saying it's now not about length of service but about having a significant impact on the band's sound and being part of the bands most successful period. I'm with Assambrew on this one - if there is to be a list of significant members, Noyce and Giddings should certainly feature because the length of their service. That said, I don't honestly think the list in its entirety adds any real value to the lead. All the "important" members are referenced below, and all several times. Personally, I'd cut it out completely. David T Tokyo (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

In referencing Tull's "successful period", sounds like Basil is expressing his opinion that from the 90's onward, the band was no longer successful. I dispute that, and rather consider the 90's something of a resurgence (some reviewers on Allmusic seem to agree). In terms of touring, the band certainly had continued success well into the 00's.

While Noyce was perhaps a rather workmanlike bassist, Giddings did have a significant impact on the sound, especially on albums Roots to Branches, J-Tull Dot Com and several live albums of the period. (Personally, I always loved his intros to Locomotive Breath.)

As for the length of the section, well, this is not a lengthy addition, and probably closes the list on "significant members". And yes, what David said: the Bat Lord shifted the goalposts. As the article states, Noyce and Giddings were members of Tull's longest unchanged lineup, so were significant for that reason alone. Thanks for listening.. Assambrew (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I added "Living in the Past" an album yesterday and someone removed it.

No explanation, either! With these heavy-handed, insulting, rude tactics why would fools like me waste my time contributing to your project?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicollector (talk • contribs)

As pointed out in the edit summary on the removal, Living in the Past is not a studio album, its a compilation album and thus should not be listed with the other studio albums. --Masem (t) 21:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"@Masem:" Thank you, Masem. Now that you mentioned it, it makes sense.:-) Musicollector (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Books/literature section request

I would simply like to request that someone (other than I) add a 'books' or 'literature' section focused specifically on auto-biographies and biographies (excluding at this point items such as interview transcripts, third-party reviews, etc.). Thank you. 68.36.32.76 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There's already the Sources section within the main article which lists a number of band biographies. Would that not suffice? Stroness (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Unnur Birna Vilhjálmsdóttir

The article claims that she played violin and sang with the band, but her linked webpage makes no mention of any musical endeavours, and the original reference no longer mentions her. Is this the correct person ? RGCorris (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)