Talk:Jethro Tull (band)/Archive 1

Biography?
I have to ask myself, why is this article in WikiProject Biography? Jethro Tull is a band, not a person. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 15:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Surely, this is just a mistake by some over-eager contributor from the WikiProject Biography-brigade? --Barend 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Other talk pages of musical group articles seem to be tagged with too, see for example Talk:Absoluuttinen Nollapiste and Talk:King Crimson. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So many always seem to think Ian's name IS Jethro Tull, maybe that is the confusion? :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 02:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Influence on Iommi?
This recent addition - "Iommi, for his part, was apparently so impressed with Tull's rehearsal discipline that he resolved to be just as firm with his bands. His success may be partly attributed to his time with Tull" appears to be speculation. If the source material cited just previously makes this claim, then the citation should follow the entire paragraph. Brendano

Every time I edit the passage, adding that Martin Barre was a member of Fat Matress with Noel Redding, someone erases it, why?


 * The information can be found on Iommi's wikipage. Here, I'll paste a quote from the page Tony Iommi:

"Tony Iommi says about his working-relation with Ian Anderson, which maybe contributed to the success of Black Sabbath:

I learned quite a lot from him, I must say. I learned that you have got to work at it. You have to rehearse. When I came back and I got the band (Black Sabbath) back together, I made sure that everybody was up early in the morning and rehearsing. I used to go and pick them up. I was the only one at the time that could drive. I used to have to drive the bloody van and get them up at quarter of nine every morning; which was, believe me, early for us then. I said to them, "This is how we have got to do it because this is how Jethro Tull did it." They had a schedule and they knew that they were going to work from this time till that time. I tried that with our band and we got into doing it. It worked. Instead of just strolling in at any hour, it made it more like we were saying, "Let’s do it!"

Clearly, it is not speculation if this came from Iommi. -Chewbacca 06:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tull is Progressive?
Deliberate provocation, hoping for a better article, from a decidedly unimpressed listener.

Here is most of the text from this article, keywords in bold: "Jethro Tull is a progressive rock band that was formed in 1968. They play very advanced rock music with influences from a lot of musical genres."

Annotation:
 * 1) progressive is a marketing category and JT certainly belongs in it along with Yes, King Crimson, whoever.
 * 2) very advanced is a musical judgement that seems to me to require some support from an article author. To me JT is idiosyncratic and fashioned to fit the odd musical talents of the leader, but it neither comes from any musical tradition nor contributes to any, a hermetically sealed experience.  If you like JT, you like 'em, but if you don't like 'em, you can ignore 'em.  The same doesn't go, say, for Yes, which has been a true avatar progressive rock, or King Crimson, which has influenced not only rock, but jazz and modern music in general.
 * 3) influences should be identified.

''These two last comments about influence of JT on other bands or on the other musical movements inspiring JT may give the impression of a personal - negative - vision of the band or its main participant - or leader. Influence from folk, celtic, blues or sometimes jazz, heavy metal is, between others, not possible to ignore. Yes the mix between these various sources is unique and is deeply, but not exclusively inspired by Ian Anderson. Now, probably JT hasn't influence directly other music style or bands, maybe just because they continuously evolved: they never stop to evolve. A lot of fans do prefer a period, for instance. As it was said, in another comment on this page, as one of the "big fans" I prefer the period covering the "real prog" perriod to the"folk" one (1971 - "Thick as a brick" to "Heavy horses" mainly) but I do like others also to some extend and it seems obvious to me that various style have been integrated in JT work ("A" the electronic, almost, solo album, or later albums with more "world music" connotations). No influence on other bands? Well, I am not sure at all: Anglagard, a swedish group who made 2 brilliant albums in 1992 and 1994 are inspired by Genesis, King Cimpson, but in some case, are very close to what JT could have done. Members of this band could confirm or infirm, it is just my feeling. Anyway. Who knows now if their work will not be recognised later: its own sound, composition features or styles mixture is rich enough to inspire a lot of new musician.

Today, "Thick as a Brick" is considered as the number one "prog rock" album ever in one site specialised in the area. ''It sure will be a source of influence. Don't kill them before they die: this prog rock style is coming back, even not on the top of the pops, and bands such as JT will if they haven't yet have an influence on younger artists.''

Please note, progressive rock does nothing for me, but I do think it's an important part of musical history and should be documented seriously and carefully, hence this note. James Moody is my idea of a rocking flautist. Ortolan88

Someone had posted a statement that Keith Emerson played keyboards on Thick as a Brick. The truth is that Emerson has never played with Tull. The vast majority of Tull keyboard parts during the 1970's were played by the great John Evan, whose playing in Thick as a Brick certainly qualifies as being "progressive." --TheOverseer4003 03:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice the word progressive has been removed in subsequent edits. When I initially viewd the article I instantly reached for the edit button, then decided to read here first. I don't see any concensus here for it's removeal and would put it back myself. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 21:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Music of this music"?
"...perhaps the first time many Tull fans had the opportunity to hear music of this music..." - huh? I could correct this, if I had the slightest idea what the writer meant to say ;) Tualha 06:44, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I edited it for readability. Ended up just re-writing that whole paragraph, since it predates my original overhaul of the article. -mhr 07:14, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm betting they meant to say "music of this album",or "music of this concert", or"music of this tour"(whichever was being discussed). Thats what I would have meant had I made that error, or similar.Thaddeus Slamp 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll vs. A Passion Play
An addition to the article states:


 * 1976's Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young to Die! was another concept album, this time about the life of an aging rocker. Anderson, stung by critical reviews (particularly of A Passion Play), responded by recycling many of the tunes from that work, reorchestrating them and providing new, sharply-barbed lyrics. The press seemed oblivious to the ploy, and instead asked if the title track was autobiographical&#8212;a charge Anderson hotly denied.

I think they definitely meant WarChild when they said Too Old to Rock and Roll. WarChild has songs that sound like A Passion Play in some ways.--TheOverseer4003 03:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the first I've ever heard of this. Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll has never sounded anything like Passion Play to me. The melodies and arrangements are completely different. What's the source for this? -mhr 18:49, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Just listen to it. It stands out like dog's balls. Tannin 18:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) The arrangements are indeed completely different. But many of the melodies are a straight lift. One assumes that Anderson had a good chuckle out of it. Tannin


 * Um, I've been listening to Tull for half my life. I've never seen any similarity between the two albums.  I see little similarity between "Crazed Institution" or "Quizz Kid" or the title track and Passion Play.  (Besides, since when does Passion Play have melodies? :-)  In any event, unless there's objective evidence that Anderson really did "recycle" the melodies (by which I mean, Anderson came out and said so at some point), I think the most that should be said in the 'pedia is that the two sound similar to some fans (well, to one fan, anyway). -mhr 21:49, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A recycled melody is objective, Michael, in and of itself. A recorded sequence of notes is an objective fact. The fact that you haven't noticed it yet is neither here nor there.

My copy of Too Old has disappeared somewhere, but when I locate it (or, more likely, buy another copy - I bet you I lent it to someone), I'll walk you through it track by track. There are three or four major melodies that are straight lifts from A Passion Play. We should certainly not say that the two albums "sound similar", as they do not. The oprcestration is entirely different, as are the lyrics. Tannin


 * I don't really get how the albums can share melodies and yet "sound different". If they truly share melodies, there ought to be some significant similarity.


 * Are you sure you're not mixing up A Passion Play with the "Chateau D'Isaster Tapes" (from 20 Years and Nightcap)? Those two sets definitely share melodies and sound very much the same, because they were recorded within a year of each other after the latter was abandoned (though somehow the band managed to throw out most of the interesting stuff from the Chateau tapes).  For that matter, I think War Child recycled a little unreleased material from the 1971-73 period (most famously, "Lick Your Fingers Clean" became "Two Fingers" - very different orchestration, but clearly similar songs).


 * I've been listening to both Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll and Passion Play over the last couple of hours and simply do not see any resemblance. While it's possible there are similar or identical melodies at times, the effect is very subtle (far more subtle than, say, the guitar riff on The Who's "Don't Let Go the Coat" and Indigo Girls' "Tried to be True", which as far as I know are not connected in any purposeful way and yet share guitar melodies).


 * Again, unless there's documented evidence that Anderson deliberately re-used melodies, I don't think it's worth mentioning. I certainly don't think it should be claimed that Anderson did so deliberately. -mhr 23:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Just as a courtesy, if someone is going to insist that some of Passion Play's melodies were re-used in later tunes, then the person ought to NAME the specific tunes. One's memory of something heard long ago on a lost album, presented vaguely, doesn't count as reliable.  To my ears (which may just be inferior after a degree in music and over 40 years of performing) the similarities do NOT stand out like any part of any dog.  User:truddick 9 August 2006  19.57 pm EDT

Side Bars
Some of the albums seem to have different side bars. They aren't there in all of the albums that currently have track listings, and they vary. Can someone more experienced with wiki fix this at any stage? Something similar to what the guys who are doing the Pink Floyd have got is cool. --huwr 06:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New Album?
Who made this note about a new album due out in August and what is the source for this info? DKK

I've checked the official Jethro Tull site a number of times and (sadly) heard nothing to the effect that they had a new album coming out in just a few short (April, for example, has only 30 days) months. Personally I suggest we cut that line off.--Deridolus 07:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once more there's a notation- underneath the discography- that Ian's preparing to release a new Tull album. And, once again, I've checked the official Tull website and have been unable to find any such announcement during a cursory search.

Could be I'm missing something, I suppose; if anyone cares to post a link verifying that information, I'd be much obliged. If not, I'm giving the line the axe in a few days.--Deridolus 07:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's gone. If anyone finds any source that says there'll be a new album, put it back in- and include the source.--Deridolus 10:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The March 2006 issue of Classic Rock magazine has a brief interview with Ian Anderson in which he says he'll begin work on "writing and arranging new material" for a new Tull album after he's finished with his current performing commitments. No definite or even approximate release date is mentioned. --Reinder Dijkhuis 22:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ian Anderson confirmed the recording of a new album in an Interview here. Also, Tull guest musician Anna Phoebe stated in her Blog, that she is recording with Ian Anderson for the new Tull album. Zimmer6 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As it's now 2010 and the 2007 touring schedule is quite over and we have no new Tull album, I'll just remove that line, as it gives fans like me false hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.166.184 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tull
How is this band's name pronounced? (Tool, as in bull or Tal as in null)

Thanks! 84.94.134.90 16:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, Tull rhymes with both bull and null. Other words it rhymes with are skull, full and dull. Hope that helps. DaveTheRed 02:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It probably rhymes differently depending on whether you are English or American. I'm American, so "tool" does not rhyme with "bull" nor does "tal" rhyme with "null".  Think of David Bowie at the beginning of the song "Andy Warhol" saying "it's Andy Warhull -- like Hull" -- that's how most people I know say it.

No question about it, it rhymes with "null". NEVER heard it pronounced any other way.

It rhymes both with "bull" and "null"? That may be true for Liverpool or Newcastle, but in most of the English speaking world, those two options exclude each other.--Unoffensive text or character 12:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Ian Anderson mentions the name often enough in live recordings: get it from the horse's mouth, friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.47.6 (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Living in the Past most popular with fans...?
I've never met a Tull fan who thought Living in the Past was the best Tull album. Usually casual listeners prefer Aqualung, and the big fans like Minstrel in the Gallery, Thick as a Brick, or even A Passion Play. What do you base the "Living in the Past" thing on, if I can ask?

Raekuul: I believe that the article said that the song itself, not the album, was a hit in the UK.Raekuul 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been reworded to read that fans considers LITP to be one of the band's best compilations, which I think is probably true. It collects many singles/rarities etc. and there's only a few songs culled straight from the studio albums (Teacher, Bourree, Loco Breath, Song for Jeffrey). Serious Tull fans have to agree it's better than M.U. or Repeat or Original Masters!

Recent additions
I've been a big fan of JT since the mid-70's. Just stumbled across the page and added a good deal of stuff, mostly on musical themes and influences, with some details of lyrics. The description of the '89 tour staging might be considered OR, but I was there and I know what I saw. :-) Brendano 21:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "A" Album
---For whatever reason, though, Anderson released his solo album as a Tull album in 1980.---

This was more or less demanded of Ian by the record label, to whom he (or rather, Jethro Tull) was still contracted to release another album with -as Jethro Tull-. So he recruited a lineup, a bit haphazardly even, and put the JT name on it and did the tour with the band's name. Then he later released another solo album.

"Sahi group hai boss."
Looks to be a blend of hindi, arabic, and english. Whatever the hell it means, it's not part of the discography of Jethro Tull, so I took it out.

Someone with some spare time might want to look it over for more vandalism, but I've not got time right now.--Deridolus 21:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we comment on the length of...
raekuul should we comment on the length of the two US chart toppers? Raekuul 00:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Live Aqualung: Only commercial in europe?
I bought the Aqualung Live album recently. Bought. Did not go to any concerts, or go to Europe. It was in the store in Hawaii. Maybe someone can remove the "only commercially released in europe" and make it sound more fluent, I suck at fluency right now. -Chewbacca 06:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's correct the way it is. Saying it's only commercially released in Europe doesn't mean that you can't buy it in the USA. You can still get it, but it's an import and so it costs more.  That's how I got mine, and I live in California. -- ProveIt (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The status of the Live Aqualung record has changed a bit. The album now has worldwide commercial release and is supported with a UK tour.--Reinder Dijkhuis 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony Williams link
Under the band members links at the bottom of the page, the link to Tony Williams goes to the wiki of Tony Williams the American jazz drummer, and not THIS Tony Williams, whose only other credit I can think of offhand was playing bass (or maybe even rhythm guitar) on Stealer's Wheel's "Stuck in the Middle With You." Somebody should fix that, and it's NOT going to be me. Because I'm lazy. The article refers to Tony Williams as the bass player who replaced Glascock on tour. Is that the right Tony Williams? Bubba73 (talk), 05:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt it to be honest.--HisSpaceResearch 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed.Paul Rhodes 12:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A Jethro Tull forum?
I've got a forum set up for Jethro Tull fans at http://www.elitrix.net/raekuul and I'm not sure if I can add it to the list of sites in the article. Do I have clearance?
 * No, no you do not.

Wife of Ian Anderson
Is there any truth to a rumor that I heard that Ian Anderson's wife wrote some or all of JT's lyrics? Does he or did he even have a wife? If this is true at all then it's probably worth mentioning in the article.

Ian's first wife, Jenny Franks, helped write the first few lines of the song "Aqualung." This is her only contribution. Shona Anderson, his current wife (they've been married since around 1976 I think) has no lyric-writing credits in the Tull catalogue.--TheOverseer4003 03:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ian Anderson's first wife co-wrote the lyrics for Aqualung []. His current wife is Shona Anderson, accroding to Tull's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.226.207 (talk)


 * Thanks! --Jscherer 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A few more details:

Jenny's contribution to "Aqualung" came from a photo course she was taking. She'd written a few lines on a photo she'd shot of a homeless man: "Sun streaking cold, an old man wandering lonely, taking time the only way he knows"--which is the beginning of the slower middle section of Aqualung. Ian told her that it was a promising lyric and began to compose the rest of the song around it.

Jenny and Ian married around 1971, and the songs "Wond'ring Aloud" and "Wond'ring Again" were somewhat inspired by the relationship, as perhaps was "Black Satin Dancer" (Jenny was trained in ballet). She appears as the voice between tracks on "War Child" ("Another cup of tea, dear?). They divorced around 1975, a painful period which Ian Anderson doesn't discuss publicly which inspired the tracks "Requiem" and "One White Duck/0^10=nothing at all" from Minstrel in the Gallery.

Jenny has since remarried and at last account was living in Colorado and active in environmental causes.

Current wife Shona was working as a secretary for the band at that time, and she and Ian married around 1976. The song "Salamander" seems to have been inspired by her (Ian named his publishing company "Salamdander & Son" after the arrival of his firstborn, James).

TR user: truddick 14:30, 9 August 2006 EDT

I had the good fortune to meet Shona and Julie Barre in the early 2000's. Both were absolutely delightful women. The funny part is that thousands of Tull fans have met them too. While at a show in Fort Worth Texas speaking with Martin, I witnessed Julie and Shona stocking the T-shirt booth. They were "manning" the booth before, during, and after the show. Turns out this was a regular event for them and a way to supplement their income. I found it both amusing and amazing. Equally amazing is that both Martin and Ian have been married "forever" and it must have been an interesting life. Likeparty (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion on The Early Days Article
I think saying 1962-1968 is inaccurate, since Jethro Tull did not formally begin until 1968. Ian Anderson himself states 1968 as the beginning of Tull[], forming out of the remnents of The John Evan Band (1967). There is nothing wrong with what is in the article, but anything before 1968 is before Tull. It should be worded differently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.92.226.207 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The “Jethro Tull Family Tree” included in the 20 Years of Jethro Tull box set and single-disc compilation has The Blades starting in 1963, with the core members of Ian Anderson, Barriemore Barlow, John Evan, and Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond, so I think it’s OK to say that Tull’s genesis dates to then. —crism 09:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this page need the extensive discography info?
I've noticed the extensive info recently (not sure when exactly) added to the discography portion -- it's now in a table format with chart positions, etc., instead of just the list of the albums.

Is this necessary? I've been a Tull fan forever and I couldn't care less about how high their albums charted! Moreover, Tull is the kind of band where this info isn't relevant -- they didn't make music with the pop charts in mind.

Anybody else agree with me? It seems as if someone put this in here just to add stuff to this page.

EP's?
Tull had a couple of EP's in the late 1970's, I think. One of them (the "Christmas EP") had 4 tracks and a druid-like cover pic. It sort of presaged Songs from the Wood; the tracks were "Christmas Song", "March the Mad Scientist" (these two found their way onto later albums), one that I've completely forgotten that I think also made it onto an album later, and a really wonderful instrumental piece with similar feeling to "Bourrée" from Stand Up. I don't remember the name of it but I remember pretty well how it goes. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Can the EP's be listed?

Phr (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The instrumental piece was called Pan Dance--I remember that now. A Google search shows it's on "20 Years" and on the 2002 reissue of Minstrel in the Gallery.  Whee :) Phr (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have it, the other two tracks are "Pan Dance" (appeared on the 20-year compilation) and the album track "Ring Out Solstice Bells" from Songs from the Wood. I recall purchasing it in the early 1980s and I believe it followed, rather than presaged, SFTW.  I could look it up in one of the Tull bios or websites but feeling too lazy :-)  user:truddick 9 August 2006  20:03 pm EDT

Mark Craney back from the dead!
"Ex-drummer Mark Craney, from the short-lived 1980-1981 line-up, died of diabetes and pneumonia on November 26, 2005. He had suffered through a history of health problems including kidney ailments, paralysis, and a heart condition; a number of Tull members (including Anderson) contributed to a recent charity album, Something With a Pulse, to help Craney pay medical bills and return to health"

This sounds to me like they were trying to help him pay his bills and bring him back from the dead ;-) John85.19.195.170 14:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weird. Could it mean that the charity concert was before he died? I'm not sure how long ago "recently" is.


 * Someone changed it now anyway, so that's that. 68.145.207.92 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Editorializing in main article?
I was tempted to go roaring in and edit out the comments myself, but perhaps it's better for discussion. Is there any evidence that "Kissing Willie" is in fact generally reviled by Tull fans for its leering lyrics? (Keep in mind that band expert David Rees, in the 20th anniversary box set booklet, notes that there has always been a tension between the Anderson's most intellectual lyrics and his frequent descents to the bottom of the gutter). Is it objectively true that "Rock Island" is merely a pale clone of "Crest"? I'm of the opinion that a good editor would have removed or moderated these comments.

TR user: truddick 14:50, 9 August 2006 EDT

I don't know about "generally reviled" but I rather like it, and I have been a solid Tull fan since the release of Songs From The Wood when I was... about 12? :) My, the years slide by. Maybe I am getting Too Old To Rock & Roll?

--Bill W. Smith, Jr. 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been a Tull fan for about 15 years - and I like the song. It's clever and rocky, and I hadn't even seen the sexual reference until recently. :p Sp762 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also never heard anything about "Kissing Willie" being reviled by fans (only been a fan since the mid-90s, however), and little negative about "Rock Island" from sources other than the "Anything after 'Crest' is garbage" crowd. 71.7.246.58 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of editorializing... "It was during sessions for this album [Stand Up] that the band recorded their most well-known song, 'Living in the Past',..." I think this is debatable (many would say "Aqualung" is their most well-known song), and there is no citation for the statement, either.Howenstein115 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if you're a Tull Fan, "Aqualung" would almost certainly be the best known song. However, "Living In The Past" was a huge hit single (Aqualung wasn't) and the chances are that a lot of people who aren't Tull fans would remember it - if only from having heard it on the radio. David T Tokyo (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Members and Instruments
Seems to me like the list of band members is sadly short on credits for instruments. OK. perhaps we don't need to list every little balalaika and claghorn, but Ian has always done extensive work on acoustic guitar, in early albums on keys, and frequently on harmonica and high saxophones. Not crediting Jobson for his violin is a hideous oversight IMO. Martin Barre played second flute on several recordings and sometimes in concert. Evan and Giddings have consistently doubled on accordion. And whereinthehell are Ian, Martin and and Pegg's mandolins? Indeed, one of the over-arching features of Tull has been their multi-instrumental skills, and if I don't see stringent objections here I'm planning to edit the article to reflect as much.

TR user: truddick 21:48, 21 August 2006 EDT

Is it just me or does the "Band Membership History" box totally screw up the formatting of this page? Your body text is squashed over all the way to the left, the membership is in the middle, and for the most part you have this blank section on the right. Thoughts? TEMcGee 20:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Led Zep and "Jethro Dull"
There have been a number of stories through the years of an antipathy between Tull and Led Zeppelin, with Robert Plant calling the band "Jethro Dull"; Ian Anderson telling Plant how awful Led Zeppelin's lyrics were without realising who Plant was; Zep forcing Tull to play a set after theirs, and so on. If any of this can be verified, it would be interesting to see in the article. I'm not a Jethro Tull fan (nor, for that matter, a fan of Led Zeppelin), so someone else who knows better should do this, if there's any truth to it. Pr oh ib it O ni o n s  (T) 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I know for a fact that Anderson called Led Zeppelin "our good friends" in Aqualung Live, although that was right before saying that Led Zeppelin had "got[ten a] sexy little recording studio" while they had been stuck with an old church when they were moving into Basing Street Studios with Island Records. Interesting. 68.145.207.92 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agh, I can't remember the source, but I definitely remember Ian Anderson somewhere saying that he had once thoughtlessly said something along the lines of, "My lyrics and Led Zeppelin's music would be a great combination," and Robert Plant took offense at the implication that his lyrics weren't good. This could well be the root cause of any disparaging remarks from Plant about Tull, though Anderson also said that he always got on well with Jimmy Page. I'll have to track down the source for this; possibly one of the Jethro Tull DVDs. Craig418 07:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The remastered 'Aqualung' (1996) contains a 13 minute Excerpt(s) from a Ian Anderson interview, in which he (IA) touches upon his and Tull's relationship with Zeppelin and their simultaneous recordings in a converted church (Zeppelin booked first and got the smaller, and better, studio). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.17.134 (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rock And Roll Circus
I changed the information about Tony Iommi playing with Tull from 1969 to 1968 because the Rock and Roll Circus was in December 1968. I don't even think he was an official member, Mick Abrahams left in December 1968 and Martin Barre was already playing with them by January 1969. Maybe Iommi was just a friend of the bands' and briefly filled in.--Bappzannigan 16:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he was intended to be a permanent member - it just didn't work out. 86.128.47.6 (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Al

Glenn Cornick on Aqualung
Does anybody know if Glenn Cornick played on Aqualung the album? On the Aqualung page it says that it was recorded between December 1970 and February 1971. Cornick left the band in December of 1970 I believe, so did they start recording the album with him? Or did they start recording the album within weeks after his departure? Jeffery Hammond is the only person given credit for playing bass on the album, but I know that there are early live version of "My God" from 1970 which Glenn Cornick plays bass (i.e. Nothing Is Easy: Live At The Isle Of Wight Festival and Live At Carnegie Hall). If he does play on a few tracks from Aqualung perhaps that should be noted on the Aqualung page.--Bappzannigan 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He didn't. Recording for Aqualung took place in the UK after their US tour in December 1970, and Cornick left them on the flight home. Source is David Rees' "Minstrel In The Gallery" book. Zimmer6 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cornick is quoted somewhere (another source I'll have to look up) as saying that it would have been cool to play on Aqualung, but he wouldn't have lasted much longer than that because Thick As a Brick would have driven him up the wall. Craig418 (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why exactly did Cornick leave, anyway? Allmusic.com says he was fired.  TIA.  The Sanity Inspector (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See David Rees' book Minstrels in the Gallery, chapter 2, quote from Glenn himself: "Ian kicked me out... The problem was that Ian didn't respect my morals at the time, chasing girls and socialising. I was definitely a bit of a party animal, I enjoyed myself and enjoyed the rock'n'roll lifestyle, and Ian didn't approve of my general mode of behaviour."


 * Also, supporting my previous (2009) comment above, another quote from Glenn, this time from Scott Allen Nolen's book Jethro Tull: A History of the Band, 1968-2001: "I couldn't have stayed in the band that much longer, because I don't think I would have worked for Thick as a Brick... I wouldn't have fit into that format. I'm not a circus performer... Having to learn and play all that stuff exactly note for note every night would have driven me up the wall." Craig418 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute, lack of references
There are very few references in this relatively long article, and there are many passages that have a non-NPOV tone to them.--HisSpaceResearch 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also changed the priority of this article to Mid instead of Low. Some of the groups in Mid are way less important than Jethro Tull, such as Add N to X.--HisSpaceResearch 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed; the only reference, in fact, is another Wiki! It's rather sad when the only reference is a page with no inherent merit, itself.  Needs a major overhaul. --Icydesign 22:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This page contains a lot of information, but it was obviously written at a time before citations became commonplace and necessary for Wikipedia articles to survive. There are also little sections that really aren't from a neutral point of view, like saying that one album was "better" than its predecessor.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"excessive use of 'inspired by or based on' in songwriting descriptions"
Throughout there seems to be excessive claims that Anderson's compositions were "inspired by" or "based on" other compositions, particularly Jazz compositions. See "Locomotive Breath" and "Living in the Past." I've followed Tull since 1973 and have never seen these claims. Can sources please be cited? This seems to be open editorializing by someone who is dismissive of Anderson's abilities as a songwriter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.6.232.165 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Why do you regard such references as dismissive? Harry Chapin once said "Good artists borrow, but great artists steal". No artist does what he or she does in a vacuum. However, to make you happy, I will do a little searching to see if I can find some cites for some of the "influenced by" statements. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 13:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No need for disambiguation
People, since this page is already disambiguated, we should not start the article with an disambiguation template per wikipedia policies. If a user clicks OK after typing Jethro Tull then he is being taken to the disambiguation page already. If he types Jetro Tull (band) then he clearly does not need to be told that there is another page by the same name, he alredy implied he wants to read about the band, not the agriculturist. I will be removing this disambiguation template once again. Please, do not re-add it... If you feel it still need to be disambiguated, please discuss it here in the talk page before editing the article, so that I can try to convince you that this is the wrong thing to do :-) Regards Loudenvier 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Blackpool or Luton?
The sidebar and the main text says that that the band formed in Blackpool. The first line of the introduction, and the band's official biography, says that they formed in Luton. The article has no further mention of Luton beyond the first line; it states that Jethro Tull formed in Blackpool and then moved to London. Which is correct? -Ashley Pomeroy 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A closer look at the content and sources tells us that Ian Anderson had formed his first band in Blackpool, The Blades, a predecessor to Jethro Tull. After a series of breakups and new formations (John Evan Band and McGregor's Engine), the band Ian Anderson was associated with underwent multiple name changes at the suggestion of their booking agent until they finally got a repeat performance request while they were named as Jethro Tull.  The bands biography indicates some of these in between name changes. - cgilbert(talk 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The John Evan Band [aka the Blades aka John Evan Smash] came from Blackpool but decided to moved to London, although they seem to have ended up in nearby Luton. McGregor's Engine were based in Luton. Jethro Tull were formed (if not quite named) when Anderson & Cornick from the former band joined up with Abrahams & Bunker from the latter. Various members of the original Blackpool band later joined Tull, of course. So, Blackpool is the origin of many of the band and their first playing together; Luton is where the band that first took the name Jethro Tull was formed. Paul Rhodes 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I've requested semi-protection because of the random stubborn vandals. They need to get a hobby, like maybe writing articles about bands they like. - Jaguara the doom-flautist 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Article
In what way is the neutrality of this article disputed? 129.177.43.168 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Genres
why aren't Electronic Rock, Hard Rock and Blues in the template at the top in "Genres"? They were all genres the band worked in. Cryptic Cloud 02:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The mystery of "spurnecks"
Does anybody have any idea what does the word "spurnecks" in Hunting Girl from Songs From The Wood album mean? Vaclav Haisman 16:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Something to do with sex. See  for lyrics analysis. -Werideatdusk33 19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

'Boot leather flashing and spurnecks the size of my thumb'. She, the 'hunting girl', is wearing boots with spurs on. The 'neck', the bit that sticks out, is, it seems, the size of the singer's thumb. The bigger the spur the more uncomfortable it shall be when dug in... 86.128.47.6 (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Al

Separate Discography article?
Even far less established bands have separate discography articles. Does anyone object to me creating a separate article with all of this discog info, and then just a simple link? The main page is clearly too long. Also, does Jethro Tull not do singles? I guess this makes sense, but it seems like at least some of their songs charted - if so, this could be included on the discography page. What do you guys think? -Werideatdusk33 19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding singles, please refer to http://www.connollyco.com/discography/jethro_tull/index.html; proper case listings are singles, versus upper case which are albums. User:Les Andersen —Preceding comment was added at 09:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jethro Tull as a LGBT musical group
Because one of Jethro Tull's former but active members, David Palmer had gotten a sex change operation and became Dee Palmer, they should be listed as a LGBT musical group as well. I just made that edit. Please don't delete it for it would be transphobic and anti-LGBT. Thank you. I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.137.185 (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Jethro Tull do qualify as an LGBT musical group. Shut up and leave it along, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.137.175 (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

LEAVE IT ALONE, TRANSPHOBES! SHEESH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.138.231 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't assume that just because someone undoes your edit, they're transphobic. Maybe (as it the case here), your edit is not appropriate.


 * It wasn't until many years AFTER Dee Palmer left the band that she had her sex change operation. In other words, the band have never actively been involved with LGBT - and to say that they have because of something an ex band member did 20 years after they left the band is really stretching it.   By all means put it on a Dee Palmer page, but it doesn't have relevancy here. David T Tokyo 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was exaggerating. Maybe Jethro Tull have never really been much involved within the LGBT itself. But to deny Jethro Tull as an LGBT musical group is like saying the same thing about mixed sexual orientation band Scissor Sisters. Plus, all of the past and current members of Jethro Tull came to accept Dee's gender transformation and that she is very open about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.138.35 (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you obviously feel strongly about this. However, I'm sure that you'll find that this link will always be being removed from this page (I've just noticed that someone has already done so) - the simple reason is that a lot of people won't agree with your reasoning as to why it should be included.  If you feel it is essential that this is included, I can only suggest that you read the Wiki Dispute resolution page - hopefully that will give you clues as to how best to resolve this.


 * For my part, I still can't see anything other than a very tenuous connection. Dee Palmer didn't have her operation until 2004, 24 years after she (well, he) left the band.  But, more than that, I believe that the LGBT connection is a personal one - it's about Dee Palmer - and it's not something that can reasonably be associated on in the way you propose.  The fact that the band have accepted Dee's transformation is almost certainly because they're friends - and that what friends do.


 * It's rather like saying that because Drew Barrymore is bisexual (thankyou Wiki for enlightening me on that one), all the casts in all her films are LGBT casts. Including ET !! David T Tokyo 04:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, that is political incorrectness, no offense. If Indigo Girls qualify as an LGBT musical group, so do Jethro Tull regardless. There is no way one can compare Drew Barrymore and the casts in her films to Dee Palmer and Jethro Tull. To me, the way I originally fixed it does come from a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.138.227 (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Indigo Girls are two performers, both of whom have had, and continue to have, long-term gay relationships. Some of the members of the Scissor Sisters have gay relationships (although they prefer not to be labelled as a gay band).  The point is that members of these bands have had LGBT relationships WHILE the band was active.  This is NOT the case with Jethro Tull.  Dee Palmer was not a transsexual while she was with Jethro Tull - she was, according to Ian Anderson, "a big, bearded, pipe-smoking, curry-loving man’s man".  The events that revealed her transexuality didn't materialise until 24 years later.  To say that she was a transsexual while she was with Jethro Tull (which you persist in doing) is factually incorrect  - she wasn't.


 * The Drew Barrymore analogy uses an identical assocation process to the one you've been using here. I put it forward to show you that the logic that you're using simply doesn't work.


 * (This is your logic)
 * Dee Palmer is transsexual
 * Transsexuality is a part of LGBT
 * 24 years ago Dee Palmer was working with a group of musicians
 * The group of musicians were called Jethro Tull
 * Jethro Tull are therefore an LGBT group of musicians


 * (This is your same logic - only applied to someone else)
 * Drew Barrymore is bisexual
 * Bisexuality is a part of LGBT
 * 25 years ago Drew Barrymore was working with a group of actors
 * The group of actors were called the cast of ET
 * The cast of ET are therefore an LGBT movie cast


 * The reason that your logic is incorrect is that you CANNOT associate things historically unless you have


 * 1) evidence that Dee Palmer's transsexuality happened - not just in the present BUT ALSO IN THE PAST.
 * 2) evidence that Dee Palmer's transsexuality was known about, and fully supported by the band - not just in the present BUT ALSO IN THE PAST


 * So, if you have evidence that Dee Palmer's transsexuality occurred and was known about, and acrtively supported by, the members of Jethro Tull while Dee Palmer was playing in the band you'll have a case for saying that Jethro Tull are (or were) an LGBT band. If you don't have that evidence, you shouldn't be tagging Jethro Tull as an LGBT band. David T Tokyo 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, my logic is that Dee Palmer is a trannsexual from the group, not anyone else. My logic isn't what you put down. I don't think it compares to Drew Barrymore. There is evidence about Dee's trannsexuality. Yes, Dee was what Ian Anderson described her to be. But Dee realized that at the age of 3 and kept it hidden up until changing her name from David and getting the procedure done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.138.222 (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the Scissor Sisters. About half of them are straight and the other half are gay and yet they qualify as an LGBT musical group. They've only done very little amount of LGBT-themed songs. Yes, all the evidence of Dee Palmer's trannsexuality you asked of is what I found in reading of Dee Palmer's interview. She is very open about it. Therefore, they can qualify as an LGBT musical group despite the timeline.


 * (sigh) I have also read Dee Palmer's interview - and yes, she is very open about her transsexuality. Remarkably so, in fact - and if anyone hasn't read it I would recommend it as she is very articulate and considered in her responses to some pretty searching questions. A good read.... However, as I have said to you before, I have no problem at all with you labelling Dee Palmer's transsexuality as LGBT (although whether she would is obviously a different matter). The problem I have is that you wish to go one stage further and associate it back to a period many, many years before her transsexuality became evident, and you wish to link it to a group of people who knew nothing - categorically nothing - about it.


 * I'm sure that the members of Jethro Tull are a tolerant bunch. Although by his own admission it took Ian Anderson a couple of years to get used to the new Dee, I wouldn't mind betting that he and the other members of the band are very supportive of Dee Palmer and would defend her lifestyle choices and actions to the hilt if needed (although I also think Dee Palmer does a pretty good job by herself).  However, just because they choose to provide support for an old friend, it doesn't then mean that you can then take a huge leap in logic and place Jethro Tull in the same category as the Scissor Sisters or The Indigo Girls - bands whose sexuality is a notable part of their current existence.  Frankly, the mere idea is laughable.


 * If Ian and co. go out there and choose to actively throw their weight behind improving LGBT awareness (who knows, it may happen), THEN you can accurately label Jethro Tull an LGBT band. Until then, it is factually inaccurate to call them one.


 * Usually by the time I write these responses to you someone has already removed the LGBT tag. However, I've noticed that it's still up there so this time it'll be me that does it.  David T Tokyo 05:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that'll just be my point of view and opinion. I'm not trying to be laughable; I just feel that although it will never happen and that Dee Palmer's sexuality isn't a notable part, Jethro Tull should be placed as an LGBT musical group but I won't take further action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.137.178 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - and thanks for listening David T Tokyo 05:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jt5.jpg
Image:Jt5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent membership changes
What happened to Jonathan Noyce and Andrew Giddings? TheScotch (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's weird. The official Jethro Tull site says absolutely nothing about their departure, and Andrew's last diary entry (August 2006) gives no indication that he's thinking of quitting. (Jonathan never contributed diaries to the site.) Craig418 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia
In view of the fact that the trivia section contains references to mere mentions of JT in some films or tv programmes, could a paragraph be added for Martin O'Neill, Aston Villa and former Celtic manager, who has genuinely earned it by mentioning the band whenever he can in interviews? Usually when asked what he would like to have been outside football he says "lead singer in Jethro Tull", and even managed to sneak in a reference during a Euro 2008 panel discussion last week (although I was just switching channels at the time and didn't catch the full comment). Although not a Villa, Celtic, Forest, Norwich, Man City, Notts County, Leicester City, Distillery F.C. or Northern Ireland fan (mind you he is strongly rumoured to be a Sunderland fan) I would think this is justified.

Then there's the playing of Too Old to Rock and Roll full blast at General Noriega to flush him out. Gusssss (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

American vs. British spelling
Silly question, perhaps, but does Wikipedia have a policy about the use of American vs. British spellings? Someone recently changed a few words to British spelling (most notably "synthesisers") and I've changed it back because in my experience Wikipedia articles are typically written in American English. Craig418 (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's at WP:ENGVAR. I would suggest, that has this is a British band, we should be using British English. Edgepedia (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted back to UK English. Wikipedia manual of style is clear on this. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, based on WP:ENGVAR, I accept that reasoning. Craig418 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Live history
Is there any reason for this section? Surely this information would be better in the dated history of the band above? Edgepedia (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just moved across as is it would "bloat" the history rather a lot. As it is, the "Live history" is a distinct "history" and of sufficient interest to warrant it's own section. What was your thing behind the proposal? :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  11:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thick As A Brick (and APassion Play) was NOT first
Although "Thick As A Brick" was the first ever 1 song - album, the exceptionally long songs was first tried 1971 by UFO on their album "Flying" the title song is about 28 minutes and "Star Storm" close to 19 minutes. I think Jethro Tull was inspired of the original UFO-sound, although UFO themselves changed both style and guitarrist (from Michael Bolton to Michael Schenker) on their following album "Phenomenon" (wich includes "DoctorDoctor" and "Rock Bottom") —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPEriksson (talk • contribs)

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! You are SUCH a funny man. 86.168.26.38 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Al (UK)

Heavy Metal
I just saw an add of 'heavy metal' as a genre reverted. How can that be, considering that they won (however justiably) the heavy metal grammy for 1987? Luminifer (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the revert. Despite a few songs and the occasional album, sounding "heavy", there's no way that Jethro Tull can be classified as Heavy Metal.  The fact that they won the Grammy in this category is just evidence that the Grammy organisers occasionally get things very wrong. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * However, as I've been told, wikipedia is not necessarily about "THE TRUTH", but is about showing sourced information. You could also argue for much of their material - particularly off of Aqualung and Broadsword - for being heavy metal. I don't think it should be removed without discussion. Luminifer (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You could be right. This is from the J Tull site...


 * There is a common misconception that Tull is a heavy metal and prog rock band. In truth, throughout the years, Tull has produced albums with distinctive sounds crossing and melding jazz, blues, folk, classical, Elizabethan, prog/art rock, and electronic genres (just to name a few) with just a smidge of heavy metal. Despite the variations, each album retains an unmistakable Tull sound.


 * The question is - is a smidge of heavy metal enough to classify them as a heavy metal band? I still say no (it's obvious that they're not a core heavy metal band) but we should aim for consensus. David T Tokyo (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anderson has been known to contradict himself in the past - I wouldn't use that quote to outright dismiss it. Heavy metal is a vague term anyway - do we mean compositional? performative? I would say that at least two full albums (and much of their live mid-70s material) is more than a "smidge". Luminifer (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of the info box is to summarise the band, not list every possible genre they may have approximated at one time or other. Unless you're likely to say, in summarising, that the band were heavy metal, it doesn't belong here. And even then, it should be cited. There's already 5 genres there, none cited. That's quite enough, the more that are added the less useful the info box becomes to any reader unfamiliar with the band. Less is more. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that less is more sometimes, but we are in an uncomfortable middle ground here. If we go the 'less is more' route (as suggested in your edit text) I'd suggest we remove Genre from the infobox entirely. For a band like Jethro Tull it's somewhat misleading anyway (what about Under Wraps?).. Luminifer (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish we could! A number of editors have attempted to have the genre field removed completely from the musical artist Infobox as it is a constant pain.  Problem is that genres are often loosely defined, depending on personal view points, and bands' "adherence" to a genre is also often a matter of opinion.  Couple this with the mania that some have for pigeon-holing bands and insistence of what type of music they play (and, just importantly, what they certainly don't play), and you have endless mucking about of the genre field.  It would be far better to keep this information in the article body, where it can be properly explained and put in context.
 * However, we're stuck with it. The best we can hope for is to try and keep it a summary, instead of hopelessly unfocussed list, and cited. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know I'm late to this and I personally don't consider JT a metal band, but a odd thing was that Martin Popoff credited them for creating progressive metal in his book of "The Top 500 heavy metal songs". Rockgenre (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Album Omission
The album "Living in the Past", 1972 was omitted from the group's discography. Perry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.140.189 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because it's seen as a collection, not a studio album. You'll note that no collections or Live albums are on that list.  However, if you go to the Jethro Tull Discography page, you'll see it there. David T Tokyo (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-learnt to play flute
I'm adding a cite tag to this part "After the 1992 tour, Anderson had re-learned how to play the flute," of Present: World Music - I'm sure I've read about this elsewhere, but this entry doesn't mention it earlier, nor does the Ian Anderson page.--C Hawke (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE
Mlpearc  powwow  15:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All redirected & disambiguation links fixed.

References in popular culture deletion of entire section
PLEASE do not just delete an entire section at your whim without holding consultation with other editors. It is difficult to cite excerpts from copyrighted media, alternatively we could link to the you tube episode but that would be in direct violation of policy so what do you suggest? Quality articles have 'references in popular culture' sections without citing. Unless it can be proven that reference is wrong then the section should stayTwobells (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This section is entirely pop culture trivia, none of it is verifiable, a core policy of Wikipedia, and almost all of it is original research. Could you show me a "quality article" that has such a section?
 * But seriously, it's all mind-numbingly trivial. Is it so remarkable that a band of Tull's longevity and success have sometimes had a passing reference to them in a film/tv show?  Is it so unusual that their music has sometimes appeared in the background of a film?  Does anything in this section add anything to the band's notability or illustrate anything about them?  I don't think so.  It's an random mish-mash of nothing in particular, so what, total insignificance.
 * No-where is the procedure followed that something has to be proven wrong before it can be removed. That's not how it works.  Anyone could make up entirely fictional facts of equally extreme trivia that would be almost impossible to prove wrong. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the trivia matter that much (ie is noteworthy and sourced), reincorporate it properly into the article prose. Can you imagine how big of a section could be added to The Beatles? Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate facts. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  01:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer to the latest edition to this section as a case in point; uncited original research regarding King Of The Hill. Unverifiable trivia of no interest or importance to anyone. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Twobells hasn't responded I'm removing the section again for all the above reasons as noted by myself and ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ . -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening line
The article starts -  Jethro Tull are a British rock group formed in 1967.< . I don't think that is correct. (And I am British.) The 'collective plural' is used when thinking of the indivual members. But not when referring to the group as an entity. That sentence grates to me, with the clash of plural verb with a singular following it. -- Beardo (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Start of comment by ChrisJBenson (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC). In the previous paragraph (signed at least in part by Beardo), I had difficulty separating and "crediting" the correct and the not-quite-so-correct. So I am trying to be very clear here. I apologise if it appears rude. Along with my own considerable experience, several consulted authoritative and many respected resources all agree that (even in British English), the opening words of this article would be semantically better using the singular form, and written thus:


 * "Jethro Tull is a British progressive rock group ..." (British: correct in this context, American: correct)

In partial deference to some British plural supporters, I wish to stress that the current (9 July 2013) opening words:
 * "Jethro Tull are a British progressive rock group ..." (British: grammatically correct but semantically inaccurate here, American: grammatical error)

do not by themselves constitute a grammatical error. However, if the semantic intent is about the group as a whole, then it is to be considered singular. I believe the opening sentence does refer to the group by its proper name as a single entity, and so using the singular verb form "... is ..." is an improvement semantically. The British ambiguity of neither form being grammatically incorrect arises from the British English rule with just a few exceptions (both very well-documented) that collective nouns are singular or plural depending on whether viewed as one group or as several individual members. Here's are some examples of that distinction:


 * Manchester United is the better team in this game.
 * Manchester City are fighting among themselves.

Elvis Costello was correct (gramnatically) to sing:


 * "Oliver's army are on their way, Oliver's army is here to stay."

which conveys additional meaning not available in American English that Oliver's constituent members are not all travelling here together, for if they were, Elvis would have sung "Oliver's Army is on its way". Thank you Elvis. Sometimes, the very precise meaning and sense of the sentence must be considered when determining the correct form. Fowler contrasts these two sentences as examples that depend upon precise meaning:


 * The cabinet is divided on the first matter. (in the sequence of thought, a whole must precede division)
 * The cabinet are agreed. (it takes at least two to have an agreement)

This last example serves as a reminder that the article's plural form using "... are ..." is not a grammatical error in British. I do not think that WP:RETAIN applies here because the article usage is currently incorrect in American usage, and not optimal in British. There is however a statement in a different Wiki rule (or is it style) about national varieties of English that we should avoid confrontational terms. The singular form is acceptable in both the British and American varieties of English. I won't change this in the article now (golden rule). Let's wait to see if there's a response towards consensus before changing it.

To avoid repeating every instance of known exceptions to this singular/plural ambiguity of collective nouns, please check the excellent Wikipedia articles on this topic (here and here for example) or at least note that this singular form is not permitted when the collective noun is a proper name that is already in plural form. One can only say "the Beatles were a British group" (not "the Beatles was ...") even in American which normally takes the singular regardless of constituent intent. But even that exception has its own exception: the tern "United States" itself and similar terms for the USA has gone back to being singular in British and American (interestingly changing in the latter country about 1865, I'm going to guess around April of that year, on the 9th perhaps). Some specific common (not proper) collective nouns are noted as exceptions and always take plural form in both British and Anerican English, such as "people" and "police" (not yet another British group, but the forces of alleged good, such as Los Federales & co.). Sports teams in both countries are also the subject of several exceptions, apparently unless you write for the New York Times. ChrisJBenson (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC) (end).

I'm sorry
I was trying to add drums and flute, bass and backing vocals, keyboard and backing vocals, categories and so on to the member list so sorry i messed it up just then i thought it was nessecary but im not sure i know how to do it. could someone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.84.13.116 (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Jethro Toe
The citation it relates to (#8) goes to a 404 error. Also, according to this interview, Ian Anderson said he didn't know if it was a typo or not. "We were never sure if it was just a typo or whether he was doing it somehow to avoid having to pay us (laughs)."

If no one has any input, I will change it later this week.Pizzamancer (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro Tull has officially disbanded
Ian Anderson has announced that Jethro Tull no longer exists: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/apr/15/ian-anderson-end-of-jethro-tull I added this info and the link to the 2011-present section; perhaps this should also be mentioned in the lede. 62.78.230.2 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Photo to add
I don't know how to add photos to an article. I've just uploaded a photo to Wikimedia commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jethro-Tull-Fargo-Moorhead-visitors-center.jpg If someone wants to add it to the page, go ahead. I took the photo a few minutes ago at the Fargo Moorhead Visitor's center in Fargo, ND. A sign nearby said it was originally cast in front of a print shop in downtown Fargo but moved to the visitor's center in 2000 which might explain the crack. Raftman1979 (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can add Jethro-Tull-Fargo-Moorhead-visitors-center.jpg at an appropriate place witin the article to do that. --M ASEM (t) 23:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)