Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site osiris.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!osiris!jcp
From: jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Jethro Tull retraction and flame
Message-ID: <307@osiris.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 5-May-85 11:05:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: osiris.307
Posted: Sun May  5 11:05:10 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 07:24:15 EDT
References: <268@osiris.UUCP> <194@unccvax.UUCP>
Organization: Johns Hopkins Hospital
Lines: 31

> 
>      Bullcookies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>      
>      Jethro Tull can be called a lot of things but relatively unoriginal?
> How about your article: every Tull hater at one time, or another, has always
> pinned the blame for their annoyance on Ian ripping off Roland Kirk. Steve
> Simels, in Sterno Review, legitimizes his disdain for Tull quite frequently
> in print using this approach, for example.
> 
> David Anthony
> 

	Hey, whoa, slow down. Y'all extract the wrong message from things.
I said, "hasn't had an original thought since 1978". That was "Heavy Horses",
which was, in my opinion, the last good Tull album. Like alot of other folks
on the net, "Minstel in the Gallery" is my favorite Tull album and still worth
a listen, but recent albums went down in quality quite a bit, more hot air
than music. I wasn't trying to be down on Anderson for his flute playing, but
I wanted to make it clear where his primary influence came from (and where
Roland Kirk's came from, too, remember). I liked Tull alot because I also
liked bands like Fairport Convention, but where menebers of that band have gone
on to new and better things, Tull just hasn't gone anywhere in recent years,
except maybe to more elaborate costumes.
	As for Madonna, well, I can't stand her, but I wanted to hear someone
else's opinion without necessarily influencing anyone.
-- 
  

jcpatilla

"'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."