Unusual?

Textbook wrote: I've been a hardcore Jethro Tull fan for years. And I mean HARDCORE, I've got all 20 studio albums, the four Anderson solos, two B-side/rarities collections and a few hours of self collected rarities. They're probably my favourite band of all time if I had to call it. And yet I don't really like prog-folk and listen to virtually nothing else in the genre. I would listen to any other PA sub-genre (with the exception of my bugbear neo-prog) more than I do prog-folk   Is this wierd, to just love ONE band from a genre?   (I suppose this could be a problem not with prog-folk but with a possible misclassification of JT. Fans have noted before that it's odd how JT are almost always described as folk rock when their folk period is really only three albums and that after their commercial heyday.)

You love a band.  The genre (sub genre, supragenre, whatever) is just a label.  You can't take it too seriously.

Lizzy wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Why are you so sure the Tullboys were "clean"?  I know Ian was clean, not sure about the others. There was a band policy in the early years in this respect as a matter of fact, not sure if it lasted throughout the band's career. And since Anderson was the mastermind behind the compositions, it's him we should focus on when it comes to the outcome of his efforts. (I can also relate to him, because I'm pretty much the same - act stoned, but I'm perfectly sober.)

I give you the credit Lizzy, I know squat about Tull except for their music. Interesting info.

Lozlan wrote: There was a thread on here a short while ago that was asking why Tull were listed as prog folk instead of as eclectic prog.  I think the admins ultimately stated that Tull's contributions to the genre pf prog folk were far too considerable to move them into another category.

That was me actually who posted that, but I take it as a compliment

Lozlan wrote: However, I think this might answer your question: Tull are musical chameleons, almost moreso  than any other band I can think of.  Loving both Aqualung and Catfish Rising, or Minstrel In the Gallery and Under Wraps, is the sign of a true Tull fan.  The styles on each of these releases are totally dissimilar, but somehow Tull always sounds like Tull.  It's a somewhat inexplicable trait that they share with Queen.

Agreed

SouthSideoftheSky wrote: But. Let me just try this thought out on you. I think that what is called Prog Folk here on PA is actually two very different genres that one might call "Prog Folk" and "Folk Prog" respectively. ...

I also don't care very much about genre-definitions. If I like it, I like it.

But. Let me just try this thought out on you. I think that what is called Prog Folk here on PA is actually two very different genres that one might call "Prog Folk" and "Folk Prog" respectively.

The first is progressive Folk music, the other is progressive Rock with Folk influences. Jethro Tull belong in the second category. They are a Rock band at heart, not a Folk outfit. But they often included elements from Folk music in their brand of Rock.

The first category include bands such as The Pentangle. It's Folk music at heart, but with some (minor if you ask me) "progressions" from the established Folk paradigm. 

Progressive Rock with folky elements appeal to me a lot, but I'm usually not very fond of pure Folk music even if it happens to be progressive.

Hi,

Edited by moshkito - October 13 2010 at 15:25

Lizzy wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Why are you so sure the Tullboys were "clean"?  I know Ian was clean, not sure about the others. There was a band policy in the early years in this respect as a matter of fact, not sure if it lasted throughout the band's career.And since Anderson was the mastermind behind the compositions, it's him we should focus on when it comes to the outcome of his efforts. (I can also relate to him, because I'm pretty much the same - act stoned, but I'm perfectly sober.)

Ian Anderson openly discarded the hippi movement, so I guess the assumption of Tull being a non-drugs band could very well be true.

harmonium.ro wrote: Why are you so sure the Tullboys were "clean"?

I know Ian was clean, not sure about the others. There was a band policy in the early years in this respect as a matter of fact, not sure if it lasted throughout the band's career.
And since Anderson was the mastermind behind the compositions, it's him we should focus on when it comes to the outcome of his efforts. (I can also relate to him, because I'm pretty much the same - act stoned, but I'm perfectly sober.)

Hah! Interesting! I'm the one who loves both Tull AND prog-folk. That being said, I've never regarded Tull as folk band, and whole-heartedly agree with those stating they'd fit the eclectic cathegory. Take all flok elements found in Tull's compositions and you'll get two, maximum three solid folk albums.
However, it was those folk elements that drew me to their music, and when I first listened to First Utterance, my first thought was: Jethro Tull on crack. Had Ian done drugs, he would have come up with something like that. Loved Comus, and from then on I lost control and devoured pretty much all prog folk albums I managed to get my hands on.

Well.. I love prog-folk and I only dislike most of Jehtro Tull albums.. things happen.

yanch wrote: I'm a huge Tull fan too, and also don't really get into other prog-folk. The folk in Tull's music is not the underlying key element of the music in my opinion, but more of an ingredient in a bigger and unique sound. For an example, the title track of Songs From the Wood, considered Tull's first folk-rock album-is not much of a folk influenced song, the instrumental section are rather heavy and complex. The same can be said for Hunting Girl and Pibroch and perhaps the Whistler.  It's more about integrating the folk element into the rock and prog elements, which have created such a wonderful and unique sound.

Good observation! The album's themes are English folk lore, but the music is highly eclectic. My favourite track is probably "Velvet Green", which plays tricks with something that sounds like a courtly 16th-century tune.