Punk RIP

[gweimer]

I love The Ramones, but I hardly consider them punk.  They were fun, energetic, and used a format to forge a lifelong career.  I recall Lester Bangs describing them as The Beach Boys (early) on acid.  They were probably the most fun show I ever saw.
To me, what was labeled "punk" sounded like bored, self-indulgent guitar players who didn't care what the rest of the band did.  And the style crept into some unlikely places...

[fur85]

The Ramones inspired thousands of kids (myself included) to think "hey, let's start a band" after seeing them live.

A lot of garage music from the 60's was punk even if the media had not yet used that word for it. It was kids learning to play, having fun, rebelling and importantly, not caring about making money. Using that definition, punk still exists. I didn't know about it until my daughter told me about the bands she goes to see and played some of their records for me. There are bands still touring in vans, playing shows in basements, sleeping on floors and making music that is interesting and full of energy.

I recently read Our Band Could Be Your Life and enjoyed it a lot. It did a good job capturing the feel of "the scene" from that time. I believe there is still music like that going on, below the radar of middle-aged guys like me.

[OldManC]

The most annoying thing about punk was its elitism as to all other types of music. The most pretentious prog bands in their mothers' gowns never claimed that their music was the only thing worthwhile to the exclusion of everything else. Punk reeked of musical insecurity and intolerance.

Over the years I met and have known individual punk fans who didn't fit this description, but as a whole I have to agree completely on this one, Uwe. Much of the stuff that followed (think 80's Smiths and the like) seemed to inspire the same elitism in its fans. As a rocker kid I always disdained any rockers who acted that way, so that attitude turned me off punk and a lot of what followed before I really gave the music a chance. Over the years I've discovered various bands from those genres that I've liked, but I still can't stand that cooler than thou attitude. Especially now, when punk as a musical style is older than Frank Sinatra's music was when punk first hit the scene.

[slinkp]

[uwe]

For me, The Ramones were always too much in their own universe to be punks. They weren't political, they weren't anti-"society"/establishment, the four Bruddahs were a minimalist (and beautiful) thing all of their own. They didn't look like punks either, any Ramone could have played with Foghat and not get noticed with his jeans and biker jacket. They "invented" that buzzsaw sound, true, but to me punk also needed that political edge. The Clash were punk and even their music morphed into middle of the road rock as their career progressed.

I have a feeling that we have a definition issue here and that Americans define punk as something different than Europeans do. For me, punk is in essence a British social movement (with music to go alongside it, but not the core content) spawned by the Brit class society's stiffling effect on British youth in the mid to late seventies. It grew from there. But, say, four kids from affluent suburbia homes in Southern California playing their guitars in buzzsaw style is as "punk" as Disneyland's depiction of the Black Forest is Germany. They play music that cites punk music influences, that is all.

I accept that the American view might be different.

[uwe]

Over the years I met and have known individual punk fans who didn't fit this description, but as a whole I have to agree completely on this one, Uwe. Much of the stuff that followed (think 80's Smiths and the like) seemed to inspire the same elitism in its fans. As a rocker kid I always disdained any rockers who acted that way, so that attitude turned me off punk and a lot of what followed before I really gave the music a chance. Over the years I've discovered various bands from those genres that I've liked, but I still can't stand that cooler than thou attitude. Especially now, when punk as a musical style is older than Frank Sinatra's music was when punk first hit the scene.

And by the eighties it all morphed anyways, just take a look at Chequered Past



which featured members from the Sex Pistols (Steve Jones), Iggy Pop (one of the Sales brothers who would move on to do great things with the much underrated Tin Machine), Blondie and singer Michel des Barres of Silverhead glam rock (non-)fame  



as well as a tenure with boring old fart heavy band "supergroup" Detective



not to mention those prototype punks of Power Station:



With punk credentials like that   in the same band as Steve Jones! The mind boggles. A lot of that "us and them" division between punk and other forms of rock was utterly artificial and hyped by the press. And whoever believed that in the mid seventies all rock bands were dinosaurs removed from their audience and not dressing like them had never witnessed a Status Quo concert around that time:





Or one of Dr Feelgood for that matter:



I hope that is garage enough for everyone.  

[fur85]

For me, punk is in essence a British social movement (with music to go alongside it, but not the core content) spawned by the Brit class society's stiffling effect on British youth in the mid to late seventies. It grew from there. But, say, four kids from affluent suburbia homes in Southern California playing their guitars in buzzsaw style is as "punk" as Disneyland's depiction of the Black Forest is Germany. They play music that cites punk music influences, that is all.

I accept that the American view might be different.

If you derive you definition of punk from the music press then I can see calling it a British social movement and it is indeed dead.

The Disneyland analogy is apt, once again though it is seeing it and defining it through the eyes of the press. You may have heard of the affluent kids from So Cal because somebody has money to promote them. But again, examples of the opposite don't prove the real thing doesn't exist.

There was a huge difference between what the press reported and what was really going on in the late 70's and early 80's. The Ramones were dismissed as a joke and rarely mentioned in any media before 1979 when Rock N Roll High School came out. (at least in the US outside NYC). And I have to agree, they were not political punks, they just wanted to be famous. They did inspire the British social movement though.

The Black Flag/Minor Threat era all happened via word of mouth and posters on telephone poles. And that was a big part of the point. They didn't need the media to make them legitimate.

So you're right, we have very different definitions.

[uwe]

I was of course an avid NME reader back then (once a week, I saddled my bicycle and rode it 10 miles to Darmstadt and back again because you couldn't get the NME in my hometown) - there was no comparable music paper (and it had better availability in Germany than the Rolling Stone, Melody Maker or Sounds). Though it largely derided the music I liked most (back then: hard rock), one thing it was not: ever boring. The articles were extremely partisan, venomous, but also hilarious and wonderfully sarcastic. NME made me discover bands such as The Dictators (hailed as the new MC 5 and then going nowhere), The Ramones, Dr. Feelgood, The Jam, Televison, but also Starz, Strapps, Moxy, BÖC, Judas Priest (continuously the butt of their jokes) and Rush ("Alex Lifeson is a competent guitarist. The author has been to too many Jeff Beck, Frank Zappa and Eric Clapton concerts to say more."  ). I made a habit of checking out the bands they either adored or hated vigorously, anything provoking an extreme reaction, I thought, must be interesting. Some of their review one liners stick in my memory to this day "Kiss' new single Beth is so limp it makes Smokie sound like the MC 5"   , now I like Beth as a song (and liked it back then), but that was just a hilarious putdown. In fact, a lot of how I communicate in this forum today is down to how the NME wrote at the time, it sure left an impression.

And of course they raved about the Sex Pistols - every week a large article about their mostly non-musical shenanigans - for almost a year until you could actually finally buy the album Never Mind the Bollocks. And that then sounded like damp squid after all the hype I had read. I had expected their music to be dark and menacing - sort of MC 5 do Kick out the Jams -, but never mind the Bollocks sounded like a Chinn/Chapman produced Sweet record and most songs were in major keys!   A few years ago I bought the remaster and heard it again, am I the only person who hears that is is essentially an early seventies glam rock production sound/rough mix minus the ornamentation you hear on that record? Nothing against glam rock, but that cheapened the whole anti-society agenda of the Pistols for me because glam rock was pure escapism, something the Pistols always scorned upon. The MC 5 Kick out the Jams live album had sounded raw and dangerous in comparison, it had not sounded like a, say, Monkees record. And it's not like bug-eyed frontmen with a cockney sneer hadn't sung with English bands before:



Maybe you had to see Johnny Rotten and Co. in person live to appreciate them in full, but they never toured Germany though some of their songs - for instance the tastefully titled "Belsen was a Gas"   - indicated a certain good-natured Germanophillity ... And what finally made me lose all respect for the Sex Pistols - this might sound sour-pussish, but here I go, I was a politically aware leftish, but not nihilist 16 year old nerd at the time - was that they had absolutely no friggin' idea about what anarchy (in the UK or elsewhere) or a "fascist regime" was, all they did was kick around taboos inanely, I failed to see how that would/could be the threat to the British Empire or British class society as which they had been hyped continuously. I held the conservative view at the time (and still do) that if you sing about those things you should know what they are, but that is just me.

[Granny Gremlin]

Granted he's more industrial than punk but how can you not love this?

Oh, you know I do.  Love the shit out of that record.  That Rod Stewart cover is better done than Stewart was capable of doing it (admittedly, his heart wasn't in it; thought it was too vulgar.... and yet RevCo made it vulgar still with a few tiny lyrical changes). ...though I was disapointed when I learned the real title of Crackin Up (I thought it was Crackula, which I found to be awesomely hilarious).

For me, The Ramones were always too much in their own universe to be punks. They weren't political, they weren't anti-"society"/establishment, the four Bruddahs were a minimalist (and beautiful) thing all of their own. ...They "invented" that buzzsaw sound, true, but to me punk also needed that political edge. The Clash were punk and even their music morphed into middle of the road rock as their career progressed.

Um, go re-listen to Bonzo Goes To Bitburg (political), Do You Remember Rock n Roll Radio or Rock n Roll High School (anti-establishment) and.... any of their songs about sniffing glue or general drug use (sociology; Now I wanna Sniff Some Glue, Carbonna not Glue, We're a Happy Family etc).  Don't let their romantic ideals about music and life (Rockaway Beach - the source of that bubblegum line I mentioned earlier) fool you.  

As much as I love The Clash, many argue they were too political and, as you imply, no longer punk at all after/halfway through London Calling.  I disagree with those people (because putting out an awesome double album, and then an even better IMHO triple album within the span of a year and pricing them no more than a single LP is a pretty f***in punk thing to do, in addition to one heck of an achievement - that's London Calling and Sandanista! FYI, Dec 14 and 12th, 79 and 80 respectively) - see also the next point.

They didn't look like punks either,

What does a punk look like?  ... careful, almost anything you could answer here is wrong (we can't even eliminate baggy pants, though that tends not to be a popular punk choice, it has happened, see Johnny Rotten in the PiL era, Poly Styrene of XRay Spex and various members of The Slits at various times).  I repeat: there are no aesthetic boundaries to punk... or few and vague ones.  Lots of folks have ideas about the punk style, and they are all wrong.  This is proven by the simple fact that no 2 first wave punk bands sounded remotely similar enough to create such a defenition, or dressed the same.  Some wore suits as satire, others scoffed at them for it (others scoffed as well while wearing partial suits).  Some were hard, some were more easy listening (relatively).  Some were complex and arty (jazz or world-music inspired sometimes), some were minimalist, short and loud.

Gen X documented this very well in 100 Punks with the (misquoted everywhere online, since The Offspring covered it and changed the line, intentionally or not):

"if you ain't got a look, you'll never be one"

(the misquote is replacing that bolded and seemingly insignificant word with "the" - makes a huge difference in meaning)

!!!!! (exactly)  

[Dave W]

...
I have a feeling that we have a definition issue here and that Americans define punk as something different than Europeans do. For me, punk is in essence a British social movement (with music to go alongside it, but not the core content) spawned by the Brit class society's stiffling effect on British youth in the mid to late seventies. It grew from there. But, say, four kids from affluent suburbia homes in Southern California playing their guitars in buzzsaw style is as "punk" as Disneyland's depiction of the Black Forest is Germany. They play music that cites punk music influences, that is all.

I accept that the American view might be different.

You're right about the British origins, as far as it goes, but that's not the whole story. American punk rock grew on its own, some of it was highly political, some not. Very little of it ever pretended to have any connection with the social movement in the UK.

[rexdiablo]

I used to race a bike with this D Boon image on the head tube. 

And agree on the Social D thoughts. One of the worst live acts I've ever seen.  And anyone ever listen to the record Jello did with Nomeansno? Good shit, some really nice bass playing on that one, too!

[uwe]

You're right about the British origins, as far as it goes, but that's not the whole story. American punk rock grew on its own, some of it was highly political, some not. Very little of it ever pretended to have any connection with the social movement in the UK.

That's a helpful insight. I had not realized that US punk takes its lineage that much from somewhere else. That lates seventies phase of English punk has pretty much determined my view of it. And except for the lates seventie NYC scene, I know next to nothing about US punk, especially West Coast punk was always a remote concept to me.

As regards Jake's question how punks should look ... Well, at least somewhat like The Exploited!

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Oh, you know I do.  Love the shit out of that record.  That Rod Stewart cover is better done than Stewart was capable of doing it (admittedly, his heart wasn't in it; thought it was too vulgar.... and yet RevCo made it vulgar still with a few tiny lyrical changes). ...though I was disapointed when I learned the real title of Crackin Up (I thought it was Crackula, which I found to be awesomely hilarious).

I remember when that cover came out. I was like: so THAT'S why all the gay writers at Rolling Stone talk about why Rod Steward was "hot" in 70's! I love Al Jourgenson: Ministry, Revolting Cocks, Buck Satan and the 666 Shooters and not NEARLY enough co-writing credits on everything that Zombie and NIN (and every OTHER Reznor-helped band) put out in the 90's.

 DO you think I'm sexy?

Um, go re-listen to Bonzo Goes To Bitburg (political), Do You Remember Rock n Roll Radio or Rock n Roll High School (anti-establishment) and.... any of their songs about sniffing glue or general drug use (sociology; Now I wanna Sniff Some Glue, Carbonna not Glue, We're a Happy Family etc).  Don't let their romantic ideals about music and life (Rockaway Beach - the source of that bubblegum line I mentioned earlier) fool you.

Now keep in mind he's all Yura-mapeein and just don't get that the US culture post-Vietnam turned its hostility inward on its kids and laid down a much heavier boot on their necks than they were used to (not Hugo Boss heavy, but not THAT far from it) that didn't let up until the autoerotic exercise in foreign policy that was Desert Storm lofted the raging US pride boner to the air once again and music got all gloomy and introspective (and out of tune according to Uwe). Them gloomy Seattle kids were so desperate that they had to dust off a semi-retired Canadian hippy to lead them. (I liked "grunge" when it was still spelled "M-E-T-A-L.") I understood the rebellious nature of punk, but so much of the music was just so sedate. My first impression of the Pistols music was the same as Uwe's. The music I liked was angry AND scary to the old farts in charge with tons of hair but the only hairspray was in the hair of the few dozen biker slut chicks at the massive orgies of volume, aggression and destruction that passed for concerts. ..back in MY day, when Slayer played here, moshing literally tore down masonry block walls. (Their ban from that venue was only lifted two years ago.)

As much as I love The Clash, many argue they were too political and, as you imply, no longer punk at all after/halfway through London Calling.

I loved the Clash before I knew who they were. I was just a smidge behind the times and had heard many of their songs and loved them never knowing that the cool sproingy-rock songs I liked WERE the Clash. BY the time I connected those dots, I appreciated the political element even more. 80's 'serious' (aka REAL) metal's politik had primed me very well to it.

[Lightyear]

The Black Flag/Minor Threat era all happened via word of mouth and posters on telephone poles. And that was a big part of the point. They didn't need the media to make them legitimate.

Black Flag seemed to play in Houston almost every month back in late 70's - we all thought they sucked - hard.  Seemingly one song at manic speed in the same key with Mr. Rollins screaming his ass off to the point of a stroke.  They always had a good crowd but I have to say they did nothing for me.  There was exactly one punk club in Houston, The Island, and everyone played there - I'm sure that we saw most every group that toured.  My generation was the first group of punks in Houston and I can truly say that none us gave a rats ass about politics or social justice - we just hated the popular music of the day and rebelled against sameness.  Drinking and sex were in our "sphere" of interest as well. 

[Barklessdog]

Minutemen were considered west coast punk. I don't think they followed any kind of real music format.

I remember being a kid and seeing the rock mags with Iggy Pop cutting himself on stage, covered in blood. That and the wrestling mags with people covered in blood.